10
Jan
10

ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – AN OP END CASE ANALYSIS – PART TWO

Continued from Roman Polanski – He Said She Said They Said – An Op End Case Analysis Part One, found HERE.

House arrest has been used since ancient times as an alternative to criminal imprisonment when [their] safety could not be granted, often imposed upon people who were either too powerful [politically] or too influential to be placed in an actual prison. Rulers, religious leaders, and political figures, or today’s ‘celebrities’, whose imprisonment might spur a revolt by loyalists and/or of course the usual blind haters, would be confined to their homes where they could live safely but without any influence other than through their lawyers. House arrest also refers to electronic monitoring programs (paid for by the detainee in fact) in which an offender is sentenced to home confinement instead of prison, since this type of sentence is a cost-effective and humane way of detaining people who pose no threat to others and consequently do not need to be imprisoned at the state’s expense. Nice – but murder suspects can go free on bail.

Furthermore, there are rather unclear passages in the Swiss-US treaty. Since Polanski was made to sit out a term of 42 days, but to some it apparently never came to any actual sentencing for Rittenband’s judicial transgressions, yet everyone else believed his term at Chino was it as so agreed on by all concerned parties, unde r the treaty extradition requests can only be made for when the US wants to (a) prosecute someone, or, in case they fled, (b) for the escaped person to sit out the remainder of this term in the US, as the US maintains is the case. Since Polanski had been successfully prosecuted, then that request would apply to the remaining 48 days. However, under the treaty, for judges to take the request into consideration, the detainee would have to be facing a jail term of six months or more. Polanski was never officially convicted, as only pleaded guilty before he did some time months later, that plea was reneged on, his entire sentence would have been three months the officials cut in half not to entail more time, and is unlawful to say one thing and then do another. Since he never was sentenced in absentia nor officially to probation, we find ourselves with a legal loophole in the treaty that could be exploited and he could be extradited to face not his flight, but a retrial. Let’s see if the Swiss will spot it.

The US could seek to commute the 42 days US and 70 days Swiss jail time, which amounts to roughly four months, exceeding the 90 days Rittenband had in mind, whereas the by now over two months house arrest, apparently cannot be counted. While we know the prosecution didn’t press for any jail time on the family’s wishes, the judge in contrast was more than willing to send him down for the rest of his life after threatening him with the 48 days and self-deportation, while violent rapists cannot be imprisoned for half than what Polanski in fact thought was the maximum he might face for his unlawful sex offence. In fact, they continue/d refusing to sentence Polanski in his absence for unknown reasons. In 1997 a certain LA judge was preparing a deal with Polanski’s legal team, which would be based on the original plea deal, and see Polanski’s time at Chino turned into time served and he would be released on bail. The deal fell through because Polanski refused to allow the proceedings to be televised. However, his legal representatives can bring this up with the Swiss judges as a sign that the US are not, seeking extra jail term. The treaty in fact disallows to even ask the Swiss to extradite anyone who was to be sentenced less than six months.

While a certain ‘ambitious’ DA  i.e., Steve Cooley, could argue, that his extradition relates primarily to the prosecution of fleeing justice, if Swiss judges would accept an extradition request for one crime (fleeing), when it is clear that the real reason for the extradition is the original charge brought upon Polanski, and is the one for which they truly would like him be extradited is another question. Even if the US were after him for evading ‘justice’, there’s the unresolved issue over the judge’s judicial misconduct, and that this then directly led Polanski, having had his right to fair proceedings denied, to flee US soil. The continued claims by the judge that judicial decision can only be made when Polanski himself appears in a US court, a decision which itself is currently being appealed at a higher court asking for the judge’s motivations as to what exactly prevents a judgement being made without Polanski being present – nothing in  fact – will also weigh in Polanski’s favour. Besides, in order for him to be convicted of fleeing, the charge has to appear on the extradition request but in fact doesn’t, and is of course the DA’s ‘hasty mistake’, since he would love to try him on all the dropped counts too, but can’t once a plea was struck and only that one count can be sentenced. People keep saying that he got a sweet deal, obviously not realising that the DAs decide what someone pleads to, not the defendant, and that only to the one count most applicable at no, or conversely already sufficient evidence that requires no trial.

Polanski himself was able to successfully sue a US magazine through UK courts conducted from a French hotel studio, which most likely triggered his international arrest warrant, so there is no reason why he could not be tried in a Swiss or even French court without him ever needing to re/appear in the US. Polanski had sued  Vanity Fair magazine in London for libel after a 2002 article in the magazine recounted a claim by the editor of  Harper’s, that Polanski had made sexual advances towards a young model as he was travelling to Sharon Tate’s funeral, claiming that he could make her ‘the next Sharon Tate’. The court permitted Polanski to testify via a video link, and he made English legal history as the first claimant to give evidence that way. The residing Law Lord said: “Despite his fugitive status, a fugitive from justice is entitled to invoke the assistance of the court and its procedures in protection of his civil rights.” So much for the UK’s High Court’s recognition of ‘civil  rights’, which in the US of course doesn’t exist, since the LA courts keep demanding Polanski to appear before their bench to litigate their very own growing judicial misconduct that had driven him from their court in the first place. During the trial, it was claimed that the alleged scene at the famous New York City restaurant Elaine’s could not have taken place on the date given, because Polanski only dined at this restaurant three weeks later. Also, the unearthed Norwegian ex-model disputed accounts, saying Polanski had never spoken to her at all. Polanski was awarded £225,000 damages by the  High Court in London and publisher.

Others have been deported to their native country by the Swiss to face proceedings led by the US. And, this in turn keeps a possibility open for France to later request for his extradition to continue the proceedings in a French court, or even possibly the Polish government to lodge such an [extra] extradition request to conduct any legal proceedings there. So now there are several appeal opportunities for the original verdict, which then go to the higher court, and then another higher court dismissing that, before it goes back to the lower court only to end up at the higher court again for an ultimate appeal. These will be highly technical and longwinded discussions, where it is likely that any lacunae in the treaty and in Swiss law will be heavily scrutinised. That’s a lot of lobbying, appeal possibilities, and in general, a very lengthy extradition procedure, which could take years beyond Polanski’s or even his original attorney’s advanced age. At this stage, Polanski is a political pawn trapped within legal wranglings between sovereignties, fuelling pro and contra lobbyist battles to satisfy the greedy public, while much more important cases are put on hold.

The legitimacy of the extradition request has major flaws to start with. The very aims of criminal law are usually stated as revenge, deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation. Revenge is universally accepted as illegitimate. In Polanski’s case, none of the legitimate aims seem applicable, since he has not committed any crimes in the three decades he had been living in France and Switzerland, no matter how many haters claim he had or will commit more heinous crimes. The objective of ‘deterring’ him from committing a future crime therefore carries no force either. Nor do punishment and rehabilitation seem applicable, since both are meant to be salutary, not vindictive. Their purpose is to enable the prisoner to return to society and to function in a social setting without committing more crimes. Since Polanski has been living in Paris and Switzerland for three decades as a law-abiding citizen, made films in open daylight in other countries and no one considered him any danger, those objectives do not come into play either. What remains is revenge.

The more than dubious circumstances of his sudden arrest after more than three decades, and the over-reactionary nature of the media campaigns against him, are clear evidence that the judge committed serious procedural errors and that this has become a politically motivated crusade. And of course, money. True justice is the backbone of any civilised society, but, with biased journalism feeding the public more lies to sell more magazines, justice has all but become obsolete. If the US succeeded to intimidate a country like Switzerland they bank with for tax evasion, putting pressure on the authorities so that it delivers an old man for an old sex offence, it wouldn’t be about justice, and thirty-two years after the fact, things have to be viewed very critically and through the eyes of the times, not today’s. Let’s not forget, the abuse of state power is always more dangerous to the wider public than the actions of any individual. That is how dangerous precedents are created, asking for arbitrary punishment of people by using unconstitutional sex-laws, and does not stop when Polanski finally would have been made a very ugly example of.

On the contrary, the power of the state would be enhanced with his fall and/or en/forced punishment. The prosecutors would be enabled to continue acting strongly against those who are truly defenceless just to appease the public, by saying, “Look at what we did to a rich and in/famous man like Polanski. What chance do you think you poor nobodies have?” It’s nothing but polarised psychological blackmail to keep the populace in check, playing right into people’s everyday problems and fears they have no control over – except their ‘family values’, and what better tactics than to bring in a high-profile celebrity they can at least verbally lynch. While outraged petty little middle-class feminists keep demanding Polanski’s head to keep the real criminals and homegrown torturers and assassins left untouched, Polanski of all people truly poses a potential threat to any social cohesion, US or otherwise. Did I mention double standards?

After it had been reported that the three judges who rejected his dismissal on December 10th on the grounds of the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’, which effectively prevents fugitives to argue their case without re/appearing in the US courts, that was a very sly way of getting around any dismissal for good and only dragged it out even longer. But, if the Swiss would decide on extradition, he can appeal against that too. As of Christmas, after certain parties had a closer look at the shameful backroom dealings and broken promises by the late judge, said they were ‘disturbed’ that the attorney’s office had not addressed these and other accusations of ‘profoundly unethical conduct’ by a certain former prosecutor Rittenband had colluded with, they expressed their dismay and suddenly offered him a possible ruling to be sentenced in absentia, where the integrity of law and justice are more important to uphold than to seek any individual’s punishment after all these years for his offence or his fleeing, who had already served his agreed time. Lo and behold, a full 360° U-turn.

If Polanski accepts this deal many indeed welcome, he would have to write a letter asking the supervising judge to proceed without him. In effect, now the 42 days stretch at Chino could be accepted again as part of the original sentence, since Rittenband had ‘mis/used’ it as punishment rather than ‘diagnostic’ already, plus, his 70 days stay at the Swiss remand prison, and will even exceed the original 90 days by three weeks. Suddenly we’re back in 1997 when the judge had offered him the same, had he only not wanted to play Rittenband – live – and it all could have been resolved long ago a second time over. Less painfully, damaging and vindictive. Let’s hope that certain DA will be prosecuted for his reprehensible misconduct then, and his ambitious modern day version thoroughly humiliated for his heavy-handed arrogance. Maybe then he’ll finally get cracking with the current rape cases to keep him in office.

If any case was as controversial as tragic for both parties, then this is the one. Good for a very melodramatic movie too, right in the vein of his own films’ poignant themes of overwhelming tragedies, political intrigue and corruption. If he’s lucky, he can do it himself and I for one wish him all the best, his family, and Ms Geimer. If you however cannot share that graceful sentiment, maybe you should think twice before calling for the noose by understanding both parties wanting to pull together to end this, you have no right to deny them, or again the wider picture they haven’t painted is bound to let them drown for the same reasons of shameful ignorance, scandalous political manipulations and detrimental public hatred we have enough of in this indeed so corrupt and bigoted world already. Of course, the haters ‘hate’, it’s their life, void of love and compassion. Funny how Polanski himself never became a hater, having been exposed to much hatred throughout his entire life, all expressed in his films, which the haters hate even more. Or his success.

And while you’re at it, just burn his films why don’t you, like in the good old book and art burning days of the Third Reich he barely had escaped. In fact, after he had received his Pianist Award, some Deep Southerners thought it a good idea to burn his film and poster of it in a typical show of brain-dead lunacy, before the small-town Sheriff pointed them to the fact that this was a pro Holocaust film and would entirely defeat their objective of blind retaliation with dumb hypocrisy so famous down there. Such could never happen in any civilised part of the world. On a more absurd note, Polanski has been ordered by the courts not to ‘poke’ anyone on Facebook once under house arrest at his Chalet and smells of clear double innuendo. Or of course, just a joke thrown out into the gullible blogosphere by some satirist. I wonder how many fell for it. Or all the other more serious allegations and downright vile garbage. Besides, after thirty odd years he’s far past all his sexual exploits ever since he settled down again, and a different man altogether since many years. He long has evolved along with the times, and said himself, that his recklessness in those days had caused himself much heartache and ultimate rethinking.

The very strong-willed entity which has survived many tragedies and shocking public abuse since the murder of his second wife that is Roman Polanski, must be kept separate from the tormented artiste besides, no matter his deeply psychological and uneasy films are the creative and painful mirrors of his personal, his very traumatic past par excellence, showing the perverse powers of man over man and their traumas suffered. His powerful portrayals of rendered powerless people being sucked into uncontrollable terror and ensuing paranoia, is of pure genius and a clear reflection of his and all our lives many cannot escape or control. Next to black comedy and absurdist cinema filled with perfectly picked bizarre characters, thrown together by circumstance as a brilliant concept of situation voyeurism, which has surreal allures to the later Monty Python genius. As a filmmaker, he is exceptional in his ability to produce works with a disturbing mood and atmosphere of suspense that is impossible to replicate. His hallmark is to utilise seemingly everyday events and situations and then expose the undercurrent of evil that lies beneath; he explores the thin line between madness and sanity with compelling expertise and intuitive mastery. Polanski once said, “Fantasy is always going to be successful, it keeps people’s minds out of an often painful reality”. That’s what so many do in his case – prefer their fantasies they have about him.

“I like shadows in movies, I don’t like them in life.” The shadows that had engulfed him for so long in his life, have never left him. Unlike those in his own movies, one can simply switch off. His very early work marked by random violence done to random people in random situations, is as innovative as it shockingly realistic. Had he lived a less tragedy riddled life, his diverse art would no doubt be less absorbing and controversial. In that respect, we have to regard his critically acclaimed work with even more esteem, and that he literality suffered for it even onscreen besides. Even engaging in his very own stunts, or bloodletting. His visual trickery and unusual hands-on approach behind the lens left many breathless and with much deserved praise, to achieve a different, his very own cinema of black humour and black tragedy. His much inflated notoriety sadly having overshadowed his bold work at times, with recurrent themes of obsession exposing the dark side of wo/man many simply won’t acknowledge to exist, it all too often has been confused with his own character as it suits them in contrast. And to quote him: “My films are the expression of momentary desires. I follow my instinct, but in a disciplined way.” Indeed, and his moral integrity has been found more pronounced than in most people.

Of course, many scenes were undoubtedly taken from his own life, as seen in his gory Macbeth or the haunted Tenant and the riveting Pianist, but they don’t lend themselves to blindly ‘mis/judge’ him as a person. Only what this person has seen and suffered. And he had seen rape, brutal and irrespective of age committed by the invading Russians, had seen brutal violence and death. He had seen dead bodies strewn everywhere, body parts, and killed and suffering animals half eaten, with screaming victims on both sides of the bloody war that was WWII. He had witnessed cold murder in front of his eyes as a child, and when he was eight, a Nazi soldier just passing, took a pot-shot at him just for fun, but missed him, maybe deliberately, maybe just to scare him since he could have ‘tried’ again, and he hid out in the fields deep into the night scared stiff. Then he was attacked by a fellow man as a teen out to rob him and left for dead in a bunker, with a fractured skull. And, if one might believe some sources having repeated this, has a metal plate inserted in his skull ever since. And, according to a journalistic source regarding, the attacker had in fact raped him for good measure, who was later hanged for multiple murders in Krakow and only Polanski had survived his killing spree.

Since Polanski only mentions the attack in his autobiography, but leaves out one or two other fairly important accounts he had stated otherwise publicly, one can only speculate this harrowing assault to be true, and maybe didn’t want to be reminded, let alone do it to someone else. Polanski saw what pain and violence was and did to people, he would never do it to others. And, he had seen and felt extreme pain and great hunger like many had then, and only endured it by escaping into his world of art and film. And, he had almost died again in a car crash with his driver friend in the Fifties leaving him with another fractured skull trauma, drifting in and out of consciousness once at a hospital. And he had seen blood. His own, and that of plenty others. He had smelled it all around him, even in his own home many years later after his wife and friends had been butchered, and every time one speaks of Sharon, the pain returns to his eyes. Yet he had survived these horrors, is a very private and loving, complex and tortured man, who expressed these experiences in his art to stay sane, protect his feelings. But then all geniuses do, or those who had experienced such atrocities unfolding before their eyes, only to be tormented some more by blind hatred and jealousy.

He is someone who reflects his inner world through the eyes of his pioneering and utterly uncompromising artistry, as he unflaggingly deflects his outer world through a face of inscrutable nonchalance, not to suffer its more than unjust and brutal dealings with him. After dodging Nazi officers, his mother was gassed at Auschwitz and father sent to an Austrian concentration camp but survived, Polanski bounced from filthy shelter to uncaring foster families, to hardly any school to film schools in a culturally restricted communism, the national and international events that influenced his rising fascination with film. His father had paid a family to look after Roman and he was moved from one place to another doing anything he could to survive. There were times of play amongst the ruined buildings of Poland with other children, yet he would always be a witness to brutality and depravity as the war continued witnessing scenes of inhumanity. He had to forage for food like so many, was left to his own devices, and later had recurrent nightmares of his traumatic past deep into adulthood. These scarring events inevitably created this intense and egotistical shelled up character to survive it from the ‘outside’, resulting in his inability to invest emotionally in [older] women and endurance of more abuse. He taught himself languages and everything related to film into absolute mastership. He fashioned himself into this pleasure-seeking artist obsessed with film making, perfectly cemented by his eternally youthful looks and diminutive stature, attracting the right followers with his immense sexual charms and ‘foreign’ joie de vive.

Women loved him for his love of women, his childlike fascinating with film and story telling, and his unprecedented talents. He is a tragic figure of his brutal childhood legacy forced on him, which he redesigned as best he could, played his charades as a youth to take himself out of the harsh reality. Only to end up with indifferent uncles who mentally abused and occasionally lashed him with a belt until he screamed in pain and tears, for his daydreaming to endure the misery around him only to receive more. He never really received any vital love from anyone when it was most important, let alone his cold father and shallow stepmother who never were around much later, while constantly seeking more casual sensual pleasures later as compensation, especially after Sharon’s death that had finally struck a fatal blow. His is an amazing example of the tragicomic masks and safety barriers of hedonism he set up for his self-protection to suffer no further ills, shrugged off all seen and felt horrors and pain not to hang himself one day, recreated his own world around the cruel world that never gave him a break from day one, lost in endless challenges and tragic tribulations. His is an incredible paradigm of shining survival, his keen instinct and iron will to defeat all odds that made him as expressive as an artist, as hypersexual as the man, so that no one could touch him deeper emotionally, or hurt him again.

His films are a clear expression of his own evolution as a man and/or filmmaker already, that of the sexual times, and his own extremely complex background. Though not strictly ‘autobiographical’, he used his characters as a projection of his eternal guilt of survival, who then will either perish or prevail. His overcoming his own traumas by first childlike/rapidly maturing (war/ghetto) distance, then ‘swinging’ overconfidence and superior skills/knowledge, and then total ignorance to public opinion once settled down finally are all clearly there, or in his interviews most don’t know of either. He doesn’t owe them anything. On the contrary. Going from the surreal, paranoid and claustrophobic Tenant to a suddenly beautifully serene and landscapesque Tess, the themes of misconceived exchanges between ‘young and old’, culture and belonging, are always present in his films, which ultimately goes wrong for them ending in either tragedy/inanity, or maturity/survival. Just like his earlier lure of the younger flesh was rather interest in how a young woman could be vulnerable and vengeful at the same time, with the capacity of cruelty. As seen in the dark vision of Repulsion – and Geimer’s real life case.

His restless mind gave form to his disturbing celluloid fantasies to reflect his unprecedented experiences, as he gave his willing body to those who wanted it, to deflect his fragile feelings that could leave more invisible scars. He knew many exploited him, only to be used by even more shallow publicity seekers and the ever more abusive and downright nasty media. Even Huston said he’s a depressed man, and his probation officers. I’m sure they knew better. A current passionate discussion having erupted on the blogosphere concerning, if his defenders are in denial, one could argue, the only ones that are in denial are those who unequivocally deny him his voice of defence, since he never had the chance to exonerate himself in a trial. Ignorant people keep believing only her old story despite no hard proof and her later continuous pleas to forgive him. No, in fact the only proof they had already then was that the medical and circumstantial evidence didn’t even support her allegations she later more and more came to downplay, saying amongst other things, “He didn’t hurt me. (Indeed, since dry [double] sodomy DOES hurt and rips you apart, so much for that already unproven allegation.) He wasn’t forceful. (Just like his evaluation officials had stated.) It wasn’t rape.” Quite.

I’m certain people instinctively gather that his past had shaped him, like it would any man, and that’s why they’re so adamant to dismiss it as important factors to explain his predilection for younger woman. If people keep denying him his past and/or ordeals, then NO ONE else’s have any significance either, and I’m sure no one would accept that for themselves. He is a visionary enfant terrible of past times everyone wanted and desired, and then simply destroyed once he broke their bigoted conventions and dared their narrow-minded morals. There are simply too many too quick to judge and too slow to walk in the other’s shoes not even being half his age, and it’s about high time to stop the public hangings and blood lust from ignorant and sanctimonious moralists, or obsessive ultra feminists who by now openly called to boycott his films in a pathetic show of McCarthyism witch-hunt fanaticism. One thing people say is, that she’s seriously disturbed for helping his case due to the ‘trauma’, and that he needs to be punished for that. Funny how Ms Geimer didn’t consider herself as traumatised, let alone today, and thought the abusive public ‘punishment’ he has suffered over the decades as excessive.

It completely eludes me, how people can state, that, even is she wants the case be forgotten, it is ‘still upsetting’ to quite a few people and ‘justice must be served’? What ‘people’? Those who didn’t even know of the ‘case’ before he was arrested? Those who weren’t even born then? Those who think is it civilised to respond to one apparent wrong with an even greater wrong, rather than find the truth in an objective manner? You don’t dictate any ‘justice’ like that or by calling for him being gang raped, or that he should have been taken out to a field and burned alive years ago. Or, to top it all, that his daughter should be gang raped for his atonement. Such utterly revolting voices are beyond help, like those demanding such sickening punishment or even his death beyond any common sense, and are redolent of exactly such fetid Nazi sentiments. They must be replaced by sympathetic voices of reason and justice, not blind revenge. But that would be humane.

You’d be like Manson and his degenerate Family in fact and in serious need of help when passing such unreasonable judgements, and according to the endless stream of such vile comments I alone have read, they are worse criminals than Polanski ever could be. It’s called race hatred and is punishable by law. Ever since Tate’s shocking murder, the US most of all suffer/ed from dangerous but typical delusion that Polanski was and still is fair game to be ab/used for any blind crusade of moral outcry, and believe that absolutely nothing of his life should be accredited, and to smear him mercilessly should be an honourable duty whenever possible in their gloriously self-righteous self/obsession. People saying, “Just tie him up in a prison for a year so he can be raped repeatedly and then kill him,” are simply put, scum, blindly condoning worse crimes than the one they think was committed. Alarming. And if one watches closely, the US will destroy itself soon, in a blazing show of gun-obsessed self-defeating Puritanism having declared another ‘legal’ [Internet] war on him. Or others. There is sadism behind Puritanism, cruelty behind these damaging anti-sex laws that enforce it with perverse relish to punish something that should be enjoyed without guilt.

The sum of a man’s life has to be weighed by the balance of ALL he did, and any objective consideration of Polanski would more than qualify to make him eligible for clemency compared to countless other people, or those calling for his castration and whatnot other painful tortures. Whoever takes no charity in his life, his own suffering, speaks of and demands such insanities done to him, is all but void of the tiniest shred of kind humanity. All civility murdered by irrational hatred. Ms Geimer in contrast has that gracious compassion and important understanding they all desperately need to acquire, to let it finally rest and stop the insane demonising and persecution by people who have absolutely nothing to do with either of them. Let alone what they both had shared, and the only thing Polanski said he regretted, was what happened afterwards. Of course, as one might expect, none of the media reports ever mentioned anything to his defence, let alone that the medical evidence would throw serious doubts on the [double] sodomy claims, despite the fact that they were/are readily available online. The same applies to articles that claim that she never changed her version of him having all this done to her, but neglect to mention that she in fact went back on her own words more than once, is openly campaigning for him now, and is of course to maintain a one-sided picture.

It’s nothing but a concerted effort to mercilessly smear him, omitting vital facts, manipulated by the DA’s office that ‘allowed’ floating her testimony, to precondition the greedy public, which is blind enough not to question them, the timing, his sudden arrest, her continuous pleading and inconsistent interviews. With all the renewed attention, apart from the endless stream of incorrect and wishful thinking headlines and comments like, ‘convicted [and/or confessed/admitted sodomy] (and/or drugged child or even baby) rapist’ [or of course the favourite, paedophile] or the usual contemptuous slur not allowing any room for his side, of course some publication was bound to post pictures of his family out and about in Gstaad within dubious and the usual inflammatory context, and he is suing several French magazine now over breach of privacy. He might be immune to his own continuous public abuse, but when it comes to his children and wife he will strike out. According to the law he still has a right to privacy, especially since he is staying with his wife and their children. According to the editors the pictures were taken on public land outside his home, but French [or Swiss] privacy laws still prohibit paparazzi photos taken on public beaches [for possible nudity] and in shopping malls, other than their private property obviously. The lawsuits asking for ca. £700 000 ($1.1 million) will be heard January 12th.

As of December 28th, Polanski has finally broken his silence. Through a French friend, he published an open letter on his journal to thank his plenty supporters from all over the world, and according to the typical derisive comments, it looks like the dumb haters hate that even more. Poor souls. Ms Geimer stated often enough that she would like Polanski freed and forgiven, and so should you. For now, a court representative said an LA judge has scheduled another hearing for January 6th, to convene a status conference on the case. The judge did not say if he would schedule an evidentiary hearing, to determine whether there was misconduct by Rittenband or prosecutors and others during the original proceedings, but hopefully will if he doesn’t want to face the same allegations of procedural improprieties, or all those still alive got away with it. He suggested two legal options that could lead to his freedom now: file a motion to be sentenced in absentia, or drop the extradition fight, return to the US and be sentenced in person, most likely not resulting in additional jail time. I doubt Polanski will choose the second.

As of January 7th Polanski’s lawyer have presented a letter from Polanski, saying, “I request the judgement be pronounced against me in my absence,” which was dated December 26th and signed in Gstaad. The Superior Court judge accepted the letter, but said he wants to see legal briefs to be presented by January 15th, stating why sentencing Polanski in absentia would be appropriate, for the DA’s chance then to possibly appeal against that by January 19th. Now the next big question is, what his possible sentence could be, and another hearing is scheduled for January 22nd. And if he were to either sentence him for longer, Polanski’s team can in fact appeal against that again, or have the case reopened [if Polanski withdraws his plea], which no one wants, and while the Swiss still ponder his extradition, according to a spokesman, it could be January or even February before they will come up with any concrete decision.

This entire case is one big mess ever since Rittenband had his own ideas, and as of January 8th, Polanski’s lawyers are seeking a quick ruling on the absentia request, for a potential witness, who was not named soon to become less readily available to the court. Since only Polanski, 76, and his original attorney, Dalton 80, are both of very advance age by now, it can only be either. Unless it’s the colluding DA about Polanski’s age to die any day, Wells, or the original prosecutor, Gunson. But the judge also said that there is no rush, since any statement could be recorded ‘for posterity’. True, and a good sign that judge Espinoza takes his time and doesn’t want to repeat his predecessors’ ‘hasty oversights’. If that would be Dalton, his loyal fight to clear his client however has failed, unless the judge truly wants this retried to give him that very chance as he had stated, and in fact should. But Dalton has a son working on the case alongside him who could take over.

Espinoza has the ultimate authority to withdraw the court’s approval of Polanski’s guilty plea, whether or not Polanski himself requests him to do so, and can reject his absentia request the same. So let’s see if he does so, which is the only way to prove his innocence. If the dying party would be Polanski himself, which I doubt, it would be just another tragedy striking, if he were to leave us and his devastated family at the very event of a final ‘judgement’, left a most tragic figure of terrible miscarriage of racism fuelled in/justice, after dubious allegations by a girl sitting before a sympathetic panel giving her highly equivocal accounts that were never tried in any court to be substantiated, and the following disturbing public abuse hardly anyone has ever suffered. Funny how people vocally protest racism motivated treatment of others, but in his case of course couldn’t care less happily doing it themselves. Of course, it could be anyone else, since the ‘grave illness’ of the ‘witness’ is not necessarily age related.

According to a ruling as of January 13th, Polanski’s lawyer who handles the lawsuits, announced, his right to privacy was violated by photos in the French press, which showed his family and him upon his return to his Chalet in Gstaad. They were an invasion of his and his family’s right to privacy, since, under the house arrest terms he has the right to actually leave his home to venture out within his property, not only stay inside his Chalet, but of course, with the media vultures hovering around, that would only cause more trouble. The man is effectively a prisoner in his own home. Many delight themselves in that fact, while others find it more than disturbing. Funny thing is, no one cares about someone like the former President of Israel, who was accused of much more serious rape and sexual harassment, who committed two vicious assaults on his subordinate when he served as Minister of Tourism in 1998. Or of course anyone else, publicly known or not, committing serious crimes right now under their very noses.

As of January 16th, Polanski has been awarded one of the lawsuits against the French press, and the others will be ruled on later. The LA prosecution team has lodged their own brief as to why Polanski should not be sentenced in absentia, so let’s see how Espinoza will handle their arguments by the next week, since he can take them into consideration, but not as any directive. Time, and most of all too many people have not been kind to Roman Polanski, and in a most unsettling way, the once so human belief of innocent until proven guilty never occurred to many in this case, just because a less than credible thirteen year old, whose boyfriend had testified that she ‘always acted’, had cried rape and sodomy, both of which could never be proven by medical evidence even then, or in any trial that never was. And if Polanski will be really sentenced in absentia, those who believe/d her highly unsound statements, will never cease to see him as this sordid child rapist he never was, while those who don’t, will forever lament that he did not, or could no longer, take up a last chance and fight for a new trial to finally exonerate himself.

Now as of January 19th, after the Swiss had requested that the prosecutors’ account of the case be ‘totally transparent’, including a description of claims of wrongdoing by officials, which they obviously failed to do, no surprise there, the treaty between the US and Switzerland clearly states, fugitives who would serve less than six months in jail are not subject to any extradition. Looks like Cooley has no first clues after he thought Polanski’s plea was ‘airtight’ when it was not, or that the other counts are back on the table, when that would only be after his plea were withdrawn by a judge. But of course, he knows exactly what went on and simply tried to tweak specifics for the Swiss, since he was already thirty when the case broke and in the course of becoming a by now very bent DA even the Californians want to get rid of again. Polanski has been in prison now far beyond his original 90 days Rittenband wanted, and his house arrest cannot be counted. Unless the Swiss let him go, he’s stuck in limbo. Cooley & Co is playing his sick game again – for reelection, and the prosecuting DA Dave Walgren, is no better with his ‘child rapist’ rhetoric. So much for Polanski having once more been proven right, that the US ‘legal’ system is corrupt to its very foundations. It’s happening again.

As of January 21st, Ms Geimer announced that she too wants Polanski sentenced to time served. As if that would make any difference. Let’s see what Espinoza will announce by the 22nd. But, whatever his ruling, it would have no immediate impact because either side would likely appeal his decision, ending in more time wasted. As of the 22nd, Espinoza rejected the request by Polanski to be sentenced in his absence, just as I thought, for one being unable to judge on a case he never heard any defence of, and insisted that he must return to LA. After the usual mud slinging between the DAs, of which highly unprofessional Walgren complained that Polanski’s lawyer Chad Hummel kept returning with arguments that had already been rejected, i.e. the failure to supply the Swiss with all the facts, and then some, he referred to Polanski with a litany of names. Calling him ‘this criminal’, which he so far hasn’t in fact been officially declared, ‘this fugitive’, which is the only thing he’s guilty of after his plea, and his favourite, ‘this child rapist’, which he of course had never been found guilty of in any form, he however drew a deserved rebuke from Espinoza finally, warning him, ‘that this [behaviour] is not helpful’, and rather not inflame this case. Quite.

Of course, the next thing that’s going to happen is Polanski’s team will appeal, and then the prosecution will appeal, and then we’re back at square one. Espinoza said he was acting to protect ‘the dignity of the court’ by wanting to see Polanski back in court, and there I was wondering why no one had done so in the three decades prior by tackling all the legal transgressions first, or why he even bothered offering him the absentia option when he never had any intentions of granting it. Looks like Espinoza is going through the motions of what the law allows him to do and doesn’t really want to see to any justice done, just stringing Polanski along like Rittenband had since two years now in fact. First he declined him the case be dropped, and her in fact, then he demands him to appear on the grounds of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, then he turns it all around by offering him the absentia option once they noticed the shocking amount of judicial failings, she in fact supported, then he refuses to act on it, and now he wants him back again ‘to preserve the integrity of the law’, which had let Polanski down several times now already to begin with. No surprises there.

No, the reason he refused the sentence is clear: Polanski foremost could appeal it, and automatically forces the courts to deal with all the old backroom dealings they cannot ignore anymore, to actually correct all the judicial improprieties committed over three decades now. He seems ‘competent’ enough by not rushing things, obviously knows of Rittenband’s shady ‘intentions’ and the il/legal shenanigans back then. Let’s see what he’ll do next. Or rather not, since to tackle all the mess from three decades is a daunting task I’m sure he’ll rather give a miss. Of course, if the Swiss will block extradition, and I believe they will, at the unsoundness of the request on several levels, Polanski has the freedom to go where he wants in Switzerland and France. On the one hand, it is in the Swiss’ vested interests not to block and let the appeals go through so they can more earn more interest from his millions, since on the other, if they let him go, they have to return the bail money. Such may seem cynical, but scorn is merited when one regards just how the courts have treated Polanski so far, abominably, and that by now this is  nothing but a politically motivated money grabbing charade with little focus on any justice served, or of course any attempts to correct decades of judicial improprieties.

As one might expect, after his wife publicly spoke in his defence, saying, “My personal truth is that Roman is a marvellous husband and [faithful] man. He is an impeccable man and I have nothing to reproach him for,” there just have to be the blindly meddling voices out there thinking her delusional or trying to rationalise his rape, when of course she knows he didn’t rape or sodomise anyone, just so to keep believing he had, unable to see that she of all those who defend him simply knows him better, and that the times were very promiscuous and crazy in general and sleeping with minors was nothing special. As it seems Polanski is never one to waste his time idly, for now stuck inside his Chalet, he is said to have plans on working on a film adaptation of the play God of Carnage, since of course all Roman Polanski ever did was motivated by his desire to please others, to create and show his art, and once believing in the good of man and any religion, or justice, after Sharon was murdered which was the only watershed in his life to this day, it had reinforced his faith in the absurd. Not people. Or the law.

The renowned playwright who wants him to direct her play, knowing him since decades and having planned it long before his arrest, standing by him, she has this to say in his defence. “People do not understand the complex and contradictory events or the real history of this case, nor the two people involved. What gives the public the right to condemn him suddenly? What distresses me is the vociferous outcry expressed without any legitimacy. Why a respected man for thirty years, our country was proud of to celebrate when he received an Oscar, a Golden Palm, a man we have decorated several times, who was made a member of the most prestigious institutions in French, while everyone knew the reasons for his exile, suddenly becomes a criminal because the wind blows from a foreign court having arrested him? There were biographies, films, articles, how is he guiltier today than yesterday? Mob justice and people using their freedom of expression, becomes immediately free of charge, without compassion, restraint, attempted understanding, which are all forms of intelligence?”

Quite. Which seem all suddenly lacking in these self-righteous, self-important little voices rising in a most unsettling way, thinking they are oh so right to know better, or this successful artist equally deluded herself, of course, when they know absolutely nothing. Johnny Depp in contrast does know him and is defending him publicly by now, saying, that this stinks pretty much of political shenanigans and dirty money exchanging hands to pursue this case. “Why now? Obviously there is something going on somewhere. Somebody has made a deal with someone. Maybe there was a little money involved, but why now?” Quite. Polanski’s lawyers had already alleged that Cooley made ‘mistakes’ in the extradition process, claiming, he was ‘directing or at least condoning his office presenting a false record of Polanski’s to the Swiss government, all in an attempt to extradite him without revealing facts that render extradition impermissible’. Quite.

For now, the  future of this politically exploited case hinges on exactly these beleaguered and undoubtedly misled Swiss to keep the old man under house arrest, or not, and I for one, doubt they will extradite him. As of January 31st, a final decision on whether to extradite Polanski to the US may be a year away, the Swiss justice minister said. While the Swiss authorities are to decide within the coming weeks whether or not to comply with the formal US extradition request, Polanski can appeal to the Federal Penal Court and then the Federal Court, which then could take from several months to a year, as we have already seen. Others have died under house arrest, and if the Swiss simply drag it out, and then more appeals are lodged to drag it out even more, Polanski might join the list of ‘in/famous’ people who slipped eventually into controversial oblivion while being incarcerated in their own home. Which at one point, could lead to his bankruptcy – if US film distributors keep denying him his rightful royalties – and of course, the courts to drag it out for him to be forced to keep paying his legal staff over mounting costs, unable to get his bail bond back.

Her lawyer, having  joined her more than serious efforts by now to see the case dismissed, based his calls, ‘to end this victim’s suffering’ on her apparent ill state of health – while no one seems to see the much greater suffering of the accused – when she could have simply chosen to stay anonymous or of course explain things better. But, instead she suddenly declared her open support, ask him to be forgiven, filed all these petitions, gave all these conflicting interviews after an apparent ‘undisclosed settlement’ was reached, in which she more and more declared herself to his side, and now pleads to be left alone after all the renewed media ambushes. You don’t ‘campaign’ for your rapist, ever – unless of course, he isn’t, which she often enough had said, to demonstrate her own ‘complicit’ part in it without directly perjuring herself after all these years in the only way she can. She tried her best to rectify her tweaking certain specifics her too ambitious mother had forced on her, in form of her open support for him as an adult woman, which is still failing since no one listens to her tries to end this entirely corrupted case. The political money wheels are turning and no one can stop them – except Death and the Maiden.

The lawsuit over Sharon’s slander had forced him to relive the horrors of 1969, his murdered wife and unborn child, his friends. He had faced the same old accusations of then, and the same old unrelated allegations from 1977. Many untruths had been published about him he simply ignored since he had no legal resources of defence first of all to confront them, thereby help self-perpetuating the grotesque picture people have of him, prefer to believe. But these lies could not go challenged, and he had won in the face of more fabrication. He adored Sharon, and she was brutally ripped from him, only to never visit her grave again, after one moment of thoughtless passion with a girl that wanted to become an actress, like Sharon, followed by a lifetime of unprecedented, unforgiving public lynching, while other repeat offenders having committed much more horrible crimes are forgiven. But never him. Except the woman who never became that actress, for her mother’s own selfish agendas that permanently tainted both their futures, playing the fame game at everyone’s costs. Polanski’s problem had always been ‘situational’, trying to be too brutally honest and direct, which often enough backfired when others couldn’t match his demands. He was an adult even as a kid already because he was forced to be, used to be, grew up much faster, having needed to look out for himself, assuming others were ‘mental adults’ too.

Like Ms Geimer many described as ‘fast’, who was physically fully developed beyond her apparent age and everyone took for a very grown-up young lady. Yet, despite the fact that her mother proudly pronounced her to be very precocious, she suddenly appeared this naïve little child once before the Grand Jury, unable to express herself more prudently all of a sudden. She came across as very unnatural, realising all her words to the effect of being afraid and unwilling appear put on, are out of synch with her overall behaviour and findings. Her apparent incapability to live up to her mother’s high expectations suddenly, and those of Polanski, lie in stark contrast of his saying that she posed with aplomb and never gave him any signals to stop his advances. He apologised often enough over his actions, after she had put on a confident show of posing several times, trying to ‘act’ as mature as possible. That no one had noticed her apparent reluctance is more than odd, before they finally tried to salvage the escalating situation with that plea bargain, once it went awry at her claims not supported by the overall evidence of forcible rape and sodomy. But then it all failed to be resolved quickly with Rittenband having his own ideas no one had anticipated, and has haunted them ever since.

As of February 1st, it has been exactly thirty-two years to the day Polanski had left US soil – during which time he made more of his acclaimed films, endured waxing and waning media and again rising public abuse, yet prevailed ever more, gained more friends and supporters, with still no justice in sight. If it ever shall arise for either of them, unless she declares herself better, and Polanski stops fighting but allowing himself be heard finally too. There’s no way around it. After a very popular Johnny Depp, classy actress Sigourney Weaver too declared her support for him openly, saying, “I have great affection for Roman. He is a man devoted to his family, a father of children. I am outraged, hurt by the way he is vilified. He is a victim of a witch-hunt. The violence of his arrest is scary. People see in him this devil because they are confusing the individual with the movies that he made. I am thinking of Rosemary’s Baby. But Roman has changed. I confess that I would love to see him freed to visit the United States and hug him.” Quite.

Despite intense lobbying with the Swiss justice authorities, the organisers of the Berlin Film Festival have been unable to secure a 24 hour remission for Polanski that would enable him to attend the premiere of his political thriller The Ghost Writer. The Berlinale kicking off on February 11th 2010 and running until the 21st, will show his film on the 12th and 13th to sold out tickets. Polanski however has already seen the finished version based on the acclaimed Robert Harris novel, The Ghost, and pronounced himself delighted with the result like in fact many objective reviewers. He watched the film on DVD at his Chalet in Gstaad with Harris, who also co-wrote the screenplay and was more than happy that he is satisfied with his work.

While murderers and political criminals can receive remission to attend an important event, the harmless old Polanski is not even allowed to view his own film even if he were to be accompanied by clandestine security, held like a dangerous terrorist in his own home. The double standards are an insult to all human/e civility. Instead, he will probably watch the spectacle on TV, and the press conferences given after his film’s premiere. It will no doubt be a frustrating event not to be there in person, but after he was already humiliated in the most disgraceful form, when they arrested him just before he would have received his lifetime achievement award in Zürich, I doubt he needs all the unwanted attention his presence would generate. Polanski had stated that the officers had treated him with respect, just like the remand prison staff, unlike it had been in the US.

So let’s see what the general public and critics will make of his latest foray into celluloid corruption. Or his loyal supporters, and blind haters. But then again, they’re probably picketing the doors with pro and anti-Polanski banners shouting abuse at each other in an absurd show of high-jacking another festival. Let’s hope the German police are as efficient as ever to shut them all up. But until then, Polanski’s notoriety and the political nature of the film are likely to boost the profile of Berlin, which has come in for a critical thrashing in recent years as it struggled to compete with other major festivals like Cannes. That no doubt has changed alongside the man’s own fate who is dubbed to have created another great political masterpiece since his glorious Chinatown outing.

In a to many expected victory for Polanski, a Swiss justice official said on February 12th, that authorities will not extradite him to the US until the LA courts determine whether Polanski should serve more time, since it would make ‘no sense’ to remove him from house arrest at his Chalet while he seeks to resolve his case in absentia, as long as the question is still open if he is subject to further time behind bars, or not. Why should he be extradited, the Swiss justice ministry’s deputy director said, as long as this question is still open, and their decision depends on that one crucial point. Just as I said – they will NOT play the US game to see him back in their courts, when they can decide on that ‘point’ without him. The DA’s office had already misled them into a quick decision, but the Swiss obviously were more conscientious than they had expected/hoped. As it seems the appeals have to be churned over by March 24th, Polanski can breathe for a while longer.

As one might expect, his latest film having opened the Berlinale, the European press dubbed it, ‘his most purely enjoyable picture for years, a Hitchcockian nightmare with a persistent, stomach-turning sense of disquiet, brought off with confidence and dash’ – while Hollywood was more circumspect, and described it as, ‘sleek and hypnotic, but once the credit roll frees you from its grip, it doesn’t bear close scrutiny’. And then of course, there’s always one of the few dissenting voices slashing Polanski[’s mastery], unable to judge the film on its own merits, sneering, ‘all the ingredients are here for a rip-roaring political thriller, but Polanski simply transfers Harris’ undistinguished prose direct to the screen and there’s little wow factor in the revelations as they appear’. In short, it’s a superior suspense driven masterpiece with clever twists and turns and first class performances.

They either love or hate it for the very same reasons, or of course for who the notorious director is, and even manage/d to shred the author himself just for spite. No one but Polanski could have pulled it off to finish his film in a jail cell, literally editing it himself as the technical master he is. With a daunting knowledge of all branches of filmmaking, his hands-on approach reaches far into supervising all that stands behind the camera, with full control over his project from first to last scene as always. If he wouldn’t have been arrested over some three decades old misdemeanor that should have long been resolved had the legal system not failed him, long been forgotten, they’d still all hail him as the superior auteur of his distinguished art, since everyone knew of the case and still gave him all these awards without judging his past ever since he had to flee the US.

That seems to have changed suddenly for obvious political exploitation reasons people finally realise, with the typical [US] hypocrisy having successfully manipulated the bias-prone public turning them into malicious witch hunters, suddenly defining the man by a single act from a decade they have no knowledge of, forgetting all else that made and shaped him, he has created. They say he’s a ‘bad person’ not ever having met him and therefore nullify others’ better knowledge of him who have, but a good artist, simply in order to say he is a ‘bad human being’, while others say they don’t care about the artist either, in turn nullifying his entire life as that artist and his work sprung from that life. Except of course, the more intelligent and objective thinkers not taking part in this ludicrous slew of bigotry and unprecedented demonising. As it is customary with conservatives when it comes to Polanski, launching another inane attack on anyone involved or in support of Hollywood, or his latest polit thriller said to hold pole position to win, their favourite pastime is whipping this old boy because he seems to have a lot of liberal supporters and of course fans, and just the right talent their own cannot match. It’s called rightwing jealousy.

Swiss legal experts said it looked increasingly possible that Polanski could beat extradition, especially since he’s been incarcerated for such a long time now, and it’s not even clear if the courts want him anymore, since all his time can be commuted to any coming sentencing. He’s been 42 days at Chino, 70 days in Swiss detention, 23 days in December, 31 days in January, 17 days in February at his Chalet as of today – that’s all in all, 183 days or half a year now being locked up, when his original sentence would have been three months, had Rittenband truly only intended to send him back inside to sit out the other 48 days – on the unlawful condition of self-deportation – or go down for decades as everyone feared. Had the old judge not threatened him with illegal deportation, I’m sure Polanski would have grudgingly submitted to going back for the remaining 48 days despite no one asking for it and to let him be freed on probation.

But, no one was certain had Polanski done so, if Rittenband had not come up with something else to torment him some more, before finally sentencing him to god knows what against all recommendations, he would have needed to appeal, rendering him unable to withdraw his plea. Rittenband played [with] him for public sports before he was removed unfortunately too late, or Polanski would not have run. Looks like inept Cooley is losing his own cat and mouse game sooner than later too now, after making blunder after blunder to begin with. The law thrives on appeals, and this case has died on them long before the DA reopened a very old can of very nasty worms he thought his certain ticket to reelection. Both parties wanting to pull together since years now – the corrupt law however has its own ideas for political gain, as usual, or they would need to tackle all the old worms, and sanitise their courtrooms of an utterly corrupted case he should never have touched. There will be no quick remedy for Roman Polanski or Ms Geimer.

With the prize handouts done and over at the Berlinale, as of February 20th Polanski has won the Silver Bear for best director at the Berlin Film Festival for his widely acclaimed political thriller, The Ghost Writer, while a Turkish film took the golden for best film in a surprise decision. Polanski of course could not accept the prestigious award and said, “Even if I could, I wouldn’t because the last time I went to a festival to get a prize, I ended up in jail.” Couldn’t blame him, really. So that’s the current state of the embattled director as superior artist – another Silver Bear for his large collection of over four dozen prizes already, if only everything else could be so swiftly done and resolved.

As one might expect, The Ghost Writer having opened in the States first, to sold-out tickets mind you, it was or is merely screened in four big cinemas in LA and NY, while Scorsese’s own film Shutter Island not winning anything at the Berlinale and was trounced on by Polanski’s much hailed film, it opened to the average of three thousand. The political thriller having made $179,000 (£115,686) over the weekend, an average of $44,750 (£28,921) per screen, in contrast, Scorsese’s made an average of just $13,440 (£8,686) per screen. Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland may have stoked interest in the title, and people obviously want to see it, but now they can’t, because the other US cinemas are basically not showing the film when they could make lots of money with it. Scorsese was the one who made Taxi Driver with that underage prostitute in 1976.

But of course, Scorsese is Hollywood and American, despite being far below par Polanski’s superior technical skills and artistic talents with only a handful of awards. Polanski is a foreigner and current fugitive and must be boycotted where they can, or of course won’t let him make any money with it himself through royalties, despite the American people actually wanting to see his excellent film, able to set the old man apart from his art and a case from three decades ago everyone messed with. His film would be top of the US box-office list now not Scorsese’s, and maybe the $ figures will make the distributors reconsider, since all the industry wants is it to make money, and show it more widely. His intense thriller being a French-German-British co-production and not US, neither these countries nor the rest of Europe in contrast will be stupid enough not to show it at any cinema available. That said, critics falling over themselves with praise say things like, the movie burns with so much style and sophisticated technique, inevitably inviting another attempt to scrutinise it as an autobiographical piece Polanski may or may not have intended.

If that were the case, he’d known to be arrested and surely avoided that. Nothing in the storyline relates to Polanski’s private life, except the ‘exile’ aspect perhaps, and someone’s offhanded remark, that, ‘kids today are so much more puritanical than we were’, and at that moment you can almost hear the chuckle of the director in the wings, to show off the current ‘youth’, so blind and unknowing as to what was going on in the Seventies. Or with the case. In its very limited US release, The Ghost Writer now expanded from the four to forty-three theatres by the end of February, and took in a healthy $870,000, or more than $20,000 per location. Its total after 10 days is $1.1 million. If they had shown it in the same amount of cinemas as Scorsese’s latest, it would have blown his Shutter Island out the water, which still has only grossed $41 mill in contrast despite being shown in three thousand theatres. Looks like everyone wants to see Pierce Brosnan and Ewan McGregor, rather than DiCaprio. Now, reaching into mid March the film is playing in more but still only a hundred thirty-seven theatres in the US, with no jeering or public boycotting in sight. The critics must have been right – it’s another masterpiece and triumph for the auteur and people can set the man or his past apart from his art.

On a more personal level, Polanski’s wife told the Warsaw magazine Viva! early March that her husband’s house arrest has upended her family, but that she’s convinced ‘the matter will be solved’. She and her children don’t live in Polanski’s Swiss chalet, but visit him frequently. She said the situation has left his children feeling disoriented and afraid, and that she herself is no longer a carefree person. No wonder after all the unprecedented media hunt on Cooley’s behalf and the subservient Swiss having sold Polanski out to the US for their banking deals. She did not elaborate on how she believes the case will be resolved, but Polanski’s legal battle received a boost when extradition proceedings were put on indefinite hold until the California courts made a definitive ruling on whether he could be sentenced without returning to the US, after Espinoza’s refusal to sentence him in absentia months back. Having spoken out further in more interviews she declared her unshaken love and support for her husband.  Having told their children what their father’s arrest was all about, and their daughter having known of the case already, they had never lied to them about the facts, and that it was forbidden for their father to sleep with someone because of the girl’s age. Therefore their love for their father is as intact, just as it should be.

As of today, March 11th, the day he was arrested now thirty-tree years ago, it looks like the US still cannot sort the three decade old mess they had created then, let alone prove he was up for a longer sentence to allow extradition. Now incarcerated in various places for exactly 205 days, the Swiss are biding their time garnering nice interest on his bail bond the longer it takes. Polanski however seemingly unfazed as usual, he is pondering his next move in regards to his resumed project, God of Carnage. What else is there to do than use his ‘spare’ time more creatively stuck in his Switzerland home, while his lawyers and the courts battle it out on US soil. This will be a very long appeal war. Now mid March, The Ghost Writer screening was expanded even further to be seen at two hundred and twenty-four US theatres, which is still hardly ten percent of the amount of screens Scorsese’s Shutter Island is being shown and nothing more than boycotting Polanski’s film in a very devious form.

With another nail in the coffin of justice revealed in the unending Polanski saga, his lawyers have filed a new appeal into newly revealed misconducts outside the ones already exposed, saying recent testimony from a key player in 1977 reveals prosecutors knew of the misconduct from the start and concealed it from the defence. The 68-page petition (which I in fact read) asks the California appeals court in LA to act on an emergency basis, arguing that the court should free Polanski by imposing an immediate sentence to time served, or at least make the sealed testimony about wrongdoing available to Swiss authorities. The attorneys say that prosecutor Gunson secretly testified this year about the judge’s conduct in the case and want the transcripts of his alleged testimony to be unsealed. The appeals writ filehd March 18t by Hummel, McCallum and Dalton jr, described a series of sworn interviews in February and March this year during which Gunson described misgivings so severe, that he had actually drafted a motion to disqualify Rittenband long before Polanski had fled, and not only after the two weeks he had filed his dismissal along with Dalton believed so far and Rittenband was finally removed.

After attorneys Trott and Montagna met with Rittenband, they talked to Gunson, and then told him that Rittenband admitted to misconduct, but that he could not file paperwork seeking the judge’s removal from the case, according to the court documents. In the new petition, Polanski’s lawyers say Gunson described being troubled, amongst other things, by contacts between Judge Rittenband and another defence lawyer, Wager, who wanted to become involved with the case either on Polanski’s team or by helping to get him convicted. Polanski’s lawyers have long argued that he should not be extradited, because Rittenband had promised — and Gunson affirmed in his sealed testimony — to sentence him to no more than 90 days in jail, and an extradition treaty between the US and Switzerland applies only to those facing sentences longer than six months. Dalton said in the statement that, “The evidence suggests they went behind my back to confirm the misconduct with the judge himself and never informed me. If proven, this is as bad as I have seen in over 50 years as a former prosecutor and lawyer in our system. Now to hear, through entirely new evidence, that high level deputy district attorneys in the summer of 1977 learned of misconduct by the judge in this case and never told the defence about it, that’s inexcusable.”

It is indeed, and nothing really surprising, or to hear that even the prosecution tried to unseat the judge months before they finally had the following February 1978 after Polanski was released in January, but simply wasn’t allowed to with more hands messing with the case on the side and not only that other colluding DA Wells who had goaded the judge into sending Polanski to Chino, despite Gunson’s and Dalton’s protest and illegality to use it as punishment, before both eventually joined forces to file for Rittenband being taken off the case. But by then Polanski had fled, when they had known of these transgressions even before he had pleaded, which was reneged on at any rate and they could have avoided altogether with a new judge. Montagna said he had never talked to Judge Rittenband about the case and Trott only commented, “I’m staying out of that completely.” They both should be held responsible, apart from Wells. And the judge posthumously, if not even Gunson, since he could have told Dalton about it right then and not wait three decades to spill the beans finally. Polanski’s lawyers accused the current judge Espinoza, of failing to follow recommendations in the appellate ruling last December. Nothing new there.

Wager said he never talked about the case with Rittenband, only that he had tried to join Dalton on Polanski’s legal team, and then later talked about the case with Gunson, while concealing from Dalton that he had spoken with Gunson. “I lied to Dalton,” Wager said. The petition also said the current LA DA Cooley had allowed the case to become ‘politically charged’ and to serve as a platform for a run for the California Attorney General’s office. Cooley’s deputies had misled the Swiss by concealing evidence of illegal dealings already, and to this day has done nothing to remedy the utterly corrupted case either, except play with it to advance his career on the back of Polanski and an entirely reprehensible string of legal misconducts on several levels, with more lying DAs and unacceptable ethics to go with. So much for the US justice system being corrupt down to its very foundations – just as Polanski always had said – I believe I have stated before already. I just wanted to highlight it – again. Some Justice had declared, that, “Our country takes pride in requiring of its institutions the examination and correction of alleged injustice whenever it occurs. We should not permit an affront of this sort to distract us from the performance of our constitutional duties.” Yeah right.

Well now, it seems Ms Geimer might have been fifteen at the time, not thirteen. According to US peoples finders her birthday might not be March 31st 1963, but Jan 9th 1962 or if it’s a number switch for the American way of stating the month before the day, Sept 1st 1962 – 9.1.62 or 1.9.62. Apart from the fact that the Grand Jury hearing clearly states that her birth certificate was a copy only, this for one would instantly lose the sodomy count (unless proven as forcible), since it was only unlawful to have anal sex with a minor being more than ten years older when the minor is under fourteen. If she really was fifteen at the time of the events, it would account for how mature she looks in the pictures from that time, particularly the ones taken by the Euro press and Polanski, and would also make her mother allowing her go with him by herself more understandable. However, a student could simply skip a grade and doesn’t have to be 14/15 in a 9th grade as it ‘should’ be, and can be older or younger. A grade does not tell a student’s actual age in any form. So let’s assume Ms Geimer skipped a grade, that usually means she had an above average IQ that allowed her teachers to make that decision and would comport with her mother’s words of her having been very ‘precocious’. Then we have to focus on how old she was mentally and what she comprehended with that advanced ‘mind’. Which means, she must have been more intelligent than others in her age range and it doesn’t really matter if she was just three weeks short of turning fourteen or fifteen, it would only mean what she was able to mentally comprehend far better and quicker than her peers for being socially and psychologically more mature. Bisset for one said that she was very ‘fast’ and ‘hip’, and the caretaker that she behaved like a lover with Polanski.

Meaning, she knew perfectly well what she was doing, and to give us this picture of a ‘helpless’ and ‘coerced’ teenager who couldn’t resist Polanski’s advances, seems rather dubious since Polanski pointed out how experienced she was, and Huston did not think her a ‘scared little chick’ and up to twenty-five years of age. But, while sitting in front of that jury panel she ‘reverted’ to this ‘innocent little girl’ Polanski too had noticed rather mystified, since she did not act like that in his company. Significant too is that what the Gaileys told the jury varies slightly between them in certain areas and is rather suspicious. Their testimonies differ in regards to who had called Polanski’s friend to complain about the photos e.g., when Polanski said in his autobiography his friend had called him at his hotel from their home after they ‘suddenly’ didn’t ‘like’ the pictures anymore and the sister had testified that she had phoned her boyfriend, NOT Polanski, from their home, who was rather ‘edgy’ before he even looked at them. We have no idea if what they told the Grand Jury was really said at home after Polanski had left, and the discrepancies are rather telling. Everybody knew of Polanski’s ‘reputation’, and to leave a ‘minor’ in his ‘care’, who looked like a twenty year old, was physically very provocative, not unschooled in sex, drugs and alcohol matters even to the DAs and Rittenband own words, a sexy young woman as Polanski liked them, very bright (Polanski in fact too found attractive in a woman, see Sharon, Kinski, Emmanuelle), and was ‘not’ on the Pill, appears rather ‘sloppy’. Or planned. Polanski always had his suspicious of a set-up and he might as well have been right after all. Either way, I’m content in the knowledge that it wasn’t forcible rape let alone [double] sodomy – regardless of her age.

Now with the end of March, it looks like it was the former prosecutor Gunson who is the party that might not be with us for long, since his latest bombshell testimony, which is now sealed, is the newest subject of controversy in the deeply fraught case. It was taken in a conditional examination normally used to preserve the testimony of a witness who may not be available later. Gunson is around Polanski’s age, and seems to be too ill and burdened with his knowledge, that he needed to confess to it finally. A deathbed does that to people, and better late than never. In fact, the former prosecutor is currently undergoing treatment for cancer. He was the one who said in that documentary that he would have fled from Rittenband’s own brand of ‘in/justice’. He obviously knew better, but never told Dalton. A defence brief disclosed earlier that Gunson testified he was so concerned about Rittenband’s inability to be fair to the prosecution that he drafted an application to disqualify the judge and intended to file it before Polanski entered his plea. Had he been successful, the judge taking over later who simply put it on ice, would surely have done a better job and we wouldn’t be talking about this case in any form anymore. Gunson said he took his petition to two of his superiors (Trott and Mantagna) who then conferred with the judge (how very bright) and refused to allow him to file the challenge. Nice justice.

Because of that, Polanski’s attorneys returned to the Court of Appeal this month for Espinoza’s refusal to sentence him in absentia and for the main reason of Gunson’s new secretly given testimony. A certain Doyle taking over from Gunson some time back, had left handwritten notes from a 2002 session in the current appeals petition during which Gunson had briefed Doyle. The notes referring to Gunson’s having actually drafted a motion to disqualify Rittenband, said: “Roger prepared 170.5, 20 pages laid him out. Was told not to file.” (Cal. Procedure ‘umbrella’ Code (sections 170.0-170.5) for disqualifying a criminal court judge.) Cooley’s filing says that his current deputy in charge of the case, Walgren, only weeks ago discovered those notes among ‘folded papers on the bottom’ of some boxes, and promptly gave them to the Polanski lawyers after deciphering them with Doyle’s help in late February. Really? The LA courts said they have acted ‘with the utmost openness and integrity’ and provided Polanski’s lawyers with the discovery of all the evidence. The same notes refer to a supposed attempt by a lawyer and lifelong friend of Rittenband, Wager, to join the Polanski defence team in 1977. “He met with judge — ‘blackmail’ to get on case,” the notes said, without further explanation. ‘Notes’ can be so telling. And blackmail.

The Swiss judges obviously didn’t think that they had acted with ‘integrity’, after the Swiss foreign minister already took a rare public distance from her colleagues, chiefly the justice minister, (the one who denied that they sold Polanski to the US in exchange for their dirty banking tax policies) by suggesting the arrest had shown ‘a lack of tact’. That’s an understatement. But then it seems Cooley’s ‘court’ isn’t big on discretion and tact at any rate, with unethical statements like, ‘allowing Polanski to avoid extradition from Switzerland hurts the integrity of the judicial system more than revelations of alleged misconduct by Rittenband’ – and there I was thinking it should be the other way round. According to the current prosecutors it’s Polanski’s fault now not only for Rittenband’s misconduct against him, but also for not being able to discipline the disgraced lawmaker and all that followed – because the judge in question is long dead and the others are untouchable with the original prosecutor to follow soon. The integrity of the judicial system was ruined once ‘the hammer’ and Gunson took over the case, and that was certainly not Polanski’s fault either. But let’s blame him for that anyhow out of principle.

With Polanski’s lawyers having filed a last legal volley in the Appeals Court on April 6th, saying that the case and its lengthy delays have been an assault on the state’s judicial system, the attorneys filed more papers so that the court should order an investigation of judicial misconduct in Polanski’s original case and that he should not have to pay for it, an indication that he is running out of funds. The 76-year-old has mounting debts and no way of earning a living while in custody, (especially not with his latest film being boycotted in  the US cinemas) and the defence made their latest plea in response to arguments from prosecutors who say Polanski must return from Europe to face sentencing. The defence argued that Polanski should be sentenced in absentia to time served, and that it is unjust for a defendant’s constitutional rights to be held hostage to the district attorney’s office’s outright refusal to investigate the misconduct in which it was involved. The filing was a recitation of facts that have been raised repeatedly by the defence since they first went to court seeking Polanski’s freedom several years ago. They contend the now deceased judge committed serious misconduct in the case, (and then some with each after him not correcting them) and that the judge’s private statements clearly said that Polanski left the US after pleading guilty to the count they had a plea arrangement with, and that he had served part of a 90-day period in prison for this ‘diagnostic study’ Rittenband had unlawfully used as punishment.

As we know, Polanski’s departure after ten months of Rittenband stringing him along was prompted by his private statements that he planned to renege on their agreement and that the study would be Polanski’s full sentence, according to documents filed in the case. The original prosecutor in the case, Gunson, recently giving his closed door testimony to that very effect (finally), and his defence lawyers Hummel and Dalton jr said that the misconduct allegations should not be buried just because the trial judge is dead and some participants are no longer in the DA’s office. The lapse of time does not make the misconduct or its consequences go away or mean that they are not deserving of full exploration, (except in Polanski’s case of course, which Cooley and Co obviously want to spin out the longer the better, by now having definite airs of contemptible revenge rather than any justice) suggesting an investigation by a special counsel could deter similar misconduct in the future. Which so far has failed big time as seen with the new name-calling DAs, despite the Appeals Court having urged them to investigate these claims already last December, and that this court should put a stop to this now, by recommending that special counsel be appointed and by ordering that Polanski be sentenced to time served. Since Espinoza didn’t sentence Polanski months ago as he had offered him only to deny him that closure, and Ms Geimer, they obviously play the same nasty game with Polanski ever since day one.

No, in fact, they first played a nasty media game with him since Tate’s, their unborn son’s and friends’ brutal murders, and then the even nastier judicial game instigated by Rittenband, which amounts to a full forty years now of mindless persecution, resulting in added blind abuse by the just as nasty public not aware of the full details of the case, or the highly contemptible judicial mess it’s in. I’m sure to most people that is barbaric treatment of a so called celebrity, except in his case of course. The fact that crooked DA Cooley is under investigation himself right now for a series of serious misconduct on a grand scale since he took office many years ago with a class-action suit filed against him, alleging his office committed what amounts to identity theft by obtaining a list of 650 prosecutors who supported the union and a judge’s finding that the actions by the DA are ‘rampant’, rather than remedying the situation of course, it was lodged by the affected parties right on the same day Polanski’s team filed their last appeals against his office to end his witch hunt of Polanski, which doesn’t seem to bother anyone in the equally highly corrupt LA courts either way. No surprise there.

During the 2001-2007 Bush-Cooley’s reign of terror in Los Angeles, hundreds of victims of police brutality and police misconduct cases were charged with baseless and fabricated criminal charges. Cooley and the LAPD worked together on fabrication and manufacturing of false evidence against victims. Am I surprised? Nope. It ain’t ‘Lethal Weapon’ style justice there now. With federal protection evaporated under war criminal Bush, hundreds of innocent victims were convicted and sent to prison to face dangers from real criminals and rapists, and State convictions guaranteed that the LAPD was shielded from future civil rights lawsuits. Nice. During the above period, no LAPD officers were ever charged with any crime arising from fabricating of false evidence, the residents of Los Angeles were left defenceless against forces of the extreme right, which implemented a policy built on deception, fraud, perjury, and criminal conspiracy. Looks like the Italian or Russian Mafia could learn from them. With the help of Cooley, and under the protection of the former warmongering Bush administration they have succeeded in establishing a police state in the most populous county of the US.

With substantial support from Bush and the local forces of the extreme right, the LAPD, PPL, and Cooley have succeeded in transforming the 4,000-square-mile Los Angeles County to be ruled under a sophisticated and well-engineered police junta composed of the LAPD, Cooley, and an army of 600 mostly corrupt judges who owe their reelections to financial contributions from LAPD’s PPL. Am I glad to live in the crappy old UK where such detestable actions are very very rare and don’t happen on such a mega scale. And that highly despicable criminal eyeing the office of Attorney General, god forbid Cooley will ever win it, has set his sight on the least of dangerous men to be dragged before his corrupt court and sent into the same hell. Not a chance. Since the Swiss judges did not buckle under the DA’s despicable lies they had given the authorities from the day they overzealously had executed the equally unsound arrest warrant under continuous pressure, it looks like the peace-loving Swiss aren’t in the same high corruption league as the Californian il/legal and police [state] systems. Good. A visit to Switzerland might be in order for my holidays this year, stopping off at Polanski’s Chalet door for a little chat.

With The Ghost finally premiered in the UK on April 16th (as the film is called here after the book), Brosnan has revealed that Polanski is working on his next film while under house arrest. Brosnan, 56, plays the lead role in Polanski’s new political flick and revealed the director was brilliant to work with and is already working on his next project. Brosnan said to the BBC the other day: “I’d heard the stories of a truculent, petulant man, and I heard the stories of the great compassionate man and he’s all of those. (On set he’s a little tyrant to get results and off set he’s the very opposite and very loving.) He loves the camera, he loves to make his movies – under house arrest, and he’s working on the next film.” Exactly, and good for him. That’s what he does; film is his life, regardless of any public or political witch hunt. Film made him survive life from childhood on, and filmmaking will be his continuous saviour till he dies. And his loving family and supportive friends. The new film is God of Carnage, in corroboration with the playwright and friend Yasmina Reza, who stood firmly behind Polanski, and did not look for a new director for her stage play adoption to screen they had decided on long before Polanski was rearrested. That’s what friends do – they stand by them.

According to a short item in the French paper L’Express, Polanski apparently has penned a letter to President Obama asking for his help with efforts to be sentenced in absentia and find closure of this old sex case. French President Sarkozy presented the letter to Obama in person during his last visit to the US, who had supported the director behind the scenes and could ‘convince’ the Swiss authorities to grant Polanski bail and be put under house arrest. In this communiqué, the filmmaker told the President that the 70 days he had spent at the Swiss remand prison, added to his 42 days at Chino in 1977/8, amount to more than the penalty of his original plea bargain of three months the prosecution and defence had agreed on, (before Rittenband had reneged on it). And Polanski added, his extradition would only result in his continuous humiliating by the US media. I’d rather say exploitation by the crooked courts and leering public. So much for his persecution being a political power game by now. A spokesman for Obama’s press office had not heard of any such letter as of April 19th, while Polanski’s attorney declined to comment. But L’Express reported that Sarkozy handed the missive over to Obama during last week’s nuclear safety summit in Washington. Though the details of this exchange are still unclear, this wouldn’t be the first time that the French leader had stood by Polanski, obviously knowing better of what really happened, and how corrupted the case has become by now.

Though Polanski didn’t ask for a full clemency per se only to be declared sentenced finally, the presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. “The President shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” Obviously, otherwise any president could pardon himself. No one is liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been fully acquitted or convicted of in accordance with the law, also known as ‘double jeopardy’. Someone can be pardoned of a pleaded offence without ever having been sentenced and convicted of that offence. Since it was State vs Polanski, Obama could well pardon him, though technically that doesn’t erase Polanski’s admission of guilt to the one count he pleaded to or the offence itself; it will only be impossible to try him in regards to it or any of the dropped and already statute expired counts, again, since only a plea withdrawal can see a case be tried on all counts but not after a pardon either. To withdraw his plea would be spitting into their own disgusting abuse of power and string of legal misconduct soup, no one wants to even look at, or Espinoza had done so ages ago. Or, sentenced him in absentia, since then the courts have the obligation to see to all the allegations being litigated, and that they of course want to avoid at all costs. Polanski’s continued costs.

Now that I was finally able to watch The Ghost Writer myself at a London cinema, all I can say is, whatever all the favourable reviews had to say about it, and there were only favourable, they are all most certainly true in their own objective way able to judge it on its own merits. And since people are so keen on drawing parallels to Polanski’s life, The Ghost (UK title) has zero, except the ‘exile’ aspect of Brosnan’s character, and best of all, to cite someone else, Polanski is no more inclined to ingratiate himself to his [current] audience with happy endings than he was to give his Chinatown masterpiece in 1974 with its perfect, tragic denouement. Just so to reflect tragic life more realistically. As usual. Which promptly followed on his foot, when Polanski’s latest appeal to have his case reviewed by a special counsel, or to be finally sentenced in absentia, was rejected by the California Appeals Court on April 23rd, despite new evidence showing until recently undisclosed [further] corruption in the case. The testimony Gunson gave behind closed doors in January. Polanski’s bid last year to have the Los Angeles Superior Court disqualified from any hearings as being prejudiced against him was also summarily rejected.

Polanski’s fate therefore still lying in the hands of the Swiss authorities, they no doubt have long regretted to have soiled their hands by ‘offering’ Polanski last September to the US, in exchange for their IRS investigations to go easy on their shady UBS ‘banking taxes’ dealings. The Swiss Justice Ministry had been waiting for Cooley’s court ruling before deciding whether or not to authorise Polanski’s return to LA for sentencing, but stated on April 24th, that the Ministry would not rush into any hasty decisions. Good. If they ultimately approve extradition, Polanski could still lodge further court appeals in Switzerland itself, which would delay his possible return to the US even further. Polanski’s defence team have long argued that Polanski should not have to be present to be sentenced on the one count he had pleaded to, but be finally sentenced in absentia to time served, which by now amounts to more than what even Rittenband had in mind by sending him back to Chino to sit out the remaining 48 days of that ‘diagnostic study’ (on the threat of self-deportation) he had unlawfully used as punishment already.

The LA court’s decision said, “By petition for writ of mandate filed March 18, 2010, petitioner requests relief from this Court on the basis of new evidence (given by Gunson) and asks this Court to overturn the magistrate’s order sealing a conditional examination transcript. (I.e., to unseal Gunson’s testimony.) Petitioner has failed to present this evidence to and request his desired relief from the trial court, and he has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked the discretion under Penal Code section 1193 to refuse to approve petitioner’s absence at sentencing. (Code applies to the section of the defendant’s ‘need’ to be present in court for sentencing, based on that ancient ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ they first had applied, then overturned by offering Polanski to be sentenced in absentia they subsequently flat-out rejected, and then simply reinstated to drag it out.) The petitioner for writ (court order) of mandate (to unseal his testimony for examination) is summarily denied.” If refusing to allow Gunson’s evidence with not the slightest interest in closing this case isn’t demonstrating deliberate manipulation of any outcome, or to purposely drag it out against all logic isn’t sheer vindictiveness, I don’t know what is.

If Gunson’s vital testimony means zilch to these jackals, have repeatedly rejected Ms Geimer’s own pleas since years now to have the case dismissed, or Polanski be sentenced in absentia, what chances does Polanski have to receive final closure of this ever more corrupted case. As it looks by now, it’s nothing but spite and total ignorance of tackling these mounting misconducts in any form, after Gunson had finally brought forward that he thought Rittenband had acted improperly. That’s an understatement. After Gunson was deliberately failed by his two superiors to have Rittenband removed, (who both are now judges and in Cooley’s ‘court’), and after more months of delay finally managed to see him ‘step down’ with help from Dalton, after Polanski had unfortunately already fled his arbitrary court antics, Gunson’s testimony therefore remains sealed. I.e., is impossible to be used for the defence, released into public domain, or to highlight the plenty misconducts for the Swiss. So much for justice shown to their own, or justice per se. But then again, Gunson had technically joined the defence team by coming clean finally, and Cooley obviously is not interested in a former attorney who was not half as dishonest as he is to allow his testimony in aid of Polanski’s cause. More misconduct from an entirely crooked DA, who faces a class-action lawsuit on a mega scale, no one seems to be interested in litigating. Of course not, it’s Cooley’s own corrupted court he rules supreme.

The authorities in Switzerland have repeated they will not act on the request for his extradition until the LA courts make Polanski’s status clear, and will only extradite him if he faces a sentence longer than six months. Cooley still argues Polanski faces up to two years in prison, (the two years they had implemented already back in mid 1977 before Polanski had pleaded to the one year minimum to maximum fifteen to twenty years for unlawful sex in August, no one had told him about) despite Gunson, in agreement with Dalton and Geimer’s mother, not having asked for any further jail time, but probation of indefinite sentencing. So, we’re back at square one, and Cooley doesn’t care that no retroactive sentencing can be more than the minimum penalty of then, or if a lighter sentence is available today, it so shall apply. Two years is not lighter. But, even if Polanski were sentenced to time inside, rather than probation, the time Polanski has official spent behind bars by now, must be taken into account as time served. A Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman has said a decision usually comes within a year of a person’s arrest, and since Polanski was arrested last September, that would mean a decision can only be expected in five more months this September, and Polanski will go nowhere, yet, but stay put at his Chalet.

The Swiss spokesman said, “We first have to receive the official information from the US, (which they so far have failed to deliver already, unable to prove Polanski was up for more time inside, after presenting the Swiss courts falsified records of Polanski’s ‘crime’ in addition) and then we will examine it. We can’t make a decision based on media reports. We have to study the ruling. We must have some patience.” Patience is all Polanski has, loyal friends, family and fans, and he could still seek to end the case in California otherwise by appealing to the state’s Supreme Court, which will not only delay any extradition even further, but, if only one of these judges is in Cooley’s pocket, will seek to overturn his appeal, again. Hummel and his team have not indicated what their next step will be, and it is clear, that no one is interested in any fair ruling, abide by laws other than their own, but riding out the utterly contaminated case like none other in LA court history ever. Shameful. “One gets the feeling that there’s the desire to see him arrive in shackles, when there’s no reason why Roman Polanski should be extradited, none at all,” Polanski’s French lawyer Témime told radio Europe1.fr. Quite.

“Now it is up to the Swiss authorities to tell the truth and give back Roman Polanski his freedom once and for all, regardless of the uproar and unbearable pressure of an ill-informed public,” Témime said in another statement to Agence-France-Presse. Swiss authorities had already stated in February that a decision on whether to extradite Polanski could not be made until the filmmaker had exhausted his US appeals. So, even if the Swiss will decide on extradition, proceedings could take a year in general, once appeals by Polanski against his return – or by US authorities if a Swiss decision was negative – have been heard by Switzerland’s highest courts. Meaning, whichever decision by either side, there’s always another appeal possible, and Polanski will not go anywhere. If ever. Judging the Swiss courts, they obviously do not live in self-obsessed Cooley’s crooked world. They are perfectly capable and willing to engage in dispassionate justice and to accept the valid argument that there is no legal rationale for extraditing Polanski, so he can face the possibility of further incarceration and punishment, more overzealous media attacks and possible physical harm. Cooley and too many sanctimonious ignorami cannot see cruel and unusual punishment when it occurs. The Swiss authorities can recognise it.

Polanski’s original attorney Doug Dalton who had retired some while back and his son Bart ever since then is handling the case, had issued a statement on April 23rd, reiterating that the Court of Appeal decision, ‘did not decide the question of extradition’. “The formal US extradition request unquestionably contains a false sworn statement by Los Angeles prosecutors about Polanski’s punishment (or crime), which we have asked the United States Department of Justice and the Swiss authorities to investigate. The DA’s office has known the true facts for over 30 years.” Quite, but, Cooley doesn’t care, he’s too busy at the moment with fighting Union members who have filed a federal lawsuit against him, that he violated a judge’s order that he stop retaliating. The federal suit alleges that Cooley demoted and reassigned pro-Union workers and cut their benefits. Union members have also filed more than a dozen unfair labour practice complaints with the county Employee Relations Commission, which were largely undisputed, and District Court Judge Wright II issued a preliminary injunction ordering Cooley to stop discriminating and retaliating against employees on the basis of union membership.

Ms Geimer had already said in January, that the court’s insistence for Polanski to appear in person for the dismissal hearing back then, ‘a cruel joke’. Ms Geimer said in her written declaration to the court, “If Polanski cannot stand before the court to make this request, I do. I have urged that this matter come to a formal legal end. I have urged that the district attorney and the court dismiss these charges.” Obviously, because they were never valid accusations or they’d gone to trial. While Walgren filed a motion describing the incident in ‘graphic detail’ in his court papers I actually read, for the Swiss authorities, albeit of course from her original testimony she came to moderate over the years more and more, with nothing of what Polanski had to say about it in his defence, Ms Geimer said, she believes this is a ploy to deflect accusations of wrongdoing in the case made more than thirty years ago. She added that her feelings should have been taken into account before the legal papers were submitted. Of course it is a ploy, but, Cooley doesn’t care either way, or about her let alone Polanski.

When The Pianist was up for an Oscar in 2003, she had declared, “He 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, just as we all agreed [on].” That obviously never happened and only forced Polanski to seek shelter in his more forthcoming home country. While no genuine rape victim would ever say any of that, let alone plea for the charges be dropped, campaign on her ‘attacker’s’ behalf, her original testimony has long become a far cry from her later statements. While Polanski insists it was consensual, the only thing she clings to is that it was not, since the law of course didn’t allow her to consent, but she never said that he had violated her in any form. That’s NOT rape in my book, even if she just let the sex ‘happen’ as she had said some years back. This merciless pursuit of Polanski is a disgraceful Human Rights violation, an unacceptable violation of her own rights, and that of both their pleas to find dignified closure. A scandalous abuse of power. Nothing more. There’s no equivalent of any person having to suffer house arrest for years who ever slept with a minor. Only war criminals and politicians so far have been detained that way.

According to Dalton, in September 1977, prior to ordering his ‘diagnostic study’, Rittenband had stated to Gunson, a probation officer and himself, that the study at Chino would constitute Polanski’s [entire] punishment and that there would be no further incarceration. In fact, at the time, Rittenband stated that he expected a favourable report from Chino. While Gunson and the officer stated that the use of the study punishment was an improper utilisation of that provision, Rittenband replied that he would use this method of incarceration rather than the county jail because Polanski would be safer at (state prison) Chino, and, that 60 days would be sufficient time in custody to constitute his [entire] punishment, (since Rittenband obviously realised that there was no drugged rape and sodomy involved.) Which Polanski completed with indeed favourable reports, after the already favourable reports from the independent psychologists. Rittenband’s promise was, that he would not sentence him to [further] prison, after the study was completed, but, after his apparent anger however that he did not serve out the 90 days, which is of course not under his control but that of the state prison, is not Polanski’s fault that they released him after 42 days. Then, Rittenband’s subsequent plan to send him back to Chino to complete the 90 days, and then go back on their plea agreement, was abuse of the system.

Quite, and, that’s the very problem Cooley and his court faces, not only Rittenband’s misconducts, but they cannot [legally] prove Polanski was to serve more time, and clearly shows that Rittenband, no matter his unprofessional antics and stringing Polanski along for months, had not intended sentencing him to more than he had threatened him with. On the self-deportation ‘condition’, of course, and Polanski thought, what’s the point of staying if they want him out the States, unable to work there any longer. The case was reassigned to Judge Breckinridge, who had never sentenced anyone in absentia, either, and had no intentions of doing so, and, if Polanski might return, he’ll ask for a new probation repost and deal with it then. That’s how things stood for many years, and if Polanski had returned, he’d been arrested without bail, the case reopened, and of course entailed a new report and more time at Chino. The fact of his fugitive status would have been taken into account, as would be the affidavit charging Rittenband with bias, unprofessional conduct and engaging in ex parte communications, and might have ended the case right there, or rather not, as seen. In any legal or practical case, Polanski’s return would have presented one problem: as soon as he arrived in Paris in 1978, his multiple entry visa to the US was declared invalid. I wonder if that in fact can affect the extradition request, since NO non-US citizen can enter the USA without any visa. Interesting.

To recap the case in counts taken from the original extradition papers, all of which bar one (3) had been dropped, are expired and cannot be tried in any form, unless his plea is withdrawn by a judge to go to trial, which in fact is hardly ever done even if the defendant requests it, just so to force the accused into being stuck with their ‘guilty’ plea, ‘guilty’ or not. Any other declarations, e.g., ‘child molestation’ people keep bringing up, are incorrect, since Geimer was not considered a ‘child’ anymore by the law for her age, and the doctor’s medical reflection of an ‘adult female’ for her physical development.

Count 1: furnishing a controlled substance to a minor (not proven since they found the Quaaludes in Nicholson’s bathroom, she could have refused and then took part of herself, and his stating he did not ‘give’ it to her to begin with.) Funny too, how her parents were never done for making them available at home, or the marihuana smoking boyfriend, or Ms Geimer and her once drug abuse institutionalised sister for filching/using them.

Count 2: lewd and lascivious act on a minor under 14 (any kissing, caressing Polanski had admitted to.) Oddly enough, her mother’s boyfriend was never charged with the same he basically had engaged in with her while in Gunson’s own office of all places. Kissing and caressing is ‘lewd’? Great.

Count 3: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (the only count Polanski admitted and also pleaded to.) So what about her own boyfriend, when the US is so keen on locking up men who slept with their own girlfriend? Or the others Dalton had unearthed? And possibly her mother’s boyfriend? And those ‘wild boys’ she hung out with later once dropped out of school, to become pregnant with 17/18?

Count 4: rape by use of drugs (in conjunction with count 1) (very questionable since the medical evidence discredits rape outright, and the drug furnishing itself and effect on her were more than vague.)

Count 5: perversion (now called oral copulation, i.e., cunnilingus, NOT oral penetration by a penis) (more than questionable accusation, at no such words from him and no other proof to back her up in any form.) I wonder what fellatio would have been called then.

Count 6: sodomy on a person under 14 (the one count most impossible to prove let alone the [‘dry’] ‘double sodomy’ she claims, at not the slightest physical evidence, any admission from him, Huston’s original testimony to the contrary of having witnessed them engaging in it, and also no logic to sodomise anyone to still withdraw and ejaculate outside when coitus interuptus interuptus is general practice to avoid pregnancies, which Polanski had engaged in that day.) Hence, no trial on all counts.

That there never was any count for the alcohol plying accusation is equally telling, and in fact hard to fathom, after Ms Geimer had made extra efforts to say that he ‘gave’ her the champagne. But that was obviously not correct or it had been included as indictment count, most of all because they found the booze in Nicholson’s fridge she took herself in the company of the caretaker and could have refused as well, which also throws even greater doubts on her claims to have been ‘pretty drunk’, at half the bottle still full Huston had found. The count of flight was not included in the extradition request for some obscure reason and cannot be pursued/punished therefore either. Only count 3 is up for sentencing – unlawful sex with a minor – since all other counts, other than to what he admitted to, could not be proven and therefore are not fact. That’s why they invented plea deals to cut a very uncertain case short – except in Polanski’s case – now the longest running court case in Santa Monica Courthouse history for ‘sex’, since first no one wanted to bother with it anymore, or litigate the legal mess, and now they don’t want to close it out of spite and all those lovely judicial holes glaring at them like a Swiss cheese barrel in danger of falling apart.

As we know, the Appeals Court panel had denied Polanski’s request to unseal Gunson’s secret testimony, now, on April 29th Polanski’s lawyers had asked a[nother] judge to unseal it to help Swiss authorities decide on his extradition, on the ‘technical ground’ that they had not yet formally made the unsealing request to the trial judge before presenting his writ application. Lousy excuse. Hummel and Bart Dalton said they need to submit his testimony to the Swiss authorities as soon as possible and that these transcripts are urgently needed. The motion said the transcripts will prove the extradition request is based on false and incomplete statements by the DA’s office. I.e., Polanski’s ‘crime’ and his reason for fleeing, only citing Ms Geimer’s long-found incorrect side of things and no medical findings. I read the extradition report and it’s more than ‘false and incomplete’ legally and factually. Seeking a May 10yh hearing before Espinoza, the one who had refused to sentence Polanski in absentia several times now, Gunson had testified months back in what is known as a conditional examination, which reserves the testimony of a witness who might not be available for future hearings. In that case it might not be Gunson to leave us soon, but someone else he might be mentioning in that vital testimony.

Either way, Espinoza kept the transcripts sealed based on his ‘interpretation of the law’ governing such examinations. The defence protested that the ‘interpretation’ is wrong. It’s just another delay tactic, nothing more. Prosecutors and defence attorneys were present at the closed sessions and the defence had paraphrased parts of Gunson’s testimony from his own notes in a petition to the state appellate court. Hummel and his team want to provide his exact words to the Swiss authorities. They noted the DA’s office previously asked that all hearings and conferences in the case be public so as to appropriately respect the public’s right to know. Obviously, so that they can stoke the leering witch hunters into more false beliefs of what this case is all about, which is certainly not rape or flight from ‘justice’, but injustice, and simply won’t allow Gunson’s proof that they all had lied and/or known about the facts and misconducts. They argued that the same right to transparency should apply to Gunson’s vital testimony, and that Swiss officials needed access to the sealed transcripts to fairly determine whether Polanski should be extradited to the US, or not, and that it should be this court’s role to assure that the complete and true facts of the events for which this court is responsible are presented to the Swiss. That’s exactly the point; they don’t want them to know the ‘facts’.

That said, if they can prove once and for all Polanski was up for what Rittenband had declared, nothing more than the rest 48 days to make up the three months at Chino, though on the already unlawful self-deportation threat, (or would send him down for good which amounts to blackmail) the extradition request was more than unlawful, which substitutes an attempt at forcing the Swiss courts into committing an act of kidnapping (in UN terms) had they fallen for Cooley’s lies and handed Polanski over, rendering his house arrest entirely illegal. Since Polanski was incarcerated in two prisons now for more than these three months and must be commuted, the Swiss have no choice but to release him, since they won’t extradite anyone for anything that didn’t entail more than a six months sentence at any rate. Good luck, Cooley, to prove that you didn’t lie to the overzealous Swiss, after the Swiss Federal Office of Justice had whistled on Polanski’s arrival at Zürich to the US Office of International Affairs, who then offered Polanski to Cooley’s office on a silver platter, in exchange for the dirty UBS banking tax evasion deals. Just Polanski’s luck (still) to be the little ball in this international ping pong game of mounting judicial misconducts and shady politics. Nothing new there. That’s a Human Right violation on a grand scale.

In reply to the secret testimony unsealing demand by Polanski’s concerned lawyers, turns out the Swiss justice officials rejected their attempt April 30th, saying, that Switzerland works on the ‘assumption’ that the extradition request from the US is based on correct statements and the secret testimony wouldn’t change that. According to what I read, it is NOT correct and would certainly influence their decision. Said transcripts by Gunson would prove that the extradition request is based on false and incomplete statements by the DA’s office, and Polanski’s legal team maintains they seriously need the testimony to decide whether to extradite Polanski to LA, while a Swiss spokesman said, “Such documents are irrelevant for the extradition proceedings.” Great, looks like the Swiss authorities simply take Cooley’s words for fact, ‘working on the ‘assumption’ that the facts in the extradition request are represented correctly, since, countries that have signed mutual extradition treaties are expected to be truthful, and therefore there is no need for Swiss authorities to request any kind of proof for the content of the extradition request. Switzerland only has to examine whether the facts of the case are punishable and extraditable under Swiss law and if there’s any reason to reject an extradition. One possible reason not to extradite would be if Polanski faces a prison sentence of less than six months.

Which is exactly what the testimony can prove, while Cooley demands the two years not even applicable for the retroactive sentencing rule stipulating that the lower sentence be imposed, which was one year Polanski had pled to as the minimum penalty. Swiss legal experts believe that Polanski will eventually be extradited to LA, even if months of further legal wrangling awaits him. With that kind of ignorant ‘trust’ in the LA courts, it might just look that way. Swiss officials should rather say, “We don’t ‘assume’, but demand proof,” or otherwise they get into deep waters of having allowed an unlawfully requested extradition based on false allegations of Polanski’s coming sentence, without studying the prior decisions made in this case in the first place. In order for the Swiss officials be fair and not simply take their words for fact, they would have to study whether the current prosecutor Walgren’s statements as to what Polanski’s sentence was, is true or not. It’s not. Unless they simply want to discount Gunson’s testimony without even looking at it, I’m sure they wouldn’t allow that with their own, and to ‘assume’ that a Santa Monica prosecutor requesting extradition always makes authentic statements is a big mistake that will come to haunt them, after they already had sold Polanski out for their illegal banking tax deals.

I guess it’s more important for rich people to bank tax free than grant an old man final justice in this utterly corrupted case, and have his sentence commuted. Gunson’s testimony includes Rittenband’s original sentencing plan from 1977, the 48 days to make up the 90 days, and Gunson’s testimony would prove that the extradition request filed included a false depiction of this sentencing plan. And then some. Besides, it was also documented in newspapers in February 1978, and that 2008 documentary in fact, that Rittenband wanted to and would have sentenced Polanski in absentia, but was prevented from dong so after Gunson and Dalton had him removed days before, so that no one absentia sentenced him finally is pure vindictiveness by now. The extradition request said that Rittenband sent Polanski to prison for a ‘psychiatric study’ so he would be, ‘in a better position to reach a fair and just decision’ before final sentencing, while Gunson, according to Polanski’s current lawyers and Gunson himself, has testified that his prison stay at Chino was to constitute his entire sentence, since there never was a case of rape which needed prosecuting at a trial or required longer sentencing, and lawyers Dalton and Silver speaking for Ms Geimer all had agreed on that now thirty-three years ago already and maintained ever since.

The fact that Polanski fled Rittenband’s arbitrary court was down to his unlawful self-deportation threat, it doesn’t change anything in regards to their original demand that Polanski be put on probation and set free. Looks like the Swiss after all are just as uninterested in facts other than what the corrupt US courts feed them. So much for justice. Walgren had said in the extradition report that he attempts to try Polanski on all counts, which in itself is not possible since the request is only valid in regards to the one count Polanski pleaded to that can be sentenced, or it would, for one, mean that they demand cross-examination of Ms Geimer as well, who will simply pledge the Firth, since she had made it clear already years ago that she will not testify against Polanski. Not because she doesn’t want to ‘relive’ the events, but because she would seriously perjure herself by now. Besides, the argument doesn’t quite stick, since she’s given enough interviews and appeared on TV talk shows talking about the affair rather candidly, and that is was NOT rape.

While it is unlawful to demand extradition for one thing and then intend another, by enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests. Common bars to extradition include: Failure to fulfil dual criminality – generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum (retroactive) penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties. Which is exactly the point in Polanski’s case, since the two years Cooley wants are not ‘minimum’, and the Swiss only extradite people who face more than six months. Possibility of certain forms of punishment – some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment, face torture or degrading treatment. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer. Questionable, since even if the sentence might be lenient, if Polanski would face time inside rather than probation and certain danger of being assaulted, that would render extradition unsound since there is no rampant prison rape in Switzerland and he had done his time in 1977/8 already.

The European Court of Human Rights  held that it would violate Article 3 of the  European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States, if it was due to, for one, the distressing conditions while on remand and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. These restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that a government has agreed upon. Countries with a  rule of law typically make extradition subject to review by that country’s courts. These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, (or evidence obtained from torture) or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a  fair trial on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment if extradited. That inhuman prison rape is a daily occurrence in US jails or even while on detention doesn’t seem to bother anyone at the Swiss courts. I’m sure what the Swiss might consider ‘degrading’ is daily routine in US courts, where rape victims are assaulted, or innocent inmates are being raped in prisons regardless of age or race, and even if Polanski would not face physical dangers for being held on a more secure tier as it happened at Chino, a stay for months would be inhumanly stressful for his age. All for sleeping with a minor three decades ago who cried rape.

Even Panama has a law that says, anyone over the age of seventy is exempt from serving even longer prison sentences for any crime/s committed and is automatically entitled to house arrest on humanitarian grounds as an act of mercy. That of course could never happen in the oh so civilised US, where people Polanski’s age are incarnated like everyone else with hardcore criminals, who might only be inside for some non-violent misdemeanour. Whereas Polanski had been treated with respect by prison staff while on Swiss remand, that cannot be guaranteed in the US, the most inhuman country in the western world that sends innocent men into hell for having sex. The cases are plenty, the misery is endless, and the damage done to these young and now even old men lasts forever. I’m sure Cooley and his court henchman would think twice to send their own grandfather inside for having done nothing else than the rest on this planet, have sex, and apply every possible il/legal means to see him freed.

Coming back to the lawsuits concerning several photos printed in French publications, a Paris judge has ordered three publications on April 27th to pay damages to Polanski for printing these unauthorised photos. Many of the photographs at issue depicted Polanski, his wife or children in or near their Chalet. Polanski and Emmanuelle had sued two French newspapers and two French magazines for a total of about 150,000 Euro complaining the publications ran photos that invaded their privacy. With most of the decisions now in, they have so far been awarded 12,500 Euro. The paper’s lawyer said that the photo was ‘a pertinent illustration’ of Polanski under house arrest, which he called ‘a case that has received media coverage around the world’. That’s an understatement. In one decision, a judge ruled that the respected Le Journal du Dimanche must pay Polanski 3,000 Euro for a photo showing him looking out through a slit in the curtains of the Chalet. The French judge also ordered VSD celebrity magazine to pay 5,500 Euro to the Polanski family for a photo spread that included pictures of his Emmanuelle and their children at an airport. VSD had blurred the children’s faces to make them unrecognisable, as minors are especially protected under French press law. Another celebrity magazine, Voici, was ordered to pay 1,000 Euro for a photo of Emmanuelle walking down a street in Switzerland. Last week, Le Parisien newspaper was ordered to pay 3,000 Euro in damages to Polanski. Good.

Ending his long silence, Polanski has finally addressed his possible extradition to the US with a statement that accused authorities there of “trying to serve me on a platter to the media of the world,” instead of honoring their plea agreement made decades ago. “I have decided to break my silence in order to address myself directly to you without any intermediaries and in my own words,” which was distributed to the news media on May 2nd. The 908-word statement was circulated by Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is a friend of Polanski’s and the director of the French magazine La règle du jeu. What follows is the English transcript available on that journal.

ROMAN POLANSKI in his own words.

Throughout my seven months since September 26, 2009, the date of my arrest at Zurich Airport, where I had landed with a view to receiving a lifetime award for my work from the representative of the Swiss Minister of Culture, I have refrained from making any public statements and have requested my lawyers to confine their comments to a bare minimum. I wanted the legal authorities of Switzerland and the United States, as well as my lawyers, to do their work without any polemics on my part.

I have decided to break my silence in order to address myself directly to you without any intermediaries and in my own words.

I have had my share of dramas and joys, as we all have, and I am not going to try to ask you to pity my lot in life.  I ask only to be treated fairly like anyone else.

It is true:  33 years ago I pleaded guilty, and I served time at the prison for common law crimes at Chino, not in a VIP prison.  That period was to have covered the totality of my sentence.  By the time I left prison, the judge had changed his mind and claimed that the time served at Chino did not fulfil the entire sentence, and it is this reversal that justified my leaving the United States.

This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary film-maker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time.  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 now remain silent no longer!

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.

I can remain silent no longer because the California court has dismissed the victim’s numerous requests that proceedings against me be dropped, once and for all, to spare her from further harassment every time this affair is raised once more.

I can remain silent no longer because there has just been a new development of immense significance.  On February 26 last, Roger Gunson, the deputy district attorney in charge of the case in 1977, now retired, testified under oath before Judge Mary Lou Villar in the presence of David Walgren, the present deputy district attorney in charge of the case, who was at liberty to contradict and question him, that on September 16, 1977, Judge Rittenband stated to all the parties concerned that my term of imprisonment in Chino constituted the totality of the sentence I would have to serve.

I can remain silent no longer because the request for my extradition addressed to the Swiss authorities is founded on a lie.  In the same statement, retired deputy district attorney Roger Gunson added that it was false to claim, as the present district attorney’s office does in their request for my extradition, that the time I spent in Chino was for the purpose of a diagnostic study.

The said request asserts that I fled in order to escape sentencing by the U.S. judicial authorities, but under the plea-bargaining process I had acknowledged the facts and returned to the United States in order to serve my sentence.  All that remained was for the court to confirm this agreement, but the judge decided to repudiate it in order to gain himself some publicity at my expense.

I can remain silent no longer because for over 30 years my lawyers have never ceased to insist that I was betrayed by the judge, that the judge perjured himself, and that I served my sentence.  Today it is the deputy district attorney who handled the case in the 1970s, a man of irreproachable reputation, who has confirmed all my statements under oath, and this has shed a whole new light on the matter.

I can remain silent no longer because the same causes are now producing the same effects.  The new District Attorney, who is handling this case and has requested my extradition, is himself campaigning for election and needs media publicity!

I can no longer remain silent because the United States continues to demand my extradition more to serve me on a platter to the media of the world than to pronounce a judgment concerning which an agreement was reached 33 years ago.

I can remain silent no longer because I have been placed under house arrest in Gstaad and bailed in very large sum of money which I have managed to raise only by mortgaging the apartment that has been my home for over 30 years, and because I am far from my family and unable to work.

Such are the facts I wished to put before you in the hope that Switzerland will recognize that there are no grounds for extradition, and that I shall be able to find peace, be reunited with my family, and live in freedom in my native land.

Roman Polanski

I have nothing to add.

As it seems the Swiss authorities don’t believe they have any ‘jurisdiction’ to consider the criticisms made by Polanski against ‘American justice’, they argue, Polanski should defend himself before the US law. He is doing so it seems. The NY Times is reporting that the LA courts have scheduled a hearing for May 10th, in an effort by Polanski’s legal team to unseal Gunson’s testimony after all, describing Rittenband’s misconduct and his intentions of Polanski’s sentence at Chino having been his time served. Today May 5th, it seems the Swiss courts have refused to block extradition. Whether the California court has been guilty of illegal collusion and misconduct is irrelevant to the Swiss authorities, they insist these allegations need to be clarified in the USA.

True. But if they are part of a testimony that can explain any sentencing limits that can foil extradition, i.e., were set below the max six month allowing extradition, it’s vital to take them into consideration. Of course, it’s not the first time in American legal history that a judge cared less about legal correctness than about the publicity surrounding his own person. Or any ambitious DA seeking reelection. This whole charade is about politics and money, not any ‘justice’. Since thirty-three years have elapsed now, after such a long time fair procedure and judgment are impossible, especially in a corrupt case like this. How only can Switzerland demonstrate credulity that extradition is acceptable, after Polanski went unchallenged for years, visited the country many times? Has property there since years? I think none. We know who whistled on him, and why. Just so to see what the Extradition Treaty between the US and Switzerland is all about, after it was amended in 1997, here it is.

Art. 1 An obligation to extradite

1. The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, to surrender to each person who is prosecuted for having committed an extraditable offense, who have been convicted of such an act or who is sought to purposes of enforcing a security measure by the competent authorities of the requesting State.

2. If the offense was committed outside the territory of the requesting State, the requested State shall comply with the extradition request provided:

a) such an offense committed in similar circumstances is punishable under the law, or

b) that the person sought is a national of the requesting State or is sought for an offense committed against a national of the requesting State.

Art. 2 Extraditable offenses

1. A violation is considered extraditable only if the offender is liable to a penalty or a measure involving deprivation of liberty for more than a year under the laws of both Contracting Parties. If the request for extradition relates to a person sentenced, extradition shall be granted only if the balance of the sentence to serve the detention or both of at least six months.

2. It is immaterial for the purposes of this section

a) or the offense is not defined in identical terms in the law of the Contracting Parties, or

b) whether or not an offense for which the federal law of the United States requires proof of the use of means of inland transport, the use of postal or other means for the purposes of national or international, since these elements serve only to establish the jurisdiction of a federal court in the United States.

3. When the conditions set out in paras. 1 and 2 are met, extradition is granted in case of attempt, complicity or conspiracy (conspiracy), provided that the offense is also a violation of Swiss federal law.

4. If extradition is granted, it is also for any other offense recognized as such by the law of both Contracting Parties, regardless of time restrictions specified in para. 1.

Art. 3 Offences political, fiscal or military

1. The requested State refuses to grant the extradition if the acts for which she has been sought is a political offense or if the request appears to be motivated by political considerations.

2. Under the present Treaty, breaches the Contracting Parties, through multilateral international agreement, pledged to punish or extraditing the offender, or by loading their own authorities to prosecute him, are not regarded as political offenses and are therefore treated in accordance with the provisions of the multilateral international agreement in question.

3. The requested State may refuse extradition for acts

a) that violate legal provisions governing matters of an exclusively monetary, commercial or economic;

b) whose sole purpose to reduce taxes or fees or

c) that are criminally punishable under military law only.]

Art. 4 Non bis in idem (‘Double jeopardy’ clause)

1. Extradition is not granted if the requested State has already found the person sought for the acts for which extradition is requested.

2. The executive authority of the United States or the Swiss authorities may refuse extradition if the offense for which extradition is requested is under the jurisdiction of the requested State and that he will prosecute the perpetrator of the offense.

3. The fact that the competent authorities of the requested State have decided not to prosecute the crimes for which extradition has been requested or that all criminal proceedings were instituted against him that led to a dismissal does not preclude extradition.

Art. 5 Limitation

Extradition is not granted if the prosecution or the execution of the penalty or measure imposed is prescribed by the law of the requesting State. (? Shouldn’t it say, ‘not prescribed’? I.e., tell them what sentence it might entail?)

Art. 6 Capital Punishment

When the perpetrator of the act for which extradition is requested is punishable by the death penalty under the law of the requesting state, but it is not foreseen in the law of the requested State, extradition may be refused if the requested State considers that the requesting State has not provided adequate assurances that the death penalty will not be executed.

Art. 7 Default Judgement

When the person sought has been tried in absentia, the executive authority of the United States or the Swiss authorities may refuse extradition if the requested State considers that the requesting State has not provided sufficient guarantees in respect of human defense.

Art. 8 Extradition of nationals

1. The fact that the person sought is a national does not allow the requested State to refuse extradition unless the prosecution of the person for the acts in respect of which the extradition request was made not under its jurisdiction.

2. If extradition is refused under para. 1 and if the requesting State so requests, the requested State shall submit the case to its competent authorities so that they lead the prosecution. The documents and evidence concerning the case are freely available to the requested State. The Requesting State shall be informed of the result was given to his request.

Art. 9 Request for extradition

1. Extradition requests are submitted through diplomatic channels. They are accompanied by a translation required under art. 11.

2. All requests for extradition shall contain:

a) indications concerning the identity, nationality and place of residence of the person presumed to which refer to the documents listed in paras. 3 and 4 and, if possible, physical description, photograph and fingerprints;

b) a brief description of the facts, including date and place of the offense;

c) Statement of laws describing the main elements of the offense for which extradition is requested, the designation of the offense, a description of the scope and nature of the punishment for that offense and the time Limitation of prosecution or punishment.

3. If the person is not convicted, the extradition request must also contain:

a) a certified copy of arrest warrant or any other act displaying similar effects;

b) a brief presentation of the facts, key findings and evidence to accept that allowing the person sought has committed the offense for which extradition is requested, if the request comes from Switzerland, this summary is written by a judicial authority and if the request is submitted by the United States, it is drafted by the Attorney General and served with a copy of the indictment.

4. If the person sought has been convicted or has not been convicted, the request for extradition shall also include:

a) a certified copy of the criminal sentence or, if the person was convicted but the sentence has not yet been issued, a statement respecting the judicial authority;

b) a copy of the indictment stating the charges which the person sought has been convicted;

c) a certified copy of arrest warrant or the declaration under which the person sought to be adopted for execution of criminal judgments;

d) whether the sentence has been pronounced, a certified copy of this pronouncement as well as a statement on the balance of the sentence to be served.

5. If the person sought has been tried in absentia, the requesting state provides the documents listed in paras. 2 and 4.

Art. 10 Additional information

If the executive authority of the United States or the competent Swiss authorities estimate that the documents accompanying the application do not contain all the necessary information, they require additional information. The review of the application is continued on the basis of this information completed.

Art. 11 Translation

If the request for extradition is made by Switzerland, the request itself and all accompanying documents are written in or translated into English. If the request for extradition is made by the United States, the application itself and all accompanying documents are written in or translated into one of the official languages of Switzerland. The official language is determined case by case basis by the Swiss authorities.

Art. 12 documents admitted as evidence

The documents accompanying a request for extradition shall be admitted as evidence:

a) whether, if the request comes from the United States, they have been authenticated by a judge, magistrate or officer of the United States and sealed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs;

b) whether, if the request comes from Switzerland, they were signed by a judicial or other competent Swiss authority and authenticated by the first official diplomatic or consular of the United States to Switzerland, or

c) they have been certified or authenticated in any other manner permitted by law of the requested State.

Art. 13 Provisional arrest

1. In case of emergency, either Contracting Party may request the provisional arrest of the person sought. The request for provisional arrest or the application for extension thereof shall be transmitted through diplomatic channels, either directly from the federal Department of Justice and Police in the Department of Justice of the United States or vice versa.

2. The application must

a) indicate that a request for extradition;

b) indicate the existence of an arrest warrant, a document having the same legal force or criminal trial and the date of the document and the name of the authority that has established;

c) designate the offense, indicate the maximum penalty by the author and, if applicable, the balance of the sentence;

d) contain a brief description of the facts indicating the date and place of the offense;

e) contain information concerning the identity, nationality and place of residence of the person alleged claimed.

3. Upon receipt of the request, the requested State shall take the necessary measures to arrest the person sought. The Requesting State shall be informed promptly of the outcome of their application.

4. Provisional arrest shall be terminated if, within 40 days after the arrest of the person sought, the executive authority of the United States or the competent Swiss authorities have not received the formal request of extradition and the supporting documents. Upon request, this period may exceptionally be extended by 20 days.

5. The release of the person sought, under para. 4, does not it is again arrested and then extradited if the extradition request and supporting documents are sent later.

Art. 14 Decision and Surrender

1. The requested State shall immediately inform the requesting State through diplomatic channels of its decision on the extradition request. Any complete or partial rejection of the application must be motivated. The requested State shall also inform the requesting State the duration of detention pending extradition suffered by the person sought.

2. If extradition is granted, the surrender of the person sought is held within the time prescribed by the law of the requested State. The authorities of the Contracting Parties agree on the date and place of delivery. However, if the person is not taken outside the territory of the Requested State within the prescribed period, it can be released. The requested State may refuse extradition because of the offense for which it was requested.

Art. 15 Postponed or Temporary

If the extradition request has been accepted, but that the person sought is being prosecuted or serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for other acts, the requested State may

a) postpone the surrender until the conclusion of the proceedings against the person sought or until it has completed all the sentences to which the person was convicted or is about to be, or

b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State so that it can conduct the prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody by the requesting State, then at the end of the procedure, returned to the state required under the terms agreed by the Parties.

Art. 16 Rule of Specialty

1. A person extradited shall not be prosecuted, sentenced or detained for any offense committed before surrender other than that for which extradition, or extradited to a third State, unless:

a) the executive authority of the United States or the competent Swiss authorities agree there, before making its decision, the requested State may require to be consulted on the accompanying documents and a position in writing of the extradited to the offense in question or that

b) the extradited person has not left the territory of the Requesting State within 45 days although she has been allowed, she has returned on her own after leaving or has left the territory of the requesting State and that it was forbidden and that it be returned.

2. The requesting State may however take all measures necessary under its laws, including the use of a default procedure to interrupt the limitation period.

3. When the definition of the offense for which the requested person was extradited is amended during the procedure, the person sought may be prosecuted or tried

a) if the offense as it has been redefined in the law is an extraditable offense and its components are the same as those that motivated the request for extradition, which are contained in documents accompanying and

b) if the sentence is not more severe than the maximum penalty for the offense for which extradition was granted.

4. A person extradited may be prosecuted, detained or tried for any crimes committed by them before extradition

a) if, in cases where extradition has been granted by Switzerland, the extradited person agrees, by declaration or recorded minutes of being prosecuted or having run the judgments for all these offenses, after he explained what the rule of specialty and that he was informed of the legal consequences of his statement, or

b) if, in cases where extradition has been granted by the United States, the executive authority of that country waives the request of the competent Swiss authorities, application of the rule of specialty for all these offenses.

The executive authority of the United States attached to its application a copy of the statement. The requested State shall immediately communicate its decision to the requesting State.

Art. 17 Concurrent requests

If extradition is requested by several States for the same offense or for different offenses, the executive authority of the United States or the competent Swiss authorities decide to which country the person to be extradited. The requested State shall decide taking into account all relevant factors, including but not limited to, the relative seriousness of offenses, from where they were committed, the dates for receipt of requests for extradition, the nationality of the person sought and the possibility of subsequent extradition to another state.

Art. 18 Simplified Extradition

If, after the competent judicial authority was personally notified of his right to be a formal extradition proceedings and the protection owed as a result, the person consents in writing and irrevocably to his extradition, the requested State may grant extradition without initiating formal extradition proceedings. When extradition under this section is granted by Switzerland, the specialty rule is applicable.

Art. 19 Surrender of Property

1. If extradition is granted, the Requested State shall surrender to the requesting state, to the extent permitted by its law and subject to the rights of others, all objects that can serve as evidence that result of the offense or have been acquired in exchange for such objects that were found in the possession of the person sought at the time of his arrest or discovered subsequently. These objects are, if possible, returned to the requesting State at the same time as the person sought, even if it has not specifically requested. The items must be surrendered even if extradition having been granted, can not take place.

2. The requested State may condition the surrender of property on the condition that the requesting state to furnish sufficient assurances that the property will be made available as soon as possible.

Art. 20 Transit

1. Each Contracting Party may give permission to transit through its territory of a person surrendered to the other Contracting Party by a third State. The Contracting Party requesting transit shall send his application to the State required for transit through the diplomatic channel. The request for transit shall contain a description of the person concerned, a summary of facts and confirmation that there is an arrest warrant, an act of the same legal force or criminal trials. The request must be dated and should acknowledge the authority which issued it. The submission of a request for transit is not necessary if it is done by air and no landing is scheduled on the territory of the other Contracting Party.

2. In case of unscheduled landing on the territory of the other Contracting Party, the transit takes place under the provisions of para. 1. The Party in whose territory the landing place can hold the person in transit for 72 hours pending the request for transit.

Art. 21 Fees

1. The cost of translating the documents supporting the extradition request and expense of transporting the person sought until the point of sale on the territory of the Requesting State shall be borne by the requesting State. All other costs resulting from the request and extradition proceedings are borne by the requested State.

2. The requested State shall ensure that the requesting state is represented in all proceedings in the extradition request.

Art. 22 Application

This Treaty shall apply to all criminal acts punishable under Article 2 of which were committed before or after the entry into force of this Treaty.

Art. 23 Effects on other conventions and national law

If a procedure provided for in this Treaty would facilitate extradition settled in another treaty or law of the requested State, the procedure is conducted in accordance with this Treaty. Extradition settled in another instrument of international law or national law of the Contracting Parties shall not be affected by this Treaty and this does so excluded or restricted.

Art. 24 Consultation

If a Contracting Party so requests, a consultation is held, either generally or in relation to a particular case regarding the interpretation, application or implementation of this Treaty.

Art. 25 Entry into Force and Termination

1. This Treaty is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible.

2. This Treaty shall enter into force 180 days after the exchange of instruments of ratification.

3. Upon the entry into force of this Treaty, the Extradition Treaty of May 14, 1900 and the extradition treaties of the additional 10 January 1935 and January 31, 1940 between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation repealed, but they continue to apply to extradition proceedings under way.

4. Either party may terminate this Treaty at any time upon the expiry of five years from the entry into force, with written notification at least six months in advance.

In witness whereof , the plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto, have signed this Treaty.

Done in Washington, DC November 14, 1990 in English and German languages, both texts being equally authentic.

Well, so much for that. Funny how it says in Art. 9 b) ‘a brief presentation of the facts, key findings and evidence to accept that allowing the person sought has committed the offense for which extradition is requested,’ when the extradition papers only give her more than outdated testimony, no ‘evidence’ to back it up, no ‘key findings’, nothing at all otherwise or anything the extraditable party said in his defence. No ‘proof’ at all, since all she said to this day is supposition. Not fact. Art. 7 says: ‘Default Judgement. When the person sought has been tried in absentia, the executive authority of the United States or the Swiss authorities may refuse extradition if the requested State considers that the requesting State has not provided sufficient guarantees in respect of human defense.’ That means, even if they had sentenced him in absentia, he still could be extradited, for what purpose is another question when someone was pronounced already. Unless the sentence entails a prison term sentence, which however can be turned into time spent at a prison of his own native country.

Art. 10 says: ‘Additional information. If the executive authority of the United States or the competent Swiss authorities estimate that the documents accompanying the application do not contain all the necessary information, they require additional information. The review of the application is continued on the basis of this information completed.’ Funny how they had said before that the US has been less than ‘transparent’, and now suddenly don’t want to know of Gunson’s proof that extradition cannot be granted, on the grounds of Polanski not having been up for more than the three months, which were cut in half certainly not his fault, at no further jail time demanded by anyone. Let alone the ‘victim’. Looks like they want to get rid of the entire chain and ball case they had set into rolling when they called on the US if they still ‘want’ Polanski, while much more important cases are ignored and I’m sure they harbour anyone much more dangerous to be sent down.

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the Head of the Federal Department of Justice and Police of Switzerland, the one who had denied that they sold Polanski to the US for their offshore banking deals, apparently has written an ‘official letter’ concerning Polanski’s house arrest. It is unclear to whom she has addressed that letter, OR IF IT IS AUTHENTIC (I in fact doubt and sounds more like an anti-Polanski propaganda piece), but a senior US news editor posted it on his political website, which follows.

“I am making a plea to you not only as the head of the Federal Department of Justice and Police of Switzerland, but as a mother of three children to revoke the house arrest of child molester Roman Polanski and place him in a secure facility. Almost thirty years ago, Roman Polanski was arrested in the United States and charged with drugging and raping a thirteen-year-old little girl. The girl, Samantha Geimer, accused Polanski of giving her alcohol and drugs, and then, despite her repeated protests, he raped and sodomized her. Polanski denied these charges, yet pled to a lesser charge of unlawful intercourse with a minor. The United States justice system afforded him his right to counsel and due process under the constitution. Despite the fact that he pled guilty to the charges against him, he fled the country before being sentenced. He has had an outstanding arrest warrant against him in the US since then, and five years ago, in 2005, an international arrest warrant was issued against him. Instead of paying for his crimes and providing a victimized child with some semblance of closure, Polanski took the path of a coward and escaped sentencing. I do not mean to use the word coward in an inflammatory manner, however the definition of coward is “a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition or pain.” This is exactly the kind of character Roman Polanski demonstrated by fleeing the United States before facing his sentence. Last week, Roman Polanski lost a pivotal appeal on his case to be heard in absentia. This will force a political issue in the coming months of whether Switzerland will extradite him to the United States. This, however, is not why I am requesting you revoke Polanski’s house arrest. I ask, instead, that you consider the nature of a coward. Cowards, without fail, take the easy way in life. Despite the fact that doing so may hurt others, it is not in their nature to care. By definition, a coward will never be one to protect another human being, because doing so may cause harm to themselves. Mr. Polanski proved himself to be just such a person when, despite the harm it would cause to the young girl he assaulted, he fled sentencing simply to protect himself. If Roman Polanski is not placed in the custody of a secure facility in Switzerland and is allowed to remain under house arrest, it is almost certain that as the hour draws closer for him to finally have his day in court, he will yet again flee another jurisdiction. I plead with you as a father and hope to empower you as a mother to do the right thing. This man gave up any right he had to leniency the second he left United States soil. Please do not give him another chance to escape. It is within your power to make sure he faces punishment for what he did to that little girl nearly thirty years ago, and his sentencing is long overdue. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Respectfully Yours, Head of Federal Department of Justice and Police of Switzerland.”

Why it says, ‘nearly thirty’ years ago is a mystery, which only proves that ‘whoever’ wrote this, hasn’t even got the basic details right of the case, let alone any of the finer details or seems to know he was at Chino. Another self-righteous busybody who simply takes the ‘little girl’s’ words for fact just because she said so, and that three decades ago just because she was a minor, disregarding her own wishes as an adult woman now besides to see this ended, not dragged out, calling Polanski a ‘coward’ for fleeing. Funny how Gunson of all people would gave done the same knowing of Rittenband’s own ‘emotional blackmail’ tactics, but I don’t see the author calling Polanski’s own former prosecutor a coward. How unbecoming to appeal to others in the typically emotional blackmail manner, right in the vein of ludicrous calls to protect our children from the monstrous director, while no one is allowed to appeal for clemency in Polanski’s case in a similar form when pointing them to the facts, when Polanski never hurt any ‘child’, let alone the only woman who had accused him of rape. Funny how he never raped anyone else, or that he seems to stand in for every rapist in the world that needs securing like a dangerous animal. In shackles of course. And it stinks of right-wing racism. I’m sure whoever composed this defamation would be happy for their own father to be kept at home, not in prison, were he to be extradited for having sex three decades ago.

Admittedly for a case of unlawful sex he had sat out, but if anyone is a ‘coward’, than that’s empowered people like her selling others out for dirty banking deals, not any ‘justice’. And, ‘closure’ for the ‘little victimised girl’? According to Geimer long grown up now and past any of this forced ‘scandal’ she never wanted, after mom didn‘t quite listen to her not to drag in the law, that would have meant no one to touch the case again, no one to call on the authorities to arrest him again, but someone to have the case dropped to avoid testifying, or to finally sentence him in absentia to litigate and close this corrupted case, not meddling people demanding ‘special treatment’ to put an old man behind bars who violated no one. This ‘author’ like so many has no idea about the ‘little girl’s’ family background, her commonly sex, drugs and alcohol pervaded Hollywood upbringing, her wanting to get into the into the industry, her motives to drop the case, erroneously judging from their own ‘ordinary’ life far away from Hollywood without the slightest clues of the circumstances of that day, or the legal status quo of it. All the ‘author’ does is believe her long self-amended words, utterly ignoring the fact that they were never proven in the first place. And ‘not care’? Polanski is known to be very caring, otherwise he in fact had demanded a trial, but he didn’t want to put the girl into the limelight, whose identity no one knew of at that point. And he cares for his friends, family and his loyal fans.

What’s with this jaded ‘little girl’ rhetoric anyhow. Ms Geimer was a perfectly grown adolescent, not ‘child’. Only the law made her an disempowered ‘child’ and now she’s almost fifty. How would Ms Geimer put it, cut the crap. That not meant in any form as an affront. Astonishing how people keep on about her ‘little girl’ image that never was, let alone a little ‘innocent’ girl. These people have to bash the bible of Polanski the monster he never was by default now, or turn minors into powerless little infants. Astonishing. He was a sex infatuated director like so many, not paedophiliac rapist, they’re mutually exclusive in fact. Otherwise he must be the only ‘onetime rapist’ ‘child molester’ in history then. Amazing. This is looking more and more like a political persecution from both ends now, and to think he would flee ‘again’ is more than ludicrous, since he could have done so throughout all these months he was under house arrest. Why he would only do so when ‘his day in court draws closer’ is a mystery. How would he manage that? Run from the plenty officers being almost eighty? Deserting and shaming his family for what exactly? Where would he go with a face more recognisable than Obama’s by now? Such indeed ‘inflammatory’ and uninformed rhetoric is more than preposterous. And, ‘afforded him his right to counsel and due process’? Yeah right.

This ‘author’ has obviously no idea about the man she calls a coward in another show of pathetic over-reaction after Widmer-Sclumpf had lied to us already, about someone who has more ideas and memories about ‘facing danger, difficulty, opposition or pain’ since his childhood, through the ghetto years, the Manson tragedy and endless media persecution, than they will ever know. It’s an insult, and this author is part of this lynch mob. Polanski has to think of his family these days, wants to go to home to his wife and kids. But people like ‘this’ deny him this final closure out of spite even the so called ‘victim’ demands, who had lived in perfect oblivion and peace for all these decades, unlike Polanski, before she made herself known. That was up to her, no one else, and is long part of this debacle Rittenband had forced on her and Polanski. Ms Geimer said she was glad he ran, and I’m sure that Widmer-Schlumpf never made any protestations in regards to Polanski’s before he was rearrested, with her very own help. These people are destructive witch hunters without any sympathy or even the slightest moral understanding of the case let alone any integrity, not even having the full facts, but would beg to have mercy shown to them. No surprises there.

To recap, a plea bargain is based on the following rules, ‘the plea bargain is negotiated at the request of counsel for the prosecuting party and all the parties involved (i.e., prosecution, defence, and the judge on the recommendation of probation officers, psychiatrists etc.) shall agree on the nature of the offence and the sentence, thus avoiding a trial.’ That was done when the mother demanded the plea deal, Polanski then pleaded to the one count in exchange to drop the other unproven charges, and that no jail time was demanded from all parties. Except Rittenband changed his mind after he had sent him to Chino, and everybody was in agreement that was it. And to remind people, the purposes of incarceration is (a) to protect society from the offender; (b) to (possibly) rehabilitate the offender; (c) to serve as a deterrent to others; (d) to punish the offender for his or her crime. The Polanski case is a perfect example of a, b, c, or even d not being applicable at all since he never ‘reoffended’, certainly won’t need ‘rehabilitation’ and did his time. Jailing him now after all these years won’t serve as a ‘deterrent’ either given the time between the events and his rearrest. Espinoza could have given Polanski an absentia sentence, which would have given the Swiss clarity in regards to the extradition, instead of leaving the ‘sentence’ in dispute.

If Espinoza says, “Nothing precludes the possibility Judge Rittenband’s original promise will someday be enforced. I don’t disagree that the intended sentence was the time Mr. Polanski already spent in a state prison under psychiatric evaluation,” and Polanski is only facing time served, and that’s what the extradition request is for, but will not sentence him in absentia, which then would conclude this never-ending saga, this has done nothing to stop Cooley continuing with the extradition request. The word vengeance comes to mind. Cooley is known to be vindictive and more than corrupt after years in office now, and as many others see it, and myself, this seems to be more of a get-rich scheme to add more clout to his well-known lust for power and dirty money, so that Cooley can be the next Attorney General of California at the expense of another famous person, Polanski. Who in addition to already having served his time at Chino, has proven to be as harmless as can be after over three decades and has sat out another 70 days on Swiss remand, both covering more than the three months Rittenband had in mind.

Let’s not forget, if Polanski had been such a ‘moral threat to society’, not even media whore Rittenband had let him run loose in Europe to get on with his film, or if Polanski’s intent was to flee ‘justice’. He only fled injustice, once forced into the situation of a Catch-22 type can’t-win position in 1978 where he was damned if he stayed and damned if he fled the judicial and hidden prosecutorial corruption engulfing him, since he wanted to keep working in Hollywood, when Rittenband wanted him out the country. So why stay to sit out the other 48 days and then be deported against all counsel anyway. That’s unlawful and vindictive, and was even caught on film in that documentary. Polanski’s case is not the only one of foul play where DAs seek promotion to become AGs, who will keep on victimising the defenceless in order to gain promotion, using unlawful power strategies and bribes, not matter whether you’re rich or poor, famous or not. Cooley keeps on stooping in like an ugly vulture in search for a defendant’s vulnerability, and with each different victim comes a different promotion opportunity. Instead of comparing his case to the mass murderers who are not prosecuted, it would be more egalitarian to compare Polanski with the countless wo/men in US prisons who do not have the resources he had to combat the political manoeuvring by overzealous judges and prosecutors who put them there.

Polanski is unjustly made to look as if he ran from justice instead of injustice, and now he’s crying out for the world to see what is happening in LA, where people like him are being sold out for banking deals and denigrated like mass murderers, their lives ruined again and again, so the County of LA and California officials can sweep rampant corruption under the rug, receive ‘respectability’ and praise from the people who don’t know better, another promotion at their expense, dubious advancement of their careers, cover up their own corruption, and that of other officials’ corruption in the go. As the Federal Appeal Courts are currently helping this to happen with no recourse, Cooley seems to feel that the taxpayer’s dollars are his personal monies or to mis/use celebrities like Polanski to seek higher office is just. The Swiss should take a stance and tell the US courts to go and pack their bags and leave an old man who never harmed anyone in peace. If people like Widmer-Schlumpf can abuse their own power, and people calling him a child molester without qualms, since he’s such a threat to other ‘children’, and surely would try to ‘escape’ again with his family waiting for him to come home not wanting to find him in a river, I would call this situation gone completely out of control by now.

Fuelled by misled feminist and child protection agendas and personal issues that have no place here, this case has long become a political time bomb, and Polanski should sue the LA courts for their continuous misconducts and defendant’s rights violations on a grand scale. But of course, for that he’d needed to be there, which is the Catch-22 trap, since Espinoza has agreed there is misconduct, but in order to litigate it, he’s forcing him to appear in person, which in turn needlessly exposes Polanski to dangers of additional suffering both physically and mentally. Maybe Polanski should consider The European Court of Justice or The Hague as an option to highlight the more than blatant US Human Rights violations committed in his case. Many by now also think the ‘victim’ should be put on the stand and cross-examined not simply taking her old testimony for granted, withdraw Polanski’s plea to have a fair trial, start from scratch, and finally make clear what really happened, since all her original claims have run more than dry through her own later statements painting a very different picture many never saw either.

They finally want to hear what Polanski has to say about the course of events, since of course the majority still has no first clues about the bare basics, let alone concrete facts or anything from his side. Let alone are aware of the judicial mess this case is in ever since day one. Ms Geimer’s Grand Jury testimony is full of Swiss cheese holes and blatant absurdities if one considers her allegations logically, objectively, the entire course of events, mostly in regards to the ‘double sodomy’, which of course most people never noticed either, with many of them probably having sex abuse issues stemming from their own backgrounds, or for an experience of genuine rape, clouding the facts of this case, or in contrast never had anal sex to know better, while many genuine rape victims support him knowing what Ms Geimer ‘suffered’ was nowhere near any actual sexual assault. By blindly joining the witch hunters, they’re getting a sort of ‘third-party’ justice against their own abusers that probably escaped justice, and now rally against Polanski as their little whipping boy for all the sexual abuse/assault cases on this planet, to finally get their pound of flesh.

Congratulations Roman, after all the public/media abuse you’ve suffered already ever since Sharon’s cruel loss, you’re now the world’s only ‘onetime rapist/paedophile’ a second time over. If Ms Geimer really had been as drugged and drunk as she claimed, ‘dizzy’, she wouldn’t have been able to say anything, do anything, be on her feet over several hours, posed, smiled, and then had even the sex she described. No, she’d been ripped apart, battered and bruised, exhausted from all the crying and protesting, and Polanski would have had to drag and push her about the house, force her into it all on several levels. At no signs of physical abuse, no words from her that he threatened her, hurt her, caused her pain, no words from Huston to back her up in any form as an interested third party, all of Ms Geimer’s claims of ‘drugged rape’ and ‘dry double sodomy’ are as hollow as her later attempts to have the charges dropped, once it became too close for comfort to credibly uphold her claims. Teenage fantasies can be so damaging when they suddenly turn into nightmares, once the more serious laws get hold of transparent lies to make them last forever no matter what the adult woman says later, just for more ‘legal’ fun and public amusement Californian/Swiss style. Roman, you’re one unlucky bastard genius. Lucky you have a loving family and friends to help you get through this nightmare.

Of course, as one might expect, Cooley’s court argued Polanski’s request for access to Gunson’s sealed testimony detailing the misconduct should be rejected because of his ‘fugitive status’. Polanski’s attorneys have said it will help their efforts to fight Polanski’s extradition from Switzerland. Indeed, but who wants that. Name-caller Walgren wrote in the filing that the request should be denied because Polanski has repeatedly refused to return to LA for sentencing. He said allegations of misconduct in the case can and should be dealt with at Polanski’s sentencing. Funny that they need him there for that and probably will find some other clause to deny him to actually do so. Even funnier is how they can ‘sentence’ him, when the testimony clearly states that Polanski had done his time, no one wanted any further incarceration, and has already been behind bars for longer than what Rittenband had in mind. According to the court filings, Gunson had tried to challenge Rittenband, wanted him disqualified from the case because of multiple misconduct, but his supervisors prevented him from even filing it after they consulted with the judge, and Gunson was simply denied. Nice justice. Walgren also blasted comments by Polanski’s attorneys that prosecutors’ requests to Swiss authorities for his extradition contain false and incomplete statements. The allegations are ‘completely baseless and reckless allegations’, Walgren wrote. ‘Baseless’, really? Polanski fled after Rittenband made private, unlawful ex parte, remarks that he intended to renege on their agreement reached by all parties, and then threatened him with equally unlawful self-deportation. I’d call that more than ‘misconduct’ months down the road. Let’s see what May 10th will bring.

Oh, and here’s a nice little nugget for all the hypocrites out there to chew on till then, guess what? Cooley’s very own Governor Arnie, had an affair with a former ‘child actress’ starting when she was sixteen in 1975, yes, underage I believe in California then, causing muscle man Schwarzenegger, then thirty, to temporarily decide not to run for governor of California at that time. The woman, Goyette, said in interviews to have had a brief sexual encounter with Schwarzenegger that year. Sounds just like Polanski and Ms Geimer to me. And in the late 1980s she said, they had a once a year affair over seven years at an Ohio annual fitness convention he hosted then. And guess what? He paid her off with a lot of hard cash not to disclose their affair, but that seems to have gone wrong. The National Enquirer wrote about Goyette and her relationship with Schwarzenegger in spring of 2001, when he was first contemplating a run for office. In 2003, Goyette told the Times, she heard again from American Media, this time asking to buy the exclusive rights to her story, a deal she assumed would lead to a book. More money I’d say. Yet the company never published any more stories about their relationship, and in fact steered clear of most gossip about Schwarzenegger during the campaign. I guess, Polanski was a juicier fish to fry than ‘action hero’ Arnie running for governor, by floating Ms Geimer’s testimony to foil his receiving The Pianist Oscar in 2003, which however failed. A professor of political science had said, “If he [Schwarzenegger] paid off a woman to not talk about his relationship with her, he’s conspiring to keep information out of the public domain that’s relevant to the way people judge him.” I guess, Arnie’s campaign to shield him from ‘moral scrutiny’ worked just fine, who married into the powerful Kennedy family, and no one called him a ‘thick-accented’ ‘child molester’ or dragged him into court for ‘statutory rape’ then or decades later. Of course, this you won’t find in Wikipedia either, except some ‘groping sexual misconduct’ with several women. I wonder why.

The roots of Arnie’s well-documented chauvinistic attitude toward women lie far away in his homeland of Austria. When his father observed that the seventeen year old Arnold had never had a girlfriend and was obsessed by bodybuilding — an activity which has always had gay connotations and rumours circulated that he indeed was gay and had homosexual encounters — he became worried about his ‘straight sexuality’. So he did all he could to encourage junior to bring girls to their home in Graz; and now get this, he gave them wine, then left them alone together, hoping that the inevitable would happen. His father’s ‘permissiveness’ paid off; by the time Arnie was nineteen, and had come to England to compete in the Mister Universe contest, his appetite for young women was ‘well-developed’ — as was his crude approach to them resulting in all these ‘groping’ allegations. This having been mentioned in several news articles already seven years ago covering all his extra-marital escapades and that underage girl affair, no one seems to have taken any offence at that, or his father’s getting young girls drunk for his son to have sex with them while they were ‘intoxicated’, no matter Arnie’s own younger age. While Polanski was up for his Pianist Oscar prize, Schwarzenegger was up for his Governor post despite all these ‘drunken child molesting’ and ‘sexual assault’ cases which were NOT inventions, after Polanski had slept with only one underage girl who was hardly drunk let alone drugged or raped, and no one cared that her family too had allowed her free access to sex and drugs and alcohol from the age of eight and had an affair with her mother’s own boyfriend on top as documented by the prosecution itself. While Arnie made love to his underage lover in the same hotel as his wife-to-be was staying, no one called him an adulterer, but people keep dredging up Polanski’s affairs he had outside his marriage to Sharon, who in contrast was fully aware of it since they both had an understanding about ‘free love’. But then again, Arnie is the Governor of Cooley’s own corrupt court, and money can buy anything, including a ‘demure’ Kennedy wife to shut up about his blatant infidelities, and underage ex-lovers not to sue him. So much for ‘special treatment’ and double standards.

How did Cooley put it in his court filing from May 6th to deny Hummel’s unsealing request, “The ‘People’ (‘People’? No, ‘state’) believe that the defendant will be extradited to the United States. Once the defendant is securely before this court, (‘securely’? In shackles I guess) a full and fair (‘fair’? As fair as then I guess) hearing can be scheduled at which both parties will be allowed to call witnesses and delve into the allegations of misconduct. (‘Delve’? Depends on when the ‘schedule’ is set, which can be a day, a month, two, three… with Polanski sitting on remand, waiting.) At this same hearing, the People will have an equal opportunity to delve into the March 10, 1977 criminal actions of Roman Polanski. (Really? In that case Ms Geimer has to be there too, and she refused to testify against him then, and will not do so today, and if forced, will perjure herself, and if she pleads the Firth, will draw contempt of court.) With all the evidence in mind, (‘all’? Make sure the good doctors repeat their findings and Ms Geimer’s inconsistent ’recollections’ from decades later, and her boyfriend having said, ‘she’s always acting’) the alleged misconduct, (nothing ‘alleged’ about that) as well as the facts surrounding the underlying sexual offense committed by a 43-year old man against a drugged, scared and vulnerable 13-year old, (‘drugged’? Maybe they should try a Quaalude to see what it really does, or rather not what she had claimed, and, ‘scared’? There’s the unlocked door, no ‘scared rape victim’ would not eye, or ask for help from the woman there, try to escape at any given chance. And, ‘vulnerable’? With her family background of sex and drugs and alcohol from the age of ‘eight’, with a sister once institutionalised for Quaalude abuse? Sure, some call it ‘child abuse’, or, ‘child neglect’ committed by the family) this court will be able to make an informed and appropriate determination regarding the defendant’s sentence. (‘Sentence’? The family didn’t want any ‘sentence’, and they too should have been indicted, for drugs and alcohol furnishing offences, ‘lewd acts’ by her mother’s boyfriend, her own boyfriend sent down for unlawful sex, and others, and and and. Guess not.) The People eagerly await such a hearing, so that this case after a delay of 32 years, may be fairly and conclusively resolved.” ‘Fairly’? With the handy ‘rape shield laws’ blocking vital evidence, like the clerk’s report of her making out with her mother’s boyfriend outside Gunson’s own office? Not a chance. ‘Fairly’ would be to release Polanski on Ms Geimer’s perjury charges. Have they no more pressing ‘cases’ to ‘conclude’? Guess not.

Funny how the ‘court’ said in 1977, that, “You [Polanski] have the right to be confronted by the witnesses against you, and the right to cross-examine. (Really? How come she could be allowed NOT to do so, when she expressly said ‘no’ to stand trial?) You have the right to make a reply to the allegations that you are a ‘mentally disordered sex offender’, (or rather not, as submitted by the psyche reports Rittenband held already, but then sent him down for a ‘diagnostic study’ nobody asked for, could appeal and then were told that was his time and all before Rittenband reneged on that plea deal NOT to seek time in custody) and you have the right to call witnesses in your behalf and present evidence.” Really? Evidence that will simply not be allowed, like the clerk’s report, the panties, Huston’s original testimony, to name but a few. Polanski should have pressed for that trial, not accept that ‘leaving-people-to-believe-in-the-dropped-charges-are-fact’ plea deal. Dalton argued, “In 1976 there were forty four convictions of statutory rape, and none of these individuals went to prison, and only a quarter of them were placed on probation without any time in custody at all. Probation is deserved in this case, since the concept that you can improve on people by locking them up, I think, never was a very good idea anyway. (How true, see all the men sent down for that ‘law’ and being gang raped right now.) I think the experts here have indicated to us that it isn‘t necessarily for the protection of society or for the protection of others, to ask for my defendant be incarcerated.” Indeed, or Rittenband had not allowed Polanski to travel the globe to finish his second to-be-left-unfinished film abroad, and no one ever ‘cried rape’ again. Oh but I forgot, Polanski is the one and only onetime rapist on this planet.

What then followed in 1977 was Gunson’s ‘mock’ argument that Rittenband had asked him and Dalton to conduct, and argue for time in custody, as seen in that 2008 documentary. Rittenbrand scripted this ‘argument’ meant for the media, which is in fact also illegal. ‘Misconduct’ anyone? Gunson made it clear, in the presence of Rittenband and Dalton that the family expressly did not ask for incarceration. Logic permitting, NO mother would ever not ask for her daughter’s ‘rapist’ be set free on probation, even after no trial. Never. Dalton said, “The probation report disclosed that, although just short of her fourteenth birthday the ‘prosecutix’ was a well developed young girl who looked older than her years, was not unschooled in sexual matters, and not unfamiliar with Quaalude, since her tenth year of age in fact. And, the part played by the mother in permitting her daughter to accompany the defendant to the Nicholson home, unchaperoned, is to be strongly condemned, although there is ‘evidence’ that she has asked to go along on that venture.” Sure, she can say so after the fact, and Polanski could not prove otherwise. That’s why Gunson struck her remark, that she was turned away by Polanski or that Ms Geimer said to her ‘she didn’t like him’ while on the phone to her, from the record as hearsay since Ms Geimer never said so herself. In fact, when they both left to the Bisset/Nicholson shoot the mother in fact did not ask to come along, but her boyfriend had queried Polanski where they would go to do the next shoot. So there’s NO way it can be true that the mother or the sister (who was not at home either) wanted to go with them and were returned by Polanski, or that Ms Geimer did not know where they were headed.

In fact, Ms Geimer told Polanski that she didn’t want her coming along before, saying, “Like I hate having my mother around when I’m being photographed, because she says, like, do this, or do that.” Her mother being an ‘actress’, ‘coaching’ her ‘aspiring actress’ daughter. Now, if a mother wants to make SURE she accompanied her kid to a photoshoot with an older man, she MAKES sure she does, not waits for Polanski to call her to tell her they’ll be late for dinner, and only then ask if she’s ok, and Ms Geimer in fact said ‘uhu’, and absolutely nothing about being ‘afraid’ of him, or unwilling to get into the Jacuzzi, or do any of this. Ms Geimer’s mother only heard of the sex as the very last person hours after she was returned by Polanski, despite the two ‘discussing’ the ‘asthma lie’ in the kitchen once she dashed in to intercept her. Polanski stated in his autobiography that she had told the courts about how she came to ‘know’ about the ‘incident’. Now, logic permitting, anyone who was ‘raped’, wouldn’t necessarily ‘brag’ about it to their boyfriend much later, and say, and I quote, “Polanski had sex with me,” nor argue over it with their sister who overheard them, before the mother then entered the discussion, let alone forget to tell their mother about the ‘multiple rape’, but in fact would clamour about such an attack in the kitchen right there and then, and not ask her to lie about any fake asthma, but accuse him right there, not look at his photos. Or at least tell her once Polanski was gone, but she hadn’t, she only told her boyfriend they had sex. That part makes her ‘rape’ allegations even less credible, since, especially after Polanski left them, they had two weeks to ‘discuss’ what to say in court.

Polanski gave her mother a series of phone numbers of the places where he believed they might be going, and there was never any false ‘pretence’, since the mother fully endorsed all three shoots and obviously didn’t see it necessary to call him, and when he called her, Ms Geimer gave no indication that she ‘didn’t like him’. Funny thing is, had she not wanted to get into the Jacuzzi, and Polanski went into the bathroom to switch on the rheostat lights for the pool, they would never even have found the Quaaludes at all. So much for Polanski having ‘planned’ to drug her, in that case he’d brought some along. He was in fact telling her to take some shots first clothed in the kitchen, and then only let her get in the hot tub, and wasn’t too happy that she in fact got her hair wet by diving around. The pictures clearly show her in no form apprehensive, wet hair and all. So much for her being afraid of him. Then she got too hot from the water while he had a dip in the cooler pool and never joined her in the Jacuzzi for exactly that reason of it being too hot, telling her to get out and into the cooler pool, and she then came up with this needless asthma nonsense. Plus, the photo slides he had showed them once he had brought her home, with the mother’s boyfriend present, picturing her already topless in merely ONE shot (from the behind their own house location, the ones arresting cop Vannatter would find since the others in the camera they had done at the Nicholson’s house hadn’t been developed yet), Ms Geimer later explained as ‘having caused them to drop their jaws on the floor’.

That apparently had ‘only happened’ after he left, since Polanski stated that they all had liked them while ‘passing a joint’ and found them perfectly acceptable. Some time later the sister’s boyfriend, who had badgered him to photograph Ms Geimer, called him and said her mother found the photos ‘terrible’, while the friend, who then had a look at them after he told Polanski, said he thought they were beautiful when he came by, but behaved ‘edgy’. That being odd in itself, it’s even more curious that her own sister’s boyfriend didn’t know of the apparent ‘rape’ at that point either, since both Ms Geimer or her mother surely would have told him about that before they told him about the ‘terrible’ pictures, being Polanski’s personal friend. But, obviously, at that point it hadn’t been ‘rape’ ‘yet’. In fact, the mother only called the cops because the sister insisted on it after she had told her boyfriend of the ‘photos’ – not Ms Geimer or their mother, by the mother’s admission. What’s more, in the sister’s testimony she said that Polanski, while still at the house, talked to his friend right there after she had called him on the phone because of the photos – while Polanski had stated that he only spoke to him on the phone back at the hotel to then come by to look at them. Now, why would the mother allow him to take the photos back with him if they were so terrible, and why would the sister say they talked on the phone while still at their home, when that’s not true?

The sister did not say what they talked about on the phone, but it makes no sense either way, especially since Polanski said he had told her mother when he had phoned her to say they’d be late, that his friend is back and most likely will see them later, he did NOT say that he talked to him at THEIR house. What’s more, the mother said she had seen him and her daughter off that day, that Polanski told her where they’d go and she did not make any contention to go with them, while Polanski said he only told her boyfriend where they’d be heading, who, just like Polanski’s friend/the sisters boyfriend, was never part of the Grand Jury hearing. Plus, when they looked at the slides, Polanski did not mention that the sister was in fact there to be, for one pissed off about the photos, and then for him to have called her boyfriend/his friend from there. Furthermore, the mother said he made [‘that’] call at their house, but not to whom unlike the sister, who, to the mother’s words however only, called her boyfriend/his friend to tell him about the photos, not as the sister said the other way round. Also, the sister said Ms Geimer went right into the bathroom on arrival, while she and the mother said she had interceded her in the kitchen to tell her about the asthma [lie]. Now, why would they contradict not only their own, but his version in these points? That’s four, five words against his own suddenly out of the blue. Polanski could have helped Ms Geimer into the film industry despite not really being a match for the likes of Nastassja. According to Polanski, he kissed Ms Geimer and her mother goodbye upon leaving, and even shook hands with her mother’s boyfriend – the next evening he was arrested for ‘rape’ and there went their careers.

Coming back to Widmer-Schlumpf, who is personally in charge of the case mind you, working officially with the justice officials, publicly declared  in an interview published by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung today, May 9th, “It depends on when we have the documents we need to consider the extradition request,” in fact referring to Gunson’s testimony. Still vague on when the decision on possible extradition will be concluded, she was the one who denied they had sold Polanski out to the US for that UBS deal, but according to that ‘letter’ ( I doubt IS authentic) wants a harmless old man brought into a ‘secure facility’ like he’s Hannibal Lecter. It’s completely out of proportion in regards to what happened that day, ever since then, i.e., no ‘repeat offence’ lying in direct conflict of what a rapist/paedophile does in real life, had a very successful working life unlike most ‘rapists’ and/or very ‘low-IQed paedophiles’. People play nasty games with the public to stoke the flames or racism and blind hatred. No surprise there.

In her first statement expressed by the FORMER Justice Minister Widmer-Schlumpf had replaced, Elisabeth Kopp, since the extradition request from the US had come in, she in contrast had repeatedly expressed fierce objection to the extradition on the grounds of unclear facts given my the LA courts, i.e., the actual course of events, that Polanski had sat out his time, Rittenband’s antics and plea deal breaking, while the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner demands the extradition to be refused on the same grounds. The French diplomat obviously failed in his intentions to argue that with the US courts, or so far the Swiss authorities, but it is more than clear that this ‘Polanski affair’ has become more than ‘political’ beyond any ‘justice’, where politicians step in to wrangle over pro or contra motions to decide over the literal life of an old man who never harmed anyone, after Sarkozy of all people had to convince the Swiss to grant Polanski bail. According to a French poll asking today if Polanski should be extradited or not, the yes and no votes are split right down the middle, 50/50%.

And get this – there’s only ONE ‘administrator’ responsible to decide on the extraction at the end of the day, though he is not alone in that ‘burdensome task’, since the Court Director Leupold and Widmer-Schlumpf will have their own say. So, ONE person we have no idea of how he’s handling this with integrity, another ‘court official’ we have even less ideas of how he’s dealing with Polanski’s ‘case’, and that politico will be the only ones to decide if the extradition goes ahead. That’s a mere ‘three’ people, subject to personal bias, rules they can break/ignore, deciding over the imminent future of an old family man! All his life Polanski was a pawn of politics, from the Nazis to the Communists, or people killing off his future to have a family with Sharon’s and their baby’s murders, to finally face [still] unproven accusations of rape, and four decades of more media abuse NO other ‘celebrity’ has ever suffered, now in real danger of losing his current family as well. Or vice versa, in case someone reenacts either of the two darkest moments depicted in his very own latest film. Better not conjure up that ultimate tragedy.

To the Swiss folks however, a lesser ‘militant’ people than the Americans no one can dispute, ‘public policy’ includes obvious ‘incompatibility’ with fundamental principles of the extradition request, or to ask for it after such a long time, or the possibility to hold a fair ‘trial’ in the first place. They speculate right now on, how much ‘evidence’ can already diverge immediately after the events, and easily imagine how much more difficult a ‘correct recollection’ will be after so long a time. As seen in Ms Geimer’s case, since after two decades already she came up with very different ‘views’ on what happened, while no genuine rape victim would ever forget vital specifics unless unconscious during the attack, or say her violator ‘had sex with her’. Even if they had been drugged or drunk during the events Ms Geimer could never credibly prove, they most certainly would say ‘he raped me’, not, ‘he had sex with me’, ‘he wasn’t ‘hurting’ me or ‘mean’ or anything’. That’s just downright contradictive after her implausible ‘oral and vaginal rape’ and ‘twice suffered sodomy’ claims already. Her entire testimony ‘rhetoric’ and exact wording when read objectively denote anything but rape – it denotes simple sex, recreational drugs and fine champagne SHE took herself.

The limitation to allow extradition is in the Swiss’ view, the right of gaining ‘final closure’, by simply refusing this unsound extradition. They ask, can extradition be acceptable, when taking into account the long time passed, no ‘repeat offence’, unclear events that were never challenged in a trial in the first place, the entire legal misconduct clouding it all even further, and most of all, the advanced age and health status of Polanski? Is this principle of ‘proportionality’ inherent in the Swiss legal rights? I.e., who would ‘profit’ from a new ‘trial’, justice of injustice, after the so called ‘victim’ doesn’t even want a trial, no matter for reasons they wouldn’t suspect, thinking she doesn’t want to ‘relive’ the events? This argument might be inherent to the Swiss’ logic, but surely is of no interest to the US courts that mercilessly pursue an old sex case for a corrupt DA to become AG, while letting violent repeat offenders do real damage after they paid him off not to face prosecution. Or clergy paedophiles they have enough of, or violent rapists all bred by their own authoritarian anti-sex laws, and all the other powerful people who committed serious crimes against their own Cooley couldn’t care less about, except send down more innocent folks in glorious California to ‘score’. Hypocrisy anyone?

As expected, Espinoza has refused to unseal the secret testimony given by retired DDA Gunson. During a brief hearing on May 10th, the judge said the testimony was not intended for release unless Polanski returns for a hearing and Gunson is unavailable to testify in person. He also noted the Swiss Justice Ministry said it did not want the testimony to influence whether to extradite Polanski, while his attorneys argued that the testimony is potentially crucial to proving Polanski’s claim of misconduct by the now deceased judge in his case. And of course, proof to his having served his time. That said, the extradition will most likely go ahead at one point, after Polanski appealed the extradition go-ahead, which then will no doubt be refused as well after a few more weeks, and then we’re looking at the possibility that he will be shipped off right before Christmas to spend the holidays in detention, just like he did while at Chino in 1977/8, right into the New Year. That will no doubt please crooked Cooley and his court in no need to tackle much more important cases, and all those wishing Polanski behind bars. By then Polanski will be 77, and no one cares to subject an old man to the distress of the entire extradition procedure, to end up on non-secure remand, wait for the case to be heard, and more months down the road to ‘conclude’ the case.

Although remanded prisoners are usually detained separately from sentenced prisoners, as seen while he was on Swiss remand where he was treated well, due to US prison overcrowding they are sometimes held in a shared accommodation with sentenced prisoners. I.e., not in a safe environment. In most states, cities operate small jail facilities, sometimes simply referred to as ‘lock-ups’, used only for very short-term incarceration—can be held for up to 72 business hours or up to five days—until the prisoner comes before a judge for the first time or receives a citation or summons before being released or transferred to a larger jail. As a general rule, county jails, detention centers, and reception centers, where new commitments are first held while awaiting trial, operate at a relatively high level of security to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner violence and increase overall security, while others may put many prisoners into the same cells without regard to their individual criminal histories. Great. I guess, Polanski is such a great threat to society that they can send him into the company of hardcore criminals at no further bail granted, unlike murder suspects like Simpson who had fled before too and was set free on a fraction of Polanski’s bail only a few years back.

In most countries, remand prisoners are considered innocent until proven guilty by a court, unlike in the US, and may be granted greater privileges than sentenced prisoners, such as wearing own clothes rather than prison uniform and being entitled to additional visiting hours per week, not required to complete prison-related work or suchlike. Remand is used for prisoners who are likely to commit further offences before the trial, as if he ever would, or in contrast are believed to be in danger from accomplices, victims, or vigilantes to attack them, while the dangers inside a prison for someone like Polanski are much greater than his being outside. See rampant US prison rape, or attempts to make an example of a ‘celebrity’, by offing him to obtain a ‘trophy’, unless he will be held in protective custody again, as it happened while he was at Chino where he was kept separate from potential dangers. All in all, a very grim and wholly condemnable outlook for someone who never harmed anymore. Let alone Geimer. Funny thing is, if you type in ‘Polanski’ into the search bar at the Calif. Dept. of Correction & Rehabilitation, only ‘Sharon Tate Polanski’ comes up, since most of those who killed her, are still incarcerated there. With his luck, Polanski will end up at Chino again, or maybe even meet Manson. What a terrible prospect.

As the French culture minister says he’s worried about the health of Polanski in an interview with French media at the Cannes film festival, kicking off today May 12th – 23rd, a petition in support of Polanski has been signed there by a number of film directors, including Jean-Luc Godard amongst other luminaries. The petition said: “They hereby appeal to the Swiss authorities, entreating them not to believe the word of Governor Schwarzenegger and the prosecutors of the state of California.” Petitioner Lévy added in a statement: “No matter how brilliant the films presented at this new festival, a man will shine in his blinding absence: Roman Polanski.” This petition is a reaction to Polanski’s open letter posted on Lévy’s online journal ‘Rule of the Game’ May 2nd, which brought to light these troubling legal issues surrounding the extradition, appealing to the Swiss authorities. Pointlessly no doubt, but the undersigned finally learned of the existence of this essential piece of evidence given by Gunson’s under oath on February 26th, declaring, that, thirty-three years ago, Roman Polanski served the entirety of his sentence at Chino, according to the decision of Rittenband, before he suddenly ‘changed his mind’ under the pressure of ‘public opinion’, and retracted his decision. THAT is not in any judge’s ‘authority’ when such a ‘decision’ is based on his ‘public face’ he doesn’t want to lose, rather than ‘official face’ listening to his officials to cut Polanski lose. Conscious of the basic rule of law that maintains, it is unlawful to judge and condemn a man ‘twice’ for the same infraction, they realise that the extradition request is based upon a lie.

Polanski’s legal team had said in the court filing in April that the testimony of Gunson would show that Rittenband had promised in a private meeting with Gunson and Dalton and Silver that he would return the filmmaker to prison for another 48 days as his full punishment behind bars, as long as Polanski agreed to voluntary deportation and to keep the promise secret. That is exactly what Polanski wrote in his autobiography, and was exactly the reason why he fled, since he wanted to keep working in Hollywood and Rittenband had no authority to deport him let alone threaten him into self-deportation. His attorneys today argue that the issue is important, because the US extradition treaty with Switzerland allows the extradition of a defendant only if the remaining time behind bars still to be served is more than six months. Since Polanski was on Swiss remand for 70 days, these rest 48 days are long covered. They note that Cooley’s office filed a declaration in the extradition request that does not mention such a promise by Rittenband. Of course it doesn’t, I read it. But, LA County prosecutors defended the truth of that declaration in court papers, saying that the US Justice Department had reviewed Polanski’s allegations and determined that the statements filed by the DA’s office were accurate. Are they?

Let’s go back to September 19th 1977 to check on that. Why would Rittenband, after having received independent psychiatrists’ reports that Polanski was not a mentally disordered sex offender, or of paedophilic tendencies (no matter what people want to believe) months before Polanski had pleaded guilty on August 8th, (the 8th death anniversary of his slaughtered wife) accept these positive findings, ruled that Polanski was not a MDSO, yet, after further months of Polanski continuing on his film abroad wants him to be ‘re/evaluated’ psychiatrically for 90 days in ‘prison’, unless he would commit to these 90 days being the ‘final sentence’ for Polanski? Given the fact that Rittenband wanted to ‘punish’ him in every sense of the word by sending him to Chino, and most of all because Polanski could not appeal that ‘sentence’, (or withdraw his plea) after Rittenband had been goaded into doing so by ‘ex parte buddy’ DDA Wells, (the one who had denounced he had told Rittenband to do so after saying he in fact had in that Zenovich documentary), the fact that the probation officials released Polanski after half that time demanding no further time served, was certainly not Polanski’s ‘fault’. So the fact that Rittenband wanted him back at Chino for the 48 days to ‘complete’ the 90 days, would effectively be the equivalent of giving Polanski a ‘second’ sentences based on the ‘first’, which substituted his ‘punishment’ under the guise of that ‘diagnostic study’ already the officials then cut short.

More importantly, Rittenband’s ordering that Polanski undergo this ‘second evaluation’ as a ‘MDSO evaluation’, was already redundant to utilise it to establish him as a sex offender since Rittenband knew he wasn’t, therefore the two and the same rulings Rittenband had made at the same hearing were in complete conflict, thus incompatible and most of all unlawful. Meaning, it can only have been his entire punishment, since no one may suffer a ‘second’ or ‘different’ sentence for the same offence. It’s called the ‘double jeopardy’ clause, which is prohibited by international law. If Rittenband said, he would ‘decide’ after the ‘second evaluation’ if that was to be the final ‘sentence’ for Polanski, constitute his ‘entire punishment’, or whether he would order ‘another sentence’ set at the hearing Polanski never attended, this would be like giving Polanski ‘two sentences’ already then (no matter Polanski showed  up or not), which in effect is what is occurring right now with the LA prosecutors arresting Polanski after all these years, since Polanski had already served his full ‘sentence’ at Chino, (no matter people think it was not enough) with everyone forgetting his 70 days in a Swiss prison which have to be counted as time served on top, and thus cover more than the 90 days altogether at any rate.

Therefore, the 90 days have been Polanski’s entire ‘punishment’ already the current prosecution debates, which in fact is what both Gunson and Dalton had stated in the documentary ‘Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired’ in agreement with Silver, where Dalton had said to Polanski needn’t do any further time in custody. Ergo, the 102 days behind bars are more than enough ‘punishment’ for all concerned, plus the more than six months under house arrest that cannot even be counted, especially since no one at that time had done any time behind bars for unlawful sex, and only few were sentenced to minimum probation. The same they had in mind for Polanski – ‘officially’ – since Rittenband, once Polanski was gone and had made a fool of him he of course didn’t find amusing, he decided to ‘sentence’ him absentia announcing that in a press conference unheard of in court history, but was removed by the attorneys before since they could not trust him any longer. Though most people wouldn’t consider being locked up inside ones own home as ‘punishment’, able to have visitors at no restrictions otherwise, I suggest trying it for half a year after two months prison under the scrutiny of the world press tele-lensing your every move, without going bananas, plus being in your seventies when reading more smear attached to unauthorised photos being published in tabloids and online you cannot even sue for more disgusting slander.

And most importantly, Gunson and Dalton had also stated in that documentary, that the September 19th 1977 hearing was ‘staged’ by Rittenband purely for the press, simply to ‘satisfy’ the public to make it ‘appear’ to the press that Polanski will serve more time , but in fact be set free thereafter. This ‘mock argument’ of Dalton and Gunson, Polanski recalled in his 1984 autobiography as having occurred exactly like that. Purely staged to the effect of the defence ‘asking for probation’, and the prosecution ‘asking for a short prison term’ also mentioning that the family demands NO incarceration, with Rittenband then arguing to send him back for the 48 days, that was only to satisfy Rittenband’s ‘public image’ as ‘the hammer’, despite ALL parties having agreed on NO custodial sentence already supported by prison officials and Silver with Polanski being assured that was his punishment concluded. It is therefore an inaccurate account of Rittenband’s ‘intended sentence’ for Polanski, since they had already decided to set him free on probation. Before Rittenband stupidly forced him into unjust self-deportation – or rather into flight – no one had anticipated, after he demanded another sham hearing in open court the attorneys refused to participate in and rather filed for his disqualification.

One could argue, because the ‘mock argument’ can be interpreted as the ‘real argument’ between the prosecution and defence, if one doesn’t know it was staged, and was part of the extradition report looking in fact as being the ‘genuine argument’, the Swiss of course have no idea that is was a ‘show argument’ taking it for the real thing. I read it, and it appeared to me as their real argument, before it dawned on me that this was the mock argument Dalton and Gunson had both talked about in that documentary everyone needs to watch to get the idea, and that everyone had long decided to free Polanski, before Rittenband ‘changed his mind’ on public pressure. Another important factor was, Rittenband had allowed Polanski to finish his film and then recalled him later to serve time at Chino over December/January, after Wells had come up with that infamous photo depicting Polanski at the Oktoberfest surrounded by ‘girls’, (who in fact had nothing to do with him at all), and provoked Rittenband with it into sending him finally down under the guise of that ‘diagnostic study’. Beside, if both attorneys said he had already served his punishment, in agreement with Silver, why would they say such a thing if they had no ‘evidence’? This evidence is on film, and contained in Gunson’s testimony placed under seal the Swiss however don’t seem to be interested in at all. Polanski recalled in his autobiography that this was his entire sentence, and to unseal Gunson’s testimony would prove them right.

If they allow extradition despite these facts, it will be an act of kidnapping in UN terms committed by the US they had engaged in before in fact, enabled by the Swiss, and furthermore result in the unlawful act of sentencing someone twice for the same offence. The fact that Espinoza didn’t absentia sentence Polanski might sound logical for wanting him in his court, but technically he cannot sentence him ‘again’ to whatever term. If they really only want to establish the ‘facts’ of the case, they should have said so, not under the pretence of wanting to ‘sentence’ him, and that not even for fleeing at no such intentions included in the extradition papers. All in all, an even more messy status quo of this case, after Walgren ‘fought for the evidence to remain secret’. “The prosecutor had deliberately failed to disclose this information in the extradition request, when this indisputable fact would lead Switzerland to conclude that extradition is not legally justified.”

That’s the whole idea – he wants to ‘try’ him instead, which is also not possible unless the plea is withdraw first. I read the extradition request and it says: ‘therefore we request that, in the unlikely event of the plea being withdraw, the [given] finding of extraditability allow prosecution of Mr Polanski on all counts’. What he’s evidently missing is, Polanski WAS ‘prosecuted’ three decades ago already, he pleaded to the one count applicable, and he did his time for it no one actually asked for. With the plea not withdrawn, the dropped counts have long expired once pleaded after the statute of limitations. And, to argue they can be tried because he’s a ‘fugitive’, that’s not applicable either since the count of flight was not even included in the extradition request to allow for that. So, NONE of the counts are ‘back on the table’ and can be ‘tried’, let alone a second time since no one may face ‘double jeopardy’ for which they had pleaded to and did their time for.

Ever since Polanski has spoken out publicly to point people to the facts, those in support of extradition dwindle more and more, not only after reading more and more about this ‘secret testimony’, more background facts, Cooley’s corrupt court, and according to the French poll, today, May 12th, those in favour of extradition have fallen from 50% to roughly 40%, those in no support has risen to 59.5%, and those who ‘don’t know’ fell below a tiny 0.5%. Looks like the French people are finally getting the idea of what is going on behind Californian court doors – nothing but more lies – after enough lies already. In short, the extradition request was based on ‘incomplete facts’, i.e., lies, in fact rendering it unlawful, and an act of false imprisonment. Polanski’s 70 days on Swiss remand therefore were criminal incarceration, though they can and will be counted towards the 48 days as ‘time served’ though the 42 days at Chino were already, and his six months house arrest are more than illegitimate, subjecting him to great ‘physical and mental distress’ people like Ms Geimer sue people like Polanski over for nothing. I’m sure many will disagree on that fact, but legally it’s an act of kidnapping, punishable by law. Polanski should sue the ‘People’s court’ of California over that, let’s see how they like their resources dwindling even further, after they’ve spent enough dirty dollar on the persecution of Polanski, rather than use the money to get their own much more dangerous criminals off the streets of LA.

The Academy of Fine Arts in Paris, of which Polanski is an honoured member, said in a statement released May 12th that Polanski showed ‘signs of severe depression’ demanding a ‘quick release’. While it was possible for Polanski to receive treatment for his already longstanding depression he had shown at Chino and again while on Swiss remand, this seems to be unworkable now, since he cannot just go to a doctor, and most likely doesn’t have one in Switzerland at any rate. His colleagues argue, “The penalty originally imposed has been served over thirty years ago, and it remains unclear why the demand for his extradition is upheld.” Learning of their colleague’s distress, caused by his continued detention, a feeling of painful emotions is more than apparent amongst his supporters there. And to his supporters in general, who know of the case ins and outs, know of the condemnable judicial misconduct the courts have no interest in litigating, though ‘acknowledged’ it but want Polanski there to ‘discuss’ it, know of the current court’s ‘lies’, and now it’s still down to the Swiss authorities to decide whether or not to bow to the US and deliver an old man into a very unsafe environment, NO one deserves.

And there I was thinking the state of California had many more important cases to tackle. Apparently not, which is rather surprising, with the USA being the No. 1 country with the most incarcerated people in the word, with many in fact being innocent, sent down on fabrications, especially in LA. Funny how they waste ‘Terminator’ Arnie’s recourses on an old man from Europe when California is bare broke, and the No. 1 thing that is draining California’s economy is its vast prison system housing mostly non-violent criminals, a tax subsidised plantation of a massive captive work force that makes everything from license plates to chairs for a cent. With prison guards earning over 100k a year in contrast. Nice, subsidising gang raping innocent wo/men too. Looks like they really want Polanski to join that ever-growing population – once more. All for sleeping with an ‘aspiring’ Hollywood bred teen, which is of course why so many men end up inside US prisons in the first place doing the same, even for having sex with their own girlfriends. Only to be attacked there in a nice vicious cycle of ‘legislated’ state abuse, while others got and will get a pass who are in a position of power with lots of money, unlike Polanski who is bankrupt by now, to bribe their way out. Or, is it in fact the ‘people’ maintaining this endless cycle of abuse, since it’s always ‘People’ vs Defendant, with the populace so keen to ‘uphold the law’ suddenly in his case, while breaking and bending it themselves as we speak. See Cooley & Co.

Now May 13th, Swiss officials have announced that they are still awaiting supplementary information from the Americans they have not received yet. This statement directly contradicts representations made by Cooley’s court this past Monday, who of course recalls himself on their previous contention that they didn’t need any further details, like Gunson’s testimony, to decide. But it looks as if they finally seemed to have taken heed after what Polanski has publicly declared, since the extradition request does not disclose that Rittenband committed Polanski’s undergoing of what he told the press was a ‘diagnostic study’, would be his entire sentence in the case. This fact confirmed by every prosecutor in charge of this case up to now, Gunson stated that Rittenband had promised that the 90-day diagnostic study was going to be his sentence. Gunson confirmed that, “After Mr. Polanski’s plea in August 1977, Judge Rittenband informed Mr. Polanski’s lawyer, Douglas Dalton, and me that Mr. Polanski would be sent to Chino State Prison under Penal Code Section 1203.03 (the ‘diagnostic study’) as his punishment. At that time, I told Judge Rittenband that the diagnostic study was not designed to be used as a sentence, but Judge Rittenband said: ‘I’m going to do it anyhow.'”

Gunson affirmed those statements in his recent conditional examination that still remains sealed, and in that documentary in fact, so it looks like we know what he had said already anyhow since years now. DA Doyle, who took over the case from Gunson and investigated the facts at the request of Cooley in 2002 stated, “There were many things that Judge Rittenband did that were inappropriate in my view in this case from what I have been told, such as his use of the 1203.03, not for diagnostic purposes but for punishment. His promise was that he would not sentence him to prison after the 1203.03 was completed.” Well now, ‘completed’ or not wasn’t his call, the prison officials released Polanski halfway through, and that’s why Rittenband wanted him back inside. So why did Doyle not come out with this earlier? Now that Polanski finally made a fuss about it they are suddenly panicking. That’s almost ten years now they all knew about this. Contrary to Cooley’s public contention that their statements about it are ‘baseless and reckless’, they now have been finally confirmed by the prosecutors in their own office! None of this was disclosed to the Swiss in the extradition request. Any wonder? Nope. They said, “We can only suspect that the reason for the District Attorney’s deliberate omission of this information from the extradition request is that he expects that this undeniable fact, if disclosed by the United States to the Swiss, would cause them to conclude that extradition is not legally justified.”

I call it lying, or omitting crucial facts to the effect to dupe the Swiss into extradition, since it would be less than six months to allow for it, in intention that Walgren can ‘try’ Polanski instead. Last December already the California Court of Appeal wrote: “If Polanski presents admissible evidence leading the trial court to conclude that Judge Rittenband committed to the diagnostic study as Polanski’s entire punishment, it is difficult to imagine that the trial court would not honour that commitment today. If, after taking evidence, the trial court finds that Polanski’s allegations are true and that the original trial judge agreed that the prison stay for the diagnostic study would constitute Polanski’s entire punishment, a condition Polanski fulfilled, the trial court could find that justice requires that the trial court’s commitment be honored and that Polanski should be sentenced to time served. We are confident that the trial court could fashion a legal sentence that results in no further incarceration for Polanski.” That was six months ago, Gunson testified to that already months back, still Cooley kept the facts from the Swiss, and Espinoza didn’t help much by refusing to unseal the testimony to prove that!

Polanski’s lawyers have presented numerous legal briefs since then on the issue, and the appellate court suggested it was time for the marathon case to be resolved. I’d say. In a section of the appellate decision quoted in the statement, the justices said that the question of actions by the late Judge Rittenband were relevant. Are they now? Finally! Polanski’s lawyers said, however, that if true and complete facts were presented to Swiss officials and they determined extradition was justified, then Polanski would return to the United States to litigate his case. “Our country’s Treaty with the Swiss requires that any further custodial term be greater than six months. If, after a fair hearing in Switzerland at which the entire record of this case is truthfully presented, the Swiss determine that extradition is justified, Mr. Polanski will of course comply with a lawful extradition order and return to California to litigate the issues of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct and be finally sentenced under the law. Such a lawful order should be based on the entire record of the California proceedings, not the misleading and incomplete record provided to date. We stand fully prepared immediately to discuss this issue with representatives of the Swiss or US governments and to present all the evidence.”

This was the first time in the long legal battle that Polanski’s team has mentioned his possibly returning voluntarily. But, it was couched in language that suggested this remains unlikely, simply because his three months penalty is not the six months extradition allowance, and, he has been incarcerated for more than the 90 days at any rate. Time served. The statements by lawyers Doug Dalton, Brad Dalton and Chad Hummel had a tone of exasperation, saying, all they wanted was for Swiss authorities to know about Rittenband’s actions, specifically his intent to treat the diagnostic study in prison as Polanski’s entire punishment. Polanski’s lawyers maintain that LA prosecutors were hiding this fact from the Swiss. Indeed they were. “All we ask on Mr Polanski’s behalf is that the Swiss be informed of this fact by the United States, a fact confirmed by every prosecutor in charge of this case up to now.” Two years ago, in a statement from attorneys Hummel and Brad Dalton, they had said, “This case serves as a classic example of how our justice system can be abused, and defendants’ rights trampled [on], by an unholy alliance between courts and criminal prosecutors,” which still rings true today more than ever with crooked Cooley in command. Adding, the Swiss authorities have indeed requested supplemental information from the US before making a decision, but have not said when they would rule on the extradition filing. One, two months… Well now, ‘Cooley’, found out to have lied again, have we now? No surprise there.

Just when you thought it was going well for Roman Polanski after he spoke out and crooked Cooley is losing ground, we’ve got ourselves another ‘victim’ of Roman’s ‘unwanted sexual advances’. His prosecutor Walgren, who else, met with a British ‘actress’ May 14th 2010, who claims she was ‘sexually abused’ by Polanski in the 80’s. ‘Charlotte Lewis’ who played a minor role alongside Walter Matthau in his film ‘Pirates’, now 42, read from a prepared statement, “I am also a ‘victim’ of Roman Polanski. He sexually abused me in the worst possible way when I was just sixteen years old. It is very important that the District Attorney and the Swiss authorities are armed with this information as they decide Mr Polanski’s fate.” ‘Fate’? Let’s see whose ‘fate’ this will affect. “Mr. Polanski knew I was ‘only’ sixteen years old when he met me and forced himself upon me in his apartment in Paris. He took advantage of me and I have lived with the effects of his behaviour ever since it occurred. All I want is justice,” she said, giving us a great show of ‘minor acting’. ‘Justice’? For whom exactly? Cooley by any chance? And what ‘effects’ exactly? To gain your first decent film role through Polanski, and then come out right in time when the Swiss wait for crucial evidence of Rittenband’s 1977 sentencing plan decades later and ‘cry rape’?

Her sleazeball attorney Gloria Allred said that, to her knowledge, no criminal complaint or lawsuit was made in France over the alleged assault. Sloppy that, especially a few years after he fled from the US for a ‘sex crime’. The duty officer for the French Justice Ministry said that he was not aware whether the British actress had filed a complaint in France about her allegation. Evidently not, or others would have found that one out long ago. No further information about the circumstances of the ‘incident’ was given. What a surprise. Although Polanski was accused of ‘forcing himself’ upon her, she pointedly did not use the word ‘rape’, but all too irrelevantly pointed to the old case in hand several times. Allred, whose clients included two of shamed Tiger Woods’ porn star mistresses, and the family of OJ Simpson’s murdered ex-wife suing him over dirty millions, denied Lewis’ ‘credibility’ would be diminished by her decision to only come forward after many years. Sorry, what ‘credibility’? Maybe to get herself a far more ‘credible lawyer’ in the UK or France would have made a difference to start with.

“I think what is important is she came forward now. Not only is it not too late, there’s still time if the other victims want to come forward.” Sorry, to ‘come forward now’? No doubt in a way too obvious attempt to influence the extradition, plain and simple. And, sorry, ‘the other victims’? ‘Plural’? I’m sure had there been more, they all had their plenty chances to come forward long ago. Unless they’re repulsive frauds like Lewis. Funny how Allred did not permit her to answer questions during the news conference in her own office. Sounds just as staged as what Rittenband did with his two attorneys years earlier, for the ‘press’. She said, Lewis provided ‘evidence’ to a police detective and officials from the DA’s office. I.e., ‘Cooley’. Now, why exactly would she go to ‘him’, if it happened in France? She provided NO evidence to support her claims, and also refused to answer questions about whether her allegations involved drugs or ‘rape’, though claimed it bore ‘similarities’ to the Geimer case.

I saw her interview, and it’s as fake as it can ever get. At least Ms Geimer said in 2000 for a US TV documentary on Polanski, “He had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that,” not ‘raped’ me. Curious ‘similarities’ indeed for Lewis to avoid the word ‘rape’ too, and how she didn’t come up with any ‘specifics’ at all let alone ‘proof’. “Our detectives did conduct the interview, but the department has not begun an investigation.” I bet it hasn’t, since there is nothing TO ‘investigate’. Or maybe talked to no cops at all who are all in Cooley’s pocket at any rate. “It was unclear what year the alleged assault took place.” Really? Can’t she remember? Um, now, let me see, if she said she was ‘just sixteen’, which in fact was the age of consent in the UK as far as I can remember living here since sixty years now, and it was fifteen in France, it’s not unlawful to sleep with her anywhere. Why she emphasised, ‘just sixteen’ is beyond me then, when she was born August 7th 1967 and would place the alleged incident into August/September 1983.

And the best thing is, that in fact would be a whole sixteen or even more months BEFORE she worked on Pirates with Polanski from November 1984 onwards or even only later down the production line with principle filming starting over the course of a whole nine months in sunny places like Malta, Tunisia and Seychelles right into August 1985 when she was eighteen, which then was released in 1986. Now that alone should ring mega bells of ‘mega lie’ already. A spokesperson for Polanski’s US legal team said they had no information concerning Lewis’ allegations, but released a statement that local prosecutors continued to refuse to provide the Swiss government with accurate and complete information relevant to the extradition issue. Sounds familiar? Cooley’s getting desperate now to give us and the Swiss ‘another victim’ instead. Can I smell foul smear campaign of the worst and most blatantly obvious kind? Some people call liars like her a false rape accuser who should face jail time for perverting the course of justice.

So, just to humour Ms 15-minutes-famewhore Lewis who’s writing a ‘book’ at the moment I trust will be a case for many litigations against her; you want us to believe, you went to the apartment of a much older, ‘infamous’ man, who then ‘took advantage of you and have lived with the effects of his behaviour ever since it occurred’, to then accept the part in Pirates over a year LATER to happily play in his film and go with him on lovely remote locations for months on end AFTER he ‘forced himself upon you in the worst possible way’? And ‘worst possible way’ would be very brutal violation, and then some with people’s imagination going wild already, and you’d surely say he ‘raped’ me. Pull the other one, gal, at your own ‘reputation’. Lewis said she came forward because she ‘heard’ that Polanski was fighting extradition to the States and, ‘that his legal team is portraying his previous ‘offence’ against a minor as an isolated instance’. ‘Heard’? Um, yeah like eight months after his rearrest exactly. Looks like she doesn’t watch the news, and ‘isolated instance’? Not even that, and your fake show in fact upstaged not only Ms Geimer’s ‘Grand Jury’ appearance, but is an insult to all genuine rape victims, and women in general. And best of all, she doesn’t even realise she wasn’t a ‘minor’ by then anymore. What a farce.

Allred said she doesn’t plan any legal action right now, such as a lawsuit, as if that would ever go anywhere at no ‘proof’, but believes the allegations would be relevant when Polanski is sentenced. Really, now why exactly would that be, if Polanski had been ‘sentenced’ already and Cooley doesn’t want to release that information, and this ‘new claim’ has zero relevance to what happened three decades ago? Ah, but Allred said, she hoped Lewis’ statement would be taken into consideration if Polanski were extradited back to the United States from Switzerland. I bet she does! Or rather Cooley, who must have dished out quite some dough for them both to put on this pathetic show of all too transparent lies, unless it was Lewis’ own idea to play a nasty game with Polanski after he gave her a part in his movie to launch her career in fact. Come on Allred, make us believe ‘your client is ready to testify if necessary’! “If the judge believes these claims, it could certainly have an impact on the court’s decision,” she said. Could it now? I’m sure Espinoza saw through this sordid smear campaign in nil time – like in fact the public had already an hour after the story broke weather they support Polanski or not – and has absolutely NO bearing on the 1977 case in any form. Besides, Cooley’s prosecutors have zero jurisdiction over any ‘case’ that happened in Paris decades ago. Delusional one and all, unless they bend some more laws to allow admission of something utterly unrelated retroactively let alone proven.

Lewis is a shameless liar who only landed roles as an ‘actress’ in nude flicks for her body, and had no work since ages as a more ‘serious’ actress, and why didn’t she say anything since he’d been arrested again? You had a whole eight months since, Lewis! If I was ‘raped’ by someone I sure as hell won’t make a film with my attacker months later, but either go to the woman who had claimed similar allegations years earlier to make my case and have an ally, or at least tell some of my Hollywood buddies what the ‘fugitive’ did to me even if I had not gone to the ‘authorities’. And I doubt he ‘paid’ her to shut up about it, or she’d said that he had threatened or paid her to ‘keep it a secret’ and then put on a good show for his film for months on end. Right. Besides, if it happened in France, go to France and make a complaint there, NOT a dirty deal with crooked Cooley in LA right before the Swiss finally decide on the extradition. It smacks of collusion and is just another act of disgusting misconduct on Cooley’s part of the most barefaced kind which might just backfire. This is obviously a smokescreen, a lousy attempt to bolster their already unsound extradition request. Lewis has no case against Polanski in France, and since they are both foreign nationals, she has no case in the US either. Do these people think we’re stupid? If anything, this blatant charade might in fact help Polanski, and could even make people rethink the old case. Go home ‘pirate’ Lewis, your fifteen minutes of fame-whoring are over!

One of Polanski’s most prominent defenders, Lévy, said, “This doesn’t change my position and my anger at the methods used by California courts.” ‘Methods’ is the right word. One of Polanski’s defence attorneys, Kiejman, told French news channel i-Tele he was ‘absolutely astonished’ by Lewis’ allegations, and that if she repeated them, ‘it is probable that we take her to court’. I hope so! Kiejman said he found it ‘quite disturbing’ that Lewis appeared in Polanski’s 1986 period film Pirates three years (well not quite ‘three’ since production started earlier) after the director allegedly forced himself upon the actress. Another of Polanski’s lawyers, Témime, was more direct in challenging Lewis’ credibility: “Everything that has been said is a web of lies.” Lévy’s drive to rally support for Polanski suffered a setback in Cannes, when sex-obsessed Michael Douglas said he would not sign the petition against his extradition, taking the moral high-ground while his son is inside for years of dealing in hard drugs. And to top it all, President Sarkozy inquired about the case, who is a French and Polish national himself, during a phone conversation May 14th after the story broke, with his Swiss counterpart Doris Leuthard. “Federal President Leuthard also informed the French President about the state of extradition proceedings in the case,” her office said in a statement on May 15th. But what that ‘state’ is, remains unclear. How did Témime put it, “These accusations against Roman Polanski are delusional.” Quite.

Well, to wrap this ‘case’ up, since it has interfered with the one in hand, let’s get to the nitty gritty of this ‘new allegation’ and debunk it. Bear with me folks, you’ll be surprised what comes out at the very end. It has been a long time since Lewis held a crowd ‘enthralled’ in Hollywood since she never had another hit movie bar the one with Eddie Murphy The Golden Child from 1986 and only a handful of films were she always appeared in various states of undress. So now it’s twenty seven years after her first meeting with Polanski, and wants him to ‘get what he deserves’. Sounds more like ‘revenge’, while Ms Geimer wants him freed. In an exclusive interview with UK’s Daily Mail on Sunday, May 16th, she explains why she has chosen to speak up ‘now’. She says: “I know I should have gone to the relevant authorities at the time but I was scared and ashamed. (Always a classic line of excuse when unable to prove anything, playing the ‘little victim’.) I somehow thought it was my fault. I’ve been so angry with some of the people in Hollywood who have spoken out in support of Polanski. Hollywood is giving the wrong message to paedophiles. (I thought paedophiles don’t sleep with ‘actresses’ like you? She obviously doesn’t know what a paedophile is either. Or just uses the term to smear him some more.) He sexually abused me and manipulated me in the worst way. He has scarred me and the experience has definitely put a strain on my life. I was recently engaged to a lovely man, but I would often clam up physically and I don’t think I’m very good in relationships. I will never forgive Polanski for what he has done to me.”

‘Scarred’? ‘Strain’? After nearly three decades and most of all the countless other men before and after him? You ‘scarred’ yourself with your own irresponsible actions, and ‘clam up’? After all the ‘practice’ you had? Why not blame the ‘lovely man’ instead, rather than accuse Polanski for your ‘current’ relationship troubles? Maybe he found out something he didn’t like about you, no? If you really have psycho/physiological issues like that, they sure as hell have nothing to do with Polanski these days, BUT yourself. Maybe we should ask all the others if that is actual fact. According to another interview from 1997 given to UK’s Sunday Mirror where she talks about her drug addiction she had acquired in Hollywood, Lewis was thrown out her exclusive school in the North of London with fifteen, and by her own admission thought she was ‘pretty grown-up and street smart’ at the time. ‘Street’ smart? Looking back, she recognises that, though she may have been precocious and ambitious, she was anything but. Right. Lewis had no acting experience but knew that she wanted her future to ‘lie’ in film. She claimed she ‘modelled’ a bit while she searched for her big chance and after a minor TV role in a UK soap opera called Grange Hill in 1978, and in 1983, she got it when a mutual acquaintance, twenty three year old model Eliza Karen, asked her to come with her to Paris to audition for a role in Polanski’s film Pirates.

She recalls: “We had come over to Paris on the boat with not much money so that I could meet Roman. I was with Eliza, a friend of his. She was also a model and a couple of years older than me. She had put me up for a part in Roman’s new film. Apparently he wanted someone exotic-looking and because of my Hispanic look he wanted to see me. I didn’t know at the time, but I later found out that they had already found a French actress to play the role so I don’t know why he still wanted to see me. (A director needs ‘choice’, that’s why.) We had checked into a hotel which was pretty central and very reasonable, but when we told Roman where we were staying he said the hotel was not good enough and invited us to stay in his spare penthouse on the Avenue Montaigne, which seemed like a great offer.” Apparently that night the girls went straight to Roman’s house for pre-dinner drinks. The first thing Polanski did on seeing her was to frame her face with his hands, as if shooting her through a camera. That’s what he always does. She felt ‘uncomfortable’, she now admits. ‘Uncomfortable’? Sounds familiar, but it’s however not quite the right word.

She says, “The very first thing he asked me was, ‘how old are you?’ I told him I was sixteen, but only just. This was in September and I had turned sixteen that August.” Just making sure you’re over age. Polanski had learned his lesson from LA it seems. After dinner Polanski checked the girls out of the hotel room that he had dismissed as substandard and invited them back to his apartment. While her friend retired to a neighbouring flat, Lewis apparently stayed chatting with him on the sofa in his living room. “We were drinking Moet & Chandon, I’ll never forget that, and I still can’t drink that champagne to this day. (Oh spare me, please!) He told me he wanted me to stay the night with him and then he made a pass at me. He tried to kiss me and touch my breasts. I pulled away and told him that I had a boyfriend, which wasn’t true. It was an excuse, but he didn’t care.” Well now, the ‘Geimer scenario’ anyone? “He just said very coldly, ‘if you’re not a big enough girl to have sex with me, you’re not big enough to do the screen test. I must sleep with every actress that I work with, that’s how I get to know them, how I mould them’.”

So, you ‘really’ want us to believe that he slept with ‘every’ actress he ever worked with? I highly doubt he ever even touched Faye Dunaway from Chinatown; they both hated each other for her stupid Diva antics. Or Mia Farrow, who was married to Frank Sinatra during the making of Rosemary’s Baby. Or Catherine Deneuve while filming Repulsion, who was only interested in David Bailey whom she then married. Or Françoise Dorléac (Deneuve’s sister) who was into some French actor at that time, or Jacqueline Bisset both from Cul de Sac who only had long-term relationships. As for all the ‘other’ actresses in his films before Polanski met Kinski for their 1976 Vogue feature, you must be seriously twisted to think he’d touch anyone of the cast of Rosemary’s Baby, or his gory Macbeth. When he met Sharon Tate, who was only ten years his junior, neither of them were in fact impressed with the other at first because it was his producer who ‘asked’ him to take her on for the Dance of the Vampires film, while Polanski wanted Jill St John he was with for a while before he fell in love with Tate. He was with Lisa Rome for some time (sister of Sidney from What?) and he and Kinski had split up already before they finished Tess, (since she fell for top agent Moussa Polanski had asked to represent her), and she didn’t even know for the longest time if she’d be cast as Tess.

So, all that ‘casting couch’ BS is plain fantasyland, since a ‘screen test’ is not only down to the director at any rate, and Polanski had most of his affairs outside his profession in fact, so I’m afraid you should have conducted much better research into this ridiculous claim, ‘Lewis’. Everyone in the profession knows Polanski NEVER mixed business with pleasure (like most in fact), and he NEVER promised anyone to get a role after sex with him let alone made that a ‘condition’. On the contrary, that’s exactly what he resented, since it happened often enough to be sought out to have sex with him and then demand a part. Even his first wife he cast later in one of his early short films didn’t get the part because of their union, and the woman from Knife in the Water was spotted by him at a public swimming pool he thought perfect for the aquatic part but certainly did not sleep with either. He in fact wanted Tate for Rosemary’s Baby, but his producer demanded Farrow, so he often had no say at all who’s to be in his own films. So for Lewis to say, he ‘must’ sleep with them all to ‘mould’ them to get a screen test/part is pure baloney. He didn’t want any long-term relations at all after Tate’s death, before he met his current wife right after Pirates. Nice try Lewis.

She continued: “I was shocked and got very upset and started to cry. I said I didn’t want to sleep with him, he was fifty and I found him disgusting.” ‘Shocked’? ‘Cried’? ‘Disgusting’? Not by a far shot after what happened in the UK years earlier. “I saw this opportunity slipping away. My mother who had been working as a legal secretary had just been made redundant and although I was doing a lot of modelling I didn’t have a lot of money. I saw this film as my chance to make it. All these things were going through my head and I was getting more and more upset. I told him I didn’t want to sleep with him and I left. I went to the other flat to see my friend and told her what had happened.” Oddly enough, Eliza cannot corroborate that ‘talk’ with her in any form, and, ‘a lot of ‘modelling”? Can’t find anything on that, the only thing she did on ‘modelling’ was end up on a Playboy cover in 1993, countless full nude pics available online, all the nude scenes from the few flicks she made, and the only film she seems to be fully dressed is in fact Pirates. Besides, she was too short to be a professional model. Adding, that, in her ‘naiveté’ and ‘confusion’, she became ‘concerned’ that she was letting a professional opportunity of a lifetime pass her by. ‘Naiveté’? Don’t make me laugh. So she ‘sacrificed’ herself for her ‘poor mother’ who had raised her alone and returned to his apartment.

“Roman opened the door and led me to the bedroom.” I bet he did. Except apparently Polanski told someone that all he can remember is that he met them, to see if she’s perfect for the part and then cast her right away long before they started filming, or he had any kind of ‘relationship’ with her. So, each time Lewis was ‘alone’ with him, no Eliza to back her up either, and then later wasn’t even around Polanski on the set much not to ‘shout’ at her constantly for not delivering a better show. She apparently has described ‘exactly’ what she alleges happened next to Walgren, who is expected to investigate. Really? Does he know that he hasn’t got any jurisdiction over an alleged old claim that doesn’t concern this case? Lewis says, the following morning Polanski invited her and Eliza to join him for breakfast in his living room, and she accepted. Now hang on, you ‘accepted’ breakfast right after he had ‘abused you in the worst possible way’? “All I remember was wanting a bath. I needed to clean myself and I went to get fresh clothes. After breakfast he wanted to show us the Mona Lisa so he took us to the Louvre and some other museums in the centre. We had lunch, then I went back with him to his apartment to collect my things as I was flying back to London that afternoon. I don’t know where Eliza was, I can’t remember.”

Right, so let’s recap, first he ‘forced himself’ on her the night before ‘in the worst possible way’ but doesn’t call it ‘rape’ and she never told Eliza, then they had breakfast and a stroll around Paris to look at old paintings? Says, ‘all she remembers’ was to ‘want a bath’, (which is one of the many ‘rape trauma symptoms’ of real victims, while none of the plenty others seem to have affected her at all and can easily be referenced to make it more believable) and then tells us about walking the streets of Paris to visit museums? Right. And THEN she claims that a ‘further’ incident took place before she left for home. Indeed she would, once isn’t enough. Sounds like Ms Geimer’s long [medical evidence] debunked ‘double sodomy’ claim. Any ‘proof’? No, again, no Eliza to back her up, and some might find it very difficult by now to square her allegations of even ‘two ordeals’ she claims were so ‘terrifying’ that she decided to return to Paris two weeks later for the Pirates screen test, and then got the part that would launch her movie career. “I never told my mother what had happened. I was just too ashamed. I needed to do this movie, the money was good – I was being paid £1,200 a month. My mother and I were living in housing association accommodation and this was a life-changing amount of money.” Right, so she was just ‘too ashamed’, and it wasn’t ‘double rape’ since she avoided the word ‘rape’ so diligently, constantly pointing to the case in hand rather than her ‘own’. ‘Too ashamed’? Not by a far shot. Wait for it folks.

Speaking in a promotional interview for the film in 1986, Polanski himself said of Lewis: “She had what I needed for the film. Dark hair, dark eyes – and the look of ‘innocence’.” Exactly – the look that would turn into a venomous snake decades later for reasons that had nothing to do with him, and ‘innocence’ has nothing to do with it either. Back then Lewis spoke of the experience of filming as a ‘nightmare’. “Polanski tried to ‘dominate’ me right from the start,” she said. “He swore at me and shouted at me. There was such pressure on me that I became a nervous wreck.” Yes, because he ‘dominated’ and shouted at everyone on the set back then to get results, NOT only ‘you’, which you forgot to mention. You don’t want him shouting at you, get out of the contract. Polanski was known to swear like a trooper in those days he long has abandoned since then, but everyone let him get on with it because the results were worth it, and no one but ‘her’ seems to complain about it all of a sudden. Once love affair Nastassja Kinski never complained, and his current wife Emmanuelle Seigner or all the other women on his sets didn’t seem to have a problem with his ‘swearing’ either. Kim Cattrall, Sigourney Weaver, Farrow, Deneuve, his late wife Sharon Tate, amongst all ‘the other ‘class-A’ actresses’. Unlike you, a ‘nude flick starlet’.

Today she recalls: “The ‘mental abuse’ started as soon as I started filming. I always felt that as soon as I started the movie he wanted to fire me. I developed a serious eating disorder. He would play mind games with me and tell me I was too fat and then too thin. I developed bulimia and lost so much weight I passed out five times during filming.” ‘Mind games’? Polanski was known to be a practical joker on set sometimes, so that’s definitely nothing unusual and everyone is subjected to it and were certainly not ‘mind games’. Now, apart from that her passing out can easily be dis/proven by asking others, if she really was ‘bulimic’ is highly doubtful after what I found out about her by now, and to blame that ‘disorder’ on Polanski, when she said herself he told her she was either too big or too thin ‘already’, that had certainly nothing to do with him or anyone else, and all he did was comment on it. If at all. Blame your mother, not Polanski, for not looking after you in the first place, while in fact Social Services had been involved with her ‘case’ already by her own admission. “I had turned seventeen and Roman had been told by the producer and MGM to stay away from me. I was very alone. (Why not mingle with an entire set of crew and actors NOT to be alone? Or anyone else for that matter. If true. Besides, ‘MGM’ was NOT the producer/studio to make the film, it was a Carthago production from Paris. Nice try, Lewis.) Roman continued to emotionally bully me and would joke to other people on set that I was ‘frigid’. ‘Frigid’? Not really the right word for a ‘nude actress’.

“I remember he made a bet once with a very famous American male actor that there was no way he could get me into bed because I was so cold and frigid. The producer flew my mother out to Tunisia and I remember her hating Polanski. She said he had dead eyes.” Some found them warm and sexy, like you in fact, and after having seen enough horrors in his life they might just as well be distant, and she can claim that she said that today when no one could disprove that. Besides, I’d not let my daughter stay on a set with a director I ‘hate’, which also puts that quote into a non-event bracket. So let’s recap; serious eating disorder if true, or just general practice to keep your curvy shape, not Polanski’s fault, though I’m sure his ‘shouting’ out his orders didn’t help, but to call it ‘mental abuse’? No, it’s called the very hard job of ‘acting’ and directing she obviously couldn’t handle, otherwise her career would have endured rather than faltered, since she obviously was not too ‘convincing’ an ‘actress’ when all she had was her looks and body, and that’s why she failed a mere fifteen years later after too many nude scenes. It’s all out there for all to see. Funny thing is, she said some years back, that this ‘famous actor’ didn’t in fact need to try to get her into bed, since she had seduced him by then herself already, and never mentioned he would fail because she was ‘too cold or frigid’, adding, that is why she didn’t feel ‘abused’. That was Warren Beatty, one of Polanski’s closest friends she had met after Pirates was in the can. So now saying, Polanski had ‘forced himself upon her’, after she in fact had seduced him first too, by her own admission mind you, how can she say HE had ‘abused’ her after all these years? That’s all rather contradictive to what in fact happened.

Though little has changed in how Lewis remembers the process of filming itself, since that’s the only thing everyone can ‘corroborate’ as being ‘fact’ who worked with Polanski on that film, her ‘version’ of what happened between her and Polanski on a physical level has altered with the years. Which sounds more like what Ms Geimer had stated, but in reverse. Here’s how. In a 1986 interview Lewis claimed: “I found him very attractive, I’d love to have had a romantic relationship with him – and a physical one. You can’t help falling in love with him. But he didn’t want me that way.” Everyone in fact stated that ‘every woman loved him’, fell in love with him for his charm. Bar jilted lovers perhaps, and it is worth noting that at the time she was speaking she was in fact ‘in thrall’ of him. So, according to her ‘today’ however, he first ‘brutalised’ her sexually even ‘twice’, to ‘force’ her into this film when she met him first, and then ‘bullied’ her on set but still made that film with him anyhow, but before told us she wanted a longer relationship with him he apparently refused, and today she suddenly says, and I quote: “There was nothing about him I could have found physically attractive. He was short and stout and very strong.” Funny how people always come up with opposites after years suddenly that can so easily be debunked when it’s preserved on film or in articles, all available online. But then again, cocaine addiction might cause memory loss.

In another 1999 interview she went on to claim that she DID have a relationship with Polanski, and that it started ‘after’ she had been cast in the film when she was seventeen. So today saying he ‘violated’ her ‘twice’ before that, after he seems to had refused her, and then said, “I wanted him probably more than he wanted me,” claiming that they were lovers for six months in an affair that ended after filming Pirates in Tunisia, which would be in line with what he had said himself. According to Matthau himself, he once said jokingly to someone while filming, that they had to go meet Roman on set and his ‘foetus’, obviously alluding to Lewis and her young age he obviously didn’t find too ‘shocking’, but most importantly, he didn’t hint on any ‘abuse’ she might have suffered at Polanski’s hands, on or off set. Now, what it comes down to here plain and simple is a twice ‘jilted lover’, who wanted him for longer, then saw Emmanuelle bed him instead, claims she cannot form any longer ‘relationships’ with other men in general, and now blames Polanski for all that, and to top it all, accuses him of ‘double rape’. Looks more like a sad woman who wants revenge for Polanski having said farewell to her all these years ago, striking at him when he’s most vulnerable, and since s/he didn’t keep in touch with Eliza, the one person who could corroborate her account, and, if Eliza in fact was the same type of ‘model’, then no wonder no one can find her. Or maybe she doesn’t want to be part of this ‘sexual abuse charade’.

What is clear is that what she had hoped would be the start of a great Hollywood dream, instead set her on a path that led ultimately to addiction and despair. Like it happened to so many ‘hopefuls’ in this highly competitive dog-eat-dog industry, who become addicts and finally dropouts to join the dole office queue. Following her appearance in Pirates, she was hailed the new Kinski, before she starred opposite Murphy. She eventually moved to America and was swiftly linked with a string of ‘eligible’ ‘A-listers’ and most of all hell-raisers, including troublemakers like Charlie Sheen she had an eighteen months affair with, a romances with Mickey Rourke, dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov and INXS rocker Michael Hutchence. She lived with wealthy video producer William Annersley and was engaged to millionaire film boss Mario Sotela for a year. Professionally her star was on the rise but personally she was in serious trouble. She never lived up to her early film promise ending up in films that only show her in the nude, and in 1997 she returned to Britain and checked into the ‘Priory’ to be treated for cocaine addiction. So, all this is Polanski’s ‘doing’ now who wasn’t even in the States? She had tried to give it up twice already, she said, but only ever in a very ‘half-hearted’ way. Eight years ago she quit acting for good and today she says her only ambition is to be a good mother to her five year old son with whom she lives in a flat in London. In dire need of money. “I am happy, but it’s true to say I have never been able to have a normal relationship with a man. I have spoken to my vicar and my GP about this and I am now having counselling.”

Some might call it desperate blaming others for their own problems, if at all true. Embittered, jealous, vindictive springs to mind the way she ‘acts’ today, and that the only ‘relationship’ she developed was with cocaine, sex and nudity. So, after all these decades of having lived with ‘porn star lover’, cocaine abuser and DUI offender Sheen, alcoholic and DUI offender Rourke, all these other men, and then become a drug addict herself, she insists, her ‘abiding desire’ is simply to tell the ‘truth’ that she has concealed for so long. ‘Truth? The lie that Polanski ‘abused’ you, twice, when in fact you had an affair with him before he moved on when he found his current wife? Refused you? Last summer she apparently made two trips to Paris and tried to contact Polanski. She says: “I wanted to see him. I wanted him to apologise.” Why not ask those to apologise who made you a junkie, since you seem to blame others for your current fate? “But he was away making a movie. (The Ghost Writer.) I’d heard that Polanski’s daughter had turned sixteen and if I could ask him one question it would be, ‘how would you feel if this was your daughter’?” Why always this, ‘what if this was your daughter’ crap? But no, this is a just below-the-belt blow for sick kicks, typical of deluded characters who have no better arguments. And do we know she was in Paris? No, easy to disprove that she wasn’t, and I doubt Emmanuelle would like a cocaine addicted jilted porn star ex-lover knocking on her door either to upset their family life even more.

“I will never forgive Polanski. I’ll never know if my life would have been different had ‘this’ not happened. There needs to be some justice. I’m telling the truth and Roman knows I’m telling the truth.” Sorry, Lewis, what you ‘need’ is a reality check and ‘therapy’, and the only ‘truth’, is that you project your entire life’s problems onto Polanski now, in a sad show of mendacity and play the vengeance game for your own failings while he’s facing extradition, old, powerless and in no position to fight your pathetic allegations no one can back up just so to damage his reputation some more out of spite. You lived with two Hollywood hell-raisers amongst other ‘artists’, became a drug addict through THEM, fell from glory through THEM, acted purely in nude flicks at YOUR choice, and now blame Polanski for all ‘this’? You’re a typical Hollywood loser who needs some hard cash by selling your ‘sordid story’ after your body has lost its attractiveness at no other acting ‘skills’ to make due. Oh and btw, the pictures and press show with you and Polanski from the days of Pirates you promoted with him in Cannes, don’t appear that you ‘hated’ him in any form after he so ‘terribly abused’ you. They show that you were besotted with him, the fame he brought and the money.

Now, after I’ve done some more research on the oh so ‘innocent’ and ‘abused’ Lewis, here we go. Brace yourselves. In an interview in August 1999 for the British newspaper News of the World she said: “I think he was entranced with me because I looked like Nastassja Kinski, who he’d directed in Tess. I knew Roman had done something wrong in America but I wasn’t too sure what. He’d already cast me in his film Pirates, so it wasn’t like it was a casting-couch thing where you have to sleep with someone to get the part, but I wanted to be his mistress. I wanted him more than he probably wanted me.” In it she stated that she was in fact seventeen when she first slept with Polanski, not sixteen as she now claims, and that their relationship lasted more than six months, and never did she allude to any possible ‘sexual abuse’ then. Which, not only puts this ‘casting couch’ claim into a no-show zone at once, but the entire ‘sexual abuse incident’ at his apartment, especially the ‘frigidity’.

Their relationship would have ended in Tunisia after Polanski himself had presented one of his friends who had filmed Ishtar there. “The fact is that I seduced Warren Beatty. (Yep, he slept with many more girls than Polanski, and they didn’t seem to have been too old either, but no one called him a paedophile.) But as he was married, I drew a line on our relationship.” Which means if true, Beatty wasn’t too faithful either, or ‘her’. So, you only wanted a ‘relationship’ with an ‘unmarried’ man, fine, but then, in that same interview, she tells in detail how she began to have sex at the age of fourteen with older men, and became involved in prostitution. Yep, it’s not a joke, her own words, and that while she was still underage in the UK where prostitution was more than illegal then. As I said, don’t give interviews you cannot remember for a mushy cocaine brain, to contradict and ultimately expose yourself in the most obvious and not too positive let alone believable manner.

She explains how, when she was a student at the Catholic Bishop Douglass School in London, she started out in clubs. “I don’t know with how many men I had slept at the time for money. I was naive.” A ‘call girl’, ‘naïve’? Sure. In the rest of the article she describes in detail the trips to the Middle East, her role as a prostitute, and I don’t mean ‘movie role’, listing down the names of other celebrities she had ‘serviced’, before she finally ‘found’ Polanski. In the archived newspaper version, titled “Wild Child”, clearly written with her co-operation in a no-holds-barred interview, she then confessed how she seduced kinky director Polanski when she was a nubile seventeen year old, not the other way round, or anything towards the ‘horrible things’ he did to her that clearly never happened, and that after she had already been offered and accepted the role in Pirates. No, you wanted him, he found someone better to later marry, and now you’re nothing but a sad Hollywood starlet has-been with a fatherless child who seeks attention with unproven allegations that never happened. If you had a real ‘case’, you’d gotten yourself a better ‘attorney’, not this corrupt money-grabbing LA famewhore bathing in the filthy limelight of celerity scandals.

Allred is infamous for her high-profile cases always ending up in man bashing muckraking with faded women who have a ‘grievance’. So brace yourselves for some more mud slinging and fake tears with the label, ‘Polanski-Lewis’. Maybe you should have a ‘Moet & Chandon’ to get drunk and tell the truth that the ‘champagne’ reminds you of his having ‘refused’ you, not ‘abused’ you, ‘Lewis’. You’re not even ‘worthy’ enough to be covered by the BBC. Recall how Lewis hoped her ‘testimony’ would be taken into account by the Swiss authorities when making their decision on the extradition? Which is irrelevant to them and all? Well, I hope they know of her old interviews, all the nude films and plenty Hollywood conquests and addiction to blow this ‘innocent’ ‘abused’ image into cyberspace, and that she was nothing but a cheap prostitute long before she met Polanski, who, after their ‘affair’, refused her for whatever reason, she went on to Hollywood to prostitute herself some more to get into nude films – after the hit film with Murphy she in fact had an ‘affair’ with too, apart from Eric Clapton, Eric Haymes and others. That’s what I found out; it’s all out there online, on film, in newspapers, available to everyone who wants to look.

No wonder she became a drug addict in the company of countless ‘Johns’, other addicts like Rourke, plenty nude scenes and sex, and now she wants to pin this ‘casting couch BS/‘sexual abuse’ BS/bulimia BS/jilted lover/drug addiction’ lie on Polanski. Let’s hope he ‘cleaned’ himself afterwards if he ever degraded himself by touching you, since the only one who ‘scarred’ you was YOU, ‘Lewis’, by whoring yourself for decades and on film for all to see. Now we finally see your real and very ugly face as it look today, after your exotic beauty and sexy body men worshipped have long faded, the addiction has taken its toll, and you’re nothing but embittered revenge. While classy Kinski had an open affair with him long before he cast her in Tess, they parted on amicable terms once filming had finished, and I highly doubt she will stoop so low as to accuse him of ‘abuse’ any time soon.  I hope Polanski’s team will sue the cocaine addiction out of you for your malicious lies, after they publicly exposed and disgraced you. Maybe Cooley & Co should have run a background check on your sordid past, which will no doubt come to haunt them. But then again, people like him and Allred would only attract the same trash as they are.

I should have remembered that Allred only deals with porn stars, prostitutes and gold diggers. Besides, I highly doubt Lewis can afford someone as ‘exclusive’ as Allred, ‘living in a flat’, unless she is so desperate for a ‘high-profile job’ that she represents her without any fees, and must be Cooley’s idea. The only thing Lewis should be ‘ashamed’ of, is that she ‘abuses’ this already deeply corrupted case to gain an audience with her sleazy lies, seriously trying to influence a judicial process US style not her business. It’s a sad and nasty charade. Now, logic permitting, if the Swiss weren’t even interested in former prosecutor Roger Gunson’s vital testimony that can prove Polanski had done his time, but are now and in fact still waiting for this information, but crooked Cooley gives us this ugly fraudster of the worst kind instead, there’s little chance that they will be paying any attention to any unproven allegation that [never] happened years later outside the US, since first of all, no one can be sentenced twice for something Cooley tries to achieve here in the most repulsively revenge driven way unheard of, let alone can take anything like ‘that’ into account to decide on this already unsound extradition. Go home to your son, Lewis, maybe you can shape his future better than you did your own past, and stop blaming others for your own ‘fate’.

Now, it seems like Lewis is not going home to vanish under that rock whence she crawled from, but in a fighting mood with more lies. In another statement she said: “Many of the quotes attributed to me in the article by the News of the World are not accurate.” Really? And there I was thinking they were printed with your full cooperation, and that you were happy all these years THAT story was out there for all to read. ‘I’ had protested any ‘inaccuracies’ right there and then, not ‘now’, and only shows the more people refute their own former words they didn’t object to the more they must be true. In fact, she apparently told her story for all the young girls out there not to follow her path of self-destruction, by selling their nubile bodies and souls for sex and drugs and money, a ‘life of luxury’. NOWHERE did she ONCE allude to any ‘abuse’ suffered at the hands of Polanski, in fact, at nobody’s hands but her own, after whoring herself on her own free will for that ‘life of luxury’ in the company of rich and famous men.

During a party she found herself face to face with Jack Nicholson of all people, who went to the toilet. She remembers asking him, “Can I come with you?” Nicholson’s eyes sparkled and he replied: ‘Sure’. Once in the bathroom, I told him: ‘I always wanted to kiss you’, ‘Okay’, he replied. And we kissed passionately. He kissed wonderfully well and it lasted long. We could have gone further, but unfortunately, someone else was on the other side of the door waiting for me.” Making out in a toilet? Desperate. Nicholson of all people; her ONE chance to ask him about what happened in March 1977, yet said absolutely nothing to him about the apparent ‘abuse’ Polanski had subjected her to just years earlier, or mentions anything like that in the article, but then again, it clearly never happened. All she talks about is how they met, when she started having sex with him with seventeen, NOT ‘sixteen’, and how it ended with her seduction of Beatty. Lewis admits in the article she conveniently dubs as ‘misquoting’ her sexual adventures these days, that LSD and marijuana did not help, and that she did not know what she was doing. And yet she could not stop. Well, so much for ‘all this’ being Polanski’s fault suddenly ‘today’, she had an affair with years after her sex with older men in the UK as a minor, only to move on to other men once in Hollywood after Polanski had made her famous. Special kind of ‘gratefulness’ I guess.

“I will leave the statements I made at the Los Angeles County District Attorney in Los Angeles and I’m happy to be confronted by Roman Polanski, face to face. Anytime, no, anywhere in the world because I speak the truth and he knows it.” Desperate are we now. Funny how people always emphasise the word ‘truth’, when it’s not. Maybe you should take another trip to his Chalet on your ‘own expenses’ again, to confront him. Like we believe you paid for that trip to LA yourself on a ‘selfless mission’ of ‘altruism’ to tell your story, sorry, lies, ‘now’ in the first place. I’d have much more sympathy for her prostitution teenage years, had she not blamed Polanski ONLY for her own downfall after her continued selling herself once they had split, or her ‘bulimia’ and later drug addiction. Why not blame anyone else but yourself. “Shortly after the incident I had with Mr Polanski, ‘when I was sixteen’ I told a friend the truth about what happened, how Mr Polanski has abused me.” Why she keeps emphasising ‘sixteen’ is beyond me – she was NO minor anymore. Forgot, she doesn’t remember that part. Or to have whored herself with ‘fourteen’ already. So ‘NOW’ she suddenly says she HAD ‘told’ someone, when before she said she had not? How handy she remembered! ‘I’ would have told my mother, not any ‘friend’.

“My attorney, Gloria Allred, gave the police a statement of my friend,” she adds. Um, hang on, why did this ‘friend’ not come forward earlier with this ‘horrible secret’ ‘either’? In that case the often cited ‘Stockholm Syndrome’, or ‘Svengali’ effect is out the window too. She complained in that 1999 interview that men treated her like a sex object, when she in fact offered herself enabling them to do so in the first place, for money and drugs, and that from a very young age onwards. She said: “Perhaps I should have realised what was going on, but I didn’t. I craved excitement and I liked men. And although I knew sex was illegal because I was underage, I didn’t consider it a crime.” But today keeps emphasising ‘sixteen’ in Polanski’s case, as if she was oh so innocent and blames him for her own crimes? And where was her mother in all this? Why did Social Services not stop her daughter from prostituting herself? And where in fact is this mother today, after her oh so self-abused daughter suddenly tells us of Polanski’s ‘abuse’ that never was, but apparently wasn’t too ‘ashamed’ she sold herself the mother knew of? And why is Lewis in fact allowed to keep her own child today as a drug addict? And where is the boy’s father? Surely ALL Polanski’s fault but her own.

In 1999 she said, “I was never an addict. I was never in the gutter and it never affected my work.” Really? In 1997 she stated, ‘that she realised she had hit rock-bottom when she stayed at an all-night party in the Hollywood Hills snorting cocaine and popping Ecstasy pills’. So why did Polanski shout at her if he wasn’t too happy with her on the set? And why exactly did she check into the ‘Priory’, after she tried to get into the Cedars Sinai Medical Centre in Beverly Hills where they run a drugs treatment programme, when her addiction was so great that she persuaded a friend to give her another gram of the drug, which they both took in the hospital bathroom and then got cold feet and scooted? That IS for hardcore ‘addicts’ after all! “Sure [I did] cocaine, sure Ecstasy, and of course marijuana. Then one day I simply realised I had to sort myself out, deal with my eating disorder, quit the drugs, stop smoking.” So, she went into rehab, failed twice, and yet STILL accuses Polanski of ‘what’ exactly ‘today’? The ‘bulimia’? The highly unlikely ‘frigidity’? Her ‘addictions’, or that she was attending Alcoholic Anonymous because she thought she had a drinking problem too? Or that she cannot form lasting relationships after all that sleeping around? I wonder why she in fact never fell pregnant before, so much for teens not to sleep with older men, or for money, or take the Pill.

Maybe this handy ‘friend’ is ‘Eliza’, since this is more than obvious that Lewis/Allred/Cooley have bribed someone to talk ‘on her behalf’ suddenly, to say that she told him/her about the ‘incident’. Dirty money makes people talk [lies] I guess. Funny how she forgot to mention that a handful of Arabs apparently chased after her at the Stringfellows club, thinking they’re trying to abduct her as a sex slave to Saudi Arabia, and she told her mother about THAT alright, yet didn’t learn a thing and went on to sleep around in Hollywood later. And what’s her mother’s take on her ludicrous accusation against Polanski, yet blames NO ONE else for her self-created fall from grace and wasn’t ‘too ashamed’ to whore herself for all these years? “Mr. Polanski and his supporters will not dissuade me to continue my efforts. I am convinced that the truth will come out,” she concluded. I hope so, since this is a typical corrupt LA court style smear campaign attack, nothing else. BUT, if the ‘police’ she talked to are in fact in Cooley’s pocket, which they all are, I’m sure they have NO qualms to take her ‘statement’ into account to make it ‘stick’. Like they do it with so many other innocent people since Cooley is in power, so he can bend a few more rules to have it admitted retroactively to affect this old case.

But, for that at all to even be considered, the Swiss will need to allow for extradition in the first place. Besides, Polanski’s lawyers will simply have any unrelated ‘evidence’ that flimsy motioned to be disregarded as unfounded information at once. However, if a crooked judge, and I’m not saying it might be Espinoza, will ‘allow’ it on whatever [even more bent] grounds, it ‘could’ influence any ‘sentencing’, though Polanski cannot really be sentenced a second let alone third time over one and the same offence in the first place. So let’s hope the Swiss will see through this ugly charade and NOT extradite him for Cooley’s latest attempt to influence this case and ‘mis/use’ such tall tales, since I doubt the authorities there are of the same sleazy mindset to go for this renewed misconducts, and deliver an old man into the ever dirtier hands of serious Human Rights violators. Funny how the Swiss haven’t even reacted to this latest ‘claim’, and that no one talks about it anymore either, after people had their rightful misgivings about her ‘credibility’ already. Let’s see what nasty manoeuvre Cooley will engage in next.

As it seems the DA’s office doesn’t know they have no jurisdiction over ‘sexual assault’ cases in Paris that allegedly (or rather not) occurred twenty seven years ago, let alone any rights to engage in a more than obvious smear campaign to force a legal process, it is of course a good diversion tactic of tackling the mounting judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in this case and the current prosecutorial misconduct, in disguising the exact ‘sentence’ that is left for Polanski, with these new ‘allegations’ by a former nude flick ‘actress’ and teenage prostitute. Many California statutes and laws have been applied in a highly discriminatory manner in all kinds of cases, and not ever pass Constitutional muster in any form, reaching Human Rights violations on a grand scale many outside the US aren’t aware of, but make an example of an old director. So after that apparently pointless publicity/smear campaign stunt, let’s go back to more important things. Firstly, the Swiss authorities will most likely have to reconsider Polanski’s arrest in Zürich, not only while waiting for Gunson’s testimony, but in regards to his acquisition of his Chalet in the canton of Bern in 2006.

Under federal Swiss law, the acquisition of real estate in Switzerland by foreigners, dated December 1983, the cantonal authorities and the Department of Justice conduct a thorough investigation of the purchaser to grant a permit to acquire property in the Swiss territory. For one, a judicial inquiry is conducted, i.e., criminal records etc. are searched, and questions are posed to the purchaser on their ties with Switzerland, the reasons for their choice of Swiss territory, and why they considered Switzerland as a place of residence or for holidays. Two, this background check is not mere administrative measures put in place and cannot be influenced, but are there to allow for ‘respectable’ and financially sound buyers only. Let’s not forget, Polanski had visited Switzerland ever since Tate’s murder over forty years ago, and has lived there unchallenged each year including his family. Now, if Switzerland allows a buyer like Polanski, the ‘infamous director on the lam’, to settle down in the cantons of Switzerland, one is struck by the fact that they let Polanski purchase his house to frequently stay in Switzerland, and then suddenly arrest/ed him when he was already ‘wanted’ a year before he acquired his Chalet Milky Way in 2006.

Technically he should have been declined to buy property, since Cooley had signed that international arrest warrant already or only in 2005, but he obviously could prove that he was not a ‘rapist’ and only fled a corrupt judge or they HAD declined his application. This contradiction of first allowing and then arresting, instantly alters the legality of his rearrest as an act of backstabbing, since, even if a permit to acquire property does not infer ‘immunity’ unless Swiss born, it remains a solemn fact that the purchase of his house was officially organised for Polanski while he was a known ‘fugitive’, when in fact the Department of Justice alerted American authorities of the imminent arrival of Polanski in Zürich last year. Why give him the illusory pretext of safety, and then suddenly sell him out? We know it was for the dirty offshore banking deals by the same authorities, thus, his fundamental right of protection from extradition, which concerns the political neutrality and freedom from arrest Switzerland is famed for, have obviously been violated in his case like no other. Let’s be clear on this, that Polanski was arrested at all suddenly in Zürich, only shows the growing ‘closeness’ of ‘political relationships’ between subservient Switzerland and the warmongering US empire.

The US exhaustively trying to shape the rest of the world after their own gun-obsessed picture, I doubt anyone but the Americans will deny being fact, after giving an official agreement to supply the US with the information about American citizens who keep their finances in Swiss offshore banks, this once so ‘neutral’ country went against one of its most basic principles – ‘confidentiality’ – all for the sake of becoming one of the closest American political allies in exchange for an old man who visited their alpine region for decades. The arrest of Polanski is just another move to satisfy the American thirst for power and domination, and one should not hold any doubts that the Swiss authorities will hardly agree to release Polanski, especially after this more than obvious attempt to coax them into doing so with this LA court smear campaign giving us a ‘new victim’ that never was, with Polanski now unfortunately in need to prepare himself for the ‘passive participation’ in this never-ending political game he fell victim to – a second time over now after Rittenband had played games to play with him already he ultimately fled from – as a powerless pawn of international politics and dirty money games.

Another ‘flight’ completely out the question today, for one, because he would forfeit his interest gathering bail bond being bankrupt by now, put his family in even greater disregard, and wouldn’t get anywhere far to begin with in danger of being mob lynched, Polanski is trapped in his Chalet as long as the corrupt politicians and even more corrupt lawmakers finally go in for the kill with more fabrications or bending laws, or the Swiss give in and deport him. The wider public obviously not being aware of this nasty power game, or that it never was ‘rape and double sodomy’ and couldn’t in fact care less about Ms Geimer’s wishes to stop this persecution madness either, or read of her later interviews that make it clear it wasn’t rape, therefore can continue ravelling in their own personal witch hunt agendas using both as their whipping boy and girl, utterly ignorant of real crimes happening right now around them unless personally affected. If what people think Polanski had done with Ms Geimer, they in fact had indicted him with the appropriate counts and forced a trial, or had him plead to the most serious count, i.e., drugged rape. They did not, since they knew he hadn’t drugged or raped/sodomised her.

And, what happened between him and what Lewis had accused him of is a sad joke beyond drug induced phantasm at any rate. Polanski spent these 42 days locked up in the ‘high-profile’ wing of Chino where in fact self-proclaimed ‘devil’ and rapist Manson and murderer Charles Tex Watson were housed, who was one of those amongst others who had killed Polanski’s pregnant wife in 1969 in a bloodbath hardly ever seen. It was a maximum security facility where during his incarceration in protective custody NOT to meet Manson or the others, Polanski performed his duties well and in accordance with the guards’ demands, i.e., ‘cleaning duty’ he in fact loved doing after the first thing he did when given his cell, was scrubbing it, with toilet paper. This ‘psyche evaluation’ was not even mandated by the statute for his plea deal after they had declared him not a ‘MDSO’ already. But Rittenband just went above and beyond of what the statute called for in terms of ‘punishment’, he then simply misused while no one wanted any prison time and he held the reports of Polanski’s ‘sexually’ sound but highly depressed mind already.

You do NOT send a depressed person into prison against ALL counsel ‘the hammer’ simply ignored, being his own media and sex obsessed god who slept with teens as well being much older than Polanski. According to this statute of ‘statutory rape’: one count of ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor’ was subject to, as it is now, straight probation and a fine, NOTHING else, and in fact NO one was sent to prison at the time Polanski was arraigned, and hardly anyone was put on probation either or faced the MDSO ‘evaluation’. Considering this was his first (and last no matter what people want) ‘offence’ with a minor, Polanski should never have spent ANY time in prison at all, let alone time at the same jail with his wife’s butchers, (after he even had to plead ‘guilty’ on the very day of her 8th death anniversary!) much less any time under house arrest no one else ever had to endure and two months after his arrest on Swiss remand, for an extradition that is so unsound it reeks of pure vengeance by now. But I guess people with the name ‘Polanski’ must be made an example of, wherever and however brutally and as long as possible, in a show of Human Rights violations on a grand scale and media demonisation unheard of. Since forty years in fact after his wife’s murder. It’s been eight months exactly to the day on May 26th since his unlawful detention, while real criminals are running around doing real harm. Shameful.

For now Polanski is trapped in a cultural impasse encroaching on him, a public moral morass choking him, aggravated by renewed political power gamers striking at his very life, again and again and again, and ultimately will not be ‘forgiven’ even though Ms Geimer has already long ago – unless he will be declared ‘innocent’ by a court of what the majority erroneously believe true, or the facts are finally revealed by someone other than myself, for people to realise that it never was what she had claimed as a teen, has long corrected herself as an adult, wants him freed. But Cooley’s corrupt court obviously cannot allow that, ignoring her own pleas the same, since corrupt people cannot declare someone guiltless who has exposed their corruption that has trapped them in the first place, after all the ‘special treatment’ only Polanski was gifted with already. The ‘timing’ of this ‘Lewis’ claim is more than ‘notable’, since efforts to bring Polanski back to California in a ‘legal’ way have been hampered for eight months not going anywhere, so how better than to only ‘now’ learn about this ‘new accusation’ of similar ‘sexual abuse’ thrown into the greedy public domain.

This more than unlikely ‘new allegation’ of some long-ago ‘incident’ that would have been of importance in the ongoing legal dispute concerning Polanski’s extradition equally long ago, or long before his rearrest, after it has already involved significant court rulings and testimonies that potentially declare Polanski having done his time after all, IS a clear attempt to force extradition, many people by now realise as being unacceptable tactics purely in legal terms. To recap, last December, the California Court of Appeal wrote: ‘If Polanski presents admissible evidence leading the trial court to conclude that Judge Rittenband committed to the diagnostic study as Polanski’s entire punishment, it is difficult to imagine that the trial court would not honour that commitment today. If, after taking evidence, the trial court finds that Polanski’s allegations are true and that the original trial judge agreed that the prison stay for the diagnostic study would constitute Polanski’s entire punishment, a condition Polanski fulfilled, the trial court could find that justice requires that the trial court’s commitment be honored and that Polanski should be sentenced to time served. We are confident that the trial court could fashion a legal sentence that results in no further incarceration for Polanski’.

Since then ailing Gunson HAS proven in Polanski’s place that WAS his entire ‘sentence’, yet, his vital testimony was gagged by the very same judge, the Swiss are still waiting for to this day nearly half a year later. Ever since the court’s statement Cooley had ignored their own ruling, his own lawsuits, and rather gives us ‘Lewis’, one of Polanski’s unstable ex-lovers, a less than credible former teenage prostitute, drug addict and Hollywood has-been, who stated in 1997, “I used to have the world in the palm of my hand. But I discovered cocaine and just couldn’t stop. Now I really want to be a successful Hollywood movie star,” which seems to have failed BIG time. AGAIN. What better time to cash in on someone who had made them famous, ‘arm’ Swiss authorities with THIS irrelevant ‘information’ but NOT Gunson’s vital proof to finally release Polanski, as they decide over an old man’s ‘fate’, Lewis so expressly ‘pointed out’. How cruel people can be. That’s what drugs do to addicts – they sell out everything and everyone to everyone who pays them anything anytime anywhere.

Now, looks like this ‘friend’ to stick up for Lewis’ is a childhood friend; Jon Jacobs, who incidentally starred with her in The Golden Child, who incidentally is [or at least once was] a friend of Cris Campion who incidentally helped him to get his first film role since he incidentally starred with Lewis in Pirates where they first met. Jacobs told RadarOnline.com today, May 28th, that he first heard about the charges a few month ago. Really? How handy to remember to tell us about them only ‘now’! “I met Charlotte when I was fifteen and she was fourteen and we both used to go to the clubs and as gorgeous as she was, she was never promiscuous around me and didn’t sleep with the guys who were trying to get with her. A young girl who’s very attractive is just very attractive, it doesn’t mean she wants to have sex.” Really? Funny how he emphasises, ‘never promiscuous around him’ and how oh so virtuous she was, when she herself said the very opposite. Maybe we should find any of these men she never slept with.

Now, either he never noticed she prostituted herself, or lies as much as she does today, saying, that what she told us in 1997 what with her drug addiction she acquire in Hollywood, and her 1999 self-proclaimed ‘sexual adventures’ is all ‘inaccurate’ suddenly, and two whole no-holds-barred interviews later, she today protests as rather than protested ‘then’, are ‘misquotes’? Sure, Lewis, we believe you. So, all that, ‘I was a teenage prostitute for a whole year in 1981 for money and I can’t even remember with how many men I slept’, was a lie? All the rich Arabs chasing after her at Stringfellows, her ‘Madam’ ‘friend’ telling her to be nice to the older men? Right. Jacobs goes on: “You know what I mean? Yes, she was there. She certainly went through it.” Through what exactly, Jon? So, she had a whole six months affair with Polanski long after they met and started the shoot, ‘after’ he ‘abused’ her, and you never noticed? Or her mother? Is it just me, or would I rather NOT be around my abuser, and in fact tell ‘someone’ who can stop him, or at least get away from him? Unless I’m not quite right in the head, which seems more and more the case here with Lewis. Unless of course, the abuse never happened.

Jacobs who left school with ten, says he visited her on the set of Pirates. “She was young and out there on her own. She didn’t have family with any experience. She was on her own in the world.” Really? I thought she had YOU ‘out there’, and her mother apparently visited her too, and she had that oh so abusive affair with Polanski, and lots of crew and actors around her to be her ‘world’, no? Guess not. She must have lied about all that then. After she wrapped the Polanski film, Lewis went to Hollywood, on the very recommendation of the producer of Pirates mind you, to get the part in The Golden Child with Murphy who was crazy about her, and became the ‘IT’ girl, as Jacobs recalls. “She came off Polanski and right into The Golden Child. I’m not going to doubt her. She’s not a liar,” he emphasised. I bet he ‘emphasised’ ‘that’ – what a great ‘show’, ‘Jon’! Another liar. Circulate more lies, and sooner or later people start believing them as being true. Jacobs isn’t certain why his friend waited so long to go public with her allegation, but he has his theory.

“It’s probably something that she had to turn over in her mind many, many times.” A handy ‘theory’ that fits well into any logical ‘reasoning’ of ‘why’ people might come forward so much later, to make it fit into the picture of ‘now’, i.e., influence this ‘extradition’, while in fact sleeping with all those others right afterwards. Special kind of logic that. “I’m realising she’s like ‘f***k Hollywood’. That’s it. She doesn’t care any more. She wants it off her chest. That’s obviously what she’s doing.” She’s f***ed alright, not only in the head, but career wise, since no one would even look at her these days, or in fact has done so since ages for obvious reasons of no talent and only drugs issues, or she HAD made ‘IT’ in Hollywood in the first place, ‘Jon’. So, ‘no’ one ever noticed her ‘abuse’ in all these months? And there I was thinking that it would be affecting all areas of her life. Guess not. I’d rather told my best friend then if not mother or authorities, ‘you’ in fact of all people ‘Jon’, already THEN, not only a few months back! Guess she must have forgotten about her ‘terrible abuse’ suffered at Polanski’s ‘strong hands’ who made her famous, only to flush it all down the toilet with seedy sex and more drugs, and now accuses him of whatever. Right.

Jacobs, who in fact directed sleazy porn films, once said, “American women are easier to satisfy sexually. Quicker. European women? It’s a much longer affair. They’re used to long romantic dinners and making love all night. American women are used to having a quick meal, quick movie, quick sex, and then sleep.” Sounds just like what Lewis did. Now I believe her even less, ‘Jon’. Lewis made a handful of unknown low budget nude films and had a few insignificant TV appearance outside Pirates and Golden Child as nude bit-part actress, which according to reviews, are pretty crappy stuff, or the seediest of seedy. Jacobs made a few B-movies which were according to reviewers, ‘worthless’, and he in fact made two films with Lewis, one of which he directed and went unnoticed, and are the last two she ever made in 2003. Reviewers say, all in all, both their films are sad flops, predictably messy and cheap, people won’t be seeing again any time soon. Not my words, and all I can only recall is Pirates and Golden Child at any rate, since I don’t watch ‘crap’. Jacobs made his last film in 2006, and is one of the countless ‘actors’ no one can recall, who never made any quality work. Just like Lewis.

Funny how Kinski and Emmanuelle, let alone any other of the classy actresses Polanski did and in fact mostly did NOT sleep with, never turned on him with sudden rape accusations when their careers weren’t that hot anymore, but then again, they obviously had more class than to join Lewis in the prostitution and drugs gutter, not to mention can sport more acting talents to begin with in no need to use their bodies only. In that 1997 interview she said, and I quote: “I don’t know how many men might have had sex with me for money, I was in a permanent haze. I was fourteen and looking for excitement. I’d go out with my so-called friend to a nightclub, then everything would become blurry. I’d have a vague notion of talking to some man, and my friend saying, ‘You HAVE to be nice to him’. I’ve been at the top of the world, and I’ve also been to the edge and looked over into the abyss. It is only now that I am really willing to admit that I had a problem [with drugs and sex].” So much for protesting she never was in the gutter. ‘Priory’ says you’re a drug addict, end of. That was before she went back to Hollywood, only to fail again and return to the UK. Why your ‘friend’ Jacob never noticed any of your sexcapades and constant state of drug induced ‘haze’, is totally beyond me.

In 1997 she said, “Everywhere I went there were drugs – at parties, at restaurants, on the sets of movies and at my friends’ homes. I couldn’t get away from it. It took over my whole life and then wrecked it.” Seems like no willpower to say ‘no’, no? Let’s blame Polanski for it. But then of course, Jacob’s lying on your behalf now and that this is all Polanski’s fault, probably slept with her too. Both are Hollywood has-beens with questionable sex and B-movie flicks no one found ‘worthy’ to look at again, unlike Polanski, who went to make acclaimed films without any drugs needed, met his current wife to settle down again. Why a woman, who apparently was ‘abused’ by a physically ‘very strong’ director, has an affair with him, and then lets herself be later photographed in the full frontal nude and on film as nature had created her, lets herself be touched by other stripped male and female actors, and by many more lovers, took Playboy pictures, all with a male camera team, and being suddenly totally fine with it, is a mystery I care to uncover. I have never heard of a ‘rape victim’ doing any of that, unless you are Charlotte ‘in/famous’ Lewis, who might need a bit of money, since her ‘Priory’ stay costs her £3000 a week, and needs to care for her fatherless son.

In fact, ‘Vice’ magazine, apt name that, showed a few behind the scenes shots of Pirates, where Polanski was walking around butt naked on the set, and believe it or not, I in fact have just these evocative pictures anyone can find online where all he wears are sneakers. Sorry, won’t put any up, but what a sexy bastard he was; no wonder women couldn’t resist him. When he shot the luscious Kinski on another sunny beach for the special 1976 ‘Vogue by Roman Polanski’ I too own, to promote perfumes, jewelry and luxury items in exactly the same ‘Pirates’ setting, when he wanted to make the film already then, again, he was running around as god had made him, this time with Kinski in the ‘role’ of the beauty surrounded by pirates Lewis would later occupy on film. So, why didn’t Lewis complain about ‘that’ overtly sexual behaviour, or at least ‘nude sunbathing’ no one else seems to have had trouble with either, while doing a multimillion dollar film with a suntkissed kinky director, or have that oh so ‘very abusive’ affair with him for months on end, or make the film shot on sunny locations over even more months, or got a lot of money for it to buy nice things for herself and her mother, or to be made famous, or or or… is even more beyond me. I can’t wait to see her getting sued over her false ‘abuse’ accusations. And her porn director ‘friend’. Everything with genius filmmaker Polanski is a luscious fantasy, and even more what people make of him.

Well, just as one should have expected, believe it or not, EVERYTHING in regards to Lewis on ‘smokinggun’ has been removed. All her candid interviews, her porn and drugs related stuff, even her ‘Priory’ stay, while everything related to ‘predator’ Polanski and ‘victim’ Ms Geimer is still there. Now if THAT is not public manipulation I don’t know what is! Cooley is having his dirty fingers stuck everywhere. Can’t wait to read her ‘testimony’, and that of ‘Jacobs’ I’m sure Cooley will see circulated right there. Love it how Lewis said, ‘she has lived with the effects of Polanski’s behaviour ever since it occurred’, and there I was thinking that she had engaged in unsavory behaviour long before she met him, and then in even lesser responsible behaviour once they parted, and that to take accountability for your own actions is the right way, not suddenly blaming others after years of self-abuse. She’s right in that there’s someone to hold responsible for her sad life, though; she need only look in the mirror to direct her blame more accurately than towards Polanski. She did not even end up as a little footnote in his Wikipedia page, (which is still more than incomplete or incorrect in many places concerning the old case), and merely insignificant online articles cited her accusations once for a week, and only one unknown site featured her friend’s claims/lies.

As for ‘Allred’, she’s known as a cheap ambulance chaser catching a ride on the latest tabloid scandal in order for man-basher, who only picks the sleazy scandals when there are plenty ‘real’ women who were really wronged, (but can’t afford her of course) not like these pathetic prostitutes she represents, setting the women’s movement she had ridden since decades back a hundred years. She once said: “My work is not about popularity contests. It’s not even about justice.” Right, because her kind of ‘justice’ equals money and 15-minute media-whoring, after some ‘hurt little female’ had cried rape that never happened. As for her legacy, both legal and ‘moral’, Allred also said that she is not much concerned about it (no surprise there): “If a man feels good about the way he’s treated women in his life, he likes you, and if he doesn’t, he hates you.” Well, since Polanski obviously didn’t hate Lewis or they’d not had that affair, Lewis’ complaint about any ‘abuse’ is more than BS. Lewis would later explain that she decided to hire (i.e., ‘pay’) her because: “I needed a strong advocate. I felt I needed an American attorney, and I wanted a female.” Sure, someone who doesn’t even want to charge or sue Polanski, but bangs on about how important Lewis’ claims are in regards to the old case, while I in fact would rather want to see ‘justice’ done for myself.

If she had a case, she would have brought charges forth long ago since it is so easy today to cry rape in our ‘rape culture’ society, and Polanski had no means of defending himself against anything as a fugitive as seen so often with libellous slander he could not fight, and, if she had any proof at all, she could at least have sued him long ago or even today, since it is all so very easy to sue any man in the US over female fantasies, see Allred and her pathetic ‘clients’ demanding ‘justice’, i.e., money for sex, nothing else.  But no, the first thing Lewis said, that it is very important that the DA (i.e., ‘Cooley) and the Swiss authorities are ‘armed’ with her ‘information’ as they decide Polanski’s ‘fate’, to affect a case utterly unrelated to her own allegations. And therein lies the very answer, and that this has nothing to do with ‘her’ or her fictitious claims, but crooked Cooley alone, and his failure to send the Swiss the proof that Polanski had done his time, that his arrest and extradition request are therefore unlawful, and that he wants to send him down on more fabrications out of sheer revenge a second time now after media-mad Rittenband had tried to do so already in 1978, which has absolutely nothing to do with any ‘justice’ either way. But that’s ‘Cooley’, LA’s power-mad DA who needs Polanski’s head to make it to Attorney General by any possible means. Even lies.

So I ask, how often does a retired prosecutor, i.e., Gunson, who in fact did NOT want Polanski inside in keen agreement with Ms Geimer and her mother, join forces with defence attorneys, i.e., Dalton, to, A, remove an out-of-control judge, i.e., Rittenband, for multiple misconduct who wants to ‘punish’ a defended, i.e., Polanski, a second time, and B, to expose judicial and prosecutorial misconduct and that said defendant had done his time? And that in ‘LA’, centre of the corrupt Cooley court? It’s ironic that Polanski haters see themselves as ‘victims advocates’, when they obviously don’t care one bit about those who are victimised by prosecutors and judges who exert real and unjust powers over them, and these very attorneys stated that they couldn’t trust Rittenband anymore on film only two years back. Given that society ‘already’ condemns sexual abuse/assault or ‘law-enforced’ injustice, the greater need here is undoubtedly to investigate lawless judges and prosecutors, and to rectify these systemic injustices and abuse of the law, of which Polanski has openly accused the same court he fled from, i.e., ‘Cooley’ and his consorts. So one could almost hope that he will make it to become Attorney General, since this would in fact take him out of the corrupt LA courts, but unfortunately put him into an even more powerful position, since this would be the equivalent of the very politician who will [also] have a last say to decide on the extraction in Switzerland, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf.

Well, to come back to this disgraceful ‘UBS’ business, a French news article cites the following, June, 3rd, which makes it clear they [all] know of Polanski having been sold out to the US in exchange for their dirty banking deals. The Swiss government and the US criticised Bern over their UBS dealings and have taken up their debate on the agreement with Washington on UBS today. Twenty speakers were keen to speak. In addition to assert their positions on such a treaty, the senators also voiced their criticism against the way the whole affair took place. UBS has committed illegal acts during the long years of business conducts with the US. The Swiss authorities, the Federal Council (of which Widmer-Schlumpf is not surprisingly a member, and Swiss President Leuthard (who all enjoy absolute legal immunity from prosecution mind you) who is in communication with French President Sarkozy over the ‘Polanski affair’, have responded belatedly to committing errors. (Of course they have.)

One of the speakers said, the bank policies in the US as provided in the agreement signed August 19th, 2009, violate Swiss law. Washington must respect the fact that Switzerland is a state of law.  In other words, the Swiss Parliament would not accept such an agreement. Another speaker meanwhile has not hesitated to accuse UBS executives of conspiracy, motivated by an appetite for ‘deals’. But he also said, it would be too easy to assume the sole responsibility of the whole matter should rest with the large bank and the Federal Council alone. Switzerland needs to self-regulate on banking secrecy and bonuses paid to managers they say, to avoid selling out [people] so easily to Washington, with canton Ticino citing the ‘Tinner affair’, POLANSKI and CIA prisoners. “Saying ‘no’ is protecting such fraud. And we find it hard to talk about the rule of law when protecting theses people.” Many other voices have also been raised calling for UBS to change course. The bank, given its size and its importance for the Swiss economy, enjoys a de facto state of immunity. Nice.

Now, THAT would make it finally clear what I always said, and that Polanski indeed is a political pawn. See his extortionately high and therefore unconstitutional bail bond amount, uncommon house arrest based on an unsound arrest warrant and extradition request to begin with, who was whistle-blown on by the UBS bankers who called on the Swiss authorities, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf, for them to call on the US, i.e., Cooley & Co, so he could get his own dirty hands on him in the first place. I bet Polanski never thought to end up a hostage of a country he [once] trusted in the name of ‘banking deals’, after his forced and ultimately broken ‘plea deal’ was already a fatal step towards ‘judicial backroom deals’. Looks like his role in life was to become a victim of ‘political deals’, i.e., Hitler’s war years and the Krakow ghetto years, Polish Communism, and now Swiss banking deals with the country he fled from. What other ‘director’ can ever sport such annotations to his name outside ‘film deals’, all for sex with a minor three decades ago after a fatal ‘Vogue Hommes deal’ to usher in ‘temptation’ of a ‘honey trap’. Conspiracy is an understatement.

Now, having found out something even more interesting concerning Lewis, here it is; in April 1986 she told TIME, ‘that she was already a ‘top fashion model’ at sixteen, (though I still can’t find anything on that, other than her prostituting herself with fourteen) and then was introduced to Polanski, who cast her in his new film, ‘Pirates’’. Then gossip columnists reported that she was ‘eighteen’ when ‘linked’ with Polanski, (which would be in line that they had started their affair when she was seventeen while filming months later) and then was seeing ballet star Baryshnikov after her Tunisian fling with Beatty, but THEN described both men as ‘just good friends’. Sorry, Lewis, Polanski therefore only being ‘a good friend’, ever since after you had finished Pirates and then even promoted the film together in Cannes more than enthralled with him, does not really qualify for any kind of ‘sexual abuse’ you had suffered at his hands in his apartment, (if they ever even had sex then which seem ever more unlikely now) nor during your half-year affair in 1984/5 with him, let alone after a few decades now does it? Then she had said in that interview ‘that it is all true’, so why not believe her what she had stated ‘then’ so adamantly rather than ‘today’? Lewis was described as ‘delightfully candid’ and seemingly unaffected by her promising career, saying sweetly, “I don’t think I knew anything about the business. I still don’t.” So, she had no clues about filming, (no wonder directors ‘shouted’ at her ‘performance’) was however in contrast ‘unaffected’, and Polanski was ‘just a good friend’ once they had parted. So, to say the very opposite today in a more than obviously conflicting string of self-defeating comments over her previous statements, is just plain dumb. Or of course, vindictive lies to influence this extradition. No wonder the majority of people still don’t believe her lurid fantasies and none of the Swiss officials are taking her seriously.

Having noticed hat people keep referring to statutory rape as ‘forcible rape’, to remind them, no, it’s casual sex with a minor up to the age of twelve in fact, and only forcible intercourse is ‘rape’ regardless of age, and no one, including Polanski has ever denied that it was unlawful sexual intercourse he committed, hence the plea deal. In order to subscribe to the absurd notion that a man having sex with a minor is every bit as ‘reprehensible’ as a man forcibly raping someone, you would also have to support the prosecution of Ms Geimer’s seventeen year old boyfriend at the time, who would also be a ‘rapist’, since he was more than four years her senior and that sex with her for anyone older is considered unlawful. (Unless she was ‘really’ fifteen as some sources claim.) While she freely had admitted to the sex and to other encounters in court, her mother’s boyfriend she had a thing going on with too who was Polanski’s own age, neither of them were ever touched for statutory rape or ‘sexual abuse’ either. The fact that the mother’s boyfriend was never brought in as witness should speak volumes therefore. How did Polanski put it in 1984, “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 your name was ‘Polanski’.

In the US documentary entitled ‘Roman Polanski’ made for the A&E Television Networks in 2000, where Ms Geimer had stated her by now famous anti-rape line, “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,” apart from that surely not sounding like ‘rape’ just to repeat it, not once mentioning anything untoward what she had claimed before as a teen, no drugs or champagne, fear or reluctance, in order to ‘let him get it over with’, i.e., the allegedly unwanted ‘intercourse’, or ‘repeat sodomy’, she must be the only woman who never displayed any of the known physiological reactions or general feelings. I.e., severe soreness for not lubricating, localised pain in the chest, throat, (for screaming and/or crying) arms or legs from seizing up (or fighting the attacker), which also makes it even more painful and injurious in vaginal and most of all anal rape for the muscles contracting even more in a state of fear and growing pain, which she never even mentioned. Specific symptoms relating to the area of the body assaulted, are, in oral rape, it may have a variety of mouth and throat complaints, (or after unwanted oral copulation, i.e., cunnilingus the vagina/labia shows allergic reactions), while survivors of vaginal and/or anal rape have severe physical reactions related to these areas (bleeding, tearing etc.), which in Ms Geimer’s case were all but absent, since of course it was clearly simple casual sexual intercourse. Hence her saying, Polanski didn’t use any ‘force’. Verbal or physical.

Known behavioural symptoms of rape victims present in the acute stage following an attack include: diminished alertness, numbness, dulled sensory, affective and memory functions, disorganised thought content, vomiting, nausea, paralysing anxiety, pronounced internal tremor, hysteria, confusion and crying, bewilderment, acute sensitivity to the reaction of other people, or obsession to wash or clean themselves. Now, Ms Geimer declared she had not cleaned herself in any form even when at home, despite saying that Polanski had told her she should he however denied having said and obviously never happened, and no semen/saliva was found anywhere. In regards to these other ‘reactions’, all she displayed was curious rudeness towards Huston of all people when he had introduced her, probably because they had to leave and Huston had stated that she wasn’t too thrilled them being there without her prior knowledge, and then obviously knew Polanski took pictures of someone since she asked the girl if she was the one in question Ms Geimer confirmed. Though Ms Geimer claimed she had cried in the car, no one could substantiate that, and none of the other behavioural or physical signs were present either. But then again, all that clearly never happened, since, when Polanski joined her there they talked about all sorts of stuff and there were no signs of ‘tears’ or ‘fear’ or ‘reluctance’.

It’s a well-know fact that people will stumble over their lies sooner or later, since the memory cannot recall fabrications too well, let alone several ‘versions’ of it, when the true memory pushes through as ingrained truth. That’s why false rape accusers concentrate on particular ‘actions’ too much, mostly the made up acts from the accused, rather than mention smells, sounds, or actual feelings and physical responses, what was said, other than their own words they made up. As seen in Ms Geimer’s case, who missed to recall the car pulling up the drive, (Huston returning) or the phone lighting up, (Huston being on the line) and she never once said anything about her rape/sodomy ‘pain’, since there was none from no such acts to cause her any discomfort it certainly would have. She cannot remember his but her own words only, conveniently calling it ‘blocking out’, only what ‘she said’, or what she claimed he had said though he never has. Real rape victims DO remember what their attacker said, since they need to ‘react’ to them, while Ms Geimer said she said so and so and Polanski oddly never reacted to her, though he should have to ‘make her compliant’ or cause that ‘fear’ she claimed, and only shows there was nothing he needed to react to or force her into or anything that made her afraid.

Now, coming back to the lawsuit Ms Geimer had filed against Polanski in 1988 alleging all sort of ‘effects’ suddenly, after further research, it only alleged ‘sexual assault’ (i.e., sexual intercourse) and ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress and seduction’, not what was said before, hence the unlikely sounding, ‘false imprisonment’ (negating her claim that she had asked him to take her home he had refused and he denied s/he had said), ‘physical distress’, (negating any ‘rape’) and most of all ‘battery’ I always doubted. Generally speaking, the plaintiff has the burden of proof in making his/her claims, which means that it is up to him/her or her to produce enough evidence to persuade the judge or jury that his or her claim should succeed. Though the majority of lawsuits are settled and never even get to trial, they can expand into a very complicated process. This is particularly true in federal systems, where it additionally may not be clear which level (or location) of court actually has jurisdiction over the claim or personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Domestic courts are also often called upon to apply foreign law, or to act upon foreign defendants, over whom they may not, as a practical matter, even have the ability to enforce a judgment if the defendant’s assets are outside their reach. Since this was applicable in Polanski’s case, being ‘out of reach’, they had tried for a whole ten years unsuccessfully to get the money officially ‘awarded’ since no proof of her new claims could ever be proven, and her original accusations had been dropped to start with and therefore could not be allowed either as never proven to begin with.

Now, since Polanski had only admitted to the intercourse and ‘seduction’, kissing and caressing her, i.e., made the first step, they are the only two counts of any validity she could claim as fact. In order to prove ‘emotional distress’ however, the law states: Defendant must act ‘intentionally’ or ‘recklessly’; and, the Defendant’s conduct was ‘extreme’ and ‘outrageous’; and, the Defendant’s act is the cause of the distress; and, the Plaintiff must actually suffer ‘severe emotional distress’ as a result of defendant’s conduct. This standard is quantified by the intensity, duration, and any physical manifestations of the distress. But, as I said, she had rejected all professional help from psychiatrists at the time which is typically required here to prove ‘severe emotional distress’, after she herself had frolicked around with her mother’s boyfriend outside the prosecutor’s office like they were lovers, which in fact is more than ‘outrageous’ and spits not only right into the face of her own allegations of ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘emotional distress’. Which meant, the lawsuit could not be settled ‘formally’ and obviously was even more suspect to bring up after ten years. With only the count of sexual intercourse left fact and she had no means to prove otherwise, the courts in general are reluctant to accept such ‘tort’ for ‘emotional harm’ for fear of opening a ‘wide door’ to frivolous claims such as hers, and that is why they had to take the backdoor after ten more years to take his money from his US film proceeds. I call it stealing.

On to something else, after Polanski had spoken out last month to declare Cooley wants his head to become Attorney General, his ever-supportive wife Emmanuelle told the French paper, La Parisienne in an updated version from June 5th, “The history we live in now is so painful. My children are going through a really difficult period. People have not changed my rather positive outlook of life. I also note that we have many supporters, they compensate for the pathetic attitude of the big cons. The second case (‘Lewis’) is so low and ridiculous that it is not even worth talking about. It’s stupid and unfair, it really touches the lowest of low. I think the truth will soon speak for Roman. But for now, I must be strong, I have no choice, I draw on my resources, it is not funny. But really, life is not funny.” Indeed, especially with pathetic liars like Lewis trying to get attention with sexual abuse fabrications. So be careful all you men out there, for some ex-lover might come back with a sick vengeance suddenly and indefensible lies calling you a rapist, and guess what? You’ll have absolutely ZERO chances in proving otherwise with all the ‘sex laws’ speaking in favour of women ONLY hiding behind the detrimental rape shield laws, even if they lied. Like Ms Geimer, who however made good on her mistake, and most of all Lewis, who however made the even bigger mistake to even have tried.

While many keep bringing up Kinski, all I can say is, they both had an open affair over a short period of time with the full consent of her mother, so that’s NO one else’s business but theirs let alone today, and to say she’s just another ‘victim’ of his is therefore more than nonsensical and moot. They started their liaison when he met her in Munich after Polanski was offered to direct the opera ‘Rigoletto’ there. After a German columnist had introduced her to him, covering the annual ‘Modewoche’ with fashion models everywhere, they both spent the night together the first time, and he in fact had no idea how old she was, because, just like Ms Geimer, she looked far more mature until her mother told him while discussing her career and accompanied her, (unlike Ms Geimer’s mother), knowing fair well they had sexual relations she obviously condoned. Since Kinski’s English was non-existent, he sent her to London to have the run of his home there while he was based in Paris, when he was offered the 1976 Vogue assignment that would lead him with her to the luscious ‘Pirates’ setting he had chosen as theme. In order to secure Polanski for another Vogue assignment after the Christmas issues was a mega hit, the editor asked him to do a special feature for Vogue Hommes, i.e., find more nubile teens, that is where it would go all wrong, when his French friend, who congratulated him on the success, had asked him to look at the younger sister of the girl he was dating – Ms Geimer.

Fast forward following a few weeks into the unlawful sex case, Polanski had asked Kinski to come to Hollywood to get a proper language coach, and mentored her at his own costs so he could cast her later in Tess, while working abroad on his second film he was to lose as well because Rittenband would drive him from the country and into exile at his growing court antics. Still managing to directed her in Tess entirely filmed in France once recovered from the aftermath of hardship and his status as a fugitive, Kinski now perfected in English and all, they both then promoted the highly acclaimed period film in Cannes, while Kinski had gone on to Moussa by then, (the agent Polanski had asked to take Kinski under his wings who would eventually even marry her), and who had rejected Ms Geimer’s mother for not being quite the high-class calibre he would represent. So in Kinski’s case, she owes her very successful acting career to their once love affair with her and his helping her into the big business, all the while being accused of rape and whatnot else fighting with the press and a media-hungry judge. The same goes for Lewis he had launched shortly after into ultimately self-created very questionable ‘stardom’ after also promoting their period film Pirates together in Cannes, who however was not such a promising actress and ultimately even betrayed him big time a few decades later in the most disgusting form. Observing the patterns, it would have been logical that Ms Geimer’s own career would have no doubt flourished, had she not stupidly cried rape to destroy that very lucrative future. Or rather her untalented mother.

Of course there’s a case to be made for letting the Polanski matter drop after all these decades once and for all, for one, given the escalating costs and the fact that Ms Geimer wants it dropped, and two, even the ‘people’ want it dropped seeing the lunacy and vindictiveness of it all while their ‘golden state’ is overrun with real criminals. But, for Cooley, who’s still in the run for AG battling it out with other equally debatable candidates mind you, it might be an enormous political problem if Polanski was shown some mercy before November and simply let him go, (and, by the looks of it, the election results and public responses guarantee this won’t happen any time soon and Cooley is set to win the race). So, despite having clearly engaged in fabricating another ‘victim’, though this time not another innocent person sent to prison, but gave us falsified ‘evidence’ through these phoney allegations from that double-crossing Lewis bait and her porn director ‘friend’, (conveniently calling her own previous interviews nullifying her ‘abuse’ claims outright, as ‘misquoting’ her) Cooley’s doing nothing short of perverting the course of his own brand of justice ever more despite having enough lawsuits on his corrupt hands, or rather created more injustice which is so blatantly obvious even non-insiders get the idea.

California has the eighth-largest economy in the world, i.e., Hollywood, yet is always on the verge of bankruptcy when it comes to the average citizen, while candidates throw obscene sums of money at campaigns to be elected, only to plunge their people into deeper debt and crime rather than in fact pump that money into depleted resources to support the poor, or prevent crime. Yes, it’s Chinatown all over, and, according to the dumb and/or ignorant Californians, i.e., those who were or are not being vicitimised by Cooley, like the rich and powerful and/or criminals who pay him off, he only gathered momentum by going after ‘fugitive director’ Polanski, since these people of course have zero knowledge of the particulars of the case they deliberately withhold, at worst twist some more in their usual iniquity, let alone know of the more than messy legal side of it. If they’d ever cared. Or that Cooley is a double standard bastard, believing, ‘a convicted felon should only be sent to prison for twenty-five years to life on a ‘third strike’ if he or she commits a serious or violent crime, and not for something more ‘minor’’, while wanting old Polanski in shackles in his court to face re-sentencing over some three decade old sex with a girl. The man is a pathetic hypocrite.

While Charlie Sheen, yes, one of the many Lewis had slept with, was arrested on allegedly attacking his current wife last Christmas with a knife threatening to kill her in a drunken rampage, then was set free on a lousy $8500 bail, then pleaded to a misdemeanour to get a mere month in jail and the other charges were dropped, he’s still running around after a ‘snag’ in proceedings, and a clear danger to others it seems being an alcoholic and drug addict. Yet, he can get on with his film career without anyone calling for his head in Hollywood or otherwise, while Polanski however had to sit out more than that and was expected to sit out more yet again, is now under house arrest since over half a year after over two months on Swiss remand already and needing to post extortionate bail of nearly $5 million, all for sleeping with a minor three decades ago in contrast. Now THAT is what I call ‘special treatment’ for American star Sheen, no hang on, the little Frenchman Polanski. People keep hijacking the case for their own questionable agendas, biased views and love to revel in their erroneous belief that Polanski pleaded, or admitted, to drugging and raping/sodomising Ms Geimer, and one can only shake ones head in even greater disbelief about such stupidity. What’s more, that she lets people keep revelling in it is even more unbelievable after her own words to the opposite, knowing fair well she had lied. How women like her or Lewis, or any other disgraceful false rape accuser for that matter, can sleep at night is beyond me.

With people saying things like, ‘I don’t feel the slightest need to try to defend or justify Polanski and I’m willing to make that judgement, even in the land of innocent until one pleads guilty to a lesser charge’, it clearly shows these self-righteous idiots simply accept whatever is thrown their way without scruples or need to get their clearly lacking facts right, let alone allow the law to be upheld which easily could strike out against them too any day. I wonder what happens if they were accused of something that serious and others dismiss their right of a fair hearing, saying, we don’t want to know your side, (because you’re a man) and we don’t care if the law was corrupted to brand you a fugitive/rapist/paedophile. And, while many apply such sad double standards blindly in this case only, believe that Hollywood can often display ‘questionable morals’ they think seem skilled at separating the artist from his art, believing their applause was not for the man but for the artist, when they most likely know the facts and applaud him anyway. Of course, it doesn’t help when others do the came, separate the man’s ‘crime’ from his superior ‘art’, (if believing in any offence or not) perpetuating the myth there was an oh so heinous crime, other than unlawful sex millions of other engage in this very moment, who however will never be sent to hell simply because their name is not ‘Polanski’.

Most may not know anyone that in/famous and/or artistically highly accomplished, and we may not know anyone what these people take for ‘immoral’ not knowing better, but the fact is, these same people will give those they do know personally, or even worship when it comes to other ‘celebrities’ any number of breaks regardless that none of them really deserve it, allowing their seemingly prevailing plusses to outweigh their equally condemnable minuses, while electing to boycott someone’s film suddenly in a show of biased stupidity, (or show it in cheap cinemas so he won’t make any money with it) not even knowing the whole truth of the matter besides. In that case we’d needed to boycott any number of artists globally of days of old and new alike, or their very art when already resting in the land of Thanatos. With men like Sheen, or others that batter their spouses which Polanski in contrast never has, I personally don’t think our society can afford to limit any of its ‘art’ to only those amongst us we believe were or are ‘flawless’, though may not be at all, and there hardly is one in all of history at large since artists are humans just the same, blindly vilifying an already over-embattled director out of all proportions as a special target, while allowing all sorts of much more far-reaching and damaging transgressions committed by others, (or questionable artists/politicians/lawmakers) and most of all the corrupt law per se, playing the sanctimonious hypocrites, since then we in fact wouldn’t have ANY art left whatsoever.

Some more than braindead idiot the other day had the stupidity to equate the oil disaster on the US coastline while caused by BP, to Polanski’s need to show up in the LA courts to pay for his crime, or to (US) ‘society’, while blaming the UK and people like me living here defending Polanski, simply for BP’s involvement, when the issue should be decided outside any political extremist talk, and has absolutely no relevance to a film director. But that would be intelligent to realise, while Obama in contrast started chucking his weight around like some bar-brawl drunk, accentuating the ‘Britishness’ of the (actually multinational) oil company, You don’t find ‘British’ in British company names nearly as much as you find ‘American’ in US corporate nomenclature. BP has so many US ties, including petroleum reserves in the US, and Obama’s choice of enemies is not well thought out. If Obama’s Brit-bashing continues, it is possible that the new government will be moved to defend BP’s honour, if only because the company’s share price is important to pension funds here. Same goes for people defending Polanski, simply for others making us feel guilty that ‘our’ BP has drilled a whole in the ocean by ‘your’ US coastline the company can’t plug up. I wonder what Polanski can next be connected with. No wonder Obama slighted Sarkozy’s ‘letter of pardon’; Obama is a ‘multinational’ racist.

Now, coming back to Lewis, and to get an idea of what was going on in her drug-addled mind once she had finished with Murphy and The Golden Child, I came across another bizarre statement she had made in the past. In 1987, after said mainstream Hollywood career flopped and she was preparing her first of several softcore gigs, she proudly declared to a US newsmag: “I need someone who’s going to strip me down and say, ‘Do it!’ I’ve never done nude scenes, and I can’t wait. I can’t wait to be abused in a film. Maybe it’s a secret fantasy burning inside of me.” Well, looks like that ‘secret fantasy’ finally came true – at least theoretically in her mind, with her ‘burning fantasy’ accusation Polanski had ‘abused’ her as the best and most defenceless target, and judging by the low-budget nude flicks she had made sex and all, dozens of men she had slept with as teenager most certainly just as willingly long before Polanski could ‘strip her down’, she was nothing but a cheap prostitute on or off screen, and had major mental problem. Or rather still has, as seen with her ‘abuse fantasies’ having taken on ‘reality’, at least on film, and has absolute zero to do with Polanski or anyone else for that matter but herself. It might be her earliest childhood was possibly based on some real kind of abuse, sexual or otherwise, and the resulting prostitution she now wants us to believe never happened. On the other hand, excusing her every step of the way even as an adult is simply too easy, as opposed to taking full responsibility [for] herself and stop blaming men, mind you. It looks more like she needs some serious psychiatric help at this stage, and another stay at the Priory to get off the drugs, not gullible people buying into her sordid sex abuse fantasy claims and ruthless DAs to pander her lies to corrupt this unsound extradition even further.

Now, to close the disgraceful chapter in the corrupted Swiss-US banking deal, after months of wrangling between the US IRS and the beleaguered UBS, the IRS reminding the Swiss that ‘they have an agreement with the US government which calls for the Swiss to provide them with the names and other information of approximately 4,450 US account holders at UBS’, a US IRS spokesman said in a statement June 15th 2010, “We expect that the Swiss government will honour the agreement it signed (last year) and will do so within the agreed-upon timeframes. While we look forward to a positive resolution of this matter, we remain prepared to use all available options, including the US courts, should the present efforts fail.” This ‘civil action threat’ also known as a John Doe summons, (pretty much what Ms Geimer did as ‘Jane Doe’ in 1988) is separate from the criminal investigation of UBS, which culminated in February 2009 in a staggering $780 million deferred-prosecution agreement with the bank. US prosecutors have the right to argue that UBS has violated the deferred-prosecution agreement if it does not hand over the 4,450 accounts, a point that could lead regulators to consider revoking UBS’s banking license in the US. But, at such a large amount of money, one can only guess it’s more akin to ‘blackmail’, i.e., you give me the names and I won’t sue you over lots of dollar, and they will buckle under such pressure.

The Swiss Parliament finally having ‘approved’ the deal on June 17th, the said agreement between Bern and Washington providing for the transfer to the US of thousands of US customers UBS accused of offshore tax evasion, it was sealed after voting in ‘favour’ shown live on the Internet. Both chambers of the Swiss Parliament had agreed in principle to the agreement last year already, signed in August 2009, (hence Polanski’s arrest end September to wriggle out of it by offering him to the US as ‘appeasement’) but members of the National Council (Lower House – i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf) had applied a de facto condition for their approval: the opportunity for citizens to speak on the record by a referendum, to which the Council of States (Upper House) however objected on June 16th. Following a conciliation conference a day later, both Houses have finally come to said agreement, resulting in no need for a referendum which could only be held in late August this year, i.e., after the deadline to surrender the names which would result in that massive lawsuit. (Ergo, that civil suit ‘blackmail’ succeeded.) The Swiss authorities therefore now have to send the US IRS the names of their UBS clients and put an end to the scandal that has rocked the international banking world for nearly a year.

And that of Polanski; a harmless old film director caught up in banking deals between the US and Switzerland, directly linked with the affair as a political ‘pawn’ they wanted to bring in for the IRS to go easy on them in exchange for his extradition, which evidently failed (and in fact rightly so). But, ever since the Swiss had realised already months ago that he wasn’t up for more than three months prison time at any rate (no one had asked for either and then was released early), they (both) in fact committed an act of kidnapping by arresting him on the US’ hasty behest, since the Swiss only extradite people who were/are up for more than half a year. Meaning, Polanski was ‘sold out’ to the corrupt LA courts, rearrested, held in Swiss detention and then forced into house arrest on extortionate bail for absolutely nothing, since the Swiss aren’t releasing him to the LA courts, nor let him go home to his anxious family. What’s more, US-Swiss extradition laws are not compatible – in Switzerland unlawful sex with a minor expires after ten years according to the statute of limitations for that offence, not so in the US. Thus, he’s still stuck inside his Chalet, since the Swiss authorities are still waiting for Cooley to release Gunson’s testimony that can prove Polanski had done his time for unlawful sexual intercourse over three decades ago now, (though the crooked DA is not likely to let go, hence ‘Lewis’ was brought in to ‘sway’ them into extradition) and that the Swiss simply must let him go. After what terrible damage his entire affair had caused him and his family already, and decades of shameful media abuse ever since he had become a widower. But who cares about any basic human and legal rights in his case anyhow.

Continued in Roman Polanski – He Said She Said They Said – An Op End Case Analysis Part Three – found HERE.

Advertisements

8 Responses to “ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – AN OP END CASE ANALYSIS – PART TWO”


  1. 1 vahan
    July 12, 2010 at 3:56 PM

    Novalis, I couldn’t be anymore relieved that Polanski is a free man once again. And this couldn’t have come at a better time, too (this came just one week after Leslie Van Houten, one of Sharon Tate’s murderers, was denied parole). And I’m also so glad that the Swiss wasn’t stupid enough to fall for the lies of that pathetic and ugly liar Lewis. However, as much as I am happy for him to be freed, I think that there are still some questions that have yet to be answered:

    First off, what about that “secret testimony” that explains why Polanski fled? Will they finally allow Gunson to open it?

    Secondly, there are still some people out there who believe everything that Geimer said in her grand jury testimony back in 1977 is the truth, and nothing but the truth. They think that the Swiss gave him a pass just because of his celebrity status. I take it that none of them saw the episode of “Biography” on Polanski where Geimer recanted her statements.

    And just to make sure, does this mean that Polanski can visit the U.S. and U.K. again if he wanted to?

    Lastly, let finish up my thoughts here by stating the obvious: Hollywood sex scandals have been around since like practically the beginning of Hollywood. The earliest one I can think of (and I’m sure you can think of, too) was the time American film director Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was charged with raping a woman named Virginia Rappe to death. Many people don’t consider the lone witness in the incident, Bambina Maude Delmont, to be a credible source. Not to mention that much like Dr. Larson, who examined Geimer during the Polanski case, the doctor who examined Rappe during the Arbuckle case found no proof of rape. Still, that didn’t stop Delmont from telling the police, and putting Arbuckle in a lot of unnecessary trouble. After three trials, Arbuckle was eventually acquitted, but as a result of the scandal, his works were banned shortly thereafter. Because of this, Arbuckle made films under the alias William Goodrich. The sad part about Arbuckle is that just when he was about to make a successful comeback under his regular name, he died, and barely had a chance to enjoy it.

    And I haven’t told you this but I love how the title of this blog is “The Tenant of Chinatown”, named after the very last two films (1974’s “Chinatown” and 1976’s “The Tenant”) that Polanski made before his sex scandal.

    • July 12, 2010 at 6:13 PM

      Hi Vahan – yes, I deliberately chose that title – it is indeed a homage to his two great films. Now, from the bottom up – no pun intended – I’ll address your comment.

      I’m aware of the disastrous Rappe case, of course, and it’s a good analogy to Polanski’s case – It destroyed the comedian from one moment to the next, utterly innocent of anything they had accused him of. In fact, just to clarify why, here’s a short explanation for others; she died after she had no less than six abortions by the age 16 and a botched abortion is likely what killed her. She wasn’t the virginal saint people made her out to be then. Someone like Lewis. Three trials later Fatty was given an apology and a cleared name, true. Well, not in the papers, but by the court of law. He went underground, and people kept stating that he got away with ‘something’, ‘forgiven but not forgotten’. Sounds familiar? Bar that Geimer never died, (unless you read Reisman’s degenerate filth of accusing Polanski of her near murder!) The media will never be ‘nice’ to anyone. ‘Nice’ doesn’t sell.

      Everyone had accused Fatty of having raped her so badly that she haemorrhaged! But not only with his ‘thing’, but a ‘Coke bottle’. BS. Though such trauma can happen with a lot of effort and time and extra ‘abortion tools’ to help that, and sounds more like torture, she perished on another this time botched termination, after she was finally taken to a hospital with high fever. She died there of peritonitis, an acute infection that, in her case, was caused by a ruptured bladder. Why that bladder ruptured would become a matter of great dispute and the most serious importance. The comedian’s ‘sexual attack’ on Rappe, the prosecution argued, had ruptured the victim’s bladder, causing her death. Don’t think so. Reminds me of that nonsense that Polanski anally raped Geimer, twice, without any signs or thrashing and screaming at him. Not likely.

      Anyway, secondary peritonitis, caused by bacteria entering the peritoneum through a hole somewhere in the gastrointestinal tract, fits the Rappe case best. She had VD, and while dying, Rappe had told a nurse that she had been having abnormal vaginal discharge for about six weeks. This venereal disease infection then travelled upward into her intestines, and the vomiting then ruptured her already distressed bladder. Dead.

      Arbuckle suddenly had come to represent everything that was supposedly wrong with Hollywood. His very name conjured up the worst type of sexual predator, leading to his being the first person to be blacklisted from films. The films in which he starred had been withdrawn from circulation because of his, however undeservedly, sullied reputation. Sounds familiar? Sadly, Arbuckle is often remembered today as ‘the man who raped and killed an actress with a Coke bottle’. Sounds almost like, ‘Polanski the director/child rapist who drugged, raped and sodomised an aspiring model/actress’. ‘Aspiring’? No doubt.

      Arbuckle was neither a rapist nor murderer and neither was or is Polanski a rapist and/or paedophile and Geimer certainly [was] no ‘child’ anymore either. It would be more appropriate if both artists were remembered as geniuses of their trade. Those smart enough to think, and lucky enough to see the comedian’s great films, and Polanski’s brilliant movies, will remember Polanski as the man who escaped cruel US injustice, twice now, no matter it bankrupted him. All for one single sexual adventure. And of course his fight for justice.

      Arbuckle loved to make people laugh and he was very good at it. Polanski loved to make films and he was, IS, more than good at it. If ‘The Ghost’ is to be his last film, I doubt, then it’s a fitting swan song oeuvre; he didn’t have a ghost of a chance of merciful justice in this, no matter they rejected the extradition. But nothing much has changed, and those who want to believe her teenage fantasies, rather than the truth and her words of recantation as an adult, so be it. Let them revel in their ignorance and stupidity, their dark rape and sodomy world. I’m sure Geimer’s happy too it’s over – for now.

      Many decades ago, on a horrible day, the laughter stopped in Hollywood when Fatty was accused of a horrible thing he never did. Several decades later a horrified Hollywood was in the grip of a horrible tragedy after the brutal Manson killings, accusing the only, distraught survivor of the horrid slayings – Polanski. Madness. Eight years after that, the same still traumatised man gets accused of the most horrible thing a women can do to a man – accuse him of multiple rape. And as if that’s not enough, some failed junkie soft porn has-been comes out decades later to accuse him of even worse things, just so to coax the authorities to extradite him and malign him some more. Good hardly anyone believed her.

      I’m sure Polanski needs some time off now, he’s gone already, on his way home, and will take a well-deserved holiday with his family. Then he’ll celebrate his 77th, and return to make God of Carnage he wanted to work on before the Swiss put a nasty wedge in it. But no, Polanski can NOT visit the US or UK again if he wanted to – his status is basically unchanged and he’s 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. I doubt they will, since many more know now at least that he had done his time for unlawful sex, 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, smear campaigns and name-calling, since the case is still not litigated to be finally closed for good and he [still] has no legal means to force them to, unless they formally declare him to time served in absentia and he can go before the LA courts to do so as a free man later. But I doubt they will.

      As for Gunson’s ‘secret testimony’, which now doesn’t ‘need’ to be opened anymore but others are aware of finally too, it’s nothing more than what we have heard already, that the 42 days at Chino in 1977/8 was Polanski’s entire sentence under the guise of that diagnostic study Rittenband had ab/used as punishment no one had asked for. I’m sure Cooley & Co will not concede to that fact and that Polanski cannot be sentenced ‘again’. All they can do is acknowledge it, that he had served his time already three decades ago, and that the 70 days on Swiss remand must be counted in addition, exceeding the 90 days Rittenband had in mind at any rate.

      Though his house arrest cannot be counted in any form, it means the nine months of lost freedom Polanski had to endure for political shenanigans can never be recovered. So all in all a good outcome, but nothing was gained basically since the legal side of the case is still a mess – only more overzealous haters, or conversely wiser supporters, people who see the unacceptable breakdown of justice this case has highlighted, and how corrupt the LA courts really are.

  2. 3 DeMoy
    May 11, 2010 at 1:18 AM

    Here are two comments I came across which are not the norm, but very interesting.

    Roman never did anything wrong. He had a perfectly normal sexual relationship with a charming young girl, something which both of them surely enjoyed. There is no reason whatsoever why Roman should ever be put in jail. Why on Earth is this excellent film-maker being persecuted by some intolerant, narrow-minded people like this evil district-attorney? Can it be that some bigoted people suffer from an inferiority complex, feeling frustration when confronted with such a successful and talented person like Roman? Really, this is like a return to the dark ages of witch hunting and prejudice. I thought this was the open-minded 21st century with sexual freedom and tolerance. Let’s all stand by Roman, one of the best film-makers of this century, and protect everyone’s right to a free, unlimited life in the true spirit of tolerance of this enlightened 21st century.

    Well said.

    YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED, CAN’T YOU SEE? I bet a lot of people criticize Polanski just because the media does. It’s always easy to criticize but what about ‘your’ lives? Maybe you should start controlling them instead of judging others?! If you are passive, afraid of taking any action or fighting for your dreams it’s your problem. Success isn’t manna; it’s a payment for years of hard working, so being jealous isn’t fair. People always want to see celebrities from the worst side to be sure they are not gods and make the same human mistakes (most of ‘you’ have slept with someone underage). It’s not my subjective opinion, it’s psychology. FACT! Are you having sadistic satisfaction from somebody’s suffering? Watch same hard porn and leave him alone! Let him do what he is best at-films.

    Looks like there are indeed more intelligent [and sexually empowered] people out there. And judging by the spelling, they’re Americans too. Unfortunately, Cooley & Co are not one of the brighter brains. They’re diseased brains.

    It’s indeed looking grim for Roman – but on the other hand, it could well mean that Geimer finally will have to come clean once in court, in whichever form.

    • May 11, 2010 at 4:22 AM

      Very interesting comments indeed, thanks for sharing, DeMoy. As for Cooley and Geimer, we know why Cooley is a lying scumbag, but why she let her fantasies run free to see an innocent man end in prison who could have made her famous, is yet to be discovered. Hopefully. But then again, to be the ONLY ever ‘rape victim of Roman Polanski’ in history, seems to be the zenith of ‘stardom’ anyone can ever achieve already.

  3. 5 Vahan
    May 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM

    And regarding Governor Arnold, I like how he said that Polanski should be “treated like everyone else”.

    I’m sorry, but Arnold is wrong. Polanski is NOT being “treated like everyone else”. If he was, he would have gotten nothing more than probation and fine, and would have not been threatened by Rittenband’s illegal deportation.

    And I also like how those naysayers assume that Polanski supporters think that any judge who is mean to a celebrity means that the celebrity should get a get-out-of-jail card. Yeah, never mind the fact that there have been judges who were mean to celebrities, but for the right reasons, such as Jackie Glass, the female Las Vegas judge who presided over the 2nd O.J. Simpson trial, and Larry Paul Fidler, the judge who presided over both Phil Spector trials. The first one, which ended in a mistrial was televised, but thankfully, he learned his lesson from that and decided not to have the second one be televised. And this is the reason why Polanski won’t set foot into a U.S. courtroom: The U.S.’s will and desire to continue spinning the whole case into a three-ring media circus.

    • May 10, 2010 at 1:01 AM

      Of course Arnie’s ‘wrong’, if knowing that or not is another question. People think Polanski was given exemption obviously not aware of the facts, when he was made an example of in the worst kind by not only Rittenband, but Fidler too who wanted to televise his ‘sentencing’ of Polanski to even only these 42 days as time served, and that’s why Polanski said, not a chance and turned the deal down. Now Espinoza is making an even bigger fuss by not having sentenced him in absentia to even more than the 42 days after the 70 days in Swiss detention which must be added, after Gunson could have proven the time at Chino was his entire time.

      Publicists of Zenovich’s 2008 documentary released a statement signed by Gunson, as well as Dalton. It contends that at the Fidler hearing, Dalton pressed ‘for a resolution of the case that would allow for minimal news media’. The statement says Dalton ‘recalled that Judge Fidler would require television coverage’, and then adds: “Mr. Gunson recalls television coverage discussed at the meeting.”

      Zenovich concludes her film on an ironic note: In 1997, those two attorneys appeared before a sitting Los Angeles Superior Court judge and reached an agreement that if Polanski returned to the United States, he would not be taken into custody. At the very end, the film states in white letters dramatically typed on a black background, the judge imposed one condition: The proceedings would have to be televised.

      But LA Superior Court spokesman Parachini had said Judge Fidler unequivocally denies that he imposed any such condition. “Judge Fidler made it very clear to counsel that any ultimate resolution of the Polanski matter could only occur in open court, on the record. There was no discussion about television coverage.”

      Of course it should be ‘on the record’ but not in an ‘open court’, with the public having access and booing from the rafters, and both Dalton and Gunson had denounced the court’s ‘false and reprehensible statement’ disputing the notion that Fidler demanded television coverage. But then we know that LA judges lie too. All the DAs from then are judges now, even those two DAs that had refused to see Rittenband be removed by Gunson, before he finally could along with Dalton’s help after Polanski took his fate into own hands once again.

      A NY Times review of the documentary from more intelligent critic Manohla Dargis calls the film ‘sharply argued’, before concluding: “Mr. Polanski survived the Holocaust and the murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, in 1969 by followers of Charles Manson. It was the American legal system that [almost] did him in.”

      Quite.

      As I said before, the only press that gets it more right than wrong and without any name calling is UK based (unless it’s cheap tabloids), and after the reputable BBC the neutral British Telegraph had said, “The legal shenanigans surrounding the case have continued in California,” citing the ‘supposed’ requirement that the ‘trial’ be televised. And the paper argued that Polanski has lived a blameless, hard-working life in exile in France.

      Quite. People seem to forget about that crucial factor.

      Then Polanski had already expressed the view that he is innocent, that Americans are ‘prudish’, and that he has suffered enough. That was thirteen years ago.

      Quite. And it’s not over yet.

  4. May 8, 2010 at 11:50 PM

    Novalis:

    This part is even better than the others. I just got through posting something over at another blog I thought I’d post here:

    LINK: http://www.parentdish.com/2010/05/04/roman-polanski-speaks-out-but-victims-group-turns-a-deaf-ear/1#c27755583

    What I said:

    ***************************************

    samskara2012 5-08-2010 @ 7:28PM
    It still amazes me how many people still claim he ‘plied’ her with the alcohol and the drugs. If anyone has read Ms. Geimer’s Grand Jury statement, one would know that she testified that Polanski found the vial of drugs in Nicholson’s medicine chest and asked her what they were. She, being no virgin to drugs since her sister had been in and out of rehab for Quaalude addiction, told him what the tablet was. He broke off some and asked her if she wanted it, to which she testified “I took it”. She also says in her own words that when Polanski poured three glasses of champagne, one for him, one for her and one for Helena K (Nicholson’s secretary/caretaker, who let them into the property) she took it. Again, she was no virgin to drinking alcohol since she admitted she’d drunk Champagne for the first time when she was nine and had her first Quaalude when she was eight. She also admitted to having had sex on three prior occasions. Twice when she was 8 and with her then 18 year-old boyfriend Steve…who was never charged with having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minorr.

    I would also like to point out that Geimer showed no fear of Polanski when they went off on February 13, almost a full month before the March 10th event to have her photo taken. She claimed to have been ‘afraid’ of him. Instead of telling her mother she did not want to go with him again, she went off with him on March 10.

    It should also be noted that in his testimony to the Grand Jury, Dr. Edward Larson, who examined Ms. Geimer at Parkland Hospital on the night of March 10, 1977 at approximately 11:34PM, noted nothing indicating rape. According to her, she’d been subjected to not one but two courses of anal rape, however, Dr. Larson could find nothing denoting a rape. He did find that she’d had sexual intercourse before while performing a pelvic exam. Further, he took several slides as per normal rape kit procedure and those were handed off to CSU tech Lee Mann who found nothing in terms of saliva (if we are to believe that Polanski performed ‘cudliness’ on her), there was no sperm in either anal or vaginal cavity. Ms. Geimer also testified that she had taken no bath, no shower, no douche, and no enema prior to her examination at Parkland. So how are we to believe she was anally raped twice if there is no proof?

    Secondly, Geimer has also filed two briefs with the court to have this case dismissed and all charges dropped against Mr. Polanski. If she truly is a victim, why ask for the charges to be dropped? She knows if Mr. Polanski wished, he could vacate his guilty plea and force a real trial. If that happened, she’d be forced to testify. If so, she’d have to either plead the fifth or perjure herself by admitting her Grand Jury testimony was a lie.

    As for Mr. Polanski’s ‘whining’… Judge Rittenband committed judicial misconduct and also reneged twice on the deal that would have ended this for all parties. The DA handling the case at the time, Roger Gunson, has given testimony regarding this and has stated continuously, the State of California and Judge Rittenband acted improperly in the case against Roman Polanski. The only ones I see whining is the current judge and DA and DDA on this case who continually wish to ignore the appellate court’s ruling of sentencing Mr. Polanski in absentia. It should also be noted that DA Steve Cooley is currently running for Attorney General of the state of California. He is also under current indictment for fraud and for invading the privacy of his fellow DAs who wished to unionize, for which Mr. Cooley subsequently took to punishing them for.

    Still think Mr. Polanski is whining or should voluntarily give himself up to a system that has refused to deal with him fairly? Surprising since the ‘victim’ and her lawyer, plus the original DA in this case seem to side with Polanski. So go on, keep on saying that Polanski is (insert name here).

    ***************************************

    Just availing them of the facts of the case they so conveniently ignore.

    • May 9, 2010 at 6:22 PM

      Indeed, and I’m sure there will be more ‘name here’ following your post, and I’d say it’s ‘names’, plural, Samskara, since the amount of obscenities he’s been deluged with and foul names is beyond fantastic by now. Or any intelligence, even if some emotional investment is the base for their pathetic Polanski bashing I saw applied so often on these ‘discussion boards’ I refuse to visit for the pure filth allowed there, but not anything more objective or in fact revealing to make people rethink.

      These detractors should get therapy, not find a defenceless ‘third party’ whipping boy in Polanski. But that would be common sense, especially since they’re not even in possession of all the facts in the first place. What ‘anon’ posted after your comment is another more intelligent brain, saying ‘it’s all about Steve’ [Cooley], and it bloody well is. (And I like the one saying, ‘do not feed the troll’, I’m sure Polanski would find hilarious.)

      Cooley doesn’t like Arnie btw, who was never done for his own statutory rape stemming from 1975 unlike his ‘colleague’ director he ‘admires’, and Cooley asked him not to consider parole reversal for one of Manson’s ‘family’ members only last week.

      http://wireupdate.com/wires/tag/district-attorney-steve-cooley/

      And he’s pissed off that Arnie wants to reform sentencing laws.

      http://www.myinnertransformation.com/files/j30-Cooley.pdf

      And Cooley thinks there are ‘still five counts pending’, see:
      http://momento24.com/en/2009/10/02/schwarzenegger-assured-polanski-wont-get-special-treatment/ despite the fact that they can only be ‘tried’ finally if the plea is withdraw.

      But, ‘unfortunately’ no one will withdraw Polanski’s plea I can tell you that, even if Polanski asked for it, or Espinoza had done so. Only a higher judge can allow for it and hardly any have ever done so in the past no matter the case – simply for the defendants to be stuck with these fatal plea deals, and avoid a trial to find the guilty party out. i.e., the truth no one is interested in. Especially in LA courts, where innocent people are sent down on fabrications ever since Cooley took over, indeed facing a massive lawsuit himself no one cares about. That’s one reason why plea deals are unlawful in any other country and don’t even exist in criminal court laws outside the US. At least Arnie seems to have more sense and will to look into these ‘misconduct allegations’, the higher courts have ordered to be looked into since December. But Arnie’s not in the courts to see to any justice done in that respect, or otherwise.

      The fact that Walgren wants to have a ‘hearing’, an evidentiary examination of all ‘facts’, to ‘determine’ what happened on March 10th, which amounts to a ‘trial’ hearing, can in fact even be in Polanski’s favour, since Geimer would need to be there to ‘repeat’ her story and accusations, and cannot simply refuse to be cross-examined anymore. But as we both said already amongst others, then she’s needed to either come clean, perjure herself through bringing up all her murky claims/contradictions long inconsistent with her later interview ‘versions’ that put an entirely different light on the events, looking more like his own assertion of what really happened, or plead the Fifth, and then end up in contempt of court, since she made it clear not to testify against him.

      NO genuine rape victim, three decades after the events would let slip that chance to see her attacker in court finally or inside no matter his age, as a grown woman, an ‘adult’ who can take the public exposure in her stride these days, since she said herself, she wasn’t ‘traumatised’ by Polanski, but this entire legal debacle Polanski tried to escape, and was all too glad he ran off. She never wanted him incarcerated, in keen agreement with her mom, and that’s why she was so eager in her support to see the case or charges dropped, or Polanski sentenced in absentia, since then the whole thing would be finally over. Not to find ‘peace’ as the ‘poor rape victim’, but still to be in the clear over her fabrications she came to ‘amend’ as best possible not to perjure herself more than needed over the years, most people of course never noticed.

      In that sense, as distressing it would be for Polanski, at no clear time scale of how long it could take for him to stay on remand for the case to even be entered into the court calendars, or to be in any relative safety while waiting to finally give his side, bring in ALL evidence and witnesses, Cooley’s merciless attempt to get him into his court, can only be in Polanski’s favour after needlessly dragging it out with this appeal war. That if they play by the rules and deliver a fair game, unlike then, allow his evidence. Which is of course not guaranteed, as seen after what they told the Swiss already, in no ‘need’ to unseal the testimony to prove Polanski had done his time, plus the 70 days in Swiss detention surpassing the three months Rittenband ‘had in mind’, thus render extradition unlawful, or even to ask for it, and I guarantee you, the unsealing request will be refused tomorrow just so to drag it out some more and force that extradition.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Calender

January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Mar »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Category

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 9 other followers


%d bloggers like this: