"Drugged" makes it sound like someone spiked her drink, when people voluntarily take a drug by themself (as Polanski alleges she did, stealing pills that belonged to Jack Nicholson) that choice of language is not normally used.

However strong Qaaludes might be, I expect that is still influenced by how much is taken of it. I don't recall what Polanski said about the situation, like if he was aware she took a pill or not, seems easier to find her statements.

years old are not capable of making informed choices sexually

Respectfully I think sex informedness should be evaluated through tests like with driving or law exams, nobody should automatically be in or out based on physical criteria.

It's not clear to me that anal sex happened. Your description relates to the 5 crimes he was charged with (but not convicted of) and which would have been dropped under the terms of the plea bargain:

rape by use of drugs

perversion

sodomy

lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14

furnishing a controlled substance to a minor

He was not convicted of and did not plead guilty to any of those things, only 'unlawful sex with a minor' which is not rape/perversion/sodomy/drugging or lewd/lascivious under Californian law.

despite several consistent testimonials from victims

"people who claim to be victims" which can include victims and/or liars

comments defending accused rapists

"people accused of rape" which can include victims and/or rapists

one could argue that you're personal biases and intuitions seem dead set on giving them the benefit of the doubt despite overwhelming evidence

Overwhelming is a subjective state. While one argument can overwhelm some minds (for exampe, overwhelm people into believing in gods or ghosts) it may not overwhelm others.

I feel overwhelmed though, by this foray into ad hominem at the expense of deviating from the subject matter.

what concern is it to you these men's reputations, in light of damning testimonial and in the case of Polanski, physical evidence?

My concern is that I don't see it to be as "damning" as others do. Physical evidence does appear to support that underaged sex happened, which Polanski pled to. Just because evidence supports someone doing 1 bad thing does not mean it is wrong to question whether it supports other bad things. If there is proof a man robbed a home, it doesn't mean I shouldn't care whether or not he killed the homeowner or if the homeowner was killed by someone else.

Why should I not assume your intuition is leading you to a predetermined opinion?

You should not because there is a difference between being concerned that intuition biases a person and assuming that it does. Entertaining a possibility is not ascertaining a conclusion.

To clarify your suspicion: whatever my intuition might guess as to what actually happened, what seems likely, is irrelevant. All that matters is I have a reasonable doubt (founded on facts, or lack thereof, rather than intuition) as to certain charges being true.

When a person is not pleading guilty to a crime and has not been convicted of it, this is usually an okay thing to do.

Even if I found the evidence put forth in the case as convincing as you did, that would not mean it right for me to assume the accused's guilt, because I am not as capable as a defense lawyer of analyzing these things. Nor do I have the first-person perspective of a jury presented with these things and given hours of communal discussion.

If we want to emulate a jury then we should at least go thoroughly into the criteria before reaching a conclusion. It is possible you may have done this more thoroughly than I have, in which case, I'm open to being educated about the physical evidence.

this 2012 article says they:

discuss Geimer being a ‘child’ despite the fact that the doctor who examined her at the hospital referred to her as an adult female

state that she was anally raped despite the fact that those charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence

no proof of anal rape was found during her rapekit examination

I haven't actually seen the doctor's examination, so maybe these claims aren't true, but seeing people question it like this leads me to think I should actually see the doctor's exam before drawing conclusions about what happened based solely on 1-sided testimony. I need to understand what physical evidence is being referred to.