Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Information Analyst]

That was the technology in 1967...

Obviously that should read "1956" not "1967".

 

[marksman]

Nickolls (per previous ref) notes that semen, "in my experience, cannot be found in anal swabs after the lapse of much more than 24 hourse." That was the technology in 1967, so clearly applicable as a minimum to this case, which is apparently well within that time-frame.

I'm sure that's all true. But that doesn't mean that semen is always found with a swab after the lapse of several hours. In other words, the presence of semen demonstrates sexual intercourse occurred within the prior 72 hours. But that doesn't mean that the lack of semen proves that intercourse did not happen.

(As opposed to when someone is shot with a bullet, in which case physical evidence is always found in the form of a gunshot wound.)

 

[Information Analyst]

I'm sure that's all true. But that doesn't mean that semen is always found with a swab after the lapse of several hours. In other words, the presence of semen demonstrates sexual intercourse occurred within the prior 72 hours. But that doesn't mean that the lack of semen proves that intercourse did not happen.

I quoted the part pertinent to Kevin's questioning of whether the 72 hour limit of modern test was applicable in 1977. The full section from Nickolls's book states:

"In cases of gross indency the anal swab has considerable evidential value. Owing to the mechanism of physiological action and to the digestive action of the rectal contents, spermatoza, in my experience, cannot be found in anal swabs after the lapse of much more than 24 hours after an offence. Anal swabs can be taken in the same way as vaginal swabs. In practice we have found that often when the anal swab is negative, a swab from the perianal skin has given a positive result."

Nickolls was, as the time of publication, the director of the Metropolitan Police Laboratory, New Scotland Yard. Male homosexual acts were illegal in the UK at the time, so clearly this would have been routine work for contemporary British police labs.

 

[marksman]

Unless I'm missing something, nothing in that statement indicates whether a negative result is probative of a lack of intercourse, only how probative a positive result.

 

[LostAngeles]

Oh good, someone's finally found a study that shows that such liaisons lead to adverse life outcomes even if the adult in question is a good relationship partner.

Hook us all up with the link, please. I'm glad that at last we have the direct scientific evidence to settle this once and for all. With this evidence we can lobby to change the age of consent laws in places like Tasmania and Spain from an evidence-based position, which is something I've wanted to see done for a while.

So what was that link? If you've lost the link just give me the name of the study, the name of the journal, the date and the principal author and I'll find it myself.



I'm still not going to pull your finger. If you've got an actual argument to make, make it. If you can't make the argument work without first setting up a "gotcha", it was never much of an argument in the first place.

****** Where the **** did those goalposts go!? Cause I was talking about the immaturity of teenagers being why we have statutory rape laws and don't allow them in legal contracts and **** and I provided links to that effect and I talked about how adults have a power over children and you apparently ignored all of it!

****! Can someone tell me where the goalposts are now?

 

[varwoche]

Oh good, someone's finally found a study that shows that such liaisons lead to adverse life outcomes even if the adult in question is a good relationship partner.

As if such evidence has never been presented to you. Let me guess:

The inane qualifier that I struck out will be your justification for dismissing the slew of evidence I addressed to you in the earlier thread:

child sexual abuse has come to be widely regarded as a cause of mental health problems in adult life
...
symptoms engendered in the process of the abuse and have reverberated down the years to produce a post-abuse syndrome in adult life
...
child sexual abuse produced a range of psychological effects at the time and, secondarily, behavioral changes
...
Child molesters are reported to selectively target pretty and trusting children
...
positive correlations between a history of child sexual abuse and mental health problems in adult life
...
The well documented difficulties that sexually abused children experience in the school situation with academic performance and behaviour
...
those with histories of child sexual abuse tended to have lower status economic roles ... significant decline in socioeconomic status
...
A history of child sexual abuse has been found to be associated with problems with sexual adjustment in adult life
...
association between a history of child sexual abuse and an earlier age of entering the first cohabitation and an earlier age at first pregnancy
...
child sexual abuse are at greater risk during adolescence of sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancy
...
These findings support the hypothesis that the exposure of children to the sexual advances and acts of adults places the victim at risk of later sexual problems
...
a blow to their construction of the world as a safe enough environment and their developing sense of others as trustworthy.
...
Relationship problems were also reflected in the evaluations of the quality of their communication with their partners.
...
more likely to rate their partners as low on care and concern, and high on intrusive control
...
child sexual abuse in lowering self esteem in adults
...
established body of knowledge clearly linking a history of child sexual abuse with higher rates in adult life of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders

So, am I right about your inane qualifier?

(Sorry no link -- it expired. It's worth noting though that, phenomenally, this AIFS meta study was cited by Kevin to support his then contention that "less severe" adult+child sex isn't harmful in the long term -- a contention further slapped down here.)

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, because being shot in the leg always results in physical trauma to the leg. As you concede (I believe) you have no evidence that there should always be evidence of anal rape in the form of anal tearing and semen.

"Usually" is not "always". The evidence does not conflict with her story, contrary to what you claimed.

The quote you provided indicates that pssibility quite clearly by using the adverb "usually", which means less than "always".

I think you are parsing that passage incorrectly. As I read it, it is saying that rape of a minor usually causes minor injuries, but sometimes causes more serious injuries. It's not saying that sometimes anal rape by an adult causes no injuries at all, and as I've said repeatedly that would be inconsistent with everything I've read about the topic.

If you have any personal experience or relevant data that indicates it's even remotely possible for a thirteen year old girl to be anally raped by an adult male until the adult male climaxes without any detectable injury to the girl then kindly post it. Otherwise I'm going to dismiss the idea as absurd until I see some evidence.

I could care less about your understanding. I would like some evidence of what you claim.

Because I don't need to investigate anything to verify the statement of yours that you have the burden of proving. Namely, that the forensic evidence conflicts with her story. You have not show that to be true in any fashion.

Information Analyst seems to have covered this capably. If you can dig anything up on the known false negative rate of these tests I would be interested to see it, but given the details of the girl's testimony and the fact that these tests were conducted in a timely fashion I think it stretches credulity past the breaking point that no semen was found in her undergarments or anus given that she specifically stated that semen was deposited in those locations.

I hesitate to be indelicate but if her testimony was accurate I think you could see the evidence on her undergarments with the naked eye, never mind a microscope.

Moreover, when the evidence we have is paltry (precisely because Polanski agreed to plead guilty and then fled the jurisdiction),as skeptics it behooves us to acknolwdge the paucity of evidence and conclude that further investigation is fruitless. Skepticism does not require us to engage in tea-leaf reading just because we have nothing else. And trying to figure out what happened thirty years ago based on a single unverified evaluation is a half-step above tea-leaf reading.

Handwaving away forensic tests by professionals as "unverified" or "tea leaf reading" is scarcely compatible with rationality. In my view the forensic evidence is the best source of information we have about what actually happened, not the first source we should ignore.

First, that's not what you claimed.
Second, what statements by Polanski do you refer? I could not compare the forensic report to his statements unless you provide such statements.

The claim that the forensic evidence supports Polanski's version of events better than the girls' is exactly what I claimed in my earlier post on the topic. The statement by Polanski is in the same Smoking Gun document as the forensic results which you also denied existed because you couldn't find them for yourself despite having the link.

To Checkmite:

Checkmite, I was willing to engage with you provided that you made a good faith effort to keep up. You have obviously not done, so because by the end of this post your questions and accusations have degenerated into near nonsense, demonstrating that you're simply not keeping the various issues under discussion straight in your head. As such engaging with you further is likely to be a waste of my time.

Why did Huston have to witness the entire thing? An independent witness states that after the sex, the victim was not happy. That's important.

She said she was "sullen". That's all. I just don't see how that constitutes strong support for her story over Polanski's.

The point that you're deliberately ignoring is that my judgment and subsequent treatment of you is based on your extensive posting history. That you claim to have changed your mind last week (or whenever) does not speak to whether my analysis of your earlier statements was or was not justified, and so really doesn't matter.

I have demonstrated very clearly that your understanding of my "extensive posting history" was not based on anything I actually wrote, just on misunderstandings of what I wrote you had arrived at by yourself or picked up from others. I'm still willing to accept an apology for that, by the way.

An unbiased sample? How could a traumatized victim of sexual abuse not be biased?

I was assuming up to this point, because you tried to give that impression, that you had actually read and followed the arguments in the previous threads. However this string of odd questions is making it clear that you either didn't read them or didn't follow them. If you'd read and understood what went on previously you wouldn't be asking these questions that betray very basic misunderstandings about research methodology.

As such I don't feel obliged to give you a remedial course in epidemiology. Suffice to say that the professionals who work in this field know what they are doing, and you don't have a clue what that entails.

What "age" is that? The only part of the entire post that connects with the present topic, and you wave it off. It isn't stupid at all: if as you say a 13-year-old is "well able" to decide by themselves whether sex is good for them, why aren't they able to decide when sex is bad for them without needing "proof" or corroboration?

Once again you are either mistaken or being dishonest. I have never said that a 13-year-old is "well able" to decide by themselves whether sex is good for them. If anything I have said the exact opposite. Go back and read what I actually said.

You insisted that I post links to your past threads, Kevin, after I explicitly said I did not want to distract from the topic. This diversion was created at your insistence - you don't get to play the "irrelevance" card, because I already did.

I insisted that you link to the posts I made which you think discredited me, and explain in your own words what the problem was. That revealed that your perception of what I wrote was almost completely wrong, and that once the wrong bits had been corrected you had nothing to complain about. That was all I asked. Anything you do past that is your own business and I'll criticise it as irrelevant if it's irrelevant.

That's nonsense. Didn't you just say you changed your mind about this issue? Do you even have your beliefs straight?

[/quote]

You're getting the facts (not my beliefs) about the effects of sexual activity confused with the facts about the effects of isolated or very short-term sexual assault.

No - you claim I got it wrong, but there are enough corroborating witnesses who interpreted your statements in the same way. Your response to this was some paranoid blurt about "witch hunting".

I'm happy to to take responsibility for my own words. I don't take responsibility for what you or others read into my words that wasn't there.

And as in those threads, trying to one-up the discussion by repeatedly beating your chest and claiming that you're "doing skepticism the right way" because you're using the scientific method to analyze an issue that most of us regard as a cultural, non-scientific one will not work here either. Too many of us have personal experience in this arena; and it isn't your hard-nosed scientificality so much as your arrogantly dismissive attitude and marginalization of personal experiences that ticked so many people off. That attitude remains; so does the reaction.

There's no such thing as a non-scientific, factual issue. When it comes to factual issues there are just woos and skeptics. If you have an unfortunate "personal experience" in this area I'm sorry for you but that doesn't make it okay to be a woo.

I'm glad you figured that out - I'm not so glad that you refuse to allow that other people may have had "better evidence" before you did, and that you continue to refer to people who disagree with you as "stupid" and "idiots". I don't think that's what skeptics do, Kevin.

They aren't idiots because they disagree with me. Lots of people disagree with me without being idiots.

However you've just made yourself an excellent example of the kind of cognitive errors that tend to derail these threads. You don't parse what other people actually write, you don't keep the evidence straight in your head, and you don't feel any guilt about making nasty insinuations and accusations anyway. I don't think further engagement with you is likely to be productive.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

****** Where the **** did those goalposts go!? Cause I was talking about the immaturity of teenagers being why we have statutory rape laws and don't allow them in legal contracts and **** and I provided links to that effect and I talked about how adults have a power over children and you apparently ignored all of it!

****! Can someone tell me where the goalposts are now?

Sorry, I thought you might have had actual evidence. That's where the goal posts always were, of course, actual evidence.

Carry on posting your opinions, which are not based on evidence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay, next stage.

It's philosophically conceivable than an anal rape as described in the girl's statement could occur with absolutely no detectable injury, but we have seen no actual evidence that this is possible and ample evidence such assaults usually result in significant and easily detectable injuries.

It's philosophically conceivable that an anal rape as described in the girl's statement could occur without leaving any detectable semen in her anus or undergarments, but we have seen no actual evidence that this is possible. Further evidence about the false negative rate of these tests would be beneficial, but based on what we've seen so far I don't think it's going to turn out to be very likely that both tests came up false-negative despite the tests being conducted in the appropriate timeframe.

Taken together the odds of a triple false negative would seem to be very, very low.

Does anyone know something I don't about quaaludes, or for that matter anything else related to this case, that could make it plausible that the girl was simply mistaken about being anally raped, and about semen being deposited in her anus and undergarments? It seems a fairly difficult thing to be mistaken about, especially given her testimony that she and Polanski conversed about the matter.

Failing that, is there a more credible theory than the theory that the girl lied on the stand about those specific issues? Again I can't currently see one but I may be missing something.

 

[LostAngeles]

Sorry, I thought you might have had actual evidence. That's where the goal posts always were, of course, actual evidence.

Carry on posting your opinions, which are not based on evidence.

I provided some. You moved the goalposts. Varwoche provided some for yor new goalposts. So you want to keep on ignoring both me and varwoche?

 

[Sledge]

Sorry, I still can't see what relevance this has to... anything, really. The man raped a minor by his own admission. Is there a point to the distasteful discussion as to whether he raped her anally as well?

 

[gtc]

The point about the evidence that she was sullen is it makes it that much harder for Polanski's supporters to claim that the sex was not distressing for the girl.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I provided some. You moved the goalposts. Varwoche provided some for yor new goalposts. So you want to keep on ignoring both me and varwoche?

It is my opinion that Varwoche is beneath contempt. I will certainly be ignoring him until he makes an unreserved apology for his campaign of outright lies against me. He does not deserve a civilized response, especially for that last piece of dishonest garbage.

As for your "evidence", I already told you, albeit in a sarcastic fashion, what actual evidence would look like. See my post above. Get us a link or a citation like the one I described and you have relevant evidence. Until then you're posting irrelevance at best and attacking straw men at worst.

Sorry, I still can't see what relevance this has to... anything, really. The man raped a minor by his own admission. Is there a point to the distasteful discussion as to whether he raped her anally as well?

If the sole issue you are interested in is whether Polanski is guilty of unlawful sex and fleeing the USA, then you don't have to read posts about other matters pertaining to the Polanski case. Just scroll down, it's okay.

I'm interested in the whole story, including (for example) whether the girl lied to frame Polanski for sodomy charges, which seems to be a possibility at this stage. As always, someone else might come up with an angle I haven't considered.

 

[LostAngeles]

It is my opinion that Varwoche is beneath contempt. I will certainly be ignoring him until he makes an unreserved apology for his campaign of outright lies against me. He does not deserve a civilized response, especially for that last piece of dishonest garbage.

What lies would those be? He cited your posts and his responses. Even though he contacted the AIFS whose study you were citing and got a response that supports what we've been saying?

The position of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, and the commonly held view of organisations in the child protection and sexual assault field, is that all forms of sexual assault are harmful to children, including non-penetrative forms of sexual assault. This view is informed and supported by current research.

A child of 13 years of age cannot make an informed decision about having sex with an adult. Childhood development literature advises that at that age children are only just beginning to develop more mature identity and self concept and do not have the emotional maturity to make an informed decision about sex with an adult. Children of 13 are entering adolescence and there is a significant psychological and emotional developmental growth period between 13 and the later teenage years. Childhood development literature confirms that sex with adults has harmful psychological consequences, and it is against the law.

I hope the above answers your questions.

As for your "evidence", I already told you, albeit in a sarcastic fashion, what actual evidence would look like. See my post above. Get us a link or a citation like the one I described and you have relevant evidence. Until then you're posting irrelevance and best and attacking straw men at worst.

All right, fine.

Title Childhood sexual abuse, stigmatization, internalizing symptoms, and the development of sexual difficulties and dating aggression.
Author Feiring, Candice1; Simon, Valerie A.2; Cleland, Charles M.3
Affiliation (1)Center for Youth Relationship Development, The College of New Jersey, Ewing; (2)Merrill Palmer Skillman Institute, Wayne State University; (3)Center for Drug Use and HIV Research, National Development and Research Institutes, New York
Source Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 77(1), February 2009, pp. 127-137
ISSN 0022-006X
Electronic ISSN 1939-2117
Abstract Potential pathways from childhood sexual abuse (CSA) to subsequent romantic intimacy problems were examined in a prospective longitudinal study of 160 ethnically diverse youth with confirmed CSA histories. Participants were interviewed at the time of abuse discovery, when they were 8-15 years of age, and again 1-6 years later. Stigmatization (abuse-specific shame and self-blame) and internalizing symptoms (posttraumatic stress and depressive symptoms), more than abuse severity, explained which youth with CSA histories experienced more sexual difficulties and dating aggression. Stigmatization was found to operate as a predictive mechanism for subsequent sexual difficulties. Internalizing symptoms were not predictive of romantic intimacy problems, although they did show correlational relations with sexual difficulties and dating aggression. Early interventions such as trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy that target stigmatization may be important for preventing the development of sexual difficulties in CSA youth. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

---------------------------------
Title Posttraumatic stress symptoms mediate the relation between childhood sexual abuse and nonsuicidal self-injury.
Author Weierich, Mariann R.1; Nock, Matthew K.2
Affiliation (1)National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System; (2)Fellow in Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine; (3)Department of Psychology, Harvard University
Source Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Vol. 76(1), February 2008, pp. 39-44
ISSN 0022-006X
Electronic ISSN 1939-2117
Prior research consistently has shown a strong relation between childhood abuse and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI), yet it is unclear why this relation exists. The authors examined 2 specific posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom clusters as potential mechanisms through which childhood abuse may be related to NSSI. Participants were 86 adolescents (78% female, 22% male; 73% Caucasian, 27% other races/ethnicities; mean age = 17.03 years, range = 12-19 years) who completed measures of childhood abuse, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) PTSD symptoms, and NSSI. Analyses revealed a significant relation between childhood sexual abuse in particular and the presence and frequency of NSSI. Moreover, data supported a theoretical model in which PTSD reexperiencing and avoidance/numbing symptoms independently mediate this relation. Future research must test the temporal relation between childhood sexual abuse, PTSD symptoms, and NSSI and identify additional pathways to engagement in NSSI. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimitrova N, Pierrehumbert B, Glatz N, Torrisi R, Heinrichs M, Halfon O, Chouchena O.

Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

The risk of adverse psychological outcomes in adult victims of childhood and adolescent sexual abuse (CSA) has been documented; however, research on possible mediating variables is still required, namely with a clinical perspective. The attachment literature suggests that secure interpersonal relationships may represent such a variable. Twenty-eight women who had experienced episodes of CSA, and 16 control women, were interviewed using Bremner's Early Trauma Inventory and the DSM-IV Global Assessment of Functioning; they also responded to Collins' Relationship Scales Questionnaire, evaluating adult attachment representations in terms of Closeness, Dependence and Anxiety. Subjects with an experience of severe abuse reported significantly more interpersonal distance in relationships (low index of Closeness) than other subjects. The index of psychopathological functioning was correlated with both the severity of abuse and attachment (low index of Closeness). Regression analysis on the sample of abused women revealed that attachment predicted psychopathology when abuse was controlled for, whereas abuse did not predict psychopathology when attachment was controlled for. Therefore, preserving a capacity for closeness with attachment figures in adulthood appears to mediate the consequences of CSA on subsequent psychopathological outcome. Copyright (c) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key Practitioner Message:* The way CSA victims deal with closeness and intimacy in relationships contributes to the quality of psychological outcome in adulthood.* Treatment strategies for CSA victims should emphasize the enhancement of interpersonal experiences and the strengthening of the subject's sense of closeness to others, intimacy in relationships, and confidence in others.

Funny... it all seems to come under the sexual abuse heading. I search for effects, sex (or sexual or sexual intercourse), child (or teenager or adoloescent), and adult and this is what I get.

Considering it's not considered that an adult makes a good partner for a teenager/child for the reasons I mentioned above (immaturity of teenager/child, power adult holds over teenager/child), it's very unlikely there even exists such a study. A good romantic relationship can not exist with unequal ground. How can the child and the adult have an equal ground?

Are you satisfied? What have you got to say about:

• The immaturity of the child
• The power the adult has over the child

I'm interested in the whole story, including (for example) whether the girl lied to frame Polanski for sodomy charges, which seems to be a possibility at this stage. As always, someone else might come up with an angle I haven't considered but so far.

Did you consider that she wasn't raped by Polanski but by Reptoids who projected a hologram of Polanski raping her? Did you consider that there was no penis? Did you consider that perhaps the victim never existed and is a vicsim?

Are you JAQing off but instead of 9/11, it's about statutory rape?

 

[gtc]

Kevin Lowe has leapt from a possibility that her testimony is not wholly accurate to an explanation as to why it might not be wholly accurate. This explanation has no supporting evidence so to even entertain it as a possibility, let alone the only possibility to be entertained is mighty odd. However, the chosen explanation does portray the girl as the criminal and the perpetrator as the victim which might explain why it is being entertained.

 

[Checkmite]

Just to recap; everyone in this thread who does not agree with Kevin is 1) lying, or being otherwise dishonest, and or 2) insinuating bad things about Kevin, and or 3) stupid, and or 4) an idiot, and or 5) a woo, and or 6) doesn't know anything about "real evidence" and refuses to provide any "real evidence", and or 7) is posting garbage.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What lies would those be? He cited your posts and his responses. Even though he contacted the AIFS whose study you were citing and got a response that supports what we've been saying?

My view is that Varwoche is beneath contempt, and I will not engage with him directly or indirectly.

Funny... it all seems to come under the sexual abuse heading. I search for effects, sex (or sexual or sexual intercourse), child (or teenager or adoloescent), and adult and this is what I get.

That's exactly the problem that plagued the previous threads. Almost all studies lump all underage sex together as "sexual abuse", and a distressing number make no attempt to control for social status, family situation and so on. Only relatively recently, as far as I have been able to tell, did anyone do an apples-to-apples comparison that studied consensual (usual caveats) underage sex and underage sexual violence separately and did all the appropriate controls.

Considering it's not considered that an adult makes a good partner for a teenager/child for the reasons I mentioned above (immaturity of teenager/child, power adult holds over teenager/child), it's very unlikely there even exists such a study. A good romantic relationship can not exist with unequal ground. How can the child and the adult have an equal ground?

Are you satisfied? What have you got to say about:

• The immaturity of the child
• The power the adult has over the child

The modern conception of the ideal relationship is one between equals in some sense, but that's not how it is in every part of the world and it's not how it's been throughout history. There are still plenty of places in the world where fourteen year olds can marry older partners of any age. If you were aware of any hard evidence showing that such marriages have worse outcomes in some measurable sense (divorce rate, life expectancy, rate of mental illness, reported happiness, economic status, whatever) then you would presumably have posted it before instead of complaining that the goalposts wouldn't move for you.

I think it's possible or even likely that such marriages are a bad idea, but I've got no hard evidence to back it up. You've got some purely theoretical arguments against such relationships, and purely theoretical arguments are a great place to get testable hypotheses, but they aren't evidence.

Did you consider that she wasn't raped by Polanski but by Reptoids who projected a hologram of Polanski raping her? Did you consider that there was no penis? Did you consider that perhaps the victim never existed and is a vicsim?

Are you JAQing off but instead of 9/11, it's about statutory rape?

That's a somewhat hypocritical insult, given that I'm the one sticking closely to the evidence and what we can know for certain, whereas the people arguing against me on these points seem to be trying desperately to cook up strained reasons to reject that evidence.

Now I suggest you either find some hard evidence of your own to demonstrate that a triple false negative on the forensic evidence is a plausible possibility, or highlight something I've missed that explains how the girl's statement could be an honest mistake. Otherwise I think you should apologise for that JAQing off remark because you're not entitled to criticise anyone else's skeptical credentials.

 

[marksman]

I think you are parsing that passage incorrectly. As I read it, it is saying that rape of a minor usually causes minor injuries, but sometimes causes more serious injuries. It's not saying that sometimes anal rape by an adult causes no injuries at all

Yes, and it's not saying it always causes injuries. It doesn't even tells us how likely injuries or lack of injuries is. So, no, this doesn't help as at all determine if the forensics conflicts with her story, because a lack of evidence doesn't conflict with a story unless such evidence is always found (as in the case of your hypothetical shot to the leg).

If you have any personal experience or relevant data

The burden, Kevin, is on you to prove your claim.

I hesitate to be indelicate but if her testimony was accurate I think

Your thoughts on the matter, as stated previously, are immaterial.

Handwaving away forensic tests

Smoking Gun has no forensic tests. It has a Probation Officer's Report. The Probation Officer is Kevin Fare. he is not a scientist. There is no indication that he read the reports directly or is qualified to comment on them. The purpose of his report was not to convict or exonerate Polanski, but only to summarize what was in the file. So, yes, relying on his characterizations as if it were a forensic report is tantamount to tea-reading.

In my view the forensic evidence is the best source of information

It may be the best source of information. But that only means that we have very little informations. Certainly, we have nothing close to information from which we could make any sort of reasonable evaluation of testimony.

The claim that the forensic evidence supports Polanski's version of events better than the girls' is exactly what I claimed

No, it is not. As I already quoted, you claimed the forensics "conflicts" with her testimony. There is no conflict.

The statement by Polanski

You mean the statement that he had sex with her but withdrew before climax? Why is it pertinent to us which version of those two stories be true?! Does pulling out before climaxing have any sort of importance to any material aspect of this case?

 

[Information Analyst]

Unless I'm missing something, nothing in that statement indicates whether a negative result is probative of a lack of intercourse, only how probative a positive result.

Nickolls says nothing about whether the tests in use at the time were known to not give a positive when they should have. Considering the book in question is essentially a manual for other forensic scientists to use, one would expect that he would highlight such deficiences - as he certainly does elsewhere with other tests - if they actually existed.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, and it's not saying it always causes injuries...

And so on, and on. Sorry, but trying to convince you personally is not my goal here. If the forensics are correct the girl's story is partially false, and so far you have presented no evidence or reasoning I find the least bit compelling to discredit the forensic evidence.

You mean the statement that he had sex with her but withdrew before climax? Why is it pertinent to us which version of those two stories be true?! Does pulling out before climaxing have any sort of importance to any material aspect of this case?

As far as Polanski goes, I view vaginally and anally raping a thirteen year old girl to be a far more heinous crime than having unlawful sex with a voluntarily participating thirteen year old girl. I condone neither but I would condemn Polanski far, far more harshly for the first crime than the second.

As far as the girl goes, I view making a false accusation of anal rape to be a very serious matter in itself. That's why I'm still open to credible alternative ways to interpret the facts we have available, but if none are forthcoming then that's the conclusion the forensic evidence seems to lead to.

The presence or absence of semen is relevant primarily because it confirms or debunks the girl's narrative.