Posts Tagged ‘Steve Cooley



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

Here’s how public manipulation works. An English-speaking article on the San Sebastian film festival cited September 17th, The Ghost Writer, voted the best film of 2010 by the Federation of International Film Critics picking up the Fipresci Grand Prize: “Polanski himself was unable to come to Spain because of the sex abuse charges against him, media reported”, making it sound as if the festival [director/s] did not allow him to attend because of the ‘LA courts’ still wanting him on the ONE charge, NOT any ‘US authorities’ on ‘charges’ since he was released two months back now. Only proving that still too many didn’t get the idea that he had done his time for it in 1977/8, despite the fact that Polanski had said so in plenty interviews long before Zenovich’s eye-opening documentary made that clear, no one seems to have taken any notice of. It’s more to the fact that Polanski didn’t want to go there in case it was another trap to arrest him, despite having had a villa on Ibiza for many years since the late 80s where he stayed frequently with his wife Emmanuelle. And why do they keep saying ‘he returned to his ‘adopted’ France’? Lives in ‘exile’? HE IS FRENCH and lives in PARIS! Nothing ‘adopted’ about that. It’s nothing but corrosive tactics to twist the facts of this case even still. To most he’s nothing but a salacious news commodity that can be abused by sordid tabloid stories, next to personal poison pens sent to the editors by petty haters whipping them into more frenzied attacks, with Polanski unable to defend himself against such open slander since decades now. Ultimately, in the black and white world view of our history, any ‘celebrity’ is assigned immortality in either the pantheon of untouchable star or the dungeon of the tainted criminal. However, nothing in this world is black and white. Ever.

Now, September 26th, exactly a year after Polanski’s needless rearrest having caused him and his family so much more pointless distress, released from his electronic jailer since nearly eleven weeks, it almost cost him a fourth film never to be finished. Though I doubt the case will ever amicably be remedied, I wish him all the best in the future as the tough old bird he is and to make more acclaimed films. Speaking of which, it was announced that Polanski could secure first-rate actors for his much-anticipated adaptation of Yasmina Reza’s play God of Carnage: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, along with Matt Dillon and Christoph Waltz who will play their husbands. Although the story was set in Brooklyn on Broadway, it’s a French play and filming will begin in Paris coming February for the duration of twelve weeks. The film is being co-produced by French producer SBS and Berlin’s Constantin Film. Pathe and UGC are both vying to be French distributor ever since Reza first disclosed she was adapting her much-appraised play with Polanski last summer. God of Carnage tells the story of two sets of parents who meet after their sons are involved in a schoolyard fight. The meeting goes disastrously wrong as each pair attacks the others’ parenting skills before turning on each other about problems in their own marriages as the evening spirals out of control and into a wicked battle between the sexes, and is a blistering look at societal dysfunction when the couples attempt to settle the playground conflict. Since this is only just now being made official, many have welcomed the three highly talented Academy Award winners, and Matt Dillon as ‘interesting’ choice. With such excellent all-round casting and Polanski’s magical directing touches and superb play, this should be a great film to look forward to.

While some have already voiced their usual ‘how can they work with this child rapist’ bullshit, it’s about time to get over this story which is older than some of these mindless detractors. Someone else going all dismissive of Ms Geimer, saying, ‘if she really forgave him and didn’t see the wrong in it, that just proves how mentally scarred she is,’ that’s not only contradictive since then she’d not ever ‘forgive’ him, but utterly ignoring her own autonomy as an adult and that what she says today should be respected they have no right to negate with their own dismissive ‘assumptions’. She’s not that teenager anymore who had to comply with adults, i.e., her mother/sister, the law/makers. She herself never said she was ‘scarred’ by Polanski but the public and corrupt law, and has lived a perfectly happy family life in oblivion on Hawaii. Here’s what someone else came up as a much more intelligent counter-résumé encompassing a side most people simply reject by imposing their own skewed interpretations. If we take a closer look at Ms Geimer’s own narrative of the experience as told to Larry King on his talk show in 2003 (many never even saw), we come away with a surprising perspective people hardly grasp. Rather than describing herself as an ‘innocent victim’ who was ‘forced’ into sex by a famous director, she appears to carve out an alternate identity for herself that is more empowering. This leaves us with significant questions, though (feminists will reject outright): how does Ms Geimer’s effort to represent herself as agential and sophisticated, and therefore less of a ‘victim’, complicate the positioning of this event as ‘rape’?

Apart from no evidence pointing to ‘rape’ (or sodomy), how does her use of elements of ‘romantic intoxication’, and ‘intoxicated seduction’ within a non-consensual sexual encounter make this unorthodox ‘rape narrative’ even more illegible and acceptable to the general public? And why does the press’ destructive re-narration of the events attempt to place Ms Geimer squarely in the category of ‘innocent victim’, even as she tries to achieve a more empowered identity as the adult many simply refuse to ‘believe’, yet blindly accept her words as an ‘impressionable’ and manipulated teenager? Ignoring entirely what she said three decades back here for a moment since most of her claims were disproved, and two, she never repeated herself the very elements of previously claimed ‘rape and sodomy’ elements, how does this demonstrate our lack of tolerance for alternate experiences of [legally considered] non-consensual sex? Ms Geimer’s interview shows certain key elements – those commonly used to ‘prove’ that she was ‘statutorily raped’ in newspaper stories – were contextualised in a very different way by Ms Geimer herself many people simply ignore, nullify, render the ramblings of her ‘trauma’. While she does not deny the fact that her sexual experience with Polanski was non-consensual purely for her age, her retelling includes elements of ‘romance’ that make her narrative more unconventional and therefore not the typical ‘rape scenario’ people cannot wrap their heads around. Usually women are pleased with men making efforts of ‘wining’ [and dining] them as prelude of their ‘seduction’, rather than go for their nether regions directly.

Of course, what one woman might regard as ‘romancing’ her with fine champagne and foreplay of ‘cuddliness’, the other could see it as feeling boozed up to render them ‘submissive sex objects’. As it would be in the ‘all men are rapist at heart’ feminist handbook. In contrast, Ms Geimer does not state that she was ‘plied’ with the champagne or ‘forced’ to take the part Quaalude by Polanski (not even in her original statement, but said she ‘took it’) she did not ‘refuse’ [to ‘take’] either, but rather says: “I was posing with some champagne glasses and did drink champagne… (after she had told Polanski she ‘liked’ champagne, hence his going for it after her ‘hint’, also known as subtly directing someone) thinking that was a very cool thing to do.” In addition, Ms Geimer’s nudity in the hot tub was not something she found scandalous, but instead an element of the experience that made her feel sophisticated and ‘model-like’, ‘European’. It is interesting to note how the elements that position the story as an ‘indisputable rape’ in most articles, such as the young woman’s consumption of alcohol and the nude hot tub photoshoot, appear more romantic and seductive in Ms Geimer’s very own retelling. We should think, first, about the role of champagne and hot tubs in consensual romantic encounters. Or even recreational drug use to get into the mood. Such elements are often used to ‘woo’ women as a prelude to mutually desired sex, and men who provide champagne or a relaxing hot tub soak are often considered thoughtful and romantic by their female partners. In concordance with this ‘norm’ people instantly accept when it comes to an ‘adult’ but not ‘teenager’, it appears that Polanski has ‘won her over’, at least to some degree, with these same romantic elements. (Which Vogelhut on the other hand turned into a ridiculous ‘BDSM’ setting.)

She felt ‘cool’ and mature while drinking champagne, clearly enjoyed being photographed in the ‘real pretty looking’ hot tub as she put it. Polanski treated her like his other sex partners: as an ‘adult’, as desirable, sexually attractive, while the law however was about to sour it for both. (But only because the mother had not conveyed to her taking topless photos and having sex with an older man is a no no – unlike Kinski’s mother allowing her to have romantic relations with him – or Ms Geimer had become an actress like her she so desired.) Although Ms Geimer does not convey sexual attraction to him (unlike Kinski), she notes that his celebrity held a certain degree of magnetism for her: “I thought [being photographed by Polanski] was a great opportunity. I wanted to be an actress. It seemed to look a really great, you know, boost… I was ‘star-struck’.” To some extent, then, Ms Geimer’s retelling seems to indicate other more romantic and seductive factors at play (and of course, the prospect of ‘stardom’) that are typically amiss in a ‘rape narrative’. She entirely omits ‘pain’ any genuine rape victim would experience for one, since he of course did not cause her pain either physically or mentally at no ‘forcible penetration’, even by her own words, or that he used verbal force most people entirely miss. Throughout her narration of the experience for King, she also insists on being seen as an agent, i.e., empowered as the adult today. Not once did she say: ‘he raped me’, ‘he forced me’, ‘he caused me pain’. That cannot ever be regarded as rape, let alone after saying: “He had sex with me. He wasn’t forceful or hurting me or mean or anything.”

That she once said that she had cried in the car, if true, therefore must be seen as a state of overwhelming emotions to the sex itself rather than reaction to ‘rape’. She never once called it rape. She did not tell her mother of the sex but curiously her ‘boyfriend’, (while the older sister was ‘peeved’ at the topless photos, egged the mother on to call the cops as she had testified), Ms Geimer did not tell her of any ‘rape’ but the ‘asthma [lie]’, afraid Polanski might find out she had ‘lied’. She does not report being forced to drink or remove her clothes, but rather portrays her own willing and even eager participation up until the point at which a sexual advance was made. Yet, Ms Geimer did not ‘struggle to break free’ from Polanski’s sexual advances at any stage, no matter she said she had ‘tried’. Not after the kissing, the caressing, the ‘cuddliness’ (he had not admitted to), the intercourse he described as very responsive on her part, let alone any anal contact ever proven. Instead, she ‘let him get it over with’, as she put it once, rather than remove herself from the situation she before had described as ‘giving some resistance’ she then ‘gave up on’. I.e., did not ‘actively oppose’ his advances, an action that women perform in sexual situations they are ‘intrigued’ by, ‘let happen’. I.e., acquiesce to see what will unfold, what a sophisticated man can offer them, rather than their inexperienced boyfriend, and later might describe as ‘unwanted’, hence no ‘active resistance’. Noteworthy, too, is King’s own role in the establishment of Geimer as a ‘sophisticated agent’, particularly when he highlights the fact that she was not a virgin (and thereby not an innocent) when the incident took place she did not shy from admitting.

Ms Geimer said in the 2003 interview that Polanski was wearing shorts when he went into the Jacuzzi, and that she ‘couldn’t really remember’, which is another inconsistency, since she said in her original testimony that he was naked. How can she not remember? When she also said he tried to coax her ‘to come down his end’? While he said he undressed entirely and only went into the pool? When King asked her if he forcibly raped her, she became evasive, and if he had, she sure as hell had said yes. But she didn’t, and nothing could prove he had. In fact, she had said to Polanski, “It sure is hot,” when she entered the Jacuzzi, and he, testing it with his hand, had to agree. When she asked him if he’s coming in, he declined because of that and took to the cooler pool. Huston had asked him about the Jacuzzi in the kitchen, holding the glasses in her hands when he had returned, knowing they had ‘her’ champagne and used the hot tub, when he explained things to her, and he replied, “Too hot, as usual.” This exchange puts Ms Geimer’s words of Polanski trying to get frisky with her in the Jacuzzi and that’s why she wanted to get out with the ‘asthma ploy’, into the greatest of doubts. But only if you know of this crucial discourse, Ms Geimer of course never knew of – if ever – at that time. This account can only be found in Polanski’s autobiography, and that only as the rare advance reader copy [I own] and was never published officially. Though Polanski said she told him about the non-existent asthma when he was in the other pool and asked her to get out, she turned that into this unlikely, ‘I was afraid of him’ scenario, not even being in the same tub as him, rather than simply say she felt too hot. That is why she asked him to lie down somewhere, and he said to go into the other room – the shuttered TV room to cool down there.

There was no reason for her to make up the asthma story, rather than just say she felt too overcome by the hot Jacuzzi jets as she put it herself in her original testimony. Equally, there is no reason for Polanski to make up his account, since they both obviously ended up in that TV room, and she never said that he had forced her to go there. When he asked her there if she’s ok, and she said yes, only then did he indicate her that he ‘wanted’ her. She did not give him any signs of resistance, neither verbally nor otherwise, and therefore engaged in sex with her. Ms Geimer’s account is that of a typical female who said she ‘let it all happen’, in order to be stripped off all accountabilities and her own participation. Since she never said Polanski had forced her into anything, or forced himself on her, but that she simply let him do what he did, and therefore she and her family could only do so for her age. Had she been of age, even just by the three weeks she was off her fourteenth birthday then, the case had never gone to the plea stage, especially not after her ‘lewd act’ with her mother’s boyfriend in the prosecutor’s office she of course would never mention. Polanski never expected her to lie about the events and end up in court the next day, suddenly accused of ‘rape’. They still might have called the cops, but, with the entire course of events as described by Polanski and no crucial evidence of forcible drugged rape/sodomy, the attorneys had simply dismissed the case, as they had with others at that time. But of course, the girl had elaborated on certain aspects, the jealous sister egged on the mother, and then the law took over and turned it all into a never-ending nightmare in the corrupt hands of Rittenband.

Today she desperately tries to have the case dismissed and many can see exactly ‘why’, but with the evermore corrupt/ed and vindictive law that will never happen. Funny thing is, in one of her only two TV appearances, her mother played a court ‘witness’ (‘accused’, in Starsky & Hutch) who protested her ‘innocence’ in a not too ‘talented’ show of shallow acting. So, who’s to say that she didn’t put on another show for the real courts, being an ‘actress’, pulling off another good ‘performance’ for real judges like Rittenband who was ‘starstruck’ himself. Just like her daughter had sat in front of that Grand Jury suddenly displaying an all together different ‘decorum’ to what Polanski had experienced with her, who could convince a panel of adults that she had been ‘stupefied’ and ‘compelled’ into double sodomy she oddly did not find at all tearing her apart. But then again, Larson had said there was no anal intercourse and Huston’s own testimony had not supported her from day one either. Even though Polanski is also a very skilled actor, I for one deem him more honest in real life purely for what his plenty friends, colleagues and serious business partners are saying or they’d not ever worked with him, and that he would not lie in a court of law. Remember, only the Gaileys were called to testify, not Ms Geimer’s and her mother’s boyfriend, who could have given another side of the story, and what she had told her boyfriend from his point of view, since he didn’t believe her the sex story to start with, and wasn’t at all concerned when she told him she had a part Quaalude and some champagne. Only the older half-sister pushed her into telling their mother, and then the suddenly oh so concerned mother called on the law – she regretted ever since.

When King asked Ms Geimer in 2003: “So you completed the sexual act,” she said, “Right.” King recapping: “It was just straight sex, nothing else?” she replied, “He did things and I didn’t do anything.” King making sure: “So he did but you didn’t,” she answered, “Right.” No rape victim would agree on rape as mere ‘straight sex acts’, but describe the hurt and pain it would cause. When he asked her if anything was said in the car, she said: “We really didn’t chat on the way home. We just drove back to my house with not a lot being said,” entirely omitting that she was in fact very talkative, spoke about her guitar lesson, her drama teacher, reciting ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’, and to go to the cinema to see Rocky. Not quite the scene after a ‘rape’ and ‘crying’. When King finally asked her: “If your sister hadn’t overheard the conversation with your boyfriend, would we have ever heard the story?” she said, “No, I never would have told my mom.” Exactly, because she let him ‘perform’ on her and then they all turned it into rape, even if not forcible. If it had been actual rape she had told her mother, which also puts her previous inconsistent recollections in other interviews into even greater doubts, and her actual participation. King may not have signed the Hollywood petition to ‘Free Polanski’, but he certainly was interested in complicating the blatant ‘brutal rape’ label generally assigned to this emotionally and legally very complex case. Together, Ms Geimer and King create an unorthodox ‘rape narrative’ for Ms Geimer that includes elements of romance and agency that are typically absent from actual rape victim retellings, simply because it never was ‘rape’, and many people outright deny her. And through that of course, Polanski.

Why, then, is the press and public so eager to recontextualise certain elements of her story so that it can be more easily read as ‘actual rape’, rather than letting it be the more complicated ‘seduction-unlawful sex’ that it was to the woman who experienced it? What is particularly interesting about the interview is the fact that it is not Polanski, but Ms Geimer herself who provides a more romantic narration of her ‘statutory rape’. The press, however, succeeds in recontextualising and re-narrating the event so that it signifies a ‘true rape’ of an underage ‘innocent’, rather than the ‘romantic seduction’ of an agential woman followed by ‘unlawful sex’, who had sex, alcohol and drugs before, and then had to assume the [legal] position of ‘victim’ she entirely rejects today. This recontextualisation indicates that a non-normative, ‘non-conformative’ ‘rape story’ that positions Ms Geimer as something other than a ‘preyed-upon’, ‘lured’, ‘scared’ little ‘victim’ is unintelligible to today’s ‘moral society’ and must therefore be re-narrated to become ‘brutal [‘child’] rape’. Or, ‘she must have been so traumatised’ she doesn’t know what she’s saying today, simply invalidating her words of today. As a result, all indications of her female agency, even her adult agency, rather assigning her ‘ulterior motives’, as well as the elements of romance, are mercilessly stripped from the account of that day in 1977 to make it as black and brutal as possible.

This is apparent in many reports of the event around the world: Ms Geimer’s position as an agent within the situation is entirely denied, and she is instead described as a drunk, drugged, and violated minor, leaving no room for her own actions and accountabilities and her own much more relevant interpretation of today. It seems, then, that recontextualisation of women’s words – whether they indicate refusal, or invoke female agency during a sexual encounter, rather than pure victimisation as in Ms Geimer’s case – is a common and very harmful tactic that serves to disempower women while reinscribing cultural and moral ‘feminist norms’ of [underage] seduction and rape being all but the same. Ms Geimer and her widely rejected unorthodox narrative prove that the ‘socially acceptable’ ‘rape model’ is so narrow that it silences alternate experiences, causing the press to recontextualise and re-narrate elements of accounts until they fit neatly into an intelligible package appropriate for public understanding, i.e., ‘rape is rape’, when it’s not. Only when we move beyond these repressive feminist indoctrinated norms of ‘seduction equals rape’ no matter the age of the female, will women be truly empowered, not by sending the man down for the ‘drugged’ and/or ‘drunken’ sex they had shared because she’s a minor, or might make it out as ‘rape’ because the law plays right into that highly damaging: female = victim, man = perpetrator doctrine.

In short, they want complete control not only over Polanski[’s very life in fact], but Ms Geimer’s autonomy of words, to work their own repressed will on a woman who insists upon willing for herself and not to be seen as a young victim of the older man. Today she refuses to be used as an agent of the redundant ‘power dynamic’ faculty of power-hungry anti-sex feminism imposed on both, yet, as seen not only the public denies her that right, but the very law itself – i.e., Cooley and his corrupt lot. It’s an attempt to force compliance to a way of thinking by using emotive arguments rather than basing arguments on evidence or facts. Casting aspersions at Polanski’s sexual preferences is bigoted and unnecessary posturing; it’s political correctness run amok, when his oh so immoral act of sleeping with her can be critiqued without recourse to ad hominem attacks he has no recourse to fight, but give other men and most of all women a pass who slept around or with minors. Only on bigoted US TV, trashy online sites and anally retentive tripe blogs could such egregious behaviour be considered acceptable, attacking people who dare not question the appropriateness of his behaviour but that of the LAW that had betrayed both. This type of decorum is prevalent in a ‘rape is rampant’ culture where virtually anything goes now, without any standards of right and wrong or appropriate and inappropriate, where cowardly editors hide behind their endless blathering about ‘save our innocent children from predators like Polanski’ and ‘what if that were your daughter’ emotional blackmail, while predator Lewis and her self-confessed underage prostitution days, drug abuse and later sexual excesses cause no condemnation.

No, Lewis is a ‘woman’ and MUST be allowed to ‘explore her sexuality’, or of course conversely is the victim of all these men SHE had bedded while the men today are her abusers. Or rather only the one she chose to bear the brunt of her own pathetic failings and addictions (in order to influence the extradition, which as we saw backfired massively and she deservedly made a backstabbing liar of herself). Had Polanski not been rearrested she’d never ever come out with her contemptible attacks. In today’s über moral climate of sexual abuse hysterias and hyper vigilance all you need to do to tar someone is raise the spectre that they ‘may’ be a danger to ‘children’ and no evidence needs to be presented, other than lies from some sad ex-lovers like Lewis and Vogelhut, and the person can then be eviscerated in a verbal bloodbath. It’s the cutting edge of moralising mob mentality gone unacceptably out of hands. Or rather, it’s ONLY in the hands of these sanctimonious keyboard lynchers who will never be taken to court for their slanderous character assassinations. Even though some say that the original accuser, Ms Geimer, wants the charges dismissed, true, they however maintain the other two, Lewis and Vogelhut, do not, that’s not quite correct. For one, neither ever filed any ‘charges’ at any given time they could have – but only gave us allegations we know are all but lies – of which the first accuser today supports Polanski as the empowered adult. The second discredited herself entirely through her very own self-defeating earlier interviews and disempowering ‘victimhood’ of today, and the third turned some sexual encounter into a sordid BDSM story to sell her book. Great examples of d/evolved feminism dis/empowerment.

People also keep rejecting the impact Ms Geimer’s physical and mental maturity level, and her very nubile appearance had on Polanski, dubbing her looks as being irrelevant – when that in fact is highly significant, unlike her chronological age, also still disputed. Of course most never saw her, unlike Helena and Huston or the attorneys and judge, in the very provocative flesh, picturing a little kid, when that’s not the case and the pictures floating around online are not the ones Polanski had taken of her, although they still convey that she looked like a well-developed pretty teenager, not a ‘little child’. The only accurate pictures of her appear in Zenovich’s documentary showing just how developed and mature she really was. To give gravitas to her physical attributes for one would not only explain that Polanski was only attracted to very mature and developed young women who appeared older, and not any naïve little girls below the onset of puberty who wouldn’t know sex from sweets, yet. He was attracted to females in his younger days ever since Tate’s death who looked like young adults, in their late teens or early twenties, and in fact were of very similar beauty, his ‘type’. This case only proves that many girls, or even boys, do in fact appear much older especially with make-up on, act more maturely and posses much more knowledge in many fields many adults – or indeed the law and envious feminists in general – simply deny them to have, exercise or even demand. It also proves what the psychiatrists had established already in 1977 that Polanski was of no paedophilic tendencies, let alone in need of drugging and raping any of his sexual partners.

I’m sure the professionals who interviewed Polanski about the incident, his life and sexual activities, knew better, or else they had declared him a mentally disordered sex offender, which was routine check when it came to underage sex cases. They did not. All they came up with what that he was severely depressed for his past traumas, and to like sex to compensate. Of course the case never went to trial to prove any of the charges levied against him, since Polanski eventually pleaded to one of them on the pressure of the mother who realised what it comes down to was unlawful sex, and for the already established evidence in his favour not supporting her daughter’s claims of ‘unwanted’ intercourse let alone [double] sodomy. He had pleaded not guilty on arraignment as one does, and therefore all [the dropped] but one charge he admitted to are to this day still only allegations, NOT fact. What’s more, her mother most of all could have demanded to have him plead to the most serious count – drugged rape had it been provable – or prison time even without any trial. But she did not, and neither did Ms Geimer ever want Polanski behind bars. She also could have demanded to secure his earlier arrest many times, but she did not. Instead, she was shocked and petitioned not only for the charges be dropped before that, the case entirely dismissed, and demanded his release once he was rearrested. Why? Because it never was rape as her very own later interviews demonstrate, utterly void of the typical rape narrative assigned to sexual assault cases, demanding not only no punishment for Polanski she emphasised often enough, but to let him be.

Had he really raped her, violated her, forced her, hurt her, she’d demanded the opposite from the word go, not described events in an unorthodox manner of infatuation, seduction, ‘pretty settings’, champagne, and an older sophisticated man who desired her, wanted to further her. No, the only thing she clings to is that it was non-consensual – purely for her age. Today unfortunately the adult woman is not believed, and people simply don’t understand her true motives, unable to read between the lines, ‘listen’ to what she says. No, they must assign all sorts so ‘affected reasoning’ to her words of today, rather than take them as she puts them. Even her original testimony if closely scrutinised is in effect entirely void of a typical forced rape narrative – despite the fact that she elaborated on certain things to make her fit into the legal box of ‘victim’, render her blameless of all her own actions. It does foremost not include any aspects of ‘pain’, or that Polanski ‘forced’ her to do anything. No, he asked her, he directed her, he did not shout at or intimate her, hurt her physically or emotionally or she had said so. He even showed concerns about the [faked] asthma, if she felt better, and foremost, he took steps not to impregnate her by engaging into coitus interuptus – no rapist would ever bother with. All we have is a rather blasé recount of the sexual acts she claims he had engaged in, any genuine rape victim would have painted in a much more drastic light, said he forced himself inside her and that it caused her to scream and cry in pain, not, ‘he put his thing in my butt’ and it didn’t even hurt. No unprepared anal intercourse is painless.

She further didn’t say ‘why’ she was ‘afraid’ of him, and she never explained what he had done to ‘make’ her ‘afraid’ – let alone how he managed to ‘make’ her do things. Even if you ‘let things happen’, you have to ‘comply’ with them first, move, act and follow instructions and say so. She only said he ‘offered’ her part of the Quaalude – he had denied and that she took a piece – and she in fact said that he had asked her if she wanted it (he also denied), which by all means is a ‘question’ to start with, not an ‘order’ for her to take it, ‘make’ her. She could not only have refused to take it, but she in fact said herself, ‘I took it’, not that he forced it on her. When asked why she took it, she said, she must have been pretty drunk or else she hadn’t – which again was her own doing that she drank herself rather than just pose with the bubbly for the photos. Polanski didn’t force the champagne on her and she did not say that he had, nor in fact had it affected her like that from a few sips as she claimed. But, what’s even more significant is the fact that she went back into the kitchen to eat something to counteract the drug/alcohol interactions, suddenly ‘clear of thinking’ the next moment that SHE had made a mistake HER own doing by swallowing it, NOT his, since she could have refused the Quaalude to start with. So, to assign her a loss of ‘momentary mental clarity’ when SHE took it and drank it down, and then tried to rectify her fallacious doing the very next moment, clearly shows she HAD clear reasoning faculties, was not as ‘intoxicated’ as she made it out or else she’d not tried to undo it, and did everything on her own volition. Just as Polanski had stated.

What’s more, she obviously must have taken both together before (unlike claiming once that she had just ‘one’ Quaalude but admitted she was drunk before, with an addicted sister and mother she filched them from hardly a good example) or she’d not ever realised she made a mistake and what the effects would be: i.e., get aroused. That’s why there was no count for alcohol plying – and because they had found the champagne in Nicholson’s fridge first of all. Saying she had his glass too only shows she was used to champagne since she had told Polanski she ‘liked’ it, and in fact says the opposite of any direct involvement on his part, since he did not force her to drink any alcohol to start with. If she was clever enough to realise that the champagne and Quaalude was a bad idea, shows not only rational thinking, but that she knew it was a mistake drunken people would hardly grasp. And what’s more, was her speech slurred as it would be if someone is ‘pretty drunk’? Neither Huston nor Polanski and for that matter her mother, sister or boyfriend did ever say she spoke as if drunk – ergo, she was not drunk. All she explains has no aspects of his forcing her to do any of it – just as he had said. To say she ‘let it all happen’, when it clearly requires her to actively partake in any of it, is ‘allowing’ him to ‘perform on her’ in the first place, i.e. consenting. To say she said no has no meaning, if her overall behaviour and course of events simply do not corroborate her claims, and he never said she told him off in any form – but that she was very responsive. She never once complained of distress, and at the absence of any physical signs of forcible penetration, she let him have intercourse with her he then cut short, plain and simple.

Though she might have been the more passive agent in regards to the sex, today she tries to distance herself from it all as the active agent, the adult, because she made the mistake to let him have sex and then blamed it all on him for her age. Today she demands recognition of her agency, but the vindictive US law and bigoted public couldn’t care less. Such endless blanket victim/perpetrator terminology and condemnation is simply unrealistic and creates needless misery. It’s unethical. The real ‘power differential’ between consensually-amorous minor-adult couples and the anti-sex laws is to destroy such a union simply for the age difference. To say, ‘consensual’ is not possible in a power-imbalanced relationship and that’s why there are statutory rape laws condemning the adult only – another person might argue that it is highly unreasonable for a consensual relationship to be rape one day and not the day following the person’s age-of-consent birthday. True, these laws have been designed exclusively to dictate people with whom they may sleep, nothing else, not to prevent any ‘rape’. Rape would occur no matter what the law says or how high the age of consent is set. No, it only will send more innocent men to jail for sex for the impenetrable and unconstitutional Rape Shield Laws implemented discriminatorily against the defendant, blocking his right of due process and a proper defence allowing exculpatory evidence, while the accuser is hiding behind them at no proof needed anymore in any form that a rape took place, who could be nothing but a liar like Lewis and Vogelhut. People aren’t robots or can be programmed as to when they ‘may’ have sex or not or with whom.

When so-called ‘ethics’, ‘society’ or draconian laws start to disregard that simple logic, disallow human interaction and destroy people regardless, no right-minded adult would condemn a romantic relationship with a mature teenager. But then laws are not intended for the ‘right-minded’ are they now – no, they are for what they ‘believe’ are ‘possibly’ [future] ‘predators’, blankly condemning teenagers as being incapable to be ‘romantic’ and committed to an adult, and that the adult is ALWAYS the ‘predator’, manipulator, abuser. Mainly the man of course, when in fact in can be the other way round as seen so often. But, only the adult lands in prison, NOT ever the minor, (unless the boy is a minor too, needlessly destroying his entire life), who might have instigated the relationship or lied about what happened in order to avoid responsibility or punishment. There were many liaisons in history with older men marrying much younger women, even underaged teenagers, but only Polanski seems to have been chosen as the whipping boy for all sexual offences on the planet. What people simply ignore is this fact: teens only lie because the laws disallow/ed them to engage with an adult in the first place – rather than enable them and everybody’s happy, save people a lot of pain, tragedies and mounting money and legal resource problems – and therefore also give them a pass for lying out of spite in some cases, i.e., cry rape; not out of ‘necessity’ to ‘oblige’ the law because they’re underage. And all that over ‘sex’, which should be enjoyed, not ever punished. Polanski had long admitted his guilt over the sex, that he had taken advantage of the situation, though she let him – even pleaded to it, took responsibility, was in prison for it, twice – and that’s what it is all about: to let it finally go.

This is what happens when you combine a high degree of suggestibility, emotional intrigue and pressure (or immaturity), attention seeking, zero accountability, zero consequences, blaming others, female gender bias and an emotionally over-reactive media and [rape] culture who are quick to believe any little girl (no matter her actual age) who cries rape. Real child abuse happens every day usually perpetrated by females feminists would never admit, and what Ms Geimer, her mother, sister and others like her did by calling on the law, is an affront to true rape and sexual abuse victims. Of course, it’s easy to ‘forgive’ Polanski and demand the charges be dismissed since he never raped her to begin with, when a real rape victim would never forgive her rapist (no matter feminists declare so in order to keep the man in the rapist/paedophile bracket even if he is not) – but on the other hand makes it sound as if he had since she ‘forgave’ him for ‘it’, which in itself is utterly contradictive since she in fact never said ‘he raped me’. But then again, that’s all she’s ever done, contradict herself from day one and in each of her later interviews. Lewis on the other hand is a typical histrionic, dangerous fabricator and borderline narcissist with a massive personality disorder, indulging in chronic blaming, living in a fantasy world where the rules and laws of society apply to everyone else but not her, and an [inability or] unwillingness to take responsibility for her own actions and subsequent failures in order to play the poor little victim. And she can be bought to tell her sordid little abuse lies. Vogelhut in contrast is just an old woman who loves big hats and tell sleazy BDSM stories in a rather blasé way to sell her kiss-and-tell book.

That said, as someone else once observed, ever since Polanski had shown the LA courts the finger after Rittenband had played out his own ‘agency’ and laws and no matter what Ms Geimer wants today, they are still pissed that Polanski was and is still a popular figure, still a very successful artist despite all odds, still respected as a human, still gained more supporters and raised another family with a gorgeous young wife and children who love him. Jealousy unbound. Here was the chance to make him ‘pay’ once he was rearrested in a humiliating show of heavy-handed betrayal. Polanski had no history of ‘rape’ let alone ‘child abuse’ before or after this case, yet they invented all sorts of more ‘victims’ for him just because he had many lovers. See Lewis and Vogelhut who turned it all around later and made themselves into ‘victims’, NOT Polanski. The petty moralists were going to win this one, they thought, were going to teach Hollywood a ‘lesson’ in the go. The US was going to undo all of the cultural changes of the Sixties to empower women sexually once and for all solely for his ‘benefit’, when Polanski found himself in the middle of a cultural backlash with feminists gone viral. He always said the sex was consensual, but it did not matter since she was a minor, while their own celebrities got away with statutory rape ever since. Today Ms Geimer says the case should be dropped, but her opinion does not matter either. There is no statue of limitations for a person who flees from the US justice system, but there is a lot of reason to say that the miscarriage of justice that caused Polanski to take flight to begin with is utterly unacceptable. He was betrayed by lawmakers, pure and simple. And so was she.

People keep saying that the original charges are still pending because Polanski wasn’t sentenced [yet] and therefore convicted of what he pleaded to – which in itself is contradictive, since, once you plead to one count the other dropped counts are off the table even if you weren’t sentenced to any jail time yet. Others in contrast saying he WAS convicted because he pleaded are just as wrong, since Cooley won’t allow his [plea and] two prison terms be turned into time served, i.e., be declared ‘sentenced’ and therefore [would be] ‘convicted’. Polanski technically is a non-sentenced, non-convicted fugitive who pleaded to one of the original charges, was in prison for it they had agreed on was his entire punishment, i.e. ‘sentence’, and yet, his status is still in limbo because they won’t make that official to be finally declared AS ‘convicted’. So strictly he’s not a convict or felon either no matter he pleaded guilty, since they won’t acknowledge he had sat out his time for that one count, i.e., was convicted of it as his entire punishment, was his entire sentence, since Rittenband hadn’t made it official. Cooley of course says all the charges are still on the agenda because he fled, and that the two prison terms are merely countable towards the two years he’d love to apply as minimum ‘sentence’ applicable [today] for what Polanski had pleaded to, when the flight charge has no bearing on the actual guilty plea (or vice versa) and only the pleaded [to] charge stands he did time for and only the laws of 1977/8 can be applied [retroactively]. So all in all, it’s just one big mess, all his prison time was for nothing, his house arrest lost time, and time is running out to see this ever resolved.

With more showbiz articles swooping in on the announcement that Polanski will go on making films after the ten months interruption could not slow him down longer than that, despite some naives or wishful thinkers having thought Polanski would ‘retire’ from movie making after his rearrest/release, one idiot/blogger just had to spew out another spiteful article about a cinematic genius by titling it: ‘Rapist/director Polanski to film God of Carnage’ attracting the usual blahdeeblah comments. While Polanski of course has no means to deservedly sue the crap out of these name-callers, no one had bothered to slander him, boycott his films, or accuse his cast members of being ‘rape apologists’ before his rearrest, DESPITE the fact that Polanski was in the news every time he was to make a film and for both he and Ms Geimer trying to have the case dismissed since decades – with NO such smear attached. Hypocrisy comes to mind. But, after the critical success of The Ghost Writer he is [still] at the top of his game, shows no signs of quitting and continues to have top artists STILL flocking in to be a part of his films, since everyone who ever worked with him speaks only highly of him. Unless your name is liar Lewis. And, why exactly do people STILL say, he is ‘forced’ to film in Paris since he cannot enter the US? Polanski is NOT a ‘Hollywood filmmaker’! His studios, financing, casting, and marketing all take place outside of the money-oriented Hollywood structure ever since he made Chinatown in 1973. That’s thirty-seven years ago!

He made stage shows and films in Europe foremost, and they do not have any ‘Hollywood’ financing/marketing behind them outside independent US cinemas/DVD distributors who want to make money. Polanski’s movies are not of one genre as other directors choose to perfect or are capable of doing more or less well, showing the director’s unusual gift for working in multiple genres, and his cinematic talents and perfectionism have never been in dispute. And, why would he ‘want’ to film on ‘original locations’ to begin with? He made beautiful Tess entirely in France looking like the English countryside epitomised. He made the remarkable ‘all-English’ Oliver Twist entirely on a Polish studio lot built from scratch looking like Dickens’ time par excellence. His Ghost Writer was made in Berlin and the German island of Sylt stood in for New England’s Martha’s Vineyard, while everything else was studio and in fact CGI to look authentic ‘American’. The worst thing one can Polanski accuse of is having slept with a minor like millions had and will, and there will always be people who are willing to work with him knowing he is NOT a rapist let alone paedophile, and those who can watch his movies without that association. Such people are simply more compassionate and understanding, indeed forgiving and not of self-righteous self-obsessed hypocrisy, willing to accept that one ‘immoral’ act does NOT encompass an entire human being, define his entire life, and that it is high time to move on and concentrate on Polanski’s work, who had more success and support than most can only dream of achieving.

Having found out more about the plot of the God of Carnage play/film, it’s about the aftermath of a fight between teenager Bruno who refuses to let his friend Ferdinand join his ‘gang’, so Ferdinand knocks out two of Bruno’s teeth with a stick. The story starts when both children’s parents meet to discuss the fight. Ferdinand’s father Alain is described as a lawyer never off his cellphone, while the mother Annette’s purpose is seemingly only to manage her husband’s wealth. Bruno’s father Michel is a wholesaler who has to take care of his sick mother, while his mother Véronique is working on a book about Darfur. Things come to a head with the parents devolve into childish behaviours themselves and end up getting into irrational arguments about such loaded topics as misogyny, racial prejudice and homophobia. A blistering look at societal dysfunction when the couples attempt to settle the playground conflict, the evening spirals out of control and into a wicked battle between the sexes. It’s unclear who will play whose parents or spouses, their children, whether Polanski will add extra drama to the film beyond just their arguments at night, or if he’ll stick pretty close to the original play which reads more like a comedy in fact. Since another comedy is in order now, after The Ghost’s political and Pianist’s highly emotional themes, it will be great to see these four great actors clash on screen. Waltz is in fact German, and the story was originally set in Paris to begin with, (hence their French names) not ‘Brooklyn’ as in the Broadway play later. Reza is Parisian, and the play’s original title was Le Dieu du Carnage. God of Carnage premiered in London, but changed to Brooklyn when the production made its Broadway transfer in 2009. So they wouldn’t have to film in New York in the first place even if Polanski were able to travel or work there. Maybe a bit more research and less diatribe would help – idiots.

While some even lesser informed bloggers posted articles titled Polanski’s God of Carnage as his ‘comeback movie’, I really wonder where they’ve been over the last year since The Ghost (Writer) came out on DVD only the other month and had premiered in Berlin THIS VERY YEAR 2010 and won best director there, apart from best film given by the International Federation of Film Critics. A ‘comeback’ applies only to a hiatus of work spanning at least ten years. Polanski usually rested for a year or two, three even between making films, so to say ‘comeback’ when his new film was in fact already announced last year after he had finished The Ghost, and is being confirmed this year to go ahead next year, that’s nowhere near even his own pausing between projects. Now, originally reported by ‘Deadline London’ that the second male lead was ‘rumoured’ to be Matt Dillon and every other blog/article has repeated that, mine included at no other official sources as of yet, when this story first went live Dillon was listed as playing the other father, but, apparently his name has since been withdrawn and the casting of the second father is reportedly still in the works. This is nothing unusual when it comes to getting new films into the can, since at the start of a project actors might want to join a cast, and then cannot for some reason, or they were considered and then no longer. Sometimes the very actors are in fact the last thing the director and producer/s consider for their film. Funny thing is, someone keen to see what Polanski will make of it, in a nice piece of ‘logic’ he said that he belongs in jail – and though as able a genius Polanski is to finish a film in prison unlike most would, I doubt he can bring his crew and cast along to film it while incarcerated.

The fact that superb actors of Foster’s, Winslet’s and Waltz’s calibre have guaranteed to be part of his Oscar-hopeful film at this stage, speaks volumes of support for Polanski the auteur no one can fault, no matter what people say about their ‘misled motives’, or Polanski. Again, simply assuming that they back a ‘rapist’ rather than wanting to be part of his acclaimed work and experiencing his directing genius. Besides, Reza as the original playwright has a say in the casting too, and if she’s not happy with someone, can veto him or her out of the project. While someone else humorously titled his blog, ‘Polanski wreaks vengeance with Carnage’, alluding to his ‘release’ to go on making films to others’ envy, every other blog repeats that the story will be set in Brooklyn. No it won’t, or ever was in the original play to begin with, only in the New York production, and that Polanski and his cast will have to film it in Paris because, get this: ‘he’s wanted by ‘police’ in the US after a woman alleged in 2008 that Polanski raped her in 1977’, this however is the most ridiculous nonsense I’ve ever read. It’s clear that they mean Ms Geimer, who however never said Polanski ‘raped’ her. She has demanded that the charges be dismissed, the case dropped, closed, anything but to see Polanski behind bars long before ‘2008’ and after his rearrest/release they’re obviously unaware of besides. And ‘wanted by ‘police’’? That’s the same bullshit to say that it happened at a party at Nicholson’s house (or that she testified he drugged her with ‘painkillers’). Talk about complete and utter misinformation. Or continuous, deliberately misleading slander. Never trust the ‘media’ – they’re the biggest liars. On the one hand sites like YouTube remove racist videos, but they don’t bother with libellous anti-Polanski attacks.

With another Zürich Film Festival underway, I found out something interesting concerning the one which was misused to snare Polanski. Apparently, he was not up for the ‘Golden Icon Award’ I read everywhere he was to get, but in fact the ‘A tribute to… Award’ he was to be honoured with for his lifetime achievement last year. And, he was supposed to give a group of film students a master class in film making. While the festival organisers were ‘taken aback’, ‘regretted the circumstances’ regarding the arrest, protested against these vocally, saying: “We are shocked and unable to comprehend this situation, which has affected us deeply. At no time were we aware of the planned arrest,” they added that Polanski’s award would go ahead, “to give everyone, who would like to express their solidarity as well as their admiration a chance to share this feeling.” However, the actual ‘A tribute to…’ page linked from Polanski’s own Wikipedia page has since then been removed from the actual Zürich Film Festival homepage – it’s gone. They simply deleted the entire retrospective given in his name, that it ever happened and their honouring him so proudly. That means he didn’t get the apparent prize money (if there was such a thing that went with it) either, or the ‘award’ as such – since no official references to it exists any longer, despite the well-received retrospective, which in effect doesn’t ‘exist’ any more either and the students had to leave disappointed. While many think this is more than disgusting and cannot see Polanski going there ever again, on a more humorous note, the outgoing Swiss minister Leuenberger made a reference to the incident last year when he joked that he accepted the festival’s invitation only hesitantly, since guests of honour can ‘sometimes [land] in the wrong film’, i.e., in prison, and quipped he’s under house arrest anyway. So should Cooley be.

With the arrival of the renowned International Film Festival do Rio 2010, the mezzanine there will be exclusively dedicated to the grand ‘Roman Polanski Exhibition’ as a pictorial and photographic homage to the master director, as The Rio Times put it, telling the story of his illustrious career chronologically, with rare photos and posters serving as a visual memory lane. Polanski, long stalked by misfortunes, volubly pursued by Hollywood’s pastime of psychoanalysing his films, his life, that his tragedies, his ‘terrible childhood’ had ‘twisted his mind’, had little sympathy for people engaging in this sort of unprofessional ‘pop psychoanalysis’ they like to levy on him through [analysing/comparing] his films [with his life/character], which he describes as ‘bullshit’. In an interview given just four days after his arraignment, he proclaimed to US People Weekly in March 1977: “I don’t believe human character is built on these things. Its real source is genetic and what you’ve experienced in your first three years in life. I was raised with gentleness and care and love.” Then the Nazis put a nasty end to his loving upbringing years later by killing his pregnant mother, taking away his father and half-sister leaving him to his own devices, his teenage years in the ghetto, near death from a grenade explosion, a bomb blast hurling him through a glass door, and then at the hands of a thug. Then he had a near-fatal car accident that left him with another serious head injury, followed by Sharon’s terrible loss that devastated him, and the rape accusation and endless slander causing him only more needless anguish.

Saying in 1977: “My work is the only thing [that counts] in my life,” that premise of course turns movie critics into even greater amateur analysts, noting his career-long preoccupation with alienation and isolation. To them, he refused to accept that his traumatic life made him a trafficker of sensation, and since there’s little violence in his films they keep bringing up, they latch on to the few rape scenes, people too like to ‘equate’ to his own ‘rape’. That is nothing but one-dimensional ‘feminist logic’ and ignorant folly, or other film-makers had turned rapists after filming even more violent films. He also had a reply to radical ‘women’s lib’ (where women can just lie about rape with impunity), and that none of the endless streams of ‘blond starlets’ running after him he became disenchanted by and culled from his circle, (those of Vogelhut’s ‘kind’) could ever compete with his murdered wife who accepted him for who he was. Having lost that anchor in life he turned to females who demanded little – and even that was turned against him by an opportunistic mother of a nubile teenager, and ugly has-beens like Lewis and Vogelhut much later. He found solace in the company of pleasant young people, not only females, who in turn kept him young. He kept himself fit and never stopped learning, become evermore sophisticated, cultured, skilled, and he shared that knowledge generously, professionally and privately. His support for others on many levels on and off stage earned him loyalty in turn, the lasting friendships and artistic recognitions.

Hollywood actor Tony Curtis, who died today September 30th aged 85, (and in fact had an uncredited ‘phone speaking role’ in Rosemary’s Baby) had a wife forty-five years his junior, but people point to Polanski’s younger wife with scolding fingers being a mere three decades his junior he lived with since over two decades now, who stands by him through thick and thin with loving kids at their side. Millions of people did and do what Polanski did, except hardly anyone was or is so resilient and tough, so talented and successful despite all odds to forge ahead. Everyone gives people a pass when it comes to something ‘immoral’ they did in the past – even murder – as long as they ‘repent’ and grovel and beg for forgiveness. When it comes to someone who slept with as teenager once and paid for it endlessly after the law played devil’s advocate, no one thinks what he did should stay behind him, not used against him forever and ever, ignore what he did prior and post that incident, that he had a very successful life most would never achieve. His typical detractors dress up their attack rhetoric in a garb of pure filth and condemnation foremost, or, [sudden] ‘responsibility’, of, oh I would never do that! (But most probably had.) Or, duplicitous show of ‘concern’ for the ‘children’, pointing their sermon fingers at Polanski, not ever asking what his side of the story is, blaming him for all the evils in this world THEY had created to start with or allowed to fester, NOT him. He made films as far as I’m concerned, and no ‘art’ is ‘evil’.

How did one Russian director put it the other day: “It’s not about ‘who’ Polanski is. First and foremost, he’s a human being, no different than any other. It’s not about whether he deserves some ‘privileges’ for being an ‘artist’. If we are talking about a law-based state which protects the rights of all citizens with the help of Roman Civil Law, then anyone must be eligible to receive equal justice. Be it the president, a bohemian artist or anyone else, it doesn’t matter. Equal rights and equal punishment for all, otherwise a feeling of terrible injustice emerges in society. Talking about Polanski, I cannot understand one thing: it’s been 33 years, there has already been an out-of-court settlement and everything has been agreed upon with everybody and to let it rest, close the case, even dismiss the charges. He’s done his time and should officially be sentenced to time served. But, no, the law has to ‘reign’ again, (i.e., Cooley) pursue him relentlessly. And in this case I’m wondering: does it have to? Why render ‘justice’ regardless of what was approved on by all sides? American ‘justice’ suddenly decided to go after Polanski in Switzerland. Injustice reigns across the whole world, that’s obvious. So when ‘justice’ suddenly begins to take hold in this or that part of the world, it’s just ridiculous. It’s NOT justice. I think the Polanski case is a circus act. He’s already paid for what he’s done, she wants him be left alone – why all this vindictive show of legal posturing?” Exactly. But, the tree trunk of the very Law has so many rotten branches of useless DAs and corrupt judges, and these DAs and judges are the rotten fruit of the poisonous tree of Justice. Especially in the US, the land of no hope and no glory, where mad hatters like Rittenband can get away with destroying people’s lives.

Now October 5th, Polanski had told AFP yesterday he was happy to join his friends again during his first more public outing in Paris since his release, after he was out and about some time back with Emmanuelle and their son to dine at a restaurant. “I am happy to be in Paris, to find my friends again,” he said during the opening of a new exhibition on feminine hairstyles through the history of cinema, ‘Brune/Blonde’ at the French Cinematheque. Polanski was welcomed in Paris by a friendly crowd including actress and singer Arielle Dombasle (who appeared in Tess) and the veteran ‘Z’ filmmaker Costa-Gavras. “He is a great director who has been badly treated. He is free and that is what matters. He is preparing a film and that is even more important,” the director of the French Cinematheque Serge Toubiana said. Quite – and there’s no signs of ‘hiding’ many had expected he’d be practicing. Not Polanski, whose first public appearance after his release in July was at the Montreux Jazz Festival in Switzerland to attend Emmanuelle’s concert, but since then has been staying in an undisclosed location with his family. His French lawyer has said he would not be making any public statement regarding the case. While people keep wondering why he never said anything in his defence, Ms Geimer in contrast giving a couple of well-meaning if inconsistent interviews, campaigning for his release after several petitions to drop the charges, they are obviously oblivious of the fact that he has done so often enough over the years. He eventually gave up on explaining things after being asked about the events no one paid attention to and simply remaining silent, disinclined to oblige the ignorant audience any further. Today he doesn’t owe anyone anything in that respect, especially not to those who weren’t even alive at the time of the events.

October 7th, and Ms Geimer has once again talked to Larry King on his show, saying, she is very relieved that Polanski was not extradited from Switzerland. “I’m very happy that, you know, I think they did the right thing,” she said in her first interview since Polanski was released in July 2010. “I’m happy they didn’t extradite him. I don’t want to see him go to trial. And I just certainly don’t want to show up and be part of that if it happens…” Of course not, because she wouldn’t emerge quite that innocent of the entire course of events as she had painted it as teenager since she had no autonomy to consent despite being shielded by laws in her favour for her age, (though not fabrications from several parties to make her the entirely innocent participant on top) and always demanded not to see Polanski in jail, hence her mother pressing for the plea deal. Then, decades later when she had autonomy, she retold her story in conflicting interviews as a picture of dual responsibilities she however escaped simply, again, for her age. Of course it had been ‘traumatic’, but purely for the law messing with both she never wanted involved. Had the evidentiary hearing (Walgren demanded in his extradition request he and Cooley had signed) been held with fairness to BOTH sides had Polanski been extradited, since these days she cannot simply plead the Fifth or draw contempt of court, Polanski had walked to time served. But, of course, he didn’t trust ANY of them anymore to submit to it and the Swiss put an end to his fight. “When he was re-arrested I was surprised. I was shocked. I was just terrified. I knew something bad was going to happen. I just didn’t know what it was going to be, but I knew it could only be bad for me.” Indeed, since then she’d be forced to testify she always said she wouldn’t. NOT to ‘face him’ and ‘relive her ordeal’, no, because she knows of the [even more] corrupt legal process and vicious media circus [today] and because it never was actual rape.

“If just the arrest brought such a ruckus into my life and into my backyard in a literal sense… I’m sure his coming back would just be a thousand times worse.” Without a doubt, because she also knows that Walgren & Co would deploy all sorts of ‘il/legal tools’ and underhand strategies to see Polanski serve more time (even if only on probation minus time served to make an even bigger example of him) – despite Espinoza already having said it would only [be held] to sentence him to (Chino and Swiss remand) time served. But, Walgren had undoubtedly also tried to have Lewis’ utterly preposterous claims be taken into account retroactively under the unfair Evidence Code 1108, for the Rape Shield Laws protecting not only Ms Geimer, but liars like Lewis, or else Cooley had not dug her up for Allred to parade her in that disturbing press show farce, and later use her in court to ‘testify’ [her lies] against Polanski since Ms Geimer had always said she would NOT. If Espinoza had allowed her claims to be taken serious is another question, since he has the last word to use discretion as to what is deemed ‘useful’ (obviously only for the prosecution, otherwise the Code wouldn’t in fact exist to allow utter hearsay and lies used against a defendant and the defence might not have the fair chance to point to the fact that Lewis had said the exact opposite years ago). “The decision doesn’t bother me at all. I hope he continues to be successful. I hope he – you know… I wish nothing but the best for him and his family. We’ve all been through a lot. I’d like to see him just be sentenced to time served, and that we could both stop being used to continue this matter.” Exactly.

And what genuine rape victim would ever speak like this, or not want to see their violator behind bars or in court? Not one – and this is of course where people stumble over her perfectly honest words, assigning them all sorts of ‘ulterior motives’, while others realise there’s much more to this story, like ‘consent’ she did, but legally could not give, hence her pleas to let Polanski be. She blamed Polanski’s decision to flee on the judge, who she said had been unfair to Polanski, i.e., made an example of him for WHO he was. That’s an understatement, and Cooley does EXACTLY the same today. “He served his time (she in fact had not asked for already then though many US media outlets in fact cite/d as the very opposite to keep the fires of hate stoked) and he did everything he was asked to do.” Correct – but Rittenband had his own press show to run, leaving Polanski on tenterhooks for months before slinging him into Chino against all counsel because of that Oktoberfest photo lying manipulator Wells had teased him with. “We had a corrupt judge who was being dishonest. Polanski had no reason to trust the system, and I’ve been so much more damaged by the court system and by the media than by him.” Exactly, since it never was the ‘brutal rape’ people still think it was, or they’d had him plead to the more serious drugged rape or sodomy charge. But, no evidence of forced sex, no plea to either charges but to what he was guilty of: unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, nothing else. On the other hand, to say that the media had damaged her, how does that comport with the fact that she as the ‘victim’ was believed and only Polanski reviled, at least in today’s ‘all men are rapists’ climate, and yet goes on a high-profile talk show to expose herself to more scrutiny?

Ms Geimer once more urged the LA County DA’s Office, i.e., Cooley, to drop the case, though that’s unlikely to happen unless the Appeals or Superior Court steps in once again. “Going after Roman Polanski doesn’t protect anybody,” she said. “It just distracts from more important things.” Exactly, but who cares about current real crimes. She also told King that Polanski wrote her a note of apology years later, which people simply deny him he ever had, a clear sign of remorse they also refute he has ever shown. To mention that note might sound nice and in his favour, 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 interviews. She told King that she thinks that critics of Polanski simply don’t ‘like’ him and ‘use’ her and what happened as ‘an excuse’ to pursue him this relentlessly. Very astute observation. While people of course could not help themselves in their glorious condemnation, they went on another pathetic ranting trip right after she spoke out, on how ‘disgusted’ they are about her ‘speaking in his defence’, deem her as ‘corrupted and defiled beyond recognition’, rather than realise she’s not this ‘eternal victim’ they want her to be, not by Polanski’s hands but the law’s, demanding that she ‘had the courage to speak against him’. It’s a sad show of self-righteous ignorance and insolence, since they cannot ever imagine her sitting on a chat show advocating for Polanski simply because he’s not her ‘rapist’, (let alone a paedophile they still keep bringing up in their glorious misinformation) and should simply get the idea that she speaks for herself, her own experience, her own right not to see Polanski punished, not any other ‘victims’ , who certainly have their own right to pursue THEIR attacker, NOT Polanski as their whipping boy who had nothing to do with them.

Unable to draw a line, they demand him to ‘pay for his crime against this once young woman’, when it never was rape and she can demand whatever she likes NOT ‘them’ – it was consensual albeit unlawful sex no one in the better know debates – therefore not traumatic enough for her to demand his further punishment people just don’t get in their one-dimensional hypocrisy. It’s the vindictive legal system that’s making it traumatic for everyone involved, and the ignorant public, not Polanski. She has been able to move on in life decades ago, has a family like Polanski, and whereas he is still facing unprecedented demonisation and charges, she in fact wants them dropped to end this farce. No genuine rape victim demands that. But then again, the majority simply don’t get that ONE very crucial detail – or else she would demand his further punishment, even without her participation, and call him her rapist. She never has, only the press. No, she petitioned for his freedom and to leave him alone. Her highly negligent mother should also have been held responsible for allowing a minor to have drinks and drugs at home, and even sex with her boyfriend and others Ms Geimer herself admitted to, or even for letting her go with Polanski unsupervised so she could say she said ‘no’ but didn’t really, just so to escape all accountability. But no, they were all given a pass and for twisting things to fully blame Polanski so the plea bargain was pressed for instead to end it, while Polanski had to serve time no one demanded but to give him probation he was on since almost a year already after his release from Chino.

Why aren’t these holier-than-thou bigots more concerned about the numerous serial offenders in their very own neighbourhood right NOW, instead of wasting efforts on Polanski by advocating for HIS ‘removal’, who has proven NOT to be a predator for the last three decades, no matter what ugly liar Lewis and fantasist Vogelhut stated to influence proceedings in a nasty smear campaign? What is so ‘strange’ about Ms Geimer being at peace with Polanski? Speaks for herself AND Polanski? Would they rather she be consumed with hatred and live in misery forever, than be happy for Polanski to be left in peace too finally? Those who wish to beat this case to death are simply revictimising both her and Polanski. Polanski once said: “In general I despite the press tremendously for its inaccuracies, for its irresponsibilities and for its often even deliberate cruelty. And all this for lucrative purposes.” Indeed – he had been at the receiving end of such cruelty and lies countless times simply for who he was, or is. Though technically what Polanski did was unlawful no one debates, not even him and he even pleaded to it, however, if no one had called on the ‘law’ to ‘make’ it ‘unlawful’, Ms Geimer in fact did NOT want to happen but her sister egged on the mother, though it still had been ‘unlawful’ despite no one knowing of it except the two participants, NO ONE had actually come to any harm had they not called the cops. But the [in fact half-]sister had her own ‘agenda’ it seems by egging the mother on, rather than the boyfriend who didn’t seem too concerned she had slept with Polanski and was never part of the hearing to back up what they had said, and so it went ape shit from there.

By calling on the ‘law’, many were in fact harmed for a very long time because the ‘law’, (i.e., Rittenband & Co) ‘made’ their ‘own’ ‘law’ against the very letter of the law, perpetuated by even more corrupt Cooley & Co today. People these days speak as if ‘public morality’ has changed in all these years, no, here’s the hang-up, everybody was ‘shocked’ back then, too, namely when it emerged that the teenager was a physically mature young lady, taller than Polanski, had experiences with drugs, alcohol and sex, posing topless with her mother’s consent for a French man’s mag, and then the sex took on a context of recipe for disaster rather than rape. The difference is, today we have the sickening, self-impressed online displays of bogus morality in place of rational objectivity, while everyone then had agreed that no force was used by anyone’s account, and all her hints of ‘gave a little resistance’ then were empty excuses she today doesn’t even repeat as being that ‘important’. No, today she says, ‘he wasn’t forceful or hurting me’. Quite the opposite of, ‘I was afraid [of him]’. In May 1997, (a year before the ‘compensation’ was ‘settled’) Ms Geimer wrote in her first petition to Fidler who had handled the case since then before Espinoza took over: “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, 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. At least in the UK an accuser can demand the charged be dismissed, since the ‘state’, i.e., ‘People vs Defendant’, has no say over a case, but ‘Plaintiff vs Defendant’, i.e., court.

One really amazing take on the sodomy angle came to my attention the other day. Someone seriously came up with this: ‘that a child (‘child’? The doctor found her an ‘adult female’ I’m afraid, not prepubescent little kid) drugged with muscle relaxants and alcohol had no obvious rips or tears in her body does not show that she was not raped – it may however indicate a high probability that the offender’s penis was quite small and that he took his time’, that is the typical and misleading pseudo knowledge people want to spread rather than accept hard medical evidence that there was no anal intercourse. For one, alcohol dehydrates, makes ripping even easier. Quaalude is not a muscle relaxant as in ‘opening up’ like a gaping hole to make rear entry easier, (only amyl nitrate relaxes the sphincter to some degree and that only if inhaled continuously, which renders you seriously dizzy very soon) and certainly not from a third of the drug she said she took. Otherwise, what about all those who took Quaalude, did they suddenly get ‘incontinent’ and needed diapers because their ‘sphincter muscle control’ ‘failed? I don’t think so. I took it to get into the mood, and I had no such problems. And ‘small penis’? Sure, brilliant idea. Let’s ask Kinski or his wife how ‘small’ he is just because he’s of short stature. Wow, what logic. However big or small an erect/engorged penis, YOU STILL NEED LUBE FOR ANAL SEX for the REPEAT ACTION of the thrusting. Hence, leave bruises and tiny tears, or the least visible soreness. She was examined a mere four hours afterwards, and NOTHING showed. Not even if vaginal intercourse had taken place. And, most importantly, if ‘he took his time’ rapists hardly entertain, that most certainly is NOT rape but sex she could have aborted at any given time, no matter her age. But she did not. And, anal penetration will still show under the fine ‘microscope’ that is called sigmoidoscope used to reveal the slightest ‘action’ magnified x whatever.

Her ever-present lawyer Silver said that it technically was ‘rape’, as in statutory rape the UK has not either, since she was a minor who could not legally consent, had claimed to have been intoxicated and had that part Quaalude even if she took it all on her own free volition, though neither could ever be proven by any blood tests or witnesses. Regrettably this gives the public the wrong impression that it was ‘actual rape’, since Silver conveniently forgets to mention THAT exactly could never be proven because there was no trial to corroborate any of it. Or rather that what they had on evidence already pointed to simple unlawful sexual intercourse. Besides, neither of them can continue claiming [her] ‘intoxication’ since alcohol plying was never an indictment count. The Grand Jury obviously didn’t quite believe her story of having been ‘pretty drunk’ not to ‘resist’ Polanski’s advance, and her lawyer is basing his remark on [her still] unproven claims that could not be substantiated even back in 1977. It perpetuates the myth that she was incapable of ‘consent’ from that angle, rather than just say that even if she had not been intoxicated or had that piece of Quaalude, it still had been unlawful sex, to which Polanski pleaded at no evidence to prove any of the other counts. When King had asked her in the 2003 interview if any physical signs were ‘consistent with rape’, she falsely replied, ‘must have’, when the medical evidence had proven the exact opposite to the Grand Jury already, hence plea deal. Nothing of her behaviour denotes genuine rape victim however you view her, however you view that hard evidence. She’s too inconsistent, too conflictual, too ‘forgiving’, and one would think with all the misconduct on Wells’, Rittenband’s and Cooley’s behalf, she as the ‘victim’ wouldn’t care about what was done to Polanski, just so long as it was done over and over and over, she in fact wants stopped.

On the other hand, people like to attribute too much power to talk shows like the Larry King Show hardly anyone knows outside the US. Silver has certainly not undone any efforts to prove this was nothing but unlawful sex as awkward and misleading his comment was. Though the Larry King Show is rather popular, it is not a news show to take him serious; it is a celebrity gab show and it’s his job to ‘defend’ his ‘client’. People go off on such tangents, make whatever unqualified comments about him or Ms Geimer’s ‘forgiveness’ and is just part of the shallow media game to feed people what they want: juicy sex scandals and half-truths gossip to spice up their boring lives. What will be remembered from this show is that Ms Geimer reaffirmed that Polanski should be free, the charges be dismissed, that she is happy that he was not extradited and that Polanski had not been rough with her, ‘raped’ her in the actual sense, only in the legal term he took responsibility for by pleading to it. If Silver had said it was not rape, he would have been labelled as a rape enabler, like everyone who defends Polanski is called a rape apologist. Stupidity comes to mind to even think that. As for these pathetic feminists who still clamour for Polanski’s head, their [in general] increasingly untenable position remains the same, they don’t care what the so-called ‘victim’ says and they continue to believe it was actual rape. Let them – let them be blind to the fact that she in fact is apologising to Polanski because it was not rape – in a very indirect and symbolic way, and for her hasty mother to have ignored her not to call the cops. Whatever Polanski has said in his defence over the years, and apologised often enough, to her, he is certainly not required to do so to the vindictive public till his dying day who still believe what they want even if hard evidence is presented to the opposite.

Of course she can play the eternal, ‘well-meaning victim’ because of that one day and 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 finally put on the stand to be cross-examined she of course wants to avoid at all costs. Only once did Polanski speak his side, (other than in his own testimony given in 1977 as part of the probation report not corroborating her side, and in 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’. When King asked her if there was someone else in the house, she only mentioned the caretaker [who let them in], utterly omitting that she was introduced to Huston, who she had claimed had interrupted Polanski while sodomising her, twice. Had she simply conceded to the Grand Jury that it was plain sex and not invented the ‘interrupted’ [double] sodomy (Huston and Polanski did not corroborate let alone the doctor who knew how forced anal intercourse would look like), and phrased it ‘he gave me’ the champagne and that bit of Quaalude angle to make it into something ‘else’, she still had not faced any retributions legally in any case for her age. But, Polanski would have been spared the more serious counts people still believe are fact, just because they opted for the plea instead of a trial to spare her humiliation from perjury, her mother from perverting the course of justice by repeating that her daughter had ‘signalled’ her that ‘she didn’t like him’ while on the phone, when in fact she told her she was alright, and, her sister for putting words into her mouth by saying she told Polanski  ‘no, let me go’ while towelling her dry.

I highly doubt Polanski was that blind not to take her apparent ‘hints’ to let her be, or deaf not to hear her say what she claimed she had said to him. He had a few dozen women before her, and then suddenly fails to read HER ‘signs’ of ‘reluctance’? Not likely. She mentioned that in the car ride home Polanski asked her if she was ok, which shows concern for her well-being most people would deny him, while in her testimony she had not mention that he had asked her that on their way back home but in fact in the TV room after her rest where she claimed she was not feeling ok, that she wanted to go home. When Polanski in contrast had said she replied yes she was ok, yet, when King asked her if Polanski had been rough with her, she said no without hesitance. So, unless she mixed up where Polanski had asked her if she was ok, and would in fact back him up that he had, why exactly did she say before she was ‘afraid’ of him? Besides, in the 2003 interview she told him they had hardy talked while in the car, in contrast to what Polanski had stated and that she was very chatty. King asked her why she was so forgiving of him, and she said that she’s not a ‘particularly forgiving’ person, but that: “He [Polanski] was easy to forgive… there’re other people I don’t forgive as much.” Doesn’t that sound more like saying, ‘sorry for the fact I cried rape because ‘no one told me how to handle a situation like that, and it all went over my head’, as she put it? She knows perfectly well it wasn’t rape, since she also said once, ‘he wasn’t forceful’, ‘he wasn’t hurting me’, ‘he wasn’t mean’. Again, how then could she have felt ‘a little scared’ of him? Her faint ‘protestations’ of ‘I was a little intoxicated’ and just let it all happen angle are wearing thin, the twenty-one strong Grand Jury panel didn’t quite go for or they had charged Polanski with alcohol plying. Someone said she sounded more like having felt flattered that, ‘he’, the ‘famous director’ wanted, ‘her’, the ‘aspiring actress’. Hence her words that she didn’t quite know what to do.

She said she felt overwhelmed at his giving her directions how to pose for him, thought she didn’t do too well – but then again, she wasn’t a professional ‘model’, despite the fact that she had done TV commercials like her mother, who was a small-time actress and said she was very precocious. And, apparently had allowed her to go off the previous year with another ‘older photographer’ who took another set of very provocative photos of her when even younger. One of the more demure photos we all know, is from 1976 and shown everywhere when it comes to the old case, depicting her in b/w holding some books and looking seductively over her shoulder. So, how come ‘he’ never was dragged into court for the same type of photos they all suddenly were so shocked about in Polanski’s case ‘only’? Polanski in fact said in his autobiography the exact opposite of what she told King, and that she had posed with ‘professional aplomb’. How can two people see it so differently? When he noticed a love bite on her neck she said was from her boyfriend, he made sure it wouldn’t show in the pictures. Funny how Ms Geimer never mentioned any of that and that she in fact felt not ‘uncomfortable’ or Polanski had sensed it as the professional HE was. Now, in 2003 King had asked Silver: “She [her mother] thought a girlfriend went with her?” and Silver replied: “That’s correct.” And when King queried: “How did he [Polanski] stop the girlfriend from going?” Ms Geimer answered: “He [Polanski] said, ‘No, I don’t think that’s a good idea’, outside by the car after my mom went inside,” when in fact, today she said that her mother wanted to come along, and the ‘girlfriend’ Polanski had only met on their ‘first’ shoot, was in fact nowhere near his car when they left for the Nicholson shoot. Polanski never mentioned this girlfriend was there that day, only that he was late and they had to rush.

Ms Geimer added that her girlfriend left and her mother didn’t realise she was alone with Polanski, when in Gailey’s very own testimony she had stated that she had asked Polanski only once if she could come along on that first shoot weeks earlier to take shots of them both together and therefore did not ask again to come along for the second/third shoot, and, was in fact gathering her clothes for them to rush off at no protestations to come along. So, who’s exactly lying? Silver or Ms Geimer? Or both? She had already lied in the 2003 King interview in regards to how Polanski ‘chose’ her, ‘from a photo of her he must have seen’, when in fact her sister’s boyfriend had asked him to photograph her after Polanski had told him of the 1976 Vogue/Kinski shoot/success. She said that it was a ‘pretence’ to take the photos for Vogue Hommes ‘to get to know her’, while here she in fact says how it really came about and even mentioned Kinski since he had shown them the magazine. Then we have another curiously conflicting take of her saying that her sister heard her telling her boyfriend ‘on the phone’ what happened, when in her testimony Ms Geimer said she had only told him after he had arrived at their home. Plus, the sister never said anything about her calling him on the phone, but, that she had called Polanski’s friend, i.e., her own boyfriend because of the nude shots. While in the 2003 King interview Ms Geimer had said that she had told her boyfriend the sex was ‘forced’, in her original testimony she did not tell him it was and the boyfriend did not urge her to call the cops, but the ‘sister’, while later she again proclaimed Polanski had not been ‘forceful’ or hurt her in any form. That 1997 interview alone has so many inconsistencies in regards to her original testimony and her later interviews, and the later her ‘recollections’, the more they in fact sound like what Polanski had said.

When King asked somewhat surprised for the benefit of the audience: “You had been drinking champagne with ‘thirteen’?” She replied: “Yes, yes I did, you know, it was 1977…” pointing to the fact so many people of today miss, and that sex, drugs and booze was normal for teenagers to have (just like today, except no one advocates it in their hypocrisy). Before the insidious feminist revolution put an end to it all, sending innocent men into jail for sex, drugs and intoxicated lovers, but never the female. She might have omitted that she had been drunk even younger than that in the company of her own father she admitted to the Grand Jury, and told Polanski that she ‘liked champagne’, at no point did she allude to Polanski forcing her to drink the champagne and take the drug either then or today. But, when it comes to the sex, she becomes evasive and never speaks of the pain he would have caused her had he REALLY done what she accused him of. In fact, she also never said he had forced himself on her, and never mentioned Huston again having interrupted them, since it obviously never happened. But, in order to put the blame on him unfairly and squarely once the wheels of ‘justice’ had begun turning irrevocably against her wishes, and yet the family never wanted to see him punished for any of it but show mere ‘contrition’ that he had acted ‘inappropriately’, though the girl still ‘let him’ by her own admission, makes no sense however you dice it. Except, it all the more proves that it was consensual sex – albeit unlawful no one else however was sent down for at that time. In the interview she said with an almost flattered smile she was surprise that Polanski suddenly signalled that he wanted her; ‘her’, the young nobody; the ‘famous’ director wanted HER ‘sexually’ – and with an expression of not the slightest animosity she added: “[But] I didn’t know how to handle it.”

Maybe. But that’s what she puts forth is why she simply ‘acquiesced’, ‘let him get it over with’, like so many young women do without thinking, and the man is misled into believing it’s ‘consenting’, and then it’s far too late to stop the wheels of injustice grinding them down mercilessly till their last bone of a fair defence is dust. Especially in the sex-repressed, feminism perverted US. Had she really said ‘no’ Polanski had let her be, guaranteed. He had no need to drug her into submission, the champagne was used for posing, he had no need to force himself on that particular girl, and she let him do what he did: have sex with her. She did not give him the slightest signs of resistance, reluctance, ‘fear’ or intoxication not to refuse his intentions. No, he said she was very responsive, and with his many sexual encounters it is virtually impossible for him to have misread her. But, she resorted to saying later that she told him to keep away – rather than, ‘it’s alright’, Polanski recalls her having said after he asked her is she likes what he’s doing. She had said the same to him at their first meeting when the mother asked her to smell his aftershave, saying, “Isn’t it great?” and she answered after sniffing his cheek, “It’s alright.” Now, why would he make that up? Nobody, except the attorneys were interested then or now to see Polanski treated equal because he happened to be a ‘celebrity’. No, because of his great gift, because of his fame, it was seen as essential, even back then, that an example shall be made of him and so they did to this day under the corrupt cloak of ‘justice’. One very telling thing was, she also said that people had offered her money for interviews, but in order to say what ’they’ wanted her to say, i.e., speak out against Polanski in whichever form – she adamantly refused. She is her own agent and doesn’t need to say what ‘adults’ or ‘moralists’ want her to say today anymore, people of course simply don’t understand, unable to grasp that she doesn’t hate him.

Here’s a tale of juxtaposition, and how ones memory can let you down. Pretty much as it happened to a sad woman like Lewis, but in reverse. In Ms Geimer’s first 1997 interview she said: “He keeps refilling my glass. (No, the bottle was still half filled when they left according to Huston and Polanski.) Then he asks me to pose topless again and says he wants to take pictures in the Jacuzzi. I don’t have my bathing suit so I get in, in my underwear. (No, in her original testimony she stated that she went in nude after she had taken off her panties too. In another version she in fact HAD said she went in in her bathing suit, while Polanski said she was nude.) He takes pictures, then he gets in naked. (Remember? In the 2003 King interview she said he had his shorts on, after she had stated in her original testimony that he had joined her naked, while Polanski said he only went into the cooler pool.) I get out, grab a towel. That’s when he takes out the Quaaludes and asks me if I’ve ever had one. I lie and say yes. I take one-third. (No, in her original testimony she said they had found it in the bathroom just like Polanski had stated, that he asked her if it is Quaalude she affirmed, and that she had taken it before.) He takes what’s left and tells me to lie down for a minute. (No, she stated in her testimony that she had taken the Quaalude long before they went into the TV room to lie down there, after taking the pictures.) I know he wants to have sex and he is not taking no for an answer. (That’s what ‘she’ claimed, when Polanski in fact never heard her say ‘no’ or that she gave him any ‘resistance’.) I’m intoxicated and afraid and don’t know what to do, so I just let it happen. (Always an indefensible accusation to say to be rendered incapable of resistance, while Polanski had no such impressions.)

Then Anjelica Huston knocked on the door. I assume she asked him, “What are you doing in my room?” (No, it was the TV room HE occupied when he was in LA, and in her original testimony she stated Huston asked through the door crack: “Roman, are you in there?” And he went, “Yes. I just got out of the Jacuzzi and I’m getting dressed.” (So, why these more than curious contradictions? While Polanski only spoke with Huston after the sex?) I started to get dressed, but Polanski came back and said, “Lay back down,” and he took off my underwear. (No, she never said that he had ‘ordered’ her like that in her original testimony in any form.) He had been interrupted, so he finished—briefly—then went back to talk to her. (Sorry, ‘finished briefly’? ‘Double anal rape’ is not ‘finishing briefly’ and she’d not ever let Huston go after he had just ‘taken’ her against her will once already, and, of course Polanski and Huston never said she had interrupted them. In fact, in Ms Geimer’s original statement she claimed he ‘sat her back down again and then started to have [anal] intercourse with her again and then just stopped’, and when asked ‘if she believed that he climaxed in her anus’, she replied yes. Yet, did not say ‘he raped me again’, and, Polanski said he had climaxed outside her.) I got dressed and went out to the car and started to cry. (Which of course no one saw.) He took me home and said, “Don’t tell your mom what happened.” (Which Polanski denied to have told her, or that it’s ‘their secret’.) After Ms Geimer had testified she had a bowel movement right after she got home, Polanski would have NO doubt hit on that brown matter and caused her highly unpleasant friction and painful damage after the ‘double sodomy’ already. And yet, to this day she not ONCE said anything untoward any ‘pain’ as she should have.

People keep bringing these panties into the foreground being the reason for the plea deal, and Ms Geimer’s lawyer Silver likes to accredit them to having been the cause even in Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’. Not so, it’s misleading, since it was on the pressure of the mother after it became clear there was no rape/sodomy and that she had made a terrible mistake to call the cops against Ms Geimer’s wishes, hence no demands for prison time. Ms Geimer herself said that she never got over that grave mistake, and her mother called it a ‘stupid mistake’. That’s quite some insult considering what terrible consequences it had for Polanski. The plea bargain-to-be-no-bargain at all was struck five months later for reasons other than the ‘panties’. They had been analysed March 14th, brought before the Grand Jury hearing March 24th, and ruled inadmissible because the cops had not received them ‘off her body’ directly but from her ‘hands’ when fetching them from her bedroom, utterly contaminated ‘evidence’, since securing the chain of custody was completely corrupted. Rittenband rightfully disallowed them given that they could have been anyone’s panties, and ‘semen evidence’ means nothing in itself. Since Ms Geimer changed when she got home by her own admission, the clothes she wore at the hospital for Larson to check after he had examined her, were obviously not the same. But, because she had changed rather than secured ‘evidence’ of intercourse, her [‘rape’/sodomy] claims are even less believable since she knew not to shower or douche after a ‘rape’, and of course there was no semen found inside and on her body either where she said Polanski had deposited it. Science doesn’t lie, only people who could misuse it. The lab technician Lee Mann presenting his evidence at the Grand Jury could not even fully determine semen stains on the panties (and none on the blue dress she apparently had worn that day she had also given to the cops), after he conducted a test on the crotch area of her underwear in an effort to obtain spermatozoa, which proved rather unsuccessful. Here’re some excerpts from his testimony.

Question: Did you determine whether semen was present on the panties? Answer. I determined that the test, the acid phosphatase test was positive indicating the presence of semen on the panties. However, I could not confirm the presence of semen by obtaining spermatozoa from the garment stain (on the panties). Q. What do you mean by that? A. Well, if I got a positive chemical test, I have a very strong indication that there is semen in the stain. I will then cut out a piece of the garment and try to extract it to obtain spermatozoa. Extract it with distilled water, place it on the microscope slide, evaporate it and then search for spermatozoa. I could not find any spermatozoa. (The fertilising sperm in semen/ejaculate.) Q. Could you tell when the semen was secreted? A. No. Q. Could you determine who secreted the semen? A. No. Q. Based upon your test and analysis of the panties, do you have an opinion as to whether there was a presence of semen? A. Well, the test strongly indicates semen. It can’t be confirmed in that I couldn’t find spermatozoa. Q. Can you give a probability as to the existence of the semen on the panties based upon your tests? A. Oh, it is probably better than 90 percent sure that it is semen. Q. How long will sperm live? A. Live or… Q. Exist. A. They will exist indefinitely if conditions are proper. If they are dry conditions they could last indefinitely either on a microscope slide or in a garment. Q. How long are they detectable on slides? A. Indefinitely. Q. Do you know how long you can detect sperm after an act of sexual intercourse, if it existed? A. Well, up to 12 hours. After 12 hours you would not expect to find sperm present in a vaginal swabbing, although it is possible. Q. In this case did you also receive some slides, some vaginal slides and anus slides? A. I did. Q. Did you also receive an item listed as vaginal washing? A. Yes. Q. Did you examine those slides and washings for spermatozoa? A. I did. Q. What was your finding? A. These items were negative or tested negative for semen.

He also said that the ‘stain’ was of no ‘female’ specific origin, i.e., vaginal fluids, [menstrual] blood etc. So, the panties ‘might’ have semen stains but no spermatozoa, and the (rape kit) test slides showed neither of them. So, unless a modern-day DNA test is done on the stain, the one who left it will remain anonymous for all eternity. Since Polanski is not interfile or had a vasectomy to produce no sperm, it can’t be his. Now, Ms Geimer had claimed that she had felt Polanski’s ejaculate all over her back, inside her anus and in said panties when she put them back on. But, she never said she had cleaned herself up (which you might expect after such a mess), had no douche, shower, enema you name it – and within four hours of the sex NOTHING was found in semen/ejaculate form on or inside her, except these panties inside the crotch/gusset, where you would not expect any ejaculate if it came from the anus or back, but the vagina only leaking from it, otherwise the stain/s had been on the back. The technician could not say how old the stain was, so it could well have been someone else’s semen from days before. Or not the same panties. She claimed she had a bowel movement, but  the microscopic sigmoidoscope investigation would still have detected traces of any ejaculate. Meaning, he did not ejaculate ‘all over her’ as she put it, but outside of her as he said after vaginal intercourse only. The semen [stains] could be anyone’s, and there’s no logic in sodomising anyone to avoid pregnancy and then still withdraw to ejaculate outside, but to resort to coitus interuptus. The main thing that’s utterly off in the sequence of events is the asthma/in-out Jacuzzi vapours controversy, where her underwear was on or off, if Polanski was in the Jacuzzi or [rather] not, that TV room/double sodomy part, or even from where he got the Quaalude. She has several different versions of the events in exactly the key areas where Polanski contradicts her – otherwise they match his course of events.

As we know, she said that she’d never told her mother, which makes it a NO rape scenario at heart. In fact, had she not spoken about the sex at all, the most they would have done was perhaps tell Polanski not to use the topless pictures, or come back to take more. If not, we all know what then had happened: she’d ended up in that Vogue Hommes spread, other glossy magazines with a brilliant career of acting ahead. That’s why she was so pissed off that the mother had called the cops. Hollywood mom destroyed her career because of a jealous half-sister. Or some topless pictures. Or some convoluted tale of sex and drugs and champagne. According to the casting director on Chinatown, he said, “I know from my personal experience that Gailey was ambitious for the girl and only too happy to meet someone like Polanski. It’s absurd to say he was a predator who single-handedly forced himself on the family” Indeed, since his friend had asked him to look at her daughter – not vice versa. What most people don’t realise is that Polanski was always very youthful and ‘seductive’, for his natural charm and rather feminine stature no woman could resist. The first time he felt anything erotic untoward Ms Geimer according to his autobiography, was when she got into the Jacuzzi, but he kept snapping her, wanted to relax her, and only when they dried each other off did he think of ‘sex’. She could have simply left when it became ‘scary’, but, rather covers every scenario as to why she ‘would’ not with various explanations. As in, he was my only means to get back home, (when she could have called her mother again to pick her up – the same ploy Vogelhut used by saying she had no money to get home) or, I was ‘scared’, though she did not explain why and Polanski of course had no such impression. And, then I just surrendered because I had no idea how to handle the situation – or a man like Polanski. She never said he threatened her into anything, so why be ‘afraid’ of him in the first place? Some call/ed her double sodomy claims a literal fantasy, since hard evidence simply does not support it.

Now, in her late forties, Ms Geimer appeared cordial during the interview with King, an ‘actress in her own right’. At one point he asked her why she hadn’t written a book about her experience and she said it was ‘hard on her family’. I doubt that incident was ‘hard’ on anyone other than herself and her mother for a short time back then and most of all Polanski ever since, because they unlike him soon went underground on Hawaii and no one knew who she or her mother was or of the ‘case’. She lived there in happy oblivion till she revealed herself in 1997, and not even her niece had any idea of the ‘events’ until recently. A lot of the ‘turmoil’ people read into all this had occurred long before Polanski had entered their life, and he was left battered at the hands of a rather dysfunctional family, the destructive media and the despotic law. It would be ‘hard’ to write a book about her family background of lax views concerning underage sex, drugs and alcohol use, her mother’s frequently changing partners, that she was a not too talented bit-part actress or Moussa, who was to take Kinski under his wings, had taken her on too after Polanski had asked him to, and she’d likely gloss over the fact that her older half-sister was in rehab for Quaalude addiction. That her mother’s then boyfriend had a ‘lewd affair’ with her even the courts knew of would undoubtedly be omitted, and the lack of a birth father no doubt didn’t help. The fact that her current husband is twenty years older isn’t surprising, after she dropped out of school with sixteen, had a kid with eighteen, married the boy’s father to be divorced from him again by nineteen to remarry soon and have two more children. All that requires ‘money’ as said niece put it in a blog, (whose mother fell out with Ms Geimer, thinks her aunt has a screw loose, and that Polanski’s ‘payoff’ helped to get that nice big house on Hawaii, no matter it arrived two decades late/r). Not my words, hers.

For over three decades no one bothered with Polanski, so why the sudden interest in his case when he wasn’t considered a priority since 1978? Oh I forgot, the LA DA’s office was deeply ‘embarrassed’ by Zenovich’s film exposing all the misconducts, after Polanski had protested it for so long already, and then there was this handy UBS scandal to pawn him off. Cooley’s Les Miserable Javert-like demeanour is deeply repulsive, or that Wells, who even admitted that he lied ‘to look good on camera’. In fact, in the Zenovich documentary the very Oktoberfest photo he used to see Polanski end up inside Chino, is shown full-screen and clearly depicts the females as mature women and that Polanski does NOT have his arms around any of them. Wells’ highly inflammatory and derogatory ex parte rants about Polanski fuelled Rittenband into abusing the diagnostic study, and to this day, the retired DA has never been punished for it. He was also a buddy of Vannatter’s who’d loved to have seen Polanski strung up. Once Wells showed the cropped photo to Rittenband he went: “I took it to Rittenband because I figured it was something he ought to see. And what I told him was, I said, you know judge you’ve made so many mistakes – I think – in this case. Look? He’s giving you the finger. He’s flipping you off. And I said, haven’t you had enough of this? He said, ‘what? What? He’s not getting away with that’.” Wells played Rittenband. The interview he gave to Zenovich is in fact much longer, she only cut it down to a few minutes, and that alone shows what prejudiced slimeball he was, or still is. Only good thing is that he was not to be the prosecutor of the case as he had loved to, but Gunson, the ‘Mormon’, a man of rare honour and integrity who sided with Polanski’s team later and equally unsuccessfully tried to see this case finally closed. If I had any say at the LA DA’s office, I’d start examining Wells’ past caseloads. What else did he lie about? How many innocent people did HE put in jail because of his lies? And how do we know that he isn’t lying about lying, when even Cooley is lying?

The ‘lawful’ and rightful ‘presumption of innocence’ is hardcore scepticism, as is the rejection of someone’s ‘guilt’, who wasn’t ever sentenced and in fact found ‘guilty’ yet of what he pleaded to. While people expect not to be convicted without just cause, i.e., hard proof, instead, they use [this] ‘presumption’ as a licence to ‘turn’ [his] ‘innocence’ into ‘guilt’ without any hard evidence. In doing so, ‘they’ expect the rest of us to ‘believe’ ‘them’, without any proof of their (in lieu of Ms Geimer’s former) claims of his guilt, because ‘they’ ‘want’ him to be ‘guilty’. So now we (and the defendant, i.e., Polanski) are [also] required to present evidence of his innocence. Indeed, we now have to meet a far higher standard of ‘evidence’ than ‘they’ (or Polanski) ever did, despite the fact that all we’ve done is question ‘their’ unproven claims (Ms Geimer could not prove to begin with). This makes ‘us’ [too], who believe in his innocence, the ones ‘guilty until proven innocent’, not ‘them’ who in fact DO believe in her unproven claims. But, if ‘we’ have to prove our claims of his ‘innocence’, (in lieu of HIS own belief), so do THEY that he’s ‘guilty’. THEY HAVE NOT and never will be able to. And, they don’t get to excuse themselves by claiming their own ‘belief’ of HIS ‘guilty until proven innocent’, if THEY don’t have the ‘proof’ of his guilt to start with, but WE do of his innocence (in his place). So, do ‘you’ rather want to ‘believe’ in something ‘they’ cannot prove, or something others have proven already? Do you rather believe in all those wrongly repeated headlines of ‘drugged, raped and sodomised her’ as if it ever were ‘proven fact’, rather than engaged in unlawful sex which WAS proven fact? The majority of people instinctively gather that this kind of ‘trash journalism’ is basically worthless, but not too many want to dig deeper either to find out the wider truth, leaving the majority stuck in their drugged rape and sodomy fairyland. But there’s NO hard proof whatsoever that Polanski ever drugged, raped or sodomised anyone. No, the proof is he did NOT.

Having read more of the pro and contra comments about Ms Geimer’s King interview, some still think it was actual rape, saying she discusses the ‘horrific event’ and then explains that she doesn’t blame Polanski as much as she does the media for the way they treated her, when in fact, how and what she explains sounds the exact opposite of ‘horrific’, and represents exactly that kind of ignorance she talked about. I wonder if people really are that imbecilic to misread her statements or just plain braindead to believe in something that paradox, or something that was never proven. Her words alone mean nothing. Though King might be right by saying in their 2003 interview that ‘date rape’ was a new concept, date rape however is a feminist invented ‘clause’ to make self-intoxicated and self-administered drug sex, rape, just so to be absolved from all responsibilities after a drunken one-night stand. And, the myth of date rape drugs like GHB being rampantly used are just that, feminism propagated myth aided by scare stories no one corrects once they all turned out bogus claims. Like crying rape. The media is now [again] denouncing Polanski as a [sexual] monster, which he is most certainly not. He is a ‘monster’ that could only be spawned by a monstrous society that allowed monsters like Rittenband to create him, with a complicit woman who doesn’t correct her lawyer having cited her encounter with Polanski as ‘rape’, when he should have said unlawful sex, since ‘rape’ to most means forcible intercourse, which it is, ONLY. While, in the same breath, she declares that Polanski had not been rough with her, harmed her. Such conflicting delivery either confuses or confirms the public of Polanski’s actual ‘guilt’, depending on what they know about the case.

This sort of misleading duplicity and unchallenged demonisation to perpetuate Ms Geimer’s STILL uncorroborated side of events in certain areas, is sending a by now more than hunted man down the path of the most insane slander that sees no end. Love of the limelight, a fair amount of narcissism and self-deceit is a powerful thing for accusers. Having absolute power over a powerless man is a powerful feeling, no matter the law still has the greater. Having all the sympathy in the world as his ‘victim’ is a very potent intoxicant Quaalude could never match. Yet, not once did the man strike out against this perpetual onslaught of the mindless lynch mob based on long disproved allegations, other than through his in legal team, which his very own prosecutor had sided with, to no avail. An ever-prevailing man like Polanski, who trusted and listened to the law, followed its dictates to the letter only to get swindled by a corrupt man in black, had no reason to stay in America, which by all means had murdered his wife and unborn child, only to be accused of their butchery himself in a nasty media attack unheard of, irresponsibly pitching a ‘Satanism’ perspective that garnered the most shock value, regardless of the much more insidious facts. American journalism is unbelievably corrupt and highly biased propaganda, catering to the lowest common denominator of viewership. Facts are not merely perverted or exaggerated, they are simply turned upside down. Polanski had every reason to lash out at the downright cruel press attacks, the highly corrupt law driving the knife in even further, the twisted society that screwed him over and over. And yet, the endless pain they had inflicted on him could not kill him, STILL being highly respected as a human being and revered artist.

With dumb and self-serving people continuing to say things like, ‘child rapist Polanski is still on the lam for paedophilia’, this kind of never-ending idiocy gives them the opportunity to be more aggressive (and/or dumb) than they would allow themselves to be in person (or public), as the cowards (/idiots) they are, since there is a weaker sense of personal responsibility when their target cannot strike back. They don’t have to confront that someone they attack directly and can feel ‘big’. People, who believe that any kind of self-satisfying cyberbullying is an acceptable means of channelling their half-baked and uneducated opinions, often suffer from severe if wholly illusionary self-importance and mental immaturity with an antisocial element. Living in an oversexed media culture where over-the-top drama and easy-access sex and violence is pervasive, for someone who already has questionable judgement and no shred of objectivity or intellect, it only reinforces their idea that extreme slander and cruelty is acceptable. This kind of malignant cancer will never be uprooted; it can only grow into a giant black hole of indefensible lies search engines will forever expand. I wonder how much longer it will take for Ms Geimer to stop playing the victim, contradict herself, instead of owning up to her part and be seen as a truly empowered woman, who doesn’t need a lawyer to watch her every word. Some said she should have shut up in 1977 and enjoyed the fruits of her photoshoot labour, and some say she should shut up now. Silence after all, IS golden. But then again, she had never expected that her testimony would be available online one day – to expose her inconsistencies.

By exploiting and labelling Ms Geimer as the ‘Polanski victim’ despite no single scrap of evidence he had deliberately drugged, and then raped and sodomised her, much less an adjudication of Polanski’s guilt thereof, people keep rushing to a false judgment and believe her still unchallenged allegations to be factual. Had Polanski not been forced into the plea bargain purely for her age and other factors, and refused to admit he had intercourse with her, NOTHING in fact could have proven that he had, since Larson said to the Grand Jury after he performed both a standard pelvic examination taking specimens and washings and a rectal examination both visual and using the sigmoidoscope: “In the presence of a person who has had previous intercourse, unless intercourse is forced one wouldn’t expect to find the physical evidence.” Meaning, it wasn’t forcible intercourse. Asked: “When you say ‘physical evidence’, you mean the, haematomas, the lacerations…” he answered, “Evidence of damage to the vagina or the rectum.” When queried further: “Did your examination indicate that Samantha Gailey had previous sexual intercourse?” he replied, “Yes, it had.” Meaning, she was not a virgin anymore she had admitted to herself for the missing hymen, and when asked if he could tell how many times she had intercourse before, he said, “No.” Meaning, he could not even tell if she had intercourse that very evening at not the slightest damage. It is therefore disingenuous and unjustly misleading to insist that her sodomy claims are true, especially at her plenty words to the very opposite people get only confused over.

While the law thinks a ‘crime’ occurred, Ms Geimer’s outward declaration of passive assent never matched her disinclination to engage in the seduction game that led to the sex. She let him proceed every step of the way, she did not give him any signs to desist. Thus, Ms Geimer’s discussing her sexual encounter with Polanski on King’s shows, provides a typical example of what an expected victim protest would NOT be. No genuine rape victim says her attacker was not forceful, mean or hurting them, no genuine victim wishes their violator well for the future and that all charges be dropped. Technically that is passive recanting of her original accusations, but she cannot go further or be done for perjury. The legal system that betrayed them both is not designed to establish the truth; it is an adversarial system that abuses the truth. Truth is not found in the courtrooms and the irresponsible news sources that tell us what emerges from the courts are not telling the public the truth either. What is told to the public is often deliberate twisting of the truth. A lie was told and [most] everyone [still] thinks it is true, going on a verbal rampage of adding abuse to cause the accused further unjust injury. While Manson and his killer girls had a fair trial, even became cult in the obscenity that is fanatical following of warped fandom, Polanski was ousted over sex. A pariah from one day to the next.

He rightfully found it obscene that people wear t-shirts with Manson’s face playing his songs as if he had done nothing wrong, who had sodomised boys as a teen and raped some of his own ‘family’ members, yet Polanski had to pay for one evening with a teenager ever since and is unfairly called a rapist and/or paedophile. In 1997 Ms Geimer said: “The fallout was worse than what had happened that night. It was on the evening news every night. Reporters and photographers came to my school and put my picture in a European tabloid with the caption ‘Little Lolita’. They were all saying, ‘Poor Roman Polanski, entrapped by a 13-year-old temptress’. I had a good friend who came from a good Catholic family, and her father wouldn’t let her come to my house anymore. It was even worse for my mother because everyone was saying it was her fault. (It was.) Meanwhile, I just shut down and didn’t talk. I was this sweet 13-year-old girl, and then all of a sudden I turned into this pissed-off 14-year-old. I was mad at my attorney; I was mad at my mom. I never blamed her for what happened, but I was mad that she had called the police and that we had to go through this ordeal.” Though I highly doubt she never blamed her mother, since saying she was mad at her with her means just that and clearly shows that she had not wanted her to make it a ‘rape story’, her ‘ordeal’ was not half as traumatising as what Polanski had to endure since, when he went from nice chum to vile scum at the speed of lightning.

So, being called a Lolita might be unpleasant, though not half as unpleasant as being dubbed a whore, but to lose everything and be unjustly labelled a rapist and/or paedophile the next day for the rest of his life is infinitely worse. Any lesser man had killed himself. Especially after Polanski was forced to flee and faced added hardship, till he got himself back on track with Tess Sharon had wanted him to make into a film – and so he did at great acclaim. Film literally kept him alive on so many occasions from childhood on. So, if Ms Geimer thought it was ’hard’ for her, she has no concept of what Polanski has suffered, and that long before she was born. A murderer was treated with more respect than someone who had slept with a teenager. Polanski had to be put in protective custody to be kept away from hardcore convicts at the same facility where Manson was held, while by then Ms Geimer was long forgotten by the press and could go underground at her father’s place. Though she protests that people had come to her school to take pictures of her, she was heard saying that she will be in the movies with and because of Polanski having taken pictures of her, to be shown in glossy magazines, which by all means was correct and had been her future – had her mother listened to her. Though her name was made public only later, everyone knew it was her, for the pictures the Euro press took and published of her. Clearly showing off her very high physical maturity level Polanski fell for, not her ‘age’.

Polanski is what’s called a situational offender, acting out of character for a particular set of circumstances and string of events leading up to the sex that day – the romantic elements of champagne, taking pictures of a pretty girl, the hot tub she posed in, and several other crucial factors many don’t see. There were emotional, psychological and physical factors at work that usually don’t end up as they did, simply for her age. He wasn’t interested in her sexually before that particular moment. That’s why the probation report cited a severe culture clash, and his naiveté over underage sex to be acceptable in the US, or topless photos taken for a French magazine. We also may not forget that ever since Tate’s murder, his deepening depression had taken on a different dimension that led him into the act of seeking sex with a [too] young girl. Had he had professional counselling in 1969 as the prison psychiatrists had said he desperately needed long before he talked to them, he’d not lost himself into deeper depression and sex to end up with her in the first place. But, in 1969 there was no support for victims of violent crimes, and he clearly was and still is suffering from what is called survivors guilt. He spoke of his eternal guilt in his autobiography not only in reference to his survival of the war and ghetto years, but over the brutal loss of Sharon, that he wasn’t there to protect and save her. That he was attacked by the malicious press didn’t help any healing process either.

The remarkable thing is that he had changed his mind about what happened in 1977 people of course have no idea about. That according to his friend Nicholson, who said in 2004 in a Playboy interview: “People have to remember that the offence for which he was convicted isn’t even a crime in his own country. (France.) Having sex with a minor, since it’s not underage where he comes from. He always maintained that he didn’t feel he did anything wrong. The girl has also said that she doesn’t feel he did anything particularly wrong. (Indeed, or the adult woman had not repeatedly pleaded later to dismiss all charges.) But the minute he had children, Roman changed his mind. He decided he did in fact do something wrong. (Legally considered for her age, and one might think that is when he wrote her that ‘note’ she spoke of, though, had she really said ‘no’, he had let her be.) As an honest man, he admitted that, though he didn’t have to. (That was expressed already in 1994 in the very amiable interview with Diane Sawyer available on YouTube, though he was still very defensive about the puritanical stance about teenage sex in the sex-repressed US being senselessly punished.) He’s a wonderful guy and a great artist. There aren’t that many world-class movie directors, and he’s one of them. Having children apparently changed him, though. It does change things.” Indeed – except no one would allow him to have changed. Let alone today in this über puritanical society that now sends men for sex into prison for life at NO defence chances.

Coming back to Polanski’s much anticipated adaptation of Reza’s dark comedy stage play God of Carnage, finally the second male lead role was finalised with John C. Reilly joining the film as the final piece of the main cast. Reilly will be coupled with Foster and not Matt Dillon as some had reported, good, he struck me as too young and out of place to handle a high-octane play like that. And as I said, he wasn’t quite cast yet, and putting him in what amounts to a pressure cooker of a verbal feast with the highly talented cast and a very demanding Polanski seems like a recipe for something really delicious. Let’s see how Reilly will be doing with his versatility spanning drama, comedy and even musicals. The drama is high in its isolated, dialogue-driven story as each pair of parents attacks the other’s parenting skills before turning on each other about problems in their own marriages. The tension really mounts when these parents actually end up getting along far worse than their bickering kids did. Maybe one of the boys will be played by his own son, Elvis, since his daughter appeared in his Ghost [Writer]. Polanski begins shooting in Paris at the beginning of 2011, so we’ll likely see the film show up on the festival circuit, and even in theatres, later in the same year.

This is quite an assembly of great talent for a drama that will surely garner a lot of attention when awards season comes around next year at undoubtedly high acclaim. By the time t/his film will be finished, the renewed injury done to him will have healed, and the grass grown back over the widening crater of injustice that his rearrest and unlawful detention had caused. And who knows, maybe Ms Geimer might appear at the premier in LA like she did for Wanted and Desired. That would dumbstruck all his petty little haters – and piss off Cooley & Co immensely, who keep saying that she has no ‘rights’ to demand the charges be dropped, while doing so in other much more serious cases and she certainly HAS ‘right’s. Just not in ‘his’ court, making another exception in this case. Of course we know why Cooley doesn’t want to dismiss the case, for one they’d need to address all the misconduct Cooley has committed himself, and to prevent Polanski from suing anyone who even misspelled his name over the last three decades. With Cooley still in the running for AG, it looks like his opponent Kamala Harris can pull big donors like Ron Meyer, the president of Universal Studios, and some Cooley loyalists have muttered that this is payback for Cooley’s dogged pursuit of Polanski. But the organised American film industry support for Polanski is centered in New York rather than in Tinseltown, and Hollywood was strongly in Harris’ camp before Cooley declared his candidacy at any rate. Never mess with powerful Hollywood supporters who know what really happened. No rape in any form.

Now that Foster has joined Polanski’s latest film endeavour, it’s not enough to criticise her for standing by a Hollywood pariah (Gibson), but people need to ‘rethink’ suddenly who she is as a ‘human being’ in an attempt to reshape her entire legacy as an artist, and set out to ‘punish’ and make an example of Foster’s apostasy regarding Gibson and Polanski. Their ever-self-righteous bigotry message is clear: stay on the Artistic Thought-Plantation or we will outcast you too. The public that is, not ‘Hollywood’. Human beings and sexuality are extremely complex and there are too many complexities to life that can upset [their irrational] ‘emotions’ and rigid patterns of ‘moral dogma’, with ill-informed people finding it ‘disgusting’ that these women, Foster and Winslet, would commit all their credibility on ‘women’s issues’ by working with Polanski. They think, they ‘condone’ the immoral behaviour they believe Polanski is guilty of, that they are no better than the one who they are oh so sure of committed an act of rape, yet have ZERO proof of it. But that doesn’t matter, anyone dare speak thoughts obviously outside of their personal jurisdiction and their sanctimonious blather will be labelled ‘disgusting’, a rape apologist. Polanski’s work can be transcendent and at the very forefront of the medium’s leading edge – perfection – one can worshipful his gifts, not the man himself. Culture and the Arts are as air and water to the viability of our society. Great art keeps all of us alive as a society, not hypocritical little haters and [their] vindictive laws.

Polanski isn’t just another film director, he truly is a pioneeering artist, and given the fact of Polanski’s immense contribution to culture over the past several decades, a mature society needs to balance what is best overall, not for the small-minded little haters. What is lost if a genius is locked away and cannot create? Everything – or we’d not have ANY art. The value of great art to all of mankind is paramount, and so is Polanski’s and Ms Geimer’s entitlement to final resolution. Does she feel that Polanski owes her restitution, or does she strongly feel he needs to be punished? No, no and no again, or else she’d not petitioned him to be freed from this endless pursuit. People think Polanski owes ‘society’ in regards to the ‘rape’. Do productive geniuses deserve special consideration? Of course they do, since all his petty little haters have little positive to contribute but damaging hatred. That’s what at stake here, not their all-consuming little egos. The ‘rape’ has achieved mythical status by now, and this somehow gives everyone licence to pass their self-satisfying little judgements on Polanski. It is a fact that teenagers are having sex all the time, and all over the world. Millions of teenagers, globally, are freely engaging in sex right now, and if the law would in fact allow them to have sex when of pubertal age I guarantee you, NO one would find it ‘immoral’ or a ‘power differential’ issue suddenly anymore as the hypocrites they are. If I magically could know for a FACT that Polanski forcibly had sex with a weeping girl I would want him in a jail cell right now. That is the sort of thing I’d chose to label ‘disgusting’, not someone who stands by her beleaguered friend and a director who slept with a teenager over three decades ago. I for one know it wasn’t rape of any kind, end of debate.

A rather curious trend I have come across over the last weeks is that some Far Eastern bloggers or even major news articles have apparently only ‘now’ picked up on the arrest and extradition request or even case, and literally lag a year behind, since they all state that Polanski is in prison ‘right now’ after he was arrested in ‘September this year’. Not ‘LAST’ year, and have all but missed that he was released already months back THIS YEAR, after it became clear that he’s done his time twice now and should never have been rearrested – how lame is that? How about checking your sources, and the actual ‘year’. Another more than eye-rolling thing I noticed is that people who reviewed The Ghost [Writer] suddenly ask, how Polanski in fact could film it in the US, and I stop right there, since it’s more than dim-witted to even ask that. Hello? Who needs ‘Hollywood’ or the ‘US’? Ever heard of a ‘studio/backlot’ where you can magically create anything you need? Including having genuine US cars and whatnot else studios regularly hire or simply build, or even use European cars they drive in America and simply stick a real or custom-made US number plate on it? Or how about other locations that stand in for US shores? Or, better still, use ‘CGI’? Guess that’s just too taxing to even think of or at least look at the special features on the DVD explaining things, or they in fact had seen where and how exactly the film was made. As in, Germany, a Hollywood-rivalling German film studio and a few fancy supercomputers. Looks like Polanski’s unerring eye for details and his meticulous drive for perfection leaves no room to make it look other than authentic to a perfect t and fool people into such [one-dimensional] questions. That’s what makes him a genius in his field.

Now, with Polanski’s God of Carnage, starring Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C. Reilly, having closed sales for much of Europe, Wild Bunch will handle theatrical distribution in France and has also bought UK and Scandinavian rights. Mediaset-owned Medusa has rights to Italy, Lusomundo has taken Portugal, Village Roadshow has Greece, SPI has Eastern Europe, Ascot Elite has Switzerland and Media Intl. Pics has the Middle East. Written by Polanski and French playwright Reza, Carnage is produced by Said Bensaid’s SBS Prods., which is selling it worldwide outside the US. The film is co-produced by German giant Berlin’s Constantin Film, which will distribute in Germany. The US is repped by Jeff Berg at ICM. Carnage is the first movie from Bensaid’s SBS Prods. His former SBS Films was owned by UGC, for whom he produced Reza’s feature helming debut, Chicas, which co-starred Polanski’s wife, Emmanuelle. Outside this highly promising plot, which showcases two sets of parents who meet to discuss a playground fight between their sons until the meeting degenerates into conflict, criticism, racism and misogyny, people keep bringing up the same BS in regards to Polanski wherever someone left an update on the film, with their usual stupid comments. That he’s basically a self-confessed serial paedophile rapist predator foremost – dream on folks – and that people will not want to watch Carnage or any of his other crappy films – speak for yourselves, dumb US haters. Go and rage another war somewhere and keep your dirty little fingers off the computer keyboards to assassinate others in cyberspace.

Having noticed another set of two factions online, of the anti and pro-Polanski kind, the first breaks it down into highly over-simplistic shallowness and usual one-dimensional dehumanisation, as in: Polanski is a Holocaust survivor who should have been gassed along with his mother, had a wife who was killed by some hippies for making ‘satanic movies’ and should have been butchered alongside her, then drugged and raped a child and should have been raped and killed in prison, oh yeah, and he made a few forgettable films that should be boycotted. Classy summary indeed, for the real classy-minded little haters that have zero ideas who or what they’re talking about. As counterbalance we have the more humanistic intelligentsia, who say: Polanski is a highly acclaimed filmmaker and Holocaust survivor who escaped Nazi destruction as a child, where he developed his love of cinema to compensate for the harsh reality, had a beautiful wife who was murdered alongside their unborn baby and friends by some hippie dropouts, was accused of murdering them himself and attacked by the monstrous media, then escaped some megalomaniac lawmaker after unlawful sex with a minor, was accused of rape when he fled his corrupt court having done his time and the judge wanted to send him back to prison against all counsel, before he then was made another nasty example of by the abusive law of today after his rearrest, faced more vicious media attacks and public lynching before he was released by a country that had betrayed him in the first place over money. All for who he was, or still is: a well-respected genius artist who had suffered many tragedies in his life where only his love of film, his loyal friends and family, countless colleagues and fans kept him alive with well-deserved dignity and support.

Such are the two current opinion poles of the endless Polanski saga – all over brutal murders, ‘satanic films’, sex with a teenager over three decades ago and the vindictive law that exiled him vowing to shadow him till his dying day as extra special treatment, despite calls to stop this mindless persecution. But, under the self-righteous factions of so-called ‘laws’ and ‘morality’, sexual bigotry, sexual policing, sexual paranoia having utterly corrupted this case and our society per se, it has long become a dominant and highly destructive reality in our everyday life and its expanding shadow has done untold damage. And, as in all authoritarian states and petty little hypocrites that run them, the senseless persecution of people like Polanski most often occurs behind corrupt courtroom doors to be rationalised under the guise of this being a ‘state matter’, or of course is debated with sick/ening falsehoods and diatribes in the sleazy tabloids online to publicly destroy someone like him with perverse relish in a real civilised form of electronic [character] assassination. See. See Rittenband/Wells/Walgren/Cooley on the ‘state’ side, helped by Allred/Lewis/Vogelhut and their own co-conspirators on the ‘society’ side, having tried to destroy Polanski in various ways after the Nazis failed, the Polish Communists failed, the Manson Family failed, the corrupt law failed and then his backstabbing ex-lovers also failed. But, it will never happen, since for one the now autonomous woman at the centre of this entire sex scandal drama that has polarised and politicised this case ad infinitum and ad nauseum in the public eye is on his side since decades now, who wants him be left in peace in contrast and many flock to his side to be in his films. But, who listens to any ‘victims’ these days, when it doesn’t suit the petty little moralists and petty little lawmakers incited by petty little feminist dogmas and their equally twisted picture they have of her as well.

While some less than intelligent people think that Polanski should be foremost remembered for being a rapist and/or paedophile he certainly is not, rather than an outstanding artist he certainly is (or these one-dimensionally brained idiots in fact wouldn’t even know about him), long before he became ugly tabloid fodder, long before he directed such remarkable psychological features as Knife in the Water in 1962 and Repulsion (1965), ‘satanic’ Rosemary’s Baby (1968), ‘alienating’ The Tenant (1976), or grand melodramas like Chinatown (1974), and the beautiful Tess (1979), Polanski made nine short films, most of them while he was a stellar student at the renowned Łódź Film School, and the first short, Bicycle (1955), was unfortunately lost. One of them, his award-winning graduation film, Two Men and a Wardrobe (1958), is well-known, but the others are rarely screened. Though all available on YouTube, these films, among them the very prophetic The Fat and the Lean (1961), Mammals (1962) tend to be playful and dark, absurd and surreal, and reveal the skilful style that would consume much of his later work. They are all available on DVD too, but now the Polish Cultural Institute in New York has set these shorts on a journey around the US during November, with stops scheduled at New York, Washington, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Texas, and Los Angeles among other cities. Travelling with the films is a group called Sza Za, described as an experimental electro-acoustic duo from Warsaw. DJ Carlos Niño from KPFK’s Spaceways Radio will be on hand to spin tunes before and after the films. They’ve composed a new score for the screenings, which are also intended to pay tribute to Krzysztof Komeda, a key figure in Polish film music who worked extensively with Polanski, and on his cult classic Dance of the Vampires (1966) he later turned into very popular stage shows.

Polanski’s movies always possessed certain features and themes, which are indicative of his favourable topics he uses within a structure of closed dramaturgy. When structuring the plot, he bases it on a few, or even only a couple of protagonists dramatically isolated from their surroundings or even own mind as in Repulsion. This method, usually used more often in the theatre than in movies, see Knife in the Water and Death and the Maiden (1994) with only three players, or the upcoming God of Carnage with four, makes it possible to follow the evolution of the characters and their mutual relationships in very closed conditions, allowing the viewers to study human nature; a subject matter of all his films. Fascinated by the murky sides of the human mind and sadomasochistic relationships between people, Polanski uses them to convey the existential truth about wo/man and their miserable condition, which reflect his fascination with the dominant and the subordinate, the victimiser and victim. This is demonstrated in Polanski’s earlier films such as The Fat and the Lean, where he plays the oppressed and fettered ‘Lean’ himself, with a fat Rittenbandesque man dictating him to ‘dance after his beating of the drum’, or gavel, as it was to happen later in [his] real life. Polanski’s main subject is the evil which springs from the depths of the human psyche, born out of the untameable need to torment others, with a sub-context of sexual repression/excesses. Polanski himself fell victim to the suggestive language of his movies, and after the macabre murder of his wife and friends, some of the critics and moviegoers believed that Polanski himself had summoned the forces of evil, the deaths of those near to him being payment for his dealings with the devil. If that were the case, he sure as hell had not fallen victim to some women crying rape.

While still some believe Polanski is under house arrest right now, or in prison or was denied bail, or or or, which for one nullifies some people saying that he never was in prison, and all happened a years ago, it only shows people are more than ill-informed about the factual timeline of the case let alone any actual facts. Others even manage to use Espinoza against Polanski now in a desperate bid by twisting his offering him a time served sentence some time back, (though on the condition to show up in his court), which of course never happened. Some really deluded brains even see Zenovich’s more than impartial documentary as terribly skewed and biased in his favour, that I really wonder how grossly distorted and twisted these people’s minds can become. I’d be ashamed to belong to a mindless group who keep on about something they have no clear facts of and simply take a few incomplete transcript bits and highly prejudiced media junk pieces as the ultimate truth, twist and turn it some more to make it even more inaccurate and nasty, thinking Polanski believes he got away with a crime, while utterly ignoring the actual criminals were in fact the courts and people who put him there and tried to smear him ever since. On a more positive note, the European Film Academy in contrast loves Polanski. The Ghost Writer has been nominated for seven European Film Awards: for best film, best director, best editor, the brilliant production designs by Albrecht Konrad, the superb filmscore by composer Alexandre Desplat, and best actor for the Ghost himself Ewan McGregor. The 2300 members of the European Film Academy will select the winners of this year, which will be announced in Tallinn, Estonia December 4th. So let’s see if The Ghost will be picking up more awards, which it deserves. And Polanski, his highly skilled crew and cast.

After I found plenty of my own comments I left on my own blogs or others’ articles plastered all over the Net under different names over the past year people simply made their own, or even posted most of my blogs’ paragraphs here and there in chunks as if they were their own findings, I have nothing against their disseminating them even further, and thought I return the favour and just cross-post other people’s comments for a while. While some still keep speculating about what was going on in Ms Geimer’s head then and now, (or her mother’s and sister’s) but also about what was going on in Polanski’s mind, I’m sure most get it wrong either way. To get a more plausible answer to that, let’s not forget that it all happened in 1977, Polanski was a European man coming from different cultures, he had been exposed to the swinging Sixties and promiscuous Seventies, braless females draped into tight transparent blouses, miniskirts, and topless beaches all over Europe to nudist beaches in some countries. And, oddly enough, the sex crime rate didn’t soar, unlike in the sex-regressed US. Polanski was obviously attracted to Ms Geimer in the end and the attraction was consummated, if unlawfully or not, but, do you really think that someone his age, with that kind of experience and plenty women to call on already, could be ‘seduced’ by a mere girl taking her top off, at a photoshoot at which nothing had happened until after the girl in question wanted to rest on the third shoot? No, he would have been much cooler regarding topless activities of all sorts of nubile girls and women, and if Ms Geimer really had told him off, he’d been off to find himself someone else pronto.

Fact is, Ms Geimer had lied to her mother through omission, so, why should we believe anything that she told the Grand Jury, or that she would not lie to the Grand Jury, when certain aspects could not be corroborated from the start? Ms Geimer as a teenager had lost credibility the moment she purposely concealed her topless shoot with Polanski from her mother, that she later claimed she felt ‘uncomfortable’ no one seems to have noticed, felt the situation became ‘scary’, yet did nothing to convey it to anyone or simply leave. So, since she has admitted to one lie through omission of that crucial matter of the topless photos despite Polanski explicitly asking her to tell him if some pictures wouldn’t be acceptable right before they went to Nicholson’s house, yet did nothing, it is more difficult to know where and when she is telling the truth, or lies. She admitted to purposely lying by omission and about having asthma, that Polanski was in the Jacuzzi with her, or that Huston interrupted them, and is in fact a statement against her own interests that obviously went terribly wrong, and shows that her purpose despite what was happening at the first photo shoot which she said she did not ‘like’, was to continue her working relationship with Polanski and/or her ‘starstruck attraction’ to Polanski, if not ‘sexually’. A lie of omission is to remain silent when ethical behaviour calls for one to speak up. It is a method of deception and duplicity that uses the technique of simply remaining silent when speaking the truth would significantly alter the other person’s capacity (in this case her mother not to call the cops and Polanski having had the chance to destroy the photos) to make an informed decision.

Ms Geimer denied her mother the right to choose the options to allow for topless photos or not, though the mother herself could have asked Polanski exactly what kind of photos they would be to avoid any friction, or to tell her daughter to stop any more topless photography with Polanski and use any of the others for the Vogue Hommes assignment. Technically her mother was a decoy to her deception and manipulation, which in the end caused not only her own, her mother’s but Polanski’s instant downfall when they used the sex against him she had told her boyfriend about, but not her mother either since it never was rape and never would have by her own admission, had the ‘jealous’ and equally manipulative sister not overheard them. Was Ms Geimer’s or her half-sister’s behaviour towards their mother ethical or moral? Certainly not. Was her mother deceived by Ms Geimer and did she serve her own self-interests at her mother’s, Polanski’s and her ultimately own expense? Most certainly. Of course Gailey failed her own daughter too on several levels and in different ways I touched on plenty of times, people like to ignore. Ms Geimer was a teenager back in 1977 with most people not even alive then but think they know it all in their meddling delusion, and is now a grown woman in her late Forties and had a perfectly happy life. So, their argument of ‘what if that was your daughter’ or sister is MOOT. She wants Polanski not only forgiven, but freed, all charges dismissed, not only because of how abused she felt by the media then or today and the courts, but because she ALSO believes that HIS rights were violated, and has said so often enough.

Shame is no one but another woman in charge listened to her – Widmer-Schlumpf – but rather twist/ed and turn/ed her words of today to make her a liar when she’s in fact telling the truth. Such arises from a teenager’s lies that went terribly wrong no one could stop once the law took over. As lies ultimately always do. Had Polanski never been betrayed by the Gaileys who therefore enabled the law enforcement and the courts to do the same, everyone had been fine with it, even if he came out today, that he did the exact same thing like everyone else had around him and no one was punished for it, before and after. And furthermore, had he been a ‘white American’, he would have undoubtedly received the usual probation and a fine with no previous record had they made the mistake to call on the law, if that, with guaranteed hardly any media coverage even if he had been a ‘Hollywood heartthrob’ and everyone would have said to let him be, it was one-off ‘mistake’. Or the case had simply been dismissed as so often and as it should be for consensual underage sex, not send men into prison for it. We wouldn’t even be talking about it for the online lynch mob of today to go rabid all over it. Polanski was persecuted because of his fame, the über ego of the judge, and his fear of looking bad in the media, instead of just telling that is was merely a case of unlawful sex and everyone could have gone home and on with their lives, artistic endeavours and Ms Geimer had become famous other than for being ‘Polanski’s victim’.

As for Polanski pleading ‘guilty’ to that one count and all others are dead and gone, like [liar] Lewis he had to read from a script prepared for him by Rittenband followed by this equally ‘directed’ probation hearing Dalton and Gunson exposed in Wanted and Desired as ‘media show’, so how is that ‘voluntarily pleading guilty’ or in any form ‘lawful’, when he was forced into it and both attorneys exposed that travesty years later, Cooley & Co however simply ignore? Just like all the other misconduct? Pleading guilty does in fact not always mean someone IS guilty. He was forced into it to end the charade or face the uncertainty of a biased jury. It was a pitiful and deceptive stage show for the press and everyone but the press knew it was a disgraceful sham. Instead of tossing out the cease the mother most certainly had preferred, or she or the attorneys had pressed for a trial, or at least a plea to a higher count and hard time at their discretion had there been any evidence of force – either physically or verbally – but they did not since there was no evidence or ever will be no matter what people want. Had Rittenband not played his own omission games with the press, he’d simply closed the case – but that of course hadn’t brought him all this lovely attention and gossip at his Club. And more clippings for his ego scrapbook. Just think of all the real rapists and paedophiles he or Cooley today could have tracked down and prosecuted with the money that was spent on trying to go after Polanski for his own über ego of becoming AG. But then again Cooley doesn’t care about real criminals either, as seen so often.

Let’s not forget, Polanski would NEVER have jeopardised his career by sexually abusing or raping anyone – filmmaking was and is his life above all else – not a chance he had thrown that away for a moment of madness by violating a female. Polanski was never known to lose control; he loved women, had many lovers in his long life, and NONE of them had ever cried rape. Bar Ms Geimer as a powerless teenager pushed into the role of victim for her age, and the two pathetic, ‘professional victims’ and self-proclaimed liar Lewis and Vogelhut who tried to exploit Ms Geimer’s case she now so desperately wants dismissed. Let’s also make something absolutely clear that cannot ever plausibly be disputed: Polanski is NOT a stand-in for every male on this planet who has ever gotten away with rape, factually raped someone or rather was accused of rape/s that never happened. And Ms Geimer is not a stand-in for every woman who has ever been raped – or rather NOT been raped – and is no less a false rape accuser like so many others. See Lewis and Vogelhut as the ones more  ‘prominent’, Ms Geimer now wants to make good on by pleading the case be dropped NO genuine rape victim would ever demand. Unfortunately, that is often how these cases are treated in feminist screeds and blindly biased news coverage of rape and false rape claims that are not balanced as they should but skewed in favour of the former, the liars who are excused with all sorts of bogus reasons, the poor poor abused females, making real victims look liars too very soon unless they can produce irrefutable evidence, which on the other hand is ALWAYS present. In all three cases concerning Polanski however there were NONE or ever will be.

This typically and preferentially unbalanced coverage that a rape is fact, the male IS a rapist and the female IS a ‘victim’ despite NO proof as of yet foments rape hysteria and creates the deceptive impression that rape is rampant. It’s certainly NOT, or five million females have been raped within one year in the UK alone if we take the population as roughly 30/30  million male/female as per their ludicrous ‘stats’ of one in six females was, is or will be raped. Not by a far shot. It’s über lunacy. In fact, it’s more likely that one in six accusations is false at the high rate of reports that ARE publicised. This, of course, masks the false rape accusation problem since the vast majority of false rape claims far outnumbering real rapes are not charged, much less news reported. They are handled at the police level with the goal of disposing of them quietly and expeditiously without ever reaching any courts, often with a stern warning only to the false accuser that if the matter were pursued, she would be exposed to criminal charges. Which on the other hand hardly ever happens while the man was destroyed no matter what in contrast after unjust prison time of varying duration, and none of these liars will ever see the inside of a jail where they belong. Like Lewis and Vogelhut, since Ms Geimer wants Polanski rightly freed and the case finally closed. Those plenty low-profile stories never make the news like that of Polanski having been utterly shredded by now beyond all recognition and facts. Feminists will always be the same repulsive misandrists to pander the same hideous lies, and the same ugly record they repeat over and over will never change in dis/respect to the falsely accused victims since men will always be seen as guilty even if the case is dropped, the charges dismissed and the accuser found out to have lied, simply for the fact that men have a penis and that is enough to warrant blame on the male species as a whole and to call them rapists and/or paedophiles without qualms. Or proof.

And here’s something very interesting – the unsealing request of Gunson’s testimony from both Polanski and Ms Geimer as joined petitioners – Cooley ‘summarily denied’. Of course.

Polanski v. S.C.L.A. (Supreme Court Los Angeles)

Division 7 B223085

03/18/2010 Filed petition for writ of: mandate/stay

03/18/2010 Exhibits filed in support of: 2 volumes

03/18/2010 Request for judicial notice filed.

03/19/2010 Order filed. The court has read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed 3/18/2010. The People are requested to serve file opposition, on or before 3/30/2010.

03/23/2010 Filed joinder of: Samantha Geimer to Roman Polanski’s petition. Verified petition and one volume of exhibits in support of petition submitted concurrently with the joinder.

03/26/2010 Order filed. This court has determined that proper review in this matter requires examination of the transcript of the conditional examination of Roger Gunson, conducted on February 26, 2010, March 9, 2010, and March 12, 2010. The respondent court is ordered to transmit the transcript to this court, on or before April 6, 2010. The respondent shall also transmit forthwith a copy of its order authorizing the sealing of the transcript.

03/30/2010 Request filed to: Petitioner’s request to be allowed to received a copy of the sealed transcript of the conditional examination of Roger Gunson.

03/30/2010 Opposition filed. The People

03/30/2010 Request filed to: People’s request to file Exhibit H, attached to request, under seal.

03/30/2010 Request for judicial notice filed. The People’s request for judicial notice of legislative history materials, attached as People’s Exhibit C in opposition.

04/01/2010 Filed letter from: Joanna McCallum (Manatt Phelps), counsel for Petitioner re: will file reply to opposition to petition on or before April 9, 2010, three days after the April 6, 2010 deadline set for the Los Angeles County Superior Court to transmit sealed transcript(s).

04/01/2010 Order filed. The People’s request to file People’s Exhibit H in support of the opposition to the captioned petition is denied.

04/01/2010 Filed proof of service. Showing proper service of letter filed April 1, 2010 on parties [By Manatt Phelps Phillips]

04/01/2010 Received copy of document filed in trial court. ORDER from Los Angeles County Superior Court re: the transcripts and video recordings of the conditional examination of Mr. Gunson conducted on February 26, 2010, and continued on March 9, 2010 and March 10, 2010 were ordered sealed pursuant to section 1344 of the Penal Code. [Filed in response to this court’s March 26, 2010 order.]

04/06/2010 Reply filed to: Reply to opposition to petition for writ of mandate

04/06/2010 Request for judicial notice filed. By Petitioner Seeks judicial notice of two news articles published January 10, 2010 and March 31, 2010. [Articles attached to request/motion.]

04/06/2010 Received: Sealed transcript from Los Angeles County Superior Court, pursuant to this court’s March 26, 2010 order.

04/07/2010 Order filed. Petitioner’s request for judicial notice filed April 6, 2010 is denied.

04/12/2010 Order filed. The court has received from the Los Angeles Superior Court sealed transcripts of the examination of Roger Gunson conducted on February 26, 2010, March 9, 2010 and March 12, 2010. The sealed transcripts will be lodged, but not filed, pending further order of this court.

04/22/2010 Order denying petition filed. By petition for writ of mandate filed March 18, 2010, petitioner requests relief from this Court on the basis of new evidence and ask this Court to overturn the magistrate’s order sealing a conditional examination transcript. Petitioner has failed to present this evidence to and request his desired relief from the trial court. (Phelan v. Superior Court (1950) 35 Cal.2d 363, 372; Safai v. Savia (2008) 164 Cal. Ap. 4th 233, 243), and he has not established that he lacks an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. (Code Vil. Proc., sec. 1086.) Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that the trial court lacked the discretion under Penal Code section 1193 to refuse to approve petitioner’s absence at sentencing. The petitioner for writ of mandate is summarily denied.

04/22/2010 Case complete.

Geimer v. S.C.L.A.

Division 7 Case Number B223209

Date Description Notes

03/23/2010 Filed petition for writ of: mandate/prohibition/stay 1 vol of exhibits.

03/24/2010 Order filed. The petition for writ of mandate filed herein March 23, 2010 has been read and considered. The People are requested to serve and file opposition, on or before April 6, 2010.

03/25/2010 Requested – extension of time

03/25/2010 Granted – extension of time.

04/16/2010 Opposition filed. By the People (District Attorney’s Office) (I.e., Cooley)

04/22/2010 Order denying petition filed.

04/22/2010 Case complete.

The DA’s office filed ten days late – yet was accepted after a granting of time extension – of course. How’s that for manipulation and withholding [of] crucial evidence. Apart from continually denying Polanski and Ms Geimer [legal] relief – to dismiss the case.

While some rightly say, “The ‘13-year old’ was not a ‘child’, but a sexually mature and already sexually active and ovulating young lady! We are very pleased that Roman was freed and commend the Swiss for restoring their national honor by freeing a political prisoner!” others go all berserk with over-reactionary and über-patriotic lunacy that defies any common sense demanding actions that are far worse and most of all more illegal than anyone’s ‘crime’ of sleeping with a teenager like millions have done and will be doing till the end of time. Here’s one of them from the US, of course, where NO intelligence quotient was ever created in his mushy grey matter, posted after Polanski’s release on some trashy US online rag, obviously. “We need to send a rendition team after him. (The CIA!) We know where he is, and when to get him. Enough with involving foreign governments, those who carry secret agendas, in this matter. (Eh?) America needs to send in a stealth commando or spy team to kidnap Polanski and bring him back to our territory to face trial for his crimes. (Sure, because he’s such a threat!) Forget the Europeans, they know that he is guilty, (really?) and after their collectively voiced upset, which is sure to come, they’ll get over it, and they will be made to respect the USA for taking such a bold action!!! (Bold BS more like. No one in their right mind ‘respects’ the US for exactly this kind of fascist militant talk.) Further, we need to ban Polanski’s movies, past, present, and future, from being released in the USA…and discourage American and International film companies from doing business with him. Lastly, hefty fines should be sanctioned against Polanski, through the courts, about 1 million dollars a day, as leveraged against his film profits, from films that he has previously released here in the States, until he is brought to justice.”

(He faced ‘justice’ ages ago, or rather injustice – and no one can ban harmless films.) “The courts have the power to levy such fines, but have failed to do so…to date? Well, it is time that they be called on it, and thus, forced to do their jobs-something they have not been making an honest effort at executing. Anyone who works with Polanski should be made aware, that doing business with him will place their investments, and resulting profits, into serious risk; those…that which…involve Polanski, directly, or indirectly, from DVDs, to Cable, and Broadcast TV, profits, etc., will be subject to said fines being levied against said films, production companies and studios, et al, until the fugitive director is made to serve his time in a US prison. This court order should be backdated to include profits from films that have been in release for years, in the United States and related territories!!! If you really want to bring Polanski to justice, these are the kind of tactics that will bring about actual results, not just more empty talk.” NONE of this is in any form applicable let alone legal in this case. The film business world couldn’t care less who they deal with. Glory glory hallelujah, you über-deluded freak/s, keep on dreaming your US supremacy BS dream! Typical of the over-bigheaded American mindset to think they’re boss on this planet who can do whatever they want or demand. N-O-T!! I’d be ashamed of spewing such brainless bullshit. Such actions might be warranted when it comes to serious terrorists, war criminals or mass murderers, wealthy serial killers or serial rapists and government torturers, corporate extortion that harm millions, hard drugs and sex slave traffickers that harm millions, even abusive soldiers raping and killing countless innocent people of which most originate in the US, but not some harmless old man who had done his time for underage sex decades ago. Unlike plenty other [US] ‘celebrities’!

Unlike sad people who want to officially see his films boycotted in the US, like these demented feminists some months back everyone [rightly] ignored, I thought that this is how things are supposed to work in a free market economy in fact: if something is objectionable, DON’T buy it, but it’s not ‘your’ business to tell sellers to stop selling their stuff since others DO want to buy it, and not listen to a vocal few of their [non-] customer base to boycott so and so. Pull his films? Pull one of a thousand films that various groups for various reasons find objectionable? Where does it end? Films by people who worked with Polanski? The plenty companies and individuals who are tied to them in various form? From the studio caterer to the cameraman, their families? The cinemas or TV channels that show them? The factories that press his DVDs? The studios that produced them all? The countries they were made in? Thousands of people have worked on them, and it’s not your right to boycott ALL of them. If you find his films objectionable just because ‘Polanski’ made them, don’t buy them, don’t watch them, don’t bother with them. It’s a drop in the ocean of the greater millions of fans and buyers at any rate. If that doesn’t satisfy you, picket outside whatever place you want to boycott them, or set yourself on fire in protest if they cannot be bothered with your nonsense. Or burn his films for all I care, since the studios got their money long ago at any rate, the cast/crew and everyone else who made them before they were ever released on DVD and million others WILL buy them, and, it doesn’t make the slightest difference since other countries sell them too.

Despite Polanski never having been convicted of anything, since he never was officially sentenced, his presumptive innocence ignored, his rights violated over and over, his legal status in limbo, he is a ‘rapist’ merely by virtue of the old charges against him that were in fact dropped, and the one he pleaded to was never finalised no matter he pleaded ‘guilty’ to it and had even done his time for it, twice now. To label a presumptively innocent man a rapist in these circumstances is premised on the morally grotesque [feminist] worldview that women don’t lie about rape and that a man deserves to have his name blackened, his reputation besmirched, his life destroyed, solely on the basis of a female’s charge. Or lies. Not only have Polanski[’s] accusers done a grave disservice to the presumptively innocent, but also to actual rape victims, because they trivialise/d rape when they include/d among its true victims women who are only false accusers like Lewis and Vogelhut, after Ms Geimer as long discredited ‘template’ while being a teenager. The fact of the matter is that no amount of publicity can ever undo a malicious false rape claim, and that is the least the news media should do. But they won’t, they’ll never post another lengthy article to exonerate the man, just so to keep the public in the belief that so and so IS a rapist. Guilty or not, and even if found innocent, he’s still a rapist, and that’s all they want to achieve. The fact that he never was formally sentenced and therefore is not officially a sex offender either, obviously doesn’t occur to most – or the fact that he is not registered anywhere as SO to start with, no matter how many new and preposterous categories even Wikipedia created especially for him.

And isn’t it ironic, that the busybodying tripe mongers who parrot/ed all this brain-numbing canard that Polanski’s case or false rape claims get too much publicity do so in one blog after the next devoted to raising ‘awareness’ about ‘rape’ and ‘child abuse’, when all they do is rip him apart over and over with ugly rhetorics unheard of like a pack of salivating hyenas? The blogosphere is a slippery soundboard of indefensible lies and slander and none of it helps any genuine rape victims. NONE. That the feminist sexual grievance industry thinks eye-opening analyses like mine are one fact-finding mission too many to tell the truth tells you everything you need to know about them: that they are manipulative and lying misandrists to the rotten core. But what you expect from idiots who believe liars like Lewis and Vogelhut. Or Geimer’s old accusations she long has refuted in one way or the other. Let’s not forget, Polanski wasn’t interested in stupid little girls, he admired bright young women, pretty and experienced females, and if one takes Ms Geimer and Lewis or Vogelhut, even they fitted that picture at one time before they backstabbed him. Another logic that has escaped everyone in all these months of repetitive online bullshitting, is the fact that they went on and on about the dropped charges as if they were fact, kept on and on about that is was ‘People’ v Polanski, ‘their right’ to see to his ‘punishment’, but, they never realised that, HAD they been fact, the ‘People, i.e., the prosecution HAD him plead to one of THEM and not mere unlawful sex.

But, since they had no goods on any of them, and the mother demanded no jail time either which no one can refute, so, how does that equate with ‘rape’ of any kind? It doesn’t, because there was NO rape. Neither orally, vaginally nor anally, since everyone was and still is so keen on repeating these salacious words, utterly transfixed by them, their lascivious ‘sounds’, their juicy connotations, their sinful meanings, their desirable and forbidden implications alike. And let’s also not forget the unseemly incident outside Gunson’s very own office between Ms Geimer and her mother’s very own boyfriend, NO rape victim would engage in. Sex is the only activity that can be legal and criminal at the same time – it only depends on how you see it, how old you are, how ‘consent’ is given, or not, if you are sexually mature, or sexually repressed. Morally mature, or morally corrupt. The ONE pleasurable thing in life, and feminist ‘laws’ (and brainless religious anti-sex preaching) have made it a sordid game and a ‘sin’ – a weapon. A weapon for the man who rapes, and a weapon for the woman who cries rape. The latter being the more devastating unless it was systematic abuse sometimes resulting in a fatal end. As seen so often with prison rape feminists couldn’t care shit about. A deadly weapon of gender warfare as old as sex itself. Only today it’s legalised ‘shield’ wars only one side can ever win – and it’s not the man’s, since he has ZERO chances of a fair defence at NO evidence needed to proof rape.

On the one hand, females want to be seen as strong and equal when it suits them and hiss at you for holding the door open, or as these ‘poor little disempowered victims’ when they need to in their subtle manipulation and abuse of others and the law. Women are entitled to behave capriciously, while men’s feelings are irrelevant and are obligated to suck it up. Which they do, and in contrast would never cry rape when they wake up next to some less than desirable woman they had ‘apparently’ slept with after a drunken or drugged-out fling. To say, ‘most women don’t make up rape charges’, those people haven’t overcome the stumbling block of ‘most men do not rape’. Indeed, the fact that most rapists are repeat offenders means that even fewer men rape, which feminists obviously don’t get. And in that case, Polanski would have raped by the hundreds and most certainly escalated his attacks. Funny how no one can in fact credibly attest to that. Polanski slept with women, he did not rape or abuse them. From the faulty premise that women do not lie about rape follow the equally faulty but still widely accepted premises that there is no such thing as a false rape claim, and that conviction rates for rape are far too low. To help jack up those rates, or, in the twisted logic that follows from those faulty premises, to help justice be better served, laws and policies are changed to provide rape accusers with special accommodations allowed to no other criminal complainant.

If everyone in society is truly equal, they should not only get the same benefits, but the same punishments as well no matter the gender. And, does killing someone while ‘drunk’, ‘drugged’ or ‘confused’ make you any less guilty of the crime? Hardly. That is a shunting of culpability. This has nothing to do with misogyny but a great deal to do with common decency and in fact misandry. In Polanski’s case it was his fame and the out-of-control media who went berserk and printed his name and pictures before any trial ever happened and should also bear some responsibility for his instant downfall. But they did not, no, they made it worse, they made up more lies, and they hardly ever printed anything in his defence. There is no such thing as responsible journalism anymore let alone today and it sickens me and plenty more. A false rape accuser (and their ilk defenders) sees falsifying a rape as an opportunity, as a right. A false rape accuser believes that she has the right to change her mind at ANY time AFTER consenting and then cry rape. A false rape accuser believes that she will never be caught in her lie because women don’t lie about rape. A false rape accuser lives in denial and is DANGEROUS. See repulsive liars Lewis and Vogelhut. Next to Ms Geimer, who however has long distanced herself from such ugly ‘warfare’ and wants it done and over with and Polanski even vacated of his guilty plea – I wonder why. But then we all know why, and no teenage fantasies can change that.

Another thing that’s very droll, (or rather disturbing) since giving them any more attention than shaking your head very slowly and turning away would result in your own serious brain damage, is the fact that some people expressed religious style hatred and pure baloney psycho/pseudo talk, accusing him of being a psychopath, or sociopath and such illustrious things as a, ‘sadosexual’ ‘paedocriminal’, guilty of ‘notorious brutality’ and ‘paedophilic crimes’, ‘near murder’ and ‘sadism’, with the usual string of slanderous expletives and lots of !!!!! These sick/ening and clearly disturbed people are obsessed with filthy sex they project onto others, (and no doubt practice themselves) utterly consumed by their lurid fantasies. Egomaniac Rittenband behaved like a sociopath to some degree while on the bench, and if Polanski had exhibited any kind of personality disorder, or ‘cruelty’, ‘abusiveness’, brutality or sadism, NO one had worked with him in ANY form, EVER. But such logic eludes the deluded fanatics’ brains. And since we’re on the topic of sociopaths or psychos, here’s their ‘MO’ Polanski most certainly does not fit in any form or ever will. Manipulative and conning. (The ‘Gaileys’? Vannatter?) They never recognise the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviours and lies as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. (Lewis’ plenty lovers.) Grandiose sense of self. (Rittenband/Wells/Cooley and Allred/Lewis.) Feels entitled to certain things as ‘their right’. Pathological liar. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. Lack of remorse, shame or guilt. (Lewis/Vogelhut.)

Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. (Rittenband/Wells/Cooley, Allred/Lewis and Vogelhut.) Instead of friends (of which Polanski always had and has plenty unlike Lewis), they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. (Lewis’ plenty lovers and the ones who lied for her afterwards, i.e., Jacobs/Haymes.) The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. (Lewis using her plenty lovers to make it in the film industry, but no talent, no chance.) Shallow emotions. (No doubt in Lewis’ case or she’d been able to form longer relationships, she ultimately blamed on Polanski.) When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. (‘Acted’.) Outraged by insignificant matters, (like Lewis taking directions from Polanski on set, calling it ‘metal abuse’) yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. (Lewis’ several promises to kick the drugs habit and subsequent repeat failings.) Incapacity for love. (Hence her ‘lovely man’ leaving her too she ultimately blamed on Polanski.) Need for stimulation. (Drugs.) Living on the edge. (Sex and hard drugs.) Promiscuity and gambling are common. (Lewis the teen-prostitute and later Hollywood sleep-around.) Callousness/lack of empathy. (Hence her cruel attack on Polanski to play the poor victim in real life.) Unable to empathise with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. (Just like Lewis appeared in the interview – cold, venomous, vindictive and fake. Out to destroy with lies.)

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

Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. (With intentions of deliberately lying on the stand for self-serving ends like all false accusers do with sick gratification.) Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. (More than obvious with her sexual abuse lies and abuse fantasy projected onto Polanski, and once found out she lied, deflecting of her earlier [correct] interviews as ‘misquoted’.) Promiscuous sexual behaviour/infidelity. (Her early prostitution and later extreme promiscuity.) Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. (Her acted and imagined ‘abuse fantasies’ she later blamed on Polanski as easiest target to destroy him as representative of ALL men, who in contrast is NOT a BDSM freak like Vogelhut and Lewis.) Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle. (Hence repeat failures in life and relationships while using men as an excuse, and therefore ultimate failure in the film industry.) Tends to move around a lot or makes all-encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. (Hence no director wanting her and therefore ultimately accused Polanski of mental abuse on set and privately after decades but not THEN, and a few sleazy sex flicks.) Changes life story readily. (As seen with her different stories/lies about what she felt for Polanski wanting him so badly and then hating him, her sexually aberrant fantasies of wanting to be abused ‘on film’ and ultimate accusations of [real-life] ‘abuse’ at the hands of Polanski that never happened.)

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

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

Now, one of the great film producers of our time, Dino de Laurentis died November 11th at the grand old age of ninety-one, who was to produce Polanski’s film Hurricane he had started on while on probation in 1977 after Rittenband gave him a year stay to finish it abroad on different exotic locations and in Germany, having lost his pervious project The First Deadly Sin for his arrest and the same studio had unceremoniously dropped him immediately without the slightest signs of any guilty verdict or even a trial having ever started, or would. So much for loyalty they certainly had bestowed on their ‘own’, i.e. ‘American stars’. Once Polanski was thrown into Chino against all counsel suddenly, and told de Laurentis that he should find himself another director not to disrupt filming too much, de Laurentis replaced him with the one who would finish the unremarkable remake, with Mia Farrow mind you, at no clear timescale of when he would be walking free from prison. Once Polanski was released after the usually expected 40-45 days, and everyone thought that was it ready to move on, Rittenband wanted to send him back under blackmail of deportation. Polanski went straight to de Laurentis’ office after leaving Dalton’s, and de Laurentis’ rep, who appeared in Wanted and Desired, gave him $1000 to flee Rittenband’s corrupt court. Dino saying, “That judge, che cazza!” (what the fuck!) he and Polanski hugged, one last time, and Polanski went on his way to become a fugitive and left the US forever.

Dino de Laurentis also appeared in Wanted and Desired, to explain that infamous Oktoberfest photo to Rittenband, and that some German business friends had invited Polanski to the fest for a break while working on the preliminaries of the film, and he made it clear that all the women in the photo most certainly were the partners of his business partners and NOT minors – as it is far too obvious unless you’re a deluded radical feminist like Alice Schwarzer lying that they were minors and Polanski had his arms around them, NOT – and Rittenband accepted his explanations for now. He nevertheless as we know, resorted to the infamous move to have Polanski committed to Chino for that ‘diagnostic study’ no one had demanded after psyche reports had already cleared Polanski of being a MDSO out of sheer spite misusing it as punishment – after catching too much heat from the press and his little racist Club buddies. Che cazza indeed. Funny thing is, in Georgia unlawful sexual intercourse only applied to minors below the age of twelve – and in Spain the age of consent was/is thirteen. Had Polanski been in Georgia or Spain, no one could have accused him of [statutory] rape/sodomy, unless proven as forcible, and the case had been dropped. Speaking of psychopaths like Schwarzer, here’s one really nasty customer, who, under an assumed name, apparently once studied film under Polanski in New York after Polanski had worked there in the late Sixties on Rosemary’s Baby, which was filmed in the in/famous Dakota Building where John Lennon resided later and was to be shot dead in front of it in 1980.

Now, the analogy goes like this, why was the American serial killer Rodney Alcala, who had raped and murdered females of all ages in the most horrific fashions, whose MO was to strangle, and when revived strangle them again several times over before killing them, starting with an eight year old girl in the late Sixties, not held responsible right THEN? The authorities knew exactly who had nearly bludgeoned the girl to death after her identifying Alcala and a cop saved her in the nick of time, yet, they did nothing more when she didn’t want to stand trial than give him a few months despite her horrific state, therefore allowing him commit atrocities for decades to come until he finally was sent on death row a third time [only] after he had raped and killed dozens more? How come they knew in several cases in fact it was him, and of his very first unspeakable crime, yet did not say, oh, let’s apply our ‘probable cause’ with enough [fabricated] evidence pointing to him, and have a final ‘People v Alcala’ trial even without the young witness much earlier, who did not want to sit in court to testify even after she recovered and all they could pin on him were’minor changes’ and Alcala was paroled after three years, (while someone who sleeps with a minor gets decades at NO parole since he of course would not consider his act a ‘crime’ to keep these harmless men inside instead, when really sick rapists and murderers are set free after ‘repenting’ – only to reoffend). So, the LA courts went after Polanski for decades on end (though technically only six times in all) who lived in Europe whose so called ‘victim’ did NOT want the defendant behind bars, but the case dropped, the charges dismissed, yet kept on pertaining ‘People v Polanski’ and demented people called for HIS death, rather than murderers.

They should have done so in Alcala’s case and as vigorously, or ‘resourcefully’ as seen with Allred/Lewis and their smear campaign in the name of Cooley, and as vindictively it turned out, but no. Alcala was finally held responsible this year only when said girl as a grown woman finally faced him in court to send him down for good, and he was convicted of her vicious attack and other counts of rape/murder. They wasted millions in US taxpayer money on a French director, didn’t listen to Ms Geimer of today to let Polanski be, yet still went ahead with the proceedings in 1977 despite Ms Geimer ALSO not wanting to testify against Polanski, BUT they had NO proper trial when the attacked girl of then equally refused to testify against Alcala or he’d been in prison since before Rosemary’s Baby. Alcala slipped through the net dozens of times despite several custody stays on ‘minor charges’ and several more brutal murders attributed to him, but they had to go after Franco/Polish citizen Polanski to win some corrupt judge more scrapbook clippings and a crooked DA of today Attorney General. On the one hand the cops and courts pursue innocent people, or those who had done time as in Polanski’s case, but let the really dangerous criminals run around for decades to do untold damage despite knowing who they are and could have applied all sorts of il/legal tactics to see Alcala rot in prison much earlier. So, why did Cooley & Co go after Polanski like a bunch of berserk witch hunters, but not a brutal serial rapist and murderer like psychopath Alcala? I think the answer is clear – Polanski is a famous artist who never harmed anyone, Alcala who did real harm to many women, is a nobody who amounted to nothing, despite being one of the most prolific and brutal serial rapist/murderer in US history no other country can produce. So much for the law being ‘blind’.

US DOJ Attorney General Eric Holder today, November 19th 2010 – the one some believe/d had a hand in Polanski’s release though that’s more than ridiculous since he only refused Gunson’s testimony to the Swiss on Cooley’s refusal to unseal it to begin with – overturned a controversial (and entirely unconstitutional) federal policy originated under [war criminal] George W. Bush that required federal defendants waive their right to DNA testing in order to plead guilty. Also known as blackmailing someone into being doubly guilty and close the door on the ONE escape route to be exonerated. Holder ordered a review of the policy last year after an investigation by the Washington Post and wrote in a memo released today that the policy was too rigid to accommodate the facts presented by individual cases. Dozens of people exonerated nationwide each year through DNA testing had pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit, and it never made any sense to force people, as a ‘condition’ of a plea, to give up their right to future DNA testing, particularly since we know that factually innocent people plead guilty all the time for various reason, mostly the prospect of a higher (equally unjust) sentence, but the waivers have been part of the standard plea agreement filed by some of the nation’s most prominent US attorneys. Why there is no DNA testing before anyone needs to plead guilty – innocent or otherwise as part of the evidence – to avoid that [or a trial] and make people guilty, is another question. Defence lawyers say their clients are essentially forced into signing waivers or lose the benefits of a plea agreement (which don’t even exist outside the US and rightly so), such as a lighter sentence, no matter they’re in fact innocent to start with. Good on Holder – far too late for many who were destroyed in jail.

This is in effect the same what was forced on Polanski, since he had to wave his right to have a trial once he pleaded and the plea stands after the other five counts were dropped in exchange, or his right to appeal any deportation once he was forced into a second stint at Chino, which was not Rittenband’s right to impose on any defendant to begin with – hence Polanski ‘waving’ bye-bye to his corrupt court. Rittenband also could have imposed a third (and even more unlawful), much higher sentence on him despite all parties having agreed on NO time from the beginning had Polanski agreed to do the rest 48 days – after Rittenband wanted to send him back to Chino ALSO no one had asked for, i.e., a ‘second’ sentence. That way Rittenband then had forced him to sit out any appeals on remand to have his sentence (or deportation) overturned that could take months or years beyond any penalty he might have imposed on him against all counsel to start with. I guess Polanski never repeated that he once had faith in the US justice system after all that, especially with Cooley at the helm today. Speaking of state Attorney Generals, while the Californian run is still on, it looks like Cooley might lose after all – if only by one vote fine by me – since a few thousand ballots still have to be counted to be sure, and his opponent Harris is set to take over, so Cooley can finally retire and give up playing corrupt DA too. THAT would make my Christmas this year. Funny thing is, the outgoing AG governor-elect to replace Schwarzenegger, was once California’s governor before, exactly when Polanski was arrested in 1977, before Arnie would be pardoned over his own much longer statutory rape affair way back in 1975 to become the most useless governor in Californian history. So he’ll not be back.

Now November 25th, Cooley finally has conceded that he lost the race for AG against pro gay-rights and anti-death penalty former DA Harris – after Cooley already had thrown a victory party in his arrogance when he was still marginally ahead last week – and clearly shows that the ‘people’ don’t want him to become even more powerful than he already is. That comes from unwisely tangling with Polanski for political gain, many clearly realised was vindictive posture, and for his intentions of banning medical marihuana ailing folks depend on and voted against him, while leaving hard drug dealers and organised crime unpunished. However, he also declared that he will sit out his two years left as DA, just so to cause more misery to innocent people while letting real criminals roam free to do some more damage, plus, only aged sixty-three, he might be inclined to run for a fourth term as DA, and even seek other statewide offices. I hope he rots in hell and not be re-elected. And misandruous, malicious liars like Allred, Lewis along with Vogelhut and her big hat. While some still think Polanski is under house arrest right now in their glorious misinformation, others seriously believe he is wanted by the law for having killed his second wife – Sharon Tate in 1969 – muddling both cases up big time. Funny how he managed to film Chinatown just four years later in the same town and no one wanted him for the murders. Such comes from reading incorrect and incomplete accounts of the cases online, or any diatribe soaked blogs with nothing but ugly lies and slander, despite the fact that anyone can get to all the actual facts and truth. But that would shatter their belief in his notoriety and wickedness. The truth is always much more banal – and boring.

After Polanski had to deal with enough cruel lies about both him and Sharon, nasty fabrications about both cases for decades, the so called Hillside Strangler had committed statutory rape by the string in LA during the same time before starting to brutally rape and kill women, and just three days after Rittenband wanted to sentence Polanski in absentia the Strangler’s last victim was found in 1978. So, while they had to pursue Polanski for his one-off unlawful sexual affair with sensationalistic headlines like ‘Polanski flees!’, but not this brutal serial rapist and killer with the same fervor, the Strangler had forced women into prostitutions just for fun on the side, killing dozens of victims in horrible ways. But of course, real crime could not sell as many papers as the sex life of an infamous film director whose wife was butchered by some hippie nutters a few years earlier, after accusing him of being a Satanist having sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for success and [done] the killings. People really believed that bullshit. And some still do today, or fabricate/d more lies, like being a snuff film producer, despite Polanski having given plenty interviews that made BOTH cases perfectly clear – and that he had done his time and the judge wanted to send him back against agreed deal. Except no one seems to have read or listened to them to know better not to keep on about how he never was in prison and still needs to be sentenced. No, they need to listen to Ms Geimer for a change and drop the utterly corrupt/ed case, vacate his guilty plea and close the case, even without ever litigating the misconducts and Cooley can get away with his smear campaigns. I’m sure both Polanski and Ms Geimer would be happy with that to find final peace – except of course those who got away with all the misconducts and lies in the first place.

Once asked in a 2000 interview for a UK TV magazine (Radio Times) if Polanski would allow ‘someone like him’, i.e., ‘older man’, to meet with his daughter once being a mature teenager, since she was only seven at the time, Polanski answered (no doubt with the approval of Emmanuelle who was nineteen when they first met): “I’ll have to wait and see. I think she could handle it, and make her own decision. She’s bright, with an independent spirit.” Meaning, that he would not be so narrow-minded and tell her not to see an older man – with the same spirit he grew up with and lived by – before the sex-repressed US psyche and laws drove a nasty splinter into his life that was to forever be a thorn in his side no one wants to see finally extricated – but extradited and pushed in deeper. Asked in that same interview why people keep accusing him of his once interest in younger women after Sharon’s death, he said probably out of jealousy, and of course sheer bigotry and hypocrisy, since many men prefer/red younger women, marry them, even in the States. Except in his case it’s been blown out of all proportions and he’s vilified like no one else, while other ‘celebrities’ did and do the same and no one bats a lash. He also said that he didn’t choose younger females because they could be ‘manipulated’ – since older women can be just the same and in fact can be the very manipulators no matter their age – that this was not his motivation, but because they are beautiful and innocent (unless your name is C/harlot/te Lewis) and it was just sex and they also liked him, not only wanted him for the sex. It was mutual give and take, and both were happy.

Polanski always said that he doesn’t understand why people (unlike his own circle, fans and colleagues) must go on about it after all these years, or Kinski, who in fact is a close family friend to this day, who did not betray him unlike ugly liar Lewis. While someone seriously proposed that Polanski could manipulate these girls for their age and because they were not from artists’ families to ‘know the score’, i.e., as in the casting couch game too many people take as fact just because some practised it when it’s in fact rather rare (unless certain individuals would prostitute themselves at any rate), Lewis of course revived that false assumption with her ludicrous accusation of having been pressured into it by Polanski to get her Pirates role. Since many missed that she decades back had made it clear that was not the case, had her part already, and only started that affair with him a year after they first met, not once saying anything untoward that ‘abuse’ she claimed this year had taken place once they met to be cast right away, their arguments are as shallow as their brains and her lies. I was rather thinking that they in fact all came from artist family backgrounds bar Lewis, especially with a very famous and demanding father in Kinski’s case, and very ambitious if not half as famous mother in Ms Geimer’s, and Emmanuelle too comes from a very renowned acting family, who, in contrast to Lewis just a cheap prostitute, was a real classy model and actress like Kinski long before they ever met Polanski. I highly doubt they could be manipulated in any form, and Lewis too said she was very ‘streetwise’, later insisting she was seducing men first, not they her, so in fact that she was the manipulator and basically used men. What better way than to twist it all backwards decades later, and play the pathetic little victim of men just like feminists love it. Maybe she is so twisted by now she even believes her own lies like liars do.

Polanski also said often enough that he only liked bright and independent, very strong young women, like Kinski or Emmanuelle, even Ms Geimer or Lewis at one point, not immature silly little nymphettes not knowing better, before the latter two and Vogelhut would betray his trust and former mentoring them. In the ‘court of public opinion’, however, people keep declaring their false assumptions as facts, as in, ‘the mother of that girl Polanski raped knew damn well what was going to happen, and only called the cops because she realized her daughter was really traumatized and wasn’t going to shut up about it. Of course drugging her and then raping her up the ass probably wasn’t part of the original deal he made with her dear old mom,’ – as if Polanski had raped others before in any form to say or know that – others stated, ‘I’m guessing that once Polanski’s tastes became known there were plenty of stage mothers and would-be blackmailers pimping out their underage daughters to him, and now it’s a sordid media circus. Thanks Oprah.’ Indeed – and they still don’t know any better, no matter what Ms Geimer in fact had said herself to Larry King recently – but then again they missed all that or that she as usual sent mixed signals. As in, for one not correcting Silver on, ‘it was rape, because of the drugs and alcohol involved’, while conveniently forgetting to mention ‘statutory’, and that none of it was ever proven as fact and no alcohol charge was brought in to start with, when she before had said herself that is wasn’t rape and it was easy to forgive him because of that. And it is of course even more wondrous how she claims that the courts and media have harmed her more than Polanski, as if he ever had, but gives all these [conflicting] interviews, bound to misquote her and twist and turn things again.

Funny too how she can talk about the case, and Polanski hardly ever did bar in his autobiography in more detail, despite the fact that her [varying] account/s could never be substantiated, unlike his, since no one ever seriously challenged her claims, while his book is a published work no one could ever fault, (in contrast to her ever-lesser ‘rape rhetoric’ we of course wouldn’t know of had she not given them), or she could have challenged him over it. That only makes her duplicities become even clearer and that it really never was rape. But, it seems she only sued Polanski because of that very biography, since Silver apparently said in that last King show that Polanski wrote something she didn’t ‘like’. So why not challenge that [book] instead of suing him over that one pleaded-to charge? But then of course she never could prove her, or disprove his, claims and now wants ALL the charges dismissed. It’s rather insulting how she complained about Polanski’s perfectly honest and in fact respectful if intimate account, but did not find it offensive what Kiernan had come up with, pure filth and ugly fabrications, even putting thoughts and words into her literal mouth and Polanski’s penis in fact, when she had never even accused him of having done so in any form. So she sued the man she slept with over the truth who had not harmed her, but not scum like Kiernan and others who twisted her words even more, that Polanski had sodomised her while unconscious in the Jacuzzi she again never had claimed either. Why not sue psychopath Reisman, who even turned the entire case into a sordid near-murder event based on Kiernan’s seedy lies. And of course they got away with it since Polanski in contrast could never take legal actions against them.

King apparently asked her if she had been upset had she been unsuccessful in suing Polanski, and she said no, but on the other hand let her plenty lawyers pursue the suit for a whole ten years before they ultimately simply took his money from a third party of course no one knows about, since she could not prove anything beyond what Polanski had pleaded to, and a little ‘mental distress’. My guess is that she was ‘upset’ over the fact that Polanski had exposed not only the facts, but her ‘lewd act’ with her mother’s boyfriend outside Gunson’s office, or that she was ‘very responsive’ after ‘she spread herself and he entered her’, and that there was no doubt about her sexual experience. Polanski knew women, he would not ever misread any of them, and the truth is always hard to swallow, so what better way than to sue an infamous fugitive who cannot fight back. While this should have been be dealt with in a fair, judicious manner right after Rittenband had messed Polanski about to avoid any of what had occurred, the court’s ongoing pursuit is nothing but political, vindictive posturing, or Cooley’s using him for [now thankfully lost AG] votes or a better payday for self-interested lawyers and the irresponsible media feeding the public more lies. If Polanski had been formally sentenced in absentia this year, and therefore convicted of what he pleaded to, Cooley could not have used Lewis to influence the proceedings with her disgusting lies, and Vogelhut had never joined her in their smear campaign either. Ms Geimer in contrast demands to have the charges dismissed, his guilty plea vacated, since Polanski is presumed innocent until final conviction was formally declared she does not seek, nor ever will be finalised, so it would finally be over.

Though Polanski is still wanted by Interpol, since his ‘Red Notice’ is still up and active on their site for ‘crimes against children’, yes, ‘plural’, despite pleading to only one count of unlawful sex which it should state and not ‘sex crimes’, or at least one ‘sex crime’, singular, and children is plural too, when I thought Ms Geimer was merely ‘one’ ‘adult female’ as Larson described her and not a child anymore either by law, but hey, who cares about any facts. Though they have deleted the page which gives sordid (and false) details of the case by Mr Secretary General Noble himself in derogative narrative, Polanski is in good company now, (amongst all the other REALLY dangerous terrorists and criminals) with someone else ‘in/famous’ wanted on several counts of [more than evidently trumped-up] ‘sex crimes’ after he embarrassed the US with his shocking WikiLeaks WarLogs leaks back in August 2010. By now we all know the name of this very secretive Australian guy who exposed their indiscriminate raping, killing and destroying innocent people in their [utterly post-9/11-manufactured] ‘war on terrorism’ in the Middle East. In one case apparently the condom split after he had sex with some Swedish self-proclaimed feminist racial with CIA connections (what a surprise), and in Sweden they apparently call such an accusation rape, rather than sue the makers of that condom, when one might have expected such ludicrous claim from the US ultra feminist brigade. I’m sure they support crying rape after a man didn’t pull out fast enough or conversely too quickly and hadn’t ‘satisfied’ the woman. In the other equally exaggerated case after the ‘first woman’ ‘talked’ to the ‘second’, with ugly visions of Lewis/Vogelhut and their own smear campaign lies, he’s wanted on one count of ‘coercion’ and two counts of ‘sexual molestation’, whatever the heck that means to the extremely misandruous Swedes.

The charges were in fact officially dropped by the Swedish courts at no evidence, only to be renewed after a Swedish right-wing politician reopened the case following WikiLeaks’ dumping the diplomatic communiqués that made the US a laughing stock and put a strain on diplomatic relations. If that’s not politics I don’t know what is. In fact, the guy wanted to discuss the situation and said it was consensual sex the court however point-blank refused after it was transferred to a higher authority unless he surrendered himself after they allowed him to leave the country mind you – just like the LA courts demand/ed Polanski to appear before their court for that ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ they in fact could not actually apply to him, rather than sentence him in absentia and be done with it, and is obviously a trap to arrest the Aussie ‘traitor’, though he’s not a traitor either since he’s not American. So just like the Swiss were lackeys of the US, before they came to their senses and released Polanski, the Swedes however issued an arrest warrant on Julian Assange after he left Sweden with the permission of the government, and then turned up in London in October 2010. After another female Swedish judge on November 18th ordered Assange ‘detained in absentia’ to answer to these ‘sex crimes’ in Stockholm suddenly, another court approved an international arrest warrant for the ex-hacker two days later, at which point the International Prosecution Office in Gothenburg/Sweden applied to Interpol for the Red Notice. And, the best thing is, he wasn’t actually formally charged with anything yet, but they issue an international arrest warrant. I thought first charges, then arrest warrant, then maybe a Red Notice since he’s not in Sweden, and then court. Guess in Sweden it’s the other way round.

Assange is just another guy they call a rapist now to discredit his efforts to expose the US warmonger as the real criminals and rapists they in fact always were themselves, just as Polanski had exposed the LA courts’ corruption and misconducts, and what better way than to destroy a man with smear campaigns and claims of rape that get so boring by now, and issues of international warrants to severely restrict their travels. Just like they had in Polanski’s case, though no one had ever bothered in any part of the world before the Swiss of all fell out of line and betrayed him, and no one ever will attempt that same mistake again since it was made clear on his release that he had done his time already, and because Ms Geimer wants the case dropped altogether and there is no real reason to arrest him again and see him shipped off to the far too vindictive LA courts. That witch hunter Cooley and his name-calling prosecutor Walgren cannot ever allow for that, is clear, now both bereft of their little Polish mouse to torture it some more, which however is not game to suffer this charade any longer. After some idiots had called for Polanski to be raped and murdered, some obviously would say the same in Assange’s case while in fact the majority thinks his actions are warranted to expose the US – and hardly anybody believes in this pathetic rape charade anyhow. In fact, Interpol has no authority to compel a subject’s arrest, but basically can blackmail the 188 member countries in some ‘political’ form into arresting a wanted person at one point, or not as seen in Polanski’s case before the Swiss (or US through the Swiss) used the UBS scandal as leverage, since it’s not mandatory to act on it.

While the Red Notice itself is not an arrest warrant, it does represent a notice that a valid arrest warrant exists in the relevant country – in this case, Sweden – and that that country will seek extradition if the named party is arrested. So in effect, countries make their own decisions about how to treat a Red Notice. Some countries treat it as an actionable request for an arrest; the US however does not, while expecting others to do so in contrast, nor does Interpol have any enforcement powers itself – it cannot enforce criminal laws, but rather is a mechanism to share information between law enforcement organisations around the globe. Hence, no country ever bothered to arrest Polanski before – or ever will again. It is clear that Assange never ‘raped’ anyone either, and that the Swedes acted on the US’s pressure as third party to see him detained, now that the world community has been alerted to arrest him on site to become an accessory in hunting him down. After Assange was applying for Swedish residency and attempting to secure the protection of Swedish free-press laws for his secret-spilling website, according to local news reports, the women told investigators the sexual encounters began as consensual, but turned ‘non-consensual’ and complained that he didn’t heed her ‘pleas’ to ‘stop’ after the condom broke, (as if they ever do), forgetting that he in fact is half deaf and might not have heard her say anything and she said she didn’t indicate to him otherwise the thing broke. Besides, how would she in fact ‘know’ it had until afterwards and noticed the thing is leaking? It’s very much as in was in Polanski’s case who wanted to apply for US citizenship, but luckily rather went for a residency in France since he was born there, or the US could have detained him as one of their own.

This is what happens when you shine a little light of truth on criminal governments and their political behind-the-scenes activities, with invading armies killing babies, raping ‘enemy’ children and women as an ‘honourable act’, but go after someone who ‘lets a condom spilt’, or had sex with a teenager over three decades ago. They will falsely accuse people of anything and make them disappear if they don’t ‘cooperate’, sometimes even just disappear without any charges. So much for ‘transparency’ and honesty from the Obama regime, since, if this was anyone else, would ‘Interpol’ of all be involved who need to be asked first by a relevant country to issue any ‘Notice’? For some ludicrous ‘sex crimes’ any local law enforcement is responsible for first of all, and any decent court then would throw out? And in fact, to act on that Red Notice, the Swedes need to issue a ‘European Arrest Warrant’ first, or the Brits will not act on any of it, since Assange is here in the UK and the cops know exactly where he is. How did someone put it, the irony is, Assange hides behind a veil of secrecy because of personal security, while piercing the veil of secrecy of others who use secrecy for their own security (or ends) – who condemn Assange for doing the ‘wrong thing’ in his undermining their ‘diplomacy’ – while Polanski is running around in the open to make more films – and every day we see diplomacy and security being torched in Washington DC and by those in power, courts or otherwise. Sweden (or Switzerland for that matter) prides itself on very low crime rates and gender equality, yet they have the highest rate of ‘rape’ in the entire EU, multiple times larger than their neighbouring countries. That should make one suspicious about what is ‘rape’ to them and why so few people are convicted of actual rape, since most of this is bullshit like a broken condom. It’s ludicrous beyond ludicrous.

I feel so secure that this team of elite Interpol agents are looking after my best interests and protecting me from these two oh so bad bad sex offenders that bring to light all the crap that is done with our tax money in the name of fighting endless wars against made-up bogeymen, and men like Polanski exposed all the misconducts going on behind closed courtroom doors. How convenient that there are equally trumped-up sex allegations outstanding against this brave publisher of ‘secret’ material the governments don’t want you to see other anonymous sources, whistleblowers, sent him. He, like Polanski, can be glad that he is not American. If he were, it would be no problem for the state to keep him locked up for as long as they wanted, (and even if you’re a foreigner as seen so often without ever facing any charges) could be jailed and smeared as a sex offender for possessing photos of his own nude-in-the-tub children if his partner wants to get rid of him. If he were an overseas American, his constitutional rights do not apply suddenly anymore either if apprehended by local police on ‘requests’ from Washington. Of course, Assange has been arrested ‘in absentia’ now to circumvent any of that and the world is ‘urged’ to arrest him, just like Polanski, who [also] refused to return to the States to be sentenced there and they simply slammed him with a Red Notice in 2005 since he is oh so dangerous to any ‘children’ or women. Funny thing is, the Interpol motto goes: “The [wanted] person should be considered innocent until proven guilty.” Not in America they’re not. “Fugitives pose a serious threat to public safety worldwide. They are mobile and opportunistic; they frequently finance their continued flight from the law through further criminal activities, which may result in criminal charges in more than one country.” The last time I checked, film making was neither dangerous to the public, nor criminal – unless they’re cheap sex flicks Lewis appeared in.

It’s clear that governments keep messing with the populace and can sexually assault us at airports or even bus terminals without any charges possible, with their dangerous radiation full-body scanners and very intrusive pat-downs as ‘alternative’ from strangers who could be real rapists or paedophiles, to ‘soften’ people up to endure anything the government will impose on them for [false] ‘security reasons’ in the future, while some poor sod gets jailed for having had sex with his underaged girlfriend. Telling the truth these days is highly dangerous while liars get away with murder and most of all women by claiming rape and ‘abuse’, and a little ‘accident’ or open assassination is not out of the question in Assange’s case, since people even demanded that in Polanski’s in their fascist overreaction. While some other idiot seriously proposed the French should have their police slam Polanski with more charges to secure an arrest and then ship him off to LA, such bullshit only shows the [lacking] intelligence in some people with most originating in the US who don’t even know where France is, since they live their shallow little government regulated lives with their shallow little TV soaps blasted into their homes, trashy celebrity and ‘reality’ shows, mashing up their little brains some more. Of course, no one over there ever read the interviews Polanski gave to any French magazine or TV show, or Emmanuelle, or they’d been more informed since years in fact of what really happened, the more civilised and understanding French however accepted. Emmanuelle had given interviews right after his rearrest too, and the French all ‘got it’, since this case was never out of their public eye everyone knew of, and that this pursuit of Polanski was and still is pure vindictiveness. As far as Interpol looking for Polanski, I seriously doubt they do since they never bothered before, plus, their headquarters are located in Lyon, France. Unlike in the USA, you cannot buy a judge or a police officer in France, they are not elected, but have to actually work for their promotions.

Had Sharon never been murdered, she and Polanski would no doubt still be together, had raised their by now forty year old son, and none of this never-ending sex scandal nightmare and unprecedented media vilification had ever taken place to be perpetuated by power-hungry DAs – but because of some demented wanna-be musician and his murderous girl gang, they brutally took that dream away in an appalling bloodbath – to forever haunt Polanski. He said himself, that he always wanted a family, but that it wasn’t to be, until two decades later and he had found Emmanuelle to raise that new family, and finally find deserved peace within their unconditional love. Devoted children and a loving wife, who said once that she loved him not only because he protected her and has nothing to recriminate him for, but that she preferred an older, more sophisticated man who could teach her [about] life, not manipulate her, (also negating that Polanski manipulated his women, or in fact some had said so outside liar Lewis obviously) and men her own age would be like babies to her. Returning that love and knowledge, it would help him weather another storm of ugly lies and vicious attacks many years later. While Ms Geimer could raise her own family in tropical oblivion and carefree happiness much earlier and ever since outside a few media sieges, Polanski had to deal with more repulsive attacks that were to wane before they became evermore dangerously vicious spreading throughout the Internet after his rearrest, following many a meaningless affair outside those more meaningful we know of before he settled down with beautiful actress and popular singer-to-be Emmanuelle, and found that final harbour of safety and love within her, not to feel like a fugitive anymore, as he put it once. She will no doubt never desert him, and neither will their children.

After Polanski had emerged once more in public after his release, November 30th, looking recovered from his ordeal of a very long detention which all in all amounts to nearly a year now, worries about and efforts to finish his Ghost [Writer] film and future uncertainties, smiling at the press, he joined the crowd in the chic Café de Flore, in the district of St-Germain-des-Pres in Paris. It was to celebrate twenty years of ‘The Rule of the Game’ journal led by philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, who was very supportive during his legal troubles in Switzerland, where Polanski had published his thank you message for all the support and the famous, ‘I can remain silent no longer’ post to blast the LA courts, or rather Cooley and his vindictive lot. And, many famous TV and film personalities have made the trip to join him: Alain Delon, Pierre Berge, Simone Veil, Thierry Ardisson, Bernard Lavilliers, Lionel Jospin, Umberto Eco, Denis Podalydès amongst others hardly anyone knows in the US. But who, really, was a ‘celebration’ other than Roman Polanski at the café, who said [that], “Bernard-Henri Lévy became a true friend.” Arielle Dombasle (from Tess), was visibly moved to see the guests being excited for him. This is the third time since his release last July that Polanski had made a public appearance in Paris after appearing at the Cinematheque last October and at the Jazz Festival at Montreux to see Emmanuelle sing. While his wife had given another interview to [US based] Harper’s Bazaar mid November in Paris, it is written in a partly not too neutral way, again, of course, regurgitating the [incorrect] case ‘details’, still giving the impression as if Polanski had admitted to ‘having had his way with her (the girl) while she was high on Quaaludes’ kind of ‘leading’ phrasing, when that was never proven – and certainly not true either – still calling Ms Geimer a ‘victim’, when she never saw herself like that either.

When Seigner met with the [female] journalist once before in mid October, Polanski had been free for exactly three months she writes. “It has been an extremely difficult period for us, and especially the kids,” Emmanuelle says with characteristic directness. “Especially prison, which was horrible (and every time they visited Polanski was taken to a nearby police station to see them, which had never been allowed in the US). The house arrest in Switzerland was more bearable. We’d go on weekends to visit, even if the first few days were a circus with all the press.” At its worst, last year October, when Polanski was still in prison, the ordeal drove the normally unflappable actress to attack a paparazzo with her motorcycle helmet near her family’s Paris home who would not let her be. Otherwise, Seigner shut herself in with her kids, venturing out into the public eye for only a few performances of songs from her first music album Dingue and to petition, along with the Société des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques, to get Polanski freed. But, says Seigner of the case and details, (the interviewer phrased as, ‘the crime and trial’ despite the fact that there never was a trial and to have sex is hardly a crime unless you’re in the US). “If people knew the real story – not everything that’s written by the press, who know nothing about this story – I think that they would have another opinion entirely. It’s an extremely complicated story. It’s been a long time since I’ve read all the idiotic things that are written.” Indeed – apart from all that hateful slander. It obviously has affected her own career too. “I really couldn’t work,” she says. “I didn’t want to do a film. When my husband was arrested, I had just finished my album, but we decided to wait until February instead of November to release it. I couldn’t have promoted it while he was in prison; that would have been obscene. This has put us in a financial situation that’s not easy.”

So much for the Polanskis being ‘millionaires’ as people think, let alone billionaires, or Polanski hadn’t needed to mortgage their family apartment in Paris to make bail. Even now that Polanski is back home, the family has not thrown a major celebration she says – until Christmas no doubt. “The human brain is bizarre,” Seigner says. “We know that it’s over, but, like with a war wound, returning to normal life takes time. Especially for him.” Indeed – and it all just added to that never-addressed depression he had suffered from for decades already. Still, she is philosophical as she’s always been. “Everything in life, bad or good, makes you change and grow – happily, because if it didn’t, we’d be machines. Much worse things happen to people: cancer, sickness, they lose a child. You can either find unexpected strength or you can fall apart. I’m not one to fall apart.” These recent troubles are not the first time Seigner has taken heat over her paramour. (Because people are just too stupid when it comes to that ‘age’ gap, while not batting a lash over others.) When she was twenty-three, after a courtship that began before Polanski cast her in Frantic (right after he parted with liar-to-be Lewis), her breakout role, the couple got married. Though a Hollywood legend and European household name in film, he was thirty-three years her senior and not free of ‘baggage’ – that ever-deepening depression, Sharon’s horrible death, and of course the case. After Frantic, Seigner continued to work with him, most ‘controversially’ in his sexually explicit 1992 dark comedy Bitter Moon where she appeared nude. But few marriages last as long as theirs especially when it comes to ‘artists’, many also like to ignore. “It’s love,” says Seigner simply. “I don’t know what else to tell you.” Indeed – but who cares about what the ones concerned say, as long as petty little brains can impress their petty little opinions on them all over the www.

Outside of France, Seigner is oddly seen mostly as a femme fatale the journalist writes, (so much for [false] perceptions as it happened often enough in Polanski case when it comes to his films they just love to attribute to his own life, like in fact Bitter Moon, thinking the two engage/d in sleazy BDSM sex games and abuse/d each other like the couple depicted) but she has made unexpected turns too, like an outing as a rock chanteuse with the French band Ultra Orange, and her solo album features a duet with Polanski called, ‘Qui Êtes-Vous?’ (‘Who Are You?’) in which she casts him as a somewhat ‘unwelcome lover’, with his very dark and sexy voice cooing her. “He was a good student,” she says, laughing. “I wanted to reverse our roles a little.” Despite her ‘selective images’, Seigner does not live the corresponding lifestyles and nor does Polanski. “I’m a bit high in my own mind normally,” she says with a laugh. “I’ve never smoked, I don’t drink, and drugs don’t interest me.” Nor does she like Botox, intense workouts, or makeup. (In her daily life she wears none. Just like Sharon in fact never smoked or took drugs let alone while pregnant and was also a natural beauty – whereas the idiots of course thought they engaged in drug-fuelled sex orgies). The same je ne sais quoi is apparent in how Seigner puts herself together. “When my husband won the Palme d’Or in 2002, I wore the same dress two days in a row. My daughter said, ‘Mom! Did you sleep in your dress?’ But I think it’s cool to wear the same thing. I have to feel comfortable. I think I’ve arrived at a place in my life now where I can offer more,” she says. “This car is getting back on the road.” Indeed, and it will never break down after the man in her life had indeed taught her about life, and love – for her husband and their children, no matter what the dumb ignorami say or want.

Coming back to the much-acclaimed Ghost [Writer], on December 4th it was said that it could steal the show at this year’s edition of the European Film Awards, the Continent’s version of the Oscars, after the movie garnered seven nominations for a gala ceremony in Tallinn, Estonia. After one might have expected that Polanski would not want to visit there in case he may scoop some awards in fear to end up in prison again, Estonian authorities however said that Polanski could attend the Tallinn ceremony unhindered, noting that under the Baltic state’s law the statute of limitations in the case had long expired, just like in Poland. However, now with the ceremony over, Polanski passed on that assurance, after The Ghost [Writer] won a whopping six out of the seven nominations, to add to the Silver Bear he had bagged for best director at the Berlin Film Festival in January already he could not attend. The movie won another deserved best director prize for Polanski, best actor for the Ghost himself Scotsman Ewan McGregor, best screenwriter went jointly to Brit Robert Harris and Polanski, best production designer to German Albrecht Konrad, best composer to Frenchman Alexandre Desplat’s superb score, while his compatriot film editor Herve de Luze won the production designer prize. “You have awarded a truly European venture. This is too much… thank you very much to all my peers,” Polanski said in an acceptance speech through a Skype connection from an unknown location, but most likely his home in Paris. “I wish to thank – before anything – this wonderful crew I had. It was a truly European venture.” Indeed, so who needs any Americans to make better films. It was not the first time that he has received recognition from the European Film Academy, since he was honoured with another lifetime achievement award in 2006 in Warsaw, and of course at the so in/famously misused Zürich ceremony last year.

Asked about Polanski’s absence on Saturday, organiser Tiina Lokk told Estonian television: “Would you have wanted us to become famous for turning Polanski in?” Exactly – told you no one will make that same mistake again. While some speculate as to why Polanski did not visit Estonia despite no dangers to see another prison from the inside there, this might answer it; Polanski’s used the very popular Internetworking application Skype which was very welcomed by locals, since it had initially been developed by a trio of Estonian programmers. There you go, I’m sure he just wanted to express his gratitude in more than one way since Polanski would know things like this, and his smiling face was seen on a giant screen. Polanski’s awards were accepted at the ceremony in Tallinn by his British co-producer Timothy Burrill. “Obviously I’m thrilled for Roman,” he told the BBC News website after the event in Estonia’s very chilly capital city. McGregor sent his own thanks through another Internetworking site, who had spoken to the BBC in April about his role in the film: “He [Polanski] went through a period of trauma during post-production on the film, and the fact he was editing it from jail did not make it any easier.” Indeed, and NO one else could have handled that much pressure under these very difficult circumstances but Polanski. Burrill also played down the suggestion that The Ghost Writer’s success represented a vote of ‘solidarity’ for Polanski following his recent legal travails. “I don’t think people think like that,” he said. “I think people just like the film.” His sentiments were echoed by its German production designer Konrad, who said Polanski’s movie was ‘a film first of all, a piece of craftsmanship’. Correct.

Even if there had been some sort of ‘special solidarity’, it only proves that they also don’t believe he raped anyone and that is their way of conveying that sentiment, through and by honouring his art, especially after Ms Geimer’s repeat demand to see the charges dismissed and case finally dropped, and that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Of course, the majority of coverage about the plenty awards for The Ghost that in fact set a precedent for the most category wins awarded by the EFA for one film, keep it neutral and to the facts, with some touching on why he ‘wouldn’t’ visit Estonia – though I think it’s the heavy snow more than anything – repeating that Polanski was freed after the Swiss government declined to deport him to the US, conveniently omitting however that they also had said that the statute of limitation in this case has long expired and they would not arrest him, despite Estonia having also an extradition treaty with the US. But, others just had to rip it all apart with their usual nasty defamations, in their splendid waste of time hacking away on their keyboards with derogative commentaries. Sometimes I think the Internet was only invented for lonely people with no life who have nothing constructive to offer but their little tirades, in order to find some sort of meaning to their sad little existence, where they can only be happy if they can go on ranting about people they have absolutely no clues about. Polanski is the toast of the film world, once again, jetting about the most exciting cities in Europe ever since he left the US despite that sticky Red Notice, generally living up his golden years in deserved peace and recognition surrounded by good friends and loyal colleagues, his loving family as few can ever hope to achieve, who had to deal with such nasty rape accusations and endless slander as he had. And here they are, typing their bitter little words into their bitter little blogs and braindead comments. What sad little persons they are – jealous and spiteful – just like Cooley and his rotten lot.

Someone said (with very bad spelling I corrected that makes no sense but shows the twisted mindset of that person): ‘He was defended in his crime-s-plural, because he raped many women, because he was Jewish. Most, if not all of his victims were gentiles. Polanski was never an artist: had it been fashionable, lucrative, and profitable to be assembling CD cases, that is what he would have been doing. His motivation to make movies was for the “outer things” and was an exterior motivation’. I wonder where all these many other ‘gentile victims’ are, and making movies has never been an ‘exterior motive’, but his driving ambition and most certainly was ‘lucrative’ beyond any other job. People like this deluded little brain keep yabbling on about Polanski’s oh so ‘heinous crime/s’, but ignore the actually raped women and children globally, even those in their own backyards. Polanski’s work stands supreme, no matter the ‘morality’ of their maker. Even a final conviction doesn’t devalue his movies, though I highly doubt he will ever be formally sentenced TO be convicted. If we wanted to boycott works by truly or merely perceived ‘immoral’ artists, we’d be left with virtually none. Half the people commenting seem all too ready to start throwing Polanski’s apparent oh so dominant negative side/s on the pyre as if they are fact, while ignoring everything else – constantly defining him by this one event of three decades ago, while demanding final release and reprieve had it been their own action. But, intellectual honesty to grasp any of this is unlikely to be a salient characteristic of someone capable of posting such a pathetically cretinism comment as this one above, who’ll probably quite happily trot out the familiar threadbare assemblage of dimwitted misinterpretations of the facts that to feeble minds like him, might pass for reasoned argument and fact. So, after that mega bullshit, I went to clean my mind by watching the classic Dance of the Vampires. To celebrate the hibernal season of winter it depicts so beautifully. With beautiful Sharon.

Having revisited some of the old articles on the Polanski case from last year and early this year when the heated discussions, or rather mindless diatribes, were still broiling ad nauseum all over the globe, the more objective and correct, the really crappy and nasty ones, with their entire pro and contra commentaries, half truths and deliberate fabrications, I came across some more braindead comments like, Polanski only was released because he’s a Zionist and the Zionists have helped him, or that he could bribe himself out of this one again – though he’s not a Zionist and did not bribe anyone. But anyhow, let them believe such crock of shite till it turns solid. I don’t remember all this über hysteria, and I don’t remember all these immensely busybodying ‘commentators’ falling over each other online, who suddenly crawled out the woodwork mounting an unending campaign of hatred to ‘ensure the paedophile paid for his crimes’ before he was rearrested, with half these people not ever having seen any of his films or even knew who he was, especially in the States. Such broad brush stroke attacks, of course, are posited with no authority beyond the writers’ angry, unsupported dogmatic assertions. I got the impression that no one really gave a toss about the case anymore and that it had largely been forgotten, but now everyone had suddenly piled on the bandwagon spouting their tuppence worth or tasteless tripe to be part of this exploding online witch hunt. Just because Polanski had a damaged reputation ever since Tate’s murder, it doesn’t mean that journalists or bloggers can publish false stories about him and go on ranting their bullshit as if it were factual, but because he cannot sue them, and mostly ignored all the lies bar the one about Sharon shortly after her death only come to light a few years back, they will continue to his dying day. With all the repetitive comments on mostly US sites, it was hard to find one that tops the rest, but I have voted for some to represent and receive an award for signifying the epitome of über BULLSHIT. Here they are (with my interpolations):

‘Next time at least try glancing at the widely available facts before you make assumptions about the victim’s behavior. Polanski approached her mother under the guise of hiring the girl for a photo shoot of the European edition of Vogue. (No ‘guise’ or ‘pretence’ I’m afraid, since THEY had ask HIM after Vogue Hommes had asked Polanski. So much for ‘available facts’.) Once there, he talked her into posing nude in a hot tub. (Unless you have a bathing suit, you usually go into a tub naked she could have refused.) Then he tried to make advances on her and she resisted. (That’s what she tells us but was never proven, and the course of events refutes that entirely.) He then forced her to drink alcohol laced with drugs to make her more compliant (not quite correct either, and in fact the other way round – she took the unlaced champagne herself, then the Quaalude much later both by her own hands on her own free will, which btw. is NOT a ‘date rape’ drug as others have called it in their own stupidity, and only then did she get into the Jacuzzi) and proceeded to vaginally, orally (no, she never claimed he orally penetrated her) and anally rape her, over her continued protests to stop and let her go home. (That’s what she tells us, again, which could not be corroborated by the actual course of events, medicinal evidence, the doctor’s, Huston’s and Polanski’s own statements.) And he filmed his sex acts with her. (Oh if only! OR WE IN FACT WOULD KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Where the hell do these deluded people get this bullshit from I ask.) This is a full-on kidnapping (really? She could have called her mother again to fetch her, simply leave plenty of times, or there in fact had been ‘kidnapping’ or false imprisonment charges), rape and child porn predator case. (If it had been ‘child porn’, you dope, they had charged him with that, and one incident of underage sex is hardly predatory.) Polanski is a pedophile and a monster, period. (Another imbecile who has NO clues what a paedophile is, and ‘monster’? Funny how the ‘victim’ never called him that, but I’m sure ‘you’ know better.) His talent or childhood experiences as well as the behavior of the judge or attorneys are all irrelevant to that fact.’

Polanski’s artistic aptitude or past have nothing to do with any of it, true, though I’m sure others would like their own traumas taken into consideration when judging them. This particularly sad commenter is just another one-dimensional dehumanising detractor who simply disregards any judicial misconduct when it come to others, yet, had ‘they’ been done to in the same manner, they’d be crying like a baby and call for justice before they run the same from the corrupt courts that had railroaded them. Such people are deluded fabricators and blind condemners of the worst kind, who revel in the twisted figments of their sordid and most of all duped imagination, their hateful and [self-]obsessed narrative as the little nobodies they are – losers like Lewis. One comment went so far to say, ‘Rosemary’s Baby was directed by Roman Polanski, his wife was Sharon Tate, who was murdered by Manson, and her baby was cut out; leaves you to think Manson thought her baby was Satan’s child’. Apart from the fact that their baby son was not cut from Sharon, Manson did not murder her personally and had no interest in Satanism either they had accused Polanski of. These people keep inventing and spreading falsehood, condemning and lying about others to help justify their pathetic little existence they can only perpetuate online in safe anonymity, and yet are awarded by thousands who agree with them. Such people of course never question the outpour of media stories, or accusers like Lewis, when it’s so easy to find her old interviews to see that she had said the very opposite years back. Another truly disturbing article by a man had this to say, who freely admitted to turning to abusing others in turn as the drug addicted alcoholic he became after his apparent own childhood abuse, projecting all his pitiful self-reflective pain and resulting self-hatred onto Polanski, after people seem to have ‘forgiven’ him because of his ‘ordeals’, but deny Polanski his own or ‘her’ forgiveness, or any other ‘abuser’, rapist or paedophile who suffered their own terrible childhood/teen abuse.

‘If you look at the actual crimes he committed, the deal was shockingly inappropriate. (Ever wondered ‘why’? Because, if it had been ‘crimes’, they had him plead to a higher charge, but such logic eludes them ALL.) If this happened today he would have been charged with probably a dozen separate crimes, including separate counts for rape, illegal distribution of substances (there was nothing ‘illegal’ about champagne or Quaalude. Her own family should have been charged with ‘child abuse’ for doing exactly that – letting her get drunk and take drugs) production of child pornography, at least 2 counts of sodomy, etc. (But it’s not ‘today’, and there was NO evidence of ANY penetration, child pornography was not applicable then, and he WAS charged with everything possible.) This wasn’t a simple case of “sex with a minor” – this was a major set of crimes that others would have gotten seriously hard crime for. (I’m sure YOU know better than the prosecution then.) Anyone defending him should be ashamed of themselves and I certainly hope they are not responsible for any children of their own. (Why always this idiotic, ‘you’re [also] a potential rapist and/or paedophile or child abuser [even of your own kids] if you’re trying to explain things?) From where I sit, the rape of a child is absolutely the equivalent of first-degree murder. Roman Polanski is a murderer, the murderer of a child. (Hyperbole BULLSHIT anyone? Murder is murder, not underage sex or even actual rape. Why do they always over-dramatise one act to trivialise another much more serious one? Why always blow it all out of all proportions? Longterm abuse, torture and actual murder are much worse.) For people to even hint that Polanski is some kind of harried martyr is despicable. (Oh, YOU made him into that martyr by wallowing in YOUR mindless attacks on him others in turn need to fight, but won’t allow him his own ordeals or the slightest defence others again have to take up for him.) Just ask any one of the thousands upon thousands of children who have been raped. (And what exactly has Polanski got to do with them?) Just ask me.’

Sorry, Polanski came in contact with countless ‘children’ or teenagers, and NONE ever cried rape outside liar Lewis and Ms Geimer who never said he ‘raped’ her. And no, we’re not asking ‘you’ at all, since your experience has ZERO to do with what happened between Polanski and Ms Geimer – absolutely nothing. It’s more than disturbing that he compares his experience with the case, since they are situated within a set of completely different circumstances, and his twisted attacks on Polanski are nothing but sad attempts to ignore what HE made of himself, not Polanski, not even his real abuser, BUT himself – just like Lewis did. No, you don’t count as the pathetic accuser turned abuser who wallows in blaming other people of what you did yourself and should name yourself a murderer too then, but calls Polanski a monster. People like that cannot ever be objectively analysing any other case, they just have to bring in their own experiences and accuse an entirely unrelated ‘perpetrator’ to exact ‘revenge’ on their own they could not get at, paid for his own attack on him. Or conversely, simply cannot stay unbiased because of their experience even if their attacker was sent down for it, and best of all, in turn doesn’t see anything wrong in perpetrating the same crimes that were done to him because of that. Of course, he’s completely off the mark as to what Polanski actually did, and even if Ms Geimer herself would tell him it wasn’t rape, he’d not ever listen to her either. He’s completely consumed by HIS ordeal and actions he came to loath in his self-absorbed whining and uses Polanski as a punching bag. I saw such irrational overreactions often enough over the last year. The blind attacks – it’s pitiful. He obviously has no clues what a paedophile is either like most people, or simply redefines the term to fit Polanski into that bracket I saw done countless times.

He projects all his pain and abuse onto Polanski, even Ms Geimer who never experienced anything he ‘sees’ in her, takes her claims as indisputable fact so he can hate on Polanski. To call Polanski a murderer is the over-reactionary manifestation of his sick blindness, projected abuse, his utterly exaggerated victimhood he can, ‘must’, relive through her. The fact that he failed in his life as he described it, only makes him accuse Polanski all the more because he is a very successful artist, instead of actually looking at HIMSELF and what HE did in contrast. But of course he cannot live with that, himself, his abuse of others after his own abuse had led him to it as he puts it, and needs all that blind hatred, jealousy and extreme diatribe directed at Polanski to make his own trauma and actions less horrible. Rather than condemn his real violator/s, and most of all himself as the serial abuser, the same monster he takes Polanski for, he however is much worse, and the commenters only pitied him, instead of condemned him of his own abusing, rubbing only more balm into his self-inflicted wound instead of a pinch of truth to actually wake him up. These people are eaten up by their experiences, their irrational emotions and loathed re/actions, are slaves to them, their confused feelings, their illogical attacks on others. Realising that utter destruction of their life, they need to find a more convenient target to attack that cannot fight back – someone like Polanski – instead of actually looking into the mirror. Like Lewis. Such people seriously need counselling, but I know too well they will not get it (or seek it) because the system is too interested in pandering to their little fantasies of victimhood.

Another utterly ‘rape obsessed’ female blogger I came across who only became ‘active’ now long after the events, said: ‘Read about Roman Polanski’s brutal pre-meditated, forced drugged, and total body rape of a virgin child here.’ Apart from hyperbolically bad grammar, ‘total body rape’? Sounds just like ‘anal sodomy’ in its best tautological overkill rhetoric and is more than bullshit anyhow. And ‘virgin’ – ‘child’? The doctor seems to differ on these points, and so did everyone else, even Ms Geimer. But I guess people like that utterly possessed blogger not half his age know better. Another thing I noticed is that commenters simply rehash/ed others’ faulty assumptions and fabrications, basically accepting and believing them without the slightest evidence or proof, sometimes utterly ignoring what was actually written in the original article or even the court transcripts. Such utter contempt for the facts, wallowing in their petty lies and pathetic hatred, is truly alarming. Some thought by citing Ms Geimer’s fake interviews that were paraphrased from the original more pro-Polanski mentions, they could stoke the fires of hatred some more, presenting them as the real thing. Especially when it contains words like, ‘creepy’, ‘scary’, or ‘he took innocence from me’, not knowing that’s not what she really said. What’s even more shocking is the fact as to what people accept as ‘rape’ these days, utterly trivialising what actual rape is. Technically it is only forcible intercourse by any means – but they would believe that if someone would want a condom used and didn’t, and afterwards the woman cries rape because of no condom and see nothing wrong with that, only shows how feminism-brainwashed people are by now. She could have told the man to wear protection before he ever touched her, but it seems that such logic however evades the disempowered little feminist brain, when this is as much on them as it is the man.

People are seriously deranged by saying that someone who continues sex after consent is suddenly withdrawn and needs a minute to recover from that ‘change of heart’, is guilty of flat-out rape. Men never cried rape if the woman didn’t want a condom or stopped the sex. Besides, how can sex be first consensual, and afterwards no more just because ‘he’ didn’t use a condom after BOTH in fact had started and continued with the sex, as it’s claimed in the second Assange case? Why didn’t the woman get charged with not ‘insisting’ on a condom if she wanted one? Or, what if HE had demanded a condom but not her and he then calls it rape afterwards because he had to endure intercourse without protection, would ‘he’ ever be taken seriously? I highly doubt that. And in fact neither should the woman for such preposterous accusation that makes any real sexual assault what exactly? Rape-rape-rape? It’s ridiculous enough that were you to take the face of a prepubescent child and put that picture on the nude body of an identifiably fully developed adult, it is child porn punishable identical to if you took a photo of the actual child, despite no actual ‘child body’ depicted, but to call a ‘leaking’ or missing condom rape is even more farcical and nullifies actual rape beyond all sense. Some already have jumped on the hyperbole bandwagon as they did with Polanski and simply call Assange a rapist now, though we know it’s all bullshit, that he should be grabbed and brought back to US by all means, saying his WikiLeaks ‘can cause tragic loss of lives, careers and do damage to US foreign policy,’ (other than doing it all to start with themselves, obviously, and in fact have killed plenty innocent people since centuries globally) and that he and his crew deserves to be hung publicly. There is no proof that the leaks have endangered or killed anyone.

Such hyped-up lynch mob online trolls declare that ‘this threatens hard-working and good career diplomats, friends, families who risk being kicked out of countries they are working in, and is as threatening to the wellbeing of US as a nuke.’ Sorry, Assange and his staff are only messengers who didn’t steal anything, or you’d also need to charge the papers that published some of the logs too. Poor trolls, live in your nonsense worlds of such delusions, since no one will or has been put in any danger because of the leaks no matter what Obama says, except Assange himself, since all names had been redacted and ambassadors surely aren’t people whose names are kept secret. The only damage done to anyone is by the government. Now that Assange is in the news by the minute and Polanski is out after his mega wins, bloggers however compare both his and Polanski’s case for their striking similarities, even the same ‘charges’, while these two feminists who accused him are just another dirty smear campaign duo à la Lewis and Vogelhut. That is what it means to live in a ‘rape culture’ where man-hating feminists will do anything to promote that myth and keep lying about rape. And it, again, is the US who keep calling loudly for the ‘leaker’s’ head, just as they had with Polanski. Swedish sex laws are even more twisted than those in the US, where ANYTHING it seems is ‘rape’, since this is the first time I have ever heard of something so absurd as this broken condom being ‘rape’, or sexual molestation if none was used by BOTH partners, that it warrants to call on Interpol rather than to seek out major criminals who do real damage. But I guess a bust or missing condom is more dangerous than any terrorist, with two grown women incapable of seeing to their lover actually wearing one. How much more disempowered and STUPID can anyone get, it’s laughable – though the imbecilic feminists will no doubt call this ‘girl power’, rather than supreme idiocy.

Sweden prides itself with being the most gender equal country in the world, but it’s all a big misandruous scam with extremely farcical anti-sex laws. The Swedish government is jailing harmless men for alleged ‘sex crimes’ against women and children without any proof at all, like they love practicing it in the States, with over 5000 men and only 294 women serving jail time in Sweden (KVV 2009). In the international statistics of convictions for ‘rape’, though obviously not actual forcible rape, Sweden is number two, after Lesotho in Africa which HAS actual rape cases. Still, the über feminazi state of Sweden is not content, since now they are proposing a law that would outlaw sex without a written contract. No joke, it will happen sooner than later. And then all men are fucked – literally – unless IKEA will be giving away condoms along with whatever they have on offer next to avoid more men ending in prison for unprotected sex. But never ever the oh so helpless women taking part in it, oh no. One reason never to go to Sweden – their sex laws are the epitome of evil misandry worse than what they have in the US. Meaning, no man will have a sane voice of defence left anymore or any rights in regards to sex in the future in Sweden, but carry all the responsibilities, since females are oh so confused that they cannot even tell men to wear a freaking condom and need law enforcement help with it afterwards. I call it ludicrous, a shameful waste of time and money – and just a ruse to indict Assange so that the US can put their foot into the door and charge him with espionage or conspiracy. With Interpol being too busy coaxing people like Assange out of hiding since they obviously couldn’t care less about any real criminals, they must run after someone who fell foul of some über ridiculous Sweden-exclusive sex laws divided into three categories of ‘rape’, where consensual but unprotected sex can lead to prison. If the woman suddenly decided she wanted a condom – but failed to in fact simply demand one. But as we know, some women are just too stupid to do that.

This ‘condom offence’ apparently involves up to two years in the joint, mind you. It’s utter insanity. Even prosecutors admit that the charges filed against Assange are embarrassing and dumb. So women bear no responsibilities for sex in Sweden anymore either, but can cry rape afterwards, instead of demanding a condom. So Mr Leak forgot to wear condom in one case and in the other he, well, leaked, which is why Interpol needs to arrest him so badly, since this puts US diplomats in grave danger of contracting more, well, leaks. Funny thing is, this farce is obviously not actual rape as everyone was made to believe or made out to be actual rape, with some even saying he looks like a pervert as they did in Polanski case. As if that’s visible or therefore true, again, simply taking media coverage as facts when the actual facts are out there too, which has more twists, turns and conspiracy theories than even the Polanski case. Sex without a condom is apparently only an ‘offence’ in über sexist feminist Sweden, not in the [yet] more civilised UK or even the ‘hard-on-sex’ US. It’s outrageous and extremely damaging how sex is mindlessly punished. Plus, if it’s ‘technically illegal’ to have consensual sex without a condom suddenly only ‘afterwards’, how is it only the guy’s fault? I’m not sure this law even exists, since it supports pure double standards unworthy of the Swedes. It would be a bullshit law that gives women a free pass and punishes only men again – as usual. Rape however will continue to be redefined for rape hysteria empowerment purposes by these feminazis everywhere until the term rape is completely meaningless. This feminist anti-sex bullshit spreading universally is getting beyond ludicrous now. It is destroying men while men are watching powerlessly as men execute their very own with their very own fascist laws.

Quickly an update on Assange – since I don’t plan on devoting an entire article on him with plenty people doing that already just nicely, but want to highlight his case as another high-profile example of becoming a feminist cry rape victim trapped in the clutches of world politics, legal shenanigans and in this case highly ridiculous Swedish sex laws that make a mockery of actual rape. British police took Assange into custody on December 8th following his [stupidly] surrendering himself willingly and acted on that Red Notice. He appeared at a Magistrates Court where he was denied bail on grounds of being a ‘flight risk’, despite the fact he handed himself, having sworn that he will fight extradition like Polanski did. The Swiss said the same about Polanski being a ‘high flight risk’, and look how nicely he stayed put for over half a year at his chalet. The Swedish authorities told the London court the first complainant, ‘Miss A’, let’s call her by her real name as a false rape accuser, Anna Ardin, (the radical feminist who wrote a ‘handbook’ on how to cry rape, mind you, she of course deleted), said she became a ‘victim of unlawful coercion’ on the night of August 14th in Stockholm, after complaining about a split condom only, and that Assange had broken it deliberately. How do you do that while having intercourse? Assange is accused of ‘using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner’, and there I was thinking that’s how sex in fact works, also called the missionary position. The second charge alleged Assange ‘sexually molested’ ‘Miss W’, or Assange-groupie Sophia Wilen, by having sex with her without a condom when it was her ‘express wish’ one should be used, but had sex with him anyway after only asking what he was wearing and did not stop him in any form when he apparently said ‘I’m wearing you’. That’s not molestation, let a lone rape, but a stupid woman who could have said no, and that after she had told the police that she only wanted to ask Assange to submit to a STD test but couldn’t get back in contact with him and then it suddenly was rape. Sure, since the police deal with medial issues, and not the hospital. Sweden is strange. The cops then turned that into rape as expected, which was the reason that charge was later dismissed. No one can be that dumb to ask the cops for ‘advise’ on HIV, rather than seek the nearest doctor. The third charge claimed Assange ‘deliberately molested’ Wilen on August 18th ‘in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity’ – which in Sweden means something like poking your partner in the back in bed to wake them up for more sex. Ludicrous the least. Poor Swedish men.

The fourth charge accuses Assange of having sex with Wilen on August 17th without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home, who in fact contacted Ardin and was ‘persuaded’ by her to go to the police where a cop friend of hers waited to interview her, when before it was only no-condom consensual sex with nothing about being asleep, and then it suddenly said she was in fact half awake. How the hell anyone (sober and not unconscious) can not notice being poked by a penis is utterly beyond me and the biggest farce I have ever heard. He’d needed to pry open her legs, and she didn’t notice? Or that he fumbled his piece inside? Or the in and out part? Sure. Some might call it a nice wakeup call by being seduced into sex, if true, and not behave like a pesky child and moan about it afterwards. No way can you do that at any rate, since no lubrication of any kind allows for ANY penetration in the first place. See then ludicrous sodomy charge Polanski had to deal with. The fact that feminists believe in all that pathetic ‘I’m such a poor little powerless victim’ nonsense is certainly no surprise. These are nothing but laughable trumped-up charges brought upon Assange by some vindictive feminist groupies who were upset that he was screwing both of them at the same time, nothing else. They willingly had sex with him even after he didn’t use a condom, and then continued to spend time with him after the deed was done and then Wilen even paid him a train ticket to get to her place, but was pissed off that he spent ‘too much time on his computer’, at which point the ‘romantic mood was gone’. But had sex with him anyway. When they broadcasted their sexual adventure to their social circles after both having managed to get him into bed knowing exactly who he was since they attended his lecture, the two decided to exact revenge and should be incarcerated for crying rape. Of course they tried to delete the evidence and it is clear that this is a political witch hunt now since the allegations were renewed on the behest of that Swedish politician and an arrest warrant issued with Interpol called upon, right after Assange had revealed the diplomatic communiqués following the WarLogs – if that’s not political manipulation then I don’t know what is.

Mind you, Ardin, who had invited him to talk at that forum and let him stay at her place, is in fact a self-professed lesbian – so why would she sleep with a ‘man’? To cry rape afterwards, of course. Now that Assange gave himself up to English police who promptly took him into custody on that dodgy European Arrest Warrant submitted after the ludicrous Red Notice and the British authorities acted on it, he first was refused bail on December 7th, then was granted bail on December 14th, and after he went back to Wandsworth prison to decide on December 16th if to grant the appeal or not on behalf of the Swedes lodged by the Crown Prosecution Service which was finally overturned by the High Court to roaring applause and he was set free only to be put under strict house arrest, like Polanski was, here’s something that’s rather disturbing concerning Polanski: trash online gossip rag TMZ reported December 14th: ‘Polanski was just dragged into a case involving a 1968 Playboy Playmate who recently shot her husband in the back, and that officials believe Polanski may have given her the gun… 30 years ago’. Then the ‘article’ continues in the typical as-if-fact rhetoric: ‘Here’s where it gets creepy – sources close to the case tell TMZ, it all started back in 1969… the night before Charles Manson orchestrated the infamous murder of Sharon Tate… Polanski’s then wife. We’re told Playmate Angela Dorian – currently in custody for the attempted murder of her husband in October (2010) – was close friends with Tate… and they even spent the evening together before the slaughter. After Tate was killed – sources tell us the famous director was so worried about Dorian, he gave her his handgun for protection… a Walther PPK .380, just like James Bond (used). Fast forward 31 years… sources tell us investigators believe Dorian used the very same gun to shoot her husband after an argument turned violent. As we first reported, she faces up to life in prison if convicted’ – Now, the last time I checked 2010 minus 1969 equals 41 years, not 31. That’s what you get when you drop out of junior highschool, and become a dumb online rag ‘reporter’.

First of all, Manson did not ‘orchestrate to murder Tate’, but ‘anyone at that house’ no matter who they are. Secondly, did Dorian claim that she spent the night before with ‘Polanski’, or at Tate’s house? I’m sorry to say that Polanski was in fact still in London and at the time of the murders until a couple of days later, all preserved on film. Plus, according to Polanski himself, he hates guns; he would never have touched one, or given one to Dorian ‘for protection’. Dorian was NOT at the residence the day before or on the day, and she was NOT ‘friends’ with Tate since she was never mentioned in any form in the investigations, and people had quite a habit of saying they had been there, but ‘left  before and escaped the carnage’, or ‘would have been there but couldn’t make it’. Dorian played that young woman in Rosemary’s Baby who threw herself out the window. Polanski never even mentioned her in his autobiography even in connection with Rosemary’s Baby in any form or that he gave her ‘his’ gun after the killings. The only time he mentions any guns was in another case where a friend had a gun by her bedside, and he was shocked, and never even touched that one. How much lower can they get with these lies. And according to the inane comments, they even believe it or make fun of the claims, or Polanski. TMZ is a sleazy celebrity rag that promotes just another way of slandering Polanski beyond ANY proof now. With plenty other online rags including even The Telegraph, having repeated this nonsense as fact, now it says the crime is ‘alleged’, though in fact true, and that he DID give her ‘his’ gun. Any proof of that, anyone? Didn’t think so. And even if he had given her ‘his’ gun, if it was registered and legally held, SO WHAT? Maybe they should just check if it really was ‘his’, and stop implicating Polanski in more crimes. Pathetic.

Now nearly mid July 2011, a lot has happened in the world during the six months in which I had no time to update this article. Ms Geimer has given another interview in March to curiously mark the day of her fateful encounter with Polanski, for once without Silver by her side to ‘advise’ her, but said nothing other than what she had before, and that she wishes the case be finally dismissed. That we know is wishful thinking. Polanski was released a year ago now, went on to win several more film awards, has long finished his latest creation God of Carnage and no one talks about him anymore other than in artistic terms, while Cooley deservedly lost the race to become Attorney General off his back. The Polanski case will never be closed or dismissed, while the equally, but differently controversial Assange Sweden case and far more fascinating WikiLeaks affair however is still in full swing after more dramatic twist and turns and revelations than anyone can even dream up. Assange has still not been charged with anything, has defiantly given many interviews and several speeches since he was forced into house arrest, and we all know this case is a farce the US is fully exploiting for their own persecution of him for leaking the TRUTH. My straying into the Assange case took away my time to concentrate fully on this new witch hunt, and his own extradition appeal hearing will in fact be held on the exact same day Polanski was released from his own house arrest, July 12th – tomorrow. If that date is a good or bad omen for Assange has to be seen. I for one wish Assange all the best, support his WikiLeaks cause and fight for freedom of speech, the press and the Internet fully, in ardent hope justice will prevail in his own struggle, and once again, we have to thank radical feminism gone out of hand for a man’s predicament and senseless persecution I hope will be defeated soon – and leave it at that.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having noticed hat people keep referring to statutory rape as ‘forcible rape’, to remind them, no, it’s casual sex with a minor up to the age of twelve in fact, and only forcible intercourse is ‘rape’ regardless of age, and no one, including Polanski has ever denied that it was unlawful sexual intercourse he committed, hence the plea deal. In order to subscribe to the absurd notion that a man having sex with a minor is every bit as ‘reprehensible’ as a man forcibly raping someone, you would also have to support the prosecution of Ms Geimer’s seventeen year old boyfriend at the time, who would also be a ‘rapist’, since he was more than four years her senior and that sex with her for anyone older is considered unlawful. (Unless she was ‘really’ fifteen as some sources claim.) While she freely had admitted to the sex and to other encounters in court, her mother’s boyfriend she had a thing going on with too who was Polanski’s own age, neither of them were ever touched for statutory rape or ‘sexual abuse’ either. The fact that the mother’s boyfriend was never brought in as witness should speak volumes therefore. How did Polanski put it in 1984, “The girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she’s had already sexual intercourse before with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn’t concerned about these other men. When Mr Smith or Mrs Brown sleeps with fourteen year old adolescents who look like eighteen, it doesn’t interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one who found himself before a judge.” Exactly – and only because your name was ‘Polanski’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the Swiss government seems to be moving closer to a decision about whether to extradite Polanski back to LA, or not, a Swiss justice ministry official told the Sonntags Zeitung newspaper July 4th, and that colleagues were close to making a decision, but would not say when it would occur. The officials said Polanski would be able to appeal that decision. Of course, LA prosecutors still maintain that the filmmaker faces up to two years in state prison, when that’s utter nonsense, after having done his time already, and his attorneys have suggested that he could be finally officially declared sentenced in Switzerland rather than in California. Swiss officials have said they were waiting for Polanski to exhaust his legal appeals in LA before making a decision on extradition, which is of course impossible since they just drag their feet anyhow. Unlike too many ignorami calling for ‘justice’ – obviously in no clues what that really means – others call for restraint and closure and to stop the inane name-calling, since this is such an old case that even Ms Geimer wishes would ‘go away’. Had she not lied, it would have. It’s not like there’s any shortage of really bad people out there right now and Polanski never was a threat to anyone at any rate – or we’d have many many more cry rape callers in his case. But such logic eludes every single one of his hate-filled, sanctimonious detractors. Of course, if articles still insist on he needs to be ‘sentenced’, how could the public think differently, or with every new ‘version’ of any developments getting nastier in tone and not only political incorrectness. Especially in mainstream US papers.

Well now, as expected and indeed wise to do, the Swiss Justice Minister, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf who just won respect again, has rejected the US request for the extradition – so announced today July 12th – saying, “The reason for the decision lies in the fact that it was not possible to exclude with the necessary certainty a fault in the US extraditionary request.” The Swiss government said extradition had to be rejected ‘considering the persisting doubts concerning the presentation of the facts of the case’. Indeed! The Justice Ministry also said that national interests were taken into consideration in their decision. In rejecting the extradition request from the US, the Swiss Ministry cited two factors: first, the US had failed to provide the records of a January hearing in LA County Superior Court that would have shown the judge in charge of the Polanski case in 1977 agreed that ’the 42 days of detention spent by Polanski in the psychiatric unit of a Californian prison represented the whole term of imprisonment he was condemned to’. Swiss officials said records from that hearing would have established whether the judge who tried the case in 1977 had assured Polanski that time he spent in a psychiatric unit would constitute the whole of the period of imprisonment he would serve.

“If this were the case, Roman Polanski would actually have already served his sentence and therefore both the proceedings on which the US extradition request is founded and the request itself would have no foundation.” Unlawful is a better word, and yes, he has done his time three decades ago, except Cooley didn’t want the world to know. “Second, when Polanski travelled in September 2009 to the Zürich Film Festival where he was arrested as he arrived at the airport, he did so in ‘good faith’ that ‘the journey would not entail any legal disadvantages for him’.” But then someone called on Cooley, and there went Switzerland’s once so famous neutrality, and Polanski headed for jail. They noted that Polanski had been staying regularly in Switzerland since 2006, and though he was registered in the Swiss registry of wanted persons, but sold him a Chalet anyhow and didn’t think his case was of any importance, he was never controlled by the Swiss authorities. Undeniably so. Switzerland’s top justice official said he could now leave. “The freedom-restricting measures against him have been revoked. Mr Polanski can now move freely. Since 12:30 today he’s a free man.”

Meaning, had the US not lied and falsified the extradition records, withheld ailing Gunson’s vital testimony to prove Polanski had done his time, played their usual repulsive name-calling and witch hunt games, the Swiss might have ‘listened’. But, instead they finally listened to superior reason, adding a vital measure of final justice to this contentious situation Polanski was caught up in again. Though Polanski could have appealed the extradition, “The United States cannot contest the decision in Switzerland,” said Widmer-Schlumpf, adding that Washington has accepted Bern’s move to turn down its extradition request. The Justice Ministry also notes that the wishes of Ms Geimer were considered, unlike the vindictive LA courts had, who was the loudest voice calling for the witch hunters to leave Polanski alone. Roman is a free man, again, after 289 days under unlawful detention. Now he can finally go home again to his no doubt relieved family, and do what he does best, make more acclaimed films. Polanski has shed his electronic bracelet and left his chalet in Gstaad already.

Well Cooley, who’s lost his gamble to become Attorney General on Polanski’s back, seems your dream of wanting Polanski’s head on a platter to humiliate him some more didn’t quite work out, and your smear campaign to coax the Swiss into hasty actions backfired massively – serves you [all] right. So, name-calling LA prosecutors and the puritanical American public didn’t get their pound of flesh, aw, shame. Looks like not everyone is as corrupt as an LA courthouse whore and the Justice Minister in fact administered real justice for a change, and I just as might even think that her letter of wanting Polanski back in a secure facility was in fact a fake, just so to whip up more frenzied witch hunters, since it only appeared on an obscure US site. Cooley bungled it up all up with his self-indulgent arrogant antics of playing the, ‘we’re America/ns, we can do whatever we want’ bullshit card. Only a corrupt LA DA wants to have his fifteen minutes of fame as an ugly parasite on an old accomplished man who weathered men like him decades ago, i.e., Nazis, who then brought in other 15-minute famewhores, i.e., Lewis and Allred, and lost that corrupt/ed game.

Technically however Polanski is back to where he left off before his rearrest, since other countries might want to make the same mistake and arrest him again I’m sure the States would love. But on the other hand, many more know now at least that he had done his time for unlawful sexual intercourse, (when I thought sex was a private matter) and a perfect reason to flee Rittenband’s arbitrary court when he attempted to punish him twice for it. The only problem is, he and all the others got away with their disgraceful misconducts, since the case is still not litigated to be finally closed for good unless Polanski is declared in absentia. I’m sure Cooley & Co will not concede to the fact, not do so, or that Polanski cannot be sentenced ‘again’, since he had served his time already at Chino in 1977/8 for 42 days, and, the 70 days on Swiss remand must be counted in addition, exceeding the 90 days Rittenband had in mind. Though the house arrest cannot be counted, it means the over seven months of lost freedom Polanski had to endure can never be recovered. Of course everyone is thrilled with the outcome, especially his wife and children, friends, even statesmen and of course the film world – and his loyal fans who know better.

Switzerland for once proving herself as independent sovereignty, and no lackey of the US, still, the US [online] magazines however keep repeating the mind-numbing mantra that he had escaped jail or even the charges and prosecution, (NO), or pleaded, admitted to or was convicted of ‘rape’, (NO), or the drugging and raping and sodomising, (NO), only showing these still all too obsessed people are no more intelligent than before his unsound rearrest. Besides, if he ever had ‘admitted’ to being rapist or paedophile, which in itself is rather stupid to confess to if you’re not, they’d charged him accordingly. But such logic eludes most tripe-fed brains. They learnt absolutely nothing of the case details, that there is no such a paradoxical thing as a ‘one-time rapist’, since it indeed never was rape and the reason why the unfounded counts were dropped, and that the breakdown of the justice system on the scale this case has highlighted once again is simply criminal. Besides, it was over three decades ago, and why these people of today not half his age need to invest their time in obsessively vilifying an old man who had done no harm to anyone let alone Ms Geimer by her own admission they love to ignore too, with the same mind-numbing mantra of ‘drugged/child/rape/sodomy’ rhetoric always followed by a series of exclamation marks, is beyond me. What the defeated LA courts will do next however, is another question.

After the decision drew cheers and jeers on both sides of the Atlantic, of course, an LA Superior Court spokesman said, “That warrant remains outstanding,” adding that Polanski could be arrested and sent to the US if he travelled to another country that has an extradition treaty with the United States. Of course, because you love playing vindictive little children running after innocent men now that you were put into your place of world diplomacy by a little country like Switzerland. Don’t worry, after that fiasco and the fact that the LA courts lied, NO other country will touch Polanski. A State Department spokesman said the Administration was disappointed by the Swiss action. “The United States believes that the rape of a 13-year-old child by an adult is a crime, and we continue to pursue justice in this case.” ‘Child’? ‘Rape’? A teenager is NOT a ‘child’ even by law, and it certainly wasn’t rape either even by Ms Geimer’s own words. Are these people deliberate being obstinate or just generally hatemongering hypocrites? Guess both. And ‘justice’? A warmongering country that sends innocent men into prison for sex has no sense of any justice. DON’T YOU HAVE REAL CRIMINALS TO PURSUE RIGHT ON YOUR OWN DOORSTEP? Guess not.

Cooley called the decision a ‘disservice to justice and other victims as a whole’. ‘Other victims’? Oh, you mean all those who are gang raped in prison because YOU sent them there on fabrications wholesale? Sure. And the only ‘disservice’ to ‘justice’ is your pathetic corrupt self. He accused the Swiss of using the issue of the confidential testimony as an excuse to set Polanski free. “To justify their finding to deny extradition on an issue that is unique to California law regarding conditional examination of a potentially unavailable witness is a rejection of the competency of the California courts.” Unique’? ‘Competency’? No, it would have proven Polanski had done his time, YOU obviously cannot ever allow being made official, because you have no idea what ‘competency’ is, and only shows that your US ‘laws’ are not compatible with real justice. A top Justice Department official said the US extradition request was completely supported by treaty, facts and the law. No, it was neither factual nor lawful, I read it, it was full of Swiss cheese holes, or the Swiss would have extradited him. The Department is ‘deeply disappointed’ by the Swiss rejection and will review its ‘options’. ‘Options’ sounds scary. And illegal.

So, getting your butts kicked in public by a tiny country isn’t reason enough just to give up and concede Polanski did his time, to litigate all the disgraceful misconduct, and then close the case with grace? Instead of continuing with the narcissistic whining, threats and mindless vengeance? Guess not. Isn’t it just amazing how the repressed US psyche becomes even more twisted when regarding ‘justice’? But what you expect from a militant people who nearly wiped out an entire race, keep killing people globally, living in their dark rape and sodomy world barely out of their toddler boots thinking sex is a sin and must be punished, saying, ‘he raped her unconscious child body’. Boy, what mind-boggling diatribe, too thick to realise there were no signs of forced rape or sodomy in any form. Grow up! She was as mature as a twenty year old and certainly not unconscious. I’m sick and tired of reading such repetitive self-indulgent garbage. Or, ‘the ‘excuse’ given by the Swiss in their rejection of extradition is unacceptable, and to suggest that the US declare war on Switzerland and nuclear bomb the hell out of the country until Polanski is for certain dead since not a rock will remain upon rock and no living thing remains.’ Forgetting that Polanski is long back in Paris, these people are demented hate and warmongers, plain and simple. THAT is ‘unacceptable’ and hate speech. The Germans call it ‘Grössenwahn’ – delusions of grandeur. Quite fitting.

After Polanski offered ‘a massive thank you’ to all concerned through his French lawyer, saying, “I simply want, from the bottom of my heart, to thank all those who supported me,” before he left his Chalet to head home right after he was declared a free man again, Ms Geimer’s first public reaction to the decision of Switzerland to refuse extradition, was, “I hope that the DA’s office will now have this case dismissed and finally put the matter to rest once and for all.” I doubt that, they didn’t listen to you before, they won‘t now or ever. No, they made it perfectly clear that they must pursue some old director in obsessive spite till he’s been mauled over and over in the sadistic public eyes and lies bleeding in the glare of the media lynch mob jerking off on it. They’re more than happy this distressing chapter has brought Polanski more petty little haters, while no doubt bringing him more supporters as balance as true friends and loyal fans never deserted him, simply knowing better that he never violated anyone, let alone Ms Geimer who made that clear now often enough. They are able to distinguish between the private man of then or even now, the unsurpassed director, and most of all, the unacceptable status quo of this corrupt case no one can fix anymore, or wants to, since it’s much easier to commit more misconduct to cover up the old transgressions while foaming at the name-calling mouth like hyenas out for blood.

The system of laws and prosecutorial ethics are the only things that give our justice system credibility, stability, integrity and real dignity. Clearly those ethics were violated from day one, and this extradition refusal was an expected outcome that Cooley brought on himself, which began in 1977 when egomaniac Rittenband dictated his own media circus. The Swiss authorities allowed the US to act in good time, yet, many months passed, Polanski and his family were torn apart, and the US did not respond in their glorious arrogance, but rather put on a great smear campaign show to influence the outcome. Switzerland has one of the most perfect judicial systems in the world jealously admired by many countries. In the absence of clear instructions from the US, i.e., Gunson’s proof, Bern did the right thing and the US Ambassador in Bern, under the instructions from Washington, warmly supported the release of Polanski. Roman travelled all over Europe, had been domiciled in Switzerland and France for many years and never faced rearrest. People who still call for his head in this self-righteous and vindictive fashion like fascists need to get a grip and face reality.

They also keep retelling the same old lies like it happened at a party, or that he confessed to it all. NO HE DID NOT. Even the so called victim does not share any of the self-obsessed feelings these witch hunters are consumed by, lecherously get off on. The corrupt DAs keep wasting taxpayers money and time on some old case rather than catch criminals in their own backyard, in dire need to see a shrink to find out just why they must incite mass hysteria by painting this thing as something it never was. This case was never about any ‘justice’, it was about a crooked DA and his henchmen using the headlines for a higher job after jail bait lover Rittenband needed more clippings for his own scrapbook. What people of today simply don’t understand is that the public attitudes toward sex and drugs have changed greatly, especially when minors are involved, and you should never force to pursue old cases based on that moral change, or apply laws of today retroactively – that’s illegal. Consider it as a different culture – do you think you have the right to condemn it and that after all this time, with half of you not even alive then? Don’t think so.

Roman served his sentence and had every right to flee the Santa Monica courts when their deal was broken, or file charges against the corrupt LA legal system today. Bottom line is, pitiful and shallow souls are always more interested in a witch hunt than what the woman of the piece wants, or most importantly to uphold the law, no doubt only until the law abuses them and then cry for justice the way Polanski has done since decades now. Ms Geimer telling the LA Times today July 14th, “Enough is enough. This matter should have been resolved 33 years ago,” she can’t understand why prosecutors continue to pursue the director, maintaining that he’s not a threat to anyone, adding, “At 76 years old? I don’t think so.” He never was a threat any rate, or we’d have had countless more cases of ‘rape’ with his amount of sexual encounters. But it seems legal officials are refusing to heed her continuous remarks, vowing to continue their merciless pursuit of Polanski which is nothing but repulsive vindictiveness since ages now. Don’t they have any other thirteen year old girls who were rally raped in LA, right NOW? Guess not. Vindictive, vindictive, vindictive.

The facts of the case haven’t changed, there was no rape and Polanski was railroaded. But ‘moral’ attitudes, legal language and the politics of ‘laws’ and ‘crimes’ have escalated quite drastically when a ‘sexual offence’ is involved. They keep redefining what a ‘victim’ or ‘crime’ is to make smaller transgressions look like heinous offences, and have adopted the incensing rhetoric of ‘child rape’, or child sex crime’, or ‘child rapist’ when no ‘child’ was ever involved, but a mature teenager who was sexually experienced and used to drugs and alcohol from her own family background – who did not want this entire madness to erupt in the fist place. But when her suddenly oh so ‘caring’ mother interfered, Ms Geimer was forced to lie by coercion of the cops in regards to the sodomy, i.e., bent cop Vannatter, it strikes me as odd he wasn’t the least concerned about any ‘justice’ back then when he abetted a crime to falsify records, intimidated witnesses, and that he hasn’t spoken out about the corrupt judge in this case, i.e., ego-tripper Rittenband, a case he himself has undermined greatly by forcing Ms Geimer to lie, and Huston into betraying her friend Polanski. This guy is not going to trash his own crooked fellow so-called law enforcers of today to call him a liar. Or any criminal DAs.

Ms Geimer stated often enough that she always thought Polanski should have been freed and is thrilled with the decision of the Swiss. The DA’s office and the corrupt LAPD hate hearing that, but not as much as they hated it when the facts in this case came out and it was revealed that LA’s judicial system didn’t play by the rule book. I.e., Zenovich’s documentary. They don’t mention that part of the case, ever. Switzerland said, ‘we will not extradite someone back into this legal morass,’ because of all the misconduct issues making this extraditing request hopeless from the start. I’d say, into the hands of ‘legal morons’, those having mis/handled it from the start. Polanski’s lawyers have issued a statement calling for an investigation into the US refusal to provide requested evidence to Swiss authorities in this old case, i.e., Gunson’s testimony. The one-page statement released July 13th in LA made no personal reference to Polanski. It was the first official defence comment since the Swiss refused to extradite Polanski. The attorneys asked for the appointment of a commission by the California governor, i.e., ‘Arnie’, or Attorney General to look into the official misconduct in the 1977 case. They said the LA County DA, i.e., Cooley and his lot, i.e., ‘Walgren’, purposely withheld the material sought because it would have undermined the extradition request and of course proven that Polanski had done his time decades ago.

It is obvious that the US considers itself as a law entirely unto itself, and that everything and everyone must yield to their every demand. It does not only reject the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but also that it has openly stated its intention of freeing by force any US citizen who might find him/herself in the dock at the ICC. I.e., going into The Hague all guns blazing, or send out their CIA agents to kidnap foreign citizens they think need to be dragged before their corrupt and biased courts – rightly or wrongly. It is a well-known fact that the DA’s cases are based on the office’s whims and fancies rather than evidence. They just make up their minds that a person is guilty and go after them. They will cook up evidence if they need to and have done so often enough. All they had to do was give the Swiss what they were asking for. But no, since they’re incompetent buffoons in suits no wonder the Swiss had no time for their nonsense. Their incompetence in effect led to a family and many others getting away with perjury since a proper trial would have found them all out finally and officially and the case could be litigated. The fact that Ms Geimer has recanted her original story in little ways often enough and begs the whole thing be dropped perfectly illustrates that, and once again can be glad that there will be no public trial. Though that also leaves Polanski’s petty little haters in the erroneous belief that he did all she had accused him of ages ago. No, he did not.

Today’s public figures, whether movie stars or politicians, have the added burden of zero privacy, or even credibility when it comes to anything ‘moral’. No, they’re being held to a higher standard while most of us have done or said things we aren’t proud of, yet play sanctimonious judge and jury over others. No, we don’t have to see them going viral all over the Internet and then edit their words, skew and twist them to make them lies, make up things over and over in a mind-numbing mantra, of, ‘he drugged, raped and sodomised a crying child’. No, he never did. The media’s sole purpose is to fuel a downward spiral in shared ‘moral values’, and exaggerated sensationalism is ‘upgraded’ in order to enhance sales and site hits with the speed of a mouse click. All this revolves around the degree of ‘criminality’ we as a society ‘assign’ to each individual, and Polanski will never have an image other than what he had before – all based on lurid fantasies, repetitive falsehood, with people blindly believing what they hear or read, not ever questioning anything to get the whole picture, demand THE TRUTH. No, they’re more interested in lies and salacious scandals to brighten their boring little lives, so invested in others they have no business with. No, they simply ‘believe’ to feel better, like the hypnotized and duped masses under Hitler believed in a better future, and look where it led them: into unmitigated chaos.

Polanski was considered one of the most dazzling figures of the new Hollywood. His acclaimed films seemed to emerge from some shadowy, sexually infused realms people took for real, confused them with his own life. The sexual revolution going hand in hand he had enjoyed like everyone else, had changed everything with the event of the Pill in 1960. Vogue, Vogue Hommes and Playboy featured pictures of very young girls, ten, eleven years old, twelve year old Brooke Shields played a prostitute in Pretty Baby in 1973, Jodie Foster another preteen hooker in Taxi Driver in 1976 when she was fourteen, and the soft-focus films of David Hamilton, in which he portrayed young girls as nymphs, reached a mainstream audience and no one was called a paedophile for photographing or sleeping with teenagers. All this was normal at the time and no one cried rape or abuse when someone seduced them unless they had ulterior motives when it came to ‘celebrities’. Today all too puritanical people are keen on destroying their very own legacy they or their fore/fathers and mothers had zealously created themselves, after drinking, sleeping themselves through the days and nights high on recreational drugs and casual sexual encounters, by proclaiming their petty moralistic sermons bashing the bible of all sex is a sin and must be punished severely in ever more overzealously bigoted hypocrisy.

If you don’t like your own evolutionary soup, don’t spit in it to sour it for everyone else. It’s your own legacy if you lived it or not, and it’s not your right to demonise a bygone era you never even knew personally. Polanski’s complex case revolves around many issues that do not fit in with today’s ‘über morals’ and anti-sex laws anymore, questions about the freedom of art and excesses of sex and drugs, about the loss of perspective in the days of the sexual revolution and the drug culture people today wished never happened, and about society’s growing fascination with its stars, who are idolised and demonised at the same time, a free for all to destroy as they see fit. The case is about important issues of law and justice gone unacceptably haywire, and most of all, that you cannot find Polanski guilty of something everyone else did that was as normal as it is now – except no one would dare say so today. He cannot ever be made guilty of our past times with overkill indignation, just like laws and penalties cannot retroactively be applied though people would love to do so. And why keep saying, ‘to face the charges’? He ‘faced’ them three decades ago and even pleaded to one of them. Besides, before the US get too high and mighty about a country refusing to extradite, remember that the US don’t have a good track record in extraditing to other countries in the first place.

I also noticed that the US media immediately stifled all explanations as to why the Swiss refused extradition, became typically self-reflexively sarcastic and ridiculing, just so to whip the outraged public into more frenzied stupidity, with huffing and puffing bloggers calling for his films to be boycotted, his assets seized, even kidnapped and killed, seeing it as personal affront in their glorious patriotic self-righteousness, condoning worse crimes than what they think he did while not bothering with real crimes around them. With tirades like, he ‘sadistically raped and sodomised her’, these people need a reality check, since if he had, she’d be begging him back into court, not to let him be. Sometime back I thought, what would have happened if Polanski had been indicted on merely what he had pleaded to, unlawful sexual intercourse and nothing else, would anyone have condemned him that easily then or today? They’d probably still thought he raped her even if she said they just had sex. Meaning, however you dice it, he’d always been made into a rapist simply for Ms Geimer’s age, if her testimony was believable or not. Only forcible intercourse is rape by law that never took place and that by her own admission. Besides, there’s no such thing as a onetime rapist, and don’t even give me that nonsense that he raped other ‘little children’ we don’t know of. This ‘child rape’ rhetoric is getting overly stale now. Get a life alright. Or find a real rapist in your own neighbourhood.

While the sexual harassment case made against Steven Seagal, has been dropped, what a surprise, the former personal assistant of his had launched a $1m (£650,000) civil suit, what a surprise, claiming he had sexually abused her and illegally trafficked women. No reason has been given for the case dismissal, and it seems another popular American got a pass from the same LA courthouse that vindictively peruses Polanski over some old sex with a minor they had botched from the start and botched some more deliberately. No surprise there. His wife and family happy that the nightmare is over, so is Polanski. While people keep ranting on about how the Swiss now too condone ‘rape’, they’re obviously too thick to realise that it never was ‘rape’, in any form – or they had him plead to that, not underage sex. A plea deal is always struck on the one applicable count after the uncorroborated counts are dropped and he never was convicted nor pleaded to or confessed to them in any form. Keep on disseminating the same old lies why don’t you. The LA courts once again proved themselves that Cooley was looking to use Polanski for personal reasons that had nothing to do with the case, with a judge who was fixing the case for his own public image and that DA Wells goaded him into sending Polanski to Chino in the first place. The World has watched Cooley & Co lie under oath often enough now and nothing was done, and it will never change since DAs hold special immunity to avoid any prosecution from defendants by default. So someone like Wells is safe from being prosecuted for his interference in the case by goading Rittenband into the Oktoberfest/Chino ploy. Arnie will not help the case litigation either, and it will take many years before any country can trust the US legal system again after this show of smear campaigning.

Given the fact that both the prosecution and the judge in the oh so ‘civilised’ US legal system reneged on a made deal with the accused, why on Earth should the Swiss have trusted the same system to treat the director fairly ‘now’? Plus, in civilised European countries, there is such thing as statute of limitations, i.e., the US ‘vengeful justice system’ is not compatible with real justice, still stuck in the Middle Ages with death penalties, absurd three hundred years prison sentences for multiple sexual acts with your own underaged girlfriend. Murderers are eligibility for parole after ten, twenty years for good behaviour even if they received life, while someone who had sex has no prospect of parole since they of course see nothing ‘wrong’ with their ‘crime’, hence ‘deny’ their ‘guilt’ and are ordered to remain behind bars, and that sometimes even after they in fact have been found innocent of ‘rape’, for some false rape accuser having been found out or recanting. All over sex that should NEVER be punished. Polanski could have  looked at fifty years, while, a gruesome murder gets punished less, since a killing is only ‘one’ count, no matter how brutal. Once the convict is released, s/he doesn’t need to register as ‘murder offender’, clearly a threat to the public, but, someone who had sex needs to register as ‘sex offender’ next to brutal rapists and peadophiles. Why should the Swiss authorities send an old man back into this self-obsessed US revenge machine after more than thirty years and into the dirty hands of law violators committing more and more malfeasance each day?

Someone seriously stated, ‘now we shall see if the current Mrs Polanski will allow him in the family home and return to the marital bed’ – hello? How dull are you lot? She knows perfectly well he never raped or sodomised anyone and stands behind him a hundred percent ever since they met near three decades ago, let alone is a ‘homosexual who rapes boys’ as some other idiot proclaimed in even bigger lunacy. These demented people are just too desperate to make up more lies and don’t care about the fact that the law has been made another travesty of, but need to keep feeding their revenge-driven little egos with more bigoted diatribe. Another one went, ‘my heart goes out to all the thousands of rape victims who are abused each year’. What exactly has Polanski got to do with them? They keep wondering why Ms Geimer again asks for Polanski to be left alone, too thick to realise that no genuine rape victim would ever do so, accusing her of ‘ulterior motives’ I doubt I need elaborating on. They don’t ever think that she could have lied, was coached to lie, was spared to be found guilty of perjury when they avoided a trial to expose them all, just so to keep revelling in their follies of rape and sodomy. Sure, why not, since all they ever read is just that – too ignorant to actually question her original claims, and that a Grand Jury testimony has zero validity until it was proven in a trial. The fact that her mother never ever was heard of again outside her manipulative testimony, also speaks louder than her hasty act to call on the law having destroyed her career and that of her daughter in one fell swoop.

Now, in a new twist (or more lies) in the endless saga of this case, a spokesman for the LA prosecutors said they had never heard of the Swiss’ request to be presented with Gunson’s testimony. I doubt that, since even the public knew of it after it was mentioned often enough in the media, that the Swiss still waited for it and even knew what it contained. The Federal Department of Justice and Police, i.e., Widmer-Schlumpf’s office, stated that the request was addressed to her American counterpart. “The Department of Justice is our partner in extradition proceedings, not the LA courts,” said a spokesman on July 15th. Bern has sent their application on May 5th after Polanski had spoken out against Cooley on May 2nd and the US Department of Justice replied on May 13th, refusing to send it, citing a ‘confidentiality clause’. I.e., that it was only intended to ‘preserve’ Gunson’s testimony for posterity in case he’s not available anymore at one point since he’s undergoing cancer treatment. We all know that document was intended to clarify whether Rittenband had assured all parties, at the September 19th meeting in 1977, that the 42 days Polanski would spent at Chino covered the entirety of his imprisonment to then be released on probation.

They obviously don’t want to uphold this deal, despite Espinoza’s own words that ‘nothing precludes the possibility that the 42 days were Polanski’s entire punishment’, only to refuse to unseal the transcripts weeks later himself. The rejection to forward them is one of Switzerland’s key arguments for refusing to extradite Polanski, since by all means he had done his time, and no one can be punished twice for the same offence, and of course wouldn’t extradite anyone who’s not up for more than six months at any rate. And rightly so. Now, as it goes on and on and on with the pathetic whining, mud slinging and lies from across the pond, the US Justice Department in fact said that the LA DA’s, i.e., Cooley’s domain, approved the denial of the Swiss request for information in the Polanski case. Meaning, the very opposite to what Cooley had mouthed about and that he no doubt denied access to the transcripts himself. Swiss officials said the denial led to Polanski’s release, and the Swiss Justice Department repeated July 16th that it kept the DA’s office fully informed of all requests from Swiss authorities regarding the effort to have Polanski extradited to the US, which the LA courts of course deny. Like no one would actually keep records of such a high-profile case exchanges to call Cooley a liar.

After the Swiss making the wise and politically sound decision based on the provisions of the extradition treaty, many thought they would find a way to extradite Polanski for ‘political reasons’, (i.e., to end the UBS stalemate which was however resolved already months back without pawning off Polanski), while others think the US Justice Department ‘deliberately’ refused to release the documents in order to ‘force’ the Swiss to let Polanski go. Instead, the treaty provisions provided a sound basis for their decision, and, to believe that the US would ‘deliberately allow’ a ‘fugitive’ to ‘escape’ them is more than absurd. And, just so to demonstrate that another country will not be bullied by the US, Poland has announced it will continue to reject any US request to arrest/extradite Polanski, according to a report by the Polish prosecutor’s office posted on its official website. “The extradition of Roman Polanski to another country is impossible,” said the Director of International Cooperation Department. According to the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, such an extradition is ‘unacceptable’, citing Article 604, Section 1, Paragraph 3, which states that the handing over of an individual to a third country is inadmissible if the case has expired. I.e., it’s incompatible with US laws in general, since the though longer statute of limitation periods applicable is thirty years in Poland, but Polanski was, or still is, wanted for something back to 1977, and therefore will not be served to the US bloodhounds.

But then Poland and many other countries have never bothered to arrest him in the first place when he went there many times and made films. People keep forgetting he made two big budget films in Germany, The Pianist and Ghost Writer, organised many years of very popular theatre plays being staged all over Germany and Austria, with many German and international actors playing in also his own works, and he in fact engaged a lot of other people from all sectors of the German or Austrian economy for decades through his work as a revered director, i.e., brought in ‘revenue’ on a large scale for being an artist. I’m sure none of those who had worked on or for his films and theatre productions from the driver to the caterer to the star, in the operas and film studios, anyone concerned, or those in the still running theatre shows of his very popular Dance of the Vampires hit musical making their own living though him and his acclaimed stage work, would ever have demanded his extradition, since everyone knew ‘why’ he could not work in Hollywood or the UK. That would be really unwise to bite the generous hand that literally feeds them. Polanski theoretically could sue the Swiss for damages related to his arrest and imprisonment, though, Widmer-Schlumpf said that is unlikely. I wouldn’t be too sure about that – but I guess Polanski has better things to do.

Like being already back in Switzerland a mere five days after his release, where Polanski was spotted attending the Montreux Jazz Festival July 17th, to attend a concert of his wife Emmanuelle Seigner. He arrived in the back of a 4×4 vehicle with tinted windows in the company of the owner and founder of the festival. A police contingent prevented journalists, cameramen and photographers to approach the filmmaker, making his first appearance in public since his release from house arrest. He also gave an interview and Polanski says he keeps all his friendships in Switzerland and promises to return to Gstaad. He thanked his loyal wife Emmanuelle Seigner and their children, without whom he would not have been able to keep his dignity. He also thanked the people of Gstaad, who provided support, as well as flowers and bottles of wine, throughout his detention. He talked about how his teenaged son Elvis was allowed to cut his electronic bracelet once he was officially declared to be free, and says, he could easily have escaped but never wanted to do so. Of course not, he needed to finish his film and certainly would not forfeit nearly five million dollar bail bond or his mortgage on his family home.

Touching on his over nine months of detention he describes as ‘nonsense’, his argument is that he should not have been treated differently because of his status as an artist. (Though he sure as hell was a treated ‘very special’ ever since Rittenband had railroaded him and Cooley got his dirty hands on the case.) “I never asked for special treatment and for the moment, I am happy,” concluding, “I do not know what I’ll do next. For the moment, I am happy to be free.” Though we know his next project is the screen adaptation of God of Carnage, Emmanuelle told Radio Suisse Romande (RSR) that her husband will be attending the concert she will give in the Auditorium Stravinsky Exhibition Centre as I write this. The popular singer and actress said she too was very happy her husband is here tonight because he has not seen her new concert so far. The ever full of élan filmmaker is a regular guest at the festival, and he had already come to see his wife at the Montreux Jazz Café in 2007.

Unlike what some think, his wife knew of the case perfectly well, like both families and their friends. She even talked about it in interviews, though not specifically since it’s not permissible to touch on details, (which is another reason why they simply cannot make it clear to the public what really happened and therefore keep believing in these lies) but in general. People thinking this entire case was a shock to her are more than mistaken. Only the arrest was, and their kids are just as well-informed of what it was or is all about. i.e., sex with a girl that was forbidden then for her age, not any ‘rape’ or ‘sodomy’ people love to think he told them about and he is guilty of. Polanski has guts beyond guts, he braces all winds of odds and fate ever since his earliest childhood and absolutely nothing can deter him, he’s an eternal survivor and his dedicated family is his backbone. People are just jealous of the support he enjoys, his great stamina, strength and willpower, going green in the face with envy about his beautiful wife, loving kids, loyal friends, colleagues and fans. Anyone else would either cower and hide, or crumble and turn to drink or drugs. Polanski never has, no matter what tragedy struck him. Many admire him for that alone – and rightly so.

Believe it or not, while he was under house arrest, some German projects called ‘LILA’, the ‘Alliance of autonomous women’s projects against violence’, the ‘NRW’ (similar project) and the ‘Lobby for girls’, all seriously demanded last year that the 25,000 Euros prize money Polanski would have received, along with his ‘Golden Icon’ lifetime achievement award in Zurich had he not been rearrested, be ‘donated’, i.e., simply stolen, and given to these projects to combat violence against underaged girls. Now, what does Polanski have to do with ‘violence against German minors’, and, why would any ‘German project’, (or any other for that matter) think they’re entitled to a French director’s well-deserved award money for his own work, or even if he were German? The arrogance and audacity is staggering, and the fact that these overzealous people never received any reply from the Zürich festival director who bravely went ahead with the extensive retrospective on Polanski that was well-received, should make it clear, that these clearly deluded lobbyists cannot simply steal someone’s rightful prize money, just because they believe/d he raped someone, and that in the US nowhere near Deutschland. Why not ask your own real rapists and serial paedophiles to donate something to these causes.

I’m sure real victims find it more than disgusting that people are so obsessed with an old high-profile case of thirty-three years ago, just because it concerns some famous old director, where the woman concerned does NOT want him ‘pay’ for it. Some just as ill-informed soul stated that, ‘serving some sort of a sentence of 90 days of evaluation was surely part of any plea agreement; since he failed to fulfil his side of the agreement, the plea bargain is off, and Polanski is now subject to the full set of charges’. Sorry, go on living in lala land, but HE had no say in how long any custodial time will be, or any power to break ‘any deal’. It was the judge who broke their plea bargain, after the prison officials had released Polanski early the judge had no say in either, who then asked for NO additional time, just like NONE of the parties had demanded it from day one. And no, the plea deal is ‘not off’, and he was NOT ‘convicted’ of the six counts either, but rather the only one applicable at the wishes of the family and the plea stands. Only a judge can revoke it and they hardly ever do just so for defendant to be stuck with it. Guilty or not. Guess why the family never called for his imprisonment? Because the only three witnesses, i.e., Polanski and Huston (and the caretaker), have very different views as to what actually happened and NOTHING that Ms Geimer had claimed could be proven resulting in that plea simply for her age, otherwise the case had been thrown out.

Quoting Ms Geimer in 2003 herself, “He [Polanski] never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, (by judge Fidler, who however wanted to televise it and Polanski said no thanks) just as we all agreed. At that time, my lawyer, Lawrence Silver, wrote to the judge that the plea agreement should be accepted and that that guilty plea would be sufficient contrition to satisfy us,” that most certainly is NOT a ‘genuine rape victim’ remark. No one who was really raped would demand ‘no punishment’ for their ‘abuser’. Meaning, she tried hard to signal to people what really happened since years now, but cannot do or say more directly than she had already with her conflicting statements, or would perjure herself (and Cooley would go after her instead.) And of course people will not ever realise that, or once question her words in the political incorrect climate of a ‘victim should always be believed’ when it comes to ‘rape’, too dense to realise what a plea deal actually means and that too many have made false rape accusations by now with devastating consequences to innocent men.

Don’t forgot, the defence doesn’t get a shot at the Grand Jury she testified at whatsoever, which is the prosecutor’s exclusive tool to control all that they may hear from the accuser ALONE in a highly biased fashion. If s/he doesn’t ‘like’ a particular witness or evidence because it would undermine the case, i.e., find the defendant in fact innocent, and brings in fabricated ‘evidence’, guess what? The jurors will never know or hear from any corroborating defence witnesses, exculpatory evidence and compelling defence arguments on the case, or what the defendant has to say. All they do is listen to the accuser and then decide on which counts to indict someone as a first step. Then comes the trial to find out if the accuser’s claims are true, or not. If the more honest prosecution HAS already evidence, something like medical proof of no rape/sodomy, given witnesses discrediting the accuser’s allegations outright, i.e., Huston’s vital statement, the caretaker saying she thought the two (Ms Geimer and Polanski’s) lovers, that Ms Geimer was acting very maturely and much older, and most of all Polanski own accounts, then a deal is struck to settle on the one count applicable. Polanski pleaded to what he did, have sex with an underaged teenager – NOT drug, rape and sodomise her. He confessed to that one count alone – just as he did in his autobiography – which is the only truthful account.

Dalton said to Gunson back in 1977, Ms Geimer was ‘getting older all the time’ while the proceedings take place, towering over Polanski already then not at all looking her ‘age’ or like a ‘child’, let alone was innocent and not unschooled in sex, drugs and alcohol even to Rittenband’s own words, for her family environment Dalton greatly condemned as being so permissive. Though it was the very laissez-faire Seventies, her mother and divorced father along with the mother’s boyfriend clearly committed several offences against Ms Geimer on a grand scale. But, instead of punishing them for it, the zeal to crush someone else, i.e., Polanski through several people involved, who had been in the past a critic of the LAPD and the prosecutors, was so strong that it caused DAs Wells, Trott, Mantagna, judge Rittenband, and first of all bent cop Vannater to corrupt the case so badly the moment they realised they dealt with a famous celebrity, that it became impossible to prosecute him fairly. I.e., after the coaching of Ms Geimer in regards to the sodomy the cop undoubtedly fabricated for her, the blackmail of Huston to testify against Polanski who was first on Polanski’s side and then used against him, and of course Rittenband’s own little games.

Hence the plea bargain the family was so keen on was struck once they realised what they had done, accuse an innocent man of rape – and were all given a pass for. Remember, the completely biased cop interviewed Ms Geimer first, and the moment Vannatter asked her about the ‘sodomy’ (after the physician had found NO signs of any vaginal or anal rape), Ms Geimer had no clue about what he meant, i.e. said, “Oh, I thought he [Polanski] went in the wrong way.” As in, ‘really’ not knowing the ‘diffidence’ between a penis going in anally or vaginally, or anything about ‘anal intercourse’, since she clearly never had it. Otherwise, how then can she say he ‘sodomised’ her – even twice – when there is NO chance people who DID have it would NOT know the difference? It clearly stinks of Vannatter’s initial coaching her to say he had sodomised her, (after he had threatened Huston with jail if she’d not testify against Polanski in exchange for the cocaine charges being dropped, to say she had interrupted them.) And THAT is where it all went wrong from the start, for Vannatter’s intention to place Polanski into a situation with another ‘witness’ to testify to his ‘rape’, the way Ms Geimer would describe it to the Grand Jury TWO whole weeks later.

Remember too, the very controversial Rape Shield Laws would have excluded all in effect exonerating evidence possible, crucial background information, bar the medical evidence that was already known, other ONLY family related ‘witnesses’ and the already coerced testimonies that would have been put in place of the real facts. NO one, who was just raped and sodomised, and then someone interrupts them, would not ever call on that person’s help, when the ‘perpetrator’ even leaves the ‘victim’ on her own, utterly unfettered and unimpaired in any form, not to just storm to the door or simply cry out for help to attract the caller. She never said he threatened or forced her in any form not to call out, walk away, out that door, and she never made any protestations as to how he ‘hurt’ her, how ‘it (should) hurt’. She said herself he stopped the sodomy when someone knocked on the door, then got up to dress her underwear again (which by all means was rather still lying by the Jacuzzi since they towelled off only in the TV room), sat on the sofa again, (rather than bleed, after screaming, thrashing and crying in pain all through the ‘ordeal’), then lets him talk to Huston, and THEN even allows him to come back to ‘finish off’.

That clearly never happened either way, since for one, it’s utterly illogical on every level, and Huston only met her after the sex still on the phone, according to Polanski’s own account matching Huston’s original account. Meaning, all she had stated as teenager was coached by third parties, forced [on her] by her mother to make herself look better, and fabricated by Ms Geimer herself in various degrees on various stages right after Polanski had left them, in order to make her the completely innocent party in this. Or rather to nail Polanski for something he hadn’t in fact done – just because he had slept with an underaged teenager, which by all means is unlawful – and then turned it into a nasty rape case. Of course she never ever said anything as to the incident outside Gunson’s office – and that Rittenband disregarded such important report to throw out the case right there. Ms Geimer in fact never said say that she feared Polanski would harm her, or had, and she never even said he ‘raped’ her. All the said she was being ‘afraid’ of him at NO proof or logical reasoning to that end in any form, and she never said he threatened her in any form. On the contrary, the later the years the more she said the very opposite. And that since before the ‘settlement’ mind you.

Her also rather vague account as to the oral sex and very blasé description of the double sodomy, read more like a kid’s attempt at trying to be clever, utterly ignorant as to how [anal] sex works. Or of course was coached by a cop (who had no clues either) to say that he had anally raped her, like cops love to do when it comes to sex cases – despite NO such findings – and she went along with it for reasons unknown, with or without her mother’s knowledge or input. The fact that Polanski drove her home and that they all looked at the pictures he had taken of her previously, and the fact she could have sought help from Huston even afterwards (had she not interrupted them) but did not, (and according to Huston’s original statement she gave still at Nicholson’s house of course hadn’t seen them in any bedroom or ‘going at it’) makes Ms Geimer’s original claims of unfounded ‘fear’, ‘continued reluctance’ (no one had ‘noticed’ either) null and void. She never said he used any kind of verbal or physical ‘force’ to ‘make’ her do things, or in regards to any ‘pain’ it would have caused her, had he really done what she had stated. He never was prosecuted for drugged rape or sodomy due to lack of corroboration, and they never was a count for the alcohol plying to start with.

Everything Polanski had said in his defence since then is simply ignored, of no importance, let alone his past, his losses, and his entire life and achievements are simply brushed aside. He said often enough he was sorry for the entire debacle once he had gone back to Europe, and now he is long past his sexual exploits ever since he had settled down again decades ago, has a new devoted family, and it certainly wasn’t him who had lied to the courts to wriggle out of it again, unlike the Gaileys. In fact saying, “The girl admitted in front of a tribunal that she’s had already sexual intercourse before with other people before meeting me, though the tribunal wasn’t concerned about these other men. When Mr Smith or Mrs Brown sleeps with fourteen year old adolescents who look like eighteen, it doesn’t interest anyone. But when a famous film director does, the law and the press sound the alarm. It seems that I was the only one who found himself before a judge.” Exactly – and only because his name was ‘Polanski’ after a bit-part mother had hastily cried rape on her ‘acting’ daughter’s behalf. The US courts and lawmakers are nothing but pathetic ass kissers to these anti-sex laws enabling them to do so in the first place, and theirs are of the same interchangeable standard formulas of misandruous litanies than these women’s and girls’ ‘little white lies’ destroying men with sex.

Polanski is well-known for treating everyone like adults, no matter their actual age and holds women equal to men, hence his rapport with younger women too and great success in sexual matters. He once said in 1971, “Let’s say I meet a girl, and she tries to give me the impression that she desires to go to bed with me that same evening, although I can sense that it’s not her intention. That’s what I call ‘games’, and it lasts for about ten minutes. Then I simply lose interest. I don’t mind if she doesn’t want to have sexual relations with me, as long as she states it clearly by her behaviour.” Meaning, he would never force sex like any sensible man wouldn’t, especially if she really said ‘no’. So in that sense, Ms Geimer certainly never made it clear through her ‘behaviour’, since she clearly never removed herself from his company at any given stage perfectly able to do so, really told him off, or even once half-heatedly showed ‘some resistance’ after that first kiss or caress. THAT had been a clear ‘sign’. Had she really said ‘no’, he’d let her be just the same. But she went with him, moved through the house and then had sex with him, and there never was any need to force himself on anyone with the next female waiting to share more sex with him never short of offers. ‘Games’ is what they had played with him ever since.

A lot of people keep howling for Polanski’s blood now that he’s free again to do what he did before, know absolutely nothing about the man beyond the sensationalised case, or indeed the facts concerning. Which is to say, these self-absorbed people not only possess a gleefully arrogant ignorance of who Polanski was or is, they don’t even know about the details they’re supposedly so outraged over in the first place. Sometimes not even the very basics. All they know and repeat are the words ‘rape’ and ‘sodomy’ in their blinding lack of knowledge. People still comment that he never went to prison and that he is a serial child molester. He wasn’t prosecuted for ‘child molestation’, there never was a count for ‘child molestation’, and, how exactly does being in two different prisons at different times equate to, ‘he never went to prison’? Gunson stated even in that Zenovich documentary the time Polanski spent in Chino already WAS his entire ‘sentence’. They are so desperate to make him this ‘child rapist’ or ‘child molester’ not only ‘once’, but also in regards to classy Kinski and of course sexual predator and ex-prostitute Lewis, who both were of age mind you, when Kinski had never ever said anything to the effect of what Lewis had lied about, or Geimer had invented. Or was forced to.

One thing I love reading is, ‘Polanski is obviously no longer a threat to anyone’ – ‘no longer’? Has he EVER been ‘any threat’ to ‘anyone’? NO one ever said he WAS or IS, or NO ONE WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH HIM. In fact, why would he be a ‘threat’ ‘now’ suddenly when he had like three decades to rape himself through the international populace? His last two film projects prior to The Ghos Writer involved hundreds and hundreds of people with plenty teenagers and kids in his grand scale feature The Pianist, and even cast his own in Oliver Twist five years back, people are oh so bent on being his ‘victims’ amongst many others of course. Funny how much time he has for that when he spends most of it on film sets and with his family, and that no one ever said anything untoward such clearly deluded accusations. With people still not waking up, now saying in their usual braindead name-calling rhetoric, ‘congratulations Mr Polanski for bribing more people and walking free. You are despised by many and you will never be forgiven, you should be rotting in jail’, one can only wonder if their IQ in fact exists at all to think he could bribe himself out of this. NOT EVERYONE IS AS CORRUPT AS YOUR AMERICAN OFFICIALS and many more in fact do NOT share your idiotic sentiments.

Others say Polanski’s lawyers – and his money – have influenced Ms Geimer’s approach to the case. Saying, ‘as for his victim’s statements in support of Polanski, I’ll consider those when I see the terms of the payoff agreement. Until then, anything she says has to be assumed to be tainted and suspect’, that in fact hits he right spot – except, it was no ‘payoff’ and they shouldn’t question her words of ‘today’, but those she uttered as a teenager thirty odd years ago they keep taking as facts long discredited by more intelligent people. So they think he bribed not only officials like Widmer-Schlumpf, but Ms Geimer too? Maybe to switch on their brains would be better and stop taking her words as a teen as indisputable fact, but her words today as an adult as the more correct. Of course they would believe a real ‘victim’ can be bought in this case, while otherwise they’d feign indignity. I guarantee you that in each of these ever more unintelligent comments you’ll find the ‘anal fixation’ rhetoric, i.e., ‘he anally raped her’, before that it was, ‘he sodomised her’. These anally retentive and clearly sodomy obsessed people should listen to their own ridiculous diatribe sometimes. Or try anal sex to get a real taste of it.

If Polanski were one of their own, they in fact would say the exact same things as his defenders, to let him finally be and to respect Ms Geimer’s wishes to that effect, that he never did anything like this again or we’d heard of it, that it was such a long time ago, that he has paid for it and suffered enough. These pathetic ignorami also keep saying that he’s ‘Hollywood’, and that’s why Hollywood defends him, when in fact he only made two films there and the last in 1973 to be released in 1974 – Chinatown – all others were made in Europe. Polanski didn’t and doesn’t ‘need’ Hollywood at all, since the entire studio system goes against his way of directing, with much better suited producers who make ‘films’, not feed the shallow ‘star system’ and box office money machine. Besides, where was this bigoted indignation when The Pianist was attracting critical praise and huge audiences worldwide, when he received his Oscar from Harrison Ford, even though his fugitive status and the reasons for it were widely known and reported on? It’s called hypocrisy. Ms Geimer never did nor wants him locked up, the public has no right to demand otherwise, and to do so now would be cruel and vengeful.

NO ONE in Hollywood except him was locked up for sleeping with an underaged teenager at that time by Dalton’s own admission, (or in fact ever since) hence the plea bargain to send him packing. Since this clearly never happened for Rittenband’s unacceptable string of misconducts, Polanski has certainly proven a very enduring and ever-convenient target for press attacks and public moral outrage in the past decades, mostly of the braindead media junkie variety and know-nothings who believe anything they read not even half his age. Fact remains, Polanski was railroaded by the corrupt law like no one else before, simply for who he was – or is – and these real criminals sitting in the Santa Monica courthouse get away with literal murder. Except in Polanski’s case, the ‘little Polish mouse’ has escaped their ugly fat cat attorneys a second time now, which is of course a national tragedy to all excessively interested and self-obsessed Americans hating on Switzerland too now – maybe to get a life would be more productive and intelligent. Find some of your currently thirteen year old girls who need their real rapists locked up.

Cooley has committed enough perjury and crimes during his ten years in office these idiots couldn’t care less about. He’s got a class-action suit on his hands since nearly a year, his own disgruntled colleagues want him gone, and he repeatedly ignored the Appeals Court’s demands to tackle the misconducts in this case. Instead of doing so, he rather declared that Polanski would receive ‘two years’ – when that’s not possible by law at retroactive sentencing policies not allowing today’s laws being applied to an old case – and the minimum then was in fact one year [on probation] for unlawful sexual intercourse which applies still today. He also kept giving us the impression that he wanted to ‘prosecute’ him, when Polanski was properly processed already and had pleaded. The extradition request only allowed for ‘sentencing’, not holding a trial to try him on all counts, since his plea was accepted and never revoked to allow for a trial in the first place. As long as a plea stands, a defendant can only be held accountable on that one count. Since the extradition papers also failed to include anything in regards to his ‘flight’, no such count can be included after the fact in the ‘sentence’ either.

Cooley suppressed Polanski’s own defence account in the papers, all vital [medical] evidence, and Polanski’s witness statements, which is also unlawful. He messed up big time from start to finish by falsifying these records, then gives us this famewhoring Lewis and Allred team spewing more ugly lies and accusations to influence the extradition, after he had engaged in unlawful ex parte communications like Rittenband already, publicly ridiculing Ms Geimer’s attempts to have the case dropped. He’s clearly demented to pursue Polanski that relentlessly, just like Americans think everyone else is as corrupt as their officials are. Even people who believe Polanski is a rapist and/or paedophile but want it done and over with, (never even getting the idea that there is no such thing as a onetime rapist), can see this is nothing but vengeance and wasting taxpayers money, while they should concentrate on their own current criminals. California is basically bankrupt and crime ridden like no other US state, and yet they keep on spending more money on these high-profile ‘celebrity’ cases, just so to feed the bored public some more sordid sex stories. Nice going Cooley – I hope you won’t make it to Attorney General. Oh yeah, and ditch the ‘child sex case/rapist’ rhetoric, it’s getting boring now.

Now, after Poland being quick about it, Widmer-Schlumpf too has stated for the public record that Polanski had not only served his time for his oh so heinous offence, i.e., sex with a minor, pinning no moral ‘guilty or not guilty’ label on it, they also denied the US from issuing any further extradition warrants for him. Other countries not bothering with that at any rate, in contrast to what people erroneously believe the Swiss did not ‘bow’ to ‘pressure’ from the ‘wealthy’, (Polanski is NOT ‘wealthy’ at all or has any clout to influence a legal process) ‘famous’ (that he is no doubt) and ‘influential’ (like the French President, who however only kept in contact with his counterpart who both had no hands in the proceedings), were bribed or promised anything to let Polanski go as many say, attacking the Swiss now. No, they were the only sane voices of reason in this entire madness so far who kept by the rule book of law. Had Rittenband done the same, no matter what he thought about Polanski’s conduct or his sexual exploits, (though he in fact did the same no one seems to care about), it means absolutely nothing in terms of applying the law and what Rittenband did was clearly against the law he was supposed to uphold. No, he like all the others thought they’re ABOVE the law, (while of course accusing Polanski to think the same) can abuse it and misuse it willy-nilly. Media whore Rittenband before scumbag Cooley and just as useless judge Espinoza feel that they don’t need to follow the law in any direction but their own. And the best is, they think we never noticed.

Sometimes I really wonder if people in fact HAVE a brain. Why do I keep reading, he ‘escaped’ ‘child sex charges’, or a ‘trial’? Before it was, Polanski fled before being ‘sentenced’, now it is, before being ‘charged’ with [whatever]’. Hello? HELLO? He WAS ‘charged’ the moment he was arrested in 1977 and then indicted on six counts. He didn’t ‘escape’ anything, and after five months and Polanski was allowed to fly to Europe to complete his movie, he pleaded to the one count the family demanded. People keep believing, because Ms Geimer never testified against him in a trial, they wanted to ‘spare’ her. NO, the defence would have unravelled her fabrications in nil time, and if it HAD been rape, they would have him PLEAD to rape even if she had not stood trial and the mother surely had demanded so, NOT let him plead to ‘only’ unlawful sexual intercourse. How dumb are people to think that. But the mother did not ask for that, though a real rape victim’s parent would most certainly press for that and incarceration, and guess why not? Because the very EVIDENCE did not comport with anything she had stated in her testimony, and since years now tried to ‘make it all go away’, that, by Ms Geimer’s own admission either way.

They always put it as if Polanski was ‘allowed’ to plead to that one count, obviously in no real clue how a plea bargain works. NO, he was forced into it on several levels, i.e., to save [him] costs, to cut it short, to spare Ms Geimer from humiliation, her mother/family from perjury, and most of all because the mother demanded it. Meaning, they all got away with it, the fame-hungry mother who used her daughter and then betrayed Polanski, the drug-addicted twenty-year old sister who backed up her lies, the permissive and two-timing boyfriend of the even more permissive mother letting her drink, take drugs and have sex, Ms Geimer’s own boyfriend who was never done for statutory rape, apart from her lawyer father who told her not to stand trial knowing fair well she ‘always acted’ and would be found out. And of course, slimeballs Vannatter, Wells and racist Rittenband got away with criminal conduct. No wonder after ten months and pointless incarceration Polanski ‘fled’, not because as people now say, ‘the judge concerned with his case was ‘disturbed’ when confronted with the photographic ‘evidence’ that proved Polanski’s continued interest in young girls’, (i.e., that cropped Oktoberfest photo, not any ‘evidence’) where he was photographed with another underage lover, Nastassja Kinski, who was fifteen, although this one was presumably consensual,’ etc. pp bullshit.

People are really pushing it now. First of all, Kinski was NOT in that photo Wells had Rittenband compelled with, she WAS of age since In Germany the age of consent was always fourteen, and it most certainly was consensual. Her mother knew Polanski, that they were lovers and was perfectly happy with him furthering her career professionally. No, he ‘fled’ when the self-important judge wanted to send him back for another round of punishment and threatened to deport him no one wanted and was strictly unlawful. And why do people keep saying that ‘he is on the run’? He ‘lives’ in France since more than three decades now, he’s not ‘running’ from anyone, or even hiding, unlike most had expected he’d do now rather than attend some jazz festival, just because he cannot go anywhere near the US. They also keep saying in a self-deluding refrain of sheer wishing-well that the ‘facts’ of the case are ‘incontrovertible’, and that Ms Geimer’s testimony is not under dispute. Sorry to disappoint you all, they’re NOT ‘facts’ by legal standards and is the ONLY controvertible and disputed part of this entire case; her testimony that was never seriously impugned, let alone proven, or in fact was disproved already or there had been no plea deal.

Read between the lines of her later interviews and actions, and you get the idea that she fabricated a classic ‘he said she said’ scenario of the more manipulative kind as a teenager the attorneys however did not fall for. Read on any site that says, ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ [with a minor, which is in fact self-explanatory to be ‘unlawful’], and you get the more objective/intelligent comments concentrating more on the messy legal side if this corrupted case, read on one that says, he drugged, raped, sodomised, with emphasis on ‘child’ of ‘thirteen’ bla bla bla, you get the braindead attack mode variety, and is nothing but pure projection of their own inner world exposed in their reflexive rhetoric that’s getting BORING now. All they ever do is trying to manipulate the gullible public even more by such ill-informed monotonous oratories. Of course, anything is ‘rape’ these days, especially in the sex-repressed US, though it technically is only forcible intercourse by law, and if a sex partner is a minor, it is ‘rape’ by default, even if s/he in fact consented to the sex.

So much for equality between the genders, since only the male gets slung in prison for it. And if not, they make dumb daytime TV shows chronicling the pregnancies of their teenaged partners, and NO one gets sent to prison for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. There are millions of underaged teenage girl having sex with boys and older men right now, always had and always will. The US needs to lower the age at which a person has the lawful right to consent to sex. It foremost would save the states a lot of money and leave the courts and prisons to deal with real crimes and avoid sending innocent men into hell. But no, they either glorify how teenagers can get impregnated in the US and make dough from it, or it gets demonised in their typical bigoted hypocrisy that’s so sleazy and immature. Redefining laws, punishments and descriptions of sex acts, making anyone under eighteen a freaking ‘child’ now, they’ve successfully regressed all minors to the state of an unconscious foetus. These people are so desperate to infantilise girls, render them lesser capable creatures than they really are, disempowering them to the extreme. So much for the sexual revolution, hallelujah! When it comes to rape, we empower women by insisting they are powerless; we make them strong by insisting they are weak; we celebrate their free moral agency by insisting they are incapable of resisting male seduction or consent to sex.

Crying ‘I’m soooooo shocked at the thought of sexual abuse of children!’ are, in fact, completely unconcerned about any ‘sexual abuse’ of any ‘children’ or are, indeed, only interested in their little venom shots fired into all directions to hit some celebrity. And, why do people stoop so low to condemn someone famous that easily without the slightest proof? Because THEY have made him ‘famous’, he IS famous, since fifty years in fact, and ‘controversial’. But, as much as people love building someone up, they love tearing their ‘celebrities’ down even more, revelling in whatever misfortune befalls them, to make them feel better about themselves in clear delusion not even having the full facts to begin with. It’s tempting to ask what’s ‘wrong’ with these people, but more accurate is to ask what’s even more ‘wrong’ with these blind detractors. Are they really that bored that they need to hack away on their keyboards to spew obscenities, insults and plain dumb tirades? Or do they simply need a break from their shallow little lives and take pleasure in people’s misery who cannot defend themselves? Salacious tabloid culture has never been more popular, more prevalent, and more irrelevant to reality. Once it was harmless escapism, now the ugly turns it has taken are no doubt the beginning of a very nasty trend supported by dangerous cyber lynch mobs.

Returning to Widmer-Schlumpf, I believe the ‘coward letter’ (addressed by ‘her’ to ‘someone’), demanding Polanski be brought back to a secure facility before he would be extradited, so he could not ‘escape’ before his ‘day in court’ arrived, was nothing but a fraudulent piece of disgusting slander using her name, published by some US site to inflame the hate-filled public some more. I will leave it to demonstrate that people will not shy from fabricating more lies by even using officials, after her very wise decision to refuse the US their ‘little Polish mouse’ to torture it some more. (I will however leave my remarks over her denial that they had sold Polanski out over this UBS business, which obviously failed.) People who resort to that kind of subversive hate propaganda have been lobotomised, they live a robotised and completely routinised sex media infused, fictitious, hateful life, and all they do is keep repeating the sordid indictment counts with absurd obsession just picturing it all in their diseased minds, getting off on them with pornographic relish with which Polanski’s excessively interested critics are retelling the lurid details. Someone more intelligent said, no no no, I’m fed up with this garbage talk, I know he’s a very pleasant, intelligent and cultured man, an amazing director, he would never drug and rape a young girl, (mirroring Huston’s own words), and hit it right on the head of truth.

People have the desperate tendency to give Polanski more clout than he really has, as in, being able to bribe everything and everyone, and mostly of course, ‘all his other victims’. Funny how they never emerged while he was a fugitive, or under house arrest specifically. Given that he is such a high-profile person, known to be ‘wanted’ in the US, I can’t give any credence to rumours that aren’t backed by actual charges, let alone a conviction. Polanski was a sitting duck for any incontestable or fabricated accusation, especially when it concerns ‘sex crimes’. So, if there was anything substantiated, we’d have heard of it ever since he was a ‘fugitive’. Besides, the Swiss and France allowed him to reside in their countries for decades, Germany, Poland, Russia and others where else he made films. and he lived in Italy for four years, AND NO ONE ELSE EVER CAME FORWARD TO CRY RAPE. Ergo, NO rape ever occurred, let alone the one Ms Geimer had successfully made millions believe only to say later ‘he had sex with me’. Indeed. Were he such a serious ‘danger to society’, he would have messed up again as criminals always do and surely be caught at one point, even after being ‘deterred’ by prison, and rapists always escalate their attacks. Since he hasn’t ‘attacked’ anyone, no matter he had sexual relations (like millions had/have it) with a couple of teenagers who were all of age, mind you, they obviously have no interest in playing ‘rape victim’, just because others need to vilify him. He had many older lady friends he slept with too, thereby also capping the repetitive nonsense that he’s a paedophile.

Guess he had better things to do than serial rape and abuse ‘children’, like make films and direct stage plays with hundreds of adults, teenagers and ‘children’ and raise a new family with ‘children’. Anyone could have blackmailed him by saying he had molested them. Did even ONE come forward to say he had? Nope. Outside liar Lewis, of course, who sank without a trace and rightly so. Now they have a new ‘theory’ as to why Polanski could ‘escape’ ‘justice’– by saying, that he has reaches into the very upper tier of the Obama Administration mind you, and that he was helped by the US government of all things in his bid to avoid being handed back to LA. They say, ‘rumours’ are floating that the US Department of Justice, i.e., Eric Holder, was instructed by Obama  to withhold the evidence, i.e., Gunson’s testimony, thereby ‘forcing’ the Swiss into releasing Polanski. After Obama didn’t even bother to read Polanski’s alleged request of ‘pardon’, I doubt he’d get involved with the DOJ to free an old foreign director. They say, such a possibility deepens with the presence of lawyer Reid Weingarten in Polanski’s legal team, who is known to be Holder’s ‘closest friend’, and that the DOJ was lobbied to help Polanski avoid extradition. We know the DOJ refused to give Swiss authorities the transcripts, according to a letter from Swiss officials to the US Embassy. The DOJ said that the DA’s office approved the DOJ’s rejection of the Swiss request.

That said, Cooley’s claim that they never heard of the Swiss’ request to send them the documents is therefore null and void. However, a DA spokesperson said that the LA office was not specifically notified of the [Swiss] request and had no idea that the DOJ had turned down the request. Funny, since we ALL knew about that, and Widmer-Schlumpf even said so in press interviews on both occasions. First they said they’re not interested stupidly trusting the LA court having submitted all facts of the case, then they however were pointed to that not being true when Polanski went public to say he had done his time, then Lewis appeared to influence the Swiss authorities by blatantly pointing them to take her accusations ‘into account’ in an old case which is unlawful, and THEN the Swiss asked for Gunson’s testimony to make sure. But, because Espinoza refused to unseal the testimony, Cooley then refused to release it, and the DOJ in turn refused to send it, therefore the Swiss refused to send Polanski back into their corrupt hands. Besides, why did it take Weingarten or Holder like half a year to free him, if they had an interest in doing so, had such ‘powers’? Because it had nothing to do with them outside the US-Swiss extradition treaty provisions the LA courts clearly violated and Widmer-Schlumpf decided to release Polanski after they refused to release vital proof be made available to them. Simple.

Can we trust the ‘Americans’ (or others) to comprehend the complexities of judicial procedures, even those in Switzerland? Not according to what I read so far even by those who call themselves ‘lawyers’. The US press apparently is now explaining that the decision to release Polanski is creating an ‘inability’ to understand whether or not he had served his entire sentence in California, when suddenly learning that he risked a second sentence, and now a third to be precise, he decided to escape such arbitrary abuse of the law. Really? So why do they still say he skipped charges, prosecution, sentencing, prison and punishment? They say, contrary to what was said by Polanski’s legal team, the climate in California apparently did not lend itself to a lynching of the director, nothing that would foreshadow carnage or a truly biased opinion. Really? So what about the endless flow of VERY BIASED calls for his head on blogs, articles that headline his name with ‘rapist’ and/or ‘paedophile’, picket lines with people holding placards of: Polanski = ‘rapist’ and/or ‘paedophile’? Constantly repeating that he drugged, raped and sodomised ‘children’? They say, Polanski is a ‘vaguely known person’ who does not really raise controversy. Really? So what about all those calls to boycott his films by ordinary people and feminist radicals, that he should be raped and rot in jail? I read stuff like this every day since years now, and most originates in the US.

They say, his ‘enemies’, Cooley, Walgren and Espinoza don’t reflect the Hollywood cliché of Ayatollah justices thirsty for his blood. Human rights defence organisations and lawyers give them a rather glowing review. Really? ‘Human rights’? In LA courts? Not according to all those who were abused and went down on fabrications by crooked ‘lawyers’! Not to mention liars like Lewis! And what about Espinoza’s messing him about since years now and Walgren calling him a ‘child rapist’ to inflame the public even more? They say, Polanski would have left the hearing a free man, with a suspended sentence or one for the time he already served (in two prisons). Really? So what about Cooley demanding two years behind bars who is more crooked than anyone, wanting to apply today’s law retroactively, after falsifying records, which is BOTH unlawful? They say, in the US there are voices who salute Polanski’s liberation, and recognise the extraordinary judicial chaos that surrounded the case at the time. Really? Then explain why Cooley is forcing the ‘Californians’ to pay for continuation of this ‘chaotic’ case, demands ‘‘justice’ be done for a ‘raped thirteen year old’’ who doesn’t want to know and he couldn’t care less about in a case older than most of Polanski’s haters, rather than having sentenced him in absentia, concede that the 42 days at Chino was his entire sentence, and litigate the case to be finally closed? Cooley simply wants the exposure in a high-profile case which will make him AG.

They say, they events took place at a time when sex, drugs and underage sex was the norm (like today), and many US states and Canada made fourteen the age of consent and, at thirteen, the girl was admittedly no virgin, took drugs and had alcohol before. Really? Then explain all those in jail for ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor’ and California STILL having eighteen as age of consent? They say, today people naively assume that thirteen is an age of ‘innocence’ despite what we hear of most teenage girls, of underage pregnancies and their boyfriends being slung in prison for consensual sex. Really? Then explain why these ‘naïve people’ can’t wrap their heads around that fact, not ONCE thinking the ‘non-virgin’ girl had in fact lied to a Grand Jury, her mother too who had allowed all the sex, drugs and alcohol in the first place, the cops had blackmailed witnesses, both coached the ‘oh so innocent girl’ and highly biased DAs abused the law to ‘punish the little Pole’ NO ONE wanted? They say, if Polanski was tried under the attitudes of the time, he would have gotten off free at no one having spent a day in prison for unlawful sex, true – but did HE get free when the ‘attitudes’ were in fact alive ‘then’? NO! Rittenband made an ugly example of HIM, sent HIM down on threat of self-deportation and Walgren/Cooley TODAY want to try HIM on all counts, AGAIN! America has become so unyielding, so repressed and so damaging in sex cases that the rest of the world wisely says, enough is ENOUGH!

Many rightly say, Polanski is not a paedophile, that others have misrepresented Polanski’s former open penchant for younger females who were so mature and precocious they could pass for adults, true, true. Most have no perception what a true paedophile is or does, and Polanski most certainly was not interested in prepubescent ‘children’ as these people are, but have to call him that in their stupidity. Let them, let them revel in their glorious ignorance. Now he happens to be married to another gorgeous actress for many years keeping him young in turn many are plain jealous of, his plenty former gorgeous conquests. He had one thoughtless moment of falling for a nubile teen who was pushed into his lap to further her career, legally unable to consent, and he admitted his guilt. But only because the girl’s mother cried rape. Had she not, nothing had come of it, except both had been looking at a lucrative future career in the film industry, not decades of demonisation for the man. When you watch them both at the premiere of Zenovich’s documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’, they pose like professionals and bathe in the limelight, clearly enjoying it. Not quite the vision of ‘victims’, let a lone ‘survivors’, No, skilful poseurs and liars. We weep at the sorry tale of American justice they both had enabled to make a mockery of, including an equally media-loving judge who broke his word. If Polanski returned, given his past experience with judges, DA’s and the US law, no one can blame him for staying in more moderate Europe.

Even the language employed to discuss this case has changed. Any sex case. Any descriptions of sex acts, just so to make them sound so much more sordid and punishable. Despite the fact that the same office he now heads agreed to a plea of a charge of having underage sex, Cooley now describes the case as one where, ‘Mr Polanski was convicted of serious ‘child sex charges’’. Really, ‘Mr Cooley’ eager to become AG on the back of Polanski? That does not appear to have been the view of your office in 1977. The DA’s office agreed to a plea deal then that had resulted in a short probationary sentence for what Cooley now calls a ‘serious child sex’ offence, just so whip people into more blind frenzy. The facts of the case haven’t changed; there was no drugged rape or sodomy. But moralistic attitudes of today, legal and media languages and the politics of crime have escalated quite drastically when a ‘sexual offence’ is involved. As we know, the agreement between Rittenband, Gunson and Dalton was that Polanski was only going to prison for that 90-day diagnostic observation period. In that era where no one was incarcerated for unlawful sex, the 90-day diagnostic was used by judges, acceded to by prosecution and defence, to give a defendant a two-to-three-month ‘taste of steel’, in the criminal justice argot of the day. Basically punish them for something under the guise of ‘studies’, since all criminal justice lawyers and judges knew that a more important reason for such a sentencing step was to convey to the ‘public’, that a prison sentence ‘might’ be imposed, though never was.

The public view was usually that in 90 days, or earlier, upon returning to court, the defendant’s ‘real’ sentence would be a short county jail sentence with credit for the time served in custody during the diagnostic observation period. Polanski’s lawyer had the resources to propose a ‘local diagnostic’ carried out by psychologists and experts in LA while he remained free. That step could have been taken in lieu of shunting him off to prison, if there was really any need was for diagnostic, psychological review to justify (i.e. furnish ‘expert’ cover for) not punishing Polanski as a potentially recidivist sex offender. But it wasn’t, he was found no MDSO and no threat to society, just a depressed man who loved sex to compensate. Unsurprisingly no new information or insight was gained after they had their positive reports already, none more materialised during the prison observation period, and there was no need for another ‘study’. The ‘real need’ was for it to appear to the ‘public’ that the judge and the DA were dealing sternly with Polanski. I.e., made an ‘example’ of him. Polanski’s counsel told him, and he had every right to believe, that the 90-day diagnostic was most certainly for appearances’ sake and he would receive credit for the time it took, combined with a sentence of probation after the diagnostic period in prison custody ended as it was routine then.

Basically, play a game at the defendant’s expenses for the public, instead of just giving him probation right away as everyone else, and not let him dangle for over eight months and then sling him prison for weeks for public fun. If that was not the expectation of Polanski and his attorney, there was little reason for him to have agreed to the guilty plea to unlawful sexual intercourse he entered, and upon his release was free to go, his entire sentence. Had Rittenband stuck to these rules, today no one would have any ideas about what happened three decades ago in the Santa Monica courthouse. The need for justice to be administered equally and transparently has not changed with the times, it was only more abused and became more unjust with many more innocent men in prison for sex. In 1977, or now, the behaviour and contradictory statements of many of the public officials involved in the adjudication of Polanski’s case, created questions upon which the public and the media are fixated with gushing zeal, getting off when they can call him names and demand cruel punishment/s beyond all reason. Prosecutors and judges in the courts of LA County may take some heed from the decision not to extradite Polanski. Switzerland has given those officials room to let them realise, overzealous persecution of an old case with an old man who had evidently never slept with another underaged girl, branded by his experiences, is unacceptable.

With ugly and persistent voices like Cooley’s howling for Polanski’s blood in another show of prurient fanaticism, it’ll never end. They care nothing about ‘justice’, or any of these feminists and detractors. To them and so many ignorami he is just a name, a branded man, who, unlike most, could recover himself eventually, driven by his lust for life and directing, create more films against all odds, rebuild his life a third time now, has a loving new wife who stands by him, a devoted new family that needs him. To these inhuman witch hunters however, he’s just another expendable victim of the feminist anti-sex crusade. They have no clear concept of the man, the human behind his public artist’s façade. They’re envious of his former success with women and his progressive profession despite all odds, and take perverse pleasure in dehumanising him on every level, where not even his past counts, his own suffering and losses, sometimes not even his great cinematic achievements, his willpower to survive, forged by repetitively inflicted pain, finally forced into the social stigma of rapist, and/or paedophile no matter who he is. These sanctimonious lynchers don’t see a human being who deserves understanding and support like any innocent man, like they would want such rights bestowed upon them. They keep debating someone they have no facts about beyond media lies or his diverse films, which of course can be, and were, turned against him too.

They did so in a show of vile vilification right after Tate’s murder, trying to equate the dark subject matters of his movies with the person who is telling and directing the stories in a realistic and outstanding way. They relished making the victims being responsible for their own murders, him the instrument of their demise, fabricating outrageous accusations of satanic orgies and whatnot bullshit that caused their brutal end. But, who would be intelligent enough to realise this correlation between a versatile storyteller and his stories is certainly not being an indication of the storyteller’s own character, or life. Of course, it is easier to confuse Polanski’s films and his wife’s brutal murder with the skilled raconteur Polanski, and the real events in his life he did not orchestrate like his films. They make Polanski out to be a little imp for having had sex with an underage girl, and the devil’s attributes were assigned to Polanski throughout his life long before that, transform/ed him into a fiend himself, the sexual predator, the rapist and paedophile. No, he’s reduced to a means of vicious media hounds and pathetic bigots legally and repeatedly destroying him through their lies and power, just an old director who dare slept with a minor three decades ago like countless others had, who must pay his debt to ‘society’ despite the ‘victim’ not even demanding so, that same cruel ‘society’ that had condemned him mercilessly to begin with, where only the faces of his new accusers have changed that enabled his accuser/s to cry rape in the first place.

The most outrageous bullshit I’ve ever read concerning the old case posted in some US newspaper shortly after Polanski’s rearrest, was: ‘Polanski will have unfettered access to the children of other countries, once released on bail, (forgetting that he was put under house arrest.) These countries may reap what they have sown, but I cannot believe that the innocent children of those countries deserve to be served up as prey to that evil monster named Roman Polanski’. Typical religion-style delusion on a grand scale, like he’s raping himself though a few million kids globally – since I was thinking, he actually visited other countries ever since then who didn’t bother with any extradition and in fact made films with plenty of teenagers and plenty more children (Oliver Twist), met his friends’ and colleagues’ kids of varying ages, and oddly enough NONE of them ever said what an ‘evil monster’ he is. Not even Ms Geimer. I wonder why. Another lunacy I read about in the same paper, was, ‘he forced anal, vaginal, and oral sex on the child for four hours’. No one ever came up with any ‘ordeal time’ estimate, officially or otherwise. No man lasts ‘four hours’, and even Tantric sex doesn’t take that long, let alone casual sex.

Besides, after ‘four hours’ any effects of the champagne or bit of Quaalude had long worn off, and most of all, Polanski would be exhausted like hell, let alone her, unable to keep it up, and the next thing that in fact would happen is very visible ‘soreness’, i.e., all stop and drop. I give him half an hour tops for the kissing, caressing and vaginal intercourse he admitted to. And, according to the logical course of events from 4 PM onwards after he had picked her up and they left her home to take photos at Jacqueline Bisset’s house first, which took an hour, to ‘four hours’ later after he had returned Ms Geimer from Nicholson’s home, including the actual half-hour trips to get there and back before he had called her mother to say she’d be late for their 7 PM dinner, that half hour is the most they had time for the sex. My time estimates are in fact documented, while the writer saying her ‘ordeal’ lasted the entire four hours time is delusional fanaticism, or to repeat, ‘child’, living in a dark world of seedy rape and sodomy where they spin their semen-soaked web of sleazy lies, just like Lewis had. The girl would look a piece of pulp, roughed up and weeping, not get dressed and tip-toe through the lounge to get her kit while Huston is on the phone to be introduced to her after the sex.

I took Quaalude often enough myself to get the sexual buzz, and I also had it with alcohol, and even strong painkillers, so I positively know that what Ms Geimer stated the tiny part of the Quaalude and some glass of champagne or even two did to her, i.e., ‘affected her motor functions’, or made her ‘dizzy’, is simply a blatant lie, just so to render her[self] the ‘helpless little female victim’ she never was. People keep saying that Quaalude was illegal and a hypnotic – are they deliberately being stupid, or just intentionally manipulative? Quaalude was the sixth best-selling recreational drug and perfectly legal to buy then, and not a ‘sedative’, or rendered you unconscious either. A few might send you to sleep at one point, but so does Aspirin, and certainly not one, let alone a third she had claimed she took herself. They’re mild relaxants, like Prozac, make you euphoric. They’re not barbiturates or affect your thinking, and the lesser you take, the more they act as an aphrodisiac. They were very popular then and everyone took them to ‘lude out’, i.e., get laid. Ms Geimer’s version of events was completely discredited by Huston, who made no protestations about anything to her, while anyone who was just violated in some form even for only a few minutes, would cling to her, say Polanski  had raped her, not ‘hello’, and be grumpy to her because they had to leave, by Huston’s own admission.

It’s nothing but base media hype propaganda for the prosecutors to pursue the case this mercilessly, otherwise, why didn’t anybody bother him for over thirty years? No, the majority of corrupt prosecutors and highly paid judges who administer the US ‘justice’ farce, pursue people like him, have long proven themselves to be the worst criminals in the western world, far worse than the small percentage of people they put behind bars who are in fact guilty, while the majority is not. These elected criminals intentionally go after major artists and contributors to society, especially the ones who publicly exposed their misconducts. It’s no accident that the US has draconian anti-sex laws and sentences for the most minor offences and boasts the highest prison population in the world. The goal of these thugs in uniform with their guns, tasers, beatings, chokeholds and corrupt judges, prosecutors and ‘law and order’ politicians is to establish a slave state, manufacture criminals out of ordinary citizens by recycling them through multi-billion slave gulags for life. They also make very cheap workforces in prison – and I guarantee you, every single number plate in the US was made by an inmate – who might just have been brutally gang raped, or is innocent of any crime to begin with.

If people say, ‘regardless of the hardships Polanski has personally endured, regardless of whatever his skills as a filmmaker might be, regardless of his years of exile from America or the fact that he has financially compensated his victim, regardless of his feelings towards the handling of the trial, and, certainly, regardless of the fact that his ‘victim’ has forgiven him and wants to move on, he should be made to pay the legal price for his actions and should universally be recognised as the criminal he has admitted to being’, regardless of such US style bullshit litany, it again is the same delusional nonsense that he admitted to it, or to being a rapist, (since of course they know he never has said that but want him to have) they don’t even care about his past and losses, the plenty legal transgressions committed in this case, or any ‘victim’ either. What self-obsessed conceit. Both participants in this old drama are utterly ‘erased’, dehumanised in the name of such sanctimonious bullshit, not even accrediting the fact that he had led a law-abiding life in between, or in fact no one had made any films with him. I wonder what they’d say if some vindictive DAs and corrupt judges messed with them in the same manner. Apart from the lying media and computer lynch mob.

Another lovely ‘logic’ is to say, ‘she has repeatedly suggested that Polanski not be forced to serve jail time for his rape of her’ – um, yeah, like any real rape victim would actually say or demand that after a ‘rape’, though she said that he shouldn’t face prison, true, (since there was no rape) but never actually said he ‘raped her’, not once, and in fact only ever used the word ‘rape’ when saying, it wasn’t rape. No real rape victim would do so. Are these people stupid to think otherwise? Of course, because he never violated her in any form, only the public and law have. Many people cannot even get the basics of this old case right, but just have to shoot off their gobs to make it really sordid and nasty. And to top it all, someone said, ‘Polanski’s then longtime girlfriend Huston testified against him at the trial’. And there I was thinking she in fact was Nicholson’s lover and that there never was a trial she had to testify at, after she in fact stated the same course of events in support of Polanski – NOT Ms Geimer. Which is she same kind of garbage that the ‘rape’ happened during a ‘party’ at Nicholson’s house. All this comes from the same deluded US source, of course, in order to manipulate the dim-witted public some more.

The best lie I’ve heard so far in regards to the Oktoberfest photo that had ‘incensed’ the old judge so much that he demanded Polanski to return from Europe to sling him inside of Chino in a vindictive show of power abuse, is, that some German feminist radical seriously stated, Polanski was shown with another minor on his arm in the photo, while it in fact was cropped and none of the ‘girls’ on that photo were minors, with him, let alone arm in arm. These young women in their twenties were the partners of his friends who had invited him there to take a break from filming to stay in the money to pay his legal counsel, and if people never saw that in/famous photo, that it was deliberately doctored by that slimy Wells who gave Rittenband the idea to send the ‘little Polack’ to Chino in the first place, they’d simply believe it. It’s outrageous Nazi style propaganda no one seems to have any trouble with. The best fabrication so far was, apart from what sleazy ‘writer’ Kiernan came up with or lobotomised Reisman, which is really the epitome of contemptible defamation, that she seriously stated, ‘when he did not succeed to make the girl compliant, he raped her anyway, orally, vaginally and anally, and then kicked her out the door, where she climbed into a taxi, crying’. Another prurient idiot remark. Are these people deluded, or just stupid?

Polanski drove her home in a perfectly non-crying and unharmed state or Huston would have said otherwise, never orally, vaginally or anally raped her as per evidence. And, ‘taxi’? ‘TAXI’!? This only shows she like so many have absolute ZERO clues about the case, or simply LIE to confuse and inflame the public some more. Why aren’t these liars done for slander and hate speech? It’s really amazing what people have come up with so far, and Polanski’s been made guilty of all sorts of crimes he wasn’t even accused of officially. Anyone saying, ‘extradition was refused in order to respond to accusations of unlawful sexual conduct’, or ‘to stand trial for rape’, one of which sounds lesser obscene, have obviously no clues that we’re way past any ‘accusations’ and there cannot be any ‘trial for rape’ unless the plea is withdrawn, and the extradition was only meant to confirm his time as served for ‘unlawful sexual conduct’, not ‘rape’, NOTHING ELSE. Saying, ‘42 days is hardly a punishment befitting the severity of his crime’, yeah, ever wondered why exactly? Because it never was ‘drugged rape/sodomy’, ever thought of that? Sleeping with a teenager is hardly a ‘severe crime’ or brutalisation as some love to say. Others saying that there was no trial to ‘spare’ the girl, are just as oblivious to the fact that a trial would have found her guilty of perjury. And others.

And what is it with people thinking they own a celebrity, can trash them when they feel like it? It’s more than absurd that people feel emotionally invested in a celebrity’s private life suddenly and can just rant on and on not even having the full facts. Just because someone is a successful actor or director they get to judge their entire life? Or ignore it when it suits them in contrast if others point them to their past traumas, or even anything positive about them, their artistic achievements? These people never ever look/ed any deeper, they don’t look at all let alone at the overall picture, at BOTH sides. No, they just keep on bashing others like they’re the saints in contrast, with their little pet theories and pet hates in self-righteous self-obsession all based on the unverified words of the female when it comes to male celebrities, blindly believing their accusations just because it’s in line with today’s anti-sex ‘feminist morals’. One show in the US called ‘To Catch a Predator’, was renamed just for a special on Polanski, to, ‘To Catch a Predator Director’, which was nothing more than a cheap and nasty pseudo ‘investigation’, i.e., televised witch hunt to keep dehumanising him for public entertainment. How can anyone be considered a ‘predator’ for sleeping with ONE minor? Or for having casual sex like MILLIONS had, have, and will have? Let’s call Lewis a predator too then, who at least was a self-confessed teen prostitute with fourteen.

This kind of double standard rhetoric whips the dumb public into more blind frenzy through these highly biased and pretentious ‘discussions’ about the case they [still] have no clear idea about, debating his ‘evil deed’, while utterly stifling his own voice of defence, when it’s more important to investigate the breakdown of the law it had suffered on several levels since decades now, NOT the ‘sordid sex’. Do these people really believe, that one day, Polanski’s case made it to the top of the pile of extradition requests? Like it was especially important suddenly, when they had and still have plenty real and dangerous criminals on their own soil they need to deal with? The US live in the Dark Ages if they believe ‘they’ had ‘asked’ for Polanski one sunny day right when he was supposed to receive his lifetime achievement award on neutral territory, while the Swiss in fact sold him out for ‘money’ after all these decades they more than regretted later. The US had tried to ‘apprehend’ him a mere five times, while the countries they had asked didn’t resort to betraying him and he was allowed making films in open daylight, even received plenty of awards in the US where no one howled for his head. No, only after they thoroughly had demonised him in the press, culminating in his rearrest most people found an assault on Switzerland’s neutrality.

In contrast, Switzerland’s regained state sovereignty finally allowed the Swiss no obligation to send Polanski back to the States, to keep playing their subservient little banking haven, since he had served his punishment long ago. But, it seems the LAPD in 1977, i.e., bent cop Vannatter, and the DAs again in 2010, i.e., ‘Walgren’, are specialists in mis/using ‘cocaine drug addicts’ to nail Polanski to the wall regardless, i.e., Lewis today and Huston then (who’d been forced to testify against him to say the same in accordance with Vannatter’s little tricks of ‘leading’ Ms Geimer in regards to the sodomy, in exchange to drop cocaine charges against Huston). In doing so, the prosecutors and the world press kept forgetting about their self-induced drug addiction, the entire drugs business they profit from, and the courts’ systematic cover-ups of blackmailing witnesses to testify against innocent people, by using drug addicts like them to defame Polanski’s character/past some more, and in a smear campaign effort in hopes to influence his time served sentence, so that the Swiss would extradite him. This having failed spectacularly, let us blame crooked Cooley and his prosecutor minions’ practice ab/mis/use of drug addicts to defile Polanski to the world press, and this very unconvincing ‘witness’ for her pathetic weakness and disgusting betrayal.

Why they are still so hot on him is clear: after years of falsehood and lies thrown out into the public domain via the manipulative media already, they found the perfect target to vilify after he had ‘escaped’ them, twice now, still not knowing anything more about the details nowadays as then after he was released. Ms Geimer never thought the case would resurface in any form, let alone reopened, hence all her conflicting interviews given over the years, not ever believing her old testimony would make it into the public domain. But with the event of the Internet no one ever had anticipated to enable people to access anything that’s been thrown out there, in 2003 suddenly it was floated on the www in intention to boycott Polanski’s Oscar nomination foremost, he ultimately still won because the Academy Award members aren’t influenced by deliberate attempts of slander. No, all people know is what she had said ‘then’ she had hoped would just ‘go away’ – not to be found out she had told lies. I’m sure she never realised what terrible abuse he had to deal with, while she was living in her tropical oblivion on Hawaii. People like man-hater Allred, who keep blindly believing her old fantasies, or just pretend to, and Lewis’ prurient lies of course, are a disgrace to human understanding and fairness, revelling in their sickening stupidity, dismissive and shallow views, like petulant little children in need of a hard slap.

This case has been driven to destruction by an obscene kind of puritanical and obsessed voyeurism, with misplaced attitudes of celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic, who keep pointing to the irrelevant artist angle, with one side shouting, ‘he raped a child!’, and the other, ‘but he made films!’ both sending messages that are out of step with both modern perspectives of sexual crimes and jurisprudence, when the answer should be, ‘but he is innocent [of rape]!’. Don’t try to convince others by citing the ‘artist angle’ so many endeavour only to be ridiculed; his work has nothing to do with his life and cannot be used as a mirror or an ‘excuse’, except that film was and is his job he loves doing till he drops. To concentrate on his cinematic achievements other than see he had recovered himself through and by making his acclaimed works, unlike most people would in any form, working hard on them which clearly shows, is futile and will only backfire. They should not bring his films into the foreground when defending him; no, they should defend him as the human being, a man who did better than most will ever dream of despite all odds again and again, which also earned him a fair amount of envy and enemies. No, his work has to be accredited as reflection of his great skills and means to get by, make a living for himself and his family.

People love to see their own achievements accredited when others judge them, so should his be. But make it not the ‘reason’ as to why you defend him, just like his past must be taken into account since everyone else loves their own taken seriously, and so it should. To deny him his past, his suffering, his losses, his feelings. eliminates him as the man entirely, his whole life and achievements, or else NO one else’s has any meaning either. Some said after his release, ‘I feel for the many rape victims’, or, ‘survivors of sexual assault internationally may feel unsettled by the treatment of Roman Polanski’, highlighting it with the misplaced ‘child’ emphasis again. Polanski has nothing to do with any child rape victims let alone sexual assault survivors worldwide. Ms Geimer wasn’t a child either physically or mentally nor a victim. And then there are those who believe/d it was a one-off ‘rape’, and yet defend/ed him on grounds of no repeat offence and that it was so long ago – which in itself nullifies the first offence since rape is always a repeat offence. Though most of these factions see the legal mess the case is in, only those who think he’s a rapist and want him in prison, don’t care at all about the much more imperative misconducts, blindly ignoring the scandalous handling of it. Most people have no idea what Polanski said in his defence or at the time, in interviews over the decades, and WHAT he said will always be misconstrued, used against him. At the time he said, “I’m not guilty, so why should I act guilty”, with the classic refrains that he either doesn’t consider rape as a crime, or doesn’t realise it was rape, which is both incorrect since it never was rape.

Equally, hardly anyone ever noticed that what she in fact said over the years and in his defence, and if so, twist it in any case in multitudes of perverted ways just so to keep the illusion that Polanski did rape her. Most don’t even care what she wants, yet they keep on and on about the ‘victim’. Or they see her pleas to let him be as misguided or a bad example for other rape victims – too stupid to realise the real reason behind her campaign, since hardly anyone ever questioned what she said three decades ago. The fact that Polanski’s became spiritually immune to this kind of demented treatment, was steeled through history psychologically as he steeled himself physically, is part of history, made cinematic history, that he cannot be demoralised through changes in history, i.e., exploitative politics, feminism and his fanatical detractors, is stronger and more resilient than most for his history, only whips these jackals into an even bigger frenzy to destroy him. Only great men can be felled, can be made small, but with someone like him, unlike many other less resilient and talented men, prevailing time and time again, reality is, his demise must be ugly, bloody and ultimate through any il/legal means possible. Take away someone’s assets, he can recover them, take away someone’s reputation, he can never restore it even if proclaimed innocent.

It’s a long and concerted conspiracy by now, from the moment the mother had called on the corrupt law, she in fact once blasé-like described as ‘a stupid mistake’ in a rare interview some years back on Hawaii (with only a few decades of unbelievable repercussions for the man as a result, mind you), to the day Polanski fled Rittenband’s attempt to send him back inside against all counsel and even the mother’s wishes. Obviously; no one can be punished twice for the same offence, but in his case they can make another exemption. When the chips are down, ‘civilised’ people turn into ‘moral monsters’ with every keystroke and mouse click, delighting in their endless slandering others for sick/ening fun. Polanski has become the ultimate pariah because of destructive feminism having perverted laws that turned all sex dirty and punishable beyond all reason. He’s a symbol of martyr and monster alike. He is, at least in the eyes of many who don’t know better, a depraved persona non grata; a human predator hardly worthy of life itself, no matter he has no history of any other ‘crimes’ as the ‘man’, made brilliant movies as the ‘artist’, while to those who see beyond the manufactured and progressively inane and nasty lies, know him, he’s a sensitive and generous soul unable to violate others – since he’s seen so much violence and destruction in his life already, knows what it does to people.

As a ‘man’, even as the revered artist, he can be destroyed, ‘twice’, but as a ‘symbol’, that of purist, anti-sex law oppression he survived because he had ‘sex’ with a young female many find disturbing – while giving neighbour X a pass for doing the same – liked sex like millions of others, the martyr named Polanski however is invincible, just like his cinematic legacy is forever part of our history. Of course, no one ever questioned Ms Geimer’s account, no one ever asked for his side of the story, his defence – the actual truth. No one cares what he said, and when he in fact ever said anything in his own defence, it’s simply ignored, nullified, ridiculed and twisted. I see it every day on these sanctimonious blogs and articles run by pathetic, whining and condemning voices of mostly female radicals, and even if they’re official sites, they keep repeating the same old incorrect details. No one has any interest in any factual evidence to either corroborate or discredit either side, the readily available evidence that supports HIM, NOT her. By now they have made him collectively guilty, and therefore collectively condemned him without trial, all through collective thinking of our manipulated society rather than intellectual reasoning, doubting, demanding the truth.

Elected politicians, the manipulated prosecutors, or double-dealing attorneys and media-hungry judges alike, ‘fearful’ of being seen as ‘soft on crime’, force people like him mercilessly through the legal gauntlet without compunction, compassion, seeking any real justice, the facts, despite holding all the evidence of his innocence. These callous people play god, and say, if someone refuses to admit to his ‘crime’, he’s in ‘denial’. Yet, if a man like Polanski is opting to flee their unjust courts, remains unapologetic to today’s new lynch mob after more than three decades over his oh so heinous ‘crime’ of having sex with a minor (like many others who luckily also got away with) could it be a reflection of his innocence that he never admitted to what he had been accused of other than casual sex? I say that’s a big yes. Polanski’s public and legal destruction is another example that will forever be a footnote in [film] history books, any future biography others will pen about him in a more or less sympathetic way. It already is, and most simply repeat/ed the same inaccuracies, not really interested in him at all, only to make a few bucks with his name.

People keep rallying to jail an old man who was never condemned for rape or sodomy, never admitted to being guilty of them, never could be proven by any evidence that he is guilty of them. The court accepted his plea he cannot withdraw unless a judge allows for it, which never happens. A plea bargain does not say he’s guilty of all charges, a plea bargain says he’s innocent of the dropped charges, or they would have made him plead to the most serious of charges, i.e., drugged rape. They did not, guess why? Based on evidence and witness statements concerned Ms Geimer’s mere words were refuted outright and Polanski is NOT guilty of her allegations. It requires considerable brains and critical thought to get beyond the mob hysteria, and the comments on most sites are irresponsible tripe and hate speech. They keep hurling epithets like ‘child rape’ and ‘child rapist’, while the whole case happened during the wild Seventies in ‘Hollywood’, not your average LA suburb, where the culture was much more permissive of such behaviour and underage sex was generally not punished at all. But, someone made an ugly example of the little Polack to gain publicity. If anything like this would happen today, they’d be doing the same; run from a broken justice system. There were a number of such cases at the time and NO one was sent down.

They keep shouting and bemoaning that the Europeans do not accept ‘US values’, while we know too well, that USA only values changes that are backward and punish innocent men for sex. This case was bungled from the beginning, by corrupt US law enforcement agencies, self-interested lawmakers and the record of the case shows that the extradition request was seriously flawed, and that Polanski had already served the sentence. No Swiss minister could ignore these facts when considering a request to extradite Polanski. The very circumstances surrounding his arrest were heavily in his favour to start with; he was arrested upon arrival in Zürich, after he was invited by Swiss authorities to receive an award. This was to be a senior federal official who was to praise his work on behalf of Switzerland. Polanski’s confidence in Switzerland was undoubtedly betrayed by the zeal of another official who reported to US authorities the moment he arrived on Swiss soil. This, despite the fact that Polanski regularly stayed in Switzerland at a place he owns, and without anyone questioning it. How can we justify the way this fact never triggered Polanski’s arrest during his frequent trips to Gstaad? People forget that this is the officious USA ramming its anti-sex laws and morals down other nation’s throats, which is not acceptable.

As if we hadn’t enough reactionary stupidity being spewed about the case, now that the Swiss released Polanski they of course need to trash the entire country, call them child rape/rapist backers and whatnot – just like they call his supporters rape apologists or paedophile themselves without any scruples. When I think of Switzerland, I think magnificent Alpen, delicious cheese and chocolate and a judicial system that actually works. If they were assigned a European ‘poster’ of anything, what comes to my mind is banks and loads of money. That’s why we had this entire drama to start with, because they sold Polanski out for money, or at least tried to. Yet they accuse the entire Swiss populace of releasing him because of their delusional assessment they are a country associated with ‘sexuality’ or abuse of children suddenly. The French are a much better example of a European country associated with ‘sexuality’; healthy sexuality, not the repressed anti-sex laws pervaded and sex-perverted US mindset. But to think so would be intelligent, rather than go on a verbal rampage online and demand banning his films. If we’d ban all art, including music and literature, everything ‘artistic’ that was created by someone who was ‘immoral’ in some form to today’s ‘standards’, we’d had basically none and that reaching back centuries.

If you want to boycott his films be my guest, but you can only dismiss art based on its creator’s morality if you believe that art is different than a service, a commodity or luxury. If art were either, the personal immorality of its creator wouldn’t matter. And, think of all of the ‘services’ you use in a normal day’s commerce: fill up your gas tank, chat to your mailman, go to the supermarket, and then rent a movie. The gas and the food is part of a corrupt system: your money for gas probably went to fund some corrupt potentate somewhere most never even heard of who’s currently spilling toxic waste, bullying the populace, and generally making country X an inhospitable place; your cash for food is paying for the fattening of people while others lie starving in front of McDonalds, and the guy at the movie rental store could be a drug addict who buys from dealers running a prostitute ring, etc. etc. etc.. And that’s just the system: your cashier or your mailman might be a wife-beater or paedophile for all you know. Granted you aren’t inquiring particularly deeply, just like you don’t want to know the facts of this case, but what’s the excuse for prying into Polanski’s private life and trashing him anyway, not knowing the full facts of his life or the case? I daresay that there are thousands of men more qualified to be called a paedophile or rapist – except they’re not ‘famous artists’ – and you’re all hypocrites.

Imagine what it does to the soul, mind and body of a human being, old or young, to have to sit in a prison cell day after day for a crime you had not committed, or even paid for already but were railroaded into some more time by callous lawmakers. Sit in fear of attacks, or having to suffer attacks on a daily base, and nothing to look forward to at the end of a day but the knowledge of hundreds more days like the one you just endured, your life slipping away in misery. Put anything in life under an objective microscope – anything – and you can always find pertinent questions, always ‘reasonable doubts’, find more grey than black and white. Especially if you want to find them, unless you accept incomplete or fabricated information and jump to conclusions, let yourself be influenced by crippling emotions and biased feelings. People ignore simple theories or facts, based on basic evidence in favour of huge conspiracies and complex lies that could never be held together in real life. Or they focus on one piece of detail, i.e., the girl’s claims, without looking at the big picture, i.e., the man’s defence and actual evidence that had long proven him innocent of what she had accused him of, had distanced herself from. Technically Polanski is the only one who escaped that tyrannical system by taking his life into his own hands again, and that of course is the reason why they still want him back by all means, legal or otherwise.

The corrupt US legal system having mercilessly pursued men like him, its crooked lawmakers have long become robotic assassins clad in Gucci suits and black robes, creating unthinkable collateral damage in a war that is supposedly being waged in the public’s ‘best interest’. Yet, the Kafkaesque tempest that overtook Polanski three decades ago and once more last year, darkened not only his horizon yet again and pummelled the deceptive safety and illusionary harmony out of life, men like him used to took for granted after plenty struggles to own, weathered it. And, it had swept away all hope for fairness, leaving behind only the solemn, desperate need for peace and justice. Final closure, final release. We love to think that Justitia is blind, but no, she’s only blind when it suits pernicious prosecutors and media-obsessed judges, vindictive feminists and pathetic famewhores. We also pray that those who administer that justice are people of vision. Yet, when legal systems have become so twisted that the once sacred letter of the law strangles its very spirit with perverse relish, then even simplest justice cannot exist. It will die as surely as the dreams of a Holocaust survivor when the world caved in around him, twice. All over SEX.

After Polanski made his first public appearance as a free man on July 17th, when he attended the jazz festival in Switzerland to show his support for his singer wife, he was spotted on the streets of Paris on July 25th, when he accompanied Emmanuelle and their son Elvis to a restaurant. BUT, guess what, another ‘has-been’ has come forward to accuse Polanski of rape, and that even further back in time in 1974! She went to the same sleazy tabloid ‘RadarOnline’ site (of course!) where Lewis spread her lies, to tell us that she was twenty-one at the time (so not underage then), and that she reported the alleged sexual assault to the LA DA, i.e., slimebag Cooley & Co in May this year and was interviewed by authorities. Really? So, um, why do we hear of this [new lie] only ‘now’, right after he was released? The woman named Edith Michelle Vogelhut, a former ‘model’ also known as Shelli Paul, told authorities Polanski ‘handcuffed’ her at Jack Nicholson’s Hollywood house, then sodomised her repeatedly, (of course, it’s always the handy sodomy part at Jack’s house!) Doesn’t that sound just too conveniently similar to Ms Geimer’s accusation, who Polanski took for an official photoshoot at ‘Nicholson’s house’, THREE YEARS AFTER THIS NEW ALLEGATION? And why did she TOO conveniently never tell ANYONE either THEN or for decades after? BECAUSE IT’S JUST ANOTHER DISGUSTING AND DISTURBING LIE, that’s why. Do these people think we’re that dumb and gullible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s more, if they really were at Nicholson’s house, does she really want us to believe that he let Polanski have run of his own ‘bedroom’? I’m sure Huston would have objected to use it as his personal love nest all the time, and every mansion has at least one guest room. Polanski stayed at the ‘TV room’, so called because it had a big set, but beyond that only a sofa he slept on while in LA. Besides, if someone engages in this sort of ‘BDSM’ scenario in 1974, they usually repeat that or go deeper over the years. If one takes this case as the ‘first’ sodomy claim, and Ms Geimer’s as the second in 1977 – though medical evidence had discredited hers entirely and later said he was never mean to her – why would he suddenly ‘downgrade’ his actions with Ms Geimer, i.e., lose the E to make her ‘mellow’, or the handy cuffs to control her? But instead switches to Quaalude that makes one horny, and then forgets the vital amyl to score another easy ‘double sodomy’ hit? (And then STILL didn’t use any essential lube either, or made sure all hygiene and preparations are in place.) We all know that once someone committed a serious [sexual] offence, they always escalate any next attack to satisfy an ever-growing need for satisfaction after the first rush, NOT less, so in that case there’s no way anyone suddenly would just ‘downgrade’ their attacks no matter they might change their MO or use of drugs and alcohol.

No sex offender ever downgraded – since each experience is getting less potent to achieve gratification of whichever need, requiring a higher dose of brutality. So for Vogelhut to say Polanski used cuffs on her, jerked up her head by her hair to snap amyl under her nose, and then raped her anally repeatedly, and that at the same ‘place’ as the ‘first attack’, and then a mere three years later Polanski in no form brutalised Ms Geimer or used handy amyl again to sodomises her too, is more than ridiculous. Vogelhut based her lies on the actual first case, with nothing better to do than spew obscene accusations worse than what Ms Geimer had accused Polanski of, or of course Lewis with her more than transparent lies before that, and should both end up in prison for false rape accusations. Hence, another logical ‘hole’ in Vogelhut’s story based on Ms Geimer’s own never proven claims – since ‘rapists’ ALWAYS escalate their attacks and not become less ‘dominant’ or ‘violent’ suddenly. Ms Geimer never claimed any pain, any ‘hurt’, any ‘rape’ in words in any form or that Polanski was rough with her, so in effect, Vogelhut just shot herself in the foot by coming up with this ‘brutal sodomy’ ‘first’. You don’t ‘just’ sodomise someone, or you’d most likely hit on some ‘brown matter’, which causes even more friction and most unpleasant mess, and can lead to more pain and infections.

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

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

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

It Vogelhut took like near four decades to report her alleged ‘anal rape’ to the LA courts, rather than the cops right then in 1974 or at least in 1977 when Polanski was arrested, so that alone is very suspicious, which she explained away by claiming she felt ‘too embarrassed’, since of course any other excuse could be scrutinised as having no basis not to report it. But even if that were true, I rather would feel angry in fact, or hurt, not ‘embarrassed’, and I sure as hell would file a report as soon as Polanski was arrested, damn the embarrassment and ‘this group’ she claimed had not listened to her. Ever heard of the police to report a crime who would listen, especially after the accused was just arrested over ‘rape’? Guess not. Vannatter, who no doubt coached Ms Geimer, would have had a field day! Which is all more than bullshit at any rate, since any rape accuser would automatically remain anonymous and no one would find out it’s ‘her’, bar the accused (and sometimes not even that), to have any claim on ‘embarrassment’ she might face from that ‘group’, or anyone else for that matter. True rape doesn’t cause ‘embarrassment’, but the will to see the rapist in jail, not wait over three decades to make some money off it. Same goes for Lewis. I’m surprised neither of them claimed, ‘denial’ of the ‘anal rape’ and ‘sexual abuse of the worst kind’ (we still don’t have any specifics of) and reason why they came out so much later. But then of course, we know that and why they lied and there was no need to give us a more detailed account in Lewis’ case – which Vogelhut just had to take to the limit with her sordid BDSM sodomy claims.

Saying that agreeing to take drugs or alcohol on ones free volition does not take away a person’s right to say ‘no’ is certainly true, but, in this particular case no person claimed they said no. Vogelhut not once said she had told Polanski to ‘stop’, or that he ‘ignored’ her ‘pleas’. Lewis never explained anything other than her abuse fantasyland scenario in his apartment, and no one has ever accused Polanski of abusing any prepubescent child and no credible ‘victim’ has ever come forward. So why the term paedophile keeps popping up after he slept with adult women, and now another adult woman in her twenties surfaced with this unlikely scenario of ‘handcuffs’, that in effect paints a much more ‘kinky’ picture than what Ms Geimer had described only years later, or rather decades earlier. That in fact would downgrade this ‘picture of abuse’ when he had not harmed Ms Geimer in any form. So, for Polanski’s supposedly ‘devious’ sexual ‘MO’, let me just say, the LAPD at the time of the Tate murders, found videotapes in the loft above the living room where Sharon and Jay Sebring were found murdered. One of these tapes shows Sharon and Roman engaging in sex. According to police records, it was nothing more than a married couple engaging in what they classified as ‘normal’ sexual activity, and nothing denoting ‘anal perversions’ or drugged and drunken excesses in any form. Polanski has never been into what would be seen as ‘SM’ or ‘BDSM’ Vogelhut wants us to believe, and none of Polanski’s conquests before or after Tate’s death have ever come out to accuse him of anything sexually ‘kinky’ or any ‘abuse’.

Had he been a ‘sexual deviant’ the prison shrinks could officially never establish either, I’m sure others had gladly joined Lewis and Vogelhut in their campaign to paint Polanski a ‘MDSO’. These graphic accusations are neatly staged shows, like Lewis had to read from a script under the gaze of Allred, in order to ‘learn their lines’. Lewis’ self-refuted lie that Polanski had to sleep with all his actresses to proclaim it the casting couch game is more than ludicrous, since I doubt he ever touched anyone over thirty before he married a third time and is with his gorgeous and supportive wife since over two decades now. Most people are really bad liars, and when confronted with their fabrications, they come clean or lie some more, or are found out and simply vanish in shame (and/or anger ready for [more] revenge). The outright liars are the ones we see more often than not in these cases, stumbling over their own previous admissions to the very opposite, preserved for all eternity online these days. Lewis is one of those selfish and destructive women who believe that, ‘what I decide to do is someone else’s fault’, in her twisted fantasy world. They are the same hypocrites who engage in ‘ethics of convenience’, when it was ok back then to sleep around, but now that they grew out of that sex and drugs infused era suddenly disapprove of such actions in their bigotry. Of course, such a cynical view also reflects attitudes changes as an evolution of sociological changes in ones own social positions, our ‘morality’ and ‘society’ of today. It’s also called betraying your own past [and] actions when you suddenly besmirch it and blame others for it.

The anti-sex pro-feminist/women-never-tell-a-false-rape-lie laws assume that women lack any free moral agency to simply walk away from a man, or drugs – so why did Lewis not walk away from Polanski? Or the drugs? Because she lied about the abuse at any rate, to fit neatly into that ‘I’m a poor abused female’ box who cannot say no to drugs and sex. I’m tired of these ugly, whining, pathetic lying (and no doubt jealous) women coming out after decades to tell their sordid little sex adventure tales with infamous celebrities. If you can’t handle sex, and afterwards cry ‘sexual assault’ or rape, or that a man ‘took advantage’ of you, you poor little feminist disempowered and law infantilised females you, don’t engage in ANY sex at all, anal or otherwise, sober, drunk or stoned. The fact that Vogelhut suddenly cannot talk about it anymore, points to a restraining order or injunction from Polanski’s legal team, who have not reacted to her allegations in any form otherwise. As long as we don’t have any corroborating facts I doubt exist, Vogelhut can tell us whatever she likes, and I for one don’t believe that she didn’t mind any of the sex, the drugs and Polanski’s attention, it if it ever happened in any shape or form as she presents it. Or simply lies at any rate. If two people agree to sex, even ‘kinky’ sex Vogelhut wants us to believe, it doesn’t become rape when one of those people decades later decides she didn’t want to do that in order to seek the grimy limelight in the lies of another accuser. Wash your dirty sex laundry behind closed courtroom doors after going to the relevant authorities, not with any trashy LA attorneys on celebrity scandal online rags to brand someone a rapist. We’re fed up with it.

Today, August 18th, is Polanski’s 77th birthday, and I’m sure he’ll spend it in the company of his loving family and good friends, to the annoyance of all his petty little haters, while his plenty more supporters wish him many more returns, and to make more films. Polanski apparently doing so, with the adaptation of Yasmina Reza’s play God of Carnage on which they had worked in recent months already, filming is said to start in early 2011. As mentioned before, Polanski’s highly acclaimed Ghost Writer was released on August 3rd on normal DVD and Blu-ray in the US. In the UK it will be released on DVD and Blu-ray with a different title on September 20th, i.e. The Ghost, after the Harris bestseller. The US ‘version’ mind you was dubbed over in places, to ‘censor’ out some of the swear words, while happily leaving the Ghost saying, that the European war crimes tribunal can f*** themselves, with a deliberate political nod our way. No matter what happens to Polanski, no matter what the public thinks, nothing can deter the ever-resilient oldster and life survivor when it comes to film making – absolutely nothing. Not tragedy, not prison, not any corrupt DAs, film was and is his life and always will be. Apart from the odd Nazi voice who seriously said that Polanski should have been gassed along with his mother, (or murdered by the Manson gang too), another idiot proposed that they should pass a law making it illegal to show his movies or sell his DVDs in the US. Sorry, the most proceeds go to the studio/s – NOT the director – after everyone else was paid already.

Incidentally, the German DVD version released on September 15th has more extra features the US and UK editions don’t offer, which also includes the documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’ DVD with a special commentary by Zenovich covering the 1977 case misconducts, and another half-hour featurette of friends and colleagues talking about Polanski. They also come as regular DVD and Blu-ray without these extra specials. It’s obvious why you wouldn’t find them on the US versions: they are pro-Polanski and anti-US judicial system, or maybe even were excluded for the UK releases for the same reason though it contains a feature on the Berlin premier the US version has not and more interviews. Though all editions include some and the same extras, why only the German release has these special extras is clear: Polanski directed many stage shows of his still running Dance of the Vampires hit musical there since decades, and the German government obviously allowed him to film other grand features in Berlin like exactly The Ghost Writer and Pianist where he was allowed to demolish old Russian barracks to great effect, for showing the German past in a more likeable light with a Nazi soldier helping the main character to survive. That of course cannot ever be allowed to be promoted by the US Administration (or even ‘Hollywood’) either, while their own government is the biggest war criminal since before and after both World Wars. I.e., caused near extermination of their entire Native American population accounting for far more people than the Jews the Nazis had killed in a less drastic fashion, and engaged in every other war they had imposed on others ever since on a global scale.

Coming back to the infamous Oktoberfest photo that had caused him so much trouble, (and that German feminist twisted into a ‘soirée of ‘minors’’), here’s one of the women called Gloria Edel, recalling the day she met Polanski at the ‘Wiesn’ table in late 1977. Talking to a German Newspaper last October 2009, she said that the girls were in fact all adults, not minors as this lying feminist had unashamedly proclaimed. Edel said, she was shocked how this harmless photo could have been so terribly (or of course deliberately) misinterpreted. Edel [still] thinks it is very important to realise that all the women were there with their boyfriends, or husbands, which is of course not apparent, since the picture was ‘cropped’ and the photographer only zoomed in on Polanski and the few girls seated around him. The German photographer recognising Polanski, wanting to photograph him and the pretty women only, in fact featured in the documentary ‘Wanted and Desired’ talking about it and his completely innocent intentions, and photo. The picture, taken from a very misfortunate angle, showing Polanski with these women in close proximity, having his arm stretched out behind one of them, he however does not ‘embrace’ her, like this shameless feminist liar described it. Polanski is merely resting his hand on the wooden bench back close to her while holding a cigar in the other, not ever touching the woman whose partner sits just out of eyeshot.

Edel, like Polanski’s other friends and their partners who had invited him to the fest, was very concerned already then, saying, Polanski was terrified of prison like any man would be, since he was a very sensitive man who deserved no such treatment, and prison would have done him great harm. Edel indeed echoing what the prison officials had stated, right after Polanski however DID end up in jail only days later because of this deceiving photo Wells had misused to goad Rittenband into sending Polanski to Chino against all counsel, they too argued for no further time for Polanski’s long-standing depression in agreement with all parties, Rittenband in his power delirium however ignored. Besides, to say, or believe, the women were all minors, backfires doubly – since for one, they all DO look as old as they are, in their twenties, and if minors therefore would look like that in a feminist’s handbook, they are indeed very mature and could easily pass for adults, since they in fact were. Just like Ms Geimer, or Lewis looked older, and Polanski along with Huston and Helena had noted so. “She appeared to be one of those kids between… could be any age up to 25. She did not look like a 13-year-old scared little thing,” Huston said I’m sure knew better. Even the attorneys noticed it, and that, if they’d not set a trial date soon, she’d not ever be believed to be an ‘innocent thirteen year old’, which she obviously wasn’t [anymore], and was already fourteen before Polanski ever pleaded after five months, which was another reason why they went for that plea bargain. Had Gunson been successful in removing the lose-canon judge months earlier, and his two self-serving superiors had not blocked him, Polanski had never been subjected to such injustice.

Rittenband allowed Polanski to make his movie abroad, and when he lost his power over him, suddenly lost the plot and thought to penalise Polanski might be fun, all for sitting in the company of these adult girls. So, when was sitting next to pretty German girls far away in Germany ever a crime in California? Considering the multilayered legal and political issues of this case mainstream medias intentionally or negligently omit, (apart from the exculpatory facts), although it dates back to 1977, they have significant lessons to teach us today. First, it reveals that DAs and judges have virtually unlimited ‘discretion’ to manipulate substantive rights of defendants with no scrutiny or repercussions, and are basically unimpeachable. Rittenband could make representations about Polanski’s sentence on which Polanski and his attorneys relied, and then simply renege on them with no consequences. Polanski was then left in the situation of trusting a clearly fickle and ‘press oriented’ judge who had indicated a legal fate for Polanski far harsher than that to which all parties had agreed on, and in fact no one else had faced then. Or later, when it came to [US] ‘celebrities’ getting a pass. The actual effect was to shift to Polanski the burden of Rittenband’s very own misconduct: trust the judge and risk a lengthy term of incarceration, or flee the jurisdiction and be labelled a fugitive from ‘justice’ for life. Had Polanski remained in LA and received the anticipated lengthier sentence, he would have had no way to bring Rittenband’s unlawful actions to the attention of the Appeals Court, and no chance to appeal his decision unless he’d done so in view of years to take, successfully, or [mostly] not, while in custody where no one wanted him.

This type of Catch-22 situation is very familiar to [all] criminal defence attorneys; an attorney, who successfully appeals a client’s conviction, may very well find himself on retrial before the same trial judge from whose conduct he originally appealed. The likelihood of such an attorney’s client receiving a fair hearing on retrial is remote. The trial judge’s prejudice need not be overt; it can consist of rulings on ‘evidential issues’ consistently in favour of the prosecution, which involve [such] ‘judicial discretion’ and will not be overturned on another appeal. If the client is convicted either through a [forced] plea agreement or [biased] jury verdict who didn’t have all the evidence to begin with, the judge may add on several years to the client’s sentence if he ‘feels’ the client had ‘lied’ at trial. In most US state Appeals Courts, it is virtually impossible to get a sentence overturned for this type of vindictiveness, even if they hold all the evidence to a defendant’s innocence. Even crooked cop Vannatter had to shoot off his gob, by saying, again, that he’d love/d to see Polanski behind bars, since his little ‘sodomy coaching’ of Ms Geimer and his blackmailing of Huston had obviously failed because of the plea deal. These people are in desperate need to be in the league of criminal fabricators, just so to feel good in their abuse or power. Many people don’t even realise that they are being manoeuvred by these sinister manipulators into destructive hatred, instead of demanding the facts.

There is clearly prosecutorial and judicial misconduct involved on a grand scale in this ever-messier case ever since Rittenband took bench, many see, even if they might believe Polanski is guilty of what he’s not and yet think it should be dropped. There have been plenty public allegations that there was criminal witness tampering and juror misconduct ever since then not only in Polanski’s case in the LA courts. According to other LA DAs speaking out most unsympathetically against Cooley, he has refused to prosecute the paedophiles who work in the Catholic Church. So, why is Cooley STILL going after Polanski now in a clear act of vindictive vengeance people find most disturbing, but will not go after the Church’s child molesters, or any other for that matter, or real rapists, while incarcerating innocent men who had sex with their own [underaged] girlfriends or a Rape Shield Law shielded false rape accuser, (while calling a real rape victim a liar)? Could it be that Cooley is not only receiving campaign money from the Church or other rich ‘parties’ no one really knows of, (who can be contributing anonymously) so he might turn a blind eye, but because it’s ‘personal’ after Polanski exposed their multiple judicial misconduct? And, who exactly would ‘benefit’ from Cooley becoming the next AG? The answer is, only those who are rich institutions/people and their [‘sexually molesting’ or criminal] employees, LA gang members left ignored by the cops, or who else will be shielded from prosecution if they come bearing ‘gifts’, i.e., bribes.

If the DA’s office is going to hold people accountable for sex or any other crimes, then there should be no discriminatory measures in who is ‘selected’ for prosecution, and whom to let off. The pervasive lynch mob mentality STILL calling for Polanski’s blood mostly in the US of course, is assisted by the equally corrupt LA judges allowing their prosecutors to dig up and use his plenty ex-girlfriends or one-night stands against him, and if any happen to say that they had booze, drugs and ‘sex’ with him who needs money, and the chance is big enough that they HAD sex and need money, they twist it into rape and whatnot else to fit Polanski’s by now utterly perverted ‘sex [fiend] MO’. Find a burnt-out ex, tempt her with enough dirty $$$ and she’ll betray her former casual/lover/mentor in nil time no matter what he did for her. See drug addict Lewis and ‘model’ Vogelhut. Put up a press camera with a sleazeball attorney and an ‘actress’ reading from a script, and the DA’s office pays her not for her ‘sexual’ services, but instead for her [false] ‘witness’ services. These women sell themselves for sex and money regardless of who gets hurt. Besides, why else would Lewis make such an emphasis that she had flown to LA ‘on her own expenses’ to meet Cooley & Co for a suddenly oh so ‘altruistic act’, if, how she got there is utterly unimportant to start with and has no bearing on anything.

It’s called ‘projecting’, i.e., ‘someone’ DID pay her. Just like her ‘friend’ had emphasised that she did NOT ‘prostitute’ herself when she even admitted herself that she HAD. If Lewis gained [ultimately questionable] fame by remaining silent about her activities in Polanski’s Paris apartment in 1983, the only reason that she remained no longer silent was to gain financially twice in 2010; from the very same action first by silence and then by lack of silence. It’s also called lying and betrayal when it’s untrue. Lewis would have been useful as a ‘star witness’ against Polanski since Ms Geimer would have refused to do so, so that Cooley could nail a very stale offence against Polanski despite having done his time to the full extend now, and I’m sure Cooley would have found some ‘code’ to allow unrelated/unproven allegations retroactively to lock him up for longer. Once that failed for Lewis’ own former interviews, however, and then the Swiss didn’t play [into] their smear campaign game, Cooley was using Vogelhut to further Polanski’s demise on his quest to become the next Californian Attorney General. Sure, why not, send Polanski back to America nearly eighty now, since he’s such a bloody threat to ‘society’, the home of the most [sexually] unenlightened, repressed and [legally] corruptible justice system in the world. Such shams just make their vindictive cause look more and more desperate and foolish as time goes by.

Cooley has no legal standing, and he knows it. He hopes by throwing a lot of garbage and vitriol out there with lying exes it will hide that fact. Not so – the public isn’t all that gullible – and the only thing one can do is ridicule them. Cooley and reports now depicting Ms Geimer as this ‘little girl’, she’s not a precocious teenager anymore who was ‘star struck’ as she once claimed herself, coming from an unstable and permissive background, was versed in sex, drugs and alcohol, of adult built, appearance and behaviour, (via women’s lib having utterly backfired by now) to an innocent minor, and now is an utterly infantilised ‘child’, people recognise that mature teenagers like her pose a significant threat to those who [unwisely] choose to become intimately involved with them. The younger the person, the more likely that individual is to engage in fantasies and actions/lies based on whim (or fear of punishment) that can destroy the adult. See Ms Geimer’s claiming her mother wouldn’t have allowed the topless pictures, I highly doubt, since Vogue Hommes was all about nudes and teenagers in the first place. The more unbalanced the individual is at the onset of any relationship, sexual or otherwise, the more unstable that person is likely to become if a power figure like the mother suddenly does assume ‘power’ over her, which she had let slack before, and acts against the minor’s wishes thinking to do the ‘right thing’, when it’s in fact the wrong thing since the minor had lied to her.

See Lewis and Vogelhut, who were ‘enticed’ by money to lie even as adults, not any ‘justice’, since there’s big money involved in the ‘sexual abuse’ industry especially in the US, not only for ‘lawyers’ and cheap ambulance chasers like ‘Allred’. It’s preposterous feminist and harmful legal posturing in order to keep Polanski and plenty other men in the rapist bracket, with females paying absolutely NOTHING for having had [sometimes also unlawful] sex with men, who then cried rape to become such desirable entities as ‘victims’. Polanski gorgeous own daughter now seventeen can easily pass for twenty as well, like Kinski had or this disturbing Lewis by all means. But I doubt his daughter can’t match mental maturity in contrast to sad individuals like Lewis and Vogelhut, having grown up in the film industry with competent parents who know all about healthy sex and that to cry rape is lying, these women think they can just do with impunity. Polanski was one of the alpha males around at that time and everyone chased after him. Today the man is made out to be the world’s biggest sex offender suddenly, when on the one hand women want virile and sexually assertive men, and when they are, they call them predators or paedophiles. Now he’s being made guilty of the times he had shaped, like the plenty women he bedded. Today they would call him a rapist in the name of ‘feminism’ and recant they ever had ‘sordid sex’, rather saying they had been ‘raped’ in their sick/ening fantasies.

Many too think, because Ms Geimer’s mother pressed for the unlawful sex charge, it was in order ‘to preserve her [daughter’s] anonymity’, when that is utterly irrelevant since they still could have demanded Polanski to plead to the drugged rape or sodomy, but didn’t, since they had not the slightest evidence to prove any of her claims. Ms Geimer’s identity was long known at any rate before Polanski ever pleaded after five months when the Euro press got hold of her and her anonymity held no grounds anymore. No, the main reason for a plea deal was not to preserve already blown her ‘anonymity’, but her mature looks and that she was not a ‘child’, her reluctance to testify against him after she didn’t want to testify before the Grand Jury to start with, no evidence to support her claims in general, and of course the prospect to be found out she made up a few things – and her mother. Which reminds me of the ‘other incident’ Rittenband had mentioned in an [unlawful] ex parte communication, who had received a call from some woman in the UK, saying that Polanski had been involved in this sort of ‘scenario’ before, while he lived there with Tate. Though Gunson himself had said she was a fraud and Rittenband shouldn’t be talking to her in the first place. So, where is this oh so serious ‘incident’ today? Obviously she was just another liar who had tried to influence the proceedings and slander Polanski some more, like Lewis and Vogelhut. But, had Rittenband taken her false claims into considerations, as ‘proof’ of some ‘behavioural pattern’ of the ‘notorious’ defendant, this is exactly the type of arbitrary ‘evidence’ the judge can ‘use’ to condemn the defendant to a heavier sentence he would not really deserve, while real, exculpatory evidence can be and very often is unconstitutionally withheld.

I’m sure Cooley would have loved to have Lewis’ lies taken into account, though the defence would have ripped them and her apart in nil time, by simply pointing to her own words to the very opposite of years back, be found guilty of perjury and end in prison where she belongs as false rape/abuse accuser. Just like Vogelhut along with her big hat. This type of insidious slander Cooley keeps promoting simply has to stop, and if he thinks he can just go on and on with giving us these lying ex-lovers rather than close the case since Polanski had fulfilled his part, he digs himself deeper and deeper into trouble that might just as well backfire one day, no matter how powerful he is. He only wants to become Attorney General so he can impose even higher sentences on [innocent] defendants with the last say in criminal proceedings, since in Polanski’s days the AG had the ‘discretion’ and power to ask for the maximum penalty – fifty years, which hardly anyone would have imposed on any statutory rape case – and the DAs had him plead to the maximum of twenty years simply as the statute for unlawful sex with a minor had outlined, which was never implemented in any form in the Seventies either and no one had asked for since no physical or psychological force was used. Cooley would in effect be someone like Widmer-Schlumpf who just foiled his extradition attempt over a month ago, who has the last say over extradition requests too. If Cooley in fact makes it to AG in November, California REALLY needs God to help them.

To demonstrate how the press manipulates the public, even in 1977, a TV news reporter had said Polanski was booked on ‘forcible rape’, when that’s more than incorrect, since it was statutory rape already then, i.e., NOT forcible rape but sex with a minor, and the other counts were only known later on following his arraignment, before they eventually were all dropped again at no proof. No wonder people got confused not only then, they even got confused today, mostly online, since all you need is to omit the word statutory, or replace it with what the writer/editor/journalist fancies. I’ve often wondered what sort of sick person leaves those or any of the really nasty comments. It’s like the Internet threw up suddenly, because extreme [religious] hatred and bigotry, bad spelling and grammar, general ignorance and hypocrisy, and most of all wilful fabrications go hand-in-hand. There are so many misinformed or fabricated articles and comments posted online, no wonder the average media junk consumer wouldn’t know better. With comments like, ‘they agreed to a no-significant-jail-time plea deal in order to avoid the life-long scarring that having her identity publicly revealed would cause’, this is the sort of nonsense readers fall for who have no grasp of the law or how plea bargains work, since her identity was long known before Polanski pleaded, plus, she came out later on her own free will, and there went her global anonymity. Plus, her future had been no more ‘anonymous’ or ‘scarring’ had they demanded any jail time – it’s utterly illogical.

They didn’t press for jail time since they had no ‘goods’ on rape and sodomy, unlike what people think, wondering why they didn’t force him to plead to the higher charge of drugged rape and jail time – simple, they did NOT have the evidence no matter what Ms Geimer had told the Grand Jury in order to indict him on these claims at the arraignment. Others think she is seriously screwed in the head because today she talks of how she’s not a poor little thing (correct) and feels sorry for Polanski, unable to realise ‘why’ she says so, or see her real motive of not only wanting this case to ‘go away’ – having hoped her long self-refuted testimony would never make it into the public domain – but that a trial would find her out she had claimed things that never happened the attorneys well realised, hence the plea deal purely for her age. People think she’s ‘mentally unstable’, which she was as teenager who could be forced into testifying to claims by her mother and the cops that were clearly fabrications at not the slightest corroborating evidence, like saying he ejaculated all over her back, when there was nothing found inside her, on her skin, or anywhere on her clothes within hours only. She swore she had not taken any shower etc., and the panties she fetched only later were semen stained in the gusset, not on the back. Clearly not Polanski’s semen – or even the same panties. Her father realised she’d been shredded by the defence, that’s why he told her not to testify, being a lawyer.

Her mother too tried to salvage her far-reaching mistake of calling the cops – by pressing for that plea deal once it became clear her daughter had messed up, and herself, which had been it. But, egomaniac Rittenband obviously had his own media show to run after he saw the Oktoberfest photo and simply took revenge on Polanski by sending him to Chino he had never done, had Wells not shown it to him. Many even said that the photo shows Kinski, (the ‘blonde’ Polanski is not even toughing let alone embraces her), when that’s an even bigger lie – either way. Some people are just too desperate for words. Rather than take Ms Geimer’s words as an adult as fact today, they think she’s either still too traumatised to say it was rape, when that’s more than illogical since had it been rape, she’d proclaimed it that and demanded jail time. Or they say, she was paid off to speak in his favour, which is even more farfetched since no real rape victim can be paid off or to petition for her rapist. When she was all smiles at the premier of ‘Wanted and Desired’, people ask/ed, who goes to a film about the man who raped them? Simple, because he did NOT rape her, that’s the logic that eludes them – and she never said he had forcibly raped her at any rate. They say she has lost her marbles due to the ‘trauma suffered’ at his hands, entirely forgetting that she had a perfectly happy life ever since the moment Polanski was in fact gone from US soil, the media show over, raised a family in regained anonymity, had two husbands and has three grown kids.

She’s not in the same dire need as Polanski’s braindead detractors of seeing him [still] be[ing] punished for what people [wrongly] think he did, since he never harmed her – only the corrupt law, vicious media, dumb and malignant public with exactly this sort of ugly, shallow and illogic rhetoric in their desperate need to besmirch Polanski. Even her. Unfortunately, journalism no longer appears to be associated with much investigative and truthful reporting, no, these days the media will run with any story based on only a very minimal amount of evidence to support it, and even then only when the crux of the story fits their own ‘salacious agenda’ to sell their rags. Such media outlets view being first with a sordid celeb story far more important than being accurate of the details, or in fact having researched the allegations thrown out there in the first place. But of course, boring facts wouldn’t sell. These days anybody can accuse anyone of anything to do real damage – and no truth is important any longer – or are forced to apologise over it. It’s called character assassination, and it works like a virtual bullet each time. This is a highly virulent ‘networking’ cancer that has long been allowed to metastasise for decades since the rise of the all-free Internet, which has fed the obsessed public more factoids than facts, spreading lies within seconds to infect more people. Not only is this cancer not being treated by censorship and common sense, laws to force sites to correct or delete such lies, most people don’t even want to find out the truth.

When it was once, who’s the lucky lady you wined and dined, romanced with a bit of intoxicated seduction and had sex with, today it’s, who’s the child you got drunk and drugged and then raped? It’s radical feminism and über anti-sex lingo gone out of hand. The fact that two aging women suddenly came forward with [false] rape accusations against Polanski while Ms Geimer wants him be left alone, is no surprise, which in Lewis’ case however was clearly Cooley’s show to influence the extradition with damning lies from a less than credible ex-lover and teenage prostitute drug addict. Since that had failed however for Polanski’s release from his house arrest, Cooley brought in ‘big hat’ Vogelhut in hope to have her [better] fabrications taken as ‘behavioural pattern evidence’ into account against him (if true or not), under the revised California’s ‘Evidence Code 1108 b’ that could allow the introduction of (real or false) prior and subsequent events to the case in hand, to ‘prove’, ‘circumstantially’, that the defendant committed the charged offence pursuant to the same ‘design’ or ‘plan’ he used in committing the uncharged acts. Unlike evidence of uncharged acts used to prove identity, the ‘plan’ need not be unusual or distinctive; it need only exist to support the ‘inference’ that the defendant ‘employed’ that ‘plan’ in committing the [‘same’] charged offence’, i.e., had [the same] ‘intent’. Hence her [stupidly] bringing in the sodomy and drugs again with an apparently ‘aggravating’ BDSM factor that’s in fact utterly ‘atypical’.

Although evidence admitted pursuant to Evidence Code section 1108 b, is often referred to as ‘prior’ acts evidence, evidence of a ‘subsequent’ as well as a prior offence (if true or not) is admissible. One could [almost] say that this clause was introduced solely for the benefit of Cooley’s hunt for [people like] Polanski since he had such high hopes for the extradition to succeed, and he clearly had that code in mind to make it stick to the old case. When that was foiled by the Swiss, Cooley, in all his glorious arrogance and vindictiveness, gave us Vogelhut. Worse still, while in a trial the jurors must find a defendant guilty or innocent ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, in this case they may ‘consider’ this ‘evidence’ if the People have ‘proved’ by a ‘preponderance’ of the ‘evidence’ that the defendant in fact committed the (uncharged offence[s]/act[s]). Proof by a preponderance, i.e., ‘M[odus] O[perandi]’ type (or, ‘habitual conduct’) of the evidence is a different burden of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A ‘fact’ is ‘proved’ by a preponderance of the ‘evidence’ if they ‘conclude’ that it is ‘more likely’ than not that the new claims are true. Meaning, the jury is instructed not only that it may find the defendant was ‘disposed’ or ‘inclined’ to commit [the same] sexual offences, and based on that decision, also conclude that the defendant was ‘likely’ to commit them.

So in effect, when it comes to the defendant, ANYTHING prior or even after the date of the case in hand can be taken into account, proven or not, while the accuser’s history, or their own ‘characteristic behaviour’, is entirely unimpeachable even if known as suspect or nothing more than a [Rape Shield Laws shielded] lie. The admission of any evidence that involves alleged crimes other than those for which a defendant is being tried has a highly inflammatory and prejudicial effect on the triers of these claims, and it clearly violates the Due Process Clause if it permitted the use of prior or subsequent alleged ‘crimes’. Meaning, anything a false rape accuser says can be taken as ‘fact’, even if it’s not, and the jury can treat their lies/claims you name it, as being ‘true’. Hence Allred’s urging words to take Lewis’ claims into consideration when sentencing Polanski were he to be extradited, and for ‘[the] other victims’ to come forward, i.e., Vogelhut, since big hat said herself she [only] went to Cooley because Lewis had done so, if true or not. Though Evidence Code section 1108 b does [however] not authorise ‘expert opinion’ evidence, (like someone citing from the dubious ‘rape trauma syndrome’ manual), of sexual propensity during the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the defence may introduce ‘rebuttal’ character evidence in the form of opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific incidents of conduct under similar circumstances that could in effect disprove the [false] accusations. If they will be allowed however, is another question.

Evidence Code section 1108 b does not contain any limitations on the age of the uncharged conduct, hence Lewis and Vogelhut appeared suddenly to have their doubtful claims be admitted retroactively, since they cannot file any real, indefensible charges for the statute of limitations and not the slightest proof, and also said they don’t want to sue Polanski since he could fight any unjust lawsuit. Ergo, [nowadays] anything an ex-partner can dig up to accuse him of if true or not, or twist it to use it against him, can now be admitted with respect to ALL charges of the actual case in hand unlike in 1977. Though constitutionally violating Due Process still today, anything unrelated let alone unproven [still] can NOT be admitted for the Human Rights Declaration disallowing this, and because he pleaded to only ONE count, it in effect means, these women suddenly can bring in old claims if true or not, to ‘prove’ the (actual, not their own) case [details] in hand even if not true either. This so called ‘‘evidence’ of [highly unreliable third party] witnesses’, who were not witnesses to the actual case from 1977 at all, is extremely untrustworthy at best, or in fact criminal when false, but it is long being used to sway a lay (and already highly biased anti-defendant) jury by ‘conditioning’ them into accepting these deceitful claims.

Since Cooley in fact has had quite some success with this (kind of smear campaign) strategy after two trials in the Phil Spector case alone, the less than ‘just-minded’ DA is using the same foul tactics in Polanski’s case with all these ‘non-witness’ exes creeping out of the rotten woodwork suddenly, to help him convict (or at least dead-slander) Polanski he cannot get to [legally] otherwise. If one scrutinises Lewis’ words deeper, they clearly point to the intent to achieve just that goal on his behalf, or otherwise she’d not proclaimed, ‘it is very important that the District Attorney and the Swiss authorities are armed with this information (i.e., her lies) as they decide Mr Polanski’s fate’ – dead give-away that, since she never pleaded for her own ‘case’, but that of Ms Geimer, NOT her business at all. One could also call it lowlife revenge to use vindictive little sex lies to affect an old case that doesn’t concern her in any form. Or bigger liar Vogelhut and her ridiculous BDSM scenario to have another even lesser credible go. In fact, Cooley’s attempt to push Lewis’s lies into the foreground might just as well have had the adverse effect (on the Swiss), since it for one violates the Human Rights Declaration that explicitly prohibits any unrelated allegations that could potentially affect a future sentencing to a higher penalty, which was of course the whole idea.

Cooley knew perfectly well Polanski HAD done his time and the reason why Espinoza did not sentence Polanski in absentia to [that] time served, though he said he would if Polanski were to appear in [his] court, in order to use this code. It is unconstitutional to retroactively apply new allegations even if they do in fact relate to the case in hand, let alone to any other unrelated incidents, since it would bring the original offences into a heavier punishment bracket – which is unlawful. Even in America. That Cooley doesn’t care about this and wants to apply all sorts of smear tactics and laws of today, is clear, and only shows that this ‘Evidence Code section 1108 b’ makes any rightful defence even less fair, he, like many others can, did, and do abuse, since any exculpatory evidence brought in to effectively nullify such unproven claims can simply be disallowed by the judge. Per law, any potential [later] sentencing must be applied to the lowest penalty of the time a case was tried or processed, or if of a lower penalty, any changed laws/sentencing of today must so apply, (especially at no repeat offence), NOT the higher, or highest punishment of then or now. Which is of course another reason why Cooley paraded his two strawwomen to make it appear that there were repeat offences so he could apply that revised code, hence Allred’s pointed emphasis that this was not a one-off offence and for other (fake)  ‘victims’ to come forward – (Vogelhut).

It is clear that Cooley didn’t want to ‘prove’ Polanski is a paedophile with that code since his partners were of varying ages and not prepubescent, and the old psyche reports stated already that he’s not. But, to ‘prove’ ‘propensity’ towards ‘sodomy’; that he habitually sodomises girls, to ‘prove’ ‘Ms Geimer’ was sodomised, ‘not’ Lewis (or Vogelhut), the ONE thing they could not prove in 1977, next to ‘drugged rape’. It is also clear that Allred and Lewis tried to achieve just that with her ‘evidence’ (lies), not her ‘own’ (fake) ‘abuse’, which one might think is the main reason to come forward. While in fact no one can be found guilty of unproven crimes in the first place, let alone if they are used to affect a given case, therefore the defendant would unlawfully suffer a higher sentence if this controversial code can be made to stick. Such devious [smear campaign] practice is unconstitutional in a civilised country like Switzerland, or to even acknowledge or support it when it comes to any extradition request. Equally, no one can be made guilty of the changed times after which a case was tried or processed for changed attitudes or laws of today, if it brings any offence into a heftier penalty bracket Cooley unsuccessfully tried to achieve – it’s simply unlawful and inhumane. Of course, the majority of people simply have no inkling of all this, legally regarding it or otherwise, and react in an overemotional, irrational and highly ill-informed way, assuming, accusing, unable to view this controversial case objectively. But then they never would be able to do so in real life either and must be disregarded as relevant voices judging this case, or Polanski, rather than those forming better informed opinions and more correct résumés of events.

That said, it’s relevant to repeat that there are in fact two different ‘versions’ of Huston’s statement, and part of Ms Geimer’s very own course of events, which at the beginning did NOT match. Meaning, what Huston had said right after Polanski’s arrest the next evening and he had gone to Nicholson’s house with the cops for them to interview her on site, was the one that matched his and the caretakers own explanations. But, once Huston was arrested on drugs charges after they had [unlawfully] unearthed cocaine and pot at Nicholson’s home, though it could well have been Nicholson’s not hers, they could blackmail Huston into ‘altering’ her original, exculpatory statement to drop the charges and be released, to now suddenly match in part that of Ms Geimer’s already coerced ‘version’ Vannatter and her mother had forced on her. I.e., the ‘double sodomy’ claim, when Huston allegedly had interrupted them ‘going at it’, though Polanski’s and Huston’s original testimony given at the house proclaimed the exact opposite, and the cops effectively threatened both women to make Polanski guilty of something he never did. Furthermore, Ms Geimer said he had sodomised her from the front after lifting her legs, while Polanski said she spread herself to enter her vaginally only. In fact, penetrating someone from the front is even more difficult for the curved rectal angle, and to ‘lift’ the legs is not enough, they must be spread wide and the pelvis raised, or it will most definitely hurt, especially without any vital lube.

To recap a little further, don’t forget, the Gaileys had two whole weeks to come up with a good story to relieve Ms Geimer completely of all responsibility in the events, while the cops had laid siege to Ms Geimer’s original statement, i.e., turned it into sodomy at her ‘confusion’ not to have ‘known’ where ‘exactly’ Polanski had penetrated her when talking to Vannatter, (which is more than ridiculous) and that Huston had interrupted Polanski’s sodomising her – which evidently never took place let alone twice. Furthermore, Ms Geimer said at the hearing that, when given a photo of a dark-haired woman, that this was ‘the woman that was there on the phone’ – i.e., Huston she didn’t know, once introduced to her by Polanski AFTER the sex. Huston, once returned to the house, did NOT interrupt them, but went straight to the kitchen to unload her stuff and then sat by the phone before meeting both after Polanski had called into the hallway to see if it was her, realising she was in the lounge on that phone where Ms Geimer had left her gear, Ms Geimer forgot to mention. Hence, the light coming up on the phone in the TV room to signal her return, Ms Geimer however also entirely forgot to mention, purely in order to match Huston’s [coerced, later] statement that ‘she’ had interrupted them, which is incorrect, not any ‘phone light’.

Ms Geimer did not say that ‘Huston’ in fact let them in, but an equally dark-haired woman, Nicholson’s [outhouse-live-in] caretaker/friend Helena – who then told Huston that Polanski was there with a girl to take some photos – hence Huston’s waiting until they had finished and he then introduced Ms Geimer to her. Of course, Huston noticed someone had used the still steaming, [always] ‘too hot’ Jacuzzi, and had drunk her champagne, finding the still half filled bottle in the kitchen. Hence, Polanski returned to explain things while Ms Geimer sat in the car, she later could bring in to have cried there while waiting without any vital witnesses to support that. Helena testified at the hearing later to her having let them in since Polanski could not get hold of Huston and had asked her instead. She said she saw Polanski and the girl drinking the champagne from Nicholson’s fridge on her own free will along with herself in her company, which matched that of Polanski’s recollection, hence no plying of alcohol charge. Huston then was forced to testifying against him, which obviously never happened at no trial, and Vannatter’s crooked efforts to make Ms Geimer’s already heavily influence version match that of Huston, or vice versa, had failed. The only reliable course of events is that of Polanski’s, so recalled in his autobiography, and that of Helena and Huston’s original statement supporting his, which did NOT match that of Ms Geimer in regards to the ‘sodomy’, ‘fear’, ‘reluctance’, or anything to Ms Geimer’s ‘crying’.

Bisset, Helena and Huston, they all were fooled into believing Ms Geimer was much older for her highly developed looks and mature demeanour, her behaving like a lover with Polanski, and people today, who never saw her in the very provocative flesh, have no concept of Polanski [later developed] attraction to her once he saw her in the nude. She was certainly not a ‘child’ anymore they’d love her to be still today, all to make this a ‘child sex’ case for our changed ‘sex crime language’ turning anyone into a child. It’s not any unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, or statutory rape as it’s declared for everyone else when it comes to their sacred US ‘celebrities’, whose cases are simply dropped in the first place, just like no one was convicted in the Seventies for statutory rape – see Schwarzenegger, Rob Low or Kelsey Grammer later amongst plenty others. People of today seeing images of Ms Geimer from the Seventies desperately try to make her ‘look’ a child, though she in fact looks perfectly adolescent, and as long as they’re not any photos taken by Polanski which depict her truthfully, have no relevance to start with. The released imaged of her in the Jacuzzi show nothing but her head, and don’t make her look a child either. The only trustworthy images of her at that time are the ones taken by the Euro press weeks after the case broke – clearly showing her very developed, slim body, that she was taller than Polanski, and could clearly pass for up to twenty years of age. Just like all participants in the case had said – even the judge and attorneys. Anyone today saying she looked like a child is clearly blind.

No one argues that she was a minor by age and legally incapable to consent to sex – but that only Polanski was charged, since she had admitted to the court to sex with other men and had an older boyfriend who qualified for a statutory rape charge, along with her mother’s boyfriend exchanging ‘lewd acts’ with her, is clearly wrong, selective, discriminating. We’re not debating that this was nothing but unlawful sex with a minor, hence the plea deal for her age – but that it was made out to be rape and sodomy by the likes of Vannatter and her mother, (with the help of slimeball Wells) after Ms Geimer no doubt had embellished on it already for her to fall for it, who then turned it into rape/sodomy to whitewash her daughter of all accountability and therefore herself. It was clearly never oral, vaginal let alone [double] anal rape, not only by Ms Geimer’s own later words to the very opposite regaining her sovereignty over the facts, but for all the more truthful and important medical, circumstantial and eyewitness evidence pointing to simple [vaginal] intercourse already then – no matter what her Grand Jury testimony says. It was never challenged in a trial – never found fact. Rather than drop the case for plenty misconducts today, at plenty opportunities to close it even then, Rittenband should have been taken off the case long before he was, for his disregarding any crucial developments that had in fact called for throwing the case out. Like the indecent behaviour between Ms Geimer and her mother’s boyfriend right outside Gunson’s office long before Polanski even pleaded – but who cares about any proper due course of process in t/his case.

People too keep saying Polanski ‘had’ to ‘give’ Ms Geimer the alcohol and Quaalude, in order to ‘make’ her willing, when that’s just as nonsensical – she took the stuff herself and could have refused any of it, no matter her age. But she didn’t since she was used to it, and with a Quaaludes addicted sister the temptation was just too great to resist. Later she made it out as if Polanski had ‘coerced’ her into taking the champagne and Q not to face any punishment over it from her mother, who had allowed drugs and alcohol at home for years in the first place. In order to appear the more ‘responsible’ mother suddenly, she shifted all responsibility into Polanski’s court as mothers do when things go wrong with their rebellious offspring. People love twisting Ms Geimer’s more recent words, just so to discredit Polanski through her some more, by stating she did want him in prison, when that’s certainly incorrect by her own admission or she for one wouldn’t have petitioned for his release since decades. Of course, they think she has ‘ulterior motives’, or for saying that all she wants is for the case to ‘go away’. They think a ‘wealthy perpetrator’ might have helped her ‘forgivingness’, not realising that the ‘settlement’ was taken from Polanski’s film guarantors NOT his account, and was NOT awarded by the courts. She also ‘forgave’ him a year before the ‘compensation’ came through after a whole ten years, so no ‘ulterior motives’ there. Unless one considers her recent interviews lucrative enough reason to have made herself known, I highly doubt.

To recap on the legal matters, we know Swiss officials turned down the US extradition request, citing potential technical faults, and saying it failed to clarify whether the director had in fact served his sentence more than thirty years ago. Yes he has – except Cooley of course won’t ever acknowledge that, hence his refusal to send them the required documents to prove that Polanski had. The argument over the reported plea deal and allegations of judicial misconduct in the original case have been the focus of years of legal wrangling in the LA courts, hence were nothing new, and Polanski’s defence team said in a statement after his release: “That [the] evidence was not ‘insignificant’ and the failure to produce it (to the Swiss) was neither accidental nor a ‘technicality’ as some have said.” Indeed, some call/ed it lies. They also called for a thorough investigation by a ‘fair and impartial third party’, i.e., Attorney General Holder e.g., who informed the Swiss of Cooley’s refusal to send him/them the needed proof, or even Governor Schwarzenegger who had voiced concern and that if there was misconduct these allegations ought to be investigated, and said the results should be made public. Indeed – except it will never happen either as long as Cooley is in power. What’s more, because of the highly flawed extradition request and deliberately undermined case, the Swiss in fact have amended their extradition request rules.

That to say, for one, Swiss officials stated that giving lawyers for Polanski sufficient time to exhaust their appeals in the LA courts, was partly responsible for the amount of time needed to decide on his extradition, but one official said Polanski may still be entitled to compensation for his period of [technically unlawful] house arrest (since it cannot be counted towards any time-served sentence, or return his stolen freedom, since they had recognised the request was based on falsehood. Widmer-Schlumpf said, she did not expect him to seek compensation for the fact that any decision could only be made until these processes had been resolved, though a spokesman said later that ‘the question of compensation must be cleared up’. As a result of this entire debacle, Switzerland has already changed its procedure for handling extradition requests in response to issues raised by t/his case. In the past, a purely technical procedure allowed low-ranking officials to initiate arrest/extradition proceedings once a valid request had been received, and from now it was decided, extradition proceedings may be started only with the approval of the director of the justice ministry. The change was made so that the procedure may be opened for larger judicial and political considerations. Polanski’s case had raised wider issues of international law that had played a part in the decision to release him, specifically the issue highlighted in the justice ministry’s statement that Polanski was generally known to have been a regular visitor to Switzerland for decades without any attempt by US authorities to have him arrested.

Therefore, it should not have been set into motion by some lowly [UBS] bank clerk in order to appease the US [IRS investigations], who had contacted some lower official at the Justice Ministry, who then faxed the LA courts where Cooley instantly signed an international arrest warrant, for police officials to swoop in on Polanski like vultures at Zürich’s airport without any official backing by said director (or the US DOJ), before Walgren then completed his less than complete extradition request to follow a month later while Polanski sat on remand in Winterthur. When Polanski was forced for years to appear in person in court in order to have the case either dismissed when his lawyers are much better suited to do so since they cannot just be ‘silenced’ and have the better expertise, or to have it litigated once the officials [grudgingly] acknowledged the plenty misconducts, or even be sentenced to time served by several judges like Fidler or Espinoza, after his absentia bid was refused in early 2010, Ms Geimer called the court’s persistent insistence, ‘a cruel joke’. That should tell us of her real feelings of today of what they were doing to him, and what she thinks of the courts, and that this points all the more to the fact that it never was rape since any real victim would be delighted if their assailant were tortured by the courts, if rightly or wrongly, for their unchallenged ability to abuse the law as they wish to regardless of any real justice. Which is hardly the key factor for such prosecutions, sorry, mindless persecutions.

After Polanski’s Ghost Writer was released on DVD and Blu-ray worldwide, the 2010 San Sebastian Film Festival has announced that the acclaimed Fipresci Grand Prize Award (bestowed by the International Federation of Film Critics) will go to Polanski for his latest movie as best film of 2010, also winner of the Silver Bear for best director at this year’s 60th International Berlin Film Festival. As the director announced he will be unable to collect his award, it is rather surprising since he lived in Spain on Ibiza for years in the Nineties to stay at his own house he had built after his own design. But he most likely simply won’t chance another hasty rearrest by some busybodying official, or doesn’t own said house anymore, and therefore the actress Olivia Williams (Ruth Lang in the much-praised movie) will come to Donostia in San Sebastian to do so on his behalf. Of course, once this was announced in some English-speaking Spanish culture online magazine today September 5th, some US haters directly stooped to ever-lower lows than before and declared completely out of context, ‘we know only 7% of pedophiles will exclusively rape only children, (no they don’t, they ONLY abuse and/or rape exclusively children below the onset of puberty or they’d not be in fact ‘paedophiles’) but will rape anyone if the opportunity presents itself’. (Isn’t all that contradictive bullshit? And where are all the ‘other [‘opportuned’] victims’, since Lewis and Vogelhut are clearly both liars?)

‘We are just now starting to see how depraved he was and undoubtedly still is’. (All I see is depraved bullshitters who rewrite the paedophilia manual too now to make him into a paedophilic rapist who also rapes older women since Vogelhut was twenty-one in 1974. Good luck with that conflicting bullshit. I’m sure Polanski’s long past any sexual exploits at his age at any rate, even to Ms Geimer’s words, let alone ability to ‘rape’ anyone with the majority of men becoming frequently impotent by the age of forty.) ‘His current wife was too young and like this latest victim (liar Vogelhut), too embarrassed to tell anyone how he brutally anally raped her as well, we can assume at this point since asked victims agree that he sodomized them’. (Wow, more than desperate to paint assumptions like this as fact and that his wife was/is brutally sodomised by him too. I’m sure if she had been, she’d long gladly joined the ranks of other [real] accusers, which only shows that Cooley’s smear campaign worked, for imbeciles like that to believe this habitual sodomite garbage Vogelhut had very short-lived but effectively nurtured. I’m sure if he had been a habitual rapist/sodomite, MANY more ‘victims’ had come forward to proclaim the same ages ago, if he ever had anal sex in the first place. But obviously not, or we HAD many more [genuine] ‘anal rape’ accusers, since it’s not good enough anymore to just pin ‘vaginal rape’ on him.)

I’m sure these pathetic attackers imagine all that in their dirty little minds while jerking off, and funny how his family, friends and colleagues or fans don’t believe [in] any of this sordid bullshit – SINCE IT’S NOT TRUE. This kind of hate-inciting narrative, intended to give ‘credibility verisimilitude’ to an otherwise sick/ening and unconvincing assumption, the sordid imaginations of some of these ‘rape liars’ are astounding in terms of inventing details to fit the distorted picture they and others have of Polanski. Just as distorted as their drugged rape and sodomy [rhetoric] infused brains. Very much like false rape accusers invent or embellish on events. It is difficult to fathom why [these] people are so unsophisticated that they assume every rape allegation is true. Or is it more likely that it has a feminist-driven ‘politically’ and ‘morally correct’ motivation to treat every alleged sexual assault as an actual assault which was announced by the rape hysteria pandering media, soaking it up with their little unquestioning brains as fact? Fact. The corporate media should be held accountable for spreading lies, or sensationalist news that turns out to be bogus they hardly follow up and declare as false, just so for the masses to be left in the belief that so-and-so DID so-and-so when he never did. Many people have been destroyed by the corrupt media – and no one ever paid for it.

In the eyes of the media, a reported rape is a rape-in-fact as long as a female says so. She alone has the power to release the community from its grip of fear about a scary male with a dangerous penis on the loose when it was an alleged stranger attack. And too often, she alone has the power to release an innocent male wrongly arrested for a rape that never occurred, just because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why? Because the news media, ALL OF US, are too ready to assume guilt on the basis of nothing more than an accusation. The press ought to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, it’s their job to report the truth, no? Guess not. Especially not in the feminist-controlled US media. If any of us would sell a t-shirt with a famous persons image on it and not have permission from the depicted we would be in serious trouble. Unless the image is that of a famous fugitive without any legal resources to sue them as in Polanski’s case. But the media can put your name and image out there as a paedophile or rapist, of course falsely and without your consent. But none of the false rape accusers’ names and faces will ever be made public in contrast. And, best of all, you are entitled to none of the plenty money they [all] made by mi/using your name and image. Polanski is the best example. And, just because he was accused once before yet is not guilty of the dropped counts, now many people think he is [also] guilty of the other two accusations, a free-for-all with whatever they want to pin on him, and if it’s only foul language.

As seen in Ms Geimer’s case, anything that might exonerate Polanski was omitted by her. Even anything untoward something as harmless as their talking in the car afterwards, or how he asked her to put aside the photos he had taken before she or her mother might not like, which he recalled in his autobiography, while her ‘version’ of the events to the police or Grand Jury excluded any possibility of these congenial conversations taking place, since they in fact contradicted her illogical ‘fear’ and ‘reluctance’ accounts outright. She also therefore had passed on the one chance for her mother to find out if she would in fact allow topless photos of her daughter, which Ms Geimer later put forth as the ‘reason’ of her ‘reluctance’ to proceed, instead of conceding that she had not asked or told her mother having taken some already, in order for Polanski to destroy these unwanted shots and start anew, and both not tell her about them if need be. But as is the case with teenagers, they lie in order not to get punished over some imaginary or real mistake they made, and [always] resort to blaming others to get out of it. If a person’s story is ‘believable’, it may be taken as ‘credible’ or ‘probable cause’, even if there is no evidence supporting it, and the younger they are, the more they are believed at first, while we have seen often enough that is not the case and teens are more likely to lie than adults. That means an innocent person has no way of proving their innocence, unless hard evidence discredits the accuser as in Ms Geimer’s case, especially if that person engaged in consensual sex with no direct witnesses.

According to our memory, recalling any old/er incident becomes blurred and the details are not so acute anymore, and to recount actual words heard or spoken many years ago gets even more difficult, no matter it was a painful or positive experience, to either forget it or was replaced by other [more recent] pleasant moments. To include more ‘impressionistic aspects’, i.e., more ‘fanciful facets’ that might not be true, of any events to ‘embroider’ on the basic facts (see Ms Geimer and her [double] sodomy claim), create a more ‘composite’ or ‘believable’ account which resonated with other events that took place around the same time or even much later someone else’s (if true or not, see Lewis and her blatant casting couch lie) to ‘match’ this particular event in this case Vogelhut had based on Ms Geimer’s never-proven sodomy claims, is human nature. Many do it without malice, [or] just to look better, like granddad and his heroic wartime adventures. But so is [knowingly] lying a very bad trait of human nature, for whichever more or less devious reason/s, which many realised occurred in these three cases. Unlike the LA law enforcement and Cooley’s court having manufactured these lies in the first place. But then again, Cooley is not human though he lies a lot, or he’d not declared war on Polanski for political reasons, like disgraceful Rittenband had for the press – only because Polanski had escaped both their one and the same evermore corrupt court and name-calling DAs like Walgren.

The observation that ‘religiosity’, ultra feminism and sexual repression go ‘hand-in-hand’ not only when it comes to ‘sex offences’ is certainly not a ground-breaking discovery, any more than it would be considered a revelation that these fundamentalists try to force the limitations of their [sexual] authoritarianism on others, with anti-sex laws and disproportionate punishments. What’s disconcerting is that despite all the education available in ‘the information age’, these communities not only persists, but increases their efforts to impose sanctions on others, based on their own perverted understanding of human sexuality. The vicious assault by these organisations against the rights of female teenagers and women, or teen boys and men for that matter, and the amount of time and resources dedicated to these campaigns of oppression, and for universal repression, make their priorities clear; the loudest voices choose not to impugn, war, murder, torture, greed, exploitation, abuse of power, but rather busy themselves with who is doing what to whom behind closed doors, and what people are choosing to do with their own bodies. The rhetoric presents the issues as focusing on ‘family values’, or, ‘women’s’ or ‘girls issues’ and ‘child protection’, though they promote nothing untoward ‘men’s’ or ‘boy’s issues’, or male and prison rape victims by a far shot, since feminists don’t really care about ‘rape’, only their pathetic [imaginary] victimhood.

The measures they ‘prescribe’ to manipulate the masses are simply the implementation of rules and restrictions based on their common bias and blind/ing hatred. Sex on the whole is simply needed for all-round wellbeing, but generally oppressed and oppressive society at large does not allow it to individualise and reach a form of self-understanding, enlightenment and therefore self-expression. There is nothing proactive or healthy being suggested for the benefit of families in these insidious campaigns, nothing positive, just negative actions against those who enjoy sex in any form, plain and simple. This incessant verbiage of ‘sex is a sin’ and ‘all men are rapists’ is nothing more than an excuse to openly target others, or mainly men, and dedication of financial and human resources, invested in issues related to sex, sexuality, and gender. Perhaps it stems from an abusive childhood experience during which an innocent mind was tortured with the threat that sex, and self-stimulation for that matter, would result in an eternity of unimaginable pain and suffering. Perhaps it was caused by an adolescence during which every hormonal instinct was portrayed as a violation of rules that convinced them that their bodies were not their own to control, or abusive female figure. Perhaps it was the result of the repressed frustration of adults unable to express their individuality and sexual orientation without the consent of the ‘majority’, i.e., ‘society’.

Regardless of the cause, sexual issues seem to be a serious sticking point based on apparently shared insecurities and jealousy for these control-oriented confederacies and their duped followers. You only need to look at these pathetic ‘TV evangelists’ proclaiming that ‘God’ will strike you blind in case you had fun with sordid sex. Any such fundamentalist group claim that, what individuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms, their intimacies and personal choices, actually has in fact an effect on ‘them’. Though there is no logic in that, the rising popularity of aging women crawling out of the woodworks to proclaim their sordid little sex adventures of decades earlier for their entertainment, painting them as rape today to the drooling world and feminists at large is just one of the signs to tap right into this dogma. Even though these droolers are not present or involved in any form, and NOTHING actually affects them in any form, the mere ‘knowledge’ or hearsay of it is too much for them to deal with. Someone was or is doing something that they are not allowed to do in their bigoted mind. Someone was or is doing something that they have been conditioned to believe is wrong. Someone was or is doing something and they were not invited to enjoy themselves. Someone was or is doing something that they take pleasure in so much they call it ‘gay’, it can’t possibly be good, it must be stopped. It must be forbidden. It must be demonised. Uprooted at ALL costs.

If they can’t have it, nobody can. So let’s create laws that punish all sex regardlessly, then call it rape and sexual abuse instead if someone dared to have fun with it, and then make sure it’s not the female that in fact gets punished for it oh no, ONLY ever the male. These advocates don’t truly understand why they think these things are ‘wrong’, or a ‘sin’, (other than in fact lying about rape or sexual abuse) they are simply responding to their ingrained ‘conditioning’, no matter the ‘source’ that ‘imposed’ it on them. They are sad slaves of their own sexual subjugation, and in order to feel better, imprint it on others to be an ‘offence’, disseminating their doctrines with help of the complicit [corporate] media. This provides them with the ability to deny their personal issues, accountabilities, disguise the displacement of their rage and lust, allow themselves to define their animosity as obedience, and their discrimination of others as ‘divine’ (or feminist-driven) ordinance. In reality, they simply wish to impose their own sexual repression (or even aberration in many cases) and abdication of personal choice on others, rather than take personal answerability for their own deep-seated issues and perfectly natural desires. See Lewis and her ‘abuse fantasies’, she not only proclaimed Polanski had done to her, but she would love to ‘taste’, even if only in preparation for a sex flick as she put it and ‘play’ the ‘victim’ [at least on film].

Funny thing is, Lewis’ part in Polanski’s Pirates outing in fact had two rape scenes in store for her – one attempted rape and one ‘staged’ attempted rape – before the young hero saves her, (not Matthau). Looks like her ‘rape role play’ came true before she ever went to Hollywood and end up in cheap nude flicks. If Polanski had really abused her ‘in the worst possible way’, she’d not ever played that let alone have an affair with him, and today exposed herself as the sad and drug addicted woman who had too much sex – real, imaginary or in cinematic form. What’s more, she’s wearing luxurious, all-covering bulbous ball gowns that show absolutely nothing of her presumably perfectly fine figure bar a bit of shoulder, and therefore to moan about Polanski having brought on bulimia in her, is more than ridiculous besides. With Lewis in her twisted overindulgence of playing the little victim, projecting her abuse fantasy world into Polanski’s real life, rather than accept her own actions and drug addictions, who, conversely could possibly be harmed by supporting an individual who has been raised in a tolerant, sexually active family environment or society, who understand and accept their sexuality? Like Ms Geimer, though she wasn’t allowed to and was ‘made’ a victim by the law – in contrast to Lewis, who at first was also not allowed to prostitute herself but did it anyhow with fourteen, and then was allowed to have sex with sixteen, but made herself into a victim, on film and in her twisted fantasies in real life.

Who, therefore, could possibly be benefited by convincing an individual that their sexuality makes them do wrong other than when lying about it? Other than the tyrannical ‘law’ itself punishing sex? What real effect does a sexual act between two men, two women, heterosexual unions, or one partner being much younger, have on others? Or even [legalised, safe] prostitution to be precise? None – other than the fact that these individuals are engaged in activities that the repressed (and most of all feminists) are either curious about, desirous of, or secretly engage/d in, yet are conflicted over because of dogmatic conditioning (or even abuse) from early on. Polanski himself said that the repressed, puritan US will destroy itself one day with their [gun-obsessed and radical feminist] anti-sex laws. They have already; they just don’t want to see it. A sexually content person needs no ‘rape fantasies’, no ‘religion’, no ‘TV evangelist church’ to tell them ‘sex is a sin’. Or requires a punch bag to accuse others of sexual abuse or rape. Every time we hear of one of the innumerable sex scandals involving a famous personality or authority, see Polanski and his three less than credible accusers, the focus is always on what ‘sexual acts’ they were involved in. If real or imaginary. The conversation always seems to develop around the subject of the ‘sordid acts’ and what could possibly have made someone engage in them.

These ‘immoral acts’ are inevitably the centre of the juicy gossip revving it up into astonishingly vile name-calling typically reserved for the man alone. Usually the credit is given to the ‘devil’, the person’s [imaginary] ‘debauchery’, or some other sinful ‘reason’ they simply invent, or ‘project’, like Lewis. These invisible ‘agents’ of ‘evil’ are always guilty of provoking the ‘terrible sin’ in the poor, or ‘depraved’ wo/man, while simultaneously lessening the burden of personal accountability on the hapless individual who has been apparently victimised by their own sexual actions. But, the primary focus, the fascination, is with the ‘acts’; the tempting, juicy, mouth-watering forbidden fruit itself they so wished they has tasted themselves. The fact that those involved in the consensual sex however or how old were certainly not feeling victimised or ‘wicked’ at the time doesn’t seem to be a concern to any of them. The fact that the sex was not the conflict, and that the sex within the context of their dogma, or the machinations employed in order to indulge in the sexual acts was, seems to elude their reasoning skills entirely. In other words, accuse someone/thing else to avoid taking responsibilities, and project that onto others they envy/deny their sex, while calling on the law to punish them mindlessly.

Rather than challenge the archaic, sexist, ageist, and of course homophobic teachings that originated from the Victorian age, or dogmatic religions, the only thing challenged as inappropriate or wrong is the sexual intimacy between two consenting adults or mature teenagers. THAT is the true perversion of our time still, which should long have been condemned and outlawed. Instead, we have enforced perverted anti-sex laws that condemn sex and penalise mostly the man in disproportionate fashion, causing real harm to them and society at large by turning them into victims or monsters. The discussion of these issues often glances over the real offences that do affect others; the radicals get so caught up in who was touching, kissing, or sucking what, and where, that they forget about the deception, fraud and hypocrisy perpetrated in order to perform these otherwise victimless acts they have to demonise. Or, in contrast make the female the victim, and the man the perpetrator by default, turning them all into ‘children’ unable to consent. They’re so caught up in the physical acts of sex, and controlling the sex of others, that they completely ignore the fact that some real principles of respect, honesty, and interpersonal integrity, have been violated by their repressive dogmas and oppressive laws. For the religious or repressed, this is not even a principle-based issue, but a response based on an emotionally conflicted understanding of their very own sexuality.

No, embrace the principles of sexual responsibility and self-determination and sod them. Wrap your arms, legs, your entire naked body around your right to the honest freedom of individual sexual expression. Indulge your mind with the possibilities of sexual integrity by being true to yourself and your sexuality, your partner, no matter what gender or age. Sex and the control over ones own body isn’t what’s perverse; the deception and hypocritical duplicity that it is treated with by perverted people and the abusive law, the way fundamentalists have been made to feel about it, and the way they try to make others feel about it, is. The government should have no say whatsoever about sex or who does what to another between the sheets as long as it’s consensual. To all those holier-than-thou and bigoted voices those free people, or someone like Polanski, are nothing but child molesters these days, while before his rearrest they had no clues about the ‘case’ and happily watched his films, while they now call/ed to boycott them in their reactionary stupidity. Hector Berlioz, a great composer besmirched by critics on a regular basis, used to say: “Start collecting the rocks they throw at you; they will build your future pedestal.” If such criticism is solely limited to one’s artistic work, this uplifting aphorism is quite adequate, and by now Polanski could build a whole film studio with these ‘rocks’ – also used for ‘foundations of truth’.

Polanski has long joined the ranks of other great artists immortalised by their work, and like all of us, he is flawed in his private life. As the director and private man, who has lived his entire adult life in the age of the mass media, he has been less lucky than, say, Picasso, since his life was well-documented on film and television, in magazines and books. Polanski the filmmaker is evidently informed by Polanski the man, his personal matters in tow as he weaves suspense and story, character and plot together as seamlessly as any of his [previous] films. One might make the case that his best films are behind him, but there is no validity in discounting The Ghost Writer as inferior for such comparison. Every film should be as such, nurtured and embraced as a solitary entity without the need to compete with every other thing before it or since. Polanski the filmmaker employs the sensibilities of a stalwart cineaste, as sharp as ever for a seventy-seven year old who has seen his share of personal tragedy and heartache. His professional career at times has also been under pressure, ridiculed and demeaned for failing to achieve the success of his early films. Yet, for all his troubles and triumphs, for all the private or cineastic catastrophes like Pirates in fact a financial nightmare, Polanski proves his films bear the indelible brand of an unparalleled auteur that shows no signs of letting go or apologising over either his work or life any time soon. Rightly so.

Some people get way over their heads with equating Polanski’s films, or more specifically the rape scenes in some of them, with the 1977 incident they can ‘reinterpret’ at will. Here’s one such far too shallow ‘psychoanalysis’: “The relations between the rape in his films, and the actual rape that he later committed (obviously unaware that it wasn’t ‘actual rape’) is not to be thought about according to the general cliché of life imitating art etc., but very specifically in relation to what it is that interests Polanski in rape, thus what his experience of sexuality is, and what is the relations between what he takes to be the cinematic image and sexuality. (The author takes simple assumption to ‘know’ Polanski’s ‘sexuality’ and that as being ‘fact’.) It is first of all clear (only in the author’s opinion) that Polanski shows that for him there is an obscure point where ‘normal’ sexuality is indistinguishable from rape, (again, how does the author know? Pure postulation) that in some sense every sexual encounter is not fully distinguishable from a rape. (THAT is of course a typical feminist rhetoric who declare that all men think like that while in fact THEY do, and, in that case all those who ever depicted far more violent rape scenes in their films must all be real-life rapists by this author’s ‘logic’.) Thus, at the heart of sexuality there is an unnatural and non-worldly menace as seen in Rosemary’s Baby.” (Only in the author’s rather warped mind, turning sexuality into ‘demonised sex acts’ on a ‘religious’ or ‘satanic’ basis.) It is the moment of this menace, between nature and the unnatural, in which the image is interested, and Polanski’s cinema is interested in.” (How does the author know this? Polanski never said anything to that effect. On the contrary, P0lanski doesn ‘t believe in anything ‘satanic’.)

“It is crucial in this sense to remember that the actual rape (‘remember’ it  was not ‘actual rape’) that Polanski committed was during a photo shoot, where the girl was being photographed nude (no, topless not ‘nude’, big difference), thus turned into an image. (In that case, he would have felt ‘compelled’ to ‘rape’ others he just had ‘photographed’, nude or otherwise, like Kinski for their 1976 Vogue, or any other woman who appeared ‘nude’ in his films as ‘image’.) It is this, I speculate, that probably attracted Polanski at this moment, where the being of the photo/image has activated this obscure point in sexuality related to rape, that is, the point where an unnatural and inexplicable force takes over. (Oh right the, ‘he’s a victim of his own Satan-driven dark fantasies/cinematic fantasies’ kind of ‘logic’ triggered by the girl’s ‘nude image’, who suddenly needs to reenact his cinematic rape scenes in real life. Nice try.) The mystery of Polanski’s rape, (there’s no ‘mystery’ at all – since it was purely straightforward sex) I think, has to do with this relation between the photograph and the violence of the devilish act [in Rosemary’s Baby].” This all too one-dimensional feminist interpretation in desperate need to justify the incident, she never once questions mind you, with his films’ rapes and photography might sound ‘logical’, but is nothing other than pseudo psychology dressed up as fact – since it never was ‘rape’, neither ‘worldly’ nor ‘otherworldly’ committed in [his] real life. In fact, the psychologist who interviewed Polanski didn’t arrive at that rape scenario at all after he watched all his film up to that time, but that Polanski’s films are themed, ‘innocence vs corruption’, and isolation/loss of identity, NOT that Polanski would love to reenact his own films. He HAD acted in some already. But such logic and much simpler truth of being nothing but plain underage sex elude this and other ‘rape culture’ conditioned [feminist] minds of today.

At the height of the free-for-all monster ride called the Internet [age], the name Roman Polanski now is inevitably associated with [unlawful] sex with a minor, statutory rape, drugged rape, paedophilia, even ‘Quaalude’ or ‘champagne’, not only ‘films’ or ‘females’, the Manson Family or Sharon Tate, but ‘sodomy’ foremost. Even if he were to be exonerated by the highest Law Lords, anything that was ever posted to slander him will forever be flying around in cyberspace, all the nasty lies and comments, every incorrect article ever conceived by a diseased brain. Besides, what is it with people and ‘anal sex’ anyhow? With every other comment repeating ‘sodomy’ in all its im/possible synonyms and ‘sinful connotations’ ad nauseum and all its self-indulgent trite, why is anal sex worse than vaginal, or even oral? I’m sure those engaging in oral pleasures and anal intercourse would feel rather discriminated against or call these repressed preachers, moralistic hypocrites or religious fundamentalists, since anyone’s sexual activities is nobody else’s bloody business let alone religion or the state’s but their own. And mind you, the majority who DO have anal sex, are in fact NOT ‘homosexuals’. Unless you count all those innocent male rape victims in the glorious US prison gulags, who were sent there on fabrications, or after consensual sex because of disgusting liars like Lewis and Vogelhut.

In reality, Vogelhut actually discredits Ms Geimer’s ‘double’ sodomy claim outright through her very own now – by saying she ‘hurt’ despite amyl, E and whatnot, since Ms Geimer never said she hurt. In fact, she should have, since anal intercourse even if wanted can be painful if not relaxed enough, and if she really ‘froze’ it’s impossible to get your piece inside, and most certainly throughout when unwanted. Many women even hurt during vaginal intercourse no matter aroused, lubricated, and willing. That’s down to an either too thick penis which widens the vagina (or sphincter) too much, or for a too long penis hitting the cervix, for the wrong angle, (or general frigidity and being unpractised). That’s why some prefer vaginal intercourse from behind, or in fact anal sex, and that too needs the right angle and careful preparations. Vogelhut cleverly said she ‘hurt’, so might have had anal intercourse at one point, no matter what she said – or simply did her research with most people reporting it in fact being painful [if done wrongly or forcibly], especially if unwanted, and they both never had it. Vogelhut simply upped the ante by claiming she had been handcuffed, i.e., ‘immobilised’, which no doubt served to exacerbate the reaction from the public, without ever explaining how she got out of the handcuffs or eventually home. Besides, why are ‘gay unions’ even allowed under matrimony, (on and off mind you depending on the [US] state and ‘mood’), while ‘sodomy’ is still being legally punished, no matter if the ‘victim’ is male or female, or willing for that matter; it’s a/moral double standards.

With Gunson doing what prosecutors do, (after they lumped the defendant with all sorts of ‘counts’ the accuser had only even touched on so they can be ‘cemented’ as the defendant’s ‘doing’ rather than the accuser’s), he too ‘led’ the accuser’s replies. So he asked her if Polanski had asked her about being on the Pill, which Polanski did so he would ejaculate outside her they then had turned into this sordid [double] sodomy story. So she goes; “He asked, he goes, ‘Are you on the pill?’ and I went, ‘No’ and he goes ‘When did you have your period?’ and I said, ‘I don’t know. A week or two. I’m not sure’… he goes, ‘Come on. You have to remember’. And I told him I didn’t…. and right after I said I was not on the pill… and he goes… and then he put me – wait…” and up to the word ‘wait’, she had to think of what she was told to say, (by Vannatter and/or her mother) and then continued (after she almost slipped with the ‘and then he put me’). “Then he lifted my legs up farther and he went in through my anus.” Which is a lie – since at the beginning she had no idea where Polanski exactly ‘went in’, and in another ‘version’ said, he put his ‘thing’ up her ‘butt’, after flipping her over. Clearly coached representations of something that never happened, or the good doctor had in fact confirmed her story since NO one can just put his thing up anyone’s butt without any visible damage – but Dr Larson did NOT find ANYTHING.

Funny how she remembered all ‘that’, but not what Polanski had said otherwise, before or afterwards, suddenly all a ‘blur’. Or rather omitted it since it wouldn’t fit into this rewritten course of events. In fact, she never told Polanski off either before or after not to ‘put it up her butt’ after he apparently even ‘asked’ her if he ‘may’, when she should have screamed in agony and NO ‘rapist’ would ask ‘permission’ to sodomise someone. Plus, if a ‘rapist’ wanted to dispose of evidence of his crime, wouldn’t he likely be wearing a condom, or ditch the residue of his ejaculation if not? Polanski obviously must have ejaculated into his hand since no ejaculate was found on or inside her – or anywhere else in that TV room for that matter – and obviously washed it all off afterwards, NOT herself from any part of her body, or her clothes. If he had not withdrawn he most likely had impregnated her. That can be considered entrapment too, since she by all means should have been more ‘afraid’ of becoming pregnant, than ‘him’. I have come across quite some few hypotheses in that matter, and one scheme is known as the ‘Badger Game’, and it’s one of the oldest and most successful of all cons. Especially when it comes to ‘celebrities’. You entice a man into sex, or at least don’t refuse him, and then make him pay through the nose, but when Polanski tried to keep her from getting pregnant, because two decades of child support from a rich man is quite a substantial sum, it was turned into ‘rape’.

Polanski had like a couple of thousand women in his life and NONE became pregnant outside Sharon for her failing coil, or his current wife obviously with the intention to raise a new family, which points to the fact that they all were on the Pill, or he used a condom. Since neither of his discredited accusers ever stated he had used one nor Polanski (or to be on the Pill for that matter), though he in fact said in his autobiography he did use them from his late teens on, the fact that he did not carry any with him the day he ended up with Ms Geimer in Nicholson’s TV room, also points to the fact that this was not a planned sexual encounter, just like Dalton had stated, hence Polanski resorting to the classic coitus interuptus. Polanski’s consideration for her not to become pregnant was unabashedly turned into a double sodomy attack by certain highly immoral parties without the slightest qualms. That Lewis must have been on the Pill is clear, or any of her plenty ‘Johns’ had impregnated her, since I doubt any of them use/d condoms – unless she might have had any abortions, with or without her mother’s knowledge.

That being of no consequence, that Vogelhut was on the Pill too is more than likely since the Seventies was THE era of sexual freedom for women on the rise, or even Ms Geimer, since she had a boyfriend, and had sex with him and others before Polanski. So, unless they all used condoms, which was hardly custom before AIDS put one on every conscientious man in the Eighties, some opined that Ms Geimer in fact wanted to become pregnant by Polanski, or her mother wanted her to, but when Polanski unexpectedly avoided just that, in order to turn that foiled attempt into a nasty sodomy story on most likely Vannatter et. al.’s behest, they simply elaborated on Polanski’s withdrawing before he climaxed. No semen was found inside or on Ms Geimer, ergo, NO ejaculate could ever reach into her panties either the cops confiscated only later, and the clothes she wore when coming home, where not the same she had on when they went to the hospital – though she had stated Polanski had ejaculated all over her back. Clearly a blunt lie amongst other fabrications, since then it had collected on the back not gusset. Had Polanski not resorted to breaking it up, Ms Geimer by all means might have become pregnant – and then what? None of these ‘drugged rape and sodomy’ criers ever thought that it makes not the slightest sense to sodomise someone and then STILL withdraw before ejaculating, nowhere near any ‘anus’ or ‘vagina’.

Ms Geimer became pregnant by one of the boys with 17/18 she hung out with later after her boyfriend broke up with her – just like her mother became pregnant very young, since her older daughter was twenty in 1977 and she was hardly forty. In that sense, to be careful not to burden the girl with an illegitimate child, speaks for Polanski at any rate, and was another factor why they went for the plea deal. I find it absolutely astonishing that Schwarzenegger was given a pardon by some governor over his serial statutory rape and long-term affair with a minor he had before Polanski ever met Ms Geimer, obviously in order to become governor, while other men end up in prison hell for decades, and Polanski gets hounded over a onetime unlawful sexual intercourse he even pleaded to, had done his time for no one demanded. So much for glorious double standards. Then or course we have the ignorant ‘pseudo academics’ with pseudo knowledge and pseudo expertise, debating what [sordid] ‘sex acts’ had been committed with prurient puerility in their pathetic purism on shallow US TV talk shows and what penalties they would entail, rather than see the human elements present during the entire course of events, and that not only Polanski committed an act of ‘unlawfulness’, but everyone concerned. Some ultra Nazi even called him a ‘snuff film’ producer, not only ‘paedophile rapist’. Shame he cannot sue such revolting scumbags.

The biggest ignorance-logic dynamic people apply is that they don’t care what she wants, utterly unable to see, if she wanted the case to ‘go away’, she’d been clamouring for his butt in prison, NOT write petition to free him, NOT demand to let him go, NOT ‘forgive’ him. But such logic wouldn’t escape the radical feminist-diarrhoea-of-the-keyboard stench that has long pervaded amateur pundits on mostly feminist blogs where they twitter with their usual contempt for any rape accused, attempting to minimise the prevalence of false rape claims in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are all too common. See Lewis and Vogelhut as his latest accusers. And then of course we have those hypocrites who even attack genuine rape victims who dare defend Polanski, (while others are disgusted over how much time they spend drooling over this case long past any [imaginary] ‘sex acts’ rather than concentrate on current rape crime) calling them all sorts of names and accuse them of alls sorts of ‘ulterior motives’ the same way they accuse Ms Geimer of dishonesty today, even that their intentions are to ‘cosy up’ to Polanski, or that they dream of a seat in the accolades of his entertainment business. They’re too stupid to realise that they saw through her little white lies as a teenager that became a snowballing nightmare, knowing what real rape is.

What amazes me most of all, is the fact that many people have read Ms Geimer’s Grand Jury testimony concerning her claims, relishing the drugged drape and sodomy part like lecherous voyeurs drooling and jisming all over it, while missing her much more important later interviews discrediting herself in fact. Or maybe because, thinking she’s lying today. People also keep failing to realise that a Grand Jury testimony has virtually no significance or veracity as long as a trial didn’t prove any of it – and it never was in this case – utterly ignoring that the actual evidence available pointing to NO drugged rape and sodomy is right there next to her long-disproved testimony, on the very same online site since many years now. Why it’s called ‘smoking gun’ and no one sees the smoke of truth is beyond me. One could call it ignorance – or stupidity. Or both. The fact that Polanski never looked back once a tragedy had struck a severe blow he could not prevent, suffered, survived and weathered, enabled him to look ahead and get on with life to cope in his own way, forged life itself even deeper, made him virtually immune to falter and break, give up. The media and pathetic public had lynched him mercilessly in their glorious stupidity again last/this year, as they had done several times before for the same and other mindless reasons.

And no wonder, since long before the Manson carnage, Polanski had already acquired a firm reputation as a notorious womaniser, and ‘controversial director’. As if that’s a sin, or to make ‘satanic’ films. But who can blame him to have indulged in sex and drugs and rock’n roll, western freedom, coming from an oppressive communist regime that disallowed anything ‘artistic’ stifling his artistic vein foremost, or sexual freedom, stifling his sexual development besides. When he came to the west, he suddenly found himself in a candy shop filled with intoxicating cinematic possibilities, recreational drugs and luscious women offering their sweet sexuality to him; how only could he refuse. No one could have. Most had done the same as he had; grabbed what he could get, kiss and caress, sleep with, live life to the fullest, and according to a ‘friend’, Polanski had either bedded their girlfriends or their wives. It takes two to make love between the sheets, and if these females slept with him, then half of them had another affair and the other clearly committed adultery, which was certainly not Polanski’s fault.

One thing is certain: he has changed over the recent years ever since his third marriage like everyone changes, matures. People, who worked on the grand productions The Pianist, Oliver Twist or The Ghost Writer, remember Polanski as a warm and lovable person, an unsurpassed perfectionist and craftsman. This seems like light-years from the times of filming Chinatown when über diva Faye Dunaway asked him about her character’s motivation, and he would shout: “Just say the f***ing words. Your salary is your motivation!” Then again, all who knew him later in his life claimed that he was always a brilliant man who had mellowed, is very generous, the best-read and most cultured of people. To most who don’t know him personally, he’s a great director of international fame, while to others he’s only in/famous for his sex scandals. Or at worst a filmmaking rapist, and/or predator paedophile. No one can deny him to be a Holocaust survivor and an indirect victim of the hideous Manson murders, while others saw him as this reckless and horny, forever youthful boy, capable of shagging any female. So why he would need to rape anyone is beyond me. Today he’s undoubtedly a much more mature, caring, a model husband and loving father, great friend, compassionate and helpful. Long past his sexual exploits.

Polanski is a genius director who furthered many in his profession no matter an ex-lover like Kinski or a student of film he helped into the industry, one of the most prolific modern-day filmmakers, where several words can be used to describe his work, like absurdist cinema, or even thriller since he doesn’t have a fixed ‘genre’ like most directors. While Polanski’s directing style is inimitably his, he also integrates symbolism, romanticism and eroticism in his films to achieve certain effects. Polanski’s influence on film rises from the notion that objects and people can be utilised as vehicles for incomprehension and complete understanding alike. Humanity looks different, according to how we perceive it and Polanski offers us the opportunity to perceive in many different ways based on emotions, such as desires, or fear. Emotion serves as an anchor in his films and we often have powerful objects to which we can attach those emotions. Polanski’s commanding direction often results in ingesting aspects of a film long after it has been viewed. Artist or man, whatever people say, his entire life only proves that he is just as human as the rest of us with above average artistic skills, and all the inherent qualities and faults attached, which should not ever be used against him. We don’t do it to our own or others, so why should we do it to him – just because his name is Roman Polanski.

While Polanski and his family apparently spent a low-key August in a villa in a secluded area in the hills of St. Tropez, good for him, it is just too funny how people keep headlining his name with the usual expletives – other than when someone wrote another deservedly glowing review of his Ghost – to be continually demonised by the press and pathetic little bloggers worse than after Tate’s murder, but hardly Manson and his killer cult or murderous girls. Polanski was not only made to feel guilty of his unborn baby, wife and friends’ deaths in 1969, mainly in reference to their [wrongly] assumed ‘immoral’ [‘orgies/drugs’] ‘lifestyle’ and his ‘satanic films’, but they even pointed the finger of blame directly at him for having been responsible or even committed the atrocities himself, not that he is a victim of the massacre and only survivor. That was in the ‘swinging Sixties’, and today some less than intelligent people ask, should Polanski be alive for what they think he did to Ms Geimer, not sparing his butchered wife and child a second thought, that Manson and his gang should have faced death, not a commuted life sentence they too would love to see Polanski face. The sad lesson we learn from this is that ‘political correctness’ under today’s über rigid ‘moral compass’ and simple, human compassion do not mix well, and reaches back far farther than his films.

Here’s a choice selection of deliberate vandalism the Wiki page had endured ever since his rearrest last year, (and before in some form ever since it was created near ten years ago and her testimony was floated in 2003) while the diatribe league even added a category called ‘Paedophilia’, ‘French rapists’, ‘Polish sex offenders’, even ‘American sex offenders’ or ‘American rapists’, ‘Convicted American child molesters’, ‘Prisoners and detainees of Switzerland’, ‘French Jews’, (though he’s not Jewish) ‘Fugitives wanted on sex crime charges’, (all but ‘three’) ‘People who admit having sex with minors, but weren’t ever convicted’, or, ‘Statutory rapists’, (as if there is such a thing). ‘Fugitives wanted by the US for sex charges’, ‘20th century criminals’, with hardly anyone in it, and most of them lasted all but ten seconds. But several of them are still there, and the category ‘French sex offenders’ sports exactly one ‘candidate’ – Polanski, especially created for him. Ahhh, the love. Ranging from film director, producer, writer, actor, screenwriter, to fugitive, [self-confessed] rapist and of course paedophile, or ‘child predator/molester’, the best BS ever posted there was: ‘In September 2009, the dirty old man was finally arrested, and may be due for some time in a ‘pound you in the ass prison’ for his rape of a teenager in the 1970’s’.

‘On 27 September 2009 Polanski, after being arrested and held in a maximum security prison located in Switzerlandeish mountains, has confided in Switzeris authorities about crimes unknown to the public, that he has committed. As of today, it has been reported that Polanski received multiple beatings to the rectal area with multiple devices known as ‘penis’ throughout the prison (i.e., multiple anal rape)’. ‘Polanski is a career rapist and pedophile! Burn in hell!’ ‘Geimer reported him as having a very small penis, which eventually – to Polanski’s dismay and ultimate surrender – secured his conviction’. (That’s almost funny.) ‘Interestingly though, Polanski committed rape with a minor at Nicholson’s house in Los Angeles. He took pictures of the nude 13 year old girl. Later, in the hot tub, he butt rammed her. He was arrested when he dropped her off at the hospital. He jumped bail an went to Europe.’ (Sounds like Kiernan’s bullshit.) ‘Polanski is first and foremost noteworthy for being a rapist who was unlawfully at large for over three decades with the connivance of Poland and France, now arrested by heroic Switzerland.’ (Yay!) ‘Polanski was convicted of ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, involving non-consensual sex with a child he surreptitiously drugged.’ ‘Surreptitiously’, eh? Right.

‘Polanski’s sexual preferences are putting persons on drugs and sodomize them.’ ‘No-non-never-the-less, to this day, apparently, Roman, and all his artsy fartsy friends, especially his best friend Woody Allen think that fucking little girls while they are drugged up is a good idea.’ ‘Roman Polanski came into a 13 year old girls ass. That’s what he did.’ NOPE. ‘Roman moved to France, because he, like the french, are a weaker people.’ ‘Polanski is one of the world’s best known contemporary child molesters and is considered by critics one of the great sodomizers of his time.’ (Great paraphrasing, and sodomizer is NOT a proper word, like ‘raper’.) ‘Additionally, Geimer testified that Polanski did not wear protection throughout the ordeal and that Polanski ejaculated in her anus,’ which is the biggest bullshit ever; she never said anything about ‘protection’. Then someone added that he was charged with ‘child molestation’, NO, or ‘oral copulation by force’, NO. And then we had one who changed his country of birth to the USA of all places and that he was born in Austin TX. As if. ‘On January 15th, 2010 Tito Ortiz threatend to kill Polanski for being a “filthy pedophile”. Other notable Hollywood pedophiles like Woody Allen quickly came to Polanksi’s defense, stating that: “if she’s old enough to pee, then she’s old enough for me”. He also died on January 23rd in Paris at one point. Yeah right.

Though one is to expect bad spelling and grammar from such sad low-IQ idiots, one might think that an entry in the Wikipedia encyclopaedia should be ‘his’ page, while hardly anything ‘he’ in fact had said, let alone in reference to the case, was ever mentioned. Let alone anything exculpatory, like the medical evidence, or Dr Larson’s report that discredited her version. Funny how it’s about HIS life and only ‘her’ version of events was posted. Several times the entire page was deleted, or parts, and at one point the more pro-Polanski counter force added: ‘Polanski has continually maintained that the sex with the 13-year-old was consensual.’ Yep, no matter it was unlawful. ‘Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that Geimer “wasn’t unresponsive”, and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing. He also says nothing about drugging the girl beforehand, though he does mention that they had both had some champagne. Furthermore, a medical examination of the girl discovered no blood on her clothes or body, no anal lacerations and no sphincter tear – nothing, in short, consistent with her story of being drugged, raped and sodomised while putting up “some resistance” and saying “no’ repeatedly”, which later was removed again, of course.

Someone who thought they could see through a crystal ball, said: ‘In accordance with California law, Polanski will have to register as a sex offender in the State of California pursuant to Penal Code Section 290 as he engaged in a sex act with a child’. Clearly wishful thinking, but at least s/he gets ‘one’ act right. While someone else added: ‘In a documentary for A&E Television Networks entitled ‘Roman Polanski’ (2000), Samantha Geimer stated “…he had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that, and really I just tried to let him get it over with.” She also claimed that the event had been blown “all out of proportion”’, that was changed into: ‘In a 2003 op-ed written to the LA Times commenting on Polanski, Geimer said: “It was not consensual sex by any means. I said no, repeatedly, but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. I was alone and I didn’t know what to do. It was scary and, looking back, very creepy’. THAT is typical manipulation tactics when removing anything in his favour even when coming from her, though both ‘personal comments’ were in fact deleted. And, since I have read several times now in ‘US’ articles [only] where she was cited as saying it was ‘creepy’, it makes me really wonder how anyone can say sex, let alone ‘rape’, is in any form ‘creepy’.

Now, it would be either ‘boring’ if one lets someone ‘get it over with’, or, horrible, painful you name it if it had been really rape. And ‘looking back’? Why would she plead for his release today if it was ‘creepy’? Because she obviously never said any of that. If it were really how she made it sound in her original testimony, she’d not ever want him freed. I’m sure some of her anti-Polanski ‘quotes’ are in fact paraphrased interviews someone vandalised, reedited her own words, since they simply don’t fit the picture of her wanting him freed. I have in fact read several genuine interviews with her, and then saw the exact ‘same’ interviews, but rewritten with negative wording and anti-Polanski tripe clearly not her ‘style’. That’s where this dubious ‘creepy’ comes from, or that he’s an ‘arrogant creep’ (no one who in fact knew/knows him would corroborate). You can see exactly what she in fact HAD said, and where it was turned around to make it an attack on him. I wonder if she ever noticed that. No genuine rape victim wants their rapist freed. But then again he’s not. As ‘neutral’ as the summary on Wiki is for now, it’s relatively incomplete, and everything that was ever posted on the his page was done so with the wording as if her claims were ‘fact’, not ‘alleged’, while nothing points to the fact that her testimony was never impugned, nor proven. Nothing Polanski-defence-positive was ever allowed, though it is in fact about HIS life.

Just so to show how hypocritical and subversive feminist ‘weasel’ talk [really] is, here’s a citation someone had added: ‘The LA Times reported that the founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, stated, “My personal thoughts are let the guy go. It’s bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It’s crazy to arrest him now. Let it go. The government could spend its money on other things.”’ Just so to still make him the rapist, she’s saying, ‘a person was raped’, despite no evidence. Wishful thinking fantasyland and all. I watched that pathetic editing war for a few weeks till I couldn’t be bothered anymore, but since each revision is till preserved, I thought I plough myself through the unbelievable muck and selected a few really pathetic ‘additions’ of the hundreds and hundreds of revisions, and according to the IPs logged, most of them originated in the US. Of course. Then we had the war of that he’s NOT ‘Jewish’, since Jewish is a religion not an ethnicity or nationality. Polanski self-identified as Catholic from ten years to fifteen years of age during the war and ghetto years, and more recently stated, “I’m not a religious person.” Indeed, ever since Tate’s death all he believed in was the absurd. Then someone deleted his entire films section and replaced it with: ‘Introduced Gay Sex Movies to the World. He is also Gay.’ I wonder where all his male partners are. On the other hand someone called him ‘a cool dude’.

Within one day of his rearrest alone the page was flagged for excessive vandalism, cautioned ‘editors’, and then was several times blocked from editing – they even removed the ‘flag’ section several times so it could not be blocked. Of course, they also said that the extradition was to ‘stand trial’, NO IT WAS NOT, it was for the sentencing hearing for the one count he had pleaded to. They also wanted to put him into a category for US expats and immigrants, when that is more than bullshit. Then of course they tried to get the ‘forcible anal rape’ in, though Ms Geimer never even said it was forced. They also kept saying that he was ‘convicted’; no, a plea is not a ‘conviction’ – only when the judge declares him sentenced to probation, then he’s convicted. In common usage, conviction (convicted) implies a process through a trial and jury. In this case there was no jury or trial and he pleaded guilty to one count, to which would follow the sentencing hearing he did not attend because Rittenband reneged on their agreement that the time he had spent at Chino was it, and therefore never finalised his sentencing plan. So technically, despite Polanski having done his time, his legal status is in a state of limbo and he’s not a convict. On the other hand, considering the millions of people who could have accessed the page, and only these few resorted to such childish editing wars, it really is nothing, [or] compared to the other blogs and libellous comments I came across.

While many demanded disproportionate punishment for Polanski, whereas not giving any real rapist and violent assailant of today a second thought, as a phenomenon, a movement, or as an insidious ideology, such ‘organised’ mob mentality is rooted in the repressed Victorian era, their dogmatic ideas that everything – every human action – should be perceived through an overtly moral filter they had created, and if it fails that blanket moral test, be cast into the outer darkness. Or ‘hell’. Those they perceive/d as ‘immoral’ are shunned, ruined, brought down mercilessly. See Oscar Wilde, amongst many other great artists, who once claimed that works of art are not capable of being ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ but only well or poorly made, and that only brutes and illiterates, whose views on art are incalculably stupid, would make such judgements about art – or the artist. As true as that is, such sentiments widely disseminated even faster these days by the Internet, being a drug of sorts in itself, it’s not only a very effective way to sell news and other stories, ‘real drugs’, or legal adult porn and illegal child porn for that matter, but the sad thing about the Net is the way that this anarchist dream has been turned so swiftly into the most brutal, cynical, intrusive and abusive media, marketing and blogger tool ever seen, an ugly, exploitative phenomenon where people can vilify and destroy others with impunity, with lies and falsified records.

Most of the rules of modern PC are strikingly similar to those of the Victorian original, such as the prurient drooling over and the perverted hatred of the portrayal of healthy or even ‘kinky’ sexuality, its extreme punishments. A filmmaker, who displays a non-PC attitude – unless he can manage to contrive a defence of ‘irony’ or declare it ‘realist’ or ‘absurdist cinema’ – will be cast out of society, as we saw with other great filmmakers before Polanski who dared expose [darker] human nature. How can we comprehend what he thought then, thinks today, how he felt then, and feels today, not having faced his toils? Few do care either way, and maybe only through watching all his films can they get a sense of his evolution as human, and that his ‘faith in the absurd’ was born in the aftermath of the murders, his self-professed profound guilt of having not been there to protect and maybe even save his wife he no less adored. Men like Polanski are ingrained with both ‘seismic’ and ‘phobic’ attitudes created by their life’s tragic experiences and display great resourcefulness, lust for life, iron survival instinct and moral aptitude to match. Polanski, while under Nazi oppression as a child constructed makeshift light projectors, lost himself into the world of filming to cope with the atrocities unfolding around him, detached himself from that brutal reality.

Watching Polanski’s films today is like staring at an unfinished, emotive puzzle, a visual feast of painstakingly authentic, superb cinematography and production designs, with no ‘ending’ no matter the subject, where the audience is left to fill in the blanks they cannot find, the few pieces missing forever. And when they do, in almost always a fallibly fallacious fashion, they hardly ever get it right to match the original idea/s Polanski had in mind – unless they have lived his life and know him. Or simply listen to him and realise how he conceived his work. That they also fail to see him for who he really is as a private man, nothing like what they’d wish, is clear. Many women sought him for his notoriety, and then were left stunned that he was nothing like the press had had painted him as – but a warm and caring, boyishly bright spark. So in that sense, it is true that his films are a reflection of him as he matured, the human-as-artist they cannot grasp. But then all art is ‘personal’. Art is reflective self -expression, individualism, and individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. There[in] lies its immense value and power. For what it seeks is to disturb monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a [society/state-manipulated] machine – Polanski, like many others [rightly] oppose/d or tried to expose. And, if one were to sum up Polanski’s film themes post-Manson murders it would be, ‘everybody dies’.

The sexually very liberated and famed erotica writer Anaïs Nin once said: “Ordinary life does not interest me. I seek only the high moments. I am in accord with the surrealists, searching for the marvellous.” That no doubt applies to Polanski’s artistic mind as well. Movies are about suspending your disbelief. If you can’t watch a movie without dragging an actor’s personal life into the screen, you fail at watching movies, and you should probably stop. Every time someone wants to hold an official or university sponsored retrospective of his work, the usual foaming-at-the-mouth idiots come crawling out the woodworks suddenly, shouting, ‘how dare you show films of a paedophile!’ (But they love Alice in Wonderland no doubt. Wait for its significance.) ‘He hasn’t paid for his unconscionable crime to society!’ (Yes he has, and, ‘society’? What has society got to do with two people engaging in sex? Sex is a private matter. And ‘unconscionable’? Gimme a break.) Etc. etc. etc. bullshit rhetoric overkill – with some never even having seen any of his films since they’re obviously of a different generation (and level) but have to shred his work regardless, i.e., are not even half his age to boot. So let’s just hope that they will be railroaded one day by the corrupt law without the slightest chances of rightful defence – with the public dancing on their grave while jerking off over their ordeals, leaving nasty comments all over the anonymous Internet.

But someone came up with this more intelligent résumé: ‘There are literally hundreds of people who make a film, not just the director, so all those films directed by Polanski that you refuse to see, are all films of many other people whose work you are ignoring as well. By your logic, you would hold the cinematographer, the composer, the editor and actors all hostages to your boycott. They worked with Polanski and so you should hold them accountable as well. By refusing to see Polanski’s films you make no coherent statement, all you do is deny yourself the evidence of why people chose to work for and with him, why many people admire him. By refusing to see the films, you refuse to see why he is a great director. You don’t care that he is a great director because you care about something else; his LA legal case. Next time you see a film, any film, look up the credits and read the critical and in-depth film-theory analyses. Ponder on it, and in the end you will see that all good directors have borrowed or stolen from Polanski and continue to do so. All the films you like and love that are made by lesser directors are influenced by the genius of Polanski. Essentially you prefer a copy to the original, because the copyist may be ‘moral’ even if unoriginal (and you in fact don’t know if s/he ever did something ‘morally wrong’). The value judgment you have made by not seeing Polanski films is this one: you object to Polanski’s moral, ethical and legal behavior, but not to your own ignorance (and that of the corrupt judicial system). What a fascinating way to look at the world. I commend you on your applied ignorance, hope it serves you well’. Spot-on rebuke.

If people knew that the writer (who was in fact a reverend named Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) of Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll, was of paedophilic tendencies by today’s ‘moral compass’ because he took photos of very young children, more or less covered up and the girl he modelled his Alice on and took boat trips with, they’d either be shocked, or couldn’t care less [anymore] since he’s dead, cannot be vilified anymore, and to ban his work, oh well, it’s just an old fantasy story of a little girl who had an acid trip down a rabbit hole. Or of course, you can go on the moral barricades trip yourself with the same type of, let’s boycott Alice in Wonderland, it’s paedophiliac! Carroll was a paedophile! bullshit. It was perfectly normal for a Victorian gentleman like Carroll, clergy or not, to have close relationships with children as he did. So it was in the Seventies to take nude photos of nubile teenagers or to sleep with them as plenty men did, even wrote about it and published their well-received stories as an example of the times in well-reputed magazines like Vogue, not any ‘porn’ magazine like Hustler, which in those days was much ‘sleazier’ in its overt graphicness Polanski never even heard of (before the boyfriend of Ms Geimer’s mother’s showed it to him on his first visit). Polanski is well-known and respected to treat teenagers and children like adults, as equals and not immature little kids.

Many other artists have done exactly the same things in their personal life that happened to millions of other people they don’t give a hoot about in contrast, but apparently because guys like ‘Polanski’ are ‘celebrities’, they’re suddenly oh so bloody ‘concerned’ about ‘morals’. Get a damn life, hypocrites. Perhaps, when we take our own modern society’s misgivings over either man’s behaviour as the thing which is ‘sick’ and ‘wrong’ and re-assert our attitudes, perhaps then there is something wrong with a society which cannot project anything but negativity and perverseness upon a man who had a close bond with children, or very mature teenaged girls in Polanski’s case. It is all too easy to simply come to the conclusion that Carroll or Polanski were men who were exclusively sexually interested in children or teenagers, and used the medium of photography to come ever closer to a sinister fantasy. Not so. Both were professional photographers who didn’t need that medium to attract any females to sleep with, and both foremost had sexual relation with women in their twenties and older which entirely disqualifies them to be paedophiles. While Carroll was a clergy, who wrote brilliant fantasy stories without any shady intentions, the ‘Victorian Child Cult’ perceived child-nudity as essentially an expression of innocence. Child nudes were mainstream and fashionable in Carroll’s and Polanski’s times and most photographers made them as a matter of course, the ‘time’, as an artistic response to a prevalent aesthetic and philosophical movement of the days, where child nudes even appeared not only on Christmas cards in the Victorian era.

Modern society must look beyond their 21st Century morals and codes of conduct in order to get closer to the truth of the times THEN. Indeed, it seems that today’s ‘society’ has lost that important ability to get close to the children of our age, and perhaps, sadly, this is something which will never return because of rabid feminism having destroyed that ‘innocence’ in our society, where any consensual sexual act can be punished with perverse relish, turning women into pathetic victims and men into rapists, creating more victims and real rapists by stifling healthy sexual development and desires. It is with cynical eyes that most people today would look at a grown man who forms a relationship with a child or teenager; his motives are questioned, and even parents are paranoid by now not to be seen as child abusers just because they cuddle their kids or let their teenager have sex. It seems a notion of innocence on the part of the man is no longer entertained; but rather, observers leap to the conclusion of a predator pursuing his prey. What is important for Carroll’s case is that he is seen not with the eyes of a cynic but instead with a 19th Century perspective. Instead of using modern minds to criticise and demonise they should try to be objective and open-minded. In Polanski’s case, the fact that he had sex with a mature teenage does not equal abuse let alone serial abuse because he sought the company of young women. Only the abusive law made it abusive to have sex with adolescent minors, and that age gap is pure morality play our ancestors had no problems with.

The fact that a teenager from one second to the next can suddenly consent to sex is simply ludicrous, which apparently every person experiencing an instantaneous increase in general knowledge, clarity of thought, emotional and physical maturity at the exact stroke of midnight on his or her eighteenth birthday, or to whatever any age of consent that [law] clock was set, and never gains or loses those things during any other part of his or her life. A teenager can be mature long before that and consent to sex, the repressive laws just doesn’t allow for it, THAT is the perverse side of today’s society. People say that nobody today can be blamed for failing to understand the ways in which other times were different from our own. Actually, I think we can and should be blamed for making this quite elementary error, but the fact is we do, quite frequently, confuse others with ourselves. Indeed, perhaps the single biggest obstacle to understanding history is a tendency to see the past as a kind of costume drama in which the sets and clothing are exotic, but the people underneath them are just like us. The root of this disparity is a change in the way we have come to view child sexuality as evil. Of course, the fact that Ms Geimer ‘behaved’ like a mature young lady means nothing really, since she could have put on a convincing show, innocently, deliberately, pretended to be ‘cool’, in control, till the mother refused her to continue her photo sessions with Polanski who’d enabled her to become famous, and then it all went over her head at ‘parental authority’.

A person should be able to decide for themselves if they are interested in someone else’s sexual offerings, NOT the law, no matter their ages as long as it’s a pubescent person, not ‘child’ who cannot reproduce yet. Ours is such a highly sexualised era and the idea of children and [female] sexuality is such a hot button topic that it is genuinely difficult to imagine the cultural framework these men lived in. No one cared about all the other [older] more or less famous men who slept with young girls or even minors then or ever, calling them ‘playboys’ or ‘ladies men’ in contrast. Or that über playboy Hugh Hefner, who produced Polanski’s Macbeth in 1970, and was into them as well, (apart from the very judge who sent Polanski to Chino in a glorious show of moral double standards) as his famous very nubile ‘Playboy Bunnies’ demonstrate perfectly as a sign of the über sexual times. Hefner had very young Bunnies [not only] as girlfriends no matter his age, just like Polanski had dated a few young girls – who in contrast is demonised over it today like no other man – completely ignoring that the majority of Polanski’s female partners were in their twenties, two of whom he even married. Considering the numerous liaisons he had, and none of these women stooped so low as to cry rape, he must have a large fan club only consisting of his former lovers, and, as he wrote himself in his autobiography, his escapades, his wildness, his strengths, had sprung from a sense of wonder what life has to offer, not pure ‘sexual urge’.

His acclaimed work, his cinematic fantasies have been motivated by a desire to please, to entertain, to make his audience laugh and ‘think’, not ‘sex’. He wanted to show the dark side of men and women in very subliminal ways, the innocent versus corruption, and he seems to have been able to achieve just that on a grand scale either way, as many can attest to. But, ever since Sharon’s horrible death, and despite appearances to the contrary ever since, his enjoyment of life had been incomplete, subdued, and then was ripped again into further shreds in 1977 by other females who betrayed him – up to the point when he met gentle soul Emmanuelle after the fiasco of Pirates with ugly backstabber Lewis, and raised a new family who are devoted to him as he is to them. The honest women he had met in his life, slept with or mostly of course not, all but two disgusting betrayers know better than to call him a rapist let alone paedophile. That is reserved for the obsessed detractors and stupid little haters – they don’t count, they don’t exist. I’m sure most people [deservedly] laugh at pathetic women like Lewis and Vogelhut, according to the comments I came across, know that they made up their little abuse stories, or else plenty more ex-lovers with similar claims had come out long ago. No one ever did before he was rearrested, a soft target, a helpless political pawn – but the little Polish mouse escaped the clutches of [their] insidious machinations once more. This time freed by another woman.

Polanski ‘should’ have shown up for the final sentencing hearing in 1978, sure, but if the court was going to reject the plea deal, it should reject his guilty plea as well, especially after the judge was messing him around for fun and he could not be trusted anymore. Polanski should be allowed to go back to the LA courts without any threats of jail time or more foul games, with admission of ALL evidence, and his lawyer should demand withdrawal of the guilty plea, since it was contingent on an agreement the court had refused to approve. What’s left is to either close the case, or prosecute Polanski on all counts, and since Ms Geimer was never willing to cooperate in the prosecution, the trial will be short and result in an acquittal, since he had done his time by all means already, was unfairly treated from day one, and the family had committed plenty misdemeanours themselves against the girl and Polanski. If they don’t want to end up with a perjury verdict for the family, they can either come clean straight up to avoid prison, or play the same game again and the defence will see to their incarceration. In the legal profession, it’s commonly held that any prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich, as seen with all these counts lumped on Polanski, but they refused to try them, because her testimony was unbelievable in the most crucial points and the unlawful sex charge was the only one left for a plea deal.

That the case should have been tossed out is clear, but with someone like Rittenband at the helm, that wasn’t to happen. A trial jury is charged with finding guilt – but in practice, a jury not only determines whether someone was ‘technically guilty’ of the crime, but ‘deserves’ to be punished for the crime. A Grand Jury in contrasts has only to listen to the accuser, and the defence has NO chance of anything exculpatory brought to them, before a trial jury takes over. Instead of that, they put Polanski behind bars for 102 days in all, he suffered over seven months of lost freedom on top, let alone over three decades of unprecedented vilification, and it would be hard to get an unbiased jury to punish him further after a very successful and lawful life, when he was obviously a victim of the courts and the mother’s own agendas. She was never charged with child neglect as she should have been, or would have been had she been an inner-city mother on welfare, she and her partner had been done for drugs offences and her daughter’s own boyfriend for statutory rape next  to Polanski. Her daughter would have been put into care due to her mother’s neglect. (Like Lewis’ mother for her daughter prostituting herself.) But, anything Gailey did to facilitate this case to even reach any court as the accuser, was forgotten by the prosecution and everyone else ever since. She should not be sanctified for her bad behaviour as a parent.

The plea bargain they pressed for was about as stiff a deal as the prosecutor could drive for unlawful sex at that time and today’s law cannot be applied no matter what people want. Besides, the idea that a thirteen year old is a ‘child’ is more than absurd. That the feminists have indoctrinated the gullible public with such nonsense is clear – they don’t want them to snatch up all the men these aging spinsters cannot get at anymore. The state of Pennsylvania where Ms Geimer was born, prosecuted a thirteen year old as an adult recently, which means that the state believes that a ‘child’ like her is capable of participating fully and meaningfully in her defence. And, that she’s culpable when it comes to anything other than ‘sex’, since then she’s suddenly this disempowered little ‘victim’ for feminists to proclaim how evil men are but not them. How convenient to pave them a free avenue to cry rape. According to the law, Pennsylvania can prosecute a two-year old as an adult in case of a capital offence. Someone who is three weeks short of turning fourteen, sexually active with multiple partners is a young adult; it’s only the state legislature that would deny her the right to control her own body. ‘Statutory rape’ should be limited to sex with someone who hasn’t yet reached puberty, not some arbitrary age of consent where the minor is of reproductive capabilities, i.e., a mature teenager who can become a mother no matter her actual age, if married or not. But that would be logical and helpful, save men from being sent to prison hell for sex, yet hardly ever women.

As we saw, any accuser can have charges dropped against anyone more or less illustrious – except Ms Geimer, even as an adult – just because the man she had slept with dared show the LA courts what they really are, corrupt to the very core. Conversely, many accused have zero chances of achieving the same and accusers get way with crying rape. But only in the US, (unless you’re rich and powerful or from ‘Hollywood’) since in the UK either side can have a case dropped for whatever reasons. While hardly anyone can argue that Polanski is one of the world’s most admired and versatile (and/or controversial) film director, with gutter journalists and pro and anti-Polanski bloggers ‘investigating’ not only his works but private life, and [that of] his ‘women’, the egregiously thoughtless press or even ‘authors’ couldn’t care less about any tact or facts. Since over four decades now in fact. With many citing that Polanski is still ‘on the run’, I wonder about such nonsense, since he’s not ‘on the run’ from anything or anyone in the sense it that it means ‘to run away from’, ‘hastily retreat’, being in the course of [actively] ‘fleeing’ a scene [of crime]. How can anyone be ‘on the run’, or ‘hide’, while making films in open daylight for decades in plenty countries. To keep away from the US doesn’t mean he’s on the run from there just because he can’t go there, or the UK. Fugitive might be more apt, but not from justice – but [continuous] injustice.

Never in my life before have I seen a case where the media was so ‘concerned’ with any ‘children’, or how the ‘victim’ ‘felt’ suddenly, while the public in contrast twist and turn Ms Geimer’s wishes or words as they like at any rate, don’t care what she thinks or says about Polanski. Or they believe he paid her to speak in his favour, obviously oblivious to the facts of how she got the money and has nothing to do with it, but the fact that she was forced to lie as a teenager and since then tried to make good on that mistake. They say, ‘victims often forgive their attackers’, (just so to leave Polanski in the bracket of being her attacker, since in fact hardly anyone would ever forgive anyone who violated them) ‘and it may be ‘healthy’ for them to do so, (no, to see them in jail would be) but their feelings about their attacker has no relevance to a criminal case’. Sure in ‘her’ case let’s ignore her feelings, while I guarantee you, were it them in her place, they’d be furious no one takes her words seriously today let alone the courts having fucked them both over since decades now, while being utterly consumed with her teenage fantasies of a time she’d rather forget – and how she could have done better.

What if Ms Geimer had been badly beaten by Polanski or her own husband for that matter, suffered real injuries? Would ‘society’ say, ‘she has ‘forgiven’ him, let him be’? Of course they would, since in any non-sexual scenario no matter a much worse or painful incident, people suddenly have their brains switched on and listen to the ‘victim’. But, petty commenters just love to hate, it’s all they do and will consume them one day. After Polanski has given the world half a century of pioneering movies that surely have brought more joy into the world than any of his pathetic haters and persecutors, he will be remembered for his pioneering achievements and illustrious, tragedy-riddled life, long after THEY are all dead having disseminated nothing but empty diatribes as sad examples of humanity without anything of value as legacy. Then of course we have those who become outraged when someone questioned her version of events, saying, how dare you not believe this ‘child’, or this thirteen-year old girl, while they know perfectly well that teenagers lie their pants off if needed. And then people come back to them to point them to the facts, that whatever she had claimed was refuted by plenty medical and other evidence, and also prove it with hard evidence like the transcripts available online.

Of course, then they’d go all, oh oh, but, but then there was no ‘force’ involved, which is exactly where they invalidate their own bullshit arguments of that it was forcible intercourse and brutal anal rape. No ‘force’ equals no rape, no matter which orifice, end of. Only forcible intercourse is legally recognised as rape. Ms Geimer herself never said he used any ‘force’, either verbally or physically, that’s why her being ‘afraid’ of him rhetoric is more than dubious. Besides, have you ever seen a ‘rapist’ who did NOT use any ‘force’? Verbal or otherwise? Of course not. People after such well-deserved or eye-opening rebuke usually don’t come back since they ran out of stupid or more ill-informed arguments. Of course, Cooley would have loved to have Lewis’ and Vogelhut’s lies taken into account, but refuse the one woman concerned to drop the case, which is not only legally reprehensible but indefensibly vindictive. All he wants is to keep floating his boat of wanting to become Attorney General on Polanski’s utterly corrupt case waves, I’m sure the Swiss realised, most likely after Polanski had spoken out against him, and they didn’t listen to ‘them’, but her and him – justice. Widmer-Schlumpf said so herself.

Like so many having compared Polanski’s [imaginary] ‘crime/s’ with that of the Pope of all people, or rather his flock, whose crimes are hardly as rampant as proclaimed by the overzealous scaremongering feminist league, the difference however is that, had Polanski ‘continued abusing children’ as they put it in their ‘child rhetoric’ delusion, his artistic friends would have soon melted away long ago, which is undoubtedly a fact and one that never transpired since he never abused any ‘children’ in the first place, while the Catholic Church knew abuse was happening and allowed it to continue, also a fact. So, this type of self-defeating argument by desperate tripe-mongers, of, ‘Polanski equals Pope’, is just as farfetched as any other crimes they desperately want to pin on him. Saying, ‘a man who drugged etc. (since I’m fed up with repeating this bullshit) a girl shy three weeks of turning fourteen, would not usually receive the uncritical support of the political and literary establishments’, that is exactly the point! Since, had he really done that (rather than see it was never proven he had, (hence should always say ‘allegedly’ did), plus, escaped ‘justice’ rather than injustice, Polanski had never received ANY support. Let alone from his colleagues who cherish their reputations beyond any ‘friendship’. No film financiers, studios, crews, actors, anyone to make a film or stage play, would have worked with him.

But then of course they knew he never raped anyone, while such logic, even if conceived by accusers, and then not seeing these blatantly obvious ‘facts’, remains a mystery to these fanatical idiots. One of the most laughable statements I’ve ever come across coming from CNN (of course) was from some pseudo ‘expert’, saying, ‘remember, she had anal sodomy’, (über bollocks anyone? ‘Anal sodomy’? Wow, the Americans are SO obsessed with anal sex they even put it into tautological BS where simple sodomy doesn’t suffice anymore; ‘sodomy’ implicitly implies ‘anal’, idiots). Or, ‘do you know that that puts her at an increased risk for anal cancer in her future?’ Yeah, like imaginary anal intercourse will give you [a rather rare] cancer – not even if she really had it twice that day as she claimed – what utter oh so concerned bullshit. In that case Vogelhut had died from it after Polanski ‘repeatedly sodomised’ her and all the other ‘helpless victims’ he habitually had anally raped all his life. These people are full of what’s coming from their anal passage. Just like those who thought Emmanuelle crazy when she said after Polanski’s release (since they of course don’t know better), now that the injustice of incarceration done to her husband is over, they can get on with their lives and projects, rather than ask ‘why’ she said ‘injustice’ and be educated to realise it was just that, and still is. Unless Ms Geimer finally comes clean and spells it out, takes responsibility for her own part in it.

Had the family not turned her underaged sex into drugged rape and sodomy all over some harmless pictures that would have paved Ms Geimer’s path to stardom she so desperately wanted, only to turn it all against Polanski in order to avoid punishment over them, with a mother who didn’t listen to her daughter when it was really important – not scold her over them, but confront Polanski and tell him not to take others. No, what did she do, she let him go in the belief that it was ok after looking at them, and then it was suddenly ‘rape’ hours later. Ms Geimer should have told her mother before they went to Nicholson’s house they had done topless shots already, the mother should have made it clear to Polanski what kind of photos she’d allow, not pretend they were ok with it and once Polanski left cry rape because the sister was ‘upset’ over them, not tell us later it became ‘scary’ and that she didn’t want to do more. The blatant double standards applied by the mother alone are just as staggering – first she allowed her daughters to grow up in a drugs and booze infused environment with sexual contact from the age of eight in Ms Geimer’s case, with her eldest having been institutionalised for Quaalude abuse, and then suddenly finds it oh so unacceptable that her younger sister had a tiny bit Quaalude and champagne or sex after ONE topless photo – rather than clamp down on all that at home first and keep an eye on her own boyfriend, who probably had a thing going on with her youngest she most likely had no idea about.

Ms Geimer’s testimony clearly states, she was upset about her mother’s decision to refuse to release the pictures, cried in her room before her boyfriend came over, but she stupidly didn’t tell Polanski about her concerns, or told her mother that the images would have been cropped as Polanski had said to her himself, or she’d not known or told her and that her mother presumably would not allow topless shots. Why she let him take them in the first place when her mother had to see and sign them off, is a mystery. Or rather not. Instead, she laid full blame at Polanski’s feet suddenly and made it out as if he had coerced her into it all, after she had later told her she had champagne and Quaalude and then sex with him. According to the only journalist allowed present during the proceedings, for the ‘victim’ and her family, the’ ideal outcome’ would be a guilty plea to one of the charges so that they could pursue a lawsuit to seek civil damages outside of the media spotlight’s glare. Indeed, that’s why they pressed for it in the first place but demanded no jail time – and since they had no evidence to proof what she had accused him of, opted for the one count left applicable purely for her age to plead to. Besides, if Polanski had done what she had claimed, her mother and the father, a lawyer, had pressed for his incarceration, not let the mother press for NO time in custody. The father was never part of any hearing either – except that he told her not to be cross-examined, knowing too well she’d been found out.

The mother stated in her own testimony after Gunson had asked her: “Did you ask Mr Polanski if you could go?” “Yes.” And when asked further: “What did you say?” she replied: “Well, I asked him on the phone in the time when we made the appointment for that [first] day. And I asked him because I wanted to go along and take some pictures of the two of them, because I am sort of a photographer sometimes. And he said, no, that he would rather be alone with her because she will respond more naturally.” That reply was perfectly reasonable, since he knew how self-conscious she might feel when being watched by her, or get in his way of how he wants her to pose. That said, she, or Ms Geimer, therefore cannot ever declare that she had asked him again later that she wanted to come along for the second/third [Bisset/Nicholson] shoot. Ms Geimer herself forgot to mention that she in fact said to Polanski that she wouldn’t have wanted her coming along at any rate, saying, “Like I hate having my mother around when I’m being photographed, because she says, like, do this, or do that.” Of course, what they both said ‘officially’ was to cover their own backs, while Polanski had said that he told her boyfriend where they’d go and she said that he had told her that they would go to the Nicholson’s home. Since neither Ms Geimer’s nor her mother’s boyfriends were ever part of the hearing to back him up and shed more light on the exact events at home, they both and the sister can say whatever they like.

Many called this a deliberate entrapment in order to get money out of Polanski once it became clear sex had taken place, though it took like ten more years for her to file a civil suit before the statute of limitations would run out and her money to raise a family. That she needed to wait another ten years and the ‘compensation’ wasn’t ‘officially awarded’ before they simply took it from his proceeds, must have been a bummer. Either way, this case only shows that teenagers are liable to lie to avoid punishment, and then blame the adult for god knows what, some of which never happened – ‘elaborate’ on specifics to be fully relieved of all responsibilities, and accountabilities. In her case that was easy for her age, had she been of age, they had thrown out the case right where Dr Larson made it clear he cannot corroborate her claims of vaginal let alone anal [double] rape. That she took the third of a Quaalude and champagne on her own free will is more than clear, but then put it as if it was Polanski’s ‘fault’. The fact that she said in her testimony that she went back into the kitchen right after she in fact had taken the drug, because she was upset with herself over her stupidity, she obviously knew what it would do to her after she had some champagne already – getting sexually aroused and with the champagne combined would end up in hot waters – thinking that food would help.

She should have told Polanski that it affected her and taken a rest, not pretend and later say she was afraid of him, not even explaining why, but rather invent that she had asthma when the hot Jacuzzi vapours overcame her to her own words utterly omitting vital facts of what actually occurred or what they talked about, since this of course would not match her ‘version’. In the testimony her mother confirmed that she had asked her to lie about the asthma, in order not to go into the Jacuzzi as she put it, when in fact she took a dip on her own free volition after SHE wanted to get in there as soon as possible after they had done a few shots in the kitchen, (hence their both going into the bathroom to switch it on, where he found the Quaalude she could have refused at any rate) and was perfectly happy till she became too hot. She also got out the hot tub HERSELF, not with his ‘help’ or after he had asked her to come down his end as she put it. It never happened. Her later accounts are not consistent with her original claims either let alone other statements she gave over the years after she came out, while Polanski kept to his original account he recalled in his autobiography, where he said himself that she looked odd while he was in the cooler pool – told her to get out and into the cooler pool – he said she didn’t do because it was too cold and she said she had and then both got out to dry off.

Incidentally, Ms Geimer had claimed to have told him off when he dried her off, but still let him proceed to have the sex at any rate. She recounted ‘her’ events, but then suddenly claimed she couldn’t remember what else happened, like the light lighting up on the phone, Huston pulling up in the driveway, or what ‘he’ had said. Polanski never was in the Jacuzzi with her because it was always too hot Huston in fact had asked him about if it was when he returned to the house with Ms Geimer in the car, and he said ‘as usual’. Ms Geimer made it up that he got in there with her in order to justify her asthma attack lie, said she wanted to go home to get her medicine he never heard her say either, asthma sufferers would surely carry along. She then asked to lie down somewhere to cool off, which she of course omitted she ever had – or else they’d not ever ended up in that TV room in the first place, she later described as ‘making’ her to go there. How he managed that without ever verbally or physically pushing her about is a mystery. It’s clear where she elaborated on things, and what is fact, she later tried to retell in various forms, made it clear it never was rape, that he didn’t hurt of was forceful with her in stark contrast. It’s a typical cry rape case, which untypical lasted over three decades without being closed any time soon either.

The LA Times in February 1978 said, the original judge would have sentenced Polanski in absentia, so why could that not happen in 2010? We all know Espinoza did not ‘sentence’ him absentia this year, after he in fact had offered it to him, only to snub him by denying his request, and clearly had said Polanski is not facing any more prison time in any way since he of all people knew he had done his time. However, Espinoza also said Polanski is [still] only facing time served made official, but will not sentence him in absentia either, now off the table at any rate, which would have ended this never-ending story now would it. Instead on insisting he was to appear in the court to be finally sentenced and enable the case be litigated and closed, why did he not sentence him in absentia? Simple, it’s Cooley & Co show who want to have a ‘trial’, no one else wants nor ever wanted back then and can only be done if the plea is first withdraw NO judge would ever do and no DA has powers to do. Once a plea was reached that is IT. Polanski would not have returned to LA in 1977 after the judge permitted him make a [second-to-be-lost] movie outside of the country if his intent was to flee justice. Polanski only ‘fled’ from LA when the egomaniacal judge treated him unfairly over and over – Polanski didn’t flee any ‘justice’, he fled injustice.

He fled to preserve his very life, once more, and if he was to be [unlawfully] deported at any rate, why stay in a hypocritical country where a judge and future California governor can have long-term sexual liaisons with minors with impunity but not a foreign director who was even sent down for it against all counsel on top for ONE count of unlawful sex. A judge, who had made an agreement, then breaches it unilaterally and without legal cause after the defendant had carried out every part of the agreement, commits misconduct, end of. There is no disputing this point or ever will be no matter what people want, or the Court of Appeal had not demanded Cooley to tackle the misconducts. After Rittenband refused to allow Dalton to question Ms Geimer on 20th May 1977 before the trial, following her mother’s pressing for that peal deal on the [lawyer] father’s ‘recommendation’, all knew perfectly well the girl had made up a few things that would be revealed in a trial. In order to cut it short, the deal was reached September 19th behind closed doors, 20th September Gunson said if the prison system recommends no more time for Polanski, the DA’s office will not object. December 16th Polanski surrenders himself to enter Chino, and 27th January 1978 after 42 days behind bars in protective custody, Polanski is released from Chino, and returns to the LA courthouse in relieved anticipation that had been it – but it wasn’t.

On January 30th over the objections of Dalton and Gunson, Rittenband announced he was going to send him back to Chino for the rest 48 days, even though the state psychiatrists had recommended he serve no more time (even before he was sent down). The next day Polanski flees; Dalton advises Gunson and the court; Rittenband postpones ‘sentencing’ to February 14th exclusively for the press, which was strictly unheard of, but never happened for his being relieved of the case. Too late. On the 14th Dalton filed an affidavit of prejudice against the judge after Gunson had been unsuccessful to do so months earlier, demanding the transfer of the case to another court. Under California law, every defendant was allowed to file one affidavit of prejudice, and in every case covered, jurisdiction was transferred. Three days later, the judge met with Deputy County Counsel John P. Farrell to prepare a written response to Dalton’s affidavit. On the 20th Rittenband would not resist Dalton’s move to have the case transferred. The reality of California law is that sentences of less than one year are served in county jails, not prisons like Chino. Hence, the decision to impose what amounted to a prison sentence of less than a year was not only illegal on its face, but accepted reluctantly by the attorneys and the defendant in light of the judge’s irrational conduct in the case no one curtailed on their behalf. That alone should prove that sentence was his entire punishment or else he’d just sent him to a low-security lock-up, not a max security block where Manson was in fact incarnated with his killer girls who only eight years earlier had butchered his wife and their child.

While the judge repeatedly referred to the ‘90-day’ confinement, he knew full well that the 90-day period was simply the maximum legal limit on how long the state shrinks could take to complete their examination, though they had already other reports that Polanski was not a MDSO. Typically, defendants were returned in about half that time, something Rittenband had experienced dozens of times during his tenure on the bench. The judge knew this, Gunson knew this, his superior Van de Kamp knew this, Dalton knew this. So for Rittenband to say he wants him back to ‘finish’ or ‘repeat’ his ‘sentence’ was twice unlawful. Under the agreement reached by all parties, once Polanski left prison, he would serve no additional time. Period. Polanski would have fulfilled the conditions of his plea bargain. By law, a judge can base his sentence only upon evidence introduced into trial, but Rittenband was asking anyone and everyone he knew the same question: “What the hell do I do with Polanski?” Given Gunson’s statements at the time and those he made to Zenovich two years ago for her documentary and his sealed testimony this year, it’s a certainty that Gunson said things Cooley wouldn’t like – namely, that Polanski had fulfilled his sentence, and an arrogant judge had gone bonkers over concern about his pompous self-image, after he violated both the letter and the spirit of the law apart from Polanski’s human rights. Then of course we have those dismissive people who say that a judge is allowed to ‘change his mind’, i.e., break a plea deal agreed on by all parties, but if they’d been railroaded willy-nilly like Polanski was would shout for justice even louder.

According to US law, an 11(c)(1)(B) [plea bargain] agreement does not bind the court; the prosecutor’s recommendation is merely advisory, and the defendant cannot withdraw his plea if the court decides to impose a sentence other than what was stipulated in the agreement. An 11(c)(1)(C) agreement [however] DOES bind the court once the court accepts the agreement. When such an agreement is proposed, the court can reject it if it disagrees with the proposed sentence, in which case the defendant has an opportunity to withdraw his plea [to go to trial]. Since we don’t know to which type Polanski pleaded, though it can be assumed it is type C since he could request to have his plea withdrawn (though a judge hardly ever does for the defendant to be stuck with the deal) and was unable to appeal the ‘diagnostic study period’, Rittenband had accepted his guilty plea in August 1977, but then slung Polanski into prison in December after all parties had agreed to no-prison-time/probation-only in September ALREADY. THAT is breaking the deal after Polanski had done his [non-stipulated] time the judge knew perfectly well would not entail the entire 90 days, plain and simple. He just played [with] him. A plea deal is a written statement the prosecution prepared for the defendant, to ‘confess yourself guilty’ to a usually lower count stated in detail (you however might also not be guilty of), in effect bearing false witness against yourself, or the deal is off and you’re in danger to face a longer sentence the judge can simply impose, or a [biased] trial jury might find you guilty despite no actual guilt at no exculpatory evidence introduced to declare you innocent. Judges even sometimes threaten the defendant by saying, if you don’t plead guilty to that one count (to avoid a ‘costly’ trial), I’ll send you down for life. Don’t ever think that doesn’t happen, or that many who pleaded were in fact innocent.

Rittenband wasn’t interested in any justice either, his only worry was about his own reputation in the eyes of the global press and to amass a few more clippings for his scrapbook. Cooley & Co of course won’t accept any of this in their own glorious vindictiveness worse that what Rittenband had done to Polanski in the first place. There is ample evidence, supported by more than one court decision, that Polanski was the victim of judicial misconduct. Polanski entered into a plea agreement in good faith and for decades they covered up the corruption of the case and then refused to give the Swiss investigative documents. It was reported that the Swiss people were very unhappy with their government over his arrest and the case handling as a whole. That controversy in fact caused the government to allow Polanski’s house arrest. The Swiss were absolutely right in putting an end to this deplorable exercise when they released him. That, added to the fact that Ms Geimer opposes any further prosecution, is argument enough for US authorities to drop this case finally. But this will never happen until someone in real power puts his foot down. In those more innocent days, before the rise of the Internet, tweets, instant messaging, and all the rest, the melodrama was acted out on TV screens, in talk show broadcasts, and on the pages of a gamut of print media, ranging from staid grey columns of newsprint to the lurid covers of tabloids and magazines. The range of today’s outright ignorance is even more astounding. And repulsive. Living in your propagandised media bubble, dominated as it is by sanitised dross dressed up as ‘news’, or of course sex scandal trash, you don’t ever get to know what is really going on in the world today.

Just so to show how the case dismissal request filed February 12th 2009 was twisted by the courts on refusing the appeal, where it said: “Neither Polanski nor the People objected to the diagnostic study order (despite the fact that Rittenband had already official psyche reports that rendered such a ‘study’ irrelevant he misused as punishment no one sought). The court stayed the execution of the diagnostic study for 90 days to permit Polanski to complete a film he was directing, stating that the stay would “certainly” not extend past 90 days, “if it could be avoided.” (Rittenband knew such studies would never cover the entire 90 day, but afterwards demanded Polanski to sit out the rest despite official recommendations to release him.) The diagnostic study, dated January 25, 1978, contained recommendations that Polanski be placed on probation, (indeed, which the judge of course did not heed, despite the fact that at the time of the September 16, 1977, meeting, he had stated he expected a favorable report from Chino, he then called a ‘whitewash’.) On February 1, 1978, Polanski failed to appear in court for a scheduled sentencing hearing and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest,” they utterly forgot to mention that Polanski had no means to appeal the decision for the study to begin with by Rittenband’s own words, hence the defence did not or rather could not ‘object’ in the first place, plus, the judge had already agreed to no further time in September 1977.

Furthermore, Dalton said what the courts today say is not the case: “Judge Rittenband announced to counsel that he now intended to send Mr. Polanski to prison for the second time under the following conditions: that he serve 48 additional days in prison; that he would not be permitted to have a hearing on this additional sentence; that he agree to waive his rights to a deportation hearing and agree to “voluntarily deport himself” and that no hearing would be permitted until after the imposition of the prison sentence and that even more serious consequences could be expected if a hearing were held. At no time did the assigned prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Gunson, request any of the above conditions. Both Deputy District Attorney Gunson and I (Dalton) objected to Judge Rittenband’s denial of Mr. Polanski’s right to a hearing prior to sentencing. However, Judge Rittenband summarily rejected our arguments without any suggestion of legal authority to support the sentence and conditions that he intended to impose. The Judge also instructed Mr. Gunson and me to argue as though we were unaware of his intentions, and not to expose this information to the press.” Which was the in/famous staged argument for the press (preserved on film), the extradition request presented as if it was ‘f/actual’ with Gunson arguing for time (when in fact he had agreed not to demand custodial time on the mother’s wishes), while Dalton and the prison officials had demanded probation [too], and both attorneys had already declared that it was a fake show in the Zenovich documentary. Meaning, the report sent to the Swiss made it out to be as if there WAS an ‘actual sentence’ still to be given they wanted Polanski for. That was blunt manipulation of the Swiss authorities.

They also omitted that: “Judge Fidler (who was approached to handle the case in 1997) stated that he would honor the agreement made by Judge Rittenband that the period of incarceration for Mr. Polanski while undergoing the diagnostic study would constitute the full and complete punishment. After considering the materials we submitted and after discussions with Mr. Gunson and me (Dalton), Judge Fidler advised us that, if Mr. Polanski returned to Los Angeles, he would allow Mr. Polanski to be booked and immediately released on bail, require Mr. Polanski to meet with the probation department, order a probation report, conduct a hearing, and terminate probation without Mr. Polanski having to serve any additional time in custody.” That of course went bust over his demand to televise this – he later described as a lie and STILL had entailed ‘prison time’. Then Espinoza took over, and Polanski’s team filed more motions of dismissal on grounds of all the misconducts, and even Espinoza said that ‘nothing precludes the possibility that the diagnostic study was Polanski’s entire penalty’. The extradition request omitted any of this and that there in fact were/ARE misconducts to be tackled in the first place. Hence Gunson stepping in to make that clear with his to-be-sealed deposition in early 2010, and that the 42 days at Chino was Polanski’s entire sentence. That Espinoza cited the ‘fugitive disentitlement doctrine’ clause for not allowing Polanski relief or dismissal of the case, or to be sentenced in absentia was in fact moot, once he was rested and in prospect of being extradited. The doctrine was in fact applied to no one else once a fugitive was rearrested, BUT Polanski alone.

Also, the courts said while Polanski was under house arrest : “We acknowledge that if a term of imprisonment had been imposed at the sentencing hearing on February 1, 1978, Polanski would have remained in custody for the time it would have taken to prepare, as appropriate, an appeal and/or a petition for writ of habeas corpus and to seek a stay of the sentence,” completely forgetting that this might have taken months or even years beyond the sentence they all had agreed on, NONE but probation after the 42 days he had fulfilled. Dalton revealed in the Zenovich documentary that he advised Polanski prior to his flight that Polanski would likely be able to secure relief from the sentence they feared the trial court would impose: “I contacted Roman and I said for them to come to my office and discuss what was going to happen the following morning. I told them it was my opinion that the sentence would be illegal, that we could probably obtain relief on appeal but that would involve a long procedure and Polanski would be incarcerated during that period of time.” Indeed, far beyond of what WAS agreed on and Polanski had done time for, putting him in high jeopardy of attacks as an old man. That’s why he was released into house arrest on humanitarian grounds, since in any civilised country like Switzerland old people are allowed relief while awaiting extradition at home.

Though the courts insisted that ‘Polanski would have been able to seek an immediate stay of the sentence pending appellate resolution of the issues’, that is not guaranteed and would have still required bail and undetermined remand stay, nor do they ever consider the human side of things and that Polanski simply did not trust any of them anymore and simply fled to preserve his life already then, let alone today. They also said: “Based on the oral arguments of counsel, this court would not expect any objection to be made if Polanski should request to be sentenced in absentia,” which we all know never happened either – so why exactly should Polanski trust any of their words ‘today’? “While the trial court would have to consent to this request, this would resolve the disentitlement problem that Mr. Polanski has encountered in the trial court and would afford him the evidentiary hearing that he so urgently seeks to support his allegations of misconduct.” It is clear why they did not sentence him in absentia to time served, NOT to litigate the case. Rittenband refused to conduct a sentencing hearing before deciding to impose incarceration on Polanski beyond the time he had spent in custody for the diagnostic study, thus denying Polanski due process and the opportunity to make a record of the court’s misconduct ALREADY THEN. To incarcerate him today just so to string him along with more appeal denials in case he had been extradited, is cruel.

By Rittenband recusing himself when Dalton sought his disqualification after he had fled, he thereby precluding an evidentiary hearing where the misconduct would have been supported by testimony ALREADY THEN. The DA’s office has tried to avoid discovery [of the misconduct] that Polanski has attempted to initiate since filing his request for a dismissal in the furtherance of justice years ago. At the hearing on the request for a dismissal [while under housie arrest], Espinoza and the DA’s office avoided an evidentiary hearing by applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, thereby effectively condoning the misconduct. Indeed, since any court that rules against Polanski must be using whatever grounds upon which it relies as an attempt to frustrate an inquiry into long-ago misconduct ever more. Plus, in over thirty years, the DA’s office has never once seriously attempted to secure his extradition, (before Cooley needed him to further his career) and although Polanski does not specifically claim that this alleged dereliction was designed to prevent an evidentiary [misconduct] hearing, he argues that if it had [sought extradition], there would have been a hearing regarding the misconduct in this case they of course don’t want to see remedied at all. Exactly, and, by keeping the public in the belief Polanski is STILL up for sentencing despite the [former] prosecution saying that is not the case, what else are they to believe other than in their sordid drugged rape and sodomy world, especially with Cooley basically saying he will hunt him till the end of time while not giving a shit about any current genuine rape victims.

Reading a truthful article might rattle your cage of false belief in the direction of real knowledge, but who wants that. No, to live in your sleazy drugged rape and sodomy world is much more fun. For someone who knows the case intimately, what the online world offered about the case of People vs Roman Polanski has much more to say about the ongoing cultural, moral and political wars than it does about the case itself. With twisted bullshit like, ‘Polanski’s refusal to face up to the charges and subsequent decision to flee the country, is the reason we’re still having to hear the accounts! It’s disgusting to think we are expected to let Polanski go simply because time has passed! He raped a child, he should be punished! Polanski made a mockery of the legal system! Free to molest again at last!’ it’s no wonder the even lesser informed consumer buys [into] this sort of incorrect and foul trash journalism point blank. See Wikipedia, as objective as it might be, it’s still not enough when it omits vital details and his side of the events and contains errors. The folks who have no excuse for their disgraceful ignorance are the editorial writers at America’s newspapers to promote this sort of hate speech. But then it’s easy to feign high dudgeon about a nefarious director than it is to thoughtfully examine the way to California judicial system was perverted by a raging egomaniac on the bench, a judge whose best friend was mob front man Sid Korshak whose name is never mentioned in stories about the judge, go figure. The efforts to extradite Polanski were and still are a vindictive and politically motivated act.

An unsavoury alliance of extreme right-wingers, radical feminists, liberal media pundits and self-interested DAs, who need Polanski or any high profile person to publicly torture and vilify to help his campaign for Attorney General of California this November (or even fictitious ‘victims’ helping with more lies) came together over the all-exploitable Polanski issue, demanding that ‘justice be done’ in the case of this ‘rapist’ and ‘paedophile predator’. The ‘left’ elements paid no attention to the facts of the case, including the systematic violation of Polanski’s rights to this day, the entire witch hunt, or its social, political and legal implications, too blinded by the prejudices of biased identity politics. A big difference in context between the time of the original case and the present day is that the Polanski case was kind of the final act in the death of the 1970s, very much as Tate’s murder was the last death throe for the 1960s. There was a very different attitude toward sex and drugs in those days, and in the years since there has been this whole insidious hysteria about ‘sex abuse cults’ of children destroying people’s lives, the entire feminist league uproar making every man a rapist by default, or paedophile, and the extreme sensitisation to teenage sexuality, exploitation and ‘rape’. Never mind that the biggest culprits in this are the callous media the dumb public simply parrots. With people still banging on about that Polanski ‘isolated, drugged and intoxicated a 13-year-old girl, then ignored her protests, raped and sodomised her, then fled the country before he could be sentenced’, there’s little hope that these idiots will ever get a handle on the bare facts.

Here’s one of the typical feminists-driven diatribes another however more logically minded commentator rebuked perfectly: ‘“Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.).” Reply: “Let me start with your sarcasm first. What does the case you discuss have to do with Polanski’s “multiple homes in Europe,” his work as a director, his Oscar, his wife and children? It’s all irrelevant, but you can’t be objective, can you? (INDEED!) The way I understand the case, it was statutory rape because a 13-year-old girl was involved. (See how she does not repeat the idiotic ‘child’ rhetoric?) Her mother left this girl with Polanski. For a typical “Hollywood mother,” anything goes to get a role in a movie. A normal mother would not leave her underage daughter with an adult male. (They might have ‘then’.) I am not defending Roman Polanski. All I am saying is this: The girl’s mother should have been sued for purposely neglecting her child and endangering her. (And for the drugs and alcohol offences.) But this is not the part of modern American culture: to be responsible for your own actions. It is always somebody else’s fault.” Indeed, and when people point to the mother as culprit they go all, oh how dare you accuse the mother, especially when it comes to ‘sex’, and only shows there ARE more intelligent people out there, even in the States. Besides, where was their outrage before his rearrest?

Easy to answer, when Polanski was arrested again, it was a perfect vehicle for pushing a whole bunch of politically sensitive hot buttons: ‘sexual abuse of children’, (though a teenager is not legally recognises as a ‘child’ but pubescent, adolescent) ‘European decadence’, ‘Hollywood decadence’, society’s corruption (rather than judicial corruption), you name it. It was a perfect way for Cooley to get his name in the press in ways that would give him favourable coverage. Especially if he left out the facts and autopiloted the emotional blackmail and knee-jerk buttons by calling Polanski a ‘child rapist’, rather than stupid man who had sex with a mature teenager decades ago like million others, who in contrast had to flee from a corrupt judge, while conversely many after him faced with no such luck of escape served time for having had sex in the sex-repressed US jails of über puritan America. As for that ‘suffering’ people Polanski want to undergo in any which form the more perverse the better, he faced enough pain and defamation, indefensible accusations by ugly liars, at the hands of people who refuse to educate themselves on the facts of the case, or show even one ounce of compassion they’d grant any other real criminal. That alone makes their ‘opinions’, let alone empty diatribe, utterly irrelevant. The media’s coverage alone of the case has been atrocious, ranging from early consternation of ‘why now?’ to ‘finally caught!’ pandering to the worst elements of celebrity trashing coverage where the simple facts were omitted, but mindless attack forces were given vent, wallowing in their usual narratives leaving no room for ‘alleged’ or anything redeeming. It was THE purest fascist talk of the century.

I love it when they go, no one, but no one disputes that he raped a child, not even him. I’m sorry, when did Polanski ever say, hey, I raped a child! And there are millions who do NOT think he did say that or that he ever raped anyone either. But hey, let’s just put words into his and all our mouths because he can’t defend himself. Sad. And, why is it that only males are being disproportionately punished for ‘sex’, but not the female, even if the minor seduced the adult? What exactly is the point? With people like Ms Geimer, who confessed in 1977 to having had her first sexual encounter with eight – which IS pretty early – had a boyfriend when she met Polanski she had sex with, and most likely a thing with her own mother’s partner who was Polanski’s age, but neither were done for ‘statutory rape’, so, how can that be considered as ‘just’, or her an ‘innocent’? She can’t, and there’s nothing wrong with it at all but the selective punishments, most had sex and drugs experiences as teenagers and many were never prosecuted let alone any females. I guarantee you, a lot of those who today call/ed Polanski a paedophile or that he should be shot had underage sex, started [that] early or had sex with older men too, or these radical feminists who today call everything and what they did themselves in the Sixties or Seventies, rape. Such blanket condemnation without proper investigation is the height of ignorance they love to revel in, propagate with their anti-sex laws mania like poison spawn. These hypocrites, or those who are not even half Polanski’s age being manipulated by today’s ‘moral [double] standards’, keep buying into the rape-is-rampant myth (unless you’re in an all-male US prison) and believe in any rape accusations blindly.

They foremost have no first clues about female or even male anatomy, i.e., their very own. They think the vagina is a giant hollow that can easily be invaded, not even knowing the simplest dynamics of sexual intercourse, let alone ‘rape’. That’s probably one reason why they’re so crap at sex to start with and left discontented. They believe rape [or sex for that matter] is easy to perform, and there is some physiological pleasure or gratification involved for the rapist, since then it would be about ‘sex’, not ‘power’, when it’s not about sex. Both anecdotal and scientific evidence shows that a significant proportion of ‘rapists’ have difficulty getting an erection, maintaining it, achieving penetration or experiencing ejaculation, or could in fact enter their victim/s, (hence, some resorting to ‘tools’.) Research undertaken in the US in the 1980s, showed that one in ten of those serving prison sentences for ‘rape’ were in fact permanently impotent, i.e., weren’t in fact ‘real rapists’, since no erection equals no hardness = no penetration. There’s little or no recognition in the uneducated conscience of the wider public that the vagina in its normal, non-aroused state is a rather small aperture whose rippled walls lie adjacent to one another, very much like the anus/rectum.

The vagina is a tightly closed canal that is no deeper than ten centimetres on average, and the opening only widens to stretch and lubricates when getting aroused to accommodate the penis. (Like the slow process required of dilating sufficiently for childbirth after many months and even then it’s still extremely excruciating. Or in case of the rectum, where even a large stool passed can rip the sphincter (I’m sure most have experienced.) That’s why it is so painful and injurious to force anything inside the vagina if the woman is not aroused and therefore lubricated enough. Or the unprepared anus/rectum. Even a dry finger. LUBE IS VITAL in anal sex. Many too assume that male ‘sexual arousal’ is necessary for forcible rape to take place, sorry it’s not, anything can trigger an ejection, even against their will or in anger, and few men or even women consider the complex physiological mechanisms that make sexual intercourse possible for women, like lubrication, engorgement, retraction of the cervix, etc. in the first place. Hence the ‘foreplay’ requisite some men find so exasperating not knowing exactly why it’s needed and simply grab the lube. Many women say it’s painful even if wanted or aroused. That’s why so many are left unsatisfied and hardly reach orgasm while the man has long gone to sleep.

And don’t forget, most men have erection problems by the age of forty in the first place, and I also doubt any ‘rapist’ would take some Viagra along with him and then wait till it kicks in. So, unless the victim is unconscious, highly sedated/intoxicated, restrained and/or threatened physically and/or verbally into submission, imprisoned or of course injured in some form incapable of fighting and/or escaping, it’s simply impossible. And to ‘just let sex happen’ is not rape either So, if a woman proclaims. Ergo, most certainly NO rape/sodomy occurred if there were NO physical signs of genital and/or other injuries. So in Ms Geimer’s case, there’s NO chance Polanski raped let alone sodomised her even twice at not the slightest bruises or tearing anywhere. Any doctor would shake his head, and the physician, who had examined her a mere four hours later, did just that calling her bluff; hence no trial and all other counts were dropped. In short, for men, ‘rape’ cannot be the ‘illicit pleasure’, the stolen ‘innocence’ that we see presented again and again in popular, highly uninformed culture and the [feminist-driven] rape baiting media at large. Physiologically, this is an act that is at best extremely uncomfortable, at worst, painful and difficult for the perpetrator, since the penis can be bent, the foreskin tightened severely, and the dry vagina or tight rectum cause more friction.

Try it once unprepared/unaroused, and you’ll see it’s impossible without causing severe pain and visible damage, for both, requiring vital lube even in vaginal let alone anal sex. Anal sex can be practiced without damage and pain, but only with lots of preparation and a relaxed partner. Why then the myth of ‘male gratification’ and how easy it is to get his tackle inside either orifice? Ask all the stupid little sex novelists, or porn stars, portraying wo/men as sex gods, and conversely radical feminists declaring all rapists who invented the entire rape myth. The pain inflicted on the victim, might be just as great as the pain the perpetrator suffers, which is only eased when blood is drawn from severe force always resulting in visible injuries. Meaning, it can be very painful or difficult to penetrate any woman or man who’s unwilling, dry, closed up, frozen up, or conversely struggling, and in general it’s rather hard to find the right orifice in the first place – especially in the dark – many times even in consensual intercourse or in the heat of passion. So, how often does the man need the female to ‘guide’ the penis into herself, or a man into another? Or when the penis slips out again, and s/he needs to guide it back inside? Or you need more lube? Think of it. I blame all those grossly misinforming cross-section diagrams of the female reproductive tract, which portray the vagina as a ‘large cavity’ with a ‘big hole’, just because babies come out of it sometimes.

So, if a woman proclaims she was ‘raped’ or ‘sodomised’, and nothing is consistent with forcible penetration from a medical standpoint and is regarded as admissible proof, let alone is still bunged up with the brown matter and no mess was produced, it simply never happened. That feminists don’t like that fact or for others to be better educated about anal sex, or any sex, is clear, since then they cannot play the pathetic little [sodomy] victims any longer, lie about rape or ‘famous’ men having ‘ravished’ young girls – or of course send innocent men to jail for [also underage] sex, to be raped there. Or, force teenagers like Ms Geimer, who had no clue about anal sex (or she’d not told porkies to the Grand Jury after the cops/mother no doubt ‘persuaded’ her to), in order to be relieved of all sexual responsibilities and complicity. Such dumb sex and highly damaging rape myths in turn enabled liars like Lewis and Vogelhut to cry rape and sexual abuse decades later no doubt for dirty money, who too has no real clue either about how ‘sodomy’ in actuality works. Even with ‘amyl’ and the utterly contraindicative ‘E’ she brought in, which would leave you rather in want to go on the dance floor and say ‘peace’ to everyone, she thought she can just dupe the untutored public. She failed for other reasons, and now she’s deservedly long gone underground in shame, like ex teen prostitute and cocaine addict Lewis. Great examples of exploitative ‘women’s lib’ gone unacceptably sordid. Like the brown matter Polanski would have hit had he really ‘anally raped’ them.

In Ms Geimer’s case, here, for the umpteenth time taken directly from his Grand Jury testimony you can find online on several sites as original court transcript PDF, Dr Larson’s own words, since there are still some idiots out there who say there was anal bruising, or that he said there was, NO THERE WAS NOT. That myth was originally popularised by that repulsive confabulator Kiernan. In fact, the doctor could not even determine whether Ms Geimer had simple vaginal intercourse, and that a mere four hours later. Larson said, “[Simply that] I had no physical evidence. I have no bruises, haematomas, tears of the mucous membrane, areas of irritated mucous membrane for physical findings.” And, when asked if his examination of the anus did find any evidence that would indicate that a penis had even been placed there, he answered, “No, I did not.” END OF. Plus of course, there was no semen found where she had said Polanski had deposited it – inside her anus, all over her back and in her panties – NOT SO. There was no [double] sodomy let alone forcible. Dr Larson was a specialist on sodomy victims and had seen them all and of all ages. Ms Geimer was not one of them. She stated herself that Polanski had said he won’t come inside her once she said not to be on the Pill.

So why exactly would he sodomise her when he still ejaculated outside her? She claimed he climaxed inside her anus and he said he hadn’t, withdrew before climaxing, when there’s no evidence he ever penetrated her even vaginally or had ejaculated into her rectum or all over her back? Even if the doctor had said no ‘force’ was used during intercourse, that alone would mean no rape occurred and most certainly requires lube not to show or hurt, which in turn leaves evidence of the lubricant. There was none. Or any saliva traces left inside or outside her vagina. Ms Geimer said she had a ‘bowel movement’ after she arrived at home her sister ‘confirmed’ with her going to the bathroom after Polanski had left. Ms Geimer stated she had no shower, douche, enema to remove any traces of semen (or faeces) and even then it’s still obvious she had an  ‘enema’, or douche composed of special ingredients that leaves traces. But, do we know for sure she had a bowel movement? Of course not. However, it would mean Polanski most definitely would have hit on that ‘brown matter’ if they insist on it she had. But he did not or Ms Geimer had felt it, it had hurt her, and the mess is creates is far too obvious – and, any ejaculate would still have been traceable after a dump.

Larson had a real close look up her rectum with a special tool called a sigmoidoscope, which is five centimetres in diameter, thirty centimetres long, blows air into the rectum and colon/intestine, which inflates them, is very unpleasant, helps the physician see better, and even the minutest traces of ejaculate or other matter would still be evident. There were none. There was NOTHING denoting anal rape or even penetration in any form. Non-forcible intercourse is not rape no matter what feminists or others want in this case. Just imagine if she had a really hard and large stool that ripped her sphincter, a mere four hours later that would still have been visible to the powerful sigmoidoscope, and most of all, ‘consistent with forcible penetration’, i.e., anal rape. Unless she of course had told the good doctor truthfully she ripped and had been bleeding for her ‘bowel movement’. Just like sometimes ‘rough sex’ is also consistent with ‘rape’, in the non-discriminate law books that is, not in real life. What’s more, she said he entered her from the front after lifting her legs, twice. THAT is in fact the position most difficult to get any penis inside a butt even if wanted for the curved angle of the rectum, unlike with a very short vagina ‘made’ for this position/entry point.

That would have caused her AND him great pain even with lube simply for the angle, just like lying flat on the back is very difficult to get anything inside a rectum in the first place. Why do you think anal sex toys are always curved and flexible, while a dildo designed exclusively for vaginal stimulation is straight, has no flanged end not to slip inside and vanish upwards into the colon, and is mostly rigid? Because the rectum is curved like the spine and front entry anal intercourse is more difficult than vaginal front entry. The best position is on your knees with your butt in the air, in control and relaxed, even to some for vaginal intercourse – hence, neither Ms Geimer’s nor Vogelhut’s claims of sodomy are in any form credible. Not a chance. Anal sex most of all needs practice, a willing and well-lubed partner, entry must be slow and gentle, and if he’s going the nine-yards on repeat strokes to achieve orgasm, it most certainly needs more special lube like Crisco since even waterbased lube dries up quickly in midstride. If anal intercourse is done from the front, ‘lifting’ the legs alone leads nowhere; legs must be spread wide apart and the pelvis raised for better entry and repeat thrusts. The classic, safest position for anal intercourse is the doggy position, second best is side-by-side – NOT what Ms Geimer or Vogelhut claimed Polanski did to them. It never happened.

The entire thing went bust over this ONE topless photo, because Ms Geimer liked them all and never made her concerns clear to him, and wanted to take some more, but didn’t explain they could be topless, and when her mother talked to her once Polanski had left, she asked her why she didn’t tell her about the topless picture. And her response was, by her own Grand Jury testimony, that she knew she wouldn’t let her have any more taken, that she didn’t feel like they were bad and that she thought he was going to crop them at her shoulders and that she really wanted to be in the French Vogue Hommes – just like Polanski has said he would crop them and had made that possible. After that, her mother destroyed her future in the modelling industry rather than in fact ask what type of pictures he would want to take, by turning it into ‘rape’ for her age. In fact, she should have approached Polanski right afterwards and see what he had to say about the events and in his defence, after Ms Geimer’s own sister overheard how she told her boyfriend before he arrived, that ‘she had a Quaalude’, as in taken one, not that Polanski ‘gave’ her one as she made it out later, or a piece of it.

Ms Geimer had said herself she had taken it with a swallow of the champagne, which she could at any rate have refused no matter her age. In the pictures Polanski took of her swimming around in the Jacuzzi she appears perfectly clear and happy, not ‘drugged’, let alone ‘afraid’, while in the background the wheels were set in motion to end up in court over exactly these photos, not any ‘sex’, that was only the vehicle to end it all and cash in for her age. There was no verbal or physical force involved at no such words from her, and Polanski did not hurt or intimidate her by her own admission. NO rapist would perform ‘cuddliness’ first she had claimed he had, but rather rape them at the first opportunity. Not kiss and caress them, ask if they’re ok. Her sister foremost made a fuss over the pictures, and then the mother, could have been jealous she had slept with Polanski and a real chance at becoming famous, her mother suddenly cut short. Had she not made up certain things in places, since, where it matches Polanski’s, the others’ statements, bare evidence and only then is fact, she had become famous other than for being ‘Polanski’s ‘victim’’. And even that was up to her since she need not made herself known decades later in any form. And now it’s all far too late for the both of them to see this ended with his exoneration.

Because of subversive manipulators like Cooley, who in fact misled Espinoza by telling him the Swiss had not asked for the documents – when they had done so May 6th and the US Department of Justice responsible for extradition matters and even the press knew about they had, refused it May 13th, right after Judge Villar, who had allowed for the deposition, sealed them, and right after Polanski had spoken up publicly May 2nd, saying: “This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary filmmaker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time. (I.e., Gunson and Dalton in Zenovich’s ‘Wanted and Desired’.) I took no part in that project, either directly or indirectly. The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided to request my extradition from Switzerland, a country I have been visiting regularly for over 30 years without let or hindrance. I can remain silent no longer because the American authorities have just decided, in defiance of all the arguments and depositions submitted by third parties, not to agree to sentence me in absentia even though the same Court of Appeal recommended the contrary.” Indeed, that was back in December 2009. Better still, on the very day that Polanski was arrested, an appellate panel was already deciding, on the exceedingly rare issuance of an aptly named ‘extraordinary writ’, whether to intervene at the trial court level and reverse Espinoza’s earlier denial of Polanski’s motion to dismiss the case due to judicial misconduct.

The Court of Appeal took the rare step of requesting opposition from prosecutors, and was in the process of scheduling oral argument on Polanski’s latest appeal. Then, he was arrested despite his frequent stays in Gstaad, foiling that crucial move outright, raising more questions about fairness and ‘timing’. Other than being pure coincidence that the UBS wanted to pawn him off to the LA courts as appeasement, and that the Zürich Film Festival with a specially dedicated retrospective in his honour had requested his official appearance, and everyone knew he’d be there, easy to ‘nab’ him in a humiliating show of force. Since the Swiss had put a nasty wedge into Cooley’s attempt to use Polanski as his show pony to become AG, he of course resorted to some even nastier smear campaign after Lewis was brought in to influence the unfounded extradition LA court style already, by presenting us ‘Vogelhut’ – only for both to deservedly sink without a trace in the disgusting mire they had created. What Cooley is up to right now we’ll hear about sooner or later, and maybe he’ll present us with a third ‘victim’, to give us some more sordid lies about Polanski’s sex life. Since no one believed ‘big hat’s’ lies either, he’ll have to come up with something much more spectacular and ‘convincing’. Maybe a ‘boy’ Polanski had ‘abused’ would be an idea (to echo Jackson’s accusers), since he seems to be such a lover of rear entry sex – in their dirty fantasies. All because a certain teenager had made it up over three decades ago.

Though I doubt the case will ever amicably be remedied, I wish him all the best in the future as the tough old bird he is and to make more acclaimed films. As I had said at the beginning of these extensive Op-end blogs covering the events as they unfolded, it would touch on several issues repeatedly, and so I have now exhaustively after covering everything possible. I might amend something minor every now and then, but in case of something major to happen in the future in relation to the case, or Polanski, his films or otherwise, I will add anything new to another part – HERE, and leave the reader free to peruse my findings at their leisure. Comments will not be closed, so feel free to come back and share your thoughts whenever you want. All abusive and off-topic garbage will be deleted without a second thought. And remember – there’s nothing more horrible than being accused of something you never did without having the slightest chance of defending yourself, when the law, there to protect and find you innocent, is even more corrupt and abusive than those who had accused you.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When The Pianist was up for an Oscar in 2003, she had declared, “He never should have been put in the position that led him to flee. He should have received a sentence of time served 25 years ago, just as we all agreed [on].” That obviously never happened and only forced Polanski to seek shelter in his more forthcoming home country. While no genuine rape victim would ever say any of that, let alone plea for the charges be dropped, campaign on her ‘attacker’s’ behalf, her original testimony has long become a far cry from her later statements. While Polanski insists it was consensual, the only thing she clings to is that it was not, since the law of course didn’t allow her to consent, but she never said that he had violated her in any form. That’s NOT rape in my book, even if she just let the sex ‘happen’ as she had said some years back. This merciless pursuit of Polanski is a disgraceful Human Rights violation, an unacceptable violation of her own rights, and that of both their pleas to find dignified closure. A scandalous abuse of power. Nothing more. There’s no equivalent of any person having to suffer house arrest for years who ever slept with a minor. Only war criminals and politicians so far have been detained that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ROMAN POLANSKI in his own words.

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

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

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

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

This affair was roused from its slumbers of over three decades by a documentary film-maker who gathered evidence from persons involved at the time.  I took no part in that project, either directly or indirectly.  The resulting documentary not only highlighted the fact that I left the United States because I had been treated unjustly; it also drew the ire of the Los Angeles authorities, who felt that they had been attacked and decided to request my extradition from Switzerland, a country I have been visiting regularly for over 30 years without let or hindrance.

I can now remain silent no longer!

I can remain silent no longer because the American authorities have just decided, in defiance of all the arguments and depositions submitted by third parties, not to agree to sentence me in absentia even though the same Court of Appeal recommended the contrary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roman Polanski

I have nothing to add.

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

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

Art. 1 An obligation to extradite

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

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

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

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

Art. 2 Extraditable offenses

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

2. It is immaterial for the purposes of this section

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

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

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

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

Art. 3 Offences political, fiscal or military

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

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

3. The requested State may refuse extradition for acts

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

b) whose sole purpose to reduce taxes or fees or

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

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

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

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

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

Art. 5 Limitation

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

Art. 6 Capital Punishment

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

Art. 7 Default Judgement

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

Art. 8 Extradition of nationals

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

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

Art. 9 Request for extradition

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

2. All requests for extradition shall contain:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art. 10 Additional information

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

Art. 11 Translation

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

Art. 12 documents admitted as evidence

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

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

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

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

Art. 13 Provisional arrest

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

2. The application must

a) indicate that a request for extradition;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art. 14 Decision and Surrender

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

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

Art. 15 Postponed or Temporary

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

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

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

Art. 16 Rule of Specialty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Art. 17 Concurrent requests

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

Art. 18 Simplified Extradition

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

Art. 19 Surrender of Property

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

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

Art. 20 Transit

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

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

Art. 21 Fees

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

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

Art. 22 Application

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

Art. 23 Effects on other conventions and national law

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

Art. 24 Consultation

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

Art. 25 Entry into Force and Termination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, to wrap this ‘case’ up, since it has interfered with the one in hand, let’s get to the nitty gritty of this ‘new allegation’ and debunk it. Bear with me folks, you’ll be surprised what comes out at the very end. It has been a long time since Lewis held a crowd ‘enthralled’ in Hollywood since