Chapter 1. Crucial Facts You Hardly Know. Importance of Information. Acknowledgments

People have the right to their own opinions about what happened, but they don't have the right to their own facts.  
(Douglas Dalton)

What “everybody knows” about the case can be summed up in the often repeated sentence, “This pedophile raped a child and fled justice”.

Not a single word in the quoted sentence is true, which I will demonstrate with the help of genuine materials, available for anyone who endeavors to find the truth.

Whenever someone speaks out in Polanski’s defense, they are immediately accused of defending a pedophile and child rapist – as if anyone in their right mind would defend one. No. I loathe a pedophile and hate a rapist no less than you – and the concept of someone raping a child is as unbearable to me, on a visceral level, as it is to you.

I do not defend a child rapist. I defend Roman Polanski. I learned during my meticulous investigation of all materials of the case that he was – and is - not a pedophile, not a rapist, not a child rapist, thank God for this. All I want is to share this truth.

It is very important that an innocent man’s name be cleared. It is very important that we do not project our fear and loathing of foul deeds onto someone who didn’t do them. It is a matter of our conscience, and of our own honor.

This is what I am going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

He is not a pedophile.

He didn’t rape a child.

He didn’t rape Samantha Gailey.

He didn’t flee justice.

Did You Know

That Miss Gailey’s medical examination hadn’t found any trace, not only of “rape”, but of any intercourse at all?

That the same medical examination defines her as “adult female”?

That everybody, even the arresting officer, agreed that Miss Gailey was remarkably mature and looked no younger than18?

That this is what she looked like at that time:

while the black-and-white photo of her looking over her shoulder was taken a few months before the alleged events (and has nothing to do with Polanski)?

That Miss Gailey testified to having had previous sexual experience?

That Miss Gailey was never tested for any intoxicating substance in her blood, which would have to be done had there been any suspicion of intoxication?

That the only “evidence” the Gaileys produced was a pair of panties stained with semen which, according to the expert, belonged to a male physically unable to have children?

That no comparative expertise was done nevertheless?

That Miss Gailey flatly refused to ever be cross-examined, to testify in a trial, to undergo therapy and psychiatric assessment – that is, everything that might entail closer scrutiny of her allegations?

That all accounts Ms.Geimer has later given of the events contradict each other and her own testimony in all points?

Five Important Quotes:

From Ms.Geimer’s medical examination:

No blood on clothing, panties or perineum… full speculum examination done with ease, examined her without problems – adult female… anal examination: there are no per-anal hematoma, lacerations or blood… no traumatic acute fissures seen… no sphincter tear… no evidence of force entry and the examination was normal. Vaginal and anal slides were taken which, according to the Los Angeles police department criminalist were negative, were tested negative for semen.

From Samantha Geimer’s 2000 interview:

He had sex with me. He wasn’t hurting me, and he wasn’t forceful or mean or anything like that.

From Samantha Geimer’s 2010 Larry King interview:

KING: Honestly, was this your first experience?

GEIMER: No.

KING: You'd had sex before that?

GEIMER: I had a boyfriend for a long time. And we had become sexually active, yes.

From psychiatric examination report by psychiatrist Alvin E.Davis:

Defendant is not mentally ill or disordered, does not have a clinically observable personality or character deviation. Is not a sexual deviate…  He is not a pedophile… The offense occurred as an isolated instance of transient poor judgment… The provocative circumstances, permissiveness and knowledge of circumstances by mother, physical maturity and willingness and provocativeness of victim, and the lack of coercion by defendant… all contribute to the above impression…

Lawrence Silver, Ms.Gailey's attorney:
He was supposed to be treated fairly in court, and he clearly was not. 

Importance of Information

Whether or not you want to find out the truth is entirely a matter of self-respect.

Reading tons of text posted all over the Internet about this unfortunate case, I found one curious correlation. I am not talking about the professional journalists now – their reasons for deliberately misleading the reading public will be analyzed further – but about what is being posted by private persons: blogs, comments, and the like. Well, the gamut of emotions displayed – from hatred to open support towards Polanski – is in direct correlation (with what do you think? Age, morality, social status, occupation, literacy? No) with the level of information. This, and only this.

The texts that call for blood, for skinning Mr. Polanski alive, the ones that label him pedophile or “the worst rapist ever” contain such a lot of factual mistakes that it wouldn’t be exaggeration to say they don’t get any of the facts right. Those that attempt at some balanced judgment, like, “on the one hand what he did is horrible… but on the other hand, we must take in consideration [whatever it is they want to take in consideration]” have some of the facts right, and some of them wrong: either invented, or taken from unreliable sources, such as media, but not from the documents of the case; and the fewer facts are correct, the harsher the final judgment. Finally, the few materials that have all their facts right and well-documented are the ones that support Polanski totally, completely and wholeheartedly, seeing the case as it was in reality, not as it exists in someone’s sick fantasies.

Choose for yourself, my reader. Either you want to be able to think on your own, basing on the analysis of the facts, or you want to be a toy of media, a mental and spiritual hostage of someone’s political ambitions and, in the end, made a fool of. As I said, the attitude towards this whole case is merely a matter of self-respect.

Acknowledgments

We are going to base ourselves on the documents, such as court transcripts, reports and other similar materials, scanned or photocopied, direct quotes from the mouth of the people involved, and some research made by those who, like me, have seen the case indecently distorted in the minds of people, and thus bothered to find out the truth about it. I’ll use their findings, however, only if I was able to find (often with their help – here I address my most hearty thanks to Novalis Lore!) a document independently confirming them.

I highly recommend The Tenant of Chinatown, a series of articles written by Novalis Lore, who undertakes an extensive, well-documented in-depth analysis of the case from every possible angle, legal, social, psychological, political and moral; Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Richard Brenneman, where the legal aspects are analyzed by a participant of the events; this blog by Samskara, and the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (available on YouTube; referred to as W&D in the text of the blog), in which the participants of the case speak in their own words and their own voices.

*** 

Now let's look at the details of this unfortunate case. 

Next Chapter

Index 

Table of Contents