Chapter 11. Separating the Truth from Lies

Actually, there’s no reason to believe any word Geimer ever says (or writes): we’ve caught her lying so often even before this book that she could just be dismissed as a compulsive liar (which she doubtlessly is).

This obvious fact leads to a logical fallacy my opponents are eager to use, namely: if you say she’s a liar, they cry in happy unison, why do you accept some things she says (like the “it was just sex” or “I was sure I could stop him at any moment” statements) and reject others (like the double anal penetration fantasy)?

Those of my readers who are acquainted with logic will see right away where the fault of this speculation lies; for the others, I’ll obligingly break it down.

Someone – let’s call her Ms.G – under different circumstances produces two types of statements: group A and group B. The two are mutually exclusive, thus only one group may contain the truth, which makes the other lies by definition.

Now, group A consists of conflicting statements, that at best differ in details, and at worst are incompatible. Also, the need for Ms.G to make statements of group A can be explained by various reasons (profit and self-protection being the most prominent).

The statements of group B are consistent, never change either in details or in essence, and the need to make them can’t be explained by any reason except their possible being the truth (“I made the decision to let him do it”).

In this situation I, as a person endowed with common sense, am inclined to believe the statements of group B, and reject those of group A as lies. I hope I’ve made it clear now. Examples of both groups have been given in the precedent chapters, and now it’s time to look at group B once again. My opponents love yet another logical trick, which we are presently going to expose.

When one takes one of the documented facts or Geimer’s “group B” statements (that is, the ones that may be considered true) out of the context and starts disputing it separately from the others, one loses the whole picture. See how it works (I’ll do the counterarguments myself, in brackets, to spare my opponents the effort):

- medical examination showed no marks (you know, it is possible to rape without using force, only by intimidating)
- the housekeeper said “they acted as if they were lovers” (maybe she was Polanski’s friend, or he intimidated her, too)
- Samantha drank champagne and took Quaalude of her own accord (she only displayed natural childish curiosity)
- her mother’s consistently behaved the way that ensured that Samantha is alone undisturbed, with no questions asked, with a man famous for his promiscuity and love of young women (a pure soul, she unconditionally trusted him)
- she continued that course even after she knew Samantha was going to pose in the bathtub, without asking any questions (she surmised Samantha would be wearing a diving suit)
- she gave her daughter spermicidal cream when Samantha was 12 years old (no, no, it must have been lip balm)
- Samantha showed no inhibitions when asked to undress completely (she was too innocent to understand)
- she looks totally happy and very coquettish in the Jacuzzi photos (the child enjoyed bathing)
- she didn’t hurry to put on anything after she got out (the tub had been hot, she needed to cool down)
- in the book, she says she did everything to appear as mature and experienced as possible (she was afraid sexually inexperienced girls didn’t qualify for a photo shoot)
- she said to Grand Jury she was "afraid", but never stated the cause (must have been something too atrocious to remember)
- in the book she insists she never felt in any danger (see? So atrocious she eventually blocked it out altogether!)
- in the book she plainly says that she “made a decision to let him do it” (false memories, caused by the trauma!!!)
- she says she felt certain she could have made him stop (no, no, you must have misunderstood something. She couldn’t have said this.)
- the Jury didn’t ask her any crucial questions (not to traumatize her)
- Angelica Huston didn’t find her scared or distressed (another Polanski’s friend, to be sure)
- all Samantha’s later accounts differ from both her Grand Jury testimony and one another in all points (the trauma was so severe it caused permanent damage to her brain)
- the probation report states she was willing (how could they! What a callous thing to say! refuse to comment)
- it also notes the lack of coercion (oh, I know! they were bribed by Polanski)
- all the counts except “unlawful sexual intercourse” were dropped (EVERYONE was bribed by Polanski)
- she later says “It was just sex” (she only means it wasn’t an excavation or a visit to the zoo)
- rape doesn’t fit into Polanski’s psychological profile (oh, everybody lies about him)
- he never did anything remotely resembling sexual assault either before or after, and has been an exemplary husband and father for decades (maybe we just don’t know. Maybe he does those things every day, and his wife condones)
- France has never had the slightest inclination to extradite him (they are all perverts and rapists there)
- a number of other countries – including Swiss who had 9 months to look into the matter – rejected direct extradition requests (see? ALL perverts and rapists!!!)
- every time the case comes too close to finally be tried, Geimer petitions for it to be dropped and forgotten (a noble, forgiving soul)
- the Gaileys produced forged evidence (they just gave the officer the wrong panties. One can easily be mistaken, what with one thing and another)

Well, I could go on for ages, but I think my point is clear. One can find excuses for any particular detail. But taken together, the picture these exuses form will never be consistent – OR probable. You will have to combine the far-fetched and the ridiculous with things that have little to no probability, drag in conjectures, surmises and maybes, and finally come up with a conglomerate which won’t make sense.

While all of the above – and everything else there is to the case – can be explained clearly, consistently, exhaustively and plausibly: the intercourse was consensual, and the whole incident a classic false rape cry. All known facts fit into this picture smoothly, without being forced there.   

It was no rape. She admits that she could have stopped him any moment she wanted to. That she was never afraid. That she made a decision to let him “do it”.

They only get this dubious right to call it “rape” because she was legally under age. Not a “child”, - an “adult female” as per her medical examination report, - not someone who couldn’t give an “informed consent” since she had given it before – only this bare fact that she hadn’t legally reached the age of consent in this particular state at that particular time. Had it happened in Spain, Japan, or Italy, it would have been perfectly legal. Had it happened in 13 more European countries only three weeks later, it would have been perfectly legal. Had it happened in that very country – the United Statesin the State of Georgia, where the age of consent at that time was 14, only three weeks later, it would have been perfectly legal.

Somehow, for many people incapable of clear thinking, that makes it rape in this particular case, but not the others Geimer describes so inspiredly. So it was all right for her, in the eyes of herself, her family, the establishment, the media, to have sex with anyone else – but not with Polanski. He was the only one the family saw fit to report.

By a lucky coincidence, he was also the one this family could use to get money and fame from for all those years; both directly and indirectly, in form of interviews, TV and films appearances, and now books. It was the only incident of Samantha’s sex life that could be sold with gigantic profit – and was.

What next? A Geimer Consulting Center, a feature film, a mini-series? What more ways will the dishonest Silver-Geimer team invent to get your money and abuse your trust? Our only weapons against this unscrupulousness are facts, logic, and common sense. Let’s never forget to use them.

1 comment:

need2bAnonAgain said...

What ever became of the DNA sample? The sterile semen slides?