A serious investigation, which should start by taking into consideration whatever possible claim, does certainly not take any side. In fact, a neutral observer may just be wanting to get an insight into what appears as moving given situations from the shadow.

Until all elements are gathered, it is difficult to really take anyone’s side and the ambiguous position may actually even result in the fishing of interesting details that may allow to clear up a whole background, if this is what we are aiming at.

Actually, it becomes obvious that most of those pretending to objectively inform the public do seriously lack of rigour in their ‘investigations’. Isn’t it true? It is enough to be well dressed and wear a fine perfume while you stay in a five star hotel in order to obtain all credit from the press, which, on the other hand, does little consider what effect this may have on others, and this concerning as well ta ‘Nea tis Lefkadas’ as TV chanel ALFA.

How ridiculous common mass media are becoming is just underlined by the fact that according to O’Leary himself “the interview for ALFA was obtained thanks to someone presenting himself as the biggest mafia boss in Greece”, who, apparently … keeps good links to the possibility of contaminating the public with well established … evidence (!)

Of course it may be said that paid service has no claim, but this would already imply you presume Cristina Onassis may have paid for it.

In fact it’s much easier to simply refuse such a claim as … inconsistant.

Were it though true (let us suspect for a while), it’s obvious that the concerned hasn’t cared very much about it until now, and that whatever he may claim, such a sudden interest is certainly founded in financial needs, which take away all seriousness to the claim in question.

What we may think of when our ‘beauty’ gets lost with time …

It’s true that there are witnesses saying that Roussel, as director of First Model Agency in Paris, threw a party where several young models were invited and to which Cristina Onassis assisted.

It’s true, too, that whoever may look nice dressed in Dior and that you may wrap in the most seducing appearance actually … whoever.

It should not make forget though, that this implies paid services were common already in 1984 in certain fashion circles and that the obvious ‘erotic’ environment allows suspecting young men were used in order to further sexual exchanges in environments where the sales of drugs and other chemistry may be of the convenience of some: and this even more so if considered that Roussel had shares of a chemical company specialized in the selling of abortive pills.

It will perhaps be impossible to establish what Cristina Onassis had really to do with Gene Carrier, also Howard O’Leary. Independently of how many witnesses may say he assisted to a party where he met Cristina Onassis, it does not imply he may have had any kind of relationship with her at all.

Ressemblance may be accidental, and in fact it is even possible to find pictures of him showing an enormous ressemblance with … Marlon Brando, who I don’t guess was his father.

Fact remains though: that Gene Carrier was fished out of a pornography agency in Los Angeles by an Agency in Milan and was hired by first model in Paris because they were in knowledge of this aspect of his life.

It seems that modelling in Paris passes by the showing of a certain number of attributes …

But it is in any case another interesting subject that can be dealt with.

It’s  a fact that law is quite hard usually on matters of image and private life, and all sorts of complicated sounding accusations may soon be pending on your head like ‘defamation’ and other if you ever dare publishing a certain number of facts. Usually, too, and due to this, you may distinguish two types of press: a wooden tongued press avoiding as much as possible these accusations and a so called yellow press, where in fact the strategy consists in thinking that the number of exemplaries sold thanks to the publishing of matters of interest should come up for possible expenses deriving of a trial.

There is not only that. There are people who have a restriction on the possible use of their name in public spaces so that a fine can follow to the very use of it. Eventually. On top, most spread custom in use, does avoid the use of images or pictures through international agreements on rights of author or exclusivity of distribution of those, etc. by putting unbearable prices on their acquisition.

It’s true that law is a little bit sleepy nowadays, as, as far as I know, for example Royal families and other of dignity depending on countries have the right to forbid pictures or even comments on them be made in a public space, while this has become quite common lately without there being any kind of reaction to such happenings.

Independently on what common mass media more or less submit to, or try in subtle ways to escape to, the disaster appears through the common use of ‘blogs’ or private space of expression which being public, stays in the middle of two fields, without any further and specific legislation.

To give an example: In Spain, the reproduction of intellectual property is forbidden for commercial use. This implies that a private person can make a copy of an Elvis Presley CD, if he has the means, to make a birthday present to a sister, for example. This applies for whatever concerns intellectual rights.

Logically, you can make use of pictures and images or even texts in quotation for private use, that is to say, you don’t get any kind of profit of it. Perhaps just the thankful recognition of your sister, if she likes the copy.

It’s true that this law does not apply everywhere and is most severe in countries like France and even the USA, where a sharp reminder looking like “all reproduction forbidden” does avoid even scans to be made on a certain number of most expensive items, like logos or pictures.

If things start becoming dubious in Spain, how much will they not become large in the few countries not having signed international agreements on intellectual property. Not only: most intellectual rights have to be renewed every year which is hardly done due to the expenses deriving.

Let us stay in Spain: the blogger can make use of his freedom to put whatever image on his blog without this having legal consequences. Due to the very ambiguous space of publication, it can be hold for professional and thus, increase his value in market. Let us say that a journalist makes himself a personal page and puts inside of it his own inspirations and whatever image he can pick from internet if he ever manages to make some electronic security barriers jump without cracking them, thing that is forbidden by law. He becomes famous, even more so if he makes use of a certain number of tricks allowing him to get first places through search engines. This must necessarily make his market value augment without him having to pay a penny (in Spain) for such a chaotic and anarchic improvement of his site or page. (French position.)

In countries not having signed these agreements, the situation is even worse. Articles appearing in internet can be reproduced outside of the realm where they are protected, even newspaper articles or other, not to say of Google results, that are also protected by law … usually.

It’s true, that not having enough with the general confusion, there are tendencies trying to apply law on ‘server’, which is to say, that the law of the country applies to which the server belongs to. This is a clear infringement to international law, saying that ‘a crime has to be judged depending on the place where it has been committed’. Logical. You can’t live in a country and take into consideration unknown laws of the USA or Russia. Concerning internet, this means “place of emission of the information”, in this case, a country not having submitted to the international agreements on intellectual rights.

Of course this may be not of the specific liking of France, that has already tried to make its law apply for information appearing in Bahamas or wherever else. The very fact though that several protestations arriving from Islamic countries forbidding pornography, for example, has been answered to negatively by exactly those countries emitting that sort of information, saying that it is not forbidden in theirs, does certainly take away from these the right to claim if forbidden material – for them – is emitted from countries where it is not forbidden.

This allows even to put expensive images on headers (top of a page) of pages without having objectively to be afraid of prosecution, were it for intellectual reasons.

Having thus included even an intellectual positioning concerning the right of the people to judge on their affairs according to their own law  into the Onassis affair – there must be reasons – a new aspect linked to the former, appears.

What is defamation? Defamation is the fact of telling lies on someone or to present facts in such distorted ways that it causes damage to someone’s public image. From a strict legal point of view, the very fact of reproducing  someone’s sayings are not defamatory as such, as it expresses itself on a ‘fact’, someone said something, without though taking position on the contents of it.

The man claimed out: “He’s a real idiot.”

If I say, “he’s a real idiot” it falls under the category of ‘public insult’ (forbidden), but if I just state that someone said so, it can’t be considered a public insult as it is just a way of showing what kind of reaction something has produced without ever supporting, of course, such an affective outburst.

Worse. “I think this is true.” Is a subjective statement and does not involve objective reality that does fall under ‘defamation’. “He is the father.” Is an objective statement. “I think he’s the father,” is a subjective positioning which can never be ‘defamation’ as I’m saying the truth about what I think.

Of course this way of dealing hurts itself with common human reactions. It is enough for someone to say “I belief it,” in order to have a thousand say, “it is like that.” Example. Thierry Roussel has an article published in 1984 where he says: “Cristina Onassis is running behind me.” He says so. Is it true? In 2008, common opinion as reflected in internet and even published books say “Cristina Onassis was running behind Thierry Roussel.” The subjective evaluation of Roussel, I wouldn’t give personally a penny for, has become a public truth. If you become radical, you may sue all those people who maintain such a thing without proves. To say, Roussel said so, does certainly not imply, it is so. And the fact of making of an ‘opinion’ an objective truth makes the second suable for statement of false facts.

To my understanding even Roussel’s statement is suable without a corresponding answer of the concerned. Cristina should have been given a space to express her opinion on the subject, too. Which was not the case.

A blog is a space allowing to comment. Which is to say, that whoever does not agree with what there is, can write a comment where he may express his opinion, too, reason why I think that the possibility is given to legally express opinions and points of view without imposing those on anyone and without ever pretending to make of them objective truths.

In fact, even most distant positions to such a proliferation of opinions on other people’s private life, should take into consideration that we do unluckily live in a world where ‘dirty war’ is more common than a let us say civilized way of dealing with matters of public concern. It is enough for you to aggress indirectly, let us say, ‘Hoechst’ and immediately you’re accused of schizophrenia, psychotic tendencies and whatever else, not to say that a hundred informers have, even before you even start to claim, put a whole amount of information on the judge’s table saying you are involved in prostitution, have been closed in a psychiatric hospital, have deepest links to mafia, and belong certainly to a secret organization, perhaps you’re a Russian spy and promote international terrorism, without you ever be given the chance of answering to all these ‘presumptions’.

That the situation has been blocked by ways of doing that do certainly infringe national and international laws through the imposition of right through interests, makes random action almost necessary in order to have at least a view on what others say on something without having their heads drumming due to amounts of information that have as usual, surreptitiously reached them but will, whether they want it or not, affect their opinion on a given matter.

To my understanding, this misuse of alleged information can only be countered by what I call subjective journalism. This means that information can be transmitted as having a normative value “It is like that” with proves as provided, etc. or can be something a subject is dealing with. “I saw this and thought …” “I read this and to my mind came this idea …” Without giving proves that may perhaps be reliable to form an objective statement, intuition is building up a scenario that allows others to share a view on things that may be relevant for them to act inside of a given social body.

It is certainly not the same to stay in a world where you have to say “chemistry has helped to the evolution of human’s quality of life” and another where it is possible to say “I think, chemistry companies have been furthering a certain number of practices in order to sell, … whatever”.

It is not the same to live in a world where you can’t say “This person is a murder” and another where you may say “this person tried to killed me”. The subtle difference in the presentation of things does protect you from legal prosecution and allows that people have a clearer perspective on happenings and on given social situations thing that becomes of importance, to my understanding, when, at the end, law finishes by protecting only murders, rapists and thieves while those who try keeping themselves inside of relatively common patterns of morality are accused of whatever because they seem to hurt ‘Hoechst’s’ interests without them having any chance to defend themselves as they already … crazy.

If this affair, which may be called, outside of the sheer Onassis affair, the OLeary affair, is of interest, it is precisely because it resumes all these aspects under one sole roof. If Oleary takes legal action, it will be blocked before he even reaches the point of being informed of the proper legislation. Soon, strange images or ‘montage’ will appear somewhere, and almost immediately, he will have problems with his computer or with internet.

The open public space that is formed by ‘blogs’ has opened a parallel door, that allows to evaluate things inside of a realm that can’t be that easily barred. In spite of the fact that whatever happens inside of this realm can’t be measured by common measures, it is as such a social fact that can be taken into consideration for the evaluation of reality.

How this fact can, on the other hand, be introduced into common journalistic practices is something that can be discussed upon. But it is true that leaving open a space for someone to express himself while not staying behind his sayings and just leaving open the question, should certainly not be considered as criminal, to my understanding.

The fact though that things change without the necessary precautions be introduced by a proper legislation, does oblige to an intellectual questioning in order to avoid possible misuse or damages that may appear in random cases as effect of a change of custom.

It’s a philosophical principle not to loose objectivity by taking one side or the other. Actually, the underlying question can never be who is right or not, but to try seeking out what reality itself teaches us through a given succession of events.

While working with unknown concepts as ‘flow of information’ or ‘aleatory logic’ you can’t but establish that your subjective positioning, not towards the being right of someone or the other, but concerning general ethical principles, will be at the origin of a certain number of effects that can’t be obtained otherwise.

In fact, what will be proved is that what links one human to another or many human among them is a whole amount of beliefs that are shared sometimes deeper and sometimes more superficially and that these establish connection points that allow explaining how an information left free somewhere, somehow, finishes by affecting general situations.

It is thus of importance, whenever dealing with these subjects, to know exactly where you are, what kind of insight you have on things and which position you take subjectively, as this is what allows to know to who and how you’re linked to others who are eventually at the other end of the world.

While putting an article in internet, you certainly don’t know what is going to happen. It is there and builds up a ‘cloud’, people reading leaving half a thought on the screen, others saying something, taking a position, rejecting or approving.

Perhaps the less you expect is that a ‘father’ appears, turning everything upside down as given until then, and this obliges you to consider a position to a new arising fact: you have to situate yourself somewhere.

As said, I would personally have been the last to justify someone’s claiming for a fatherhood after 25 years. But seriously thinking of even erasing comments affirming such a thing, I decide first to lead Oleary to a private conversation through e-mails allowing to evaluate what it all may be about. At the same time, you think how much your own points of view may be shaken by such an ‘event’ which, you want it or not, is underlining your own story, which does – professional ethics oblige – still respect a certain number of presentation parameters, although it has slightly gone beyond already.

In fact, I’m already affirming things without basis, more leaning on what people say than on objective proves. I have no proves, I have no evidence, it is of my interest to reconstruct a notion, not reality, and this notion implies the how an image affects people imagination, so that all sorts of happenings are associated to a person whose foundation is difficult to determine.

Inside of this, I though try to convey whatever may be thought as ‘aggressive’ to  someone’s public image or memory in such ways that it may not be finally hurting.

To my personal understanding, Oleary’s affirmations do not respect the criteria I’m using for myself, but do enter the realm of the possible, where even imagination does allow to get a clearer picture on very complex situations.

As, for me, Oleary’s affirmations are not ‘public’, to say, do not respect given ethical frames, they are not ‘legal’, either. What does this mean? For me, the realm we have just entered is not the one of a structured society, where judges and attorneys determine the functioning of social reality, we are in a marginal world, where mafia and gangs and medieval battles establish through knifes and knock outs, who is right and who is wrong.

The reason why I allow such a thing to happen is that Oleary’s statements do seem to open a perspective that may explain everything or almost everything, as already said. Not wanting to interfere with the ‘normal’ world, where such things are ‘unthinkable’ I keep the sphere of interaction in what I call ‘lower realms’, a private sphere (blogs) where people are allowed to express themselves, thus building up a general context where the very fact of being submitted to a certain number of pressures may be proof for the truth of something or for its lie.

I’m, although quite conservative in some aspects, quite liberal in others. To my understanding, the fact of leaving someone express himself in random legal realms, may lead very quickly to the proof of the contrary or to such outer pressure so as to make the claim none. To be proved a contrary is a way to ‘heal ‘ oneself of a pretension that may lead to some kind of ‘madness’ if not put into a correct context.

Strangely, not only pressure does not appear as such, legal measures taken by lawyers, as claimed for by another commenter with who I couldn’t but agree in the depth, are never taken. Why?

At the same time, I can’t but continue maintaining my own positions: my fundamental belief that a father results of a concept and is less determined by biological filiations, puts Oleary into an extremely dangerous context, where all sorts of aggressed interests may be woken up in order to bar his pretensions through the association of his claim to blunt aggressions on the Foundation and Roussel in texts published in the same environment.

Strangely, again, the opposition is to be considered more than little.

In fact, as already said, I do have little hopes that OLeary may make the weight. But his appearance has thrown a light on things whose possibility is to be considered and justifies harder positions. Not only the question arises on how much pressure is made on Cristina Onassis for her not to conceive a child (Alexandros being dead, on who falls the fortune?) and this with great help of chemistry and distractions, intervention in private life, surreptitious information provided, etc. but also the very situation described by Oleary and which, after several researches may be hold for reliable although it doesn’t say for the time being anything on Athina herself, makes appear a very sordid context that makes questions arise on Roussel, too.

Let us put things in the worse of cases: (hypothesis) Roussel is linked to a chemistry company. He has a modeling company. He organizes parties where sexual freedom is induced. The chemistry company is selling abortion creams. How much will they not take profit of such a liberalization of customs induced through upper classes even in extremely conservative contexts, that may lead to pregnancy and thus to the promotion of a certain number of ‘products’?

Were it thus, we are situating ourselves in a more than criminal environment. Let us say Oleary ‘does his job’, as far away from reality as many other, among which Cristina herself, he holds this for a ‘flirt’, a ‘love affair’, where he has been chosen among many and where his male pride does not allow him to see the obvious induction.

If we situate the whole into a context (we’re talking about 1984), upper classes, of people around 35-40, this is to say born around 1940-50, we can talk of a conservative surrounding at least in appearance. This is to say, a context that keeps appearance independently of how much custom is shifting towards a constant liberalization. Cristina says in public, ‘she doesn’t think herself conceiving a child without father’ (I repeat Oleary’s words without having statement of this – he says that she has said).

Let us say, Oleary has done his job and is consequently pushed out of Paris. What does Cristina do? Her background does not even allow her think of abortion. At that moment, compromising information reaches mysteriously her mail box. She thinks of getting married and perhaps pays a 30 million to cover her ‘secret’. It’s a fact that Roussel was paid that much for his marrying her. But why him? Perhaps because he is already partly in knowledge of what has happened as he was the one who has organized the party.

Being in knowledge allows that he does things that may have been considered as extremely strange in another situation. He has two children with another woman during his marriage and is though paid 75 million for the divorce. Why? Legally he has lost all right to claim.

Things become worse if you consider the possibility that a new marriage of Cristina may make Roussel loose all benefit deriving of the presence of the child. She was about doing so. He is certainly the main provider of those pills Cristina is said to be an addict of. He may have given instructions that provoke a heart failure inside of a determined combination of elements, for example, this chemistry with heat. Perhaps the chemistry in question was already another chemistry, leading to death. Were this so, then there is induced murder.

Worse. People say that Athina, at those times living in Greece, was ‘kidnapped’ in the middle of the night, as Roussel appeared shouting around the child was his and took it with him, while usually you need a judge’s order to transfer a child from one country to the other, even more so if parents are divorced.

The possibility appears that the one who is responsible for induced murder may have been in charge of a child for 18 years.

Without having the means of proving this, although there is more than sufficient indirect proof for it, to my understanding, it seems to me that you have to take into consideration this possibility in your own positions while analyzing arising data. Not that you affirm it, it is just that you do things you would have never done if this possibility had not shown up.

To say: I would have erased Oleary’s comments and blocked all his public appearance linked to my own work. The fact though that this possibility arises, obliges me to open a door to what for me has as such little justification.

In fact, in my own quite hopeless consideration of the world, where men make of fatherhood almost nothing else but the keeping or obtaining of advantages, social or financial and where the least of their concern is the child itself, I see personally a wonderful window opening itself, as I know that the sheer possibility a new ‘father’ may appear, may shake not only Roussel’s positions but also those of the Foundation.

This is a social fact, even more so in Greece. My anger concerning exactly that, that a father has become the means of assuring oneself a benefit, puts Oleary inside of an aggressively claiming position, inside of a battle field, which, as said, is supposed not to leave the random frames of marginal social reality.

In Spain you say “un espontáneo saltó al ruedo”, when someone of the public jumps spontaneously into the bull fight arena and from a certain point of view, Oleary’s sudden decision to claim for his fatherhood through a newspaper, may be compared to this. (Usually those are quickly pushed out of the arena – but stays that they were there.)

This ‘event’ which, taken inside of the general context, does not lack of  a certain touch of humor, makes the situation leave the marginal realms to enter ordered society, thing that provokes new changes in the situation that have to be taken into consideration.

From a strict legal point of view I would consider it myself a ‘crime’. Inside of the given situation, it made me laugh.

Precisely, it underlines my positions: a child is not only a mass of bones and nerves. It is an intellectual being with a sensitivity, inside of a given social context, with a certain number of burdens on its shoulders, that become higher the more riches and wealth are involved. And the child is the one who is the least taken into consideration, in this case as much as in most similar cases.

The reason why I think those possibilities may not be claimed for in public is among other that a child may not be wanting to be confronted to a new situation as already used to a different one that is satisfying to it.

In this case, and it is of public knowledge that Athina Onassis has deepest quarrels with his, let us say now, presumed father Roussel, the situation allows  conceiving suspicions concerning the fact she has never had a real family at all. This may eventually justify someone else arrive to fill in what may be considered an affective gap. But even in this case, does she want to? Did you think about it? Do you care about it?

The irresponsibility in the dealing of this situation shows for me the irresponsibility in his dealing with the concept ‘father’. As real father, the first thing you think about is the child and not yourself.

To my understanding the very fact there is something like a secret public discussion with many comments, must finish by attracting someone of her environments, allowing her to take her own decision on things that do concern her personally. Even if he were the father, there is no legal disposition obliging her to even take him into consideration. She has not to see him, not to talk to him, not to recognize him even, and this freedom is put a somewhat unpleasant pressure on by using of public means in order to proclaim a presumption.

Thing I can in no case agree with.

Were things as I think they should be, Oleary would have to prove his concern about the whole situation through a ‘something’ that may buy up his 25 years absence. A trial, a fight, a confrontation. Is he able to solve this positively in the respect of law and social situations, I would personally think he is in the disposition to claim he is her father, without this in no case imposing itself on the concerned as such. Precisely: you can have a look at a battle from far and establish for yourself if the nearer presence of someone as he is appearing then, could be of your liking or not.

The very fact of being able to solve a situation is for me the only warrant for the fact that there is not only biological belonging but also real attachment.

It’s true that this question arises now. Before, he was just the ghost of a father put in anger in front of men’s custom to profit of what they esteem to be women’s weakness in order to rob out, steal and usurp, or share among them riches that don’t belong to them as if a woman did not exist at all.

It’s true that while observing how information jumps from one country to the other, you can’t but be terrorized by situations that reach the determination as scandals very quickly whenever women are involved. What men would never dare doing if a man was in front, becomes a hobby when a woman is concerned and this fact justifies the radicalization of a personal position which takes its further foundation on this that it has nothing to win of it all but the possibility of restoring women’s dignity and right to be even in common social environments.

It’s not only that. I used to make a horrible fun on the figures they use to proudly show as proof of possible wealths because, they say, it is written on a paper they can point at. If I say I have a two billion in a private conversation, you’ll certainly believe it and treat me as if I did, even without verifying, or better, in order to avoid an accusation saying ‘induction into error to obtain possible benefit’ just induce it through the way of doing and appearing, and let other say what they want. If it is of need. Wealth is as subjective as it may be objective and in any case, I hate the fact that people take consideration out of theirs having their pockets full of bank notes.

This fundamental position includes up to a certain extent a rejection of whatever material proof there may be, were it legal, and this affecting logically also aspects like fatherhood and the kind. For God sake, the man, you have no other way than DNA to know whether the child is yours? And precisely here, my positions start gaining territory in male realms, because even they, yes, figure out, would like to be ‘fathers’ for a little more than a few drops of materialized substance. That the question whether you may claim for more than a material fatherhood, a biological participation to the being of another creature affects most broadly men’s mind, which, suddenly, has to start dealing with such obscure concepts as psychic reality and boundary and responsibility, becomes obvious through the fact that a simple claim left to its own destiny inside of the unconscious of one single representative, does affect many, many others, who all of a sudden seem to remember they have done something else rather than two waste a few minutes in an effective affective outburst, if it were so.

Of course, as luckily they’re a little bit blind (but doesn’t this derive of the fact that they pretend they’ve done everything all alone by themselves?) they don’t see that while solving the question of their more extensive participation to the generation of a human being, they’re just recognizing that women’s participation in the social organization is much wider than they may have ever thought of. It’s not only the figures on a piece of paper: it’s a context, an environment, a concept organizing a whole, a view of the world as usually transmitted by women.

It’s true that even in what concerned my own private life, I had to remark all sorts of strange movements in the surrounding whose nature I didn’t understand very well until Oleary appeared again, and this was that I was seeing even my own father plunged in thoughts and worries I wasn’t very much used to, while other fathers, even in Switzerland, decide to prone their presence through their repeated arrival in forlorn countries in order to visit a daughter, for example. OLeary’s questioning was gaining territory internationally and it is true that the almost general if not universal answer consisting in standing up in the middle of somewhere and say ‘I’m the father’ seemed to fill everyone with a deep relief, as if this expressed a refused presence somewhere in such ways that it allowed to keep at least the last reminders of the dignity that seems to accompany what they usually understand as property.

Men do always situate their identity somewhere around property. Even the past, a fact, an event is a property and the very fact of being refused the participation to it is somehow understood as a theft. Strangely, by claiming so loudly in the middle of the main square, the only naked and nude property arising through the statement is the one of ‘word’ – which remains certainly of his property until the rest verified or put into a legal context. The word not even as such, but as subjective conviction: thing that again does push his claim to a female realm where things are more as they appear and less subjected to undeniable proves.

While claiming to his male property he has situated himself inside of a female context, provoking an undeniable fusion of systems whose latter consequences should be evaluated carefully.

Actually we may see clearly what social life is based on. A personal conviction (female realm) transforms itself into an oath inside of what is called marriage, that is to say into an organized structure affecting a whole (male realm). This is also the basis of the rest of social organization. A woman makes bread, a man sells it. Undeniably he wouldn’t have anything to sell if she hadn’t made the bread before. A woman exchanges, a man makes up a note bank. Without the first, the second is unthinkable.

Without wanting to refuse their reason to be to men, it’s true that you’re forced by circumstances to become radical when men start just keeping everything for themselves, refusing the value and reason to be to women’s ways of doing and particular understanding.

To show the relation from one to the other as it is possible to do through the given example, does allow drawing a scheme of what an ideal would be. It’s not all for me or all for you, it’s a balanced relationship of both, balance that may imply in some cases one of both stays with nothing and the other with everything.

In any case, we arrive to a point, as it is the case here, where we see a man be man through what he says, thus in word, and affirming his identity completely outside of what usually makes a man’s identity: material evidence is always of need because it does point at more biological attributes, it’s obvious. Without material proves OLeary looks in fact as if without male attributes.

Not that I care very much, actually a man in concept is much more agreeable to my mind than the common derivation, a determined biology would be the warrant for intelligence, organization and thought.

Precisely. Here, in this abstract realm, where a man is man just because he situates his identity in word, it is possible to reach an insight on things that would be impossible otherwise. Not that all bad men’s characteristics do not appear altogether by the same way, as it becomes obvious that he forgets that he’s not alone in the world (common male feature), that the concerned may not be interested in the revealing of such facts (another common male feature), that other men in a less advantageous position may be hurt by his blunt affirmation (yes, that’s quite common, too). It’s that the localization of identity inside of his word, allows to test whether he may stand for what he is even in the most aggressive context, implying responsibilities that may be rather far too heavy to wear.

Is this so, the very fact of claiming loudly for what there may be inside of a context where this puts someone in a not only virtual or imaginary danger of death, may be considered as proof for his fatherhood, proof that in no case implies a biological evidence but in any case allows the establishing of links even there where there is no biological boundary.

Appears also that this domain, the proof of psychic relation, stays in female hands and is proper to their realm. It’s thus not accidental that I used internet in order to give word to a claim, as for reasons that are long to explain, I tend to associate this way of transmission to a female logic. Logically I don’t very much push towards a more general publication as this would imply to enter pure male realms that are ruled by other rules.

The general idea is the following: If you’re a father in name or concept or word, then you should be able to take on you this responsibility. If you can and don’t disappear buried under the tons of possible menaces, I can say that you’re a father independently of whatever biological evidence there may be behind.

But this does not exist. I mean, such a procedure has no frame, no rationalization, no theoretical background. In order to avoid this peculiar insertion of ancient methodologies into modern times to jump out of its own hypothesis, I make use of a contemporary custom: I bind the man inside of rights that do belong to me, and these being complete (in all aspects) imply his not jumping out for the time being of the frame that is carefully being built up.

It’s obvious that this almost surreptitious way of avoiding someone crashes against a wall as the man appears really desperate when I first contact him, thing I can understand, as precisely, a human’s identity is situated mainly inside of his words and believes so that the very fact of being constantly hold for mad or not believed to affects pride and may push someone to do things that may be seen even as illegal or dangerous or self destructive, finishes by interacting with the lack of thought of men’s contemporary world in almost despairing ways.

Precisely: the fact that a proof is built up maintaining a subjective fatherhood does not imply you may claim for the same objectively, but may allow that you find the real paths to claim for that one, too, as you have put yourself into the right subjective disposition.

The clear and obvious constant interference of male’s world into female’s world becomes obvious through the fact that this happens through the completely undue publication of a statement in media where regulations are as hard as to protect social organization and hierarchies well enough not to hurt – I must say – mainly men’s interests.

Is this so, then you may continue destroying men’s world, thing that is to no one’s advantage, or to insert such a happening as social fact even into men’s world:  a judge is there to evaluate objective proves. A newspaper is there to transmit the judge’s evaluations. If this is not respected, you destroy order and thus social organization and thus the very small contribution of men, I would say, to the structuring of reality whole.

I don’t think this very ethical although it may just be considered as the clear result of the pretension of some to have done everything by themselves: you finish by loosing everything for yourself, too.

Evidence and proof for the fact that image is nothing but a game sometimes, and that reality is actually difficult to seize. We may be sure of something or presume things are really somehow until new data is added obliging to a reconsideration of things.

What does distort the angle giving thus little importance to relevant data? A common appreciation of reality. Now see the guy, what does it mean to remember after 25 years you’ve forgotten a daughter somewhere? This, I may say, quite shared point of view at least in female realms, puts a heavy moral weight on whoever concerned and makes things appear from an almost aggressive perspective. And this makes also that little importance is given to what seems to be ‘added’ facts or irrelevant data.

Oleary is pushed out of Paris and he can even prove it: the agency he’s working for does refuse him the possibility of taking pictures for a well known magazine saying that he’s already booked for that day. Had it not happened that coincidentally he meets the director of the magazine in the street, he would have never known about it. This way though, there is proof for two facts: not only there is material evidence for his presence in Paris, there is evidence for his being pushed out, too.

Is this true, then the moral charge full of suspicious thoughts and almost cold undertones, disappears. This disappearing, the situation around his meeting Cristina takes almost romantic touches.

The question appearing then is why to claim for a fatherhood after 25 years.

Not only you may argue that the shaking of peaceful and harmonic familiar situations is horribly bad mannered, the problem is that a ‘father’ being a legal term depending on a marriage, the crash between the biological and the legal becomes almost violent.

I would be the last to take away the chance of becoming a father to a man who may not have children by himself and would certainly understand the horror arising in their minds if all of a sudden all sorts of biological fathers arose from dusts and cendres. Not only. To my understanding the social weight of the legal father should prevail in order to avoid very confusing happenings as those arising between adopting fathers becoming suddenly lovers of their own children (case Woody Allen), kind of political incest my mind would certainly never agree with.

Thus, my position keeps itself in extremely conservative patterns were the very fact of claiming for a fatherhood after the child having been born inside of a legal boundary of marriage (case of adultery, for example) should strictly be forbidden. It’s true that there are legislations that share my point of view, while others don’t. Without critizing one or the other, I hold it usual for a moral obligation to keep myself inside of my own patterns of thought whenever I analyze reality or, even more, if it were to engage myself for someone.

Why then leave Oleary a space to express himself in public media putting even my name behind such a claim?

It’s true that very wickedly, but that’s the privilege of rethorics, I put him inside of a very dusty and obscure context as if the image arising from my own evaluation patterns were reflected in a situation, which, you want it or not and without ever pretending to anything else, is nothing but a personal reconstruction.

There is some sympathy inside, eventually. Strangely Oleary is given this text to read (Moral justification: on Howard Oleary) before it is published or shortly after and he doesn’t say anything. It stays there for many months, quite read, I must say, while the challenge that is wickedly wrapped inside of the whole, starts having some kind of effect.

In fact, the texts concerning Oleary’s fatherhood are in a rather peculiar context: sharp aggressions follow each other attacking not only Roussel but also the Foundation Onassis.

My somewhat ironic mind has put in front of him what I mean is the task of a father: not a biological fact, but a responsibility. Had you been there, would all this have happened? This question is in fact the essence of a long coming and going of e-mails. I have to admit that I presume he will never be able to assume anything that may allow saying that he would have assumed responsibilities. How may someone who disappears after a temporary love story be able of assuming the weight deriving of the responsibility inherent to 2 billion dollar?

It’s true, that ‘do ya like to be my pleasure’ in the very wicked possibility you just have a love affair for a moment and then disappear, that is to say, ‘you are using someone for your own purposes’ is given a perverted image by putting his name just beside all the virtually aggressed, serving in this case my own purposes, I go after for other reasons. If he wants it or not, these people will know that these texts, published for long months also in internet, are there. The violence deriving of aggressed interests or the presence of possible adversaries to come puts him into a quite dangerous position.

The responsibility of 2 billion dolar and without bodyguards. That’s what the man has on his shoulders for many months, resulting of my own perspective of things he does not refuse or somehow contest. I suppose that it is true that at the end, whatever happens, you’d prefer to know you deserve someone rather than to get it given through legal tricks, if they were ever possible. Point of view he seems to hold for reliable.

One day he runs away. It was short before my birthday and I had almost forgotten Oleary must be secretly persecuted by half the world – mainly made of women rejecting such a horrible monster and mainly made of men thinking he may cause trouble to given interests.

He runs away means it was a really long time I didn’t know anything about him anymore and he writes a mail to say he’s arrived in Greece. Intuitively reacting to all sorts of impressions and actually quite satisfied with the fact that he has jumped into the abyss surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of possible male or female murders I tell him to contact the press. (I admit that I was all of a sudden horribly afraid my so well constructed pointing at horrible evidence may not have disastrous consequences and think the press may give him a little shelter.) But precisely. The worse of all happens and feeling quite reliable in what Greek recognize as an own methodology to prove someone’s innocence, he says ‘he’s Athina Onassis father’ almost, I would say, shouting in the main square of an enormous place made of the readers of Ta Nea Tis Lefkada’s this meaning many islands secretly connected by phones and e-mails so that you may say the news is spread all over Greece in very little time.

There we are. All the secret sympathy of those Greek men for a potential hooligan expresses itself through the very impressed words of … a woman. Logical. These women do never serve but their interests. It’s obvious. Gonna get about a thousand tomorrow shouting around.

Luckily Oleary is not using his artistic name anymore and is thus not recognized by the severe controls on borders, public spaces and mass media, wanting to avoid him obtain any kind of echoing that may result in high catastrophes. The catastrophe provoked by his claim may perhaps be ten thousand times worse, I think immediately, but in fact very satisfied with the statement a father may be able of wearing the weight of 2 billion dollar without body guard and without legal justification, just out of instinct, you may almost say, makes the very dark clouds almost immediately disappear.

Of course I immediately ask from Ta Nea tis Lefkadas a few exemplaries in an almost archaic Greek due to the fact it’s a long time I haven’t spoken it anymore. Not only the rights of the story belong to me – I claim a little after – can you please explain to me what may happen if virtual fathers start shouting around every now and then through mass media and without verifying? Of course I had just hired a few lawyers in my mind in order to put both into prison for obvious misbehavior, when I start considering that well, it’s true that the story looks really different if there is no moral guilt on Oleary and this may make it all excusable with just a symbolic fine of 800 USD for putting my reputation in such danger as consequence – he accepts, without too much protestation – and well, Ta Nea tis Lefkadas, will they not soon see the whole Foundation fall on their heads as for these, one and the other go together and this in total innocence of all parts? Well, except of mine, who was really badly misusing the man because I was almost absolutely sure there were no real fathers left in the world anymore.

It’s true that immediately I think which horrible consequences all this may have for me and at once I remember I have written a message to Athina Onassis lawyers telling them I feel free, if I get no answer of theirs, to leave the man a public space seen that I may reasonably think there is foundation in his sayings, due to the accuracy of the descriptions and the physical resemblance.

On top, I hide away the obvious moral and legal problem through a justification saying something like ‘if another takes on himself to state a resemblance and may justify his doings’ he can’t be charged for it. It’s clear that in my mind I see thousands of fathers terrified by such statements and try to find a way to allow this to happen in extremely rare cases and in what I may call, a law of exception.

Another reason why I had kept all rights of the story for myself as I really didn’t think it of intelligence to leave someone talk by himself as many other cases thinkable where people having acted in dubious ways may start use public opinion to get an advantage even of a crime. And now? He had talked by himself, and although I had told him to contact the press, I never told him to talk about fatherhood. I have a legal justification through the mail written to Athina’s lawyers. Does he? Does Ta Nea tis Lefkadas? My mind hurts itself constantly to the prohibition of declaring publicly or even in private a fatherhood without a judge’s authorization.

And it is true that I wouldn’t like to see my newly acquired hero fall now into the hands of justice and have to send him oranges to jail, as it is Spanish custom.

Imagine yourself you read in a newspaper your father is another than the one you thought it was for so many years and your whole structure of reality breaks down in a few minutes. That implies psychologists to repair the damage, many pills and other agreements and this costs an enormous lot.

A horror.

Finally I decide that the whole matter is perhaps more psychological than real. Athina Onassis is a major. In fact she’s not covered by very strict laws on minors and their protection and after all, I go on thinking, it is not forbidden to claim for something as long as you don’t affirm it as objective truth.

In the meantime, in spite of my mistakes, three exemplaries of Ta Nea tis Lefkadas arrive in Madrid, where my father will spend two days to scan them and send them over (I live in countries where I can still pick pictures of Athina Onassis without having to pay rights – an advantage), as I’m actually not that sure of how the situation looks like for them. A  strange message where bizarre letters of oldest Greek actually from the time Sumerian writing was becoming actual Greek followed by an arrow pointing up, accompanies the newspaper.

Perhaps they have intuitively managed to locate in time the era where such tests where still common and have put the proof of such an induction among the newspapers.

Not that I don’t feel in the depth horribly satisfied. Greek seem to share my opinion he’s in right to claim due to circumstances of the past and the present and this reassures my positions. But what if it becomes an example? While another horrible problem appears linked to the fact that Oleary seems to share his name with a lawyer of reputation in New York, if I’m not wrong, as I imagine the poor man horrified by all sorts of gossips already submerging his working desk – but he’s a lawyer, shall he defend himself – I continue happily putting information in internet.

To my eyes I have just build up the proof of an exception. Without wanting for it to become an example – and having certainly to send thousands of excuses to the given lawyer for the coincidence of name – I see reasons enough justifying the attempt of leaving someone a place to say there where all other means are blocked.

Precisely. The newly acquired evidence on Oleary’s somewhat irresponsible innocence (moral – not to be confused with legal innocence which is none of my concern), starts putting the pieces of the puzzle such that it almost does underline the need of his doings. Exceptionally, I would say. But there is no rule without exception.

“at Villa De Est at Largo De Commo where George Cloony just bought a house at the lake;  photographer Helmut Newton also made this place famous with his shots at the Villa”

from Gianni Versace’s show in Milan 1984, spring collection

Appeared in Official Magazine 1984 

 job booked by Thierry Roussel’s agency, First Model Agency

According to Howard Oleary, his only print booking after many shows was due to the accidental meeting of Mr Attwood, editor of Official Magazine

“The shot here, B&W, is one of the shots I dug out of the trash bin to give it to Patrizia in Milan at Beatrice agency to get the Luciano Soprani job in Milan in 1984.
It was the biggest Campaign in Milan that season and the most important because It was Soprani’s first ever collection of men’s wear.”

According to his sayings, he was refused shows and print booking in spite of his obvious success and was obliged to leave Paris

Series of shots from Milan