Continued from Roman Polanski – He Said She Said They Said – An Op End Case Analysis Part Two, found HERE.
As the Swiss government seems to be moving closer to a decision about whether to extradite Polanski back to LA, or not, a Swiss justice ministry official told the Sonntags Zeitung newspaper June 4th, and that colleagues were close to making a decision, but would not say when it would occur. The officials said Polanski would be able to appeal that decision. Of course, LA prosecutors still maintain that the filmmaker faces up to two years in state prison, when that’s utter nonsense, after having done his time already, and his attorneys have suggested that he could be finally officially declared sentenced in Switzerland rather than in California. Swiss officials have said they were waiting for Polanski to exhaust his legal appeals in LA before making a decision on extradition, which is of course impossible since they just drag their feet anyhow. Unlike too many ignorami calling for ‘justice’ – obviously in no clues what that really means – others call for restraint and closure and to stop the inane name-calling, since this is such an old case that even Ms Geimer wishes would ‘go away’. Had she not lied, it would have. It’s not like there’s any shortage of really bad people out there right now and Polanski never was a threat to anyone at any rate – or we’d have many many more cry rape callers in his case. But such logic eludes every single one of his hate-filled, sanctimonious detractors. Of course, if articles still insist on he needs to be ‘sentenced’, how could the public think differently, or with every new ‘version’ of any developments getting nastier in tone and not only political incorrectness. Especially in mainstream US papers.
Well now, as expected and indeed wise to do, the Swiss Justice Minister, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf who just won respect again, has rejected the US request for the extradition – so announced today July 12th – saying, “The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request.” The Swiss government said extradition had to be rejected ‘considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case’. Indeed! The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in their decision. In rejecting the extradition request from the US, the Swiss Ministry cited two factors: first, the US had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in LA County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977 agreed that ’the 42 days of detention spent by Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to’. Swiss officials said records from that hearing would have established whether the judge who tried the case in 1977 had assured Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve.
“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the US extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation.” Unlawful is a better word, and yes, he has done his time three decades ago, except Cooley didn’t want the world to know. “Second, when Polanski travelled in September 2009 to the Zürich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in ‘good faith’ that ‘the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him’.” But then someone called on Cooley, and there went Switzerland’s once so famous neutrality, and Polanski headed for jail. They noted that Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, but sold him a Chalet anyhow and didn’t think his case was of any importance, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities. Undeniably so. Switzerland’s top justice official said he could now leave. “The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked. Mr Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man.”
Meaning, had the US not lied and falsified the extradition records, withheld ailing Gunson’s vital testimony to prove Polanski had done his time, played their usual repulsive name-calling and witch hunt games, the Swiss might have ‘listened’. But, instead they finally listened to superior reason, adding a vital measure of final justice to this contentious situation Polanski was caught up in again. Though Polanski could have appealed the extradition, “The United States cannot contest the decision in Switzerland,” said Widmer-Schlumpf, adding that Washington has accepted Bern’s move to turn down its extradition request. The Justice Ministry also notes that the wishes of Ms Geimer were considered, unlike the vindictive LA courts had, who was the loudest voice calling for the witch hunters to leave Polanski alone. Roman is a free man, again, after 289 days under unlawful detention. Now he can finally go home again to his no doubt relieved family, and do what he does best, make more acclaimed films. Polanski has shed his electronic bracelet and left his chalet in Gstaad already.
Well Cooley, who’s lost his gamble to become Attorney General on Polanski’s back, seems your dream of wanting Polanski’s head on a platter to humiliate him some more didn’t quite work out, and your smear campaign to coax the Swiss into hasty actions backfired massively – serves you [all] right. So, name-calling LA prosecutors and the puritanical American public didn’t get their pound of flesh, aw, shame. Looks like not everyone is as corrupt as an LA courthouse whore and the Justice Minister in fact administered real justice for a change, and I just as might even think that her letter of wanting Polanski back in a secure facility was in fact a fake, just so to whip up more frenzied witch hunters, since it only appeared on an obscure US site. Cooley bungled it up all up with his self-indulgent arrogant antics of playing the, ‘we’re America/ns, we can do whatever we want’ bullshit card. Only a corrupt LA DA wants to have his fifteen minutes of fame as an ugly parasite on an old accomplished man who weathered men like him decades ago, i.e., Nazis, who then brought in other 15-minute famewhores, i.e., Lewis and Allred, and lost that corrupt/ed game.
Technically however Polanski is back to where he left off before his rearrest, since other countries might want to make the same mistake and arrest him again I’m sure the States would love. But on the other hand, many more know now at least that he had done his time for unlawful sexual intercourse, (when I thought sex was a private matter) and a perfect reason to flee Rittenband’s arbitrary court when he attempted to punish him twice for it. The only problem is, he and all the others got away with their disgraceful misconducts, since the case is still not litigated to be finally closed for good unless Polanski is declared in absentia. I’m sure Cooley & Co will not concede to the fact, not do so, or that Polanski cannot be sentenced ‘again’, since he had served his time already at Chino in 1977/8 for 42 days, and, the 70 days on Swiss remand must be counted in addition, exceeding the 90 days Rittenband had in mind. Though the house arrest cannot be counted, it means the seven months of lost freedom Polanski had to endure can never be recovered. Of course everyone is thrilled with the outcome, especially his wife and children, friends, even statesmen and of course the film world – and his loyal fans who know better.
Switzerland for once proving herself as independent sovereignty, and no lackey of the US, still, the US [online] magazines however keep repeating the mind-numbing mantra that he had escaped jail or even the charges and prosecution, (NO), or pleaded, admitted to or was convicted of ‘rape’, (NO), or the drugging and raping and sodomising, (NO), only showing these still all too obsessed people are no more intelligent than before his unsound rearrest. Besides, if he ever had ‘admitted’ to being rapist or paedophile, which in itself is rather stupid to confess to if you’re not, they’d charged him accordingly. But such logic eludes most tripe-fed brains. They learnt absolutely nothing of the case details, that there is no such a paradoxical thing as a ‘one-time rapist’, since it indeed never was rape and the reason why the unfounded counts were dropped, and that the breakdown of the justice system on the scale this case has highlighted once again is simply criminal. Besides, it was over three decades ago, and why these people of today not half his age need to invest their time in obsessively vilifying an old man who had done no harm to anyone let alone Ms Geimer by her own admission they love to ignore too, with the same mind-numbing mantra of ‘drugged/child/rape/sodomy’ rhetoric always followed by a series of exclamation marks, is beyond me. What the defeated LA courts will do next however, is another question.
After the decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic, of course, an LA Superior Court spokesman said, “That warrant remains outstanding,” adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent to the US if he travelled to another country that has an extradition treaty with the United States. Of course, because you love playing vindictive little children running after innocent men now that you were put into your place of world diplomacy by a little country like Switzerland. Don’t worry, after that fiasco and the fact that the LA courts lied, NO other country will touch Polanski. A State Department spokesman said the Administration was disappointed by the Swiss action. “The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case.” ‘Child’? ‘Rape’? A teenager is NOT a ‘child’ even by law, and it certainly wasn’t rape either even by Ms Geimer’s own words. Are these people deliberate being obstinate or just generally hatemongering hypocrites? Guess both. And ‘justice’? A warmongering country that sends innocent men into prison for sex has no sense of any justice. DON’T YOU HAVE REAL CRIMINALS TO PURSUE RIGHT ON YOUR OWN DOORSTEP? Guess not.
Cooley called the decision a ‘disservice to justice and other victims as a whole’. ‘Other victims’? Oh, you mean all those who are gang raped in prison because YOU sent them there on fabrications wholesale? Sure. And the only ‘disservice’ to ‘justice’ is your pathetic corrupt self. He accused the Swiss of using the issue of the confidential testimony as an excuse to set Polanski free. “To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts.” Unique’? ‘Competency’? No, it would have proven Polanski had done his time, YOU obviously cannot ever allow being made official, because you have no idea what ‘competency’ is, and only shows that your US ‘laws’ are not compatible with real justice. A top Justice Department official said the US extradition request was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law. No, it was neither factual nor lawful, I read it, it was full of Swiss cheese holes, or the Swiss would have extradited him. The Department is ‘deeply disappointed’ by the Swiss rejection and will review its ‘options’. ‘Options’ sounds scary. And illegal.
So, getting your butts kicked in public by a tiny country isn’t reason enough just to give up and concede Polanski did his time, to litigate all the disgraceful misconduct, and then close the case with grace? Instead of continuing with the narcissistic whining, threats and mindless vengeance? Guess not. Isn’t it just amazing how the repressed US psyche becomes even more twisted when regarding ‘justice’? But what you expect from a militant people who nearly wiped out an entire race, keep killing people globally, living in their dark rape and sodomy world barely out of their toddler boots thinking sex is a sin and must be punished, saying, ‘he brutally raped her unconscious child body’. Boy, what mind-boggling diatribe, too thick to realise there were no signs of forced rape or sodomy in any form. Grow up! She was as mature as a twenty year old and certainly not unconscious. I’m sick and tired of reading such repetitive self-indulgent garbage. Or, ‘the ‘excuse’ given by the Swiss in their rejection of extradition is unacceptable, and to suggest that the US declare war on Switzerland and nuclear bomb the hell out of the country until Polanski is for certain dead since not a rock will remain upon rock and no living thing remains.’ Forgetting that Polanski is long back in Paris, these people are demented hate and warmongers, plain and simple. THAT is ‘unacceptable’ and hate speech. The Germans call it ‘Grössenwahn’ – delusions of grandeur. Quite fitting.
After Polanski offered ‘a massive thank you’ to all concerned through his French lawyer, saying, “I simply want, from the bottom of my heart, to thank all those who supported me,” before he left his Chalet to head home right after he was declared a free man again, Ms Geimer’s first public reaction to the decision of Switzerland to refuse extradition, was, “I hope that the DA’s office will now have this case dismissed and finally put the matter to rest once and for all.” I doubt that, they didn’t listen to you before, they won‘t now or ever. No, they made it perfectly clear that they must pursue some old director in obsessive spite till he’s been mauled over and over in the sadistic public eyes and lies bleeding in the glare of the media lynch mob jerking off on it. They’re more than happy this distressing chapter has brought Polanski more petty little haters, while no doubt bringing him more supporters as balance as true friends and loyal fans never deserted him, simply knowing better that he never violated anyone, let alone Ms Geimer who made that clear now often enough. They are able to distinguish between the private man of then or even now, the unsurpassed director, and most of all, the unacceptable status quo of this corrupt case no one can fix anymore, or wants to, since it’s much easier to commit more misconduct to cover up the old transgressions while foaming at the name-calling mouth like hyenas out for blood.
The system of laws and prosecutorial ethics are the only things that give our justice system credibility, stability, integrity and real dignity. Clearly those ethics were violated from day one, and this extradition refusal was an expected outcome that Cooley brought on himself, which began in 1977 when egomaniac Rittenband dictated his own media circus. The Swiss authorities allowed the US to act in good time, yet, many months passed, Polanski and his family were torn apart, and the US did not respond in their glorious arrogance, but rather put on a great smear campaign show to influence the outcome. Switzerland has one of the most perfect judicial systems in the world jealously admired by many countries. In the absence of clear instructions from the US, i.e., Gunson’s proof, Bern did the right thing and the US Ambassador in Bern, under the instructions from Washington, warmly supported the release of Polanski. Roman travelled all over Europe, had been domiciled in Switzerland and France for many years and never faced rearrest. People who still call for his head in this self-righteous and vindictive fashion like fascists need to get a grip and face reality.
They also keep retelling the same old lies like it happened at a party, or that he confessed to it all. NO HE DID NOT. Even the so called victim does not share any of the self-obsessed feelings these witch hunters are consumed by, lecherously get off on. The corrupt DAs keep wasting taxpayers money and time on some old case rather than catch criminals in their own backyard, in dire need to see a shrink to find out just why they must incite mass hysteria by painting this thing as something it never was. This case was never about any ‘justice’, it was about a crooked DA and his henchmen using the headlines for a higher job after jail bait lover Rittenband needed more clippings for his own scrapbook. What people of today simply don’t understand is that the public attitudes toward sex and drugs have changed greatly, especially when minors are involved, and you should never force to pursue old cases based on that moral change, or apply laws of today retroactively – that’s illegal. Consider it as a different culture – do you think you have the right to condemn it and that after all this time, with half of you not even alive then? Don’t think so.
Roman served his sentence and had every right to flee the Santa Monica courts when their deal was broken, or file charges against the corrupt LA legal system today. Bottom line is, pitiful and shallow souls are always more interested in a witch hunt than what the woman of the piece wants, or most importantly to uphold the law, no doubt only until the law abuses them and then cry for justice the way Polanski has done since decades now. Ms Geimer telling the LA Times today July 14th, “Enough is enough. This matter should have been resolved 33 years ago,” she can’t understand why prosecutors continue to pursue the director, maintaining that he’s not a threat to anyone, adding, “At 76 years old? I don’t think so.” He never was a threat any rate, or we’d have had countless more cases of ‘rape’ with his amount of sexual encounters. But it seems legal officials are refusing to heed her continuous remarks, vowing to continue their merciless pursuit of Polanski which is nothing but repulsive vindictiveness since ages now. Don’t they have any other thirteen year old girls who were rally raped in LA, right NOW? Guess not. Vindictive, vindictive, vindictive.
The facts of the case haven’t changed, there was no rape and Polanski was railroaded. But ‘moral’ attitudes, legal language and the politics of ‘laws’ and ‘crimes’ have escalated quite drastically when a ‘sexual offence’ is involved. They keep redefining what a ‘victim’ or ‘crime’ is to make smaller transgressions look like heinous offences, and have adopted the incensing rhetoric of ‘child rape’, or child sex crime’, or ‘child rapist’ when no ‘child’ was ever involved, but a mature teenager who was sexually experienced and used to drugs and alcohol from her own family background – who did not want this entire madness to erupt in the fist place. But when her suddenly oh so ‘caring’ mother interfered, Ms Geimer was forced to lie by coercion of the cops in regards to the sodomy, i.e., bent cop Vannatter, it strikes me as odd he wasn’t the least concerned about any ‘justice’ back then when he abetted a crime to falsify records, intimidated witnesses, and that he hasn’t spoken out about the corrupt judge in this case, i.e., ego-tripper Rittenband, a case he himself has undermined greatly by forcing Ms Geimer to lie, and Huston into betraying her friend Polanski. This guy is not going to trash his own crooked fellow so-called law enforcers of today to call him a liar. Or any criminal DAs.
Ms Geimer stated often enough that she always thought Polanski should have been freed and is thrilled with the decision of the Swiss. The DA’s office and the corrupt LAPD hate hearing that, but not as much as they hated it when the facts in this case came out and it was revealed that LA’s judicial system didn’t play by the rule book. I.e., Zenovich’s documentary. They don’t mention that part of the case, ever. Switzerland said, ‘we will not extradite someone back into this legal morass,’ because of all the misconduct issues making this extraditing request hopeless from the start. I’d say, into the hands of ‘legal morons’, those having mis/handled it from the start. Polanski’s lawyers have issued a statement calling for an investigation into the US refusal to provide requested evidence to Swiss authorities in this old case, i.e., Gunson’s testimony. The one-page statement released July 13th in LA made no personal reference to Polanski. It was the first official defence comment since the Swiss refused to extradite Polanski. The attorneys asked for the appointment of a commission by the California governor, i.e., ‘Arnie’, or Attorney General to look into the official misconduct in the 1977 case. They said the LA County DA, i.e., Cooley and his lot, i.e., ‘Walgren’, purposely withheld the material sought because it would have undermined the extradition request and of course proven that Polanski had done his time decades ago.
It is obvious that the US considers itself as a law entirely unto itself, and that everything and everyone must yield to their every demand. It does not only reject the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but also that it has openly stated its intention of freeing by force any US citizen who might find him/herself in the dock at the ICC. I.e., going into The Hague all guns blazing, or send out their CIA agents to kidnap foreign citizens they think need to be dragged before their corrupt and biased courts – rightly or wrongly. It is a well-known fact that the DA’s cases are based on the office’s whims and fancies rather than evidence. They just make up their minds that a person is guilty and go after them. They will cook up evidence if they need to and have done so often enough. All they had to do was give the Swiss what they were asking for. But no, since they’re incompetent buffoons in suits no wonder the Swiss had no time for their nonsense. Their incompetence in effect led to a family and many others getting away with perjury since a proper trial would have found them all out finally and officially and the case could be litigated. The fact that Ms Geimer has recanted her original story in little ways often enough and begs the whole thing be dropped perfectly illustrates that, and once again can be glad that there will be no public trial. Though that also leaves Polanski’s petty little haters in the erroneous belief that he did all she had accused him of ages ago. No, he did not.
Today’s public figures, whether movie stars or politicians, have the added burden of zero privacy, or even credibility when it comes to anything ‘moral’. No, they’re being held to a higher standard while most of us have done or said things we aren’t proud of, yet play sanctimonious judge and jury over others. No, we don’t have to see them going viral all over the Internet and then edit their words, skew and twist them to make them lies, make up things over and over in a mind-numbing mantra, of, ‘he drugged, raped and sodomised a crying child’. No, he never did. The media’s sole purpose is to fuel a downward spiral in shared ‘moral values’, and exaggerated sensationalism is ‘upgraded’ in order to enhance sales and site hits with the speed of a mouse click. All this revolves around the degree of ‘criminality’ we as a society ‘assign’ to each individual, and Polanski will never have an image other than what he had before – all based on lurid fantasies, repetitive falsehood, with people blindly believing what they hear or read, not ever questioning anything to get the whole picture, demand THE TRUTH. No, they’re more interested in lies and salacious scandals to brighten their boring little lives, so invested in others they have no business with. No, they simply ‘believe’ to feel better, like the hypnotized and duped masses under Hitler believed in a better future, and look where it led them: into unmitigated chaos.
Polanski was considered one of the most dazzling figures of the new Hollywood. His acclaimed films seemed to emerge from some shadowy, sexually infused realms people took for real, confused them with his own life. The sexual revolution going hand in hand he had enjoyed like everyone else, had changed everything with the event of the Pill in 1960. Vogue, Vogue Hommes and Playboy featured pictures of very young girls, ten, eleven years old, twelve year old Brooke Shields played a prostitute in Pretty Baby in 1973, Jodie Foster another preteen hooker in Taxi Driver in 1976 when she was fourteen, and the soft-focus films of David Hamilton, in which he portrayed young girls as nymphs, reached a mainstream audience and no one was called a paedophile for photographing or sleeping with teenagers. All this was normal at the time and no one cried rape or abuse when someone seduced them unless they had ulterior motives when it came to ‘celebrities’. Today all too puritanical people are keen on destroying their very own legacy they or their fore/fathers and mothers had zealously created themselves, after drinking, sleeping themselves through the days and nights high on recreational drugs and casual sexual encounters, by proclaiming their petty moralistic sermons bashing the bible of all sex is a sin and must be punished severely in ever more overzealously bigoted hypocrisy.
If you don’t like your own evolutionary soup, don’t spit in it to sour it for everyone else. It’s your own legacy if you lived it or not, and it’s not your right to demonise a bygone era you never even knew personally. Polanski’s complex case revolves around many issues that do not fit in with today’s ‘über morals’ and anti-sex laws anymore, questions about the freedom of art and excesses of sex and drugs, about the loss of perspective in the days of the sexual revolution and the drug culture people today wished never happened, and about society’s growing fascination with its stars, who are idolised and demonised at the same time, a free for all to destroy as they see fit. The case is about important issues of law and justice gone unacceptably haywire, and most of all, that you cannot find Polanski guilty of something everyone else did that was as normal as it is now – except no one would dare say so today. He cannot ever be made guilty of our past times with overkill indignation, just like laws and penalties cannot retroactively be applied though people would love to do so. And why keep saying, ‘to face the charges’? He ‘faced’ them three decades ago and even pleaded to one of them. Besides, before the US get too high and mighty about a country refusing to extradite, remember that the US don’t have a good track record in extraditing to other countries in the first place.
I also noticed that the US media immediately stifled all explanations as to why the Swiss refused extradition, became typically self-reflexively sarcastic and ridiculing, just so to whip the outraged public into more frenzied stupidity, with huffing and puffing bloggers calling for his films to be boycotted, his assets seized, even kidnapped and killed, seeing it as personal affront in their glorious patriotic self-righteousness, condoning worse crimes than what they think he did while not bothering with real crimes around them. With tirades like, he ‘sadistically raped and sodomised her’, these people need a reality check, since if he had, she’d be begging him back into court, not to let him be. Sometime back I thought, what would have happened if Polanski had been indicted on merely what he had pleaded to, unlawful sexual intercourse and nothing else, would anyone have condemned him that easily then or today? They’d probably still thought he raped her even if she said they just had sex. Meaning, however you dice it, he’d always been made into a rapist simply for Ms Geimer’s age, if her testimony was believable or not. Only forcible intercourse is rape by law that never took place and that by her own admission. Besides, there’s no such thing as a onetime rapist, and don’t even give me that nonsense that he raped other ‘little children’ we don’t know of. This ‘child rape’ rhetoric is getting overly stale now. Get a life alright. Or find a real rapist in your own neighbourhood.
While the sexual harassment case made against Steven Seagal, has been dropped, what a surprise, the former personal assistant of his had launched a $1m (£650,000) civil suit, what a surprise, claiming he had sexually abused her and illegally trafficked women. No reason has been given for the case dismissal, and it seems another popular American got a pass from the same LA courthouse that vindictively pursues Polanski over some old sex with a minor they had botched from the start and botched some more deliberately. No surprise there. His wife and family happy that the nightmare is over, so is Polanski. While people keep ranting on about how the Swiss now too condone ‘rape’, they’re obviously too thick to realise that it never was ‘rape’, in any form – or they had him plead to that, not underage sex. A plea deal is always struck on the one applicable count after the uncorroborated counts are dropped and he never was convicted nor pleaded to or confessed to them in any form. Keep on disseminating the same old lies why don’t you. The LA courts once again proved themselves that Cooley was looking to use Polanski for personal reasons that had nothing to do with the case, with a judge who was fixing the case for his own public image and that DA Wells goaded him into sending Polanski to Chino in the first place. The World has watched Cooley & Co lie under oath often enough now and nothing was done, and it will never change since DAs hold special immunity to avoid any prosecution from defendants by default. So someone like Wells is safe from being prosecuted for his interference in the case by goading Rittenband into the Oktoberfest/Chino ploy. Arnie will not help the case litigation either, and it will take many years before any country can trust the US legal system again after this show of smear campaigning.
Given the fact that both the prosecution and the judge in the oh so ‘civilised’ US legal system reneged on a made deal with the accused, why on Earth should the Swiss have trusted the same system to treat the director fairly ‘now’? Plus, in civilised European countries, there is such thing as statute of limitations, i.e., the US ‘vengeful justice system’ is not compatible with real justice, still stuck in the Middle Ages with death penalties, absurd three hundred years prison sentences for multiple sexual acts with your own underaged girlfriend. Murderers are eligibility for parole after ten, twenty years for good behaviour even if they received life, while someone who had sex has no prospect of parole since they of course see nothing ‘wrong’ with their ‘crime’, hence ‘deny’ their ‘guilt’ and are ordered to remain behind bars, and that sometimes even after they in fact have been found innocent of ‘rape’, for some false rape accuser having been found out or recanting. All over sex that should NEVER be punished. Polanski could have looked at fifty years, while, a gruesome murder gets punished less, since a killing is only ‘one’ count, no matter how brutal. Once the convict is released, s/he doesn’t need to register as ‘murder offender’, clearly a threat to the public, but, someone who had sex needs to register as ‘sex offender’ next to brutal rapists and peadophiles. Why should the Swiss authorities send an old man back into this self-obsessed US revenge machine after more than thirty years and into the dirty hands of law violators committing more and more malfeasance each day?
Someone seriously stated, ‘now we shall see if the current Mrs Polanski will allow him in the family home and return to the marital bed’ – hello? How dull are you lot? She knows perfectly well he never raped or sodomised anyone and stands behind him a hundred percent ever since they met near three decades ago, let alone is a ‘homosexual who rapes boys’ as some other idiot proclaimed in even bigger lunacy. These demented people are just too desperate to make up more lies and don’t care about the fact that the law has been made another travesty of, but need to keep feeding their revenge-driven little egos with more bigoted diatribe. Another one went, ‘my heart goes out to all the thousands of rape victims who are abused each year’. What exactly has Polanski got to do with them? They keep wondering why Ms Geimer again asks for Polanski to be left alone, too thick to realise that no genuine rape victim would ever do so, accusing her of ‘ulterior motives’ I doubt I need elaborating on. They don’t ever think that she could have lied, was coached to lie, was spared to be found guilty of perjury when they avoided a trial to expose them all, just so to keep revelling in their follies of rape and sodomy. Sure, why not, since all they ever read is just that – too ignorant to actually question her original claims, and that a Grand Jury testimony has zero validity until it was proven in a trial. The fact that her mother never ever was heard of again outside her manipulative testimony, also speaks louder than her hasty act to call on the law having destroyed her career and that of her daughter in one fell swoop.
Now, in a new twist (or more lies) in the endless saga of this case, a spokesman for the LA prosecutors said they had never heard of the Swiss’ request to be presented with Gunson’s testimony. I doubt that, since even the public knew of it after it was mentioned often enough in the media, that the Swiss still waited for it and even knew what it contained. The Federal Department of Justice and Police, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf’s office, stated that the request was addressed to her American counterpart. “The Department of Justice is our partner in extradition proceedings, not the LA courts,” said a spokesman on July 15th. Bern has sent their application on May 5th after Polanski had spoken out against Cooley on May 2nd and the US Department of Justice replied on May 13th, refusing to send it, citing a ‘confidentiality clause’. I.e., that it was only intended to ‘preserve’ Gunson’s testimony for posterity in case he’s not available anymore at one point since he’s undergoing cancer treatment. We all know that document was intended to clarify whether Rittenband had assured all parties, at the September 19th meeting in 1977, that the 42 days Polanski would spent at Chino covered the entirety of his imprisonment to then be released on probation.
They obviously don’t want to uphold this deal, despite Espinoza’s own words that ‘nothing precludes the possibility that the 42 days were Polanski’s entire punishment’, only to refuse to unseal the transcripts weeks later himself. The rejection to forward them is one of Switzerland’s key arguments for refusing to extradite Polanski, since by all means he had done his time, and no one can be punished twice for the same offence, and of course wouldn’t extradite anyone who’s not up for more than six months at any rate. And rightly so. Now, as it goes on and on and on with the pathetic whining, mud slinging and lies from across the pond, the US Justice Department in fact said that the LA DA’s, i.e., Cooley’s domain, approved the denial of the Swiss request for information in the Polanski case. Meaning, the very opposite to what Cooley had mouthed about and that he no doubt denied access to the transcripts himself. Swiss officials said the denial led to Polanski’s release, and the Swiss Justice Department repeated July 16th that it kept the DA’s office fully informed of all requests from Swiss authorities regarding the effort to have Polanski extradited to the US, which the LA courts of course deny. Like no one would actually keep records of such a high-profile case exchanges to call Cooley a liar.
After the Swiss making the wise and politically sound decision based on the provisions of the extradition treaty, many thought they would find a way to extradite Polanski for ‘political reasons’, (i.e., to end the UBS stalemate which was however resolved already months back without pawning off Polanski), while others think the US Justice Department ‘deliberately’ refused to release the documents in order to ‘force’ the Swiss to let Polanski go. Instead, the treaty provisions provided a sound basis for their decision, and, to believe that the US would ‘deliberately allow’ a ‘fugitive’ to ‘escape’ them is more than absurd. And, just so to demonstrate that another country will not be bullied by the US, Poland has announced it will continue to reject any US request to arrest/extradite Polanski, according to a report by the Polish prosecutor’s office posted on its official website. “The extradition of Roman Polanski to another country is impossible,” said the Director of International Cooperation Department. According to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, such an extradition is ‘unacceptable’, citing Article 604, Section 1, Paragraph 3, which states that the handing over of an individual to a third country is inadmissible if the case has expired. I.e., it’s incompatible with US laws in general, since the though longer statute of limitation periods applicable is thirty years in Poland, but Polanski was, or still is, wanted for something back to 1977, and therefore will not be served to the US bloodhounds.
But then Poland and many other countries have never bothered to arrest him in the first place when he went there many times and made films. People keep forgetting he made two big budget films in Germany, The Pianist and Ghost Writer, organised many years of very popular theatre plays being staged all over Germany and Austria, with many German and international actors playing in also his own works, and he in fact engaged a lot of other people from all sectors of the German or Austrian economy for decades through his work as a revered director, i.e., brought in ‘revenue’ on a large scale for being an artist. I’m sure none of those who had worked on or for his films and theatre productions from the driver to the caterer to the star, in the operas and film studios, anyone concerned, or those in the still running theatre shows of his very popular Dance of the Vampires hit musical making their own living though him and his acclaimed stage work, would ever have demanded his extradition, since everyone knew ‘why’ he could not work in Hollywood or the UK. That would be really unwise to bite the generous hand that literally feeds them. Polanski theoretically could sue the Swiss for damages related to his arrest and imprisonment, though, Widmer-Schlumpf said that is unlikely. I wouldn’t be too sure about that – but I guess Polanski has better things to do.
Like being already back in Switzerland a mere five days after his release, where Polanski was spotted attending the Montreux Jazz Festival July 17th, to attend a concert of his wife Emmanuelle Seigner. He arrived in the back of a 4×4 vehicle with tinted windows in the company of the owner and founder of the festival. A police contingent prevented journalists, cameramen and photographers to approach the filmmaker, making his first appearance in public since his release from house arrest. He also gave an interview and Polanski says he keeps all his friendships in Switzerland and promises to return to Gstaad. He thanked his loyal wife Emmanuelle Seigner and their children, without whom he would not have been able to keep his dignity. He also thanked the people of Gstaad, who provided support, as well as flowers and bottles of wine, throughout his detention. He talked about how his teenaged son Elvis was allowed to cut his electronic bracelet once he was officially declared to be free, and says, he could easily have escaped but never wanted to do so. Of course not, he needed to finish his film and certainly would not forfeit nearly five million dollar bail bond or his mortgage on his family home.
Touching on his over nine months of detention he describes as ‘nonsense’, his argument is that he should not have been treated differently because of his status as an artist. (Though he sure as hell was a treated ‘very special’ ever since Rittenband had railroaded him and Cooley got his dirty hands on the case.) “I never asked for special treatment and for the moment, I am happy,” concluding, “I do not know what I’ll do next. For the moment, I am happy to be free.” Though we know his next project is the screen adaptation of God of Carnage, Emmanuelle told Radio Suisse Romande (RSR) that her husband will be attending the concert she will give in the Auditorium Stravinsky Exhibition Centre as I write this. The popular singer and actress said she too was very happy her husband is here tonight because he has not seen her new concert so far. The ever full of élan filmmaker is a regular guest at the festival, and he had already come to see his wife at the Montreux Jazz Café in 2007.
Unlike what some think, his wife knew of the case perfectly well, like both families and their friends. She even talked about it in interviews, though not specifically since it’s not permissible to touch on details, (which is another reason why they simply cannot make it clear to the public what really happened and therefore keep believing in these lies) but in general. People thinking this entire case was a shock to her are more than mistaken. Only the arrest was, and their kids are just as well-informed of what it was or is all about. i.e., sex with a girl that was forbidden then for her age, not any ‘rape’ or ‘sodomy’ people love to think he told them about and he is guilty of. Polanski has guts beyond guts, he braces all winds of odds and fate ever since his earliest childhood and absolutely nothing can deter him, he’s an eternal survivor and his dedicated family is his backbone. People are just jealous of the support he enjoys, his great stamina, strength and willpower, going green in the face with envy about his beautiful wife, loving kids, loyal friends, colleagues and fans. Anyone else would either cower and hide, or crumble and turn to drink or drugs. Polanski never has, no matter what tragedy struck him. Many admire him for that alone – and rightly so.
Believe it or not, while he was under house arrest, some German projects called ‘LILA’, the ‘Alliance of autonomous women’s projects against violence’, the ‘NRW’ (similar project) and the ‘Lobby for girls’, all seriously demanded last year that the 25,000 Euros prize money Polanski would have received, along with his ‘Golden Icon’ lifetime achievement award in Zurich had he not been rearrested, be ‘donated’, i.e., simply stolen, and given to these projects to combat violence against underaged girls. Now, what does Polanski have to do with ‘violence against German minors’, and, why would any ‘German project’, (or any other for that matter) think they’re entitled to a French director’s well-deserved award money for his own work, or even if he were German? The arrogance and audacity is staggering, and the fact that these overzealous people never received any reply from the Zürich festival director who bravely went ahead with the extensive retrospective on Polanski that was well-received, should make it clear, that these clearly deluded lobbyists cannot simply steal someone’s rightful prize money, just because they believe/d he raped someone, and that in the US nowhere near Deutschland. Why not ask your own real rapists and serial paedophiles to donate something to these causes.
I’m sure real victims find it more than disgusting that people are so obsessed with an old high-profile case of thirty-three years ago, just because it concerns some famous old director, where the woman concerned does NOT want him ‘pay’ for it. Some just as ill-informed soul stated that, ‘serving some sort of a sentence of 90 days of evaluation was surely part of any plea agreement; since he failed to fulfil his side of the agreement, the plea bargain is off, and Polanski is now subject to the full set of charges’. Sorry, go on living in lala land, but HE had no say in how long any custodial time will be, or any power to break ‘any deal’. It was the judge who broke their plea bargain, after the prison officials had released Polanski early the judge had no say in either, who then asked for NO additional time, just like NONE of the parties had demanded it from day one. And no, the plea deal is ‘not off’, and he was NOT ‘convicted’ of the six counts either, but rather the only one applicable at the wishes of the family and the plea stands. Only a judge can revoke it and they hardly ever do just so for defendant to be stuck with it. Guilty or not. Guess why the family never called for his imprisonment? Because the only three witnesses, i.e., Polanski and Huston (and the caretaker), have very different views as to what actually happened and NOTHING that Ms Geimer had claimed could be proven resulting in that plea simply for her age, otherwise the case had been thrown out.
Quoting Ms Geimer in 2003 herself, “He [Polanski] never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, (by judge Fidler, who however wanted to televise it and Polanski said no thanks) just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us,” that most certainly is NOT a ‘genuine rape victim’ remark. No one who was really raped would demand ‘no punishment’ for their ‘abuser’. Meaning, she tried hard to signal to people what really happened since years now, but cannot do or say more directly than she had already with her conflicting statements, or would perjure herself (and Cooley would go after her instead.) And of course people will not ever realise that, or once question her words in the political incorrect climate of a ‘victim should always be believed’ when it comes to ‘rape’, too dense to realise what a plea deal actually means and that too many have made false rape accusations by now with devastating consequences to innocent men.
Don’t forgot, the defence doesn’t get a shot at the grand jury she testified at whatsoever, which is the prosecutor’s exclusive tool to control all that they may hear from the accuser ALONE in a highly biased fashion. If s/he doesn’t ‘like’ a particular witness or evidence because it would undermine the case, i.e., find the defendant in fact innocent, and brings in fabricated ‘evidence’, guess what? The jurors will never know or hear from any corroborating defence witnesses, exculpatory evidence and compelling defence arguments on the case, or what the defendant has to say. All they do is listen to the accuser and then decide on which counts to indict someone as a first step. Then comes the trial to find out if the accuser’s claims are true, or not. If the more honest prosecution HAS already evidence, something like medical proof of no rape/sodomy, given witnesses discrediting the accuser’s allegations outright, i.e., Huston’s vital statement, the caretaker saying she thought the two (Ms Geimer and Polanski’s) lovers, that Ms Geimer was acting very maturely and much older, and most of all Polanski own accounts, then a deal is struck to settle on the one count applicable. Polanski pleaded to what he did, have sex with an underaged teenager – NOT drug, rape and sodomise her. He confessed to that one count alone – just as he did in his autobiography – which is the only truthful account.
Dalton said to Gunson back in 1977, Ms Geimer was ‘getting older all the time’ while the proceedings take place, towering over Polanski already then not at all looking her ‘age’ or like a ‘child’, let alone was innocent and not unschooled in sex, drugs and alcohol even to Rittenband’s own words, for her family environment Dalton greatly condemned as being so permissive. Though it was the very laissez-faire Seventies, her mother and divorced father along with the mother’s boyfriend clearly committed several offences against Ms Geimer on a grand scale. But, instead of punishing them for it, the zeal to crush someone else, i.e., Polanski through several people involved, who had been in the past a critic of the LAPD and the prosecutors, was so strong that it caused DAs Wells, Trott, Mantagna, judge Rittenband, and first of all bent cop Vannater to corrupt the case so badly the moment they realised they dealt with a famous celebrity, that it became impossible to prosecute him fairly. I.e., after the coaching of Ms Geimer in regards to the sodomy the cop undoubtedly fabricated for her, the blackmail of Huston to testify against Polanski who was first on Polanski’s side and then used against him, and of course Rittenband’s own little games.
Hence the plea bargain the family was so keen on was struck once they realised what they had done, accuse an innocent man of rape – and were all given a pass for. Remember, the completely biased cop interviewed Ms Geimer first, and the moment Vannatter asked her about the ‘sodomy’ (after the physician had found NO signs of any vaginal or anal rape), Ms Geimer had no clue about what he meant, i.e. said, “Oh, I thought he [Polanski] went in the wrong way.” As in, ‘really’ not knowing the ‘diffidence’ between a penis going in anally or vaginally, or anything about ‘anal intercourse’, since she clearly never had it. Otherwise, how then can she say he ‘sodomised’ her – even twice – when there is NO chance people who DID have it would NOT know the difference? It clearly stinks of Vannatter’s initial coaching her to say he had sodomised her, (after he had threatened Huston with jail if she’d not testify against Polanski in exchange for the cocaine charges being dropped, to say she had interrupted them.) And THAT is where it all went wrong from the start, for Vannatter’s intention to place Polanski into a situation with another ‘witness’ to testify to his ‘rape’, the way Ms Geimer would describe it to the grand jury TWO whole weeks later.
Remember too, the very controversial Rape Shield Laws would have excluded all in effect exonerating evidence possible, crucial background information, bar the medical evidence that was already known, other ONLY family related ‘witnesses’ and the already coerced testimonies that would have been put in place of the real facts. NO one, who was just raped and sodomised, and then someone interrupts them, would not ever call on that person’s help, when the ‘perpetrator’ even leaves the ‘victim’ on her own, utterly unfettered and unimpaired in any form, not to just storm to the door or simply cry out for help to attract the caller. She never said he threatened or forced her in any form not to call out, walk away, out that door, and she never made any protestations as to how he ‘hurt’ her, how ‘it (should) hurt’. She said herself he stopped the sodomy when someone knocked on the door, then got up to dress her underwear again (which by all means was rather still lying by the Jacuzzi since they towelled off only in the TV room), sat on the sofa again, (rather than bleed, after screaming, thrashing and crying in pain all through the ‘ordeal’), then lets him talk to Huston, and THEN even allows him to come back to ‘finish off’.
That clearly never happened either way, since for one, it’s utterly illogical on every level, and Huston only met her after the sex still on the phone, according to Polanski’s own account matching Huston’s original account. Meaning, all she had stated as teenager was coached by third parties, forced [on her] by her mother to make herself look better, and fabricated by Ms Geimer herself in various degrees on various stages right after Polanski had left them, in order to make her the completely innocent party in this. Or rather to nail Polanski for something he hadn’t in fact done – just because he had slept with an underaged teenager, which by all means is unlawful – and then turned it into a nasty rape case. Of course she never ever said anything as to the incident outside Gunson’s office – and that Rittenband disregarded such important report to throw out the case right there. Ms Geimer in fact never said say that she feared Polanski would harm her, or had, and she never even said he ‘raped’ her. All the said she was being ‘afraid’ of him at NO proof or logical reasoning to that end in any form, and she never said he threatened her in any form. On the contrary, the later the years the more she said the very opposite. And that since before the ‘settlement’ mind you.
Her also rather vague account as to the oral sex and very blasé description of the double sodomy, read more like a kid’s attempt at trying to be clever, utterly ignorant as to how [anal] sex works. Or of course was coached by a cop (who had no clues either) to say that he had anally raped her, like cops love to do when it comes to sex cases – despite NO such findings – and she went along with it for reasons unknown, with or without her mother’s knowledge or input. The fact that Polanski drove her home and that they all looked at the pictures he had taken of her previously, and the fact she could have sought help from Huston even afterwards (had she not interrupted them) but did not, (and according to Huston’s original statement she gave still at Nicholson’s house of course hadn’t seen them in any bedroom or ‘going at it’) makes Ms Geimer’s original claims of unfounded ‘fear’, ‘continued reluctance’ (no one had ‘noticed’ either) null and void. She never said he used any kind of verbal or physical ‘force’ to ‘make’ her do things, or in regards to any ‘pain’ it would have caused her, had he really done what she had stated. He never was prosecuted for drugged rape or sodomy due to lack of corroboration, and they never was a count for the alcohol plying to start with.
Everything Polanski had said in his defence since then is simply ignored, of no importance, let alone his past, his losses, and his entire life and achievements are simply brushed aside. He said often enough he was sorry for the entire debacle once he had gone back to Europe, and now he is long past his sexual exploits ever since he had settled down again decades ago, has a new devoted family, and it certainly wasn’t him who had lied to the courts to wriggle out of it again, unlike the Gaileys. In fact saying, “The girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she’s had already sexual intercourse before with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn’t concerned about these other men. When Mr Smith or Mrs Brown sleeps with fourteen year old adolescents who look like eighteen, it doesn’t interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one who found himself before a judge.” Exactly – and only because his name was ‘Polanski’ after a bit-part mother had hastily cried rape on her ‘acting’ daughter’s behalf. The US courts and lawmakers are nothing but pathetic ass kissers to these anti-sex laws enabling them to do so in the first place, and theirs are of the same interchangeable standard formulas of misandruous litanies than these women’s and girls’ ‘little white lies’ destroying men with sex.
Polanski is well-known for treating everyone like adults, no matter their actual age and holds women equal to men, hence his rapport with younger women too and great success in sexual matters. He once said in 1971, “Let’s say I meet a girl, and she tries to give me the impression that she desires to go to bed with me that same evening, although I can sense that it’s not her intention. That’s what I call ‘games’, and it lasts for about ten minutes. Then I simply lose interest. I don’t mind if she doesn’t want to have sexual relations with me, as long as she states it clearly by her behaviour.” Meaning, he would never force sex like any sensible man wouldn’t, especially if she really said ‘no’. So in that sense, Ms Geimer certainly never made it clear through her ‘behaviour’, since she clearly never removed herself from his company at any given stage perfectly able to do so, really told him off, or even once half-heatedly showed ‘some resistance’ after that first kiss or caress. THAT had been a clear ‘sign’. Had she really said ‘no’, he’d let her be just the same. But she went with him, moved through the house and then had sex with him, and there never was any need to force himself on anyone with the next female waiting to share more sex with him never short of offers. ‘Games’ is what they had played with him ever since.
A lot of people keep howling for Polanski’s blood now that he’s free again to do what he did before, know absolutely nothing about the man beyond the sensationalised case, or indeed the facts concerning. Which is to say, these self-absorbed people not only possess a gleefully arrogant ignorance of who Polanski was or is, they don’t even know about the details they’re supposedly so outraged over in the first place. Sometimes not even the very basics. All they know and repeat are the words ‘rape’ and ‘sodomy’ in their blinding lack of knowledge. People still comment that he never went to prison and that he is a serial child molester. He wasn’t prosecuted for ‘child molestation’, there never was a count for ‘child molestation’, and, how exactly does being in two different prisons at different times equate to, ‘he never went to prison’? Gunson stated even in that Zenovich documentary the time Polanski spent in Chino already WAS his entire ‘sentence’. They are so desperate to make him this ‘child rapist’ or ‘child molester’ not only ‘once’, but also in regards to classy Kinski and of course sexual predator and ex-prostitute Lewis, who both were of age mind you, when Kinski had never ever said anything to the effect of what Lewis had lied about, or Geimer had invented. Or was forced to.
One thing I love reading is, ‘Polanski is obviously no longer a threat to anyone’ – ‘no longer’? Has he EVER been ‘any threat’ to ‘anyone’? NO one ever said he WAS or IS, or NO ONE WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH HIM. In fact, why would he be a ‘threat’ ‘now’ suddenly when he had like three decades to rape himself through the international populace? His last two film projects prior to The Ghost Writer involved hundreds and hundreds of people with plenty teenagers and kids in his grand scale feature The Pianist, and even cast his own in Oliver Twist five years back, people are oh so bent on being his ‘victims’ amongst many others of course. Funny how much time he has for that when he spends most of it on film sets and with his family, and that no one ever said anything untoward such clearly deluded accusations. With people still not waking up, now saying in their usual braindead name-calling rhetoric, ‘congratulations Mr Polanski for bribing more people and walking free. You are despised by many and you will never be forgiven, you should be rotting in jail’, one can only wonder if their IQ in fact exists at all to think he could bribe himself out of this. NOT EVERYONE IS AS CORRUPT AS YOUR AMERICAN OFFICIALS and many more in fact do NOT share your idiotic sentiments.
Others say Polanski’s lawyers – and his money – have influenced Ms Geimer’s approach to the case. Saying, ‘as for his victim’s statements in support of Polanski, I’ll consider those when I see the terms of the payoff agreement. Until then, anything she says has to be assumed to be tainted and suspect’, that in fact hits he right spot – except, it was no ‘payoff’ and they shouldn’t question her words of ‘today’, but those she uttered as a teenager thirty odd years ago they keep taking as facts long discredited by more intelligent people. So they think he bribed not only officials like Widmer-Schlumpf, but Ms Geimer too? Maybe to switch on their brains would be better and stop taking her words as a teen as indisputable fact, but her words today as an adult as the more correct. Of course they would believe a real ‘victim’ can be bought in this case, while otherwise they’d feign indignity. I guarantee you that in each of these ever more unintelligent comments you’ll find the ‘anal fixation’ rhetoric, i.e., ‘he anally raped her’, before that it was, ‘he sodomised her’. These anally retentive and clearly sodomy obsessed people should listen to their own ridiculous diatribe sometimes. Or try anal sex to get a real taste of it.
If Polanski were one of their own, they in fact would say the exact same things as his defenders, to let him finally be and to respect Ms Geimer’s wishes to that effect, that he never did anything like this again or we’d heard of it, that it was such a long time ago, that he has paid for it and suffered enough. These pathetic ignorami also keep saying that he’s ‘Hollywood’, and that’s why Hollywood defends him, when in fact he only made two films there and the last in 1973 to be release in 1974 – Chinatown – all others were made in Europe. Polanski didn’t and doesn’t ‘need’ Hollywood at all, since the entire studio system goes against his way of directing, with much better suited producers who make ‘films’, not feed the shallow ‘star system’ and box office money machine. Besides, where was this bigoted indignation when The Pianist was attracting critical praise and huge audiences worldwide, when he received his Oscar from Harrison Ford, even though his fugitive status and the reasons for it were widely known and reported on? It’s called hypocrisy. Ms Geimer never did nor wants him locked up, the public has no right to demand otherwise, and to do so now would be cruel and vengeful.
NO ONE in Hollywood except him was locked up for sleeping with an underaged teenager at that time by Dalton’s own admission, (or in fact ever since) hence the plea bargain to send him packing. Since this clearly never happened for Rittenband’s unacceptable string of misconducts, Polanski has certainly proven a very enduring and ever-convenient target for press attacks and public moral outrage in the past decades, mostly of the braindead media junkie variety and know-nothings who believe anything they read not even half his age. Fact remains, Polanski was railroaded by the corrupt law like no one else before, simply for who he was – or is – and these real criminals sitting in the Santa Monica courthouse get away with literal murder. Except in Polanski’s case, the ‘little Polish mouse’ has escaped their ugly fat cat attorneys a second time now, which is of course a national tragedy to all excessively interested and self-obsessed Americans hating on Switzerland too now – maybe to get a life would be more productive and intelligent. Find some of your currently thirteen year old girls who need their real rapists locked up.
Cooley has committed enough perjury and crimes during his ten years in office these idiots couldn’t care less about. He’s got a class-action suit on his hands since nearly a year, his own disgruntled colleagues want him gone, and he repeatedly ignored the Appeals Court’s demands to tackle the misconducts in this case. Instead of doing so, he rather declared that Polanski would receive ‘two years’ – when that’s not possible by law at retroactive sentencing policies not allowing today’s laws being applied to an old case – and the minimum then was in fact one year [on probation] for unlawful sexual intercourse which applies still today. He also kept giving us the impression that he wanted to ‘prosecute’ him, when Polanski was properly processed already and had pleaded. The extradition request only allowed for ‘sentencing’, not holding a trial to try him on all counts, since his plea was accepted and never revoked to allow for a trial in the first place. As long as a plea stands, a defendant can only be held accountable on that one count. Since the extradition papers also failed to include anything in regards to his ‘flight’, no such count can be included after the fact in the ‘sentence’ either.
Cooley suppressed Polanski’s own defence account in the papers, all vital [medical] evidence, and Polanski’s witness statements, which is also unlawful. He messed up big time from start to finish by falsifying these records, then gives us this famewhoring Lewis and Allred team spewing more ugly lies and accusations to influence the extradition, after he had engaged in unlawful ex parte communications like Rittenband already, publicly ridiculing Ms Geimer’s attempts to have the case dropped. He’s clearly demented to pursue Polanski that relentlessly, just like Americans think everyone else is as corrupt as their officials are. Even people who believe Polanski is a rapist and/or paedophile but want it done and over with, (never even getting the idea that there is no such thing as a onetime rapist), can see this is nothing but vengeance and wasting taxpayers money, while they should concentrate on their own current criminals. California is basically bankrupt and crime ridden like no other US state, and yet they keep on spending more money on these high-profile ‘celebrity’ cases, just so to feed the bored public some more sordid sex stories. Nice going Cooley – I hope you won’t make it to Attorney General. Oh yeah, and ditch the ‘child sex case/rapist’ rhetoric, it’s getting boring now.
Now, after Poland being quick about it, Widmer-Schlumpf too has stated for the public record that Polanski had not only served his time for his oh so heinous offence, i.e., sex with a minor, pinning no moral ‘guilty or not guilty’ label on it, they also denied the US from issuing any further extradition warrants for him. Other countries not bothering with that at any rate, in contrast to what people erroneously believe the Swiss did not ‘bow’ to ‘pressure’ from the ‘wealthy’, (Polanski is NOT ‘wealthy’ at all or has any clout to influence a legal process) ‘famous’ (that he is no doubt) and ‘influential’ (like the French President, who however only kept in contact with his counterpart who both had no hands in the proceedings), were bribed or promised anything to let Polanski go as many say, attacking the Swiss now. No, they were the only sane voices of reason in this entire madness so far who kept by the rule book of law. Had Rittenband done the same, no matter what he thought about Polanski’s conduct or his sexual exploits, (though he in fact did the same no one seems to care about), it means absolutely nothing in terms of applying the law and what Rittenband did was clearly against the law he was supposed to uphold. No, he like all the others thought they’re ABOVE the law, (while of course accusing Polanski to think the same) can abuse it and misuse it willy-nilly. Media whore Rittenband before scumbag Cooley and just as useless judge Espinoza feel that they don’t need to follow the law in any direction but their own. And the best is, they think we never noticed.
Sometimes I really wonder if people in fact HAVE a brain. Why do I keep reading, he ‘escaped’ ‘child sex charges’, or a ‘trial’? Before it was, Polanski fled before being ‘sentenced’, now it is, before being ‘charged’ with [whatever]’. Hello? HELLO? He WAS ‘charged’ the moment he was arrested in 1977 and then indicted on six counts. He didn’t ‘escape’ anything, and after five months and Polanski was allowed to fly to Europe to complete his movie, he pleaded to the one count the family demanded. People keep believing, because Ms Geimer never testified against him in a trial, they wanted to ‘spare’ her. NO, the defence would have unravelled her fabrications in nil time, and if it HAD been rape, they would have him PLEAD to rape even if she had not stood trial and the mother surely had demanded so, NOT let him plead to ‘only’ unlawful sexual intercourse. How dumb are people to think that. But the mother did not ask for that, though a real rape victim’s parent would most certainly press for that and incarceration, and guess why not? Because the very EVIDENCE did not comport with anything she had stated in her testimony, and since years now tried to ‘make it all go away’, that, by Ms Geimer’s own admission either way.
They always put it as if Polanski was ‘allowed’ to plead to that one count, obviously in no real clue how a plea bargain works. NO, he was forced into it on several levels, i.e., to save [him] costs, to cut it short, to spare Ms Geimer from humiliation, her mother/family from perjury, and most of all because the mother demanded it. Meaning, they all got away with it, the fame-hungry mother who used her daughter and then betrayed Polanski, the drug-addicted twenty-year old sister who backed up her lies, the permissive and two-timing boyfriend of the even more permissive mother letting her drink, take drugs and have sex, Ms Geimer’s own boyfriend who was never done for statutory rape, apart from her lawyer father who told her not to stand trial knowing fair well she ‘always acted’ and would be found out. And of course, slimeballs Vannatter, Wells and racist Rittenband got away with criminal conduct. No wonder after ten months and pointless incarceration Polanski ‘fled’, not because as people now say, ‘the judge concerned with his case was ‘disturbed’ when confronted with the photographic ‘evidence’ that proved Polanski’s continued interest in young girls’, (i.e., that cropped Oktoberfest photo, not any ‘evidence’) where he was photographed with another underage lover, Nastassja Kinski, who was fifteen, although this one was presumably consensual,’ etc. pp bullshit.
People are really pushing it now. First of all, Kinski was NOT in that photo Wells had Rittenband compelled with, she WAS of age since In Germany the age of consent was always fourteen, and it most certainly was consensual. Her mother knew Polanski, that they were lovers and was perfectly happy with him furthering her career professionally. No, he ‘fled’ when the self-important judge wanted to send him back for another round of punishment and threatened to deport him no one wanted and was strictly unlawful. And why do people keep saying that ‘he is on the run’? He ‘lives’ in France since more than three decades now, he’s not ‘running’ from anyone, or even hiding, unlike most had expected he’d do now rather than attend some jazz festival, just because he cannot go anywhere near the US. They also keep saying in a self-deluding refrain of sheer wishing-well that the ‘facts’ of the case are ‘incontrovertible’, and that Ms Geimer’s testimony is not under dispute. Sorry to disappoint you all, they’re NOT ‘facts’ by legal standards and is the ONLY controvertible and disputed part of this entire case; her testimony that was never seriously impugned, let alone proven, or in fact was disproved already or there had been no plea deal.Read between the lines of her later interviews and actions, and you get the idea that she fabricated a classic ‘he said she said’ scenario of the more manipulative kind as a teenager the attorneys however did not fall for. Read on any site that says, ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ [with a minor, which is in fact self-explanatory to be ‘unlawful’], and you get the more objective/intelligent comments concentrating more on the messy legal side of this corrupted case, read on one that says, he drugged, raped, sodomised, with emphasis on ‘child’ of ‘thirteen’ bla bla bla, you get the braindead attack mode variety, and is nothing but pure projection of their own inner world exposed in their reflexive rhetoric that’s getting BORING now. All they ever do is trying to manipulate the gullible public even more by such ill-informed monotonous oratories. Of course, anything is ‘rape’ these days, especially in the sex-repressed US, though it technically is only forcible intercourse by law, and if a sex partner is a minor, it is ‘rape’ by default, even if s/he in fact consented to the sex.
So much for equality between the genders, since only the male gets slung in prison for it. And if not, they make dumb daytime TV shows chronicling the pregnancies of their teenaged partners, and NO one gets sent to prison for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. There are millions of underaged teenage girl having sex with boys and men right now, always had and always will. The US needs to lower the age at which a person has the lawful right to consent to sex. It foremost would save the states a lot of money and leave the courts and prisons to deal with real crimes and avoid sending innocent men into hell. But no, they either glorify how teenagers can get impregnated in the US and make dough from it, or it gets demonised in their typical bigoted hypocrisy that’s so sleazy and immature. Redefining laws, punishments and descriptions of sex acts, making anyone under eighteen a freaking ‘child’ now, they’ve successfully regressed all minors to the state of an unconscious foetus. These people are so desperate to infantilise girls, render them lesser capable creatures than they really are, disempowering them to the extreme. So much for the sexual revolution, hallelujah! When it comes to rape, we empower women by insisting they are powerless; we make them strong by insisting they are weak; we celebrate their free moral agency by insisting they are incapable of resisting male seduction or consent to sex.
Crying ‘I’m soooooo shocked at the thought of sexual abuse of children!’ are, in fact, completely unconcerned about any ‘sexual abuse’ of any ‘children’ or are, indeed, only interested in their little venom shots fired into all directions to hit some celebrity. And, why do people stoop so low to condemn someone famous that easily without the slightest proof? Because THEY have made him ‘famous’, he IS famous, since fifty years in fact, and ‘controversial’. But, as much as people love building someone up, they love tearing their ‘celebrities’ down even more, revelling in whatever misfortune befalls them, to make them feel better about themselves in clear delusion not even having the full facts to begin with. It’s tempting to ask what’s ‘wrong’ with these people, but more accurate is to ask what’s even more ‘wrong’ with these blind detractors. Are they really that bored that they need to hack away on their keyboards to spew obscenities, insults and plain dumb tirades? Or do they simply need a break from their shallow little lives and take pleasure in people’s misery who cannot defend themselves? Salacious tabloid culture has never been more popular, more prevalent, and more irrelevant to reality. Once it was harmless escapism, now the ugly turns it has taken are no doubt the beginning of a very nasty trend supported by dangerous cyber lynch mobs.
Returning to Widmer-Schlumpf, I believe the ‘coward letter’ (addressed by ‘her’ to ‘someone’), demanding Polanski be brought back to a secure facility before he would be extradited, so he could not ‘escape’ before his ‘day in court’ arrived, was nothing but a fraudulent piece of disgusting slander using her name, published by some US site to inflame the hate-filled public some more. I will leave it to demonstrate that people will not shy from fabricating more lies by even using officials, after her very wise decision to refuse the US their ‘little Polish mouse’ to torture it some more. (I will however leave my remarks over her denial that they had sold Polanski out over this UBS business, which obviously failed.) People who resort to that kind of subversive hate propaganda have been lobotomised, they live a robotised and completely routinised sex media infused, fictitious, hateful life, and all they do is keep repeating the sordid indictment counts with absurd obsession just picturing it all in their diseased minds, getting off on them with pornographic relish with which Polanski’s excessively interested critics are retelling the lurid details. Someone more intelligent said, no no no, I’m fed up with this garbage talk, I know he’s a very pleasant, intelligent and cultured man, an amazing director, he would never drug and rape a young girl, (mirroring Huston’s own words), and hit it right on the head of truth.
People have the desperate tendency to give Polanski more clout than he really has, as in, being able to bribe everything and everyone, and mostly of course, ‘all his other victims’. Funny how they never emerged while he was a fugitive, or under house arrest specifically. Given that he is such a high-profile person, known to be ‘wanted’ in the US, I can’t give any credence to rumours that aren’t backed by actual charges, let alone a conviction. Polanski was a sitting duck for any incontestable or fabricated accusation, especially when it concerns ‘sex crimes’. So, if there was anything substantiated, we’d have heard of it ever since he was a ‘fugitive’. Besides, the Swiss and France allowed him to reside in their countries for decades, Germany, Poland, Russia and others where else he made films and he lived in Italy for four years, AND NO ONE ELSE EVER CAME FORWARD TO CRY RAPE. Ergo, NO rape ever occurred, let alone the one Ms Geimer had successfully made millions believe only to say later ‘he had sex with me’. Indeed. Were he such a serious ‘danger to society’, he would have messed up again as criminals always do and surely be caught at one point, even after being ‘deterred’ by prison, and rapists always escalate their attacks. Since he hasn’t ‘attacked’ anyone, no matter he had sexual relations (like millions had/have it) with a couple of teenagers who were all of age, mind you, they obviously have no interest in playing ‘rape victim’, just because others need to vilify him. He had many older lady friends he slept with too, thereby also capping the repetitive nonsense that he’s a paedophile.
Guess he had better things to do than serial rape and abuse ‘children’, like make films and direct stage plays with hundreds of adults, teenagers and ‘children’ and raise a new family with ‘children’. Anyone could have blackmailed him by saying he had molested them. Did even ONE come forward to say he had? Nope. Outside liar Lewis, of course, who sank without a trace and rightly so. Now they have a new ‘theory’ as to why Polanski could ‘escape’ ‘justice’– by saying, that he has reaches into the very upper tier of the Obama Administration mind you, and that he was helped by the US government of all things in his bid to avoid being handed back to LA. They say, ‘rumours’ are floating that the US Department of Justice, i.e., Eric Holder, was instructed by Obama to withhold the evidence, i.e., Gunson’s testimony, thereby ‘forcing’ the Swiss into releasing Polanski. After Obama didn’t even bother to read Polanski’s alleged request of ‘pardon’, I doubt he’d get involved with the DOJ to free an old foreign director. They say, such a possibility deepens with the presence of lawyer Reid Weingarten in Polanski’s legal team, who is known to be Holder’s ‘closest friend’, and that the DOJ was lobbied to help Polanski avoid extradition. We know the DOJ refused to give Swiss authorities the transcripts, according to a letter from Swiss officials to the US Embassy. The DOJ said that the DA’s office approved the DOJ’s rejection of the Swiss request.
That said, Cooley’s claim that they never heard of the Swiss’ request to send them the documents is therefore null and void. However, a DA spokesperson said that the LA office was not specifically notified of the [Swiss] request and had no idea that the DOJ had turned down the request. Funny, since we ALL knew about that, and Widmer-Schlumpf even said so in press interviews on both occasions. First they said they’re not interested stupidly trusting the LA court having submitted all facts of the case, then they however were pointed to that not being true when Polanski went public to say he had done his time, then Lewis appeared to influence the Swiss authorities by blatantly pointing them to take her accusations ‘into account’ in an old case which is unlawful, and THEN the Swiss asked for Gunson’s testimony to make sure. But, because Espinoza refused to unseal the testimony, Cooley then refused to release it, and the DOJ in turn refused to send it, therefore the Swiss refused to send Polanski back into their corrupt hands. Besides, why did it take Weingarten or Holder like half a year to free him, if they had an interest in doing so, had such ‘powers’? Because it had nothing to do with them outside the US-Swiss extradition treaty provisions the LA courts clearly violated and Widmer-Schlumpf decided to release Polanski after they refused to release vital proof be made available to them. Simple.
Can we trust the ‘Americans’ (or others) to comprehend the complexities of judicial procedures, even those in Switzerland? Not according to what I read so far even by those who call themselves ‘lawyers’. The US press apparently is now explaining that the decision to release Polanski is creating an ‘inability’ to understand whether or not he had served his entire sentence in California, when suddenly learning that he risked a second sentence, and now a third to be precise, he decided to escape such arbitrary abuse of the law. Really? So why do they still say he skipped charges, prosecution, sentencing, prison and punishment? They say, contrary to what was said by Polanski’s legal team, the climate in California apparently did not lend itself to a lynching of the director, nothing that would foreshadow carnage or a truly biased opinion. Really? So what about the endless flow of VERY BIASED calls for his head on blogs, articles that headline his name with ‘rapist’ and/or ‘paedophile’, picket lines with people holding placards of: Polanski = ‘rapist’ and/or ‘paedophile’? Constantly repeating that he drugged, raped and sodomised ‘children’? They say, Polanski is a ‘vaguely known person’ who does not really raise controversy. Really? So what about all those calls to boycott his films by ordinary people and feminist radicals, that he should be raped and rot in jail? I read stuff like this every day since years now, and most originates in the US.
They say, his ‘enemies’, Cooley, Walgren and Espinoza don’t reflect the Hollywood cliché of Ayatollah justices thirsty for his blood. Human rights defence organisations and lawyers give them a rather glowing review. Really? ‘Human rights’? In LA courts? Not according to all those who were abused and went down on fabrications by crooked ‘lawyers’! Not to mention liars like Lewis! And what about Espinoza’s messing him about since years now and Walgren calling him a ‘child rapist’ to inflame the public even more? They say, Polanski would have left the hearing a free man, with a suspended sentence or one for the time he already served (in two prisons). Really? So what about Cooley demanding two years behind bars who is more crooked than anyone, wanting to apply today’s law retroactively, after falsifying records, which is BOTH unlawful? They say, in the US there are voices who salute Polanski’s liberation, and recognise the extraordinary judicial chaos that surrounded the case at the time. Really? Then explain why Cooley is forcing the ‘Californians’ to pay for continuation of this ‘chaotic’ case, demands ‘‘justice’ be done for a ‘raped thirteen year old’’ who doesn’t want to know and he couldn’t care less about in a case older than most of Polanski’s haters, rather than having sentenced him in absentia, concede that the 42 days at Chino was his entire sentence, and litigate the case to be finally closed? Cooley simply wants the exposure in a high-profile case which will make him AG.
They say, they events took place at a time when sex, drugs and underage sex was the norm (like today), and many US states and Canada made fourteen the age of consent and, at thirteen, the girl was admittedly no virgin, took drugs and had alcohol before. Really? Then explain all those in jail for ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor’ and California STILL having eighteen as age of consent? They say, today people naively assume that thirteen is an age of ‘innocence’ despite what we hear of most teenage girls, of underage pregnancies and their boyfriends being slung in prison for consensual sex. Really? Then explain why these ‘naïve people’ can’t wrap their heads around that fact, not ONCE thinking the ‘non-virgin’ girl had in fact lied to a grand jury, her mother too who had allowed all the sex, drugs and alcohol in the first place, the cops had blackmailed witnesses, both coached the ‘oh so innocent girl’ and highly biased DAs abused the law to ‘punish the little Pole’ NO ONE wanted? They say, if Polanski was tried under the attitudes of the time, he would have gotten off free at no one having spent a day in prison for unlawful sex, true – but did HE get free when the ‘attitudes’ were in fact alive ‘then’? NO! Rittenband made an ugly example of HIM, sent HIM down on threat of self-deportation and Walgren/Cooley TODAY want to try HIM on all counts, AGAIN! America has become so unyielding, so repressed and so damaging in sex cases that the rest of the world wisely says, enough is ENOUGH!
Many rightly say, Polanski is not a paedophile, that others have misrepresented Polanski’s former open penchant for younger females who were so mature and precocious they could pass for adults, true, true. Most have no perception what a true paedophile is or does, and Polanski most certainly was not interested in prepubescent ‘children’ as these people are, but have to call him that in their stupidity. Let them, let them revel in their glorious ignorance. Now he happens to be married to another gorgeous actress for many years keeping him young in turn many are plain jealous of, his plenty former gorgeous conquests. He had one thoughtless moment of falling for a nubile teen who was pushed into his lap to further her career, legally unable to consent, and he admitted his guilt. But only because the girl’s mother cried rape. Had she not, nothing had come of it, except both had been looking at a lucrative future career in the film industry, not decades of demonisation for the man. When you watch them both at the premiere of Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’, they pose like professionals and bathe in the limelight, clearly enjoying it. Not quite the vision of ‘victims’, let a lone ‘survivors’, No, skilful poseurs and liars. We weep at the sorry tale of American justice they both had enabled to make a mockery of, including an equally media-loving judge who broke his word. If Polanski returned, given his past experience with judges, DA’s and the US law, no one can blame him for staying in more moderate Europe.
Even the language employed to discuss this case has changed. Any sex case. Any descriptions of sex acts, just so to make them sound so much more sordid and punishable. Despite the fact that the same office he now heads agreed to a plea of a charge of having underage sex, Cooley now describes the case as one where, ‘Mr Polanski was convicted of serious ‘child sex charges’’. Really, ‘Mr Cooley’ eager to become AG on the back of Polanski? That does not appear to have been the view of your office in 1977. The DA’s office agreed to a plea deal then that had resulted in a short probationary sentence for what Cooley now calls a ‘serious child sex’ offence, just so whip people into more blind frenzy. The facts of the case haven’t changed; there was no drugged rape or sodomy. But moralistic attitudes of today, legal and media languages and the politics of crime have escalated quite drastically when a ‘sexual offence’ is involved. As we know, the agreement between Rittenband, Gunson and Dalton was that Polanski was only going to prison for that 90-day diagnostic observation period. In that era where no one was incarcerated for unlawful sex, the 90-day diagnostic was used by judges, acceded to by prosecution and defence, to give a defendant a two-to-three-month ‘taste of steel’, in the criminal justice argot of the day. Basically punish them for something under the guise of ‘studies’, since all criminal justice lawyers and judges knew that a more important reason for such a sentencing step was to convey to the ‘public’, that a prison sentence ‘might’ be imposed, though never was.
The public view was usually that in 90 days, or earlier, upon returning to court, the defendant’s ‘real’ sentence would be a short county jail sentence with credit for the time served in custody during the diagnostic observation period. Polanski’s lawyer had the resources to propose a ‘local diagnostic’ carried out by psychologists and experts in LA while he remained free. That step could have been taken in lieu of shunting him off to prison, if there was really any need was for diagnostic, psychological review to justify (i.e. furnish ‘expert’ cover for) not punishing Polanski as a potentially recidivist sex offender. But it wasn’t, he was found no MDSO and no threat to society, just a depressed man who loved sex to compensate. Unsurprisingly no new information or insight was gained after they had their positive reports already, none more materialised during the prison observation period, and there was no need for another ‘study’. The ‘real need’ was for it to appear to the ‘public’ that the judge and the DA were dealing sternly with Polanski. I.e., made an ‘example’ of him. Polanski’s counsel told him, and he had every right to believe, that the 90-day diagnostic was most certainly for appearances’ sake and he would receive credit for the time it took, combined with a sentence of probation after the diagnostic period in prison custody ended as it was routine then.
Basically, play a game at the defendant’s expenses for the public, instead of just giving him probation right away as everyone else, and not let him dangle for over eight months and then sling him prison for weeks for public fun. If that was not the expectation of Polanski and his attorney, there was little reason for him to have agreed to the guilty plea to unlawful sexual intercourse he entered, and upon his release was free to go, his entire sentence. Had Rittenband stuck to these rules, today no one would have any ideas about what happened three decades ago in the Santa Monica courthouse. The need for justice to be administered equally and transparently has not changed with the times, it was only more abused and became more unjust with many more innocent men in prison for sex. In 1977, or now, the behaviour and contradictory statements of many of the public officials involved in the adjudication of Polanski’s case, created questions upon which the public and the media are fixated with gushing zeal, getting off when they can call him names and demand cruel punishment/s beyond all reason. Prosecutors and judges in the courts of LA County may take some heed from the decision not to extradite Polanski. Switzerland has given those officials room to let them realise, overzealous persecution of an old case with an old man who had evidently never slept with another underaged girl, branded by his experiences, is unacceptable.
With ugly and persistent voices like Cooley’s howling for Polanski’s blood in another show of prurient fanaticism, it’ll never end. They care nothing about ‘justice’, or any of these feminists and detractors. To them and so many ignorami he is just a name, a branded man, who, unlike most, could recover himself eventually, driven by his lust for life and directing, create more films against all odds, rebuild his life a third time now, has a loving new wife who stands by him, a devoted new family that needs him. To these inhuman witch hunters however, he’s just another expendable victim of the feminist anti-sex crusade. They have no clear concept of the man, the human behind his public artist’s façade. They’re envious of his former success with women and his progressive profession despite all odds, and take perverse pleasure in dehumanising him on every level, where not even his past counts, his own suffering and losses, sometimes not even his great cinematic achievements, his willpower to survive, forged by repetitively inflicted pain, finally forced into the social stigma of rapist, and/or paedophile no matter who he is. These sanctimonious lynchers don’t see a human being who deserves understanding and support like any innocent man, like they would want such rights bestowed upon them. They keep debating someone they have no facts about beyond media lies or his diverse films, which of course can be, and were, turned against him too.
They did so in a show of vile vilification right after Tate’s murder, trying to equate the dark subject matters of his movies with the person who is telling and directing the stories in a realistic and outstanding way. They relished making the victims being responsible for their own murders, him the instrument of their demise, fabricating outrageous accusations of satanic orgies and whatnot bullshit that caused their brutal end. But, who would be intelligent enough to realise this correlation between a versatile storyteller and his stories is certainly not being an indication of the storyteller’s own character, or life. Of course, it is easier to confuse Polanski’s films and his wife’s brutal murder with the skilled raconteur Polanski, and the real events in his life he did not orchestrate like his films. They make Polanski out to be a little imp for having had sex with an underage girl, and the devil’s attributes were assigned to Polanski throughout his life long before that, transform/ed him into a fiend himself, the sexual predator, the rapist and paedophile. No, he’s reduced to a means of vicious media hounds and pathetic bigots legally and repeatedly destroying him through their lies and power, just an old director who dare slept with a minor three decades ago like countless others had, who must pay his debt to ‘society’ despite the ‘victim’ not even demanding so, that same cruel ‘society’ that had condemned him mercilessly to begin with, where only the faces of his new accusers have changed that enabled his accuser/s to cry rape in the first place.
The most outrageous bullshit I’ve ever read concerning the old case posted in some US newspaper shortly after Polanski’s rearrest, was: ‘Polanski will have unfettered access to the children of other countries, once released on bail, (forgetting that he was put under house arrest.) These countries may reap what they have sown, but I cannot believe that the innocent children of those countries deserve to be served up as prey to that evil monster named Roman Polanski’. Typical religion-style delusion on a grand scale, like he’s raping himself though a few million kids globally – since I was thinking, he actually visited other countries ever since then who didn’t bother with any extradition and in fact made films with plenty of teenagers and plenty more children (Oliver Twist), met his friends’ and colleagues’ kids of varying ages, and oddly enough NONE of them ever said what an ‘evil monster’ he is. Not even Ms Geimer. I wonder why. Another lunacy I read about in the same paper, was, ‘he forced anal, vaginal, and oral sex on the child for four hours’. No one ever came up with any ‘ordeal time’ estimate, officially or otherwise. No man lasts ‘four hours’, and even Tantric sex doesn’t take that long, let alone casual sex.
Besides, after ‘four hours’ any effects of the champagne or bit of Quaalude had long worn off, and most of all, Polanski would be exhausted like hell, let alone her, unable to keep it up, and the next thing that in fact would happen is very visible ‘soreness’, i.e., all stop and drop. I give him half an hour tops for the kissing, caressing and vaginal intercourse he admitted to. And, according to the logical course of events from 4 PM onwards after he had picked her up and they left her home to take photos at Jacqueline Bisset’s house first, which took an hour, to ‘four hours’ later after he had returned Ms Geimer from Nicholson’s home, including the actual half-hour trips to get there and back before he had called her mother to say she’d be late for their 7 PM dinner, that half hour is the most they had time for the sex. My time estimates are in fact documented, while the writer saying her ‘ordeal’ lasted the entire four hours time is delusional fanaticism, or to repeat, ‘child’, living in a dark world of seedy rape and sodomy where they spin their semen-soaked web of sleazy lies, just like Lewis had. The girl would look a piece of pulp, roughed up and weeping, not get dressed and tip-toe through the lounge to get her kit while Huston is on the phone to be introduced to her after the sex.
I took Quaalude often enough myself to get the sexual buzz, and I also had it with alcohol, and even strong painkillers, so I positively know that what Ms Geimer stated the tiny part of the Quaalude and some glass of champagne or even two did to her, i.e., ‘affected her motor functions’, or made her ‘dizzy’, is simply a blatant lie, just so to render her[self] the ‘helpless little female victim’ she never was. People keep saying that Quaalude was illegal and a hypnotic – are they deliberately being stupid, or just intentionally manipulative? Quaalude was the sixth best-selling recreational drug and perfectly legal to buy then, and not a ‘sedative’, or rendered you unconscious either. A few might send you to sleep at one point, but so does Aspirin, and certainly not one, let alone a third she had claimed she took herself. They’re mild relaxants, like Prozac, make you euphoric. They’re not barbiturates or affect your thinking, and the lesser you take, the more they act as an aphrodisiac. They were very popular then and everyone took them to ‘lude out’, i.e., get laid. Ms Geimer’s version of events was completely discredited by Huston, who made no protestations about anything to her, while anyone who was just violated in some form even for only a few minutes, would cling to her, say Polanski had raped her, not ‘hello’, and be grumpy to her because they had to leave, by Huston’s own admission.
It’s nothing but base media hype propaganda for the prosecutors to pursue the case this mercilessly, otherwise, why didn’t anybody bother him for over thirty years? No, the majority of corrupt prosecutors and highly paid judges who administer the US ‘justice’ farce, pursue people like him, have long proven themselves to be the worst criminals in the western world, far worse than the small percentage of people they put behind bars who are in fact guilty, while the majority is not. These elected criminals intentionally go after major artists and contributors to society, especially the ones who publicly exposed their misconducts. It’s no accident that the US has draconian anti-sex laws and sentences for the most minor offences and boasts the highest prison population in the world. The goal of these thugs in uniform with their guns, tasers, beatings, chokeholds and corrupt judges, prosecutors and ‘law and order’ politicians is to establish a slave state, manufacture criminals out of ordinary citizens by recycling them through multi-billion slave gulags for life. They also make very cheap workforces in prison – and I guarantee you, every single number plate in the US was made by an inmate – who might just have been brutally gang raped, or is innocent of any crime to begin with.
If people say, ‘regardless of the hardships Polanski has personally endured, regardless of whatever his skills as a filmmaker might be, regardless of his years of exile from America or the fact that he has financially compensated his victim, regardless of his feelings towards the handling of the trial, and, certainly, regardless of the fact that his ‘victim’ has forgiven him and wants to move on, he should be made to pay the legal price for his actions and should universally be recognised as the criminal he has admitted to being’, regardless of such US style bullshit litany, it again is the same delusional nonsense that he admitted to it, or to being a rapist, (since of course they know he never has said that but want him to have) they don’t even care about his past and losses, the plenty legal transgressions committed in this case, or any ‘victim’ either. What self-obsessed conceit. Both participants in this old drama are utterly ‘erased’, dehumanised in the name of such sanctimonious bullshit, not even accrediting the fact that he had led a law-abiding life in between, or in fact no one had made any films with him. I wonder what they’d say if some vindictive DAs and corrupt judges messed with them in the same manner. Apart from the lying media and computer lynch mob.
Another lovely ‘logic’ is to say, ‘she has repeatedly suggested that Polanski not be forced to serve jail time for his rape of her’ – um, yeah, like any real rape victim would actually say or demand that after a ‘rape’, though she said that he shouldn’t face prison, true, (since there was no rape) but never actually said he ‘raped her’, not once, and in fact only ever used the word ‘rape’ when saying, it wasn’t rape. No real rape victim would do so. Are these people stupid to think otherwise? Of course, because he never violated her in any form, only the public and law have. Many people cannot even get the basics of this old case right, but just have to shoot off their gobs to make it really sordid and nasty. And to top it all, someone said, ‘Polanski’s then longtime girlfriend Huston testified against him at the trial’. And there I was thinking she in fact was Nicholson’s lover and that there never was a trial she had to testify at, after she in fact stated the same course of events in support of Polanski – NOT Ms Geimer. Which is she same kind of garbage that the ‘rape’ happened during a ‘party’ at Nicholson’s house. All this comes from the same deluded US source, of course, in order to manipulate the dim-witted public some more.
The best lie I’ve heard so far in regards to the Oktoberfest photo that had ‘incensed’ the old judge so much that he demanded Polanski to return from Europe to sling him inside of Chino in a vindictive show of power abuse, is, that some German feminist radical seriously stated, Polanski was shown with another minor on his arm in the photo, while it in fact was cropped and none of the ‘girls’ on that photo were minors, with him, let alone arm in arm. These young women in their twenties were the partners of his friends who had invited him there to take a break from filming to stay in the money to pay his legal counsel, and if people never saw that in/famous photo, that it was deliberately doctored by that slimy Wells who gave Rittenband the idea to send the ‘little Polack’ to Chino in the first place, they’d simply believe it. It’s outrageous Nazi style propaganda no one seems to have any trouble with. The best fabrication so far was, apart from what sleazy ‘writer’ Kiernan came up with or lobotomised Reisman, which is really the epitome of contemptible defamation, that she seriously stated, ‘when he did not succeed to make the girl compliant, he raped her anyway, orally, vaginally and anally, and then kicked her out the door, where she climbed into a taxi, crying’. Another prurient idiot remark. Are these people deluded, or just stupid?
Polanski drove her home in a perfectly non-crying and unharmed state or Huston would have said otherwise, never orally, vaginally or anally raped her as per evidence. And, ‘taxi’? ‘TAXI’!? This only shows she like so many have absolute ZERO clues about the case, or simply LIE to confuse and inflame the public some more. Why aren’t these liars done for slander and hate speech? It’s really amazing what people have come up with so far, and Polanski’s been made guilty of all sorts of crimes he wasn’t even accused of officially. Anyone saying, ‘extradition was refused in order to respond to accusations of unlawful sexual conduct’, or ‘to stand trial for rape’, one of which sounds lesser obscene, have obviously no clues that we’re way past any ‘accusations’ and there cannot be any ‘trial for rape’ unless the plea is withdrawn, and the extradition was only meant to confirm his time as served for ‘unlawful sexual conduct’, not ‘rape’, NOTHING ELSE. Saying, ‘42 days is hardly a punishment befitting the severity of his crime’, yeah, ever wondered why exactly? Because it never was ‘drugged rape/sodomy’, ever thought of that? Sleeping with a teenager is hardly a ‘severe crime’ or brutalisation as some love to say. Others saying that there was no trial to ‘spare’ the girl, are just as oblivious to the fact that a trial would have found her guilty of perjury. And others.
And what is it with people thinking they own a celebrity, can trash them when they feel like it? It’s more than absurd that people feel emotionally invested in a celebrity’s private life suddenly and can just rant on and on not even having the full facts. Just because someone is a successful actor or director they get to judge their entire life? Or ignore it when it suits them in contrast if others point them to their past traumas, or even anything positive about them, their artistic achievements? These people never ever look/ed any deeper, they don’t look at all let alone at the overall picture, at BOTH sides. No, they just keep on bashing others like they’re the saints in contrast, with their little pet theories and pet hates in self-righteous self-obsession all based on the unverified words of the female when it comes to male celebrities, blindly believing their accusations just because it’s in line with today’s anti-sex ‘feminist morals’. One show in the US called ‘To Catch a Predator’, was renamed just for a special on Polanski, to, ‘To Catch a Predator Director’, which was nothing more than a cheap and nasty pseudo ‘investigation’, i.e., televised witch hunt to keep dehumanising him for public entertainment. How can anyone be considered a ‘predator’ for sleeping with ONE minor? Or for having casual sex like MILLIONS had, have, and will have? Let’s call Lewis a predator too then, who at least was a self-confessed teen prostitute with fourteen.
This kind of double standard rhetoric whips the dumb public into more blind frenzy through these highly biased and pretentious ‘discussions’ about the case they [still] have no clear idea about, debating his ‘evil deed’, while utterly stifling his own voice of defence, when it’s more important to investigate the breakdown of the law it had suffered on several levels since decades now, NOT the ‘sordid sex’. Do these people really believe, that one day, Polanski’s case made it to the top of the pile of extradition requests? Like it was especially important suddenly, when they had and still have plenty real and dangerous criminals on their own soil they need to deal with? The US live in the Dark Ages if they believe ‘they’ had ‘asked’ for Polanski one sunny day right when he was supposed to receive his lifetime achievement award on neutral territory, while the Swiss in fact sold him out for ‘money’ after all these decades they more than regretted later. The US had tried to ‘apprehend’ him a mere five times, while the countries they had asked didn’t resort to betraying him and he was allowed making films in open daylight, even received plenty of awards in the US where no one howled for his head. No, only after they thoroughly had demonised him in the press, culminating in his rearrest most people found an assault on Switzerland’s neutrality.
In contrast, Switzerland’s regained state sovereignty finally allowed the Swiss no obligation to send Polanski back to the States, to keep playing their subservient little banking haven, since he had served his punishment long ago. But, it seems the LAPD in 1977, i.e., bent cop Vannatter, and the DAs again in 2010, i.e., ‘Walgren’, are specialists in mis/using ‘cocaine drug addicts’ to nail Polanski to the wall regardless, i.e., Lewis today and Huston then (who’d been forced to testify against him to say the same in accordance with Vannatter’s little tricks of ‘leading’ Ms Geimer in regards to the sodomy, in exchange to drop cocaine charges against Huston). In doing so, the prosecutors and the world press kept forgetting about their self-induced drug addiction, the entire drugs business they profit from, and the courts’ systematic cover-ups of blackmailing witnesses to testify against innocent people, by using drug addicts like them to defame Polanski’s character/past some more, and in a smear campaign effort in hopes to influence his time served sentence, so that the Swiss would extradite him. This having failed spectacularly, let us blame crooked Cooley and his prosecutor minions’ practice ab/mis/use of drug addicts to defile Polanski to the world press, and this very unconvincing ‘witness’ for her pathetic weakness and disgusting betrayal.
Why they are still so hot on him is clear: after years of falsehood and lies thrown out into the public domain via the manipulative media already, they found the perfect target to vilify after he had ‘escaped’ them, twice now, still not knowing anything more about the details nowadays as then after he was released. Ms Geimer never thought the case would resurface in any form, let alone reopened, hence all her conflicting interviews given over the years, not ever believing her old testimony would make it into the public domain. But with the event of the Internet no one ever had anticipated to enable people to access anything that’s been thrown out there, in 2003 suddenly it was floated on the www in intention to boycott Polanski’s Oscar nomination foremost, he ultimately still won because the Academy Award members aren’t influenced by deliberate attempts of slander. No, all people know is what she had said ‘then’ she had hoped would just ‘go away’ – not to be found out she had told lies. I’m sure she never realised what terrible abuse he had to deal with, while she was living in her tropical oblivion on Hawaii. People like man-hater Allred, who keep blindly believing her old fantasies, or just pretend to, and Lewis’ prurient lies of course, are a disgrace to human understanding and fairness, revelling in their sickening stupidity, dismissive and shallow views, like petulant little children in need of a hard slap.
This case has been driven to destruction by an obscene kind of puritanical and obsessed voyeurism, with misplaced attitudes of celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic, who keep pointing to the irrelevant artist angle, with one side shouting, ‘he raped a child!’, and the other, ‘but he made films!’ both sending messages that are out of step with both modern perspectives of sexual crimes and jurisprudence, when the answer should be, ‘but he is innocent [of rape]!’. Don’t try to convince others by citing the ‘artist angle’ so many endeavour only to be ridiculed; his work has nothing to do with his life and cannot be used as a mirror or an ‘excuse’, except that film was and is his job he loves doing till he drops. To concentrate on his cinematic achievements other than see he had recovered himself through and by making his acclaimed works, unlike most people would in any form, working hard on them which clearly shows, is futile and will only backfire. They should not bring his films into the foreground when defending him; no, they should defend him as the human being, a man who did better than most will ever dream of despite all odds again and again, which also earned him a fair amount of envy and enemies. No, his work has to be accredited as reflection of his great skills and means to get by, make a living for himself and his family.
People love to see their own achievements accredited when others judge them, so should his be. But make it not the ‘reason’ as to why you defend him, just like his past must be taken into account since everyone else loves their own taken seriously, and so it should. To deny him his past, his suffering, his losses, his feelings. eliminates him as the man entirely, his whole life and achievements, or else NO one else’s has any meaning either. Some said after his release, ‘I feel for the many rape victims’, or, ‘survivors of sexual assault internationally may feel unsettled by the treatment of Roman Polanski’, highlighting it with the misplaced ‘child’ emphasis again. Polanski has nothing to do with any child rape victims let alone sexual assault survivors worldwide. Ms Geimer wasn’t a child either physically or mentally nor a victim. And then there are those who believe/d it was a one-off ‘rape’, and yet defend/ed him on grounds of no repeat offence and that it was so long ago – which in itself nullifies the first offence since rape is always a repeat offence. Though most of these factions see the legal mess the case is in, only those who think he’s a rapist and want him in prison, don’t care at all about the much more imperative misconducts, blindly ignoring the scandalous handling of it. Most people have no idea what Polanski said in his defence or at the time, in interviews over the decades, and WHAT he said will always be misconstrued, used against him. At the time he said, “I’m not guilty, so why should I act guilty”, with the classic refrains that he either doesn’t consider rape as a crime, or doesn’t realise it was rape, which is both incorrect since it never was rape.
Equally, hardly anyone ever noticed that what she in fact said over the years and in his defence, and if so, twist it in any case in multitudes of perverted ways just so to keep the illusion that Polanski did rape her. Most don’t even care what she wants, yet they keep on and on about the ‘victim’. Or they see her pleas to let him be as misguided or a bad example for other rape victims – too stupid to realise the real reason behind her campaign, since hardly anyone ever questioned what she said three decades ago. The fact that Polanski’s became spiritually immune to this kind of demented treatment, was steeled through history psychologically as he steeled himself physically, is part of history, made cinematic history, that he cannot be demoralised through changes in history, i.e., exploitative politics, feminism and his fanatical detractors, is stronger and more resilient than most for his history, only whips these jackals into an even bigger frenzy to destroy him. Only great men can be felled, can be made small, but with someone like him, unlike many other less resilient and talented men, prevailing time and time again, reality is, his demise must be ugly, bloody and ultimate through any il/legal means possible. Take away someone’s assets, he can recover them, take away someone’s reputation, he can never restore it even if proclaimed innocent.
It’s a long and concerted conspiracy by now, from the moment the mother had called on the corrupt law, she in fact once blasé-like described as ‘a stupid mistake’ in a rare interview some years back on Hawaii (with only a few decades of unbelievable repercussions for the man as a result, mind you), to the day Polanski fled Rittenband’s attempt to send him back inside against all counsel and even the mother’s wishes. Obviously; no one can be punished twice for the same offence, but in his case they can make another exemption. When the chips are down, ‘civilised’ people turn into ‘moral monsters’ with every keystroke and mouse click, delighting in their endless slandering others for sick/ening fun. Polanski has become the ultimate pariah because of destructive feminism having perverted laws that turned all sex dirty and punishable beyond all reason. He’s a symbol of martyr and monster alike. He is, at least in the eyes of many who don’t know better, a depraved persona non grata; a human predator hardly worthy of life itself, no matter he has no history of any other ‘crimes’ as the ‘man’, made brilliant movies as the ‘artist’, while to those who see beyond the manufactured and progressively inane and nasty lies, know him, he’s a sensitive and generous soul unable to violate others – since he’s seen so much violence and destruction in his life already, knows what it does to people.
As a ‘man’, even as the revered artist, he can be destroyed, ‘twice’, but as a ‘symbol’, that of purist, anti-sex law oppression he survived because he had ‘sex’ with a young female many find disturbing – while giving neighbour X a pass for doing the same – liked sex like millions of others, the martyr named Polanski however is invincible, just like his cinematic legacy is forever part of our history. Of course, no one ever questioned Ms Geimer’s account, no one ever asked for his side of the story, his defence – the actual truth. No one cares what he said, and when he in fact ever said anything in his own defence, it’s simply ignored, nullified, ridiculed and twisted. I see it every day on these sanctimonious blogs and articles run by pathetic, whining and condemning voices of mostly female radicals, and even if they’re official sites, they keep repeating the same old incorrect details. No one has any interest in any factual evidence to either corroborate or discredit either side, the readily available evidence that supports HIM, NOT her. By now they have made him collectively guilty, and therefore collectively condemned him without trial, all through collective thinking of our manipulated society rather than intellectual reasoning, doubting, demanding the truth.
Elected politicians, the manipulated prosecutors, or double-dealing attorneys and media-hungry judges alike, ‘fearful’ of being seen as ‘soft on crime’, force people like him mercilessly through the legal gauntlet without compunction, compassion, seeking any real justice, the facts, despite holding all the evidence of his innocence. These callous people play god, and say, if someone refuses to admit to his ‘crime’, he’s in ‘denial’. Yet, if a man like Polanski is opting to flee their unjust courts, remains unapologetic to today’s new lynch mob after more than three decades over his oh so heinous ‘crime’ of having sex with a minor (like many others who luckily also got away with) could it be a reflection of his innocence that he never admitted to what he had been accused of other than casual sex? I say that’s a big yes. Polanski’s public and legal destruction is another example that will forever be a footnote in [film] history books, any future biography others will pen about him in a more or less sympathetic way. It already is, and most simply repeat/ed the same inaccuracies, not really interested in him at all, only to make a few bucks with his name.
People keep rallying to jail an old man who was never condemned for rape or sodomy, never admitted to being guilty of them, never could be proven by any evidence that he is guilty of them. The court accepted his plea he cannot withdraw unless a judge allows for it, which never happens. A plea bargain does not say he’s guilty of all charges, a plea bargain says he’s innocent of the dropped charges, or they would have made him plead to the most serious of charges, i.e., drugged rape. They did not, guess why? Based on evidence and witness statements concerned Ms Geimer’s mere words were refuted outright and Polanski is NOT guilty of her allegations. It requires considerable brains and critical thought to get beyond the mob hysteria, and the comments on most sites are irresponsible tripe and hate speech. They keep hurling epithets like ‘child rape’ and ‘child rapist’, while the whole case happened during the wild Seventies in ‘Hollywood’, not your average LA suburb, where the culture was much more permissive of such behaviour and underage sex was generally not punished at all. But, someone made an ugly example of the little Polack to gain publicity. If anything like this would happen today, they’d be doing the same; run from a broken justice system. There were a number of such cases at the time and NO one was sent down.
They keep shouting and bemoaning that the Europeans do not accept ‘US values’, while we know too well, that USA only values changes that are backward and punish innocent men for sex. This case was bungled from the beginning, by corrupt US law enforcement agencies, self-interested lawmakers and the record of the case shows that the extradition request was seriously flawed, and that Polanski had already served the sentence. No Swiss minister could ignore these facts when considering a request to extradite Polanski. The very circumstances surrounding his arrest were heavily in his favour to start with; he was arrested upon arrival in Zürich, after he was invited by Swiss authorities to receive an award. This was to be a senior federal official who was to praise his work on behalf of Switzerland. Polanski’s confidence in Switzerland was undoubtedly betrayed by the zeal of another official who reported to US authorities the moment he arrived on Swiss soil. This, despite the fact that Polanski regularly stayed in Switzerland at a place he owns, and without anyone questioning it. How can we justify the way this fact never triggered Polanski’s arrest during his frequent trips to Gstaad? People forget that this is the officious USA ramming its anti-sex laws and morals down other nation’s throats, which is not acceptable.
As if we hadn’t enough reactionary stupidity being spewed about the case, now that the Swiss released Polanski they of course need to trash the entire country, call them child rape/rapist backers and whatnot – just like they call his supporters rape apologists or paedophile themselves without any scruples. When I think of Switzerland, I think magnificent Alpen, delicious cheese and chocolate and a judicial system that actually works. If they were assigned a European ‘poster’ of anything, what comes to my mind is banks and loads of money. That’s why we had this entire drama to start with, because they sold Polanski out for money, or at least tried to. Yet they accuse the entire Swiss populace of releasing him because of their delusional assessment they are a country associated with ‘sexuality’ or abuse of children suddenly. The French are a much better example of a European country associated with ‘sexuality’; healthy sexuality, not the repressed anti-sex laws pervaded and sex-perverted US mindset. But to think so would be intelligent, rather than go on a verbal rampage online and demand banning his films. If we’d ban all art, including music and literature, everything ‘artistic’ that was created by someone who was ‘immoral’ in some form to today’s ‘standards’, we’d had basically none and that reaching back centuries.
If you want to boycott his films be my guest, but you can only dismiss art based on its creator’s morality if you believe that art is different than a service, a commodity or luxury. If art were either, the personal immorality of its creator wouldn’t matter. And, think of all of the ‘services’ you use in a normal day’s commerce: fill up your gas tank, chat to your mailman, go to the supermarket, and then rent a movie. The gas and the food is part of a corrupt system: your money for gas probably went to fund some corrupt potentate somewhere most never even heard of who’s currently spilling toxic waste, bullying the populace, and generally making country X an inhospitable place; your cash for food is paying for the fattening of people while others lie starving in front of McDonalds, and the guy at the movie rental store could be a drug addict who buys from dealers running a prostitute ring, etc. etc. etc.. And that’s just the system: your cashier or your mailman might be a wife-beater or paedophile for all you know. Granted you aren’t inquiring particularly deeply, just like you don’t want to know the facts of this case, but what’s the excuse for prying into Polanski’s private life and trashing him anyway, not knowing the full facts of his life or the case? I daresay that there are thousands of men more qualified to be called a paedophile or rapist – except they’re not ‘famous artists’ – and you’re all hypocrites.
Imagine what it does to the soul, mind and body of a human being, old or young, to have to sit in a prison cell day after day for a crime you had not committed, or even paid for already but were railroaded into some more time by callous lawmakers. Sit in fear of attacks, or having to suffer attacks on a daily base, and nothing to look forward to at the end of a day but the knowledge of hundreds more days like the one you just endured, your life slipping away in misery. Put anything in life under an objective microscope – anything – and you can always find pertinent questions, always ‘reasonable doubts’, find more grey than black and white. Especially if you want to find them, unless you accept incomplete or fabricated information and jump to conclusions, let yourself be influenced by crippling emotions and biased feelings. People ignore simple theories or facts, based on basic evidence in favour of huge conspiracies and complex lies that could never be held together in real life. Or they focus on one piece of detail, i.e., the girl’s claims, without looking at the big picture, i.e., the man’s defence and actual evidence that had long proven him innocent of what she had accused him of, had distanced herself from. Technically Polanski is the only one who escaped that tyrannical system by taking his life into his own hands again, and that of course is the reason why they still want him back by all means, legal or otherwise.
The corrupt US legal system having mercilessly pursued men like him, its crooked lawmakers have long become robotic assassins clad in Gucci suits and black robes, creating unthinkable collateral damage in a war that is supposedly being waged in the public’s ‘best interest’. Yet, the Kafkaesque tempest that overtook Polanski three decades ago and once more last year, darkened not only his horizon yet again and pummelled the deceptive safety and illusionary harmony out of life, men like him used to took for granted after plenty struggles to own, weathered it. And, it had swept away all hope for fairness, leaving behind only the solemn, desperate need for peace and justice. Final closure, final release. We love to think that Justitia is blind, but no, she’s only blind when it suits pernicious prosecutors and media-obsessed judges, vindictive feminists and pathetic famewhores. We also pray that those who administer that justice are people of vision. Yet, when legal systems have become so twisted that the once sacred letter of the law strangles its very spirit with perverse relish, then even simplest justice cannot exist. It will die as surely as the dreams of a Holocaust survivor when the world caved in around him, twice. All over SEX.
After Polanski made his first public appearance as a free man on July 17th, when he attended the jazz festival in Switzerland to show his support for his singer wife, he was spotted on the streets of Paris on July 25th, when he accompanied Emmanuelle and their son Elvis to a restaurant. BUT, guess what, another ‘has-been’ has come forward to accuse Polanski of rape, and that even further back in time in 1974! She went to the same sleazy tabloid ‘RadarOnline’ site (of course!) where Lewis spread her lies, to tell us that she was twenty-one at the time (so not underage then), and that she reported the alleged sexual assault to the LA DA, i.e., slimebag Cooley & Co in May this year and was interviewed by authorities. Really? So, um, why do we hear of this [new lie] only ‘now’, right after he was released? The woman named Edith Michelle Vogelhut, a former ‘model’ also known as Shelli Paul, told authorities Polanski ‘handcuffed’ her at Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood house, then sodomised her repeatedly, (of course, it’s always the handy sodomy part at Jack’s house!) Doesn’t that sound just too conveniently similar to Ms Geimer’s accusation, who Polanski took for an official photoshoot at ‘Nicholson’s house’, THREE YEARS AFTER THIS NEW ALLEGATION? And why did she TOO conveniently never tell ANYONE either THEN or for decades after? BECAUSE IT’S JUST ANOTHER DISGUSTING AND DISTURBING LIE, that’s why. Do these people think we’re that dumb and gullible?
Vogelhut’s attorney told RadarOnline that she was unable to file a civil complaint against Polanski, because of Californian law. “I’m not planning on filing a civil lawsuit against Mr Polanski as I think the statute of limitations has expired,” she said. The statute of limitations is ten years, true, but why did she not file a civil suit against Polanski at any time after 1974, ESPECIALLY after his arrest in 1977? Ms Geimer did just in time in 1988 – why not ‘Vogelhut’? “(However) I’m in contact with the LA DA’s Office regarding the criminal case.” Um, what ‘criminal case’ might that be exactly? The Geimer case by any chance, now that corrupt Cooley lost his little Polish mouse to freedom? Of course it is. According to comments on the site, however, they don’t believe her either, are sick of hearing more ‘icky’ libel from ugly has-beens trying to rip off Polanski – or at least endeavour to blacken his already tainted reputation even further (in Cooley’s name). These allegations are clearly all lies, and if anything really happened, they should have reported it THEN! Notice how they ALL reported these allegations decades later, AFTER he was rearrested, when they had plenty chances and venues to charge or sue him BEFORE? And why did Vogelhut not come forward right after his rearrest, during his house arrest, and not ‘only’ after his release?
These liars need to get a life and I’m sure sleazeball Allred will be showing up with her soon in another pathetic 15-minute show of press conference famewhoring. These women should be taken to court for false rape accusations and wasting police time. Ex-prostitute and cocaine addict Lewis too has something else to say suddenly, through ‘friend’ Eric Haymes, speaking to RadarOnline of course, who says she ‘feels victimised’ by the Swiss’ decision not to extradite him. (Funny how Ms Geimer was delighted in contrast.) “It’s a bitter pill and we’re hoping it’s not over yet. But as far as this chapter… her whole reason to kind of come forward was really to serve justice. She wanted to see the guy come back to the US and face justice. It’s very frustrating.” Lies always are frustrating, because no one believes them, pal. He said he spoke to Lewis on July 12th after it was announced that Polanski would be freed. “I think had he come here [to the US] it might have had some impact on sentencing. That was the hope. The guy is a fugitive from justice, he’s an admitted rapist. He plead guilty to the original charges, he escaped and was able to continue perpetrating. So Charlotte wouldn’t have been victimised had he been in jail where he belonged originally.”
Now, first of all, Polanski did NOT plead to the original ‘charges’, only the ONE applicable, he NEVER admitted to being a rapist, and Lewis even had an affair with him years after she now said he abused her! Dream ON. When asked if Polanski’s release caused her to feel victimised all over again, Haymes said: “Definitely, definitely. I just think it’s been very difficult for her. I think the best you can hope for is that some kind of justice is served and when you see it flaunted like it is and the guy given a pass it’s very, very painful. Imagine anyone suffering at the hand of someone and watching them skate and escape justice. So it’s been difficult… even his incarceration is really not going to do much to undo the damage he did to her, but it’s a start.” ‘Damage’? The ONLY ‘damage’ done to her was by HER ADDICTED SELF! Right, so you TOO ‘hope’, that the ‘old case’ gets corrupted even more now, since you ALL keep pointing to it so purposely. NOTHING ALLEGED, and least of all UNRELATED, after someone pleaded guilty to one count can ever be taken into account RETROACTIVELY! Get it? GET IT!? It’s absolutely disgusting to watch to what lows some people stoop to destroy others, and they know they can do so because Polanski has zero chances of defence or to sue them over their lies.
Of course, cheap and nasty ambulance chaser Allred has come out too to spew more bullshit in Lewis’ name: “I hope that one day Mr Polanski will be extradited for the crime with which he has been charged,” she told TheWrap after his release, (curious how we hear of this only today, July 26th), “and that he will have to stand before the bar of justice and be sentenced for that crime.” We know you’re not at all interested in any ‘justice’ done for that Lewis liar anyway, ‘Allred’, but to influence the old case AGAIN in some other malicious form now, after you already declared so prominently in May after Gunson spoke out, that, Lewis’ allegations are ‘very important’ to this old case, by repeatedly pointing to the ‘sentencing’ issues. But, guess what, HE DID HIS TIME in 1977/8 ALREADY, END OF! But bastard Cooley of course will not ever concede to that fact – no, he’s giving us another lying has-been! I bet he’s planning’s his next insidious move to destroy Polanski completely at least publicly, if not ‘legally’, and I’m sure it’ll all backfire massively one day. If Ms Geimer’s mother wouldn’t have been so hasty to cry rape and it all went wrong from there, I guarantee you, NONE of these women would ever have come out.
Public perception of Polanski, to the extent of what bullshit has been fed to them for years now, started with Polanski the abused [war] child to the child abuser. The overzealous public then morphed him from someone who slept with a minor back three decades ago, to a baby raper, (though ‘raper’ is not even a proper word), to the average rapist, then ass raper, pederast, (though that’s only sex between an older man and a much younger male), [serial] child rapist, and of course paedophile, (though they only abuse prepubescent children), with the occasional ‘he almost killed Ms Geimer’ BS in between making it to ‘near murderer’. They also keep saying that he held/pinned Ms Geimer down to forcibly rape and then sodomise her, funny how she herself in fact never even said so. Guess they know better. And funny too, how it is always ‘sodomy’ they accuse him of, the ONE sordid act theses ‘women’ love to dwell on, revel in so DESPERATELY, anally fixated. And ‘handcuffs’? Seems more like wishful thinking and projection on their part. A German newspaper article stated when Lewis appeared, ‘will this witness finally bring Polanski behind bars’? Um, what ‘witness’? She wasn’t there. I’d thought the Germans of all would do better research into allegations first before they write garbage like that, or they’d noticed she had stated the very opposite years earlier. Go home, liars, we’re getting bored with this kind of pseudo talk ‘exclusives’, representing ‘trash’ journalism at its worst.
Having talked about her ‘experience’ to cheap and nasty celebrity trashing site RadarOnline in a video clip dated July 27th, Vogelhut has been escalating her accusations to ‘brute force’ now, since she can’t claim ‘underage sexual assault’ anymore, so she must speak of ‘violence’ with ‘handcuffs’ to make it more a more ‘adult’, i.e., ‘kinky’ or ‘violent’ event, to ‘shock’ people into more ‘disbelief’. She said, she spent a night with Polanski in 1974 and claims she was brutally raped by him at Nicholson’s house. “He said, ‘Turn over, get on your stomach,’ and I’m handcuffed within minutes.” ‘Minutes’? It takes a few ‘seconds’, sweetie. Get your facts rights. Vogelhut told the notorious sex stories site it happened on a November night she spent with Polanski in Hollywood, explaining she met him at a star-studded dinner party hosted by Chinatown producer Robert Evans and attended by Warren Beatty, (both close friends of Polanski). After a night of dancing and booze, Vogelhut said the two ended up at Nicholson’s house for a night-cap. Always a good excuse, since he stayed there during his few return trips to Hollywood while making Chinatown and then had the Vogue Hommes assignment three years later. “I kind of knew that we’re going to have sex, but I didn’t expect anything out of the ordinary… I did not expect to be sodomised,” she said. Really? Maybe because it never happened. Or they had just the ‘ordinary’ sex by all means she has to make filthy now.
After Polanski apparently entered the ‘bedroom’ already naked (and so was she?) with two glasses of Brandy (not ‘champagne’?) she said that after drinking some together, Polanski gave her ‘MDMA’, aka Ecstasy, and told her: “It’s a really good drug. It will make you feel good, it will mellow you out. It’s like a stimulator.” So now they’re both ‘alone’ suddenly? Another handy accusation without any ‘witnesses’ to back her up. See Lewis, while in Ms Geimer’s case the medical evidence at least discredited rape and sodomy outright, hence the plead deal. Ecstasy mind you, was NOT as widely available in the 1970s as it is now, and it was NOT the recreational drug of choice like Quaalude in any form, so that alone sounds very unconvincing. Looks like to repeat the Quaalude angle Ms Geimer has monopoly on wasn’t good enough for her lies. While they were in the ‘bedroom’, (FYI – that is WRONG! Polanski stayed in the ‘TV room’, the ‘bedroom’ was Jack and Anjelica‘s place he never touched! Got you, ‘Vogelhut’, since Ms Geimer had said the same later!) she said Polanski handcuffed and then raped her. “He grabs me by the hair, jerks my head up, snaps amyl nitrate under my nose (which works on some to relax the sphincter muscle,) and enters me anally,” Vogelhut recalled in a not too convincing show either, but seems to have done her homework re amyl, or ‘poppers’, since it’s used for anal sex, but does NOT always have any effect on people, and most claim heart rate increase, which of course can easily be researched.
“I didn’t expect to be entered that way. There was no foreplay, no kissing. Nothing. No tenderness. I thought: Maybe this is what they do in Hollywood.” Maybe, that has nothing to do with ‘Hollywood’, but what you want us to believe and that Polanski is a selfish lover, since oddly enough Ms Geimer said he kissed and caressed her – and so did Polanski – so in that case it means the opposite. “I hurt. This was rape. I was anally raped repeatedly,” she said. FYI, anyone engaging in even wanted anal sex STILL needs extra lubrication, extra hygiene preparations, has to make sure the partner is ‘cleared’, and ‘repeatedly’, unwillingly, would require medical attention at on point since any amyl effects last for merely a couple of minutes, then you’d rip and bleed. In fact, the active partner would become very sore too and stop without any lube, or use amyl on her again, which leads to a terrible headache very soon. ONCE is NOT enough. That clearly shows she never tried it, or she’d said she trashed and cried for help, not ‘hurt’. “I kept quiet for many reasons,” Vogelhut explains rather blasé-like and no more believable. “I was humiliated, I had absolutely no one to tell and with this group that I told you about at this dinner party that ran Hollywood, they weren’t going to believe me.”
‘Evans’ didn’t ‘run Hollywood’ as she wants us to believe, he was just another producer who financed better than average films, and his first film he produced was in fact Chinatown after he had recommended Polanski to film Rosemary’s Baby to achieve instant success. Evans was in fact demoted in a studio re-shuffle after Chinatown (and later became a cocaine addict, like Lewis) and other than being able to charm warring actors or directors to keep on filming once they got into each others’ hair, like Polanski and Dunaway, he had his lawyer Sid Korshak, the ‘dark angel of Hollywood’, to make the studios keep his job and sell his films to the real big studio bosses. Yes, Korshak, the very same mobster ‘fixer’ shyster who was best friends with Rittenband who would only three years later mess with Polanski in a not too legal manner. It’s always a handy excuse to say she had ‘no one to turn to’, and then suddenly produces a ‘friend’ decades later they had told oddly enough only after Polanski was rearrested, SINCE YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO THE AUTHORITIES THIRTY-SIX YEAR AGO, it’ll been a sensational coup!
‘‘Headline’ – Chinatown director arrested for drugged rape, sodomy’! See the Geimer case three years later. There is no limit to what these aging has-beens will go to in order to destroy Polanski by parroting others suddenly, in Cooley’s name obviously, since they all flock to him out of the blue, rather than having told someone official or friends, family over the years. As I said, why did she not come forward when Polanski was arrested in 1977? Or last year? During his house arrest? Not very convincing, ‘Vogelhut’, not at all. She said Lewis’ ‘accusations’, i.e., her dirty fantasies she herself had contradicted from day one with her conflicting interviews given over the decades, prompted her to ‘finally come forward’ with her story. I.e., Cooley paid her too to do so, now that the Swiss put a wedge into his extradition attempt. How handy, ‘Vogelhut’, you need some more money, do you? Of course, since she’s planning (like Lewis said she would) to release a ‘kiss-and-tell-all’ book, detailing her life in the world of modelling. And where exactly is the logic that you (or Lewis) want to ‘cement’ an old case (of ‘sodomy’) with your repeat sodomy and sexual abuse claims (lies), rather than find justice for your own case if it were true – which you could have brought to the attention of the authorities decades earlier, right after his arrest in 1977? NOWHERE.
So, let me get this straight, she was oh so ‘humiliated’ then she couldn’t tell anyone, and now she’s writing a tell-all book with one chapter ‘dedicated’ to her alleged encounter with Polanski? Right. She’s just another disgusting gold-digging fraud who tries to slander him some more and make lots of dirty dollars with sordid sex lies, NO ONE can back up after all this time, or invalidate, and she could in fact have done AGES AGO already. Polanski has virtually ZERO chances of disproving or fight any such sleazy claims, and that’s why they all come out of the rotten woodworks now that he’s a free man again. Only when Polanski is back in the news do they want to soak in some of their fifteen minutes of pathetic famewhoring. These accusers are criminals by making false rape accusations NO man can ever contest, which is all the rage at the moment anyhow, after decades of sending innocent men into hell to get raped there already at not the slightest chance of any defence. Look at Ben Affleck’s brother, who also has to deal with two ‘sexual harassment’ claims suddenly, and magician David Copperfield who was charged with a rape allegation from the FBI the other day, while Mel Gibson of course is inundated by his lying ex’s more than transparent fabrications of ‘domestic violence’, up for extortion charges after tampering with the ‘rant tapes’ in fact. These cheap, attention-seeking and two-faced women are a disgrace to all decency and people are in fact fed up with them by now. And rightly so.
If Polanski really was a rapist, he would have been charged with raping women or girls in France more likely than anywhere in the US, since he was there only a couple of times since Tate’s death. He never was ‘Hollywood’, with only two films made there. He lived mainly in France, the UK, in Italy for four years, and for a whole three decades in Paris later, travelled all over the globe, made films in Poland, Russia, and ever since he left the US, directed films and stage plays in Germany for decades. How he seems to rape only those in Hollywood is a mystery, since Lewis claimed the ‘casting couch game’ she had to play along with was set in Paris, though she had her part in Pirates already and even said so after the premiere at Cannes in 1986, unlike what she told us today. So, Vogelhut went to the house expecting to have sex with Polanski and had sex with Polanski so it was rape. Right. Always is. Almost forty years later and she wants to sell her book she suddenly was drugged and anally raped. Right. She never said he forced the E on her, if they ever had any, and maybe they even had ‘kinky’ sex, but Polanski had plenty willing women to sleep with and no need to drug and force anyone into sex. The effects of ‘MDMA’ kick in within 30–60 minutes of consumption only, hitting a peak at approximately 1–1.5 hours, reaching a plateau that lasts about 2–3 hours, followed by a comedown of a few hours. The way she describes it, it all happened within a few minutes.
So what came first? The booze, then the E, then the handcuffs (I doubt excited)? And then what? He left her untouched for an hour and only then ‘attacked’ her? Besides, what’s with this ‘repeatedly’? Once a man comes after a few minutes that is it. Vogelhut only parroted the sodomy on the basis of Ms Geimer’s long discredited claims. And she certainly didn’t do her homework well enough; anal sex requires a lot of preparations, and even with amyl, she cleverly brought in, it STILL needs a lot of lubrication or saliva – she forgot to mention. Anyone, who engages in anal sex on regular base, as these women want us to believe Polanski had, would know what to do, or infections loom, pain for both and serious injuries, even for the active partner. She only brought the handcuffs in to make it sound more shocking to escalate the encounter into violence basically. If he really had anal intercourse all the time without any precautions or preparations as they proclaim, he’d long contracted infections or most likely AIDS – AND his partners. But even if he had anal intercourse, hygiene is vital, she would have needed to have a dump first, or an enema, then comes the condom (though for anal sex they’re not strong enough) and (therefore) a lot of lube throughout, and even if no condom is used, the danger of injury to the receptive partner would still cause infections for both.
She said he repeatedly sodomised her? Not without using amyl again and again, which causes major headaches, AND most of all vital lube or he alone gets sore like hell if he can get it in at all, amyl is NOT enough. And, ‘lying on her stomach’? Wrong angle, she needs to be on her knees butt up in the air or in fact on her back legs high up for him to actually get it inside her, like with vaginal intercourse – and if she struggles, we might assume unwilling partners do, scream in pain, bleed and thrash about high on E and poppers, not a chance, unless he pins her down she didn’t say that he had either and holds her into position, which is hard to do and to find any orifice at the same time. The booze and drugs aren’t sufficient to sedate her to be an easy prey, the struggling alone would make it impossible, and amyl has no sedative effect. On the contrary, it makes you more hyper and euphoric and in combination with E she’d be jumping and down, have muscle twitching and the urge to be physically active, run around, you name it. The receptive partner in fact has to be relaxed and in control or no anal intercourse, not hyper and unwilling. Ergo, no ‘sodomy’ (the way she claims) let alone ‘repeatedly’ occurred. These people are too thick to realise any of it, and others, who never had anal sex, or took E and poppers, simply don’t know and believe it. The man bedded a few thousand women in his life and only ‘three’ cried rape/sodomy? I don’t think so. Ms Geimer was discredited outright, Lewis is a pathetic liar, and Vogelhut wants to sell her book. She is just another shameless opportunist hoping to profit from his scandalous name, by giving us something that fits into the utterly distorted image of Polanski the predator/rapist, with the typical ‘drugs/sodomy’ angle.
Why wait thirty-six years to come forward with some more sordid sodomy tales? Oh yes, the ‘book deal’ because there wasn’t a better time to bring this up, since back then she still had a career and defaming Polanski some more for public amusement TODAY is much more lucrative. Vogelhut could just as easily have said that she spent an insanely wild night with Polanski that was one of the greatest of her life, of which all the juicy little details would be revealed in her book and sold just as many copies, if not more. No, she’s clever enough to give us a story ‘consistent’ with a widely perceived ‘pattern of [his ‘assumed’] behaviour’, includes amyl (which then was more prevalent on the gay scene) and E, (which only became all the rave in the Eighties) and therefore people are more than willing to believe that Polanski did all these things. And even if they did have anal intercourse I highly doubt, if in the Seventies in LA people were arrested for this kind of rough sex play (I’m sure many had enjoyed and today want to make out as rape), if it ever took place in the first place between the two, the LA criminal justice system would not have time for any really criminal behaviour. The LAPD is in Cooley’s pocket anyhow, so whatever Lewis or Vogelhut told them, if anything at all, will always be an indefensible fabrication they’d loved to introduce retroactively, since they sent countless innocent people, mostly men who slept with someone that was twisted into rape, into prison hell just to get ‘results’ no matter how unjust. It’s been going on since decades and it will never stop.
The accusations against Polanski in 1977 had fallen on the medical evidence alone already, yet the public were/are unaware of it or simply ignore/d it and others spin the sleazy tale ever further into violence by now. The Grand Jury was heavily influenced by gossip and hate mail rather than evidence in 1977, since they still indicted him on Ms Geimer’s ultimately discredited claims, hence the plea deal for her age to avoid a trial or else she and her mother had been found guilty of perjury. The jury in this high-profile case should have been sequestered because of the media interest and countless sensationalistic pages printed then, and today posted on the Internet most of which is inaccurate or plain hideous lies. See people even saying he sodomised boys now, which only shows people have fuck all idea what they’re in fact talking about, or simply make things up. This kind of widespread injustice done to celebrities rarely gets anyone’s attention other than the sensational lies spread about them until they or a loved one is suddenly on trial, at the receiving end of indefensible lies, while they all willingly join the online lynch mob and spew their venom. Polanski is now fair game for any variety of predators he has no means of fighting anymore, since his demonisation has been prevalently conducted in the media everybody willingly fuelled since decades now, despite no proof he ever did what they believe.
Polanski must be the only famous person who enjoyed western sexual liberation and suffered the ever graver backlash towards its own achievement, by becoming its very victim driven by radical feminist mania, not only any judicial misconducts anymore. Three times over now, for three women having twisted casual sex into drugged rape, sexual abuse and now violent sodomy and BDSM games. I know there are a number of overzealous people who have the same sick fantasies in regards to harming Polanski, with some seriously contemplating attacking him physically, since I read many a comment promoting and condoning just that, even killing him in many horrible ways. The vicious atmosphere created by these insidious people can make others go into the direction of physical attacks. They think, if ‘justice’ they believe he has escaped cannot be executed ‘legally’, it must be accomplished in other illegal ways. It’s possible that someone might plan something in the way of staging a scenario which would later be described as an ‘accident’. According to the highly reactionary comments mushrooming everywhere, becoming more than disturbing, it could well be that they plan attacks no only against him, but his family. This is clearly getting out of hand by now and exactly what Cooley wants. Since he cannot destroy him ‘legally’, he therefore lets the online mob do it for him, incited by the irresponsible media, by giving us another backstabbing accuser to whip the obsessed public into more blind frenzy. And they all fall for it.
It seems the worst fear for Polanski’s detractors is that he isn’t the bad guy they make him out to be. Their worse fear is that time will show he’s a good father, obviously or his son wouldn’t have cut his electronic bracelet he hated, a good husband, obviously, because Emmanuelle stands behind him since nearly three decades, a good citizen, obviously, since no one actually from the populace he came in contact with can accuse him of anything, a great friend, obviously, or he’d not have such strong support, and a brilliant artist. More than obvious. That will make them implode with frustration, if they’d ever find out that they have launched an unparalleled hate campaign against him in the name of Cooley. On the other hand, since some UK online sites have removed Vogelhut’s shameless interviews, and the latest I read was that she cannot ‘talk about it anymore’, once she went back to Miami July 28th, it could well mean that his lawyers are finally fed up with lying ex lovers, and have threatened her and the press with litigation. Of course, there must be an end put to this rampant slander somehow, and it might well be that they have proof that she had lied. Shame on Vogelhut if she didn’t like Polanski’s singular humping behaviour she wants us to believe in she had experienced. But then again, she could just be an aging ex-model who likes giant hats and loves to tell lurid stories of sexual excesses handcuffs and all that never happened, with a very overactive imagination and a desperate need for cash. Like Lewis.
So now, for the showdown – courtesy of Polanski’s very own autobiography, get this; Polanski might have stayed at Nicholson’s house for some time before they even started making Chinatown in 1973, after he had stayed with production designer Dick Sylbert at his apartment, BUT, in fact, Polanski had his very own bachelor pad after that, courtesy of the ‘group’ Vogelhut said ‘ran’ Hollywood, i.e., Evans himself – So, why exactly would he go [back] to Nicholson’s house for a ‘nightcap’, instead of his own? Just so to parrot Ms Geimer’s locale of three years later! PLUS, in 1974 she claims it happened after a ‘star-studded party’ at Evans’ very own house, Polanski most probably wasn’t in fact in LA anymore since he had left for Italy where he had lived since 1972 to 1976 after he went to France, UK and Switzerland ever since Tate’s loss in 1969, when Chinatown was not even fully post-edited, to direct, guess what? An Italian opera called Lulu far away from LA! Polanski never was in LA for the premier of Chinatown in 1974, never attended any ‘party’ at Evans’ house to celebrate it with ‘stars’, and only heard of the great success through press clippings sitting in Italy to plan Pirates, which he made only ten years later with yes, you guessed it ‘Lewis’, after it was shelved and he made The Tenant instead! In fact, Polanski promoted Chinatown far away in the Far East. Did I just discredit Vogelhut’s sordid allegations entirely? I think so.
Even if they had [‘kinky’] sex at one point all these decades back, Vogelhut simply escalated their encounter to make it sound more ‘brutal’, and all she did was enhance the distorted picture the public of today has of Polanski’s ‘sexual MO’, which is of course the whole idea and not evidence. Besides, if you don’t like anal sex, that’s your problem and no grounds to sour it for others. The fact that she said she ‘hurt’, if true at any rate, only shows that amyl sometimes doesn’t work on people, and is not sufficient for anal intercourse on its own. That he never used any vital lube (or saliva) is highly suspect, since people, who ‘sodomise’ others on a regular base (they want us to believe Polanski did), would most definitely have it handy for needed repeat application, apply it into the anus as well, since it’s painful for the man too without and dries up quickly on strokes. How many times a penis slips from any orifice is also never mentioned, and a good opportunity to break it off if unwanted. Many who engage in anal intercourse in fact use their fingers first to widen the partner, and cover their penis with more lube to begin with. Blind believers who never had anal sex, should ask someone who had, to realise all these ‘dry’ sodomy claims are bogus. People speaking of real experiences using E, and amyl (with any effects only lasting two minutes tops) together during sex, tell you that it’s a very bad combination, and anyone (i.e., ‘Polanski’) who seems to use so many drugs, (they want us to believe mind you) would never do so. Polanski in fact never mentioned MDMA in his autobiography, only that Quaaludes had become the major rave drug. Besides, with that sort of drugs cocktail she’d not remembered anything that detailed after so long.
Oddly enough many women suddenly claim that they were ‘drugged’ and ‘raped’ decades later, just so to be in line with today’s ultra feminist dogma of ‘all men are rapists’, basically denouncing what they all willingly did in the sex and drugs fuelled Seventies. And of course to sell a few ‘kiss and tell’ book. If Vogelhut tells us today that she felt ‘humiliated’ then, (which no one can back up she ever had), why would she feel humiliated in the first place when she believed that they all behaved like that in Hollywood, and hence in fact had no real need to tell anyone, or conversely if she told the ‘group’ they’d most certainly believed her, but doesn’t seem to be too embarrassed today to talk and even write about it? Lie comes to mind. Sadly there’s no ‘chapter’ on ‘Shelli’ the ‘model’ in his autobiography, and Polanski in fact mentioned a few of his dates. Today she’s playing right into the psyche of people who dislike/d Polanski’s ‘lifestyle’ they think they know from the highly biased media to be the truth, but, he is not alone in his prior way of life of sexual excesses; there were and are thousands of men like him, and it would be more than unfair that Polanski should be singled out TODAY and scapegoated for all the ‘moral sins’ of THEN, while others did and will see no such vindictive demonisation, who did and do it themselves anyhow. What Polanski has done or not done in his life with other women is of no consequence to the old case either, since he is not guilty of anything other than to what he pleaded to in 1977, and every discredited dropped count and subsequent equally unproven allegations have zero relevance – only to the public, who love to revel in all the sordid details that were never proven. They must all have very boring sex lives to be so obsessed with his.
In 1977 everyone involved contributed to the problem that Polanski ended up fleeing Rittenband’s prejudiced court, and only he was the one who paid for it dearly ever since, when this case should have been tossed out a long time ago, since it ultimately enabled two more backstabbing women to cry rape suddenly after decades. It is clear why they don’t want to ‘sue’ him, not because the statute of limitations has run out, that is applicable only to criminal charges they could have brought in long before especially with Polanski unable to fight any new allegations, but because no civil suit can be lodged without any proof, and because he could in fact defend himself against such – he only cannot file any suits himself unless he does so in person in the right jurisdiction, or via video link to make his case, which may take years. These women know they’re ‘safe’ from any serious backlash, as long as they made their lies public people will believe more or less, simply to damage Polanski’s severely tainted reputation some more. That’s all they want – all in the name of Cooley to further his smear campaign, and career. Lewis was found out a devious liar through her very own words, which was clearly designed to influence the extradition – and obviously failed big time, Ms Geimer was not too truthful as a teenager to begin with, (hence her tries to sound more in line today with what really happened and to drop the case), let alone Vogelhut with her sordid accusations, just so for people’s sordid imagination to run away with them while filling in the blanks, while Vogelhut’s graphic retelling is as fanciful and implausible as Ms Geimer’s own claims.
To recap, she said they smoked some pot, had some Brandy, then she accepted the E – So for one, she took all the drugs/booze on her own free volition, after a ‘dinner party’ at Evans’ home, so, how can she make it sound as if Polanski had ‘drugged’ her? You drink, you get yourself drunk, you take the drugs, you get yourself drugged, end of. Like Ms Geimer, Vogelhut (or Lewis) never said he ‘forced’ the drugs or alcohol on her, but ‘took’ it. If you experiment with anything, don’t blame the one who introduced you to it afterwards if you don’t like it. That Vogelhut brings in amyl might sound logical when giving us the picture of Polanski being intent on sodomising her, but in that case all she needed to do was not inhale it since she clearly knew what it was. Alcohol for one reduces the effects of E, the drug tends to inhibit erections in men, and many users never become sexually aroused on E and find the state quite incompatible. Since we don’t know if Polanski had any E, sex is not one of the foremost pleasures offered by E and most men have the opposite to an erection and orgasm is suppressed and not really in the mood for sex, but more touchy-feely. So in effect, E is not a ‘sex drug’ she wants us to believe, and the bigger the cocktail, the bigger the risk of complications. If she wants us to believe Polanski was such a drugs specialist, he sure as hell would know not to mix. Even if they had some E, and kinky sex, why the hell tell us ‘today’? Oh yes, to sell her book. Besides, she claims she never heard of MDMA before, but do we know that for sure? Course not.
I might even believe they had sex with all the trimmings, and she then brought in the handcuffs to make it sound more bondage than it was and today call it ‘brutal rape’. And where exactly did he get the E from? His pockets? Nicholson’s handy bathroom cabinet he seems to raid? And where did he find the handcuffs to start with I ask, especially if it wasn’t his own home? And what kind of ‘cuffs’ were they? Kinky sex cuffs, or cop cuffs? If he wanted to ‘control’ her with ‘any’ cuffs, E in fact has the effect of diminishing aggression, fear, hostility, anxiety, and insecurity coupled with an extreme mood lift and euphoria. That’s why it became so popular later. So, why would he need to ‘control’ her with something so severe once having ‘appeased’ her already, after half an hour minimum mind you to take effect, when amyl nitrate increases the effects of E on top? And why would she say she ‘hurt, despite all the amyl and E to ‘relax’ her? But then again, he obviously didn’t use any vital lube ‘habitual sodomites’ would no doubt always have ‘handy’ in their pockets like amyl and ‘handcuffs’ of course, and that would cause ‘pain’. Sure. If she really felt ‘raped’, she should have gone to the proper authorities ages ago, and surely be able to tell ‘someone’ outside that ‘group’ she claims wouldn’t have ‘listened’. Especially after Polanski was arrested in 1977. So what about her own modelling ‘group’ to turn to? Her family, whoever. I’m sure some of her friends would have lent her a very interested and sympathetic ear if she’d talked about kinky sex with the notorious director Polanski – let alone ‘rape’. No one has ‘no one to talk to’, especially in the modelling world.
Her interview is pretty short and fragmented, offers no logical cohesion of events, how she eventually got home, or how he ‘released’ her. He probably drove her home, like Ms Geimer. She states she had willingly engaged in sex with him after consuming all assorts of ‘recreation drugs’, and then didn’t like the end result. Polanski said often enough, if a woman clearly indicates not wanting to have sex with him he lets her be, off to find himself another one. No clear signs, he proceeds, at which point they still can tell him they’re not into a particular kind of ‘act’. Now people even say that he used amyl on Ms Geimer, when she in fact never said so. Really pathetic. Amyl needs to be sniffed continuously to have ANY effects in the first place which only last a couple of minutes some say heightens and extends orgasm, while it can make someone seriously dizzy on prolonged inhalation. So she wants us to believe that he repeatedly sodomised her and forced her to sniff the stuff at the same time? I.e. hold the ampoule under her nose and hammer away at her at the other end? Not possible. That in fact would have severely burnt her nostrils to start with, and she’d be more than fidgeting not to sniff it anymore, wriggling in pain, which makes it impossible to penetrate anyone, unless he forcibly pins her down she never said he had, and then he’d spilled that ampoule which had burnt both severely. Her explanations are improbable and disconnected, full of holes and represent no evidence.
What’s more, if they really were at Nicholson’s house, does she really want us to believe that he let Polanski have run of his own ‘bedroom’? I’m sure Huston would have objected to use it as his personal love nest all the time, and every mansion has at least one guest room. Polanski stayed at the ‘TV room’, so called because it had a big set, but beyond that only a sofa he slept on while in LA. Besides, if someone engages in this sort of ‘BDSM’ scenario in 1974, they usually repeat that or go deeper over the years. If one takes this case as the ‘first’ sodomy claim, and Ms Geimer’s as the second in 1977 – though medical evidence had discredited hers entirely and later said he was never mean to her – why would he suddenly ‘downgrade’ his actions with Ms Geimer, i.e., lose the E to make her ‘mellow’, or the handy cuffs to control her? But instead switches to Quaalude that makes one horny, and then forgets the vital amyl to score another easy ‘double sodomy’ hit? (And then STILL didn’t use any essential lube either, or made sure all hygiene and preparations are in place.) We all know that once someone committed a serious [sexual] offence, they always escalate any next attack to satisfy an ever-growing need for satisfaction after the first rush, NOT less, so in that case there’s no way anyone suddenly would just ‘downgrade’ their attacks no matter they might change their MO or use of drugs and alcohol.
No sex offender ever downgraded – since each experience is getting less potent to achieve gratification of whichever need, requiring a higher dose of brutality. So for Vogelhut to say Polanski used cuffs on her, jerked up her head by her hair to snap amyl under her nose, and then raped her anally repeatedly, and that at the same ‘place’ as the ‘first attack’, and then a mere three years later Polanski in no form brutalised Ms Geimer or used handy amyl again to sodomises her too, is more than ridiculous. Vogelhut based her lies on the actual first case, with nothing better to do than spew obscene accusations worse than what Ms Geimer had accused Polanski of, or of course Lewis with her more than transparent lies before that, and should both end up in prison for false rape accusations. Hence, another logical ‘hole’ in Vogelhut’s story based on Ms Geimer’s own never proven claims – since ‘rapists’ ALWAYS escalate their attacks and not become less ‘dominant’ or ‘violent’ suddenly. Ms Geimer never claimed any pain, any ‘hurt’, any ‘rape’ in words in any form or that Polanski was rough with her, so in effect, Vogelhut just shot herself in the foot by coming up with this ‘brutal sodomy’ ‘first’. You don’t ‘just’ sodomise someone, or you’d most likely hit on some ‘brown matter’, which causes even more friction and most unpleasant mess, and can lead to more pain and infections.
While in the case of Ms Geimer, everyone had agreed on the fact that there was no sexual violence and/or physical/verbal force involved in any form, Vogelhut said Polanski had commanded and manhandled her. In that case, Polanski must be the only ‘rapist’ who became less aggressive. Meaning, Vogelhut’s recounting of the events was most likely embellished on to ‘make’ it ‘rape’, since it’s utterly illogical. If sex ever took place. Someone more intelligent brought up the factor of ‘money’ Vogelhut talked about, and that she didn’t have any on her, i.e., ‘credit cards’. Does she really want us to believe that women leave home without any cash, let alone make-up, or credit cards? I yet have to see one. With women like her, a ‘professional model’ who earn lots of dough, I doubt she didn’t have any cards or money in her purse she’s be lugging along everywhere. It’ll be criminal stupidity on her part. Or else, how did she get to Evans’ house in the first place? In a taxi? With her own car? Did they send a chauffeur? Besides, credit cards are useless for taxis, they want cash, not like today where you can pay by card. She could have phoned someone to pick her up, by reversed call charges, or even from Nicholson’s home, or ask Polanski for a dime to get back. Why would she point to that? Is money for a taxi ‘relevant’, or could it in fact be an excuse for Vogelhut to say she couldn’t ‘get away’ from Polanski? Or to get home, when it’s more than absurd that a woman would leave it without some means to get about.
It’s just so to cement her allegations against Polanski, because the money could have helped her if things had gone out of hand, and she would have the handy answer of why she wouldn’t ‘just leave’, even handcuffed. It’s just an excuse to bring in the cuffs to make it appear she couldn’t ‘resist’ him. These women are shifting their own [sexual] accountability into Polanski’s court to look the ‘helpless victims’ and make the man a rapist after consensual sex, while in reality, Lewis for one clearly lied from start to finish (in order to influence the extradition and made an idiot of herself big time). In Vogelhut’s case, she might sound ‘logical’, but, no proof, no believability, no case, end of. Just another pathetic attempt to taint Polanski’s damaged reputation some more – in Cooley’s name of course. These women could at least have the decency to say, yeah I slept with Polanski, we had a bit of booze and drugs to get us stimulated or horny, and then we had sex, tried anal intercourse [in handcuffs] for a change (if at all), and it was very ‘different’, exciting. But, no, today it’s called ‘sexual abuse’, ‘drugged rape’, ‘sodomy’ and ‘violence’ and only the man is the culpable sex maniac. It’s criminal. The most Polanski can be accused of is having had too many casual sex encounters, like in fact many other men scored, if not more so in Warren Beatty’s case with twice his conquests, or even Evans and Nicholson, both known for sexual excesses, though no one ever called them ‘predator’. Nor, Lewis, who did exactly the same – sleep around en masse, after she prostituted herself for drugs and money unlike Polanski.
Any of the sexual and non-sexual encounters Polanski had in Gstaad after Tate’s death and later, would have made a good case to accuse him of sexual abuse or assault, sodomy, anything, especially after his 1977 arrest, and the 2009 rearrest. Did any of them cry rape suddenly? Course not. To wait so long to ‘report’ anything is highly suspect, since no genuine rape victim would let slip a chance of the same ‘attacker’ just being arrested a few years later to report their own attack, and I highly doubt Vogelhut never knew of the case then or now. In Lewis’ case we know she lied because of her very own earlier interviews contradicting her present-day claims outright. Guess a cocaine addled ex-prostitute’s brain isn’t all that reliable anymore, but then recalls all sorts of things that happened during the alleged abuse nearly three decades back and Polanski’s exact words, which are more than ludicrous at any rate. Not a chance. Same goes for Vogelhut, I’m sure had several men in her life nearly sixty now and she too can recall Polanski’s exact words after nearly forty years? – Hardly. And that is exactly where it goes wrong, since no one can remember anything that clearly. Events perhaps in the broader sense, good or bad imprinted through pain or joy, but never ‘words’ to the degree they claim, let alone from a one-night stand with drugs and booze affecting ones memory to start with I’m sure wasn’t the only one.
It Vogelhut took like near four decades to report her alleged ‘anal rape’ to the LA courts, rather than the cops right then in 1974 or at least in 1977 when Polanski was arrested, so that alone is very suspicious, which she explained away by claiming she felt ‘too embarrassed’, since of course any other excuse could be scrutinised as having no basis not to report it. But even if that were true, I rather would feel angry in fact, or hurt, not ‘embarrassed’, and I sure as hell would file a report as soon as Polanski was arrested, damn the embarrassment and ‘this group’ she claimed had not listened to her. Ever heard of the police to report a crime who would listen, especially after the accused was just arrested over ‘rape’? Guess not. Vannatter, who no doubt coached Ms Geimer, would have had a field day! Which is all more than bullshit at any rate, since any rape accuser would automatically remain anonymous and no one would find out it’s ‘her’, bar the accused (and sometimes not even that), to have any claim on ‘embarrassment’ she might face from that ‘group’, or anyone else for that matter. True rape doesn’t cause ‘embarrassment’, but the will to see the rapist in jail, not wait over three decades to make some money off it. Same goes for Lewis. I’m surprised neither of them claimed, ‘denial’ of the ‘anal rape’ and ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’ (we still don’t have any specifics of) and reason why they came out so much later. But then of course, we know that and why they lied and there was no need to give us a more detailed account in Lewis’ case – which Vogelhut just had to take to the limit with her sordid BDSM sodomy claims.
Saying that agreeing to take drugs or alcohol on ones free volition does not take away a person’s right to say ‘no’ is certainly true, but, in this particular case no person claimed they said no. Vogelhut not once said she had told Polanski to ‘stop’, or that he ‘ignored’ her ‘pleas’. Lewis never explained anything other than her abuse fantasyland scenario in his apartment, and no one has ever accused Polanski of abusing any prepubescent child and no credible ‘victim’ has ever come forward. So why the term paedophile keeps popping up after he slept with adult women, and now another adult woman in her twenties surfaced with this unlikely scenario of ‘handcuffs’, that in effect paints a much more ‘kinky’ picture than what Ms Geimer had described only years later, or rather decades earlier. That in fact would downgrade this ‘picture of abuse’ when he had not harmed Ms Geimer in any form. So, for Polanski’s supposedly ‘deviant’ sexual ‘MO’, let me just say, the LAPD at the time of the Tate murders, found videotapes in the loft above the living room where Sharon and Jay Sebring were found murdered. One of these tapes shows Sharon and Roman engaging in sex. According to police records, it was nothing more than a married couple engaging in what they classified as ‘normal’ sexual activity, and nothing denoting ‘anal perversions’ or drugged and drunken excesses in any form. Polanski has never been into what would be seen as ‘SM’ or ‘BDSM’ Vogelhut wants us to believe, and none of Polanski’s conquests before or after Tate’s death have ever come out to accuse him of anything sexually ‘kinky’ or any ‘abuse’.
Had he been a ‘sexual deviant’ the prison shrinks could officially never establish either, I’m sure others had gladly joined Lewis and Vogelhut in their campaign to paint Polanski a ‘MDSO’. These graphic accusations are neatly staged shows, like Lewis had to read from a script under the gaze of Allred, in order to ‘learn their lines’. Lewis’ self-refuted lie that Polanski had to sleep with all his actresses to proclaim it the casting couch game is more than ludicrous, since I doubt he ever touched anyone over thirty before he married a third time and is with his gorgeous and supportive wife since over two decades now. Most people are really bad liars, and when confronted with their fabrications, they come clean or lie some more, or are found out and simply vanish in shame (and/or anger ready for [more] revenge). The outright liars are the ones we see more often than not in these cases, stumbling over their own previous admissions to the very opposite, preserved for all eternity online these days. Lewis is one of those selfish and destructive women who believe that, ‘what I decide to do is someone else’s fault’, in her twisted fantasy world. They are the same hypocrites who engage in ‘ethics of convenience’, when it was ok back then to sleep around, but now that they grew out of that sex and drugs infused era suddenly disapprove of such actions in their bigotry. Of course, such a cynical view also reflects attitudes changes as an evolution of sociological changes in ones own social positions, our ‘morality’ and ‘society’ of today. It’s also called betraying your own past [and] actions when you suddenly besmirch it and blame others for it.
The anti-sex pro-feminist/women-never-tell-a-false-rape-lie laws assume that women lack any free moral agency to simply walk away from a man, or drugs – so why did Lewis not walk away from Polanski? Or the drugs? Because she lied about the abuse at any rate, to fit neatly into that ‘I’m a poor abused female’ box who cannot say no to drugs and sex. I’m tired of these ugly, whining, pathetic lying (and no doubt jealous) women coming out after decades to tell their sordid little sex adventure tales with infamous celebrities. If you can’t handle sex, and afterwards cry ‘sexual assault’ or rape, or that a man ‘took advantage’ of you, you poor little feminist disempowered and law infantilised females you, don’t engage in ANY sex at all, anal or otherwise, sober, drunk or stoned. The fact that Vogelhut suddenly cannot talk about it anymore, points to a restraining order or injunction from Polanski’s legal team, who have not reacted to her allegations in any form otherwise. As long as we don’t have any corroborating facts I doubt exist, Vogelhut can tell us whatever she likes, and I for one don’t believe that she didn’t mind any of the sex, the drugs and Polanski’s attention, it if it ever happened in any shape or form as she presents it. Or simply lies at any rate. If two people agree to sex, even ‘kinky’ sex Vogelhut wants us to believe, it doesn’t become rape when one of those people decades later decides she didn’t want to do that in order to seek the grimy limelight in the lies of another accuser. Wash your dirty sex laundry behind closed courtroom doors after going to the relevant authorities, not with any trashy LA attorneys on celebrity scandal online rags to brand someone a rapist. We’re fed up with it.
Today, August 18th, is Polanski’s 77th birthday, and I’m sure he’ll spend it in the company of his loving family and good friends, to the annoyance of all his petty little haters, while his plenty more supporters wish him many more returns, and to make more films. Polanski apparently doing so, with the adaptation of Yasmina Reza’s play God of Carnage on which they had worked in recent months already, filming is said to start in early 2011. As mentioned before, Polanski’s highly acclaimed Ghost Writer was released on August 3rd on normal DVD and Blu-ray in the US. In the UK it will be released on DVD and Blu-ray with a different title on September 20th, i.e. The Ghost, after the Harris bestseller. The US ‘version’ mind you was dubbed over in places, to ‘censor’ out some of the swear words, while happily leaving the Ghost saying, that the European war crimes tribunal can f*** themselves, with a deliberate political nod our way. No matter what happens to Polanski, no matter what the public thinks, nothing can deter the ever-resilient oldster and life survivor when it comes to film making – absolutely nothing. Not tragedy, not prison, not any corrupt DAs, film was and is his life and always will be. Apart from the odd Nazi voice who seriously said that Polanski should have been gassed along with his mother, (or murdered by the Manson gang too), another idiot proposed that they should pass a law making it illegal to show his movies or sell his DVDs in the US. Sorry, the most proceeds go to the studio/s – NOT the director – after everyone else was paid already.
Incidentally, the German DVD version released on September 15th has more extra features the US and UK editions don’t offer, which also includes the documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’ DVD with a special commentary by Zenovich covering the 1977 case misconducts, and another half-hour featurette of friends and colleagues talking about Polanski. They also come as regular DVD and Blu-ray without these extra specials. It’s obvious why you wouldn’t find them on the US versions: they are pro-Polanski and anti-US judicial system, or maybe even were excluded for the UK releases for the same reason though it contains a feature of the Berlin premier the US version has not and more interviews. Though all editions include some and the same extras, why only the German release has these special extras is clear: Polanski directed many stage shows of his still running Dance of the Vampires hit musical there since decades, and the German government obviously allowed him to film other grand features in Berlin like exactly The Ghost Writer and Pianist where he was allowed to demolish old Russian barracks to great effect, for showing the German past in a more likeable light with a Nazi soldier helping the main character to survive. That of course cannot ever be allowed to be promoted by the US Administration (or even ‘Hollywood’) either, while their own government is the biggest war criminal since before and after both World Wars. I.e., caused near extermination of their entire Native American population accounting for far more people than the Jews the Nazis had killed in a less drastic fashion, and engaged in every other war they had imposed on others ever since on a global scale.
Polanski isn’t ‘Hollywood’ in any case people keep bringing up, with only two features made there. Or they make the continuous mistake to believe his films being a reflection of stages or occurrences in his life, while in fact, they simply reflect the evils of this world he recreates as the highly accomplished craftsman and uncompromising storyteller on celluloid, that the good hardly ever triumphs, that the outsider is always persecuted and that the innocent are always abused, with hardly a happy ending. And, almost no one ever noticed that the women in his films are in fact the stronger characters fighting against all odds thrown their way, more or less successfully. Fallibly people keep believing that ‘controversial’, ‘hedonistic’ artists, who confront art and life, are capable of living out their own work to the audience’s consciousness of their ‘image’, rather than reality, and subtly encourage/d this confusion at times, implying that, by making violent and grotesque themed films with sex and nudity, they are playing at autobiographical portraiture. Elements might be present that could be considered relevant, but so it would be for anyone else if you take any drama, they merely represent his artistic handling of life’s not too pleasant events in general.
Polanski always surrounded himself with magnificent, powerful, creative and beautiful women, personally and professionally – Catherine Deneuve, Mia Farrow, Sharon Tate, Nastassja Kinski, Emmanuelle Seigner, Sigourney Weaver, Kim Cattrall and then some – three of which he dated, and two of them he married. His superior eye for details, realism, lighting, every little set piece is profound, a visual feast of painstakingly authentic, superb cinematography and production designs. He directs women especially with the most incredible care and infallible taste to perfection, and women loved and flocked to him. His eternally youthful demeanour, boyish [sex] appeal and love of women were appealing to them, and anyone saying differently is just bitter, jealous and/or has ulterior motives. See Lewis and Vogelhut. Polanski’s superior heterogeneous films are a bitter antidote to Hollywood’s shallow fare of saccharine cinema bore and shoot ‘em up fodder, and the average person doesn’t look deeper. Or, in contrast, too obsessively try to equate his controversial life with his very polypathic art, utterly forgetting that others in fact wrote the scripts. In that case, anyone who ever played in or made any violent action films had sadistic tendencies. I don’t think so. Only in people’s distorted perception. Conversely, to cite his being an artist as a reason to support him is utterly counterproductive. That should never be the sole motivation.
People know no bounds of how to destroy Polanski’s reputation even further. After another accuser came forward who is rightly disbelieved by most for various reasons, they have a few new takes on the old case too now. For one, saying, it WAS ‘rape’ since ‘children cannot consent’, (only in view of the fact that the language of ‘sex offences’ indoctrinates us with this absurd and braindead infantilising ‘child’ rhetoric suddenly everyone loves to use now and is highly misleading, in order to make it sound more sordid and immoral) they are however doubly wrong. Girls aged thirteen or more yet still underage, who are capable of REPRODUCING are NOT EVER ‘children’; they are adolescents, and they must learn to accept accountability for actions concerning sexual conduct as any other conduct. Only prepubescents are ‘children’, hence no special charges in 1977. Indeed, in parts of the USA teens are old enough to get married, but in fact aren’t allowed to have sex, which is the really intelligent part, yet do become pregnant and the male partner alone ends up in prison. Adolescents CAN consent, if the highly damaging ‘law’ however says they can’t, the law is simply at odds with REALITY, since teenagers will always have sex and should have the right to have sex with older partners as well. That for one would stop innocent men being sent to prison for [underage] sex, to be systematically raped there.
Second new take is the ‘what if’ scenario. ‘What if’ Ms Geimer hadn’t had the ‘emotional strength’ to put it all behind her, ‘what if’ her life had been blighted by flashbacks, post-traumatic stress disorder, fear of men, horror of intimacy, drug abuse, self-harm, or even suicide etc. pp. – Now, ‘what if’ people, who ask/ed that in their ignorance, had in fact their brains switched on for a change, to realise that only GENUINE rape victims have these emotional traumas to deal with to varying degrees? Someone who goes off with ‘wild boys’ as Ms Geimer described her new company once Polanski had left, then gets pregnant with 17/18, then has two more children with a second husband and a remarkably happy family life of oblivion on Hawaii for decades, and then says she didn’t feel victimised by Polanski but the corrupt law, malicious media and public like all these tripe mongers, what does that in fact say? That she’s NOT a genuine rape victim. She might have been underage no one disputes, not even Polanski, but that’s why the US has the handy and highly misleading misnomer ‘statutory ‘rape’’ law, and plea deals to plead to unlawful sex with a minor. The only thing that counts is what she said later as an adult, and, that it wasn’t rape by her own admission. Of course, people would rather discredit her recent statements even more, not at all interested in any ‘victim’ or her adult views, just so to maintain their illusion of Polanski the rapist.
Third take is the, ‘how can people like Polanski love their children’ angle, apart from believing he abused his own [too] and that they should be taken away from him – not even asking what his wife has to say to that and is not their business to start with, and if they mention her, say, she’s equally abusing them or couldn’t care less she married a rapist, etc. pp bullshit. Saying, they don’t believe they would be able to love their kids, ‘not in the sense that you and I love our children’ kind of nonsensical rhetoric, which is presumptuous projection and that they know NOTHING about Polanski, his loving wife, or their perfectly happy kids who love them both. But that of course doesn’t fit into their concept of a ‘rapist’, (let alone paedophiles who never sleep with anyone in their twenties like Polanski had mind you), maintaining that strong, responsible fatherhood simply eludes Polanski and that he’s incapable of love. Simply assuming that his kids must be ‘ashamed’ of him, being from a different plane of ‘logic’ for the twisted image they have of him, and because they think he abused a teenager three decades ago. It’s pure presumption either way, or of course another ‘emotional lever’ on how to malign him some more. As long as his friends, wife and children say they have nothing to reproach him for and love him, these desperate accusers have nothing realistic to offer. Only fuming jealousy and empty diatribe. Take number four is, the ‘Jew’ angle. That to say, that all those who defend him must be Jewish [pigs], just because a few in Hollywood who support him are, and because they think he is Jewish. Polanski is not Jewish, he might have Jewish ‘roots’, but his parents and Polanski were agnostics. He’s French at any rate and grew up in Poland before he moved back to France.
Someone seriously came up with this: ‘it’s also possible he sold himself sexually for food when young and was acting out from that history’ – anything farfetched to keep him in the rapist/sodomite box. Or, because he saw so much cruelty in his life he just had to be cruel himself. As if this would suddenly pop into his head decades later and say, hey, I need to get more power over women after I had already hundreds and be crueller to them, let’s rape and sodomise some! Right. No one ever said he was or is cruel. Another idiot said that Huston of all people offered him her teen daughter – um, when exactly did she ever have ‘any’ kids? Right, never. They even manage to turn porn against him – since he allegedly watched some, like I bet the majority of people on this planet, because some drug-addled actress recalled it in her memoirs. Really far-fetched nonsense to use that as a sign of his ‘debauchery’. People also make the big mistake to believe anything they read in books, unauthorised biographies, or other people’s autobiographies. These ‘authors’ are in the bad habit of copying anything they read before, unverified as it may be, ‘embellish’ on things, see Lewis and Vogelhut, or use plain fabrication. See Reisman and Kiernan’s sordid muck, having invented the ‘minor bruising to the anus’ of Ms Geimer, despite actual documentation to the very opposite, (they always claim they had access to. Not.) And if they had, they studiously avoid using anything exculpatory. Many of these people are pathological liars who will not accept anything to the facts, or logic, consumed by their own pathetic obsessions and delusions.
Nicholson too wrote an autobiography, where he recounts a date with two ‘models’, he was ‘sharing’ with Polanski in Paris later, of which neither however cried ‘rape’ suddenly decades later after they were left with Polanski in his apartment to have sex. Equally, the few girls he had met in Gstaad after Tate’s death, with whom he not always had sexual relations at all, never did either. How disappointing. People keep bringing these few known encounters up just so to ‘prove’ ‘rape’ in each case. They also wait for Kinski to cry rape one day. Keep waiting, folks, she’s not going to betray her former lover/mentor unlike some ugly has-beens. Then of course we have the really nasty scum who say that Polanski should have been butchered along with Tate and their friends, which is nothing short of fascist talk and hate speech, and no one bats a lash, while they would call for such vile comments to be removed had it been meant for anyone else. They can call Polanski all sorts of horrible things no one deletes, but if others call his accusers liars, they are attacked immediately, demand moderation, or their explanations are simply removed. I came across several articles that promote this type of obsessive hatred, utterly consumed by all the sordid ‘details’, to turn it into even more lurid fantasies. They take already clear fabrications and twist and turn them some more, living in dark world of rape and sodomy, and do nothing more than project, with Polanski the perfect target to demonise. Though some of the articles get the same type of ignorant comments, many in fact rally against such repulsive fodder when the comments were left.
Rape (vaginal or otherwise), Polanski is accused of out of habit now at not the slightest evidence, is about power, and penetrative rape is always about inflicting pain and humiliation, not simply ‘desiring’ and/or ‘having sex’ he indulged in, which is always used as tool to inflict mental and physical pain and injuries for various reasons, general hatred of women acquired, and is not ‘casual sex’. Polanski most certainly did not hate women nor had he any need to exert any power over them or to hurt them, ‘force’ the sex, with enough women at his disposal. When Ms Geimer had said decades later: “He had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with,” this does not qualify as ‘rape’, let alone ‘forcible’ rape in any form, since, ‘letting him get on with it’, does not sound like she suffered his actions as rather seemed more ‘bored’, or she had said, he hurt me, raped me. She never has, not even in her original testimony. What she had told the grand jury, lying in direct conflict with that very telling statement, still rings no truer today than in 1977, or they’d gone for the drugged rape count as plead deal. If Polanski used any recreational drugs to enjoy sex, so be it. Almost everyone did it, does it right now, will do so in the future, and today’s obsessive über-morals have zero to with the Seventies’ drugs and sexual excesses their very own parents indulged in too. To single him out is hair-splitting hypocrisy.
Many find him any easy target because he was a womaniser – like millions were – and he wasn’t the best example in terms of being ‘faithful’, but Sharon once said: “Roman and I have an agreement, Roman pretends he doesn’t cheat and I pretend I believe him,” and this statement proves what an understanding person she was, while people make the mistake to think HE wasn’t a ‘good person’. I doubt they know better. Then of course we have the repetitively inane paedophile, and now even ‘pederast’ angle, just so to keep him in the ‘rapist’ bracket even harder. Some cite the more apt ephebophile and hebephile angle for his former predilection of younger women, though he had sexual relations with older females too – hence no paedophiliac marker. A pederast is an older male who has sexual intercourse/relations with a younger (but of age) male exclusively – basically a homosexual union with a bigger age difference than usual. Similar to the terms ‘hebephilia’ and ‘ephebophilia’, which are sometimes used to describe attraction to much more mature adolescents, distinct from attraction to prepubescent children not fully developed, i.e., paedophilia. That obviously cannot be applied to Polanski’s occasional preference of grown younger women in any form. Ephebophilia refers to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, fifteen to nineteen year-olds, hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individual, twelve to fifteen, and paedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children, any age below twelve.
However, the term paedophilia is commonly used to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical, mental, or psychological development, which is of course the problem for people to see the crucial difference not knowing better. Polanski might have known Ms Geimer’s ‘age’, but her body appealed to him on a more adult development level therefore only once having seen her in the nude on their third photo session. If one wants to label Polanski with a ‘phile’ at all, ephebophile is more applicable for his occasional former attraction to much more mature teenagers who had completed puberty. Hence, Dr Larson’s description of Ms Geimer as ‘adult female’ documented in the court transcripts, (who had examined her mere hours after her sexual encounter with Polanski to discredit rape/sodomy outright) who was physically fully developed like a young adult. That’s why the caretaker and Huston thought her to be much older. On the other hand, if one considers the possibility that Ms Geimer was in fact two years older according to some sources, that would accredit to her highly developed physical appearance, since Kinski was also fifteen when Polanski met her first, and equally fully mature physically and no doubt mentally.
Neither hebephilia nor ephebophilia is listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Hence, the ‘MDSO’ diagnostic study Polanski underwent which came also back negative for paedophilia. The fact that he had also dated older women closer to his own age like Sharon Tate a mere ten years younger, therefore does not make him belong to either group in fact exclusively either. He could be considered a once occasionally inclined borderline ephebophile by age group, or otherwise hebephile by female gender group, and mainly teleiophile (adult) with a tendency to ephebophilia by age group. More apt was the term ‘adolescentophilia’, for his occasional sexual preference of pubescent and/or very mature adolescent youths, i.e., either hebe- or ephebo-oriented teleiophile till he settled with his last partner. I fail to see why we have to put him into any ‘sexual preference box’ at any rate, like people do it with homosexuals or others, since his current wife is in her forties like Ms Geimer, and Tate would have been nearly seventy now, like Ms Geimer’s mother in fact. Sexual orientation and/or age preferences are utterly irrelevant. Besides, females will always prefer older men rather than not, it’s only the repressed radical feminists who can’t stand the nubile competition.
Coming back to the infamous Oktoberfest photo that had caused him so much trouble, (and that German feminist twisted into a ‘soirée of ‘minors’’), here’s one of the women called Gloria Edel, recalling the day she met Polanski at the ‘Wiesn’ table in late 1977. Talking to a German Newspaper last October 2009, she said that the girls were in fact all adults, not minors as this lying feminist had unashamedly proclaimed. Edel said, she was shocked how this harmless photo could have been so terribly (or of course deliberately) misinterpreted. Edel [still] thinks it is very important to realise that all the women were there with their boyfriends, or husbands, which is of course not apparent, since the picture was ‘cropped’ and the photographer only zoomed in on Polanski and the few girls seated around him. The German photographer recognising Polanski, wanting to photograph him and the pretty women only, in fact featured in the documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’ talking about it and his completely innocent intentions, and photo. The picture, taken from a very misfortunate angle, showing Polanski with these women in close proximity, having his arm stretched out behind one of them, he however does not ‘embrace’ her, like this shameless feminist liar described it. Polanski is merely resting his hand on the wooden bench back close to her while holding a cigar in the other, not ever touching the woman whose partner sits just out of eyeshot.
Edel, like Polanski’s other friends and their partners who had invited him to the fest, was very concerned already then, saying, Polanski was terrified of prison like any man would be, since he was a very sensitive man who deserved no such treatment, and prison would have done him great harm. Edel indeed echoing what the prison officials had stated, right after Polanski however DID end up in jail only days later because of this deceiving photo Wells had misused to goad Rittenband into sending Polanski to Chino against all counsel, they too argued for no further time for Polanski’s long-standing depression in agreement with all parties, Rittenband in his power delirium however ignored. Besides, to say, or believe, the women were all minors, backfires doubly – since for one, they all DO look as old as they are, in their twenties, and if minors therefore would look like that in a feminist’s handbook, they are indeed very mature and could easily pass for adults, since they in fact were. Just like Ms Geimer, or Lewis looked older, and Polanski along with Huston and Helena had noted so. “She appeared to be one of those kids between… could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing,” Huston said I’m sure knew better. Even the attorneys noticed it, and that, if they’d not set a trial date soon, she’d not ever be believed to be an ‘innocent thirteen year old’, which she obviously wasn’t [anymore], and was already fourteen before Polanski ever pleaded after five months, which was another reason why they went for that plea bargain. Had Gunson been successful in removing the lose-canon judge months earlier, and his two self-serving superiors had not blocked him, Polanski had never been subjected to such injustice.
Rittenband allowed Polanski to make his movie abroad, and when he lost his power over him, suddenly lost the plot and thought to penalise Polanski might be fun, all for sitting in the company of these adult girls. So, when was sitting next to pretty German girls far away in Germany ever a crime in California? Considering the multilayered legal and political issues of this case mainstream medias intentionally or negligently omit, (apart from the exculpatory facts), although it dates back to 1977, they have significant lessons to teach us today. First, it reveals that DAs and judges have virtually unlimited ‘discretion’ to manipulate substantive rights of defendants with no scrutiny or repercussions, and are basically unimpeachable. Rittenband could make representations about Polanski’s sentence on which Polanski and his attorneys relied, and then simply renege on them with no consequences. Polanski was then left in the situation of trusting a clearly fickle and ‘press oriented’ judge who had indicated a legal fate for Polanski far harsher than that to which all parties had agreed on, and in fact no one else had faced then. Or later, when it came to [US] ‘celebrities’ getting a pass. The actual effect was to shift to Polanski the burden of Rittenband’s very own misconduct: trust the judge and risk a lengthy term of incarceration, or flee the jurisdiction and be labelled a fugitive from ‘justice’ for life. Had Polanski remained in LA and received the anticipated lengthier sentence, he would have had no way to bring Rittenband’s unlawful actions to the attention of the Appeals Court, and no chance to appeal his decision unless he’d done so in view of years to take, successfully, or [mostly] not, while in custody where no one wanted him.
This type of Catch-22 situation is very familiar to [all] criminal defence attorneys; an attorney, who successfully appeals a client’s conviction, may very well find himself on retrial before the same trial judge from whose conduct he originally appealed. The likelihood of such an attorney’s client receiving a fair hearing on retrial is remote. The trial judge’s prejudice need not be overt; it can consist of rulings on ‘evidential issues’ consistently in favour of the prosecution, which involve [such] ‘judicial discretion’ and will not be overturned on another appeal. If the client is convicted either through a [forced] plea agreement or [biased] jury verdict who didn’t have all the evidence to begin with, the judge may add on several years to the client’s sentence if he ‘feels’ the client had ‘lied’ at trial. In most US state Appeals Courts, it is virtually impossible to get a sentence overturned for this type of vindictiveness, even if they hold all the evidence to a defendant’s innocence. Even crooked cop Vannatter had to shoot off his gob, by saying, again, that he’d love/d to see Polanski behind bars, since his little ‘sodomy coaching’ of Ms Geimer and his blackmailing of Huston had obviously failed because of the plea deal. These people are in desperate need to be in the league of criminal fabricators, just so to feel good in their abuse or power. Many people don’t even realise that they are being manoeuvred by these sinister manipulators into destructive hatred, instead of demanding the facts.
There is clearly prosecutorial and judicial misconduct involved on a grand scale in this ever-messier case ever since Rittenband took bench, many see, even if they might believe Polanski is guilty of what he’s not and yet think it should be dropped. There have been plenty public allegations that there was criminal witness tampering and juror misconduct ever since then not only in Polanski’s case in the LA courts. According to other LA DAs speaking out most unsympathetically against Cooley, he has refused to prosecute the paedophiles who work in the Catholic Church. So, why is Cooley STILL going after Polanski now in a clear act of vindictive vengeance people find most disturbing, but will not go after the Church’s child molesters, or any other for that matter, or real rapists, while incarcerating innocent men who had sex with their own [underaged] girlfriends or a Rape Shield Law shielded false rape accuser, (while calling a real rape victim a liar)? Could it be that Cooley is not only receiving campaign money from the Church or other rich ‘parties’ no one really knows of, (who can be contributing anonymously) so he might turn a blind eye, but because it’s ‘personal’ after Polanski exposed their multiple judicial misconduct? And, who exactly would ‘benefit’ from Cooley becoming the next AG? The answer is, only those who are rich institutions/people and their [‘sexually molesting’ or criminal] employees, LA gang members left ignored by the cops, or who else will be shielded from prosecution if they come bearing ‘gifts’, i.e., bribes.
If the DA’s office is going to hold people accountable for sex or any other crimes, then there should be no discriminatory measures in who is ‘selected’ for prosecution, and whom to let off. The pervasive lynch mob mentality STILL calling for Polanski’s blood mostly in the US of course, is assisted by the equally corrupt LA judges allowing their prosecutors to dig up and use his plenty ex-girlfriends or one-night stands against him, and if any happen to say that they had booze, drugs and ‘sex’ with him who needs money, and the chance is big enough that they HAD sex and need money, they twist it into rape and whatnot else to fit Polanski’s by now utterly perverted ‘sex [fiend] MO’. Find a burnt-out ex, tempt her with enough dirty $$$ and she’ll betray her former casual/lover/mentor in nil time no matter what he did for her. See drug addict Lewis and ‘model’ Vogelhut. Put up a press camera with a sleazeball attorney and an ‘actress’ reading from a script, and the DA’s office pays her not for her ‘sexual’ services, but instead for her [false] ‘witness’ services. These women sell themselves for sex and money regardless of who gets hurt. Besides, why else would Lewis make such an emphasis that she had flown to LA ‘on her own expenses’ to meet Cooley & Co for a suddenly oh so ‘altruistic act’, if, how she got there is utterly unimportant to start with and has no bearing on anything.
It’s called ‘projecting’, i.e., ‘someone’ DID pay her. Just like her ‘friend’ had emphasised that she did NOT ‘prostitute’ herself when she even admitted herself that she HAD. If Lewis gained [ultimately questionable] fame by remaining silent about her activities in Polanski’s Paris apartment in 1983, the only reason that she remained no longer silent was to gain financially twice in 2010; from the very same action first by silence and then by lack of silence. It’s also called lying and betrayal when it’s untrue. Lewis would have been useful as a ‘star witness’ against Polanski since Ms Geimer would have refused to do so, so that Cooley could nail a very stale offence against Polanski despite having done his time to the full extend now, and I’m sure Cooley would have found some ‘code’ to allow unrelated/unproven allegations retroactively to lock him up for longer. Once that failed for Lewis’ own former interviews, however, and then the Swiss didn’t play [into] their smear campaign game, Cooley was using Vogelhut to further Polanski’s demise on his quest to become the next Californian Attorney General. Sure, why not, send Polanski back to America nearly eighty now, since he’s such a bloody threat to ‘society’, the home of the most [sexually] unenlightened, repressed and [legally] corruptible justice system in the world. Such shams just make their vindictive cause look more and more desperate and foolish as time goes by.
Cooley has no legal standing, and he knows it. He hopes by throwing a lot of garbage and vitriol out there with lying exes it will hide that fact. Not so – the public isn’t all that gullible – and the only thing one can do is ridicule them. Cooley and reports now depicting Ms Geimer as this ‘little girl’, she’s not a precocious teenager anymore who was ‘star struck’ as she once claimed herself, coming from an unstable and permissive background, was versed in sex, drugs and alcohol, of adult built, appearance and behaviour, (via women’s lib having utterly backfired by now) to an innocent minor, and now is an utterly infantilised ‘child’, people recognise that mature teenagers like her pose a significant threat to those who [unwisely] choose to become intimately involved with them. The younger the person, the more likely that individual is to engage in fantasies and actions/lies based on whim (or fear of punishment) that can destroy the adult. See Ms Geimer’s claiming her mother wouldn’t have allowed the topless pictures, I highly doubt, since Vogue Hommes was all about nudes and teenagers in the first place. The more unbalanced the individual is at the onset of any relationship, sexual or otherwise, the more unstable that person is likely to become if a power figure like the mother suddenly does assume ‘power’ over her, which she had let slack before, and acts against the minor’s wishes thinking to do the ‘right thing’, when it’s in fact the wrong thing since the minor had lied to her.
See Lewis and Vogelhut, who were ‘enticed’ by money to lie even as adults, not any ‘justice’, since there’s big money involved in the ‘sexual abuse’ industry especially in the US, not only for ‘lawyers’ and cheap ambulance chasers like ‘Allred’. It’s preposterous feminist and harmful legal posturing in order to keep Polanski and plenty other men in the rapist bracket, with females paying absolutely NOTHING for having had [sometimes also unlawful] sex with men, who then cried rape to become such desirable entities as ‘victims’. Polanski gorgeous own daughter now seventeen can easily pass for twenty as well, like Kinski had or this disturbing Lewis by all means. But I doubt his daughter can’t match mental maturity in contrast to sad individuals like Lewis and Vogelhut, having grown up in the film industry with competent parents who know all about healthy sex and that to cry rape is lying, these women think they can just do with impunity. Polanski was one of the alpha males around at that time and everyone chased after him. Today the man is made out to be the world’s biggest sex offender suddenly, when on the one hand women want virile and sexually assertive men, and when they are, they call them predators or paedophiles. Now he’s being made guilty of the times he had shaped, like the plenty women he bedded. Today they would call him a rapist in the name of ‘feminism’ and recant they ever had ‘sordid sex’, rather saying they had been ‘raped’ in their sick/ening fantasies.
Many too think, because Ms Geimer’s mother pressed for the unlawful sex charge, it was in order ‘to preserve her [daughter’s] anonymity’, when that is utterly irrelevant since they still could have demanded Polanski to plead to the drugged rape or sodomy, but didn’t, since they had not the slightest evidence to prove any of her claims. Ms Geimer’s identity was long known at any rate before Polanski ever pleaded after five months when the Euro press got hold of her and her anonymity held no grounds anymore. No, the main reason for a plea deal was not to preserve already blown her ‘anonymity’, but her mature looks and that she was not a ‘child’, her reluctance to testify against him after she didn’t want to testify before the Grand Jury to start with, no evidence to support her claims in general, and of course the prospect to be found out she made up a few things – and her mother. Which reminds me of the ‘other incident’ Rittenband had mentioned in an [unlawful] ex parte communication, who had received a call from some woman in the UK, saying that Polanski had been involved in this sort of ‘scenario’ before, while he lived there with Tate. Though Gunson himself had said she was a fraud and Rittenband shouldn’t be talking to her in the first place. So, where is this oh so serious ‘incident’ today? Obviously she was just another liar who had tried to influence the proceedings and slander Polanski some more, like Lewis and Vogelhut. But, had Rittenband taken her false claims into considerations, as ‘proof’ of some ‘behavioural pattern’ of the ‘notorious’ defendant, this is exactly the type of arbitrary ‘evidence’ the judge can ‘use’ to condemn the defendant to a heavier sentence he would not really deserve, while real, exculpatory evidence can be and very often is unconstitutionally withheld.
I’m sure Cooley would have loved to have Lewis’ lies taken into account, though the defence would have ripped them and her apart in nil time, by simply pointing to her own words to the very opposite of years back, be found guilty of perjury and end in prison where she belongs as false rape/abuse accuser. Just like Vogelhut along with her big hat. This type of insidious slander Cooley keeps promoting simply has to stop, and if he thinks he can just go on and on with giving us these lying ex-lovers rather than close the case since Polanski had fulfilled his part, he digs himself deeper and deeper into trouble that might just as well backfire one day, no matter how powerful he is. He only wants to become Attorney General so he can impose even higher sentences on [innocent] defendants with the last say in criminal proceedings, since in Polanski’s days the AG had the ‘discretion’ and power to ask for the maximum penalty – fifty years, which hardly anyone would have imposed on any statutory rape case – and the DAs had him plead to the maximum of twenty years simply as the statute for unlawful sex with a minor had outlined, which was never implemented in any form in the Seventies either and no one had asked for since no physical or psychological force was used. Cooley would in effect be someone like Widmer-Schlumpf who just foiled his extradition attempt over a month ago, who has the last say over extradition requests too. If Cooley in fact makes it to AG in November, California REALLY needs God to help them.
To demonstrate how the press manipulates the public, even in 1977, a TV news reporter had said Polanski was booked on ‘forcible rape’, when that’s more than incorrect, since it was statutory rape already then, i.e., NOT forcible rape but sex with a minor, and the other counts were only known later on following his arraignment, before they eventually were all dropped again at no proof. No wonder people got confused not only then, they even got confused today, mostly online, since all you need is to omit the word statutory, or replace it with what the writer/editor/journalist fancies. I’ve often wondered what sort of sick person leaves those or any of the really nasty comments. It’s like the Internet threw up suddenly, because extreme [religious] hatred and bigotry, bad spelling and grammar, general ignorance and hypocrisy, and most of all wilful fabrications go hand-in-hand. There are so many misinformed or fabricated articles and comments posted online, no wonder the average media junk consumer wouldn’t know better. With comments like, ‘they agreed to a no-significant-jail-time plea deal in order to avoid the life-long scarring that having her identity publicly revealed would cause’, this is the sort of nonsense readers fall for who have no grasp of the law or how plea bargains work, since her identity was long known before Polanski pleaded, plus, she came out later on her own free will, and there went her global anonymity. Plus, her future had been no more ‘anonymous’ or ‘scarring’ had they demanded any jail time – it’s utterly illogical.
They didn’t press for jail time since they had no ‘goods’ on rape and sodomy, unlike what people think, wondering why they didn’t force him to plead to the higher charge of drugged rape and jail time – simple, they did NOT have the evidence no matter what Ms Geimer had told the grand jury in order to indict him on these claims at the arraignment. Others think she is seriously screwed in the head because today she talks of how she’s not a poor little thing (correct) and feels sorry for Polanski, unable to realise ‘why’ she says so, or see her real motive of not only wanting this case to ‘go away’ – having hoped her long self-refuted testimony would never make it into the public domain – but that a trial would find her out she had claimed things that never happened the attorneys well realised, hence the plea deal purely for her age. People think she’s ‘mentally unstable’, which she was as teenager who could be forced into testifying to claims by her mother and the cops that were clearly fabrications at not the slightest corroborating evidence, like saying he ejaculated all over her back, when there was nothing found inside her, on her skin, or anywhere on her clothes within hours only. She swore she had not taken any shower etc., and the panties she fetched only later were semen stained in the gusset, not on the back. Clearly not Polanski’s semen – or even the same panties. Her father realised she’d been shredded by the defence, that’s why he told her not to testify, being a lawyer.
Her mother too tried to salvage her far-reaching mistake of calling the cops – by pressing for that plea deal once it became clear her daughter had messed up, and herself, which had been it. But, egomaniac Rittenband obviously had his own media show to run after he saw the Oktoberfest photo and simply took revenge on Polanski by sending him to Chino he had never done, had Wells not shown it to him. Many even said that the photo shows Kinski, (the ‘blonde’ Polanski is not even toughing let alone embraces her), when that’s an even bigger lie – either way. Some people are just too desperate for words. Rather than take Ms Geimer’s words as an adult as fact today, they think she’s either still too traumatised to say it was rape, when that’s more than illogical since had it been rape, she’d proclaimed it that and demanded jail time. Or they say, she was paid off to speak in his favour, which is even more farfetched since no real rape victim can be paid off or to petition for her rapist. When she was all smiles at the premier of ‘Wanted and Desired’, people ask/ed, who goes to a film about the man who raped them? Simple, because he did NOT rape her, that’s the logic that eludes them – and she never said he had forcibly raped her at any rate. They say she has lost her marbles due to the ‘trauma suffered’ at his hands, entirely forgetting that she had a perfectly happy life ever since the moment Polanski was in fact gone from US soil, the media show over, raised a family in regained anonymity, had two husbands and has three grown kids.
She’s not in the same dire need as Polanski’s braindead detractors of seeing him [still] be[ing] punished for what people [wrongly] think he did, since he never harmed her – only the corrupt law, vicious media, dumb and malignant public with exactly this sort of ugly, shallow and illogic rhetoric in their desperate need to besmirch Polanski. Even her. Unfortunately, journalism no longer appears to be associated with much investigative and truthful reporting, no, these days the media will run with any story based on only a very minimal amount of evidence to support it, and even then only when the crux of the story fits their own ‘salacious agenda’ to sell their rags. Such media outlets view being first with a sordid celeb story far more important than being accurate of the details, or in fact having researched the allegations thrown out there in the first place. But of course, boring facts wouldn’t sell. These days anybody can accuse anyone of anything to do real damage – and no truth is important any longer – or are forced to apologise over it. It’s called character assassination, and it works like a virtual bullet each time. This is a highly virulent ‘networking’ cancer that has long been allowed to metastasise for decades since the rise of the all-free Internet, which has fed the obsessed public more factoids than facts, spreading lies within seconds to infect more people. Not only is this cancer not being treated by censorship and common sense, laws to force sites to correct or delete such lies, most people don’t even want to find out the truth.
When it was once, who’s the lucky lady you wined and dined, romanced with a bit of intoxicated seduction and had sex with, today it’s, who’s the child you got drunk and drugged and then raped? It’s radical feminism and über anti-sex lingo gone out of hand. The fact that two aging women suddenly came forward with [false] rape accusations against Polanski while Ms Geimer wants him be left alone, is no surprise, which in Lewis’ case however was clearly Cooley’s show to influence the extradition with damning lies from a less than credible ex-lover and teenage prostitute drug addict. Since that had failed however for Polanski’s release from his house arrest, Cooley brought in ‘big hat’ Vogelhut in hope to have her [better] fabrications taken as ‘behavioural pattern evidence’ into account against him (if true or not), under the revised California’s ‘Evidence Code 1108 b’ that could allow the introduction of (real or false) prior and subsequent events to the case in hand, to ‘prove’, ‘circumstantially’, that the defendant committed the charged offence pursuant to the same ‘design’ or ‘plan’ he used in committing the uncharged acts. Unlike evidence of uncharged acts used to prove identity, the ‘plan’ need not be unusual or distinctive; it need only exist to support the ‘inference’ that the defendant ‘employed’ that ‘plan’ in committing the [‘same’] charged offence’, i.e., had [the same] ‘intent’. Hence her [stupidly] bringing in the sodomy and drugs again with an apparently ‘aggravating’ BDSM factor that’s in fact utterly ‘atypical’.
Although evidence admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108 b, is often referred to as ‘prior’ acts evidence, evidence of a ‘subsequent’ as well as a prior offence (if true or not) is admissible. One could [almost] say that this clause was introduced solely for the benefit of Cooley’s hunt for [people like] Polanski since he had such high hopes for the extradition to succeed, and he clearly had that code in mind to make it stick to the old case. When that was foiled by the Swiss, Cooley, in all his glorious arrogance and vindictiveness, gave us Vogelhut. Worse still, while in a trial the jurors must find a defendant guilty or innocent ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, in this case they may ‘consider’ this ‘evidence’ if the People have ‘proved’ by a ‘preponderance’ of the ‘evidence’ that the defendant in fact committed the (uncharged offence[s]/act[s]). Proof by a preponderance, i.e., ‘M[odus] O[perandi]’ type (or, ‘habitual conduct’) of the evidence is a different burden of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A ‘fact’ is ‘proved’ by a preponderance of the ‘evidence’ if they ‘conclude’ that it is ‘more likely’ than not that the new claims are true. Meaning, the jury is instructed not only that it may find the defendant was ‘disposed’ or ‘inclined’ to commit [the same] sexual offences, and based on that decision, also conclude that the defendant was ‘likely’ to commit them.
So in effect, when it comes to the defendant, ANYTHING prior or even after the date of the case in hand can be taken into account, proven or not, while the accuser’s history, or their own ‘characteristic behaviour’, is entirely unimpeachable even if known as suspect or nothing more than a [Rape Shield Laws shielded] lie. The admission of any evidence that involves alleged crimes other than those for which a defendant is being tried has a highly inflammatory and prejudicial effect on the triers of these claims, and it clearly violates the Due Process Clause if it permitted the use of prior or subsequent alleged ‘crimes’. Meaning, anything a false rape accuser says can be taken as ‘fact’, even if it’s not, and the jury can treat their lies/claims you name it, as being ‘true’. Hence Allred’s urging words to take Lewis’ claims into consideration when sentencing Polanski were he to be extradited, and for ‘[the] other victims’ to come forward, i.e., Vogelhut, since big hat said herself she [only] went to Cooley because Lewis had done so, if true or not. Though Evidence Code section 1108 b does [however] not authorise ‘expert opinion’ evidence, (like someone citing from the dubious ‘rape trauma syndrome’ manual), of sexual propensity during the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the defence may introduce ‘rebuttal’ character evidence in the form of opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific incidents of conduct under similar circumstances that could in effect disprove the [false] accusations. If they will be allowed however, is another question.
Evidence Code section 1108 b does not contain any limitations on the age of the uncharged conduct, hence Lewis and Vogelhut appeared suddenly to have their doubtful claims be admitted retroactively, since they cannot file any real, indefensible charges for the statute of limitations and not the slightest proof, and also said they don’t want to sue Polanski since he could fight any unjust lawsuit. Ergo, [nowadays] anything an ex-partner can dig up to accuse him of if true or not, or twist it to use it against him, can now be admitted with respect to ALL charges of the actual case in hand unlike in 1977. Though constitutionally violating Due Process still today, anything unrelated let alone unproven [still] can NOT be admitted for the Human Rights Declaration disallowing this, and because he pleaded to only ONE count, it in effect means, these women suddenly can bring in old claims if true or not, to ‘prove’ the (actual, not their own) case [details] in hand even if not true either. This so called ‘‘evidence’ of [highly unreliable third party] witnesses’, who were not witnesses to the actual case from 1977 at all, is extremely untrustworthy at best, or in fact criminal when false, but it is long being used to sway a lay (and already highly biased anti-defendant) jury by ‘conditioning’ them into accepting these deceitful claims.
Since Cooley in fact has had quite some success with this (kind of smear campaign) strategy after two trials in the Phil Spector case alone, the less than ‘just-minded’ DA is using the same foul tactics in Polanski’s case with all these ‘non-witness’ exes creeping out of the rotten woodwork suddenly, to help him convict (or at least dead-slander) Polanski he cannot get to [legally] otherwise. If one scrutinises Lewis’ words deeper, they clearly point to the intent to achieve just that goal on his behalf, or otherwise she’d not proclaimed, ‘it is very important that the District Attorney and the Swiss authorities are armed with this information (i.e., her lies) as they decide Mr Polanski’s fate’ – dead give-away that, since she never pleaded for her own ‘case’, but that of Ms Geimer, NOT her business at all. One could also call it lowlife revenge to use vindictive little sex lies to affect an old case that doesn’t concern her in any form. Or bigger liar Vogelhut and her ridiculous BDSM scenario to have another even lesser credible go. In fact, Cooley’s attempt to push Lewis’s lies into the foreground might just as well have had the adverse effect (on the Swiss), since it for one violates the Human Rights Declaration that explicitly prohibits any unrelated allegations that could potentially affect a future sentencing to a higher penalty, which was of course the whole idea.
Cooley knew perfectly well Polanski HAD done his time and the reason why Espinoza did not sentence Polanski in absentia to [that] time served, though he said he would if Polanski were to appear in [his] court, in order to use this code. It is unconstitutional to retroactively apply new allegations even if they do in fact relate to the case in hand, let alone to any other unrelated incidents, since it would bring the original offences into a heavier punishment bracket – which is unlawful. Even in America. That Cooley doesn’t care about this and wants to apply all sorts of smear tactics and laws of today, is clear, and only shows that this ‘Evidence Code section 1108 b’ makes any rightful defence even less fair, he, like many others can, did, and do abuse, since any exculpatory evidence brought in to effectively nullify such unproven claims can simply be disallowed by the judge. Per law, any potential [later] sentencing must be applied to the lowest penalty of the time a case was tried or processed, or if of a lower penalty, any changed laws/sentencing of today must so apply, (especially at no repeat offence), NOT the higher, or highest punishment of then or now. Which is of course another reason why Cooley paraded his two strawwomen to make it appear that there were repeat offences so he could apply that revised code, hence Allred’s pointed emphasis that this was not a one-off offence and for other (fake) ’victims’ to come forward – (Vogelhut).
It is clear that Cooley didn’t want to ‘prove’ Polanski is a paedophile with that code since his partners were of varying ages and not prepubescent, and the old psyche reports stated already that he’s not. But, to ‘prove’ ‘propensity’ towards ‘sodomy’; that he habitually sodomises girls, to ‘prove’ ‘Ms Geimer’ was sodomised, ‘not’ Lewis (or Vogelhut), the ONE thing they could not prove in 1977, next to ‘drugged rape’. It is also clear that Allred and Lewis tried to achieve just that with her ‘evidence’ (lies), not her ‘own’ (fake) ‘abuse’, which one might think is the main reason to come forward. While in fact no one can be found guilty of unproven crimes in the first place, let alone if they are used to affect a given case, therefore the defendant would unlawfully suffer a higher sentence if this controversial code can be made to stick. Such devious [smear campaign] practice is unconstitutional in a civilised country like Switzerland, or to even acknowledge or support it when it comes to any extradition request. Equally, no one can be made guilty of the changed times after which a case was tried or processed for changed attitudes or laws of today, if it brings any offence into a heftier penalty bracket Cooley unsuccessfully tried to achieve – it’s simply unlawful and inhumane. Of course, the majority of people simply have no inkling of all this, legally regarding it or otherwise, and react in an overemotional, irrational and highly ill-informed way, assuming, accusing, unable to view this controversial case objectively. But then they never would be able to do so in real life either and must be disregarded as relevant voices judging this case, or Polanski, rather than those forming better informed opinions and more correct résumés of events.
That said, it’s relevant to repeat that there are in fact two different ‘versions’ of Huston’s statement, and part of Ms Geimer’s very own course of events, which at the beginning did NOT match. Meaning, what Huston had said right after Polanski’s arrest the next evening and he had gone to Nicholson’s house with the cops for them to interview her on site, was the one that matched his and the caretakers own explanations. But, once Huston was arrested on drugs charges after they had [unlawfully] unearthed cocaine and pot at Nicholson’s home, though it could well have been Nicholson’s not hers, they could blackmail Huston into ‘altering’ her original, exculpatory statement to drop the charges and be released, to now suddenly match in part that of Ms Geimer’s already coerced ‘version’ Vannatter and her mother had forced on her. I.e., the ‘double sodomy’ claim, when Huston allegedly had interrupted them ‘going at it’, though Polanski’s and Huston’s original testimony given at the house proclaimed the exact opposite, and the cops effectively threatened both women to make Polanski guilty of something he never did. Furthermore, Ms Geimer said he had sodomised her from the front after lifting her legs, while Polanski said she spread herself to enter her vaginally only. In fact, penetrating someone from the front is even more difficult for the curved rectal angle, and to ‘lift’ the legs is not enough, they must be spread wide and the pelvis raised, or it will most definitely hurt, especially without any vital lube.
To recap a little further, don’t forget, the Gaileys had two whole weeks to come up with a good story to relieve Ms Geimer completely of all responsibility in the events, while the cops had laid siege to Ms Geimer’s original statement, i.e., turned it into sodomy at her ‘confusion’ not to have ‘known’ where ‘exactly’ Polanski had penetrated her when talking to Vannatter, (which is more than ridiculous) and that Huston had interrupted Polanski’s sodomising her – which evidently never took place let alone twice. Furthermore, Ms Geimer said at the hearing that, when given a photo of a dark-haired woman, that this was ‘the woman that was there on the phone’ – i.e., Huston she didn’t know, once introduced to her by Polanski AFTER the sex. Huston, once returned to the house, did NOT interrupt them, but went straight to the kitchen to unload her stuff and then sat by the phone before meeting both after Polanski had called into the hallway to see if it was her, realising she was in the lounge on that phone where Ms Geimer had left her gear, Ms Geimer forgot to mention. Hence, the light coming up on the phone in the TV room to signal her return, Ms Geimer however also entirely forgot to mention, purely in order to match Huston’s [coerced, later] statement that ‘she’ had interrupted them, which is incorrect, not any ‘phone light’.
Ms Geimer did not say that ‘Huston’ in fact let them in, but an equally dark-haired woman, Nicholson’s [outhouse-live-in] caretaker/friend Helena – who then told Huston that Polanski was there with a girl to take some photos – hence Huston’s waiting until they had finished and he then introduced Ms Geimer to her. Of course, Huston noticed someone had used the still steaming, [always] ‘too hot’ Jacuzzi, and had drunk her champagne, finding the still half filled bottle in the kitchen. Hence, Polanski returned to explain things while Ms Geimer sat in the car, she later could bring in to have cried there while waiting without any vital witnesses to support that. Helena testified at the hearing later to her having let them in since Polanski could not get hold of Huston and had asked her instead. She said she saw Polanski and the girl drinking the champagne from Nicholson’s fridge on her own free will along with herself in her company, which matched that of Polanski’s recollection, hence no plying of alcohol charge. Huston then was forced to testifying against him, which obviously never happened at no trial, and Vannatter’s crooked efforts to make Ms Geimer’s already heavily influence version match that of Huston, or vice versa, had failed. The only reliable course of events is that of Polanski’s, so recalled in his autobiography, and that of Helena and Huston’s original statement supporting his, which did NOT match that of Ms Geimer in regards to the ‘sodomy’, ‘fear’, ‘reluctance’, or anything to Ms Geimer’s ‘crying’.
Bisset, Helena and Huston, they all were fooled into believing Ms Geimer was much older for her highly developed looks and mature demeanour, her behaving like a lover with Polanski, and people today, who never saw her in the very provocative flesh, have no concept of Polanski [later developed] attraction to her once he saw her in the nude. She was certainly not a ‘child’ anymore they’d love her to be still today, all to make this a ‘child sex’ case for our changed ‘sex crime language’ turning anyone into a child. It’s not any unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, or statutory rape as it’s declared for everyone else when it comes to their sacred US ‘celebrities’, whose cases are simply dropped in the first place, just like no one was convicted in the Seventies for statutory rape – see Schwarzenegger, Rob Low or Kelsey Grammer later amongst plenty others. People of today seeing images of Ms Geimer from the Seventies desperately try to make her ‘look’ a child, though she in fact looks perfectly adolescent, and as long as they’re not any photos taken by Polanski which depict her truthfully, have no relevance to start with. The released imaged of her in the Jacuzzi show nothing but her head, and don’t make her look a child either. The only trustworthy images of her at that time are the ones taken by the Euro press weeks after the case broke – clearly showing her very developed, slim body, that she was taller than Polanski, and could clearly pass for up to twenty years of age. Just like all participants in the case had said – even the judge and attorneys. Anyone today saying she looked like a child is clearly blind.
No one argues that she was a minor by age and legally incapable to consent to sex – but that only Polanski was charged, since she had admitted to the court to sex with other men and had an older boyfriend who qualified for a statutory rape charge, along with her mother’s boyfriend exchanging ‘lewd acts’ with her, is clearly wrong, selective, discriminating. We’re not debating that this was nothing but unlawful sex with a minor, hence the plea deal for her age – but that it was made out to be rape and sodomy by the likes of Vannatter and her mother, (with the help of slimeball Wells) after Ms Geimer no doubt had embellished on it already for her to fall for it, who then turned it into rape/sodomy to whitewash her daughter of all accountability and therefore herself. It was clearly never oral, vaginal let alone [double] anal rape, not only by Ms Geimer’s own later words to the very opposite regaining her sovereignty over the facts, but for all the more truthful and important medical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence pointing to simple [vaginal] intercourse already then – no matter what her grand jury testimony says. It was never challenged in a trial – never found fact. Rather than drop the case for plenty misconducts today, at plenty opportunities to close it even then, Rittenband should have been taken off the case long before he was, for his disregarding any crucial developments that had in fact called for throwing the case out. Like the indecent behaviour between Ms Geimer and her mother’s boyfriend right outside Gunson’s office long before Polanski even pleaded – but who cares about any proper due course of process in t/his case.
People too keep saying Polanski ‘had’ to ‘give’ Ms Geimer the alcohol and Quaalude, in order to ‘make’ her willing, when that’s just as nonsensical – she took the stuff herself and could have refused any of it, no matter her age. But she didn’t since she was used to it, and with a Quaaludes addicted sister the temptation was just too great to resist. Later she made it out as if Polanski had ‘coerced’ her into taking the champagne and Q not to face any punishment over it from her mother, who had allowed drugs and alcohol at home for years in the first place. In order to appear the more ‘responsible’ mother suddenly, she shifted all responsibility into Polanski’s court as mothers do when things go wrong with their rebellious offspring. People love twisting Ms Geimer’s more recent words, just so to discredit Polanski through her some more, by stating she did want him in prison, when that’s certainly incorrect by her own admission or she for one wouldn’t have petitioned for his release since decades. Of course, they think she has ‘ulterior motives’, or for saying that all she wants is for the case to ‘go away’. They think a ‘wealthy perpetrator’ might have helped her ‘forgivingness’, not realising that the ‘settlement’ was taken from Polanski’s film guarantors NOT his account, and was NOT awarded by the courts. She also ‘forgave’ him a year before the ‘compensation’ came through after a whole ten years, so no ‘ulterior motives’ there. Unless one considers her recent interviews lucrative enough reason to have made herself known, I highly doubt.
To recap on the legal matters, we know Swiss officials turned down the US extradition request, citing potential technical faults, and saying it failed to clarify whether the director had in fact served his sentence more than thirty years ago. Yes he has – except Cooley of course won’t ever acknowledge that, hence his refusal to send them the required documents to prove that Polanski had. The argument over the reported plea deal and allegations of judicial misconduct in the original case have been the focus of years of legal wrangling in the LA courts, hence were nothing new, and Polanski’s defence team said in a statement after his release: “That [the] evidence was not ‘insignificant’ and the failure to produce it (to the Swiss) was neither accidental nor a ‘technicality’ as some have said.” Indeed, some call/ed it lies. They also called for a thorough investigation by a ‘fair and impartial third party’, i.e., Attorney General Holder e.g., who informed the Swiss of Cooley’s refusal to send him/them the needed proof, or even Governor Schwarzenegger who had voiced concern and that if there was misconduct these allegations ought to be investigated, and said the results should be made public. Indeed – except it will never happen either as long as Cooley is in power. What’s more, because of the highly flawed extradition request and deliberately undermined case, the Swiss in fact have amended their extradition request rules.
That to say, for one, Swiss officials stated that giving lawyers for Polanski sufficient time to exhaust their appeals in the LA courts, was partly responsible for the amount of time needed to decide on his extradition, but one official said Polanski may still be entitled to compensation for his period of [technically unlawful] house arrest (since it cannot be counted towards any time-served sentence, or return his stolen freedom, since they had recognised the request was based on falsehood. Widmer-Schlumpf said, she did not expect him to seek compensation for the fact that any decision could only be made until these processes had been resolved, though a spokesman said later that ‘the question of compensation must be cleared up’. As a result of this entire debacle, Switzerland has already changed its procedure for handling extradition requests in response to issues raised by t/his case. In the past, a purely technical procedure allowed low-ranking officials to initiate arrest/extradition proceedings once a valid request had been received, and from now it was decided, extradition proceedings may be started only with the approval of the director of the justice ministry. The change was made so that the procedure may be opened for larger judicial and political considerations. Polanski’s case had raised wider issues of international law that had played a part in the decision to release him, specifically the issue highlighted in the justice ministry’s statement that Polanski was generally known to have been a regular visitor to Switzerland for decades without any attempt by US authorities to have him arrested.
Therefore, it should not have been set into motion by some lowly [UBS] bank clerk in order to appease the US [IRS investigations], who had contacted some lower official at the Justice Ministry, who then faxed the LA courts where Cooley instantly signed an international arrest warrant, for police officials to swoop in on Polanski like vultures at Zürich’s airport without any official backing by said director (or the US DOJ), before Walgren then completed his less than complete extradition request to follow a month later while Polanski sat on remand in Winterthur. When Polanski was forced for years to appear in person in court in order to have the case either dismissed when his lawyers are much better suited to do so since they cannot just be ‘silenced’ and have the better expertise, or to have it litigated once the officials [grudgingly] acknowledged the plenty misconducts, or even be sentenced to time served by several judges like Fidler or Espinoza, after his absentia bid was refused in early 2010, Ms Geimer called the court’s persistent insistence, ‘a cruel joke’. That should tell us of her real feelings of today of what they were doing to him, and what she thinks of the courts, and that this points all the more to the fact that it never was rape since any real victim would be delighted if their assailant were tortured by the courts, if rightly or wrongly, for their unchallenged ability to abuse the law as they wish to regardless of any real justice. Which is hardly the key factor for such prosecutions, sorry, mindless persecutions.
After Polanski’s Ghost Writer was released on DVD and Blu-ray worldwide, the 2010 San Sebastian Film Festival has announced that the acclaimed Fipresci Grand Prize Award (bestowed by the International Federation of Film Critics) will go to Polanski for his latest movie as best film of 2010, also winner of the Silver Bear for best director at this year’s 60th International Berlin Film Festival. As the director announced he will be unable to collect his award, it is rather surprising since he lived in Spain on Ibiza for years in the Nineties to stay at his own house he had built after his own design. But he most likely simply won’t chance another hasty rearrest by some busybodying official, or doesn’t own said house anymore, and therefore the actress Olivia Williams (Ruth Lang in the much-praised movie) will come to Donostia in San Sebastian to do so on his behalf. Of course, once this was announced in some English-speaking Spanish culture online magazine today September 5th, some US haters directly stooped to ever-lower lows than before and declared completely out of context, ‘we know only 7% of pedophiles will exclusively rape only children, (no they don’t, they ONLY abuse and/or rape exclusively children below the onset of puberty or they’d not be in fact ‘paedophiles’) but will rape anyone if the opportunity presents itself’. (Isn’t all that contradictive bullshit? And where are all the ‘other [‘opportuned’] victims’, since Lewis and Vogelhut are clearly both liars?)
‘We are just now starting to see how depraved he was and undoubtedly still is’. (All I see is depraved bullshitters who rewrite the paedophilia manual too now to make him into a paedophilic rapist who also rapes older women since Vogelhut was twenty-one in 1974. Good luck with that conflicting bullshit. I’m sure Polanski’s long past any sexual exploits at his age at any rate, even to Ms Geimer’s words, let alone ability to ‘rape’ anyone with the majority of men becoming frequently impotent by the age of forty.) ‘His current wife was too young and like this latest victim (liar Vogelhut), too embarrassed to tell anyone how he brutally anally raped her as well, we can assume at this point since asked victims agree that he sodomized them’. (Wow, more than desperate to paint assumptions like this as fact and that his wife was/is brutally sodomised by him too. I’m sure if she had been, she’d long gladly joined the ranks of other [real] accusers, which only shows that Cooley’s smear campaign worked, for imbeciles like that to believe this habitual sodomite garbage Vogelhut had very short-lived but effectively nurtured. I’m sure if he had been a habitual rapist/sodomite, MANY more ‘victims’ had come forward to proclaim the same ages ago, if he ever had anal sex in the first place. But obviously not, or we HAD many more [genuine] ‘anal rape’ accusers, since it’s not good enough anymore to just pin ‘vaginal rape’ on him.)
I’m sure these pathetic attackers imagine all that in their dirty little minds while jerking off, and funny how his family, friends and colleagues or fans don’t believe [in] any of this sordid bullshit – SINCE IT’S NOT TRUE. This kind of hate-inciting narrative, intended to give ‘credibility verisimilitude’ to an otherwise sick/ening and unconvincing assumption, the sordid imaginations of some of these ‘rape liars’ are astounding in terms of inventing details to fit the distorted picture they and others have of Polanski. Just as distorted as their drugged rape and sodomy [rhetoric] infused brains. Very much like false rape accusers invent or embellish on events. It is difficult to fathom why [these] people are so unsophisticated that they assume every rape allegation is true. Or is it more likely that it has a feminist-driven ‘politically’ and ‘morally correct’ motivation to treat every alleged sexual assault as an actual assault which was announced by the rape hysteria pandering media, soaking it up with their little unquestioning brains as fact? Fact. The corporate media should be held accountable for spreading lies, or sensationalist news that turns out to be bogus they hardly follow up and declare as false, just so for the masses to be left in the belief that so-and-so DID so-and-so when he never did. Many people have been destroyed by the corrupt media – and no one ever paid for it.
In the eyes of the media, a reported rape is a rape-in-fact as long as a female says so. She alone has the power to release the community from its grip of fear about a scary male with a dangerous penis on the loose when it was an alleged stranger attack. And too often, she alone has the power to release an innocent male wrongly arrested for a rape that never occurred, just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why? Because the news media, ALL OF US, are too ready to assume guilt on the basis of nothing more than an accusation. The press ought to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, it’s their job to report the truth, no? Guess not. Especially not in the feminist-controlled US media. If any of us would sell a t-shirt with a famous persons image on it and not have permission from the depicted we would be in serious trouble. Unless the image is that of a famous fugitive without any legal resources to sue them as in Polanski’s case. But the media can put your name and image out there as a paedophile or rapist, of course falsely and without your consent. But none of the false rape accusers’ names and faces will ever be made public in contrast. And, best of all, you are entitled to none of the plenty money they [all] made by mi/using your name and image. Polanski is the best example. And, just because he was accused once before yet is not guilty of the dropped counts, now many people think he is [also] guilty of the other two accusations, a free-for-all with whatever they want to pin on him, and if it’s only foul language.
As seen in Ms Geimer’s case, anything that might exonerate Polanski was omitted by her. Even anything untoward something as harmless as their talking in the car afterwards, or how he asked her to put aside the photos he had taken before she or her mother might not like, which he recalled in his autobiography, while her ‘version’ of the events to the police or Grand Jury excluded any possibility of these congenial conversations taking place, since they in fact contradicted her illogical ‘fear’ and ‘reluctance’ accounts outright. She also therefore had passed on the one chance for her mother to find out if she would in fact allow topless photos of her daughter, which Ms Geimer later put forth as the ‘reason’ of her ‘reluctance’ to proceed, instead of conceding that she had not asked or told her mother having taken some already, in order for Polanski to destroy these unwanted shots and start anew, and both not tell her about them if need be. But as is the case with teenagers, they lie in order not to get punished over some imaginary or real mistake they made, and [always] resort to blaming others to get out of it. If a person’s story is ‘believable’, it may be taken as ‘credible’ or ‘probable cause’, even if there is no evidence supporting it, and the younger they are, the more they are believed at first, while we have seen often enough that is not the case and teens are more likely to lie than adults. That means an innocent person has no way of proving their innocence, unless hard evidence discredits the accuser as in Ms Geimer’s case, especially if that person engaged in consensual sex with no direct witnesses.
According to our memory, recalling any old/er incident becomes blurred and the details are not so acute anymore, and to recount actual words heard or spoken many years ago gets even more difficult, no matter it was a painful or positive experience, to either forget it or was replaced by other [more recent] pleasant moments. To include more ‘impressionistic aspects’, i.e., more ‘fanciful facets’ that might not be true, of any events to ‘embroider’ on the basic facts (see Ms Geimer and her [double] sodomy claim), create a more ‘composite’ or ‘believable’ account which resonated with other events that took place around the same time or even much later someone else’s (if true or not, see Lewis and her blatant casting couch lie) to ‘match’ this particular event in this case Vogelhut had based on Ms Geimer’s never-proven sodomy claims, is human nature. Many do it without malice, [or] just to look better, like granddad and his heroic wartime adventures. But so is [knowingly] lying a very bad trait of human nature, for whichever more or less devious reason/s, which many realised occurred in these three cases. Unlike the LA law enforcement and Cooley’s court having manufactured these lies in the first place. But then again, Cooley is not human though he lies a lot, or he’d not declared war on Polanski for political reasons, like disgraceful Rittenband had for the press – only because Polanski had escaped both their one and the same evermore corrupt court and name-calling DAs like Walgren.
The observation that ‘religiosity’, ultra feminism and sexual repression go ‘hand-in-hand’ not only when it comes to ‘sex offences’ is certainly not a ground-breaking discovery, any more than it would be considered a revelation that these fundamentalists try to force the limitations of their [sexual] authoritarianism on others, with anti-sex laws and disproportionate punishments. What’s disconcerting is that despite all the education available in ‘the information age’, these communities not only persists, but increases their efforts to impose sanctions on others, based on their own perverted understanding of human sexuality. The vicious assault by these organisations against the rights of female teenagers and women, or teen boys and men for that matter, and the amount of time and resources dedicated to these campaigns of oppression, and for universal repression, make their priorities clear; the loudest voices choose not to impugn, war, murder, torture, greed, exploitation, abuse of power, but rather busy themselves with who is doing what to whom behind closed doors, and what people are choosing to do with their own bodies. The rhetoric presents the issues as focusing on ‘family values’, or, ‘women’s’ or ‘girls issues’ and ‘child protection’, though they promote nothing untoward ‘men’s’ or ‘boy’s issues’, or male and prison rape victims by a far shot, since feminists don’t really care about ‘rape’, only their pathetic [imaginary] victimhood.
The measures they ‘prescribe’ to manipulate the masses are simply the implementation of rules and restrictions based on their common bias and blind/ing hatred. Sex on the whole is simply needed for all-round wellbeing, but generally oppressed and oppressive society at large does not allow it to individualise and reach a form of self-understanding, enlightenment and therefore self-expression. There is nothing proactive or healthy being suggested for the benefit of families in these insidious campaigns, nothing positive, just negative actions against those who enjoy sex in any form, plain and simple. This incessant verbiage of ‘sex is a sin’ and ‘all men are rapists’ is nothing more than an excuse to openly target others, or mainly men, and dedication of financial and human resources, invested in issues related to sex, sexuality, and gender. Perhaps it stems from an abusive childhood experience during which an innocent mind was tortured with the threat that sex, and self-stimulation for that matter, would result in an eternity of unimaginable pain and suffering. Perhaps it was caused by an adolescence during which every hormonal instinct was portrayed as a violation of rules that convinced them that their bodies were not their own to control, or abusive female figure. Perhaps it was the result of the repressed frustration of adults unable to express their individuality and sexual orientation without the consent of the ‘majority’, i.e., ‘society’.
Regardless of the cause, sexual issues seem to be a serious sticking point based on apparently shared insecurities and jealousy for these control-oriented confederacies and their duped followers. You only need to look at these pathetic ‘TV evangelists’ proclaiming that ‘God’ will strike you blind in case you had fun with sordid sex. Any such fundamentalist group claim that, what individuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms, their intimacies and personal choices, actually has in fact an effect on ‘them’. Though there is no logic in that, the rising popularity of aging women crawling out of the woodworks to proclaim their sordid little sex adventures of decades earlier for their entertainment, painting them as rape today to the drooling world and feminists at large is just one of the signs to tap right into this dogma. Even though these droolers are not present or involved in any form, and NOTHING actually affects them in any form, the mere ‘knowledge’ or hearsay of it is too much for them to deal with. Someone was or is doing something that they are not allowed to do in their bigoted mind. Someone was or is doing something that they have been conditioned to believe is wrong. Someone was or is doing something and they were not invited to enjoy themselves. Someone was or is doing something that they take pleasure in so much they call it ‘gay’, it can’t possibly be good, it must be stopped. It must be forbidden. It must be demonised. Uprooted at ALL costs.
If they can’t have it, nobody can. So let’s create laws that punish all sex regardlessly, then call it rape and sexual abuse instead if someone dared to have fun with it, and then make sure it’s not the female that in fact gets punished for it oh no, ONLY ever the male. These advocates don’t truly understand why they think these things are ‘wrong’, or a ‘sin’, (other than in fact lying about rape or sexual abuse) they are simply responding to their ingrained ‘conditioning’, no matter the ‘source’ that ‘imposed’ it on them. They are sad slaves of their own sexual subjugation, and in order to feel better, imprint it on others to be an ‘offence’, disseminating their doctrines with help of the complicit [corporate] media. This provides them with the ability to deny their personal issues, accountabilities, disguise the displacement of their rage and lust, allow themselves to define their animosity as obedience, and their discrimination of others as ‘divine’ (or feminist-driven) ordinance. In reality, they simply wish to impose their own sexual repression (or even aberration in many cases) and abdication of personal choice on others, rather than take personal answerability for their own deep-seated issues and perfectly natural desires. See Lewis and her ‘abuse fantasies’, she not only proclaimed Polanski had done to her, but she would love to ‘taste’, even if only in preparation for a sex flick as she put it and ‘play’ the ‘victim’ [at least on film].
Funny thing is, Lewis’ part in Polanski’s Pirates outing in fact had two rape scenes in store for her – one attempted rape and one ‘staged’ attempted rape – before the young hero saves her, (not Matthau). Looks like her ‘rape role play’ came true before she ever went to Hollywood and end up in cheap nude flicks. If Polanski had really abused her ‘in the worst possible way’, she’d not ever played that let alone have an affair with him, and today exposed herself as the sad and drug addicted woman who had too much sex – real, imaginary or in cinematic form. What’s more, she’s wearing luxurious, all-covering bulbous ball gowns that show absolutely nothing of her presumably perfectly fine figure bar a bit of shoulder, and therefore to moan about Polanski having brought on bulimia in her, is more than ridiculous besides. With Lewis in her twisted overindulgence of playing the little victim, projecting her abuse fantasy world into Polanski’s real life, rather than accept her own actions and drug addictions, who, conversely could possibly be harmed by supporting an individual who has been raised in a tolerant, sexually active family environment or society, who understand and accept their sexuality? Like Ms Geimer, though she wasn’t allowed to and was ‘made’ a victim by the law – in contrast to Lewis, who at first was also not allowed to prostitute herself but did it anyhow with fourteen, and then was allowed to have sex with sixteen, but made herself into a victim, on film and in her twisted fantasies in real life.
Who, therefore, could possibly be benefited by convincing an individual that their sexuality makes them do wrong other than when lying about it? Other than the tyrannical ‘law’ itself punishing sex? What real effect does a sexual act between two men, two women, heterosexual unions, or one partner being much younger, have on others? Or even [legalised, safe] prostitution to be precise? None – other than the fact that these individuals are engaged in activities that the repressed (and most of all feminists) are either curious about, desirous of, or secretly engage/d in, yet are conflicted over because of dogmatic conditioning (or even abuse) from early on. Polanski himself said that the repressed, puritan US will destroy itself one day with their [gun-obsessed and radical feminist] anti-sex laws. They have already; they just don’t want to see it. A sexually content person needs no ‘rape fantasies’, no ‘religion’, no ‘TV evangelist church’ to tell them ‘sex is a sin’. Or requires a punch bag to accuse others of sexual abuse or rape. Every time we hear of one of the innumerable sex scandals involving a famous personality or authority, see Polanski and his three less than credible accusers, the focus is always on what ‘sexual acts’ they were involved in. If real or imaginary. The conversation always seems to develop around the subject of the ‘sordid acts’ and what could possibly have made someone engage in them.
These ‘immoral acts’ are inevitably the centre of the juicy gossip revving it up into astonishingly vile name-calling typically reserved for the man alone. Usually the credit is given to the ‘devil’, the person’s [imaginary] ‘debauchery’, or some other sinful ‘reason’ they simply invent, or ‘project’, like Lewis. These invisible ‘agents’ of ‘evil’ are always guilty of provoking the ‘terrible sin’ in the poor, or ‘depraved’ wo/man, while simultaneously lessening the burden of personal accountability on the hapless individual who has been apparently victimised by their own sexual actions. But, the primary focus, the fascination, is with the ‘acts’; the tempting, juicy, mouth-watering forbidden fruit itself they so wished they has tasted themselves. The fact that those involved in the consensual sex however or how old were certainly not feeling victimised or ‘wicked’ at the time doesn’t seem to be a concern to any of them. The fact that the sex was not the conflict, and that the sex within the context of their dogma, or the machinations employed in order to indulge in the sexual acts was, seems to elude their reasoning skills entirely. In other words, accuse someone/thing else to avoid taking responsibilities, and project that onto others they envy/deny their sex, while calling on the law to punish them mindlessly.
Rather than challenge the archaic, sexist, ageist, and of course homophobic teachings that originated from the Victorian age, or dogmatic religions, the only thing challenged as inappropriate or wrong is the sexual intimacy between two consenting adults or mature teenagers. THAT is the true perversion of our time still, which should long have been condemned and outlawed. Instead, we have enforced perverted anti-sex laws that condemn sex and penalise mostly the man in disproportionate fashion, causing real harm to them and society at large by turning them into victims or monsters. The discussion of these issues often glances over the real offences that do affect others; the radicals get so caught up in who was touching, kissing, or sucking what, and where, that they forget about the deception, fraud and hypocrisy perpetrated in order to perform these otherwise victimless acts they have to demonise. Or, in contrast make the female the victim, and the man the perpetrator by default, turning them all into ‘children’ unable to consent. They’re so caught up in the physical acts of sex, and controlling the sex of others, that they completely ignore the fact that some real principles of respect, honesty, and interpersonal integrity, have been violated by their repressive dogmas and oppressive laws. For the religious or repressed, this is not even a principle-based issue, but a response based on an emotionally conflicted understanding of their very own sexuality.
No, embrace the principles of sexual responsibility and self-determination and sod them. Wrap your arms, legs, your entire naked body around your right to the honest freedom of individual sexual expression. Indulge your mind with the possibilities of sexual integrity by being true to yourself and your sexuality, your partner, no matter what gender or age. Sex and the control over ones own body isn’t what’s perverse; the deception and hypocritical duplicity that it is treated with by perverted people and the abusive law, the way fundamentalists have been made to feel about it, and the way they try to make others feel about it, is. The government should have no say whatsoever about sex or who does what to another between the sheets as long as it’s consensual. To all those holier-than-thou and bigoted voices those free people, or someone like Polanski, are nothing but child molesters these days, while before his rearrest they had no clues about the ‘case’ and happily watched his films, while they now call/ed to boycott them in their reactionary stupidity. Hector Berlioz, a great composer besmirched by critics on a regular basis, used to say: “Start collecting the rocks they throw at you; they will build your future pedestal.” If such criticism is solely limited to one’s artistic work, this uplifting aphorism is quite adequate, and by now Polanski could build a whole film studio with these ‘rocks’ – also used for ‘foundations of truth’.
Polanski has long joined the ranks of other great artists immortalised by their work, and like all of us, he is flawed in his private life. As the director and private man, who has lived his entire adult life in the age of the mass media, he has been less lucky than, say, Picasso, since his life was well-documented on film and television, in magazines and books. Polanski the filmmaker is evidently informed by Polanski the man, his personal matters in tow as he weaves suspense and story, character and plot together as seamlessly as any of his [previous] films. One might make the case that his best films are behind him, but there is no validity in discounting The Ghost Writer as inferior for such comparison. Every film should be as such, nurtured and embraced as a solitary entity without the need to compete with every other thing before it or since. Polanski the filmmaker employs the sensibilities of a stalwart cineaste, as sharp as ever for a seventy-seven year old who has seen his share of personal tragedy and heartache. His professional career at times has also been under pressure, ridiculed and demeaned for failing to achieve the success of his early films. Yet, for all his troubles and triumphs, for all the private or cineastic catastrophes like Pirates in fact a financial nightmare, Polanski proves his films bear the indelible brand of an unparalleled auteur that shows no signs of letting go or apologising over either his work or life any time soon. Rightly so.
Some people get way over their heads with equating Polanski’s films, or more specifically the rape scenes in some of them, with the 1977 incident they can ‘reinterpret’ at will. Here’s one such far too shallow ‘psychoanalysis’: “The relations between the rape in his films, and the actual rape that he later committed (obviously unaware that it wasn’t ‘actual rape’) is not to be thought about according to the general cliché of life imitating art etc., but very specifically in relation to what it is that interests Polanski in rape, thus what his experience of sexuality is, and what is the relations between what he takes to be the cinematic image and sexuality. (The author takes simple assumption to ‘know’ Polanski’s ‘sexuality’ and that as being ‘fact’.) It is first of all clear (only in the author’s opinion) that Polanski shows that for him there is an obscure point where ‘normal’ sexuality is indistinguishable from rape, (again, how does the author know? Pure postulation) that in some sense every sexual encounter is not fully distinguishable from a rape. (THAT is of course a typical feminist rhetoric who declare that all men think like that while in fact THEY do, and, in that case all those who ever depicted far more violent rape scenes in their films must all be real-life rapists by this author’s ‘logic’.) Thus, at the heart of sexuality there is an unnatural and non-worldly menace as seen in Rosemary’s Baby.” (Only in the author’s rather warped mind, turning sexuality into ‘demonised sex acts’ on a ‘religious’ or ‘satanic’ basis.) It is the moment of this menace, between nature and the unnatural, in which the image is interested, and Polanski’s cinema is interested in.” (How does the author know this? Polanski never said anything to that effect. On the contrary, P0lanski doesn ’t believe in anything ’satanic’.)
“It is crucial in this sense to remember that the actual rape (‘remember’ it was not ‘actual rape’) that Polanski committed was during a photo shoot, where the girl was being photographed nude (no, topless not ‘nude’, big difference), thus turned into an image. (In that case, he would have felt ‘compelled’ to ‘rape’ others he just had ‘photographed’, nude or otherwise, like Kinski for their 1976 Vogue, or any other woman who appeared ‘nude’ in his films as ‘image’.) It is this, I speculate, that probably attracted Polanski at this moment, where the being of the photo/image has activated this obscure point in sexuality related to rape, that is, the point where an unnatural and inexplicable force takes over. (Oh right the, ‘he’s a victim of his own Satan-driven dark fantasies/cinematic fantasies’ kind of ‘logic’ triggered by the girl’s ‘nude image’, who suddenly needs to reenact his cinematic rape scenes in real life. Nice try.) The mystery of Polanski’s rape, (there’s no ‘mystery’ at all – since it was purely straightforward sex) I think, has to do with this relation between the photograph and the violence of the devilish act [in Rosemary’s Baby].” This all too one-dimensional feminist interpretation in desperate need to justify the incident, she never once questions mind you, with his films’ rapes and photography might sound ‘logical’, but is nothing other than pseudo psychology dressed up as fact – since it never was ‘rape’, neither ‘worldly’ nor ‘otherworldly’ committed in [his] real life. In fact, the psychologist who interviewed Polanski didn’t arrive at that rape scenario at all after he watched all his film up to that time, but that Polanski’s films are themed, ‘innocence vs violence’, and isolation/loss of identity, NOT that Polanski would love to reenact his own films. He HAD acted in some already. But such logic and much simpler truth of being nothing but plain underage sex elude this and other ‘rape culture’ conditioned [feminist] minds of today.
At the height of the free-for-all monster ride called the Internet [age], the name Roman Polanski now is inevitably associated with [unlawful] sex with a minor, statutory rape, drugged rape, paedophilia, even ‘Quaalude’ or ‘champagne’, not only ‘films’ or ‘females’, the Manson family or Sharon Tate, but ‘sodomy’ foremost. Even if he were to be exonerated by the highest Law Lords, anything that was ever posted to slander him will forever be flying around in cyberspace, all the nasty lies and comments, every incorrect article ever conceived by a diseased brain. Besides, what is it with people and ‘anal sex’ anyhow? With every other comment repeating ‘sodomy’ in all its im/possible synonyms and ‘sinful connotations’ ad nauseum and all its self-indulgent trite, why is anal sex worse than vaginal, or even oral? I’m sure those engaging in oral pleasures and anal intercourse would feel rather discriminated against or call these repressed preachers, moralistic hypocrites or religious fundamentalists, since anyone’s sexual activities is nobody else’s bloody business let alone religion or the state’s but their own. And mind you, the majority who DO have anal sex, are in fact NOT ‘homosexuals’. Unless you count all those innocent male rape victims in the glorious US prison gulags, who were sent there on fabrications, or after consensual sex because of disgusting liars like Lewis and Vogelhut.
In reality, Vogelhut actually discredits Ms Geimer’s ‘double’ sodomy claim outright through her very own now – by saying she ‘hurt’ despite amyl, E and whatnot, since Ms Geimer never said she hurt. In fact, she should have, since anal intercourse even if wanted can be painful if not relaxed enough, and if she really ‘froze’ it’s impossible to get your piece inside, and most certainly throughout when unwanted. Many women even hurt during vaginal intercourse no matter aroused, lubricated, and willing. That’s down to an either too thick penis which widens the vagina (or sphincter) too much, or for a too long penis hitting the cervix, for the wrong angle, (or general frigidity and being unpractised). That’s why some prefer vaginal intercourse from behind, or in fact anal sex, and that too needs the right angle and careful preparations. Vogelhut cleverly said she ‘hurt’, so might have had anal intercourse at one point, no matter what she said – or simply did her research with most people reporting it in fact being painful [if done wrongly or forcibly], especially if unwanted, and they both never had it. Vogelhut simply upped the ante by claiming she had been handcuffed, i.e., ‘immobilised’, which no doubt served to exacerbate the reaction from the public, without ever explaining how she got out of the handcuffs or eventually home. Besides, why are ‘gay unions’ even allowed under matrimony, (on and off mind you depending on the [US] state and ‘mood’), while ‘sodomy’ is still being legally punished, no matter if the ‘victim’ is male or female, or willing for that matter; it’s a/moral double standards.
With Gunson doing what prosecutors do, (after they lumped the defendant with all sorts of ‘counts’ the accuser had only even touched on so they can be ‘cemented’ as the defendant’s ‘doing’ rather than the accuser’s), he too ‘led’ the accuser’s replies. So he asked her if Polanski had asked her about being on the Pill, which Polanski did so he would ejaculate outside her they then had turned into this sordid [double] sodomy story. So she goes: “He asked, he goes, ‘Are you on the pill?’ and I went, ‘No’ and he goes ‘When did you have your period?’ and I said, ‘I don’t know. A week or two. I’m not sure’… he goes, ‘Come on. You have to remember’. And I told him I didn’t…. and right after I said I was not on the pill… and he goes… and then he put me – wait…” and up to the word ‘wait’, she had to think of what she was told to say, (by Vannatter and/or her mother) and then continued (after she almost slipped with the ‘and then he put me’). “Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.” Which is a lie – since at the beginning she had no idea where Polanski exactly ‘went in’, and in another ‘version’ said, he put his ‘thing’ up her ‘butt’, after flipping her over. Clearly coached representations of something that never happened, or the good doctor had in fact confirmed her story since NO one can just put his thing up anyone’s butt without any visible damage – but Dr Larson did NOT find ANYTHING.
Funny how she remembered all ‘that’, but not what Polanski had said otherwise, before or afterwards, suddenly all a ‘blur’. Or rather omitted it since it wouldn’t fit into this rewritten course of events. In fact, she never told Polanski off either before or after not to ‘put it up her butt’, after he apparently even ‘asked’ her if he ‘may’, when she should have screamed in agony and NO ‘rapist’ would ask ‘permission’ to sodomise someone. Plus, if a ‘rapist’ wanted to dispose of evidence of his crime, wouldn’t he likely be wearing a condom, or ditch the residue of his ejaculation if not? Polanski obviously must have ejaculated into his hand since no ejaculate was found on or inside her – or anywhere else in that TV room for that matter – and obviously washed it all off afterwards, NOT herself from any part of her body, or her clothes. If he had not withdrawn he most likely had impregnated her. That can be considered entrapment too, since she by all means should have been more ‘afraid’ of becoming pregnant, than ‘him’. I have come across quite some few hypotheses in that matter, and one scheme is known as the ‘Badger Game’, and it’s one of the oldest and most successful of all cons. Especially when it comes to ‘celebrities’. You entice a man into sex, or at least don’t refuse him, and then make him pay through the nose, but when Polanski tried to keep her from getting pregnant, because two decades of child support from a rich man is quite a substantial sum, it was turned into ‘rape’.
Polanski had like a couple of thousand women in his life and NONE became pregnant outside Sharon for her failing coil, or his current wife obviously with the intention to raise a family, which points to the fact that they all were on the Pill, or he used a condom. Since neither of his discredited accusers ever stated he had used one nor Polanski (or to be on the Pill for that matter), though he in fact said in his autobiography he did use them from his late teens on, the fact that he did not carry any with him the day he ended up with Ms Geimer in Nicholson’s TV room, also points to the fact that this was not a planned sexual encounter, just like Dalton had stated, hence Polanski resorting to the classic coitus interuptus. Polanski’s consideration for her not to become pregnant was unabashedly turned into a double sodomy attack by certain highly immoral parties without the slightest qualms. That Lewis must have been on the Pill is clear, or any of her plenty ‘Johns’ had impregnated her, since I doubt any of them use/d condoms – unless she might have had any abortions, with or without her mother’s knowledge.
That being of no consequence, that Vogelhut was on the Pill too is more than likely since the Seventies was THE era of sexual freedom for women on the rise, or even Ms Geimer, since she had a boyfriend, and had sex with him and others before Polanski. So, unless they all used condoms, which was hardly custom before AIDS put one on every conscientious man in the Eighties, some opined that Ms Geimer in fact wanted to become pregnant by Polanski, or her mother wanted her to, but when Polanski unexpectedly avoided just that, in order to turn that foiled attempt into a nasty sodomy story on most likely Vannatter et. al.’s behest, they simply elaborated on Polanski’s withdrawing before he climaxed. No semen was found inside or on Ms Geimer, ergo, NO ejaculate could ever reach into her panties either the cops confiscated only hours later, and the clothes she wore when coming home, where not the same she had on when they went to the hospital – though she had stated Polanski had ejaculated all over her back. Clearly a blunt lie amongst other fabrications, since then it had collected on the back not gusset. Had Polanski not resorted to breaking it up, Ms Geimer by all means might have become pregnant – and then what? None of these ‘drugged rape and sodomy’ criers ever thought that it makes not the slightest sense to sodomise someone and then STILL withdraw before ejaculating, nowhere near any ‘anus’ or ‘vagina’.
Ms Geimer became pregnant by one of the boys with 17/18 she hung out with later after her boyfriend broke up with her – just like her mother became pregnant very young, since her older daughter was twenty in 1977 and she was hardly forty. In that sense, to be careful not to burden the girl with an illegitimate child, speaks for Polanski at any rate, and was another factor why they went for the plea deal. I find it absolutely astonishing that Schwarzenegger was given a pardon by some governor over his serial statutory rape and long-term affair with a minor he had before Polanski ever met Ms Geimer, obviously in order to become governor, while other men end up in prison hell for decades, and Polanski gets hounded over a onetime unlawful sexual intercourse he even pleaded to, had done his time for no one demanded. So much for glorious double standards. Then or course we have the ignorant ‘pseudo academics’ with pseudo knowledge and pseudo expertise, debating what [sordid] ‘sex acts’ had been committed with prurient puerility in their pathetic purism on shallow US TV talk shows and what penalties they would entail, rather than see the human elements present during the entire course of events, and that not only Polanski committed an act of ‘unlawfulness’, but everyone concerned. Some ultra Nazi even called him a ‘snuff film’ producer, not only ‘paedophile rapist’. Shame he cannot sue such revolting scumbags.
The biggest ignorance-logic dynamic people apply is that they don’t care what she wants, utterly unable to see, if she wanted the case to ‘go away’, she’d been clamouring for his butt in prison, NOT write petition to free him, NOT demand to let him go, NOT ‘forgive’ him. But such logic wouldn’t escape the radical feminist-diarrhoea-of-the-keyboard stench that has long pervaded amateur pundits on mostly feminist blogs where they twitter with their usual contempt for any rape accused, attempting to minimise the prevalence of false rape claims in the face of overwhelming evidence that false rape claims are all too common. See Lewis and Vogelhut as his latest accusers. And then of course we have those hypocrites who even attack genuine rape victims who dare defend Polanski, (while others are disgusted over how much time they spend drooling over this case long past any [imaginary] ‘sex acts’ rather than concentrate on current rape crime) calling them all sorts of names and accuse them of alls sorts of ‘ulterior motives’ the same way they accuse Ms Geimer of dishonesty today, even that their intentions are to ‘cosy up’ to Polanski, or that they dream of a seat in the accolades of his entertainment business. They’re too stupid to realise that they saw through her little white lies as a teenager that became a snowballing nightmare, knowing what real rape is.
What amazes me most of all, is the fact that many people have read Ms Geimer’s Grand Jury testimony concerning her claims, relishing the drugged drape and sodomy part like lecherous voyeurs drooling and jisming all over it, while missing her much more important later interviews discrediting herself in fact. Or maybe because, thinking she’s lying today. People also keep failing to realise that a Grand Jury testimony has virtually no significance or veracity as long as a trial didn’t prove any of it – and it never was in this case – utterly ignoring that the actual evidence available pointing to NO drugged rape and sodomy is right there next to her long-disproved testimony, on the very same online site since many years now. Why it’s called ‘smoking gun’ and no one sees the smoke of truth is beyond me. One could call it ignorance – or stupidity. Or both. The fact that Polanski never looked back once a tragedy had struck a severe blow he could not prevent, suffered, survived and weathered, enabled him to look ahead and get on with life to cope in his own way, forged life itself even deeper, made him virtually immune to falter and break, give up. The media and pathetic public had lynched him mercilessly in their glorious stupidity again last/this year, as they had done several times before for the same and other mindless reasons.
And no wonder, since long before the Manson carnage, Polanski had already acquired a firm reputation as a notorious womaniser, and ‘controversial director’. As if that’s a sin, or to make ‘satanic’ films. But who can blame him to have indulged in sex and drugs and rock’n roll, western freedom, coming from an oppressive communist regime that disallowed anything ‘artistic’ stifling his artistic vein foremost, or sexual freedom, stifling his sexual development besides. When he came to the west, he suddenly found himself in a candy shop filled with intoxicating cinematic possibilities, recreational drugs and luscious women offering their sweet sexuality to him; how only could he refuse. No one could have. Most had done the same as he had; grabbed what he could get, kiss and caress, sleep with, live life to the fullest, and according to a ‘friend’, Polanski had either bedded their girlfriends or their wives. It takes two to make love between the sheets, and if these females slept with him, then half of them had another affair and the other clearly committed adultery, which was certainly not Polanski’s fault.
One thing is certain: he has changed over the recent years ever since his third marriage like everyone changes, matures. People, who worked on the grand productions The Pianist, Oliver Twist or The Ghost Writer, remember Polanski as a warm and lovable person, an unsurpassed perfectionist and craftsman. This seems like light-years from the times of filming Chinatown when über diva Faye Dunaway asked him about her character’s motivation, and he would shout: “Just say the f***ing words. Your salary is your motivation!” Then again, all who knew him later in his life claimed that he was always a brilliant man who had mellowed, is very generous, the best-read and most cultured of people. To most who don’t know him personally, he’s a great director of international fame, while to others he’s only in/famous for his sex scandals. Or at worst a filmmaking rapist, and/or predator paedophile. No one can deny him to be a Holocaust survivor and an indirect victim of the hideous Manson murders, while others saw him as this reckless and horny, forever youthful boy, capable of shagging any female. So why he would need to rape anyone is beyond me. Today he’s undoubtedly a much more mature, caring, a model husband and loving father, great friend, compassionate and helpful. Long past his sexual exploits.
Polanski is a genius director who furthered many in his profession no matter an ex-lover like Kinski or a student of film he helped into the industry, one of the most prolific modern-day filmmakers, where several words can be used to describe his work, like absurdist cinema, or even thriller since he doesn’t have a fixed ‘genre’ like most directors. While Polanski’s directing style is inimitably his, he also integrates symbolism, romanticism and eroticism in his films to achieve certain effects. Polanski’s influence on film rises from the notion that objects and people can be utilised as vehicles for incomprehension and complete understanding alike. Humanity looks different, according to how we perceive it and Polanski offers us the opportunity to perceive in many different ways based on emotions, such as desires, or fear. Emotion serves as an anchor in his films and we often have powerful objects to which we can attach those emotions. Polanski’s commanding direction often results in ingesting aspects of a film long after it has been viewed. Artist or man, whatever people say, his entire life only proves that he is just as human as the rest of us with above average artistic skills, and all the inherent qualities and faults attached, which should not ever be used against him. We don’t do it to our own or others, so why should we do it to him – just because his name is Roman Polanski.
While Polanski and his family apparently spent a low-key August in a villa in a secluded area in the hills of St. Tropez, good for him, it is just too funny how people keep headlining his name with the usual expletives – other than when someone wrote another deservedly glowing review of his Ghost – to be continually demonised by the press and pathetic little bloggers worse than after Tate’s murder, but hardly Manson and his killer cult or murderous girls. Polanski was not only made to feel guilty of his unborn baby, wife and friends’ deaths in 1969, mainly in reference to their [wrongly] assumed ‘immoral’ [‘orgies/drugs’] ‘lifestyle’ and his ‘satanic films’, but they even pointed the finger of blame directly at him for having been responsible or even committed the atrocities himself, not that he is a victim of the massacre and only survivor. That was in the ‘swinging Sixties’, and today some less than intelligent people ask, should Polanski be alive for what they think he did to Ms Geimer, not sparing his butchered wife and child a second thought, that Manson and his gang should have faced death, not a commuted life sentence they too would love to see Polanski face. The sad lesson we learn from this is that ‘political correctness’ under today’s über rigid ‘moral compass’ and simple, human compassion do not mix well, and reaches back far farther than his films.
Here’s a choice selection of deliberate vandalism the Wiki page had endured ever since his rearrest last year, (and before in some form ever since it was created near ten years ago and her testimony was floated in 2003) while the diatribe league even added a category called ‘Paedophilia’, ‘French rapists’, ‘Polish sex offenders’, even ‘American sex offenders’ or ‘American rapists’, ‘Convicted American child molesters’, ‘Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland’, ‘French Jews’, (though he’s not Jewish) ‘Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges’, (all but ‘three’) ‘People who admit having sex with minors, but weren’t ever convicted’, or, ‘Statutory rapists’, (as if there is such a thing). ‘Fugitives wanted by the US for sex charges’, ‘20th century criminals’, with hardly anyone in it, and most of them lasted all but ten seconds. But several of them are still there, and the category ‘French sex offenders’ sports exactly one ‘candidate’ – Polanski, especially created for him. Ahhh, the love. Ranging from film director, producer, writer, actor, screenwriter, to fugitive, [self-confessed] rapist and of course paedophile, or ‘child predator/molester’, the best BS ever posted there was: ‘In September 2009, the dirty old man was finally arrested, and may be due for some time in a ‘pound you in the ass prison’ for his rape of a teenager in the 1970′s’.
‘On 27 September 2009 Polanski, after being arrested and held in a maximum security prison located in Switzerlandeish mountains, has confided in Switzeris authorities about crimes unknown to the public, that he has committed. As of today, it has been reported that Polanski received multiple beatings to the rectal area with multiple devices known as ‘penis’ throughout the prison (i.e., multiple anal rape)’. ‘Polanski is a career rapist and pedophile! Burn in hell!’ ‘Geimer reported him as having a very small penis, which eventually – to Polanski’s dismay and ultimate surrender – secured his conviction’. (That’s almost funny.) ‘Interestingly though, Polanski committed rape with a minor at Nicholson’s house in Los Angeles. He took pictures of the nude 13 year old girl. Later, in the hot tub, he butt rammed her. He was arrested when he dropped her off at the hospital. He jumped bail an went to Europe.’ (Sounds like Kiernan’s bullshit.) ‘Polanski is first and foremost noteworthy for being a rapist who was unlawfully at large for over three decades with the connivance of Poland and France, now arrested by heroic Switzerland.’ (Yay!) ‘Polanski was convicted of ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, involving non-consensual sex with a child he surreptitiously drugged.’ ‘Surreptitiously’, eh? Right.
‘Polanski’s sexual preferences are putting persons on drugs and sodomize them.’ ‘No-non-never-the-less, to this day, apparently, Roman, and all his artsy fartsy friends, especially his best friend Woody Allen think that fucking little girls while they are drugged up is a good idea.’ ‘Roman Polanski came into a 13 year old girls ass. That’s what he did.’ NOPE. ‘Roman moved to France, because he, like the french, are a weaker people.’ ‘Polanski is one of the world’s best known contemporary child molesters and is considered by critics one of the great sodomizers of his time.’ (Great paraphrasing, and sodomizer is NOT a proper word, like ‘raper’.) ‘Additionally, Geimer testified that Polanski did not wear protection throughout the ordeal and that Polanski ejaculated in her anus,’ which is the biggest bullshit ever; she never said anything about ‘protection’. Then someone added that he was charged with ‘child molestation’, NO, or ‘oral copulation by force’, NO. And then we had one who changed his country of birth to the USA of all places and that he was born in Austin TX. As if. ‘On January 15th, 2010 Tito Ortiz threatend to kill Polanski for being a “filthy pedophile”. Other notable Hollywood pedophiles like Woody Allen quickly came to Polanksi’s defense, stating that: “if she’s old enough to pee, then she’s old enough for me”. He also died on January 23rd in Paris at one point. Yeah right.
Though one is to expect bad spelling and grammar from such sad low-IQ idiots, one might think that an entry in the Wikipedia encyclopaedia should be ‘his’ page, while hardly anything ‘he’ in fact had said, let alone in reference to the case, was ever mentioned. Let alone anything exculpatory, like the medical evidence, or Dr Larson’s report that discredited her version. Funny how it’s about HIS life and only ‘her’ version of events was posted. Several times the entire page was deleted, or parts, and at one point the more pro-Polanski counter force added: ‘Polanski has continually maintained that the sex with the 13-year-old was consensual.’ Yep, no matter it was unlawful. ‘Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that Geimer “wasn’t unresponsive”, and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing. He also says nothing about drugging the girl beforehand, though he does mention that they had both had some champagne. Furthermore, a medical examination of the girl discovered no blood on her clothes or body, no anal lacerations and no sphincter tear – nothing, in short, consistent with her story of being drugged, raped and sodomised while putting up “some resistance” and saying “no’ repeatedly”, which later was removed again, of course.
Someone who thought they could see through a crystal ball, said: ‘In accordance with California law, Polanski will have to register as a sex offender in the State of California pursuant to Penal Code Section 290 as he engaged in a sex act with a child’. Clearly wishful thinking, but at least s/he gets ‘one’ act right. While someone else added: ‘In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled ‘Roman Polanski’ (2000), Samantha Geimer stated “…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with.” She also claimed that the event had been blown “all out of proportion”’, that was changed into: ‘In a 2003 op-ed written to the LA Times commenting on Polanski, Geimer said: “It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn’t know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy’. THAT is typical manipulation tactics when removing anything in his favour even when coming from her, though both ‘personal comments’ were in fact deleted. And, since I have read several times now in ‘US’ articles [only] where she was cited as saying it was ‘creepy’, it makes me really wonder how anyone can say sex, let alone ‘rape’, is in any form ‘creepy’.
Now, it would be either ‘boring’ if one lets someone ‘get it over with’, or, horrible, painful you name it if it had been really rape. And ‘looking back’? Why would she plead for his release today if it was ‘creepy’? Because she obviously never said any of that. If it were really how she made it sound in her original testimony, she’d not ever want him freed. I’m sure some of her anti-Polanski ‘quotes’ are in fact paraphrased interviews someone vandalised, reedited her own words, since they simply don’t fit the picture of her wanting him freed. I have in fact read several genuine interviews with her, and then saw the exact ‘same’ interviews, but rewritten with negative wording and anti-Polanski tripe clearly not her ‘style’. That’s where this dubious ‘creepy’ comes from, or that he’s an ‘arrogant creep’ (no one who in fact knew/knows him would corroborate). You can see exactly what she in fact HAD said, and where it was turned around to make it an attack on him. I wonder if she ever noticed that. No genuine rape victim wants their rapist freed. But then again he’s not. As ‘neutral’ as the summary on Wiki is for now, it’s relatively incomplete, and everything that was ever posted on the his page was done so with the wording as if her claims were ‘fact’, not ‘alleged’, while nothing points to the fact that her testimony was never impugned, nor proven. Nothing Polanski-defence-positive was ever allowed, though it is in fact about HIS life.
Just so to show how hypocritical and subversive feminist ‘weasel’ talk [really] is, here’s a citation someone had added: ‘The LA Times reported that the founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, “My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”’ Just so to still make him the rapist, she’s saying, ‘a person was raped’, despite no evidence. Wishful thinking fantasyland and all. I watched that pathetic editing war for a few weeks till I couldn’t be bothered anymore, but since each revision is till preserved, I thought I plough myself through the unbelievable muck and selected a few really pathetic ‘additions’ of the hundreds and hundreds of revisions, and according to the IPs logged, most of them originated in the US. Of course. Then we had the war of that he’s NOT ‘Jewish’, since Jewish is a religion not an ethnicity or nationality. Polanski self-identified as Catholic from ten years to fifteen years of age during the war and ghetto years, and more recently stated, “I’m not a religious person.” Indeed, ever since Tate’s death all he believed in was the absurd. Then someone deleted his entire films section and replaced it with: ‘Introduced Gay Sex Movies to the World. He is also Gay.’ I wonder where all his male partners are. On the other hand someone called him ‘a cool dude’.
Within one day of his rearrest alone the page was flagged for excessive vandalism, cautioned ‘editors’, and then was several times blocked from editing – they even removed the ‘flag’ section several times so it could not be blocked. Of course, they also said that the extradition was to ‘stand trial’, NO IT WAS NOT, it was for the sentencing hearing for the one count he had pleaded to. They also wanted to put him into a category for US expats and immigrants, when that is more than bullshit. Then of course they tried to get the ‘forcible anal rape’ in, though Ms Geimer never even said it was forced. They also kept saying that he was ‘convicted’; no, a plea is not a ‘conviction’ – only when the judge declares him sentenced to probation, then he’s convicted. In common usage, conviction (convicted) implies a process through a trial and jury. In this case there was no jury or trial and he pleaded guilty to one count, to which would follow the sentencing hearing he did not attend because Rittenband reneged on their agreement that the time he had spent at Chino was it, and therefore never finalised his sentencing plan. So technically, despite Polanski having done his time, his legal status is in a state of limbo and he’s not a convict. On the other hand, considering the millions of people who could have accessed the page, and only these few resorted to such childish editing wars, it really is nothing, [or] compared to the other blogs and libellous comments I came across.
While many demanded disproportionate punishment for Polanski, whereas not giving any real rapist and violent assailant of today a second thought, as a phenomenon, a movement, or as an insidious ideology, such ‘organised’ mob mentality is rooted in the repressed Victorian era, their dogmatic ideas that everything – every human action – should be perceived through an overtly moral filter they had created, and if it fails that blanket moral test, be cast into the outer darkness. Or ‘hell’. Those they perceive/d as ‘immoral’ are shunned, ruined, brought down mercilessly. See Oscar Wilde, amongst many other great artists, who once claimed that works of art are not capable of being ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ but only well or poorly made, and that only brutes and illiterates, whose views on art are incalculably stupid, would make such judgements about art – or the artist. As true as that is, such sentiments widely disseminated even faster these days by the Internet, being a drug of sorts in itself, it’s not only a very effective way to sell news and other stories, ‘real drugs’, or legal adult porn and illegal child porn for that matter, but the sad thing about the Net is the way that this anarchist dream has been turned so swiftly into the most brutal, cynical, intrusive and abusive media, marketing and blogger tool ever seen, an ugly, exploitative phenomenon where people can vilify and destroy others with impunity, with lies and falsified records.
Most of the rules of modern PC are strikingly similar to those of the Victorian original, such as the prurient drooling over and the perverted hatred of the portrayal of healthy or even ‘kinky’ sexuality, its extreme punishments. A filmmaker, who displays a non-PC attitude – unless he can manage to contrive a defence of ‘irony’ or declare it ‘realist’ or ‘absurdist cinema’ – will be cast out of society, as we saw with other great filmmakers before Polanski who dared expose [darker] human nature. How can we comprehend what he thought then, thinks today, how he felt then, and feels today, not having faced his toils? Few do care either way, and maybe only through watching all his films can they get a sense of his evolution as human, and that his ‘faith in the absurd’ was born in the aftermath of the murders, his self-professed profound guilt of having not been there to protect and maybe even save his wife he no less adored. Men like Polanski are ingrained with both ‘seismic’ and ‘phobic’ attitudes created by their life’s tragic experiences and display great resourcefulness, lust for life, iron survival instinct and moral aptitude to match. Polanski, while under Nazi oppression as a child constructed makeshift light projectors, lost himself into the world of filming to cope with the atrocities unfolding around him, detached himself from that brutal reality.
Watching Polanski’s films today is like staring at an unfinished, emotive puzzle, with no ‘ending’ no matter the subject, where the audience is left to fill in the blanks they cannot find, the few pieces missing forever. And when they do, in almost always a fallibly fallacious fashion, they hardly ever get it right to match the original idea/s Polanski had in mind – unless they have lived his life and know him. Or simply listen to him and realise how he conceived his work. That they also fail to see him for who he really is as a private man, nothing like what they’d wish, is clear. Many women sought him for his notoriety, and then were left stunned that he was nothing like the press had had painted him as – but a warm and caring, boyishly bright spark. So in that sense, it is true that his films are a reflection of him as he matured, the human-as-artist they cannot grasp. But then all art is ‘personal’. Art is reflective self -expression, individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There[in] lies its immense value and power. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a [society/state-manipulated] machine – Polanski, like many others [rightly] oppose/d or tried to expose. And, if one were to sum up Polanski’s film themes post-Manson murders it would be, ‘everybody dies’.
The sexually very liberated and famed erotica writer Anaïs Nin once said: “Ordinary life does not interest me. I seek only the high moments. I am in accord with the surrealists, searching for the marvellous.” That no doubt applies to Polanski’s artistic mind as well. Movies are about suspending your disbelief. If you can’t watch a movie without dragging an actor’s personal life into the screen, you fail at watching movies, and you should probably stop. Every time someone wants to hold an official or university sponsored retrospective of his work, the usual foaming-at-the-mouth idiots come crawling out the woodworks suddenly, shouting, ‘how dare you show films of a paedophile!’ (But they love Alice in Wonderland no doubt. Wait for its significance.) ‘He hasn’t paid for his unconscionable crime to society!’ (Yes he has, and, ‘society’? What has society got to do with two people engaging in sex? Sex is a private matter. And ‘unconscionable’? Gimme a break.) Etc. etc. etc. bullshit rhetoric overkill – with some never even having seen any of his films since they’re obviously of a different generation (and intelligence level) but have to shred his work regardless, i.e., are not even half his age to boot. So let’s just hope that they will be railroaded one day by the corrupt law without the slightest chances of rightful defence – with the public dancing on their grave while jerking off over their ordeals, leaving nasty comments all over the anonymous Internet.
But someone came up with this more intelligent résumé: ‘There are literally hundreds of people who make a film, not just the director, so all those films directed by Polanski that you refuse to see, are all films of many other people whose work you are ignoring as well. By your logic, you would hold the cinematographer, the composer, the editor and actors all hostages to your boycott. They worked with Polanski and so you should hold them accountable as well. By refusing to see Polanski’s films you make no coherent statement, all you do is deny yourself the evidence of why people chose to work for and with him, why many people admire him. By refusing to see the films, you refuse to see why he is a great director. You don’t care that he is a great director because you care about something else; his LA legal case. Next time you see a film, any film, look up the credits and read the critical and in-depth film-theory analyses. Ponder on it, and in the end you will see that all good directors have borrowed or stolen from Polanski and continue to do so. All the films you like and love that are made by lesser directors are influenced by the genius of Polanski. Essentially you prefer a copy to the original, because the copyist may be ‘moral’ even if unoriginal (and you in fact don’t know if s/he ever did something ‘morally wrong’). The value judgment you have made by not seeing Polanski films is this one: you object to Polanski’s moral, ethical and legal behavior, but not to your own ignorance (and that of the corrupt judicial system). What a fascinating way to look at the world. I commend you on your applied ignorance, hope it serves you well’. Spot-on rebuke.
If people knew that the writer (who was in fact a reverend named Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) of Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll, was of paedophilic tendencies by today’s ‘moral compass’ because he took photos of very young children, more or less covered up and the girl he modelled his Alice on and took boat trips with, they’d either be shocked, or couldn’t care less [anymore] since he’s dead, cannot be vilified anymore, and to ban his work, oh well, it’s just an old fantasy story of a little girl who had an acid trip down a rabbit hole. Or of course, you can go on the moral barricades trip yourself with the same type of, let’s boycott Alice in Wonderland, it’s paedophiliac! Carroll was a paedophile! bullshit. they’d either be shocked, or couldn’t care less [anymore] since he’s dead, cannot be vilified anymore, and to ban his work, oh well, it’s just an old fantasy story of a little girl who had an acid trip down a rabbit hole. Or of course, you can go on the moral barricades trip yourself with the same type of, let’s boycott Alice in Wonderland, it’s paedophiliac! bullshit. It was perfectly normal for a Victorian gentleman like Carroll, clergy or not, to have close relationships with children as he did. So it was in the Seventies to take nude photos of nubile teenagers or to sleep with them as plenty men did, even wrote about it and published their well-received stories as an example of the times in well-reputed magazines like Vogue, not any ‘porn’ magazine like Hustler, which in those days was much ‘sleazier’ in its overt graphicness Polanski never even heard of (before the boyfriend of Ms Geimer’s mother’s showed it to him on his first visit). Polanski is well-known and respected to treat teenagers and children like adults, as equals and not immature little kids.
Many other artists have done exactly the same things in their personal life that happened to millions of other people they don’t give a hoot about in contrast, but apparently because guys like ‘Polanski’ are ‘celebrities’, they’re suddenly oh so bloody ‘concerned’ about ‘morals’. Get a damn life, hypocrites. Perhaps, when we take our own modern society’s misgivings over either man’s behaviour as the thing which is ‘sick’ and ‘wrong’ and re-assert our attitudes, perhaps then there is something wrong with a society which cannot project anything but negativity and perverseness upon a man who had a close bond with children, or very mature teenaged girls in Polanski’s case. It is all too easy to simply come to the conclusion that Carroll or Polanski were men who were exclusively sexually interested in children or teenagers, and used the medium of photography to come ever closer to a sinister fantasy. Not so. Both were professional photographers who didn’t need that medium to attract any females to sleep with, and both foremost had sexual relation with women in their twenties and older which entirely disqualifies them to be paedophiles. While Carroll was a clergy, who wrote brilliant fantasy stories without any shady intentions, the ‘Victorian Child Cult’ perceived child-nudity as essentially an expression of innocence. Child nudes were mainstream and fashionable in Carroll’s and Polanski’s times and most photographers made them as a matter of course, the ‘time’, as an artistic response to a prevalent aesthetic and philosophical movement of the days, where child nudes even appeared not only on Christmas cards in the Victorian era.
Modern society must look beyond their 21st Century morals and codes of conduct in order to get closer to the truth of the times THEN. Indeed, it seems that today’s ‘society’ has lost that important ability to get close to the children of our age, and perhaps, sadly, this is something which will never return because of rabid feminism having destroyed that ‘innocence’ in our society, where any consensual sexual act can be punished with perverse relish, turning women into pathetic victims and men into rapists, creating more victims and real rapists by stifling healthy sexual development and desires. It is with cynical eyes that most people today would look at a grown man who forms a relationship with a child or teenager; his motives are questioned, and even parents are paranoid by now not to be seen as child abusers just because they cuddle their kids or let their teenager have sex. It seems a notion of innocence on the part of the man is no longer entertained; but rather, observers leap to the conclusion of a predator pursuing his prey. What is important for Carroll’s case is that he is seen not with the eyes of a cynic but instead with a 19th Century perspective. Instead of using modern minds to criticise and demonise they should try to be objective and open-minded. In Polanski’s case, the fact that he had sex with a mature teenage does not equal abuse let alone serial abuse because he sought the company of young women. Only the abusive law made it abusive to have sex with adolescent minors, and that age gap is pure morality play our ancestors had no problems with.
The fact that a teenager from one second to the next can suddenly consent to sex is simply ludicrous, which apparently every person experiencing an instantaneous increase in general knowledge, clarity of thought, emotional and physical maturity at the exact stroke of midnight on his or her eighteenth birthday, or to whatever any age of consent that [law] clock was set, and never gains or loses those things during any other part of his or her life. A teenager can be mature long before that and consent to sex, the repressive laws just doesn’t allow for it, THAT is the perverse side of today’s society. People say that nobody today can be blamed for failing to understand the ways in which other times were different from our own. Actually, I think we can and should be blamed for making this quite elementary error, but the fact is we do, quite frequently, confuse others with ourselves. Indeed, perhaps the single biggest obstacle to understanding history is a tendency to see the past as a kind of costume drama in which the sets and clothing are exotic, but the people underneath them are just like us. The root of this disparity is a change in the way we have come to view child sexuality as evil. Of course, the fact that Ms Geimer ‘behaved’ like a mature young lady means nothing really, since she could have put on a convincing show, innocently, deliberately, pretended to be ‘cool’, in control, till the mother refused her to continue her photo sessions with Polanski who’d enabled her to become famous, and then it all went over her head at ‘parental authority’.
A person should be able to decide for themselves if they are interested in someone else’s sexual offerings, NOT the law, no matter their ages as long as it’s a pubescent person, not ‘child’ who cannot reproduce yet. Ours is such a highly sexualised era and the idea of children and [female] sexuality is such a hot button topic that it is genuinely difficult to imagine the cultural framework these men lived in. No one cared about all the other [older] more or less famous men who slept with young girls or even minors then or ever, calling them ‘playboys’ or ‘ladies men’ in contrast. Or that über playboy Hugh Hefner, who produced Polanski’s Macbeth in 1970, and was into them as well, (apart from the very judge who sent Polanski to Chino in a glorious show of moral double standards) as his famous very nubile ‘Playboy Bunnies’ demonstrate perfectly as a sign of the über sexual times. Hefner had very young Bunnies [not only] as girlfriends no matter his age, just like Polanski had dated a few young girls – who in contrast is demonised over it today like no other man – completely ignoring that the majority of Polanski’s female partners were in their twenties, two of whom he even married. Considering the numerous liaisons he had, and none of these women stooped so low as to cry rape, he must have a large fan club only consisting of his former lovers, and, as he wrote himself in his autobiography, his escapades, his wildness, his strengths, had sprung from a sense of wonder what life has to offer, not pure ‘sexual urge’.
His acclaimed work, his cinematic fantasies have been motivated by a desire to please, to entertain, to make his audience laugh and ‘think’, not ‘sex’. He wanted to show the dark side of men and women in very subliminal ways, the innocent versus corruption, and he seems to have been able to achieve just that on a grand scale either way, as many can attest to. But, ever since Sharon’s horrible death, and despite appearances to the contrary ever since, his enjoyment of life had been incomplete, subdued, and then was ripped again into further shreds in 1977 by other females who betrayed him – up to the point when he met gentle soul Emmanuelle after the fiasco of Pirates with ugly backstabber Lewis, and raised a new family who are devoted to him as he is to them. The honest women he had met in his life, slept with or mostly of course not, all but two disgusting betrayers know better than to call him a rapist let alone paedophile. That is reserved for the obsessed detractors and stupid little haters – they don’t count, they don’t exist. I’m sure most people [deservedly] laugh at pathetic women like Lewis and Vogelhut, according to the comments I came across, know that they made up their little abuse stories, or else plenty more ex-lovers with similar claims had come out long ago. No one ever did before he was rearrested, a soft target, a helpless political pawn – but the little Polish mouse escaped the clutches of [their] insidious machinations once more. This time freed by another woman.
Polanski ‘should’ have shown up for the final sentencing hearing in 1978, sure, but if the court was going to reject the plea deal, it should reject his guilty plea as well, especially after the judge was messing him around for fun and he could not be trusted anymore. Polanski should be allowed to go back to the LA courts without any threats of jail time or more foul games, with admission of ALL evidence, and his lawyer should demand withdrawal of the guilty plea, since it was contingent on an agreement the court had refused to approve. What’s left is to either close the case, or prosecute Polanski on all counts, and since Ms Geimer was never willing to cooperate in the prosecution, the trial will be short and result in an acquittal, since he had done his time by all means already, was unfairly treated from day one, and the family had committed plenty misdemeanours themselves against the girl and Polanski. If they don’t want to end up with a perjury verdict for the family, they can either come clean straight up to avoid prison, or play the same game again and the defence will see to their incarceration. In the legal profession, it’s commonly held that any prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich, as seen with all these counts lumped on Polanski, but they refused to try them, because her testimony was unbelievable in the most crucial points and the unlawful sex charge was the only one left for a plea deal.
That the case should have been tossed out is clear, but with someone like Rittenband at the helm, that wasn’t to happen. A trial jury is charged with finding guilt – but in practice, a jury not only determines whether someone was ‘technically guilty’ of the crime, but ‘deserves’ to be punished for the crime. A Grand Jury in contrasts has only to listen to the accuser, and the defence has NO chance of anything exculpatory brought to them, before a trial jury takes over. Instead of that, they put Polanski behind bars for 102 days in all, he suffered over seven months of lost freedom on top, let alone over three decades of unprecedented vilification, and it would be hard to get an unbiased jury to punish him further after a very successful and lawful life, when he was obviously a victim of the courts and the mother’s own agendas. She was never charged with child neglect as she should have been, or would have been had she been an inner-city mother on welfare, she and her partner had been done for drugs offences and her daughter’s own boyfriend for statutory rape next to Polanski. Her daughter would have been put into care due to her mother’s neglect. (Like Lewis’ mother for her daughter prostituting herself.) But, anything Gailey did to facilitate this case to even reach any court as the accuser, was forgotten by the prosecution and everyone else ever since. She should not be sanctified for her bad behaviour as a parent.
The plea bargain they pressed for was about as stiff a deal as the prosecutor could drive for unlawful sex at that time and today’s law cannot be applied no matter what people want. Besides, the idea that a thirteen year old is a ‘child’ is more than absurd. That the feminists have indoctrinated the gullible public with such nonsense is clear – they don’t want them to snatch up all the men these aging spinsters cannot get at anymore. The state of Pennsylvania where Ms Geimer was born, prosecuted a thirteen year old as an adult recently, which means that the state believes that a ‘child’ like her is capable of participating fully and meaningfully in her defence. And, that she’s culpable when it comes to anything other than ‘sex’, since then she’s suddenly this disempowered little ‘victim’ for feminists to proclaim how evil men are but not them. How convenient to pave them a free avenue to cry rape. According to the law, Pennsylvania can prosecute a two-year old as an adult in case of a capital offence. Someone who is three weeks short of turning fourteen, sexually active with multiple partners is a young adult; it’s only the state legislature that would deny her the right to control her own body. ‘Statutory rape’ should be limited to sex with someone who hasn’t yet reached puberty, not some arbitrary age of consent where the minor is of reproductive capabilities, i.e., a mature teenager who can become a mother no matter her actual age, if married or not. But that would be logical and helpful, save men from being sent to prison hell for sex, yet hardly ever women.
As we saw, any accuser can have charges dropped against anyone more or less illustrious – except Ms Geimer, even as an adult – just because the man she had slept with dared show the LA courts what they really are, corrupt to the very core. Conversely, many accused have zero chances of achieving the same and accusers get way with crying rape. But only in the US, (unless you’re rich and powerful or from ‘Hollywood’) since in the UK either side can have a case dropped for whatever reasons. While hardly anyone can argue that Polanski is one of the world’s most admired and versatile (and/or controversial) film director, with gutter journalists and pro and anti-Polanski bloggers ‘investigating’ not only his works but private life, and [that of] his ‘women’, the egregiously thoughtless press or even ‘authors’ couldn’t care less about any tact or facts. Since over four decades now in fact. With many citing that Polanski is still ‘on the run’, I wonder about such nonsense, since he’s not ‘on the run’ from anything or anyone in the sense it that it means ‘to run away from’, ‘hastily retreat’, being in the course of [actively] ‘fleeing’ a scene [of crime]. How can anyone be ‘on the run’, or ‘hide’, while making films in open daylight for decades in plenty countries. To keep away from the US doesn’t mean he’s on the run from there just because he can’t go there, or the UK. Fugitive might be more apt, but not from justice – but [continuous] injustice.
Never in my life before have I seen a case where the media was so ‘concerned’ with any ‘children’, or how the ‘victim’ ‘felt’ suddenly, while the public in contrast twist and turn Ms Geimer’s wishes or words as they like at any rate, don’t care what she thinks or says about Polanski. Or they believe he paid her to speak in his favour, obviously oblivious to the facts of how she got the money and has nothing to do with it, but the fact that she was forced to lie as a teenager and since then tried to make good on that mistake. They say, ‘victims often forgive their attackers’, (just so to leave Polanski in the bracket of being her attacker, since in fact hardly anyone would ever forgive anyone who violated them) ‘and it may be ‘healthy’ for them to do so, (no, to see them in jail would be) but their feelings about their attacker has no relevance to a criminal case’. Sure in ‘her’ case let’s ignore her feelings, while I guarantee you, were it them in her place, they’d be furious no one takes her words seriously today let alone the courts having fucked them both over since decades now, while being utterly consumed with her teenage fantasies of a time she’d rather forget – and how she could have done better.
What if Ms Geimer had been badly beaten by Polanski or her own husband for that matter, suffered real injuries? Would ‘society’ say, ‘she has ‘forgiven’ him, let him be’? Of course they would, since in any non-sexual scenario no matter a much worse or painful incident, people suddenly have their brains switched on and listen to the ‘victim’. But, petty commenters just love to hate, it’s all they do and will consume them one day. After Polanski has given the world half a century of pioneering movies that surely have brought more joy into the world than any of his pathetic haters and persecutors, he will be remembered for his pioneering achievements and illustrious, tragedy-riddled life, long after THEY are all dead having disseminated nothing but empty diatribes as sad examples of humanity without anything of value as legacy. Then of course we have those who become outraged when someone questioned her version of events, saying, how dare you not believe this ‘child’, or this thirteen-year old girl, while they know perfectly well that teenagers lie their pants off if needed. And then people come back to them to point them to the facts, that whatever she had claimed was refuted by plenty medical and other evidence, and also prove it with hard evidence like the transcripts available online.
Of course, then they’d go all, oh oh, but, but then there was no ‘force’ involved, which is exactly where they invalidate their own bullshit arguments of that it was forcible intercourse and brutal anal rape. No ‘force’ equals no rape, no matter which orifice, end of. Only forcible intercourse is legally recognised as rape. Ms Geimer herself never said he used any ‘force’, either verbally or physically, that’s why her being ‘afraid’ of him rhetoric is more than dubious. Besides, have you ever seen a ‘rapist’ who did NOT use any ‘force’? Verbal or otherwise? Of course not. People after such well-deserved or eye-opening rebuke usually don’t come back since they ran out of stupid or more ill-informed arguments. Of course, Cooley would have loved to have Lewis’ and Vogelhut’s lies taken into account, but refuse the one woman concerned to drop the case, which is not only legally reprehensible but indefensibly vindictive. All he wants is to keep floating his boat of wanting to become Attorney General on Polanski’s utterly corrupt case waves, I’m sure the Swiss realised, most likely after Polanski had spoken out against him, and they didn’t listen to ‘them’, but her and him – justice. Widmer-Schlumpf said so herself.
Like so many having compared Polanski’s [imaginary] ‘crime/s’ with that of the Pope of all people, or rather his flock, whose crimes are hardly as rampant as proclaimed by the overzealous scaremongering feminist league, the difference however is that, had Polanski ‘continued abusing children’ as they put it in their ‘child rhetoric’ delusion, his artistic friends would have soon melted away long ago, which is undoubtedly a fact and one that never transpired since he never abused any ‘children’ in the first place, while the Catholic Church knew abuse was happening and allowed it to continue, also a fact. So, this type of self-defeating argument by desperate tripe-mongers, of, ‘Polanski equals Pope’, is just as farfetched as any other crimes they desperately want to pin on him. Saying, ‘a man who drugged etc. (since I’m fed up with repeating this bullshit) a girl shy three weeks of turning fourteen, would not usually receive the uncritical support of the political and literary establishments’, that is exactly the point! Since, had he really done that (rather than see it was never proven he had, (hence should always say ‘allegedly’ did), plus, escaped ‘justice’ rather than injustice, Polanski had never received ANY support. Let alone from his colleagues who cherish their reputations beyond any ‘friendship’. No film financiers, studios, crews, actors, anyone to make a film or stage play, would have worked with him.
But then of course they knew he never raped anyone, while such logic, even if conceived by accusers, and then not seeing these blatantly obvious ‘facts’, remains a mystery to these fanatical idiots. One of the most laughable statements I’ve ever come across coming from CNN (of course) was from some pseudo ‘expert’, saying, ‘remember, she had anal sodomy’, (über bollocks anyone? ‘Anal sodomy’? Wow, the Americans are SO obsessed with anal sex they even put it into tautological BS where simple sodomy doesn’t suffice anymore; ‘sodomy’ implicitly implies ‘anal’, idiots). Or, ‘do you know that that puts her at an increased risk for anal cancer in her future?’ Yeah, like imaginary anal intercourse will give you [a rather rare] cancer – not even if she really had it twice that day as she claimed – what utter oh so concerned bullshit. In that case Vogelhut had died from it after Polanski ‘repeatedly sodomised’ her and all the other ‘helpless victims’ he habitually had anally raped all his life. These people are full of what’s coming from their anal passage. Just like those who thought Emmanuelle crazy when she said after Polanski’s release (since they of course don’t know better), now that the injustice of incarceration done to her husband is over, they can get on with their lives and projects, rather than ask ‘why’ she said ‘injustice’ and be educated to realise it was just that, and still is. Unless Ms Geimer finally comes clean and spells it out, takes responsibility for her own part in it.
Had the family not turned her underaged sex into drugged rape and sodomy all over some harmless pictures that would have paved Ms Geimer’s path to stardom she so desperately wanted, only to turn it all against Polanski in order to avoid punishment over them, with a mother who didn’t listen to her daughter when it was really important – not scold her over them, but confront Polanski and tell him not to take others. No, what did she do, she let him go in the belief that it was ok after looking at them, and then it was suddenly ‘rape’ hours later. Ms Geimer should have told her mother before they went to Nicholson’s house they had done topless shots already, the mother should have made it clear to Polanski what kind of photos she’d allow, not pretend they were ok with it and once Polanski left cry rape because the sister was ‘upset’ over them, not tell us later it became ‘scary’ and that she didn’t want to do more. The blatant double standards applied by the mother alone are just as staggering – first she allowed her daughters to grow up in a drugs and booze infused environment with sexual contact from the age of eight in Ms Geimer’s case, with her eldest having been institutionalised for Quaalude abuse, and then suddenly finds it oh so unacceptable that her younger sister had a tiny bit Quaalude and champagne or sex after ONE topless photo – rather than clamp down on all that at home first and keep an eye on her own boyfriend, who probably had a thing going on with her youngest she most likely had no idea about.
Ms Geimer’s testimony clearly states, she was upset about her mother’s decision to refuse to release the pictures, cried in her room before her boyfriend came over, but she stupidly didn’t tell Polanski about her concerns, or told her mother that the images would have been cropped as Polanski had said to her himself, or she’d not known or told her and that her mother presumably would not allow topless shots. Why she let him take them in the first place when her mother had to see and sign them off, is a mystery. Or rather not. Instead, she laid full blame at Polanski’s feet suddenly and made it out as if he had coerced her into it all, after she had later told her she had champagne and Quaalude and then sex with him. According to the only journalist allowed present during the proceedings, for the ‘victim’ and her family, the’ ideal outcome’ would be a guilty plea to one of the charges so that they could pursue a lawsuit to seek civil damages outside of the media spotlight’s glare. Indeed, that’s why they pressed for it in the first place but demanded no jail time – and since they had no evidence to proof what she had accused him of, opted for the one count left applicable purely for her age to plead to. Besides, if Polanski had done what she had claimed, her mother and the father, a lawyer, had pressed for his incarceration, not let the mother press for NO time in custody. The father was never part of any hearing either – except that he told her not to be cross-examined, knowing too well she’d been found out.
The mother stated in her own testimony after Gunson had asked her: “Did you ask Mr Polanski if you could go?” “Yes.” And when asked further: “What did you say?” she replied: “Well, I asked him on the phone in the time when we made the appointment for that [first] day. And I asked him because I wanted to go along and take some pictures of the two of them, because I am sort of a photographer sometimes. And he said, no, that he would rather be alone with her because she will respond more naturally.” That reply was perfectly reasonable, since he knew how self-conscious she might feel when being watched by her, or get in his way of how he wants her to pose. That said, she, or Ms Geimer, therefore cannot ever declare that she had asked him again later that she wanted to come along for the second/third [Bisset/Nicholson] shoot. Ms Geimer herself forgot to mention that she in fact said to Polanski that she wouldn’t have wanted her coming along at any rate, saying, “Like I hate having my mother around when I’m being photographed, because she says, like, do this, or do that.” Of course, what they both said ‘officially’ was to cover their own backs, while Polanski had said that he told her boyfriend where they’d go and she said that he had told her that they would go to the Nicholson’s home. Since neither Ms Geimer’s nor her mother’s boyfriends were ever part of the hearing to back him up and shed more light on the exact events at home, they both and the sister can say whatever they like.
Many called this a deliberate entrapment in order to get money out of Polanski once it became clear sex had taken place, though it took like ten more years for her to file a civil suit before the statute of limitations would run out and her money to raise a family. That she needed to wait another ten years and the ‘compensation’ wasn’t ‘officially awarded’ before they simply took it from his proceeds, must have been a bummer. Either way, this case only shows that teenagers are liable to lie to avoid punishment, and then blame the adult for god knows what, some of which never happened – ‘elaborate’ on specifics to be fully relieved of all responsibilities, and accountabilities. In her case that was easy for her age, had she been of age, they had thrown out the case right where Dr Larson made it clear he cannot corroborate her claims of vaginal let alone anal [double] rape. That she took the third of a Quaalude and champagne on her own free will is more than clear, but then put it as if it was Polanski’s ‘fault’. The fact that she said in her testimony that she went back into the kitchen right after she in fact had taken the drug, because she was upset with herself over her stupidity, she obviously knew what it would do to her after she had some champagne already – getting sexually aroused and with the champagne combined would end up in hot waters – thinking that food would help.
She should have told Polanski that it affected her and taken a rest, not pretend and later say she was afraid of him, not even explaining why, but rather invent that she had asthma when the hot Jacuzzi vapours overcame her to her own words utterly omitting vital facts of what actually occurred or what they talked about, since this of course would not match her ‘version’. In the testimony her mother confirmed that she had asked her to lie about the asthma, in order not to go into the Jacuzzi as she put it, when in fact she took a dip on her own free volition after SHE wanted to get in there as soon as possible after they had done a few shots in the kitchen, (hence their both going into the bathroom to switch it on, where he found the Quaalude she could have refused at any rate) and was perfectly happy till she became too hot. She also got out the hot tub HERSELF, not with his ‘help’ or after he had asked her to come down his end as she put it. It never happened. Her later accounts are not consistent with her original claims either let alone other statements she gave over the years after she came out, while Polanski kept to his original account he recalled in his autobiography, where he said himself that she looked odd while he was in the cooler pool – told her to get out and into the cooler pool – he said she didn’t do because it was too cold and she said she had and then both got out to dry off.
Incidentally, Ms Geimer had claimed to have told him off when he dried her off, but still let him proceed to have the sex at any rate. She recounted ‘her’ events, but then suddenly claimed she couldn’t remember what else happened, like the light lighting up on the phone, Huston pulling up in the driveway, or what ‘he’ had said. Polanski never was in the Jacuzzi with her because it was always too hot Huston in fact had asked him about if it was when he returned to the house with Ms Geimer in the car, and he said ‘as usual’. Ms Geimer made it up that he got in there with her in order to justify her asthma attack lie, said she wanted to go home to get her medicine he never heard her say either, asthma sufferers would surely carry along. She then asked to lie down somewhere to cool off, which she of course omitted she ever had – or else they’d not ever ended up in that TV room in the first place, she later described as ‘making’ her to go there. How he managed that without ever verbally or physically pushing her about is a mystery. It’s clear where she elaborated on things, and what is fact, she later tried to retell in various forms, made it clear it never was rape, that he didn’t hurt of was forceful with her in stark contrast. It’s a typical cry rape case, which untypical lasted over three decades without being closed any time soon either.
The LA Times in February 1978 said, the original judge would have sentenced Polanski in absentia, so why could that not happen in 2010? We all know Espinoza did not ‘sentence’ him absentia this year, after he in fact had offered it to him, only to snub him by denying his request, and clearly had said Polanski is not facing any more prison time in any way since he of all people knew he had done his time. However, Espinoza also said Polanski is [still] only facing time served made official, but will not sentence him in absentia either, now off the table at any rate, which would have ended this never-ending story now would it. Instead on insisting he was to appear in the court to be finally sentenced and enable the case be litigated and closed, why did he not sentence him in absentia? Simple, it’s Cooley & Co show who want to have a ‘trial’, no one else wants nor ever wanted back then and can only be done if the plea is first withdraw NO judge would ever do and no DA has powers to do. Once a plea was reached that is IT. Polanski would not have returned to LA in 1977 after the judge permitted him make a [second-to-be-lost] movie outside of the country if his intent was to flee justice. Polanski only ‘fled’ from LA when the egomaniacal judge treated him unfairly over and over – Polanski didn’t flee any ‘justice’, he fled injustice.
He fled to preserve his very life, once more, and if he was to be [unlawfully] deported at any rate, why stay in a hypocritical country where a judge and future California governor can have long-term sexual liaisons with minors with impunity but not a foreign director who was even sent down for it against all counsel on top for ONE count of unlawful sex. A judge, who had made an agreement, then breaches it unilaterally and without legal cause after the defendant had carried out every part of the agreement, commits misconduct, end of. There is no disputing this point or ever will be no matter what people want, or the Court of Appeal had not demanded Cooley to tackle the misconducts. After Rittenband refused to allow Dalton to question Ms Geimer on 20th May 1977 before the trial, following her mother’s pressing for that peal deal on the [lawyer] father’s ‘recommendation’, all knew perfectly well the girl had made up a few things that would be revealed in a trial. In order to cut it short, the deal was reached September 19th behind closed doors, 20th September Gunson said if the prison system recommends no more time for Polanski, the DA’s office will not object. December 16th Polanski surrenders himself to enter Chino, and 27th January 1978 after 42 days behind bars in protective custody, Polanski is released from Chino, and returns to the LA courthouse in relieved anticipation that had been it – but it wasn’t.
On January 30th over the objections of Dalton and Gunson, Rittenband announced he was going to send him back to Chino for the rest 48 days, even though the state psychiatrists had recommended he serve no more time (even before he was sent down). The next day Polanski flees; Dalton advises Gunson and the court; Rittenband postpones ‘sentencing’ to February 14th exclusively for the press, which was strictly unheard of, but never happened for his being relieved of the case. Too late. On the 14th Dalton filed an affidavit of prejudice against the judge after Gunson had been unsuccessful to do so months earlier, demanding the transfer of the case to another court. Under California law, every defendant was allowed to file one affidavit of prejudice, and in every case covered, jurisdiction was transferred. Three days later, the judge met with Deputy County Counsel John P. Farrell to prepare a written response to Dalton’s affidavit. On the 20th Rittenband would not resist Dalton’s move to have the case transferred. The reality of California law is that sentences of less than one year are served in county jails, not prisons like Chino. Hence, the decision to impose what amounted to a prison sentence of less than a year was not only illegal on its face, but accepted reluctantly by the attorneys and the defendant in light of the judge’s irrational conduct in the case no one curtailed on their behalf. That alone should prove that sentence was his entire punishment or else he’d just sent him to a low-security lock-up, not a max security block where Manson was in fact incarnated with his killer girls who only eight years earlier had butchered his wife and their child.
While the judge repeatedly referred to the ‘90-day’ confinement, he knew full well that the 90-day period was simply the maximum legal limit on how long the state shrinks could take to complete their examination, though they had already other reports that Polanski was not a MDSO. Typically, defendants were returned in about half that time, something Rittenband had experienced dozens of times during his tenure on the bench. The judge knew this, Gunson knew this, his superior Van de Kamp knew this, Dalton knew this. So for Rittenband to say he wants him back to ‘finish’ or ‘repeat’ his ‘sentence’ was twice unlawful. Under the agreement reached by all parties, once Polanski left prison, he would serve no additional time. Period. Polanski would have fulfilled the conditions of his plea bargain. By law, a judge can base his sentence only upon evidence introduced into trial, but Rittenband was asking anyone and everyone he knew the same question: “What the hell do I do with Polanski?” Given Gunson’s statements at the time and those he made to Zenovich two years ago for her documentary and his sealed testimony this year, it’s a certainty that Gunson said things Cooley wouldn’t like – namely, that Polanski had fulfilled his sentence, and an arrogant judge had gone bonkers over concern about his pompous self-image, after he violated both the letter and the spirit of the law apart from Polanski’s human rights. Then of course we have those dismissive people who say that a judge is allowed to ‘change his mind’, i.e., break a plea deal agreed on by all parties, but if they’d been railroaded willy-nilly like Polanski was would shout for justice even louder.
According to US law, an 11(c)(1)(B) [plea bargain] agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor’s recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement [however] DOES bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea [to go to trial]. Since we don’t know to which type Polanski pleaded, though it can be assumed it is type C since he could request to have his plea withdrawn (though a judge hardly ever does for the defendant to be stuck with the deal) but was unable to appeal the ‘diagnostic study period’, Rittenband had accepted his guilty plea in August 1977, but then slung Polanski into prison in December after all parties had agreed to no-prison-time/probation-only in September ALREADY. THAT is breaking the deal after Polanski had done his [non-stipulated] time the judge knew perfectly well would not entail the entire 90 days, plain and simple. He just played [with] him. A plea deal is a written statement the prosecution prepared for the defendant, to ‘confess yourself guilty’ to a usually lower count stated in detail (you however might also not be guilty of), in effect bearing false witness against yourself, or the deal is off and you’re in danger to face a longer sentence the judge can simply impose, or a [biased] trial jury might find you guilty despite no actual guilt at no exculpatory evidence introduced to declare you innocent. Judges even sometimes threaten the defendant by saying, if you don’t plead guilty to that one count (to avoid a ‘costly’ trial), I’ll send you down for life. Don’t ever think that doesn’t happen, or that many who pleaded were in fact innocent.
Rittenband wasn’t interested in any justice either, his only worry was about his own reputation in the eyes of the global press and to amass a few more clippings for his scrapbook. Cooley & Co of course won’t accept any of this in their own glorious vindictiveness worse that what Rittenband had done to Polanski in the first place. There is ample evidence, supported by more than one court decision, that Polanski was the victim of judicial misconduct. Polanski entered into a plea agreement in good faith and for decades they covered up the corruption of the case and then refused to give the Swiss investigative documents. It was reported that the Swiss people were very unhappy with their government over his arrest and the case handling as a whole. That controversy in fact caused the government to allow Polanski’s house arrest. The Swiss were absolutely right in putting an end to this deplorable exercise when they released him. That, added to the fact that Ms Geimer opposes any further prosecution, is argument enough for US authorities to drop this case finally. But this will never happen until someone in real power puts his foot down. In those more innocent days, before the rise of the Internet, tweets, instant messaging, and all the rest, the melodrama was acted out on TV screens, in talk show broadcasts, and on the pages of a gamut of print media, ranging from staid grey columns of newsprint to the lurid covers of tabloids and magazines. The range of today’s outright ignorance is even more astounding. And repulsive. Living in your propagandised media bubble, dominated as it is by sanitised dross dressed up as ‘news’, or of course sex scandal trash, you don’t ever get to know what is really going on in the world today.
Just so to show how the case dismissal request filed February 12th 2009 was twisted by the courts on refusing the appeal, where it said: “Neither Polanski nor the People objected to the diagnostic study order (despite the fact that Rittenband had already official psyche reports that rendered such a ‘study’ irrelevant he misused as punishment no one sought). The court stayed the execution of the diagnostic study for 90 days to permit Polanski to complete a film he was directing, stating that the stay would “certainly” not extend past 90 days, “if it could be avoided.” (Rittenband knew such studies would never cover the entire 90 day, but afterwards demanded Polanski to sit out the rest despite official recommendations to release him.) The diagnostic study, dated January 25, 1978, contained recommendations that Polanski be placed on probation, (indeed, which the judge of course did not heed, despite the fact that at the time of the September 16, 1977, meeting, he had stated he expected a favorable report from Chino, he then called a ‘whitewash’.) On February 1, 1978, Polanski failed to appear in court for a scheduled sentencing hearing and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest,” they utterly forgot to mention that Polanski had no means to appeal the decision for the study to begin with by Rittenband’s own words, hence the defence did not or rather could not ‘object’ in the first place, plus, the judge had already agreed to no further time in September 1977.
Furthermore, Dalton said what the courts today say is not the case: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: that he serve 48 additional days in prison; that he would not be permitted to have a hearing on this additional sentence; that he agree to waive his rights to a deportation hearing and agree to “voluntarily deport himself” and that no hearing would be permitted until after the imposition of the prison sentence and that even more serious consequences could be expected if a hearing were held. At no time did the assigned prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Gunson, request any of the above conditions. Both Deputy District Attorney Gunson and I (Dalton) objected to Judge Rittenband’s denial of Mr. Polanski’s right to a hearing prior to sentencing. However, Judge Rittenband summarily rejected our arguments without any suggestion of legal authority to support the sentence and conditions that he intended to impose. The Judge also instructed Mr. Gunson and me to argue as though we were unaware of his intentions, and not to expose this information to the press.” Which was the in/famous staged argument for the press (preserved on film), the extradition request presented as if it was ‘f/actual’ with Gunson arguing for time (when in fact he had agreed not to demand custodial time on the mother’s wishes), while Dalton and the prison officials had demanded probation [too], and both attorneys had already declared that it was a fake show in the Zenovich documentary. Meaning, the report sent to the Swiss made it out to be as if there WAS an ‘actual sentence’ still to be given they wanted Polanski for. That was blunt manipulation of the Swiss authorities.
They also omitted that: “Judge Fidler (who was approached to handle the case in 1997) stated that he would honor the agreement made by Judge Rittenband that the period of incarceration for Mr. Polanski while undergoing the diagnostic study would constitute the full and complete punishment. After considering the materials we submitted and after discussions with Mr. Gunson and me (Dalton), Judge Fidler advised us that, if Mr. Polanski returned to Los Angeles, he would allow Mr. Polanski to be booked and immediately released on bail, require Mr. Polanski to meet with the probation department, order a probation report, conduct a hearing, and terminate probation without Mr. Polanski having to serve any additional time in custody.” That of course went bust over his demand to televise this – he later described as a lie and STILL had entailed ‘prison time’. Then Espinoza took over, and Polanski’s team filed more motions of dismissal on grounds of all the misconducts, and even Espinoza said that ‘nothing precludes the possibility that the diagnostic study was Polanski’s entire penalty’. The extradition request omitted any of this and that there in fact were/ARE misconducts to be tackled in the first place. Hence Gunson stepping in to make that clear with his to-be-sealed deposition in early 2010, and that the 42 days at Chino was Polanski’s entire sentence. That Espinoza cited the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ clause for not allowing Polanski relief or dismissal of the case, or to be sentenced in absentia was in fact moot, once he was rested and in prospect of being extradited. The doctrine was in fact applied to no one else once a fugitive was rearrested, BUT Polanski alone.
Also, the courts said while Polanski was under house arrest : “We acknowledge that if a term of imprisonment had been imposed at the sentencing hearing on February 1, 1978, Polanski would have remained in custody for the time it would have taken to prepare, as appropriate, an appeal and/or a petition for writ of habeas corpus and to seek a stay of the sentence,” completely forgetting that this might have taken months or even years beyond the sentence they all had agreed on, NONE but probation after the 42 days he had fulfilled. Dalton revealed in the Zenovich documentary that he advised Polanski prior to his flight that Polanski would likely be able to secure relief from the sentence they feared the trial court would impose: “I contacted Roman and I said for them to come to my office and discuss what was going to happen the following morning. I told them it was my opinion that the sentence would be illegal, that we could probably obtain relief on appeal but that would involve a long procedure and Polanski would be incarcerated during that period of time.” Indeed, far beyond of what WAS agreed on and Polanski had done time for, putting him in high jeopardy of attacks as an old man. That’s why he was released into house arrest on humanitarian grounds, since in any civilised country like Switzerland old people are allowed relief while awaiting extradition at home.
Though the courts insisted that ‘Polanski would have been able to seek an immediate stay of the sentence pending appellate resolution of the issues’, that is not guaranteed and would have still required bail and undetermined remand stay, nor do they ever consider the human side of things and that Polanski simply did not trust any of them anymore and simply fled to preserve his life already then, let alone today. They also said: “Based on the oral arguments of counsel, this court would not expect any objection to be made if Polanski should request to be sentenced in absentia,” which we all know never happened either – so why exactly should Polanski trust any of their words ‘today’? “While the trial court would have to consent to this request, this would resolve the disentitlement problem that Mr. Polanski has encountered in the trial court and would afford him the evidentiary hearing that he so urgently seeks to support his allegations of misconduct.” It is clear why they did not sentence him in absentia to time served, NOT to litigate the case. Rittenband refused to conduct a sentencing hearing before deciding to impose incarceration on Polanski beyond the time he had spent in custody for the diagnostic study, thus denying Polanski due process and the opportunity to make a record of the court’s misconduct ALREADY THEN. To incarcerate him today just so to string him along with more appeal denials in case he had been extradited, is cruel.
By Rittenband recusing himself when Dalton sought his disqualification after he had fled, he thereby precluding an evidentiary hearing where the misconduct would have been supported by testimony ALREADY THEN. The DA’s office has tried to avoid discovery [of the misconduct] that Polanski has attempted to initiate since filing his request for a dismissal in the furtherance of justice years ago. At the hearing on the request for a dismissal [while under housie arrest], Espinoza and the DA’s office avoided an evidentiary hearing by applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, thereby effectively condoning the misconduct. Indeed, since any court that rules against Polanski must be using whatever grounds upon which it relies as an attempt to frustrate an inquiry into long-ago misconduct ever more. Plus, in over thirty years, the DA’s office has never once seriously attempted to secure his extradition, (before Cooley needed him to further his career) and although Polanski does not specifically claim that this alleged dereliction was designed to prevent an evidentiary [misconduct] hearing, he argues that if it had [sought extradition], there would have been a hearing regarding the misconduct in this case they of course don’t want to see remedied at all. Exactly, and, by keeping the public in the belief Polanski is STILL up for sentencing despite the [former] prosecution saying that is not the case, what else are they to believe other than in their sordid drugged rape and sodomy world, especially with Cooley basically saying he will hunt him till the end of time while not giving a shit about any current genuine rape victims.
Reading a truthful article might rattle your cage of false belief in the direction of real knowledge, but who wants that. No, to live in your sleazy drugged rape and sodomy world is much more fun. For someone who knows the case intimately, what the online world offered about the case of People vs Roman Polanski has much more to say about the ongoing cultural, moral and political wars than it does about the case itself. With twisted bullshit like, ‘Polanski’s refusal to face up to the charges and subsequent decision to flee the country, is the reason we’re still having to hear the accounts! It’s disgusting to think we are expected to let Polanski go simply because time has passed! He raped a child, he should be punished! Polanski made a mockery of the legal system! Free to molest again at last!’ it’s no wonder the even lesser informed consumer buys [into] this sort of incorrect and foul trash journalism point blank. See Wikipedia, as objective as it might be, it’s still not enough when it omits vital details and his side of the events and contains errors. The folks who have no excuse for their disgraceful ignorance are the editorial writers at America’s newspapers to promote this sort of hate speech. But then it’s easy to feign high dudgeon about a nefarious director than it is to thoughtfully examine the way to California judicial system was perverted by a raging egomaniac on the bench, a judge whose best friend was mob front man Sid Korshak whose name is never mentioned in stories about the judge, go figure. The efforts to extradite Polanski were and still are a vindictive and politically motivated act.
An unsavoury alliance of extreme right-wingers, radical feminists, liberal media pundits and self-interested DAs, who need Polanski or any high profile person to publicly torture and vilify to help his campaign for Attorney General of California this November (or even fictitious ‘victims’ helping with more lies) came together over the all-exploitable Polanski issue, demanding that ‘justice be done’ in the case of this ‘rapist’ and ‘paedophile predator’. The ‘left’ elements paid no attention to the facts of the case, including the systematic violation of Polanski’s rights to this day, the entire witch hunt, or its social, political and legal implications, too blinded by the prejudices of biased identity politics. A big difference in context between the time of the original case and the present day is that the Polanski case was kind of the final act in the death of the 1970s, very much as Tate’s murder was the last death throe for the 1960s. There was a very different attitude toward sex and drugs in those days, and in the years since there has been this whole insidious hysteria about ‘sex abuse cults’ of children destroying people’s lives, the entire feminist league uproar making every man a rapist by default, or paedophile, and the extreme sensitisation to teenage sexuality, exploitation and ‘rape’. Never mind that the biggest culprits in this are the callous media the dumb public simply parrots. With people still banging on about that Polanski ‘isolated, drugged and intoxicated a 13-year-old girl, then ignored her protests, raped and sodomised her, then fled the country before he could be sentenced’, there’s little hope that these idiots will ever get a handle on the bare facts.
Here’s one of the typical feminists-driven diatribes another however more logically minded commentator rebuked perfectly: ‘“Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.).” Reply: “Let me start with your sarcasm first. What does the case you discuss have to do with Polanski’s “multiple homes in Europe,” his work as a director, his Oscar, his wife and children? It’s all irrelevant, but you can’t be objective, can you? (INDEED!) The way I understand the case, it was statutory rape because a 13-year-old girl was involved. (See how she does not repeat the idiotic ‘child’ rhetoric?) Her mother left this girl with Polanski. For a typical “Hollywood mother,” anything goes to get a role in a movie. A normal mother would not leave her underage daughter with an adult male. (They might have ‘then’.) I am not defending Roman Polanski. All I am saying is this: The girl’s mother should have been sued for purposely neglecting her child and endangering her. (And for the drugs and alcohol offences.) But this is not the part of modern American culture: to be responsible for your own actions. It is always somebody else’s fault.” Indeed, and when people point to the mother as culprit they go all, oh how dare you accuse the mother, especially when it comes to ‘sex’, and only shows there ARE more intelligent people out there, even in the States. Besides, where was their outrage before his rearrest?
Easy to answer, when Polanski was arrested again, it was a perfect vehicle for pushing a whole bunch of politically sensitive hot buttons: ‘sexual abuse of children’, (though a teenager is not legally recognises as a ‘child’ but pubescent, adolescent) ‘European decadence’, ‘Hollywood decadence’, society’s corruption (rather than judicial corruption), you name it. It was a perfect way for Cooley to get his name in the press in ways that would give him favourable coverage. Especially if he left out the facts and autopiloted the emotional blackmail and knee-jerk buttons by calling Polanski a ‘child rapist’, rather than stupid man who had sex with a mature teenager decades ago like million others, who in contrast had to flee from a corrupt judge, while conversely many after him faced with no such luck of escape served time for having had sex in the sex-repressed US jails of über puritan America. As for that ‘suffering’ people Polanski want to undergo in any which form the more perverse the better, he faced enough pain and defamation, indefensible accusations by ugly liars, at the hands of people who refuse to educate themselves on the facts of the case, or show even one ounce of compassion they’d grant any other real criminal. That alone makes their ‘opinions’, let alone empty diatribe, utterly irrelevant. The media’s coverage alone of the case has been atrocious, ranging from early consternation of ‘why now?’ to ‘finally caught!’ pandering to the worst elements of celebrity trashing coverage where the simple facts were omitted, but mindless attack forces were given vent, wallowing in their usual narratives leaving no room for ‘alleged’ or anything redeeming. It was THE purest fascist talk of the century.
I love it when they go, no one, but no one disputes that he raped a child, not even him. I’m sorry, when did Polanski ever say, hey, I raped a child! And there are millions who do NOT think he did say that or that he ever raped anyone either. But hey, let’s just put words into his and all our mouths because he can’t defend himself. Sad. And, why is it that only males are being disproportionately punished for ‘sex’, but not the female, even if the minor seduced the adult? What exactly is the point? With people like Ms Geimer, who confessed in 1977 to having had her first sexual encounter with eight – which IS pretty early – had a boyfriend when she met Polanski she had sex with, and most likely a thing with her own mother’s partner who was Polanski’s age, but neither were done for ‘statutory rape’, so, how can that be considered as ‘just’, or her an ‘innocent’? She can’t, and there’s nothing wrong with it at all but the selective punishments, most had sex and drugs experiences as teenagers and many were never prosecuted let alone any females. I guarantee you, a lot of those who today call/ed Polanski a paedophile or that he should be shot had underage sex, started [that] early or had sex with older men too, or these radical feminists who today call everything and what they did themselves in the Sixties or Seventies, rape. Such blanket condemnation without proper investigation is the height of ignorance they love to revel in, propagate with their anti-sex laws mania like poison spawn. These hypocrites, or those who are not even half Polanski’s age being manipulated by today’s ‘moral [double] standards’, keep buying into the rape-is-rampant myth (unless you’re in an all-male US prison) and believe in any rape accusations blindly.
They foremost have no first clues about female or even male anatomy, i.e., their very own. They think the vagina is a giant hollow that can easily be invaded, not even knowing the simplest dynamics of sexual intercourse, let alone ‘rape’. That’s probably one reason why they’re so crap at sex to start with and left discontented. They believe rape [or sex for that matter] is easy to perform, and there is some physiological pleasure or gratification involved for the rapist, since then it would be about ‘sex’, not ‘power’, when it’s not about sex. Both anecdotal and scientific evidence shows that a significant proportion of ‘rapists’ have difficulty getting an erection, maintaining it, achieving penetration or experiencing ejaculation, or could in fact enter their victim/s, (hence, some resorting to ‘tools’.) Research undertaken in the US in the 1980s, showed that one in ten of those serving prison sentences for ‘rape’ were in fact permanently impotent, i.e., weren’t in fact ‘real rapists’, since no erection equals no hardness = no penetration. There’s little or no recognition in the uneducated conscience of the wider public that the vagina in its normal, non-aroused state is a rather small aperture whose rippled walls lie adjacent to one another, very much like the anus/rectum.
The vagina is a tightly closed canal that is no deeper than ten centimetres on average, and the opening only widens to stretch and lubricates when getting aroused to accommodate the penis. (Like the slow process required of dilating sufficiently for childbirth after many months and even then it’s still extremely excruciating. Or in case of the rectum, where even a large stool passed can rip the sphincter (I’m sure most have experienced.) That’s why it is so painful and injurious to force anything inside the vagina if the woman is not aroused and therefore lubricated enough. Or the unprepared anus/rectum. Even a dry finger. LUBE IS VITAL in anal sex. Many too assume that male ‘sexual arousal’ is necessary for forcible rape to take place, sorry it’s not, anything can trigger an ejection, even against their will or in anger, and few men or even women consider the complex physiological mechanisms that make sexual intercourse possible for women, like lubrication, engorgement, retraction of the cervix, etc. in the first place. Hence the ‘foreplay’ requisite some men find so exasperating not knowing exactly why it’s needed and simply grab the lube. Many women say it’s painful even if wanted or aroused. That’s why so many are left unsatisfied and hardly reach orgasm while the man has long gone to sleep.
And don’t forget, most men have erection problems by the age of forty in the first place, and I also doubt any ‘rapist’ would take some Viagra along with him and then wait till it kicks in. So, unless the victim is unconscious, highly sedated/intoxicated, restrained and/or threatened physically and/or verbally into submission, imprisoned or of course injured in some form incapable of fighting and/or escaping, it’s simply impossible. And to ‘just let sex happen’ is not rape either unless out of fear and then visible genital injury will ALWAYS be present. Ergo, most certainly NO rape/sodomy occurred if there were NO physical signs of genital and/or other injuries. So in Ms Geimer’s case, there’s NO chance Polanski raped let alone sodomised her even twice at not the slightest bruises or tearing anywhere. Any doctor would shake his head, and the physician, who had examined her a mere four hours later, did just that calling her bluff; hence no trial and all other counts were dropped. In short, for men, ‘rape’ cannot be the ‘illicit pleasure’, the stolen ‘innocence’ that we see presented again and again in popular, highly uninformed culture and the [feminist-driven] rape baiting media at large. Physiologically, this is an act that is at best extremely uncomfortable, at worst, painful and difficult for the perpetrator, since the penis can be bent, the foreskin tightened severely, and the dry vagina or tight rectum cause more friction.
Try it once unprepared/unaroused, and you’ll see it’s impossible without causing severe pain and visible damage, for both, requiring vital lube even in vaginal let alone anal sex. Anal sex can be practiced without damage and pain, but only with lots of preparation and a relaxed partner. Why then the myth of ‘male gratification’ and how easy it is to get his tackle inside either orifice? Ask all the stupid little sex novelists, or porn stars, portraying wo/men as sex gods, and conversely radical feminists declaring all rapists who invented the entire rape myth. The pain inflicted on the victim, might be just as great as the pain the perpetrator suffers, which is only eased when blood is drawn from severe force always resulting in visible injuries. Meaning, it can be very painful or difficult to penetrate any woman or man who’s unwilling, dry, closed up, frozen up, or conversely struggling, and in general it’s rather hard to find the right orifice in the first place – especially in the dark – many times even in consensual intercourse or in the heat of passion. So, how often does the man need the female to ‘guide’ the penis into herself, or a man into another? Or when the penis slips out again, and s/he needs to guide it back inside? Or you need more lube? Think of it. I blame all those grossly misinforming cross-section diagrams of the female reproductive tract, which portray the vagina as a ‘large cavity’ with a ‘big hole’, just because babies come out of it sometimes.
So, if a woman proclaims she was ‘raped’ or ‘sodomised’, and nothing is consistent with forcible penetration from a medical standpoint and is regarded as admissible proof, let alone is still bunged up with the brown matter and no mess was produced, it simply never happened. That feminists don’t like that fact or for others to be better educated about anal sex, or any sex, is clear, since then they cannot play the pathetic little [sodomy] victims any longer, lie about rape or ‘famous’ men having ‘ravished’ young girls – or of course send innocent men to jail for [also underage] sex, to be raped there. Or, force teenagers like Ms Geimer, who had no clue about anal sex (or she’d not told porkies to the Grand Jury after the cops/mother no doubt ‘persuaded’ her to), in order to be relieved of all sexual responsibilities and complicity. Such dumb sex and highly damaging rape myths in turn enabled liars like Lewis and Vogelhut to cry rape and sexual abuse decades later no doubt for dirty money, who too has no real clue either about how ‘sodomy’ in actuality works. Even with ‘amyl’ and the utterly contraindicative ‘E’ she brought in, which would leave you rather in want to go on the dance floor and say ‘peace’ to everyone, she thought she can just dupe the untutored public. She failed for other reasons, and now she’s deservedly long gone underground in shame, like ex teen prostitute and cocaine addict Lewis. Great examples of exploitative ‘women’s lib’ gone unacceptably sordid. Like the brown matter Polanski would have hit had he really ‘anally raped’ them.
In Ms Geimer’s case, here, for the umpteenth time taken directly from his Grand Jury testimony you can find online on several sites as original court transcript PDF, Dr Larson’s own words, since there are still some idiots out there who say there was anal bruising, or that he said there was, NO THERE WAS NOT. That myth was originally popularised by that repulsive confabulator Kiernan. In fact, the doctor could not even determine whether Ms Geimer had simple vaginal intercourse, and that a mere four hours later. Larson said, “[Simply that] I had no physical evidence. I have no bruises, haematomas, tears of the mucous membrane, areas of irritated mucous membrane for physical findings.” And, when asked if his examination of the anus did find any evidence that would indicate that a penis had even been placed there, he answered, “No, I did not.” END OF. Plus of course, there was no semen found where she had said Polanski had deposited it – inside her anus, all over her back and in her panties – NOT SO. There was no [double] sodomy let alone forcible. Dr Larson was a specialist on sodomy victims and had seen them all and of all ages. Ms Geimer was not one of them. She stated herself that Polanski had said he won’t come inside her once she said not to be on the Pill. So why exactly would he sodomise her when he still ejaculated outside her?
She claimed he climaxed inside her anus and he said he hadn’t, withdrew before climaxing, when there’s no evidence he ever penetrated her even vaginally or had ejaculated into her rectum or all over her back? Even if the doctor had said no ‘force’ was used during intercourse, that alone would mean no rape occurred and most certainly requires lube not to show or hurt, which in turn leaves evidence of the lubricant. There was none. Or any saliva traces left inside or outside her vagina. Ms Geimer said she had a ‘bowel movement’ after she arrived at home her sister ‘confirmed’ with her going to the bathroom after Polanski had left. Ms Geimer stated she had no shower, douche, enema to remove any traces of semen (or faeces) and even then it’s still obvious she had an ’enema’, or douche composed of special ingredients that leaves traces. But, do we know for sure she had a bowel movement? Of course not. However, it would mean Polanski most definitely would have hit on that ‘brown matter’ if they insist on it she had. But he did not or Ms Geimer had felt it, it had hurt her, and the mess is creates is far too obvious – and, any ejaculate would still have been traceable after a dump.
Larson had a real close look up her rectum with a special tool called a sigmoidoscope, which is five centimetres in diameter, thirty centimetres long, blows air into the rectum and colon/intestine, which inflates them, is very unpleasant, helps the physician see better, and even the minutest traces of ejaculate or other matter would still be evident. There were none. There was NOTHING denoting anal rape or even penetration in any form. Non-forcible intercourse is not rape no matter what feminists or others want in this case.Just imagine if she had a really hard and large stool that ripped her sphincter, a mere four hours later that would still have been visible to the powerful sigmoidoscope, and most of all, ‘consistent with forcible penetration’, i.e., anal rape. Unless she of course had told the good doctor truthfully she ripped and had been bleeding for her ‘bowel movement’. Just like sometimes ‘rough sex’ is also consistent with ‘rape’, in the non-discriminate law books that is, not in real life. What’s more, she said he entered her from the front after lifting her legs, twice. THAT is in fact the position most difficult to get any penis inside a butt even if wanted for the curved angle of the rectum, unlike with a very short vagina ‘made’ for this position/entry point.
That would have caused her AND him great pain even with lube simply for the angle, just like lying flat on the back is very difficult to get anything inside a rectum in the first place. Why do you think anal sex toys are always curved and flexible, while a dildo designed exclusively for vaginal stimulation is straight, has no flanged end not to slip inside and vanish upwards into the colon, and is mostly rigid? Because the rectum is curved like the spine and front entry anal intercourse is more difficult than vaginal front entry. The best position is on your knees with your butt in the air, in control and relaxed, even to some for vaginal intercourse – hence, neither Ms Geimer’s nor Vogelhut’s claims of sodomy are in any form credible. Not a chance. Anal sex most of all needs practice, a willing and well-lubed partner, entry must be slow and gentle, and if he’s going the nine-yards on repeat strokes to achieve orgasm, it most certainly needs more special lube like Crisco since even waterbased lube dries up quickly in midstride. If anal intercourse is done from the front, ‘lifting’ the legs alone leads nowhere; legs must be spread wide apart and the pelvis raised for better entry and repeat thrusts. The classic, safest position for anal intercourse is the doggy position, second best is side-by-side – NOT what Ms Geimer or Vogelhut claimed Polanski did to them. It never happened.
The entire thing went bust over this ONE topless photo, because Ms Geimer liked them all and never made her concerns clear to him, and wanted to take some more, but didn’t explain they could be topless, and when her mother talked to her once Polanski had left, she asked her why she didn’t tell her about the topless picture. And her response was, by her own Grand Jury testimony, that she knew she wouldn’t let her have any more taken, that she didn’t feel like they were bad and that she thought he was going to crop them at her shoulders and that she really wanted to be in the French Vogue Hommes – just like Polanski has said he would crop them and had made that possible. After that, her mother destroyed her future in the modelling industry rather than in fact ask what type of pictures he would want to take, by turning it into ‘rape’ for her age. In fact, she should have approached Polanski right afterwards and see what he had to say about the events and in his defence, after Ms Geimer’s own sister overheard how she told her boyfriend before he arrived, that ‘she had a Quaalude’, as in taken one, not that Polanski ‘gave’ her one as she made it out later, or a piece of it.
Ms Geimer had said herself she had taken it with a swallow of the champagne, which she could at any rate have refused no matter her age. In the pictures Polanski took of her swimming around in the Jacuzzi she appears perfectly clear and happy, not ‘drugged’, let alone ‘afraid’, while in the background the wheels were set in motion to end up in court over exactly these photos, not any ‘sex’, that was only the vehicle to end it all and cash in for her age. There was no verbal or physical force involved at no such words from her, and Polanski did not hurt or intimidate her by her own admission. NO rapist would perform ‘cuddliness’ first she had claimed he had, but rather rape them at the first opportunity. Not kiss and caress them, ask if they’re ok. Her sister foremost made a fuss over the pictures, and then the mother, could have been jealous she had slept with Polanski and a real chance at becoming famous, her mother suddenly cut short. Had she not made up certain things in places, since, where it matches Polanski’s, the others’ statements, bare evidence and only then is fact, she had become famous other than for being ‘Polanski’s ‘victim’’. And even that was up to her since she need not made herself known decades later in any form. And now it’s all far too late for the both of them to see this ended with his exoneration.
Because of subversive manipulators like Cooley, who in fact misled Espinoza by telling him the Swiss had not asked for the documents – when they had done so May 6th and the US Department of Justice responsible for extradition matters and even the press knew about they had, refused it May 13th, right after Judge Villar, who had allowed for the deposition, sealed them, and right after Polanski had spoken up publicly May 2nd, saying: “This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary filmmaker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time. (I.e., Gunson and Dalton in Zenovich’s ‘Wanted and Desired’.) I took no part in that project, either directly or indirectly. The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided to request my extradition from Switzerland, a country I have been visiting regularly for over 30 years without let or hindrance. I can remain silent no longer because the American authorities have just decided, in defiance of all the arguments and depositions submitted by third parties, not to agree to sentence me in absentia even though the same Court of Appeal recommended the contrary.” Indeed, that was back in December 2009. Better still, on the very day that Polanski was arrested, an appellate panel was already deciding, on the exceedingly rare issuance of an aptly named ‘extraordinary writ’, whether to intervene at the trial court level and reverse Espinoza’s earlier denial of Polanski’s motion to dismiss the case due to judicial misconduct.
The Court of Appeal took the rare step of requesting opposition from prosecutors, and was in the process of scheduling oral argument on Polanski’s latest appeal. Then, he was arrested despite his frequent stays in Gstaad, foiling that crucial move outright, raising more questions about fairness and ‘timing’. Other than being pure coincidence that the UBS wanted to pawn him off to the LA courts as appeasement, and that the Zürich Film Festival with a specially dedicated retrospective in his honour had requested his official appearance, and everyone knew he’d be there, easy to ‘nab’ him in a humiliating show of force. Since the Swiss had put a nasty wedge into Cooley’s attempt to use Polanski as his show pony to become AG, he of course resorted to some even nastier smear campaign after Lewis was brought in to influence the unfounded extradition LA court style already, by presenting us ‘Vogelhut’ – only for both to deservedly sink without a trace in the disgusting mire they had created. What Cooley is up to right now we’ll hear about sooner or later, and maybe he’ll present us with a third ‘victim’, to give us some more sordid lies about Polanski’s sex life. Since no one believed ‘big hat’s’ lies either, he’ll have to come up with something much more spectacular and ‘convincing’. Maybe a ‘boy’ Polanski had ‘abused’ would be an idea (to echo Jackson’s accusers), since he seems to be such a lover of rear entry sex – in their dirty fantasies. All because a certain teenager had made it up over three decades ago.
Continued in Roman Polanski – He Said She Said They Said – An Op End Case Analysis Part Four – found HERE.