tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post7695094076175801861..comments2023-06-25T17:10:00.793+08:00Comments on Roman Polanski: The Ballad of Contradictions: Chapter 5. The Anatomy of LiesJeanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-26979444130370076162016-11-14T08:51:19.306+08:002016-11-14T08:51:19.306+08:00If there was no evidence they had sex then how do ...If there was no evidence they had sex then how do we know they did? If a 13 year old is sexually mature then it's okay to have sex with them?Nettiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060207989433138653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-69616164412883330542016-11-14T08:49:26.679+08:002016-11-14T08:49:26.679+08:00There was no evidence that intercourse took place ...There was no evidence that intercourse took place but they had consensual sex? How do we know if there is no evidence? A 13 year old is still a child even if she is sexually active. Does saying she's sexually mature make it okay to have sex with someone who is 13? Nettiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060207989433138653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-65699986262416923662015-01-26T21:12:09.588+08:002015-01-26T21:12:09.588+08:00Polanski should have paid someone to bust a cap on...Polanski should have paid someone to bust a cap on this gold digger the moment it got outAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-71560723974646180962013-04-18T15:12:03.846+09:002013-04-18T15:12:03.846+09:00Jean has explained why he replied. You should be m...Jean has explained why he replied. You should be more attentive. It is interesting for us, his readers, to see once again how people reproduce the same patterns of fact distortion.<br /><br />Also, he never said that what Mr.Polanski did wasn’t illegal in the United States. All he wants is people to keep to the facts. In your first comment, you distorted the facts, and in your second, you ascribed to him things he never said. I think it would help if you read the whole of this research, it is really good and informative. You keep missing the point.<br /><br />I’ve always wondered if people in the USA really don’t see difference between molesting a child and having sex with an underage prostitute. This approach seems to me highly immoral. Probably, it’s the matter of cultural differences.<br />Елена Прошинаhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00007142986270753138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-71864839338083242102013-04-16T08:12:28.623+09:002013-04-16T08:12:28.623+09:00Jean said...
"I don’t really think Gobsmacked...Jean said...<br /><i>"I don’t really think Gobsmacked needs a reply to his/her comment"</i><br /><br />Then why did you respond Jean?<br /><br />Why are you so intent on refusing to hold Roman Polanski responsible for his actions? <b>He was an adult who made the choice to be inappropriate in several ways with a child.</b> It doesn't matter what she did or did not do with whoever. Even if she were a prostitute, he is the issue, not the child. Again, what about <b>LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT</b> do you find confusing? It is the obligation of <b>adults</b> to protect children, not take advantage of them. That's why we have laws and why adults are expected to abide by them. Again, this situation is about the choices of a 44 year old man, not the sexual history of a 13 year old girl. It was wrong of him to do any way you slice or dice it.<br /><br />You may minimize my position all you like, but I think I would find nearly unanimous legal and moral consensus for it among the population of the US. Can you? Debating any other issue apart from her age at the time is irrelevant. I know how old she was. I know how old he was. In the United States 13 year old children cannot legally give consent to have sex. Case closed. Not to mention morally. He should have known better. She was child.Gobsmackednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-10679342916027261632013-04-15T18:57:56.536+09:002013-04-15T18:57:56.536+09:00I don’t really think Gobsmacked needs a reply to h...I don’t really think Gobsmacked needs a reply to his/her comment – obviously, s/he hasn’t read, and is not intending to read, the documents I have collected and analyzed. I want, however, draw my other reader’s attention to how the old ignorant lies have reappeared in his/her comment:<br /><br />“She was a child” – She was a physically mature young woman with previous sexual experience (see Chapters 2 and 3, the Grand Jury testimonies, medical examination report, witnesses’ reports, photos).<br /><br />“He gave her drugs, alcohol <…>” – No, he did not (see Chapter 2 and the Grand Jury testimonies).<br /><br />“…and had sex with her” – and she had sex with him (see Chapter 2 and the conclusion of the probation department, officially confirming that the intercourse was consensual).<br /><br />“If an adult did to my child what Polanski did to Samantha Geimer…” – He did not “do” anything to her. She had consensual sex with him, as she had had with men before him.<br /><br />“…would it matter one whit to me how CREATIVE the molester was?” – funny, isn’t it? Where among my arguments did that person find “creativity”? How come consensual sex with an experienced “adult female” (as we remember, that’s how the medical examination report defines her) is suddenly “molestation”? Alas, Gobsmacked lives in the world of his/her own sick illusions…<br /><br />Sometimes it is a good idea to read the material one is commenting on, to avoid making a fool of oneself…<br />Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-41847217586335905482013-04-14T08:21:42.937+09:002013-04-14T08:21:42.937+09:00What part of ~13 years old~ is confusing to you? S...What part of ~13 years old~ is confusing to you? She was a child and Polanski knew that. He gave her drugs, alcohol and had sex with her. It's simple. 44 year old men should not have sex with 13 year old girls. His glorious creativity does not change that fact. And I would venture to say she wasn't the first nor the last. If you have children look at one of them right now and ask yourself this question, "If an adult did to my child what Polanski did to Samantha Geimer would it matter one whit to me how CREATIVE the molester was?????Gobsmackednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-71495821654123142232013-01-20T01:36:32.781+09:002013-01-20T01:36:32.781+09:00No, it doesn’t mean they were not raped. It doesn’...No, it doesn’t mean they were not raped. It doesn’t mean they <b>were</b> raped, either, - until other circumstances are taken into account. Such as evidence, for example. Or the total absence thereof.<br /><br />You may or may not have noticed that this is Chapter 5; thus, there are 4 more chapters before this (and quite a few after). I would suggest you going back and [re]reading the main body of argumentation, the cited documents first of all. In a nutshell, that’s what the situation is like:<br /><br />1. Medical examination doesn’t find any trace of forcible penetration, anal or vaginal.<br />2. Medical examination doesn’t find any trace of any penetration at all, anal or vaginal.<br />3. Dr.Larson testifies that it is sometimes possible not to find any trace of intercourse UNLESS it is forcible. (In other words – I know that the “unless” part confuses some readers – that in the present case the intercourse was NOT forcible)<br />4. After a thorough investigation the probation department (whose report is the only document of the case that gives an official conclusion) unambiguously states <b>consent</b>.<br /><br />There are more facts, equally irrefutable (including the Gailey’s lame attempt to forge the evidence, which alone reduces their credibility to zero), analyzed in the other chapters, but even this brief summary should do.<br /><br />And now you’re trying to tell me there still was, or could be, “rape”, only because “people sometimes lie”?... Sorry Mia, this argument is dramatically impotent and, if anything, only further incriminates the perjuring Gaileys.<br />Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-51495049086829461902013-01-19T04:39:48.874+09:002013-01-19T04:39:48.874+09:00Not all of those sound like lies to me for reasons...Not all of those sound like lies to me for reasons already given by Leigh and others however for the ones that might be I would suggest you read the When Rape Victims Lie by the blogger Sasha which explains why people sometimes lie after being raped and how it does not mean they were not raped.Mianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-5769991683323907442012-01-16T17:39:43.400+09:002012-01-16T17:39:43.400+09:00Anonymous said...
Hi
I've read your analysis ...Anonymous said... <br />Hi<br />I've read your analysis of the case, and it's very interesting.<br />However, I think you're too harsh against Samantha Geimer. She never wanted all of that to happen. She didn't call the cops; her mother did. It's like, whatever the Gailey family wanted to do when they called the cops, they almost immediately regretted it probably just hours afterwards. Very quickly, the situation was completely beyond their control, and the justice and media circus was horrible both for Polanski and for them. In her way, Samantha is hinting that she wasn't indeed a rape victim, but she's surrounded by media who made her the "child rape victim of the century"; for the media, Polanski is a child rapist; anything she says which goes against that fact is dismissed. She's perhaps one of the few American people who dares to go to Polanski's defense. Besides, she can't say clearly that she wasn't raped, unless being attacked for perjury, for a Grand Jury testimony she did under intense pressure, and in fact, never wanted to do ; besides, at the time, the plea bargain taken was supposed to end the judicial case once and for all.The real responsibles of that horrible miscarriage of justice are Judge Rittenband, but mostly, THE MEDIA, who dare insult Polanski when the alleged victim herself says that they are much worse. <br /><br />************************************************************************************************************<br /><br />To Anon:<br /><br />You give Geimer entirely too much credit. She has stated on more than one occasion she wanted to become an actress like her mom. She wanted to be like her mom. She may not have called the police, but she didn't beg her not to. Susan Gailey sounds like a mother with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. She stood by and allowed her daughter to go through a medical examination, this is part of the syndrome. This means she was looking for attention. The situation was always under the control. When interviewed by Irwin Gold, Polanski's probation officer, he mentioned a permissiveness within the home and cites the culpability on behalf of both the mother and the daughter. There was also the little event of some canoodling outside of Gunson's office by the poor, helpless little rape victim Samantha and her mother's 38 year-old boyfriend. An aid of Gunson's saw this and went to Rittenband with it. He dismissed it. The aid when to Douglas Dalton, Polanski's attorney, and it was based on this that Dalton wanted to find out who else had had sex with Geimer and why they weren't being charged as well. This can be seen in the Zenovich documentary. <br /><br />If Geimer had any decency, she'd go on national television with someone like Diane Sawyer and admit her guilt and say she lied. Show contrition for what she and her grifter mother put Polanski, his wife Emmanuelle and children through these 33 years. She HAS to go to Polanski's defense because it was her and her mother who have continued this charade these past years. She's done nothing to outwardly dispute anything King or any other interviewer has put to her. She hasn't said, "No, it was not rape. No, he never hurt me. Yes, I wanted it." She likes to have her cake and eat it too. To say that she never wanted any of this is shortchanging her and her mother's motive from the beginning. She wanted to become a star. She wanted to be like her mother, also an actress. With what Polanski had done for Kinski there was a sure bet that he could pull strings for her. However, the guy who Gailey asked would represent little Sammy, refused. So they had to get Polanski another way. The sex was the ace-in-the-hole. And Sammy then turned on the acting lessons she no doubt learned from mommy. <br /><br />The ones responsible for the train leaving the door are Susan Gailey and Samantha Geimer. To not put the blame squarely on them is to say that they have no responsibility whatsoever.Samskara Impressionshttp://samskara.org/journalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-81717834001967777722011-11-28T21:05:25.513+09:002011-11-28T21:05:25.513+09:00No, in the memoirs he describes it the following w...No, in the memoirs he describes it the following way: "The next day, a Sunday, I drove out to Jane's home..." then he describes the family, and the brief appearance of "Sandra" (Samantha)<br />Then: "I did call, some days later, and fixed a time. When I arrived with my cameras..." - they pick clothes and go to the hills for the first session.<br />So, she didn't lie this time. She can't lie in <b>every</b> word, after all - no, only when it suits her. Although sometimes I begin to think she is a compulsive liar; this time, however, she managed to keep to the facts.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-88799671227252949152011-11-27T11:36:00.097+09:002011-11-27T11:36:00.097+09:00Jean:
From what I understand from reading Polansk...Jean:<br /><br />From what I understand from reading Polanski's book, there were only two times. The one time in February when he took the initial test shots on the hill above Geimer's house and the other session on March 10. I don't recall there being another time prior to the initial meeting in February. Even in the Grand Jury hearing, Geimer only says twice. So where is the third time?<br /><br />SamSamskara Impressionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16717087386962760844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-5191475979681998682011-11-24T20:59:57.627+09:002011-11-24T20:59:57.627+09:00Samskara: thank you for adding me to the blogroll!...<b>Samskara</b>: thank you for adding me to the blogroll!<br /><br />As far as Geimer's statements are concerned, I suppose she didn't lie this time, for once. I think the first time was when he came to the house to have a look at her and to agree on the first session.<br /><br /><b>Anon</b>: Yes, Geimer's position is precarious. If she keeps harping about how she said "no", it's rape, and should be tried as such. Then, obviously, all her lies will come to light, and she can't allow this to happen. If, however, she explicitly confesses that she consented, it will make her a perjurer and, as you pointed out, a closer scrutiny will expose her as participant of a conspiracy (panties and all). Her only option is to continuously plead for the case to be dropped, which is what she is doing. Not, of course, out of any noble feelings some are trying to ascribe to her, but only to cover her own sorry ass. <br /><br />And many, many thanks for commenting!Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-89064269794239019002011-11-21T08:48:14.066+09:002011-11-21T08:48:14.066+09:00Jean:
I'm posting here to ask about something...Jean:<br /><br />I'm posting here to ask about something mentioned in Geimer's 2003 Larry king interview. She said something about having met Polanski THREE times including the March 1977 event. If so, then there's another lie she's told to add to the litany of others. Where does she get this third time? <br /><br />BTW, another blog post for you: http://samskara.org/journal/2011/11/20/astounsing/ <br /><br />I've also added you to my blogroll. Friends for friends. <br /><br />SamskaraSamskara Impressionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16717087386962760844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-69654480362625034002011-11-20T05:22:35.162+09:002011-11-20T05:22:35.162+09:00Anonymous said...
Hi
I've read your analysis ...Anonymous said... <br />Hi<br />I've read your analysis of the case, and it's very interesting.<br />However, I think you're too harsh against Samantha Geimer. She never wanted all of that to happen. She didn't call the cops; her mother did. It's like, whatever the Gailey family wanted to do when they called the cops, they almost immediately regretted it probably just hours afterwards. Very quickly, the situation was completely beyond their control, and the justice and media circus was horrible both for Polanski and for them. In her way, Samantha is hinting that she wasn't indeed a rape victim, but she's surrounded by media who made her the "child rape victim of the century"; for the media, Polanski is a child rapist; anything she says which goes against that fact is dismissed. She's perhaps one of the few American people who dares to go to Polanski's defense. Besides, she can't say clearly that she wasn't raped, unless being attacked for perjury, for a Grand Jury testimony she did under intense pressure, and in fact, never wanted to do ; besides, at the time, the plea bargain taken was supposed to end the judicial case once and for all.The real responsibles of that horrible miscarriage of justice are Judge Rittenband, but mostly, THE MEDIA, who dare insult Polanski when the alleged victim herself says that they are much worse.<br /><br />^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br /><br />To the above commenter, the statute of limitations is over on perjury. That is ten years from the date of the incident, however, as we're seeing in the Natalie Wood case, if there is a conspiracy involved in that perjury, there is no statute as it reflects back on the original lie. So if it can be proven Geimer and her mother were involved in a conspiracy to frame Polanski, both she and her mother could face charges and that statute of limitations would be nullified. She is still in legal jeopardy by her lie if she did come out and say it was a fabrication as a part of a conspiracy. So she knows she's in deep doo-doo if she admits it was anything else other than a rape, but the problem is, the evidence has never supported her version of the events. She has to perpetuate her victimhood or else she'd be called out as Chicken Little with the sky falling. To say that her ensuing press interviews are part of a lapse of memory, is giving her too much leeway. It's what it is... a lie perpetuated for her own gain. When that gain wasn't followed up on namely Polanski telling the mother his friend wasn't going to be taking on any more clients, this became vindictiveness pure and simple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-46877471828611459572011-11-20T05:15:45.268+09:002011-11-20T05:15:45.268+09:00You know, I can believe that 'perhaps' all...You know, I can believe that 'perhaps' all of Geimer's statements are a simple lapse of memory, however, this was supposed to be if not the most horrible thing that has ever happened to her, yet she's actively campaigning to have all the charges against Polanski dropped? It doesn't make sense. Never has. Any rape victim I have ever met doesn't want their rapist to walk free and clear, they want justice. It doesn't matter how they get it, they want it. It's appropriate to want it, however, in her case Geimer doesn't even seem to care. She cares more about how she looks in the press rather than what happened to her. She seems perfectly fine to have this stuff aired when it suits her, but then backtracks and runs for cover when the press comes to her door. Which is it? I don't get this woman. It's prefectly fine as long as she can control the message, but not fine when people want to call her out on obvious lies. <br /><br />As far as rape victims not wanting to report what happened to them, some don't. In this case, there was a wait time between the time she got home to the time her mother called the police almost as if there was a deliberateness in order to have the Quaalude and champagne be out of her system in case there was a blood test taken, of which I'm shocked there wasn't. Larson didn't report anything about her blook alcohol level which would have been ample proof of her veracity if she indeed did have alcohol and 'drugs' pushed on her by Polanski. But there is no blood test, nothing to prove that aspect. She also claims to have been anally raped twice by Polanski. Larson reported there was no proof of it, yet said in some cases there isn't. I dare anyone to have unlubricated anal sex and there not be any proof of it. Any rape victim has some proof, yet there is none in this case and Larson's assertion there isn't always proof is purely a cover his own ass statement. Gunson would have been careful to have this admitted into evidence to make sure he's 'saved' as it were from a reversal on this issue. If this had gone to trial, Larson would have had a hard time proving this was the case if Dalton had decided to bring forth proof to the contrary in other cases involving anal rape with proof of it. Consider too her supposed age at the time. How does a 'child' not have proof of rear entry? This is the reason McMartin was reversed and those indicted were cleared due to the impossibility of all they said happening due to no proof. In that case, the children, who were all under age 10, said knives had been taken to their 'heinies' and to their genitals but no medical evidence showed any damage. In fact no dameage to tissues or the interior walls of the colon, yet they said knives and other objects were inserted. <br /><br />Larson's testimony could largely be ignored since it had no real relevence since it showed nothing was abnormal about her anatomy other than he listed her as an adult female. That is quizzical to say the least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-33685814102062605152011-09-29T01:59:57.430+09:002011-09-29T01:59:57.430+09:00Ok, thank you! Have fun traveling!Ok, thank you! Have fun traveling!Tiffanynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-18974966848311137622011-09-27T15:40:25.591+09:002011-09-27T15:40:25.591+09:00LOL, I am not at home at the moment (traveling) an...LOL, I am not at home at the moment (traveling) and I do not have all my materials ready, but sometimes he says things like "I don't give a flying f***" - I'll link you when I am back (mid-October)Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-76555779764075814142011-09-27T08:09:03.126+09:002011-09-27T08:09:03.126+09:00"WTF? I realize I’m beginning to sound like P..."WTF? I realize I’m beginning to sound like Polanski at his worst (for lack of more serious shortcomings, his enemies love to censure his using obscenities), but seriously, WTF?"<br /><br /><br />I've never heard Mr. Polanski use obscenities. Do you have a video or something?Tiffanynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-31513437611498477792011-06-07T02:29:42.049+09:002011-06-07T02:29:42.049+09:00Thank you for commenting, anon. Even if we disagre...Thank you for commenting, anon. Even if we disagree about Geimer's role, we still agree on the most important points, and that's what really matters.<br /><br />I will later reply more elaborately, now I only want to thank you once again for having read this, cared to leave a comment, and being capable of unprejudiced reasoning - I know it's too much to ask of most people nowadays.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-56920756565016849932011-06-06T17:30:07.315+09:002011-06-06T17:30:07.315+09:00Hi
I've read your analysis of the case, and it...Hi<br />I've read your analysis of the case, and it's very interesting.<br />However, I think you're too harsh against Samantha Geimer. She never wanted all of that to happen. She didn't call the cops; her mother did. It's like, whatever the Gailey family wanted to do when they called the cops, they almost immediately regretted it probably just hours afterwards. Very quickly, the situation was completely beyond their control, and the justice and media circus was horrible both for Polanski and for them. In her way, Samantha is hinting that she wasn't indeed a rape victim, but she's surrounded by media who made her the "child rape victim of the century"; for the media, Polanski is a child rapist; anything she says which goes against that fact is dismissed. She's perhaps one of the few American people who dares to go to Polanski's defense. Besides, she can't say clearly that she wasn't raped, unless being attacked for perjury, for a Grand Jury testimony she did under intense pressure, and in fact, never wanted to do ; besides, at the time, the plea bargain taken was supposed to end the judicial case once and for all.The real responsibles of that horrible miscarriage of justice are Judge Rittenband, but mostly, THE MEDIA, who dare insult Polanski when the alleged victim herself says that they are much worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-26276487695634590132011-05-09T21:26:31.896+09:002011-05-09T21:26:31.896+09:00Now, for Christian personal message of May 7, 2011...Now, for Christian personal message of May 7, 2011 4:29 AM – since he said it was up to me whether or not to post it, I chose to do so, and here is why.<br /><br />I want to address all these ladies with a sincere word of gratitude. No, none of you has been aggressive, or rude, or full of blind condemnation – unlike, regrettabely, so many other people.<br /><br />You have all been tactful, patient, and open-minded. Thank you really, really much for this. <br /><br />Now I have a better understanding of why you were trying to protect Geimer (against all logic and common sense) – you felt like she was one of you, and I was treating unfairly.<br /><br />Hear me, I beg. I know you’ve already heard most part of what I said, let me tell you one more thing now. Bear with me one more time.<br /><br />I am not young, and in my life I too met women who have been abused. All my heart goes out to them, as it does to you. <br /><br />And this is exactly the reason why I despise Geimer.<br /><br />What with her trying to maintain incompatible things, her letting most (and worst) of mankind still call it “rape”, she mocks all the women who have really been raped. She trivializes their ordeal. That’s what I just can’t forgive - or dismiss.<br /><br />The sweet, graceful, beautiful, tender, the best that exists in the world – women – abused, raped, trampled on, having had to go through real suffering, knowing everything Samskara spoke about – feeling dirty, feeling humiliated, feeling violated – will you ever refer to your plight in such terms:<br /><br />**<br /><br />He HAD SEX with me.<br /><br />(KING: Did he get rough?)<br />No, no. He was just persuasive.<br /><br />The WORST part was, NO-ONE BELIEVED ME. Everybody thought I was making it up. It was so traumatic, STARTING that night WHEN MY MOTHER CALLED THE POLICE.<br /><br />I NEVER had a chance to be ANGRY WITH HIM. By the next day everything was so BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.<br /><br />(CALLER: I was just wondering, if Samantha had a daughter and it happened to her, what option would she take?) <br />I might consider NOT CALLING THE POLICE after everything the press and the police and the judge put me through. <br /><br />(KING: Maybe it's because of the years, but neither of you [Geimer and Silver – J.M.] feel particularly angry at Roman Polanski.) <br />No. Not anymore. NOT EVEN THEN. I mean, it just... I was angry BECAUSE HE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE PUBLICITY and the publicity was the WORST thing that ever happened to me. <br />(KING: But not angry that he had sex with you.)<br />The publicity was so terrible, that -- and so immediate that it just OVERSHADOWED everything that happened that night. <br /><br />It was JUST SEX.<br /><br />**<br /><br />And now remember or re-read everything else you already know, the forged evidence including.<br /><br />If I didn’t feel so strongly for you, for real victims of real rapes, I wouldn’t feel so strongly against the predatory mercenary females. It’s them who cast their shadow on all women, and it’s Geimer’s flippancy and unwillingness to finally state the truth unambiguously that makes the worst among people (not only men) think that there’s nothing really serious about rape. It is all wrong, because it puts all genuine victims of rape in bad light in the eyes of ignorant mob – and, sadly, the ignorant form the majority - if we don’t learn to draw a definite line between rape and intercourse. “Just sex”, in her own words.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-49795377350172516052011-05-09T19:39:27.150+09:002011-05-09T19:39:27.150+09:00Christian - please go back to Dr.Larson's test...Christian - please go back to Dr.Larson's testimony, or read my reply (which is something, I noticed, you NEVER do) to your comment at Conclusion: FAQ. Doctor Larson NEVER EVER said such an idiotic thing. You are either deliberately distorting what he said, or being deliberatly blind, too eager to read your own preconception into his words.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083598595101518329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-38508702571577410732011-05-08T21:11:18.519+09:002011-05-08T21:11:18.519+09:00"Here are the real facts: forcible rape leave..."Here are the real facts: forcible rape leaves evidence--especially where anal penetration is involved. A grown man like Polanski shoving his cock up a young girl's ass (not once, but twice) is going to leave evidence behind like bruising and bleeding"<br /><br />Dr Larson said that there is not always going to be physical evidence of anal intercourse after a bowel movement which Samanthha said she had therefore he did NOT find that the physical evidence contradicted what she said.<br /><br />A person pointing this out is not a <br />"hysterical modern ideologue" making up their own facts they are simply someone who wants to know all the facts before denouncing either Roman Polanski or Samantha Geimer.Christiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4186171714707843344.post-15818556490555855542011-05-07T08:27:49.637+09:002011-05-07T08:27:49.637+09:00"Some sources say that Dr Larson who performe..."Some sources say that Dr Larson who performed the rape kit testified that there isn't always physical evidence in rape cases."<br /><br />Dr. Larson's rape-kit contradicted Samantha Gailey's grand jury testimony of forcible double-sodomy, forcible vaginal penetration, and semen spread all over her ass-crack. The rape-kit showed none of this testimony to be true.<br /><br />You see, I'm one of those old fashioned people who believe in evidence-based justice and due process. I am NOT one of those hysterical modern ideologues who think that they're entitled to their own facts.<br /><br />Here are the real facts: forcible rape leaves evidence--especially where anal penetration is involved. A grown man like Polanski shoving his cock up a young girl's ass (not once, but twice) is going to leave evidence behind like bruising and bleeding. <br /><br />On this basis alone, the case should be thrown out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com