Well, let's say that there's nothing but her word to corroborate her version of events.

Is there anything but Polanski's word to corroborate HIS version of events?

Hey, I'm just asking. I'm disgusted by what Polanski did even if he didn't force her or drug her. Even the 'I thought she was 16' bit doesn't make me feel better even if I believed it.

I know full well that corroboration in something like this is very rare. On both sides. All I am asking is why is her version any more plausible than his? I think after what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team and more recently at another college to a bunch of scumbag but ultimately innocent guys should show that this goes both ways.

If there is some reason why the version of events that she told is more accurate than his, then let's hear it.

I know its sacrilege to suggest that a grown man with a well-documented fertile imagination would lie or add fictional aspects to his story to paint a picture that puts him in a better light. Especially if he's facing imprisonment. I suppose I'm just a terrible, terrible person for even asking...right?

A fertile imagination? Really? So, because he makes films with a dark tone, somehow he's more prone to lie? We better get a SWAT team to David Lynch's house immediately.

I mean, what gives you idea that a 13 year old in the 70's would consent to all of that even if he HADN'T drugged her?

I can't speak for being a 13 year old in the 70's because I'm not that old. But as I was a 13 year old in 80's. And all I can say is that, well, you'd be surprised.

Is our sympathy for Polanski so great that we're unable or unwilling to put ourselves in the shoes of a scared teenager?

The guy pled guilty and fled the country.

If a terrorist did that, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You're right, we wouldn't. But he's not a terrorist. The comparison is nonexistent. He's not even a chronic sex offender- never before or since has he ever been involved in an incident like this, and any assumption to the contrary is just being inflammatory.

I don't have sympathy for Polanski for what he did with the young woman. It was disgusting, reprehensible, and he will rightly never live it down.

But I do have sympathy for Polanski in regards to how the judicial system treated him. He had a deal in place and everyone, including the prosecutor and the victim herself, was perfectly happy with, and a judge for no good reason other than more time in front of a camera decided to throw it out. So I believe he was completely justified in fleeing the juristiction. I would have done the same thing in his position, and I would bet you would have to.

I like to keep this civil, and polite, but that post you just had comparing Polanski and his crime to that of Bin Laden, and Hitler, especially Hitler, that is just downright insane. Not to mention very, very offensive.

You are aware that Polanski is a holocaust survivor, right? He saw his parents put on a train for Nazi death camp, where his mother did in fact die in a concentration camp. He escaped a Polish Ghetto when he was ten.

If you hate Polanski for what he did, fine. But when you compare him to Islamic terrorists that would walk past you to kill him for being a Jew, or to Nazis that actually did try to kill him, you really go off the deep end.

I watched the episode, and it did bother me, although not as much apparently as it has many others.

But the one thing that really got me was the testimony on the stand by the woman who gave birth to her termanlly ill child knowing full well that the child would die almost immediately. She talked at great length in loving terms about how important it was for her child to be allowed to pass on in her arms. That instead of letting her child pass away peacefully in her womb, birthing the child only to let it slowly and I would imagine painfully suffocate over several hours was somehow more dignified. Did anyone else find this a bit ghoulish?

Who would something like that really be in the interests of? The child? Again, how is the child really better off having to endure an agonizing death that there is no remedy for instead of going on peacefully before being born? Seems like such a decision has a lot more to do with the feelings of the mother.

As sympathetic as we all would feel towards the character, I really had a hard time seeing the choice that her character apparently made as being very selfish. If your child is going to die regardless of what you do, why is the choice that causes an immense amount of pain and suffering for your child before dying the kinder one? Just so you can hold your child for an hour or two, and not have to have an abortion? It just seemed to me so much like cruelty for appearances' sake.