12
Jul
10

ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – THE COMMENTS PART THREE

THE COMMENTS continued.

Vahan

Posted July 12, 2010 at 3.56 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novalis Lore

Posted July 12, 2010 at 6.13 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sure Polanski needs some time off now, he’s gone already, on his way home, and will take a well-deserved holiday with his family. Then he’ll celebrate his 77th, and return to make God of Carnage he wanted to work on before the Swiss put a nasty wedge in it. But no, Polanski can NOT visit the US or UK again if he wanted to – his status is basically unchanged and he’s back to where he left off before his rearrest, since other countries might want to make the same mistake and arrest him again I’m sure the States would love. I doubt they will, since many more know now at least that he had done his time for unlawful sex, and a perfect reason to flee Rittenband’s arbitrary court when he attempted to punish him twice for it. The only problem is, he and all the others got away with their disgraceful misconducts, smear campaigns and name-calling, since the case is still not litigated to be finally closed for good and he [still] has no legal means to force them to, unless they formally declare him to times served in absentia and he can go before the LA courts to do so as a free man later. But I doubt they will.

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

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

Mishem

Posted July 16, 2010 at 9.07 PM

Novalis – thank you for what you’re doing! I’ve only leafed through your articles first, will do the careful reading now, which might take some time, but you’ve restored my faith in human sanity. After reading, week after week, tons of that “child rapist” bullshit I was beginning to seriously suspect the world has gone mad.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 16, 2010 at 9.30 PM

Not quite the whole world, mishem – only the [self-]obsessed US mainly and the ill-informed in Europe. Most still don’t know what was going on with Polanski at any rate, not now, not then, not ever – and those who do are not necessarily the loudest voices. Only the ignorant haters shout abuse at someone they have absolutely no idea about, don’t want to know better, and those who do, are loyal fans and more objective people who want to know the finer details. Take your time to go through my findings – and thank you for voicing your own better understanding. Feel free to ask me whatever you like.

Maisy

Posted July 19, 2010 at 4.03 AM

Well, before I read your very inspired and inspiring, undeniably highly in-depth analysis, Novalis, all I knew about this case was basically nought. But, the more and more I read myself through your mammoth research, it made more and more sense to me. I had no clear opinions either way for or against Polanski. I only became intrigued by all these self-righteous and apparently more than ill-informed, very nasty comments everywhere, amongst a few sane and more informed voices wedged in between that were just as blindly attacked. That in fact put me more off than to condemn him too like they did. Not my style.

I need empirical proof to form an informed onion in general, I couldn’t get from anywhere, unless I’d researched the complex case myself the way you have. No such time I’m afraid. So, after I went through your amazing and thorough findings, watched that documentary, some interviews of both, read the transcripts and his very important autobiography – and all the interesting comments here by the way – I came to the same conclusion any intelligent person should arrive at; that Geimer basically lied to the grand jury. And her mother/family, in order to look better, get out of it again. Now it’s long gone out of hand on a legal and humane level, and the way he’s been treated since decades now is simply criminal and downright disgusting.

So, was the bereaved and depressed, revered and defenceless director set up for a shakedown by a ‘small-time actress mother’ who couldn’t make it on her own in the business, and therefore allowed her daughter to be photographed at Nicholson’s house? In order to drop the charges of rape/sodomy on him? I’d say that’s a yes. Did the Santa Monica Court conspire to violate Polanski’s rights, including the coaching by a prosecutor to influence egocentric Rittenband, specifically that disgusting Wells with the ‘Oktoberfest’ photo maneuver, on how to handle the director’s sentencing motivated by personal revenge and the judge’s self-important desires for television coverage and more ‘clippings’? And, did that undoubtedly self-serving cop pull the usual witness blackmailing and ‘sodomy’ stunt? I’d say that’s another yes.

In the face of overwhelming medical evidence to discredit Geimer outright, and the fact that her mother set the whole thing up to engineer easy future fame through Polanski, and a big civil payout later, though it only came through 20 years later after she had sued him in 1988 and they took his money in 1998 via the legal backdoor, true, since he of course was indisposed to pay her for shit he never did, the media abuse he had suffered is even more shocking than what they or the courts have done to him, over and over. Or at least rests on the same level of depravity, mutually inflaming each other like witch hunters and their lynch mobs howling for his blood.

I like his films, especially the ones with Deneuve, Kinski and Tate, was aware of her brutal murder, and to watch him crying in pain over her loss is simply heartbreaking.

I would recommend to anyone reading your committed research, no matter it is very substantial, to finally get the idea of what really happened in March 1977, and is still going on behind the LA courtroom doors today – more lies.

He never raped anyone, let alone is a paedophile. People who call him that are dumb scum.

Now that Polanski is ‘free’ again, kudos to Switzerland who’s got enough blood on their US-subservient hands already. I’m glad he’s back with his family, to continue his good work. ‘Justice’, however, would be to ‘make’ him free, not to continue hunting him like a little animal. But if he can live with this, so can I – and can’t wait to see what he’s going to do with God of Carnage. Good luck to him and his family in the future.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 19, 2010 at 5.40 PM

Thanks Maisy – glad I could enlighten you in this matter. And indeed, good luck to him and let’s see what his genius touch will make of God of Carnage.

Maisy

Posted 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.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 19, 2010 at 5.41 PM

I thought you might say that – she’s indeed what you said.

Lewis

Posted 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!

Novalis Lore

Posted 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.

mishem

Posted July 28, 2010 at 5.38 PM

Oh f… I mean, oh good Lord, did you see the news? Another one. Now they will pop up like mushrooms after a rain. The USA will never forgive him for their Swiss fiasco. What else should we expect? God, is there anything we can do? I know he is strong, but there are some limits to what a man can take.

Novalis Lore

Posted July 29, 2010 at 2.41 AM

I included her claims already in the ‘Lewis’ blog, mishem – gonna combine them now. I usually deconstruct any claims on a more scientific/medical basis to debunk such allegations, and she made a few mistakes like Geimer had with her ‘dry double sodomy’ claim that has long been discredited by the medical/witness evidence right then, hence the peal deal because she was underage. Lewis obviously lied since she contradicted herself over the years through her own interviews, and Vogelhut only parroted the sodomy on that base. She didn’t do her homework well enough anyhow; anal sex requires a lot of preparations, and even with amyl, she cleverly brought in, to relax the sphincter, it STILL needs a lot of lubrication – 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. It’s all BS. She only brought the handcuffs in to make it sound more shocking – she escalated the encounter into BDSM basically.

I’m sure they had sex, but nothing anal related. According to insiders, Polanski was in fact known to shy from that, it wasn’t his ‘thing’ at all because it was too ‘homosexual’, and most importantly, if he’s not using a condom, which she didn’t mention either, (or Geimer) it causes HIV and whatnot else. If he really had anal intercourse all the time without any precautions/preparations as they proclaim, he’d long contracted or died on AIDS – AND his partners. But even if he had anal intercourse, as I said, it needs a lot of planning and hygiene is vital, she would have needed to have a dump, or an enema, then comes the condom and 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 in fact doesn’t work on everyone), AND vital lube. And, ‘lying on her stomach’? Wrong angle, she needs to be 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, not a chance, unless he pins her down she didn’t say that he had either and holds her into position. Ergo, no ‘sodomy’ let alone ‘repeatedly’ occurred.

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 what did she do ‘afterwards’? She said he ‘released’ her, and then what? Said thanks and let her go? NOT if someone just ‘raped’ someone. He probably drove her home, like Geimer. These people are too thick to realise any of it, and others, who never had anal sex, simply don’t know that and believe it. Think ‘shit’, just to be blunt. These accusers are full of it. Besides, the man bedded a few thousand women in his life and only ‘three’ cried rape/sodomy? I don’t think so. Geimer was discredited outright, Lewis is a clear liar, and Vogelhut wants to sell her book.

As for Polanski, he’s strong alright, with his family and friends/fans standing by him, has his work – who know perfectly well they tried to destroy his reputation on every level ever since Geimer’s case – and how better than by calling a man a (now ‘child’) rapist, paedophile, you name it. His lawyers haven’t even reacted to that obvious fraud, perfectly aware of the fact that she’s just another Cooley bait (now that the Swiss put a spanner in his smear campaign). Most people don’t believe Vogelhut for several (other) reasons, which are just as correct. She’s just another shameless opportunist who wants to cash in no his scandalous name, since he has zero chances of refuting her claims, and no legal means of lodging any lawsuits.

The fact that neither Lewis nor Vogelhut want/ed to sue him, not only because the statute of limitations has run out, true, (which makes it even less believable since she could have done that right after his 1977 arrest, and Lewis too, who rather gave us all these conflicting interviews instead, even having an affair with him AFTER her ‘abuse’ claims) only shows it’s Cooley’s show. That’s why Polanski could never ever fight any open slander, (and the one suit against Vanity Fair was conducted from France through the UK courts) and therefore scum like Kiernan, Reisman, Lewis or Vogelhut and plenty others could and can defame him to the limit. He’s able to fight a lawsuit by law, (another reason why they don’t wanna sue him, and could take many years anyhow, see Geimer = 10 years) but not file any, unless he’s in the right jurisdiction – i.e. the US – in person. That’s why they all flock there, and to Cooley’s corrupt court to mess with the already highly exploited case some more. ‘We’ cannot do anything for him, except believe in him and his innocence, and support his work.

Harry L

Posted 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.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 2, 2010 at 2.23 AM

That’s probably the best way to confront/ridicule them, with biting sarcasm. Thanks, Harry.

Raver

Posted August 14, 2010 at 2.12 AM

Finally!  Finally someone who doesn’t reiterate this headbangingly mind-numbing, bloody pathetic diatribe of, no, no no no, I won’t repeat it!  No, I’m sure you know what I mean, it’s the online mantra of the decade: he drugged, raped and [repeatedly] sodomized!  There, I said it–it’s PATHETIC!  What I hate most is overdramatic crap like: “her drugged, unconscious and torn little body, cast aside like a lifeless ragdoll after he had cruelly violated her despite her sobbing pleas, a horrific experience that left her traumatized and in fear of adults”….oh yeah?  Muahahaha!  Get a life.  These sad idiots should read sometimes what bull they write; it’s like the soppy melodramatic theatrics coming from Bollywood, or even Hollywood.  Gag.  You refrained from all that shit, Novalis, nay, you gave us the entire “picture” finally, the facts. Thank you–there is a “god” after all.  Kudos, Novalis, kudos.  Go Polanski, go–the God of Carnage is waiting for your masterful touch!  *uck the sexually repressed U.S.!  (I live here, so I can say that!)  As for “Lewis” and that “Vogelhut”–what a dumb name!–pathetic, pathetic liars!

Novalis Lore

Posted August 14, 2010 at 8.27 AM

Why thanks, Raver, happy to oblige!

Raphael Dit

Posted August 14, 2010 at 10.23 PM

The circumstances of this case are simply put, shocking, and I don’t mean the sex, but the legal side of it, it’s unbelievable really. No wonder Polanski said, enough is enough already in 1978 and left. So what it comes down to is unlawful sex, nothing more. I can live with that and will not ever judge him; I slept with several underaged girlfriends in my life, when I was very young and quite a few years older than them. So many men have and NO one ever had to pay for it like Polanski; it’s criminal to punish him or others for sex or that endlessly. Many say it was so long ago, he slipped only once (like million others had and will) let him be. Fine by me too. He’s getting on, was long sexually tamed and has films to make. Shame crook Cooley has no honor to honor what Rittenband and Gunson with Dalton had agreed on to close this case finally. It’s sheer vindictiveness and it’s repulsive.

I realise the times were different, high on sex and drugs; so were my parents. So was I later and we suffered no ills, didn’t become addicts or criminals. Why is it that everyone has to vilify Polanski after so long for having done what millions did, or will? Nothing wrong with sex or a bit of recreational drug taking as long as it doesn’t harm you or others. Unlike “others”, that is, disgraceful confabulators Lewis and Vogelhut (or Geimer  as a teenager), I have no one to else blame when I indulged in it, and Polanski should not be made an example of for doing what we all did. Those who deny they ever had then or now, and today rally against their own history or others are pathetic hypocrites, and to cry rape or sexual abuse is criminal. These women should face a prison term to learn not to lie.

I live in the U.S. and I too find our anti-sex laws and misandruous feminist crusades absurd and very disturbing. It’s highly damaging to developing and maintaining a healthy sexuality in this oppressive, repressed climate, and “people” like “Allred” should be publicly stripped of their office who support women to cry rape for money, playing the pathetic little “victims”, rather than stand up for their sexuality, desires and resulting responsibilities. But of course, it’s easier to blame the man and all they need to do these days is “claim” abuse or rape without the slightest proof or evidence–disgusting.

I wonder how much longer men will stand for this charade before they wake up finally after one more man was ruined, famous or not. I read your other blog about the false rape accusation bane too, and I wholeheartedly agree on it–it’s gone far too far by now. Especially in California, the capital of sleazy “sexual abuse” criers thriving in the immoral “compensation industry” like poison mushrooms.

Cooley and the rest too should be sent to Chino to get a taste of what Polanski endured, for wasting our taxes on this old case, lying to us, and trying to destroy a man over sex after they destroyed others already. This case should be thrown out by all means and finally closed after tackling the plenty misconducts, to concentrate on real and current crimes that plague L.A. Cooley let’s go rampantly unpunished, while sending innocent men inside who had sex–great balance that. It’s all repulsive legal and moral posturing that deeply offends me and plenty others. Except, we have no power to change things.

I too had no clear understanding of this case before I watched some documentaries and read your better findings amongst other things, but couldn’t believe Polanski was a rapist and wouldn’t just trust what the sensationalist media throws at me. He’s guilty of underage sex, sure, so am I, my parents and many many others. Not a problem for me at all and NO one should be punished for it. NO one tells me with whom to sleep with let alone the “state”, or any religious fanatics. Polanski’s fame in contrast to us unknowns having done the same as he had most certainly has caused him a lot of heartache and troubles, major damage in fact.

I for one thoroughly condemn the negligent, backstabbing mother, Geimer to have indulged in convoluted fantasies that made the whole thing a travesty before Rittenband indulged in his own. I thoroughly condemn the L.A. cops to have staged their blackmail shows with Geimer and Anjelica Huston, before the rest of them made it worse to this day. Of course, Geimer’s later statements to the very opposite, that “it wasn’t rape”, and that the case should be dropped, were all but in vane–such comes from teenage fantasies gone out of hand once the law got their corrupt hands on them to twist them some more forever and ever till the picture is all but a messy blur of facts.

I can understand why people don’t know better, I constantly see these self-righteous little blogger minds and articles rehashing incorrect details, or indulging in downright nasty lies. Not to question what the press serves them or to look deeper, like you have, Novalis, is simply criminal. Inexcusable. This case is extremely complex, and it’s a tragedy that such a great man, who suffered so much in his life already, was milled through the legal system like this, is persecuted like this, all for fame-hungry women who betrayed him. Now he’s back to square one, and his renewed suffering was for f*** all basically. Except, we know now he’s done his time and it should finally be made official, but I doubt Cooley will ever do so. Heaven forbid he’ll ever make it to Attorney General in November.

I support Polanski as the survivor, the human being, not [only] artist. I know he’s not a rapist or pedophile, and to sleep with willing teens is not morally wrong in my book, who should not be pressured into lying in order to make them the “victim” and punish the adult, or rather male, only. I have no problems with his good art, but [their] lies alone and the detrimental law enabling them to lie. I think it’s good that people can separate the man from his art, no matter what they think of him or his past, the case, and to boycott his films is over-reactionary bullshit. We’d needed to boycott so much more than films and that reaching centuries back, if we were to apply “morals standards” all the time. It’s not feasible or wise. Only true crime should be punished, not ever sex.

And true too, many people wrongly confuse his films with [his] reality, when all he does is demonstrate how people cope under stress or with terrible experiences, how the female can be “innocent” and cruel at the same time, or strong (if the “law” [or reprehensible radical feminism] would allow them to be and not play the whining prey after the fact. Like Lewis and Vogelhut). I read all the comments too; they are proof that there are more intelligent voices out here, I wanted to join. Thanks for your great efforts to show us what really happened, Novalis.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 15, 2010 at 12.03 AM

Thanks Raphael and for your good input – I’m with you all the way.

Verena

Posted 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.

Novalis Lore

Posted August 23, 2010 at 12.45 PM In reply to Verena

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.

Lollipop

Posted 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.

Novalis Lore

Posted 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.

Wolfgirl

Posted September 16, 2010 2.57 AM

When this all happened, I was 18, and I lived in LA but moved back to England soon. Geimer and her mother were ‘Hollywood hopefuls’, typical of the hundreds of ‘groupies’, bit-part actresses and extras milling around the studios every day, ‘promoting’ themselves as best they could, who clustered around popular actors and famed directors. Geimer said herself she wanted to become a ‘Hollywood actress’ and her mother wanted this too, with Polanski’s help. Same applies to ‘Lewis’ – who however messed it all up herself BIG time by becoming a junkie. No sympathy here, and to say that drugs were everywhere she could not escape is not only bullshit, but only shows no willower on her part to say no to them.

I knew a bunch of kids my age and younger with a couple who had bit parts in TV shows, but they didn’t know Gailey, or her daughter, but they certainly knew how all this ‘Hollywood casting couch’ biz worked. What Geimer did was nothing out the ordinary, or her ‘ambitious’ mother. That’s why I for one believe Geimer WAS on the pill. Or Lewis, from the day she prostituted herself as a ‘rebellious teenager’ as she put it.

If the casting couch scenario occurs, though less than people think, in Hollywood it’s not ‘whoring’ yourself, it’s ‘selling’ yourself to a potential ‘agent’, a potential ‘stepping stone’ into the world of showbiz, skin and all, and voila, you’re in. If that’s not to everyone’s ‘high morals’ that’s their problem. I doubt anyone living in a nice suburban area doesn’t have affairs to get ahead. Or laid. Hardly anyone in Hollywood hasn’t slept him/herself up the ranks in those days. It’s a perfect give and take world; I give you my body, you give me your next film part. If it works is another question, see Lewis who lied about it, since you still need a certain amount of ‘talent’ she obviously couldn’t offer in the long run. It’s a perfect make-believe world, and you grab every chance to appear in a flashy fashion magazine like Vogue Hommes in Geimer’s case.

When her sister’s boyfriend asked Polanski to photograph Geimer, I’m sure they thought they’re all made. I would have, and I would have slept with him too to get into that Vogue spreadsheet, after spreading myself in the sheets with him. He looked nice, was very muscular, charming, no doubt gentle and practiced. Have a little bit of champagne to loosen up, have a little bit of a Quaalude to get horny, have a nice little one-night stand, no problem. No morals or qualms, just a bit of casual sex, both are happy. But I sure as hell hadn’t cried rape. That was so disgusting.

Many did and will sleep around not even being part of Hollywood, it’s nothing out the ordinary. But I’m sure ever since ‘then’ Polanski never mixed sex with business again, which Lewis forgot all about, and said herself many years back she had her part in Pirates already long before she had an affair with him, and then gives us this shit that he had forced her into sex to get that part, playing the ‘casting couch’ card. Ugly liar. Polanski was branded by famewhores big time. As for ‘Vogelhut’, she’s Cooley’s whore, he dug up somewhere to besmirch Polanski some more if he can’t get to him otherwise. She deservedly went under like an ugly dead duck.

This was ‘easy’, sex and drugs intoxicated 70s Hollywood we’re talking about here, where you needed to get ‘skin-deep’ to get anywhere. ‘Innocence’ was a myth there. Still is. This wasn’t your average neighbourhood family outing with a few snapshots and a fling after a skinny dip, though I’m sure they do drugs and have underage sex too, if not more so, while filming it on their cellphones these days.

Geimer didn’t have a constant father figure around to look after her, same with Lewis and look where she ended up, and as far I can see it, Geimer’s mother changed partners all the time, was married several times, had her first kid with 17/18, like Geimer, and a sister who was a Quaalude junkie. Great family background.

Her mother’s then boyfriend she had a thing with was Polanski’s age, and it is fairly logical to assume that she was into older men in general, like Kinski, who don’t seem to be too put off about older guys, I’m not, and Geimer’s current husband is 60 or whatever. It’s well-known that girls without a regular father turn to older men as a sort of substitute. And, if she was pregnant with 17/18, in ‘80/81, given she was 14 in ‘77, her first son must be 30 now. If she was 15, her son is definitely 30.

I wonder what she told them the nasty little Pole did to her. Or her husbands. Probably the truth that ‘it wasn’t rape’, he wasn’t ‘forceful or hurting me’. Why not tell the world officially for a change too, to stop people believing Polanski is a rapist. I find it more than disgusting that she lets people dwell in that belief, makes herself out to be this ‘victim’, when she has all the power to put a stop to this lie. Still.

In Geimer’s testimony most of the details are to this day uncorroborated by any independent witnesses, were nullified by the medical and other evidence outright, true, and Geimer alleging that Polanski had ‘passively’ enticed her to have sex with him doesn’t sound too convincing to me either, especially since they asked him to photograph her, but only if one has all the details as you present them here, Novalis. Polanski denied that the sex was forced, I knew that much, in fact heard plenty stories that they didn’t believe her story at any rate.

Angelica Huston spoke to the girl at the time of the incident in the house, stated that Geimer never claimed to her that Polanski had forced her, or that Geimer sought assistance from her at the time of the alleged ‘multiple rape’. NO rape victim would do that. It’s all fantasy. She’d be hiding behind her even if Huston hadn’t interrupted them, look distraught, very emotional, not act ‘rude’ towards her of all people.

And, if the doctor couldn’t find anything that would corroborate her words after a few hours only the very same evening? Sorry, then she lied. I read everyone’s transcripts too, the medical evidence as you present it here word by word, and nope, nothing makes sense to me. But HIS very own statement does, short and sharp, casual, consensual albeit ‘unlawful’ sex, that’s all. Teens lie all the time to avoid punishment, make up stories to drop the adult right into it.

I really don’t understand how people can believe her account, when I frowned and thought, nah, this ain’t right, she came up with too much that doesn’t sound logical, coherent, especially when it comes to the course of events and sex itself. Anal sex doesn’t work that way, sweetie. Same goes for this Vogelhut, sad attempt to make Polanski a habitual sodomite. Bullshit.

I know the case never went to trial, but obviously not to help spare Geimer ‘relive’ her oh so weepy ‘ordeal’, but from further disgrace on her father’s ‘advice’. Both the DAs perfectly understood that her uncorroborated claims, contradicted by Huston and Polanski, were a very flimsy basis for any conviction on the various charges of ‘drugged rape’, they could have pursued against Polanski even without any trial but obviously didn’t, hence, the plea bargain US style. BIG mistake. Always is.

They evidently saw her in the very ‘provocative’ flesh Polanski couldn’t resist, looking older than she was, way past puberty, had all the drugs-laden family background low-down on her, the sister and her mother, the boyfriend’s ‘lewd act’ with her, her general sexual encounter history, looked at all the ‘no-rapist/paedophile’ psyche reports, had their logical heads screwed on, put [the] two and two together, couldn’t find any drugged forcible rape let alone twice forced sodomy, thought the shield laws will make it hard to get anywhere either way, didn’t want to waste more recourses, Huston originally disclaimed her allegations anyway, and hey presto, [fatal] plea deal.

Poor Roman, fell for her ‘adult female’ body, and therefore ‘situational offender’ is a perfect description of the entire string of events, since he didn’t think her erotically appealing once he met her, ‘nothing sensational’, in no intentions to have sex with her. Up to that very moment after they’d finished with the photos, the hot tub, and she wanted to rest. I wonder what happened if she hadn’t asked to lie down somewhere. Nothing I suppose. Polanski said often enough if a female doesn’t want sex with him, that’s that, on to the next one who wants to.

Besides, SHE wanted to get into the Jacuzzi, not him, and he never joined her there either. That she felt too hot makes perfect sense, not was ‘afraid’, that makes no sense. Had Polanski not said to Huston the Jacuzzi ‘was too hot as usual’, we’d still be puzzling over why she lied about her asthma story and how she ended up in that TV room. NOT bedroom. Had Rittenband played by the rulebook, the whole thing would have been sorted right then, thrown out, and people today wouldn’t believe in the nonsense that he had second thoughts because Polanski was ‘guilty’ – no, he’s not, the old judge just wanted to have his own 15 minutes of fame and made a public feast of him. Like the rest of them today.

How did Polanski put it before he ever pleaded: “In all my premonitions of disaster, (like he in fact thought never to see Sharon alive again) one thought had never crossed my mind; that I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.” How true. I’m so happy he’s been freed – on with life! We love you Roman! Make some more ace films!

Novalis Lore

Posted September 16, 2010 at 3.37 AM

Thanks for your great insider knowledge input, Wolfgirl – and true, on with life and more Polanski films!

Summertime Bluesies

Posted September 21, 2010 at 6.16 AM

It’s been a whole year now since his rearrest, and I must confess, your colossal “analysis” is amazing research I should have come across much earlier. It’s crammed packed full with intriguing findings I too could find out in part over the last months, Novalis, from books or old magazines, the officially released transcripts, you name it. It took me a few days to digest what you alone came up with and agree with it wholeheartedly. I also read all the comments, and yes, I too think Polanski was or is not ever a rapist let alone pedophile, or we’d heard of it outside bullshitters like Lewis and Vogelhut I don’t believe a word for all you stated and my own better judgment. It appears only people with access to all this have the better angle on the details, the general populace of course have not, nor want to. It would seriously shake their belief in Polanski the “pedophile rapist”.

And you’re right, a teenager, who is capable of reproducing, looks like 20, behaves like 18, with a sex, drugs and alcohol history, grows up much faster especially in L.A. with an ambitious “Hollywood” mother during the heydays of the 70s. But apparently Geimer’s “age” didn’t quite match her physical maturity to stand up to her slipshod parent, confess to the sex and drugs to leave Polanski alone, and have that “career” they both tried to achieve through him. No, “feminism” taught her to play this pathetic female victim ever since, which turned her into this “little child” today and all men into rapists. Great female d/evolution that. I call it delusional degeneration and misandry gone haywire. All over some topless photo-what, did he she believe that “Vogue Hommes” is for “kids”? No, “hommes” means “men”, and it featured nubile teens and that nude too. Idiot.

With the changing times and “sex crime” language having escalated into obsessive anti-sex campaigns fuelled by radical feminism, Polanski once was someone who photographed and slept with a minor like million others had as many stated already. Now he’s suddenly this “child rapist” and it’s called “child pornography”; it’s disgusting and moralistic overzeal I deeply detests. Good his own kids didn’t grow up in the prudish, militant U.S., where sex an s erotic art are “T.V. evangelistically” exorcized as being sinful, rather than enjoy it in all its facets. HAVE SEX WHEN AND WITH WHOM YOU LIKE! NOT WHAT THE FASCIST STATE SAYS!

It deeply incensed me to read the same crap over and over, that he still faces the “charges”, never went to prison, paid for it and whatnot else crap. And then of course we had the endless retelling of the “sordid acts”. The U.S. has a very long way to come out of the Ice Age of demonizing sexuality, consensual, homosexual and teenage sex. Instead of progressing, we’ve regressed, punish sex mindlessly, revel in militant actions and racist language, get off on violence and vile name calling as compensation when others promote sexual freedom and peace. Men haven’t got the slightest chances of any proper defence here once some lying female accused them of “rape”, or sexual abuse, in this feminist perverted environment. See ugly liars Lewis and aptly dubbed ‘big hat’ Vogelhut indeed.

That said, what will happen to this corrupt and ever-more exploited case now is anyone’s guess, true. We know what Cooley wants, but that’s not what the more intelligent public wants “anymore”, let alone Samantha Geimer who should have a say in this the Swiss at least respected. My guess is, Polanski will die one day and the case gets simply closed without ever having been litigated and everyone got away with their crimes–the Gaileys, Rittenband, Vanatter, Wells, Cooley and his corrupt lot, traitors Lewis and Vogelhut–leaving Polanski the genius director[/rapist/pedophile] for all eternity. It’s very sad and terribly unfair. After all, why bother letting the facts get in the way of the anti-Polanski media soundbites rather than clear his name the Court of Appeal could so easily achieve.

I have one question, though, seeing that you covered everything else exhaustively indeed and replied to every comment; one thing is a mystery to me–what was that with Anjelica Huston saying that Geimer was “breathing high in the throat” I read somewhere, when she met her after Polanski had introduced her to her “on the phone”; did she in fact “really” say that later, or was that the “second” statement of hers this “Vannatter” had coerced from her in exchange to drop the cocaine charges he wanted to use against Polanski, like saying, that she saw them “going at it”. Any ideas?

Novalis Lore

Posted September 21, 2010 at 8.41 AM

Good question, Summertime Bluesies. It appears that it was the ‘second testimony’ of Huston’s, yes, and in order to be used against Polanski and to say she ‘saw them going at it’, at [the] trial that never was for the plea deal to come in. Huston never said so in her first statement, only that Polanski would never rape, sodomise or harm some unwilling girl, and that Geimer was ‘sullen’, i.e., abrupt to her she found ‘rude’ (most likely because they had to leave). Huston knew Polanski well and would know better if he’s capable of what Geimer accused him of. But the fact that she knew of the later indictment counts points to Vannatter’s handiwork, since he must have told her after he had interviewed Geimer at home the first time the same evening after the sex, and then again after the hospital that same night while he only saw Huston the next evening right after Polanski was arrested.

Polanski brought him to the house to interview her, at which point Vannatter no doubt had already planned to make it a sodomy case for Geimer’s unclear account after the hospital exam; he led her basically, since she apparently said, “I thought he [Polanski] went in the wrong way,” which is such bullshit not to know where anyone had penetrated them. The medical results were only made known at and to the actual grand jury hearing panellists where they all testified independently, except Polanski as the defendant to be indicted on her claims, and did not hear what the others had said or were allowed to talk about it. That’s why the mother’s, the sister’s and Geimer’s accounts are slightly off in places even between them. Vannatter could have told Huston to say something like ‘breathing high in the throat’ to back up their by then redundant asthma lie (unless this is all Kiernan’s bullshit since he wrote about that too), and of course doesn’t corroborate Polanski’s, Huston’s [original] and the caretaker’s versions.

After Vannatter’s lot found the coke and pot in Huston’s possession he had the perfect vehicle to blackmail her into saying what he had already told Geimer ‘must have happened’, i.e., that he [Polanski] ‘went through her back’, i.e., sodomised her [twice] and she had ‘interrupted’ them while doing so, whereas Dr Larson’s evidence in fact had discredited her account already outright none of them knew of. Hence the plea deal later once mom found out she had lied in certain very crucial places, Gailey much later described as a ‘stupid mistake’  and to have called the cops. Sure was, with horrendous consequences. Polanski never actually mentioned Geimer appeared grumpy to Huston like that in his autobiography and of course said that she never interrupted them, or that he had the same impression of her being ‘sullen’. Which is either way of no importance, except that it shows that Geimer didn’t appear to her as being ‘drunk’, ‘drugged’, ‘crying’, or in any form ‘harmed’ Geimer tried to make out she was.

There Is No Spoon

Posted September 22, 2010 at 12.01 AM

Novalis, seeing all that great effort of collecting all that highly intriguing ‘evidence’ chronicling the events and covering his rearrest I can only admire, I read the plenty likeminded comments too, but-um, where did you get all ‘that’ from? Given that I didn’t do any more in-depth research of my own to know better, I did however read the court transcripts on ‘smoking gun’ and watched that admittedly very important Zenovich documentary and a couple of interviews, and can see where it all went wrong legally, (and the public not knowing better). Having said that, I can fully agree on that ‘double sodomy’ business being a total non-event. I know what anal sex entails, as in preparations and lots of lube and so forth, so in that sense I don’t buy her anal rape claims one second even without your explanations and Dr Larson’s no less very crucial findings. What I believe is what happened here at the end of the day, is his version, not hers. What I also believe it that the entire LA court system is just a modern-day equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition with Cooley and his lot legally ordained torturers not to let Polanski go. He’s committed one stupid act of sleeping with a minor like so many others have, while mom and her lot got away with crying rape – let it rest. It’s vindictive and low.

Novalis Lore

Posted September 22, 2010 at 1.12 AM

Most comes from the ENTIRE grand jury hearings, extradition and other later court hearing transcripts, not only the deliberately cut-off segment of Geimer’s testimony omitting the others’ statements and in-chambers depositions, that crucial evidence of Dr Larson and the probation reports backing him or rather Polanski up, any other publicly accessible court records, many non-electronic magazine publications, books, Polanski’s autobiography, online interviews and court hearing proceedings, and of course as-it-happened coverage, you name it. It’s all out there since day one, or to buy, view online, and then of course I was there – as in the 60s and 70s to remember the events firsthand. The best way to find much of what I offered here, is to punch in a few keywords and names and then go through what google comes up with. Look out for officially released court records showing as PDFs, all else might be ‘reinterpreted’ excerpts on anti-Polanski blogs and mostly shallow news and nasty trash sites. Forget ‘smoking gun’, they only offer ‘her’ side. Only trust sites that won’t stoop to pure condemnation and repetitive ‘drugged rape and sodomy’ bullshit, or check out those on my blogroll. And true, Cooley & Co are nothing but legally elected thugs and hypocrites who love to torture famous people for public amusement.

Mishem

Posted September 22, 2010 at 10.18 AM

Hi again.

I have just found something so beautiful can’t help but share it.

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/features/the-defining-moments-of-roman-polanski.php

A bittersweet article, then comments – as expected, on the 1977 case only; I had to intrude, as usual, and posted my own comment; the lynch mob turned against the author of the article for trying to find at least something positive to say about the unspeakable criminal who had committed the crime of the century; the author started justifying himself and finally blurted out this gem:

“As I wrote in this article Polanski’s actions regardless of the circumstances were inexcusable.”

Regardless of the circumstances! I loved this one to pieces. I commented, of course… but what a wonderful way to put it, indeed! That sums up everything the media have already said, or will say about the case.

Novalis Lore

Posted September 22, 2010 at 7.30 PM

I read that already and in fact similar articles since his rearrest, or even before that, since the debate is raging since decades, which didn’t stoop to this mindless. ‘he drugged and raped and sodomised a ‘child” rhetoric as if it were fact, and if the doctor’s reports who examined her said she was an ‘adult female’ not ‘child’, so be it. He was a specialist of sodomy rape victims, and if he didn’t find anything consistent with it, there was no rape/sodomy, end of. People obviously still don’t realise that a grand jury testimony has ZERO veracity until proven in a trial – there never was trial, since they had enough hard evidence to the contrary of her claims, and that’s why the mother pressed for that plea deal to end it. If only. It always comes down to the one-dimensional, short-sighted and dehumanising condemnation of people who think the breakdown of the law is irrelevant, but would be the first to cry for justice had it been them in the hands of an egomaniac judge who abused his powers and did not cut it short.

As for your comments, they’re spot on, but will do little unless they see the court transcripts and evidence that discredit her version entirely and why they went for the plea deal; because they had NOTHING TO SUPPORT HER, not because they wanted to ‘spare’ her the ‘ordeal’ she embellished on of being cross-examined before a more scrutinising jury, sure, but not to be shredded by the defence and unravel her claims. And even if people don’t believe her, they still have that little moral hook to hang their hypocrisy on, making an ugly example of Polanski, while utterly forgetting that millions sleep with underaged teenagers, and as you said, our own ancestors slept with young fertile females throughout the cultures, before the insidious feminist revolution declared them all rapists and the female implicitly a victim in order to shed all responsibilities when it comes to sex. No one went to prison in years in 1977 in LA or Hollywood ‘stars’ ever since for the same oh so heinous offence of sleeping with a teenager, except Polanski, NO one in fact wanted, simply for WHO he was. Let’s hope these diatribe mongers will end up in prison for a number of sex acts with their underaged girlfriend for decades, while the ‘little helpless female’ gets away with it. Or better still, be accused of rape after some one-night stand to face ZERO chances of proving it was consensual and end up in prison to get raped there for some lying whatsit. Liars like that self-confessed ex-prostitute and drug addict Lewis who said the exact opposite about Polanski only years back, or that 15-minute famewhore Vogelhut who turned it into a sleazy BDSM attack suddenly to sell her kiss-and-tell-all book. Good most didn’t believe them.

Thanks for linking my blog on that site, mishem, and true, to say at the end: “As I wrote in this article Polanski’s actions regardless of the circumstances were inexcusable,” is a slap in the face of justice, since it implies that the author, like so many, doesn’t give a shit about the mounting misconducts and Cooley and & Co’s vindictive witch hunt to further his name and corrupt career with smear campaigns and name-calling DAs, while only concentrating on the ‘sordid [‘child’] sex acts’ of which only ONE is fact, and it’s not the rape or sodomy, too stupid to realise what she said later. No genuine rape victim would ever campaign for her attacker’s freedom, let alone demands to have the charges dismissed; they would call for prison time – she never has. Maybe these people should try anal sex for a change to see that it’s all fantasyland she came up with as teenager the attorneys recognised – and stop thinking teen sex is a ‘heinous’ crime; only the perverted anti-sex laws making it a crime is, and to cry rape. Of course, the article forgets to mention that Polanski was released on the fact that he had served his time already in 1977/8, that the judge had reneged on their deal that had been his entire punishment, which ultimately forced Polanski to return to Europe, and that the entire rearrest/extradition was nothing but a political show of force. Good the Swiss put an end to it.

Samskara

Posted September 24, 2010, at 1.42 AM

Once again Novalis, an excellent commentary on the REAL aspects of the Roman Polanski case, not the ones fabricated by an uneducated populace not wanting to believe a young woman like Geimer can and did have the ability to say no, and loudly. The only thing that I have to correct you on is that the flight from justice is no longer on the table, this according to Lawrence Silver on the aforementioned Larry King show. He said the only charge Roman faces is the one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, the one he was already punished for. The one Gunson testified to under oath in his sealed deposition now in Judge Espinoza’s possession. You know, the one Widmer-Schlumpf asked for but didn’t get. You know, that one! (Heaps of sarcasm here due to Cooley’s lack of understanding of the discovery laws of California as well as what was asked for by the Swiss.)

Novalis Lore

Posted September 24, 2010, at 1.42 PM

Thanks Samskara – I borrowed part of the King ‘analysis’ from another blog I came across the other day and elaborated on it – which reflects perfectly what this is all about: that Geimer’s much more important words of today as the adult woman are utterly ignored by the public and the law AGAIN, ridiculed or nullified, twisted and made to fit the Polanski haters’ little sordid minds.

But I must correct you in turn, though her lawyer made it clear already then – few people are aware of, or simply ignore too – that we’re long past the sex, the events of then, and all that’s to be done is [that both] his prison terms must be declared as time served, to litigate and close the case, NOTHING else, he meant that in relation to the original charges only not being on the table anymore. His flight is still a charge that could be bought against him in case of another arrest/extradition, since they forgot to include it last year. A flight charge does not expire as long as the case is not closed, nor does this pleaded count have a statute of limitations since they won’t acknowledge he did his time TO close the case. That’s why Cooley will not let go of this. Polanski pleaded to the one count he’s guilty of, the other dropped counts don’t exist anymore since they could not be proven, that’s what Silver was referring to, and [that] Cooley of course doesn’t want this being made official. He wants to ‘try’ him (though that’s only possible if the plea is withdrawn no judge will ever do by Walgren’s own words in the extradition request he signed), when Cooley knows exactly what’s going on. But he’s a vindictive little shit and didn’t allow Gunson tell the facts of this case, though we DO know them by now more than clearly. Hence, Widmer-Schlumpf too showing him the official finger by listening to Polanski AND Geimer, giving them ‘justice’ if not closure, and released the little Polish mouse from his grip.

Samskara

Posted October 4, 2010 at 10.18 AM

Novalis:

In regards to the ‘flight’, I heard Silver say that the flight is not on the table, and neither are the six original felony counts. It’s only the one count of unlawful sexual intercourse. I seem to recall on the Larry King Show that Silver stated that the flight wasn’t on the table. At least that’s how I heard it. The only thing that is currently on Cooley’s list of retaliatory measures is the one count.

Novalis Lore

Posted October 4, 2010 at 2.32 PM

I saw the interview, and I have the transcripts. The only time Silver mentions the flight, is when King asked whether Polanski is a non-sentenced person, he said, yes, and that there is a warrant out for his arrest for being a fugitive. Nothing else. Being [still] a fugitive implies that the charge of flight can be added, unless the circumstance that led to the flight are deemed an exculpatory cause and is [also] dropped. But his Red Interpol Notice is still active, he’s still a fugitive, though the failed extradition didn’t include a flight count. Silver said the dropped five counts (not six, unless the entire case is dismissed or all the charges are dropped) are off the table, dead and gone once the plea deal is struck, yes, and that the only thing to be done is sentence him to time served for the unlawful sex count. It was always only this one count and no trial is possible or any other charges can be added unless the plea is withdrawn.

Though we know that Cooley tried to have Lewis’ claims taken into account under Evidence Code 1108 – but only if Espinoza had allowed for it, I highly doubt, since we all know now that she had lied. So the flight count is ‘there’, but most likely will not be added in case there ever will be another extradition (I highly doubt) for all the misconducts, since Fidler and Espinoza had already said that all they’d do is sentence him to time served and nothing else, and probably was the reason they had not added it. But a flight charge or his fugitive status do not expire unless he’s finally sentenced to be officially convicted. Though they could have done so in absentia decades ago, or this year – and that’s why Polanski won’t trust any of them anymore – after the Appeals Court wanted to dismiss the entire case in a special hearing, or drop the charges, the very day he was rearrested.

Samskara

Posted October 11, 2010 at 7.02 PM

Novalis:

Are you going to do a recap of Samantha’s more recent ‘acting’ job? I’ve also got a link for you:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000591/board/thread/171969545?d=172023706&p=1#172023706

This person seems to think that it’s, not in his words:

“Throughout the interview, I felt like I got a better sense of the kind of person Geimer is. Even her lawyer remarked that he admired her ability to forgive Polanski and fight to end the case. King thought she was very forgiving and amazing and thought it was ironic that she, the victim, was the main one screaming about the injustice of Judge Rittenband. I’ve always felt that people have made too big of a deal out of a corrupt judge, but to each his own I guess.”

Seems it’s perfectly okay for the judge to be corrupt, but not for her to consistently lie about what she says happened. It further perpetuates your entire blog’s theme of her not taking responsibility for what happened that afternoon. It also negates that no one else wanted Polanski to spend further time, in fact, no time in prison/jail for something that was consensual sex.

I also have to point to this one zinger from BDJones on that crazy IMDB board:

“Both King and her lawyer used the word rape to describe what happened to her and she didn’t object to that. I mention this because Prometheus [that’s me on that board] likes to point out that in a televised interview, Geimer said “It wasn’t rape.” However, another poster, lornamd-1, pointed to an article in which Geimer said she was uncomfortable with the word rape and used the term sexual assault to describe what happened to her. Her lawyer mentioned that Geimer did not pursue a civil case against Polanski until his 1984 autobiography in which she felt he crossed the line with some of his remarks. Polanski didn’t voluntarily pay her what the case awarded her, and King asked if that upset her and she said no. King thought that was quite amazing of her, as did I. She went on to say she hopes he is successful in his career and its fine that his friends support him. She also mentioned that Polanski wrote her a letter in which he took full blame for what happened that night and apologized to her and her mother for all the trouble he has caused over the years. This was the first time I had heard he contacted her since the rape, although, she didn’t say when he wrote this letter.”

First of all, how do we address the ‘not rape’ comment she herself has stated it wasn’t. But she is now allowing both King and Silver to address it as such. I don’t get it. It’s one or the other. And the fact that Polanski wrote her this ‘letter’ in which he took all the blame. First, it wasn’t ‘that night’. It was an afternoon. Secondly, that she won’t say what Polanski wrote in this ‘letter’, says that she has a part of him now she always wanted. But she can remain the ‘victim’ in perpetuity and he the un-convicted, un-sentenced convict who escaped injustice.

Once again, Samantha Geimer concocts whatever ‘facts’ suit her but she still does not address the fact there is no EVIDENCE saying she’s telling the truth. When will people get it through their heads that her Grand Jury testimony went unchallenged by Dalton?

She has continually stated that she does not want this to ‘go to trial’. Wonder why? Here are her options should Polanski ever be extradited. He could withdraw his plea and this would be one of three options for her:

1) Be called as a hostile witness and testify via her grand jury testimony that would certainly be challenged by Bart Dalton and Chad Hummell, as it is certain that Douglas Dalton would be called as a witness to explain what happened inside Rittenband’s chambers.

2) Be called as the hostile witness then plead the fifth against self-incrimination and be jailed for contempt for refusing to testify.

3) Be called as the hostile witness and then if she lies, be charged with perjury and jailed or go to prison for the perjury.

So those would be her options. I’m not sure she’d want to have this all opened again. She’s content with being Polanski’s ‘victim’ when it suits her, but she still refuses to address the lack of evidence of a double anal rape and the fact that the panties were collected only later by the cops.

And a shock to me, you mentioned that Vannatter and Wells are buddies. Doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Novalis Lore

October 12, 2010 at 2.07 AM

To address your post step by step, let me start with the fact that I was unable to actually catch ALL of the interview in one piece – all I have is snippets here available in the UK for ‘copyright reasons’ & partial transcripts I found on various articles in regards to what who said & cited in my blog. I read once or twice on blogs that Silver [suddenly] addressed it as ‘rape’ & was more than astounded & thought the blogger had made it up (since they jumped all over it & went, see it WAS rape!) All I heard from Silver on film was that he ‘explained’ the ‘asthma trick’ after Geimer repeated she told Polanski she had asthma in order to get out of the hot tub, & the interview cuts off right there. So I have no idea if he said it, or what to think of it since he seems to have really said it.

So indeed, why suddenly address it as ‘rape’ after she had never even mentioned it before to King in her first interview with him in 2003, when she herself had denied it was in various ways in her pervious interviews, correct – & didn’t even say ‘he raped me’ in her original testimony. So for one, I’m baffled – & would love to watch the entire thing. Of course it was ‘technically’ ‘rape’ but only statutory since she was a minor, but it fuels the wrong idea of forcible intercourse in people’s minds again & the rest she had accused him of to be also fact. So in effect she has contradicted herself once more, or at least her lawyer for her, & she seems not to have opposed it suddenly as she had before. I can clearly remember her having said, the word ‘rape’ brings forth a sense of ‘violence’ that wasn’t there. And she of course never directly said ‘he raped me’, sodomised me, hurt me, forced me. I think Silver meant that it was statutory rape, not actual rape, since that’s not what Polanski pleaded to or could be proven.

How did you address that poster’s remark re the use of ‘rape’ on the board yourself: ‘It was a reconceptualization of rape. In some of her previous interviews, she does not and never has used that word. Schmexual assault, sexual assault. No proof in the form of bruises, contusions, cuts, tearing…all consistent with what SHOULD have been there had it been what she is now calling it. Ah, the old ‘I hope he’s successful in his career and I’m glad his friends support him’ crap. Will she ever tell the truth? As for a letter, he’s fallen on his sword for her…what more could she ask for?’

So yeah, we’re facing another contradiction to her own former contradictions even if not from her own lips but Silver’s. To mention that note might sound nice & in his favour & that he HAD shown remorse [after all], but it leaves the audience in the erroneous belief that he apologised to her for ‘raping’ her, not just having had unlawful sex with her as HE had expressed it in later interviews till he got weary of apologising, & then never addressed the issue again no matter how nicely an interviewer had asked him.

I therefore also have no details on that Silver said she sued him over ‘crossing the line in his autobiography’ (I highly doubt was the reason) in 1988, just before the statue of limitations would have expired to bring forth any civil suit since his flight in 1978. Of course we know she wasn’t officially ‘awarded’ the ‘compensation’, but that it was taken after another ten years from the guarantors of the producers of his Ninth Gate film & simply took it from THEM & deposited into her personal account. The guarantors of course then sued Polanski over it thinking he had siphoned it off, before it was settled amicably after he could prove ‘SHE’ had taken it from them, not HIS lawyers.

The poster said it, citing Silver: Polanski was not in the mood to pay her (for something he hadn’t done), & since they (or her plenty lawyers trying) simply stole it from the guarantors who had no chance to get it back. So yeah, obviously she’s not ‘upset’ by it, since she STILL got the money. Of course King was ‘amazed’ by that, because he has no idea how she got the money ‘after all’, since she never talks about the ‘details’. But I know how they ‘acquired’ it from official court documentation, & even one of the unauthorised recent biographies written on Polanski cited exactly that. She never was awarded the money – they took it from that guarantor, in order for Polanski not to get his rightfully earned film proceeds he had coming in the US, since they had no legal means to take if from him otherwise or seize [part of] his assets, or he of course to prevent any of it. So in a sense they took Polanski’s own money, but from a third party he had official dealings with. I call it stealing. Or if you will, a very high price for a one-night stand he paid 20 years after the events.

Of course she can play the eternal, well-meaning & ‘forgiving’ ‘victim’ because of that one day & as long as it suits her, providing Polanski is a fugitive till his dying day, since he has no voice in correcting her even legally unless she’s on the stand to be finally cross-examined. Only once did he speak his side, (other than in his own testimony given in 1977 part of the probation report not corroborating her side & some old interviews) in his autobiography hardly anyone knows or cites painting an entirely different picture, which in turn comports with the long-agreed on evidence, NOT her never-proven claims of: ‘little drunkenness’, ‘little fear’, ‘little reluctance’, ‘little resistance’, & most of all that scenario of her ‘interrupted double sodomy’ Huston & Polanski never corroborated let alone any medical evidence. Equally clear is why she’s so relieved he wasn’t extradited; not to ‘relive’ all that, no, but to face the facts that she made up a few things – either deliberately or was forced to for her age – since had they found her claims credible back in 1977 they’d had Polanski plead to the most serious charge of drugged rape & demanded a long prison term even without her, not simply unlawful sex on probation (he was on since almost a year already) & NO jail time. But then of course Rittenband played his own game for the press & it all went ape shit from there.

Even though Polanski could ask for withdrawal of his guilty plea, yes, believe me, no judge will ever do so, since it entails to repeat the entire process they had undertaken already in 1977, & judges prefer defendants to be stuck with their ‘guilty plea’ since a trial might find them innocent. (Or conversely might put them in danger of facing even more undeserved jail time in case of a biased jury/prosecutor/judge.) And if they’d withdrawn the plea deal to have a full trial with all counts back on the table only then, he’d not stand the slightest chances of a fair defence these days. For one, the unfair Rape Shield Laws, the even more unfair Evidence Code 1108 Cooley wanted to apply with Lewis’ lies, & two, if Geimer would resort to not testifying as she always proclaimed, & your three addressed points therefore come into play, (other than not to go through another grand jury hearing actually since they’ll simply pick up the old charges & go from there straight to trial, which is very expensive, & means Polanski would need to be kept on unsafe remand for god knows how long). Of course she never wanted him in prison; he never caused her the ‘trauma’ people [still] think he had. But she flips the issue like a coin in the forms of once, ‘I was a little scared’, to writing to Fidler in 1997 (a year BEFORE the ‘settlement’), saying: “I do not believe that it was Mr Polanski’s intention to frighten me or cause me harm.” Yet, she let him proceed to have sex with her he thought was consensual, and later made it out as if she HAD been in fact ‘afraid’, ‘reluctant’, when she never was, since she entirely failed to explain ‘why’, and Polanski indeed never gave her that ‘cause’ or she had mentioned ‘how’ he had managed that. No, she was ‘made’ to play the victim purely for her age by the LAW.

Today she might be her own agent, but had his extradition been successful, they had intended to hold an evidentiary hearing (as so indicated in the request, though legally all they were allowed to & gave as ‘reason’ to seek his return for was to sentence him to time served once bailed & free according to Espinoza’s own words, NOT to stand ‘trial’ & demand more prison time) which no less is a sort of ‘trial’ but without jury, to give both sides the chance to bring in their evidence, witnesses etc. But as I said, if Walgreen had [been given all] the power [Cooley had in mind], he’d simply ask for any exculpatory defence evidence to be ignored by the judge, & if the judge goes for it, ZERO fairness for Polanski & could give him added time, & even if only on probation to cause him more distress. As she said, he had & has no reason to trust any of them keep to what they even had positioned him last year, & she also knows of their ‘real intentions’ of making an even nastier example of him she cannot risk. That shows a conscience, since she knows he never did what she had accused him of, & of course on the self-preservation side, would not emerge unscathed herself for what you addressed & not face court at any price. But ONLY had the hearing been FAIR to BOTH sides, which would never have happened.

She’s in the clear no matter what, & if Silver really said that & she did not butt in to say, ‘well, I never said it was ‘rape’, just you know, he took advantage of me’, we in fact just faced a grave setback with her new very conflicting interview. On the one hand she again demands to let Polanski be, yet never spelled it out that it WAS rape no matter what, not then not now. On the contrary, she said, ‘he wasn’t forceful, he wasn’t hurting me, he wasn’t mean’, etc pp., but then gives us that often-before self-refuted impression of what happened was ‘rape’ after all suddenly, despite STILL no evidences to back her up, correct. Though she never again mentioned the ‘interrupted sodomy’, & never said that Polanski had forced her to take the booze & drug, but when it comes to the sex, she becomes evasive & never speaks of the pain he would have caused her had he REALLY done what she accused him of. (As you mentioned it too often enough.) In fact, she also never said he had forced himself on her. Go figure.

Of course, your condemnation of the poster’s comment about Rittenband’s despicable misconduct being no big deal, but only because SHE says it was, & therefore in Polanski’s defence they cannot allow, is well placed. I wonder what they’d say if a judge wanted to punish them for one offence several times. Or run after them after decades suddenly with ever more misconducts & smear campaigns to utterly destroy them.

How did you respond to that idiot remark yourself on the board: ‘She’s a good actress, I’ll give her that one. Fighting to end a case that if Polanski were ever brought back, he could revoke his plea and exercise his right to confront his accuser. Then that would call up a whole host of legal issues for Samantha in which I’d bet both her and her mother would plead the fifth against self-incrimination. And with no evidence to back up her statements, I’d say it’s a slam dunk, Polanski would be found not guilty. And not a ‘big deal’ about a corrupt judge? Let’s hope you’re never in that position. You’ll be screaming like a baby. Bet on it.’

Indeed. That’s what I had said often enough myself.

Having gone through your other posts on IMDB, & came across this remark you responded to: ‘The quote that sticks out the most for me from this interview is Geimer when she said “It was scary and it was dark and I didn’t know how to stop him”.’

As I said, I never heard her say that, missing parts of that interview, but with your reply of: ‘Yeah, she keeps telling us how ‘scared, frightened, dark’ it was. She doesn’t tell how painful it was to have unprepared anal sex. And again, how does she explain the STILL lack of evidence against him? She can’t and won’t!’ I can only concur with that rebuke.

The TV room was shuttered, but it wasn’t pitch-black & if she really didn’t want him to proceed, she had plenty of chances just to go back into the lounge or bathroom, anywhere but stay with him. It’s the classic cry rape scenario she keeps perpetuating in one form or the other, while not calling it rape outright either or for Polanski to be punished for it. No, it was just what he pleaded to: unlawful sexual intercourse, they made a repulsive feast of it to this day.

Thanks for bringing this up, Samskara. I will include all that in my article, that Silver used the word rape, & then add my own thoughts to that. I might nick some of yours in regards, & some others I came across since I’m short a few crucial details given in that interview. I gathered that wasn’t all of it, but I can’t find the thing anywhere as an entire spot playable here in the UK. Maybe later on YouTube.

As for your first question, you said it yourself, she’s a good actress. She could dupe the grand jury panel as the suddenly oh so innocent teen, & she can dupe the public of today as the adult, though she makes it clear that she doesn’t hate or wants Polanski punished. Curious contradiction. Some call her mentally ill or oh so traumatised for all these contradictions, rather than see the real motives behind her demands to drop the case.

As for manipulative Wells & conniving Vannatter being buddies, that came out only in the much longer interview he gave to Zenovich, she cut down to a few minutes to ‘highlight’ what lying slimeball he is. It was used in the case dismissal request from last year Geimer had signed too, which cites Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted’ in full as one of the reasons that multiple misconduct had been perpetrated by Rittenband – & Wells. Of course, we also know that it was summarily denied, despite the fact that the Appeals Court demanded Cooley to look into the allegations – LAST DECEMBER. We also know that he rather brought in ugly liar Lewis instead of sending the Swiss Gunson’s proof that Polanski had done his time. Until the Supreme Court puts its foot down to drop this case, it’ll never end.

Till next time, keep up the good work on IMDB!

(Addition: since posting this comment, I was able to view the entire interview finally & have directly revised certain things.)

Michelle

Posted October 20, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Hei Novalis Lore!

I am a master student in theatre arts from Norway (am though actually Swiss) and plan to write my master thesis about the Polanski case. I was following your blog for a while and would like to ask your permission to use your blog and the comments left on it in my thesis. Please let me know, if you would be ok with this (or if you have any questions about my project).

Hugs from Norway

Michelle

Novalis Lore

Posted October 29, 2010 at 12.32 PM

It is a great honour to be chosen & become part of your thesis, Michelle – As per our emails I’ll be only too happy to assist you.

Alva

Posted October 19, 2010 at 13.16 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.

Novalis Lore

Posted October 29, 2010 at 13.43 PM

Thanks, Alva – I couldn’t agree with you more!

Mac

Posted November 10, 2010 at 3.26 AM

I always had a gut feeling that Polanski was railroaded big time. After seeing the HBO Documentary “Wanted & Desired”, the facts clearly show that he has been terribly wronged. I just hope that he is pardoned for leaving the U.S. sooner than later. Because we all know how this is going to work out-the U.S. legal system won’t allow a pardon while he’s alive, only immediately following his death. Simply out of spite. I am no attorney or crime analyst, but the reason that so many are falsely convicted of sex offenses seems painfully clear. First, this is the only category of offenses on which charges can be brought without a shred of physical or often even circumstantial evidence. Secondly, this is the only category of offenses where the accused is consistently assumed to be guilty from the outset. “Innocent until proven guilty” has no meaning and no application at all when one is accused of a “sex crime”, especially against a minor. It is “guilty until proven innocent,” with no evidence to refute or disprove, and with prosecutors salivating with the assurance of another victory. The real abusers here are the parents/mother who used sexual offender statues to manipulate their own legal case and the law itself which slings these laws at everyone they can. It was the State that was responsible for the investigation and close the case. Instead, the State has chosen to defend Geimer’s very shaky old testimony despite evidence refuting her. Today the State has chosen to discredit her current pleas to dismiss the case, and officially recanting would of course threaten her with perjury even though she was just a teenager when her mom and sister (or even Vannatter) got her to say these things. She started the ball rolling, but the State carries the ultimate responsibility to STOP it. Geimer should do the right thing and tell the truth. She should do this for Polanski and every other true rape victim. The fact that the courts will not hear the thinly veiled recantation of the “victim” is a prime example of the system’s motive which is self-centered and unfair. I would say that those that would falsely accuse should bear the consequences that the accused would bear, but laws never consider circumstances such as Geimer being put up to it by her mother and sister. It is frightening how easy it is to be falsely accused. Speaking of being able to consent, it seems blatantly hypocritical that while someone under the age of 14 or 17, depending on what state you’re in, is not old enough to decide whether they want to have consensual sex with whomever they choose, while a 13 year old can be charged as an adult for murdering someone. A 14 year old is a victim if she has sex with an older guy but is a perpetrator if she has sex with a 13 year old boy, yet only if it was a male will end up in jail no matter his own age. NEVER the female. That’s insane. Of course, there are plenty of prosecutors, detectives, and ‘experts’ that have their own personal agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong, guilty or innocent. The more “convictions”, the “BETTER” they are doing their job. Damn the truth and the innocence of the accused. This sort of thing is “ingrained” in our society, and VERY wrong. If someone accuses someone of a sex crime, they need to stand trial if that allegation is proven as false and premeditated. That is: Vogelhut, Lewis/Allred and Geimer for perjury. And, Wells and Cooley should be done for grave misconduct (and Vannatter), and Rittenband posthumously disgraced for his own misconducts that made Polanski a fugitive in the first place. The case should be dismissed NOW to finally free Polanski. He is NOT a rapist, nor pedophile. Or ever will be! Thanks for your remarkable efforts to expose the TRUTH, Novalis. You’re ONE in a million-like Polanski!

Novalis Lore

Posted November 10, 2010 at 5.01 AM

Thank you very much, Mac – glad I could shed some light of truth on the whole case. And you’re right with every word – & that the case should be closed NOW to grant Polanski his deserved peace in the matter – & Geimer her wish to see him freed.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 10, 2010 at 5.01 AM

Thank you very much, Mac – glad I could shed some light of truth on the whole case. And you’re right with every word – & that the case should be closed NOW to grant Polanski his deserved peace in the matter – & Geimer her wish to see him freed.

Samskara

Posted November 11, 2010 at 11.50 AM

The plight of a real victim of rape:

Elizabeth Smart testifies about day she was found

Tue Nov 9, 7:52 PM

By Jennifer Dobner, The Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY – Elizabeth Smart was so terrified of her abductor that on the day police found her, she told them she was someone else.

She took the stand at her alleged kidnapper’s trial for a second day Tuesday, telling jurors she was also too scared to speak up when a detective tried to question her in a public library months before she was finally freed.

Smart spent nearly six hours testifying in a steady voice before a rapt audience in U.S. District Court.

She told jurors Brian David Mitchell raped her almost daily and forced her to drink, use drugs and view pornography. Once she tried to flee, and Mitchell and his wife caught her and told her an angel would cut her down with a sword if she ever tried it again.

Mitchell, who knew Smart because her mother had hired him to fix the family’s leaky roof, is accused of kidnapping her from her bed in June 2002, when she was 14.

His attorneys say the homeless street preacher known as Immanuel was influenced by a worsening mental illness and religious beliefs that made him think he was doing what God wanted.

Smart testified Tuesday that when police finally found her in March 2003, wearing a wig and sunglasses and walking along a suburban Salt Lake City street with Mitchell and his wife, she told them she was Augustine Marshall, the daughter of travelling preachers.

Smart, now 23, said that was the story Mitchell had instructed her to tell if ever the three were approached.

Police separated them and peppered Smart with questions. They were tipped off by drivers who reported seeing the girl.

“I was very scared. I knew the threats that I had been told for nine months,” said Smart, who was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. “I thought maybe at the same time that this is it. This is it, this is over.”

Smart also told jurors about a missed chance to tell police what had happened when a detective approached her at the Salt Lake City library in the early fall, a few months after she was kidnapped.

She was wearing a robe and a veil that covered her face, and the detective asked if he could look under it.

“He said he was looking for Elizabeth Smart,” Smart said.

Under the table, Mitchell’s now-estranged wife, Wanda Eileen Barzee, squeezed her leg, a sign that Smart should remain quiet. Mitchell refused to let the detective talk to her, saying it was not allowed in their religion and only her husband would ever see her face.

The detective pressed.

“He asked if he could be a part of our religion for a day, just so he could see my face, just so he could go back (to the police station) and say, ‘No it wasn’t Elizabeth Smart’,” she said.

Mitchell calmly refused, and the detective gave up and left.

“I was mad at myself, that I didn’t say anything,” she said. “I felt terrible that the detective hadn’t pushed harder and had just walked away.”

Afterward, Mitchell sped up plans to move the trio away from Utah, so Smart would not be discovered, she told jurors. They spent the summer in California before hitchhiking back to Utah the day before she was found.

The three pitched a tent in an Orem campground called Camelot, about 30 miles (48 kilometres) south of Salt Lake City, after getting a ride from a truck driver.

“The tent was set up and I was raped for the last time,” Smart said.

The Associated Press does not typically name victims of sexual assault, but the details of Smart’s case have become public.

She also told jurors that soon after she was kidnapped, Mitchell tried to abduct her cousin from another part of Salt Lake City.

“He decided it was time to go and kidnap another girl to be another wife,” she said.

The attempt was thwarted when Mitchell tried to get through a window but pushed over some knickknacks and awakened the sleeping household.

Mitchell, 57, faces life in prison if he is convicted of kidnapping and unlawful transportation of a minor across state lines with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The trial is expected to last at least five weeks. Barzee pleaded guilty to kidnapping and is in federal prison.

Copyright © 2010 Canadian Press

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/101109/world/us_elizabeth_smart?printer=1

My Note: Disgusting how we’re talking about Geimer at all considering that this happened to Elizabeth. My heart goes out to all she went through. Being raped several times a day by this disgusting man. Geimer lies about what she ‘experienced’ and thinks she deserves any concern? Bullshit!

Novalis Lore

Posted November 11, 2010 at 3.09 PM

It is indeed shameful, or any other woman complaining about having been ‘taken advantage of’ during a drunken sex fling by someone or their own boyfriend – it’s a farce and trivializes real abuse & rape. There are several of these cases and genuine rape victims, & NO one will ever hear from ‘them’, but people like Lewis & Vogelhut have to make up sleazy sex stories to gain an audience. As for Geimer, she certainly didn’t suffer anything at the hands of Polanski – she said so herself often enough but still wants to be seen as ‘Polanski’s victim’ – rather than stand up finally & come clean over her own part in it now as an adult, & that of her hasty mother & manipulative sister.

Samskara

Posted November 11, 2010 at 6.36 PM

Novalis:

A question about what you’ve said about Roman’s current status. I read here in one of your very long tomes about Roman being an unconvicted person and an unsentenced person. Could you clarify that one for me?

Also, about Geimer’s mother and sister. I believe the whole bunch of them were conspiratorial in framing up Roman. I don’t think there is any innocent here, except for that schmuck Roman who didn’t see this one coming.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 11, 2010 at 7.35 PM

Actually Silver said that himself in the first Larry King interview with Geimer, that he’s an unsentenced & therefore unconvicted person, since Rittenband never made it official, & Cooley & his lot won’t make that official either. Or rather Espinoza, despite the fact that Polanski had done his time, twice now, & Gunson had testified to all that several times now too. As long as he’s not officially sentenced to time/s served, Polanski is merely a fugitive of the one count he pleaded to, so he technically never was convicted of his plea. The dropped counts however are still off the table once a plea deal stands, (though it was obviously broken) – & he’s ‘guilty’ only of the one count he pleaded to since no one wants to withdraw it either (to have a trial). So in effect, he did his time in 1977/8 & while on Swiss remand last year to the [full] time Rittenband had in mind (no one wanted as we know), yet no one wants to make that official today either, in order to be sentenced & finally convicted of his plea. That’s why Geimer wants the case dropped completely & all charges dismissed, to basically vacate his guilty plea & see him walk without any final sentencing, i.e., conviction. Also meaning, make him not guilty of all charges. Polanski is basically in limbo with his plea she wants erased so that his fugitive status can also be lifted & the case litigated of all the misconducts. That no one wants any of that is clear. If the case would be simply closed, however, his time served was for nothing, his house arrest a total timewaster & at any rate unlawful since the extradition was unsound to start with. All in all, it’s more than fucked up when Espinoza could put an end to it today. As for the Gaileys, you said it.

Samskara

Posted November 11, 2010 at 8.02 PM

Novalis:

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly on that. One would at least hope that at some point, this thing would just be over and done with. I’m sure that even now, Roman wouldn’t care about the misconduct if the case were just simply closed and his charges expunged and he were finally a free man. I’d think he’d just be glad it was officially all over. But as long as Cooley and company can milk it for all it’s worth…. Well, go figure.

About the Gaileys, I really wish there were some way to charge them all with something. Truly. It would make Roman’s contention of the consensual sex all the more believable. We know though if Samantha were to actually have to get on the stand under oath, she’d be in a bit of a Catch-22. Either self-incriminate or implicate her family. That would go over well.

Did you also hear about the death of Dino DiLaurentis? I always believed he was the one who gave Roman the money to flee.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 12, 2010 at 3.08 AM

It was Dino’s rep who gave him a few $ to flee Rittenband’s corrupt court who appeared in Wanted & Desired – & Dino himself went to Rittenband to explain that infamous Oktoberfest photo to him.

I’m with you on that misconduct thing, & maybe that’s what they’re all hoping for, to just close the case quietly one day & that’s that, EVERYONE got away with it all. Including the Gaileys. Especially if Polanski dies beforehand.

Maybe Geimer will wait until that happens, (or her mother too is gone) & then come clean, who knows. As for her half sister, they fell out, remember, so no qualms to tell the courts how she manipulated their mother, & herself back then. Unless they made up again. But by then Polanski might not be with us anymore. Her mother is 70 by now & Polanski 77. Unless he becomes as old as Dino!

mishem

Posted November 26, 2010 at 2.55 AM

Dear Samskara,

I have only now read the story about that dream you had… I was deeply touched, and think that it was, of course, your “heart of hearts” that prompted it, and the fact that a subtle intellect can tell lies from the truth on the subliminal level – you had felt you were lied to even without actually having done any research by that time.

I will even dare tell my own story… Very many decades ago I read something so heinous about Polanski (in 1979, in the Soviet Union; about the Manson murders, not Geimer case) that I just crossed him off from my life altogether (it was the first and the last time I believed the Soviet propaganda, or any other propaganda, for that matter; but neither this, nor the fact that I barely turned 15 at the time can serve as an excuse for me) which was an easy thing to do, given that we didn’t have any truthful information whatsoever about someone who had “defected”, “betraying” the bright Communist ideals. I only learned, some later, that he was not only a notorious Satanist whose wife was killed during a satanic orgy, but an infamous child molester as well. I lived in this delusion since then… so much time wasted, for my heart, for my mind, for my soul! I don’t really understand what happened then – maybe my time had come? – but in April 2010 I suddenly decided to watch The Tenant. It changed everything for me. I just suddenly understood, clear as day, that everything I used to “know” was a lie. I didn’t stop at that; I watched all the 17 of his movies (The Ghost Writer wasn’t available till August)… then I studied his biography, to be able to know for myself what was and what wasn’t… and then I learned he was under house arrest, awaiting extradition. I hadn’t come across Novalis’s research by then, but whatever I was able to glean elsewhere (“Wanted and Desired” including) was enough to form a clear picture in my head, a picture that is fully the same as yours of Novalis’s; I think any thinking person would have come to the same conclusion.

It was all very scary… no, it was horrifying. I was reading the murderous comments of all those hangmen all round the net; at the same time I was watching and reading Polanski’s interviews, learning more and more about his life from all sources. Luckily, I know how to work with sources (being a Ph.D. with a lot of formal education… why, why, why didn’t I use my head earlier than that?), so separating the truth from lies wasn’t a problem… I remember it was July, unheard-of heat struck our city (St. Petersburg), I was sitting there sweating, reading and listening and watching like a madman, day after day, totally obsessed… and then I came to that shocking piece of information that had escaped me before –

Did you watch that short film, Le gros et le maigre? It is a little masterpiece, if you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it… not to give too much away, at some point he (le maigre – the lean; a slave; played by Polanski himself) ends up chained to a goat, with the chain tied around his ankle.

Everything goes in circles as far as his destiny is concerned. He escapes the ghetto – the Communism – the American [in]Justice. The infamous hearings were set for August 9. Some of the Manson gangs were among the inmates of Chino. The iron curtain which he was lucky to break through in the early 60s was rebuilt around him in the late 70s. And now this –

I know what I will say now is impossible to prove, and I can only beg you to believe me. It was July 11; I didn’t know anything about when the Swiss was going to take their decision; and I had just learned that the electronic surveillance device referred to as a “bracelet” was in fact an anklet.

This circle closed, too. And then I had this kind of… well, vision. Like, you know, it was all God’s experiment: how much can a man endure? If he is given everything – talent, intellect, charisma, unprecedented survival skills – and then made to go through all hells imaginable, will he be able to survive? To create? To stay sane? To stay himself? When the last circle, the chain around the ankle, closed before my eyes, I suddenly saw another, the very last: now, he is supposed to be extradited to the US. No, they won’t let him out on bail this time. And he will die there, in jail, because there are some limits only for people whose essence is made – not even of steel, of pure diamond! – and the last thing he sees in life will be the barbed wire.

Then I started praying (I am a Catholic, by my own free choice) to Saint Anthony. I was saying, “Please. Don’t do that, ok? Just tell them not to do it. Please. I have already appreciated the elegance of this piece. Just let him be now, please? Let him live some more, another decade or two? Please?”

Then I slept, exhausted, and then it was July 12. Extradition denied. Cooley may go f… I mean, fly a kite.

And a couple days later I found this blog and knew I was not alone in my hopeless fight against the mob and for the truth.

Thank you, Novalis.

Thank you, Samskara.

Thank you, all people who still keep their sanity, honor, self-respect and common decency.

Thank you, St. Anthony.

Novalis Lore

Posted November 27, 2010 at 9.51 AM

Hello mishem –

Even though your comment is directed at Samkara, who commented on my blogs often before as an ardent defender of Polanski, you posted your ‘vision’ to my site too, so I shall honour your effort to tell us how you came to view Polanski over the years – as I suspect like many more had: utterly misinformed & unjustly.

I read about Samskara’s dream too. It is very perceptive & in effect spot on. Her ‘heart’ & intellect, logic & deduction powers were certainly in the right place. Her instinct sealed her efforts to find out & tell the truth in her own way – the ONLY truth about the case, the men – & the women of the utterly distorted piece.

Many read that same frankly put bullshit about Polanski being this Satanist in the West too since they invented it, right after the murders, that it was some satanic sex & drugs orgy, or that Polanski even killed them himself. It was literally plastered all over the papers that he did it & [some] people even believed it, while I thought that’s nuts. I never believed any of that preposterous garbage, while some still do it in their sad little delusions – just because he made ‘ONE’ film with a satanic thematic, at that time. It’s sad & reminded me of the Salem witch hunts – which would be reignited eight years later, & then again in an even more monstrous form online three decades on. I can remember it clearly, & how Polanski had cried in front of the press, the same who had spread cruel lies about them. It was heartbreaking, & when the truth came out, it was so banal & boring – just ‘brainwashed’ hippies who went after the wrong people in the name of this ‘guru’ Manson – a pitiful little man with too much power over some pitiful little girls. Murderous little monsters, nothing more, with Polanski left the devastated survivor. No one ever apologised to him over what they had written about him, Sharon & their friends, & so it would be from thereon: Polanski the free-for-all media fodder whipping boy.

Of course, Polanski never was a ‘Communist’, he only lived in Poland after the war to learn everything about & make films, his one passion, & when his nonetheless ‘acclaimed’ short films & classic Knife in the Water were not ‘really welcome’, he took off to France once he could. A more liberal & civilised society. Soviet propaganda is no differed from US propaganda or any other – they ALL lie to the/ir people, & of course mostly about other countries. Or their people, famous or not. I’ve seen it with East German propaganda, vilifying the West wherever & however possible. But sooner or later, the people wake up & fight their own oppression. It happened to the East Germans as well, The Wall fell & they reunited with the West.

It’s a shame that you were brainwashed into this ‘delusion’ like Manson’s ‘Family’ was in a different way – like so many others in both cases – & you lost all that precious time to enjoy Polanski’s work as it was created, & not only decades later all in one go. But of course, it is never an excuse just to believe what the manipulative, lying media feeds us. If you live in a country or age that allows for it, there’s always the truth waiting somewhere hidden in between all the lies to be unearthed – one only needs the will to look for it, most people of course don’t want to unleash, since it would shatter their little delusions they have about someone. Of course, there are also those who still don’t believe in the facts – & never will, since it just doesn’t fit into their deluded world.

You’re a perfect example of how the public was & still is being manipulated, mishem – & how to beat it, find out that truth for yourself. I’m sure many did as you did. I know for a fact that I could help some on the path of that truth with my own efforts, my research, my passion to expose the truth, seek justice. If people want to believe that truth, is another question. Their choice, their loss if they don’t. I don’t even pity them – they’re no one. I know my work had a positive impact, since the comments prove it, & I found my own comments & blogs’ bits & pieces all over the place under different names where I had not posted them. It only showed that others shared my findings, no matter they never commented on them directly. I also had some emailing me to tell me how they believed in all these nasty lies about Polanski, the case, & after they read my findings could no longer. One ‘hater’ even jumped over his own shadow publicly when he commented on my blog how he was converted to the facts & felt ashamed he ever had been so ‘brainwashed’. That is all I wanted, to give people the choice to either believe in ugly lies others propagate with impunity & immunity, or stop & rethink, wake up, & realise that NOTHING is black & white, EVER. And that there are always TWO sides to a story – or even more.

Of course, I for one know & have all his work, & that all too prophetic little masterpiece, The Fat & the Lean. Your own résumé of how it would be Polanski’s own future is as profound as it is true – but I saw it even more fateful than that; that of the fat man being Rittenband, making Polanski dance after the beat of his drum, or gavel, till he escaped his invisible fetters & ran from his court back to France – only to be fettered again decades later for real, once more ab/used for political & personal gain. And true too, Manson & Watson, who had killed his very own wife & friends, were at Chino at the same time when Polanski was to end up there on the whim of this fat man, after abusing the law Polanski had trusted in, & how horrible the vision was had he ever come across them. Polanski had to be kept in protective custody, & how cruel indeed that he had to plead to that one count on the very day of Sharon’s own murder. While murderer Manson, who once abused a young boy at knife-point, is a cult figure, filmmaker Polanski, who once slept with a young girl, is unfairly demonised & whatever else people want him to be I shall not repeat this time.

Your analogy of a cycle is equally apt – as that is what life is – & that men like Polanski are very rare, their unique survival powers & skills, artistic or otherwise. Which is of course another reason why he must be destroyed, over & over & over. Only great & innocent men can be made small & guilty, by small & guilty people, or those in corrupt power. But it seems no man can take his life, but life itself – one day, hopefully very far away. Not the Nazis, not that bomb & grenade, not that murderous ‘bicycle thug’, not the Communists, not that car near-fatal accident, not the Manson Family, not corrupt Rittenband & Co/oley, or his backstabbing ex-lovers. Film kept Polanski alive from childhood on, his obsession & love for it, later women, as friends & fans, & a new family who stood by him, preserved his deserved dignity. His own son cut that fetter, that ‘anklet’. He hated it & freed his fettered father, after a wise decision was made to tell the US [courts] off, not return him to this ugly mire of corruptness & more ugly lies.

I know of others who prayed for him, & they all believed their prayers had been heard when he was freed – I knew they would not extradite him, once the ‘truth’ came out. Or Gunson, & Geimer, with their own pleas to stop this madness. Now that the online storm of hatred has died down again & another witch hunt is over, Polanski once more can do what he does best – make more acclaimed films – & the only thing he should be remembered for, is just that – film, NOTHING else. Of course Sharon to preserve her own legacy, NOT ever Manson, & never Geimer. No matter she tries hard to have the charges dismissed & his guilty plea vacated. It will never happen, not as long as Polanski is alive. But she of all had caused him the most of all pain, & her mother & sister. And ugly liar Lewis. Apart from the US injustice & degenerate lynch mob. And his mother’s & Sharon’s loss.

Now with Cooley deservedly having lost his AG race, & his little French-Polish mouse, one can only hope his own lies will soon be his undoing – to close that cycle. And case.

Thanks again mishem, for sharing your own thoughts with me, us – & as you said, there ARE people out there with more sense & honour, intelligence & integrity, one only needs to look for them. Right amongst the ugly lies & hatred that one day will consume them all – rightly so.

mishem

Posted December 3, 2010 at 10.41 AM

In reply to: Novalis Lore, of November 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Quote:
“Even though your comment is directed at Samskara…”

Oh no, Novalis, please don’t think I wasn’t talking to you! I addressed Samskara directly because I was replying to her dream, but it is your realm here, it’s thanks to you that the voice of sanity is heard, and every word I post here is directed to you by definition.

Quote:

“I never believed any of that preposterous garbage, while some still do it in their sad little delusions – just because he made ‘ONE’ film with a satanic thematic, at that time.”

But you see what is the most preposterous? Even that one film is not satanic by any means. Let alone the fact that it is intentionally ambiguous as far as the very existence of Satan is concerned, or the fact that the evil is remarkably unattractive there, devoid of any romantic disguise, if we only concentrate on the message we’ll see that, unlike Levin’s book, the main point of the film isn’t “how a woman gave birth to a child of Satan”, but the impossibility for an individual to win against a group, what an organized group can do to someone they single out as their target, and it doesn’t matter whether this group consists of Satanists, just ordinary neighbors, or media. In this sense, it is truly prophetic (again).

Quote:

“Now that the online storm of hatred has died down again & another witch hunt is over, Polanski once more can do what he does best – make more acclaimed films – & the only thing he should be remembered for, is just that – film, NOTHING else.”

Film, first and foremost; but also the miracle of his unique personality, his unbelievable destiny, survival ability, outstanding intelligence, magnanimity, moral integrity… he is worthy to be named the man of the century, and instead of this he is singled out for continuous stoning.

Quote:

“… you lost all that precious time to enjoy Polanski’s work as it was created.”

Not only this, Novalis. I lost a lot of time that could be used for doing what you are doing. It is not too late now, thank God

Your site will always be the cornerstone, the best source of information for everyone who wants (or is able) to know the truth; but the more sources like this exist, the less they will sound like a voice crying in the wilderness. Samskara is another wonderful example of the good work; I have been doing what I can on this site:

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?10975-Roman-Polanski

(the linked thread and elsewhere), but I feel that it is not enough. I want to go over to Russian internet, and have a blog both in Russian and in English, where I will treat our subject in a form a little different (differently structured, I mean) from yours. I hope you wouldn’t mind if I quoted you profusely, or if I asked you a few questions.

I have to apologize in advance if some of my questions have already been answered somewhere in this site; I am doing a reread now, but what with English not being my first language, and my universe being very different from the one you’re all living in, I might miss or misunderstand something.

Novalis Lore

Posted December 5, 2010 at 10.48 AM

Thanks again for your support and kind words, mishem, they mean a lot. Feel free to use my findings – as long as you quote & link the source – or ask me whatever you need to know. Your grasp & expression of English is very good, & I doubt there will be language barriers. I realise that Russia is a world apart, but so is the US, trust me.

And you’re perfectly right about Rosemary’s Baby being what you quoted – as are all Polanski films – a struggle against [the] ‘others’ by an ‘outsider’, or isolated individual/s entering a totally different world as in What?, The Ghost [Writer], even Oliver Twist or Knife in the Water, where the ‘outsider’ ‘upsets’ everything. Be it a run by a coven of Satanists or some racist neighbours as seen in the brilliant Tenant who encroach on [the] ‘other/s’, or even as seen in the funny Dance of the Vampires being surrounded by bloodsuckers. People who have to deal with ‘intruders’, as in the farcical Cul de Sac or Holocaust milestone The Pianist.

And you’re right, Polanski should also be remembered for his eternal survivor image & all you mentioned, not only his films, & to most it will be just that, while to many it will only be his oh so ‘heinous act’ of 1977, yet give others a pass for the same – or worse.

As for your own efforts to expose & spread the truth, keep up the good work – to join the league of the more enlightened & all you said.

mishem

Posted December 6, 2010 at 5.52 PM

Thank you Novalis! (Can never ever thank you enough!)

Of course, I will quote and link the source – there’s no source like this one; as I said, it is the cornerstone, the alpha and omega. What I want to do is to make a concise compendium, structured the way even an idiot could understand what is what. I will link you to it as soon as I’m done.

Here’s the first set of my questions (my apologies again if I miss something in the text which answers them):

1. I remember seeing, somewhere in the Net, transcripts of quite a lot of testimonies; now the only thing I can find is the notorious Geimer’s Grand Jury testimony (and, thank God, Polanski’s probation report – I have saved it in case it disappears). I know, however, that I had also seen the doctor’s testimony, and the mother’s. Do you by any chance know where I can find them?

2. Is there a complete transcript of Ms. Geimer medical examination? I especially need the exact quote in which she is called “adult female”.

3. Ditto of Mr. Polanski psyche evaluation? Is the following quote taken from that document? “There was no evidence that the offense was in any way characterized by destructive or insensitive attitude toward the victim. Polanski’s attitude was undoubtedly seductive, but considerate. The relationship with his victim developed from an attitude of professionalism, to playful mutual eroticism. Polanski seems to have been unaware at the time that he was involving himself in a criminal offense, an isolated instance of naiveté.” Is there any source I can refer to?

4. Is there any text of his testimony?

5. I know (and you mentioned that, too) that he gave an account of what happened in his book, “Roman par Polanski”; however, I won’t be able to get it till (hopefully) somewhere in June – Amazon doesn’t deliver where I live, and I can’t think of any other way I could get it. So, maybe you can post some excerpts? I know it’s only a few pages, maybe you can scan them, or something?

6. You say, “legally a ‘child’ is only someone under the age of twelve, male or female.” This I understand. Then, in the next paragraph, you say, “according to new definitions of ‘child sex’, i.e., underage sex with an adolescent, i.e., NOT prepubescent, a ‘child’ now is anyone under eighteen. Voila, as the French would say. The UN, the US, and Europe too have adopted that ludicrous blanket definition.” You lost me here. So, what is legally considered a “child”, where and by whom?

7. I still fail to understand why Samantha and her mother went to the police. If they wanted to use Polanski to get to the movies / modeling, why didn’t they go through with the plan? What did they gain by reporting him? Mother never sounded to me, from what I’ve read, like someone who would just get carried away by a moral urge and act on that impulse. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had tried to blackmail him person-to-person, but a rape cry wouldn’t seem to get them anywhere. Or was it actually a case of, as it were, legalized blackmail – as the author of the “eats shoots ‘n leaves” blog says, “for the victim and her family, the ideal outcome would be a guilty plea to any one of the charges so that they could pursue a lawsuit to seek civil damages outside of the media spotlight’s glare”? Or a moment of lunacy? What would your own, personal theory of their motives be?

Novalis Lore

Posted December 10, 2010 at 3.05 PM

I will send you related documents as PDFs per email I hope you can open since they are original court documents only obtainable in that format, which are not available as online links – & cannot be posted here in that form. They include the entire court transcripts of Geimer, her family, that of the examining doctor who couldn’t establish any penetration at all, the lab technician who examined her underwear, & the first officer who interviewed her. They contain Polanski’s complete plea statement, his probation report that includes the ‘adult female’ reference & medical details that clearly show no force in any form was used & his own statement as to the events, which answer your questions #1, 2, 3, 4. They include evidence as to the misconduct by Rittenband & a complete transcript of lying DA Wells’ interview used in the documentary Wanted & Desired – of which only a few minutes were used. They also include the two petitions by Geimer that Polanski should be left alone basically. As for #5, I can scan you the relevant pages of Polanski’s autobiography & how he recalls the sequence of events & send them to you later.

As for #6, what I meant is, in today’s common language in the [western] media & general population everyone uses terms like ‘child’ or ‘child sex’, which is technically wrong, just so to make it sound more horrible & make Polanski a ‘child rapist’, rather than say what it really was, underage sex with an adolescent minor, i.e., not sex with a ‘prepubescent child’ as people in general believe Geimer was. She passed for up to 20 years old & was extremely developed despite her chronological age. The only relevant images of how she looked are shown in that documentary, not the few photos flying around. Unfortunately our ‘sex language’ has changed so radically that anyone under eighteen or any age of consent is considered a ‘child’ today, because of extreme feminist views that infantilise every female, & feminist-influenced laws. That’s why I said the US & Europe have adopted such ludicrous blanket definition that makes every minor a ‘child’ no matter their actual age. So legally a child is still someone under 12 years in general according to US laws, or European laws according to country, someone who cannot reproduce yet basically, which is usually below the age if 13.

As for #7, what Brenneman said is his own view many share. What I believe is that the jealous sister egged on the mother to call the cops after she overheard Geimer telling her boyfriend that she had champagne, then took a third of as Quaalude with Polanski & then had sex after the photoshoot & Jacuzzi – with no indication or rape even in her talk to him given in her testimony, & the mother hastily grabbed the phone to cry rape because she was underage. I think Geimer embellished on what happened, added the ‘reluctance’, ‘fear’ to make her utterly unaccountable, & the anal sex & that Huston interrupted them for reasons unknown – but most likely on coercion of Vannatter or ‘others’ (since Vannatter had blackmailed Huston into saying she had interrupted them or be charged with drugs offences), or it was her own idea since we don’t have her actual first statement she gave to the cop who visited them that could make it clear if she had told him about the anal intercourse there already, Polanski denied. Geimer never wanted her mother to get the law involved & said so often enough, but by then it was too late & it all went wrong from there. That’s why they didn’t want a trial where she would have been found out that she wasn’t quite that truthful & had been shredded by the defence. The prosecution or family could have demanded prison time or a higher charge plea deal had there been any proof of her rape/sodomy, reluctance/fear, drunk/drugged claims – but there was not & that’s why they dropped the other charges. Polanski only pleaded to underage sex, or had to, purely for her age. Otherwise the case had been thrown out at no evidence backing up her claims.

mishem

Posted December 16, 2010 at 8.25 AM

I have found some of the transcripts, and read a thing that shocked me deeply – is it possible that I misunderstood something? Expert says the stain on the panties is semen with a 90% probability, but he can’t be 100% sure because he failed to find any spermatozoa. When asked what it could mean, he says it may happen if the “individual” who left the stain has undergone a vasectomy. Then they ask Larson, and he confirms: yes, a vasectomy, or anyway if the “individual” is sterile, that is, unable to produce posterity.

Well? Whoever the hell left the stain, it was obviously not Polanski. How after this they could take anything told by mother or daughter seriously is totally beyond me. Or why they didn’t charge them both with trying to deceive the authorities.

Novalis Lore

Posted December 16, 2010 at 12.00 PM

You’re right – & I covered that at great length in my blogs. It most certainly cannot come from Polanski, since he obviously is neither sterile nor had a vasectomy. So unless the stain is from her boyfriend, or her mother’s boyfriend (or others), the panties could well be her sister’s, or even mother’s. Or, Vannatter & his lot had a game going there. Told you they messed with evidence.

mishem

Posted December 16, 2010 at 6.21 PM

Of course you covered it, I remember it now! It’s that too much information fell onto my head in these few months, and some things are so enormous, so incredible that my mind kinda refuses to accept them. I’ve been analyzing whatever transcripts I have at the moment, and good Lord, wonders never cease. I can’t believe anyone in their right mind could overlook the blatancy of the whole thing.

Novalis Lore

Posted December 16, 2010 at 6.45 PM

Indeed – the only problem is that people don’t want to look deeper, or even believe the facts when they see them. Unlike you, they will continue living in their dark world of drugged rape & sodomy that never happened. You’re the best example of how to change such ignorance.

mishem

Posted December 23, 2010 at 7.48 AM

Dear Novalis,

thank you so much for the documents! I’m studying them now.

Back to the question of the panties, there’s one thing I can’t understand: I’ve just watched Wanted & Desired once again, and it seems to me that what they say there is in contradiction with the documents. They (namely, Silver) make it seem as if this piece of evidence appeared much later, and could actually prove something:

“The LAPD brought the evidence envelope to this courthouse building and brought it in, actually, to this room. (…) and someone takes it and turns and opens it, and out falls these little girl’s panties.” (…) What we understood was that Dalton was going to take his half and submit it to a lab. I also understood that the lab was about to give its report in two weeks. And two weeks and three days later, Dalton called me on the phone, clearly now, I think, having the results on the lab report, saying, “You know, what do you think would happen if we pursued a plea bargain with the prosecution?” At which point… at that point, I realized that now Polanski had an interest, that the stain in the panties was gonna be brutal evidence for them.”

But it just couldn’t have happened this way, could it?

Novalis Lore

Posted December 28, 2010 at 8.40 AM

‘Little girl’s panties’? Geimer was no ‘little girl’ anymore. And you’re right – that is not what happened.

I know that they cut the pair in half & tested it, but before the indictment hearing two weeks after Polanski was arrested, on March 24. They were tested on March 14 – according to the very court papers. Silver is clearly perverting the facts when he says they were the ‘reason’ for the plea bargain when they were not. The plea deal was struck only in August, FIVE months later, right on Tate’s death anniversary of all days, NOT because of these panties that clearly showed no spermatozoid in the deposited semen that could never have come from Polanski since he’s not infertile.

Silver makes it sound as if the panties were incriminating proof of Polanski’s guilt to back up Geimer’s version, or that they were tested much later, when Geimer & Silver clearly lied. I pointed to that often enough – or that Geimer just keeps batting her lashes in agreement with him, knowing exactly the panties were not stained by Polanski’s semen at no ejaculate of his touching her body or the panties nowhere near them both when he climaxed. The stains are clearly not from him. That ‘brutal evidence’ therefore means exactly the opposite – it would have proven that she had lied – hence the plea deal to avoid a trial to be found out by hard evidence like that, apart from no medical proof of ANY penetration.

But the panties would not have been admissible anyway because they were not taken off her body directly after the events, but her hands brought from her bedroom, if they were the same panties she had worn that day in the first place – or maybe someone else’s. The stains could have come from her boyfriend, her mother’s boyfriend or any other interfile man she had slept with before, hence her not falling pregnant (unless she WAS on the Pill). In those days it was impossible to determine exactly how old a stain like this might be or from whom it came before the days of DNA testing, but they cannot come from Polanski at any rate since they were found in the gusset, crotch area, & not on the back where she had said he had ejaculated all over her & inside her anus. It’s all a lie & the attorneys knew that – hence no trial. THAT is why Dalton called Silver to go for that plea deal to get it over with they all had agreed on.

Silver’s statement clearly contradicts the court papers citing when the panties were tested, & what was found. That of course is evidence no one knows of, & if they would, could no longer think Polanski had raped & sodomised her at no other physical evidence supporting that to start with either. They all read only her statement taken out of context, but not the vital rest of the entire indictment hearing/findings that clearly exonerate him, & show what fantasies she partly came up with, her mother & sister merely backed up in varying forms to make her entirely unaccountable for her own part in it. They all lied. Except Polanski.

mishem

Posted January 14, 2011 at 4.09 PM | In reply to Novalis Lore

Of course, I agree with every word you say, and it is stinks to high heaven that the “evidence” was corrupted; what puzzles me is why Zenovich bought it? She seems to swallow it whole, without any comment from her part, but she should have known it was all wrong? What could her motivation have been, since she apparently endeavored to expose the miscarriage of justice that took (and is still taking) place?

Novalis Lore

Posted January 17, 2011 at 10.29 PM | In reply to mishem

Zenovich no doubt knows better, but is like any other ‘researcher’; they only see or use what they ‘want’ – true or not, & is apparently a ‘friend’ of Geimer’s ever since her documentary. Though she exposed the misconducts through Gunson & Dalton, she studiously avoided correcting Geimer & Silver, or included relevant facts that exonerate Polanski, readily available to even people like me, who have no means of producing a documentary. Let’s see how her next documentation/follow-up pans out she started when Polanski was rearrested, this time with his co-operation. Maybe THAT will shed more light on the FACTS. Legally or otherwise.

mishem

Posted January 19, 2011 at 3.52 PM | In reply to Novalis Lore

Dear Novalis,

since you said somewhere you didn’t watch the latest King/Geimer interview, here’s the transcript:

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/07/lkl.01.html

I’ve been reading her interviews and it’s truly amazing, how she alters facts every time to suit the particular circumstances of the particular interview. I mean, she is a thorough liar, throughout the years. Regarding this, I have a couple more questions:

1. Where does the information of her necking mother’s boyfriend in front of Rittenband’s office come from? Is there any source?

2. Ditto her having sex more than “once” (which “once” she repeatedly says in various interviews): you say Dalton had information of her having had several partners; is there any source for this?

Novalis Lore

Posted January 20, 2011 at 6.44 AM

Re the interview (thanks!) – Dalton did not request a psyche evaluation to establish if what Geimer claimed was ‘entirely fantasy’, but to establish the parts they assumed, & we know now in fact, WERE ‘fantasy’, or lies, & I wished they had imposed the evaluation to establish what was invented by her & what not, for the case to be thrown out.

Re ‘private stuff’ published about her after his arrest, that’s nonsense, the court transcripts are out on the net since 2003 – in order to boycott Polanski’s Oscar nomination for The Pianist, which failed – & what was released in the extradition papers is exactly the same. Omitting, of course, anything as to HIS defence in any form.

That transcript is not quite factual in places, since I have seen most of it now (or couldn’t have included any of it in my analyses already then). King never said, “…he ‘raped’ you (why are you so forgiving?”) he only asked why she is so forgiving. Besides, if it had been actual rape, she’d not ever forgiven him. No genuine rape victim would do so.

Silver said: “[Had] He [Rittenband] had not done what he did, then Polanski would have pled guilty.” That’s nonsense, Polanski pleaded guilty to that one count in August ‘77, & he went to Chino in December/January 1977/8, long before Rittenband would break the deal in February. I noticed that Silver gets a lot of details wrong.

Silver is such a liar anyway, consensual underage sex is not ‘rape by force’, not even in the law books, it’s, ‘statutory rape’, i.e., NOT forcible but unlawful sexual intercourse. ‘Rape by force’ is violent, forcible intercourse’, or violent physical & or mental ‘force’ used to force sex, i.e., forcible physical & or mental coercion. And, ‘rape by use of drugs’ was not ever proven either – he’s talking hypothetical claims that were never challenged in a trial, he of course conveniently forgot to mention. He has no clues about the law, or simply rephrases it to suit her claims. Just like she does, as you noticed, to suit a particular interview with varying accounts. Or she simply forgets what she had said before, or even in her original testimony, of which neither can be factual, since, what really happened would never be forgotten she obviously cannot suddenly state.

Geimer saying: “She [Huston] never got a look at me. I kind of left quickly without really saying hello to her. So she never saw me,” is utterly contrary to what she in fact stated in her own testimony, where she said that she DID meet Huston still sitting by the phone, after Huston had asked her directly if she is the girl Polanski is photographing, & Geimer replied yes, & then only left – after Polanski had introduced her to Huston & she DID say ‘hello’ to her. Otherwise, Huston could not have said that ‘the girl’ was ‘rude’ to her, who [Huston] did NOT testify that she in fact ‘interrupted’ them both in that TV room. Geimer puts forth pure assumptions what Huston was ‘thinking’, might be pissed off that they were there, which is not quite the case, since she by then was told by the caretaker that they were there, or hadn’t in fact known of the photoshoot. Huston in actual fact was NOT living with Nicholson at that time anymore (or at the house) & had no say as to who was to come & go. Polanski had the use of that TV room whenever he was in LA ever since he made Chinatown five years earlier. To say that Huston was ‘disturbed there was a girl in the room’, is BS, Huston knew Polanski brought his dates there, & knew a ‘girl’ must be there, or no photo shoot. She said that she doesn’t believe Polanski would ever rape or sodomise an unwilling girl. So Geimer is talking BS. And Vannatter must have told her about her accusations, since she could not have known about the sodomy claim otherwise that early.

Now that I read the entire interview, I’m even more appalled. Geimer  said: “I called my friend, an ex-boyfriend, but a close friend…” while in her testimony & other interviews, she, her mother & her half-sister said that it was her ‘current boyfriend’ she had called & was talking to (which her sister then overheard), NOT some ‘ex boyfriend’. How much more ‘ex’ can her boyfriends date back with ‘only’ 13/14, which would also explain that she had more boyfriends & sex than she even told the court of, or Polanski. That would be why Dalton said that there were more boyfriends/men he had unearthed, wanted to interview, & is the answer to your second question. Dalton talked about that in several interviews from the days, of which a snippet can be seen in Zenovich’s documentary, where he informed the press there were more men ‘the girl’ has sexual relations with, & wanted to investigate why they had never been charged with statutory rape, Rittenband unfortunately ‘discouraged’.

Equally saying: “They found evidence in his room,” is another distortion – all they found in his hotel room was the [partial topless] photos he had taken of her before, & that one Quaalude he wanted to give his friend, her own sister’s boyfriend’s (Polanski’s own friend) ‘pal’ had given him the evening before – just so to be ‘caught’ with it, since he had his own Quaalude that were of lower strength than the Quaalude they had found at Nicholson’s place, she herself identified as a higher strength, while Polanski had to ask her if they in fact were Quaalude. Classic set-up. If the ‘topless’ photos amount to any ‘evidence’, since he never denied having taken them, but Geimer conveniently forgot to mention they were partially topless, is a far stretch. It’s the main reason for this entire drama, since Geimer never told her mother of them Polanski explicitly had asked to go through & take out the ones she didn’t like. They also obviously found out that the Quaalude they both had found at the house were not his own, hence did not ‘furnish’ them.

Also, court records clearly show there was NO evidence of even the slightest vaginal, let alone anal intercourse after the rape kit exam done a mere four hours later, & the ‘semen evidence’ didn’t hold water to start with since Polanski was not infertile. Geimer & Silver keep promoting things as if fact despite no trial having proven any of it. The evidence they in fact had, entirely disproved her claims from early on, which then led to that plea deal. Ergo, both lie as it pleases them – or Silver is so dumb to believe her, forgetting the actual evidence. Not sure which he is, but he certainly repeats [her own] falsehoods.

Also, saying: KING: Did you hate him? GEIMER: “No. Not even — not even when he denied it [the sex],” is another lie. Polanski pleaded not guilty to the initial charges on his arraignment as one is advised to do, & then explained what happened in his own testimony as part of the probation report, which clearly states that he slept with her once (i.e. had NO anal sex let alone twice), & did NOT deny the sex. If he in fact had maintained that argument of ‘denial’, they’d have had NO evidence whatsoever to ever force him to plead guilty to that one count. Besides, he recounted it in his autobiography, so how is that ‘denial’.

Funny how she did not correct King (or Silver) when he said, “He raped you…” & she went “Yeah…” while before she never used the word rape in any form to describe the events, not even in her testimony, but said ‘it wasn’t rape, he wasn’t forceful’ etc. pp. She constantly contradicts herself.

To say she only sued Polanski because she thought his autobiography was an ‘attempt to exploit the events for money’ is also more than BS. Another lie or assumption. It was an attempt to put the record straight & to voice his side of the events, he had a perfect right to do. She only sued him because he said what really happened & exposed that she had an affair with her mother’s boyfriend. Not for ‘money’ – he had enough money by then again & didn’t care for it other than to invest it in a new film.

King is an idiot, he only fuelled the misguided ‘child rapist’ rhetoric with one of his remarks to that effect. A teenager is not a child even by law, but adolescent, & Polanski is not a rapist. A rapist has forcible intercourse, not underage sex the ‘teenager’ could have aborted at ANY TIME herself, & if she really had told him off, he’d let her be.

Saying: “I never blamed myself. But I didn’t feel like I made the smartest choices that day. Looking back it would have been wise to do things differently. But I was only 13, so –“ is pretty arrogant & dismissive of her own crucial part in it no matter her ‘age’ she constantly brings in as excuse, or the actions of her highly negligent mother. Geimer was far more intelligent being able to ‘do things differently’ that day, or would not be a 9th grader meant for 15 year olds with better ‘social skills’ & higher intellect/knowledge. As in, not drink the champagne SHE took herself, which was NOT ‘provided’ by him, (hence no charge). NOT take the Quaalude he did NOT force on her either, & NOT let him have sex with her if she didn’t want him to – but tell him off more directly for him to really ‘stop’. She let him do what he did & not unwillingly, no question about it, & then tried to wriggle herself out of it purely for her age, & NONE of those who allowed her to have sex & drugs & alcohol BEFORE she met Polanski to start with were ever punished for any of it. THAT is wrong. Not underage sex that forces people to lie about it & then land adults in prison to be raped there.

About that ‘note’, if it really said that it was not her ‘mother’s fault’, he however has not excluded Geimer having been at fault [too] (since she let him have sex with her), while in fact, he always had no sympathy for her mother ever since (or her sister) for having done this to him (as so stated in his autobiography) – while they got away with it all & the other ‘men’ Geimer had slept with while she was still underage & even younger. Including her own older boyfriend, & that of Gailey, who [Gailey] most likely did not know of having an affair with her own daughter, who was Polanski’s age. Which Dalton in  fact found very wrong, & rightly so, if they just pick & choose who to accuse of rape, & doge the law.

And to answer your first question (I actually covered several times in my analyses), of where the info stems from of this ‘affair’; the primary source is found in Polanski’s autobiography, or of course court records, since Gunson’s clerk had told Rittenband about his observation (that happened outside Gunson’s office), who (or Gunson) then told Dalton, who then told Polanski – or he wouldn’t in fact know of it, & was in fact a factor to go to trial, before they then changed it to that plea deal to cut it short & safe Polanski a lot of money). I will copy the entire events pages for you later, but of the uncorrected advance reader copy, which contains several more crucial/explanatory (events) details the eventually officially published bio does NOT. Or you could just buy a cheap copy on Ebay, which is good enough.

mishem

Posted January 21, 1011, at 10.33 AM

Buying a copy, cheap or expensive, at eBay or any other place, is what I can only dream of; unfortunately, eBay doesn’t work for Russia. I hope to be able to come to UK next spring, and by then will have a copy delivered to a friend’s address, but it’s such a long time from now!

Everything you’re saying about Geimer and Silver is true, of course… not a single detail is the same in various Geimer’s accounts of what “happened”: every account contradicts every other, and/or her GJ testimony. She invents stuff ad hoc, whatever she thinks would sound better at a given moment. Sometimes what she says is outrageous in its enormity (like, saying that he “gave” her the Quaalude in guise of a medicine when she faked that asthma attack AFTER the jacuzzi – a base, indecent lie), sometimes just an attempt to look better (and bury HIM deeper at the same time, but she just doesn’t care), but always lies, lies heaping on top of one another, contradicting one another… and the reading/watching public swallows it all, every time taking her every lying word as the holy truth. That is why I believe enlightenment is so important. For every 100 people who are incapable of thinking, there must be at least one capable… and for every 100 of those, at least one willing to hear. That is why it is so important for me to get all my sources right, and I am sorry if I bother you with my questions – I never question your or Polanski’s words, but I know my readers will question mine.

What struck me as funny is what she said about his memoirs. As you said, “To say she only sued Polanski because she thought his autobiography was an ‘attempt to exploit the events for money’ is also more than BS. Another lie or assumption.” – but in addition to this, it is a wonderful joke, to allege that the greatest director of all times, a man of unparalleled biography and outstanding brilliance would need something as pathetic as the character of Samantha Geimer to sell his book. The public found it plausible, too, I presume, like everything else.

On a more optimistic note, here’s a very short video of Polanski being awarder by Prix Lumières:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ZLjcnuhDk&NR=1

Novalis Lore

Posted January 23, 2011 at 11.10 AM

Shame you can’t go on Ebay – didn’t realise that.

All Geimer & Silver say should be seriously challenged, (hence her unwillingness to face a trial), to stop them misleading the public, though what they say on the whole still rings true in part re the legal facts which is much more important, but most don’t pay any attention to.

At any rate, I will tackle his autobiography & scan you the relevant pages of the more in-depth advance reader copy & forward them to you by email.

Thanks for the vid – let’s hope Polanski will get another award for his Ghost Writer at the upcoming Cesars.

mishem

Submitted on 2011/03/11 at 7:26 AM

Did you already see this?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/roman-polanski-victim-moves-on-13103200

Good morning, America! The 34th anniversary of the Crime of the Century. Why don’t they make it a national holiday?

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/03/11 at 10:12 AM | In reply to mishem.

Yeah, I saw that. I will update my blog here shortly to add Geimer’s interview accordingly – after all the awards for The Ghost [Writer] & new film in production. And true, why not make it a regular thing to remind everyone what oh so heinous crime he committed all these years back Geimer of all wants to see dropped. And mind you, the new AG might just be able to help with that & is probably why Geimer gave that interview now that Cooley is out the race. Harris could force Cooley to drop the case, or do the time-served-sentencing thing to close it finally.

http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/kamala-harris-weighs-cooley-and-polanski-case-22116

But here it the actual interview with Geimer your link is missing. I loved it how she trashed Cooley & Co!

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/exclusive-roman-polanski-victim-blames-media-13103307

mishem

Submitted on 2011/03/11 at 5:36 PM | In reply to Novalis Lore.

Thank you! But I am currently going through a phase of deeply loathing Geimer and anything Geimer-related: I’ve been analysing all her interviews, and some lies she invents ad hoc are just too despicable (like when she says he gave her the Quaalude under guise of a medicine for her “asthma”, so she didn’t know what she was taking. Pathetic, cruel and filthy lie). I am very close to finishing my blog, which, as I said, should complement yours, being a shorter version; now working on structurizing and clarifying all minute details, trying to make it an easy read even an idiot can understand; there will be English, Russian and French version.

I’ve had a wonderful experience recently – inadvertently got into a discussion with another hopeless blogger who judged the case without knowing shit about it. Since he asked me to keep to the facts, he apparently deprived himself of the right to say “guilty regardless of the circumstances” (that gem his colleague spurted out once); I suggested that he learned the real facts, gave him an overview and all necessary links, and recommended that he either study the case in depth or keep silence about it. To which he replied that he was not going to undertake any such studies because he didn’t believe me and thought I made everything up myself.

Priceless, isn’t it? A big step forward, as far as self-exposure goes. They feel that something is desperately wrong with the world they live in, and block out any information that might disturb their precarious balance of lies.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/04/15 at 2:35 AM | In reply to mishem.

Sorry that it took so long to reply, but I had very little time to do anything & then my computer packed up. I have gone through your own blog by now & it is admirably conceptualised & a gem in our fight for Polanski, & that he most certainly is NOT what people believe he is, as you have noticed yourself often enough. Other than a brilliant filmmaker & should finally be released from his ‘fugitive status’, & bullshit peodophile rapist label.

I have added you to my blogroll & here’s the link to your own blog I highly recommend.

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/

I will update my own later, & thank you for linking back to my extensive chronicling of the complex case & events ever since Polanski was rearrested nearly two years ago.

mishem

Submitted on 2011/04/18 at 11:25 AM | In reply to Novalis Lore.

Thank you a HUGE lot both for your kind words (you being the highest authority on the matter, your praise is truly priceless) and linking my blog. I have been posting the link around, at the sites where comments are allowed; I endeavored to state all the facts as clearly as possible, so they would be clear even for the intellectually challenged, who, regrettably, seem to constitute the majority. It is extremely hard to fight a prejudice so deeply rooted. I will go on linking our blogs – yours, Samskara’s, and mine; maybe at least one of a thousand (though it may be too optimistic… ok, one in five thousand) will try to think

mishem

Submitted on 2011/05/19 at 11:04 AM

OH SHIT – now with that Dominique Strauss-Kahn thing I fully anticipate a new wave of hatred, witch-hunt, ignorance and bloodthirst.

I have already posted here

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelweiss/100088341/dominique-strauss-kahn-roman-polanski-and-the-lefts-trouble-with-rape-allegations/

Let’s see how long my comment will survive…

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/05/21 at 11:18 PM | In reply to mishem.

Sorry I didn’t reply as quickly as I usually do – VERY busy. I thank you again for thanking me, mishem. THE TRUTH MUST BE KNOWN & disseminated wherever possible, if people like it or not. People have a right to their own opinion – BUT NOT TO THEIR OWN FACTS, i.e., NOT facts.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/05/21 at 11:20 PM | In reply to mishem.

The blind hatred is already full-blown & most certainly misplaced. So far your good comments are still there. GOOD JOB.

Sonny

Submitted on 2011/06/12 at 3:49 AM

Is Arnie protected by Hollywood, Santa Monica,…or is Arnie like a character in the movie “Chinatown”? Or better yet “The Tenant of Chinatown”

“Chinatown” was a movie about sexual affairs in Los Angeles, which Roman Polanski directed in 1974. But isn’t Arnie’s latest story – about the history of Los Angeles repeating itself in real time over and over again in California –
I am talking about the cover – up of extra marital affairs and out of wedlock children by former Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Remember Arnold Schwarzenegger who when Roman Polanski was imprisoned in Switzerland – said that Roman Polanski should be treated like everyone else, which is a pretty hypocritical statement in view of Arnie’s cover up of his OWN extra-marital sexual conduct and his out of wedlock children which he hid from Maria Shriver, his own children, and the people of California for years. Shades of “Rosemary’s Baby” – what is in the next room? Causing alot, alot, alot of HURT. Seems he only thought of himself and could not be honest – such was his need for power – and to be the Governor of California.

And it is no coincidence that Arnold Schwarzenegger ties right into Santa Monica & its College with Arnold’s cover up of extra marital affairs and cover up of out of wedlock children because the former Superintendant of Santa Monica College , Piedad Robertson advised Arnold Schwartzenneger in Education when he was about to become California Governor – See http://www.smc.edu/corsair/Archives/102203/nw/spt_102203.htm

printed on Oct 22nd, police brutality day in 2003.

Former Superintendant of Santa Monica College Piedad Robertson helped me to be beaten up in a Santa Monica courtroom on Oct 6th 1998 by allowing her Santa Monica College police to cover-up that I had been sexually molested in a class at Santa Monica College from behind by the instructor, by allowing her Santa Monica College lawyers & police to threaten and frame me, which resulted in my being assaulted and battered in a Santa Monica Courtroom and revictimized, in front of a Judge whose dad was a law school friend of Richard Nixon.

Does Santa Monica College have a class in cover-up and did Arnold Schwarzenegger take it, along with the Santa Monica College Police and the ex Superintendent Piedad Robertson, and the Santa Monica Judge and on and on and on and it never ends.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/06/28 at 1:19 AM | In reply to Sonny.

Your analogies are spot-on, Sonny – as usual. It is indeed history repeating itself, & another shameful double standard when to comes to the rich & powerful. Arnie got away with his own long-term statutory rape of a minor at the same time as Polanski had a one-off fling with Geimer & was never done for it & even pardoned over it by his predecessor, then messed up California decades later, & now he has to go back to ever-forgiving Hollywood, getting on & not being an all too good actor to begin with. But no worries, he sucked the State dry & can live off his royalties just nicely – unlike others with MUCH more talent. Like Polanski.

Sonny
Submitted on 2011/07/13 at 3:17 AM

Happy one year anniversary of release and SWISS JUSTICE DENYING extradition of Polanski from Switzerland to USA.

Of course Novalis Lore with this blog have been a great support to Roman Polanski…

And also Marina Zenovich et al, for her courage to make the documentary “Polanski: Wanted and Desired” and for retrieving precious ancient film footage of what really went down at the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 and 1978.

I trust Roman Polanski fully appreciates what she did in part for him and FOR CALIFORNIA JUSTICE.

And of course not to forget former Los Angeles Prosecutor Roger Gunson’s courage to tell the truth. I hope he is well!!!

Also many hundreds of others in addition to his many lawyers on both sides of the pond have supported and helped Roman Polanski to be and to remain free.

http://laregledujeu.org/2010/05/02/1397/i-can-remain-silent-no-longer/

http://dankprofessor.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/lynch-mobs-love-polanski/

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/now-online-roman-polanski-wanted-and-desired/

http://www.crimefilenews.com/search/label/Roman%20Polanski

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/polanski/Swiss_reject_extradition_request_for_Polanski.html?cid=17950322

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/polanski/Polanski_verdict_makes_legal_sense.html?cid=17955298

Once again Happy First Anniversary of freedom to Roman Polanski…And many more to come…

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/07/15 at 1:23 AM | In reply to Sonny.

I too hope Gunson is well, though whatever cancer he has to endure might prove an untimely end. We never heard from him again & he indeed did a courageous thing to speak up for Polanski, & he was the prosecution, with a CONSCIENCE trying to end this farce. But alas, because of crooked Cooley & Co it never did & never will before Polanski himself is gone & the case will simply be closed. In a country where the law doesn’t even listen to the side of the ‘victim’ to drop the case & dismiss all charges, though Geimer never considered herself Polanski’s victim, is seriously flawed & has no respect for the law or any ‘victims’.

Thank you for your own support, Sonny, to thank me for mine & that of others, & let’s include Samskara’s own great efforts to show the blind haters what REALLY happened on her own blog, & a commenter-turned serious blogger, mishem, who did a brilliant analysis of the case himself.

http://samskara.org/journal/

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/

As Assange once said, TRUTH WILL OUT. One day.

Sonny

Submitted on 2011/11/03 at 5:55 AM

Novalis, sorry to hear this on the news today. I hope all is ok with you!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assange-extradite-20111103,0,5241869.story

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/11/04 at 2:37 AM | In reply to Sonny.

I’m furious, I tell you. FUCKING FURIOUS! There was NO reason to dismiss this appeal – we KNOW the accusations are trumped-up BS & far from being ‘serious offences’. The ‘Justices’ acted contrary to all logic, commons sense & even rule of freaking law, no matter what they say! I hate the UK courts, I hate the damned fascist legal system here! All they do is pander to the militant US who imposed that damned European Arrest Warrant on us in the name of that already trumped-up ‘war on terror’ BS!

I was inside the Court & in fact had expected the outcome, I’m a pessimist – not to get disappointing in case things go wrong – but this was SHAMEFUL! I was there with others & some even cried. That day ‘justice’ DIED, I tell ya. What’s worse, now every other far less ‘famous’ poor bastard can be extradited on the flimsiest accusations without any evidence, let alone ever having been charged with anything! This is WRONG! It was designed for people accused of serious crimes to be extradited for prosecution &/or sentencing, NOT for some fucking condom-less sex that occurs every second on this planet, or to be merely questioned! He can be interviewed HERE & Sweden refused! And don’t even start with the accusations by feminazi Ardin ‘woman A’, we KNOW is BS in itself to even think they’re ‘sex crimes’, & we KNOW ‘woman B’ Wilen wasn’t ‘asleep’ either & she never told Assange to stop without any condom at any rate. It’s all BULLSHIT!

I doubt the Court will grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, unless this case can be made an example by addressing the wider issues, AS the abuse of that EAW, or that no evidence is needed to fast-track detainees, which should be law TO produce actual evidence. The ruling was outrageous, after they in fact had noted several irregularities in the entire thing last time & suddenly it’s all gone puff, maybe someone leaned on them. There was clear abuse of due process from early on on every front & plenty interested ‘parties’ are having their dirty fingers in this political game to stir it up some more. This will not end nicely. BUT, the more Assange is being attacked now even il/legally, the more his supporters will fight on, the more might even join his cause, since what HE’s suffering now as an individual, can happen to ANY of us, & we’d be even less fortunate or helped than he is – we’d be wholly fucked. THAT is what this case must highlight. Oh, & that Sweden is a fascist feminazi stronghold where all men are second-class citizens & generally viewed as rapists, where women get away with the same ‘offences’, just for being ‘women’. Repulsive.

At any rate, I’m in fact positively surprised at the comments in that article after usually only the negative ones are left – since the US tried their best to brand Assange a terrorist & rapist, but the guiltiest party of such blatant lies here in the UK is smear king The Guardian with their ugly, libellous attacks on Assange.

Sonny

Submitted on 2011/11/04 at 4:04 AM | In reply to Novalis Lore.

Assange has still one appeal left in England if he takes it.

Here is a link from the Huffington Post with
the peoples’ comments saying that Assange has won!

You cannot go up against the powers that be – AND SHOWER THE WORLD WITH TRUTH THAT THE POWERS DO NOT WANT UNCOVERED – without infuriating them – and being punished for it – any way that they can. The weak spot or Achilles Heel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/02/wikileaks-julian-assange-extradition_n_1070959.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=%23longorsiha+%23world+%23news+%23wikileaks+%23crisiwatch

And even if Assange has to go to Sweden – he is not coming to US JUST yet.

Here is Glen Beck video on Assange and his good explanation of the sexual assaults in Sweden – 9 minutes. Glen exposes the BS.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/11/04 at 4:34 PM | In reply to Sonny.

I’ve seen & read everything there is under the sun, um, in cyberspace, re the Assange/WL case since nearly two years now & wrote about it ever since the Polanski case was wrapped up last year July when the Assange case blew up first a month later.
Though Beck gets it right in a funny way in most part, & unfortunately he’s Fox so many won’t believe him anyway, it’s far more complicated than that (& there is nothing like ‘sex by surprise’ btw. – Assange was never rich either, & never agreed on the condom breaking, which btw. has NO DNA traces, i.e., is falsified ‘evidence’). There are plenty more players in the nasty game, & the British courts certainly don’t help.
I posted that video several times now on [my] FB. HuffPo btw, has less & less professional articles on Assange, & the comments there now are as vile as most were in the Polanski case, though the vast majority in general DO know this IS all BS.

Vahan

Submitted on 2011/11/30 at 4:42 AM

Novalis, I haven’t posted here in a long time (I’ve laid low since the decision was made not to extradite Polanski).

Anyways, I’m sure you’re aware of the news that a new Polanski documentary is going to premiere here in the U.S. (it’s already had its premiere in Switzerland). It’s called “She’s a Double Victim – My Victim and a Victim of the Press”.

I don’t know what to make of this. The way I see it, it’s either his slowly admitting to something that he had been saying to the contrary for a long time to the point where he’s ready to go back to L.A. to turn himself in, or it’s yet again the media trying to make him look like a cad, or his memory is starting to fail him. I also noticed some people, especially on IMDB, crying “He finally admitted he’s a rapist! So much for the people saying he’s innocent!”.

Anyways, what are your thoughts? Be honest.

Novalis Lore

Submitted on 2011/11/30 at 8:10 AM | In reply to Vahan.

Hi, Vahan –

The title is utterly misleading & is not the original. The documentary is in fact his very own chronicling of his house arrest. He basically filmed his time during his enforced stay at his Chalet while finishing his GhostWriter. His ‘apology’ is a brief mentioning that Geimer was a victim of the press & himself ‘in effect’, since the law saw it/her like that purely for her age, & because the press behaved like vultures. He’s not going to say he raped her after all. He called her a ‘victim’ before, though not ‘his victim’ (simply because the court documents named her this way), in his public address that he had done his time already & that Cooley was trying to ride the case in order to become AG. It’s only a short ‘public acknowledgement’ of the actions he had pleaded to & that he’s sorry about his thoughtless actions, though he said that often enough already, & won’t admit to anything else suddenly he hadn’t before. The documentary isn’t about her at all – he just touches on the events & violent press ‘victimisation’ of both since they were the reason for his imprisonment & house arrest. Not a chance he’s going back to LA, & LA won’t ever close or drop the case before he’s gone for good.

Forget IMDB, it’s all wishful thinking on their part. Polanski might be old, but he’s most certainly not senile or dumb enough to suddenly confess to something he didn’t do just to appease his dumb haters (or Cooley & Co). He lived with this since over three decades, there’s no point in changing that now – that would be most dishonest & a slap in the face of all his faithful supporters. We know fair well what happened, & he won’t betray our faith in his proven innocence. He did what he pleaded to – nothing else, & Geimer never said either that he actually raped her. On the contrary. Only the vicious press & self-interested parties did – hence their repeated victimisation, twice over.

So, there’s nothing to worry about – unless of course the docu is heavily re-edited/doctored to make him look/sound guilty – but I doubt that. He’s paid enough for t/his transgression, literally, & it’s time to end this craven travesty.

 

 


0 Responses to “ROMAN POLANSKI – HE SAID SHE SAID THEY SAID – THE COMMENTS PART THREE”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Calender

July 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Sep »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Category

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

Join 9 other followers