comment #1

Eloi Manning says ...

Even if the age of consent had been 13 in the USA when Polanski committed the crime, it still would have been a rape as it's been clearly reported that the sex was not consensual. So this changes nothing.

comment #2

allstar397 says ...

Isn't it fun how you'll defend the beliefs/customs of euro countries, but shoot down any of your fellow americans that have different ideas?

comment #3

Josh Massey says ...

"...but the fact is that many middle eastern governments and cultures have more liberal standards about flying planes into buildings than this country. I personally feel that not flying planes into buildings is right, but the facts are the facts. I'm only mentioning it because it provides a context by which an adult mideast-born male might have a different mindset about this than a U.S. counterpart."

Cultural standards can excuse anything! And I mean, 9/11 really wasn't terrorism-terrorism.

comment #4

SnarfTheFierce says ...

"Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough."

I suppose we can add "flight-risk rapists" to that list.

comment #5

Jeffrey Wells says ...

You guys are disgusting. You're saying exactly what I thought you'd be saying. I posted this piece to deliver context, not excuses. But it went right over your heads.

comment #6

Pomerania says ...

There's an interesting debate to be had about American attitudes to sex, for sure. But I don't think it has much to do with the age of consent. Poland in the '30s and '40s was a hotbed of swinging liberalism, right? and sure, Euro-born Polanski was the only guy up to this stuff back then in the 70s... Sorry Jeff, this one doesn't hold water.

comment #7

Cumulonimbus says ...

[The poster, Cumulonimbus -- a foam-at-the=mouth rager and personal-insult-dog who's posted here under many names and has been banned as many times -- has been banned again and his posts deleted for general ugliness of the soul.]

comment #8

le corbeau says ...

Say I buy into this. It probably ameliorates my view of his screwing 15-year-old Nastasjja Kinski. I'm pretty sure it gives out somewhere shy of drugging a scared 13-year-old, though.

comment #9

raygo says ...

The US is such a different place today than in the 70s. I could legally by hard liquor when I was senior in high school. Teen agers were actively engaged in sex, and a lot of it was with older people (i.e. adults). There were plenty of student/teacher affairs (it was a given). In retrospect it appears most of this was pretty out in the open, but there was a lot more discretion in those days. And yes, some 13 year olds were more advanced than some 18 year olds.

The US today is filled with a bunch of whining, moralistic, hypocritical prudes. How we got to this current stage of puritanism is a mystery to me, and it's a sadder place. Face it, we live, have sex, and die. In no particular order. There are greater crimes and things to worry about than this.

comment #10

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Again, not offered in any way as an excuse -- the man did a cruel and ugly thing -- but a context through which a fair-minded reader (which obviously excludes the Cokie Roberts crowd) might understand how doing a young teenage girl (which I find personally abhorrent) might not seem quie as verboten to a Euriopean-born man. No implications -- just additional info thrown into the pot.

comment #11

Cumulonimbus says ...

[The poster, Cumulonimbus -- a foam-at-the-mouth rager and personal-insult-dog who's posted here under many names and has been banned as many times -- has been banned again and his posts deleted for general ugliness of the soul.]

comment #12

vansmith says ...

Ok let me give you a wrap up on Polanski, he has to answer for what he did either way. The girl wasnt a virgin!! It sounds like the cops and DA knew that the mother practically offered up her kid in exchange for possible fame, maybe the judge said fuck him, he's going under the bus. Polanski did the right thing by hauling ass but if i was the girls father i probably would have 'ran' into him in Europe somewhere for sure. So the bottom line is you get away with what you can but it never changes that you got some shit coming.

comment #13

vansmith says ...

PS, i like that site the beast, very nice stuff on there..

comment #14

Phreaker says ...

"Poland in the '30s and '40s was a hotbed of swinging liberalism, right?"

Right, because back then no one had sex with young girls. My grandmother was married at 14 out of Poland before coming to the US back in the early 1900s. She wasn't raped but she was that young.

Rape is rape, that is true. You can argue the degrees by age, violence, etc. Date rape is still rape - and Polanski's crime, to me, could best be described as statutory date rape. It's still rape but it is still important to look at his state of mind and his intent. Even if the girl had been 21 it still would have been considered (date) rape. But a distinction should be made between violent rape -- holding her down, covering her mouth, leaving cuts and bruises -- as opposed to a molestation and a rape that was her not wanting to, saying no, and him doing it anyway. That has to be made clear and from what I read around here no one is willing to go there.

comment #15

pm123 says ...

God bless America. An older man takes advantage of a young girl and people's veins burst with outrage, while hundreds of thousands die in the Middle East as a direct result of American war-making and we shrug and say "Hey - we're just protecting our dear precious way of life!" It's not a new observation to point out that Americans lead the world by a country mile in hypocrisy. We abhor sex and adore violence. It's just who we are, and there's not much we can do about it, except acknowledge it and try to be aware of it.

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

Oh to be 19 and never to have traveled the world again.

"Lead the world by a country mile in hypocrisy"-- oh my, you have so much to learn, my boy.

comment #17

Cumulonimbus says ...

[The poster, Cumulonimbus -- a foam at the mouth rager and personal-insult-dog who's posted here under many names and has been banned as many times -- has been banned again and his posts deleted for general ugliness of the soul.]

comment #18

Majorian99 says ...

Raygo -- there's a severe dissonance between those who know the facts of this case and the uninformed, lame pseudo-intellectual-foaming-faux-Rambo-pitchforkers.

Not only are they unconsciously hypocritical in the extreme, uninformed and guilty of anachronism -- inventing what happened based on a false witness-statement and putting that under a contemporary framework.

I actually enjoy seeing people here embarrass themselves with picthforks based on no facts and understanding of this case. It's revealing and enjoyable and frightening -- all at he same time. The peer pressure. The flock-mentality. The lynch-mob psyche. Who thinks the drugging and raping of 13-year-old girl is okey? Is that even a question?

Incredible.

There was very common for teenagers to fling around with elder men back then -- much more "accepted". I don't think the May-December-flings -- the Peter O'Toole with teen is cool or acceptable but I am also against the drawn and quartering as punishment in the 17th century -- when the public opinion on these punishments were a lot different than they are today.

There's so many silly people chiming in their silly rage in this question without knowing one iota of the facts of this case and its context.

There's a lot of books on this subject that's been out for 20 years and many interviews to boot.

Some facts, Samantha Gailey/Geimer was almost 14 when this incident happened.

It's not proven AT ALL that it was not consensual or that Roman was the instigator of any alcohol and drug intake. A brick of hash with the girls fingerprints on was found at Nicholson's house. Roman's and Jack's fingerprints were not found on the brick of hash.

And yes, it's proven Samantha didn't wash herself between the incident and the rape-kit examination -- which makes her out as a liar according to the testimony.

Doug Dalton has very interesting things to say in this subject when he's allowed to be totally open. Just you wait.

Nastassja Kinski was 17, almost 18 when Roman met her at the end of 1976. Not 15. People are so silly. Roman had a serious romance with Kinski for years, made her a star, had Nastassja's mother travel with her all the time given her consent of their relationship her complete consent, managed to enroll Kinski at the Strasberg-school on the condition that he taught a few classes there for free -- for which he also did -- just because he loved and believed in Kinski as a star. Roman and Nastassja are still friends to this day.

In short -- those who acted with integrity in this case Doug Dalton and Roger Gunson and Samantha's attorney Mr. Silver were all in agreement that Judge Rittenband was acting illegally as concerning the deportation-rights of Mr. Polanski and when Judge Rittenband's intentions became clear, i. e. as a conclusion to this case he would sentence Polanski to the remaining 48 days at Chino and then deport him from the US for life -- even Gunson and Dalton were in agreement that Judge Rittenband couldn't be trusted and acted illegally.

Dalton then stated to Polanski that Judge Rittenband couldn't be trusted. Polanski answered, and I paraprase: "What's the point of me staying here so I can just serve the rest of the 48 days at Chino and then just get kicked out? It will have no point especially with regard to the mishandling of this case and the circus that's followed."

That's when Roman decided to leave the US forever on his own. No need to meet Rittenband again. It's quite understandable.

Then I've sadly have seen -- here in Sweden quite recently too when many 25-45 year old American music-stars and movie-stars have visited -- lots of 12-13 year old little groupie-teen fans having sex while drugged with these wonderful sqeaky-clean-imaged male stars -- I complain, but I had a confidentiality contract signed. I could name names but I am not Kazan. And then it will probably be word against word and peter out and I have not the time...

I mean if we should punish anyone for this I have much better candidates in mind, many more recent candidates where the incarceration would probably stop future rapes by these pedophile rapers...

I could name so many music-bands, singer and movie-stars my mouth would tire after half the list...

comment #19

Majorian99 says ...

I mean -- since we have so many serious, more burningingly important rape-cases right now that could hinder future rapes if they got the same attention that Polanski's maybe consensual crime 32,5 years ago -- especially if the price is further humiliation and insensitive media-attention that will result for Roman's and Samantha's family now.

And it feels kind of sour to run the media-gauntlet again with Polanski right now too. I my opinion -- he's been through enough -- surviving Nazi hunters, getting out of communist Poland, Roman's pregnant mother was gassed at Auchwitz, the love of his life was stabbed 16 times, had the 8-month baby pulled out of the stomach and Roman was blamed for that in the media for months and then the insane circus that was the crime of 1977...

comment #20

DarthCorleone says ...

I'm about as far from a Puritan as you can get, and I think that in general the Puritanical attitudes about sex in American society are a mark against our culture. That said, it still does not change the fact that he plead guilty to a crime and that 13 is below the age of consent not only in America but in the vast majority of countries. The author was able to name three countries for which this is not true. Three.

I did find it funny that this is first piece on that topic I read in which the "young girls" quote Polanski gave is actually used as a defense.

comment #21

Cumulonimbus says ...

Hmmm Majoran, you're quite the loquacious one. Just one thing, mate, why did u neglect to mention the he DRUGGED and RAPED her in every hole as she repeatedly said NO, NO, NO?

comment #22

Krillian says ...

Back in caveman days, the age of consent was when the man wanted it.

comment #23

SaveFarris says ...

"No Means No", unless you're European.

/Wells'ed

comment #24

nemo says ...

To me, Polanski's abusive behavior doesn't excuse the judge's abusive behavior, and the judge's behavior doesn't excuse Polanski's behavior.

But still, I'm trying to picture a statutory rape defendant saying, "But judge! She looked at least 14 to me!"

comment #25

Majorian99 says ...

For the record for those of you with reading problems above -- Samantha's witness statement was according to herself not correct and her supposed repeated "no" utterances are very likely lies according to a lot of evidence. According to Samantha -- in interviews in the last 25 years -- she has said he wasn't hurting her in any way and wasn't brutal. What happened exactly and how hasn't been proven at all and her witness testimony stand as very likely as one big cover up lie -- with some probable truths in it as well.

And no only means yes when Elvis Presley repeatedly rapes the 14 year old Priscilla and Jerry Lee Lewis serial rapes his 13 year old cousin -- just to name a few official cases that's ten times worse...

comment #26

Monument says ...

Majorian, noble effort but this is America, we don't care about minor details like context or actual fact.

I can't defend Polanski's actions, but this case is not as black and white as the lynch mob would like it to be. If it actually happened the way Chubby Cloud insists, Polanski would have never been able to get a plea deal for the lesser charge of sexual misconduct.

comment #27

Majorian99 says ...

Thanks Monument and correct points too IMO. Nice to see someone reasonably calm here at HE with a healthy scepticism toward snap-judgments and knee-jerk reactions.

It could seem to Europeans and other non-Americans that if you're an American you could probably get away with double homocide and being chased by 20 police-cars on the highway -- O. J. -- and get away with being one of the cops on film beating the living daylights out of Rodney King and get away with serial pedophile crimes like Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley and Jerry Lee Lewis -- just to name a few -- not mentioning staying outside justice in the war crimes tribunal in Hague or opening up Guantanamo and water boarding and ass-piles and it's too much and we can't show these pictures -- it will only stir up vitriol -- that country just have to string up the Holocaust and Manson-family-survivor as a pedophile even if it was consensual and not so at all...

What a wonderful Murdoch-age we live in...

comment #28

bents75 says ...

I would like to rape Cumulonimbus.

comment #29

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

"I complain, but I had a confidentiality contract signed"

Not sure how the law works in Sweden, but unless you are an attorney no contract shields you from accessory charges in the US.

At any rate, this certainly explains a lot about your views on the Polanski affair.

comment #30

MovieBob says ...

Y'know, Jeff, I'm "with you" in the sense that I think the guy ought to be sentenced leniently under the circumstances... But geez, it's not like he was a Zulu warrior who'd just arrived in The West and didn't know poodles weren't for hunting ;)

comment #31

GonePostal says ...

Majorian, can you provide links to the victim saying that her original statement was not correct/a lie? Never heard that before.

"Some facts, Samantha Gailey/Geimer was almost 14 when this incident happened. "

What does this have to do with anything? Why are you including it?

"If it actually happened the way Chubby Cloud insists, Polanski would have never been able to get a plea deal for the lesser charge of sexual misconduct."

Actually, a lot of the outrage at the time was that he was getting a sweetheart deal. I've read that the victim's family insisted that he not get the full rape charge because the publicity would be devastating to the girl. If you read the grand jury transcript, you can see why. In the 70's, rape victim's had their entire lives dragged through the mud in an effort to distract from the rapists crime. Nowadays, the law does not allow the victim's previous sexual history to be an issue it court, because it has nothing to do with the case.

And just as whether the 13 year old was sexual active before Polanski came along is not relevant to the current situation, neither is his sad personal history. As many others have pointed out, most Holocaust suvivors don't go on to drug and abuse 13 year old girls, nor do those who've had their wife and unborn child killed by maniacs. I would think that those who have faced burden's like Polanski's would be insulted that their experiences would be used to make excuses for another crime. Am I sorry that Polanski suffered in ways I wouldn't wish on anyone? Of course. Does anyone outside of his defenders think that these horrors should excuse his criminal behavior? Of course not. Because it's not about "puritan sexual feelings" it's about facing justice. Those that hurt Polanski in his youth and then murdered his family actually faced justice. He has refrained from doing so.

And just because injustice exists in the world, that doesn't mean that this one injustice that we can correct should be let go, which seems to be what Majorian is arguing in his posts about Gitmo and the first Rodney King trial.

As to the "puritan mindset", well, talk about age of consent as much as you want. Rape is rape is rape. Only when both parties are consenting does the "statutory" come in. Before the arrest, I didn't know a lot of the details. I thought it was a stat rape beef, not full on rape, which it was, which renders her age moot.

comment #32

Majorian99 says ...

I would provide links if I had the time. I would make a doc on it if I had the time.

I've been bothered what to do when I started to know about what was going on behind the scenes when movie-stars and other stars visited Sweden. I do talk about though. I won't lie about what I know or be silent about it.

About 15 years ago I studied Polanski's career in-depth. And since the rape trial was a big thing in Roman's career I did study material about that too -- read all books available on Roman and a lot of press clippings of the era and got to see a lot of the evidence and statements although all hasn't been revealed. I saw all documentaries and interviews with Diane Sawyer and Samantha and the Charlie Rose interview.

I wanted to form an informed opinion and I feel that if Samantha's first witness statement was entirely correct and proven solid -- and IF that's what was exactly going down -- I would've joined a choir for Roman's arrest long ago and I still wouldn't have joined the pitchforkers still but I would've completely supported extradition of Mr. Polanski.

But there's too much speaking evidence against the truthfulness of the crime that happened. For me, still having consensual sex with a close to 14 year old, no matter the circumstances and her background and the 1970s Elvis pedophile May-December romanticized trend, it's still an criminal offence and deserves sentence.

Since Mr. Dalton, Mr. Silver, and Mr. Gunson and Samantha for crying out loud are adamant that complete and utter justice was served with the plea-bargain deal -- I am hesitant that a 32,5 year old case needs any further consequence quite frankly.

They are on record as great lawyers with stainless integrity, know all relevant detail and facts of the case -- but they got it all wrong about this?!

I would admit that if Polanski was proven beyond reasonable doubt to have done the things Samantha states -- which it of course hasn't been -- even though a lot of publications still incorrectly cite that witness-statement as to what happened without dispute -- I would've probably have boycotted his movies and newer would be able to watch CHINATOWN again without cringing.

I have some problems with Woody Allen with that step-daughter stuff.

I know Stephen Fry is homosexual and not an anit-semite, but he still loves to listen to Wagner, who was a rapid anti-semite. I heard Franz Liszt was a sociopath but I still like his work.

comment #33

DarthCorleone says ...

If it actually happened the way Chubby Cloud insists, Polanski would have never been able to get a plea deal for the lesser charge of sexual misconduct.

That's completely speculative and unfounded. Given the victim's family's desire to keep the media attention away, you simply do not and can not know to what degree that plea deal was a bargain.

Majorian >> Once again, you're throwing around these claims that the grand jury testimony is spurious. I would be interested in your sources on that as well.

Not that it matters for me - all that I want is sentencing and punishment for the charge to which he plead guilty. For that, the grand jury testimony is incidental. All that matters legally is what Polanski admitted on the record in his plea and the terms to which he agreed in that plea. I really don't see what the big deal is with holding to that. Otherwise, perhaps they'll start this whole mess over, and then we'll see if there's even a strong enough case left for trial.

comment #34

DarthCorleone says ...

majorian >> Apologies - I posted that having not read your last comment. You don't have time to refute the grand jury testimony. Forgive me if I remain skeptical. Even if you are correct in your assessment, though, I really don't get all the sound and fury here. If you agree he deserves to be sentenced for what he acknowledges that he did do, then we're on the same page there. The only extra legal energy and resources - the only waste of time and money - are no one's fault at this point but the guy who illegally fled the country and refuses to comply with due process.

comment #35

Majorian99 says ...

I understand why Roman thought it meaningless to go into Chino for another 48 days and then be deported for life with all the shenanigans and whatnot -- but I don't support that he bailed AND I thought he should've returned long ago and settled this for the record -- not only a civil-suit -- and I don't like that he's fighting extradition.

Let's get this over with if it's where it is right now -- and it is.

I understand his reticence towards the media-storm and all the lurid head-lines but the damage is done and it's just to buckle up IMO.

comment #36

Phreaker says ...

"DRUGGED and RAPED her in every hole as she repeatedly said NO"

Actually, not true. Technically she said he gave her oral sex and then, because she wasn't on the pill, he said he'd go through the back. There is no physical evidence that he did penetrate her anally - she has never said it hurt -- and believe me, it hurts -- and there were never any physical signs. It could have been he dry humped her, sorry to be so gross, but never actually penetrated her anus. Again, sorry to be gross.

comment #37

Ponderer says ...

"Nastassja Kinski was 17, almost 18 when Roman met her at the end of 1976. Not 15."

Unless the public record is wrong, her birthdate is in 1961. That makes Kinski either 15 or MAYBE 16 at the time.

comment #38

Majorian99 says ...

Only Nastassja herself states she's born in 1961 -- her mother was on record delivering a baby in the hospital in January 1959 and the imdb-profile on her correctly references that...

comment #39

Sil says ...

Majorian99, you are spurious at every turn.

Provide one iota of evidence to back up your very serious claims and accusations in your comments above, evidence that is backed up by court documents or other non-subjective sources. You have no time to link? Perhaps you should link instead of writing multi-paragraph statements in which you cite subjective speculation as fact.

The IMDB profile is incorrect (as is often the case). Kinski was born in 1960, according to birth records. According to Kinski herself, she began sleeping with Polanski at age 15. Further, and most damning, in Polanski's autobiography he refers to a '15-yr-old' he bedded, to whom he and his cronies referred to as 'nasty'. He was referring to Kinski.

comment #40

Phreaker says ...

Yeah because it's impossible to imagine a 15 year old girl being nasty. Hello? What planet are we on??

comment #41

Sil says ...

Calm yourself, Phreaker.

If you read for comprehension, 'nasty' is obviously not the point. The point is that the horse's mouth referred to nasty as a 15-yr-old, thus demonstrating that Polanski knew he was having sex with a girl whom he believed to be 15 years old.

comment #42

BanksAreForRivers says ...

I keep hearing the word pedophile attached to Polanski and it is in no way correct. The people who are saying it clearly have no idea what that word means.

I think everybody should check out this blog post from Jesse Bering on Scientific American.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pedophiles-erotic-age-orientation

There's a lot of information about whether being sexually aroused by a 13 year old is really as deviant and abnormal as everyone wants to claim.

comment #43

Sil says ...

Margorian99, to address just a few of your spurious statements:

"It's not proven AT ALL that it was not consensual or that Roman was the instigator of any alcohol and drug intake. A brick of hash with the girls fingerprints on was found at Nicholson's house. Roman's and Jack's fingerprints were not found on the brick of hash."

Polanski gave the victim half a quaalude, a fact he admitted to. Polanski also admitted to giving the victim champagne. These facts are not in dispute. Your arguments to the contrary are ridiculous.

"And yes, it's proven Samantha didn't wash herself between the incident and the rape-kit examination -- which makes her out as a liar according to the testimony."

The victim, in a drug induced haze at the time of the incident, testified that she believed Polanski had ejaculated in her anus because she could feel it it on her butt and in her underwear afterwards. Semen was found on her skin and in her underwear.

From this, you contend the victim was lying? A girl with extremely limited sexual experience, having had only two sexual encounters previously and who was out of it on alcohol and drugs, didn't realize that Polanski had obviously pulled out and ejaculated on her buttocks. This accounts for the lack of semen in her anus, and also jives perfectly with Polanski's obvious paranoia about the possibility of getting her pregnant, demonstrated by his questions about her menstrual cycle during the acts. To assume that the victim was lying because she didn't realize Polanski had ejaculated on her exterior is bizarre.

BanksAreForRivers:
A middle-age man aroused by a 13-yr-old girl may not necessarily indicate sexual deviancy, but ACTING on that arousal by actually taking advantage of/having sex with a 13-yr-old girl does, demonstrating a lack of impulse control and moral backbone most men posses.

comment #44

BanksAreForRivers says ...

Sil,
I agree that acting on it is a totally different ball game, especially when it's rape. I just wanted to throw that article out there to add to the piece from the daily beast.

comment #45

Phreaker says ...

Semen found on her underwear doesn't mean necessarily she was anally raped - trust me, you know when someone has fucked you in the ass. Again, not to be gross but it is a sensation you don't forget.

Also:

"Polanski gave the victim half a quaalude, a fact he admitted to. Polanski also admitted to giving the victim champagne. These facts are not in dispute. Your arguments to the contrary are ridiculous."

He gave them to her and she took them. He didn't hold her face and shove them down her throat, right?

comment #46

Sil says ...

Are you serious, Phreaker? I hope not, because it makes you sound truly pathetic. To what lengths will you go to blame a child instead of the adult in control? It defies reason and common sense.

This is a perfect example of why people are up in arms about the Polanski apologists.

comment #47

Phreaker says ...

Sil ---> BROKEN RECORD. You keep changing your identity from what I can figure yet your mantra stays the same.

comment #48

Monument says ...

It really seems like some of you guys want to believe the worst possible scenario. Typical lynch mob mentality.

The person being hurt by this endless speculation is Samantha Geimer. Despite your moral outrage I don't believe any of you pitchforkers give a rat's ass about the victim of this crime. What right do any of you have to rip the scar off a wound that healed years ago? What if she were your daughter, sister, or wife? Would you want every detail of the case discussed ad nauseum by complete strangers?

My wife was a victim of sexual abuse, I see how it affects her when the topic comes up. She has to relive every moment, remember things that she would like to forget. If any of you care one iota for the victim, do her a favor and shut the fuck up.

comment #49

Sil says ...

"Pitchforkers"? Dear me. That is absurd hyperbole, Monument.

"It really seems like some of you guys want to believe the worst possible scenario. Typical lynch mob mentality."

I have read all the court/legal documents and initial reports. I believe the victim. I do not consider myself part of any mob, I am an individual with an individual opinion. If you care about the victim, don't use her name in a public forum. It is human nature to discuss such matters, particularly when it involves a minor child who is legally unable to consent. If you don't like it then do not read it and certainly don't comment, because you are then contributing to, participating in and furthering a discussion you claim should not be had.

Phreaker:
I have never commented here before this day. It would appear you are paranoid.

comment #50

Monument says ...

Congratulations on your individuality and thank you for missing my point entirely.

comment #51

Ponderer says ...

" If you care about the victim, don't use her name in a public forum."

I know this is a semantic point, but this is the third or fourth time I've heard this and it's grating on me.

When the victim, thirty-odd years later, has granted plenty of interviews over the last decade, issued numerous public statements, appeared on Larry King, and even walked the red carpet for the pro-Polanski documentary, I THINK IT'S OKAY TO USE HER NAME NOW.

Thanks.