THE COMMENTS to both the case-only and four-part TENANT OF CHINATOWN – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – AN OP END CASE ANALYSIS blogs – which one day (March 31st 2 AM to be precise) mysteriously vanished. Someone must be seriously panicking by now. If that’s not boycotting my findings and pro Polanski comments, I don’t know what is. But guess what? I copy/pasted them all into Word – to save them! Here they are – again! All 183 of them at that point in time, and then some! Besides – I get them as emails, so they won’t be lost anyhow!
FIND THE MAIN ARTICLES PART ONE HERE, PART TWO HERE, PART THREE HERE, PART FOUR HERE, AND THE SHORTER CASE-ONLY ANALYSIS HERE.
POST A NEW COMMENT WHERE YOU LIKE, AND LET’S SEE IF THEY WILL VANISH TOO ONE DAY. They will be added here once received and replied to. I will add the comments to ROMAN POLANSKI – THE LEWIS/VOGELHUT FILES concerning the latest ‘allegations’ of ‘sexual misconduct’ (found here) to these posts as well as they come in to preserve them. Find Part Two of the comments here and Part Three here.
Dana Mello
Posted December 1, 2009 at 12:13 AM
Thanks for the positive commentary on this particular case. The same as you, I feel that Polanski is being unjustly demonised in the media and ALL the facts need to be considered in the context of WHEN the events took place. I must say that; yes, all the facts you show are true/correct. Your presentation is somewhat colorful and some comments/quotes are paraphrased, but good job bringing it all together.
Novalis Lore In reply to Dana Mello
Posted December 1, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Thank you Dana. Indeed, I tried to bring in as many details/facts and most of all ‘thinking’ into this as possible, hence, length. But after all the over/reactionary vitriol and semi true accounts out there to paint it the crime of the century, I just needed to point people to the wider picture of this by now undoubtedly highly politicised and wilfully ‘abused’ case to make them see what is going on here. In my own admittedly ornate style and paraphrasing, just so to make it more poignant, since some need more than one reminder.
DeMoy In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted December 1, 2009 at 11:40 PM
This is indeed very extensive research delving into the case on a more critical level. I can only agree on the misplaced vindictiveness this case has endured so far, or Polanski. Your great effort demonstrates the vital need to see this in the then and now in more sociopolitical and juristic views. The slightly ironic tone in places and indeed repeat endeavours to point people to the key elements of this drama are well justified.
Novalis Lore In reply to DeMoy
Posted December 1, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Thank you DeMoy. I tried my best to keep it investigative, pointing to the discrepancies between key statements and findings. Indeed, had the case gone to trial, a competent judge had led a proper investigation, it would have been undoubtedly dismissed on these grounds, certain parties found guilty of perverting the course of justice and Polanski released after he had served his probation time, and none of the current very ugly ‘outcries’ would ever have been raised. They should never have accepted that plea bargain.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Novalis:
Thank you so very much for this well researched work. It should win a Pulitzer. I have never believed these charges from the day it was reported. As a victim of rape myself, I can tell you, one does not advocate for the full pardon of one’s rapist. It just isn’t done. One can forgive, if one can, but to campaign for a full clemency as Ms. Geimer has, just boggles my mind. Then her flip-flopping on the whole ‘he raped me, he didn’t rape me, he hurt me, he didn’t hurt me’ mantra has never sat well with me. And this continued Polanski vilification I’ve noticed first hand. One only has to go to Roman’s IMDB page message board to see the spectrum of stupidity his arrest has engendered. I’ve even been called a pedophile myself because I support him.
I have to say I saw that bit about the cops retrieving the panties after the event, but cannot remember where. I’ve been trying to find that factoid since Roman’s arrest, but couldn’t find the corroboration until reading it here. Thanks for that. I also thought it revelatory about the mother’s boyfriend and Samantha kanoodling in the prosecutor’s office. This confirms what I read about there being two men over the age of 18 she’d had sex or sexual relations with prior to the Polanski Affair.
To let you know, I’ve linked your blog on my blogroll here on my blog http://samskara.org/journal. Hope you don’t mind, but I truly think the more of us who reveal these things in the blogosphere, the more the truth will get out. Hopefully, it might make some difference.
Once again, thanks for the wonderful work you’ve done here. I’ll look forward to reading further commentaries.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 1, 2010 at 9:13 PM
I don’t mind at all, Samskara – thank you so much for a very positive reception of my efforts. It is very heartening, and just had to be done after all the mire of vitriol and falsehood, and I DID base my research on facts from several [more] reliable sources. It cannot be disseminated far and wide enough into the blogosphere for people to at least rethink. It’s not about me, the researcher, it’s about justice per se and [more] objective conclusions of this much maligned case. I watched it from day one, and long before that from the day of Tate’s murder, and I did and do NOT ever believe Polanski did what she said, only to waver in her words and try to have the case dismissed even more urgently than he did. I only hope he will NOT accept the offered deal to be sentenced in absentia, but to have a proper evidentiary hearing or even retrial if he withdraws his plea, to expose ALL the facts and find the perjuring party or parties. It would be unbearable if he could not ever exonerate himself that way. He still has time and the will to tackle this, but they cannot be allowed to get away with it. Rittenband had already. Thank you again.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 2, 2010 at 5:30 AM
You’re more than welcome Novalis. I’ve been with this case since it happened and I never, ever believed Roman was guilty. There was always something ‘wrong’ about Geimer, and after she came out in the 90s and I found out she received monies in a civil suit, I believed her even less.
And I agree with you when you say about the sanitization of the blogs out there when people take a more centre-line approach to this case. The ‘wait and see’ aspect. All those comments are deleted, or the mass attacks with the ‘you’re defending a baby rapist’. I’ve been called a female misogynist due to my defending Roman. Never mind the rule of law. Heck, what’s that?
I only hope Roman sees this site of yours. I really hope he does know how much we support him.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 2, 2010 at 6:05 AM
I gave up on posting on these irresponsible and reprehensible blogs or newspaper sites intent on smearing him relentlessly. Only the other day again, several comments of mine were deleted. It’s a losing battle and I hope they all will be sued at one point for extreme [racist] defamation. Or at least the bigger publications. And actually, I have sent my link to his friend B H Levy of Huffington Post, after he posted his thanks to his supporters in an open letter on his journal the other day. But I of course have no idea if he forwarded it, or if Polanski might do the same as I do, and gets daily Google alerts with any blogs/sites that carry his name. The hit and miss rate is too great, and I’m not too sure if he wants to read anything concerning himself – good or bad. But since he’s suing these magazines, I in fact saw too and the material in question was taken down, he might in fact. What else is there to do under house arrest, after he finished his film now, other than battle with the courts and be a prisoner in his own home.
As I said in my longer analysis, I think she was successful with her lawsuit after closer research now, and she certainly received more than enough other monies from her story, or later photoshoots. I don’t even begrudge her the money, only that she sued him and the way she earned the rest. One can almost say, she never came forward to harvest more of it, but that might be a case for libel – and with her direct campaign now to see this case closed, she of course would still be in the clear, and receive more. On his finally broken back.
It’s heartbreaking to watch what they’ve done to him through these decades. And it’s not over yet. I have no faith in justice.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 2, 2010 at 9:08 AM
I think for me, I will continue because the truth has to get out there. And hopefully, it MIGHT change a few minds. Maybe not the collective, but bring at least a modicum of understanding of this case’s intricacies. I’ve passed this page’s link onto many sites I visit regularly on this case. I hope you don’t mind? I’ve also accompanied the link with your little warning at the top about posting negative comments. But for the most part, I just want the TRUTH to get out there. It has to.
What bothers me the most is that others like actor Jeffrey Jones (Ferris Bueller’s Day Off), Pete Townsend of The Who, R. Kelly and Rob Lowe who did that underage sex tape, aren’t treated this way. Look at Lowe, he’s been on two very successful series and as for Jones, he still receives praise for his work despite his conviction and registration on a sex offender registry. The only thing that Roman is technically to be ‘blamed’ for is the flight from sentencing. But in light of Rittenband’s persecution, how could one blame Roman?
I should tell you, I’ve been in touch with Richard Brenneman after reading his blog about Rittenband. I asked some other questions about him that I wanted some clarification on and what Brenneman told me was a little mind blowing. His proclivities toward younger women, not unlike Roman, might have flowed into girls as young as Geimer. Brenneman told me that he believed too that Rittenband was in his mind, a brilliant sociopath. I’m not sure how much that matters in this whole thing, but I thought I’d pass that onto you.
Another aspect of this whole thing is the lead detective on the case. None other than Phillip Vannatter of the OJ case. Interesting you should mention the collection of the panties after the ‘event’ and his allowing Samantha to go and get them herself. The very same Phillip Vannatter who failed to book a vial of OJ’s blood into Parker Centre, then carried it back to the crime scene on Rockingham to retrieve OJ’s NIKE runners, and let’s not forget that EDTA that just happened to get on the socks in OJ’s bedroom. Why mention all of this? Simple, that case rose or fell on the veracity of the investigators. Furhman was discredited, the DNA was questioned and the jury found enough wrong to bring about a not-guilty verdict. Now unlike Roman, OJ just couldn’t help himself. How does this all relate to Roman’s case?
To me if Vannatter and the panties can be discredited in terms of chain of custody, then the crux of the whole case evaporates. Why now can that DNA on those panties be typed? If it’s not Roman’s, which I doubt it is, it can be determined whose it is. If it belongs to the boyfriend of the mother, we have success. Why now hasn’t Hummel or Dalton asked to have a piece of that garment for typing? That in itself should be enough to clear Roman. As for bucal swabs of all involved and find out for sure who is the owner of that material. Heck, it was done with Monica Lewinsky, why not for this case? That is unless Vannatter did some hinky things with them to get that there. Why not get a sample from Vannatter himself? Richard Brenneman told me his impression of Vannatter was something akin to in his mind, he’s a supergod. So anything is possible.
Sorry this is so long, but I’m kind of trying to get things out of my head and someplace to force the questions to be asked. Bring them out. Not sure what you can find out about these things, but I just thought I’d share.
Take care.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 3, 2010 at 3:40 AM
Hell, no sweat, keep commenting, and disseminating my findings, please. I’m with you on others having done the same ‘openly’ and never were lynch mobbed, but then of course, no one cried [statutory] rape in these cases and are not ‘Polish’. I know Rittenband was into young flesh himself, since he had a twenty yr old partner while being in his seventies right then, and I read Brenneman’s blog. And I’m with you on Vannatter, he’s crooked and arrogant and was more than adamant to see Polanski behind bars, he’d done anything. I didn’t want to point too much to Vannatter in my blog, but he surely was out of order in several cases and so far got away with it, like slimy Wells. Rittenband didn’t allow the panties evidence for obvious reasons, but they equally could have helped the defence exactly because of it. Dalton tried to have them admitted as evidence but failed, and then the plea got in the way anyhow to bring forth any evidence that could have helped Polanski’s cause, like the clerk’s report of the two kanoodling in the prosecutor’s office.
Or of course, Huston’s statement Vannatter turned against her/him by that cocaine possession blackmail he damn sure had staged and is illegal anyway, though Dalton obviously would have objected to it and Huston most likely wouldn’t have testified ‘against’ him if it had come to actual cross-examination, she could have pled the fifth – and he also arrested Polanski against the attorney’s wishes. I’m certain that he knew the evidence was corrupted, but tried anyway, and to frame Polanski with it, though that failed with the plea too. Had Rittenband not tormented that rape victim days prior, Gunson might not have pressed for that plea bargain on Gailey’s behalf anyway. But of course, they only did so once they had no case of rape, despite, or of course because of the panties and the others’ statements, and she’d been shredded by pompous Rittenband. If only they had not.
Unless someone vamoosed the panties, they should still be there to do DNA testing on them – and as I said in my blog, ‘it [only] permits prosecution of unlawful sex within one year of the date on which the identity of the suspect is conclusively established by DNA testing or within ten years of the offence,’ after which the statute of limitations kicks in and nothing moves anymore. But that doesn’t seem to apply to any ‘fugitive doctrine’. Obviously then they didn’t have DNA testing, but now after three decades, they cannot retry him without doing so [within a year] – by retesting the panties – since they know it was him with her, and they have him pinned down anyway. Even if they were her panties, he said he never ejaculated over or inside her to get his semen anywhere on them, and as I said, some ‘image’ sources claimed they were found inside the crotch essentially, leaked from her vagina. The semen cannot ever be his, her panties were nowhere near them while having sex, she undressed by the Jacuzzi in another room – her own boyfriend’s, her mother’s boyfriend or anyone else’s, but not his.
Polanski cannot be ‘cleared’, as such, since he admitted sleeping with her, which is still a [more than pointless] ‘crime’, but medical evidence then already discredited rape/sodomy, and it is in fact crucial that the case not be closed on grounds of more transgressions etc., but to bring in more evidence/statements and expose all these lies. And if they were never her panties, so much the better – or worse – coz then it’s even more deliberate planting of false evidence, by her, unwittingly or not, or most likely Vannatter, and all they needed then was semen, and/or saliva, no one could be sure of to whom it belonged. We had enough cases of such weak ‘evidence’ that much later found someone guilty, or indeed innocent through DNA testing. Since Roman was not American, the chance that his DNA profile would match anyone in the US is highly unlike, since, in 300 million US people there are 60 people who would in fact match the same profile. So there is zero chance for that.
I always argued that they wasted their time to have this case dismissed instead of going full reverse and demand a retrial – but of course that was impossible without Polanski back in the US and behind bars he’d probably not survived, unless on secure remand like in Zurich the US couldn’t guarantee. Now he even could withdraw his plea and have an evidentiary hearing and I doubt the Swiss will extradite him. I’m sure Dalton & Co gave them enough to think about to take their time, and after more and more judicial mess is being uncovered by the US judges already, the US courts cannot simply close the case. Unless of course they want to see it go away the same, like her, without prosecuting the surviving offenders and create more mess to cover up the old mess. They claim to seek the integrity of the law implemented and/or restored, but are mighty open to Polanski’s ‘cause’ suddenly – i.e. ditch the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ they so adamantly applied before, even offering him to suddenly commute his jail times spent, when the psyche evaluation couldn’t in fact be used as punishment/sentence. I truly hope he won’t accept it – since for one, most will keep thinking he got away with once he’s freed, did it, is whatever they call him, without ever exonerating himself and be declared innocent of these five counts, but withdraw his plea and demand a retrial, so all the others will get their deserved punishment. Other than ’sociopath’ Rittenband, or even her father, who died only some years back and surely knew she told porkies. Shame. Gailey was three-times divorced already then and hardly end thirties. No wonder the girl never had any proper supervision or father figure, while mom desperately tried to get [her] into the biz.
Did you know that the entire case files went kissing one day? They had to be recreated page by page, and I sure as hell believe it was Rittenband who took it – or certain DA['s] or cop[s] – to hide the truth and what really happened and their own part in it. Unfortunately Polanski never had the court files sent to himself as was offered for his records, or we’d have a proper/original copy of it all, and his (and Huston’s etc.) full statements, which are greatly missing on that ‘gun’ website proudly showing only Geimer’s oh so harrowing account to make us [prejudicially] retch. One can only hope that Dalton checked on the correctness of it all, or has his own records, or we might find things that weren’t there before, or of course were conveniently omitted. They should bring in Gunson for the defence, since he already helped with the dismissal attempts, or even Dalton, and let Hummel and the rest play defence DA. Cooley is no match for them and is over his arrogant head already anyway.
So yeah, if Polanski is clever, he’ll not go for any new deal, but demand [his] justice. I wished I could in fact tell him not to, but there’s always the good old fashioned mail to write him a letter as long as he’s at his Milky Way. Or for anyone in the US, to Dalton @ 128 Fremont Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90005-3867. He cannot allow his children to bear his vilified legacy, only to find themselves fighting for his destroyed reputation even further down the road unable to puzzle all this mess back together, with more and more pieces missing over the passage of time. Or people. Dalton is already eighty. Now is the time – Polanski still got a few years to go and should do that as his last big effort. He might be immune to his continuous abuse, but his family should not bear the same burden.
At this point he’s a political pawn playing ping pong with him for several parties’ own ends, and made an absolutely disgraceful example of. If the [good] powers that be will be more auspicious this year, he might finally get a break – but with his [extremely bad] luck, probably not. Unless he starts fighting for himself, not keep ignoring his fate.
Lidia Corbis In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 3, 2010 at 5:37 AM
Oh, God, this is a great job. You have done extensive research and you have good law knowledge. Your thinking is superior. What I can say, when I finished reading this I just cried.
So, I have escaped communist Poland like Polanski years ago – to have this. I can’t accept that. It’s about justice-most important thing for every citizen of every country.
If Roman Polanski is still today in the same situation he was some thirty years ago, it’s not his fault but corrupt American justice.
My husband always says: “I like to read history books, because there is a pattern to historical cycles; lots of historical events will be repeated, so I can predict what will happen in the future”.
The same in this case: Roman Polanski is again in the same situation or worst he was some 30 years ago. Again today all kinds of political and law manipulations are taking place in front of our eyes.
I have also posted pro Polanski comments on various newspaper articles and they were deleted.
Nothing is more anarchical than lynch mob, which is accumulating, absorbing, reiterating, making big pile of multiplied, exaggerated nonsense’s.
That is live fire in dynamic and erratic form, is an extreme destiny and an explosion.
You will not be able to extinguish it, to stop it, to explain things; Mob lynch is cataclysm, earthquake, tsunami. We are powerless with such forces.
I do not want to live in a Country where lynch mob is used as a substitute for justice.
To the lynch mob: do not shout behind my back… go back to your country!
I will go back to my country; I have enough of everything here.
I hope this case will be dismissed soon, so Roman can come back free to America to see the tomb of his unborn child.
Novalis Lore In reply to Lidia Corbis
Posted January 3, 2010 at 8:34 AM
Thank you for your support in this effort, Lidia. You’re quite right in your outrage – and how certain blogs only allow for hateful voices. It is an orchestrated witch-hunt at this stage, nothing more. There’s no intelligent will to allow for innocent until proven guilty concerning the five other counts by the ignorant public, because he pleaded to one of the counts. If this case gets dismissed, or his jail times commuted, people will keep thinking that these counts are facts, despite evidence pointing to the contrary on each. They really should have a proper trial, or at least evidentiary hearing, to give him the chance to allow for all evidence, old and new. The lynch mob fortunately has not the upper hand, even if it might appear so, mostly online, where the anonymity makes them brave to slander anyone, since all the more moderate voices are suppressed or not known, heard. Many keep quiet not to suffer the same abuse, and only time will tell if they will prevail. Justice too often, comes too late, and Polanski might be too old by now to find it. I’m a pessimist in these things, not to be too disappointed when justice once again was beaten by more corruption or hatred. Polanski will never return to the States even if they declared him innocent, a free man, welcome again, it had caused him too much pain. He should never have returned after Sharon’s death – or he’d never met Geimer.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 3, 2010 at 10:16 AM
My belief here is that IF Roman is cleared, I think he might return if only to finally say goodbye to Sharon. It was so ironic that he went to her grave on the eighth anniversary of her death on the very day he was going to plead guilty to the one charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. I personally think this might be the reason such dignitaries like Martin Scorsese, Darren Aronofsky, Stephen Soderbergh and others signed the petition… and haven’t removed their names. There might be the slim chance that Roman might still have a place in that community. Interestingly, they love a ‘come-back’ story. Look at Hugh Grant. And had he not returned, there would have been no “Chinatown”. What kind of shame would that be?
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 3, 2010 at 12:36 PM
I’m sure these people know better to stand behind him, and not like many believe just because they’re from the same Hollywood camp, but know him personally. I’m sure he always had a place in that community, since everybody knew of the case, it was never a secret, and they obliviously had more faith in his version. And true, had he stayed away, no masterpiece Chinatown, but also no master disaster Geimer, or at least had Vogue not asked him for another feature of nubile girls from around the world. I own the 1976 Polanski Vogue with Kinski, and had Gailey not called rape, Geimer would have been in the next edition. Shame too she never was.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 3, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Novalis:
I’ve been thinking of a way to get this information out to the widest possible viewership. What I’m thinking is making some kind of video to put on Youtube summarizing the case and Rittenband’s conduct. Zenovich didn’t cover a lot of the information you have here, which I’m surprised at. But I was wondering if you could send me via email, a summary of the main points or whatever you think might be pertinent to this case? I have an account on YT and would upload it there in order to get the maximum viewership. What do you think?
Love the new layout.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM
I only chose the new layout, since I never realised that the old one showed the public comments in grey on black. Not very helpful, since I get them as black on white edits. Zenovich wasn’t intent on doing a complete ‘exoneration’ of him, and he refused to participate, or people might have thought it a new plea for his innocence. But Geimer seems to have been quite happy to get more money for it. It only focuses on the judicial side of it, and that of course triggered many a renewed interest of various colourings before his arrest already – good and bad, official and judicial. She had unwittingly set the ball into play to investigate deeper, and much good came from it. And much evil too. I tried to contact her, since she in fact sat in on the Dec 10th hearing and said to follow the case much more seriously now for a later documentary, thinking like me, that an evidentiary hearing would be the next best step, but I cannot find a direct contact address to see to that. She might in fact do the same as I did, research it all properly, or concentrate on the legal side again only. She has much better resources to bring in more footage and access court records etc. – And YT, dunno. I saw so much self-righteous anti Polanski crap there it’s mindboggling. You’re welcome to take from my blog what you need to edit it into a script, or ask me of other relevant things I didn’t include, though I keep adding little bits here and there, or polish up the wording. The fact that we both have come to the same conclusions, like many others if not to that extent, shows that our perceptions of this case are identical. I don’t have a YT account, but if you’re on Facebook, you can find me, and we can exchange contact details.
http://www.facebook.com/NovalisLore
I’m set to private, so you’d need to ask me to befriend you. I’m with other serious Polanski supporters there, and the Dank Professor.
LT In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Novalis Lore, your article made a huge impression on me. I have read a lot of analyses and comments re Roman Polanski and you seem to me the only person who researched the whole issue carefully, taking into account every doubt and circumstance. Chapeau bas. I’ll contact you on Facebook, if you don’t mind. Cheers.
Novalis Lore In reply to LT
Posted January 6, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Please do, LT – and thank you for your kind acknowledgement of my efforts. I’ll keep an eye out for you on FB.
Hturteligarf In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 9, 2010 at 6:15 PM
I don’t think that I, personally, can say much to benefit this cause or to add to it in any way…but since justice is no laughing matter, and yet this whole matter thus far has been so ridiculous, I have to stand behind this cause. Before I saw this blog, I had never, ever seen anything like this of its kind. You would expect to see this sort of effort in more private, official documentation, and maybe that’s why people aren’t actively seeking it. I guess it’s just the nature of the beast, and yet the unawareness of the availability of info on Polanski thanks to public experts like “Novalis Lore” is detrimental to the public. You just don’t expect to see the more serious stuff in a venue that sports mostly entertainment (to quote an unfortunate song, “The internet is for porn”). I must confess that I was, in no way, looking for such a case for Polanski out there, least not on the internet, until someone shook me awake and directed me to this blog. Research and devotion like this might be able to make the dream of the whole world teaming up on the internet for justice a real possibility! The precision and detail of “Novalis Lore” decisively threatens all negative press and bogus cases on Polanski. I’m sure it’s hard for a lot of people to imagine, but the efforts and wisdom of Novalis Lore makes the writer a true savior of the times; we wish Novalis were in a real position for judging!
It’s depressing how fanatical America is (Polanski’s demonization can be a paragon, symptomatic example), and it may take no less than the whole world (on the world wide web, perhaps?) to spank this toddler nation. We’ve seen how much terrible, suicidal pain the silly Toddler has caused a good man who evoked a realistic view of humanity and could have encouraged a more realistic and therefore better handling of life. So for all of us who share in his lucid view and this pain over injustice, we wish for a quick turnaround. And I’m very excited about this blog, because to me, Novalis’s work is the speediest, most direct path to this point that I have ever seen officially or unofficially published. To humanity, and to its justice!
Samskara In reply to hturteligarf
Posted January 10, 2010 at 5:18 AM
hturteligarf:
This is the reason NL’s work has to be distributed to as many places as we can get it out to. So far, the Polanski vigilantes all think we who support Polanski are doing so because we are supporters of pedophilia. It doesn’t matter how many times we tell them we’re not, that doesn’t matter to them. They have to be right. Full stop!
I’ve posted the link to this work on so many sites, I’ve lost track. But the important thing though, is that it gets out to the widest possible view. Roman’s TRUTH has to be revealed.
As for what you said about America being a ‘toddler’ nation, I couldn’t agree more. The actor Brian Cox (“Deadwood”, “X2: X-Men United”, “Zodiac”) had this to say about America while as a guest on PBS’ Charlie Rose show: “America is still a very puritanical country. And it is also an adolescent country. And what happened with Clinton I thought, “Wow! That’s really interesting. Finally, puberty has happened.” Finally, you get a blow-job on the air and in the Oval Office. I mean, sex has arrived. In America, sex has arrived! And all young countries go through that. You have to go through your period of puberty. Now we’re in the adolescent period. And now we’re in the period where the kid goes out and crashes the car. And that is part of America’s dilemma. And you can’t help that. That’s to do with youth. It’s the growing up process. ”
It fits so well with what you just said. Right now, America is just discovering sex. It has its hands over its ears, eyes clenched shut trying to ignore the bad stuff, yet it loves to writhe in it. Yet this ‘toddler nation’ as you called it, is so steeped in the Cult of Death, it doesn’t know what to do with itself on a quantum level.
And I agree with what you said about NL’s work. I found out some things here I hadn’t known about the case, specifically concerning Samantha and her mother’s boyfriend. Interesting find that one.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 10, 2010 at 9:25 AM
Thank you again, Samskara. Charlie Rose once interviewed Polanski not so very long ago, and he asked him if he might ever come back to the States, to address the matter in hand, and Polanski only looked at him, saying, perhaps, and one could see that he wanted to tell him what really happened, and, added, that the media is ruling the justice system in the States, not justice per se, and that he would never receive a fair trial. As we saw it happening with Rittenband then, with Fidler later who offered to commute his time spend but only if televised and Polanski back in their hands, or maybe even with Espinoza, which all had destroyed him twice over – once after Tate’s murder, and again after, or because of, Geimer.
The extradition treaty between the US and Switzerland leaves it up to the discretion of the Swiss whether to extradite if a detainee’s original sentence was less than six months, which it is in Polanski’s case since he was supposed to do three months, then was released after half that, despite the evaluation period to be precluded to serve as punishment and/or sentence. If Espinoza rejects Hummel’s brief to explain why he should be sentenced in absentia due on the 15th, which then can be appealed against by the DA by the 19th, after which Espinoza makes his final decision on the 22nd, or not, and everything will go back to square one, or if he wants to either sentence him for longer, which I doubt, Polanski’s team can in fact appeal against again, or have the case reopened [if Polanski withdraws his plea], which no one wants, with all the pressure back on the Swiss, which I also doubt will extradite him. It’s one big mess ever since Rittenband played his own game with his legal staff, and Polanski at the receiving end.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM
NL:
I agree with everything you stated here. What I’d like to know is, Espinoza has said he is under no inclination whatsoever to follow the higher court’s direction. Even though they did in fact, spell out the ‘solution’ to this case…ergo, the sentencing in absentia. Certainly, not the solution you’d like to see him take, but given he does have Emmanuelle, Morgane and Elvis to think about, I’d say it’s pretty much up to him. Or at least it should be as for how he feels the best ’solution’ should be. Though I do agree with the fact that I’d love it if Roman fought the charges. I think if there were no Emmanuelle and the kids, he likely would.
I’m wondering though, there’s plenty of time between now and the hearing on the 22nd, I’ve found that Morgane Polanski has a twitter page. I’m not sure if this is the way to go because I’m not sure how much Roman has told the children about this case, but I’m debating as to whether or not to point her to this page and pass it off to her father. First of all, the research you’ve put into it, plus the fact that it does have vital information Hummel and Dalton could put before the court.
I’m not sure what to do.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM
I doubt it is really her – and I for one would not risk it, since it could be anyone no matter she looks her age. But what she writes sounds less than genuine to be her. She’s in Switzerland not Paris, Seigner took the kids out of school while all this is going on, and she sure as hell would have a few haters by now to content with and not just a few odd tweets. Don’t trust that Twitter person to be her, she doesn’t sound ‘concerned’ enough or talks about her father etc., and wouldn’t in fact write in English first of all – she’s French. I doubt it’s her. Don’t bother with her.
His kids know exactly what happened – he never made any secrets of anything and he never lied to them about it or anything else. I’m sure Polanski’s team have all the relevant details I included at any rate and Espinoza was presented with all there is, just like the others in Switzerland. Since it seems they’re not intent on having another trial with a potential witness missing any day to conclude this, they have to prepare their brief as to why they should sentence him in absentia by the 15th at any rate first, and then go from there. As much as I hate to see it end like this, Polanski seems intent on passive surrender, and from his perspective, he just wants to be done with it, free of the legal system, free to go where he pleases and continue to work. He can only do so if he finally is sentenced and freed, otherwise this will drag on and on and causes only more pain. A renewed trial would cost the state easily 2 million dollar, and even if he carried some of the costs once over, he’s not that rich to lose more money – rather than use it more creatively. He’s an artist who needs his art, and to get his bail bond back first of all to create more movies. I myself would go full counter attack and withdraw my plea to have a retrial, but then I’m not quite his age and must provide for a family and many people dependant on him working in the film industry. I only wonder what will happen to his lifetime achievement award they wanted to give him, but maybe that was a ruse to get him to Zurich, wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Novalis Lore In reply to hturteligarf
Posted January 10, 2010 at 7:55 AM
Thank you ‘fragiletruth’ – which I think is your nom de plume backwards. You’re right, the US most of all, regarding any western country, is still stuck in their puritanical settlers’ ‘ideals’ who came from Europe of how to ‘mis/handle’ the most basic right to our [private] sexual behaviour and most of all how to punish it regardless of age and, yes, sex, instead of promoting a healthy attitude and freedom of ‘choice’ between the age groups, and most of all teaching safe sex. Of course, there must be a cut-off point when young is too young, or we reach into muddy waters and exploitation and abuse is rife no matter the gender. But in regards to this case, we cannot ever tackle it in today’s terms and views, laws and most of all fanatical small-mindedness still, or even more so rampant in the US than ever before for reasons given. Of course, if one says this, the [sex and Polanski] haters will accuse us of feeling we’re superior to the US ‘morale’, but in the same breath expect us to accept their high and mighty sexually repressed attitudes in return. This is a tragic tale of not two cities, but two different cultures and unlike eras, social status quo and broken laws which are not compatible as an interchangeable sign of our times, but theirs alone we cannot judge from today’s standpoints, or the girl’s age, nor the man’s age.
What I personally think of this case in regards to her allegations is irrelevant – I’m just a voice for many to highlight major flaws in her story, and to seek justice per se, and that there are always two sides of any story, if not three in regards to hard physical evidence which can only support one side, which must be allowed, which must be analysed to its full potential to form an objective opinion, to give the accused his right for defence which was blatantly denied, resulting in decades of more judicial ignorance to correct any of it. I believe I have achieved to address these points with my extensive research to rethink very hard, and not blindly believe someone purely for her ‘age’, and disregard the man’s side for his very own and his ‘power’ status. Since this is what it comes down to, the huge age gap between the two concerned and the power differentials, while others find no such condemnation. Unless they’re students and professors. And to round up my comment on this, I will link to someone who has done his own extensive research into sexuality dynamics per se since decades, and a little in regards to the case Polanski.
http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/polanski-defenders-and-rape-baiting/
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted January 10, 2010 at 12:42 PM
NL:
I’ve related my story about my own rape here:
http://samskara.org/journal/2009/10/14/polanski-no-hard-feelings-pt-2/ …
I should sit down and write the follow-up to it. That is that after that experience at 13, the following year when I turned 14, I began a relationship with a man who was 50. He was the father of my brother’s fiancée, not the best thing to do, but it was my CHOICE to begin the relationship. I knew what could happen to him should what we were doing be discovered, and I did everything I could to protect him. Why? The relationship belonged to ME. It was MINE, and no one had the right to tell me after what happened to me the year before, it didn’t.
It’s so amazing to me how many try to impose their ‘up right’ attitudes on sex to situations that don’t belong. I grew up during that period of Samantha Geimer’s generation. We’re the same age. I knew plenty of so-called ‘girls’ who were discovering their sexuality and the power of it. They were going after their friends’ fathers and after teachers. One friend of mine actually wrote a letter to our marketing teacher in high school, telling him what she wanted to do to him with regards to sex.
There was a permissiveness back then that no one will understand. The film “The Ice Storm” with Keven Kline and Sigourney Weaver is so indicative of the atmosphere back then. It cannot be ‘cleaned up’ due to today’s senses. One cannot retroactively indict a culture based on sexual repressiveness today. One simply cannot do it. Those very same people that are trying to indict Roman Polanski, are the very same ones who went through the sixties on flower power, through to sexual liberation of the 70s, then went on to become Reganites in the 80s, then god fearing idiots of the 90s. Now they’re the ones sitting with their collective blinders as to what is going on today, allowing for the rise of the Bush/Cheney model for the New World Order.
Roman Polanski should not be the scapegoat for their flaws and their errors of character. Yet he is. This isn’t about what he did or didn’t do. This is about turning a blind eye to what is happening in their own country, and Roman Polanski has become the proverbial foreign enemy as if he’s some kind of sexual terrorist. Just ridiculous.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted January 10, 2010 at 2:11 PM
I read your blog the other day and left my comment there too – on your profile page, and was waiting for the follow up. Your own story only highlights the flaws in this law, and what it forced people to do to evade it, with the state prying into our bedrooms, while rape or sexual abuse can be proven otherwise. In regards to your reminder of the different times and attitudes, you’re right with your recollections and analogies, but the actual haters of today are not really those who were there, since the case was never a secret, bar to those not alive then, those self-righteous know nothings and overzealous moralists not half his age who have no firsthand experience of then, or will to inform themselves better in general to understand this case, not only in its cultural and sociopolitical differences, but both sides. Polanski is a political pawn of today’s over-PC and ultra feminist times as the easier ‘family value’ target, the famous director who dared sleep with a minor like everyone else did, and still do but no one cares about, rather than lock up real rapists and paedophiles, let alone any other much more dangerous criminals or terrorists. He is being attacked and prosecuted by today’s people and lawmakers who didn’t even realise what the case was all about, or of its plenty judicial improprieties, only now slowly getting the idea of what scope it is, having to rethink and readjust their own learned attitudes and make better law than their predecessors before any punishment. We’ll just have to wait and see what Espinoza decides, and I doubt it will be any more jail time.
Serenada
Posted January 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM
You’re quite correct with your last remark on your blog (and all else in fact); what gives people the right to blindly judge and invalidate the words of those who know and support him, being so adamant to think they know better. I seriously doubt his friends and family are all in denial or prone to ‘rationalise’ his act of now thirty-three years ago by explaining how it was then and what they believe he is, or not. It’s not their business or to reject their belief that it wasn’t rape, especially after no one else came forward to cry rape, which alone should make them rethink. I admit, it wasn’t too clever to sleep with her being underage, but as far as I [still] see it, she gave him all the signals to ‘let him’, only to cry rape and sodomy afterwards for [still very] dubious reasons, and then progressively went back on her words in her later, increasingly inconsistent interviews to ‘put the records straight’ in subtle ways that even came to match his own version in part suddenly, and that it wasn’t rape after all, without seriously perjuring herself. I followed this drama from day one, being in my late forties, and already then I simply didn’t believe her all too implausible accusations, only to contradict herself over time if one compares all her interviews she suddenly gave compared to her original testimony, and the only thing she [still] insists on at the end of the day, is that it wasn’t consensual, which I highly doubt was the case either.
It’s interesting to see how the times’ attitudes have markedly changed, and how she first was accused of being this Lolita who had entrapped him, with her mother’s ‘permission’, or not, [both] out to gain fame, which no doubt was the case since he would have given them the right start and was the whole idea of their arrangement, to later being ignored in her gaining support of him, forgiving him, saying all sorts of things in his favour. This of course, is downright rejected by people of today, thinking her corrupted and whatnot, now that it doesn’t fit into their picture of him being this rapist and absurdly made paedophile, after they never even knew of the case, to suddenly being this ‘victim’ of the brutal director predator as an adult woman, seeing her as this ‘child’ suddenly. It’s a distorted sign of our times regarding this in today’s terms, unable to realise the drastic [socio-political] changes, and anyone who wasn’t there, simply has no idea what happened in the Seventies. Now they believe her simply for her having been that young, while then she wasn’t believed exactly for the same reason. I doubt they were wrong then. Apart from a few details new to me, I am aware of the case as you unravelled it, and of course all the distorted ‘versions’ of it. Your analytical findings are the only ones that make any sense.
While then the media was hounding them both, today they only hound and demonise him to death, denying him his ‘male’ voice of defence outright, studiously omitting anything that could seriously jeopardise her ‘victim’ version, like the medical evidence, or of course, her own words of support to see this ended. All those who support him, but keep quite, simply do so because of the changed attitudes they’re firm part of now, just like he and they were part and parcel of the times then, or would be attacked the same and lose face, unless they’re brave and couldn’t care less, or of course, cannot debate the case while an ongoing court case. Those [unknowns] who blindly, or those [well-known figures] who publicly attack him, do so for either exactly that, or simply racist and or hypocritical reasons, now that their own attitudes have evolved with the more child abuse aware and feminism-heavy times, and cannot condone underage sex anymore. True, but while it still is happening right now, on a consensual or forced level and always will, Polanski is made the proverbial and very easy target scapegoat of this sweeping reform and r-evolution, while others see no such condemnation, which is simply unacceptable. Let alone all the disgraceful judicial improprieties of then, no one had bothered to correct since over three decades now, and no on seems to care about, today, either.
Novalis Lore In reply to Serenada
Posted January 27, 2010 at 8:47 AM
You’re very astute to realise that is what it boils down to, Serenada – exactly what you touched on, so there’s not much I can add in fact, except to thank you for bringing it to the attention of the wider audience, again, and for your diligent contribution.
Schlumpf In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 4, 2010 at 3:39 AM
Well, that pretty much debunks everything she had accused him of – the illogical ‘fear’, the unlikely ‘rape’, the more than dubious double sodomy I never believed from day one, all of it. All you present here makes perfect sense once chewed over and considered logically, after all we had was the same old ‘indictment’ drivel and her, ‘he did this and that’ old grand jury testimony, and nothing of what he did, or not. I always found the current media reports very one-sided and highly biased, downright nasty in places, and incorrect in certain key and legal points. And then of course no one ever knew of her later ‘campaigning’ and inconsistent interviews to know better.
I saw that documentary and several of his and her interviews over the last years, after she came out to publicly ‘forgive’ him, in essence dug it all up again. But it just didn’t feel right and I wondered why she ever bothered after all this time. But of course, she was afraid he might be dragged back into court, and this time she’d not be able to say I don’t wanna testify or be cross-examined. One big mess the whole thing, political cannon fodder for the lynch-happy public, and of course only now we have the finally exposed disgraceful judicial misconduct of ‘sociopath’ Rittenband, and then some. I fully hold her mother responsible for his downfall, and her daughter’s coached fantasies, and of course that Nazi judge having finally broken him with his own ‘cat and mouse’ game.
You’ve got it all down neatly from the very case details, to anything relevant on a sociopolitical level which is so important to remember, to the current state of very sad affairs. Much of what you undug was news to me, and I had no idea about all the legal issues. I never really believed he did all that after all these years with no one else having cried rape, it just didn’t make any sense. I feel so sorry for the man. And you’re right, it’s all just a political witch hunt by now, with idiot Cooley having done more damage to it all than Espinoza seems intent on mending. They’re all the same, then and now. Polanski doesn’t stand a chance of fairness in this day and age of hysterical child protection agendas and right-wing politics in general.
I like his films, knew of his terrible wife’s murder and all, and always found it most dubious and disgusting that they singled him out to be demonised so terribly ever since. But we all know why, and you made that more than clear in your microanalysis of this terribly distorted case, which is not only that, but the very bible of the tragic Polanski saga. Shame no one relevant knows of it. Especially those blind haters who have zero insight or brains to stop and question her never impugned allegations. Or their own alarming willingness to condemn someone so quickly simply for who he is.
Novalis Lore In reply to Schlumpf
Posted February 4, 2010 AT 8:55 am4
Thank you for calling my analysis to expose the nitty gritty details of this much maligned and abused case, the bible of this indeed tragic saga. I have nothing much to add to your correct assessment of the situation, Schlumpf, which is as you said, very sad. He is indeed a political pawn of incompetent Cooley, with Espinoza stringing him along just the same. I see no justice in any of it, while war criminals go free, murderers and terrorists, real rapists and paedophiles are doing untold damage right now. It’s a disgusting charade, a disgusting power game, a disgusting race game, a disgusting money game. The usual. Nothing has changed in all these years, only the names.
Samskara In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 4, 2010 at 1:10 PM
Oh, but, but, but NL, don’t you know Roman Polanski is the worst of the worst of all the baby rapists in the whole wide world? He doesn’t deserve any empathy for what he went through as a child or what happened to his pregnant wife. He did this inexcusable thing and anally raped and drugged up that poor, poor, poor unsuspecting girl. He procured her, got her away from her sainted mother and then had his venal way with her. What kind of a piece of excrement is he?
Of course, the above paragraph is the most stated misinformation of this whole case. No one wants to learn the truth of it all. Roman Polanski is worse than Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler doncha know? He, according to most, is nothing more than a pedophile the truth be damned. No one cares about that rarest of all breeds, the truth. Point these candy chewing children to the truth and they suddenly go all catatonic. Most of them don’t even read the truth because it flies in the face of what they’ve been told by a lazy press who refuses to print/air the truth. They seem to like their version of THEIR truth, not what the FACTS or the true TRUTH is of what happened. And I’m reminded of something that actor Ian McShane (Al Swearengen of “Deadwood” and King Silas Benjamin of “Kings”) said: “I no longer watch aired news. So much of it is just two or three second sound bites that bear little to the truth of what is actually happening out there. I prefer to read, but I read many papers, magazines etc because somewhere between the many things I do read, lies the truth…if you dare to look or want to look.” Then there’s the quote from “Deadwood” creator David Milch I happen to agree with wholeheartedly, “History is a lie agreed upon.” The one’s or the victors write the truth to be told, not the actual truth of what DID happen. Seems laziness is part and parcel of our times. The truth is a casualty of our need to dumb down on society to make them blind sheeple.
Thank the gods there is the internet where exposes like this one can be found and people can discover the truth. On some of the message boards where I post, I’ve seen a few people starting to question the ‘real’ story. It may only be one or two, but the questions are being asked about this case. Comments like Schlumpf’s are refreshing to read. Seems there are some who are having difficulties accepting the ‘reported’ facts of this case. If you’ve done anything, you’ve put those doubts into some minds willing to open up. Congratulations.
Samskara In reply to Schlumpf
Posted February 4, 2010 at 1:17 PM
Schlumpf:
That’s always been the problem I’ve had too with this case. Her inconsistent stories of fear and then the blasé, “Oh, it can all go away….” If she were truly a victim of rape, no amount of money, passage of time, nor need for publicity can make it all go away. Certainly the physical and forensic proof of no rape isn’t enough to sway anyone bent on making Roman Polanski some kind of whipping boy for all that is wrong with the 21st Century. Nope, not even a well thought-out and researched document such as what NL has put together here will change any of the stalwarts bent on painting Roman as some kind of pervert. And that truly is sad. They have one perceived view of him and that’s it. I know I’m not the blogmaster here, but I want to thank you for your comment.
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted February 4, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Feel free to comment however you want Samskara, some commentators might not return, some might. Of course, only truly blind people will never be able to give his side any credit, but they’d do so in general and are beyond help. And to them I’d say, I hope that someday someone will accuse you of something horrible, and no one is interested in your side, your life, your pain, your despair, that you will be condemned without trial, without the slightest mercy, without any sympathy, without any voice of defence, guilty as charged, by a racist lawmaker and lynch mob out for your blood. I doubt anyone would want that.
Mea Culpa In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 5, 2010 at 10:31 PM
What I love best is this idiotic blanket repetition: ‘Polanski took nude photos of the resisting girl (‘resisting’?) after giving her champagne and Quaaludes, and then raped and sodomized her.’
Why does everyone take this as an irrefutable ‘fact’? Because she said so then? Don’t make me laugh. I thought he took photos of her several times first clothed, and she certainly didn’t show any ‘resistance’ as opposed to, yeah I wanna get into the movies he can arrange for me. Then they had a drink she could have refused, then she took the Q she could have refused, then she let herself be seduced by him, instead of really doing what she claimed she had, tell him off! But then, lo and behold cried rape and sodomy the next day and said she was afraid of him the whole time? Huh? And then they suddenly press for that pleas bargain. Huh!? Didn’t think that one through did they, no medical evidence, no case. The Grand Jury must have been idiots not to see through her oh so innocent lies. She couldn’t have fooled me.
Why does everyone blame only him for this tragedy? For who he was then, who people think he is now, what they rather believe him to be than he really was or is? Taking her later increasingly supportive actions and ‘views’ of today, she clearly was complicit in the whole thing, from the photos to the booze to the drugs and the sex, let alone her ambitious bit-part actress mother. First, she painted the events in the most lurid details, then it suddenly never was like that, and then she said it was blown out of all proportions – sorry, did I miss something? SHE accused him of the most terrible things a man can ever face, the lusting public went berserk already then, and now even more to the point of brain-dead lynching! It’s HER doing! And that of the Nazi judge at the end of the day, obviously, forcing him to escape the escalating madness. But that’s just another case of terrible miscarriage of justice if there ever was one. And today even more so, it’s insane.
What made her suddenly ‘adjust’ her so serious allegations, to, oh well, he just had sex with me and he didn’t harm me. Huh? Money? Guilty conscience? Pity for him? Why wait for so long? Did she think just because no one had nabbed him before, he could go on making his films, it was okay to stay quiet, while half the globe thought him a rapist, when the other did not, everyone forgot about the whole thing, bought his films, till today’s pathetic young witch hunters uncovered his ‘heinous crime’ and demand boycotting them, but allow real criminal be left running around? Did she really think no one attacked him throughout all these decades while they forgot about her? And did she really think no one wanted to see him in jail while she lived in peace and oblivion?
With the political and social changes having shifted the whole sordid affair to her even bigger advantage now, he’s suddenly made the even bigger criminal of whatever or as whatever they call him I’m unwilling to even repeat, and she thinks it’s enough to ask the biblically unforgiving public to absolve him? File these petitions to drop the case in a selfish move to ‘make’ it all go away’? Ask the courts to sentence him in absentia to ‘get it over with’? Hello? Ms Geimer, why don’t you just finally come clean so that the ultra feminists will love you even more for having done the one honorable thing to see this case closed, rather than be rightfully lynch mobbed [by them] yourself? Confess!
I’m sure the DAs can arrange another handy deal for you to escape multiple perjury charges by naming all those who made you lie then, unless it was just you, which I highly doubt – and they will probably all get probation, rather than years behind bars for having caused Polanski untold anguish after what he had suffered already! Shame on you all! And mind you, I’m a liberated and liberal woman and all for women’s rights and equality to men, but I certainly won’t be patting you on the back for this disgusting charade! You’re a disgrace! And for ALL women and true rape victims!
Sorry, I got carried away there, but that’s what I think – and if I were really mean, could say that all she wanted was his money at the end of the day after all this time. NO real rape victim can be bought! But then of course she never was.
Novalis Lore In reply to Mea Culpa
Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:30 AM
Your colourful outrage is well placed, ‘Mea Culpa’ – and I wouldn’t argue any of what you touched on, thanks for your contribution and thoughts. And as for your last sentiment, we don’t know if money was the reason, but it might just as well sound logical that it was.
Samskara In reply to Mea Culpa.
Posted February 13, 2010 at 6:02 AM
Mea:
I stand beside you in your outrage. As a victim of rape myself, which I’ve recounted in my blog piece here: http://samskara.org/journal/2009/10/14/polanski-no-hard-feelings-pt-2/ , I personally feel that Geimer has never shown me the haunting my sisters and I have faced when touched by the impossibly disgraceful intrusion of rape. She certainly has never shown anything but the opposite of what we true victims have gone through. That she is so publicly ‘forgiven’ him is ludicrous on its face. I have never forgiven my rapist. I never will. I’m not even sure I’ve completely to this day, ever understood what happened to me. That too, he continued to terrorize me afterwards speaks to his guilt. Polanski on the other hand, has never said anything but kind things about Geimer. He certainly has never acted the ‘rapist’ people want to paint him as.
What is particularly galling is that Michael Jackson with his continued abuse and continued procurement of children to molest, has so far escaped what plagues Roman to this day. Jackson has managed to die the undisputed King of Pop, yet no one will ever call him what he was. They say he was acquitted both times. Why? Neither victims were willing to testify against him in an open court. Interestingly, no one will lynch Geimer for her false allegations, yet all are too willing to lynch both Jordie Chandler, Jackson’s first accuser, and the 13 year-old Cancer patient who was at the heart of the second set of allegations. So why is it politically correct to publicly call for Jackson’s accuser’s lynching, yet fall all over themselves to support and continue to boost Geimer’s obvious perjurious statements?
Makes no sense to me at all.
Everyone is all up in their indignation that both Chandler and the 13 year-old Cancer patient took money in effect blackmailing Jackson, yet no one questions that Geimer also took money. Could that also not be construed as blackmail?
Novalis Lore In reply to Samskara
Posted February 13, at 11:27 AM
Oh but Samskara – don’t you understand? Michael was an adored pop idol, a huge cultural icon of youth[s] and blacks, he liked kids, he was like a kid, he had his fantasy Neverland Ranch to entertain kids, he wasn’t a serious, very sexual, and most of all foreign filmmaker of psycho films with a lesser followship, or had a horrible past and a beautiful wife he was accused of having murdered himself in addition. No one’s going to attack Geimer as a ‘rape’ victim for having taken his money, since they’d think it her deserved compensation, never realising she went back on her own accusations in certain ways right afterwards, fights for his freedom like no rape ‘victim’ ever has or would each time he came too closer to be dragged back into court. No, ‘child molestation’ ‘victims’ are pooed on when taking money – most likely for having been liars in the face of such a revered and ‘innocent’ pop star – while in the same breath the same child protection lobbyists calling for a ‘child rapist’ be hanged and his [equally lying] ‘victim’ be hailed for being so ‘forgiving’ and even wanting him freed. No, they never noticed he never said anything but kind things about Geimer or never acted the ‘rapist’ people want him to be. It’s their preferred delusion, based on her original testimony which has become more than obsolete over the decades they also never noticed. Or want to.
Even if she took his money after a whole two decades, should have shut up right there and gone underground again, no one questioned her real motives, while he maintained his side of the story. No, this ‘rape victim’ would campaign for her assailant be freed suddenly, publicly forgiven, for all to see he’s not her rapist, never was one before or after. But no one sees it. Maybe her conscience finally got the better of her, or the more [rape] ‘victim’ friendly attitudes, who then made the mistake to contradict herself ever more unfortunately still no one noticed. But no, all these same people who sneer at the Jackson ‘victims’ would never see it because it’s Roman, the little Polish director who did not fall into drug addiction, had all these grotesque ops to stay young, can be pitied for all his human weaknesses, not even his horrible past – because Polanski is strong, a survivor of these traumas, he doesn’t deserve pity for his continuous success despite public abuse out-shadowing Jackson’s and whoever else’s own ordeals crushing them, and, most of all, because he finally showed the corrupt US legal system the finger and said I had enough! And guess what, the Swiss won’t extradite him because they too saw through their deliberate lies and political manipulations just the same.
Smiley’s Comfort In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 6, 2010 at 1:02 AM
I hold the current climate of overzealous feminist agendas, and no matter how important in general, wholly misplaced child protection issues responsible for his merciless public vilification, all fed by a corrupt political agenda not to see this case resolved, but to hang him high as an ugly example, while current crimes are ignored. They all seem to miss the part where she increasingly spoke up for him, in effect refuted all her original accusations, in one way or another. Her later ‘explanations’ are so far off from the shocking indictment counts, that it’s just too blatantly obvious she lied in key point, but why is still the big mystery. Or why she later came out to suddenly ‘forgive’ him, painted it a much lesser ‘brutal’ and calculated ‘assault’, petitioned and pleaded the case be dropped.
I for one believe it happened exactly as she put it later, or as he described it in his autobiography. To keep on about that it wasn’t ‘consensual’ is clear why, because she couldn’t consent to it legally. But she obviously did in some form, before the adults forced her to lie she had and twisted it into something depraved. If she really just ‘let him get it over with’ rather than really tell him off, simply leave, wasn’t ‘really afraid’ she in fact never repeated later, that in my view was misleading him, making him think she’s ok with it, or he’d just found himself someone else. Polanski was about sex then, not ‘power’ over females which rape signifies, he had more social and sexual influence over people than those who now defame him, there was no need to force sex, it fell into his lap for his extraordinary skills and charm. Only [lesser] men were envious of him. Which should be telling.
A highly sexual man doesn’t need to rape anyone when he has more than enough offers at hand to call on, when even her mother seemed to have ‘signaled’ him her ‘willingness’. But obviously only to get into the business more directly and he declined at any rate, not quite his ‘type’. Don’t get me wrong, that’s all common practice in any industry, let alone Hollywood, any highly competitive workplace, with either sexes trying to get what they want that way, sometimes at all costs, rather than through hard work, skills, brains. If they have it. Many did and do it, many don’t, it’s a question of [no] morals, varying needs, [no] ambition, [no] self-respect, or simple greed. Everyone sells him-herself in some form, with sex, any other form, favours, true and untrue words, moral or immoral actions on a give and take, demand and supply base.
Today [so called] sexual assault victims are shown all the sympathy and support under the sun, while then she was called all the things he’s being called now in contrast, and much worse, which really makes me doubt the sanity of these ‘haters’. Her apparent ‘victim status’ in today’s eyes has shifted to the extreme opposite, while no one gives any consideration to his side at all [anymore]. Unless of course you know of their lives, the times, the circumstances, the actual details, and both sides’ accounts. Of which his never changed, while hers became ever more analogous to his own. That’s one reason why she resurfaced, to ‘declare’ herself, was finally ‘safe’ to be ‘believed’, only to say that it wasn’t rape and whatever else we heard, and everyone thought she must either be disturbed and whatnot, or apparently was ‘compensated’ a whole two decades later [to say so], not ever getting the idea that she simply lied then.
She tried to rectify the by now utterly uncontrollable situation as best she could, with again politically money motivated power structures ignoring her, only to garner more disbelief and opposition for his side, with obstinate courts playing their own games of im/morals, and two countries engaging in a power struggle. She’s in the clear whatever will happen, except the one who didn’t in fact harm her and is now imprisoned in his own home like a moral leper unable to defend himself, unless that court finally forces a retrial in a fair manner to give him the chance to declare his own side.
Putting all the true rape and child abuse victims aside, how often have we seen a woman cry rape when it wasn’t, tarnishing the man’s reputation forever, never free of any ‘doubt’ if he ‘really’ did, or done it before, after, no matter declared ‘innocent’, and no one ever cried rape again. As it was in his case, which should also be more than telling. While none of the women are called into doubt, unless found guilty of perjury by a court. Otherwise they’re either whores or saints, ‘mothers’, there’s nothing ever in between, nothing like a promiscuous teen trying to experiment or simply sexually active woman, like any man would be, which is the only natural viewpoint to actually defend.
Sex is normal, healthy, and important for one’s mental and physical equilibrium. It has been proven a direct link exists between the body and sex to find a spiritual balance, and that sexual frustration [or abuse] directly leads to a person’s misery, aggressions, and more pronounced mental illnesses of varying kinds, ending in a cycle of more dissatisfaction, irritation or [sexual] abuse. It has been established that the destructive drives of certain cultures are a direct result of the repression of the libido, with the built up tension and pressure expressing themselves only forcefully and brutally through acts of verbal and or physical violence, and ultimately, wars.
This, our deeply [sexually and otherwise] repressed society forces irrational and neurotic behavior on its people, by punishing their natural drives rather than foster them, prevent their resulting violent outlets. Human beings have taken a destructively hostile attitude toward sex in themselves and others, which is a living force, a natural force, and have brutally alienated themselves from it. This cataclysmic alienation is not even of biological, but of social and economic origin by now, always in need of working, seeing to their bills, excel, grab more prestige, more money, more power, with the formation of their dulled and consumer oriented character isolated within this oversaturated authoritarian mold leaving no room for parental, mutual or sexual love, but this dictatorial family – ‘society’. Its chief instrument is the suppression of sexuality in order to control this ‘society’.
Our whole society is oriented against true sexual freedom, and from infancy on, every effort is made to inhibit and repress any sexual manifestations, nurture and enjoy them. Owing to the split in this human character structure of today, nature and culture, instinct and morality, sexuality and achievement, are considered incompatible. That unity of culture and nature, work and love, morality and sexuality for which mankind is forever longing, this unity will remain a dream as long as man does not permit himself the satisfaction of the biological demands of natural sexual gratification. Until then, true democracy and responsible freedom, health and balance will remain an illusion, and helpless submission to existing social conditions, this, ‘society’, will characterise human existence. The extinguishing of more life will prevail, be it in compulsive education, [or ‘faiths’], in compulsive social institutions, compulsive punishments, or of course in compulsive wars.
The result is a neurotic, irresponsible sexuality that offers little release, accompanied by [violent] pornography, unnatural perversion, and of course, incest, rape and growing [child] abuse. Our [mainly feminist] sexual revolution has largely misfired with many in chaotic rebellion, imposing damaging sex laws, flaunting what they consider their freedom and their rights rather than taking on a responsible sexual life and safe sex. Everyone is endowed with the sexual capacity, which is necessary to maintain a stable energy level in the continuation of life, prevent stasis, frustration and emotional stagnancy. This is nature’s safety valve, to which man however now has drastically developed a negative, repressive attitude. The result is emotional and physical disease, exploitation, sadism, and destructiveness, not only of man himself, but also toward all nature. Rape of life.
She said it wasn’t rape, and the only one this repressed and disbelieving society is willingly raping by now, is Polanski himself, no one else. Based on misled vengeance, misled aggression, misled agendas. He was raped by the corrupted lawmakers of then, he is being raped by his regressed haters of today, and the lawmakers of now will never give him any break at their own corrupted agendas. Unless she makes a clean breast of it finally, he will never be free of the same abuse she accused him of, which never happened. If she really thinks her ‘victim status’ protects her now from amore abuse, let her finally end this nightmare she has forced on them both in the first place. Or whoever forced her to lie.
Novalis Lore In reply to Smiley’s Comfort
Posted February 6, 2010 at 3:04 AM
I can only agree with what you said, Smiley’s Comfort, and that much of the problems of today are directly linked with the frustrations based on an unhappy sex life, life in general, unsatisfying work and resulting ill physical and mental health. It’s all self-perpetuating lunacy, artificially crafted by man to control and ultimately destroy man – animal and nature – when all it takes is a healthy approach to one’s physical [and sexual] needs.
Polanski was a very sexual man, whereas the US was and still is [even more today] sexually repressed, though others around him didn’t seem to earn the same moral outcry while his American friends and colleagues slept with teens, did the ‘casting couch’ thing, and only Geimer cried rape in a more than sensational way. Only to end up pleading for his release and we all know why.
In some ways, the Seventies was the last decade of chauvinism, and Polanski like the rest was part of that, before women’s emancipation was on the rise, and they all had to adjust their ideas about easy sex and easy women. Before the Eighties finally put a lethal damper on all sex, with the rise of AIDS, and the ‘evangelistic’ US most of all called it their punishment for centuries of promiscuity, with the result of dogmatic sex laws that send down men for underage sex, let alone homosexual activities as the root of all [AIDS] evil, they still can’t get a grip on unlike the rest of the [modern] world.
And true, it all hinges on her unchallenged words of then against him, and her unheard words of today in support of him – but the courts as then have their own ideas, and as long as she doesn’t renounce her victim’s state, his victim’s state will remain till death.
Policy of Truth In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 6, 2010 at 4:52 AM
Excellent article – microanalysis isn’t a word ‘big’ enough for this mega effort of revelatory findings, intriguing background insights, legal explanations and Polanski’s life and his versatile art in general. The previous comments have pretty much covered my own sentiments at great length, and that there is a definite pattern running through the entire history of this complex case. First it was largely victim blaming, (just like in the horrible Tate case) now it is blind victim belief. Then it was a great deal of perpetrator sympathy, today it is absolute perpetrator condemnation. And no room for doubts.
Where naïve ‘little’ Roman once thought there was justice to be had, all he encountered was systematic power abuse, and as such I fully understand why he fled. I would have done the same. It is more than obvious today, that there was a catalogue of personal abuse thrown at him in the name of the law at the ‘sensational’ Polanski trial. When people believe fleeing is not an option, or cowardice on his part, blind to the fact that laws are made and executed by flawed people able to abuse their authority, because for them the law is absolute, just, and unimpeachable, especially in the ‘free’ and ‘democratic’ USA, they have to rethink very hard. It never was the case. Not even for the rich.
I personally find it absolutely disgusting that she sued him after all this time, when she had willingly engaged in the sex no matter it was unlawful, this charade to make him a rapist, and then subsequent refutation of her own allegations. There will be no extra time in prison that’s for sure, and the Swiss will never release him. It would not only make him a ‘pointless’ martyr, but would also be cruel at his age and hard life, after having done nothing but sleep with a promiscuous teen who in effect used him. Like her calculating, lying mother. But that’s Hollywood I guess.
Many called it a heinous crime, while the most disgusting of crime is true brutal rape, torture and murder. Even political war crimes. They all lost their rationale and brains in this, his outright vilification and name calling not knowing better. Nice how people condone the very same done to him we have no proof of he ever did to her, even less after she said he didn’t rape her, didn’t harm her, didn’t do this and didn’t do that, and the evidence they had already then discredited all of it. But people are just too dumb and vindictive to realise any of it. I didn’t know of a few things you present here, and I’m not too versed in the legal sector of this more than messy case, but the judge’s inexcusable actions, and all that followed.
This case seemed very suspicious to me thirty odd years ago and it still does even more today after she sued him and all her petitions and whatnot. Hard to understand why the ‘ambitious’ mother didn’t go after whoever else slept with her daughter, instead, she chose to go after rich and famous Polanski. Young Geimer was no catch, and he would have tried his best to get her into the business with a few good shots, knowing she’s not model material, and suddenly he was accused of forcing himself on her. It’s a painful joke he unfortunately allowed to perpetuate by never challenging her lies, defended himself publicly, for fears of more judicial improprieties the US legal system had forced on him. His silence sadly has imprinted his unproven guilt in historic marble. And the blinded public psyche.
Novalis Lore In reply to Policy of Truth
Posted February 6, 2010 AT 5:15 pm
You’re quite right, ‘Policy of Truth’, as that it is, the bare bones basically, the truth in the legal matters, the truth in the face of two disparate opposites – the fabrications and the facts. Thank you for your own voice of reason and thoughts in this.
Geneva S
Posted February 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM
Very well written. My opinion, you have succeeded: “That’s all I wanted to achieve – to make people see that there’s never only one side to any story – no matter how old. To make them re/think, question apparent facts, use their brains, logic, reason, discard personal agendas, feelings, step back and demand objective analysis they would want to be done unto them had they been accused of such things, see the whole picture, not just a fraction of a girl’s allegations.”
Thank you for sharing.
Novalis Lore In reply to Geneva S
Posted February 7, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Thank you, Geneva – you said it perfectly with my own comment. It had to be said and cannot be said more often.
Voice of Reason In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 8, 2010 at 10:55 PM
The general consensus then was, that he had been set up, people of today see him as the one who acted with malice aforethought under the pretext of this shoot, changed with the times of women’s and child protection rights. I believe Polanski has paid for his ‘thoughtless moment of passion’ more than enough, and I don’t think that he should be punished for running in fact.
The law became the criminal here the moment he was placed in a horrible situation that forced him to flee. In fact, the U.S. [legal system] should apologize to Polanski for failing him a fair trial, since by the time he fled, there was already a catalogue of other improprieties flung at him he couldn’t escape. Why his attorney never helped him better is beyond me.
Then Polanski was a fairly cocky man and very self-assured superior auteur, while today he’s still a highly self-possessed and even more superior artist, but hardly that brash an old man anymore. Today it is all too ‘victim oriented’, too hers, not his side, and that’s why I believe she finally resurfaced, to give her now again ‘amended’, indeed highly inconsistent accounts, and we still don’t have any word of his defence.
He learned his lesson in the game of sex the hard way, and, that the law is more corrupt than whatever he did to the girl. He in fact should be released, since he’s been incarcerated now for more than the 90 days the judge ‘apparently’ wanted him to sit out, after they agreed on letting him go free. His inhuman house arrest cannot even be counted, and I so detest reading ‘child sex [abuse] case’, when she sure as hell wasn’t a child anymore and wasn’t abused by him, but her mother.
Now he’s imprisoned in his own home like hardly anyone suffered before for a minor offence from decades ago, while war criminals and murderers are freed on bail and whatnot else dangerous criminals are running around right now. It’s inhuman what they’re doing to him. He wanted to live in a country that believes in the rule of law, but that law was wilfully corrupted like so often, made a shameful travesty of and him, all for personal gain of a pompous old bastard who did even younger girls.
The law is the criminal here, not Polanski, and we don’t have the right to apply today’s just as corrupted laws. It’s all a terrible political farce at this point, with the lynch mob out to get him. This isn’t justice, this is pure vengeance by now for his daring to escape the imperialist warmonger, daring their prudish arrogance. This is a political war between two states, with him as the helpless scapegoat stuck in between.
Polanski’s interpretation of events that day differs greatly from Geimer’s, and too many take her word over Polanski’s for various reasons, which is not very helpful in finding a balance in this. I personally think the real truth lies somewhere in between the two, leaning towards his interpretation of events, with the rape and sodomy definitely a no event. So all we ‘still’ only have is conjecture in most part, since no one else was there, bar Huston and Helena, and they stated the same as him.
That said, the one thing that can’t be argued is that Polanski had sex with a promiscuous girl, who wasn’t a virgin, admitted to having had sex with younger and older men before, had taken Quaaludes on several occasions, liked champagne, and that is what she had that day, only to cry rape afterwards for more than dubious reasons.
I still wonder why to this day and is open for debate, and probably leans more towards the girl simply lying the others took for fact at first, before the evidence told them differently and they made up things a they went along. But even so, she was still underage and no adult should have slept with her, regardless of whether or not she consented. Having said that, she also could have refused to do any of it, walked out the door, and in fact, really have done what she claimed she had. But she didn’t.
She’s complicit in the whole thing just as him, regardless of her age. I personally reject the notion that only the adult should be held responsible, while they can and should be held responsible for all else. Sure, he should have known better, but in his own culture that was nothing special, and she obviously had allowed him to do whatever he did. I believe Geimer should be held responsible too, and for her lies.
Now we have the situating that she wants the nightmare go away she could have avoided, he has another beautiful wife others are envious of, a proud family, and some ponz intent on destroying that fragile idyll again, like madman Manson had in different form four decades ago, while the so called victim wants him freed. No victim wants her violator freed. Had that madman and his crazed killers not taken away Sharon, none of this would have happened.
His son would be forty by now, Sharon in her mid sixties, and I believe they’d stayed together since they were made for each other. He’s with his third wife now since twenty-five years who adores him as he adores her, and anyone saying he’s a pedophile, rapist, a danger to society and all that bullshit, is clearly out of touch with reality. Or simply dim-witted or jealous.
Overzealous feminism, rape myth exploitation, child abuse and pedophilia agendas are his accusers of today which have nothing to do with this, while then it was the prudish culture and repressed jealousy of the U.S. mind. With self-important DAs like Walgren and egghead Cooley at the helm these days, and Espinoza biding his time – it’s just like Rittenband had done it before.
Nothing has changed as others have pointed out. Except, Polanski is too old to survive this ‘cat and mouse’ game, and will go down in history as this genius director who was made this sordid child rapist by an ‘aspiring actress’, and then died under house arrest. Unless a [forced] retrial will finally exonerate him.
Free Polanski now. He’s paid his debt to this corrupt and shallow ‘society’ decade after decade with a heavy price of social exile and unending public abuse unheard of, after never even having ‘reoffended’. He has given us his art, and nothing but his wonderful art. Anyone thinking different, is beyond ethics.
Your epic analysis should be fed down every doubter’s throat, Novalis, to chew it over thoroughly, and then think again. Or, even if they still might think to sleep with a teen was wrong even then, reconsider this, if they really can condone this disgraceful political charade of today most of all to continue unchallenged.
Novalis Lore In reply to Voice of Reason
Posted February 9, 2010 at 3:47 AM
Thank you, Voice of Reason. As usual, with these kinds of intelligent and thoughtful comments as yours, I have nothing much to add, except to say you’re right, and that at the end of the day, unless we finally will hear his side in a court, challenge hers, we’ll never be sure. People are so numbed by today’s media fodder they simply eat up as if it’s the truth, when it hardly ever is, and no one ever impugned her words. One can say they cannot form a better opinion, but it is even more criminal not to question one-sided news feeds, thinking the more they are repeated and alike, the more they must be true. Biased journalism is never right, when there never is only one side to any story.
But to answer your thoughts on why his attorney never helped him better, it seems rather clear, because the man who wielded the gavel, didn’t allow him to, and when he finally joined the prosecution to have him removed, it was too late, Polanski was gone, fed up to be Rittenband’s little Polish mouse he could torture for public amusement.
Friedrich In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 9, 2010 at 3:17 AM
I personally [still] believe it was as the way he described it in his autobiography, especially since her own account was highly disputed already then, and later became more and more inconsistent, down to contrastingly outright lies she never even had brought up then, like how he met her first. That is so telling of deliberate lying, since she sure as hell would remember that her own sister’s boyfriend and mother had brought her into the game. Telling too is the fact, that she later said that, if this would happen to her own daughter, though she has three sons now, she’d not ever report it, or engage in mindless lynch mob justice. Just like she didn’t want it be known then, since of course, it never was rape, she later had repeatedly stated herself. No real rape victim recants her rape as terrible as she had let us believe. Or takes money after such a long time. I doubt I need to elaborate on that point. Despite no one else having cried rape, and no one ever having tried the case, people simply take this isolated incident as irrefutable fact. It’s a sad affair.
As for Polanski, one could say, he is ‘ill’ – but not ill in the way people might think. Polanski is ill with all the old pain, all the old sex and pursuit of all the old affairs, all the old abuse he suffered, and all the new abuse he suffers now, all because of one moment of temptation spread out before him he couldn’t resist, was pushed right into his lap. He’s ill with his obsession of film to escape all his ills. He was ill already before Sharon’s murders, and he was found even more ill later by the prison shrinks, and that he ‘might benefit from psychiatric treatment over his unresolved state of depression, stemming from a series of traumatic incidents in his life’. How anyone could cause him ever more ill is beyond me, it’s callous, it’s unethical.
And then there came the ill law to finish him, and made him even more ill, and now even more beyond anything I’ve ever seen before. He was made ill in the face of ill treatment, is ill in the face of today’s even more ill treatment, by our ill society, and only more ill can result from it all. Social ill, financial ill, mental ill, physical ill. Until the ill will ultimately claim his ill life. But until then, he has his loving family and friends, devoted fans and support to forget about these ills. They will never be healed, merely ‘treated’, as we do it in this ill society with ill people. Polanski deserves his final cure, but no one is merciful enough to give him this merciful remedy.
Novalis Lore In reply to Friedrich
Posted February 9, 2010 at 3:44 AM
Your analogies are quite intriguing, Friedrich – ill is a very apt word for this entire situation in fact. Our whole planet is ill in that respect, the way we treat each other is more than ill, and we can only become more ill with each day, year, decade. It’s the ill nature of our ill beast, which eventually will kill itself.
Until then, we, standing behind him act as his cure, even if it will be only a symptomatic cure, not final healing. His ills have been too many to fully heal.
DeMoy In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 9, 2010 at 5:36 AM
Many rape victims, emotionally burdened by their own trauma, most of all are the ones attacking Polanski blindly as seen so often by now, incapable of avoiding to use their role as victim to view this case objectively, while at the same time bluntly ignoring the one person they in fact believe was his rape victim, who on the other hand wants him freed.
No rape victim wants their rapist go free. But then of course, she isn’t a real rape victim to her own words, and therefore many can simply ignore her. Which in effect, would nullify their idea that Polanski in fact is a rapist, since no victim exists anymore in their world. And as for Polanski being a paedophile, these voices obviously have no clear understanding what a child molester is or does, and is more than absurd.
These people put their personal experiences into the public eye as excuse to attack someone they simply believe a rapist for her very old testimony, not having a shred of concrete evidence to back it up and the developments ever since. They believe their rape or own life experiences give them the right and best defense, or rather attack strategy to nullify others’ support of Polanski, no longer in control of rational, critical analysis of the case in hand that doesn’t in fact concern them, while in the same breath they deny him his own life’s plenty of traumas and public abuse and want him destroyed.
Theirs are the typical voices of pain striking out at someone the polluted political climate and dirty money machine has throw into the greedy public arena for their convenient lynching, to mercilessly vent their anger at the one who cannot defend himself – engaging in a virtual, verbal killing of a politically generated monster unheard of.
And then there are many rape survivors who in fact defend him, being the ones civilised enough to think, knowing what real rape is – and this was not, to her own words. Your research is the ultimate accolade, Novalis, and indeed the bible of this complex case as many said before, but it cannot be said more often.
Novalis Lore In reply to DeMoy
Posted February 9, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Thank you, DeMoy. Indeed, in my ploughing through the mire of ugly voices defaming him on private blogs and inaccurate news articles repeating the same old ‘crimes’, many rape victims have voiced their outrage and blind accusations at anyone dare defending him in the most vitreous and overemotional form as never seen before. It’s as grotesque as it is unsettling, and of course needlessly upsetting, since these individuals obviously haven’t come to terms with their own experience to separate their issues from this case. Blinded by their own apparent ordeal, they cannot see beyond others’ better knowledge or faith of the man they know didn’t rape anyone. And Geimer had often enough declared in recent years he didn’t rape or harm her, so I’m at a loss that they don’t even listen to her now – after her original testimony was more than debunked over time by her very self, and already then by sheer medical evidence. But people seem to have missed that crucial part and development. Or simply decide/d to ignore it – to maintain their delusion of his monstrousness in an absurd show of mass hysteria. Just as the Nazi DAs want/ed it.
Spoonful of Lies In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 9, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Here is what rape victims suffer – man or woman. In the period immediately following a sexual assault, victims respond by expressing fear, anger, and outrage or by adopting a controlled style of response, exhibiting little visible reaction. Despite outward appearances, this latter coping style does not reflect the victim’s inner turmoil in the wake of the assault. During the first few days and weeks after a sexual assault, the victim may also experience acute physical symptoms. These include soreness, especially in the stomach, throat, arms and legs. Or of course, local pain resulting from direct injuries. Muscle tension often results in disturbances in sleep patterns, including problems getting to sleep, crying out at night, and mumbling during sleep. Generally, victims feel distressed, irritable and jumpy.
Rape victims don’t want to be touched or anywhere near any other males. Not even their own companions, let alone undergo any examinations to establish the extent of their injuries, unless sedated, or put to sleep. Loss of appetite is also common. Initially, victims experience a sense of disorganization in which their lifestyles are disrupted by the rape crisis. Emotionally, fear dominates, but shame, humiliation, degradation, guilt, anger, self-blame and revenge are common. Given the intensity of these feelings, victims may be susceptible to mood swings. Long-term emotional symptoms, ranging from mild to severe and beginning anywhere from a few days to a few weeks after the rape, involve reorganization of the life shattered by the assault. One of the primary characteristics of this stage is difficulty in returning to daily schedule of activities. Victims often express and may act upon a strong desire to change jobs/schools.
Has Ms Geimer displayed any of that? Apart from the unlike crying in the car, or of course, dubious ‘fear’, the only thing she claimed happened was anger at her mother to have called on the law, and to have refused talking to anyone because of her actions. She also refused all therapy or help, with her mother claiming that she’d like to ‘save the family the cost’. No family would spare costs to allow their violated daughter professional help let alone the traumatized victim, had their been real rape trauma, or ask for the rapist not to face trial. And as we saw, she seems to have been quite OK with her own beau, and her mom’s two-timing boyfriend in the prosecutor’s office. She also went out with other boys to become pregnant very quickly.
Polanski came along on their ‘invitation’, the poor sex obsessed sod eventually does the foreseeable, finds himself accused or rape and perversions, when by all means she could have been on the pill, told him not, he resorts to coitus interuptus, and she can claim he sodomized her. I wonder how all the other men succeeded not to impregnate her, when she apparently wasn’t on the pill, while I doubt they all used condoms let alone her boyfriend she gladly received. What more can be said. She must be the only rape victim who ever publicly campaigned for her rapist’s freedom, and I’m sure we all know why. In regards to the legal mess this case is in, I’d say, show the U.S. the finger and let him go. It’s a travesty of justice.
Novalis Lore In reply to Spoonful of Lies
Posted February 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM
Thank you for explaining the dynamics of the aftermath of rape, Spoonful of Lies, and that indeed it is highly unlike that Ms Geimer fits the profile – although, many say, she’s just really strong and forgiving to be on his campaign trail, or of course in need to close the damned case and find peace. Which some find selfish, others only natural, others a sign of weariness with this whole spectacle claiming illness, others more than unusual since indeed no rape victim wants their violator freed, when the truth is no doubt more to the fact that she’s afraid to testify again. But her lawyer is helping Dalton & Co on her behalf more than any prosecution ever has in the history of any ‘rape’ case to prevent that, and I doubt I need to explain why.
Espressivo In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 9, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Dude, this is amazing research. What gets me is the disgraceful double standards applied to the man, the entire case history mess, and of course all these inconsistencies. I knew nothing much of the case, only nasty rumours, and I kept thinking, hold on a minute, how can he be so revered and successful if all that were true? All I ever came across was the same old c/rap of charges, and never anything to what he said about it. So I started digging deeper, and went back in time, watched all these interviews, his, hers, others, that documentary, and I went like, whoa, this seriously sucks, man. Especially all these self-righteous and ugly comments all over the place. I never read any books about him or his own, but now I will. I only watched his films I find absorbing enough, and then came across your mega blog exposing all these lies and facts, and it suddenly became clear to me, he is as guilty as far as it goes to have slept with her, but nothing beyond that stupid stupid act. Let the man go, right-wing Swiss dudes, and spit into douchebag Cooley’s arrogant face. And Walgren’s, who incidentally is after Jackson’s doctor now, to send him down for ‘involuntary manslaughter’. Yeah, why not, seems they need to punish someone for Michael’s own addiction to drugs. Typical.
Novalis Lore In reply to Espressivo
Posted February 9, 2010 at 1:37 PM
Thank you, Espressivo. I’m glad I could help you puzzle together the wider picture, and that you took the intelligent time not to blindly accept the media fodder thrown at you.
As for the doctor, shame, but someone needs to be ‘punished’ in the eyes of the not so blind law, while really important cases are left untouched, and shame about Michael to have been so addicted that it ended his ‘fairytale’ life to tragically.
Vahan In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 9, 2010 at 3:36 PM
A bit off-topic here, but here’s something to consider:
Why do so many people say that his marriage to Sharon was on the rocks shortly before she was murdered? Granted, Polanski slept with some women during the marriage (he even admitted in an interview during the 1980’s that he wasn’t 100% faithful to her), but that may have been just a sign of the times. There’s no doubt that Polanski would have most-likely settled down with Sharon once the baby was born (much like how he settled down once his current wife gave birth to Morgane and Elvis). This pretty much proves that the marriage of Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate was, by no stretch of imagination, on the rocks.
I also agree with the people (including Voice of Reason) that had Sharon not been murdered, the now infamous encounter with Geimer, and the events that transpired after it would never have happened. And yes, both him and Sharon were made for each other. It also didn’t hurt that Sharon was known to have a thing for artistic men.
And furthermore, why do so many people hate on Debra Tate (Sharon’s younger sister) so much for strongly supporting and defending Polanski? If they’re gonna do that, they might as well hate on all the other Tate family members (Mother Doris, Father Paul, and sister Patricia), because they also strongly supported and defended Polanski as well.
By the way, if I ever once believed that his marriage to Sharon was on the rocks, I apologize. I was not thinking clearly enough at the time.
Novalis Lore In reply to Vahan
Posted February 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM
Simple – the voices that might have stated so then, or now, are made of plain jealousy. He, as who he was, a fairly short and unconventionally handsome but indisputably bright and charming man, an unabashedly sexual man, a brilliant artist many envied, simply didn’t fit in with the conventional views of the rigid and repressed US ‘morale’ and ‘ideals’. He attracted stunning women for various reasons, while others were left with the ‘rest’, so to foul-mouth him in regards to Sharon, who was so very beautiful, so gentle and in full understanding that he might have a wandering eye – but as long as it came roving back to ‘her’, the mother of his child he adored, settled down with, gave him that freedom, like she had the same – is to be expected. They both had an understanding, and their marriage was by no means on the rocks – it was destroyed.
Just like Kinski had an understanding with him, otherwise she’d not stayed with him [before and] after the Geimer affair, (which should also prove she didn’t believe that he raped her and Nastassja said so herself, no woman would stay with a rapist lover). Just like his casual encounters were accepted by others he was with longer during the Sixties sand Seventies, and it worked for both sides. Yes, as a sign of the very promiscuous ‘swinging’ times and sexual revolution in general. But, others were even more promiscuous, like Warren Beatty and no one scolded him. With Sharon something special had happened and connected them in a way the others couldn’t deliver – and in Emmanuelle he later had found the same, without the ‘swinger’ tendencies anymore and stayed faithful to her alone, with his kids as their very backbone.
People were/are simply jealous that someone like ‘him’, could ‘pull chicks’ in the old days, attract young and older females into his olden days, and simply need to make it all dirty or fake, call him a paedophile and whatnot – while others were/are not defamed like that. Had he been some handsome American, someone who made soppy love films or was less a genius in his field, they’d worshipped him in their shallow ways, and no doubt forgiven him his ‘transgression’, like it happened with others. No, he was/is this foreigner with a thick accent, a very dark sense of [movie] humour, who overshadowed many other artists in his field and had the misfortune to have his wife murdered which they just as well twisted against him. It’s also a cultural thing, and the vast differences between the US and European. It’s even a by now viciously political thing – the [still sexually] repressed US mind vs the liberated European mind. The fact that Geimer is openly campaigning for him now has no meaning to them either, since they simply cannot see why.
As for people hating on Debra is obvious, because they think she [too] is loopy to defend a rapist – when she of all would know better – or Geimer. These sad busybodies think they have the right to ignore their voices, while loudly proclaiming their own self-righteous garbage knowing nothing. This has gone far beyond these two people of then having done something ‘immoral’, it’s a political tug of war on [these] old ‘morals’, driven by today’s changed attitudes in regards to nudity and other agendas in general that simply don’t fit in [anymore] with the times, the sex and drugs and rock’n roll mind-set of then.
Jessica Roberts In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 17, 2010 at 3:15 AM
In modern terminology “witch-hunt” has acquired usage referring to the act of seeking and persecuting any perceived “public enemy”, particularly when the hunt is conducted using extreme or illegal measures and with little regard to actual guilt or innocence. It is used whether or not it is sanctioned by the corrupt government, or merely occurs within the “court of public opinion” based on political manipulation. Unwanted thoughts and unstable feelings are unconsciously projected onto another who becomes a scapegoat for one’s own problems.
In psychopathology, projection is an especially commonly used defense mechanism in people with the following personality disorders: Rhetorical use of the phrase “for the children” often suffers from the logical fallacies of appeal to emotion and irrelevant conclusion, elaboration, fabrication, or, “what if this would happen to your child”, or yourself.
These arguments simply appeal to the listener’s emotion by connecting an argument to “innocent children” that many people feel an instinctive need to protect. Appeal to emotion is a potential fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient’s emotions, rather than valid logic or vital need for objectivity, to win an argument, or by using abusive rhetoric if cornered.
Also, this kind of narrow thinking is evident in those who let damaging emotions and/or other subjective considerations influence one’s reasoning process in general, who can also become aggressive once objective facts are not accepted in their world. This kind of appeal to fallible emotion is a type of blackmail and encompasses several logical fallacies these people apply to “persuade” others into their biased world.
All these “children’s issues” have a place in our “world” today, true, but something is very wrong when “forgiveness” has been given and both sides want to find closure and third parties, i.e. this obsessed, child molesting and raping “society”, won’t accept it in their self-righteous blindness out for blood.
But, something is even more wrong when, after 32 years of exemplary conduct, a person is set-up for an unsound arrest and a continually warring country uses arbitrary tactics to single out an old sex case and a harmless old man who has done no injury to any “children” in all his life, blackmailing the Swiss to serve him on a political platter. This has gone far enough beyond any common sense and someone in real power should put a stop to this. Good enough the not so gullible Swiss won’t extradite him.
The current judge stringing him along and the corrupt DA are the main problems today as it was then with old limelight hogging Rittenband and deceitful Wells, and when justice is exchanged for political purposes, it’s a crime, as simple as that. Polanski has suffered enough and I doubt I need to elaborate on the facts of the much maligned case in hand. You’ve done so just brilliantly, Novalis. Thank you for your enlightening findings.
Novalis Lore In reply to Jessica
Posted February 17, 2010 at 3:15 AM
Very good analysis of what a witch hunt is, Jessica, and that this is indeed what’s happening here, with people getting over their heads with current, indeed important issues, over some old case that however has nothing to do with them, or these people, intent on making this a very ugly ‘test case’ for their own agendas I doubt I need repeating. All else I can only agree on, and that this indeed has gone far enough – too far by now.
Vanessa In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 18, 2010 at 8:20 AM
This is the best analysis in regards to the case I’ve seen so far, and I doubt anyone can top it.
I grew up in the Sixties, and I, as my same-aged or older friends, had sex like it was the last time with the event of the pill, and with quite a few adults from the age of Geimer’s in fact already then. I’m ten years her senior. We were much more “mature” then, physically as mentally than what people today think is “morally sound”, or want their own kids of today to be in fact. Or even know of what they did themselves then.
It was a completely different time, different culture with a different set of rules in regards to sex and drugs, and no one rallied around any “child abuse” issues the way it is today.
You, diligent author, pointed to that fact several times, and I also fully agree on why they singled Polanski out–and not any other “American”–to demonise ever since Tate’s loss. What they wrote about him or the victims then already bordered on sheer psychosis and surpassed disgusting smear.
We weren’t any more “abused” then than anyone today, and I’d rather say there’s more systematic child abuse and rapes going on today than then, and in the prisons too, and not because we weren’t aware of it. It just wasn’t that widespread, which should speak of our much more corrupted “morality” of today, rather than our more liberal morals of then.
Polanski’s behaviour then was nothing special, and he certainly wasn’t a child molester or lured her into his clutches and all that crap. He had girls waiting for him, and to say this Vogue assignment was a ruse is just dumb slur.
They made millions with his glossy 1976 Kinski edition, and then suddenly fell into his back. They later apologised and “amended” their recanting lie they gave Interpol never to have heard of their agreement just because they hadn’t signed any contracts, but the damage was done. Typical money grabbing bastards. I never bought another Vogue in my life.
The girl wasn’t doing anything she hadn’t done before, and for whatever reason she had cried rape the next day, “lies” with her “ambitious” mother alone and she should be held responsible, not Polanski. She clearly had her own agendas and used her daughter. I never believed her and Geimer’s allegations from day one.
Sadly, anyone covering the case loves to repeat the same fabrication you highlighted, that there was “anal bruising”, since Leaming, two years after Kiernan must have invented that first, said in her own biography about Polanski, that there was no tearing etc., when the med report clearly said the same. There’re all available online since years now, and why people still ignore them eludes me. No, it’s just to discredit him fully. The report even said, “adult female”, which is more than remarkable, and you mentioned too.
When even the doctor stated “adult”, not adolescent or teenager, no wonder everyone but that shifty cop Vannatter out of spite, thought her up to twenty years old. I never met her, but those who had seen her in the flesh too said she looked older, or let’s say very mature, “developed”.
Polanski apparently knew her age, but looking at her pictures alone, she might just as well have been older, and if one considers what another commentator here stated that she could have been fifteen, can we really be sure she was “only thirteen”? Her sister was apparently twenty, and she looked no older than Geimer, so who’s to say which sister is which? Or their real age. Just a thought.
When I later read his own biography it only confirmed what we had suspected or heard already had really happened, which you rightly picked up on: nothing she had claimed. I knew Polanski through friends of his closer circle in London (ever since he was filming here with Sharon), of his sexual conquests, sure, that he was cocky, sure, but he had no need to drug and “rape” anyone. He did less drugs than most of us and nothing hard. None of us believed Geimer, we all knew she was keen to get into the movies.
Nothing wrong with that, many tried, most failed, only the cry rape part is. Then it all went awry when someone called on the law against her will and the evidence didn’t support her claims, and hey presto, a handy plea bargain was struck which was Polanski’s death warrant.
I knew someone who had dated him, I knew of someone who had slept with him for casual fun, they were early twenties, and sodomy wasn’t part of it. He apparently was a very skilled lover and well “developed” himself. We knew of the rumours that her mother was pimping her out to other men to get into the industry, I’m sorry, that’s what we heard, and when naïve little Roman came along, he was the golden goose to pluck.
I even heard of the rumour that her mother had slept with him, but he never confirmed that, and he wasn’t too shy to kiss and tell at times himself in his earlier mildly chauvinistic way like all the men did it. It could well have been some “gossip” thrown out there from her mother’s side, or by someone else, or this Kiernan wouldn’t in fact have written about it. Unless he invented that too, half his trashy book is a cock-and-bull story anyhow.
When she came out later and gave us all these “inconsistent” interviews to downright filing petitions for his freedom, saying it wasn’t rape, took his money after all this time, it only proved to me that she had lied. No doubt on her mother’s behest. She claimed to “stand up” for herself because it was more pro “victims” friendlier times, I say it was her conscience nagging, only to get muddled up over her “ordeal” specifics.
No genuine rape victim ever forgets the details or circumstances. Exact dates perhaps, but not specifics. But it obviously never was “imprinted” in her mind as what she made the grand jury believe, told the cops, and then the public, and therefore had to “improvise” when she forgot over time. You brought up a few of these “gaps” I had noticed too.
When Polanski fled, we didn’t think for one moment because he wanted to evade punishment, we knew what was going on behind the courtroom scenes. He panicked over the illegal deportation threat the judge thought he could impose on him against all recommendations, and we all were shocked when he left him no choice but to flee and saddened he had to destroy his future career in the US film industry for such a racist opportunist and shameless exploiters.
Dalton could have helped him better, and much earlier, that’s for sure. But it was all for the “innocent young victim”. Now it’s all an even bigger legal mess still no one wants to righten at our even more corrupt legal system, and Roman’s made an even bigger fiend than before. I’m only glad the Swiss have more sense not to ship him off.
I deeply detest today’s bigoted times, I tell you, these two-faced people intent on destroying someone who had done only good to others. He had no interest in big money, he gave away his last penny to friends, and made his films on a shoestring if needed. That was, is his passion. Film.
He’s an eternal survivor able to take all the abuse, an artistic genius they envy with equal passion, and unfortunately never spoke up for himself. No matter what Geimer does for him these days, good on her, or for herself, but I have not the slightest sympathy for her, unless she finally owns up her part in it. I realise she was a minor, was out of her depth, manipulated by her mother, he should have left her be, but it takes two to tango no matter their age.
But what I hate even more are today’s idiot voices ignoring her wishes to see this finished, thinking they ‘own’ her or her ‘victim status’ as feminists, the infamous case as a case for ‘justice’, or of course ignore his own political forfeit status as the ‘evil predator’. Sad, officious little people who should rather find their own neighbourhood rapists and paedophiles.
Novalis Lore In reply to Vanessa
Posted February 19, 2010 at 2:37 AM
Again, I can only agree with what you so eloquently stated here, Vanessa, and it is interesting to hear a voice who actually knew him, and through others. Thank you for your little personal insight, not only of the ‘gossiping’ and ‘swinging’ times, cutting analogies, but the much misjudged man himself.
neville c. In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 19, 2010 at 2:00 AM
To me, a “testimony” means nothing unless it was proven in a trial. There never was a trial, hence, her allegations still are only that to this day, no matter given on oath or not. The only thing we have as hard evidence is the medical report disproving her claims. His version makes more sense to me in general, since all this “I was afraid” nonsense just doesn’t cut it for me. I think she just let it all happen out of curiosity, peer pressure, his “prominence”, what he could do for her, due to the personalities involved and the fact that this sort of incident is so common even still.
He expectedly engaged in sex on a benign if possibly more “selfish” level, she didn’t “resist” believably enough, he thought it was consensual, mom was pissed off about that, and the nude pics, so let’s call it all rape coz you’re underage. Then they made her say this and that to make her the innocent “non-compliant” party in the events, him the sole “seducer”. But then the evidence said, sorry, there was no rape and sodomy, and they both were in deep shit. Everything afterwards is a different story that screwed it all up. That’s the short for me.
And as you said, many things are cultural, era and attitude related issues people of today simply cannot grasp, since they didn’t live in the 70s where “underage sex” or feminist agendas were of no consequences, which today are his vocal accusers: the “times”. Today’s morality, not any justice, or objective understanding is his lynch mob. It’s our morals versus their promiscuous ethics. It’s our social codes versus applying dynamic values to their personal situations of then out of whack with today’s views. Personal values can turn anachronistic, and in this case they’ve turned anarchic.
The temptation for all concerned parties to capitalise on their own interests then was too huge, the power dynamics were a bit off too, not only the age difference, or each of their individual “needs”. The girl never wanted it be known, Polanski wanted to see her again, mom wanted to “protect” her, after she in fact had used her [with other men] already, and then it went more than wrong with the law wanting to push its own ideas. Indeed, the different eras usually start either accusing, or vindicating people/times suddenly for their own changed times not/or in alignment anymore, and now they’re still in deeper mud for our different attitudes and it’s too easy to think small and in black and white in this more than grey area case.
Novalis Lore In reply to Neville
Posted February 19, 2010 at 2:24 AM
That’s about the short for me too in general – well put, Neville.
Enforcer In reply to Novalis Lore
Posted February 20, 2010 at 10:12 PM
It’s funny how you refuse to post the stuff I put on here in fear it will violate your little bubble you live in thinking Polanski got treated somehow uniquely and the justice system is any different for anyone else.
Novalis Lore
Posted February 20, 2010 at 1:03 AM
I posted enough of your ‘stuff’, Enforcer – and the rest was irrelevant to this case. If anyone is living in a little bubble, than that’s you, in your delusion of paedophilia I humoured long enough now when you posted under different names too just to have an audience. If you bother me again, or others I’ve seen you spam too with irrelevant blather, I’ll block your IP outright and never even get your comments. Your choice – stay civil or stay away.
And you said it yourself in another self-defeating remark, that Polanski was indeed ‘treated somehow uniquely’ and the justice system is arbitrarily applied to individuals as they like it, since the old judge made an example of him at his own amusement for who Polanski was, that he was rearrested for political gain, that he’s being exploited once more for who he is as pawn between money states, when murderers need not post bail of such extortionate amounts and can walk. But he has to sit out house arrest after a thirty year old sex case that was messed up already then and should long have been dismissed – just as both parties wanted it since years now – only for other judges to play with it some more. And now we have another ambitious DA who’s playing his own game of spinning it out as long as possible to become GA, after Polanski had already asked to be absentia sentence as the judge allowed him, only to refuse it in another show of cat and mouse to amuse the public, triggering more appeals and counter appeals to drag it out even more, costing US taxpayers money they sure as hell could use better for current crimes to see prosecuted.
Vahan
Posted February 21, 2010 at 5:35 AM
Novalis, don’t even bother dealing with Enforcer. He is just going to continue believing in his rape/sodomy/pedophilia fantasy. I wouldn’t be surprised if he believes in Kiernan’s delightful works of fiction as well. (I know someone on Shakesville does, as does Julia Baird, in her article “Roman Polanski: Forgiveness is not Enough”).
“Minor anal bruising” wasn’t the only thing that Kiernan made up. He also claimed that Polanski was quoted saying that he couldn’t stand that “dumb hag” (referring to Sharon).
On a side note, I finally got the chance to read Polanski’s 1984 autobiography at my local library today. It is a wonderful, and well-written book that has been raved by everyone on Amazon (and rightfully so). I also read everything that he wrote about Sharon in it, and nowhere did he ever recall calling her a “dumb hag” like Kiernan claimed.
BTW, it has been brought to my attention that Geimer used to be anonymous, and Polanski hoped for her sake that she would remain so. When exactly did she finally reveal her name?
And speaking of Kiernan, besides what I mentioned, what else did he make up about Polanski in his book? The sad part is that I used to believe what he said, until I was moved into the right direction.
Novalis Lore
Posted February 21, 2010 at 8:21 AM
Vahan, I will humour Enforcer if he keeps civilised, but that’s about it, and I’m sure he’s not the only one to believe in Kiernan’s trash, see Shakeville’s indeed. Sad and misled people who simple need to revel in nasty scenarios – it’s just not fun to accept the much more boring and simpler truth, even if Geimer herself declared so they ignore just as much, they simply have to make things nasty and people evil. It’s their obsession in life.
It’s pretty easy to detect what Kiernan made up and what’s fact – since he does include true events and certain details. But every time it sounds like ‘sordid trash’, with dubious dialogue, that’s the fiction. Just compare Polanski’s autobio with his crap, and you’ll see. He included too much negative-only hearsay or quotes from not too well meaning ‘friends’, and then embellished it with his is own lurid fantasies, since he ‘apparently’ knew Polanski. You can get it cheaply on ebay, it’s good enough for a disbelieving headshake and laugh. Polanski had declined him several times to write t/his bio, so he just went ahead and took bits and pieces from here and there, people he interviewed, anything he could find in media and other records, claiming it’s all based on facts, like the court transcripts.
But he even came up with the unbelievable thing that Polanski had violated her orally, which was pure invention, (I mentioned in my long version, which others turned into a near murder case, like demento Judith Reisman, check her out; Kiernan’s a dirty lusty bunny in contrast to her sicko fantasies). I gather/ed he ‘re/constructed’ that from the media given count of ‘oral copulation’ – thinking it meant he penetrated her orally, rather than perform cunnilingus which Geimer had stated, Polanski had always denied and couldn’t be proven. So he sure as hell made up half his book and probably never saw the transcripts. And as I said, since it does cite certain facts, the added fiction made people believe it ALL was true. Too many still believe this trash, despite having proof to the opposite these days. Kiernan was one sick man to smear Polanski out of spite and to make money and fully succeeded.
There have been other recent well-written bios on him, and many include more details Polanski hadn’t thought of then, or of course only occurred over time, but are more or less true and unbiased. Except some of them unfortunately repeated the same old shit in their own research Kiernan had invented – like the ‘anal bruising’ – while others gave the correct findings, as Barbara Leaming did in her own short bio on him she wrote two years before his own and two years after Kiernan’s. As a rule of thumb, anything that makes Polanski look or sound sordid or a callous cad, is basically invention. Like calling Sharon a dumb hag – it’s pure bullshit. He was a bit cocky, very self-assured of his artistic talents, but never cruel to anyone, though on the set he kept an iron thumb on his perfectionism some couldn’t deal with and would throw temper tantrums. So foul-mouthing him comes from either envy, or one ‘lie’ turning into another as in a [Chinese] whispering campaign.
Even harmless interviews can be [mis/]represented as not actually given, when the editors willfully change things, usually for the worse. I have plenty and some are totally different in a different publication. Unfortunately the media can do what they want anyway, especially online – as we saw in his case, omitting vital details, or of course simply keep repeating the same old drivel to maintain a biased level – until they get sued. Which Polanski couldn’t do, or filth like Kiernan’s, because he had no legal resources of defence. And I guess he needed his time and efforts to make films, not bother with slander suits that have to be brought before the right US or UK courts he of course couldn’t get anywhere near, which by now has reached epic proportions he can never rectify. Except for the one time I mentioned concerning Sharon’s legacy via video link. And recent French tabloids since he’s French. He can defend himself against any foreign lawsuits, but not file any himself other than in France.
As for Geimer’s identity – as a rule, minors or rape victim case names are never revealed to the press, and Polanski stated so in an interview at the time too, only his side of the story until he gave up on that, and time forgot about it. But the nosier Euro press got hold of her name and pictures soon after the headlines were smeared all over the place, her address, school, and it went from there. That’s why they eventually moved to Hawaii to escape all that. She later came out herself to give interviews for various reasons, and in varying versions, once her lawsuit was settled, before she filed these petitions to drop the case and declared that it wasn’t rape etc., and to let it all rest.
But as we saw, the lawmakers have no interest in that ever since they fiddled with it on and off, not because they want to ‘punish’ Polanski, since he’s sat out his originally agreed sentence twice by now, but to exploit it for political fun and gain. They’re not interested in ‘justice’, when they even declined his absentia request. That’s why the Swiss said, sod you [US courts], we keep him until you can prove Rittenband really wanted to send him down for longer, which the attorneys had feared and of course Polanski was afraid of included unlawful deportation, and was the only reason to abscond. He knew he could face a few years despite no such agreement, and was ready to take it, before Rittenband just flew off the handle and was removed. Too late.
Enforcer
Posted February 27, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Vahan, even if you read Polanski’s biogrpahy how can you not say that even he admitted to starting carass and kiss her without him jumping on her or anything, and if nothing else that is taking advantage and at least a child molestation charge and that’s before the sex even occurred. I understand the 70s used to have a criminal justice philosophy that ended up failing and that was to rehabilitate not punish and keep locked up offenders, as evidence by the Polly Class case as well as the recent Rodney Alcala case (he ironically took a film class under Polanski) it didnt work.
Novalis Lore
Posted February 28, 2010 at 9:20 AM
I doubt Vahan will engage you, so I will. Polanski never denied what you state, and he pled to more than that one charge which was one of the indictment counts – so we’re long past all that since then. Besides, the US criminal justice failed in general as seen in Polanski’s case alone. And it keeps failing [him and others] to this day.
Enforcer
Posted March 2, 2010 at 3:31 AM
Novalis, the criminal justice system in every country is not fair or honest. It can’t be due to human nature. Human nature makes it impossible to work perfectly because by nature we are biased, unfair, emotional, etc. whether we are cops, judges, citizens, or whatever there is always bias and emotion involved its nature. Anyway basically this quote by Osmond and others I presented shows that it isnt just morality police like you claim or those in power or fathers defending virginity of daughters that is the reason for the recent phenomenom and paranoia. It is because the victims themselves say it is bad and the most damaging done to them. Whether they play along at the time and you spin it to make it consentual, whether they were coerced, whether they came from a horrible family where it was introduced too early, they still end up hating it.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM
I read your other links/posts, and true, it’s a difficult issue in general, and no case is the same, which in effect is the key. And the arbitrary punishment or none in some cases doesn’t help either. And true too, because of who and what we are – fallible humans, who fail themselves, others, the system which in turns fails them again. Us all. True too that many end up as you state – while some don’t feel that way, weren’t damaged to whichever extend. Some cope well while others don’t. But the main problem is, while most cases are of no interest to the wider public, a similar case like Polanski’s is flogged to death in an unprecedented witch hunt beyond all sense, exploited purely for political gain – which is simply wrong – purely for who he was then, and still is, I’m sure we can agree on.
Enforcer
Posted March 3, 2010 at 8:36 AM
But local damage and local journalist flogs do more damage to those people than Polanski is damaged by the media. And those people dont have you, or la times, or anyone on their side at all. No one dares defend them because they dont have any name attached to them or anything to offer the la times or esp their local cop-ran or owned media.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 4, 2010 at 12:32 AM
I would disagree on the point that the wider media does Polanski lesser harm – they do him the greater in fact, since his exposure and defamation is on a global scale, deliberately manipulated by politics and fame-hungry DAs who can choose any case they want to pursue, which ‘small-town’ cases cannot deliver them to be reelected. That was Cooley’s whole idea to force his arrest/extradition, and the Swiss judges obviously won’t play his game. But I agree that these other people haven’t the same scope of defenders for the very same reasons of being unknown. That’s why I find it not only so needlessly demonising to pursue one [very famous] case, but most of all time and tax money wasting to latch on to this very old case in particular just because Polanski’s famous, while many other cases are left untouched. The case was already then treated differently when the judge exploited it and was one factor why Polanski fled.
Any other case since then, of worse or same magnitude was/is the news too, but the wider population will never know of them, not even from one US state to the next, let alone country to country, unless it’s a really shocking discovery like in the Garrido case. But in effect it’s still the same, since the ‘tactics’ of the local/global media to ‘exploit’ a cases, rather than merely do unbiased reportages, are of the same hypocrisy/sensationalism to make a feast of them, to get more ratings/sales/comments. But they do it more often and extensively with someone who’s known worldwide to increase ‘hits’. Thus the man will be marked forever and recognised more widely, while Mr X from any town X can leave his place after jail, and start anew somewhere else – Polanski will never be able to do so, since he’s just too well-known. The media had done him great harm already after Tate’s murder in the most blasphemous forms, only to do more in 1977/8, till it escalated today into a concerted witch hunt unheard of.
CB
Posted March 8, 2010 at 6:20 AM
I came across a completely self-defeating article plucked apart by some feminist blogger to “demonstrate” Polanski’s apparently cunning ways of “manipulating” people, taken from a book in fact, which I’m sure will strike great interest in your readers. Here (greatly abridged I might add, since I own the book with * to indicate my own additions):
The transcript of a polygraph exam given to Polanski a week after his wife’s murder in August 1969 offers the following exchanges:
Q [Examiner Lt. Earl Deemer]: Mind if I call you Roman? My name is Earl.
A [Polanski]: Sure… I will lie one or two times during it, and I will tell you after, OK?
Q: Well—all right…
Deemer asks Polanski about how he met Sharon to put him at ease, (*which he did at great length in purely positive and very admiring terms). He mentioned his prowess with women, several times calling himself a “swinger” who was not interested in a long-term relationship anymore (*after her death). Questioning then proceeds requiring a yes or no answer only.
Q: Do you have a valid California driver’s license?
A: Yes.
Q: Have you eaten lunch today?
A: No.
Q: Do you know who took the life of Voytek and the others? (*Tate and their friends)
A: No.
Q: Do you smoke cigarettes?
A: Yes.
(*There was a long pause before) Polanski then begins laughing and Deemer says: “You know what you are going to do with that screwing around? I’m going to have to start all over again. (*A: Sorry.”) Look at the increase in your blood pressure when you start to lie about your cigarettes. Boom, boom, boom, just like a staircase. (*OK, let’s start over again…)”
(*The interview was much longer in fact touching on others involved and they had started over, before) Deemer was satisfied that Polanski had nothing to do with the murders. At the end of the interview, Polanski stood up, lit a cigarette and left. Deemer said, “Hey, I thought you didn’t smoke cigarettes!” (*But Polanski had long gone.)
In the dumb blogger’s opinion, that meant: “Take anything Roman Polanski says with a grain of salt. He fooled a polygraph!”
Eh? I’m sorry, but Polanski said yes, he DOES [or did then] smoke ciggies, so to light one confirms that! So he certainly could NOT fool this cop, whose reaction seems more than curious but was given like that in the very extensive book. The blogger aimed at the possibility that Polanski could charm any probation officer or psychiatrists, and corrections officers while undergoing the psychological exams into eventually giving him a clean bill of mental health.
The blogger completely lost the plot and that Polanski in fact could NOT “manipulate” either a machine, or several impartial officials. Of course, the blogger also said that he had paid them all to give him a nice psyche evaluation. Yeah right. I know Polanski can be a bit of a temperamental “pusher” on his sets to get the exact results he wants, but I believe such people need a psyche eval themselves for thinking he multi bribed his way out of this.
Actually, to my knowledge, Polanski behaved perfectly civil at Chino, was treated well, though kept away from the hardcores and put on cleaning duty, since the first thing he did was scrubbing his cell – and volunteered for that. I’m sure they had the cleanest prison tier during his stay!
That polygraph test excerpt was taken from the former DA Vincent Bugliosi book, “Helter Skelter”, who had tried [and written about] the Manson case. If one might be nasty, I’d say he made a lot of money with Polanski’s and the others’ tragedies. Fascinating thing is, Bugliosi is exactly one year younger than Polanski, to the day and month. How spooky is that.
The blogger puts as if he thought Polanski overestimated his sexual prowess, or irresistibility which was bull, remarking: “A 13-year old girl who had already been in situations no 13-year old belongs in, either in 1977 or today. Famewhores all.”
I’m sorry, Bugliosi never said that about Polanski, and certainly not about Geimer, since the book is from 1974. Maybe in another later interview with Bugliosi, dunno, and might have been aware of what you have touched on in your remarkable article, that her mother did everything to get her into the business, and herself. So I don’t know where the blogger got that “remark” from.
It only shows how some people mix and match sources of information, take ‘em out of context to smear Polanski even more in their blogs. I get it that she was underage, no dispute. Lucky for them there was something like this plea bargain once she blabbed about his “pushing” her into sex she “just let happen”. I don’t think so. And then a pushy mom pushed her into ugly lying ignoring her wishes not to pursue this–unlucky for the “little Pollack” there was someone like this pushy old judge, who then messed it all up for all by pursuing his own agendas.
Now I realise why Rittenband disallowed the clerk’s report over her unseemly conduct in the prosecutor’s office with mommy’s boyfriend, since I’m sure he’d loved to have “pushed” the girl himself, or that uniformed skunk Vannatter, and nail Polanski to the wall. I wonder what she’d say nowadays if anyone asks her about that incident no one knew of anyway, or today. Play it down I suppose, like her “rape”. As far as I’m concerned, Geimer was left to her own devises, and Polanski did not harm her. To sleep with her was certainly “unlawful”, but both were and are still today exploited in an even more shameful way that’s just plain criminal!
Besides, if you wanna pursue Polanski, you’d need to incarcerate half of Hollywood from then to now, half the music world from then to now, and half the planet, from then to now for having done and doing exactly the same right now. It’s preposterous to pursue THAT case! But we all know why. I hope Espinoza finally pulls his finger out and actually sentences him to time served, it’s not like Polanski didn’t even ask him to do so three months back, only to play him for keeps as Rittenband had, going, na na na na na, I’m not gonna absentia sentence ya!
Polanski should be allowed to get this over and done with, like Geimer, on with her life, on with his life and do what he does best: movies! It’s not like that neither he nor she don’t want this ended since years now, how many more times do they have to ask? He was ready to face sentencing! Again! Disgusting charade.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 8, 2010 at 6:31 AM
Thanks for the little ‘anecdote interlude’, CB, and that some people simply cannot accept the more mundane and ordinary facts about this much abused case.
As for Bugliosi, I’ve got that book too, and it is as you state; he didn’t think him overstating his sex appeal then – or guilty of their murders. That was the most blasphemous allegation he ever had to deal with. And true, it’s ‘spooky’ what with their birthdays.
As for Espinoza, let’s see what the appeals come up with for his next move, to end this ‘disgusting charade’ perhaps after all.
Enforcer
Posted March 9, 2010 at 5:55 AM
“Besides, if you wanna pursue Polanski, you’d need to incarcerate half of Hollywood from then to now, half the music world from then to now, and half the planet, from then to now for having done and doing exactly the same right now.”
yes cause its so normal to have sex with little girls. After all the inmates, das, and judges all see the clear difference between 13 yr olds and anything below and thats why they go after every sex offender pretty much equally right? And thats why as I stated in the local article the little girl (herself 13) kept saying she now has to live with the word molest and this is the worse thing that coul. So you admit to publicly liking young teenagers do you? Cause its so normal. After all, that da who shot himself, and all those guys doing hard time for internet stings and entrapments are so normal. Brad Pitt, and everyone secretly f@ks kids too right?
A guy is doing 400 years in Yolo County for absolutely no proof he even had sex with her, and the jury all stated he was guilty since he said he f@ked the girl after she turned 18 in a taped phone call (she claims it started when she was 15) cause after all he is so normal right? And this is with no dna evidence and the girl already ahving served time for visa fraud and not a credible witness herself. oh and all these sex offenders in the news and all these tough on sex offender laws 9even arnold is not releasing any sex offenders early no matter the charge vs other offenders) cause they are so accepted and normal huh?
And Novalis you didnt read all the links I gave you. Go read up on the ajay dev case. Btw sex offenders are all over the news again, and all sex offenders are again by the media grouped into the worse case scenario or compared to the worse case emamples. Oh and on top of these even those guys deserve due process yet I saw CNN and Fox labeling them without giving them due process last night.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 10, 2010 at 2:39 AM
Enforcer, to repeat myself one last time – This is about the Polanski case ALONE!
I DID read all your stuff, but it doesn’t concern THIS case, nor do WE hear about any of YOUR cases in the UK and don’t concern us here at all either, it’s YOUR problem. We have our own cases YOU don’t know of and none have anything to do with this old case most of all. I don’t have to discuss any of them HERE in any form. I know a man accused of rape is automatically a rapist despite NO proof in any form or even conviction, & plenty turn out false accusations to start with. And a 13 year old isn’t a ‘little girl’, but adolescent, a teenager of child-bearing age and the doctor who examined Geimer described her as an ‘adult female’ in fact – BIG difference. And yes, EVERYBODY did it then, or NOW, that’s the whole point of this debate! Because, how many stories have been hushed over by them all that we don’t know about of more or less famous musicians, actors, directors and producers who have done exactly what Polanski did? But ONLY Polanski was made an example of THEN and TODAY AGAIN, not only because he was more famous and a foreigner, but because he fled a racist judge who did EXACTLY the same as they had, and most of all, he escaped YOUR corrupt US legal system you yourself described as arbitrary and biased often enough by now with your case examples.
And what exactly did you mean by that line: ‘So you admit to publicly liking young teenagers do you?’ Is that just more sarcasm directed at those who think it’s ‘all so normal’, or are you by any chance referring to me? That’s their problem to think so, I don’t, so be careful what you’re saying here in case it’s directed at myself. Besides, YOU seem extremely obsessed with all these other cases and paedophiles in general, why not tackle them on YOUR OWN blog or these other sites, if you don’t want to discuss THIS case, hm? You’re running in a circle here – you’re repeating yourself over the same issues over and over, which aren’t related to the case in hand. Normal, abnormal, right or wrong, if you’re so keen about these issues, get your own blog to discuss them with likeminded people THERE – but stay away from mine from now on.
Besides, it’s people like you who keep the Polanski case alive and kicking up more dust, just like the press & petty little bloggers who are pushing this case into the foreground AGAIN, in sensationalistically overblown & disproportionally distorted ways beyond all sense. not me. I just picked up on it to expose these exact double standards applied to this case, & reveal the actual facts of the utterly twisted details & most of all the plenty judicial misconduct everyone want to conveniently bury.
Sybyll Vaine
Posted March 10, 2010 at 8:01 AM
You’re right, Novalis; other people were involved in every film of his too, people who could be in trouble with the law otherwise, or not at all, have families to look after as well and depend on any revenue he can bring them without compromising their ‘moral virtue’. It’s their life, their livelihood. If these ill-informed accusers want to point their pious fingers at Polanski only or boycott his films, it’s just too easy to get all hyper/bolic about this particular case, when in truth any ‘moral’ issues is affecting a large number of Hollywood’s annual ‘artistic’ output. Or Bollywood’s for that matter. Only those stories never make it to the global papers because they’re not what you cited already: famous foreign fugitives. If people knew of others’ ‘immoral deeds’, and most have been supporting them all their lives willingly or unwittingly, to boycott them all would be impossible, since in all art, all morality is out the window once created by a fallible human, or we’d not have any to look at, listen to, read, or buy. Life would be void of ALL art. Life is a morality play you can take part in or not. So to single out Polanski over some decades old ‘immoral deed’ the adult woman today long forgave him for, but not by those who have absolutely nothing to do with them, is braindead bigotry and folly by now. Many artists were murderers, but are the museums hiding their work? Many writers had incestuous relations or violated their partners, but are we burning their books? Many musicians slept with underage ‘fans’ drugged out of their skulls, but are we throwing out their albums? The list is endless and bleeds into all sectors of life. We’d be back at Nazi fascism of boycotting their ‘degenerate’ art or whatever they created. All art stands on its own and I judge it purely by its merit, based on my own taste. How many women and men of all ages slept around to get a part in a movie through the ages? (Or in ordinary life for that matter.) Do people really think that particular ‘aspiring model’ with that particular ‘ambitious mother’ did not seek fame and fortune through him foremost, she in fact said herself was the whole idea, and he would have delivered had they all played by the ‘rules’ of the ‘casting couch’? Today’s moral crusades are a total waste of time when it comes to Hollywood, always was. As long as she thinks today that it wasn’t rape then, is good enough for me for her underage status he pleaded to and was ready to face his judgment. To declare one person guiltier than others who did or do worse, after the corrupt law had let that person down already and still does so today, can we simply ignore that fact most of all? As far as I’m concerned, the law is unable to correct what it had done to him decades ago, and we have no right to moralise about the man today who never committed any crime. Polanski is not a paedophile or rapist, and no matter how much people need him to fit that picture, he’s a highly intelligent man who survived many traumas and vastly superior artist foremost, and everybody who ever met him said the same. I doubt they’re all morally corrupt. Everybody’s entitled to one big mistake, to sleep with her was just that in the eyes of the law. Americans never forgive any ‘foreigners’ their ‘mistakes’, while letting their own Hollywood elite, musicians and most of all crooked politicians do the same without equally condemning them by turning a blind eye to that same law. They’re all sanctimonious hypocrites. But that’s nothing new.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 10, 2010 at 9:54 AM
You’re right, Sybyll, the ‘art-artist’ dynamic is a problem for many, while it’s not to others, but only if they catch a ‘current’ case – or at least one within their own time. As soon as it’s ancient history, they couldn’t care less anymore either way – or we indeed would be very bereft of most art. Many of course don’t know of their backgrounds, and some might come to light only later, but as soon as it’s not within their own interest, agendas, and/or era, they’re not interested anymore, or ‘morally invested’ to pursue any vilification or boycotting – They have no ‘target’ anymore, and that’s why Polanski’s case lies embattled for today’s more prevalently addressed issues, which were of not much concerns then. That’s of course where the double standards stem from to make an example of him today and again, but no one else even these days. It’s pure hypocrisy they think they can apply to one case but not another. They pick and choose as it suits them, making a mockery of their own ‘moral principles’ in fact.
And then there’s of course the law issue most have no clear ideas about either concerning this case, which on the other hand if some do recognise that side, they can differentiate between the actual events and the changed people concerned, and the law that broke down to give them both closure they demand be fixed. Which has failed to this day, and we all know why – you said it yourself.
Vahan
Posted March 12, 2010 at 1:55 AM
Novalis, you mentioned earlier about how more often than not, the media likes to twist anything Polanski says and make him seem worse than he really is (Just like Kiernan).
I’m pretty sure this quote from the New York Post is an example of what you’re talking about:
“And this little w***e (possible reference to Geimer) and the California laws won’t either.”
Yet like you said earlier, Polanski had nothing but good things to say about her, and isn’t it true that after winning his Oscar for best director, he contacted Geimer and thanked her for her support?
And slightly off-topic here, but in 1994, didn’t Polanski say, and I quote:
“I have a hard time to persuade myself that it was wrong.”
However, when he did that interview with 60 Minutes’ Mike Wallace in 1978, he said:
“Whatever I did was wrong, I think I paid for it. I went through a year of incredible hardships, and I think I paid for it.”
And speaking of his interview with Mr. Wallace, there was one part I didn’t get where Polanski said the following:
“If I tell you that we lived quietly, and had quiet evenings, and listened to the music, and that Sharon was a lovely cook, it will all seem like alabiay.” (not sure if that’s the correct word, Polanski’s thick accent is sometimes hard for me to understand)
Yet when he did an interview for Rolling Stone magazine in 1974, he said that he and Sharon did indeed have quiet evenings, and that she was a lovely cook, etc.
Was this his idea of making fun of the media or something?
Oh, and one more thing: What were Jacqueline Bisset’s thoughts on the Polanski situation and which side was she on? And what are her views on the situation today?
Novalis Lore
Posted March 13, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Vahan – these articles are always subject to ‘personal interpretation’ of things, i.e., the journalists’ ‘factual representations’. I have come across a UK report from a cheap tabloid in which an American guest editor had interviewed Geimer on Hawaii right after the Oscar Award for The Pianist. Unless you know it’s a sleazy sensationalist paper, you’d be bound to believe it, when in fact he literally took Kiernan’s own words and quotes of the events in place of what she really said, and I couldn’t believe the audacity.
But I saw the exact same interview (and most likely original) in a US mag which had quoted her factually – and was the exact opposite where she was happy for him to get the Oscar in 2003, and again said that he should be forgiven, and finally be allowed to come back to the US. I.e., see the case dropped or closed etc., with her petitions etc. – Polanski indeed thanked her and said it was very nice of her to say that, in regard to the award etc.
So, the whore part, I know of too, might just as well be someone’s own idea to ‘un-quote’ Polanski, since he sometimes was very upfront way back then and mellowed over time. But he’d be really dumb to call her that to garner any sympathy. Unless heard from his own lips, I haven’t, it can be discredited as another attempt to smear him. It depends on the reporter/paper etc., and in her case, she was quoted of having called him an old creep (in that UK paper), which she in fact never actually said. It’s all just fabrication in most part out to damage/slander people – and get readers to buy their lies, and papers.
As for the 1994 quote, I saw that interview, and I believe he said, ‘had’ a hard time, in regards to sleeping with such a young girl – since everyone around him did it. He just couldn’t get his head around the fact that even if she had consented, the law didn’t allow her too in the US – just because judging from his Euro roots where young teens were, or are allowed to. It was more a culture clash between them – not only laws and a teen not quite sure what to do, or not. She might have been overwhelmed by the demands of her mother and the entire sex at the end of the day, and just let it all happen. That’s why she later said that she wouldn’t consider it rape, since he wasn’t forceful, mean, etc. as she put it. But who knows really, since none of her words were ever impugned.
As for: “If I tell you that we lived quietly, and had quiet evenings, and listened to the music, and that Sharon was a lovely cook, it will all seem like alabiay.” That should say, ‘an alibi’ – Meaning, whatever he would tell people, it will always be seen as an alibi, empty excuse, not real remorse etc. – though he often enough apologised then and later and tried to explain his side, his mistake in regards to Geimer’s age etc. That’s why she later said, I think he knows it was wrong. It’s only that people never know of these rather amicable exchanges, and that they both honestly try to get this over with since ages now, no one is really interested in and the lawmakers are in a big muddle to sentence him, or not, ever since Rittenband messed it all up, or Espinoza had done so months back.
So, to repeat that Rolling Stone quote later wasn’t taking the mickey, just giving his thoughts of his short time together with Sharon as an example of trying to explain, that, no matter what he would say after 1978, people would simply misconstrue his words into something else – And, for many years in fact he couldn’t say anything to his defence, as soon as the case was under a lawsuit from 1988 to 1998 when they settled, and people concerned cannot comment on it anymore by law. And then he was becoming weary of apologising and/or explaining, since no one listened anyway, and simply didn’t react to any questions regarding, as in the very affable Charlie Rose interview from very recent.
As for Bisset’s – she was a long-term friend then, and police only took her statement in regards to while he was there with Geimer. As for being on his side, since she saw Geimer, she had said then that teens like her were very hip, and know exactly what they’re doing. Geimer obviously must have appeared rather confident to her then, while the caretaker believed them behaving like lovers, and Huston had thought her to be much older. So that would all reflect in fact Polanski’s own impression he had of her. As for Bisset’s views today, same problem, no one can discuss the case while being handled officially, which it is since years again on and off with each new judge messing with it some more, and of course Espinoza since his arrest.
Endgame
Posted March 13, 2010 at 12:42 AM
You have no idea how he could be charged today with his crime. He could today be charged with a separate rape every time he changed sexual positions and acts. On top of this he could be charged with creating child pornography, attempting lewd acts the time he met her and nothing happened, and the kiss itself is a felony lewd act now he gave her. Also even if he did not furnish drugs to her which most accounts to him having those at his house at least, he surely furnished alcohol and I dont even think he took the cahmpagne himself so thus his attempt started at this point and lewd convictions.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 14, 2010 at 9:04 AM
You obviously have no first clue how the law works, then or now, ‘Enforcer’ – I know it’s you – and furthermore didn’t read my blog property or you’d not bring this up. Let me enlighten you.
First of all, once a plea was given and accepted, all other dropped counts become subject to the ten-year statute of limitations, which expired two decades ago. Only if the plea is withdrawn by a judge are they back on the table for a retrial. This has not occurred nor is sought by the current prosecution, or they’d simply withdrawn his plea by now and the extradition is intending to seek sentencing his old plea. He was charged and pleaded guilty to one count, end of the legal story. Ergo, only the count of unlawful sex is still pursuable for being a fugitive from justice, since in the US such count has no statute, unlike in Switzerland e.g., where he could not be sentenced after that period anymore.
Furthermore, according to Californian law then and now, retroactive application of current statutes of limitations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution, and thus eliminates any possibility for prosecution of a crime committed before the implementation of the extended [ten year] statute. Or, if it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the Unites State Convention. Furthermore, article 11, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides, that no person may suffer any penalty heavier than what existed at the time of offence. It also adds that, if a lighter penalty is provided for after the offence occurs, that lighter penalty shall apply retroactively. Ergo, no laws of today can be applied to his plea sentencing, but that of the time or the lighter penalty of today, which was an undetermined sentence on probation – no further jail time.
While on the date of the incidence he could have looked at fifty years, March 1977, the penal code however changed on June 1st that year and California adopted a new set of sentencing laws that imposed determinate sentencing for particular offences. Although the new laws applied only for felonies committed after that date, it also had made changes to some committed before that date, for which Polanski had not been sentenced yet. Based on the change in this law, and because the incident occurred before that date, but had not been sentenced by June 1st, the maximum time he could be looking at today – on extradition and the prosecution demanding such penalty – for unlawful sex is two years maximum on probation. However, since no one told him of that change either, and he had pleaded to max twenty years, that too is a grave failure of informing the defendant of such drastic departure from sentencing rules, when he believed the max was twenty – not withstanding the other ‘omission’ that he could have looked at fifty had the Attorney General so demanded, of course no one wanted before he ever pleaded.
In addition, he cannot be charged with anything additionally today than what the original indictment counts were: the expired five counts and what he pleaded to – i.e., ‘child pornography’ is not applicable. Not even if the plea is withdrawn, since certain laws or violations of today didn’t pertain then or weren’t an offence and is unlawful to apply to any old case. The core of Polanski’s defense is that both the Court and DA’s office conspired to deny him his right to due process on several levels, which is simply criminal in itself. Apart from that, he didn’t furnish the champagne, since Geimer could have refused it once they found it in Nicholson’s fridge.
Razza
Posted March 14, 2010 at 1:54 AM
I strongly agree with your legal standpoints, Novalis, and Polanski’s arrest at this late date is both objectionable and more than arbitrary, while hardcore criminals are allowed to wander around. The bedrock of our legal system is a defendant’s right to due process, and when that process is highjacked to exploit it for personal ego games, we corrupt the very system and as a consequence assault the very principle of the U.S. Constitution.
I was also was under the impression our legal system took cases individually because each was different. Polanski no doubt was a much burdened man at that time, and some high degree of nihilistic self-destruction and more atypical behavior would be expected by then given his traumatic life experiences, especially for sensitive and highly intelligent men who are wide open to practice life to the max on all levels as he did, which the shrinks had spotted right away.
There is also the cultural difference in age of consent between where he was and where he came from. Apart from the fact that some 13 year-olds are still children, and some are far from it. Some 30 year-olds could behave like adolescents. Men today are classified as animals after an era of feminism gone out of hand, resulting in blanket condemning them as predators or pedophiles for even looking at a younger female. Such generalising misandry is an unacceptable starting point for any intelligent and objective debate.
Having said that, I’m very pleased to have found your all-encompassing analyses of the complex case not engaging in such BS, great job.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 14, 2010 at 9:14 AM
Thanks – I second your overall emotion, Razza.
MT
Posted March 14, 2010 at 2:54 AM
One thing is clear, and no matter how many ‘theories’ and details have been brought forwards, as long as there’s no trial to pick it all apart, we’ll never know exactly what happened between them. But I’d rather go with the non-forcible ordinary sex on a more self-indulgent level from his side, and for her later counterclaims that she wouldn’t call it rape not feeling like a victim. Up to her I’d say. Though I always wondered why she came out suddenly, what with the different ‘shadings’ of the events, gave her public forgiveness, and now she’s a victim of the state just as he had been from the start, with the courts unable to make sense of their messy legal legacy to close the case finally.
Nice bringing it all together, mate, gave me a lot more to think about than I expected, to puzzle together this more than complex case to a more completed picture. This case is obviously striking so much more attention in people rather than other cases from their own hood, unless directly affected. I can see where some commentators get into a fuddle wanting to push their own ‘cases’ needing a sounding board, since there are indeed many others no one knows of and are important issues.
But of course, they’re not universally ‘famous’ people like old Polanski they can attack and exploit for political reasons, despite being much worse cases worldwide, you’re right. They have to play self-righteous condemners in his case very vocally, jeering at his wife and even children by now, calling them his ‘latest victims’, while for their ‘US’ own ‘celebrities’ they express their sympathy to the affected families, or even those of hardcore offenders. His family, as Geimer’s, are victims only for the legal failings and renewed double standards this public morality play can force on them. Bigotry.
And to paraphrase Polanski himself: the extremities of American culture are all too obvious – it’s either total prudery, or total pornography. Once not even married couples were shown sleeping in the same bed, to full frontal nudity even in mainstream cinema, resulting in mental imbalance, sexual frustration, social disharmony, and most of all overreaction to what’s ‘normal’ nature these days, lying right in between the two.
No other western culture has this problem, resulting in the need to compensate with sexual aggression and political wars like no other country does. The States have more violent pedophiles, rapists and murderers than any other Euro zone in statistical comparison for their repression and extremes of upbringing. So what ‘Smiley’s Comfort’ has already brought up, is more than an evident trait of the American psyche and behaviour foremost. In that sense it’s also a culture clash, and the ensuing overemotional ‘outrage’, reaching into the political and farcical name calling.
Taking aside TV series or other films, you only need to look at their actual ‘star concept’ movies to reflect their inner ‘ethical mores’; all blood-soaked hardcore violence, mind-numbing ‘action heroes’ or CGI driven ‘SF’ with hardly any real ‘human’ elements left anymore. Or real acting. While Bollywood keeps it to singing and dancing melodramatics, Hong Kong cinema is foremost stunning martial arts and soppy love stories. The Japanese having evolved film through their own history, the Godzilla era to today’s popular Anime, European cinema is more intellectual and balanced between any genres. Polanski would be out of place in money-driven Hollywood anyway these days, with his ‘art housey’ and deeper, psychological thrillers that would only tax the US mind into ‘thinking’, making his films for arts sake not riches.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Thanks, MT – it is as you say, these are important issues and happen as we speak, but have no trophy value to any posh LA DAs, or the leering public who otherwise are ignorant to their own criminals around them, ‘feeling’ for THEIR families, but not his.
And true too, their films are a reflection of their so young and purists’ ‘Western’ history, resulting in extremes of ‘culture’, predilections for militant adventures, and obsession with guns resulting in a vicious cycle of violence, giving us ‘tough heroes’ with the highest body and bullet count. It’s lunacy.
Samskara
Posted March 15, 2010 at 7:50 AM
NL:
I just want to thank you publicly for the materials you sent my way. They’ve been a treasure trove. My eternal gratitude.
One question I have after reading through Geimer’s Grand Jury statement (since it’s not testimony because Dalton wasn’t given the chance to give a cross-examination), but she claimed that she was pretty drunk when she returned home from Nicholson’s place. What I’d like to know is, were there any toxicology tests taken on her at the time of her rape exam? That would tell if Polanski indeed did give her the Quaaludes and Champagne? In any rape kit, blood is always taken from the victim to test for STDs (at the time, now it’s to check for AIDS), but also to check the victim’s blood alcohol level. Also, is it known whether Geimer submitted to a breathalyzer blow test? If she was as drunk as she claimed, then why didn’t they perform the usual tests to find out how drunk she was? It would stand to reason that if the initial breathalyzer test showed alcohol, there would be reason to charge Polanski with providing alcohol to a minor. Yet, if memory serves, that charge was taken off the table. Why?
Samskara
Novalis Lore
Posted March 16, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Ahhh, now this is where it all went wrong from the very start anyhow, you see, Samskara – Guess what, NONE of that was done in any form, for whichever highly deplorable reasons.
I mentioned that in my blogs too, and what criminal oversight, and/or unprofessional and/or deliberate neglect that was, whichever. All it took in those days was a ‘victim’s’ allegations given before a grand jury to be added as indictment counts – that’s what trials are for to establish them as false or true by challenging them. But of course the case never went to trial, and her words to this day are therefore undeniably never impugned claims only and not fact – correct. All they did was take his fingerprints, and for whatever reason the cops and/or attorney’s and even judge didn’t request these vital tests, is failure of due course on a grand scale at a very early stage already by several parties. But wasn’t the only at any rate and they all got away with it too.
The rape kit exam was done within 4 hrs, and came back negative, but no other tests were conducted on her – Dr Larson wouldn’t take her blood anyhow, that would have been another department’s duty then they obviously failed to call on. I doubt in those days they had breathalyser testing done at any rate, not even on drivers – that’s all a more modern day course of action. It is very difficult in the first place to apply retrograde extrapolation since the breath alcohol concentration test result itself can vary between individuals consuming identical amounts of alcohol due to gender, weight, and genetic pre-disposition. And that with today’s more advanced techniques. In blood tests alcohol levels are still traceable within 24 hrs according to the amount ingested, and with many drugs too even for days, while others are only detectable within hours, though today other more advanced methods can still trace them otherwise over weeks or even months. Like in hair.
Quaaludes would have been easily traceable, but the tiny amount she took wouldn’t increase intoxication, only the sex drive and euphoria, or as whole pill relaxation, it has no influence on the alcohol level and many drugs lose effect or become contraindicative when taken with alcohol anyway, rather than increase effect. Alcohol is a suppressant, which makes it harder to get, yeah, hard, while Quaaludes is a relaxant (for what Polanski used them) or sexual stimulant depending on the amount, for which she had used it then, since he never said if he took some for needing to drive. So yeah, a blood test would have been the more appropriate and reliable course of action to probe/dis/prove any of their words – or even urine analysis, since alcohol and drugs can be traced in urine as well.
Besides, there were three people drinking from that one bottle: the caretaker who seems to have finished hers, Polanski who hardly touched his, and Geimer who apparently had his too. That makes hardly two thin flute glasses holding not much, and the average size bottle was still half full. According to some sources the caretaker had poured their glasses, while Polanski said he did, in his bio. But either way, she had told Polanski she liked champagne, and that’s why they went for that rather than anything else. While at the house of Bisset’s just prior she had refused an offer of wine, once at the Nicholson house she said she was ‘thirsty’. That’s why the count of furnishing alcohol was still in the books, since he had said they had something to drink. All they needed was to find out how much of it was his fault, and even with both their rather inadequate statements already, it was clear that he hadn’t ‘provided’ the alcohol, (or drugs) since they found it in Nicholson’s fridge (or bathroom) and someone else too could have told her not to have some. Geimer could have refused the [Q or] champagne at any rate and used it only for posing, asked for something else to drink. If you’re ‘thirsty’, you go for juices or water, not alcohol which dehydrates you even more.
Besides, according to her very own testimony she had some food in the kitchen during the shoot there, with the intention to counteract the alcohol effect, and some sugar cubes she nibbled on for the pictures as Polanski put it in his bio – so in that case it’s even less likely she was ‘pretty drunk’, since all food absorbs alcohol reducing intoxication. Besides, Huston didn’t take her as inebriated or drugged once introduced during her phone call, but ‘sullen’, and if we take that literally would mean gruff, that’s why she said she found that/her rude. But for whatever reason Geimer was impolite to her is a mystery, and neither Polanski nor in fact her own mother thought her drunk once Geimer rushed into another room at home to tell her about the asthma lie, or she’d said so during her grand jury testimony. She rather tried to make it sound that her daughter was ‘afraid of him’, ‘didn’t like him’, (while on the phone to her during the shoot) not drunk, ‘maneuvering’ her daughter’s words towards that dubious ‘fear’ factor and the prosecutor struck from the record as unfounded information.
The charge of furnishing alcohol was taken off the table since you can plea to only one count, and all other counts are automatically dropped in addition – which is usually the highest punishable, or the one most likely having taken place, so to say he pleaded to the ‘lesser’ count of unlawful sex is incorrect, since any other count would had given him less time, rather than the 1-20, or of course 50 yrs if the prosecution had wanted it, he didn’t know of could be applicable and no one ‘advised’ him of. But as I said to ‘Enforcer’/EndGame, the law had changed during the ten months of proceedings, and the max it would have given him was 2 yrs inside or on probation applicable to this day, according to the plea arrangement, no one told him of either, and prosecutor Gunson didn’t seek any further jail time at any rate. They had no case after the family’s expressed refusal to have a trial to allow for cross-examination and five months deliberation, and he pleaded to that one count ready to face the sentence after this release from Chino.
Had he known of the 50 yrs looming, he’d demanded a trial, thinking himself innocent of the dropped charges, and even at that stage had a good chance to be found innocent of them by an unbiased jury, at the mere findings so far. But then he was forced into the plea on several levels for a number of these family/procedural/legal reasons, I had also addressed, and was basically messed with from the very start, and the law enforcement’s shady ‘panties evidence’ dealings on the side. That’s why he ultimately fled, in the face of such procedural/legal failings and/or biased/incompetent actions, Rittenband’s growingly ostentatious and racist antics later, and mainly the unlawful threat of self-deportation not Rittenband’s call. If even Gunson said only two yrs back, he’d fled too, that alone proves that they all failed him, and a very unprofessional counsel in Dalton’s case all under the thumb of Rittenband, who wasn’t acting out of a sense of justice, he was trying to regain the esteem of the jury of his peers, the only ones who counted to him — his equally racist buddies at the Hillcrest Country Club.
That’s why they cannot close the case still today, no matter how many times Geimer pleaded to drop it, since they’d needed to in fact resolve all this shite they had left judge Espinoza with or they’d just close a case of gross misconduct. That’s why he couldn’t absentia sentence him either no matter his repeat nonsense that he has to be present to be sentenced. It’s all BS, since they’d be forced to tackle all that once done so, they sure as hell want to give a miss no matter what the say, and Cooley of course studiously has avoided to this day despite the courts in fact having instructed him to, once they discovered all these ‘shocking judicial failures’. The case has become so corrupted by now over the decades far beyond any remedy, that they cannot move back nor forth, trying to make us believe they seek his extradition in the name of serving and preserving justice, which had failed him now multiple times for human incompetence and/or [deliberate] obstructions.
It’s a farcical catch 22 case by now, with Polanski trapped within these old legal mess-ups and current stalemate status quo, and the more astute Swiss unwilling to deliver an old man into their amateurish hands that cannot even prove what his actual sentence had been, and today’s laws cannot be applied unless the same. They opened a very old can of very nasty worms for public amusement and personal gain they cannot get rid of anymore ‘legally’, with Cooley’s idiotic interference having worsened it immensely I’m sure he forever will regret. And I hope will NOT be reelected because of that.
How did reporter Brenneman put it last year again who was right there: “The director fled not to accept the punishment that had been approved by prosecution, defense, the judge and her family. He fled because an ego-obsessed judge had jumped the rails, reneged on the plea bargain after Polanski had already spent the approved amount of days in a state prison cell. Despite the media furor now underway, I can state without equivocation that Roman Polanski has been the victim of a deplorable case of judicial corruption.”
Correct.
Lewis
Posted March 18, 2010 at 1:31 AM
Now I finally know how she ended up in that “T.V. room”! Of course, if she wanted to rest because she felt too hot after the Jacuzzi dip photo sessions, he brought her there after she didn’t take that pool dip–which she never told the Grand Jury, but instead invented this “asthma” and “fear” baloney when he never was with her in Jacuzzi either! Ahhhhh..…I get it. This makes at last sense now, even if she had swum that one cooler pool lap.
I always wondered how he “made” her do things, go around the house–she asked for a place to lie down and they obviously couldn’t use Jack’s bedroom or lie down in the bathroom or kitchen, lounge whatever! Aye yes, I got it. All this, “I said, ‘no, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’” never made no sense to me anyhow, or he’d needed to “force” her somehow to get there, push her through the place, right–but she never said that he had, rough handled her or whatever. That part was always the biggest head-scratcher for me since I read that, man. Of course, she went there willingly to rest with the photos done and then they had casual sex before Anjelica returned.
What I also found most curious was the fact that she never said “why” she was “afraid” of him–and stupidly no one asked her that either–what did he “do” that made her afraid? To say she “felt” it was “scary” doesn’t mean anything, and no one asked other more specific questions to explain anything really either. None of this rings true, and the whole Grand Jury thing don’t mean nothing to me not being irrefutable evidence anyway. Gunson sure as hell didn’t probe enough.
Like, what “exactly” did he do–placed his mouth on her vagina–and then what? Just left it there? For a few minutes? Sorry? “Cuddliness” requires certain actions she didn’t describe either. How did he open her labia? With his fingers, tongue? Did he use his tongue–“only”–when he performed cunnilingus? How did he it use it? Inside, outside? How did it feel? Did it hurt when he entered her vaginally? No. Did it hurt when he penetrated her anally–twice? No.
Well I’m sorry, but it should have–if someone “freezes”, is really “unwilling”, they clench up, make it even more painful and injurious. Anal sex in general is more painful than not as it is and alcohol definitely dries you up even more to have comfortable vaginal sex. Unless extra water-based lube is used only natural vaginal fluids enable painless intercourse after sufficient stimulation, or lots of saliva, let alone anal sex which definitely requires lots of lube. But there was no saliva found inside in her, or lube, and she didn’t say he soaked her either. He would have torn her not only on entry, if he ever had gotten it inside for the dry friction in the first place, but repeat strokes of the actual intercourse action and not just leave it in there. Even is she just “let him get on with it” as she claimed later, she’d screamed in agony from start to finish resulting in rectal bleeding, I tell ya.
Quaalude doesn’t relax vaginal walls or anal sphincters to allow painless sex, unlike other drugs like amyl nitrate people use specifically for anal sex. He’d needed to prise open her legs or cheeks without that. But, no marks on her or genital tearing, and I never heard her say he hurt her or to have felt any pain as it would. I don’t believe in that being drunk and drugged and most of all double sodomy either–purely from a scientific or medical standpoint, logical sequence of events–and the oral sex cannot be proven either.
Sorry this got a bit graphic, but a “rape” case needs scrutinising on exactly that level–from any gynaecological angle possible. I used to take Quaalude back then, and amyl, and lots of lubes, so I know what I’m talking about. You touched on that several times with clarity and breakdown of events like a police report really, excellent job.
A scrupulous cross-examination most certainly would have unravelled her unlikely sodomy and “apprehension” yarn had Dalton had a proper chance to “psyche” her out. And her complicit mother. Stupid plea bargain. It’s all a big mess from start to finish, let alone the completely compromised juristic side of things bully Rittenband orchestrated, and Polanski paid for it big time. All for stupid sex with a stupid young girl. But he learned his lesson decades ago and the entirely corrupted case should be dismissed on legal grounds alone. Just as they both bloody well deserve it.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 18, 2010 at 9:54 AM
You’re correct, Lewis, it needs to be viewed this rather intimate way, or all these justified ‘doubts’ cannot be answered more logically and/or scientifically. Your brief analysis and résumé of the case hit it right on the nail.
Samskara
Posted March 18, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Lewis:
I completely agree with everything you said here. And I think the thing that really gets me is that she said “he put his mouth on my vagina”. It’s impossible to put one’s mouth on a vagina. The vagina is up inside the female genitalia. Unless using fingers, penis, Q-Tip, dildo, anything, you have to go up inside and past the outer and inner labia. To simply say he ‘put his mouth on my vagina’ is either stupid, or not even having an understanding of one’s own genitals. Given Geimer ‘testified’ in her Grand Jury testimony she’d had sex twice before that event, she’d know what is what on her body. Reading through the Grand Jury Testimony, I picked up on some things that really hit me. She seemed to be really knowledgeable beyond the normal ‘prepping’ prosecutors do in such cases, on what things were. Yet, she came off as really stupid when it came to the ‘cuddliness’ issue. I think that was her ‘acting’ as she said she liked doing. Hence her statement, “I wanted to be like my mother.” Like mother like daughter alright.
Lewis
Posted March 18, 2010 at 2:31 PM
Samskara –
Why else do you think her boyfriend said: “She’s always acting,” and didn’t even believe her words of, “Polanski had sex with me”? Her mother said she’s very precocious, meaning “bright”, yet came across as really “naïve” and “scared” to give us the impression of a helpless teen, while Polanski and the rest didn’t think so. I doubt they all got it wrong; Helena thought they behaved like lovers and Huston thought her crotchety let alone scared.
Didn’t another commentator on here say Geimer might have been a better actor than Polanski, and that she was probably pissed off that they had to leave, since Huston wasn’t too happy with them being there? Geimer today surely doesn’t appear as dumb as that, and after all her more than curious “recall gaps” and sudden declarations of “it wasn’t rape” is ever so keen on getting this thing closed.
Ha, if only they could–not only for her undeniably never challenged allegations for one, but all these Rittenbandian–(hey, I like that word, sounds like bandit 
–and subsequently added legal transgressions a more than serious litigation process would require in this case they’d needed to initiate, once they’d sentenced him. I live in LA and know what’s going on. I’m so glad the Swiss didn’t fall for their bloody lies. Many people in Europe think we Americans want his head, not so, many know he’s a political forfeit by now, holed up in his Milky Way home. It’s a damned disgrace purely from the legal perspective. We have no real justice here.
That’s why Espinoza didn’t absentia sentence him, he couldn’t, and douchebag DA Cooley as they call him, yeah, has been warned by the Appeals Court several times now to see to the misconduct allegations. But does he? No, he couldn’t care less and that pathetic DA Walgren name-caller without any legal ethics is even worse. Many have already stated the case is messed up from start to finish and Novalis has compressed that into headshaking reality. Polanski sure as hell never had any chance of fairness from day one. I was there.
Everyone told Polanski then that she hasn’t got a chance in hell once on the stand; Dalton was very astute and would have cracked her, but of course, bandit, yeah, let’s call him that, Rittenband had his own show game to act out and unfortunately they forced “the little Pollack” into this plea bargain which it sure as hell wasn’t. I have read loads of stuff by now about her and him, followed their interviews, blogs and whatnot over the years, and NO one has come even close to what Novalis has unearthed here on every level. Or want to anyhow, but rather revel in their ugly lynch mob sentiments and or criminal ignorance. Pathetic.
Having said that, I watched The Ghost Writer, and all I can say is–it’s a must-see polit thriller and one of Polanski’s best works to date. All the glowing reviews got it right.
Samskara
Posted March 19, 2010 at 9:57 AM
NL:
Well, well, well, the wonders of it all. MORE misconduct than we already knew about? This is shaping up to be the lollapalooza of all illegalities. One prosecutor (Gunson) coming clean to hopefully wipe out another’s (Cooley’s) chances of re-election! Amazing.
I’m going to use this juncture to tell you about a dream I had sometime around the early 80s. I know, “Dream! Come on there Samskara!” Well, here is the essence of it. In the dream, I was able to got to California where I sought out Geimer. I was able to find her and had a ‘sit-down’ with her. In the dream, I told her about my rape and what mine did to me. I asked her how she recovered from her ‘trying’ ordeal and this is what she told me in the dream. She told me that she had in fact, lied on the stand. In the dream, she told me that it was a plan right from the get go to try to get money out of him or a career. She said that when both failed, the rape allegation was the only thing they could go with because of the knowledge of Polanski’s infidelities during the Tate/Polanski marriage.
That dream coupled with what I already had known about Roman after finding out about Sharon’s untimely death in 1976 in light of reading Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” and seeing the 1976 movie based on the book. I knew in my heart of hearts that Roman was totally incapable of doing this. His history in Poland and the murder of Sharon and their friends and Steve Parent made this incident implausible from my standpoint. This man is a survivor, not a perpetrator. Given all he’s been through in his life, he cannot ever be called a criminal. He’s seen the injustices done to himself and others around him. His behaviour does not denote, as his psyche report corroborated, someone who could commit a crime like it was alleged he’d done to Geimer. Couple that with the lack of evidence of either anal or vaginal rape and you’ve got here the rarest of all breeds, an innocent man.
I just needed to say that. Thanks NL.
Samskara
Posted March 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM
Lewis:
That comment by her and the boyfriend always struck me as odd. Every single time I see her on the television, I know I’m looking at the most incredible of all audition tapes. I’m looking at a woman who could convince the masses she’d been raped despite all the evidence stating the opposite. She’s a real Aimee McPherson Semple. When I read her later comments about being ‘scared’ or ‘afraid’ it never comported with the stuff she’d been saying then or now about her not caring about Polanski. She’s very flippant about all that stuff really. No victim of rape can be flippant about what happened to them.
There was a case of a man named Paul Robinson in California (link here:
of several women who were raped by the same man. I won’t go into the ins and outs of the case the link I provided spells it all out. But all of Robinson’s victims have all stated they’ve felt murdered in a way. That what he did to them constitutes a murder of the soul and who they were before this was done to them. I saw this on A&E’s Investigative Reports with Bill Kurtis. I thought to myself about how I felt after mine and what they stated is the truth of how one feels after that kind of violation is done to them. Geimer’s flippancy just flies in the face of all you are as a survivor. One just does not simply say “judge the man on his merits and not for what he did to me.” It’s just not done.
For me it all has to do with her telling the truth. What’s she got to lose now? If she came out and outright told the truth, she’d have the nation at her feet. The United States loves to forgive and ultimately forget. However, Polanski wouldn’t fare too well here. He hasn’t despite that her testimony is constantly being given as the sole proof of the rape. The Smoking Gun has done a lot of injury to Polanski and not once, have they offered anything but her side. Yet the proof is in the Grand Jury testimony given by Dr. Larson who examined Geimer at the hospital. He found no evidence of vaginal, anal or any other kind of rape. He found no fluids, nothing. Tumas, the police tech who examined the panties, found a small amount of what he said tested positive for sperm, but no blood typing was done to match it to Polanski. It’s all been conjecture on the mob’s part to convict Polanski without first investigating the facts. And you’re right, Novalis’ work here should serve as the trier of fact. If all Novalis has collected here should be presented as the State’s case, Polanski would have been found not only innocent, but innocent beyond the shadow of doubt. Because after reading this and what I’ve presented on my blog (http://samskara.org/journal), if one STILL believes Roman Polanski to be guilty, then I just have no words.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 19, 2010 at 6:22 PM
I concur with your last paragraph, Samskara. And yeah, ain’t that just dandy – more misconduct revelations – committed by Gunson of all people, or rather was obstructed to act on his misgivings, no wonder he later teamed up with Dalton to get rid of Rittenband in a joint effort. But far far too late, and I always said they both have failed Polanski miserably from day one, next to all the other ‘circumstantial failures’, like conducting these vital tests. That he waited three decades to tell us about his misgivings already then is unbelievable, and that’s why he said in that documentary he’d fled the same. He as a Mormon of all should have been more honest really. But yeah, if that’s true, and I bloody well believe it is, it could well topple arrogant Cooley off his post – as it should.
Schwarzenegger should intervene at this point to force an investigation, he has the power to do so and said already last year that if there’s allegation of misconduct, it should be taken seriously, but no one has. He could relieve crooked DAs like Cooley of their duty, or useless judges like Espinoza who deliberately failed to follow recommendations in the appellate ruling last December. Nothing new there.
As for your dream, it rings true enough, they had an agreement for her to get into the modeling/movie biz through that shoot at any rate, and rumours of blackmail of other older men had been rife before he arrived too. If true or not is for them to know. Don’t forget, she had TV appearances under her belt already, and the mother was a bit-part actress, and the first thing she asked Polanski when he was at their home was to give him the contact of a better agent. Which he did, his own agent, who oddly enough was the same guy who later married Kinski after Polanski had asked him to further her in the States. He did more than that.
Everyone knew of Polanski’s ‘infidelities’, which weren’t so much that since he never made any secret of it, so to exploit that was more than logical and many did or tried. Both he and Sharon had an understanding about that, like with all his other lovers who accepted his swinging, were swingers themselves as it was ‘fashionable’ in those days even Rittenband confessed to, till Polanski found Emmanuelle and finally settled down.
That’s why I always said to sue someone ten years later is more than suspect, when Geimer’s mother could have done so the moment he fled. It was ‘awarded’, or rather taken, on none of the actual indictment counts since they were dropped bar one, but charges they didn’t even bring forth at the grand jury hearing which in effect couldn’t be proven either, since for one the original counts were never tried, and was the only way to get money out of him by tweaking the specifics. Like, for her having apparently said she wanted to go home and he refused her, he of course denied and she could just have left at any rate, and so they turned that into ‘false imprisonment’. The cheek is amazing.
And as I said, where the count of ‘battery’ stems from is beyond me, which connotes violence that was never proven or even brought forward by her at the time of her testifying, and no such counts were ever part of the original indictment or therefore proven. And then of all things she comes out two decades later and says, “The word ‘rape’ for me always brings to mind a level of violence that wasn’t there.” Rape, violence, she later said never happened, but before that sued him over exactly these even lesser challenged claims he couldn’t contend.
That was all a major reason why it took ten years to conclude the suit, since he was unwilling to pay her for something he never did let alone any ‘new claims’. The different judges residing over it didn’t agree with her accounts anyway simply for never having been tried and found fact, let alone these new claims suddenly after ten yrs she never had brought up then with different lawyers handling it, so they simply took his money from his film refunds of value-added tax instead of turning them over to the completion guarantors who financed his Ninth Gate film back then, depositing it into a private account: hers. I doubt I need to elaborate on the morality of any of that. So to say, “judge the man on his merits and not for what he did to me,” might sound forgiving, or in fact that he did ‘something’ to her, when nothing she alleged had ever been tried to be fact. It’s nothing more than the typical US mind in action to sue everything and everyone over whatever possible for extortionate amounts of $.
The McPherson example is a good one, but as long as the case isn’t dismissed on these mounting legal misconduct grounds, she still could be done for perjury if she gives us even more inconsistent recollections now people unfortunately on the whole aren’t aware of. Reading the same headlines and shit ranging from he pleaded to statutory rape to listing down all the indictment counts again and again they simply take for fact, only seeing that he fled ‘sentencing’, only when it’s closed she can finally come clean. Like Gunson now retired to expose these disgraceful transgressions. But of course, she wants it dropped not tried, which the DAs want to do in contrast, and which in turn finds her in jeopardy of testifying and being cross-examined finally if they succeed. But as far as it looks with all the old and new misconducts it’ll probably have to be dismissed or Polanski sentenced in absentia and they have to clean up all the mess, which none of them want to do either, and it’ll never happen either way.
It IS a catch-22 case not only legally by now: “There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. ‘Orr’ was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to.” Polanski fled in the face of such abstract lunacy when Rittenband threatened him with deportation – or self-deport, which he didn’t want to and was unlawful either way.
I argued myself in-depth too that Polanski is a shining example of perpetual survival, not a bloody perpetrator. He had enough girls to call on for sex, and he’s seen what real rape and brutality does to people during the war and ghetto years alone, and especially to Sharon later, he could never do it to anyone himself. And to this day none of it was ever proven that he had, after the mistake of the plea bargain already which could have been avoided altogether had Gunson had the guts to tell Dalton, and they’d gone not only to trial to blow apart her allegations, but with a more professional judge like Breckenridge who put the case on ice instead of investigating these claims. As I said, Polanski was messed over from day one on several levels – purely for who he was. Of course no one would ever think he’s innocent until proven guilty, it just wouldn’t fit into their warped ideas about him.
I read somewhere today, that he’s ‘tainted by brilliance’, and that all he does is tainted. Well, for one brilliance is surely not tainting, and nothing he ever did is tainted or it in fact wouldn’t be brilliant, but circumstances and people tainted HIM – from his war torn childhood and harsh ghetto years to Tate’s brutal loss and vile public demonisation and the still never proven rape allegations and only further public haranguing. As you said, as I said and many others said, in his case he’s guilty until proven innocent not the other way round, just because he pleaded to one count and still believe the others fact, too stupid to realise that no grand jury testimony is fact until a trial says so. I’m sure they’d love it to be seen like that in their own case, or irrefutable hard evidence given credence in fact saying he’s innocent of most counts already.
Of course, today’s DNA testing would once and for all determine if the semen stain in ‘her’ underwear is really his, which I highly doubt anyway, purely for reasons of both saying that he didn’t ejaculate inside her, but as she put it all over her back. But there were no traces of semen found on her or her other clothes either, and she left her underwear by the Jacuzzi and didn’t wear it in the TV room to get stained, so for her to say he took it off – twice – to sodomise her, twice – could never be proven by the medical report alone. Besides, she gave the underwear to the cops hours after the events; no court today would accept such corrupted evidence. In fact, the medical evidence is on Smoking Gun too for all to see but ignore it, as part of Dalton’s plea argument.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman11.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1203081roman12.html
The underwear would have been needed to be taken off her right afterwards, not hours later. But it of course could still establish whose DNA it is, and as I said, since Polanski is not of American descent, the likelihood that his DNA matches anyone there, is zero, since there are ca. 60 possible people in the entire US population having identical DNA matches between them. Otherwise his 13-loci DNA profile has essentially no chance of its being duplicated in the US population except in the case of genetically identical siblings. He’s French born of maternal Russian and paternal Polish descent.
Of course it’s all about the truth and justice, but with the unending legal troubles generated 33 yrs ago, and the one-sided and repetitively imbecile comments of: Polanski=drugged/raped/sodomised/fled full stop, no one is interested in the facts – just as Polanski had said in his autobiography near three decades back. Everyone prefers a warped caricature of someone rather than the real thing. Except us.
Vahan
Posted March 19, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Novalis, what TV appearances did Samantha do before she met Polanski? I couldn’t find anything on IMDB on her TV appearances prior to that event. The only thing I know is that her mother Susan had done an episode of “Starsky and Hutch” (1975), an episode of “Police Woman” (1976), and two episodes of “L.A. Law” in the early 1990’s. She also had done TV commercials for Ourisman Chevrolet automobile dealerships in the Washington DC area.
And is Polanski’s agent who later married Nastassja Kinski Egyptian filmmaker Ibrahim Moussa? I couldn’t find anything online about him being Polanski’s agent.
A while back, I watched part of “Wanted and Desired”, and one thing that I found fascinating was when they showed Samantha’s school I.D. During the 1976-1977 school year she was a 9th grader (she was at Hughes Jr. High School). As someone who’s lived in the Los Angeles area for almost all of his lifetime, and has obviously been in the 9th grade, I can tell you that most 9th graders are 14-15 years old. And unlike Samantha, I was a 9th grader during my first year at Hoover High School. So why did Samantha claim to be 13, if that’s actually true? (Unless of course she somehow skipped a grade) It is also worth noting that sometimes Junior High Schools (Or Middle Schools) here in the U.S. are 5-8, 7-8 (the configuration for my Middle School), 6-8, 4-6, and 7-9 (the most-likely configuration for Samantha’s).
And one thing that has recently been brought to my attention about Polanski’s autobiography was when in the New York Time’s Review for “The Ghost Writer”, they said the following: “It’s also tempting to observe that Mr. Polanski used a ghostwriter (the journalist Edward Behr) for his 1984 autobiography, “Roman by Polanski.” I’m not sure what they meant by that because the book sounds like Polanski’s own words.
And finally, I just wanna say that the newly revealed misconducts really add a lot of twists and turns to this case more than I ever imagined. Like you said, Cooley could very well be toppled soon, and this case will be over before we know it.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 19, 2010 at 1:51 PM
Vahan – I hope Cooley will lose his lying face soon, he’s got enough egg on it already the Swiss judges most certainly have put there for one too after blocking him and his more than unsound extradition request – he’s a disgrace to any country’s court. But even if the case were dismissed, the main problem is that people will still believe he is guilty of the dropped counts too – unable to realise that they to this day are still mere allegations not fact. And after what I found out, I only believe in the one count he pleaded to and am happy that it wasn’t rape/sodomy per medical evidence and her own later statements I give more credit. The morality of their [unlawful] act is not down to me but the times I shared with him – we all did it – and people still do it today but more covertly. The UK laws are more flexible to establish if there was rape involved or not – and cannot proceed without the minor’s consent, unless a parent pushes for a trial in even a consensual but unlawful sex with a minor case. But I doubt that – there’s no point in destroying the lives of two families over sex and costs the tax payer pointless money. The US set a very bad example in that matter to pursue such cases regardless. So in that sense, the once so called ‘oh no sex please we’re British’ joke is a joke, while in the US [courts] sex is being punished without any sense.
A ghostwriter is someone who literally writes someone’s memoirs for them who’s either not very good with writing per se, or the [foreign] grammar etc., usually taken from audio tapes. So they ARE Polanski’s words, except put into a proper narration and/or more appealing style they agreed on or even based it on someone else’s bio they liked as a template. Ghostwriters sometimes have to think as that person and of course go by what they told them. It’s like acting out another character through their words only and many journalists are very good as ‘book’ writers with easy-on-the-eye syntax and so forth. But it wasn’t Behr only who had put it all together, he had two more helpers to polish it all up.
There’s no way anyone can skip a grade, but I heard others say she was a 7th grader depending on the source, and then again as you might have seen in the comments, that she in fact could have been 15 at that time and most in fact say she was a 9th grader. But if they both are in the same bracket, it might still be correct either way. But to prove her age one would need to pull her personal birth records from the Public Record Office – which anyone can either visit or access online, but unfortunately requires paying quite a lot to even look at them. But as Samskara has said before after she had searched some ancestry site, she might have been born on Jan 9th 1962 – and not March 31st 1963. I’m not sure how diligent the courts in fact were to establish anyone’s real age – by passport, birth certificate or accessing public records etc., or even the school records which might be easier today and to access the yearbooks. And to be honest, those who met her in the flesh like Huston or the caretaker all said she looked much older, was already taller than Polanski then, and behaved very maturely. Pictures can be more deceiving than not when even seeing people face to face cannot always establish anyone’s right age. So her ‘real’ age in fact is another mystery. Or her rather ‘childish’ testimony wording.
As for her TV ‘appearances’, that’s the TV commercials I meant, since her mother did quite a few car commercials – maybe I shouldn’t have said appearances but TV ‘ads’. As for her mother, that’s the only two things she had done, yeah – despite the fact that Polanski gave her Moussa’s address as an agent – but he didn’t think her talented enough to represent and rejected her. Which might have been another factor of t/heir growing antipathy and then they left LA anyway. And yes, it was Kinski’s future husband who obviously was bowled over by her in contrast, and Polanski had offered her to him to take her under his wings, and bedcovers later when they both had separated after Tess. So she liked older men in general too. Polanski made her go to Lee Strasberg to coach her to become perfect in English for his film with her and then they both parted.
His actual agent was Sue Mengers who had just taken him on then in fact, but he sent promising faces to Moussa rather than her. Agents have a certain flock of actors and specialise in a field, like only TV comedians, or movie action stars etc. or are only supplying a certain studio with their clients. She dropped him as soon as he was arrested and the film she had organised for him along with the studios, not wanting a [foreign] ‘rapist’ in their midst, when they wouldn’t have dropped their own like that. But she later changed her tune and wrote to him in prison after she got him another film contract during the proceeding to start on The Hurricane for another studio, which he ultimately lost too unable to finish it within the time of proceedings before he left the States. Which almost happened to his last film too, I’m sure Cooley had loved to happen, he however could finish in the remand prison and later at home unlike most directors would have done it. He’s not mentioned in Menger’s Wiki page as one of her former clients either, but then again the only two assignments they had failed anyway. No idea if they kept in contact after he had fled – most probably not.
Lewis
Posted March 21, 2010 at 1:51 AM
Samskara -
I read your own blog, and you have done your own good work in regards to Polanski’s case, and as a rape survivor is very insightful and telling and I can fully agree with your last comment paragraph on here.
Well I’ll be damned, more judicial shit flying. No surprise at all, that’s for sure. But Gunson? What a coward that it took him three decades to tell Dalton. I took him for a more decent guy than that in the documentary, where he said he’d fled too. Obviously, if he couldn’t even get his very own dismissal petition through back then! What disgusting bastard colleagues he had to deal with, apart from that slimy Wells already, and now another one wanted to get this hands on the case! Wells in fact accompanied that crooked Vannatter when they arrested Polanski.
Had Gunson told Dalton then already, all this could have been damned well avoided, including his plea and flight, that’s for sure. But better late than never and all help is needed to fix this deeply corrupted case.
I’m only in wonder how much longer people can in fact sustain their brain-dead belief in something that never saw a trial to back it up, but of course in Polanski’s case they can make a gracious exception. I detest such prejudiced thinking, it’s unethical.
BigBadWolf
Posted March 22, 2010 at 10:30 AM
So, basically this punk ass judge forcing the old dude director into ‘exile’ after he had faced more abuse of his powers over the coming months before Polanski finally showed the crooked law the finger, and then faced further ugly media and public harassment rising to the level of a blind witch hunt today, was for f*** all? All his suffering before and ever since? Wow that stinks to high heaven, had Gunson told of his brave effort and ugly colleagues’ refusal all that definitely could have been avoided outright, what disgusting losers. I wonder ‘why’ exactly he tried to remove Rittenband long before he did so with Dalton, or if he told Silver, though, or her and her mother. It’s oddly quiet in their camp to be frank, after she usually jumped to Polanski’s ‘defence’ right after some new development, like the absentia request she supported. But now? Where is she? Where’s her support to have all this newly exposed mess investigated? I bet they both knew. It’s criminal beyond belief what they did to him as it is, what with you have uncovered and collected on evidence already, but where’s her outrage about this new development? It affected her too, after she even said in that documentary that they didn’t care about what happened to her or Polanski. That sounds pretty much as if she knew about Gunson’s attempt to get rid of old Rittenband before Polanski pleaded to that one count on mommy’s behest, and then was sent down against all recommendations. No wonder Polanski had enough after that. I’d buggered off too I tell you! Especially if I hadn’t done most of what she had accused him of, only to give us decades later this ‘it wasn’t rape’ blah blah blah.
Free Polanski now you LA bastards! Or rather the ‘subservient’ Swiss… so much for justice. NONE!
Novalis Lore
Posted March 22, 2010 at 4:12 PM
That’s about the short of it, BigBadWolf – and you’re right, it IS very quite in her camp. Why is open to speculation, but before the appeals have run out by the end of March to give us more details, all we can do is wait anyhow. How did Vahan say, after he already said had they removed Rittenband long before they finally had and Dalton could have helped Polanski better, ‘that the newly revealed misconducts really add a lot of twists and turns to this case more than I ever imagined’. Correct. Reporter Brenneman was right; Polanski was and still is even more today the victim of deplorable injustice.
It’s getting interesting now – and Cooley looks more and more the idiot each month. Or that name-caller Walgren. Good. Maybe they really should have a proper trial, but it will be virtually impossible to get unbiased jurors in. But I bet you, as soon as Espinoza would withdraw his plea to force a trial, she’d come clean to avoid that and they’d needed to dismiss the case altogether, which she has asked for several times now anyhow. I’m sure another handy plea bargain can be arranged for them all to avoid perjury charges. And then they all got away with it too. So much for justice indeed.
PedoKiller
Posted March 23, 2010 at 4:17 AM
When did her mother ever say she’s very promiscuous and when does promiscuous mean bright? In what culture or definition?
Novalis Lore
Posted March 23, 2010 at 5:12 AM
Well, ‘PedoKiller/EndGame/Enforcer/screen/gdsf’, let me answer that – As long as you’re too dense to actually read comments properly, I’d say you’re banned from now on. You’ve spammed me long enough. Lewis said ‘precocious’, not promiscuous. Bye.
Lewis
Posted March 23, 2010 at 5:23 AM
I’d say that was very “dense”. Only shows how ingrained certain words are to certain people, reading what’s not even there. Bye “spammy”.
Anyway, but hello? She WAS 15 after all? Now that figures, and voila, one count of [double] sodomy gone in a jiffy! I in fact did a records search myself after reading that, it’s unbelievable. And yes, I too found several showing her age as being 48 right now. What a lying little whatsit. And the rest of them. Mommy dearest most of all. Disgraceful. I wonder why no one ever noticed that. Let’s see what comes up next, after Gunson messed up big time already. The case needs to be dismissed for several reasons since ages now, as simple as that. Oi, Cooley, take a hike, douchebag! And Espinoza, pull out your finger and close the damned case alright! And Swiss dudes, let the old man go! You disgusting underlings of the US of bloody A[-holes]! I live here, so I may say that.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 23, 2010 at 5:57 AM
Right you are, Lewis. It’s so easy to find people out at one point – good old Internet. I’m sure she never thought the case to resurface the way it had on and off. Or her old Grand Jury testimony and inconsistent interviews. Every little critical detail possible is right there to be compared, scrutinised, analysed, disproved. That’s why she was so adamant to see the case dismissed every time he came too close to be arrested and have a possible trial for her to testify finally. Now she’s very quiet suddenly after Gunson came clean – I wonder why.
DeMoy
Posted March 23, 2010 at 10:38 PM
I did my own people searches, five different ones, and they all came up with the same. That she’s either 47 or 48, according to the day/month reading. I’d say she was born Jan 9, 1962, not Sept 1, 1962, since the majority comes up as 9.1.62, not 1.9.62. And don’t tell me she never knew her real age. Or her conniving mother and family. That the courts accepted a birth certificate ‘copy’ is criminal.
So you were right, she was fifteen at that time – and a bloody liar after having lied about the rape and sodomy already. Disgusting. No wonder she later declared, ‘I wouldn’t call it rape’, ‘he wasn’t forceful or mean’. Right – the only meanies were her and her complicit lot. Polanski obviously never knew about that, to this day, and it’s vital that someone tells him – to get this case dismissed on more than these misconduct allegations, but perjury charges. Maybe you should tell him, Novalis. Or I will. I can find Hummel’s or Dalton’s contact addresses online just as easily. This is too serious not to be pursued.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 23, 2010 at 10:59 PM
You’re right, it is much too serious, and we’re already in the course of contacting Hummel. So he can pursue that himself – or not.
Vahan
Posted March 25, 2010 at 4:24 AM
Although, it would be quite a shock if it’s actually true that Samantha lied about her age, I’m still not so sure about this (and please forgive me if I’m not).
For one thing, The National Archives only has birth records for people in the U.K. and Whales. Also, according to ancestry.com, the largest family history website, Geimer was born in 1963.
I’ve been to several people finder sites, and although some of them say 48 or 47, there were at least one or two that said 46. They did mention her current location being Kilauea, Hawaii though. They also mentioned Browardgeimer as one of her last names. I’m not sure if that’s the full way of saying the name Geimer. It also mentions David C. Geimer (who I’m guessing is her husband) being 66, though I’m not sure if he is 66.
And while I said earlier about her being a 9th grader in March 1977 is true, there’s also the possibility that she started kindergarten at age 4, even though most kindengarteners start at age 5, and most students start at pre-school at age 4. Wasn’t her mother originally from Virginia, and isn’t it true that her or Samantha was either illegitimate or her dad walked out on her mom right after she was born?
I can only assume that the reason why you were able to find out her exact actual birthdate online was because you were able to get in contact with someone who was able to do such a thing.
If I’m being too worried right now, that’s because at this very moment, I care about your safety here. This has been the best analysis on this infamous celebrity case, a case that is perhaps the most infamous of them all, a case that is more infamous than even the Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson cases combined, and a case that would have ended, if it hadn’t been for a media-obsessed judge, who cared more about being a “hero”, than about doing what is both right and fair, and an attorney who was too late in dismissing the judge. All I’m trying to say is that one wrong move with this analysis, and we could be back to square one here, something that I do not want to see happen.
And I don’t see why some people say that Polanski’s time in Europe for three decades wasn’t an “exile”. It seems to me that what those people don’t seem to realize is that even if Polanski hadn’t fled, the Judge was going to deport him anyways. So technically, it is an “exile” (though rather a “self-imposed exile”). And just the fact that even the alleged “victim” herself was against the thought of him facing more jail time back in the 1970’s is all the proof I need that Polanski couldn’t have been anymore correct when he said that the reason he ran away was because he was very unfortunate to have a judge who misused justice.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 25, 2010 at 11:56 AM
(Reamended) Vahan – there’s no need to be concerned for my safety. I can present whatever I have researched online – true or not, proven or not – like everyone else does with more lies and vile defamation rather than not in their personal crusades of blind hatred. I at least tried to find out and cover both sides and if it doesn’t suit people’s one-track-minded preconception of his guilt that’s their problem. While my analyses are undoubtedly the most comprehensive, the details are all corrects and taken from reliable sources. I’m not doing anything illegal and anyone can access any of these files legally, even the publicly released court records, to come to the same results as I have. Except no one bothered. Obviously.
If the US sites tell me her birthday is either 1.9.62, or 9.1.62, that’s good enough for me. Public records don’t lie, unless they haven’t been updated, or were issued with incorrect data. One country has no obligation to cross-check against another (or place of birth of a person) to see if they’re correct. Depending on the sites, it will give you three different birhtdate possibilities, correct. But the UK sites are either out of date, or were never given the right details and are not relevant anyhow – only the US sites are pertinent her being American – where I got the dates from. Broward was her previous married name, and David C Geimer, 66, is her current husband, yes. She dropped out of school with 16, became pregnant first with 18 married with 19 and divorced a year later before settling in Hawaii, to her own words. Then she became pregnant again in 1988 and married a second time in 1989. Either way, if it were the September date she’d be 47 now or before March 31st ‘77, 14 already, or if it’s the January date, she’d be 48 now making her a full 15 years old at the time of the events, which took place March 10th. So, if any of the sites say she is either 47 or 48 right now before the end of March, her birthday cannot be on the 31st either way. Besides, we have noticed that discrepancy already way back on January 22nd, and then the majority sites said already she was/is 48, not 47 or 46. In interviews her age is given in varying dates too.
Even if someone were to start kindergarten with 4 or 5, the more relevant part is when they started school, and a 9th grader is more likely 15 – not 13. She was born in Pennsylvania, and rather than ‘skip’ a grade or two, which is highly unlikely no matter how bright one is, one could require to repeat them to end up in a 7th grade school again rather than 9th, with different states having different curricula one might need to repeat. But if her mother said she was very bright, I doubt that she repeated any grade. Besides, she did look much older with Huston thinking her 20 and if I remember correctly and a picture of her concerning, some paper recalling the car commercial asked, what happened to the 15 year old stunner they had in it, made up and all to look even older, not realising that’s Geimer, since her name then was Gailey. And yes, her father was divorced from her mother, and her mother’s then boyfriend was the one who was never called as a witness and picked her up in Gunson’s office within a very compromising situation. Geimer stayed with her father (who was a lawyer himself) during the proceedings, who had brought in Silver, and told her not to stand for a trial.
It’s for Hummel to pursue this matter further now and handle this new information as he sees fit – he’s been contacted already. My job is done in that respect. If we’re back to square one after over three decades, I highly doubt, that’s their problem, not mine. But if the details are proven correct, the case has to be dismissed at once and can be closed – after enough misconducts revealed already, they finally would need to litigate moreover. It’s up to them. And as I said before, as long it wasn’t forcible rape/sodomy the medical evidence alone disproves, I’m happy with that – regardless of her age.
As for your last paragraph, I can only wholeheartedly agree on it. Though there were several remedies available for Polanski then and even later to see the case concluded with other judges taking over, no one could be sure if any of them had acted any more honourably than Rittenband had, since the law is blind to personal reasons why someone finds himself in desperate need to flee or stay away from an overbearing judge’s arbitrary and unlawful mis/use of justice, otherwise Rittenband hadn’t ‘stepped down’, and others fiddling with it on and off later didn’t help either. I read the last case dismissal petition refusal report, and it’s all too obvious that no one cares about Polanski’s fears of further abuse of justice as proven by now again and again to have been applied to him down to ‘ambitious’ Mr Cooley. The Swiss judges who blocked extradition obviously share his concerns.
Master Vim
Posted March 29, 2010 at 8:58 PM
This seemingly interminable story reminds me of a big old ugly yarn ball some less than honourable people had spun decades ago, before it suddenly got unravelled by another unwise nosy Parker (Cooley) thinking he could exploit it in exchange for his next election, only to find more ugly revelations at the very core. Sooner or later the truth will always win out, and so it will be in this wholly contaminated case, and then people will have to face their own blind eagerness to condemn someone over a girl’s uncontested accusations. I don’t see why Polanski should feel guilty or be punished over something that was general practice (and still is), while others were/are given exemption to this day, except him.
I was there, I know the Seventies, I saw how the law messed with him from day one. It’s a crying shame, and more so these senseless detractors clamouring for his head, who all should look in the mirror first before going on a rampage of pathetic name calling. Get the facts first! And you “Walgren”! One thing I’ve noticed is that those who were there don’t have a problem to see it how it really was, while today’s ignorant generation has no clues about any of it, or willingness to at least get the wider picture and details before judging. One of the latest headlines reads, “Polanski is still fighting extradition and justice”. Pfff! I’d say that should be “injustice”, as that is was from the moment “the hammer” Rittenband took over. Had he been removed when Gunson wanted to, Judge Breckinridge surely would have done a better job and that had been it with a correct plea and short probation sentence. No such luck for already traumatized Polanski. Now it’s all way too late and impossible to get this mess cleaned up anymore.
I never believed the ‘victim’s’ allegations from the first day I read them, or any sordid smear that followed, and only wondered why she came out to give us more inconsistent accounts so much later. I don’t give any grand jury testimony any credit anyhow as long as it wasn’t proven in an open court; hers never was, while he stated the same he had given in evidence in his own biography I gave way more credit. Now I’ve finally been proven right with your comprehensive research into the more than corrupted case (I tried to confirm wherever possible and you’re absolutely spot on with your findings), and came to the (again same) conclusion that she lied in the most crucial areas, as I had already suspected.
Especially ever since that Kiernan started off his disgusting smear campaign “biography” with: “The 13-year old’s head was spinning…” and I went like, what!? How the hell would he know? So I read on, and on, and thought, what a degenerate attempt to destroy Polanski’s already tainted reputation completely, and as you said, Novalis, he totally succeeded, with Polanski unable to sue the basket case. It made me feel sick to read his shit and binned the book years ago. Recently I read that Polanski’s wife is unhappy about the fact that their children cannot spend more time with their father, shuttling to and fro between Paris and Gstaad, and someone seriously commented, “Yeah ‘child molesting time’.” How sick are these people to say that? How can anyone come from the fact that he slept with a minor, to becoming a rapist/sodomite, and/or pedophile, to abusing his own kids? These people are seriously disturbed. But no wonder, they said worse things about him already after Tate’s murder, and ever since. It’s sickening.
People call his act a “heinous crime”, while condemning no one else like that. I’m sorry, but sleeping with a minor is far from being that, it might be unlawful, but only a brutal murder like that of his wife is heinous. Any murder, violent torture or rape, but casual sex? Gimme a f***g break alright. And another thing that pisses me off is to say, “What if that were your child.” Well, first up, she wasn’t a “child” at any rate in the eyes of the law or they’d banged him up with much more serious counts, and it’s been like three decades and the woman in question is almost fifty by now. I’d counter, “What if that were your grand/father who was f***d over by the lot, then the corrupt law multiple times now, and after 33 years of enough contemptible public abuse already is hounded down by a shady DA through shady means with more pathetic witch hunters on his heels, like Polanski’s the greatest fiend on Earth suddenly,” completely losing sight of what really happened or is still going on. It’s a disgrace! But, you’ve chronicled that with your great job on the deep analyses front already, Novalis.
Oh and btw, I found out what he did in Israel in 2007; I read an article by Robert Harris (the writer of The Ghost); he went there to research his father’s time in Nazi captivity. Over lunch with Harris he describes how, when he went there for the premiere of The Pianist, he was shown his father’s official file from Mauthausen concentration camp, which records in meticulous detail his punishment beatings, and Polanski said: “Everything he told me about his time in the camp turned out to be true; it was all written down and I was holding it in my hands.” Poor bastards. So much for the more conscientious Israelis not selling him out with that kind of tragic history to “douchebag” Cooley, (just like the Germans didn’t bother for the same reasons) unlike the contemptible Swiss authorities, before the duped judges put a hold on the extradition. Good! But now what? He’s stuck in house arrest limbo. I call it Human Rights violation when others can go free on bail!
And, to conclude, if Geimer really was/is older, what else can I do than shake my head in more disbelief, and even if not, your own words say it perfectly: “As long it wasn’t forcible rape/sodomy the medical evidence alone disproves, I’m content in the knowledge – regardless of her age.” Same here.
Novalis Lore
Posted March 30, 2010 at 12.57 PM
Very good analogy on the ugly old yarn ball, Master Vim, it’s rotten to the core indeed. Thanks for clarifying what Polanski did in Israel; I read in fact the same article by Harris the other day. Otherwise, I have nothing to add – thank you for your own valuable thoughts having been there.
Find THE COMMENTS continued in Part Two here.
Recent Comments