Friday, July 26, 2013

Roman Polanski, Charles Manson, Judge Rittenband and wide spread corruption in American Courts

On the recent release of the original 1973 MANSON film on Limited Edition DVDs, the by-line reads: The HORRIFYING and SHOCKING story that never ends!! But that is certainly an understatement. With Roman Polanski's recent arrest in Switzerland, quite possibly a whole new chapter relating to the Tate / LaBianca massacre, will now be played out, One might question, how was the murder of Mr. Polanski's wife and child related to his statutory rape case, eight years later? Are certain people affected by a Manson curse? What similarities in the lives of Charles Manson and Roman Polanski have had an influence on each of their destinies? And why does it all have relevance to today?

First, to not consider that the early childhoods of both public figures had a profound effect on their adult directions, is just plain ignorant. While the young Charles Manson was nothing more than a throw-away child, bounced from American foster homes to so-called institutions for wayward boys, the young Polanski suffered at the hands of perhaps the most evil empire to ever have existed. Both of their early lives and later crimes must be studied in the proper context, in order for any intelligent discussion on the subject to even begin.

But already, battle lines are being drawn, mob mentality is setting in, and most everyone is taking one side or the other, so what is the real issue here? Just as in the Manson Murders case, the Prosecution paints a bleak picture of a depraved defendant. This is to ensure that the public will despise Polanski, even if he is released without serving further prison time. Contrary to popular belief, the practice of law is not about serving justice, but about winning at all costs. Shouldn't we be concerned about why Mr. Polanski fled the US?

While we now know that a specific Prosecutor lied in a documentary film, in order to affect the public's perception of certain aspects of the Polanski case, we may never realize the full effect of the judicial fraud put upon the once reputable legal system. That officers of the court, including a somewhat mentally challenged judge have rocked many people’s faith and belief in American justice, is perhaps the cruelest kind of rape. After all, the equitable and fair administration of justice is all that we the people have, that separates us from an uncivilized world.

Without question, Roman Polanski received a celebrity sweetheart plea deal and for Judge Rittenband to agree to it, well that's the advantage of having a high profile attorney on your side. But apparently, Polanski was not informed that while in the Judges' good graces, nothing more than doing only penance is acceptable. Instead, he was caught by a photographer at an Oktoberfest celebration and the photo found it's way into a newspaper. As far as the Court was concerned, he should have been making a movie and not enjoying any free time.

So a disturbed Los Angeles Prosecutor, who apparently took a special interest in Polanski's personal life, handed the newspaper, with Polanski's picture in it, to the bailiff in Rittenband's courtroom. He said, "Here, give this to the judge", knowing the picture would rub the judge the wrong way. Of course, that should have been the end of it, a childlike game between officers of the court, but when the judge saw the photo of Polanski out on the town, he blew it. Directly to a reporter from The Outlook he commented, "Screw the deal, he's going to state prison". Polanski's attorney found out and Polanski skipped the country. Of course, no honorable jurist would have reacted in such a disgraceful manner, but instead, would have called Polanski's attorney to appear before him in open court and then he would have questioned the attorney regarding the subject issue.

So now we have a very serious situation, where even the President of the United States should step in, as a lawyer, and demand that judicial reform, like healthcare reform be enacted immediately. Be assured, the Polanski matter is not an isolated situation. Judge Rittenband was 72 years old at the time of his dealings with Polanski and most likely dementia was already affecting his thinking. After Roman Polanski fled the states, the judge is known to have commented that he would stay on the bench until Roman was apprehended and that's personal, not related to the business of justice. As for Los Angeles Prosecution's, unethical conduct, how can any person now think that they can get a fair trial or equitable relief in any American courtroom?

There's no doubt but that Rittenband was a brilliant jurist in his younger days, but when his position of public trust became his personal weapon, the administration of justice was not only prejudiced, but sabotaged. Make no mistake, the entire system of American justice is slowing becoming exposed for its cracked foundation and crumbling structure. Actually, it can no longer be rightfully considered a system, but a game of cards where the dealers all have agendas of their own. You can ask any lawyer who practices in any courthouse in America and he can name the judges in his district who really shouldn't be wearing a black robe. Obviously, our founding fathers had no idea that old age can produce a demented mind. When US President Ronald Reagan, while still holding office developed dementia, absolutely nobody had any idea as to what to do. Thank God, things turned out okay.

In the new MANSON book you will discover much dishonesty and unethical game playing amongst the legal players in the Manson murders case, to the extent certain witnesses lied. Susan Atkins could have easily received a new trial. Unfortunately for her, a new trial could have put her back on death row. Now Mr. Polanski finds himself in a similar catch 22. To start anew, he would face multiple felony counts, instead of one lesser charge of having intercourse with a minor.

Should Polanski only have to serve out the remainder of his original 90 day evaluation sentence as that was the "deal" Judge Rittenband agreed upon? But then we the people will not get to see and judge for ourselves the full extent of America's judicial breakdown, as evidenced in the Polanski case?

There is no question that what Roman Polanski did to a thirteen year old girl is reprehensible. And what the Manson Gang did to Mr. Polanski's family defies most all forms of reason, but what two officers of the court, a Prosecutor and the Judge did to destroy the very credibility of the justice system should be considered treasonous.

So why don't we try to learn and understand how horrendous childhood experiences directly affect later life in certain people? No doubt, Judge Rittenband had some dark secrets in his closet and the prosecutor who ignited the whole Polanski legal fiasco, shouldn't he at least be subjected to a 90 day psychiatric evaluation. Otherwise, we are only left to understand that their actions were simply evil and the product of some sort of devil's curse.

Of course, if the Prosecution even senses that putting Polanski on trial will also cause its dirty laundry to be hung out in public, a "deal" will be made. The Federal Court gave Bernie Madoff a quick deal, in order to keep him quiet, thus, it's very likely Polanski will come out just fine. So then, you'll have to read the MANSON book, in order to understand more about how judicial gangsters are taking over American's legal system.

- Robert Hendrickson


Order The Collection and take advantage of the EVILIZ SPECIAL

$89.95 for the MANSON Media Collection (the MANSON Book and both DVDs - including Priority Mail shipping. The DVDs come in smaller thin plastic cases so everything fits in flat rate package, but includes larger personalized DVD inserts. Must be purchased via PayPal or M.O. Just email rarefilms@yahoo.com for his PayPal account to send payment.






79 comments:

St. Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

Very thought provoking article, in my opinion. Both cases can rattle one's faith in American Justice, just for different reasons.

If you haven't seen these films made while Hendrickson was embedded with the Manson Family during the trials or read this book which contains never before seen pictures, then this sweetheart deal is a great reason to do it now.

Suze said...

I ordered this a year ago or more. I've watched the two DVD's until I about wore them out. They are incredible peeks inside the family at spahn ranch.

I wish I could have been there with y'all at the theater in LA to meet RA and see them on the big screen!

Panamint Patty said...

You know, Patty has been thinking a lot about this. The family did not kill to protest against the Viet Nam War, obviously. At first glance, people might disregard Mr. Hendrickson's analysis right there.

But if you look deeper, what he is saying is that the horror of the murders was twisted by the system into a huge distraction to keep people from looking at what was going on overseas. Like with an ill tempered child, when you go, "Look over here! Pretty! Sparkly!" to distract her. People are more interested in dead pretty people than they are in dead gooks, after all.

We are so easily distracted. We only see what we want to see. Does that make sense?

Panamint Patty said...

Mr. Hendrickson, Patty hopes she got that right. She also understands that you, more than most, understand about a good cover up. Someday will you be our military escort up to area 51? Patty would freaking love to hear your memories of that place during that time. Eviliz tour 2014! We can stay at the Phoenix. LOL

Jiri said...

Not to mention another important piece - completely discredit the hippie movement. In one fell swoop people became fearful of people with toe rings. They were instantly transformed from pot, flowers & free love to murder, mayhem and madness.

The establishment' best propaganda imaginable dropped right into its lap!

Max Frost said...

Hendrickson knows A LOT more about the true story.

Even though "some" like to deny it while trying to convince themselves and others that it isn't true.

orwhut said...

Hey guys,
If you miss the true crime mags, no longer on American news stands. You might try,
http://www.crimemagazine.com/
I signed up for a month and so far, have found conspiracy, cover up, and plenty of murder.
Administrators:
I won't be offended if you don't allow plugs. I am not connected with the web site except as a subscriber.

Panamint Patty said...

plug away, whut.

Cindy Lee said...

Apparently my post exceeded the limit, so this will be in 2 parts:

Hendrickson comments on Polanski’s legal affairs by stating: So a disturbed Los Angeles Prosecutor, who apparently took a special interest in Polanski's personal life, handed the newspaper, with Polanski's picture in it, to the bailiff in Rittenband's courtroom. He said, "Here, give this to the judge", knowing the picture would rub the judge the wrong way. Of course, that should have been the end of it, a childlike game between officers of the court, but when the judge saw the photo of Polanski out on the town, he blew it. Directly to a reporter from The Outlook he commented, "Screw the deal, he's going to state prison". Polanski's attorney found out and Polanski skipped the country. Of course, no honorable jurist would have reacted in such a disgraceful manner, but instead, would have called Polanski's attorney to appear before him in open court and then he would have questioned the attorney regarding the subject issue.

Response: Plea deals happen all the time. A plea deal is entered between prosecutors and a defendant. The plea is placed on the record. Then the date is set for sentencing. The judge has time to read a pre-sentence investigation. The judge has time to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors. The judge has an opportunity to read legal briefs from both sides. Then the judge has the final word. The judge can comply with the plea deal and accept it or the judge can reject it. Upon rejection, the defendant can then withdraw their guilty plea or accept whatever punishment the judge is inclined to give. And, as Rittenband did, a judge will usually give the defendant a little heads up about his decision, which he did in this case. That’s all that happened here. This is how our judicial system works and reducing Polanski's raping a 13-year-old to a political situation or some type of conspiracy theory is as absurd as OJ Simpson being framed by the entire LAPD and DA’s office.

On top of that, Polanski gave up all his rights to use our legal system, as it was set up and meant to be used, the moment he chose to flea the country.

Hendrickson comments: But apparently, Polanski was not informed that while in the Judge’s good graces, nothing more than doing only penance is acceptable. Instead, he was caught by a photographer at an Oktoberfest celebration and the photo found its way into a newspaper. As far as the Court was concerned, he should have been making a movie and not enjoying any free time.

Response: Polanski was charged with a six-count felony indictment: committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14, rape of a minor, rape by use of drug, oral copulation and sodomy. This was a child! His response upon arrest was "I did nothing wrong".

The judge was extremely lenient in allowing Polanski to leave the country for work--most US citizens would not have been afforded that luxury. And in return for that luxury, Polanski made a mockery of it and our judicial system by philandering instead of working. Under the circumstances set for his release to another country, Polanski had absolutely no right "enjoying any free time".

Cindy Lee said...

Hendrickson comments: One might question, how was the murder of Mr. Polanski's wife and child related to his statutory rape case, eight years later?

Answer: It doesn't. The excuse of using the Holocaust or Sharon's murder as a reason for his deplorable act is the equivalent to Susan Atkins blaming her actions on her mother's cancer, her father's abuse, and her uncle raping her as a teen. The blame game is what criminals easily implement for their actions.

Hendrickson comments: What similarities in the lives of Charles Manson and Roman Polanski have had an influence on each of their destinies? 



Answer: They both like to blame others for their current situations.

Hendrickson comments: First, to not consider that the early childhoods of both public figures had a profound effect on their adult directions, is just plain ignorant.

Answer: We all make choices in our lives. To decide to hurt another human being and blame it as a result of our terrible childhood is a cop-out. One could just as easily think: I was hurt as a child, therefore I chose to make sure that I never do the same to another human being.

Hendrickson comments: Shouldn't we be concerned about why Mr. Polanski fled the US?

Answer: Of course we should--he made a conscious choice to not face his charges, flee the U.S and become a fugitive. As stated, Polanski had a sweetheart deal that he blew by (again) choosing to mislead our judicial system in stating that he needed to leave the country to scout a film location and instead spent more time partying and bedding women than working -- with supporting photos to document what was really happening on his "business" trip. As previously stated, Judge Rittenband was completely working within the law by evaluating said photos and making a decision that Polanski was in essence saying, “Fuck you and your laws. I do what I want.”

Hendrickson comments: 
That officers of the court, including a somewhat mentally challenged judge have rocked many people’s faith and belief in American justice, is perhaps the cruelest kind of rap.

Answer: To anyone who has been physically violated by a rape, this is an absurd comment and a slap in the face to rape victims everywhere.

Hendrickson’s entire commentary is the equivalent of Harvey Weinstein's ridiculous plea on Polanski's behalf that sums this all up in a nutshell: "Polanski has served his time and must be freed. It's a shocking way to treat a man who survived the Holocaust and his wife's murder.... Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time.”

Weinstein’s commentary of calling Polanski’s atrocious behavior against a child as a “so called crime” for which he has “served his time” gets to the heart of this entire debate. To minimize the rape of a child and equate the 42-days Polanski served to the violation, demoralization, and annihilation of an entire childhood is very sad.

Panamint Patty said...

Cindy, Patty agrees that this was rape and no price or retribution can make up for what he did. The judge however was crazy. Judges are supposed to uphold the law, whatever that law is. It might be a slap on the wrist, it may be life without parole. But if its the law, a judge should administer the "justice" and then let it be. Rittenband, however, got caught up in his own celebrity and further victimized the victim in his own way: it was no longer about her, it was about the men's egoes.

orwhut said...

Thanks, Patty. I miss those pulp articles with articles like, Blind Sniper's Three State Orgy of Death.
Whut

Rob C said...

Polanski has to do time for his crime. Unfortunately, like Charlie has said over and over again: the system works in favor of those at the top.

If you look at Polanski's life he has been a pathologic sex addict. Saying that he used sex to get over Sharon's murder and having sex only a month after Sharon's death.

In "Helter Skelter" he is quoted as saying to Sharon during their engagement, [paraphrase] "I want to be with you but you know I f- around a lot".

Blue Forrest said...

Thank you for your insightful post Cindy. It does make for a very constructive argument however.

Obviously Polanski was depraved and took full advantage of a 13 year old wide eyed girl during a time when Hollywood was apparently more debaucherous than it is now.

I would call it statutory rape of the worst kind being that he had all the tricks in the book to seduce a young, naive girl with no intention other than getting His perverted rocks off and leaving it at that (rather than following through with any career advancements on her part). Not trying to rationalize...just saying.

But, a few things to consider:

I read the court transcripts quite some tome ago as most of you have, I'm sure. I remember being surprised that the circumstances didn't in any way spell out forcible rape. Manipulation, drugs, seduction, and persistence; yes.

Also, the girl has stated publicly that she forgives Roman and wishes people would just leave him alone and move on. She in no way is supporting his prosecution. If she was violated to the degree that most people agree that she was, don't you think she would still be adamant that he deserves to be strictly punished? She isn't however.

Shouldn't we listen to the victim in this case and trust her feelings? After all she is the victim and she was there. We weren't there and it seems like our emotions get the best of us sometimes and we write the horror story as though it were that of our own.

Also, I never hear anyone talk about her mother. In reading the transcripts, it was obvious that the girls' mother was pushing her in the direction she went. You might even say pimping her out in hopes that, regardless of what happens, she will have a very good chance at quickly furthering her career and maybe even becoming a star someday. I didn't get the impression at all that her mother was unaware of the situation being extremely questionable. There were enough red flags for even a mildly protective parent to notice. After all, the girl had done at least one photo shoot with Roman (maybe 2 or 3?) before the incident. She had already posed topless in a shoot before being lured to Mr. Nicholson's house.

I'm not in any way excusing Roman. What he did was just as wrong then as it would be today. And shame on him. But I would like to hear much more criticism of the girls mother. I would almost call her an accomplice to the crime.

Panamint Patty said...

Even if a 13 year old girl thinks she is old enough to consent, she is not. Biologically our brains are not complete by this age. She had no real context to put the experience into, either. Patty finds it very brave of her to have forgiven Roman but Patty does not agree, Forrest, that "there's rape, and then there's rape-rape." What happened colored her entire life. She truly has lived in his shadow: she is not the person she would have otherwise been.

Blue Forrest said...

I don't entirely disagree with you Patty. However, whenever I hear the word "rape" being used I automatically think of some violent maniac lurking in the bushes, jumping out, grabbing the unsuspecting victim, forcing her to the ground, holding her down, and forcing himself on her. In addition, many rapes are violent and leave the victim with major physical damage which adds to the trauma and lifelong spiritual and emotional scars.

Where do we draw the line between the two?

Panamint Patty said...

Why would you?

Blue Forrest said...

Because I see a big difference. If the girl is 18 and it's consensual there is not an issue. If she's below an established age it's considered statutory rape. There have been many couples consisting of an 18 year old male and a 16 year old girl who get caught in the act and the 18 year old male goes to prison. Is that fair?

In this case we have a dirty, perverted, manipulative much older man seducing a 13 year old girl. Of course it's wrong. Very wrong. Roman is sick for what he did and deserved whatever punishment the law would've allowed. I'm not sure what the law in California is or was but I'm guessing a brutal, violent rapist would have been looked at almost the same as a murderer and gotten significantly more prison time as per state law.

richko62 said...

I think that Hendrickson has a little dementia of his own...His only interest is selling copies of his documentary, while very entertaining an giving some perspective on life at Spahn Ranch after the key players were lock up I don't think they show how life was at the ranch while Charlie, Tex, & the girls were there....Also anyone who thinks Hen:drickson is holding back some big bomb shell till the death of Charlie Manson is just kidding themself...Hendrickson has told all he knows..he has just re edit a couple times....

Max Frost said...

Richko,

That an interesting perspective you put forth.

And you have talked to Hendrickson how many times?

And for how long?

Is that all you got out of him? That he's just "re-edited a couple times" ?

Did he tell you anything else?

Please share what you know.

adam said...

It wasn't rape. Rape is when someone forces you to have sex with them against your will. Geimer was more than willing to get it on with Mr.P in the hopes of getting a break out of it. And her behaviour both immediately afterwards and in recent years scream 'stitch up'.
Not that any of this excuses Roman's actions that day. A man in his 40's shouldn't be looking at a 13 year old even if she is already sexually active and developed.

And why on earth was Vogue commissioning provocative photoshoots of 13 and 14 year old girls in the first place?

Matt said...

Dear Cindy Lee:
Matt forgot to date the article - It's from ExclusiveFilms.com dated October 2009- four years ago. I have since undergone a drastic political affiliation change operation. Now! the picture of "Samantha" taken by Polanski just a week before he raped her has been made public. Thus, I realize that the only reason he is still alive, is because HE didn't rape a loved one of mine. BUT, that is NOT to say his life is not worth at least a hearty controversy.
My Best,
Robert

St. Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St. Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CScales said...

Patty, lets for a moment put aside Rittenband’s sanity because we could argue that 99% of some of our most outstanding politicians are nuts, yet they get the job done. Please explain your reasoning on how Rittenband did not uphold the law and (attempt to) administer justice?

Cindy Lee said...

Hi Blue Forrest.

You Commented: I read the court transcripts quite some tome ago as most of you have, I'm sure. I remember being surprised that the circumstances didn't in any way spell out forcible rape. Manipulation, drugs, seduction, and persistence; yes.

Response: I’m sure you’ve heard the term, “No means no.” The following is a small portion of Geimer’s testimony:

"At some time did he stop taking photographs of you in the jacuzzui?"
"Yes."
"What did he do after that?"
"He went in the bathroom and he came out and got in."
"When he came out was he wearing anything?"
"No…"
"And what did Mr. Polanski do?"
"He got in and went to the deepest part…
"He said, 'Come down here'.
"And I said, 'No, no I got to get out'… He had his hands on my sides like right around here and he was..."
"Around your waist?"
"Yes. Then he started to move and I got out."...

"What did you do when he said, 'Let’s go in the other room'?
"I was going, 'No, I think I’d better go home'. Because I was afraid.
"I just went and sat on the couch."
"What were you afraid of?"
"Him…

"What happened when you sat down on the couch?"
"He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, 'No,' you know, 'keep away'.
"But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there."

In the above testimony there are six “no’s” uttered from this 13-year-old. In my world, that is no longer manipulation, that is forcible rape—especially when you note this child’s comment: “I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.”

Blue Forrest Commented: Also, the girl has stated publicly that she forgives Roman and wishes people would just leave him alone and move on. She in no way is supporting his prosecution. If she was violated to the degree that most people agree that she was, don't you think she would still be adamant that he deserves to be strictly punished? She isn't however.

Response: Please note that Geimer is making this statement years later as an adult and after a financial restitution payment was made by Polanski—a restitution made with the agreement that she herself would no longer pursue this matter.

But the bottom line is, the case pending against Polanski is for violations he made on a child. The fact that the child has grown up doesn’t change the law for which he was originally arrested and fled the country.

Under our law, even if a victim is not willing to file charges but there is enough other independent evidence against the violator, the DA will still file charges because a law was broken and we as citizens demand justice be served. Please remember that our justice system is set up not only for the victim, but for "we the people".

As for the mother, I agree with your thoughts. My personal opinion is that she should have been held accountable for what happened to her daughter. Children depend on adults to keep them safe and two major players in this saga failed miserably in keeping this child safe.

The mother’s only defense is the sad fact that people are often the “victim” of being star struck and therefor trusting of someone of Polanski’s celebrity. She may have been “pimping” her daughter out, but hopefully she never in a million years thought this major, respected, Hollywood director would violently assault her child.

Cindy Lee said...

Let’s remember, at this point Polanski was not publicly known as a predator. I mean, look at how people today so easily dismiss Polanski’s actions due to his Hollywood status and are willing to even hand him an Oscar. Still, to allow your child to go away alone with a complete stranger shows negligence on her part.

Blue Forrest, you commented to Patty: I don't entirely disagree with you Patty. However, whenever I hear the word "rape" being used I automatically think of some violent maniac lurking in the bushes, jumping out, grabbing the unsuspecting victim, forcing her to the ground, holding her down, and forcing himself on her. In addition, many rapes are violent and leave the victim with major physical damage which adds to the trauma and lifelong spiritual and emotional scars.

Response: I understand what you’re saying here, but I have to ask how you think Polanski’s actions don’t equate to the above. After the child said “no” it should be considered a violent act-- he held down (an unsuspecting victim), he forced himself on her, and, I have to assume did a bit of physical damage considering most 13-year-olds have not had anal sex. We have no idea what psychological damage, trauma, spiritual, or emotional scars happened 32-years-ago with this child. And I would not dare to project my own feelings on what Geimer may or may not have been feeling at the time but I would find it incomprehensible that Polanski’s rape did not leave a negative impact on the young Geimer’s formative years

Panamint Patty said...

Wow...look at what Patty missed! Cant comment right now, she will be back tomorrow.

Max Frost said...

Is St. Deleting his own comments?

3 times in 2 days?

I guess sometimes less really is more?

Farflung said...

What may simplify things a tad would be a ‘Matrix of Misconduct’, or as the church used to call them… indulgences. It will combine the acknowledgement of idolatry, while establishing who should be grateful candidates for some higher level of scent marking or sacrifice. Let’s look at a few examples.

Now at every corporation which has employed me, I’ve had to fire someone for salacious conduct on the job. It was filed under sexual harassment or misconduct since permitting the behavior would have sent a message to the balance of the workforce, that there was some tacit approval by the organization if nothing was done to eliminate those activities. If there was a manager involved, you could almost count on a law suit, then hopefully settling, before going on to lose in court. The number of state and federal laws covering this activity is astonishing…. unless you’re king. Monica Lewinsky was ‘willingly’ subjected to some special attention, at the workplace, with the highest level of supervision. There was also active lobbying done on behalf of Monica, for a better job, because of exactly why every one of the aforementioned laws was penned. Equal opportunity indeed. Want any chance at advancement? You know what to do… wink, wink; nudge, nudge. And you don’t have to be the primary target to experience the blowback (no pun intended, unless you were thinking about Monica’s skill at fellatio, then it was a totally intended pun) since older women or men not willing to ‘assume the position’, would feel little motivation to perform (OK, by perform I mean their primary professions).

If you produced some hit records, you are allowed to wear Shirley Jones and Bride of Frankenstein style wigs, dress like one of the Three Musketeers, and kill a waitress. Phil Spector produced many songs through his Wall of Sound process before the briefest of acting stints in ‘Easy Rider’ with Jack Nicholson. After years and years of unchecked and dangerous behaviors involving intoxicants and loaded handguns, Spector managed to fire his weapon into the mouth of some woman looking for advancement. Are years and years of trail deferment while out on bail for murder typical in the justice system?

Now Roman Polanski enters and remains in the Star Chamber for conduct which rather than being viewed as repugnant and repulsive, for what hid did to a kid (or her mother) looking for advancement, is given ‘spin’ fit for royalty. He survived the Holocaust, won Academy awards, and had the briefest of acting stints in ‘Chinatown’ with Jack Nicholson. For such accomplishments how could anyone deny some prepubescent sodomy? Nobody wants to do that.

So here’s the deal: If you’re president of the United States, you can behave just like any crown royalty or dictator in history, because that’s exactly who they will be compared to anyway if they do something ‘wrong’. If you can pardon a family member for a felony conviction, then that jazz about being a country of laws and not men, is not holding much water in the first place. If you produce a Gold Record you can choke a person to unconsciousness for some prurient act, but you are not allowed to kill them, unless you have been awarded a Platinum Record. Again that’s Platinum. The same holds true for those with Golden Globes and/or Oscars. It goes without saying the same standard exists for those in possession of a Heisman Trophy, Stanley Cup, or any championship rings. In the interest of fairness, the exchange rate of life for each award should not exceed one for one. In the event of any confusion regarding the matrix, the issue will be objectively decided by Jack Nicholson.

Matt said...

Thanks for clearing that up, Farf. We are indeed grateful.

Max Frost said...

Thanks again farflung.

I'm afraid it's gonna take me a few weeks to take all that in though.

Matt said...

I considered mushrooms for this one, Max.

richko62 said...

Max

That's my opinion and you have yours...I guess will see who is right when Charlie kicks the bucket...I'm not holding my breath in anticipation of any big secrets that Hendrickson is keeping...But I'll defend your right to hold you breath as long as you like...

Max Frost said...

And a classroom like setting. With chapters, semesters, christmas break, etc.

Max Frost said...

Rich,

This isn't about opinions.

You claimed that anyone who thinks Hendrickson is withholding info until Manson dies is "kidding themself."

What is this based on?

Do you think this is a just a theory or perhaps there may be something to it?

That's why I asked how many times you've talked to him and for how long.

Obviously for you to make such a bold statement you must have some intel to back it up with.

I wish you would share it.

Rob C said...

"No doubt, Judge Rittenband had some dark secrets in his closet."

Does the author expand on this and the other corruption he alludes to in LA Prosecution Office in the book?

There was one rich Hollywood celebrity who offered children Jesus Juice when he was alone with them. He got away as well, with lots of payoffs.

richko62 said...

Max

I disagree, it is about opinion when there are no verifiable facts. The only fact we have is Hendrickson claims to have some info to release upon Mansions death. I don't buy it. There were to many people involved and to many years have gone by for me to believe that "The Manson Gang" (more like the gang that couldn't keep their stories straight) could keep anything secret.

This is one of my favorite Manson Blogs. As all Manson blogs it is a mixture fact an opinion all looking for the truth. So as I said this is my opinion and the reason for it. Believe me I wish there was some big explanation to come. But after all these years I don't see it.

Max Frost said...

Rich,

I understand what you are saying and it is valid.

There is a difference though.

When you have the oppurtunity to put several years of research (decades even) to the test, in the form of discussing the case with someone who was there (regardless of the time frame), it is not hard at all to decipher whether or not that person is on the level.

In this case it is not about Hendrickson publicly claiming that he has info which he is withholding until Manson has left this earth. It is a private (slightly) conversation in which that was one of several discoveries made along the way.

Hendrickson is not a grand stander and he is not looking for people to believe him. It is not easy to get info from him. But when you do, you know it is solid - assuming you're armed and ready with enough knowledge to weed out the bullshit (if there is any).

In my experiences talking with him, I have always walked away knowing that he has a lot more to share. It isn't a hunch. It is deciphered through the many levels of discussion and probing. I could only come to this conclusion, as I said, being armed with enough knowledge beforehand.

Call it opinion if you want, but I'm not coming from an armchair standpoint on this subject. I'm coming from real hands on, face to face, experience.

St. Circumstance said...

Max your right less is more.

that is why they have you here lol

J/K My Man :) Its all good

Besides there is nothing left to say. you were right all along and I am man enough to respect that and give you your props. Robert Hendrickson- whose movies I both bought and wrote a review of on this very blog in which I said I would watch "Every frame of film he took if he would let me" has the real story finally for once and all....

And for:

$89.95 for the MANSON Media Collection (the MANSON Book and both DVDs - including Priority Mail shipping.

we can all find out!!

Its a sweetheart of a deal :)

Max- a lesson on this case history had you been awake in class that day would tell you that nobody did more than Robert Hendrickson did at the time to give Vincent Bugs a forum to spread his views. When you open your documentary tossing around the words " Prosecutorial Genius" and then letting him lay out his entire case in YOUR Oscar award nominated film...

You shouldn't really point fingers at anyone else for creating an environment in which his story becomes popular view in the public eye.

But Hey- I am not looking for trouble. If He- You- or others have inside information from hanging out with the brother he has just become privy to after all these years, or just decided to share- by all means- please, finally - let us in on some of the new and original information.

I will buy the book... I buy them all

Otherwise, You Personally Max- go get Col Sanders to come in and fight your battles because you are no match for me and its too easy to pick apart the very little you have to say on your own merits regarding the facts of the case....

Just yelling at people Hendrickson knows everything at people is going to look silly later if he cant deliver the payoff your big mouth is promising ...

And that is a shame. Because for sure he had unique access and is someone whose work we should anticipate and value without placing the unnecessary expectation of shocking revelation. I admire the Man's work and would always pay to hear any thoughts from him on the story or the times.

Just some thoughts from an old friend :)

St.Circumstance




Max Frost said...

Don't delete this one st.

I'll get back to you as soon as I get a chance to use an actual computer with an actual keyboard.

Stay tuned.

St. Circumstance said...

By the way Cindy I think it sucks the way you pile on me when I have issues...

But you wrote some of the most incredible posts on this subject!

We don't let frown men have sex with 13 year old's in this country.We don't let grown men give them alcohol or drugs. We don't let 13 year old's decide whats right and wrong, and we don't let criminals decide there own punishment....


They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result

will it be any different tonight or am I crazy???

richko62 said...

Max

I really hope you right. I have been following this for years with nothing new revealed. I still think its unlikely guess we'll have to wait for the facts to come. Nice chatting with you brother enjoy you weekend.

Max Frost said...

Rich,

Back atcha.

Thanks for the discussion.

St. Circumstance said...

Max I wonder how you can know for sure it was me who deleted the other ones you are talking about???

Cindy Lee said...

St: I "piled" on you?? What in the world are you talking about?

St. Circumstance said...

The last two times I got into an argument here- you chimed in against me and in both cases- Col and this jackass- they came at me first..

I always liked you and have never had a problem with you...

It doesn't matter really. I liked what you had to say on this subject

I cant act butthurt after all :)

Cindy Lee said...

And St, I don't know how Max guessed it was you, but on my iPad, it says, "St. Circumstance July 26, 2013 at 7:39 AM. This comment removed..." Same thing again this morning - twice at 7:08 AM.

Cindy Lee said...

Sorry, St. , I don't remember that. If I did, it was nothing personal, I'm sure. But, I'm glad you aren't butthurt. Welcome back.

St. Circumstance said...

Hmmm that would do it lol

Thanks Cindy :)

really great stuff

St. Circumstance said...

Cindy- please tell your Ipad not to tell anyone else it was me...

I was passionate about this subject but didn't want to come across the wrong way, so I decided to stay quiet.

until called out...

Cindy Lee said...

Ha! Ok, St., I won't say a word. LOL. Only those who have an iPad or an iPhone will know. Shhhh,

Here's a hint: if you're passionate about the subject, why don't you just address the subject without reacting? That way, you won't look butthurt. Great concept, no?

St. Circumstance said...

Yes :)

Rob C said...

"Inside the Manson Gang", 10-minute trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI26PqGS38Q

St. Circumstance said...

Hey Deb and Austin Annie lol

I hope you guys are happy as hell!

St. Circumstance said...

I am on the east coast and cant wait all night Max lol

Here is one for you Bro...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmVsaGRmsDo

great song from back in my day

we will have to fight another day

St. Circumstance said...

ooops lol too much tequila

this was the one for you duechebag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I8mWG6HlmU

Max Frost said...

St. Circumstance said...
“Max your right less is more.


that is why they have you here lol”

Insult #1 – “That is why ‘they’ have me here”


J/K My Man :) Its all good”

That depends on what you will say next.


“Besides there is nothing left to say. you were right all along and I am man enough to respect that and give you your props. Robert Hendrickson- whose movies I both bought and wrote a review of on this very blog in which I said I would watch "Every frame of film he took if he would let me" has the real story finally for once and all....

And for:

$89.95 for the MANSON Media Collection (the MANSON Book and both DVDs - including Priority Mail shipping.

we can all find out!!

Its a sweetheart of a deal :)”

You’re right. It is! I have yet to buy it because the price was always too high.


“Max- a lesson on this case history had you been awake in class that day would tell you that nobody did more than Robert Hendrickson did at the time to give Vincent Bugs a forum to spread his views. When you open your documentary tossing around the words " Prosecutorial Genius" and then letting him lay out his entire case in YOUR Oscar award nominated film...”

Insult #2 – “Had I been awake in class that day. “

Actually St., I don’t know what day you are referring to but there has never been a day in which the documentary/”Oscar award nominated film” you speak of was MINE (unless I missed something). As far as I know, and I’m hoping you will agree, the film has always belonged to Hendrickson.

The words used were actually “Judicial Genius” and they were quite accurate. Bugliosi was a judicial genius for possibly better and definitely worse. He was a master in his arena. That has always been obvious and it’s nothing new.

To say no one did more than Hendrickson to give Bugliosi a forum to spread his views is not accurate. Hendrickson had a partner and if you watched the sequel closely, you no doubt noticed the part where Hendrickson warned his partner that “Judicial Gangsters” have hijacked the case – something to the effect. You, no doubt, also heard Hendrickson warn his partner about making deals on both sides of the fence.

Although it’s a great film for what it is, it is clearly a lot of exploitation and propaganda – which was a very common format at that time. Repeat: It’s VERY well done.

It just so happens that Hendrickson, the man (the individual), speaks an entirely different tune than that of the film - his take on the case is in stark contrast to the narrative put forth in it. If you watch the sequel, as you probably have many times, you definitely get a few nuggets (easily overlooked clues) hinting at that. Again, he had a partner who obviously flexed his cinematic (and deal making) muscles to mold it more into his vision which, incidentally, made it a lot more geared towards the lowest common denominator of the projected audience’s impulses – hence, more sellable. I’ve always called it “Helter Skelter – The Big Screen Version.”

I can’t promise that Hendrickson would agree with everything I just said, but that’s my take on it – and that’s the best I can do.

“You shouldn't really point fingers at anyone else for creating an environment in which his story becomes popular view in the public eye.”

If by “pointing fingers” you mean debating the fact that the Helter Skelter motive was a total wash, then yeah, I guess I’ve all but run out of fingers.

It isn’t “his story” that becomes popular view in the public eye. It’s Bugliosi’s. Which came first, the trial or the film?

Max Frost said...

“But Hey- I am not looking for trouble. If He- You- or others have inside information from hanging out with the brother he has just become privy to after all these years, or just decided to share- by all means- please, finally - let us in on some of the new and original information.”

Your words are a bit cramped but I’m getting that you are implying that my claim is that he recently became privy to whatever info he has? Or he has just recently decided to share?

He obviously became privy at the time he was making the film. He also obviously has NOT decided to share…yet.

I hope – as much as you or the next guy – that someday he does decide to share.



“I will buy the book... I buy them all”

Good for you. I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear that.


“Otherwise, You Personally Max- go get Col Sanders to come in and fight your battles because you are no match for me and its too easy to pick apart the very little you have to say on your own merits regarding the facts of the case....”

Insult #3 – Everything you just said.

History does indeed repeat itself, Mr. Circumstance, and you are proving it once again.

Like before, you are making things up:

The Col has never come in to “fight my battles.” I only remember one time where the Col chimed in, and that’s ALL he did – chime in.

From what I’ve heard you have a long history of your own fighting with the Col – and repeatedly losing. For you to fabricate the notion that the Col has in any way assisted me with my arguments with you is nothing more than a cop out. As always, the proof is in the archives.

And you’re right St., I am no match for you - 3 insults (technically 4 but I’ll give you a pass for combining 2 in the same sentence) and counting...

As far as the “very little I have to say on my own merits regarding the facts of the case” – how in the world would YOU know?



“Just yelling at people Hendrickson knows everything at people is going to look silly later if he cant deliver the payoff your big mouth is promising ...”

Insult #4 – “big mouth”

Again you are making things up:

I have never “yelled” at anyone about what Hendrickson knows, and I’ve never claimed he “knows everything.”



“And that is a shame. Because for sure he had unique access and is someone whose work we should anticipate and value without placing the unnecessary expectation of shocking revelation. I admire the Man's work and would always pay to hear any thoughts from him on the story or the times.”

Couldn’t agree with you more.

As far as the revelations being “shocking” well, only time will tell…hopefully.

From my experience with the man, I believe wholeheartedly that he has A LOT of info archived in his memory and probably documented and stashed away in a safe place. Whether or not we get access to it is another story, obviously. But there is no doubt in my mind that he possesses something we all would love to get our hands on.



“Just some thoughts from an old friend :)

St.Circumstance”


OK.

Max Frost said...

”St. Circumstance said...
Max I wonder how you can know for sure it was me who deleted the other ones you are talking about???”


Unless there’s another St. Circumstance, the writing was clearly on the wall.

Who knows? Apparently there are 2 Max Frost’s.


”St. Circumstance said...
The last two times I got into an argument here- you chimed in against me and in both cases- Col and this jackass- they came at me first..”


Insult #5 – “Jackass”

More making things up:

I never came at you first, St. The first time I said anything to you was in fun with no negative connotations whatsoever. I believe it was when you were going on and on (SEVERAL very long comments) about LVH after she was denied parole. All I said was “relax, she isn’t part of your world.” Apparently you thought it was a loaded comment. It wasn’t.

The next time was when you left a comment and alluded to something I had said to someone else. I don’t remember the specifics and don’t feel like digging through the blog to find the evidence. Feel free to do so if you want to. It’s enough work just responding to all your comments – and I’m not in the best of spirits tonight.

Incidentally, the comment you just made (along with some others) reeks of victim, victim, victim.


”St. Circumstance said...
I was passionate about this subject but didn't want to come across the wrong way, so I decided to stay quiet.

until called out...”


I wasn’t calling you out. It seemed as though you called yourself out but kept deleting your comments. I was just curious what you had to say. I was also hoping you would avoid being insulting. Thanks for finally showing up though…

”St. Circumstance said...
ooops lol too much tequila

this was the one for you duechebag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I8mWG6HlmU”


Insult #6 – “Deuchebag”

Why thank you, Mr. Circumstance.
I’ve always loved The Cult and that song. My favorite is Edie.

And, needless to say, the fire in your eyes is keeping me alive…still.

Enjoy the tequila.

Max Frost said...

My apologies to everyone for hogging so much space with the last 3 comments.

It was long overdue and had to be done.

St. Circumstance said...

I agree with everything you just said and everything you said I said.

actually it was very well said!

I shouldn't insult you Max your right. You made a snotty comment about me and I over reacted.No reason to kill each other over this case. I am a fan of Hendrickson myself. Nice day out and the beach is waiting for me. I am very sure your are a well intended person. You have great passion in your beliefs. Your post about Coincidences is among the best I have ever read. The fact you have some pretty relevant friends is quite impressive I think that's 4 compliments, so I owe you one more- but its early and my head still hurts from last night...

enough said

Matt said...

Matt:

Tell Suze: "I didn't know you could wear out a DVD, BUT in the last couple of months we are getting many orders from people who bought long ago." Many have bought the MANSON DVD because they wore out their VHS copies.

The cinefamily screenings have sparked a renewed interest in MANSON. One very intuned black man who was there explained that MANSON now represents a nostalgic 1960s experience AND also shows GUNS in a way that will no longer exist-when they are finally banned.

I told Matt that later I will share some questions from the audiences that really hit me hard: Like IF you could ask CM one question, what would it be? I could NOT give a direct answer.

For me the whole revival of "MANSON" was actually shocking.

In MANSON we present both the HS theory via Bugliosi and the"copycat" theory via Sandy Good.

Which is it? Our world famous judicial system says: Helter Skelter is the winner, BUT the "Defense" says: "Copycat"

Now, we have another prosecutor saying Polanski is a rapist and a liberal movie industry adding: Yea, but you know, he had a bad childhood AND he makes great movies - So give him some slack!

It's ALL about the money. OJ had the money=he walked!

Zimmerman got the money=he walked!

Remember the "Casey Anthony" case-she got $200,000 for photos-which got her a first class defense team and she walked.

Without any money, Manson got Shinn and Kanarak- he got hung out to dry.

I recently learned that Shinn is lucky Charlie is such a forgiving guy!

Later
Robert

Rob C said...

At the beginning of the "Manson Gang" trailer Hendrickson says he got Charlie's permission to film at the Ranch.

That says volumes about Charlie's influence over the members and all of their activities despite what Charlie insisted during the trial and over the last 40 yrs.

Suze said...

Jeezus St. Get a grip, man.

Max Frost said...

Charlie has stated many times that he had a lot of influence at the ranch.

CScales said...

Mr. Hendrickson wrote: Without any money, Manson got Shinn and Kanarak- he got hung out to dry…It's ALL about the money. OJ had the money=he walked! Zimmerman got the money=he walked! …Without any money, Manson got Shinn and Kanarak - he got hung out to dry.

I would respectfully disagree. The case of OJ Simpson’s not guilty verdict should be accredited to a major fail by the prosecution. Marcia Clark made so many major blunders in the prosecution’s case that it would take a book’s length post to enumerate.

Oh, wait! There WAS a book, Bugliosi’s Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away with Murder and not one of them had to do with Simpson’s money.

Bottom line, Marcia Clark decided she had a slam-dunk case and did very little homework. Mostly, she was too busy becoming a celebrity and out partying every night instead of fortifying the prosecution’s case. My three cats could have looked like the "Dream Team" with Clark as an opponent.

Zimmerman’s case had nothing to do with money and had everything to do with two simple factors: Florida’s laws and no eyewitness. Due to reasonable doubt, the jury had no choice.

Manson got Kanarek and Shinn because that’s who he wanted. Many competent defense lawyers offered to assist in their case—point in fact, Ira Reiner, who later went on to be the LA DA—but Manson wanted lawyers he could control. I’m paraphrasing here, but Manson, after being found incompetent to represent himself commented something to the effect, “you leave me no choice but to cause you as much trouble as possible, I choose Kanarek.

I get so frustrated hearing that Manson never received a fair trial. I would like to hear one lawfully, concrete piece of evidence that shows he did not receive a fair trial. And, please, no “it was a circus” conspiracy theories because again, we all make choices and Manson and the women chose to turn those proceedings into a circus. They have no one to blame but themselves for their actions at the time and the resulting outcome.

St. Circumstance said...

Suze- I am going to try stickem on my hands and see if that helps...

I respectfully agree with Cscales assessment. I think it is very accurate

Suze said...

No no, I'm just not feeling drunk/angry St.

I much preferred drunk/happy St.


St. Circumstance said...

I am not drunk today- but very happy lol

Panamint Patty said...

Okay CScales, Patty is almost afraid to reply to your question to her about her feelings on Rittenband because you appear to be a sharp legal type. Patty is not. She bases her opinion in large part on "Wanted and Desired." Rittenband it appears was biased against Mr. Polanski. Whether this was borne of Polanski's celebrity and henceforth the celebrity of Rittenband, of a personal grudge on Rittenband's part or a mixture of the two is difficult to tell. Patty believes in short that his "scales" were far from perfectly calibrated as they should have been since he was a well reimbursed public professional.

Panamint Patty said...

How's everybody feeling today? Hung over? :D xx

Max Frost said...

St. Circumstance said...

"I agree with everything you just said and everything you said I said.

actually it was very well said!

I shouldn't insult you Max your right. You made a snotty comment about me and I over reacted.No reason to kill each other over this case. I am a fan of Hendrickson myself. Nice day out and the beach is waiting for me. I am very sure your are a well intended person. You have great passion in your beliefs. Your post about Coincidences is among the best I have ever read. The fact you have some pretty relevant friends is quite impressive I think that's 4 compliments, so I owe you one more- but its early and my head still hurts from last night..."


Hey Mr. Circumstance I just realized I thought I had responded several hours ago (almost a day ago actually) but forgot.

Thanks for your good words, and thank you for your words re: the "Coincidences" article. Glad you liked that as much as you did and I greatly appreciate your praise (if I may call it that).

CScales said...

Patty, please don’t ever be afraid to reply. Blogs such as these are for opinions and should be nothing but fun—certainly not as judgment or an attack on anyone’s opinion. That said… ;-)

Let’s remember that “Wanted and Desired” is a film. And, a film with a bit of a slant in favor of Polanski’s rehabilitation in the public’s mind. All films such as this should be taken with a grain of salt.

And, as long as I’m on the topic of filmmakers, your comment reminds me again of Harvey Weinstein’s repugnantly-arrogant letter he wrote in support of Polanski in which he wrote: This is the government of the United States not giving its word and recanting on a deal, and it is the government acting irresponsibly and criminally.

The government didn’t recant on a deal because the deal had yet to be set; that’s what sentencing is.

Rittenband’s bias, as you call it, against Polanski seems to stem from the fact that he allowed this sexual predator of children a fantastic amount of leeway in granting him permission to get work done on a film in another country, before sentencing him to what Hendrickson called a sweetheart deal of additional time to be served.

If I recall correctly, this “work” as presented to Rittenband by Polanski’s attorney was an absolute necessity because without it, millions of dollars would be lost in expenses already paid out by the film companies producing and distributing the film, jobs would be lost, and all but a cataclysmic catastrophe would happen if Polanski did not make this trip for pre-production and film scouting.

So, out of the seemingly kindness of his heart, Rittenband allows Polanski to leave the country to save the film and jobs. What happens is that Polanski, instead of attending to business only, as specified by the “deal”, is photographed out partying and having a grand old time.

The prosecutor sees the photograph and presents it to the judge, as he has the right to do, in order for the judge to evaluate Polanski’s plea deal before sentencing.

And, not to beat a dead horse, but again, both prosecutor and judge were acting in proper procedure to our judicial process because, as I previously noted, here’s how plea deals work-and that’s all that Polanski had-a plea deal:

A plea deal is entered between prosecutors and a defendant.

The plea is placed on the record.

Then the date is set for sentencing.

The judge has time to read a pre-sentence investigation.

The judge has time to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The judge has an opportunity to read legal briefs from both sides.

Then the judge has the final word.

The judge can comply with the plea deal and accept it or the judge can reject it.

Upon rejection, the defendant can then withdraw their guilty plea or accept whatever punishment the judge is inclined to give.

And, as Rittenband did, a judge will usually give the defendant a little heads up about his decision, which he did in this case. That’s all that happened here.

It seems to me, that up until the moment the prosecutor presented a legal brief to the judge, along with photographs of Polanski partying instead of working, Rittenband was actually biased in favor of Polanski.

Rittenband’s “bias” against Polanski happened as a result of a legal brief presented by the prosecution and mitigating factors of Polanski’s behavior.

Personally, I was angry, too, when I saw the photographs, so why shouldn’t Rittenband be? Especially when he came under the gun from the press and citizens around the country who were outraged that he’d showed leniency to Polanski by allowing him to leave the country for work because of his fame.

Every jurist in our system can be considered biased simply by their evaluation of evidence when presenting verdict or a ruling.

Panamint Patty said...

So initially a bias in Polanski's favor became a bias against him. Patty supposes that as a human being we have no other option than to be biased. However, if it had been Patty (not that Patty has any interest whatsoever in 13 year old girls), she'd have wanted her judge to be fair and impartial.

Naïve, idealistic Patty believes that being an American should mean having no more or no less regard in the eyes of the law than anyone else. As you and Mr. Hendrickson both eloquently point out, it all comes down to the money. Money and fame.

Oh BTW, welcome to the blog.

Matt said...

Matt:
You can post this:

A quick response to the "Rittenband" posts:

To Scales, Max, Patty, etc.

That is my point: "Plea-deals" are a form of deal making-which in a capitalist society is a primary element of "corruption" - depending on which side of the fence you dwell.

YES, I did reveal to Max that I am withholding info regarding the reason for the massacre - until Charlie dies.

Maybe Matt will let me make a post that will explain many relevant things.

The Polanski / Samantha issue is SOOOoo relevant to the MANSON situation in that no matter which side you seem to take - YOU will be damned- AND that is why the recent sold-out MANSON public screenings and audience discussions were so thought provoking.

AND YES Matt, I have NOT forgotten - I still owe you a beer!
Robert

beauders said...

does anyone was Polanski even a citizen of the u.s. when he raped the girl?

DebS said...

No, he was not. He has never been a citizen of the US. He holds a dual citizenship with Poland and France.