Quote:
Originally Posted by Dottore
Tough crowd.
Speeder: Sorry. I don't see it that way. Her consent (or lack of it) was the proper issue here. Not her age. In every other civilized country such consent would have been a question of fact to be decided by a court of law—not presumed by an absurd and outdated statutory rape law.
And the so-called 'victim' has publicly stated that she "regrets" her grand-jury testimony and the impact this has had on Polanski's life, and has openly pleaded with the DA to let this matter drop. And there is ample evidence that she was coached and manipulated in her original grand jury testimony by an overzealous prosecution.
|
if you were polanski's defense attorney, he'd be headed for the chair.
a 13 year old cannot "consent" to anything. i could drive a few hours south and find some child who'd have sex with me. her mother would even take a check. their actions are irrelevant. i would have committed a crime.
also, having to first DRUG her, and then sodomizing her while she was CRYING sort of argue against the whole consent thing. having girls cry seems like a real turn off to me. maybe it works for him. it's 30 years later. and the woman want's to move on. the several hundred thousand dollars paid to her from the polanski camp helps. but again. that is irrelevant. roman has an established history of doing this to underage girls. in his autobiography he brags about ****ing natassia kinsky when she was 14 or 15. this is what you call a pattern.