Monday, August 21, 2017

Roman Polanski: The Dark Side





"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around the law"

 - Plato


" If you have a great passion it seems that the logical thing is to see the fruit of it, and the fruit are children"

- Roman Polanski



Yeah, I am back. I just couldn't help myself. I was watching cable news this morning smoking a bowl, and Roman's name came scrolling across the bottom of the screen. I found myself thinking again of the worst husband on Earth. The guy who sent his 8 month pregnant wife on a ship sailing across the Ocean, without him, back to stay with people he would later say he didn't trust. To some, this will be a hatchet job on Roman. O.K. I can live with that. However, sprinkled in with my own personal commentary, there will be some hard to ignore points presented to make a case that this man is a very dangerous predator with an extremely dark side. So come with me, for a few minutes if you wish, while I explore what lies in the heart of this man - Roman Polanski. There are two sides to every story, but with some individuals, in some cases, there is a third. The Dark Side.....

( God that was a cheesy line lol maybe I should stop lighting up for the rest of this post lol)





LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles judge on Friday rejected a request by the woman who was raped by director Roman Polanski 40 years ago to have the criminal case against him dismissed. Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon ruled that Polanski remained a fugitive from justice and that the court could not dismiss a case "merely because it would be in the victim's best interest."The ruling follows the first appearance in June in the case by Samantha Geimer, who was 13 years old when Polanski sexually assaulted her in Los Angeles in 1977. 

- Reuters  8/17/17



 In March of 1977, Roman Polanski was charged with 5 offenses against Samantha Gailey a 13-year old girl.  Rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. He was given a plea bargain and all charges were dropped and he pleaded guilty to a single charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. Days before he was sentenced he decided that the judge might go back on the agreement, so he took it upon himself to flee the country in the darkness of night. In the years since, Samantha has asked for it to be dropped. Roman and his Hollywood supporters have asked for it to be dropped, yet once again, the courts have decided not to drop it. You see, even 40 years later it is not for a person to say what another person should be allowed to do to a 13 year old child- even if that child is her. Nor, does the court feel, is it appropriate for Roman to say when enough is enough. Especially, since he never showed up to accept his responsibility in the first place. Roman just ran like a coward. He paid almost no price at all. And there are many who think he has paid enough. Now it is not the intention of this post to decide, or debate the law and arguments that go with that chicken-shit move. Suffice to say, I don't understand how anyone can defend that? He decided for himself that the sentence might not be what he thought was agreed on, or fair, so he decided not to be sentenced at all? Anyway, that is just one reveal of a much darker character. This would not be a one time thing, but a foreshadowing of the type of relationship he would pursue for the rest of his life. Roman is attracted to children more or less. Even as he got older, and the age of his woman rose above the age of legality, there would remain a disparity of never less than 25 or more years to his romantic interests. But first what we learned from Samantha: Roman is a coward. He ran when he felt threatened. Roman gave this 13 year old girl part of a Quaalude, Champagne,  and that despite her saying NO- he had sex with her orally, anally and vaginally. He chose his own sentence, and then just split. He would later make patronizing statement and jokes about the entire situation. Things like:

"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!"

I disagree Roman. I know plenty of guys who do not want to have sex with 13 yer old children. Most guys I know would be appalled at the idea. It seems to me he never did get that. He has lived his whole life thinking that these desires are normal and acceptable. Maybe that is because he never had to pay a price for what he did? There is a documentary floating around called; "Roman Polanski -Wanted and Desired". It argues very strongly that Roman got a bum deal. They argue that Roman had the right to flee, because after the Government dropped the charges from 5 offenses to 1, and they were going to give him a slap on the wrist with just one lesser charge, Roman still thought he might not get treated fairly enough. So he had no choice, I suppose but to bail. Anyway, you can go learn all about that case by watching that documentary, and maybe you will walk away feeling different than me? I think he should have faced the music for his actions and accepted responsibility for what he did. Roman did not have the right to decide for Roman what was and was not fair punishment for what Roman Did...


Back to Roman....

Next up...

“I fell in love with him at the beginning,” says Nastassja, who met Roman at a party in Germany when she was 15. “He was really a gentleman, not at all like the things I had heard,” she continues. “He introduced me to beautiful books, plays, movies. He educated me.”

-Nastassja Kinsky


 Roman meets Nastassja on the set of Tess. This "relationship" lasts not long because she says he is, "Controlling and aggressive." She also said this:

That's why when Roman [Polanski] came along and gave me Tess, it was like. . . it gave me such dignity, you know what I mean?' Tess (1980) – a reverential, three-hour-long rendering of Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles – was the film that turned Kinski into a full-blown international film-star, and Polanski her mentor: "He would be very strict with me and send me books, and send me to school. And then when we did the movie he said, "I really want you to do this for me, because I wanted to do it for my wife [the murdered actress, Sharon Tate], and it means so much to me. But the only way you can do the film is to show you'll learn the [Wessex] accent, so I'm going to send you to England for four, five, six months and when you come back we'll do the test."' Kinski passed that test, and Polanski 'gave me a lot of respect. It was all very serious. He was a very severe person, in the best sense." 

Can this guy use his status to his advantage or what? But it wouldn't be last time Roman used this method. Not at all...



When Emmanuelle Seigner meets Roman Polanski at a dinner in 1985, she is a young model and he is already a celebrated director. In 1988, he turns the model into an actress and reveals her to the public with the film Frantic before the couple gets married in 1989. In 2009, they face, united, the scandal of Roman Polanski’s accusation of sexual crime on a minor - an affair that goes back to 1977 after Roman Polanski had tragically lost his wife Sharon Tate. Emmanuelle Seigner refuses to judge the past of her husband and faces the calumnies at his side. Since, the director has featured his sexy wife in a successful film, Venus in Furs and the cosmopolitan and charismatic Parisian couple continues to stand tall despite the age difference, the highs and lows in an independent spirit true to their somewhat rock n’roll personas.

33 years his junior... He has a couple of kids with this one. Roman is something else when it comes to younger woman. But at least this one agreed to have sexual relations with a guy old enough to be her dad. One must wonder if there were any others over the years who did not agree??


It has been a long time since Charlotte Lewis held a crowd enthralled in Hollywood.
But if she ever dreamed of a return to Los Angeles, where as a young actress she was hailed as a ‘golden child’ – talented, exquisitely beautiful and with a film career unfurling before her – it would never have been like this. On Friday, Charlotte, now 42, called a Press conference in Los Angeles to claim that director Roman Polanski, the man who gave her her first break, had abused her, ‘in the worst possible way’ when she was just 16 years old.

The chic from "The Golden Child"! Not Eddie Murphy's finest hour. The little Asian kid was cute though. Anyway, this is hearsay, as our more legally trained minds will be aware,but I believe her. Partially because I see it as part of a larger pattern, and secondarily because I just watched what happened with Bill Cosby unfold. I'll get to that in one minute, because first I need to point out one more case which will let me introduce what I call the "Glorida Allred Factor".....



"The day after it happened, I did tell one friend that Mr Polanski had done that to me," the woman, identified as Robin, said in a statement on Tuesday. "The reason, with this exception, that I kept it to myself is that I didn't want my father to do something that might cause him to go to prison for the rest of his life." The alleged victim’s lawyer remained tight-lipped about the details of case, but said that it had occurred in southern California. Robin on Tuesday said that she was "infuriated" that Mrs Geimer had forgiven Mr Polanksi and asked in June for the case to be closed."I'm speaking out now so that Samantha and the world will know she is not the only minor Roman Polanski victimized"

- The Tight-lipped lawyer mentioned is Gloria Allred. This happened 5 days ago. The purpose of this was specifically to enable this woman to be a witness at the retrial of Samantha should there be one. This woman is not seeking money ( A typical Allred motivation) She is doing the groundwork to add ammunition to any future trial of Roman about sexual abuse charges. Sounds personal to me. This brings me back to Bill Cosby and the "Gloria Allred Factor". Bill Cosby had fame, friends and power. Similar to Roman. I believe both of them had life-long , nasty, needs that they just couldn't control. I think Fleeing saved Roman's life more than he will ever know. Had he stayed, he would have went on satisfying his craving until, like Cosby, at some point the sheer numbers would have caught up with him at some point, if no one individual could in the short term. BUT....

Roman had to leave. And where did he go? Europe. He spent the rest of his life in countries, and places where they have much more liberal views about these types of things. For example, if you live in Japan, South Korea and Spain, the age of legal consent is 13. In Italy and Austria it is 14. and in France, where Roman has made his home all these years, it is a mere 15. Point being, who knows how many teen age and younger girls Roman has been able to manipulate all these years? But I submit that, had he stayed in the US and something like this came out, whenever it came out, with the resources, celebrity, and Gloria Allred's of the world prying into his background- would Roman not have gone down at some point eventually? That's the "Gloria Allred Factor"....

I will mention that he has his supporters lol. They always do. Hollywood and quite a few Celebrities have defended him over the years. Only a well known public figure can make you see that being a good artist is always an acceptable excuse to drug and annaly rape 13 year olds, but to be fair lets allow them to have their say:

Whoopie Goldberg said:  "I know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like "You know what this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail I'm not staying, so that's why he left."

Adrian Brody thinks he should get a pass due to his past: “Life is very complicated,” Brody, 43, said. “I look to collaborate with artistic people and to go into an endeavor without judgment and to hopefully be treated with the same. It’s an artistic pursuit, and Polanski for instance had a very complicated and difficult life. It would be unfair of me to delve into something as complicated as the past that was brought up in the media.” 

How about Debra Wingers statement as head of the Zurich Film Fesitval: Winger... on Monday demanded Polanski's release and criticized Swiss authorities for their "philistine collusion" in arresting Polanski as he entered the country. "This fledgling festival has been unfairly exploited, and whenever this happens the whole art world suffers," Winger said in a statement on Monday, standing together with the other four international jury members who wore red badges reading "Free Polanski" as they announced plans to continue the fest.

And famously when he was, temporarily, held in Switzerland- they all came out to sign petitions and make a big stink how unfair it was he might finally pay. And not just Whoopi and Adrian Brody. Some big name players:

A petition was immediately organized calling for his release, signed by prominent fellow directors including Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, Jonathan Demme, Ethan Coen and David Lynch, as well as actresses Penelope Cruz and Tilda Swinton.

Shame on them all I say. 13 to 15 year old girls for god-sakes. Drugs, and alcohol and forced sex. Take out the alcohol, and trade the dirty mattresses' of Spahn, for the hot-tub at Jack Nicholson's and tell me what the difference was between what Charlie was doing versus Roman? Roman has a very dark side and it shows in his work as well. Lets take a quick look at that....


 Roman Polanski knows women because he understands men. He knows both sexes because he understands the games both genders play, either consciously or instinctively. He understands the perversions formed from such relations and translates them into visions that are erotic, disturbing, humorous and, most important, allegorical in their potency. One should not (as so many did with his misunderstood Bitter Moon) take Polanski’s films entirely literally, for they are often heightened versions of what occurs naturally in our world: desire, perversion, repulsion. Film scholar Molly Haskell said that at the core of Polanski’s work is the “image of the anesthetized woman, the beautiful, inarticulate, and possibly even murderous somnambulate.” Her observation is astute, but it’s followed by the criticism that in all of Polanski’s films, including Repulsion, “the titillations of torture are stronger than the bonds of empathy.” Of course. And then, no. And then, of course. Polanski’s removed morality is exactly why he is often brilliant: He is so empathetic to his characters that, like a trauma victim floating above the pain, he is personally impersonal. He insightfully scrutinizes what is so frightening about being human, yet he doesn’t feel the need to be resolute or sentimental about his cognizance. He is also, consciously or subconsciously, aware of the darkness he explores, especially in his female characters, who could be seen as extensions of himself.

- Kim Morgan (Lifework: The Films of Roman Polanski. Chapter 5)

Mr. Polanski's obsessions seem to to have emerged full formed. The series of short films he made in the late 50's and early 60's map out his universe in embryo. His first student film, "Murder" stages in just over a minute a fatal stabbing by penknife: a killing without motive or context, rendered with startling detail and economy. Films like "Teeth Smile, "Break up the Dance," and "The Fat and the Lean", hint at the mind games and power plays. From the start Mr. Polanski was a definitive filmmaker with a penchant for extreme situations. The aura of violence and perversity that surrounded the films suited an enfant terrible who enjoyed notoriety. But the murder of his wife, besides shattering Mr. Polanski's life, turned this convenient master narrative into sick joke. Describing the carnage at his rented Benedict Canyon home, the Satan worship of "Rosemary's Baby" fresh in their minds, journalists could not refrain from comparing it to a movie- specifically a Roman Polanski movie. " It was a scene as grisly as anything depicted in Polanski's film explorations of the dark and melancholy corners of human character," Time Magazine declared. Roger Gunson, the prosecutor assigned to the statutory rape case, prepared for the trial that never happened by taking in a retrospective of his films. " Every Roman Polanski movie has a theme: corruption meeting innocence over water," he says in Marina Zenovich's 2008 documentary " Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired", noting that Mr. Polanski had seduced his underage quarry in a Jacuzzi.

- Dennis Lim ( New York Times)


"Normal love isn't interesting. I assure you that it is incredibly boring."

- Roman Polanski

Strange Fruit. Strange fruit indeed. So I guess this is the part where I point out how hard his childhood was. Doctors of the Psychiatry and Psychology fields would tell you to factor in his upbringing and the extreme hardships he endured. He lost his mother to a concentration camp, and was subject to much prejudiced and shuffling around as a child. He lived in a ghetto, and he pretty much did whatever he could just to get by and survive. But, like many others who went through the same thing, he did survive. After the war he was reunited with his father, who he remained in contact with until the time his father passed in 1984. He had, and has, family contacts to this day. Roman also got into movies very early and was able to enroll in film school and start acting at a young age. He was able to do what he loved and he eventually had tremendous success as a result of it. He had a life that many people would dream of. So, please don't Doctor me to death with the psychology, or cry me a river for Romans childhood. I am sorry for what everyone went through in that age and place, but I do not accept that's a reason for a man to have a life long infatuation with 13 year old girls, or obsess over blood and gore. I can't personally make that leap. But let me tell you more than anything else why I can't stand this bastard:

He had Sharon. He did not value that. He did not protect that. He bragged of infidelity and he made jokes when talking about her slaughter to police. What in the name of Polish ghettos makes that an alright thing to do when you just lost your wife and unborn child?

Polanski's polygraph was conducted by Lieutenant Earl Deemer at Parker Center. ( From H/S)

Q. "Mind if I call you Roman? My name is Earl."

A. "Sure.... I will lie a time or two times during it and I will tell you after, o.k.?"

Really?? I am going to lie, or play coy little games, on my polygraph when we are talking about the very recent slaughter of my wife and unborn child?

Q. "So there was no indication that Sharon went back to Sebring at any time?"

A. "Not a chance! I am the bad one. I always screw around. That was Sharon's big hangup ya know. But Sharon was absolutely not interested in Jay."

Great to brag about being a cheater, Great marriage and family life this guy would have provided for Sharon and his kid... Sigh.

Q. "Do you smoke cigarettes?"

A. Yes." There was a long pause and then Polanski began laughing.

Q. "You know what you are going to do with that screwing around? I/m going to have to start all over again."

A. "Sorry."

Q. "Look at the increase in your heart rate when you lie about the cigarettes.

Are you kidding me? What in the world is funny about anything he is dealing with? What in his past, or which experience justifies goofing off when the police are trying to solve the brutal murder of your family? Please tell me, because this just makes absolutely no sense. This is a man with no soul.

Look it is time to take this home. I do not care who you are in Hollywood, or how many awards you have won. I do not care if Roman Polanski is an amazing Director, or cinematic genius. Roman is as scary a guy as anyone who has ever walked the streets. The warning signs have been flying for 50 years. He has shown us in his actions, movies, words, and "relationships" who he really is. He is not a confused, scarred victim of anything or anyone. He is a smug, arrogant pedophile, who thinks that he has the creative right to do whatever he pleases. We enable him every day that he is allowed to be free. He has the very worst of basic respect and empathy for others and feels no personal responsibility for any actions that he feels are justified to him, regardless of how society and the people who live around him feel about those actions. That is the very definition of a dangerous man. He is capable of doing anything if it suits him. And considering the impulses, fascinations, habits, and history of Roman Polanski- that should scare us all....


                                                               - Your Favorite Saint


107 comments:

brownrice said...

Good post, St.
I like Polanski’s films but he’s definitely a predator when it comes to young teenage girls. The ugly fact of the matter though is that his behaviour isn’t that uncommon… particularly in show business. I suspect that at least partially explains why large sections of Hollywood have defended him. A “there but for the grace of god…” kinda thing. He certainly wasn’t the only one bonking teenage girls in the LA music & film world at the time. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m definitely not justifying, rationalising or excusing that kinda thing. I’ve just always found it curious that the whole case wasn’t hushed up & paid-off by the Hollywood power structure at the time (as was usually done). Perhaps he’d pissed off someone “important”.

Matt said...

Woody Allen signed the petition calling for his release? I'm nearly speechless.


Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Good post. His comments really reveal a lot about him as a person.

Off the point: the eclipse here was 99% and very cool, temperature drop, looked like dusk.

ColScott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColScott said...

FACTS MATTER SAINT

- Sharon was unable to fly due to airline rules. She chose the ship

- Roman was best friends with Voytek. Your characterization is in error

- Roman did show up in the first place and served the pre-agreed time for his pre-agreed plea

- What Price did you want him to show? What Price Hollywood?

- You know nothing about the law. Your verbiage is way off. Roman made a plea deal and served it. Fair or not fair (I think it was not fair) he served it. In other words he did his fucking time. Corrupt judge mentioned at a urinal that maybe he should increase it. This is a BETRAYAL of our system of law.

- He did not choose his own sentence he accepted AND SERVED the agreed upon sentence.

- Your point about Kinski is what? YOU disapprove of his legal relationship with her? Cool. I give no fucks. I interviewed her a few years ago. She has nothing but kind words to say about the man.

- You have issues with his wife being young and beautiful? They have been married and had children together for decades. Your implied judgement is laughable. Grow the fuck up. I guess you hate Woody and Soon Yi too. How dare they be happy all these years!

- There was nothing Chic about the Golden Child. Did you mean CHICK? Sounds like you have some issues with female verbiage.

- your analysis of the rest of the world is very TRUMP of you Saintly Fool. You can get married at 14 in some USA States. Patti I think can tell you more- it's a hillbilly thing

- Even with the unproven allegations of two people decades later, your claim that Roman continues to be dangerous is baseless

- Your spurious attack on Hollywood support (you know, people who actual know him) shows how internet morality and superiority is worse than ever before.

So except for being wrong, judgmental and generally assholic, GREAT ARTICLE SAINT

Panamint Patty said...

Patti is dead last time Patty checked. Fact.

beauders said...

For what it's worth I think the wrong Polanski was home on August 8/9 1969. Polanski is also a pig.

Robert C said...

Appreciate St. C's effort to outline his position with Polanski but I'm far less judgmental. To me the only crime was to cross a "Puritan Ethic" law in California regarding sexual social behavior. And as ColScott mentioned, he served the initial sentence.

Up until very recently in world history marrying off boys and girls immediately after puberty was the norm and often arranged.

As evidenced by the "victim" in more recent times, a true "Lolita" in her day, the whole affair was over-publicized and blown out of proportion due to the notoriety of Polanski and the lascivious and titillating nature of the "crime" not unlike the overwhelming focus to this day on the Manson Family "Girls" and their notorious sexual "deeds".

The question of it being true rape as some of us would see it, not the States and Feds in the courts, is fuzzy. At 13 she had reached beyond puberty and was physically developed (or developing) as a young woman. Her mother and her go along with this photography thing which was a mother mistake allowing it without a chaperone. One thing leads to another and we aren't sure (outside the law) how forced or consensual it is.

Yes, I agree Polanski is not a perfect person like the rest of us ;-)

ziggyosterberg said...


"The aura of violence and perversity that surrounded the films suited an enfant terrible who enjoyed notoriety. But the murder of his wife, besides shattering Mr. Polanski's life, turned this convenient master narrative into sick joke."


True to form, Roman chose Macbeth as his next film following his wife and child's murder.

For those unfamiliar with the play, at one point, Macbeth orders the murder of Macduff's wife and children.

Roman just couldn't resist making a thinly veiled, gory allegory to his wife and child's death. And it's not hard to figure out who the character of Macbeth in Roman's film is a metaphor for.

St Circumstance said...

Facts do matter. Here they are. Roman did 42 days and was released as part of a plea deal. He thought the judge my not honor that deal so he took it upon himself to flee. Initial sentence is semantics. He never faced his sentence.

He is a fugitive from justice. Period. He doesn't get to pick which or how much sentence he does. None of us do. You don't want to be in a position to get screwed- don't commit rape. That always worked for me

Here is another fact. There isn't a country on Earth where it is legal for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl - WHEN SHE SAYS NO!!!

If you force her to anyway- or drug her to the point that a child doesn't know the difference then you are a monster.

But that's my opinion which I have been lucky enough to share lol. I appreciate all of yours too...

St Circumstance said...

By the way I meant: the chic from the Golden Child. That's exactly what I typed.

And you don't really have to be a lawyer to know is wrong to rape a child and then run do you??

Roman may have been buddies with Voytek but he told the police he left Sharon with him too long. What was the implication? He bad mouthed his dead friend after the fact. Real
Square guy.

Hey Col. If you wanna defend this no good deuche bag that's your right. It's best that you viciously attack Deb Tate who was a victim but you defend Roman who made jokes and played with cops within days of Sharon's death...

Bugs and Deb are bad but Roman was ok and what he did was alright???

I think we must respectfully disagree Sir.

But your still my fav blogger of all time and I miss the only official site...

Peter said...

"Was that wrong? Should I have not done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, ‘cause I've worked in a lot of offices and I tell you people do that all the time." - Roman Polanski

Matt said...

Was that wrong?


St Circumstance said...

I swear to god I was just about to write that lol. Constanza!

David said...

A few 'legal' facts.

Polanski plead guilty to what is commonly known as statutory rape. The penalty for this was anywhere from 1-20 years in prison at the time given she was under the age of 16 and he was over the age of 21. 'Consent' has nothing to do with the crime. A child under the age of 16 is deemed incapable of giving consent by law.

Polanski's plea agreement required him to undergo what we would call a sex offender evaluation today. That is why he spent the 42 days in prison- for the evaluation- A Mentally Disordered Sex Offender evaluation or MDSO.

Polanski argues that he fled because he thought the judge would impose sentence greater then probation and states that he understood that was the deal he had made. He argues another DA had ex parte contact with the Judge and convinced the Judge to ignore the deal. In point of fact, no sentencing agreement was ever made.

Polanski stated at his plea hearing that he knew the judge could impose any sentence he desired after the MDSO including probation, a term of years in prison or confinement to a state mental institution for a term of years.

DA: Mr. Polanski, who do you believe will decide what your sentence will be in this matter?
The Defendant: The Judge.
DA: Who do you think will decide whether or not you will get probation?
The Defendant: The Judge

Polanski further recognized the Judge had not made any decision at the time of his plea regarding his sentence:

DA: Do you understand the Judge has not made any decision [about sentencing]?
Defendant: Yes

Polanski further stated that no deals were made other then the dismissal of the other charges

DA: Other then that promise [to dismiss other charges], has anyone made any promise to you, such as a lesser sentence or probation, or any reward? Immunity? A Court recommendation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or anything else, in order to get you to plead guilty?
Defendant: No

Polanski had absolutely no expectation of probation before he fled the country.

PS: He also stated he knew she was 13 at the time.

Robert C said...

St. C. said: "He is a fugitive from justice."

From California justice ... then we agree.

St. C. said: "There isn't a country on Earth where it is legal for a middle aged man to have sex with a 13 year old girl - WHEN SHE SAYS NO!!!"

Did she say yes or no ? Were you there ? Theoretically there are only two that know for sure ... maybe.



St Circumstance said...

Robert if she was drugged and drinking at 1: does that give you pause at all even if she consented. She said she didn't ...

But I agree that is heresay.

But giving her pills and alcohol tells me he had intent to do what he did no mTter her feelings.

David thanks for that legal information. You summed up much more elequently what I was trying to say. You can't call what he did doing a sentence. That is a joke. He bailed on his sentence. He never got sentenced the way I read it.

St Circumstance said...

At 13 sorry Robert

David said...

Robert C said: "Did she say yes or no ? Were you there ? Theoretically there are only two that know for sure ... maybe."

At age 13 it doesn't matter if she said 'yes' or 'no'.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

At 13 it wouldn't matter if she said "please."

DebS said...

Here's a link to some of the documents in the case-

http://polanski-oddmanout.blogspot.com/p/documents-of-case_25.html

This is a pro-Polanski website but it does bring up some interesting points.

Polanski was initially charged with six counts-

furnishing Quaaludes to a minor
child molesting
unlawful sexual intercourse
rape by use of drugs
oral copulation
sodomy

He was convicted by way of a plea of-

unlawful sexual intercourse

All of the other charges were dropped.

There were two things that I found that lead me to believe Samantha might be at least a year older than what she told the court back in 1977. One was a record in her first married name of Samantha Broward stating her birthdate as September 1, 1962. The second is her picture in the 1979 Taft High School (Woodland Hills CA) yearbook where she is pictured with the Junior (11th grade) class. She could not have been in 7th or 8th grade in 1977 and then show up as an 11th grader in just two years.

I think there might more than what we know as to why the other five charges were dropped against Polanski. I do not condone Polanski's behavior, a man of his age should have known better than to fool around with a girl that was under 18 years of age.

grimtraveller said...

DebS said...


There were two things that I found that lead me to believe Samantha might be at least a year older than what she told the court back in 1977


You'd think that these are things that would be easily checkable and therefore stupid to lie about, a bit like the validity of Linda Kasabian's driving licence.
I suppose to many, 14 sounds a little less raw than 13. As has been pointed out, in some places some girls have become wives and mothers at that age and in some of those places, a yes or a no from the female is as relevant to those situations as a cheque from 1968 from Donald Trump would be. I have an Auntie that was married at 15. I was about 16 when I discovered how old she'd been and even then I thought that was a bit much. But in that world, it was pretty much normal.
But it's been the way of much of our world since some of the first humans reached 13.
Having worked with children for 34 years one does meet a vast range within all the ages and one of the things you quickly catch onto is how different they are. Some 13 year olds are fairly sure and mature, some are like 10 year olds, many are going through changes they can't comprehend and are all over the place, some are a little more together. Some have interesting political perspectives, some are still religiously watching the Disney channel and Nickleodeon and believing some of the life hype.
I personally don't think any of them should be sexually active with mature adults. I don't particularly like the idea of them being sexually active at all, but if they are going to be, better it be with someone closer {far closer} to their age.
The oral, anal and unlawful sex stuff would appear to show Polanski in a nasty light but for me it's the preamble that really does that. Loosening up with intoxicating substances, even if she were regularly using at that age {and it's not an impossibility in that world ~ and even out of it} goes beyond nefarious. We can comment on the rightness or wrongness of ages of consent in different parts of the world but drugging a 13 year old pushes that boat beyond the horizon as far as I'm concerned. That's telling me something about Polanski's mindset at the time. It almost suggests he knew she wouldn't go for it if she were in her right mind and however savvy a teenager may be, they aren't going to be more so than a person in their mid 40s. Roman knew that, Samantha didn't, regardless of what she may have wanted.

ColScott said...

David- your statement is flat out wrong, as is Saint's. Neither of you (perhaps luckily?) have any experience with DA MAN. As a disbarred Former Attorney from Torrance I can try to assist you.

The Geimer Family did not want their daughter to testify. The State could compel her but who wants to compel a child?

Polanski had money and lawyers. If he "went for it" I suspect he had a 75% chance of a walk entirely. This was the 70s and sex cases are very very hard NOW. You would have her word against his. His lawyers would crush her.

Again not saying this is good. They just would to preserved their client's freedom.

A Plea Bargain was discussed. David's quotes are from earlier shit. The point of the Plea BARGAIN is that both sides get something. Polanski makes a deal with THE MAN. I will please guilty. I will go into the prison hospital and they will evaluate me. If I pass, then I get probation, no jail. If not, no deal. This gives the judge ROOM since he wants to be relelected and shit.

The DEAL was made- BARGAIN struck. Then something unexpected happened. The Doctors all said YO GTFO you're fine." Polanski was released way early. The Doctors had that right but that is NOT what the judge wanted- but he does not run the program.

Now, the judge could have made a different deal. Six months in county. Anything.

But he made THIS deal.

Now what do I think? It is a shit deal for what Polanski did. But what I think doesn't matter nor what Saint thinks.

He made the deal.

And then indicated he was rethinking it.


Fuck that. Fuck him. Glad that Polanski had the ability to get out

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
St Circumstance said...

Saint thinks...

That was a pretty good argument. But I just don't think running away is the fair answer either. I also don't like what he did or that people make excuses for it ...

But you seem to feel strongly Roman was justified so I respect that and your opinion



David said...

Col Scott said: "David's quotes are from earlier shit."

My quotes are from the transcript of his plea bargain hearing.

Robert C said...

St. C. said: "Robert if she was drugged and drinking at 1: does that give you pause at all even if she consented. "

Yes, that was my first reaction too. But then as an adult myself back then I recall it not being unusual for a couple to have drinks and even take a lude. I don't know if Polanski imbibed at the same time or not.

Now don't make the mistake of assuming that if someone challenges your opinions they must be completely on the opposite side. My main point is I don't think Polanski is as much of a scoundrel as you even though I do question his judgment for sure. I don't think rape is "wink-wink, boys will be boys" (and that includes girls as well) laughing matter but there can be so many degrees of complexity and "circumstances" involved and this is what I'm suggesting with Polanski and his young intended.

And I don't blame Polanski for taking the quiet road out of Dodge regarding waiting around to see if his life was over or not. California, and for that matter virtually anywhere in the US, is not a place I'd wait around for either when the circumstances are so complicated as that one was. If the expected crime and penalty are not clear then it's time to slip out the back door. Nothing worse than a fuzzy headed judge that can throw a gavel declaring 6 months or 60 years.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

I found myself thinking again of the worst husband on Earth

I know people that would knock Roman Polanski easily into 7th or 8th on that one !

The guy who sent his 8 month pregnant wife on a ship sailing across the Ocean, without him, back to stay with people he would later say he didn't trust

Robert used to say the same thing about the husband sending the wife home alone. But it's not at all unusual. Many army wives will tell you that. Many wives of businessmen will tell you that. Women all over the world in virtually every era can tell you of having to get on with life in the last few stages of pregnancy. Yes, it may be better to be together in that particular phase, but I think you're trying too hard to show how awful Roman was by using this part as an example.

Plato said...

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will always find a way around the law

Well, the latter is self evident. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the first part of the statement. People, societies and therefore laws, evolve. In England, there was not widespread outcry over slavery, children being sent up chimneys or homosexuality being criminalized. Laws actually often have guided people in behaving responsibly. I was thinking about this the other day, what things that we think of as good/right or wrong/bad would we have arrived at without any kind of guidance, regardless of the direction ?

St Circumstance said...

But at least this one agreed to have sexual relations with a guy old enough to be her dad

Here's an irony. If there was a 14 year age gap, he'd be old enough to be her Dad. If he were 39 and she 25, few would honestly quibble it. If he were 52 and she were 38, I doubt many would even care.
I'm always a bit wary of the "old enough to be her/his Dad/Mum" line because age gaps aren't really relevant when you're dealing with adults. Great friendships, and by extension, the possibility of lasting, solid relationships, can be had by people for whom there exist a large age gap. I know this from my own personal experience both ways, as child and adult, friendships that have run deep for over 40 years and close to 30 years despite the age gap.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

I will mention that he has his supporters

At first glance, Whoopi Goldberg's comment seems outrageous but I can see what she's getting at although in this particular case, I don't agree with her. She was trying to say that Samantha wasn't forcibly raped. It's hard to gauge the nuance of something like rape ~ but it is nuanced. It's a bit like murder I guess. One can be legally guilty of murder even though one has not actually killed. In saying all that though, I think what Polanski did was every bit as damaging as forcible rape and as such, he should have actually done time ~ whatever that time may have turned out to be.

Take out the alcohol, and trade the dirty mattresses' of Spahn, for the hot-tub at Jack Nicholson's and tell me what the difference was between what Charlie was doing versus Roman?

Little if any. The difference lies in the fact that one is perceived to be a maniac that had the ability to persuade others to kill and had spent much of his time in prison while the other had been screwed over by the Nazis and managed to flee and make a success of his life. And let's face it, there's long been a tacit nod towards the excesses of those in the arts, especially as their lives were increasingly held up to the rest of society as that which everyone else should aspire to. Although I think Polanski's "juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!" is palpable horseshit, whether we like it or not, there are lots of people that would concur with him. When it was found out that Rolling Stone Bill Wyman had been sexually involved with Mandy Smith from when she was 14, there wasn't a national outcry here. A bit of tut tutting, perhaps.
Sometimes, I suspect that we don't really see the people in some of these tales as actual real people whose lives may be adversely affected {or not, as the case may be} by some of the things that they go through.

Roman meets Nastassja on the set of Tess. This "relationship" lasts not long because she says he is, "Controlling and aggressive."

Is she honestly the only woman in the last 50 years that would make that claim of a bloke ?

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Doctors of the Psychiatry and Psychology fields would tell you to factor in his upbringing and the extreme hardships he endured. He lost his mother to a concentration camp, and was subject to much prejudiced and shuffling around as a child. He lived in a ghetto, and he pretty much did whatever he could just to get by and survive. But, like many others who went through the same thing, he did survive

Yes, he did survive but surviving with your life intact isn't the end of or even the whole story. One can be alive but one may also be affected. In that Deemer polygraph interview, for me the most interesting thing Polanski says is that he was waiting for the point at which Sharon would show her true colours and turn out to be a disappointment like everyone else and she never was which amazed him. That opens a window into his psyche and the way he saw people and therefore relationships. And while he may have developed that way anyway, I think it's naive to somehow axe the early events of his life from the way he started actually behaving later on. One might be forgiven for thinking that being on the wrong side of the Nazis would cause one to be more sensitive and considerate if one escaped from them but life is rarely that simple.
When he said "normal love isn't interesting. I assure you that it is incredibly boring," for him it may well have been.
People often think one is excusing by seeking to understand. That's not the case. No one arrives at where they currently are "just like that." And people respond differently to things that happen to them so it's no good saying "well, such and such had all these awful experiences and they haven't gone down that path.

St Circumstance said...

Robert- Do you think I am not one who understands "Circumstances"

Grim- you are a very thoughtful and intelligent blogger and I read, and always read, every word of your comments and I will just sum it by saying that you and I are on the same page between 70 to 75 pre cent of the time. That is good to me because, as I said, I think you are intelligent and thoughtful.

Robert C said...

David said " Robert C said: "Did she say yes or no ? Were you there ? Theoretically there are only two that know for sure ... maybe."

At age 13 it doesn't matter if she said 'yes' or 'no'. "

David, my comment you quoted wasn't addressing age but whether or not she consented which we don't know for sure, and in particular responding to St. C.'s comment about yes/no. Jail bait rules aside, is it really rape if she consented ?

When I was sixteen I knew numerous girls/boys who had underage sex ... I mean it wasn't uncommon at all. Are they all rapists and bad people ? According to the law yes (and more than half the people my age should be in prisons) but are they really ? That's what I'm driving at with Polanski.

Robert C said...

St. C. said: "Robert- Do you think I am not one who understands "Circumstances"

That's rather circumstantial based on the circumstances at hand ;-)

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

But then as an adult myself back then I recall it not being unusual for a couple to have drinks and even take a lude

Ah, but would that include a 13 year old ? With a 44 year old ?

And I don't blame Polanski for taking the quiet road out of Dodge regarding waiting around to see if his life was over or not

I think most if not all of us would have split the country in the same or a similar situation if we had the chance.
I think what still gets people is Polanski's insistence that he did nothing wrong.

ColScott said...

The State could compel her but who wants to compel a child?

True, but that is surely the point ~ she was a child.

Polanski had money and lawyers. If he "went for it" I suspect he had a 75% chance of a walk entirely. This was the 70s and sex cases are very very hard NOW. You would have her word against his. His lawyers would crush her

But would they ? She was a child.
Also, if it was a foregone conclusion that his lawyers would crush her, why plea bargain ?
I'm genuinely curious.

St Circumstance said...

Touche Robert lol Well done...

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

Jail bait rules aside, is it really rape if she consented ?

Well, that's where the nuances of sexual consent come in. But let me ask you this; would you say the same thing if she had been 9 or 11 ?
I remember watching an interview back in 1983 with a member of an organization called PIE {the paedophile information exchange} in which this guy argued that children as young as 4 could give consent for sex. It begs the question "when is consent truly consent ?" The disco singer Sylvester, was actively having sex from the age of 8 with a much older man in the church he attended and he always said it was consensual, not abuse.
I know a number of kids that were involved in drug taking from the age of 11. Most of it was curiosity or wanting to appear hip and older. As far as I'm aware there was no forcing. But do I think kids of 11 and 12 should be smoking potent ganja even if they "consent" to it ? No.


When I was sixteen I knew numerous girls/boys who had underage sex ... I mean it wasn't uncommon at all. Are they all rapists and bad people ?

Some of them might be. But all of them ? No. Many would be curious, many would be pressured, many would think they are ready, some could be acting out of prior abuse, some would think they're in luuuurrrvvve ~ there are literally all different kinds that would make up that number.
But when we look at the Polanski case, we're not talking about a randy 16 or 14 or even 19 year old and a 13 or 14 year old. While I most certainly do accept that even young teenage girls can be sexually manipulative, aggressive and even predatory themselves, a 44 year old guy and a 13 year old girl is slightly different territory than teenage underage sex. I think it is more than simply a puritan ethic that deems this to be against the law.
I'll be interested in Dianne Lake's views on this if she touches on it in her book. I kind of hope she does.

Peter said...

"As a disbarred Former Attorney from Torrance I can try to assist you."

I love this line, it really never gets old. I've read through most of your blog and can't say I fully understand the genesis of this sobriquet (didn't think I would be using that word today), but having once dated a girl from Torrance, I just find it funny on many levels. Is it a greater crime to be disbarred or to be from Torrance? I can't even figure out if you are really a lawyer or if that's just part of the joke.

St Circumstance said...

The disbarred attorney line is older than the search for his missing house painter....

For all the insults he always throws at me- Col has a one of a kind style lol.

Peter said...

From the comedy duo of Kanarek and Grogan.


Q: I see. All right. But then you left in some vehicle with Linda Kasabian on the night that you call this experience. You had an experience; right?
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Would you answer yes or no?
A: Yes or no.

ColScott said...

Peter- back in early 1997 there was the original TLB Message Board run by Clark Ronson who was in fact a Catfish.

On that board the Brilliant Col Scott unveiled his wisdom and wit. MANY people resented his first hand research and knowledge. Clark (who may have been the earliest fake Ouisch) tried to track down the Col IRL (this was long before the insidious betrayal of the Col by the ever hopeful Tom O'Neill). He did an IP search and determined that the Col was (name lost to the ages) a disbarred former attorney from Torrance.

Full disclosure- I did once eat an Ostrich Burger circa 1989 in Torrance at a T NOT BURGER. It was just okay.

I am trying to not associate with assclowns so I thought I would ask someone to pass along this message to Grim-

Yes of course they would do anything to keep their client free. EVERY little thing Sammy did in her whole life would be fair game. The parents rightly did not want her on the stand.

ColScott said...

correction- "Y NOT BURGER"

Peter said...

Thanks for clearing that up.


Grim, Col says of course they would do anything to keep their client free. EVERY little thing Sammy did in her whole life would be fair game. The parents rightly did not want her on the stand.

St Circumstance said...

Lolol well done!

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Really?? I am going to lie, or play coy little games, on my polygraph when we are talking about the very recent slaughter of my wife and unborn child?...Are you kidding me? What in the world is funny about anything he is dealing with? What in his past, or which experience justifies goofing off when the police are trying to solve the brutal murder of your family? Please tell me, because this just makes absolutely no sense. This is a man with no soul

I remember the first time I read "Helter Skelter" and came across the polygraph machine. I'd never heard of one and being a liar and a thief at the time myself, I was really interested in a machine that was supposed to detect when one was lying if there was no prior evidence to catch one out. I'd have been curious at that time and I would have deliberately lied {it came naturally to me from '68 right through till '85 !} just to test out the machine and see if it really did work. I would have interspersed that with truth but in a dramatic way just to see if the machine would deem me to be lying even though I wasn't.
Even back then, I tended to challenge apparent certainties. And people would get their knickers in a twist, just like Scotty {❤ ❤ } does now.
Is it really so unusual to test out a machine that's supposed to 'determine' the veracity of your answers ? How many people have sat there and told the police the truth and still been thought of as lying ?
Also, if someone was testing the machine and they lied and the machine showed this and the interviewer pointed this out, you might get more truthful answers.

Great to brag about being a cheater, Great marriage and family life this guy would have provided for Sharon and his kid...

Any worse than what much of Hollywood has doled out for us over the years with its various celeb couples ? Or for that matter, everyday people from everyday situations ?
But if you look at what Polanski was actually saying there, he was giving his wife the utmost praise, declaring that she wouldn't have looked at another guy. He was contrasting his flaws with her virtues in order to emphasize how excellent she was.
That said, he also made it clear that the proviso upon which their union existed was that she knew what a cad he was and that she wouldn't try to change him so one could say she knew what she was getting into. It's not like he was deceiving her. He was simply being him, however lousy that was, and if she was prepared to accept that, that was on her.

Peter said...

LOL. Brooks Poston.

Q: And how would you know the precise time to eat?
A: Well, everyone would wait for Charlie to decide when to eat.
Q: What would Charlie say?
A: Sometimes Charlie wouldn't say. He would just look at a girl, or make a motion, and they would get food and start supper.
Q: And sometimes Charlie would speak?
A: Yes.
Q: What would he say?
A: "I'm hungry."

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

Grim, Col says of course

Thanks Pete. See Scotty about the tip.

ColScott said...

On that board the Brilliant Col Scott unveiled his wisdom and wit

I know, I know....Where did those days go ?

I thought I would ask someone to pass along this message to Grim

You smooth old flatterer, you ! ❤

Yes of course they would do anything to keep their client free

That I have no doubt about. What I was getting at is ¬> if by law a girl of 13 couldn't give consent, how could Polanski have a leg to stand on ?
{Anyone can answer this one. I don't want to bankrupt Scotty}.

EVERY little thing Sammy did in her whole life would be fair game. The parents rightly did not want her on the stand

Even if it meant a predator possibly out and on the prowl again. Or perhaps it would have meant too many question marks heading in their direction.
A bit like the TLB case in general, it throws up a wide ranging series of conundrums.

ColScott said...

Peter

Tell Grim that even though disbarred I demolish him thusly

1- All male or mostly male jury- I can ensure that. Especially back then women tended to get out of jury duty due to housewife/mom shits
2- "Please tell the jury in detail your whole sexual history and what you say happened."
(look at RP:W&D her testimony is heartbreaking already)
3- Did your mother really leave you alone to do nude photos with a man older than your dad?
4- Come on Samantha. Nothing happened right? You have had lots of boyfriends and your mom told you to make this up to shakedown a big director? Right?


I only have to make this tenable to 1 idiot on a jury and this is the 1970s. I introduce the photos already taken as evidence that she was willing to "get down" for the camera and she is crushed. ONE person has to believe my version and believe me I could sell it.

David said...

Col Scott said: "ONE person has to believe my version and believe me I could sell it."

Well, that gets you a mistrial. But I otherwise agree with your points.

Grim, her inability to consent as a matter of law won't matter if Polanski denies anything happened and looking at the probation report (which recommended probation) he was going to walk on everything except unlawful sex with a minor based upon the lack of physical evidence. In fact, he might have walked on that too.

Anyone want to take bets 'actress' mom and 'wannabe model' victim counted heads and figured out this wouldn't exactly help careers in Hollywood in 1977?

Peter said...

Grim, tell St. to ask Col., isn't it a strict liability offense? A prosecutor would just have to prove that it happened. Everything else would be irrelevant.

Peter said...


Homer: Marge? Since I'm not talking to Lisa, would you please ask her to pass me the syrup?

St Circumstance said...

Lol

Robert C said...

Grim said: "Ah, but would that include a 13 year old ? With a 44 year old ?"

For me it has to do with reaching sexual maturity defined as puberty. This was also somewhat of a worldwide guideline pre-Industrial Revolution. There's no doubt a 44 year old man or woman with a 13 year old boy/ girl or man/woman (puberty) is unusual and even to us culturally bizarre, this last ranging from weird to repulsive. For me it's closer to weird, in the Polanski case, and given some of the latest comments from others it seems there's even more contributing evidence afoot regarding our Lolita. Morality and the Law are tough things to pigeon-hole.

Grim said: [Jail bait rules aside, is it really rape if she consented ?]

"Well, that's where the nuances of sexual consent come in. But let me ask you this; would you say the same thing if she had been 9 or 11 ?"

Can boys & girls reach puberty at 9 or 11 ?


lostgirl said...

I agree with Col. Back in the 70's the defense counsel would have trashed her. They might even play the pity card. Poor guy lost his wife and unborn son to a crazy murderer. Anything to take attention away from a middle age guy moving in on a young teenager girl.

Regarding Roberts question about age of puberty, back then if it happened at 9 or 11 it would have been precocious puberty. Much more likely today though.

grimtraveller said...

Peter,
could you ask Matt to e~mail David to pass on a message via Deb S to Scotty that it looks a little embarrassing to crow about demolishing thusly when he's not even being argued with...

Robert C said...

Can boys & girls reach puberty at 9 or 11 ?

Yeah. Girls have had children younger than that.

Peter said...

Juan Flynn's direct.

Q: Now, what did you say to Mr. Manson when he placed the knife there?
A: I told him that I was not going to do -- I was not going to kill him or harm him, you know, And he said to me that if that was the way I felt then I should, you know, if I do like that to him, then I should go down the creek to the waterfall and make love to his girls, you know.
...
Q: What did he say to you in hid words, Juan?
A: He said, "Go down the creek and make love to my girls."
Q: What did you say to him in response to that?
A: Well, I said that if I wanted to contract a nine-month case of syphilis or gonorrhea, he would be the first one I would come see.
Q: In other words, you did not want to go down and make love to his girls?
A: No, no, I felt that they are beautiful but, you know --
THE COURT: All right, that's enough.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ColScott said...

I have been told that Samantha may have been 15 not 13. Doesn't forgive Roman but if so why did MOMS hide it?
Peter and David- I think you are both right. But the position would be THE LITTLE SLUT MADE IT ALL UP.

and after one mistrial the would never opt to try this one again

Roman was a Celebrity- different justice-as OJ and Blake etc

David said...

Col Scott, I just learned that too.

One thought that has bothered me about Samantha’s case is indeed the idea at least her mom ‘knew’ what Polanski was like- the old casting couch. It was not uncommon in Hollywood in earlier times for actors, directors, producers to have 'little secrets'. They surround people like Jean Harlow, Errol Flynn, Rock Hudson, etc. After I learned this and some other things I started thinking 'Oh my God. What if mom ‘used’ age 13 to entice Polanski because ‘everyone knows he likes naked young girls’. If so, it is very sad.

I was just reading Krenwinkel’s 2016 parole hearing, to answer someone else. Deputy Commissioner Lam really went after her and at one point PK says: “He [Manson] was a pedophile. He slept with girls that were 12 years old, 13 years old 14 years old and a 15 year old”. It sounded to me like more than the one or two we know about.

Peter: Somewhere you noted Bugliosi's little problem getting in hearsay about Manson during Kasabian's testimony- the 'big problem'- the whole 'I'm not going to tell you how to try your case' bit. As you noted the next morning 'in chambers' session is not reported. At the beginning of De Carlo's testimony and during it, it comes up again and there is another 'in chambers session' at 2:00 p.m. I can't find that either. But the answer appears to lie in a case named People vs. Stevens, which I also can't find but Bugliosi mentions several times, including 'I gave that to the court [during the Kasabian bit]'.

joseph esposito said...

Saint, 'statutory' rape is not the crime of the century,

And as an adult, she forgives Polanski and is still friends with him...

These girls in these types of situations are little harlots...

They are experienced beyond their age...

Polanski DID do some time...and I equate that to penance...

GET OVER IT...stop beating A DEAD HORSE...

Robert C said...

If Polanski, the State of California, Lolita and whomever else is required all come to some sort of chummy agreement with a legal stamp of authority then the matter is pretty much over. If Polanski returns to run the gamut and risk within the legal system then the hoopla not to mention the ***cost to the taxpayer*** would be phenomenal.

One question is how much did Polanski already pay for his brief tryst ? Exile from the USA, reputation damage, loss of any initial physical and financial holdings in the USA, dealing with attempts to have other governments turn him over to US authorities, catastrophic loss of family and friends, any potential negative impacts on his work, funds he gave to Lolita soften the experience, etc. -- all of the above lifetime impacts as in the gifts that just keep on giving. Is that enough or should he still, in addition to the aforementioned, spend what years he has left (he's 84) in the slammer ?

But is Polanski a jail bait predator of horrific or mega evil proportions ? Not to me (or show me the definitive proof, not people's morality-play or kangaroo court summary). He was just one of many believing rules and laws do not apply to them because of their power and social stature.

Like in my State years ago when a former Governor got nailed for revelations of his intimate involvement with a 14 year old female years before. He admitted but skedaddled north to the SeaTac area where I believe he remains today. In other words I don't remember the law doing anything even though it was illegal. But he'd also been a former mayor and DC politico who had a lot of power.

You know who I'm talking about don't you David, and what happened to that case that parallels Polanski's ?

David said...

Neil!!!

Polanski's only problem today is....wait for it.... he ran.

CrisPOA said...

Roman seems to me just another egomaniac person - one more like all the others we meet everyday. That photo shoot fot Time magazine in Cielo for exemple, who pose for a magazine in the crime scene your pregnant wife was brutally murdered? That was extremely bad taste in my opinion.
And the polygraph? Was that the ideal time for testing the lie detector? The police was investigating the morder, you should think he would at least colaborate doing the right thing. Weird.

David said...

Wait! Being a lawyer: Neil (allegedly)!!!!!

St Circumstance said...

I have a question for some if you to ask yourself....

Knowing what you know. If it were you back then - would you let your 15 or even 16 year old daughter be alone with Roman Polanski?

And if you did - and he gave her a pill and a shot , then bent her over and used her like a plastic sex toy...

Would you think it's cool for people to say that girls her age are harlots or argue she really wanted it? Would you want people to blame or question you ??

I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near him and if he got to her anyway I would hunt him down in any country and pluck his balls off and stuff them up his ass.

But I guess that's just me. Lol. That's ok. Im happy to be on an island about this. I believe very strongly what he did was wrong and taking away any unproved claims- by his own public admissions he has a life long track record of seducing goirks who are not legally old enough to buy me a coors light.

Add in again the - really classless- way he handled Sharon's death investigation and you have a pretty shameless person.

But I won't beat a dead horse any longer lol

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

Ya know skip the last one. I'm through with this Subject. I'm starting to feel filthy even talking about it

David said...

Saint said: "I wouldn't let my kid anywhere near him...."

Neither would I and I think that may be the point. I would never blame the victim. I do question her mother's motives.

Saint said: ".....and if he got to her anyway I would hunt him down in any country and pluck his balls off and stuff them up his ass."

So would I but my daughter would never have been there in the first place.

St Circumstance said...

Hey David ...

I too question her mother for a couple of reasons. I hold her partly to blame... no decent person would knowingly allow there child to be around a guy like that..

But even if someone hands you a child on a silver platter with a signed permission slip...

What kind of grown man does something like that?

To me - regardless of the law or the country or the times....

There is something fundamentally wrong with a grown man attracted to very young children. When u factor in that he is willing to inebriated them to have his way - that equals dangerous to me.

There was plenty of blame to pass around. I haven't even mentioned Angelica. And Samantha had her own feelings about what happened to her, and I respect that too.

But that is all separate from Roman. What he chose to do was immoral, criminal, and just plain wrong.

Anything else anyone else did may be also wrong, but it shouldn't deflect or lessen the crimE Roman committed or serve as excuses for him electing to run like a coward.

Not that think you David are doing that, but I think some are.

Finally, what message are we sending to other people who might do the same to someone you know or care about??

Don't do it - but if you do - and get away. After a certain time it's all going away because we have inconvenieced you enough?

Peter said...

David,

I found the cases.Bugliosi identifies them in his recounting of the incident in Helter Skelter at page 422.

Shortly after this, court recessed for the day. Aaron, J. Miller Leavy, and I were up late that night, looking for citations of authority. Fortunately we found two cases – People vs. Fratiano and People vs. Stevens – which the Court ruled you can show the existence of a conspiracy by showing the relationship between the parties, including statements mate to each other. Shown the cases the next morning, Judge Older reversed himself and overruled Kanarek’s objections.

The two cases are:

People v. Stevens, 78 Cal. App. 395, 407 (Dist. Ct. App. 1926)

“In our opinion there is no valid objection to evidence in conspiracy cases which tends to show, step by step, the gradual formation of a criminal concord in the minds of those charged with the illicit combination, merely because the evidence begins at a time long anterior to the wrongful meeting of minds. It is necessary only that the evidence, in all its parts, tends to prove the formation of the conspiracy.”

People v. Fratianno, 132 Cal. App. 2d 610, 282 P.2d 1002 (1955) which cites to the above passage from Stevens.

The objection is raised at page 4798 of the transcript on July 27th, Linda's first day. So the argument in chambers would have been the morning of July 28, 1970. The next day's transcript begins with motions being argued in open court at 9:08 a.m. If it happened earlier that day, it may be recorded in a different group of transcripts, possibly the "Clerk's Transcripts" that Cielo has been posting, but unfortunately the most recent volume currently up ends on July 14th.

Robert C said...

Questions like would you hand your daughter over to an older guy or do you support child molestation or is that appropriate for an older man all normally would elicit a "hell no" from practically everyone but really doesn't have a bearing on the Polanski case other than to try to raise sympathy for an agenda seeking personal morality code and position. Basically trying to pull an emotional appeal into a clinical case.

Polanski broke a State of California law, there's no debate on that, unless Samantha turned out to be years older at that time instead of a very questionable 13. But then this is a human-made law, not gawd's law, and arbitrary whether the age of consent is 16 in the UK, 18 in the US, whatever elsewhere. Arbitrary but should be involving pre versus post puberty. A bunch of fat old fogey guys with power sat around and deemed it so. They could have said 13. Then Polanski would have been clear other than the tsk-tsk about the age difference.

I think there are a some people who feel he robbed the cradle and then they get worked up into a lather over raping an infant. I don't think that's what happened here. Some people get so emotional over the matter that they can no longer seek or see the truth and even almost wish Polanski had a long string of child abuses to support their case.

Having said all that I suspect most of us are not all that far apart, just a matter of degrees. But keep in mind we're really debating two separate issues that often get muddled together ... the law versus the social/culture aspect of the matter.

Did Polanski exercise poor judgment plus use his celebrity to take advantage ? I think so.
Did Polanski break a jail-bait law ? I think so but this needs further investigation and validation.
Was she physically a girl or a woman at the time ? I think a woman.
Is Polanski an evil predatory child molester or see number one above ? I think the latter.
Does Polanski deserve to have his privates rearranged as proposed ? I think not.
Should we continue to hound the man or has he paid enough ? I think he's paid enough.
Is he a coward for running from California justice ? No way ....

David -- Neil it is, and as far as I know the law never reached him even in the US. And I think there were similarities and in particular I don't think the prosecution wanted a claimant investigation nor put that 14 year old on the stand. I'm not sure how it was ultimately resolved if at all other than perhaps a set amount of funding transfer made everyone walk away.





Peter said...

Which reminds me that school starts soon and I'm looking for someone to look after my 13 year old for a few hours each day after cheer practice if any of you guys are interested or know someone. $15 an hour and full refrigerator privileges.

St Circumstance said...

Robert all due respect. What investigation do you need. He admitted to unlawful rape. He admitted it. He did display a life long pattern look at all the love interests he admitted to. Natasha was basically the same age as Samantha. Roman doesn't deny it. He laughs about it. Makes jokes.

Call me what you will but I just don't understand making excuses for drugging and forcing yourself on a child of 13 or 15.

This is the easiest call on Earth and if you can't say this was wrong we just won't agree.

But that's ok too.

David said...

Saint said: "There is something fundamentally wrong with a grown man attracted to very young children. When u factor in that he is willing to inebriated them to have his way - that equals dangerous to me."

I agree 100%. If you can defend Polanski you should defend every pedophile. And further I do not understand the argument made by some that 'I would have run too' or 'He was right in running.' Yes, criminals run every day. At trial assignment you hear PDs say 'Mr. Smith is not present, Your Honor' and DAs say 'Bench warrant, Your Honor?' If you defend Polanski's decision to run then you should defend every other fugitive unless you choose to determine culpability based upon who the runner is instead of the act of defying the law.

Saint, look on the bright side. If nothing else Polanski hasn't had the opportunity to abuse any more young women in the US since 1977 and he will never get to appear at a Hollywood awards event to receive the accolades of his peers. So in that regard his self-imposed deportation appears to have accomplished something.

Peter,

Good job. I never thought to look at HS- might be a 'duh' moment on my part.

St Circumstance said...

And he has been in France all this time where his perversions are legal. That's all that is. Age of consent Wasn't intended as a green light for perverts to lower the bar on their prey. But he went there, and he could let his libido go crazy over there on young unsuspecting vurnerable targets with no fear of reprisal.

God knows how many young girls have been victimized as a result ??what in history makes you think he stopped ? Marriage never slowed him down by his own admission.

That's the really ironic part. Roman admits to all this and thinks it's funny.

David said...

Robert C said: "I'm not sure how it was ultimately resolved"

Although I don't want to sound like MGN111 I know a bit about this that I can't reveal. Let's just say there was a legitimate 'issue of proof'.

Peter said...

I only found it because it came up when I Googled it. But interesting that any argument on the objection appears to be gone or non-existent. You would think that Kanarek would have pressed it, since it was the one thing he raised where he wasn't basically told to shut up. Maybe Bugliosi is misremembering or condensing what really happened and it will turn up someplace in the files as they get posted.

St Circumstance said...

But I guess if so many of us don't care - why should he?

Some of you are right. Samantha doesn't care. Her family doesn't care. France and Switzerland decided it wasn't important for him to pay. His Peers defend him. Many people in this room think it's old news and I'm just ranting for the sake of ranting.

So what message does Roman get? It want that big of a deal.

So why not keep doing it? And if he did...

Well all of his supporters and defenders. Own it. Cause that's partially on you.

It's called enabling 😉

St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Hello David (The Lawyer)

I know I must frustrate you at times.
But,
There are "Legal" reasons and
"Safety" reasons, and More.... on why I will not reveal certain "Situations" and "Happenings" in:

The OJ Simpson Case & Saga
And
The Charles Manson Case & Saga.
Maybe in the future.......
Or, "Things" could just legally play out.....without me.

And I will tell you this
David (The Lawyer):
Certain blogs and comments of yours have really helped me remember.....
And have also helped with very valuable information for me.
And Thank You David
(The Lawyer)

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

Peter said...

At page 4860 they talk about taking it up in the morning and Bugliosi insists it be done in open court, but the next morning it is never discussed.

Another interesting thing that next day. Kasabian talks about spending the first night with the Family up at the waterfall and Charlie telling them to put "witchy" things in the trees.

A: First he instructed us to make little witchy things to hang in the trees to show our way from the campsite to our road in the dark.
...
THE WITNESS: Things made from weeds, rocks, stones, branches, some kinds of wires, I don't know, all different little things.

This is the same thing he allegedly told them the night of the Tate murders. The only thing, other than to do what Tex tells them to do. In the context of the events of August 8, the request to "leave something witchy" seems to be a significant piece of evidence against Manson because we connect it to the writing in blood. But in this context one sees that it's fairly innocuous and could have just as easily meant something a lot less macabre. To me, it underscores the ambiguity of Manson's August 8th statement and raises the question of whether their was a conspiracy to murder.

David said...

MGN111,

We all get frustrated with each other sometimes. I found something the other day which may mean nothing and I tried to look back and find your construction site location comment. Could you perhaps tell me again where you think it was?

Thanks

Peter,

I think any challenge to a conspiracy pretty much goes away when you add night #2. Everybody knows what they are going to do and all the defendants are in the car together.

Witchy things: He said the same thing to Krenwinkel and Van Houten that second night and at a parole hearing Kreninkel says stabbing Leno with the fork was a 'witchy thing' and Van Houten says this:

MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, in order to create fear it had to be — look like an obvious, just an obvious murder; that there was no robbery , nothing behind it; just flat out to do it, to start this paranoia going. And so we had been told that this was the best time to use our witchcraft.
MR. PART: Who told you that? When was it told to you? And what is witchcraft?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, Charles told it to us; and I can’t remember just when. It might have been before we went in the house or before we even left.
MR. PART: When you say “Charles” in all these conversations, dear, you mean Charles Manson; is that correct?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Um-hum, yes.
So — and, oh, what witchcraft was or is to the group was just that women are more aware of than men, and that — because they know how to take care of the man. So witchcraft is just all the little things a woman does. Like sewing would be a form of it.
And so he said, “This is when you can use your greatest amount of witchcraft,” meaning you can use your imagination and do, you know, a whole number, meaning making it look ugly.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks David

I thought I had the construction site pin-pionted because I had a street wrong. Not so sure now.

I'll give you borderlines>>>>>
>>>>it's got to be there somewhere:

Nordoff to Superior>>>>North & South.
Canoga to Mason>>>>East & West

It's got to be there somewhere.

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

Peter said...

Yeah, I was just thinking after I wrote that "what about Night 2." But even in light of what Van Houten says. Its a pretty big leap from "sewing" to "stabbing Leno with a fork."

David said...

MGN111,

Thanks. Nothing yet but now I have a framework.

Saint,

Are these your neighbors: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1756149088014694&id=1385943015035305&_rdr


St Circumstance said...

I can't open that ?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

And David

The borderlines are wider now from my original remembrance from this blog-post here:
http://www.mansonblog.com/2017/01/charles-manson-is-returned-to-prison.html?m=1
Dated Saturday, January 7th, 2017

because I had a street wrong.

Mario George Nitrini
------
The OJ Simpson Case

Peter said...

Actually, the clerks transcripts for the end of July and Early August have been made available and there is no reference to that issue.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

But even in light of what Van Houten says. Its a pretty big leap from "sewing" to "stabbing Leno with a fork."

I think it depends on how you view it. When Linda arrived at Spahn, Crowe had just happened, there was a belief he was dead and attached to that, a belief that some Blacks were coming to exact a revenge of some kind. So the placing of "witchy things" starts to take on a somewhat different context. It was Charlie's way of getting the women to show their wares, their ability {as both Kasabian and Van Houten would have it} to be deceptive in a way disarming to those of what I refer to as a straight sensibility and as such could include sewing strange objects and hanging them in unexpected places for the Family's benefit or a fork in a corpse's stomach for those that would find the body.

In the context of the events of August 8, the request to "leave something witchy" seems to be a significant piece of evidence against Manson because we connect it to the writing in blood. But in this context one sees that it's fairly innocuous and could have just as easily meant something a lot less macabre

The context seems to power up the effectiveness of the witchy thing. So yes, it could seem innocuous or it could be something that throws those that see it.
According to "HS", Charlie made a specific point to catch the attention of the murder troupe setting off for Cielo and said "Leave a sign. You girls know what to write. Something witchy." He admitted this to Diane Sawyer years later and explained his reasoning behind it. He seemed to go out of his way not to deny it. He didn't seem to be treating it as innocuous or ambiguous. Although careful not to connect it with murder, he connected it with "whatever they were going to do."
I've always connected it to the writing in blood because of him saying "You girls know what to write."

St Circumstance said...

Samantha doesn't care. Her family doesn't care

I wonder how many physically sexually mature children have nonetheless been subjected to acts that they did not want to engage in {and Samantha has always said she didn't want to and did say 'no'} by people much older and how many of them felt powerless to do anything precisely because of cases like this one in which it's perceived that the older, smarter, more powerful one got away with it or that the victim would simply be portrayed all over the TV, radio & papers as a slutty "Lolita" or lad prepared to do anything for a little cash or a high....

grimtraveller said...

CrisPOA said...

And the polygraph? Was that the ideal time for testing the lie detector? The police was investigating the murder, you should think he would at least collaborate doing the right thing. Weird

There's lots of weird in TLB.
The thing is, a person takes a polygraph test in order to be eliminated as a suspect. Polanski didn't have a clue who the killer actually was and he knew he wasn't the killer.
Wouldn't you be a little bit curious, at least to see if the machine could tell if you were lying ? Perhaps many wouldn't be.

joseph esposito said...

These girls in these types of situations are little harlots...They are experienced beyond their age...

They may well be. Or they may not. You seem to be saying that "these girls" pretty much deserve whatever may come their way, irrespective of what the intent or subsequent actions of the guy may have been.

David said...

I do not understand the argument made by some that 'I would have run too' or 'He was right in running.'

I don't think he was right to run but for me, the point was that we're human beings and if we're in the wrong and we have a chance to escape a justice being meted out against us, I happen to think many of us would take it and worry about the consequences later.

joseph esposito said...

Excellent points Robert C, and methodically stated. Are you talking about Neil Goldschmidt? Also I remember judge Thurgood Marshall was said to have had a relationship with a 15 year old?

Robert C said...

Joesph Esposito -- thanks and yes, it was Goldschmidt.

St. C. -- regarding your comment about Polanski's admissions, I suppose we can locate lot's of alleged statements on the net either way like this one I pulled off of Wiki: " Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.[23][24] Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.[25] Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing. " This again aside from whether or not Samantha was 13 or 14 or ??? and still legally underage.

Grim said : " I don't think he was right to run but for me, the point was that we're human beings and if we're in the wrong and we have a chance to escape a justice being meted out against us, I happen to think many of us would take it and worry about the consequences later. "

Totally agree and remember there are a lot of extenuating 'circumstances' and other 'behind scenes' unknowns going on in the legal fish net with a celebrity like Polanski as a ** foreigner ** facing down California justice with unknown consequences so -- it may be against the law (David) but I wouldn't be waiting for a potential ego-judge looking for a cap feather to destroy my life **under the 'circumstances'** .

I also happen to think Samantha also deserves equal sympathy to the extent if all the facts supported her case then she was not only underage but was also raped. But I simply don't have that same level of confidence as St. C. in this case -- not cut and dried -- yet.

St Circumstance said...

Fair enough Robert. I look at it one way. But you seem reasonable enough. Maybe you see seomething I don't see...

I just don't see it.

David said...

Robert,

I guess my experience with judges is just radically different from yours. They are human.

And I believe this one said he'd have had Polanski deported, which is hinted at in that hearing.

Robert C said...

David -- how did Polanski know for sure back then ?

If he remained for sentencing the judge could also potentially say something like 20 years in jail and basically his life and career are over. We'll never know for sure but it was a serious risk at the time, as much speculation as speculating he might get only deportation.

I recall back then it was a quagmire since he was a foreigner. I mean .... how do you think Polanski so easily left the country ;-)

"radically different" experiences with judges ? That's kind of exaggerated/over-the-top like saying a defender of Polanski is a defender of all pedophiles.

Yes, judges are human. That's the scary part ....

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

Now don't make the mistake of assuming that if someone challenges your opinions they must be completely on the opposite side

One of the good things about the contributors to the blog is that somewhere along the line, no matter how many alliances may seem to be in evidence, there's going to be one point of disagreement between pretty much everyone. I remember when I was on Home recording.com, certain tag teams developed in which certain parties never disagreed or called each other out and it became rather predictable that if X said this, then the usual suspects came out to support them. I like the nuances that develop within the various arguments here.

But then this is a human-made law, not gawd's law

If Gawd's law was the one everyone followed 😱, Polanski wouldn't have gotten out of the airport ! 😀

and arbitrary whether the age of consent is 16 in the UK, 18 in the US, whatever elsewhere. Arbitrary but should be involving pre versus post puberty

There would be a degree of arbitrariness even if pre and post puberty were taken into account ~ and actually, we're not certain that this wasn't taken into account. Those that drafted the law in this instance may well have taken into account where most children fell in terms of coming to puberty. Because puberty isn't a fixed moment, it's a stage that has a process to it that lasts an indeterminate length of time. When one starts to go through puberty or while they're going through it, they can't be said to have reached its conclusion. And that's part of the difficulty, some may begin the process at 8 or 9, some not until 14 and I think the law drafters would have to factor all of that in. There's quite a bit to have to balance and juggle rather than just push a law out of some religious or uptight conviction.

A bunch of fat old fogey guys with power sat around and deemed it so

Do we know that to be the case ? I mean, it may well have been {Surely they weren't all fat !} but it seems that you're dismissing any possibility that some kind of protection of children may have figured in their thinking. There could have been fat old fogey guys with power in the states that allowed girls of Samantha Geimer's age to be sexually active, married and reproducing {like Jerry Lee Lewis' wife in the late 50s}.

Nonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

Nonymous, you should have left that.

Matt said...

What did it say?


ziggyosterberg said...


It said "This comment has been removed by a blog administrator."

Naw. Just kidding.

What it really said was : Mario George Nitrini 111's Twitter