Search results

I agree with both of those statements.

Not those comments. I don't disagree that what he did was grim, regardless of whether it was legally or technically rape or not.

It'll be interesting to see if those who previously hid behind "it's the law, not my opinion, the law's" will suddenly do an about turn (which they should, if they're to be consistent).

Some people are probably going to be VERY uncomfortable with some of the comments they have made if he is found not guilty.

The fact this thread has gone to over 2,500 posts shows that clearly, there is room for SOME (i.e. at least 1%) reasonable doubt. I'm not saying he didn't rape her. But to suggest there is ZERO (0.00000000%) reasonable doubt - considering the massive complexity of the case - is utterly ludicrous.

Of course there isn't.

This is such a depressing thread, for so many reasons.

Someone has to back and finance him for the films to be released.

Should Roman Polanski have been allowed to go back to making films?

Well all we know is that; Evans said she gave him consent. She says she cannot remember. From those two pieces of information, how can he be guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? As I said, I think he probably is guilty, however I don't see how "beyond reasonable doubt" is possible, as there...

Quite possibly. Thank you for entering into a mature, sensible discussion with me. Very hard to find on this thread.

I guess my point is that this case - as is made clear by Macdonald's acquittal - is RIGHT down the line of what is rape and what isn't, thus why there has been such debate and why it isn't such a black or white, open and shut case. I actually think Evans is probably guilty, on the balance of...

Of course not. But nor should a criminal record once fully served prejudice someone against getting future employment. Otherwise we are saying we don't accept how the legal and judicial system in this country works.

What's interesting with this case is it appears that the legal definition rape is slowly being redefined before our eyes. Whilst this will be a GOOD thing in many cases, if taken too far it could pretty much mean that all drunken sex could be seen as rape, or at least worthy of an allegation...

Please do not lump me in with anyone else. Nowhere have I said that I believe he is innocent.

You missed: (According to Evans & MacDonald) She requested and received oral sex from him. She gave verbal consent to have sex with him. (Actual facts) She didn't go to the police to complain of rape. There was no physical evidence of rape whatsoever. I think that's about it. Just trying to...

There is difference between what is right morally and legally. Understandably, his defence is focused 1000% on the legal side at the moment, I'm sure.

You could look at it both ways. If you thought even for a SECOND that you might have raped someone, would you just wander over to the nearest police station?

By this logic, there is no point in debating or discussing any interesting or unusual crime case ever.

I don't know. It's a very complicated case though, which makes me surprised that a jury were able to decide unanimously beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. I've read up on it quite a lot and recommend others do, it's a very difficult one.