We know he penetrated her. We know at the time she had been drinking. We know he didn't use physical force to do any of these things.
That's all we know.
If Franta can discredit her comments that she's forgiven him and that he shouldn't be denied his awards, then I can discredit her comments on exactly what happened that day.
The legal system is not perfect. There is no truth-meter that can detect whether or not people are telling the truth about certain events. We have to decide these things with our imperfect human reason. Reason that, whether we like it or not, can be swayed by emotion.
A lawyer tells a little girl to say that a man forced her to rape him, maybe even convinces her for the time being that that's what he did. Why does the lawyer do this? Because he knows that if that little girl gets up there and says that convincingly(and most of the time the girl won't know any better, it's not her fault), there isn't a jury or judge in the universe that's going to let off that rapist lightly. Boom. There's your conviction, there's your compensation. If he wasn't already, that lawyer is now rich, and so is the family of the little girl.
I'm not saying that that's what happened. But stuff like that happens. A lot. It's sad, but it's reality. There are so many cases of it, it's sickening. And it's stuff like that that makes me very, very, very hesistant to take what "he said/she said" as absolute truth.
That's why I'm not going to judge Roman Polanski. Or anybody. Is he a criminal? Absolutely. Without question. Are all criminals evil people? Are all statutory rapists evil people?
I forgot how Animalman went so far as to attack the victim in trying to exonerate Polanski of his crime.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
