Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

If he raped this girl against her will, especially if he fucked her in the ass as she stated in one version of her story, then they would have charged him with raping a child. Why didn't they?

Why did the mother choose to pursue charges only against Polanski and not any of the other photographers her daughter had slept with? Or men who had given her daughter drugs?

And to my mind most importantly to the mother- if you know your underage daughter does drugs and has sex with adult male photographers why keep sending her out ALONE with adult men?

The story kept changing, the girl admitted she consented to having sex with him, other people had said she lied about her age (said she was 15 which is an average age of consent in many european countries), and evidence came out that she had been having sex and doing drugs with other adult men and that the mother had full knowledge of this and had done nothing about it or to prevent it from recurring (as long as the money's right). All this shit together made it a sticky case for the DA, so they lowered the charges and pled him out.

Polanski likes to fuck young girls, he makes no bones about it and tries to spear as many 15 year olds as he can, but that's legal in France. Do I think that's sick, Yes- yes I do. I wouldn't let him around my family.

Everyone keeps saying "If this had been your daughter...", but it wouldn't be my daughter because I wouldn't let this shit happen. Her mother, knowing the daughter'sd pattern of behavior, sent her daughter out yet again with another adult man unsupervised, not just once but twice. God forbid I wind up with a little lolita, but if I do, I damn sure won't be sending her out unsupervised to go get fucked and get fucked up with adult men.