Do you know where the probation officer obtained this amazingly exculpatory information? I'll give you three guesses.According to the Probation Officer, there was evidence that put the girl's Grand Jury testimony in doubt. But don't take my word for it, read the victim's testimony before the Grand Jury and read the Probation Officer's report. You can find them on The Smoking Gun.com
Great argument! Because if someone ever uses drugs once, everyone else can feel free to rape her in the future and it's totally okay because it's her fault!The girl had taken Quaaludes before - according to her testimony the first time she took a 'Lude she was 10 or 11!
Nobody claimed he forced the drugs down her throat. It's the fact that he's a middle aged man giving drugs to a 13 year old in order to have sex with her that most people have a problem with. You don't seem to get this.Polanski didn't force the drugs on her - she knew exactly what she was taking, and it was voluntary!
Think your argument through - are you claiming that because there was no semen present in either orifice or trauma, there wasn't vaginal or anal intercourse? You seem to acknowledge that there was intercourse later on. If there was intercourse, and the test showed that there was no trauma/semen in either orifice, then isn't that an indicator that the test isn't very reliable?She was taken in for a medical exam, the results of which showed no vaginal trauma, no anal trauma, and although there was semen present on her underwear, there was no semen present in her vagina or her anus.
No, it's only questionable if you believe every word that he said and disbelieve every word she said, which it seems like you're quite happy to do.While Polanski did have sex with the girl, it was questionable as to whether or not it was consentual - based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
Furthermore, a person who is under the influence of drugs cannot consent. I guess they must have glossed over that in "Roman Polanski: Totally Not a ****ed-Up Rapist"
Yes, that's why - it has nothing to do with the fact that it's inherently difficult to prove a rape case, or with the fact that he was rich and could thus afford good lawyers, or with the fact that he pled to a lesser charge.And that, mi amigo, is why Polanski was never charged with "Rape", he was only charged with "Unlawful Sexual Intercourse".
Atrocious analogy, because the elements of murder and criminally negligent manslaughter are completely different. There is no logical situation in which my blowing out a tire and crashing the car could satisfy the necessary intent to charge me with murder. In contrast, his actions in this case indicate that it's quite likely that he could (and did) formulate the necessary intent to commit rape.Regarding your analogy - if you're doing 85 in a 55, blow a tire and lose control of the vehicle, the resulting crash killing your girlfriend who is riding in the passenger seat -- are you guilty of murder or criminally negligent manslaughter?
Think carefully before you answer boyo, there's a big difference between those two crimes, much like the difference between rape and unlawful sexual intercourse.
Furthermore, do you know how ridiculous you sound when you say "oh, it was only unlawful sexual intercourse"? You're acting as if the "rape" part is the only bad thing, and if it was just him giving drugs to a 13 year old and then having "consensual" sex with her, that would be totally fine.
Finally, none of this has any bearing on the underlying issue - even if the guy is totally innocent and was framed by this conniving 13 year old, that doesn't mean he gets to flee the country. He's still going to jail, too bad, so sad.