Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Information Analyst]

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?

Hypothetical: You are are on a jury for the trial of an individual charged with assault and robbery. Victim says the accused beat them around the head with a baseball bat, grabbed their wallet, and ran off. The report on the medical examination of the victim carried out several hours after the incident records no brusing, lacerations, or abrasions to the head of the victim.

Do you convict the accused on both counts, just one, or do you think that the mis-match between their claims and the forensic evidence casts doubt on their credibility as a witness?

 

[Information Analyst]

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.

Nicholson's housekeeper said Polanski and the girl were acting "like lovers" earlier, and she guaged the girl's age as much higher. Huston also did the latter. If you put so much weight on Huston's comment about the girl being "sullen" - which obviously could be down to a myriad of reasons - why are you not addressing what else she said?

 

[Flo]

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.

Irrelevant: in those places children, especially female, are considered property, women can't divorce or get healthcare outside of what their male family allows, etc.

 

[Information Analyst]

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).

I wouldn't expect anyone to disclose their personal experience of anal sex, either as a giver or a recipient, but from mine I find the idea that an even a grown adult having it done to them inmpromtu, unlubricated, and to orgasm, but leaving not the slightest trace of forensic evidence to show that they had, utterly preposterous. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been watching too much cheap porn.

 

[johnny karate]

Hypothetical: You are are on a jury for the trial of an individual charged with assault and robbery. Victim says the accused beat them around the head with a baseball bat, grabbed their wallet, and ran off. The report on the medical examination of the victim carried out several hours after the incident records no brusing, lacerations, or abrasions to the head of the victim.

Do you convict the accused on both counts, just one, or do you think that the mis-match between their claims and the forensic evidence casts doubt on their credibility as a witness?

Your hypothetical makes for a poor analogy. Polanski is not on trial nor will he be. He's an admitted rapist awaiting sentencing. Parsing testimony about aspects of the incident irrelevant to the crime to which he's already plead guilty is pointless.

Besides, if this were a jury trial, I'm sure we'd have something more substantial upon which to base our conclusions than what's being offered in this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

Kevin, for the sake of moving the discussion forward, I will concede that Polanski did not sodomize the girl.

So what's your point?

 

[Information Analyst]

Your hypothetical makes for a poor analogy. Polanski is not on trial nor will he be. He's an admitted rapist awaiting sentencing. Parsing testimony about aspects of the incident irrelevant to the crime to which he's already plead guilty is pointless.

Besides, if this were a jury trial, I'm sure we'd have something more substantial upon which to base our conclusions than what's being offered in this thread.

OK, if it helps, the accused in this hypoythetical case is admitting to the non-violent snatch-theft of the wallet. As prosecutor, do you pursue the assault charge?

 

[johnny karate]

OK, if it helps, the accused in this hypoythetical case is admitting to the non-violent snatch-theft of the wallet. As prosecutor, do you pursue the assault charge?

That depends. Am I able to get the expert opinion of a medical examiner to interpret the medical report, or do I need to rely on the non-expert secondhand interpretation of anonymous Internet posters?

 

[Checkmite]

Kevin, for the sake of moving the discussion forward, I will concede that Polanski did not sodomize the girl.

So what's your point?

His point has always been and continues to be that it's "unfair" to call an adult having sex with a minor "rape" unless the victim sustains injuries (which in his mind is the only way to objectively "prove" the sex was coerced). In other words, the entire debate is over a semantic point; kind of like the whole "Bright" issue.

Strangely, since he seems to be lately insisting that it's impossible to have sex with a minor without causing some kind of injury, the point should be rendered moot.

 

[Information Analyst]

That depends. Am I able to get the expert opinion of a medical examiner to interpret the medical report, or do I need to rely on the non-expert secondhand interpretation of anonymous Internet posters?

You would need a report of no injuries found at all explaining to you? Would not common sense tell you that someone can't be beaten around the head with a baseball bat without leaving any trace?

 

[GreyICE]

You would need a report of no injuries found at all explaining to you? Would not common sense tell you that someone can't be beaten around the head with a baseball bat without leaving any trace?

Terrible analogy, since the injuries you're alleging (which don't necessarily accompany anal sex) are all internal. Baseball bats are anything but. Change your analogy to repeated taser shots, and I'll take it.

 

[johnny karate]

You would need a report of no injuries found at all explaining to you? Would not common sense tell you that someone can't be beaten around the head with a baseball bat without leaving any trace?

In much the same way Kevin's gunshot wound analogy failed earlier, I submit that head trauma caused by a baseball bat would be far easier to medically prove than rape.

But to address the roundabout point I assume you're trying to make, I don't think the evidence presented in this thread would be enough to convict Polanski of sodomy in a court of law.

However, we're not in a court of law, and that's kind of my point. Because if we were, we'd have access to much more and much better evidence, and not simply have to rely on what random people think about the paucity of evidence to which we do have access.

 

[LostAngeles]

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

Ah! Allowing you to conveniently ignore the point he made earlier.

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.

Are you willing to give a citation for that?

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.

Historically, females were property and could be married off whenever the father felt the need. Likewise with today, the girls who are married off young are in countries where women have little to no rights.

Can you think of reasons why that is no longer the case? Can you think of reasons why a relationship between equals is considered the ideal?

Did you again ignore the questions I asked?

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.

What are my arguments again?

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.

Wait, what? You just mused on the girl framing Polanksi and you're, "sticking closely to the evidence and what we can know for certain?"

Maybe it's just me but those two go together like rhino butt scrapings and chocolate.

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.

Oh snap, goalposts moved again! Now it's the forensic evidence instead of the damage done by having a vastly unequal relationship!

So you're getting your nose up in the air about your, "skeptical credentials," when you've repeatedly moved goal posts, made unprovable speculation, and ignored questions?

Gotcha.

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.

 

[Sledge]

Ah, fignuts. The forum ate my post this morning. I think it went a little something like this...

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.

Firstly, I don't see how there can be a discussion of whether Polanski is guilty. There was a trial, he pleaded guilty. Unless you're contending that the confession was false, the matter is closed.

Secondly, I do have to read posts to see what they contain. If someone can explain the relevance of this aspect of the discussion, I have no problem with it. So far, it has no relevance.

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.

Sadly, short of travelling back in time, there is no way to know for sure. So we come down to whether you trust the word of a 13 year old rape victim or that of a rapist who has demonstrated with his actions that he cannot be trusted.

Personally, I find the whole affair ludicrous. Whilst I appreciate the victim's recent call for the matter to be dropped, it is Polanski who has dragged the sorry affair out over 30 years by lacking the testicular fortitude to man up and accept responsibility for his actions.

 

[drtalee]

I agree wholeheartedly. He pled guilty, and then fled the jurisdiction. Ultimately, it no longer matters whether the girl lied or not - the time to raise the issue would be at trial. By pleading guilty, Polanski denied himself the trial. He needs to be returned to the U.S., and sentenced. At that time, it is up to the judge to decide how much mercy to extend to Polanski, and can take into account the victims desire to forgive and forget.

 

[marksman]

He didn't just plead guilty. Prior to his arrest, according to the parole officer's report, Polanski admitted to the officers that he had sex with her (albeit claiming he withdrew before ejaculation). Not only that, but he had his attorney with him at the time (because the parole office report indicates the attorney instructed Polanski not to answer any additional questions about the particulars of the event. That was a voluntary confession, not merely one as part of a plea.

 

[marksman]

If the forensics are correct the girl's story is partially false

No, if the forensics are correct there is no anal tearing and no semen residue. The story is only partly false if anal tearing and semen residue is always present after anal sex, something you haven't established and which you and Information Analyst just declared to be true.

you have presented no evidence or reasoning I find the least bit compelling to discredit the forensic evidence.

I'm not trying to discredit the parole officer's characterization of the forensic evidence. I'm saying the forensic evidence doesn't establish that which you claimed.

I view making a false accusation of anal rape to be a very serious matter in itself.

She was underage and claims to have sex. Polanski agreed she was underage and claims to have sex. At most, you would be claiming she got the orifice wrong. Are you really saying identifying the wrong hole is a serious matter? Really?

 

[tyr_13]

It is entirely possible that Polanski's dick is too small to have produced noticeable anal tearing.

 

[varwoche]

Nicholson's housekeeper said Polanski and the girl were acting "like lovers" earlier, and she guaged the girl's age as much higher. Huston also did the latter. If you put so much weight on Huston's comment about the girl being "sullen" - which obviously could be down to a myriad of reasons - why are you not addressing what else she said?

When a witness has a vested interest -- as Huston did being that she was friendly with Polanski -- it makes sense to assign more weight to statements that are contrary to vested interest than statements that align.

 

[Ziggurat]

It is entirely possible that Polanski's dick is too small to have produced noticeable anal tearing.

We have a winner!