In fact it implies it but never actually says it.

It says 'Adolescent' (whatever that means) and it says that what Polanski MEANS by adolescent is 13-14.

What did the actual contract say? Well for one it might not even have used the term adolescent, as the contract was probably written in French. Not all French derived terms have the same meaning in English (don't know about adolescent which I believe does come from a French root).

The Mail article is full of this kind of stuff. Presenting information in a biased and intentionally confusing manner. It's not journalism, it's pap.

But here, let's break it down word for word from the article:

+++Begin Paste+++

Just before he returned to Los Angeles, however, the director accepted another commission to take a series of photographs - again of adolescent girls - this time for French Vogue's associate magazine Vogue Homme. His idea was to "show them as they really are" - which meant "sexy, pert and thoroughly human" - and by adolescent, he meant girls of 13 or 14 years old.

So he accepted another commission to take some photos. That is a fact because we know he did do some.

The article claims that they were for 'adolescent girls' but doesn't say HOW it knows that. What does the actual contract specify? We don't know.

Then they talk about his 'idea' of how to show them. Where's this from? Did Polanski tell them? Someone from Homme? Did they see the contract? Someone tell them? Where'd the info come from? We don't know.

And then there is "by adolescent, he meant girls of 13 or 14 years old." Really? How does the Mail know what he MEANT? Where does that info come from?

I did a quick check (remember that Legolas mentioned that the Daily Mail wasn't a terribly reliable publication) and some of their other articles are things like this: