A happy Polanski promoting his film Pirates with a happy Lewis in 1986 at Cannes


Just when you thought it was going well for Roman Polanski after he spoke out and crooked LA DA Steve Cooley is losing ground, we’ve got ourselves another ‘victim’ of Roman’s ‘unwanted sexual advances’: Charlotte Lewis of ‘Pirates’.

Updated November 13th. (Includes the new ‘rape accusation’ – by another ‘model’ – towards the end.)

His LA prosecutor David 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 Judge 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 Judge 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, Berard-Henri 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, Georges 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, Hervé Témime, was more direct in challenging Lewis’ credibility: “Everything that has been said is a web of lies. 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 Eddy 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’ however is not quite the 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 some time before he fell in love with Tate. He was with Lisa Rome for a while (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.

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 and then cast her right away long before they started filming, or 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 DA 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. So, she had an ‘affair’ with him, long after he ‘brutalised’ her so horribly? Right. 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 demolish 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. 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. I should have remembered that Allred only deals with porn stars, prostitutes and gold diggers. 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 the  about the ‘incident’. Dirty money makes people talk [lies] I guess. Funny how she forgot to mention that a handful of Arabs 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.

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 and became friends. Jacobs told RadarOnline.com today, May 28th, that he first heard about the charges four, five month ago. Really? How handy not even to remember exactly or  to tell us about something so serious 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. Credibility = zero.

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’, center 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, and both can collude some more to force this case.

Now, having found out something even more interesting, 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. Now, to get an idea of what was going on in Lewis’ 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. Funny how she claimed Polanski assaulted  her twice before ever filming together, but not once during their affair later, she obviously omitted ever happened and that she had the hots for him, thinking none of her earlier interviews telling of her adoration of him would be discovered. Talk about deluded.

After months of no further words from Lewis, now that the extradition was refused on July 12th for reasons of Gunson’s testimony (proving Polanski had served his full time already in 1977/8) and was released, which Cooley of course couldn’t be bothered with to forward, guess what, another ‘has-been’ has come forward to accuse Polanski of rape, and that even further back in time in 1974! She went to the same sleazy tabloid ‘RadarOnline’ site (of course!) where Lewis spread her lies, to tell us that she was twenty-one at the time (so not underage then), and that she reported the alleged sexual assault to the LA DA, i.e., slimebag Cooley & Co in May this year and was interviewed by authorities. Really? So, um, why do we hear of this [new lie] only ‘now’, right after he was released? The woman named Edith Michelle Vogelhut, a former ‘model’ also known as Shelli Paul, told authorities Polanski ‘handcuffed’ her at Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood house, then sodomised her repeatedly, (of course, it’s always the handy sodomy part at Jack’s house!) Doesn’t that sound just too conveniently similar to Ms Geimer’s accusation, who Polanski took for an official photoshoot at ‘Nicholson’s house’, THREE YEARS AFTER THIS NEW ALLEGATION? And why did she TOO conveniently never tell ANYONE either THEN or for decades after? BECAUSE IT’S JUST ANOTHER DISGUSTING AND DISTURBING LIE, that’s why. Do these people think we’re that dumb and gullible?

Vogelhut’s attorney told RadarOnline that she was unable to file a civil complaint against Polanski, because of Californian law. “I’m not planning on filing a civil lawsuit against Mr Polanski as I think the statute of limitations has expired,” she said. The statute of limitations is ten years, true, but why did she not file a civil suit against Polanski at any time after 1974, ESPECIALLY after his arrest in 1977? Ms Geimer did just in time in 1988 – why not ‘Vogelhut’? “(However) I’m in contact with the LA DA’s Office regarding the criminal case.” Um, what ‘criminal case’ might that be exactly? The Geimer case by any chance, now that corrupt Cooley lost his little Polish mouse to freedom? Of course it is. According to comments on the site, however, they don’t believe her either, are sick of hearing more ‘icky’ libel from ugly has-beens trying to rip off Polanski – or at least endeavour to blacken his already tainted reputation even further (in Cooley’s name). These allegations are clearly all lies, and if anything really happened, they should have reported it THEN! Notice how they ALL reported these allegations decades later, AFTER he was rearrested, when they had plenty chances and venues to charge or sue him BEFORE? And why did Vogelhut not come forward right after his rearrest, during his house arrest, and not ‘only’ after his release?

These liars need to get a life and I’m sure sleazeball Allred will be showing up with her soon in another pathetic 15-minute show of press conference famewhoring. These women should be taken to court for false rape accusations and wasting police time. Ex-prostitute and cocaine addict Lewis too has something else to say suddenly, through ‘friend’ Eric Haymes, speaking to RadarOnline of course, who says she ‘feels victimised’ by the Swiss’ decision not to extradite him. (Funny how Ms Geimer was delighted in contrast.) “It’s a bitter pill and we’re hoping it’s not over yet. But as far as this chapter… her whole reason to kind of come forward was really to serve justice. She wanted to see the guy come back to the US and face justice. It’s very frustrating.” Lies always are frustrating, because no one believes them, pal. He said he spoke to Lewis on July 12th after it was announced that Polanski would be freed. “I think had he come here [to the US] it might have had some impact on sentencing. That was the hope. The guy is a fugitive from justice, he’s an admitted rapist. He plead guilty to the original charges, he escaped and was able to continue perpetrating. So Charlotte wouldn’t have been victimised had he been in jail where he belonged originally.”

Now, first of all, Polanski did NOT plead to the original ‘charges’, only the ONE applicable, he NEVER admitted to being a rapist, and Lewis even had an affair with him years after she now said he abused her! Dream ON. When asked if Polanski’s release caused her to feel victimised all over again, Haymes said: “Definitely, definitely. I just think it’s been very difficult for her. I think the best you can hope for is that some kind of justice is served and when you see it flaunted like it is and the guy given a pass it’s very, very painful. Imagine anyone suffering at the hand of someone and watching them skate and escape justice. So it’s been difficult… even his incarceration is really not going to do much to undo the damage he did to her, but it’s a start.” ‘Damage’? The ONLY ‘damage’ done to her was by HER ADDICTED SELF! Right, so you TOO ‘hope’, that the ‘old case’ gets corrupted even more now, since you ALL keep pointing to it so purposely. NOTHING ALLEGED, and least of all UNRELATED, after someone pleaded guilty to one count can ever be taken into account RETROACTIVELY! Get it? GET IT!? It’s absolutely disgusting to watch to what lows some people stoop  to destroy others, and they know they can do so because Polanski  has zero chances of defence or to sue them over their lies.

Of course, cheap and nasty ambulance chaser Allred has come out too to spew more bullshit in Lewis’ name: “I hope that one day Mr Polanski will be extradited for the crime with which he has been charged,” she told TheWrap after his release, (curious how we hear of this only today, July 26th), “and that he will have to stand before the bar of justice and be sentenced for that crime.” We know you’re not at all interested in any ‘justice’ done for that Lewis liar anyway, ‘Allred’, but to influence the old case AGAIN in some other malicious form now, after you already declared so prominently in May after Gunson spoke out, that, Lewis’ allegations are ‘very important’ to this old case, by repeatedly pointing to the ‘sentencing’ issues. But, guess what, HE DID HIS TIME in 1977/8 ALREADY, END OF! But bastard Cooley of course will not ever concede to that fact – no, he’s giving us another lying has-been! I bet he’s planning’s his next insidious move to destroy Polanski completely at least publicly, if not ‘legally’, and I’m sure it’ll all backfire massively one day. If Ms Geimer’s mother wouldn’t have been so hasty to cry rape and it all went wrong from there, I guarantee you, NONE of these women would ever have come out.

Public perception of Polanski, to the extent of what bullshit has been fed to them for years now, started with Polanski the abused [war] child to the child abuser. The overzealous public then morphed him from someone who slept with a minor back three decades ago, to a baby raper, (though ‘raper’ is not even a proper word), to the average rapist, then ass raper, pederast, (though that’s only sex between an older man and a much younger male), [serial] child rapist, and of course paedophile, (though they only abuse prepubescent children), with the occasional ‘he almost killed Ms Geimer’ BS in between making it to ‘near murderer’. They also keep saying that he held/pinned Ms Geimer down to forcibly rape and then sodomise her, funny how she herself in fact never even said so. Guess they know better. And funny too, how it is always ‘sodomy’ they accuse him of, the ONE sordid act theses ‘women’ love to dwell on, revel in so DESPERATELY, anally fixated. And ‘handcuffs’? Seems more like wishful thinking and projection on their part. A German newspaper article stated when Lewis appeared, ‘will this witness finally bring Polanski behind bars’? Um, what ‘witness’? She wasn’t there. I’d thought the Germans of all would do better research into allegations first before they write garbage like that, or they’d noticed she had stated the very opposite years earlier. Go home, liars, we’re getting bored with this kind of pseudo talk ‘exclusives’, representing ‘trash’ journalism at its worst.

Having talked about her ‘experience’ to cheap and nasty celebrity trashing site RadarOnline in a video clip dated July 27th, Vogelhut has been escalating her accusations to ‘brute force’ now, since she can’t claim ‘underage sexual assault’ anymore, so she must speak of ‘violence’ with ‘handcuffs’ to make it more a more ‘adult’, i.e., ‘kinky’ or ‘violent’ event, to ‘shock’ people into more ‘disbelief’. She said, she spent a night with Polanski in 1974 and claims she was brutally raped by him at Nicholson’s house. “He said, ‘Turn over, get on your stomach,’ and I’m handcuffed within minutes.” ‘Minutes’? It takes a few ‘seconds’, sweetie. Get your facts rights. Vogelhut told the notorious sex stories site it happened on a November night she spent with Polanski in Hollywood, explaining she met him at a star-studded dinner party hosted by Chinatown producer Robert Evans and attended by Warren Beatty, (both close friends of Polanski). After a night of dancing and booze, Vogelhut said the two ended up at Nicholson’s house for a night-cap. Always a good excuse, since he stayed there during his few return trips to Hollywood while making Chinatown and then had the Vogue Hommes assignment three years later. “I kind of knew that we’re going to have sex, but I didn’t expect anything out of the ordinary… I did not expect to be sodomised,” she said. Really? Maybe because it never happened. Or they had just the ‘ordinary’ sex by all means she has to make filthy now.

After Polanski apparently entered the ‘bedroom’ already naked (and so was she?) with two glasses of  Brandy (not ‘champagne’?) she said that after drinking some together, Polanski gave her ‘MDMA’, aka Ecstasy, and told her: “It’s a really good drug. It will make you feel good, it will mellow you out. It’s like a stimulator.” So now they’re both ‘alone’ suddenly? Another handy accusation without any ‘witnesses’ to back her up. See Lewis, while in Ms Geimer’s case the medical evidence at least discredited rape and sodomy outright, hence the plead deal. Ecstasy mind you, was NOT as widely available in the 1970s as it is now, and it was NOT the recreational drug of choice like Quaalude in any form, so that alone sounds very unconvincing. Looks like to repeat the Quaalude angle Ms Geimer has monopoly on wasn’t good enough for her lies. While they were in the ‘bedroom’, (FYI – That is WRONG! Polanski stayed in the ‘TV room’, the ‘bedroom’ was Jack and Anjelica‘s place he never touched! Got you, ‘Vogelhut’, since Ms Geimer had said the same later!) she said Polanski handcuffed and then raped her. “He grabs me by the hair, jerks my head up, snaps amyl nitrate under my nose (which works on some to relax the sphincter muscle,) and enters me anally,” Vogelhut recalled in a not too convincing show either, but seems to have done her homework re amyl, or ‘poppers’, since it’s used for anal sex, but does NOT always have any effect on people, and most claim heart rate increase, which of course can easily be researched.

“I didn’t expect to be entered that way. There was no foreplay, no kissing. Nothing. No tenderness. I thought: Maybe this is what they do in Hollywood.” Maybe, that has nothing to do with ‘Hollywood’, but what you want us to believe and that Polanski is a selfish lover, since oddly enough Ms Geimer said he kissed and caressed her – and so did Polanski. “I hurt. This was rape. I was anally raped repeatedly,” she said. FYI, anyone engaging in even wanted anal sex STILL needs extra lubrication, extra hygiene preparations, has to make sure the partner is ‘cleared’, and ‘repeatedly’, unwillingly, would require medical attention at on point since any amyl effects last for merely a couple of minutes, then you’d rip and bleed. In fact, the active partner would become very sore too and stop without any lube, or use amyl on her again, which leads to a terrible headache very soon. ONCE is NOT enough. That clearly shows she never tried it, or she’d said she trashed and cried for help, not ‘hurt’. “I kept quiet for many reasons,” Vogelhut explains rather blasé-like and no more believable. “I was humiliated, I had absolutely no one to tell and with this group that I told you about at this dinner party that ran Hollywood, they weren’t going to believe me.”

‘Evans’ didn’t ‘run Hollywood’ as she wants us to believe, he was just another producer who financed better than average films, and his first film he produced was in fact Chinatown after he had recommended Polanski to film Rosemary’s Baby to achieve instant success. Evans was in fact demoted in a studio re-shuffle after Chinatown (and later became a cocaine addict, like Lewis) and other than being able to charm warring actors or directors to keep on filming once they got into each others’ hair, like Polanski and Dunaway, he had his lawyer Sid Korshak, the ‘dark angel of Hollywood’, to make the studios keep his job and sell his films to the real big studio bosses. Yes, Korshak, the very same mobster ‘fixer’ shyster who was best friends with Rittenband who would only three years later mess with Polanski in a not too legal manner. It’s always a handy excuse to say she had ‘no one to turn to’, and then suddenly produces a ‘friend’ decades later they had told oddly enough only after Polanski was rearrested, SINCE YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO THE AUTHORITIES THIRTY-SIX YEAR AGO, it’ll been a sensational coup!

‘Headline’ – Chinatown director arrested for drugged rape, sodomy’! See the Geimer case three years later. There is no limit to what these aging has-beens will go to in order to destroy Polanski by parroting others suddenly, in Cooley’s name obviously, since they all flock to him out of the blue, rather than having told someone official or friends, family over the years. As I said, why did she not come forward when Polanski was arrested in 1977? Or last year? During his house arrest? Not very convincing, ‘Vogelhut’, not at all. She said Lewis’ ‘accusations’, i.e., her dirty fantasies she herself had contradicted from day one with her conflicting interviews given over the decades, prompted her to ‘finally come forward’ with her story. I.e., Cooley paid her too to do so, now that the Swiss put a wedge into his extradition attempt. How handy, ‘Vogelhut’, you need some more money, do you? Of course, since she’s planning (like Lewis said she would) to release a ‘kiss-and-tell-all’ book, detailing her life in the world of modelling.  And where exactly is the logic that you (or Lewis) want to ‘cement’ an old case (of ‘sodomy’) with your repeat sodomy and sexual abuse claims (lies), rather than find justice for your own case if it were true – which you could have brought to the attention of the authorities decades earlier, right after his arrest in 1977? NOWHERE.

So, let me get this straight, she was oh so ‘humiliated’ then she couldn’t tell anyone, and now she’s writing a tell-all book with one chapter ‘dedicated’ to her alleged encounter with Polanski? Right. She’s just another disgusting gold-digging fraud who tries to slander him some more and make lots of dirty dollars with sordid sex lies, NO ONE can back up after all this time, or invalidate, and she could in fact have done AGES AGO already. Polanski has virtually ZERO chances of disproving or fight any such sleazy claims, and that’s why they all come out of the rotten woodworks now that he’s a free man again. Only when Polanski is back in the news do they want to soak in some of their fifteen minutes of pathetic famewhoring. These accusers are criminals by making false rape accusations NO man can ever contest, which is all the rage at the moment anyhow, after decades of sending innocent men into hell to get raped there already at not the slightest chance of any defence. Look at Ben Affleck’s brother, who also has to deal withtwo ‘sexual harassment’ claims suddenly, and magician David Copperfield who was charged with a rape allegation from the FBI the other day, while Mel Gibson of course is inundated by his lying ex’s more than transparent fabrications of ‘domestic violence’, up for extortion charges after tampering with the ‘rant tapes’ in fact. These cheap, attention-seeking and two-faced women are a disgrace to all decency and people are in fact fed up with them by now. And rightly so.

If Polanski really was a rapist, he would have been charged with raping women or girls in France more likely than anywhere in the US, since he was there only a couple of times after Tate’s death. He never was ‘Hollywood’, with only two films made there. He lived mainly in France, the UK, in Italy for four years, and for a whole three decades in Paris later, travelled all over the globe, made films in Poland, Russia, and ever since he left the US, directed films and stage plays in Germany for decades. How he seems to rape only those in Hollywood is a mystery, since Lewis claimed the ‘casting couch game’ she had to play along with was set in Paris, though she had her part in Pirates already and even said so after the premiere at Cannes in 1986, unlike what she told us today. So, Vogelhut went to the house expecting to have sex with Polanski and had sex with Polanski so it was rape. Right. Always is. Almost forty years later and she wants to sell her book she suddenly was drugged and anally raped. Right. She never said he forced the E on her, if they ever had any, and maybe they even had ‘kinky’ sex, but Polanski had plenty willing women to sleep with and no need to drug and force anyone into sex. The effects of ‘MDMA’ kick in within 30–60 minutes of consumption only, hitting a peak at approximately 1–1.5 hours, reaching a plateau that lasts about 2–3 hours, followed by a comedown of a few hours. The way she describes it, it all happened within a few minutes.

So what came first? The booze, then the E, then the handcuffs (I doubt excited)? And then what? He left her untouched for an hour and only then ‘attacked’ her? Besides, what’s with this ‘repeatedly’? Once a man comes after a few minutes that is it. Vogelhut only parroted the sodomy on the basis of Ms Geimer’s long discredited claims. And she certainly didn’t do her homework well enough; anal sex requires a lot of preparations, and even with amyl, she cleverly brought in, it STILL needs a lot of lubrication or saliva – she forgot to mention. Anyone, who engages in anal sex on regular base, as these women want us to believe Polanski had, would know what to do, or infections loom, pain for both and serious injuries, even for the active partner. She only brought the handcuffs in to make it sound more shocking to escalate the encounter into violence basically. If he really had anal intercourse all the time without any precautions or preparations as they proclaim, he’d long contracted infections or most likely AIDS – AND his partners. But even if he had anal intercourse, hygiene is vital, she would have needed to have a dump first, or an enema, then comes the condom (though for anal sex they’re not strong enough) and (therefore) a lot of lube throughout, and even if no condom is used, the danger of injury to the receptive partner would still cause infections for both.

She said he repeatedly sodomised her? Not without using amyl again and again, which causes major headaches, AND most of all vital lube or he alone gets sore like hell if he can get it in at all, amyl is NOT enough. And, ‘lying on her stomach’? Wrong angle, she needs to be on her knees butt up in the air or in fact on her back legs high up for him to actually get it inside her, like with vaginal intercourse – and if she struggles, we might assume unwilling partners do, scream in pain, bleed and thrash about high on E and poppers, not a chance, unless he pins her down she didn’t say that he had either and holds her into position, which is hard to do and to find any orifice at the same time. The booze and drugs aren’t sufficient to sedate her to be an easy prey, the struggling alone would make it impossible, and amyl has no sedative effect. On the contrary, it makes you more hyper and euphoric and in combination with E she’d be jumping and down, have muscle twitching and the urge to be physically active, run around, you name it. The receptive partner in fact has to be relaxed and in control or no anal intercourse, not hyper and unwilling. Ergo, no ‘sodomy’ (the way she claims) let alone ‘repeatedly’ occurred. These people are too thick to realise any of it, and others, who never had anal sex, or took E and poppers, simply don’t know and believe it. The man bedded a few thousand women in his life and only ‘three’ cried rape/sodomy? I don’t think so. Ms Geimer was discredited outright, Lewis is a pathetic liar, and Vogelhut wants to sell her book. She is just another shameless opportunist hoping to profit from his scandalous name, by giving us something that fits into the utterly distorted image of Polanski the predator/rapist, with the typical ‘drugs/sodomy’ angle.

Why wait thirty-six years to come forward with some more sordid sodomy tales? Oh yes, the ‘book deal’ because there wasn’t a better time to bring this up, since back then she still had a career and defaming Polanski some more for public amusement TODAY is much more lucrative. Vogelhut could just as easily have said that she spent an insanely wild night with Polanski that was one of the greatest of her life, of which all the juicy little details would be revealed in her book and sold just as many copies, if not more. No, she’s clever enough to give us a story ‘consistent’ with a widely perceived ‘pattern of [his ‘assumed’] behaviour’, includes amyl (which then was more prevalent on the gay scene) and E, (which only became all the rave in the Eighties) and therefore people are more than willing to believe that Polanski did all these things. And even if they did have anal intercourse I highly doubt, if in the Seventies in LA people were arrested for this kind of rough sex play (I’m sure many had enjoyed and today want to make out as rape), if it ever took place in the first place between the two, the LA criminal justice system would not have time for any really criminal behaviour. The LAPD is in Cooley’s pocket anyhow, so whatever Lewis or Vogelhut told them, if anything at all, will always be an indefensible fabrication they’d loved to introduce retroactively, since they sent countless innocent people, mostly men who slept with someone that was twisted into rape, into prison hell just to get ‘results’ no matter how unjust. It’s been going on since decades and it will never stop.

The accusations against Polanski in 1977 had fallen on the medical evidence alone already, yet the public were/are unaware of it or simply ignore/d it and others spin the sleazy tale ever further into violence by now. The Grand Jury was heavily influenced by gossip and hate mail rather than evidence in 1977, since they still indicted him on Ms Geimer’s ultimately discredited claims, hence the plea deal for her age to avoid a trial or else she and her mother had been found guilty of perjury. The jury in this high-profile case should have been sequestered because of the media interest and countless sensationalistic pages printed then, and today posted on the Internet most of which is inaccurate or plain hideous lies. See people even saying he sodomised boys now, which only shows people have fuck all idea what they’re in fact talking about, or simply make things up. This kind of widespread injustice done to celebrities rarely gets anyone’s attention other than the sensational lies spread about them until they or a loved one is suddenly on trial, at the receiving end of indefensible lies, while they all willingly join the online lynch mob and spew their venom. Polanski is now fair game for any variety of predators he has no means of fighting anymore, since his demonisation has been prevalently conducted in the media everybody willingly fuelled since decades now, despite no proof he ever did what they believe.

Polanski must be the only famous person who enjoyed western sexual liberation and suffered the ever graver backlash towards its own achievement, by becoming its very victim driven by radical feminist mania, not only any judicial misconducts anymore. Three times over now, for three women having twisted casual sex into drugged rape, sexual abuse and now violent sodomy and BDSM games. I know there are a number of overzealous people who have the same sick fantasies in regards to harming Polanski, with some seriously contemplating attacking him physically, since I read many a comment promoting and condoning just that, even killing him in many horrible ways. The vicious atmosphere created by these insidious people can make others go into the direction of physical attacks. They think, if ‘justice’ they believe he has escaped cannot be executed ‘legally’, it must be accomplished in other illegal ways. It’s possible that someone might plan something in the way of staging a scenario which would later be described as an ‘accident’. According to the highly reactionary comments mushrooming everywhere, becoming more than disturbing, it could well be that they plan attacks no only against him, but his family. This is clearly getting out of hand by now and exactly what Cooley wants. Since he cannot destroy him ‘legally’, he therefore lets the online mob do it for him, incited by the irresponsible media, by giving us another backstabbing accuser to whip the obsessed public into more blind frenzy. And they all fall for it.

It seems the worst fear for Polanski’s detractors is that he isn’t the bad guy they make him out to be. Their worse fear is that time will show he’s a good father, obviously, or his son wouldn’t have cut his electronic bracelet he hated, a good husband, obviously, because Emmanuelle stands behind him since nearly three decades, a good citizen, obviously, since no one actually from the populace he came in contact with can accuse him of anything, a great friend, obviously, or he’d not have such strong support, and a brilliant artist. More than obvious. That will make them implode with frustration, if they’d ever find out that they have launched an unparalleled hate campaign against him in the name of Cooley. On the other hand, since some UK online sites have removed Vogelhut’s shameless interviews, and the latest I read was that she cannot ‘talk about it anymore’, once she went back to Miami July 28th, it could well mean that his lawyers are finally fed up with lying ex lovers, and have threatened her and the press with litigation. Of course, there must be an end put to this rampant slander somehow, and it might well be that they have proof that she had lied. Shame on Vogelhut if she didn’t like Polanski’s singular humping behaviour she wants us to believe in she had experienced. But then again, she could just be an aging ex-model who likes giant hats and loves to tell lurid stories of sexual excesses handcuffs and all that never happened, with a very overactive imagination and a desperate need for cash. Like Lewis.

So now, for the showdown – courtesy of Polanski’s very own autobiography, get this; Polanski might have stayed at Nicholson’s house for some time before they even started making Chinatown in 1973, after he had stayed with production designer Dick Sylbert at his apartment, BUT, in fact, Polanski had his very own bachelor pad after that, courtesy of the ‘group’ Vogelhut said ‘ran’ Hollywood, i.e., Evans himself – So, why exactly would he go [back] to Nicholson’s house for a ‘nightcap’, instead of his own? Just so to parrot Ms Geimer’s locale of three years later! PLUS, in 1974 she claims it happened after a ‘star-studded party’ at Evans’ very own house, Polanski most probably wasn’t in fact in LA anymore since he had left for Italy where he had lived since 1972 to 1976 after he went to France, UK and Switzerland ever since Tate’s loss in 1969, when Chinatown was not even fully post-edited, to direct, guess what? An Italian opera called Lulu far away from LA! Polanski never was in LA for the premier of Chinatown in 1974, never attended any ‘party’ at Evans’ house to celebrate it with ‘stars’, and only heard of the great success through press clippings sitting in Italy to plan Pirates, which he made only ten years later with yes, you guessed it ‘Lewis’, after it was shelved and he made The Tenant instead! In fact, Polanski promoted Chinatown far away in the Far East. Did I just discredit Vogelhut’s sordid allegations entirely? I think so.

Even if they had [‘kinky’] sex at one point all these decades back, Vogelhut simply escalated their encounter to make it sound more ‘brutal’, and all she did was enhance the distorted picture the public of today has of Polanski’s ‘sexual MO’, which is of course the whole idea and not evidence. Besides, if you don’t like anal sex, that’s your problem and no grounds to sour it for others. The fact that she said she ‘hurt’, if true at any rate, only shows that amyl sometimes doesn’t work on people, and is not sufficient for anal intercourse on its own. That he never used any vital lube (or saliva) is highly suspect, since people, who ‘sodomise’ others on a regular base (they want us to believe Polanski did), would most definitely have it handy for needed repeat application, apply it into the anus as well, since it’s painful for the man too without and dries up quickly on strokes. How many times a penis slips from any orifice is also never mentioned, and a good opportunity to break it off if unwanted. Many who engage in anal intercourse in fact use their fingers first to widen the partner, and cover their penis with more lube to begin with. Blind believers who never had anal sex, should ask someone who had, to realise all these ‘dry’ sodomy claims are bogus. People speaking of real experiences using E, and amyl (with any effects only lasting two minutes tops) together during sex, tell you that it’s a very bad combination, and anyone (i.e., ‘Polanski’) who seems to use so many drugs, (they want us to believe mind you) would never do so. Polanski in fact never mentioned MDMA in his autobiography, only that Quaaludes had become the major rave drug. Besides, with that sort of drugs cocktail she’d not remembered anything  that detailed after so long.

Oddly enough many women suddenly claim that they were ‘drugged’ and ‘raped’ decades later, just so to be in line with today’s ultra feminist dogma of ‘all men are rapists’, basically denouncing what they all willingly did in the sex and drugs fuelled Seventies. And of course to sell a few ‘kiss and tell’ book. If Vogelhut tells us today that she felt ‘humiliated’ then, (which no one can back up she ever had), why would she feel humiliated in the first place when she believed that they all behaved like that in Hollywood, and hence in fact had no real need to tell anyone, or conversely if she told the ‘group’ they’d most certainly believed her, but doesn’t seem to be too embarrassed today to talk and even write about it? Lie comes to mind. Sadly there’s no ‘chapter’ on ‘Shelli’ the ‘model’ in his autobiography, and Polanski in fact mentioned a few of his dates. Today she’s playing right into the psyche of people who dislike/d Polanski’s ‘lifestyle’ they think they know from the highly biased media to be the truth, but, he is not alone in his prior way of life of sexual excesses; there were and are thousands of men like him, and it would be more than unfair that Polanski should be singled out TODAY and scapegoated for all the ‘moral sins’ of THEN, while others did and will see no such vindictive demonisation, who did and do it themselves anyhow. What Polanski has done or not done in his life with other women is of no consequence to the old case either, since he is not guilty of anything other than to what he pleaded to in 1977, and every discredited dropped count and subsequent equally unproven allegations have zero relevance – only to the public, who love to revel in all the sordid details that were never proven. They must all have very boring sex lives to be so obsessed with his.

In 1977 everyone involved contributed to the problem that Polanski ended up fleeing Rittenband’s prejudiced court, and only he was the one who paid for it dearly ever since, when this case should have been tossed out a long time ago, since it ultimately enabled two more backstabbing women to cry rape suddenly after decades. It is clear why they don’t want to ‘sue’ him, not because the statute of limitations has run out, that is applicable only to criminal charges they could have brought in long before especially with Polanski unable to fight any new allegations, but because no civil suit can be lodged without any proof, and because he could in fact defend himself against such – he only cannot file any suits himself unless he does so in person in the right jurisdiction, or via video link to make his case, which may take years. These women know they’re ‘safe’ from any serious backlash, as long as they made their lies public people will believe more or less, simply to damage Polanski’s severely tainted reputation some more. That’s all they want – all in the name of Cooley to further his smear campaign, and career. Lewis was found out a devious liar through her very own words, which was clearly designed to influence the extradition – and obviously failed big time, Ms Geimer was not too truthful as a teenager to begin with, (hence her tries to sound more in line today with what really happened and to drop the case), let alone Vogelhut with her sordid accusations, just so for people’s sordid imagination to run away with them while filling in the blanks, while Vogelhut’s graphic retelling is as fanciful and implausible as Ms Geimer’s own claims.

To recap, she said they smoked some pot, had some Brandy, then she accepted the E – So for one, she took all the drugs/booze on her own free volition, after a ‘dinner party’ at Evans’ home, so, how can she make it sound as if Polanski had ‘drugged’ her? You drink, you get yourself drunk, you take the drugs, you get yourself drugged, end of. Like Ms Geimer, Vogelhut (or Lewis) never said he ‘forced’ the drugs or alcohol on her, but ‘took’ it. If you experiment with anything, don’t blame the one who introduced you to it afterwards if you don’t like it. That Vogelhut brings in amyl might sound logical when giving us the picture of Polanski being intent on sodomising her, but in that case all she needed to do was not inhale it since she clearly knew what it was. Alcohol for one reduces the effects of E, the drug tends to inhibit erections in men, and many users never become sexually aroused on E and find the state quite incompatible. Since we don’t know if Polanski had any E, sex is not one of the foremost pleasures offered by E and most men have the opposite to an erection and orgasm is suppressed and not really in the mood for sex, but more touchy-feely. So in effect, E is not a ‘sex drug’ she wants us to believe, and the bigger the cocktail, the bigger the risk of complications. If she wants us to believe Polanski was such a drugs specialist, he sure as hell would know not to mix. Even if they had some E, and kinky sex, why the hell tell us ‘today’? Oh yes, to sell her book. Besides, she claims she never heard of MDMA before, but do we know that for sure? Course not.

I might even believe they had sex with all the trimmings, and she then brought in the handcuffs to make it sound more bondage than it was and today call it ‘brutal rape’. And where exactly did he get the E from? His pockets? Nicholson’s handy bathroom cabinet he seems to raid? And where did he find the handcuffs to start with I ask, especially if it wasn’t his own home? And what kind of ‘cuffs’ were they? Kinky sex cuffs, or cop cuffs? If he wanted to ‘control’ her with ‘any’ cuffs, E in fact has the effect of diminishing aggression, fear, hostility, anxiety, and insecurity coupled with an extreme mood lift and euphoria. That’s why it became so popular later. So, why would he need to ‘control’ her with something so severe once having ‘appeased’ her already, after half an hour minimum mind you to take effect, when amyl nitrate increases the effects of E on top? And why would she say she ‘hurt, despite all the amyl and E to ‘relax’ her? But then again, he obviously didn’t use any vital lube ‘habitual sodomites’ would no doubt always have ‘handy’ in their pockets like amyl and ‘handcuffs’ of course, and that would cause ‘pain’. Sure. If she really felt ‘raped’, she should have gone to the proper authorities ages ago, and surely be able to tell ‘someone’ outside that ‘group’ she claims wouldn’t have ‘listened’. Especially after Polanski was arrested in 1977. So what about her own modelling ‘group’ to turn to? Her family, whoever. I’m sure some of her friends would have lent her a very interested and sympathetic ear if she’d talked about kinky sex with the notorious director Polanski – let alone ‘rape’. No one has ‘no one to talk to’, especially in the modelling world.

Her interview is pretty short and fragmented, offers no logical cohesion of events, how she eventually got home, or how he ‘released’ her. He probably drove her home, like Ms Geimer. She states she had willingly engaged in sex with him after consuming all assorts of ‘recreation drugs’, and then didn’t like the end result. Polanski said often enough, if a woman clearly indicates not wanting to have sex with him he lets her be, off to find himself another one. No clear signs, he proceeds, at which point they still can tell him they’re not into a particular kind of ‘act’. Now people even say that he used amyl on Ms Geimer, when she in fact never said so. Really pathetic. Amyl needs to be sniffed continuously to have ANY effects in the first place which only last a couple of minutes some say heightens and extends orgasm, while it can make someone seriously dizzy on prolonged inhalation. So she wants us to believe that he repeatedly sodomised her and forced her to sniff the stuff at the same time? I.e. hold the ampoule under her nose and hammer away at her at the other end? Not possible. That in fact would have severely burnt her nostrils to start with, and she’d be more than fidgeting not to sniff it anymore, wriggling in pain, which makes it impossible to penetrate anyone, unless he forcibly pins her down she never said he had, and then he’d spilled that ampoule which had burnt both severely. Her explanations are improbable and disconnected, full of holes and represent no evidence.

What’s more, if they really were at Nicholson’s house, does she really want us to believe that he let Polanski have run of his own ‘bedroom’? I’m sure Huston would have objected to use it as his personal love nest all the time, and every mansion has at least one guest room. Polanski stayed at the ‘TV room’, so called because it had a big set, but beyond that only a sofa he slept on while in LA. Besides, if someone engages in this sort of ‘BDSM’ scenario in 1974, they usually repeat that or go deeper over the years. If one takes this case as the ‘first’ sodomy claim, and Ms Geimer’s as the second in 1977 – though medical evidence had discredited hers entirely and later said he was never mean to her – why would he suddenly ‘downgrade’ his actions with Ms Geimer, i.e., lose the E to make her ‘mellow’, or the handy cuffs to control her? But instead switches to Quaalude that makes one horny, and then forgets the vital amyl to score another easy ‘double sodomy’ hit? (And then STILL didn’t use any essential lube either, or made sure all hygiene and preparations are in place.) Hence, another logical ‘hole’ in Vogelhut’s story based on Ms Geimer’s own never proven claims – since ‘rapists’ ALWAYS escalate their attacks and not become less ‘dominant’ or ‘violent’ suddenly. Ms Geimer never claimed any pain, any ‘hurt’, any ‘rape’ in words in any form, so in effect, Vogelhut just shot herself in the foot by coming up with this ‘brutal sodomy’ ‘first’. You don’t ‘just’ sodomise someone, or you’d most likely hit on some ‘brown matter’, which causes even more friction and most unpleasant mess, and can lead to more pain and infections.

While in the case of Ms Geimer, everyone had agreed on the fact that there was no sexual violence and/or physical/verbal force involved in any form, Vogelhut said Polanski had commanded and manhandled her. In that case, Polanski must be the only ‘rapist’ who became less aggressive. Meaning, Vogelhut’s recounting of the events was most likely embellished on to ‘make’ it ‘rape’, since it’s utterly illogical. If sex ever took place. Someone more intelligent brought up the factor of ‘money’ Vogelhut talked about, and that she didn’t have any on her, i.e., ‘credit cards’. Does she really want us to believe that women leave home without any cash, let alone make-up, or credit cards? I yet have to see one. With women like her, a ‘professional model’ who earn lots of dough, I doubt she didn’t have any cards or money in her purse she’s be lugging along everywhere. It’ll be criminal stupidity on her part. Or else, how did she get to Evans’ house in the first place? In a taxi? With her own car? Did they send a chauffeur? Besides, credit cards are useless for taxis, they want cash, not like today where you can pay by card. She could have phoned someone to pick her up, by reversed call charges, or even from Nicholson’s home, or ask Polanski for a dime to get back. Why would she point to that? Is money for a taxi ‘relevant’, or could it in fact be an excuse for Vogelhut to say she couldn’t ‘get away’ from Polanski? Or to get home, when it’s more than absurd that a woman would leave it without some means to get about.

It’s just so to cement her allegations against Polanski, because the money could have helped her if things had gone out of hand, and she would have the handy answer of why she wouldn’t ‘just leave’, even handcuffed. It’s just an excuse to bring in the cuffs to make it appear she couldn’t ‘resist’ him. These women are shifting their own [sexual] accountability into Polanski’s court to look the ‘helpless victims’ and make the man a rapist after consensual sex, while in reality, Lewis for one clearly lied from start to finish (in order to influence the extradition and made an idiot of herself big time). In Vogelhut’s case, she might sound ‘logical’, but, no proof, no believability, no case, end of. Just another pathetic attempt to taint Polanski’s damaged reputation some more – in Cooley’s name of course. These women could at least have the decency to say, yeah I slept with Polanski, we had a bit of booze and drugs to get us stimulated or horny, and then we had sex, tried anal intercourse [in handcuffs] for a change (if at all), and it was very ‘different’, exciting. But, no, today it’s called ‘sexual abuse’, ‘drugged rape’, ‘sodomy’ and ‘violence’ and only the man is the culpable sex maniac. It’s criminal. The most Polanski can be accused of is having had too many casual sex encounters, like in fact many other men scored, if not more so in Warren Beatty’s case with twice his conquests, or even Evans and Nicholson, both known for sexual excesses, though no one ever called them ‘predator’. Nor, Lewis, who did exactly the same – sleep around en masse, after she prostituted herself for drugs and money unlike Polanski.

Any of the sexual and non-sexual encounters Polanski had in Gstaad after Tate’s death and later, would have made a good case to accuse him of sexual abuse or assault, sodomy, anything, especially after his 1977 arrest, and the 2009 rearrest. Did any of them cry rape suddenly? Course not. To wait so long to ‘report’ anything is highly suspect, since no genuine rape victim would let slip a chance of the same ‘attacker’ just being arrested a few years later to report their own attack, and I highly doubt Vogelhut  never knew of the case then or now. In Lewis’ case we know she lied because of her very own earlier interviews contradicting her present-day claims outright. Guess a cocaine addled ex-prostitute’s brain isn’t all that reliable anymore, but then recalls all sorts of things that happened during the alleged abuse nearly three decades back and Polanski’s exact words, which are more than ludicrous at any rate. Not a chance.  Same goes for Vogelhut, I’m sure had several men in her life nearly sixty now and she too can recall Polanski’s exact words after nearly forty years? – Hardly. And that is exactly where it goes wrong, since no one can remember anything that clearly. Events perhaps in the broader sense, good or bad imprinted through pain or joy, but never ‘words’ to the degree they claim, let alone from a one-night stand with drugs and booze affecting ones memory to start with I’m sure wasn’t the only one.

It Vogelhut took like near four decades to report her alleged ‘anal rape’ to the LA courts, rather than the cops right then in 1973 or at least in 1977 when Polanski was arrested, so that alone is very suspicious, which she explained away by claiming she felt ‘too embarrassed’, since of course any other excuse could be scrutinised as having no basis not to report it. But even if that were true, I rather would feel angry in fact, or hurt, not ‘embarrassed’, and I sure as hell would file a report as soon as Polanski was arrested, damn the embarrassment and ‘this group’ she claimed had not listened to her. Ever heard of the police to report a crime who would listen, especially after the accused was just arrested over ‘rape’? Guess not. Vannatter, who arrested Polanski and no doubt coached Ms Geimer, would have had a field day! Which is all more than bullshit at any rate, since any rape accuser would automatically remain anonymous and no one would find out it’s ‘her’, bar the accused (and sometimes not even that), to have any claim on ‘embarrassment’ she might face from that ‘group’, or anyone else for that matter. True rape doesn’t cause ‘embarrassment’, but the will to see the rapist in jail, not wait over three decades to make some money off it. Same goes for Lewis. I’m surprised neither of them claimed, ‘denial’ of the ‘anal rape’ and ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’ (we still don’t have any specifics of) and reason why they came out so much later.

But then of course, we know that they lied and there was no need to give us a more detailed account in Lewis’ case I doubt ever saw a police report – which Vogelhut just had to take to the limit with her sordid BDSM sodomy claims. Funny thing is, Lewis’ part in Polanski’s Pirates outing in fact had two rape scenes in store for her – one attempted rape and one ‘staged’ attempted rape – before the young hero saves her, (not Matthau). Looks like her ‘rape role play’ came true before she ever went to Hollywood and end up in cheap nude flicks. If Polanski had really abused her ‘in the worst possible way’, she’d not ever played that let alone have an affair with him, and today exposed herself as the sad and drug addicted woman who had too much sex – real, imaginary or in cinematic form. What’s more, she’s wearing luxurious, all-covering bulbous ball gowns that show absolutely nothing of her presumably perfectly fine figure bar a bit of shoulder, and therefore to moan about Polanski having brought on bulimia in her, is more than ridiculous besides. With Lewis in her twisted overindulgence of playing the little victim, projecting her abuse fantasy world into Polanski’s real life, rather than accept her own actions and drug addictions, Ms Geimer wasn’t allowed to consent to sex though she had sex, and then was ‘made’ a victim by the law in  Polanski’s case.

In contrast to Lewis, who at first was also not allowed to prostitute herself but did it anyhow with fourteen, and then was allowed to have sex with sixteen, but made herself into a victim, on film and in her twisted fantasies in real life. In reality, Vogelhut actually discredits Ms Geimer’s ‘double’ sodomy claim outright through her very own now – by saying she ‘hurt’ despite amyl, E and whatnot, since Ms Geimer never said she hurt. In fact, she should have, since anal intercourse even if wanted can be painful if not relaxed enough, and if she really ‘froze’ it’s impossible to get your piece inside, and most certainly throughout when unwanted. Many women even hurt during vaginal intercourse no matter aroused, lubricated, and willing. That’s down to an either too thick penis which widens the vagina (or sphincter) too much, or for a too long penis hitting the cervix, for the wrong angle, (or general frigidity and being unpractised). That’s why some prefer vaginal intercourse from behind, or in fact anal sex, and that too needs the right angle and careful preparations. Vogelhut cleverly said she ‘hurt’, so might have had anal intercourse at one point, no matter what she said – or simply did her research with most people reporting it in fact being painful [if done wrongly or forcibly], especially if unwanted, and they both never had it.

Vogelhut simply upped the ante by claiming she had been handcuffed, i.e., ‘immobilised’, which no doubt served to exacerbate the reaction from the public, without ever explaining how she got out of the handcuffs or eventually home. Saying that agreeing to take drugs or alcohol on ones free volition does not take away a person’s right to say ‘no’ is certainly true, but, in this particular case no person claimed they said no. Vogelhut not once said she had told Polanski to ‘stop’, or that he ‘ignored’ her ‘pleas’. Lewis never explained anything other than her abuse fantasyland scenario in his apartment, and no one has ever accused Polanski of abusing any prepubescent child and no credible ‘victim’ has ever come forward. So why the term paedophile keeps popping up after he slept with adult women, and now another adult woman in her twenties surfaced with this unlikely scenario of ‘handcuffs’, that in effect paints a much more ‘kinky’ picture than what Ms Geimer had described only years later, or rather decades earlier. That in fact would downgrade this ‘picture of abuse’ when he had not harmed Ms Geimer in any form.

So, for Polanski’s supposedly ‘deviant’ sexual ‘MO’, let me just say, the LAPD at the time of the Tate murders, found videotapes in the loft above the living room where Sharon and Jay Sebring were found murdered. One of these tapes shows Sharon and Roman engaging in sex. According to police records, it was nothing more than a married couple engaging in what they classified as ‘normal’ sexual activity, and nothing denoting ‘anal perversions’ or drugged and drunken excesses in any form. Polanski has never been into what would be seen as ‘SM’ or ‘BDSM’ Vogelhut wants us to believe, and none of Polanski’s conquests before or after Tate’s death have ever come out to accuse him of anything sexually ‘kinky’ or any ‘abuse’. Had he been a ‘sexual deviant’ the prison shrinks could officially never establish either, I’m sure others had gladly joined Lewis and Vogelhut in their campaign to paint Polanski a ‘MDSO’. These graphic accusations are neatly staged shows, like Lewis had to read from a script under the gaze of Allred, in order to ‘learn their lines’. Lewis’ self-refuted lie that Polanski had to sleep with all his actresses to proclaim it the casting couch game is more than ludicrous, since I doubt he ever touched anyone over thirty before he married a third time and is with his gorgeous and supportive wife since over two decades now.

I’m tired of these ugly, whining, pathetic lying (and no doubt jealous) women coming out after decades to tell their sordid little sex adventure tales with infamous celebrities. If you can’t handle the sex, and afterwards cry ‘sexual assault’ or rape, or that a man ‘took advantage’ of you, you poor little feminist disempowered and law infantilised females you, don’t engage in ANY sex at all, anal or otherwise, sober, drunk or stoned. The fact that Vogelhut suddenly cannot talk about it anymore, points to a restraining order or injunction from Polanski’s legal team, who have not reacted to her allegations in any form otherwise. As long as we don’t have any corroborating facts, Vogelhut can tell us whatever she likes, and I for one don’t believe that she didn’t mind the sex, the drugs and Polanski’s attention,  if it ever happened in any shape or form as she presents it. Or simply lies at any rate. If two people agree to sex, even ‘kinky’ sex Vogelhut wants us to believe, it doesn’t become rape when one of those people decades later decides she didn’t want to do that in order to seek the grimy limelight in the lies of another accuser. Wash your dirty sex laundry behind closed courtroom doors after going to the relevant authorities, not with any trashy LA attorneys on celebrity scandal online rags to brand someone a rapist. We’re fed up with it.

It is clear that Lewis is manipulative and conning, and such people don’t ever recognise the rights of others seeing their self-serving behaviours as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. (Lewis’ plenty lovers e.g..) Grandiose sense of self. (Rittenband/Cooley and Allred/Lewis.) They feel entitled to certain things as ‘their right’. Pathological liar. Have no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of remorse, shame or guilt. (Lewis/Vogelhut.) Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. (Rittenband/ Cooley, Allred/Lewis and Vogelhut.) Instead of friends (of which Polanski always had plenty unlike Lewis), they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. (Lewis’ plenty lovers and the ones who lied for her afterwards, i.e., Jacobs/Haymes.) The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. (Lewis using her plenty lovers to make it in the film industry, but no talent, no chance.) Shallow emotions. (No doubt in Lewis’ case or she’d been able to form longer relationships, she ultimately blamed on Polanski.)

When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. (‘Acted’.) Outraged by insignificant matters, (like Lewis taking directions from Polanski on set, calling it ‘metal abuse’) yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. (Lewis’ several promises to kick the drugs habit and subsequent repeat failings.) Incapacity for love. (Hence her ‘lovely man’ leaving her too she ultimately blamed on Polanski.) Need for stimulation. (Drugs.) Living on the edge. (Sex and hard drugs.) Promiscuity and gambling are common. (Lewis the teen-prostitute and later Hollywood sleep-around.) Callousness/lack of empathy. (Hence her cruel attack on Polanski to play the poor victim in real life.) Unable to empathise with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. (Just like Lewis appeared in the interview – cold, venomous, vindictive and fake. Out to destroy with lies.)

Poor behavioural controls/impulsive nature. (Lewis’ whining about Polanski shouting at her, ultimately ‘projecting’ her ‘abuse’ fantasies onto him, blaming him for her bulimia.) Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, (also known as crocodile tears and whining, attention seeking, emotional blackmail, and Lewis seducing her plenty men first by her own admission to control them) as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. (Unless they kick her out soon and she simply finds herself a new victim.) Believe they are entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. (Hence her blaming Polanski on her own life-long failures without qualms and the fact that she would have lied in court to see him sent down in Cooley’s name.) Early behaviour problems/juvenile delinquency. (Lewis the school drop-out junkie and fourteen year old prostitute no doubt resulting in hatred for men ‘using’ her [for sex].) Problems in making and keeping friends, (hence her plenty changing Johns/men/‘friends’) aberrant behaviours such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. (As cruel as her lying words and calls for ‘justice’.) Irresponsible/unreliable. (Reason Lewis didn’t make it in the film business unlike classy Kinski, no willpower but blaming power.) Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. (As seen with her abuse lies when her victim [Polanski] was the most helpless and vulnerable [while under house arrest.)

Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. (With intentions of deliberately lying on the stand for self-serving ends like all false accusers do with sick gratification.) Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. (More than obvious with her sexual abuse lies and abuse fantasy projected onto Polanski, and once found out she lied, deflecting of her earlier [correct] interviews as ‘misquoted’.) Promiscuous sexual behaviour/infidelity. (Her early prostitution and later extreme promiscuity.) Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. (Her acted and imagined ‘abuse fantasies’ she later blamed on Polanski as easiest target to destroy him as representative of ALL men, who in contrast is NOT a BDSM freak like Vogelhut and Lewis.) Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle. (Hence repeat failures in life and relationships while using men as an excuse, and therefore ultimate failure in the film industry.) Tends to move around a lot or makes all-encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. (Hence no director wanting her and therefore ultimately accused Polanski of mental abuse on set and privately after decades but not THEN, and a few sleazy sex flicks.) Changes life story readily. (As seen with her different stories/lies about what she felt for Polanski wanting him so badly and then hating him, her sexually aberrant fantasies of wanting to be abused ‘on film’ and ultimate accusations of [real-life] ‘abuse’ at the hands of Polanski that ever happened.

Such disorder is also known as revenge driven selfishness and ‘professional victimhood’ in alteration she then can blame on others, striking at her victim when he has ZERO chances of defence to make herself look better. (Though ultimately a sad and sick/eing lair.) Ergo, Lewis is a sociopath on a grand scale which was already obvious in her press conference with Allred, while Vogelhut is just a lying opportunist with a penchant for BDSM games, since people always project/reflect their own tendencies if they accuse others, tapping right into Lewis’ own lies based on Ms Geimer’s long disproved accusations. Ms Geimer doesn’t falls into any of these disorders other than having been not too truthful before the Grand Jury for ‘other’ reasons as a manipulated and fantasising teenager. Like her mother and sister for their own ‘take’ on her story. And of course  Judge Rittenband or cop Vannatter had their own agenda by using Polanski, except the right one – justice. I wonder if Ms Geimer or Lewis kept in fact a diary that might illustrate their innermost secrets, since ‘starstruck’ girls would no doubt have one. In Ms Geimer’s case that would be more than helpful to demonstrate what really happened that day I guarantee you would fall in line with what Polanski had stated, while in Lewis’ case her growing drug addiction, sexual exploits and undoubtedly later formed disdain for men would be listed down, and as critical examples of blaming men for her own actions.

Lewis’ pathetic accusations, sorry, lies, of ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’ and ‘mental abuse’ served to punish Polanski (through the evermore exploited Geimer case) in place of all the men who she believes had ‘used’ her [Lewis] for sex from very early on. That she consented to it all on her own free will doesn’t matter. It’s her delusion of ‘self-abuse’, despite having conceded that SHE seduced ALL men first and I doubt one of them refused her, and then threw them away once they had served their purpose, or failed to ‘deliver’. Such diaries could be Polanski’s salvation, and most certainly show unambiguous assent to the drugs, alcohol and sex, where in Lewis’ case her secret [abuse] fantasies and obvious man-hating tendencies would be graphically illustrated. Polanski happened to be the easiest target of [Lewis’] ultimate revenge, and he must bear all responsibility for his entire gender. Selfish, destructive and deluded women like Lewis [and Vogelhut] need the drama after decades of no professional recognition, their beauty faded, drug addictions undefeated, and what better way to generate excitement and ‘celebrate’ ‘female victimhood’ and satisfy their own little grievances in one go, than to falsely accuse some old and powerless penis-bearing creature of sexual abuse and anal rape they had sex with once, alongside some misandrist ‘attorney’ conducting her fake abuse show in the glare of the world press. Sad.



  1. 1 Alva
    October 29, 2010 at 1:18 PM

    That’s the problem with our f***ed up country, nothing is ever the “woman’s”, the kid’s or their parents’ fault, it’s always someone else’s fault. Look at that ugly liar Lewis. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with our society, where they allow ex-prostitutes and drug addicts like her to smear an ex-lover in the name of the corrupt “law”? I am truly scared for the future of our legal system. No, I’m thoroughly disgusted. One thing that’s for sure, if my kid does something wrong it is either his/her fault for being an idiot or making a bad decision, or it’s my fault for being oblivious to the situation or having failed to teach him/her. Not my neighbor’s, the state, but mine or his/hers. I have no respect for parents who act that way and let their kids get away with crimes and lies. Kids do stupid things, that’s why they should be taught what’s right and wrong, and let not innocent people pay the price because your offspring did something stupid they shouldn’t have. To me if anyone should have been charged here than that’s fabricators like the Gaileys who let their daughter have sex, drugs and alcohol and then grassed on Polanski for sleeping with the sweet little “starstruck” angel, that pathetic Lewis for making nasty rape claims, sorry, lying, and that Vogelhut with being a sad “BDSM” joke. Must be the big hat. And let’s not talk about that hypocrite of a judge and the manipulative DAs or cops. People who cannot see their lies are a just too dumb and a disgrace to all more intelligent folks. Their little brains are incapable of computing more than shallow little T.V. dramas and instantly disintegrate on anything more taxing like facts and the truth. Hell no, in fact, their brains fell out already while hacking away on their computer keyboards spewing obscene abuse and lies. That’s all they’re capable of. What Geimer has said in her recent interviews already is cause enough to charge her with perjury, far from her original testimony, sorry, lies. But women just looooove to see themselves as these poor little victims of these nasty predator men, just as “society” had indoctrinated them with this feminist bullshit, rather than stand up and be strong, really equal, take freaking responsibilities for ALL their actions. Not play this game where evidence is irrelevant, truth is irrelevant, but only their false little rape accusations are relevant. It’s all just to pander their hurt little feelings and pathetic victimhood. Nothing more. I’m ashamed to be a woman-who accepts accountability in contrast. I must be an idiot doing so. Brilliant job by the way, Novalis, truly impressive research. Unsurpassable.

  2. 3 Charles
    October 17, 2010 at 2:09 AM

    Great article, Novalis. Love the sarcastic undertone.

    I discovered that one of the articles linked on another comment doesn’t exist anymore.

    This one:


    Looks like Associates Press, which is English mind you, doesn’t want the world to know what a disgusting lying *** Lewis is. I hope she dies from her drug addiction one day. Soon.

    As for that Vogelhut, pfff, she should’ve felt flattered that Polanski even looked at her back then.

    As For ‘Ms Geimer’ being oh so ‘forgiven’, after I read your comprehensive articles about the fucked up Polanski case, sorry, she’s just another false rape accuser. I don’t care how old she was, she could’ve said, yeah I slept with him, mom, please don’t call the cops. But mom listened to older jealous sis instead. Idiots.

    I was accused of rape some years back, by some one-night stander, and believe me, it ain’t fun. It scarred my entire life. She did it because her boyfriend found out, and bingo, it was rape. He left her after she was exposed.

    If it hadn’t happened in the UK, but US, I’d be in prison now at NO proof I did anything to her. I was cleared, but my reputation was ruined and I had to move. The liar of course got away with it and was never punished for it. They just closed the case after two months of detention and investigations because I couldn’t afford bail, and NO ever apologised. Except my lawyer and the judge who threw out the case after she recanted. Or rather after she was found out and THEN she recanted, the c***.

    Keep up the good fight for us falsely accused men, Novalis.

    • October 17, 2010 at 5:26 AM

      Thanks Charles. Sorry to hear you were a FRA victim, & all the best to you & others who had to endure this so often indefensible crime. I noticed the link is dead – so yeah, more cover-ups to taint Polanski some more.

  3. 5 Lollipop
    August 26, 2010 at 12:26 AM

    Good for Switzerland having had the balls to stand up to the warmongering egomaniac U.S. who’s been behaving like an overindulged baby and bully for decades and released Polanski. Food and media junk overfed Americans have accepted the conceit that anything the government or courts do is “for the good of the country” or “society”, when it’s clearly not. We’ve been sold that lie since forever and it’s about time to demand peace and real justice, overturn the false and damaging ideologies of Bush and Obama, Cooley and his henchmen, and not run after some old director from France. As obvious a smear as drug addict Lewis’ and “BDSM fan” Vogelhut’s claims are, the damage has indeed been done thanks to the sensationalist headlines and anything-goes press culture we have today to promote such slander with impunity.

    As long as people see the name Polanski from this decade onwards, the word “rapist” or even pedophile, will most likely be tagged to it, either subconsciously or deliberately, and therefore the name of the “director” and great artist Polanski has successfully been soiled for all eternity, despite the repulsive accusations of Lewis being more than bogus and those of Vogelhut, many in fact missed or rightfully believed in even less, sank without a trace. Though others blindly believe now Polanski raped all three–too thick to realise the new accusers are Cooley’s dirty whores and that he cannot sue them over it. As for Geimer, ex-teenage liar, now adult supporter of Polanski, NO “drugged rape” or “double sodomy” et cetera in my book either. The other two discredited Geimer even more with their lies.

    If [a younger] Polanski had been arrested on [the] original “statutory rape” charges today in Switzerland, or Sweden, Germany, France, et cetera, his high-profile name would NOT have been made public, or anyone else accused of rape for that matter, while in the U.S., and U.K. for now, though they’re about to change that I believe, they would do so without any moral scruples let alone proof. His rearrest in 2009 on the old charges was therefore nothing “new”. But in 1977 the “rape” charge headlines broke all over the international press like a wildfire, followed by a myriad of incorrect “updates” and a nasty lynch mob attitude after the Manson tragedy haunting him already today’s even more degenerate witch hunt can easily burn into the ground with more vile bile.

    I’m sure had he been arrested in any of these countries “then”, no pompous “Rittenband” had made his life a never-ending fugitive status. Sadly, when seeing Polanski’s face or hearing his name today, like back in 1977/8, and slowly having resurged over recent years again for their concerted efforts to have the case dismissed, which kept his name mainly in the [bad U.S.] press till it re-exploded last year, many ignorant people will say [again] till the day he dies, “Isn’t (or wasn’t) he this “Hollywood rapist” who made films?” I have no sympathy for people with their simple-minded assumptions shown in the majority of posts and all over the media. Responding overemotionally by jumping to false conclusions in order to condemn blindly with nasty comments is irresponsible and highly damaging.

    A false rape (or “domestic violence”) charge would always be the easiest and most successful way of damaging a man’s or celebrity’s [already tainted] reputation in one fell swoop. It just requires paying off a “loose” woman who is “willing” to lie, if sex ever had occurred or not. No need to produce any immediate hard evidence, such as a murder case would require a body or a person missing at least. And then there’s the sexual element to this which titillates and “shocks” people more than anything else into drooling name-callers. Not even murder. For men, an accusation of rape or sexual abuse is worse than murder. Of course, the more people declare it’s not a “conspiracy” or lie, the more it is. When Lewis said, “Roman knows I speak the truth,” that speaks the very opposite, as seen by her very own earlier interviews. Did she really think we’d not ever find out she lied?

    Yet, unfortunately when the charges prove false the accuser is rarely prosecuted, after the rape shield and anonymity laws protected them already and even then they hardly end up in prison for long when taken to court, at which point some might recant and then are simply let off, after some “expert” declared some [fictional] “mental problem” crying for mercy. As long as these extreme feminist laws exist in this fashion to support these liars, any man can and will be destroyed over [sordid sex] lies and dirty money. Many commenters have noted that the accusations from the second complainant were purely designed to establish a “pattern of behavior” in support of the first false “sexual abuse” claims, and of course to bolster the original no lesser untrue “rape/sodomy” charges–other than to influence the [now failed] extradition of course.

    Just look at Julian Assange, the “Pentagon whistleblower”, who was accused of “rape” and “molestation” the other day, before the unfounded rape charge was dropped within hours by the Swedish authorities. And the still pending charge of “molestation” can mean “anything”. But, unlike in the U.S. or “L.A”, the Swedes demand real proof of sexual assault and won’t fall for such smear. I also recall how Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter became a “child molester” suddenly when he was testifying that the idea/danger of WMD is a myth. Which it of course was. The terrible thing is that this obvious character assassination and attempt to silence these men, has left the inevitable smear in people’s sub-conscience. The rape charges were on the front pages, or top headlines of various media, the charge withdrawals or debunking articles sit at the back if they ever even make the news.

    If a direct or all too obvious smear campaign fails, as seen with Lewis, or “big hat” for that matter who was made to shut up or else face legal actions I suppose (and deservedly didn’t even make it into the international press as far as I have noticed), the next thing that will happen is digging up others who are more “credible” with their sex and drugs lies–even if it requires another smear campaign of “witness enticement”, or even “intimidation”, or simply pay more money to these potential liars. Or, drop [false] charges against someone in exchange to “testify” against the man to be destroyed. See Anjelica Huston, though luckily she didn’t need to face Polanski that way. I wonder if she in fact had, or pled the Fifth.

    In high-profile cases like these the names and faces of these women should be broadcast on every channel, printed in every newspaper, and their [real] motivations investigated while charges are pending, so that they can’t smear someone with any false accusation during these needed investigation. That would put a stop to the repulsive cry rape accuser epidemic at once. Since only these Polanski “exes” waded into the public limelight suddenly and their lies were plastered all over the news, it should [also] make it clear that they are false accusers since in real rape cases the potential “victim” always stays anonymous and would go to the cops first, not any L.A. trash attorneys. Like those who do or do not land someone in prison after they came out to claim their 15-minutes spot of sordid fame, and of course get their “compensation” for their lies, lucrative T.V. interviews and whatnot “rewards”.

    But of course, even if the woman remains anonymous, evaded scrutiny and prison, most likely gets promoted, the man has been smeared and often destroyed and many will continue to believe that these allegations were true. It’s one of the reasons that I favor prison time for false allegations when made to the police, or even to trial, and then are conveniently dropped for “insufficient evidence”, i.e., really committed perjury. Exposing these ugly has-beens, gold-digging, often drug-addicted and [always] untalented bimbos who proffered these lies should be named and shamed, sent down, face the dire and often dangerous place they intended to send the innocent man. Get raped there for real for all I care, which the man no doubt would have been more than once–to get a taste of their own nasty medicine, wake up to harsh reality and that lying and crying rape is a crime.

    The U.S., i.e., the CIA, or predominantly L.A. courts close to sleaze hole Hollywood are in/famous for smear campaigns of this insidious sort, and to realize that might wake the Europeans up as to how deceitful and dangerous our U.S. government and her corrupt lawmakers and lawenforcers are, and how they need to protect their people from us. Or is it in fact the other way around to resort to such lowlife backstabbing actions, and that the U.S. is afraid of more civilized Europe and the rest of the more [sexually] enlightened world we try to “police” and dominate, dictate, with and in our religious and gun-obsessed fanaticism? I’m sure that’s a BIG YES.

    Great work, Novalis, your grand investigative efforts and substantial findings might just pose a more intelligent threat to the pathetic little sex-repressed (and obsessed), infantile and ignorant U.S. mind when it comes to master Polanski. Let’s face it, America is just a big, fat, hairy, sweaty child molester’s paradise with highly sexualised teens seductively licking on push-up lollies while batting their lashes like Lolita with men jerking off watching them on T.V., while on the other channel some possessed T.V. Evangelist declares all sex is a sin. We might as well call ourselves the United States of Perverts in the name of repressive sex laws and dictatorial feminism that fashioned these men, so they can either punish them for their own lust–or at worst shape them into [real] rapists.

    • August 26, 2010 at 1:51 AM

      Very good points made all-round, Lollipop – thanks. And yes, we’re to change the ‘anonymity’ laws here in the UK to clamp down on false rape accusers, and even named one or two of them publicly already – as a stark warning, along with hard prison time.

  4. 7 Verena
    August 23, 2010 at 11:35 AM

    My my my, what did ex-ho and ex-porn ‘actress’ Lewis or ex-model Vogelhut hope to achieve by giving us this ‘sexual abuse’ and ‘BDSM’ sodomy garbage? I think you answered that just nicely, Novalis, good job. Such women should be taken to court over their sordid lies, they’re a disgrace to real women who can take sex, give sex, and real rape victims and survivors who one day will no longer be believed because of scum like them. That includes Geimer – who undoubtedly lied as a teenager (and her mother), tried to make good on it as an adult, and failed miserably for punks like Rittenband, Wells, Vanatter, Walgren and Cooley. My tip to all you ‘females’ out there – don’t cry rape, end of.

    • August 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM

      You’re right, Verena – many already don’t believe [in] real rape charge cases anymore. It’s about time someone clamps down on these false rape/sexual abuse accusers and sends them where they belong – to prison.

  5. 9 Harry L
    August 2, 2010 at 1:02 AM

    Actually, I remember now reading all this–I too was drugged and repeatedly sodomized by Polanski, handcuffs and all. That must have been, wait, in 1972, in Italy! It was horrible! Even though I was born 17 years before that, in 1955, I do remember everything like it happened yesterday! Will someone please write an article about me, please? Or at least call on Allred to stage another press conference, so I can go to Cooley and blab my face out and be the first male Polanski had sodomized! I very much hope justice will be served! He needs to pay for it! I was underage! And I need some dough. (Though it was actually rather fun and exiting when he…)–Get a life, pathetic women, and stop whining about something that [never] happened decades ago. They make me sick.

  6. 11 Lewis
    July 28, 2010 at 1:26 AM

    Great, another liar who needs her 15-minutes of questionable glory. I don’t believe a word bird hut, um, Vogelhut says to be blunt. I saw that video, and no, not a word. I might believe they had sex, but not “that”. Sorry, I don’t buy the “brutal sodomy” angle. It’s getting boring now. And even if they had a bit of “kinky” sex, to cry rape after nearly four decades, is BULLSHIT. It’s clear that this is scumbag Cooley’s handiwork, and even if not, and all she wants it to sell her “sordid book”, to ride on the trend of crying rape, is simply disgusting. Nuff said. NEXT!

    • July 28, 2010 at 4:07 AM

      You’re right, Lewis, and the fact that even less people believe Vogelhut, than ‘Lewis’, is proof that people are fed up with this kind of sordid sensationalist BS.

  7. 13 Maisy
    July 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    I don’t think I have to add anything to what you’ve uncovered with ‘Lewis’, Novalis – she’s an ugly pathetic liar, nothing more.

  8. 15 Paul
    July 7, 2010 at 7:29 AM

    I detest people like Charlotte Lewis, they’re sad losers who need to blame someone else for their own misery and f***d up lives. I don’t even see it as a “feminist” issue, or that she was a teenage prostitute, or a porn starlet has-been, or that she slept around like a gold-digger whore, or that she was-is a drug addict, all I know is Polanski had NOTHING to do with any of it. Disgusting what people have done to him through the decades, absolutely disgusting. No, all I see is someone who backstabbed him and these crooked DAs use-d her for their own agendas, or that pathetic man-basher Allred for another round of famewhoring. Yuck. Thanks for clarifying what she really is, Novalis-a revolting liar.

  9. 17 Larry
    July 6, 2010 at 4:19 AM

    I forgot – this will correct all Lewis ‘believers’ too – ugly lying has-been. Again, great job on the findings/debunking.

  10. 19 Randolph (NOT Hurst!)
    June 15, 2010 at 5:40 PM

    What a bunch of pathetic and hypocritical misandrists these “feminists” all are, and I’m NOT a misogynist mind you; I’m happily married since many years, with grown kids and would jump in front of a car to save a woman, or any child and man for that matter, even puppies, cats anything alive. But seeing the buckets of fallacies I came across in the Geimer case alone they spread like a virus, they are just stunningly self-righteous and incorrect beyond belief, and should all be ashamed of themselves for perpetuating such horseshit, YOU have finally debunked, Novalis. Good job on explaining what really happened, I sort of suspected, and never thought it was rape/sodomy either. Ludicrous teenage fantasies.

    When you question these women’s “motives” for their blind attacks on Polanski, their idiot witch-hunt turns against you too, and I have to feel sorry for the people or men they are bashing out of principle now. They behave like “witches” or “lawyers”, not knowing anything about the basic facts of this case, let alone the utterly screwed legal aspects of it and thus have no idea why anyone signed these petition for Polanski’s release. Or why he has so many supporters not only as the unparalleled artist, but unique human being.

    Sometimes it looks more like gender war between men and women in general when it comes to him, since more women shout out their bile against him, blindly condemning his few teenage affairs, but never attack other men who “like to f*** young girls”. Pathetic double standards. Jealousy I gather, and utter stupidity when it comes to “anal sex”, taking a teenager’s words for fact in that matter. They should try it for once to see that was more than horsecrap.

    I never commented anywhere else, these sites are not worthy my time, but read them in headshaking disbelief. I’m one of these more intelligent supporters ever since I can remember, when the lynch mob was out to get him in a sad show of “demonic” lunacy as soon as his lovely wife Sharon was murdered, which has now escalated into dangerous political shenanigans once dirtbag Cooley got his dirty hands on the case, engaging in nothing but revenge not his business.

    Speaking of which, ““revenge” (also known as vengeance) is a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a real or perceived grievance. Although many aspects of revenge resemble the concept of justice, revenge connotes a more injurious and punitive focus as opposed to a harmonious and restorative one. Whereas justice generally implies actions undertaken and supported by a legitimate judicial system, by a system of ethics, or on behalf of an ethical majority, revenge generally implies actions undertaken by an individual or narrowly defined group outside the boundaries of judicial or ethical conduct. The goal of revenge usually consists of forcing the perceived wrongdoer to suffer the same or greater pain than that which was originally or allegedly inflicted.”

    Funny that Cooley thinks he needs to punish Polanski a second time, while the “perceived victim” wants him freed. The man is deluded. Like Lewis. Damn the Swiss for having sold Polanski out into his corrupt court! Cooley should be shot for all I care, stop taking our hard-earned money to prosecute innocent people, while stuffing his own pockets with more dirty money he takes from real criminals, the “church” to cover up for their pedophiles, gang related crime and whatnot else. He thinks we don’t know, well, I’m sorry but we do and that your persecution of Polanski is nothing but a disgusting attempt to make it to Attorney General.

    But he can’t last much longer the way he carries on, it’s been ten years of his shit, and more and more people realize this, especially after Polanski spoke out to defend himself for once, and Cooley’s reign of terror will hopefully be soon over with a loud bang of public shaming, and I hope that Allred goes underground soon too. Ugly money-grabber and man-basher she is.

    Anyway, so yeah, on to “Lewis”, what can I say, I cannot even remember her in any form I suppose goes for the majority at her “success” rate, and I’m not into “Playboy” either or cheap nude flicks. I saw “Pirates” and “Golden Child” maybe once each and I cannot recall her. All I remember is the great Walter Matthau, love him, and Eddie Murphy in fact gets on my nerve with his squeaky voice, so I avoid his films, and I’m black mind you, so no “racism” involved either. As for this “Jon Jacobs” sticking up for her, never heard of him, and seeing what he did or said, no loss either. He’s obviously lying on her behalf, for money no doubt, though he keeps it sounding “logical”, another Hollywood “nobody”. But, how only could he live with such a “dark secret” for months of her telling him of Polanski having “abused” her? Don’t make me laugh.

    I think you’ve said it all already, Novalis, in a decidedly and deservedly “sarcastic” manner, so I don’t think I have anything to add to that, except, let’s hope that she will be found out and goes back to her “Priory” your way, to finally get that “addiction” out her utterly depraved system. I read somewhere else that some believe her even though she was a prostitute, since even a sex worker can be raped, true, but only in order to “make” him the “abuser” in her case, while, if it had been anyone else of their own “Hollywood elite” but the “fugitive director”, they’d laughed her off the Net. Most don’t believe her anyway, and rightly so.

    Shame she ended up like that, don’t get me wrong, but, it’s even more wrong to backstab someone that way who had furthered her, trusted her, slept with her, and then accuses him of “abuse” three decades after she had prostituted herself, became a drug addict not his doing either, long before and after she ever had met and left Polanski. She’s sick.

    • June 15, 2010 at 5:42 PM

      Thanks, Randolph. Of course she’s a liar, a sad used-up woman out for revenge against the weakest of men she could find, in a bid for Cooley and his henchmen to get him into their corrupt court, of course. That’s not only morally corrupt, but legally criminal. But who cares that the LA courts are abetting crimes done to innocent people by sending them into prison hell, i.e., mostly men, all in the name of feminist extremism, and ‘sex’. All else I can agree with too.

  11. 21 Fullstone
    June 15, 2010 at 2:42 AM

    My cocaine hell, by the beauty [Charlotte Lewis] who partied away her glittering film

    Sunday Mirror, Apr 6, 1997 by Henrietta Knight

    Looking gaunt and vulnerable, Charlotte Lewis hangs her head and whispers: “I used to have the world in the palm of my hand.

    “But I discovered cocaine and just couldn’t stop.

    “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.”

    It is the first time British-born Charlotte – who shot to fame at 18 after starring with Eddie Murphy in his film The Golden Child – has spoken of her battle against drugs…and the Hollywood party-go- round that drove her to the edge. Now recovering at the pounds 3,000 a week Priory Clinic in Roehampton thanks to her close friend Eric Clapton she says: “It is only now that I am really willing to admit that I had a problem.

    “I have tried to stop taking cocaine twice before, but only in a half-hearted way.

    “I used to think that it was something I just did at weekends.

    “But living in Los Angeles is like being at one long party, and it’s difficult to get away from it.

    “I got to the stage where I was wondering, ‘What is the point of living here? All I have is temptation’.”

    Charlotte was just 15 when she was thrown out of the exclusive Bishop Douglas School in North London – and went to Paris to pursue a modelling career.

    At 5ft 7in she was too short to be a catwalk model, but found plenty of work in fashion magazines.

    She also found a ready supply of drink, drugs and late-night parties.

    “I was rebelling against everything,” she recalls.

    “After six months I pulled myself together because I realised I looked about 110 years old.

    “I stopped drinking, smoking and taking drugs and didn’t really start again until I landed in LA.”

    Charlotte made her screen debut when she was just 16, starring in Roman Polanski’s film Pirates. She was immediately hailed as the new Natassja Kinski. When she co-starred with Eddie Murphy in The Golden Child the following year she was acclaimed as the next great Hollywood leading lady.

    But along with the fame came the party invites. Everybody wanted to know her.

    She became a well-known figure on Los Angeles’ celebrity circuit … and she was seen on the arm of some of the world’s most eligible men.

    She had an 18-month affair with Charlie Sheen and 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.

    She used to go night-clubbing with Liz Hurley. She was close to Sly Stallone’s ex, Janice Dickinson – and Emily Lloyd was a good friend.

    But while she took small film parts to pay her rent, her friends were landing parts in big budget films made by the major studios.

    And drugs were destroying her.

    Last summer, after staying up all night with a girlfriend drinking and snorting cocaine she decided to quit.

    “We were high as kites doing one line of cocaine after the other,” Charlotte recalls.

    “When the light started coming up over the Hollywood Hills we decided that enough was enough.

    “We had spent hours discussing it and decided rehab was the only solution.

    “The two of us staggered into the Cedars Sinai Medical Centre in Beverly Hills and went up to the seventh floor, where they run a drugs treatment programme.”

    But Charlotte’s addiction was so great that she persuaded her friend to give her another gram of the drug which they both took in the hospital bathroom.

    She says: “We thought we should finish it off before we committed ourselves.

    “We sat in the waiting room and tried to fill in the forms, barely able to read or hold our pens. I was cold and clammy and unable to think straight.

    “Then when we saw the doctors coming towards us my friend said to me, ‘Do we really need to be here?’ We got cold feet and left.”

    A few weeks later she again tried to give up drugs … and thought that she had found a boyfriend – a film producer – who would help her.

    She was already attending Alcoholic Anonymous because she thought she had a drinking problem when her lover-to-be saw her at her agent’s office and followed her to an AA meeting.

    “He knew I was taking cocaine so he pretended that he was anti- drugs,” she recalls.

    “We even went to AA meetings together. He told me that he spent one week of every month working in New York.

    “After a few months of living together in an apartment near the beach in Santa Monica he started acting strangely like he was having an affair.

    “We had a huge row and I threw him out of the house.”

    Charlotte discovered that his “affair” was really with cocaine.

    And while he was supposed to be working in New York he was really on a massive drinks and drugs binge. “The next night he appeared on the doorstep saying he was sorry,” she recalls.

    “He had a bottle of champagne and a big packet of cocaine. I just couldn’t resist.

    “We sat up all night doing line after line until it was all gone.

    “I became a nervous wreck and lost so much weight I was just skin and bone.

    “He was a very confused puppy. I knew I had to call time on the relationship.”

    Sad and depressed, Charlotte left him to resume her wild partying with a vengeance.

    She often stayed up all night as one day rolled into the next.

    Four months ago 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.

    “I passed out on a sofa and when I woke up I realised that someone had stolen my Rolex watch and some of my jewellery,” she recalls.

    “The man whose party it was was actually a friend of mine, but he had a strange girlfriend and she had strange friends running around.

    “I told the guy that unless it was returned I would call the police and bust everyone.

    “I went into the kitchen to pour myself a cup of coffee and sure enough the watch appeared on the coffee table.”

    By now even the smaller roles had begun drying up and Charlotte was beginning to run out of money.

    “One movie I did just paid for a new lamp. It was a nice lamp, but that was it,” she admits.

    “I wasn’t spending all my money on drugs because it always seems to be around in Hollywood.

    “Someone always seemed to have some to give me.

    Now Charlotte says she is determined to fight her way back to the top – for the sake of her mum.

    “I never knew my father, who was a half-Iranian half-Chilean doctor,” she says.

    “We didn’t have any money when I was growing up and my mother raised me by herself.

    “Now it’s my turn. Even when I was doing really well I still couldn’t afford to buy her a house or a car.

    “All I did was to try to make sure she was always warm in the winter.

    “Now I really want to be a successful Hollywood movie star and really spoil her.

    “But I was never very good at calling it quits.”


    • June 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM

      I’m not quite sure why you posted that, ‘Fullstone’ – I covered all that already in the actual blog, and someone else has linked that and the other interviews I included already. But I’ll leave it, just so to show what a blatant liar she is. Thanks.

  12. 23 Bart
    June 1, 2010 at 1:25 AM

    Prosecutors (and “attorneys” like Allred) smelling the blood of an opportunity to make a name for themselves, apart from academics debating a case like this, seeing another opportunity to clothe themselves in the sanctimonious cloak of false justice, they love this kind of stuff and it simply needs to change. This case is the best or rather worst example, but if people think that such a case is rare they are dead wrong. For every one of these that hits the international news just because someone is “famous”, there are scores of more cases every day in which men loose their reputations, careers and families due to a false accusation and no one will ever hear of them.
    Now, would it ruin someone’s day to extend anonymity to the accused until a conviction is made? False accusations are easier to make than ever, requiring no corroboration or physical injury. Yet false accusers are rarely charged, and even if they are convicted they hardly ever receive significant sentences. Rape shield laws, like “hate crime” laws, are a net loss for society in my opinion. The idea that some “victims” are more vulnerable than others does nothing constructive to help men and women, to reach any sort of comfortable understanding.
    These “sex” laws will only make us more wary of each others’ sexual advances, and those men accused deserve some redress for the wrong done to them and no one should feel any sympathy for the accuser because of that. These women also deserve to go to jail, and Geimer at least to be done for perjury after all these decades.
    “Women” like Lewis think men are pure evil right down to the core just fort having sex with her, and her “agenda” has nothing to do with reality or “justice” she cries for. She’s delusional, out for blood from the wrong man. People like her don’t realize the damage they are doing to both men and women, only feeding her own “bruised” and selfish ego. What’s more, she couldn’t care less, as long as she never has to question her underlying belief that all men are rapists or abusers, and all women are “victims”, and that she has a massive mental problem that needs fixing, not “feeding”, by whoring herself some more for Cooley and Allred now who couldn’t care shit about her, true.
    It’s the underlying belief these women hold, “I’m a poor victim of men”, while having allowed them do it in the first place, though they try to cleverly repackage it in jargon and other bullshit of “female victimhood”. We live in a culture of permissive misandry gone out of hand, and whenever someone tries to mention the problem with this growing epidemic, they are met with petty shaming language tactics and told that exposing the fact that women lie is a “sin”, “misogynistic” or pro-rape, and whatnot more bullshit.
    Read over any feminist organization or blog site and you will see article after article and vile comment after abusive comment about men like Polanski, being spoken of as part of the “problem” THEY had created in the first place, calling him names that defy any intelligence. He, like millions of other men, is fed up with little to no legal action being taken against false accusers like Geimer and more so selfish losers like Lewis.
    He spent all his money he made with his outstanding films to keep out of jail and sit out a second, unlawful punishment, tried to have the case dropped for god knows how many misconducts, and then in contrast, there are plenty unknown men that have been in prison for years for having consensual sex with an accuser at no such means, and my own good wishes to him to stay at his Chalet till the end of time. But his reputation is long destroyed, all for sex with a lying minor who betrayed him, and now with this Lewis, he’s in even more shit these women have smeared on him, after nothing but “sex” with him.
    I for one know someone who was really “sexually abused” by inmates almost every day, and when he was released after a year of hell, he killed himself, unable to get his life back together, physically and mentally broken, a REAL rape victim! All for a fucking cunt who cried rape, excuse my language, and should have been sent down for manslaughter!
    Anyone accused of any crime should not be revealed to the press unless you get a guilt conviction. And if you get a not guilty verdict? No reveal at all. If for every falsely accused man who is saved from having his life ruined by the sheer luck of video evidence turning up, how many are convicted due to the automatic presumption of guilt?
    We all know that these women take sick pleasure in men being punished, be they guilty or not. It gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling inside to know that a man who has done no wrong, has been tarred for life and will now himself be gang-raped and tortured multiple times in prison, while any genuine male or female rape victim outside any prison walls was raped usually only once, can rebuild their lives.
    See tragic Sharon, raped with 17, yet rebuilt her life, loved sex regardless, only to be murdered while with Polanski’s child a mere nine years later when was only 26, so much for this idiot pedophilia crap they want to pin on him too. She was so in love with Roman, so young and beautiful. Both lives destroyed forever. And then came Geimer-NOT a real rape victim by any means who destroyed him some more. And then came “Lewis” to finish him off finally. Disgusting.
    What did I read the other day, in essence it was something like some professor was (unjustly) accused of “sexual harassment” by some vindictive colleague, he lost his tenure, and then someone from that “sex police” crawling around on campus said something like, “take it a “lesson” and think, could I have been able to really assault her, did I harbor such thoughts”? How insane is that!? Not only did this “colleague” cost him his tenure, but this “investigator” made him out to be a potential rapist! These women are obscenely cruel and destructive!
    That they say, will teach men to be anything less than “obedient [sex] slaves” to the whims of women and their dysfunctional sexuality. See ‘Lewis’, a whore of her own making, for probably some scarring childhood experience that made her what she became. Probably an abusive mother, another “woman”. Fine, not her fault, but now she takes it out in Polanski, the most innocent in this entire shit case. That’s WRONG!
    And that is why, even after the false accuser recants, feminists will scramble around frantically for counter-arguments to indicate that she actually WAS raped or “abused” (even broadening the definition of “rape” or “abuse” to make this applicable, see “the undetected rapist” crap, or they bend the term “pedophile”), or that somehow men are to blame for her false accusation, along with everything else, like her drug addiction and bulimia. It’s like men blaming their rape victims for their own rape!
    False rape allegations to me are just as bad as rape, worse in some cases, since a rape victim can rebuild her life with good help, see Sharon, while a man’s is utterly destroyed forever, see her own once-widower, with the indelible stamp of “rapist” tattooed on his forehead! Also, rape isn’t some “special crime” that you can put above others. Murder is worse. Torture is worse. A lot of things are worse.
    The whole basis around this “rape culture” seems to be when said teenager (Geimer), or a half year affair (i.e., Lewis), gets too butt hurt from people making fun of her for sleeping around, “slut shaming” as it’s called, or to say, you are “too fat”. For god’s sake, get a friggin life! I say oh hell, contrary to popular feminist belief it is wrong to make up unjust and biased laws to support a woman’s “hurt feelings” and get back at those “evil men”!
    And even if some of us think rape is a lot worse than it really is, it’s by putting ourselves into the woman’s shoes. But when we do so, we really, in effect, put our butts into the woman’s oh so “sacred vagina” as the only place to stick things in, which makes it seem worse than it is, since it’s worse to most to have anal intercourse, and butts generally aren’t meant for penis insertion but to defecate. But vaginas are, and for nothing else in fact. That’s their sole purpose, other than bleed or give birth. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the time, women quite like it when penises go in there, or “toys”, so why use it against us, just because some men use their penises against women.
    Tit for tat isn’t going to stop rapes, but in fact stop people from caring about them, men and women, for all these women crying rape and abuse, or at worst, makes men want to rape women for real to teach them a lesson about crying rape in a terrible backlash!
    The true power of penis-worthy women emanates from between their legs–the limits they place on access to their vaginas, and the shortage of attractive women, (which is also a fact why so many women hate Polanski for his beautiful and young conquests, and has nothing to do with “pedophilia”; they just highjack that word for their own causes too) is what keeps us paying attention to them unless we’re gay, paying for their lifestyles, paying them cash, giving them presents. We basically “pay” for “sex” with them wherever possible, and then they moan when they are called “prostitutes”.
    Most attractive women consider only the most elite males truly worthy of their time and affections, and consider themselves the power equivalent of professionals and stars. See Polanski, a [once] “powerful” man with immense sex appeal women could not refuse, and now he pays for it a second or even third time, all for “sex”.
    Upon being truly raped, these women suddenly realize that any young or old dreg in a dark parking lot has power over their vaginas too, in a bad way don’t get me wrong, and the illusion of “power” is shattered. Women hate rape because it’s a reality check. Men hate it because they don’t want to be seen as rapists just because a few others rape. But then, men rape men too, because, again, women enabled them to do so in the first place when sent inside to fall victim to their own kind, and women rape other women and men as well. And children. And in fact, most rapists have been found to have been abused in some form by their matriarch or any other females, NOT any man.
    We used to take women’s words for it that rape was horrible, and many men know what rape it too, just not “vaginal rape”, but ladies, your credibility is shot now, not just because of women like Geimer, who I once excused for her lies for having been a teenager, but now as an adult should finally own up to it and end this madness she had imposed on Polanski, and Lewis I certainly won’t excuse let alone believe, but any other false rape accusations ever made, and because of so much “feminist” shit thrown at us in the past four decades.
    Feminism isn’t anymore the once “honorable” fight for “equality” with men I fully supported previously, no, feminism now has escalated into pure misandry that will destroy the very fabric of harmonious relations between men and women. Nay, it already has. Polanski is the most in/famous example, and I hope he will NOT be extradited into the hands of this ass-hole Cooley. And I hope that Lewis will be sued over her ugly, self-obsessed lies. She makes me sick only looking at her.

    • June 1, 2010 at 3:41 AM

      I’m sorry about your friend, Bart, or any other genuine rape victim for that matter, which Geimer and Lewis certainly never have been, and true, Geimer should own up to her lies, while Lewis should go into therapy and get a life. And true too, all this feminism has done more damage than good by now, with Polanski’s case the best or rather worst example as the very base that some judge could exploit it at his own fun some more, and now some other lawmakers even more just to get a kick out if it. Sick.

  13. 25 Bertha
    May 31, 2010 at 1:44 AM

    Having followed this Polanski saga since day one, and now this Lewis accuser suddenly appears, one could say, sure, where there’s one rape there’s another, since no rapist rapes only once, or twice–true indeed. Problem is, Polanski never drugged, raped or sodomised Geimer “once” considering the bare facts, let alone “assaulted” this Lewis “twice”, or there HAD been many more accusations with his amount of sexual conquests, so that alone is utterly illogical to believe. But of course, since Geimer was a minor they cannot forgive him even if she said he hadn’t raped her, forgetting that she in fact never said that he had, like this Lewis, avoiding the word “rape”, with everyone playing the hypocrisy morality game, while doing it themselves behind closed doors.
    They find the most outlandish explanations as to “why” all “the other [imaginary] victims” never came forward, or base it on the one most crucial factor, that hardly anyone does for reasons I doubt need repeating. But they could have in his case, since Polanski of all people was in no position to fight any such claims, see Lewis, and that’s why he could never sue anyone over any slander either, which people of course don’t realize, thinking because he never objected to whatever these jackals wrote, see Kiernan, must be true, since by all logic, people who get accused of something incorrect, strike out to be vindicated.
    Polanski is the best example of a how his fame and name have worked against him simply for being a fugitive from this injustice game later, while after Tate’s death it was because of his “choice” of films, and went downhill from there. He was the only man who escaped the corrupt L.A. courts, but paid for it more than anyone else ever has, and now this even more corrupt DA wants his head simply for advancing his career, or indeed for having shown his lot the finger. It’s Europe versus the US by now, Euro morale versus US immorality. Euro sexual freedom versus US sexual repression. And it’s long a political case, with right-wing politicians like Widmer-Schlumpf playing the “hard on criminals” card to keep Polanski in check as the most prominent case.
    We all know sexual assault and rape are terrible crimes, affects the victim in some form or another, but to put them above torture or murder, genocide or other much more far-reaching and violent crimes, is ludicrous overreaction, misplaced example-making of the victim and therefore any perpetrator. Especially if it’s someone like Polanski they can demonize to no end for having sex with a minor, like so many, and while many weren’t even locked up then in L.A., today too many are incarcerated for consensual albeit underage sex, all based on this overzealous feminists crusade against all men I for one reject wholeheartedly, and I’m a woman.
    I work with teenage offenders in a drug rehabilitation clinic in NY, and came across many girls who prostituted themselves for various reasons, with few in fact “needing” to, as in, selling themselves for their “family”, or “lover”, for money to pay their education, or to pay for drugs and so forth, and one or two were actual rape victims who were not prostitutes.
    Although promiscuity in adolescent girls is not rare, it’s a little understood form of delinquent behavior people don’t realize exists. Psychoanalytic case studies of this phenomenon are scarce in proportion to the frequency of its occurrence in our culture. The early analytic inquiries into delinquent behavior in promiscuous adolescent girls resulted in more questions than answers. Psychoanalyst August Aichhorn asked important questions about female juvenile delinquency already decades ago: “What are the psychological determinants responsible for the tendency in young girls towards prostitution and for their actually becoming prostitutes? What measures are advisable in order to deal with this type of delinquent girls?” He further wondered whether the “infantile instinctual fixations” evident in juvenile prostitutes might also be present “in a certain type of neurotic women [and] under what conditions a certain infantile instinctual fixation will lead not to neurosis, but to prostitution or the danger of promiscuity,” who believed that arrested development in youth was a precursor to antisocial behavior. He also believed that this situation was caused by disturbances in early child-parent relationships.
    Hence, the answers lie in people like Geimer, who had no concrete father figure, an “ambitious” mother pushing for “fame”, was exposed to sex, drugs [abuse] and alcohol on a large scale, and Lewis on an even bigger, a self-proclaimed “call girl”, a “habit” she came to hate and refute after even greater delinquency and drug abuse later, while equally proclaiming she rebelled against everything and everyone–which is exactly what a “delinquent” does, and now she hits out at a former lover out of spite that she messed up her own life with all these men and drugs.
    She in fact should blame her mother, and her fatherless status, and I bet you, she was abused as a young child, by her mother, or someone else in some form, which does not even have to be sexually. Now having a child of her own, again with no father around, she desperately attempts to destroy her own former mentor and lover by accusing him of what she practiced all her life on her own free will–have sex. I highly doubt Polanski “abused” her in any form–she abused and abased herself from early on based on her abusive childhood, and has absolutely nothing to do with Polanski. Same goes for Geimer.
    One reason Lewis does this many don’t realize is this, if sexuality has been devalued in the eyes of the woman, or if the woman tried to say “no” verbally or otherwise, and it did not matter, and therefore was taken advantage of sexually in some “passive” form, “lets it happen”. Or, she was really raped once, brutally or not, or even several times by one and the same or more assailants, as it happens to “sex slaves”, with “customers” who are not like the average “John” who does it gently, and the actual “sex worker” has full control over the situation in a pleasant, safe and clean environment, and so, she may have learned “not” to say “no” in future sexual situations as harmless as they might be, and therefore, he/she may have an increased number of sexual partners in the period of time following a genuine assault, or “abuse”, even if “self-inflicted”, i.e., seeking sex for various reasons. In addition, the woman may use future sexual experiences to regain a sense of “control” in her sex life.
    This rather paradox idea is not from me, but fits the picture of Lewis, though we have to go much farther back than the day she had met Polanski in Paris. The fact that she said in her interviews that it was SHE who had “seduced” all her partners first, points to exactly that type of “victim”, except, her abuse started much earlier, NOT at the hands of Polanski; he too in fact is a “victim” of her very own abused past through her current accusations stemming from that very past, desperate to get back at “someone”, and who better than an old “man” she once adored who cannot defend himself these days, since she could not bring all the other men into the dock, or the one/s that had abused her while still at home, from which she ultimately escaped to do what “she” wanted; have sex after “her” fashion, not the type imposed on her by others. Which however unfortunately turned into prostitution and drug abuse later in Hollywood, NOT “taking control” of her own sexuality and addition at all.
    We’re not talking “rape” here, as in forcible intercourse or sodomy, since she avoided the word “rape” too; she claims “abuse”, as in, any sexual acts performed on her against her will without actual physical “harm”, only “mental”, in her “mind”, or because of some sort of “coercion”, verbal or otherwise, as in, promises, or more drugs, and so forth, to perform it on others, and simply “did” it, which is a sort of emotional blackmail, though I doubt any of that was the case here with her and Polanski.
    I know her type, these women later “play” the victim they never were, “look at me poor abused female”, craving for attention, and are usually mentally disturbed to some degree, based on that abusive childhood that WAS real. Or in some cases are pure “imagination” still however possibly based on some mental disorder, or are simply teenage “fantasies” as it was in Geimer’s case that went horribly wrong, who try to escape that past/truth by continuing their “victimhood” at THEIR “scenario”, i.e., their own direction, their own conditions, by finding that one helpless man they can make “pay” for all the others’ sexual acts “performed on her”, she [Lewis] could have escaped, but did, “could” not, in fact craving for it, and in the same breath loathed herself for doing it, and in fact even more than those who don’t believe her accusations, seeing there’s something “wrong” with her, but not exactly “what”.
    A psychologist and others by pure gut instinct have sussed her “motives” out already by only listening to her, watching her every move, every venomous gaze, each cold word, no matter scripted, which can turn dangerous if left untreated. Or when “used” by others like Cooley against people like Polanski. If she cried on camera, her tears are no doubt “real”, but not for reasons she wants us to believe; she’s an “actress” who knows how to cry on cue, albeit in a not too convincing form.
    She’s a pathetic figure who sold her body as a teenager, while claiming “naivety” drove her to do it, or that “rebellious drive”, when it’s all rooted much deeper she might not even be aware of herself, but needs to “accuse” “someone” of her past/addictions/pain/ all the sex and so forth on Polanski now in this case, the “best” and easiest target, who’s already in the dock for “sex”, to find some sort of balance, now that she’s a Hollywood has-been and struggling drug addict.
    But of course, she’s tackling this all the wrong way, by letting herself being abused some more, by famewhore Allred and corrupt Cooley, who both couldn’t care shit about her in any form, knowing fair well she lied. Or Geimer.
    The fact that Geimer once said, that she “just let it happen” as an “excuse”, since she could have escaped her situation every step of the way, just like Lewis, I doubt was the case here and they simply had sex, before Geimer made up some more “interesting” facets as teens do, and then BOTH came up with this “twice” abuse they simply “endured”. I.e, the “double sodomy” that never was in Geimer’s case since she could have avoided it by calling on Huston (who obviously never was there to interrupt them, and no signs of rape or sodomy existed), or, Lewis claiming a “second attack”. I.e., after first coming back to have sex, and then again after the apparent “first” attack before she then left, to then return after two weeks for that screen test, which alone is mind-boggling to go back to your “abuser” after letting it happen “twice”, and then “again” weeks later, by presenting it as this “casting couch” pressure game that never was either by her own admission years earlier, and then has a months long affair with him, as if anyone in his right mind would do so, and only proves she lied.
    And NOW she projects all her former conquests and subsequent (most likely real) inability to “form relationships” as seen with her plenty partners outside her “Johns”, and presents it as the fault of this one man who cannot fight her. It’s all about “her”, in no sense of what she’s in fact doing to Polanski, only out to hurt where it hurts him most who never hurt her in any form, and the one most hurt in this entire game at his own deeply hurt life already.
    It’s clear Lewis is lying, cruel, self-obsessed, playing the poor victim at his expenses now, but her “real” motives are much more complex than only “revenge”. It’s “revenge” alright, but not against only this one man, but men in general, all those who “abused” her while having normal sex with her, she came to crave and hate at the same time, tried to forget in a haze of drugs. Her interviews are an open book to that very fact, and that her perception of sex is utterly skewed, and the drugs didn’t help either. She “used” sex as “tool”, against men and ultimately herself too, since men “used” her for sex to start with, even “paid” for it, not recognizing/acknowledging that she enabled them to do so in the first place, and most likely went down the “feminist” lane over the last years, joining in the anti-child abuse and violence against women leagues.
    Hence, her pointedly placed words about “pedophilia” in reference to Polanski, who’s anything but a pedophile. She’s basically fucked in the head for reasons unclear to us, since we don’t know who exactly had “abused” her in what form and for how long in her childhood.
    Let’s face it, “feminists” and other “man-haters” created for various reasons always stemming from negative childhood experiences, are not too thrilled with men in general and to them, the more men in prison the better, and what better way to send them there than to accuse them of a crime that needs no evidence (except the accusation) and one that is impossible to defend against. This is why the pitiless media portray all men as predators and rapists at heart, and everyone latches on to this in mindless self-righteousness.
    Feminist propaganda against men has all but manipulated our media into endorsing whatever the feminists want them to say. If a newspaper dares question feminist-created myths or over-inflated statistics, they are accused of being sexist, misogynistic and most of all pro-rape and pro-pedophilia in case it’s someone who slept with teenagers for a while, forgetting that pedophiles do NOT have “sex”; they “abuse” children and never sleep with anyone older, all stoked by these repulsive feminist storm troopers and their brainwashed allies.
    Women who have been raped will tend to give fairly clear descriptions of conversations, and put the experience in the context of their lives, whereas fabricators will confine themselves to describing the one “event” they are fixed on, in order not to forget the “details” they made up. Inconsistencies as Geimer has presented them over the years are a clear indicator that she lied, especially for someone who says, “He had sex with me, he wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything.” NO genuine rape victim would ever say that.
    Geimer couldn’t remember what Polanski talked about during the sex, only what “she” said she said–but she in fact never HAD said, or HE had remembered any of it, outside, her, “it’s alright”, or her “tears” and “pleas” that never were either. And then, best of all, she forgets to mention the most crucial factor of it all, i.e., the physical “pain” unwanted intercourse and repeat sodomy would cause, since it clearly never happened. If I was sodomised even once in excruciating pain, and in fact already then would try my best to get away no matter at what costs, not just “lie” there, since my attacker would need to pin me down violently, leave the marks she never showed, I’d sure as hell not wait for my attacker to return and do it again, at plenty chances to get away.
    What Lewis tells us in contrast is more than desperate lies far beyond a teenager’s muddled up fantasies who came to regret the entire affair and wants the “man” freed, not quite so messed up in the brain, got her act together and has a family, unlike Lewis, only trying to make good on her “cry rape and sodomy” mistake as a teen. Unlike Lewis, intent on mindless destruction, and what better way than to cry “abuse”.
    So, where is the register for false rape or abuse accusers I ask? There’s one for “sex offenders”, conveniently putting actual rapist into the same basket with someone who slept with his own underage girlfriend, or casual encounter. The price these men pay for a false accusation goes far beyond what the accuser will ever have to endure. Unless it was actual rape we don’t discuss here. He could lose sponsors, (like Polanski lost two films as far as I can remember and the U.S. studios dropped him, not even having been found “guilty” of anything yet), his job, friends, even family, and most importantly, his reputation. See, Polanski, no matter he against all odds went on to make his acclaimed films in Europe, and has a new family now since decades after he lost his first wife in a horrible way, unlike someone like Lewis, cold, heartless, and with no willpower to fight her growing addictions, or face what her real problem is, blaming others.
    How ever will it erase the accusation/s from the minds of the millions who heard of it, again and again? There is no secret that rape is a huge problem around the world, but the problem should not be compounded by these women making false accusations for the sake of making money off the famous. There are many worse crimes. Far too many of these women are destroying good men while making themselves out as the “victim”. The penalties for these women are far too low, and do not reflect the price the men pay for being accused.
    People need to realize that an accusation like that is no joke. The fact that murderers are left alone in prison, while someone who slept with his underage girlfriend, or was deemed a pedophile even if not true, or a rapist, gets abused much worse than men who killed someone, is all too evidently wrong. Even anyone else who might have had an unpaid speeding ticket that went into the hundreds can get raped in prison, it’s insane. You literally ruin people’s lives by crying rape, and while an actual rape victim can rebuild his/her life with help fairly quickly, these men no longer have rights once registered as sex offenders and most people look at them like some type of animal.
    This feminists overrun society needs to open their eyes more. I would bet that 80% of the U.S. population has had either sex while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which is considered “rape”, or slept with their girl or boyfriend that was just barely under the age of consent, no matter he age if the “adult”. Or are these “undetected rapists”, which makes even an act of mutual oral copulation a crime if someone were to whistle on them. Yet, so many people are out in vocal force to throw the first stone at someone like Polanski. Very sad and dangerous hypocrisy either way, repulsive indeed.
    I know someone who had to go through such an accusation in the U.S. and ultimately was found not guilty, after a year of hell on remand, and loss of “friends” and job, and had to move to start anew in another state. He in fact had several “angry” females either tell him that they would, could or have accused him of rape in his long life for several reasons, and this one case made it to court in the Seventies by all chance, but not in California, and he luckily was not attacked. But the fear of it alone was unbearable.
    He had done no harm to any of them, and I for one think that they take away the validity of the crime from legitimate victims. My own research shows that there is in some cases a misdemeanor chargeable to false accusers and some go to prison for a year or two, or are put on probation, but frankly, it should be a felony and also involve “blacklisting”, a fine, anything to make them rethink before trying that stunt again.
    Men are fined for underage sex, why not someone who cried rape, no matter their age in fact, underage or not. Let the parents pay for their daughter’s lies. Rape isn’t something anyone should be accused of because of “anger” or “hurt feeling”, the inability to keep a relationship, broken promises or undesired actions from their partners they slept with, or to keep their kids in divorce disputes, and now think the best way to make them “pay” or persuade the courts to leave them the kids, is by crying rape or abuse. These women are disgusting liars who committed serious perjury in a court of law, and should be punished for it, publicly named and shamed for others not to fall victim to them.
    If the world were fair, more women would face jail time for false rape allegations, and not simply close the case after the man went though hell. This is designed to ruin a man’s life, so the penalty for the woman should be equally severe. But instead, more women will do this, and more violence against women will be tolerated by men who were falsely accused before, become numbed to the plight of a real victim.
    I have learned that it is far too common for women to hide behind the claim of rape in order to avoid taking personal responsibility for their own actions, drunk or self-drugged or not. The classic “he said she said” as you presented it in the Polanski case, and now with this renewed “finger blaming” ex-prostitute, is almost always swayed to the woman’s side, requiring little proof on her end of the alleged events; leaving the accused to fight for their life with little help due to these Rape Shield Laws.
    I realise that Polanski only pleaded to the one count because the attorneys had no case of drugged rape/sodomy, before that “judge” fucked it all up, and in order to understand most rape accusations, one must understand the real purpose they serve, or these shield laws: Rape accusations are an effective, socially and long legally “sanctioned” way for women to exercise power and control over men they never had before. Since they can’t use physical force to push men around, other than kill or destroy them otherwise, or by using their wits, which is exactly how they came to design all these laws on their own behalf, and use them in their favors ONLY.
    These women seriously need counseling, and the fact that Lewis said she “receives counseling” says it all. Her seriously twisted “vision” or fantasies of [her] “victimhood” for “profit”, though Lewis claims she paid for all this herself which is more than unlikely, since someone like “her” cannot ever afford someone like Allred, making it out as if she’s doing this to “unburden” herself, or to give “the other victims” a chance to come forward, is pure malice, and this “friend” sticking up for her is just another pathetic liar who sure as hell got money out of it.
    I know Allred; she’s infamous scum basically, with infamous scum clients, wanting to destroy men wherever possible in the one way possible by accusing them of “abuse”, with whatever nasty means or lies. For money or just their five minutes of very questionable “fame”. She’s a disgrace to all women and would never take on someone who cannot “pay” her for it.
    Besides, why do we have to instantly make public the names and faces of the accused of a crime like “rape”, while the “victim” is kept anonymous, ruining their lives in the time it takes for a broadcast signal to bounce off of a satellite and into our homes across the entire globe, disseminated over countless online sites that hardly bear “facts”? And even when found “innocent”, or someone pleaded to one count of “unlawful sex”, the stigma of “rapist” will stick to the end of their time when people see all the other “dropped counts” believing them as “fact”, when they in fact never are or they would have had a trial and the accused most definitely ended up inside and not with any “deal”, especially someone like Polanski, or a few days under the “guise” of some “diagnostic study” no one asked for, while his accuser/s will go free and unpunished.
    I strongly believe that the accuser’s identity should be protected because of the particular nature of the alleged offense, but that’s exactly the reason why the name of the alleged perpetrator should be kept under wraps too, and not even be revealed once found guilty let alone when found innocent to get on with his life untarnished, exactly because of highly politicized and publicized, by now insanely twisted witch hunts like this, and an old case that has long gone out of control from every possible angle.

    • May 31, 2010 at 2:53 AM

      You make many a valid point, Bertha, like all the other commentators in fact, and I can only agree on them wholeheartedly. Thanks for your own very constructive and insighlty contribution in this – and maybe one day, there will be no more false cry rape or abuse accusers. But I guess, I won’t be around by then anymore. Or Polanski.

  14. 27 Mr X
    May 30, 2010 at 10:37 PM

    Until now we have been nameless victims without a unified voice, as we spent all our time competing against ourselves to garner female attention and then later support our families, and make a name for ourselves. And names DO have power, and our name is “Roman Polanski”, a cry rape victim times two, who escaped the corrupt L.A. courts.
    Feminism created him and us, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. We all know how hard feminists are working to prevent rape in prisons, yet, they seriously want an old men join the league of these abused men they themselves have created. Of course they deserve it, don’t they? People like Polanski, the rich and famous director who bought himself a ticked to freedom.
    No, the corned, finally bankrupt man who fled another man in real power who did the same as he had–f*** young girls. What a joke the U.S. courts and you feminists all are, using sex as a lever for blackmail, using the law they have forced on us all, against us all. Anti-sex and shield laws.
    The majority of women are jealous and envious of men, and pointing an accusing finger at them, makes them feel empowered. See Lewis, a teenage prostitute and drug addict, blaming a good man for her downfall decades later, the sex, the drugs, the fame he gave her, the fame she squandered, she hardly deserved.
    Some journalists have called Lewis’ story into question, so have you, Novalis, and rightly. It’s true that the 1999 interview Lewis depicted her relationship with Polanski in a different light, in the right light she now wants us to believe was “misquoted”, how convenient. I’ve come across some article today seriously suggesting that, “it’s quite possible that Lewis did not “recognize” Polanski’s behavior as “rape”–or “abuse” how she calls it today–until recently.”
    I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit, she had dozens of men before who paid her for sex, and dozens afterwards, and only Polanski “abused” her? What are the chances? Next to zero, just like it’s next to zero for Polanski to be a rapist for exactly the same reason: all his sexual affairs, in no “need” to “rape” anyone. No, she abused herself by letting these men “abuse” her. Maybe she should have stayed at school and then get a real job, not “sell” her body and then accuse men of having sex with her.
    No, they’re getting desperate by now, trying to make Polanski into what they call “the undetected rapist”, as in, “it seems that Polanski behaved as most “undetected” sex offenders do: committing multiple offenses against multiple victims.” Sure, if feminists keep redefining what exactly “rape” is, other than what it actually stands for by law, hence Lewis’ avoidance of the word “rape, just so to fit any possible sexual encounter scenario as “rape”, and in that case we’re all “unwitting” rapists! Or they simply redefine what a “victim” is, by making all women into automatic victims.
    No, it’s getting utterly ludicrous by now, and one day no one can engage in sex anymore for it’s ALL considered “rape”! They say, recent (U.K.) studies have begun to explore the phenomenon of “undetected rapists,” those who commit acts that meet the legal definition of “rape” but for which they were never reported. And there I was thinking, “rape”, is only forcible intercourse. Guess not.
    What of the other way round? If a woman “forced” a man to have sex with her by using the same type of “tricks”, other than physical force, like alcohol, or drugs? Notice how in articles the term “affair” or “relationship” or “slept with” is used if the perpetrator is female, and when the perpetrator is male it is more likely called “sexual assault” or “rape”. Thanks!
    Is the pain of a rape survivor in seeing a rapist go free in any sense comparable, to the pain of an innocent man or boy deprived of his liberty for years or even decades? If not worse, getting raped in prison? Not once, not twice, no, countless times till he breaks! The victim of a one-off rape is not at risk of losing her liberty for decades, even if her rapist goes free. But an innocent man imprisoned or hunted for a rape he did not commit, a great man like Polanski, exposed to media and public abuse unheard of.
    A unique man who saw war and destruction, blood and violence, his wife, child and friends butchered, and yet he survived. Lesser men are destroyed by merely one of those experiences, as are the lives of their loved ones, including the women and children who depend on them. Polanski is a shining example of survival, that’s why he has to be destroyed, by a woman. Another cry rape liar.
    In the event that a rape actually has been committed, convicting the wrong person does not provide a measure of safety against future offenses. Instead, it lets the real offender go free. It causes far-reaching damage either way and worse; rape victims are going to suffer either way. A false accusation destroys her credibility due to another’s lies. A man’s life is shattered beyond repair due to somebody’s lies. Real rape victims can’t be heard due to false accusations.
    The fact is, that in these cases of innocent men can be convicted based only on hearsay, one little word called “no”, “no” other evidence whatsoever. It is as if the innocent men accused are actually, “guilty until proven innocent”, and if they can’t afford their own defense, they go to jail and get raped themselves. Open your eyes, you ignorants!
    And for those that say, “who cares about the falsely accused,” because they are controversial, brilliant, some brazen artist who ended up in prison against all counsel, only to be sent back for another round of punishment, or else into deportation, before he showed the laws the finger and said, “enough is enough!” and fled. Or in contrast, some nameless, faceless mass that means nothing to these witch hunters.
    Consider, for example, a setting in which both parties have become voluntarily intoxicated. In the course of sexual activity, the man may reasonably believe that the woman wants to engage in intercourse in light of her words and deeds, or no words to the opposite. If afterwards the woman comes to think that she did not “really” consent to this sexual contact, or was underage, most people would oppose finding the man’s behavior felonious.
    The “law” however, would categorize this as “rape”, or “statutory rape”. Such a position amounts to transforming “rape” into a strict liability offense. According to research, the average length of time served in prison for genuine and false rape, and underage sex is more than 81% of that served for murder, which is highly disproportionate. And while there has been in recent years a general increase in imprisonment of those arrested for felonies, the likelihood of imprisonment for those charged with statutory or false rape has increased by over 200%. That’s more than “wrong” and “abusive” of the “law” feminists have “invented” especially for men, enforced by men.
    So I ask, what if it were you, your father, brother or husband that was being locked up in their own home, with an electronic devise strapped to their body for “sex” three bloody decades ago, because they are a convenient target of some narrow-minded peasant feminist lynch mob, the target of some vindictive court and corrupt DAs out for reelection, engaging in a vile smear campaign with some “new victim”?
    If you’d have to choose one, would you rather run from that arbitrary court, or spend the next 20 years in prison for some teenager who “cried rape”? Every sane person would choose the first. And that speaks loud and clear about those who disagree and want Polanski back inside, a third time now for some unstable woman who suddenly cries “abuse”. Unthinkable.

    • May 31, 2010 at 1:19 AM

      You’re right, ‘Mr X’, it is unthinkable, and getting out of hand, and I in fact think I know where you read that about the ‘undetected rapist’ I too find ludicrous, and posted on my FB wall.

      It IS getting desperate now, and sooner or later we’ll have to sign a ‘sex contract’, that outlines exactly in what, how and for how long, to what degree or exactness we’re going to engage in any kind of sex acts, if and exactly which drugs or alcohol or other stimulants should be involved, or and exactly which sex toys, or even dictate in what setting/s, what clothes or not to undress each partner, just to make sure no one can cry rape or abuse afterwards.

      But then again, if someone were to engage in something outside these ‘rules’ in the heat of passion without any harm done, the ‘victim’ or even the ‘perpetrator’ could still cry rape or abuse afterwards, since both had signed themselves away not to engage in anything ‘other than’, where even the degree of climax might be dictated. It’s a preposterous no-win scenario either way that cannot be in any form enjoyable, spontaneous, ‘real’ and ultimately pleasurable anymore, since men and women aren’t robots that can be programmed to engage in only this or that sex act to this or that extent or degree, in need to concentrate on what they’re doing from the word go with possible witnesses – it’s ludicrous beyond ludicrous – but we’re getting there. Besides, such contract would not deter any real rapist either; he’d just needed to be even more cunning.

  15. 29 Lola
    May 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM

    I guess you retrieved the information to write your scathing blog from the following sites I have unearthed, apart from plenty nude and then some pics of her, listed in order of publication:

    1997 – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19970406/ai_n14462559/

    1999 – http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/27/1703/wild-child-charlotte-lewis-full-text-interview-2/

    2010 – http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jo3NMirGcL5AMDAh0HOwob-91XDwD9FMVL2O1

    2010 – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1278722/I-forgive-Polanski-Im-telling-truth-Roman-knows-Actress-Charlotte-Lewis-claims-abused-director-16.html

    ‘I will never forgive Roman Polanski’ – what a sad and pathetic attempt to pin her whoring junkie days on the man who made her famous. Disgusting liar. I wonder if she believes in her delusional trash, or really could be bought by punk Cooley to put on this smear campaign show with skunk Allred. I guess the latter. Good enough most won’t buy their ugly charade. They should be sued over this.

    • May 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM

      That’s right, Lola, and from other sources in regards to her 1986 claims, ‘Pirates’ and the Cannes picture/s, all freely available online; if one wants to look and be informed of course, like yourself, NOT to believe her curiously timed ‘slander’. And, they of course can only do this since Polanski is powerless to sue anyone, that’s why so many could get away with such ugly libel for decades now. It’s about time someone puts a stop to this.

  16. 31 Marshal
    May 25, 2010 at 10:27 PM

    Do we ‘know’ Lewis ‘really’ has this friend who gave the cops that ‘statement’ to back up her [unlikely] story? For all we know it’s a bluff, meant for the Swiss obviously, with Cooley thinking they’d fall for it. If the Swiss ‘really’ keep to their rules and regulations on how to handle an extradition, unlike the LA courts, they HAVE to wait for Gunson’s testimony that proves they shouldn’t in fact even have arrested Polanski in the first place, and that nothing like ‘this’ even if true, can ever be admitted retroactively. The law specifically forbids anyone suffering a heavier penalty than the one imposed at the time through new ‘evidence’ brought in that has NOTHING to do with the original charges, and any additional ‘claims’ in regards to an old case can NOT be taken into account to affect any ‘sentence’.

    Now of course those arguing, ‘there’s no such thing as a onetime rapist’, have a harder time pointing people to the fact that Geimer never was raped by Polanski and that by her own admission even, and that Lewis is certainly not a ‘second victim’ by a far shot either, since NO ‘rapist’ does it only ‘twice’ by any means over a course of three decades and she’s more than a nasty fraud. People falling for her are either bent on ‘making’ her a ‘new victim’, waiting for more, or haven’t got the whole story to discredit her outright.

    Even if the extradition won’t succeed, even if the majority still don’t believe her, no matter what they think of Polanski, or the old case, the even bigger damage has been done now and I doubt there will be another film of his even if he were to be released; people will still believe him this rapist/paedophile director. And true, the Swiss haven’t reacted to her in any form – or rather Cooley’s attempt to sabotage this entire extradition debacle, which he obviously tried to do US smear campaign style, the bastard. But Polanski’s reputation is severely dented now a second time over at least in the public eye and was all they wanted to achieve anyway, and he might by all misfortune die under house arrest soon too. But how did Robert Harris put it, he’s a tough old bird no one can destroy. Only Death can.

    • May 25, 2010 at 10:48 PM

      You’re right, Marshal, he’s a fighter and only the one Ultimate can end his life, not any nasty lies. And no, we don’t know if this suddenly so handy ‘friend’ is real or not, and indeed can be a mere bluff to coerce the Swiss into actions to extradite him – or rather not it seems. So let’s hope they won’t fall for it, and spit into Cooley’s smear campaign soup once and for all.

  17. 33 Lewis (Hater!)
    May 23, 2010 at 10:45 PM

    Looks like I’m gonna hate my own name from now on after what that slut has done to Polanski out of the blue suddenly-though Lewis is my first name. Thank gods! This is obviously a ploy to distract us from the fact that Cooley doesn’t want to send the Swiss Rittenband’s sentencing plan Gunson had brought forward, despite the Appellate’s Court having ordered him to do so months back already. But he obviously couldn’t care less, the crooked bastard, giving us this nude “actress” has-been, which “really” is a great help in this, or to gain more credibility-NOT! When I read her statement first, I went like, eh? “Her”? This doesn’t add up, at all. And THEN I only watched her interview/accusations and I went like, yeah right, boy you “changed”! You’ve become a very embittered and revenge driven soul striking at someone who’s utterly helpless in this, when it could well be that she couldn’t get any money out or Sheen or Rourke. I remember her from Pirates and The Golden Child and they seem to be the only “decent” films she made, and I rather “liked” her, being a man who likes a bit of a sexy body, TILL NOW! Well, in her case that is. What a nasty traitor she’s become, unbelievable! I didn’t even recognise her at first, she’s so ugly now, hard-looking and clearly out for blood, and then I read all the other interviews and your spot on “résumé” and I thought, boy, you literally f***ked up your head/body long before you met Polanski I never realized till now-and then even more so right after he ditched you! For Emmanuelle I guess, when he started making “Frantic” with her, a much more “decent” and talented actress, no matter her nude scenes in “Bitter Moon”. Seigner looks like Kinski, and Polanski always had an eye for that particular type, beauties like Sharon; real beauties, in and outside, not this nude flick cocaine druggie slut. Good he dumped her, which of course can be a factor why she’s doing this “now”, just so to boycott the extradition. Let’s hope the Swiss are of better integrity and keep to the rule book, and NOT allow for Polanski to end up in our LA courts of horror!

    • May 24, 2010 at 12:19 AM

      You’re right, ‘Lewis’, shame she ended up like that. But even bigger shame is that she tries to backstab the man who launched her eventually very questionable ‘career’, which sure as hell was her own doing, just like her teen prostitution, let alone her later drug addiction. Cooley is one sick bastard to ‘use’ her like this, but then again, it looks like she loved to be ‘ab/used’ by men for money and drugs – and I doubt I need to euphemise what ‘Allred’ stands for.

  18. 35 DeMoy
    May 20, 2010 at 8:39 AM

    I can only agree on your short and sharp analysis of this ‘latest victim’s’ ‘motives’, Novalis. So all we can hope for, is that the Swiss have more integrity to handle this correctly and lawfully by ignoring her disgraceful attack and demand Gunson’s testimony, rather than fall in line with Cooley’s ugly smear campaign. But with people like Widmer-Schlumpf having a last say, it might just as well go wrong even more.

    • May 20, 2010 at 8:44 AM

      Thanks DeMoy, and you’re right, we’ll have to wait on that – But of course, let’s hope it will turn out fine. After 236 days of ‘very special treatment’ for Roman already.

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


May 2010
« Mar   Jun »


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: