Well, I just received a rather strange email back. To make a long story short, a friend of a friend gave me one the actresses from "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" email and I wrote to her. I had heard she met Sharon but I do not know if it is true or what now? This is the response I got back from her:
THATS A SAD GRUESOME HORRIBLE STORY. SORRY DONT WANT TO OPEN THAT UP
REGARDS ANYWAY, (MAYBE YOU WILL PICK A MORE "UP" PROJECT TO DO)
All I wrote was this:
I heard you met or knew Sharon Tate back in the 1960s? I am currently trying to write to friends of Tate and would be very thankful for any information you can give me. I have a blog that I share my findings on. Thanks for your time and consideration.
I did not mention anything about the murders but apparently, she must have thought that was what I wanted to discuss? I wrote this back to her:
I was going to focus on Sharon's life, I was not going to focus on her death, as apparently you are thinking I am. I am trying to make this an 'up' project in the sense I am focusing on a beautiful women inside and out. That is what is wrong with the way some people still think of her. They think Manson = Sharon Tate and that should not be so. She did not even know him and now every time you bring up her name everyone always thinks of the murders. To me Sharon Tate was a human being; she should be remembered as more than just a victim. In addition, in my research I am finding many fashion designers and even actresses who are influeunced by her style. Basically, I was just going ask how you met her and what you thought of her? Sorry if it sounded like a 'down' project.
I'll let you know if she responds...
As far as other interviews go, everyone is telling me they are very busy and may have time later to answer questions. I'll keep trying anyway. Maybe I should reword my emails and put in them 'I do not want to focus on the murders. I am more interested in hearing about what Sharon was like.'
I think we have all heard too much about the murders now anyway. And it is all over the internet, in books at the library, and they continue to make documentarys about it. I am really tired of hearing all the negative things.
I can't believe, however, that this actress really knew Sharon very well because why would she just automatically think of the murders and Manson instead of the person Sharon was? Most of the people I have spoken to always think first of who she actually was and offer kind words. Then, some of them mention they felt horrible about what happened. I understand that. But why should someone who supposedly knew her conjure up such images just by me asking a question?
I also found an interesting article on what would happen to Roman Polanski if he chose to stay in Switzerland or if he is taken back to the United States on the rape charges:
http://newsflavor.com/opinions/why-roman-polanski-will-face-months-in-goal-in-switzerland/
Why Roman Polanski Will Face Months in Goal in Switzerland
Roman Polanski has chosen the worst possible country for his imprisonment. The Swiss legal system is not open to bribery, and seemingly there are no paedophiles in the Swiss government, unlike to France and Poland. Unless he agrees to an immediate deportation to the US, he will face months in a Swiss prison.
Roman Polanski’s lawyers have demanded an immediate release of their client on grounds that the charges against him on an issue of lapse of time. This claim only shows that the lawyers have not done their homework or are trying to push up a public opinion pressure by making false claims. They might have a nasty surprise as to public opinion, as it was the Swiss people who instigated and passed a law by public vote to crack down on paedophiles.
The only fast way to get out of a Swiss prison for Polanski is his agreeing to his deportation, which then could take place within days. Otherwise, the case will be handled under the Swiss-American treaty on extradition of criminals. The treaty states quite clearly that the law of the country demanding extradition is applicable. In the United States, paedophile crimes are exempt from any statute of limitation, a fact that should be known to the lawyers of Polanski as well.
Under the extradition treaty, the US have 40 days to submit the necessary paperwork to the Swiss authorities to demand the extradition, with the possibility to extend that limit by 20 days on special request. Upon receiving these papers, the Swiss Minister for Justice will decide about the case. This decision may be contested before the Swiss Federal Court for Criminal Law in Bellinzona. This decision again may be contested in the Swiss High Court in Lausanne, but only if the High Court admits the case as of superior interest.
If ‘superior interest’ sounds a bit vague, then that is intentional. It is intended to allow the High Court to pick up just about any case it thinks is interesting; interesting in the case of Polanski will mean interesting to the general public worldwide; interesting in any other case could range from questions about legal proceedings leading to the extradition request up to change of political regime meanwhile and general questions of human rights.
All these proceedings will take several months at least. As a general rule, criminals under extradition restraint are not released on bail. Exceptions are made very rarely, they will be made for people who can prove a waterproof alibi for the time of the alleged crime, or who can prove that they were acting under diplomatic of governmental immunity. Both options are not applicable in this case.
A release on bail in the case of a known criminal fugitive is highly unlikely as well, and the sum that would be set for Polanski would be so high as to financially cripple him for the rest of his life should he choose to be above the law once again. In the unlikely case that a bail situation will be considered, Polanski will probably remain more or less under house arrest in his property in Gstaad.
His other chances to come out early are the initiatives by the French and Polish governments trying to persuade to bend their laws to their wishes. I for one would think that such a bending of laws is about the last message that should go out to paedophiles worldwide.
Meanwhile, Debra Tate appeared on the Today Show. Watch the video here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33088385/ns/today-today_entertainment/
Here is a quick summary of what was said:
NEW YORK - Debra Tate, the sister of Roman Polanski's second wife, actress Sharon Tate, says Polanski is brilliant and a "good guy" and she doesn't think her former brother-in-law will be treated fairly in the United States.
Tate tells NBC's TODAY show on Wednesday that the U.S. justice system is broken.
Polanski was arrested Saturday in Zurich. The U.S. has been seeking his extradition for having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977.
Tate says Polanski did not forcibly have sex with the girl, calling it a "consensual matter."
Sharon Tate was murdered in Los Angeles in 1969 by followers of Charles Manson. She was eight months pregnant.
Debra Tate says it's been a devastating few weeks for her, with her sister's killer, Susan Atkins, dying Sept. 24 and now her late sister's husband jailed.
I think she makes some very good points. My best goes out to Debra at this most difficult of times.
