I have got an essay about torture today. I think this makes some sense. And I have added the texts of two plays to my blog system. The English version only Russian language play Pod Kablukom can be found at:
http://beinghad-podkablukom.blogspot.com
And the text of Ownership is at
http://beinghad-ownership.blogspot.com
I sent notice to the principals whose names were mentioned in the text of Being Had yesterday. Thank you for all the letters I have gotten. They are appreciated. And again, you can scroll down several entries for an overview of the case. I will reprint that soon so that it will be at the top.
Torture.
Sometimes when I am thinking about what happened to me, I try to find shreds of rational to allow for the actions of the Polish court. By this I mean; were there actually any real justifiable stories, any defense for their actions would make any sense now? After a while, it of course was obvious that Zaremba was a liar, but what about at the very beginning? The softest place to ask this question is concerning the moment Zaremba came into the police station. At this point, the cops only know what they have heard over the radio and they are now hearing everything for the first time. Other than Zaremba being a cop, was his story really so believable?
Yucha made two reports that day. The first was a short report to the desk. It said that the biker had come around the car and that Zaremba stopped in front and though the biker wasn’t hurt, he punched Zaremba in the head. Now what I like about this report, is that you can see the conversation as taking place with enough reality to justify some cynicism on the part of Yucha. You can hear him asking Zaremba at the scene: “Did you hurt him?” But Yucha in that moment decides to go with the cop rather than the biker. Whether or not he wants to avoid a scandal, or even the weight which will fall on him if he tries to do the right thing at the moment, he walks away from the situation, writes what Zaremba told him happened, and removed the principals to the police station.
But what he didn’t do was walk the 150 meters back to the scene and ask some of the 30 to fifty people who saw everything for a statement as to what had happened. He also doesn’t reference any fighting at the police station, a staple of Zaremba’s story and he doesn’t ask Zaremba’s kid who was sitting in the car what had happened either. And most of all, he doesn’t seem to ask any questions of Zaremba based on some sense of cynicism.
And what about the cops at the station: Did they know he was lying? Zaremba is sitting there telling them that the man was beating the front the back, the sides the glass of the car. A very detailed story when it came to the damages to the car- for a hysterical man, who has just been attacked, he has the damage list down pretty well. But do they believe him? Where are the questions from the desk? Are you saying he is responsible for ALL of the damages to your car? How old is the vehicle? Are you saying the car has never had any previous damages in the last five years? And of course, were there any witnesses? And much more to the point, why did they ignore my counter complaint?
If this was a real situation, Zaremba could have said “Yes, I had an accident back in January.” He could added that he had had some of those damages fixed, but not all and, quite easily, he could have proved all of what he was saying by simply turning over the records of the damages from that January accident. By turning in the before and after photos from the accident along with the documents signing off the work done, he has a reasonable platform of the truth from which to work. Add in the photo’s that were taken after the accident and the work, (insurance companies always take photos) and balance all of this out against the police report of the damages made on May 15th.
From there, the story goes to Wiesniakowski the prosecutor. In addition to the story, Wiesniakowski has fingerprints; mine taken at the station and those taken from the car. They don’t match even a little. Wiesniakowski gets a second interview with Zaremba but he also fails to ask any hard question about the situation, about how his story seems different from Yucha. Zaremba turns in a medical report from that day, and the report clearly shows that none of his teeth was broken, but this is not addressed. During this interview, Zaremba verbally states that the value of the damages to the car is about 3000 zlotys ($750), but there is no documentation and Wiesniakowski does not even question this. He does not ask why there were no witnesses. In reading this statement, one cannot find a shred of cynicism.
But what Wiesniakowski did want from me was evidence proving my innocence. This was my responsibility to acquire these things. That the cops did not collect witnesses was my problem, not his. And, it was really important for me to know that Zaremba was a cop.
Did they know it was a lie from day one? Yes they did. All of them. Every last one of them.
It was my feeling them and it is still the same now, that they decided to get what they wanted, not by any rational means, but by torture. I do not use this word lightly. It was torture. They deprive you of your freedom. They tell you that can expect to be shot at any time. They tell you are under their scrutiny every day and there is no basis in reality or their sense of justice upon which that scrutiny is based. They give you no information, no access to the files, no representation; They lose evidence, coerce witnesses, file false documents and negotiate behind your back while you are standing naked in public and, having to pay for every day of your stay. It was torture. Get it? That’s what they still do in the year 2002.
Why did they do this? Why was it necessary? At my most lenient and forgiving, the best answer I can think of is that perhaps they want their cops to know that they are supported and defended as a part of the thanks for doing the difficult job of defending the general population. But does this protection extend to the point of suppressing lies and destroying the lives of innocent people? Before we can even give them the benefit of the doubt as concerns the “difficult job scenario” perhaps we should ask ourselves why was lying their first instinct? And more so, why did they seem to be enjoying the torture quite so much?
Zaremba’s, Wiesniakowski, The Lawyers, The Judges… Why? What great truth did they want left untold? Where did anybody benefit by allowing Zaremba to go back out and crash his car again, and to commit more crimes? Why? Even in the novel “1984”, they at least take the moment to tell Winston Smith the truth: It was all about power, there is no social justice and the sooner you, Mr. Smith learn this, the less pain WE will be forced to inflict upon you.
You tell me what happened here.
http://beinghad-podkablukom.blogspot.com
And the text of Ownership is at
http://beinghad-ownership.blogspot.com
I sent notice to the principals whose names were mentioned in the text of Being Had yesterday. Thank you for all the letters I have gotten. They are appreciated. And again, you can scroll down several entries for an overview of the case. I will reprint that soon so that it will be at the top.
Torture.
Sometimes when I am thinking about what happened to me, I try to find shreds of rational to allow for the actions of the Polish court. By this I mean; were there actually any real justifiable stories, any defense for their actions would make any sense now? After a while, it of course was obvious that Zaremba was a liar, but what about at the very beginning? The softest place to ask this question is concerning the moment Zaremba came into the police station. At this point, the cops only know what they have heard over the radio and they are now hearing everything for the first time. Other than Zaremba being a cop, was his story really so believable?
Yucha made two reports that day. The first was a short report to the desk. It said that the biker had come around the car and that Zaremba stopped in front and though the biker wasn’t hurt, he punched Zaremba in the head. Now what I like about this report, is that you can see the conversation as taking place with enough reality to justify some cynicism on the part of Yucha. You can hear him asking Zaremba at the scene: “Did you hurt him?” But Yucha in that moment decides to go with the cop rather than the biker. Whether or not he wants to avoid a scandal, or even the weight which will fall on him if he tries to do the right thing at the moment, he walks away from the situation, writes what Zaremba told him happened, and removed the principals to the police station.
But what he didn’t do was walk the 150 meters back to the scene and ask some of the 30 to fifty people who saw everything for a statement as to what had happened. He also doesn’t reference any fighting at the police station, a staple of Zaremba’s story and he doesn’t ask Zaremba’s kid who was sitting in the car what had happened either. And most of all, he doesn’t seem to ask any questions of Zaremba based on some sense of cynicism.
And what about the cops at the station: Did they know he was lying? Zaremba is sitting there telling them that the man was beating the front the back, the sides the glass of the car. A very detailed story when it came to the damages to the car- for a hysterical man, who has just been attacked, he has the damage list down pretty well. But do they believe him? Where are the questions from the desk? Are you saying he is responsible for ALL of the damages to your car? How old is the vehicle? Are you saying the car has never had any previous damages in the last five years? And of course, were there any witnesses? And much more to the point, why did they ignore my counter complaint?
If this was a real situation, Zaremba could have said “Yes, I had an accident back in January.” He could added that he had had some of those damages fixed, but not all and, quite easily, he could have proved all of what he was saying by simply turning over the records of the damages from that January accident. By turning in the before and after photos from the accident along with the documents signing off the work done, he has a reasonable platform of the truth from which to work. Add in the photo’s that were taken after the accident and the work, (insurance companies always take photos) and balance all of this out against the police report of the damages made on May 15th.
From there, the story goes to Wiesniakowski the prosecutor. In addition to the story, Wiesniakowski has fingerprints; mine taken at the station and those taken from the car. They don’t match even a little. Wiesniakowski gets a second interview with Zaremba but he also fails to ask any hard question about the situation, about how his story seems different from Yucha. Zaremba turns in a medical report from that day, and the report clearly shows that none of his teeth was broken, but this is not addressed. During this interview, Zaremba verbally states that the value of the damages to the car is about 3000 zlotys ($750), but there is no documentation and Wiesniakowski does not even question this. He does not ask why there were no witnesses. In reading this statement, one cannot find a shred of cynicism.
But what Wiesniakowski did want from me was evidence proving my innocence. This was my responsibility to acquire these things. That the cops did not collect witnesses was my problem, not his. And, it was really important for me to know that Zaremba was a cop.
Did they know it was a lie from day one? Yes they did. All of them. Every last one of them.
It was my feeling them and it is still the same now, that they decided to get what they wanted, not by any rational means, but by torture. I do not use this word lightly. It was torture. They deprive you of your freedom. They tell you that can expect to be shot at any time. They tell you are under their scrutiny every day and there is no basis in reality or their sense of justice upon which that scrutiny is based. They give you no information, no access to the files, no representation; They lose evidence, coerce witnesses, file false documents and negotiate behind your back while you are standing naked in public and, having to pay for every day of your stay. It was torture. Get it? That’s what they still do in the year 2002.
Why did they do this? Why was it necessary? At my most lenient and forgiving, the best answer I can think of is that perhaps they want their cops to know that they are supported and defended as a part of the thanks for doing the difficult job of defending the general population. But does this protection extend to the point of suppressing lies and destroying the lives of innocent people? Before we can even give them the benefit of the doubt as concerns the “difficult job scenario” perhaps we should ask ourselves why was lying their first instinct? And more so, why did they seem to be enjoying the torture quite so much?
Zaremba’s, Wiesniakowski, The Lawyers, The Judges… Why? What great truth did they want left untold? Where did anybody benefit by allowing Zaremba to go back out and crash his car again, and to commit more crimes? Why? Even in the novel “1984”, they at least take the moment to tell Winston Smith the truth: It was all about power, there is no social justice and the sooner you, Mr. Smith learn this, the less pain WE will be forced to inflict upon you.
You tell me what happened here.
posted by BEING HAD at
10:06 AM
