Today on Blogcritics
Home » Diva-Victim Forgives Polanski, Condemns Journalist

Diva-Victim Forgives Polanski, Condemns Journalist

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

By Nicholas Stix

People who send me nasty letters are often guided by sympathy for the devil, from a place where, in Mick Jagger’s immortal words, “every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints.” I’ll write a story on a Hip-Hopper who openly supports al Qaeda, or on “pacifists” allied with terrorists, on black racism, or on crime, and in come the death threats, the people telling me I’m the source of all the world’s woes, and the attempts to gag me through the threat of frivolous lawsuits. The attitude of such correspondents is, if I tell the truth, I’m a liar, but if I’ll lie for their side, then I’m a good guy.

And so it is, with the Roman Polanski case. In a recent column, I wrote on rapist-pedophile-fugitive Roman Polanski’s successful perversion – with the help of some incompetent British jurists — of the English legal system.

The following letter came on Sunday evening.

“Mr Stix,

” Thank you for your assassination of Roman Polanski. I really believe, as he has stated ,that this libel lawsuit was about the defamation of the late Sharon Tate Polanskis’ Yes Roman Polanski had an affair with an underage young girl..who has gone on record as saying she does not hold anything against him. He apparently has a sexual addiction..Sharon knew this and according to reliable sources was on the verge of divorcing him when she was
horribly murdered. Her problem being as she has been quoted ” He’s my Roman and I love him.” The model in question has gone on record to say ” That’s not how I remember it.” She claims he just stared at her as if she reminded him of Sharon. When the suppose victim will not testify against him how smart are the lawyers? Because of his fame and fortune he has made a lot of money, possibly received favors.

“In consideration of the horrible things that has happened to the poor man I can
almost understand…..or if the (girl) now woman felt justice needed to be served…Having grown up during Nazi Germany, having his wife, child and friends horrendously murdered could negatively effect probably anyone…. I feel sure he does not enjoy knowing he is a fugitive, but with the unpleasant things that have happened to him for seemingly no reason ..I doubt he feels
he would get a fair trial…or simply hasn’t the man suffered enough?

Robert”

First of all, “Robert” can’t even be honest about the publicly known basic fact of the matter: Roman Polanski did not “[have] an affair with an underage young girl.” He raped a 13-year-old girl. For all of his victim’s bizarre statements about Polanski, she has never said she had an “affair” with him. She has clearly stated that he forced himself on her, against her will and in spite of her telling him to stop. (Under the influence of the drugs and alcohol Polanski had pumped his victim full of, as part of his plan, she was unable to do more.)

Besides, according to California state law then and now, a grown man cannot have a sexual affair with a 13-year-old girl, even if the child did consent. It would still be rape. No, not “statutory” rape, but first-degree rape. The law does not recognize 13-year-olds as being old enough to give informed consent.

But note that Robert did not complain about my treatment of Polanski’s victim. It is Polanski whom I “assassinated.”

Let’s see. John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abe Lincoln. Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. James Earl Ray assassinated Martin Luther King Jr. And Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert F. Kennedy. But I never killed Roman Polanski, who is very much alive. Besides, even if someone did kill him, it wouldn’t count as an “assassination.” Who is Roman Polanski, but a wealthy, narcissistic felon and fugitive from justice? Killing him would at worst constitute murder, and at best be a public service.

And I didn’t commit “character assassination” against him, because he has no character to assassinate, no good name to soil.

So, since Polanski is a Holocaust survivor and his supposedly fed-up wife was murdered, he gets a get-out-of-jail-free card on rape, sodomy, and five other felony raps, including now flight from prosecution. So, if I can come up with a fashionably oppressive life story, can I get away with murder, rape, and mayhem, too? What’s that, Robert? Polanski is an artist, and you just can’t expect artists to follow the rules of society?

Hitler was an artist, too.

For characters like this Robert guy, the rules are for “the little people”; they just don’t apply to the Roman Polanskis of the world. The proper term for a Robert is unacceptable in a family-friendly blog; it refers to someone who is obsessed with having relations with celebrities. Mick Jagger wrote a song using it as the title.

Then, late this (Tuesday) afternoon, I received the following e-mail, from an eddress that contained the name of Samantha Geimer, the girl (in the meantime, a pretty, 40-year-old mother of three sons) whom Roman Polanski raped 27 years ago.

“It should be a crime for you to make a living re-victimizing me with your
stupid story.

“You and your fellow reporters are no better than Polanski.

“I wish you would all get sued for every lie your print.

“Sincerly,

“Samantha”

What to do or say? I hadn’t outed the woman; she did that herself. In fact, the “rule” against publishing the name of a female rape victim is not based on any legal or ethical principle. (Ms. Geimer’s case is different, because she was a child at the time, but that matter became moot, when she went public.) Feminists demanded and got it from wimpy male editors (you know, those patriarchal, “male chauvinist pigs” the feminists were always complaining about?) based on the principles of female vulnerability and female exceptionalism. (The practice of permitting grown females to charge men with rape in a court of law, while hiding their own identities, has wreaked havoc with the Anglo-American legal tradition.)

I just sent Samantha Geimer the following letter.

Dear Ms. Geimer,

(I am assuming that you are Ms. Geimer, and not a prankster.)

I did not reveal your name; you did. Had you refrained from identifying yourself, I would have done likewise, even though I would not have been under any obligation to do so. You cannot publicly identify yourself, and then claim that I “re-victimized” you. That is moral hypocrisy.

It is your prerogative to forgive Polanski, but to forgive him, while spewing venom at me, shows that you don’t know right from wrong. It is essential that one condemn and seek to punish wrongdoers both for the primary reason of seeking justice, which is an end in itself, but also for the secondary reason that humans by nature and victims of outrages in particular feel a certain degree of … call it wrath, rage, aggression or what have you. If people do not turn that wrath on those who have earned it, they will turn it, as you have, on those who have not.

I cannot be sued, because, as you well know, I did not print a single lie. The truth, as the legal adage goes, is an absolute defense.

I just googled quickly under your name, and see that you have given interviews on camera to some of the world’s most pathetic excuses for “journalists.” Inside Edition? Larry King! For cryin’ out loud! Why not the Globe and the Weekly World News, while you were at it?

I’ll never for the life of me understand why people react the most abusively to stories that are true and proper, all the way down the line.

Ms. Geimer, I’m happy for you that you’ve managed to have a wonderful life, in spite of what Roman Polanski did to you. But let’s get this straight: It was Roman Polanski that victimized you, not me. I didn’t rape you, I didn’t camp out by your house, and I didn’t even tell people where you lived. But now I have no choice but to link to material about you, where you told the whole world where you lived, and showed it what you looked like, in order that I may prove to my readers that at least one of us is dealing off the top of the deck.

You do not get a line-item veto on publicity. And you don’t get to be irrationally nice to big, crappy media organs, and then kick real journalists in the teeth, without getting your nastiness publicly thrown back in your face. I realize that Hollywood divas get to pull that crap with reporters all the time, because the reporters are themselves sycophants who have no self-respect, but I’m not an entertainment sycophant.

I guess you can take the girl out of Hollywood, but you can’t take the Hollywood out of the girl.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Stix

Powered by

About Nicholas Stix

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    You don’t seem a very understanding or compassionate person. Hey, but those buttons are easy to press.

    Especially that “look at me / woes me” button.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Good movies, though

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Aaman, have you SEEN Ninth Gate?

    Dave

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    OK, not all the films

    But I hear Oliver Twist is great.

    Also, Death And the Maiden, Pianist, Frantic,…to name the recent ones – of course Chinatown…

  • http://blogcritics.org/author.php?author=Cerulean Cerulean

    Nicholas, you instead of doing all that typing, you could just write, “I have Mommy problems.”

    Eric O. This is not acceptable, trashing child rape victims and even the concept of shielding their identities and stuff.

  • http://www.geocities.com/nstix/ Nicholas

    misrepresenting what someone has written is unacceptable; all the iodine in the world won’t make you an honest person.

  • http://www.geocities.com/nstix/ Nicholas

    “Eric O. This is not acceptable, trashing child rape victims and even the concept of shielding their identities and stuff.”

    Now, I get it. You’re running to Daddy, to tell him to beat me up for you. (And lying to him, in the bargain.) But I have “Mommy problems”? You’re a real piece of work. At work, do you slander colleagues who disagree with you, in order to get them fired?

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Personal attacks are not allowed as per the policy

  • That Robert

    Dear Mr. Stix,
    I apologize for not possibly being clear on assasination. I mean’t assasination of character..if that makes a difference..No I am not a celebrity gawker…I still stand by my
    statement it was to harm the reputation of one person and one person only Sharon Tate..as far as I’m
    concerned she might still be alive today if she chose a different lover/husband..the past can’t be changed..and as far as your “family values”, where was this young girls mother or guardian? Your out dated family values should tell you ” you should’nt be alone with a man if you
    don’t want to put yourself in a compromising position..and as far as writers go..you don’t take constructive criticism very well…
    So says ” That Robert” Mr Stix..at least I have some manners, you obviously check yours at the door…

    That Robert

  • That Robert

    Also, as for concern of his young victim I would have definite concern
    if she felt it necessary..I have watched and interview with her holding
    him harmless..If she has forgiven him why should YOU or I drag this through
    courts…And you accuse me of siding with the devil do you? ha ha..Don’t call the kettle black?

  • That Robert

    Dear Mr. Stix
    Are you actually aware of what this trial was about..Roman Polanski alledgedly trying to pick up a beautiful model on the way to his murdered wifes funeral? Not a child
    rape case…do we have our facts straight..since you used a page repremanding me..I feel equal time..
    If myself “a little person” brought
    this up in court I would be told this
    has nothing to do with the case..
    You should spend your time on cases
    such as Barnett Bank of Florida and
    the million dollar drunk who ran it into bankruptcy..Charles E. Rice or
    the Vice President Marilyn Livingston
    who, with the help of her Jamacian Nationalists held an entire bank hostage and got away with it..Charles E. Rice is is/was a drunk, worked people on their own time..and took advantage of a Reagan/Bush economy..take my slave driving job or starve..do an article on his legacy he can be reached at Sprint technologies
    or Post Properties on their Board of Directors..
    That Robert

  • http://geocities.com/nstix Nicholas

    “Dear Mr. Stix,

    “I apologize for not possibly being clear on assasination. I mean’t assasination of character..if that makes a difference..No I am not a celebrity gawker…I still stand by my
    statement it was to harm the reputation of one person and one person only Sharon Tate..as far as I’m
    concerned she might still be alive today if she chose a different lover/husband..the past can’t be changed..and as far as your “family values”, where was this young girls mother or guardian? Your out dated family values should tell you ” you should’nt be alone with a man if you
    don’t want to put yourself in a compromising position..and as far as writers go..you don’t take constructive criticism very well…
    So says ” That Robert” Mr Stix..at least I have some manners, you obviously check yours at the door…

    “That Robert”

    Nothing I said could be construed by any reasonable person as character assassination against Sharon Tate. In fact, I didn’t say anything about her character, one way or another.

    “As for Your out dated family values should tell you ‘ you should’nt be alone with a man if you
    don’t want to put yourself in a compromising position..and as far as writers go..you don’t take constructive criticism very well…'”

    “Out dated [sic] family values”? A grown woman should know that, but the victim was 13 years old.

    As for “constructive criticism,” show me some, and I’ll let you know what I think.

  • http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html Angry

    That Robert and others defending a child rapist. WTF?

    That Robert wrote:

    “As for Your out dated family values should tell you ‘ you should’nt be alone with a man if you
    don’t want to put yourself in a compromising position”..

    “That Robert” excuses Roman Polanski’s behaviors because the young girl should have known better? Blame the victim. You think if a girl is alone with you that gives one the right to yhave their way with her? You mean to tell me if one finds a little girl alone without her parents one can have your way? That’s’ what you wrote about a “compromising position”!

    The girls grand jury testimony can be found here:

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskia1.html

    Roman Polanski raped and drugged a 13 year old girl and just about everyone excuses him either because he is a “good/great director or because of his past. < insert rolly eyes >

    Where are your moral compasses? Hello? The girl was thirteen. She was star struck and an immature girl who was fed drinks and Quaaludes by a 40 something plus man. A MAN not a boy, but a MAN who knows what drugs and alcohol does to a child, A CHILD for crying out loud.

    Some may forgive their attackers, but this does not mean that we as society need to forgive the attackers actions, especially that of a pedophile who hid from JUSTICE for 20 plus years. Good god who cares if he makes great movies or had a horrible past. This does not excuse his actions. If everyone who was a survivor of the Holocaust went out and raped a child, perhaps your OWN CHILD, would that make it ok, because they went though hell before the rape occurred?

    I’m leaving to vomit and hope that everyone one of you with children know EXACTLY where they are and ASSURE if she or he is raped by a “great movie director” are ready to forgive as quickly as you have Roman Polanski.

  • S.R.

    I was too young to have heard about the Polanski case and just reading up on it now with the new HBO documentary. I’m horrified that he violated an innocent 13 yr. old girl. It seems like she has moved on with her life and able to have a healthy relationship and although time supposedly heals, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I think time softens the edges and blurs memories but the scars remain forever. I should know because I was molested by my own father who did have to answer to the law but he too is very respected and most people are intimidated by him so I always felt I should keep my mouth shut. Most abusers are actually quite charming so they get away with more than some people. Now I don’t care about my reputation and if anyone will believe me or run away. It’s important to be true to yourself at least for me it is even at the risk of losing those dear to you.