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. 

17 comments:

Lisa said...

Dear Bear,

Thank you so much for taking the time to compile this blog. It's extremely eye opening and I continue to read with inetrest.

Lisa x

Jean said...

Now, Lisa, you've made one old Russian bear very happy... The only thing that could make me happier is to know that you'll go on reading - it is a lengthy thing, I know, but there are a lot of details there, and every one of them matters A LOT.

Lisa said...

I carried on last night to read the whole blog. I'm really impressed with your research - was this the mysterious project you alluded to in our other discussions?

Jean said...

Thank you darling! I am very happy (and proud) to hear you have read this; yes, it is the project - you surely couldn't expect me to have *two*: the present one is consuming all my time, thought and energy; heart, mind and soul. Thank you again, I hope to hear more from you, maybe more thoughts, or maybe you will draw some other people's attention to it.
And many more thanks!

Alinda said...

i too am reading this blog with an open mind ( not that I ever disagreed with your findings in this case) You are to be commended indeed for your labourious efforts to researching this information, and to possibly singlehandedly help to clear the mess made, and the name of Mr Polanski, whom if he ever raeads this blog I have no doubt he will find you himself and give to you what so many of your friends around the world would love to give you, namely thanks, and hugs and kisses of joyful gratitude for being a marvelous human strike that <3 bear !
Well done, I antisapate reading every word you write with interest and a certain level of sheer abandonment. Thank you

Linda

Jean said...

Thank you love! Comments such as yours - and others that have been posted so far - make it all worthwhile. It is very important that people read and understand. I can't really say it was singlehanded, I learned a lot from Novalis, and it was he who helped me find some documents; but it's true that I re-checked everything, without taking anyone's word for granted. My most important endeavor consisted in making it as clear, easy to read, and short as possible. The "short" part was especially difficult, since I have a lot more to say. I think I will post more articles, so stay with me. I can never thank you enough, and all the others who've read this.

Melikey said...

Jean, I have been reading your blog for a while. It is a pleasure to read about one of the best directors ever, written in such a deep way with a considerable amount of knowledge.

Anonymous said...

need to check

Jean said...

Please do.

Walter said...

I wish more people were aware of this blog. I had never believed that Roman was guilty, but I had no idea that so many facts spoke in his favor. I'll promote this on every social network I'm on.

Jean said...

Thank you Walter! Please, please help me in this fight. I have been doing what I can, at many sites, but most people just don't want to know. Sometimes it feels like I am banging my head against a brick wall... and then comments such as yours make it all worthwhile. Thank you so much!

Michelle Håkensen said...

Hey Jean

I am a masterstudent in theatre studies living in Norway, writing my master thesis about the Polanski case. I am especially interested in that the case was seen in such a black and white manner. In the thesis, I will look at how bloggers and journalists assigned roles and created their own story about the case in their writing and will state that they therewith behave in a theatrical manner. That means that I will take a blog for example and look at the roles the blogger assigned to Geimer, Polanski etc. and what kind of story is told. In the end I hope to show that a theatrical perspective can counterwork black and white thinking and makes it possible to examine all the different roles and stories (both from people being pro-and con Polanski) thoroughly before making up one's mind about the case.
I came across your blog and thought that it would be great if I would get your permission to cite from your blog and analyse it from this theatrical point of view. I would cite always directly from it and would never sell any of your ideas as mine as a) I would be severely punished for that as a censor will check every single source I used and I would fail the thesis
b) I want to give credit to the writers as I know now while writing the thesis that any blogger/writer put a lot of work and time into their material and deserve all the credit they can get.

I wanted to ask your permission first and will not use your material if you would feel uncomfortable with this. I got permission to cite from "The Tenant of Chinatown" and Richard Brenneman's blogg. I would be thrilled if you would agree to this of course but understand also really well if you would feel uncomfortable with it. I know that it is not easy, having somebody citing from one's material and having it analysed in a way that might not agree with the points one tries to get through in the blog. In the thesis it will be made very explicit though that this will be my interpretation of the blogg . I would not, to say it differently, lay words in your mouth or anything like that.

But anyway, I have tried to be as open as possible about my project and am anxious to hear from you :)

best wishes from Norway

Michelle

Michelle Håkensen said...

Hey Jean

I am a masterstudent in theatre studies living in Norway, writing my master thesis about the Polanski case. I am especially interested in that the case was seen in such a black and white manner. In the thesis, I will look at how bloggers and journalists assigned roles and created their own story about the case in their writing and will state that they therewith behave in a theatrical manner. That means that I will take a blog for example and look at the roles the blogger assigned to Geimer, Polanski etc. and what kind of story is told. In the end I hope to show that a theatrical perspective can counterwork black and white thinking and makes it possible to examine all the different roles and stories (both from people being pro-and con Polanski) thoroughly before making up one's mind about the case.
I came across your blog and thought that it would be great if I would get your permission to cite from your blog and analyse it from this theatrical point of view. I would cite always directly from it and would never sell any of your ideas as mine as a) I would be severely punished for that as a censor will check every single source I used and I would fail the thesis
b) I want to give credit to the writers as I know now while writing the thesis that any blogger/writer put a lot of work and time into their material and deserve all the credit they can get.

I wanted to ask your permission first and will not use your material if you would feel uncomfortable with this. I got permission to cite from "The Tenant of Chinatown" and Richard Brenneman's blogg. I would be thrilled if you would agree to this of course but understand also really well if you would feel uncomfortable with it. I know that it is not easy, having somebody citing from one's material and having it analysed in a way that might not agree with the points one tries to get through in the blog. In the thesis it will be made very explicit though that this will be my interpretation of the blogg . I would not, to say it differently, lay words in your mouth or anything like that.

But anyway, I have tried to be as open as possible about my project and am anxious to hear from you :)

best wishes from Norway

Michelle

Jean said...

Michelle Håkensen:

You sure can do as you like. If Novalis Lore didn't have any objections, neither do I. However, there is one thing I want to make quite clear. You write:

>>I will look at how bloggers and journalists assigned roles and created their own story about the case in their writing

I am afraid there is one thing you overlook, namely, that there is great difference between those who base their "stories" on fantasies and direct lies, and those who base their conclusions on documents.

Thus, I am asking you to always specify my sources. My opponents at imdb and elsewhere always say, "he calls her 'adult female'", or "he says the intercourse was consensual". No, it is not "me". It is, respectively, the medical examination report and the probation report. There is no "story I create", only an analysis of the existing documents.

I am happy to give you permission to use whatever you see fit with this single condition: if you cite me, make sure you do not ascribe to me the facts, statements and conclusions I take from real documents. Whatever I quote, please make sure, while re-quoting, that the statement in question is ascribed to its original source.

Masza said...

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

Read from "the other pasty of the myth" to find out that you ware just as evil as the victimizer or enabled and only making the same excuses they all do when caught.

Jean said...

I have published the above comment (from Masza), although it probably qualifies as spam, being totally irrelevant to the present case.

The "excuses" she mentions don't come from me, but from legal authorities, and they are, to summarize it all in two words: adult (medical examination report) and consenting (probation department report). Equating it with genuine child molestation cases is dishonest and just plain stupid.

Quoting from the very research Masza linked:

"Pedophilic Type — sexually attracted to prepubescent children (generally younger than 11)"

R said...

I meant to sign in for feedback sorry - please refer to my previous comment. Thank you, Roisin