Ex-Prosecutor Admits He Lied in Polanski Movie

32561_p_mThe high-end supporters of filmmaker Roman Polanski have been relying more on a documentary than documents in claiming his innocence, citing the film “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” as showing that Polanski was railroaded. The film features former prosecutor David F. Wells confirming improper communications by the judge. He has now admitted that it was a lie and he was grandstanding in the film.

Wells bragged in the film that he conferred with the trial judge and convinced him to renege on a plea bargain — hitting Polanski with more prison time. The HBO film played well in France where the government has worked to protect Polanski from deportation.

Wells now says, however, “I made that up to make the stuff look better.” Wells retired just two years ago, and explained “[t]hey interviewed me in the Malibu courthouse when I was still a DA, and I embellished a story.” He added “I’m a guy who cuts to the chase — I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me . . . I cost the DA’s office a lot of money and aggravation over this.”

Wells statement was used as the basis for a motion to dismiss the case.

For the full story, click here and here.

27 thoughts on “Ex-Prosecutor Admits He Lied in Polanski Movie”

  1. Hi everyone. The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get old ones out. Every mind is a building filled with archaic furniture. Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. Help me! Could you help me find sites on the: Mephisto magellan. I found only this – mephisto helen sandal. They eventually can give your students die can main in retailer, mephisto. Mephisto, the mali forks in cities 5-11 with many writers back. Thanks :confused:. Duncan from East.

  2. CA Appeals Court 70 page decision on Polanski’s appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss the criminal charges. The Appeals Court held that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the fugitive disentitlement principle barred Polanski’s motion. Significantly however, the Appeals Court found that Polanski had other avenues for relief and stated that the allegations of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct should be investigated

  3. Polanskis’ films were, for the most part, very morbid. He had a morbid fascination with the occult and vampirism. The only movie I liked of his was Chinatown. I consider this one of the true cinematic masterpieces of all-time. The screenwriting in it is flawless, not a line is wasted. The role of Jake Giddis was actually created by Bob Towne, with Nicholson in mind. Polanski plays a “twisted gimpy thug”, who almost cuts off Nicholsons’ nose in a particularly gruesome scene near the L.A. river.

  4. This is a messy case, and the prosecutor and the judge involved are examples of many of the problems we have with our judicial system. However, what is not in dispute is that Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and then plea bargained to a lesser charge. He then managed to evade punishment for that lesser charge by fleeing the country.

    I believe we have, in fact, gone over board in our persecution of some who are alleged to have committed sex crimes (notably teens who post pictures of themselves on social websites), but it is difficult for me to have any sympathy for Mr Polanski who committed a depraved act and is a fugitive. Let him return to the US and sort out his situation.

  5. mespo,

    has this case been distinguished? It seems like such an old case considering that it is California?

  6. From the Prosecutor’s Brief generously privided by Alan:

    In MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal. 2d 271, 277 [89 P.2d 382], the California Supreme Court expressed the rule that “[a] party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask
    the aid or assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state. [Citations.]” This general
    rule has been applied to cases involving defendants who are fugitives from justice. In denying the fugitives the relief they seek, the courts have premised their decisions on the fugitive
    disentitlement doctrine—the proposition that “a fugitive has no right to ask the courts to review the very judgment that the fugitive flouts.”

Comments are closed.