Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Prometheus]

He admitted drugging the girl.

Yes, but he did not plead to that crime in court, and the DA did not prosecute him for it within the statute of limitations.

 

[johnny karate]

Further, given that we have only the girl's uncorroborated word that "the coercive aspect" (rape) happened, that the forensic evidence is consistent with Polanski's version of events, and that the forensic evidence seems to indicate that the girl lied in some aspects of her statement, I suspect that Polanski wouldn't have been convicted of rape even if he had been prosecuted at the time since proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt does not appear to exist.

The specific charge against Polanski was "Rape by use of drugs", which California Penal Code: Section 261 describes as "Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused."

So yeah, I'm pretty sure Polanski would have been convicted of that had it gone to trial.

 

[johnny karate]

It doesn't factor in to that topic at all, it's a distinct subtopic.

And what was the point of belaboring that particular subtopic?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And what was the point of belaboring that particular subtopic?

If you don't find the subtopic interesting, just scroll down when someone posts about it.

The specific charge against Polanski was "Rape by use of drugs", which California Penal Code: Section 261 describes as "Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused."

So yeah, I'm pretty sure Polanski would have been convicted of that had it gone to trial.

IANAL, but I'm not sure one third of a quaalude and some champagne qualifies as preventing someone from resisting. I'm also not sure if you can consistently argue both that the girl did resist (as she did according to her statement), and also that the girl was prevented from resisting. The law doesn't always follow common English usage, but in common English usage there's a contradiction there. I don't know how it would have gone if it went to trial but it doesn't seem clear-cut based on what you have posted.

 

[johnny karate]

If you don't find the subtopic interesting, just scroll down when someone posts about it.

Ah, so we're back to being mysterious.

See, here's the problem Kevin, when you take this tack, and then say things like:

...the forensic evidence seems to indicate that the girl lied in some aspects of her statement...

it gives the impression you are defending a child rapist, and I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression about you.

IANAL, but I'm not sure one third of a quaalude and some champagne qualifies as preventing someone from resisting. I'm also not sure if you can consistently argue both that the girl did resist (as she did according to her statement), and also that the girl was prevented from resisting. The law doesn't always follow common English usage, but in common English usage there's a contradiction there. I don't know how it
would have gone if it went to trial but it doesn't seem clear-cut based on what you have posted.

What physical resistance did the girl offer? I don't recall any aspect of her testimony claiming she physically resisted.

And I'm not a lawyer either, so I'm not sure how far a semantic argument would get the defense. But when you've got a 44 year-old man giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year-old girl, having sex with her, and the girl later testifying that she didn't want to have sex, that better be the best semantic argument in the history of criminal litigation.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, so we're back to being mysterious.

See, here's the problem Kevin, when you take this tack, and then say things like:

it gives the impression you are defending a child rapist, and I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression about you.

The facts are the facts. The facts indicate that the girl most likely lied about some aspects of what happened (or the lab results were tampered with, or something else really unusual occurred).

You can call that "defending a child rapist" if you think it's clever. As far as this specific subtopic goes it doesn't matter whether Polanski kidnapped the Lingbergh baby and started the Great Fire of London, if the facts indicate the girl most likely lied then the facts indicate the girl most likely lied. Call it "defending a baby-murdering arsonist" if you like, it's still true either way.

 

[Prometheus]

The facts are the facts. The facts indicate that the girl most likely lied about some aspects of what happened (or the lab results were tampered with, or something else really unusual occurred).

You can call that "defending a child rapist" if you think it's clever. As far as this specific subtopic goes it doesn't matter whether Polanski kidnapped the Lingbergh baby and started the Great Fire of London, if the facts indicate the girl most likely lied then the facts indicate the girl most likely lied. Call it "defending a baby-murdering arsonist" if you like, it's still true either way.

Except that the facts don't indicate that the girl most likely lied.

 

[johnny karate]

Except that the facts don't indicate that the girl most likely lied.

Exactly. Confusion and traumatization are other possible considerations. That Kevin immediately makes the leap to "lying" is quite telling.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Except that the facts don't indicate that the girl most likely lied.

Exactly. Confusion and traumatization are other possible considerations. That Kevin immediately makes the leap to "lying" is quite telling.

I distinctly remembering asking the posters here for any other hypotheses that made sense of the facts available, and not hearing any that I found remotely plausible. What's your alternative hypothesis, other than the forensic investigators covering up for Polanski? "Confusion and traumatization" don't cover the inconsistency between her graphic and specific testimony and the total lack of medical or forensic results consistent with that testimony.

 

[Prometheus]

I distinctly remembering asking the posters here for any other hypotheses that made sense of the facts available, and not hearing any that I found remotely plausible. What's your alternative hypothesis, other than the forensic investigators covering up for Polanski? "Confusion and traumatization" don't cover the inconsistency between her graphic and specific testimony and the total lack of medical or forensic results consistent with that testimony.

The forensic results are not inconsistent with her testimony, they just fail to confirm it. This has been explained in detail upthread.

 

[johnny karate]

I distinctly remembering asking the posters here for any other hypotheses that made sense of the facts available, and not hearing any that I found remotely plausible. What's your alternative hypothesis, other than the forensic investigators covering up for Polanski? "Confusion and traumatization" don't cover the inconsistency between her graphic and specific testimony and the total lack of medical or forensic results consistent with that testimony.

I don't recall anyone deeming you final arbiter on what is and what isn't plausible, so your personal incredulity is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are other explanations that allow for possible inconsistencies in the girl's testimony, regardless of whether or not you accept them.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The forensic results are not inconsistent with her testimony, they just fail to confirm it. This has been explained in detail upthread.

The lack of detectable injury is simply inconsistent with anal sex as described in her statement. People's bits don't work that way, despite what you may have seen on porn sites. The lack of detectable semen is simply inconsistent with her graphic descriptions of semen in her statement.

If I described significant quantities of blood soaking in to my shirt, in detail, in a statement to police, and that shirt was tested within 24 hours of my statement and showed absolutely no signs of recent exposure to blood, that wouldn't just "fail to confirm" my story. It would lead us to believe that the most likely explanation was that part of my story was false, and the only other explanations would be that the forensics staff were incompetent or fixing the evidence for me.

I don't recall anyone deeming you final arbiter on what is and what isn't plausible, so your personal incredulity is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there are other explanations that allow for possible inconsistencies in the girl's testimony, regardless of whether or not you accept them.

By the same token evidence does not vanish just because Johnny Karate has inserted his head in the sand, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Prometheus]

The lack of detectable injury is simply inconsistent with anal sex as described in her statement.

<snip>

The lack of detectable semen is simply inconsistent with her graphic descriptions of semen in her statement.

<snip>

Of course you can link to some hard evidence to back up these claims, right?

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

 

[Segnosaur]

He admitted drugging the girl.

Yes, but he did not plead to that crime in court, and the DA did not prosecute him for it within the statute of limitations.

Hmmm... I'm not 100% sure if the statue of limitations would apply here...

After all, all of the charges (statutory rape, sodomy, administering drugs) are all part of one specific criminal action. He plead guilty to one part of that criminal action, so the statute of limitations is 'suspended' for the statutory rape part of the crime. Perhaps it also suspended for other parts of the same criminal act?

Just a wild guess. No real knowledge behind it.

Any lawyers on here willing to comment?

 

[Belz...]

Okay. If that's what you're after then mine is:

Roman Polanski had unlawful sex with a 13 year old girl, pleaded guilty, and should serve the remainder of his sentence plus whatever extra you get for doing a runner under those circumstances.

See ? That wasn't so difficult, was it ?

 

[Belz...]

Unfortunately, he didn't plead guilty to that, and it's too late to prosecute him for it.

That's true but unfortunate. Justice should have no expiration date.

 

[Belz...]

See, here's the problem Kevin, when you take this tack, and then say things like:

it gives the impression you are defending a child rapist, and I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression about you.

I disagree here. Kevin is pointing out his impression about a specific aspect of the case. He was clear (finally!) about what Polanski deserved.

 

[johnny karate]

If I described significant quantities of blood soaking in to my shirt, in detail, in a statement to police, and that shirt was tested within 24 hours of my statement and showed absolutely no signs of recent exposure to blood, that wouldn't just "fail to confirm" my story. It would lead us to believe that the most likely explanation was that part of my story was false, and the only other explanations would be that the forensics staff were incompetent or fixing the evidence for me.

But the fact that aspects of your story might be "false" is not necessarily proof you are lying. There could be other mitigating circumstances. Perhaps during the incident you described you suffered a traumatic experience that clouded your recollection. Like maybe... oh, I don't know, you were drugged and raped?

By the same token evidence does not vanish just because Johnny Karate has inserted his head in the sand, or anywhere else for that matter.

But that's the problem Kevin, you don't have any evidence the girl was lying. You only have your interpretation of the evidence that has led you to the assumption she was lying.

 

[varwoche]

But that's the problem Kevin, you don't have any evidence the girl was lying. You only have your interpretation misrepresentation of the evidence that has led you to the assumption she was lying.

Fixed it for you, seeing how Kevin is ignoring the fact that semen was detected on her underwear.

 

[jimbob]

I disagree here. Kevin is pointing out his impression about a specific aspect of the case. He was clear (finally!) about what Polanski deserved.

(ETA: punishment for) Illegal sex but with no coercion:

What about the coercive aspect?

ETA: as opposed to the merely illegal aspect?

ETA2:

For example the Bolton 7 were performing acts that woudn't rock my boat, and were considered illegal, but which I wouldn't consider to be immoral.

IIRC (and this isn't mentioned in wiki) there was fully consensual harm (involving sandpaper IIRC etc... which they were also prosecuted for)

Further, given that we have only the girl's uncorroborated word that "the coercive aspect" (rape) happened, that the forensic evidence is consistent with Polanski's version of events, and that the forensic evidence seems to indicate that the girl lied in some aspects of her statement, I suspect that Polanski wouldn't have been convicted of rape even if he had been prosecuted at the time since proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt does not appear to exist.

The specific charge against Polanski was "Rape by use of drugs", which California Penal Code: Section 261 describes as "Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused."

So yeah, I'm pretty sure Polanski would have been convicted of that had it gone to trial.

And the killer parts:

No point in restating what johnny karate has said perfectly clearly, but I'll highlight some bits of it:

I
IANAL, but I'm not sure one third of a quaalude and some champagne qualifies as preventing someone from resisting. I'm also not sure if you can consistently argue both that the girl did resist (as she did according to her statement), and also that the girl was prevented from resisting. The law doesn't always follow common English usage, but in common English usage there's a contradiction there. I don't know how it would have gone if it went to trial but it doesn't seem clear-cut based on what you have posted.

Ah, so we're back to being mysterious.

See, here's the problem Kevin, when you take this tack, and then say things like:

it gives the impression you are defending a child rapist, and I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression about you.
<snip>
And I'm not a lawyer either, so I'm not sure how far a semantic argument would get the defense. But when you've got a 44 year-old man giving drugs and alcohol to a 13 year-old girl, having sex with her, and the girl later testifying that she didn't want to have sex, that better be the best semantic argument in the history of criminal litigation.

I'll just add that IANAL but from what I read, quaalude seems like an ideal candidate for a date rape drug; moving it into the modern years, if he had given her rohypnol and then she complained that he had forced herself on her, would that be OK?

Now add in the fact that she was 13, and he was 44, and the disparity in power, and the fact that he had been put in a position of responsibility over the child means that there was no way informed consent could have been given or presumed.