The 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.
Because he was not apprehended in the past is not a “stamp” of exoneration on the part of Mr. Polanski. Resources are spread thin, especially tracking a guy who is “fairly low” on the radar, what with the “war” and “global terrorism” and the “economy”. Still, we have enough sophisticated resources in place to track Polanski. The best part is, we got Him! Now we need to get him back to Los Angeles, to “hear the music”..
MrPlow,
Polanski has visited Switzerland frequently, and he has a home there. If the Swiss authorities had wanted to capture him, they could have done so at any time. Why now? I read (maybe above the law?) that his attorney’s might have made some cracks to the LA DA about them not doing anything about getting at Polanski.
Secondly, the recent deal between the US and Switzerland regarding tax evasion of US citizens in Swiss bank accounts may also have either changed the law on the Swiss side, or inspired co-operation between law enforcement in the two countries.
The fact that famous people want different treatment for other famous people should not surprise anyone.
A little repeat from my previous post seems relevant here:
“A judge that would say misconduct occurred after merely watching an HBO documentary (and from an industry that desperately wants our perv freed) certainly brings his legal acumen into question, but a lawyer who swallows it lock, stock, and barrel, and assumes an advocacy position that gives me more pause. Polanski may have had wonderful due process arguments, but as you well know, if he sits on them (or runs with them) he loses ‘em. That’s the process–sorry.”
HBO, Cinemax, ad nauseum … that’s la-la land. People say and do anything and everything, — it’s not real. You’d think most folks would know that. There’s no recourse for lying in that setting. Down at the courthouse, well, they have accountability for words spoken. That’s why we rely on what people say in court, and not much of what they say everywhere else.
Greed was the same thing that motivated Judas..
Gee. I don’t know Tom, maybe “money” was offered to Mr. Wells..
When everyone was asking “why Polanski now?” I was thinking it is to add noise to the news so the war crimes would be hidden in the noise.
That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve read yet about this case.
The California authorities have been actively pursuing having Polanski extradited back to the US the whole time he has been out of the country. This happened now because Polanski had, until recently, been careful enough to avoid going to a country where he could be extradited back to the US.
Is it just me, or do most prosecutors seem blissfully unaware of the thin ice they’ve created for themselves in terms of credibility? (I’m not just talking about this instance, but the countless “problematic” cases out there.)
Was this guy just enthralled by the cameras and lights, or was lying through his teeth a day-to-day job skill, or is he lying now to essentially assist the current prosecution? I apologize if I’m a bit ignorant of the situation, but what, exactly, would have been Mr. Wells’ motivation for lying to the filmmakers? How would he think it would make him look better? What is the “other stuff” he thought the claim would make look better? I genuinely just don’t get it.
We can only hope that when Mr. Wells’ “head stops spinning, his face is to the front again”…
Now I’m “editorializing” of course, but “who sought out Wells to share his story of pain and remorse”? Who contacted him? Who lured him out of obscurity to share this tale of corruption and negligence? How much was he offered?. How much was he payed for his DH (designated hitter) role? These are the kind of hard-hitting questions the D.A. in Los Angeles County are gonna ask..
Jill,
When everyone was asking “why Polanski now?” I was thinking it is to add noise to the news so the war crimes would be hidden in the noise.
Your post reminded me.
Well lets’ analyze the film and its’ content. Why, after so many years does this guy Wells appear in the “ninth inning”, with a story of “corruption and negligence”? Maybe the producers have a hiddedn agenda. “Lets’ help Roman get back to the states”. Lets’ attempt to reshape public opinion of this “pedophile” by parading out this boobcatcher, who now “has a story to tell”. Mr. Wells wants to “purge” himself. He wants to come clean. His conscience has been causing him undue stress and anxiety for years.”Funny”, he wasn’t willing to come clean when the Judge was alive, only after he has been dead for many moons. A blind man without a braille board could read this standing on his head!
Jill,
You forgot to preface it by saying “Roman Polanski didn’t rape a girl, and even if he did it wasn’t illegal, and even if it was illegal here’s why he should go free.”
Sigh.
If Vincent Bugliosi had been working this case, this never would have happened. Mr. Bugliosi was a bulwark for justice. Just as an aside, how much of this Hollywood smoke-screen is just that, a cleverly devised smoke screen to distance the audience from the facts of the case. What are the facts. We know Polanski is guilty of sexual assault and sodomy with a minor. A minor who was plyed with qualuudes and liquor. These facts are substantiated by Polanski himself, who admitted raping the minor. In the “three-ringed circus” of public opinion, I dare say we circle back to the facts of the case and not spend to much time, giving lip-service to a “sensationalist” and publicity hound, like our good-friend from Malibu, Mr. Wells.
I am sorry, I have a problem with Prosecutors doing shit like this. Sorry about the bleeping words.
So Impeachment of a Fact Witness:
Who may impeach?
Inconsistent Statement–The witness has made two or more conflicting statements. By exposing his conflicting statements, you reduce his credibility.
Under the common law of England, a party could not impeach his own witness unless one of four special circumstances was met. This was due to the Voucher Rule, which required that the proponent of the witness “vouche” for the truthfulness of the witness. The special circumstances were:
1. If the witness was an adverse party (e.g. if the plaintiff called the defendant to the stand, or vice-versa).
2. If the witness was hostile (e.g. refused to cooperate).
3. If the witness was one that the party was required by law to call as a witness.
4. If the witness surprised the party who called him by giving damaging testimony against that party.
This rule has been eliminated in many jurisdications. Under the United States’ Federal Rules of Evidence, (F.R.E. 607), any party may attack the credibility of any witness.
So Mr. Well’s were you lying then or are you lying now? How much were you paid for that statement in the film? Did you sign a release so that you likeness and name could be used? Are you being threatened for your testimony today? Have you had any contacts with any fact witnesses to this proceeding? You say that you retired 2 years ago? Did you make that statement while you were acting as a DA? Why did you make that statement then? Why are you recanting today? You are under oath and you do understand the penalty of perjury?
You Piece of Shit Prosecutor, whore for the people, Dumb Assed District Attorney. How many other cases have you lied about? How many convicting have you acquired in this manner. You know that your conduct can be prosecuted by the Disciplinary Authority in your state? Do you care?
Sodium pentathol works wonders, so does a poly…
THEN:
“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.”
NOW:
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.”
Was Wells lying THEN or is Wells lying NOW?
Jill, I think its’ all of the above (e)
Roman Polanski should not be tried for the crime of rape because:
1. He was trying to keep American safe
2. His lawyer wrote a memo telling him it was O.K. to rape a child
3. We need to look forward
4. He has friends in high places