Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

I said that before, Belz. This isn't a triumph for your inquisitive skills, it's just a demonstration of the fact that (as I said earlier) you either haven't been reading the thread or lack the ability to comprehend and remember what you read.

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?

That's brilliant logic. "Yes, we only have her word for it that she was raped. Yes, her statement is inconsistent with the facts. However the fact that her statement is inconsistent with the facts is consistent with her being raped! Guilty as charged!".

Apart from the fact that this is blatant circular logic, there's also the teensy problem that champagne and quaaludes are not known to make a person incapable of telling their anus from their vagina.

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

The trick to lying is to make the lies plausible, Varwoche, not easily contradicted. Semen was not detected on her underwear. You would expect there to be semen on her underwear if her statement was accurate, since she stated quite graphically that Polanski had an orgasm during anal sex with her and she replaced her underwear immediately afterwards.

What was detected was phosphatase, which is strongly indicative of semen but which can be detected for up to two years on clothing, long, long after the last sperm has vanished.

Since she was by her own acknowledgement sexually active with her boyfriend, there's a really easy explanation for how she could have phosphatase on her underwear without it having anything to do with Polanski.

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?

One third of a quaalude would make you unable to resist a rape? What have you been reading?

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.

Whatever. Tell it to the Californian legal system that didn't think it could convict him of rape or rape by use or drugs, as opposed to unlawful sex.

 

[applecorped]

Apart from the fact that this is blatant circular logic, there's also the teensy problem that champagne and quaaludes are not known to make a person incapable of telling their anus from their vagina.

Not known to who?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not known to who?

Science?

Am I going to have to add "Prove that quaaludes don't cause you to hallucinate things in your anus!" to "Prove that an adult can't unceremoniously anally rape a thirteen year old twice without leaving any sign of injury whatsoever!" and "Prove that there should be semen on an object which the witness explicitly describes as having semen on it!" on the list of demands which demonstrate that person asking is an idiot with an axe to grind?

 

[Prometheus]

Science?

Am I going to have to add "Prove that quaaludes don't cause you to hallucinate things in your anus!" to "Prove that an adult can't unceremoniously anally rape a thirteen year old twice without leaving any sign of injury whatsoever!" and "Prove that there should be semen on an object which the witness explicitly describes as having semen on it!" on the list of demands which demonstrate that person asking is an idiot with an axe to grind?

You mean as opposed to just placing those same items at the top of a blatant argument from incredulity that boils down to "I have no actual knowlege or experience of any of this, but something I read on the Internet says it must be true and it comports with my own biases so I'm gonna go ahead and assert it as fact without any actual evidence"?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I could do all that and then it would be "prove the forensic scientists weren't paid off" or "prove Polanski didn't slip something else into her champagne" or (as we've already seen) "ah, who cares if the girl lied or not, does it matter"?

We've cited forensics textbooks that give no hint that a false negative for a fresh semen stain on a spot you can precisely point to with microscopic analysis is even possible.

Here's the wikipedia page on quaaludes - do you see "hallucinogenic" there? Do you see "total numbness of the entire crotch region" there? It's a sedative and a muscle relaxant, it doesn't make you incapable of telling your anus from your elbow, and the girl had one third of a tablet of it.

As for the issues with injury-free anal sex, I'll let you Google that for yourself but there are plenty of helpful guides for those interested in such activities. You aren't going to find a single one that says "you can have impromptu penile/anal sex with an unwilling, physically immature partner who has no experience of anal sex and using no lubricant... it will cause no injuries at all!". What you'll find is a lengthy explanation of the precautions and practises necessary to have relatively low-risk-of-injury anal sex with a willing, cooperative, adult partner, none of which were present in the girl's statement. We've said all this before.

Yet still you and a handful of others pretend that this mound of evidence is just an argument from incredulity. I am at a loss to explain it.

 

[johnny karate]

That's brilliant logic. "Yes, we only have her word for it that she was raped. Yes, her statement is inconsistent with the facts. However the fact that her statement is inconsistent with the facts is consistent with her being raped! Guilty as charged!".

That she was raped is not a point of contention. You might want to look up the term "statutory rape", although I'm quite certain we've already had this discussion. Then there's the incredibly strong case for "rape by use of drugs".

All besides the point, though. I'm not conteding her testimony is proof she was raped. I'm contending you have no proof she lied in her testimony, a point you conveniently failed to address during your hasty construction of a straw man.

Apart from the fact that this is blatant circular logic, there's also the teensy problem that champagne and quaaludes are not known to make a person incapable of telling their anus from their vagina.

But could it cause a recently raped 13 year-old girl to be confused while trying to recollect her rape, and perhaps mistakenly claim something occurred that actually didn't? I look forward to reading the scientific studies you cite in your answer.

One third of a quaalude would make you unable to resist a rape? What have you been reading?

Apparently not the same scientific studies you've been reading that determine the exact quantities of champagne and quaaludes you must feed a 13 year-old before she is sufficiently compliant for raping. I eagerly await your links to them.

Whatever. Tell it to the Californian legal system that didn't think it could convict him of rape or rape by use or drugs, as opposed to unlawful sex.

Which California legal system should we tell? The alternate reality version where what you claim took place? Or the actual one where it was publicly announced that Polanski's plea bargain was due in large part to spare the victim a trial?

 

[Sledge]

Kevin, could you explain to me what your point is in a couple of sentences? We're up to 21 pages, and I cannot for the life of me understand what point you're trying to make.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That she was raped is not a point of contention. You might want to look up the term "statutory rape", although I'm quite certain we've already had this discussion. Then there's the incredibly strong case for "rape by use of drugs".

Tell it to the state of California, I'm not taking another spin on your irrelevant semantic merry-go-round.

All besides the point, though. I'm not conteding her testimony is proof she was raped. I'm contending you have no proof she lied in her testimony, a point you conveniently failed to address during your hasty construction of a straw man.

We've got proof her statement was factually false on issues she was both graphic and specific about. You've been asked for alternative hypotheses and come up with nothing that holds together.

But could it cause a recently raped 13 year-old girl to be confused while trying to recollect her rape, and perhaps mistakenly claim something occurred that actually didn't? I look forward to reading the scientific studies you cite in your answer.

"Blah blah blah... can you prove it didn't happen?".

If you want us to believe stress, quaaludes and champagne can magically make someone recall specifically that someone anally raped them twice, the rapist orgasmed, and they felt the forensic evidence depositing itself in their undergarments, when such a thing never happened, then cite the evidence for this ridiculous claim.

Of course if you did cite such evidence we'd have to throw out all of her testimony because for all we'd know she could have hallucinated the whole thing from start to finish, and we'd have nothing but Polanski's word for what happened.

As well as being pure wishful thinking on your part, this line of argument is also directly self-defeating.

Which California legal system should we tell? The alternate reality version where what you claim took place? Or the actual one where it was publicly announced that Polanski's plea bargain was due in large part to spare the victim a trial?

It's not my job to disprove wild speculation, it's the speculator's job to provide evidence that the amount of quaalude and champagne involved was incapacitating.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, could you explain to me what your point is in a couple of sentences? We're up to 21 pages, and I cannot for the life of me understand what point you're trying to make.

Okay this is my point in three sentences:

Some issues are complicated enough that you cannot understand them without understanding a significant number of facts and arguments, none of which can be summarised further than they have been without loss of precision. If you want to be entitled to an opinion on such issues you need to do a significant amount of work, and you probably need a degree of scientific literacy to begin with. None of the above facts are under my control and it is not in my power to make exceptions to these facts for people who want to participate but don't have the time, faculties or inclination to get up to speed.

 

[Sledge]

Ok. And what does any of that have to do with the matter at hand?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ok. And what does any of that have to do with the matter at hand?

I rest my case.

 

[gtc]

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.

That says more about you than about the people posting the hypotheses.

 

[Sledge]

I rest my case.

Ah, so your brief summary was supposed to address this issue. Let's have a look.

Some issues are complicated enough that you cannot understand them without understanding a significant number of facts and arguments, none of which can be summarised further than they have been without loss of precision.

This clearly doesn't apply here. There's no complication. Polanski used alcohol and drugs to rape an underage girl. That's pretty easy to understand.

If you want to be entitled to an opinion on such issues you need to do a significant amount of work, and you probably need a degree of scientific literacy to begin with.

Again, no. Man rapes girl. I don't see where scientific literacy comes into this.

None of the above facts are under my control and it is not in my power to make exceptions to these facts for people who want to participate but don't have the time, faculties or inclination to get up to speed.

This is... nope, I got nothing. Did you mean to post this here? Was this intended for another thread?

Again, how does the assorted guff you've been going on about have anything to do with the issue being discussed?

 

[Belz...]

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

And the killer parts:

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

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.

I don't disagree. I was simply voicing my impression of Kevin's point.

 

[Belz...]

I said that before, Belz. This isn't a triumph for your inquisitive skills

Why do you feel the need to be so adverserial ? I asked you for a succint explanation of your position, and it took forever to get you to do that. And now that you did, somehow I'm at fault again ?

For your information it would be difficult for me to claim that it was a "triumph of my inquisitive skills" since you actually complied only when someone else asked for the same thing.

it's just a demonstration of the fact that (as I said earlier) you either haven't been reading the thread or lack the ability to comprehend and remember what you read

Kevin, when a number of people don't understand what you say, the fault isn't necessarily with them. Perhaps that's the source of your problem, here.

 

[Belz...]

Kevin, could you explain to me what your point is in a couple of sentences? We're up to 21 pages, and I cannot for the life of me understand what point you're trying to make.

Obviously you either "haven't been reading the thread or lack the ability to comprehend and remember what you read", Sledge. It's amazing Kevin even bothered to answer you.

Maybe he has something against me, specifically.

 

[johnny karate]

Tell it to the state of California, I'm not taking another spin on your irrelevant semantic merry-go-round.

Hey, I don't blame you. It's an argument you can't win. But every time you attempt to remove "rape" from the equation, I will again remind you that when a 44 year-old man has sex with a 13 year-old girl, it's called "statutory rape".

We've got proof her statement was factually false on issues she was both graphic and specific about. You've been asked for alternative hypotheses and come up with nothing that holds together.

Only according to an anonymous Internet poster who has neither sufficient access to the evidence, nor the expertise to properly assess it. And based on your non-expert analysis of incomplete evidence, you have come to the conclusion the girl was lying, and expect us to accept this as fact. You'll forgive me if I find your argument less than compelling.

"Blah blah blah... can you prove it didn't happen?".

If you want us to believe stress, quaaludes and champagne can magically make someone recall specifically that someone anally raped them twice, the rapist orgasmed, and they felt the forensic evidence depositing itself in their undergarments, when such a thing never happened, then cite the evidence for this ridiculous claim.

I don't expect anyone to necessarily believe anything. I only offer other possible scenarios to consider. You made the positive claim that the girl was lying. You are the one that has to offer evidence to support your claim. So far your showing in this matter hasn't been very impressive.

Of course if you did cite such evidence we'd have to throw out all of her testimony because for all we'd know she could have hallucinated the whole thing from start to finish, and we'd have nothing but Polanski's word for what happened.

Perhaps. But irrelevant to the argument of whether or not the girl was lying. It is good to see you finally acknowledge other possible scenarios besides one in which a 13 year-old rape victim is a liar, however.

It's not my job to disprove wild speculation, it's the speculator's job to provide evidence that the amount of quaalude and champagne involved was incapacitating.

No, but it your job to prove the girl was lying. So far you haven't.

 

[varwoche]

The trick to lying is to make the lies plausible, Varwoche, not easily contradicted ... What was detected was phosphatase

Thank you for the correction. (You sure like to bandy about the word lie.)

The fact that phosphatase was detected, indicitave of semen, is at odds with your fact-challenged arm waving.

 

[jimbob]

I don't disagree. I was simply voicing my impression of Kevin's point.

Oh, I know that, it is just that my understanding of Kevin's position is that it seems to be that Polanski should be punished for breaking the law and not for doing something intrinsically wrong.


As far as I can see, he still seems to be claiming that it wasn't coercive, so therefore wasn't rape.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Victim asks for charges to be dropped

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8327120.stm

She also talks about being pursued by news and current affairs organisations to the detriment of her health and career.

IIRC, she had already asked for people to respect her privacy. If the court case goes ahead she might have to suffer reliving the original assault, which is the unfortunate consequence of cases like this. But don't the media get the fact they're adding to her distress?