As far as I can tell, nobody linked ot the smoking gun in this thread. Having reviewed it now, I still don't see what forensic evidence you're talking about. The only "discrepancy" is that there was no anal tearing or blood on the panties. Do you have any record that such evidence is always found hours after anal sex? Otherwise, the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. Because if that's the discrepancy of which you speak, I would disagree that this presents any sort of basis to disbelieve the story.
Tests for semen in her vagina and anus also came back negative, as I stated in my earlier post. Her statement claimed that Polanski had anal sex to climax with her, but there was no sign of anal injury consistent with rape and no semen consistent with climaxing.
The wikipedia article on
rape kits seems to indicate that semen can be detected for up to 72 hours after a rape, although possibly the technology was less sensitive in the seventies, and since this rape was reported fairly promptly I see no basis in what I currently know about such tests to think that they are likely to come back with a false negative. I would also like to think that if there was a good basis to think there might be a false negative that this would have been noted.
I have not been able to locate a scholarly source on the degree of injury you would expect to see if an anal rape has occurred. Lengthy and disturbing lists of
possible injuries up to and including injuries that require reconstructive surgery and a colostomy bag, yes, but nothing clearly stating whether or not it's possible for an adult male to anally rape a thirteen year old girl until he climaxes without use of lubricant and without causing any injuries. One distinct possibility is that it's such a stupid question nobody even asks it.
In fact, the record does detail that semen was found in her panties, which indicates that there was intercourse of some sort, as well as confirming that she had ingested Quaalude.
My understanding was that semen was not found in her undergarments as such, but rather a chemical trace consistent with and highly indicative of semen was found. Since she was sexually active I don't think that it follows (certainly not to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt) that those traces came from Polanski that night rather than from her boyfriend at some other time.
The complete lack of anal injuries or sperm in the anus is simply inconsistent with the claim that she was anally raped by Polanski until he climaxed. That part of her story I currently can't see any way of reconciling with the forensic facts.
Whether or not Polanski climaxed at all is less clear, although the fact that they didn't find semen itself on her undergarments, but only traces of chemical residue, also seems hard to reconcile with the details of the girl's statement.
So whether it was anal or vaginal would seem irrelevant to the determination as to whether he committed any form of rape.
You have a curious case of tunnel vision. Why is your sole concern "whether he committed any form of rape", as opposed to achieving the best understanding we can of what the available evidence says?
I get the impression from you and Johnny Karate that you're treating this thread as some kind of juvenile pissing contest where you're here to prove that Polanski's a rapist and I'm cast as the guy trying to get Polanski off. If so you suck as a skeptic. We should all be here to get to the truth, or as close as we can get to it, whatever that turns out to be.
