Proof The Allocution Hearing Was Scripted By Rittenband
In rebuttal of Veritas_Lux_Mea's perpetuation of whether or not Roman Polanski knew Samantha Geimer's age at the time of the events of 11 March 1977, despite how many times VLM points to the transcript of the allocution hearing that is posted at The Smoking Gun, here is the proof that script was written by Judge Rittenband where Rittenband forced Polanski through the promise of accepting the plea bargain, to admit he knew her age. According to Polanski in his autobiography, he did not know Samantha Geimer's age. As the three eyewitnesses including Anjelica Huston, Helena Kallianiotes, and Jackie Bisset, stated they all believed Samantha to be from between 18-25, they also did not know her age due to her height (she was taller than Polanski) and her physical development.
http://x2t.com/Brenneman
Here is the proof that Polanski was told to say he knew what Samantha Geimer's age was. Those words he said were scripted by Rittenband to preserve Rittenband's record, but not the truth of the case. The other part of this that Polanski underwent TWO pyschiatric evaluations as well as the probation report. All of which came back to conclude that Polanski should have received ZERO prison time, and according to Brenneman, most cases required JAIL time, not prison time. So it has to be said, why did Rittenband send Polanski to Chino if not to make sure he was in the same facility of both Charles Manson and Charles Watson, the man who ordered the murders of Polanski's wife Sharon and their friends as well as the LaBianca's the next night, and the man who carried out the killings. I will highlight the relevant sections.
richardbrenneman | 2010 July 17 at 06:45 | Reply
The simple reality it that Polanski’s time at Chino wouldn’t have happened without the agreement, The court had in possession the results of two psychiatric exams and the probation department with findings that Polanski wasn’t a mentally disordered sex offender. It who insisted Polanski go to Chino under pretext of the examination solely so he could say he had “sent him to prison.”
Under California law, sentences of less than a year were sent to county jails. Therefore, sending Polanski back to Chino for the additional time the judge demanded only for extra-legal reasons was precluded. Both the probation report and the psychiatric workups recommended no incarceration.
The point about Kinski is interesting, but her mother had also accompanied her daughter and the director on the trip. At some point they began a relationship, but whether or not it was on the trip is an open question. And, as you point out any relationship they might have had then or later was legal, ergo judicially irrelevant. But to cite that relationship as a reason for not being concerned about the Polanski case is a matter of apples and oranges. Any misconduct by a judge is reason for grave concern. And if he acted to capriciously with the glare of the media spotlight on him,, what about cases where he didn’t. What about the schizophrenic rape victim who was beaten in jail because of his misconduct, again imposing an illegal sentence [contempt] in a rape case?
Polanski fled for the simple reason that he couldn’t be sure what the judge would do, and because Rittenband had made statements to Hillcrest friends, Howard Koch among them, that he would send Polanski away “for the maximum.” [my note: The maximum was 50 years]
I would argue also that the plea agreement ceased to be informal the moment Polanski entered the doors at Chino. He fulfilled his part of the agreement, including the serving of the sentence, illegal or improper though that may have been. It was the agreement reached by all parties and not announced in court solely for the purposes of providing cover for an illegal action on the part of the judge.
As for the the September 19 hearing, Dalton made his argument at the direction of the judge. Dalton could not have said “As agreed to, he’ll go to Chino for 90 days,” because to have done so would have breached the agreement with the judge. Yes, it was a charade, but a charade scripted by the judge in every detail [the judge even wrote out the script of the plea, including all the questions and responses, unprecedented in the experience of the attorneys and this reporter]. I would also contend that Polanski’s statement that at the time of the plea does not trump any other alleged promises by the court in light of the subsequent statements of all counsel, who said that Polanski made that statement as a condition of the plea, a statement written by the judge.
And I would also argue that the mistreatment wasn’t just of Polanski. Samantha Geimer suffered as well through the ongoing coverage. And I worry about the mistreatment of any individual by the court system.
If you haven’t seen Roman Polanski, Wanted and Desired, I recommend you do. . .
To further note, if you notice the comment about Kinski. That would refer to Natassja Kinski. It has to do with this part in the timeline Brenneman mentions:
24 October: Polanski and Dino DiLaurentiis testify about the trip, which was conducted for business reasons. Rittenband agrees to continue the stay to the December 19 date. During the hearing, Gunson questions Polanski about his relationship with Nastassia Kinski, who with her mother had accompanied the director on a trip to the United States and had been present in Munich as well. Rittenband declares his is satisfied with the explanations and continues the stay.
Natassja Kinski corroborated this in a video she made in 2005 on Polanski. She states there was nothing going on with them at the time. Polanski was in the midst of prep work for his film "Tess" which was to star Miss Kinski. But notice the inclusion of Kinski's mother present while her daughter traveled. See, that's what a mother does. And Polanski had no issue with Brigitte Tocki being along on the trip, so his assertion that Susan Gailey was to come along, and at the last moment Gailey did not go says there was some shenanigans at play. To say there wasn't is clearly not seeing the forest for the trees. Or not wanting to see the forest for the trees and only wanting to see what you want to see.
I've more than provided ample evidence of Polanski's entrapment. For those who say, "Well, why doesn't he deny it?" Simply, he can't. By nature of the gag order only HE is under due to the civil suit filed by Geimer and her mother, Polanski can't talk. He's caught in a catch 22 in that if he does try to defend himself, he'll be in violation of the gag order. The only way he is defending himself is by continuing to fight any extradition orders by using the original plea deal, as well as the testimony from Roger Gunson to prove his case. According to both the Swiss and Polish authorities having assessed the information (or lack thereof) by the United States State Department as well as the California Criminal Courts, they have deemed Polanski served his time. As well as signatories to the Hague Convention of Human Rights, they are not required to serve up Polanski for a second time to the United States, who it seems under the Bush Doctrine chose to remove themselves from the Hague Convention. Can anyone say "Waterboarding"? Further the 2nd Circuit Court for the district of California found that Polanski had served his time and therefore owes no further time to California. They have also set down the remedy for this case in sentencing Polanski in absentia to time served. Case over and done and would not force Polanski to return in fear of further incarceration for a charge he already served the time agreed to, and would give both The People of California as well as Samantha Geimer closure. The only problem with that: Steve Cooley and his acolyte Jackie Lacey refuse to honour that order. So here the case remains not by Polanski's hand, but by the State of California.
For anyone to continue to state that Polanski should come back and own up to what he did, HE DID!
For anyone to continue to call him a pedophile, HE ISN'T according to not one, not two, but three reports filed by COURT APPOINTED professionals.
For anyone to state that Polanski knew how old Geimer was at the time, HE DID NOT, according to what Brenneman corroborated about the allocution hearing where he read from a script written by Rittenband that was both illegal, and unethical and done only to preserve his judicial record.
For anyone to continue to berate any of us for supporting Polanski and call us "pedo supporters" or "pedos" ourselves, please get a grip. The New York Law Review found significant errors and outright judicial error on Rittenband's behalf to cite that not only was the ex parte he had with David Wells illegal, but the whole process was illegal.
Further it should be noted, when told that under the California Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, drafted with the help of Roman Polanski's mother-in-law Doris Tate, any and all victims of crime are allowed state funded counseling for any and all period of time they require it. Samantha Geimer and Susan Gailey refused it. They didn't differ it, they refused it. They also refused to present themselves for trial should the case have gone to a full trial. The plea deal was designed to do many things, including saving Samantha and Susan from perjuring themselves as there was the case of the falsified birth certificate, plus Mrs. Gailey's failure to accompany her daughter as she should have. And that is not "victim blaming" that is asking a mother to do her duty as a mother, as Brigitte Tocki did with her daughter, Natassja Kinski. It would also preserve Samantha Geimer's anonymity. It would also save face since there was ZERO evidence supporting any of the Gaileys' claims.
Now if anyone says still Polanski was a coward and ran, then clearly you are both stubborn and ignorant of the facts of this case. In that case, I'm officially done with you. Discussion that furthers the course of understanding is always invited, in fact encouraged. Name calling and reducing everyone who supports Polanski as "pedo supporters" or "pedos" themselves only shows you clearly have no intention of understanding those facts, nor do you care to. So that in and of itself makes your participation in the discussion automatically moot.
Sometimes my ruminations are too confusing for someone not inside my head. -Anon
share