Polanski seduced woman on way to bury Sharon Tate

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:03 am

"I could make you the next Sharon Tate" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("> Polanski "Shocked Diners with Inappropriate Proposition" Roman Polanski created an atmosphere of "shock and awe" in the restaurant where he allegedly propositioned a woman before his murdered wife Sharon Tate's funeral, the London court in the director's libel trial heard yesterday. The Rosemary's Baby maverick is suing publisher Conde Nast over a Vanity Fair article in which he's accused of seducing a woman on the way to the burial of Tate, who was murdered by followers of Charles Manson in 1969. But the writer of the controversial feature, Lewis Lapham, claims he was at New York restaurant Elaine's, where the alleged incident took place, and was shocked when he overheard the 71-year-old chatting-up a "Swedish beauty" so soon after Tate's death. And Lapham claims a "hushed silence" fell upon the eaterie because of the "notoriety and horrible circumstances of his wife's murder and general sympathy for a man having suffered that sorrow". He told jurors Polanski had pulled up a chair between him and his friend Edward Perlberg's girlfriend Beate Telle and then began to talk to her in a forward way, praising her beauty. Lapham said, "He began to romance her and at one point had his hand on her leg and said, 'I could put you in the movies. I could make you the next Sharon Tate' He was attempting to impress her and express admiration for her looks. I was impressed by the remark not only because it was tasteless and vulgar and because it was a cliché." The 71-year-old gave evidence from France via video link to avoid extradition to America, where he's wanted for questioning on child sex charges dating back to 1977. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-07-21/" target="top">www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-07-21/</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 7/21/05 8:03 am

by **FourthBase** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:19 am

Polanski = Satanist. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/devil.gif ALT=":evil">

by **professorpan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:24 am

Polanski = Satanist? References, please?

by **FourthBase** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:45 am

Let's see... Anton LeVay cameo as Satan in Rosemary's Baby. The multitude of Satan/witchcraft/evil films he's made, before and after Manson. The fact that he was best friends with Jay Sebring, a Satanic priest. That fact that his wife and Sebring were killed by Satanists, and bound together a la the Devil Tarot card.

by **professorpan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:27 pm

Anyone doing a film about a Satanic group would likely attract the attention of "real" Satanists, and Polanski would of course do research to make his film as realistic as possible. That doesn't mean Polanski himself is a bona fide Satanist. A creep? Absolutely. A Satanist? That's a leap -- without evidence, it's just a guess. I'm working on a novel with an occult theme. Does that make me an occultist?

by **anon** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:34 pm

Levenda mentions at the end of Sinister Forces that Robert Kennedy had dinner with Polanski, Tate and the director of Rosemary's Baby the night before he was assasinated.

by **hanshan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:45 pm

when did guilt by association become proof... of anything ? when did auteur become synonymous w/evil? when did acting out after extraordinary tragedy imply complicity? obviously, there is no substitute either for experience or depth Cahiers du Cinéma ...

by **professorpan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>obviously, there is no substitute either for experience or depth<hr></blockquote> You can say that again. I fear what's happening to this board is inevitable. As its popularity increases, the quality of the postings decreases. Already, the absurd "MI-6 Bombers Caught in Chicago!" hoax has grown legs, in spite of its transparent absurdity. And the focus has also shifted, from the parapolitical to the more mind-dulling, Rense-style "anything goes" fodder, talk of Zionist cabals, and so forth. I guess it's to be expected, but it's sad nonetheless. At least I can always look forward to Jeff's insightful postings on the RI blog.

by **hanshan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:12 pm

professorpan: I fear what's happening to this board is inevitable. I guess it's to be expected, but it's sad nonetheless. Unfortunate as it may be, indeed. I watched as another board I used to ocassionally intereact on implode w/inanities as it's popularity & registration increased. The moderators/owners viewed it as progess . Y'know, the bigger the better. The more visibilty & popularity they attained the cooler that made them. What they didn't realize or even recognize (to this day) is that they had, in effect, traded a harley soft tail for a second hand tricycle & thought they were hot stuff for it. Pitiful. There is no end to self-delusion. Good to see your incisive comments. Always appreciated. ...

by **FourthBase** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:21 pm

Give me a fucking break, guys. It's not merely "guilt by association". He didn't just, like, have his hair cut by Sebring once. He didn't make just one movie about witchcraft and Satan. It wasn't just any old Satanist in Rosemary's Baby.

by **professorpan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:02 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Give me a fucking break, guys. It's not merely "guilt by association". He didn't just, like, have his hair cut by Sebring once. He didn't make just one movie about witchcraft and Satan. It wasn't just any old Satanist in Rosemary's Baby.<hr></blockquote> It is guilt by association. Polanski was interested in Satanism, and associated with avowed Satanists, but that does not make him a practicing Satanist. If someone can offer evidence that he is a practicing Satanist, I'm willing to consider it. Until then, it's hearsay.

by **FourthBase** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:22 pm

Again, not just "associated" with Sebring. Sebring was his best friend, and his wife's ex-lover. Sebring was partying with Tate, killed with Tate, and both were left dead in some bizarre devilish Tarot card position. In Polanski's house.

by **rain** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:04 pm

o,k., so he was just dancing with the devil. you know, just once or twice around the floor.

by **professorpan** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Again, not just "associated" with Sebring. Sebring was his best friend, and his wife's ex-lover. Sebring was partying with Tate, killed with Tate, and both were left dead in some bizarre devilish Tarot card position. In Polanski's house.<hr></blockquote> Which does not prove Polanski is anything other than someone who associated with Satanists and whose wife and best friend were murdered by Manson's crew. And the "tarot card position" is an interpretation. It may not be an intentional "staging." Even supposing he dabbled in Satanism, to call him a Satanist is, I repeat, baseless. You may believe he is one -- I require more evidence before I state something so unequivocally. Speculation is one thing, but your "facts" prove nothing other than that Polanski associated with Satanists.

by **bethmex** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:02 pm

"Sebring was his best friend, and his wife's ex-lover. Sebring was partying with Tate, killed with Tate, and both were left dead in some bizarre devilish Tarot card position. In Polanski's house." This, coupled with his collection of films about Satan, DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. "Baseless" seems a bit of a stretch. Because of his innocence of the charge, this is where it will be easy for those supporting the 'he's not a Satanist' thesis to simply produce their OWN examples of why he clearly is not. As opposed to saying "you can't prove it!"

Polanski seduced woman on way to bury Sharon Tate

Polanski seduced woman on way to bury Sharon Tate

Re: Polanski seduced woman on way to bury Sharon Tate

Polanski

Re: Polanski

Polanski Satanist

polanski/kennedy

re:Polanski & The Train

Amen, amigo

re: sad truths

Re: re: sad truths

Guilt by association

Re: Guilt by association

re:guilt by association

Sigh

walks like a duck

Who is online