Good point, there's no such thing as rape unless the victim is perfectly pure. Every other slut totally deserves it.
You're portraying Polanski as some "Chester the Molester" type who hangs out at the local kindergarten and seduces Campfire Girls - which is not the truth in this instance.
Do you know where the probation officer obtained this amazingly exculpatory information? I'll give you three guesses.
Interviews with the victim, the victim's mother, and the defendant.
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!
Read the testimony - especially the part where she told Polanski what the effect of taking a Quaalude would be. Apparently your little 13 year-old Snow White had more experience with 'Ludes than Polanski did.
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.
And you know that he gave her the drugs in order to have sex with her because...?
Go to page 27 of the Probation Officers report, and read the part about how the event was neither aggressive or forceful, how the circumstances were provocative, how the victim's mother was permissive, how the victim was physically mature and willing, and the lack of coercion by the defendant.
Read up boyo!
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?
Not at all. Lack of trauma would indicate either, a) no penetration, or, b) penetration that wasn't accompanied by force. Lack of semen proves either, a) no intercourse, or, b) intercourse without climax. However, the girl testified that Polanski climaxed in her anus, but the test showed no evidence of semen inside her anus. I suppose you'll now posit how Polanski felched a snowball from her after he was done.
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.
Nope, I just believe what the Grand Jury testimony and the Probation Officer have written. I also believe that if the DA's office could have proved the six Grand Jury charges against Polanski, they would have prosecuted him for them. But, since they dropped 5 of the 6 charges... maybe their case was weak.
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"
The girl said that she took about 1/3 of a Quaalude, it's unknown whether it was a 300mg or a 150mg 'Lude. Hardly sounds like she was FUBAR, if you ask me.
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.
According to testimony, Polanski made about $60K in 1976. I wouldn't exactly call that "rich".
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.
Absolutely correct, just as the elements of rape and unlawful sexual intercourse are completely different - a fact that you seem to be painfully obtuse to recognize.
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.
Do I sound as ridiculous as you when you continually scream about how Polanski "RAPED" this poor, innocent, virginal, chaste young girl - when the facts of the case indicate that very probably she was a willing participant?
Don't you think that if the DA could have thrown the book at Polanski, they would have - regardless of the tragedy he'd previously suffered?
Seriously, stop for a second and think - it is maybe possible that not only was this young girl not raped, but that she in fact had an underlying motive? Is it not possible that perhaps a young woman would have sex with an older man in order to perhaps start a career in Hollywood? Or, do you believe that the law is absolutely, totally, 110% correct, and that prosecutors and judges never, ever, EVER commit any kind of dastardly acts in order to advance a case?
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.
You're right, it doesn't. While you may have complete and total faith in the fairness of the judicial system, I don't. And, were I Roman Polanski and saw how I was about to get screwed - you can bet your ass I'd be on the next eastbound 747!
The bitter irony to this entire story is this - Polanski had been sentenced to 90 days in jail to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Polanski was released after 42 days, because two psychiatrists who examined him felt he wasn't a danger to society. Judge Rittenband was supposedly going to sentence Polanski to the remainder of the 90 day term - 48 days - and... institute proceedings to have him deported from the United States. Instead, Polanski fled the United States and has remained in self-imposed exile for 30+ years - because he didn't want to be deported. This is much like the person who tells their boss "You can't fire me, I quit!" - the net result is the same.
