Roman Polanski Taken into Custody

[seaboy4hire]

Those of you who are defending this guy after drugging and raping a 13 child, a minor really makes me sick. Rape of a child is right up there with the killing of 6 millions people during WW 2, child porn and any other exploitation of a minor or anyone else who is not mentally mature enough to do on their own. Sure she might have moved on and forgiven but the law hasn't and there is still unfinished business to be done. Those of you who are defending this man over and over, how can you look at yourselves in the mirror in the morning? Those of you who are defending him are just as twisted as he was when he drugged the girl and raped her.

[TruthBTold]

People seem to be missing the point. Yes, everyone agrees that what Polanski did was reprehensible and that in any other circumstance he would and should be punished. However, one of the bedrocks of our judicial system is that when the system itself becomes corrupted in a particular case, society forgoes its right to punish the "victim" of the corruption. This has come up recently in another context. Some of the prisoners in U.S. prisons, such as Guantanomo Bay and other "black site" prisons, are indeed terrorists who have committed unspeakable crimes. However, because the justice system has been corrupted (tainted evidence, non-existent due process), many of those prisoners will go free despite the fact there is no dispute that they have committed crimes. Society does this to protect its system of justice. Here, there is no doubt that Polanski committed a crime, he admitted as much, however there is also no doubt that there was judicial corruption because the prosecutor admitted as much. Unfortunately, there will never be a complete understanding how deep it went because the judge is dead.

[+ Lucky]

The corrupt prosecutor now says he was lying in the documentary! Shouldn't all of his cases now be reviewed to see where else he lied?

From the LA Times:

A retired Los Angeles County prosecutor, who now says he lied on an HBO documentary when he said he advised a judge to sentence Roman Polanski to prison for having sex with a minor, tried to explain his actions this way: “Embellishing a story sounded like a good idea."

“I’m known to the world as a liar. It’s mortifying,” David Wells told The Times. “But it’s my duty [now] to tell the truth.”

The on-camera statements by Wells in “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired” were seized upon by Polanski’s defense attorneys, who say in court documents that Superior Court Judge Laurence J. Rittenband and Wells engaged in misconduct by improperly discussing the 1977 case behind closed doors.

Wells, who at the time of the alleged misconduct was not the assigned prosecutor on the case, claimed in the film that he spoke to Rittenband before sentencing and told the judge that Polanski deserved prison time.

 

He claimed that he suggested a way that the judge could sentence the director to prison by sending him to Chino State Prison for a 90-day “diagnostic testing,” despite a probation officer’s recommendation that Polanski serve no time behind bars.

 

“That was not true,” Wells said. “I like to speak of it as an inept statement, but the reality is that it was a lie.”

Wells also said that he was only partly telling the truth when told the documentary maker that he showed the judge a photograph of Polanski with women in Germany at an Oktoberfest event. Rittenband had authorized Polanski to leave the country before his sentencing so that he could work on a movie.

 

In the documentary, Wells made it appear that he took the photograph into the judge’s chambers and told him that Polanski was “giving you the finger. He’s flipping you off.” But the former prosecutor said Wednesday that he was working in the judge’s courtroom when a local reporter handed him the photograph and asked him to pass it to the judge.

 

He said he handed the photo to one of the judge’s staff, who gave it in turn to Rittenband, who reacted angrily.

“He said, ‘This guy is going to state prison!’ And I said, ‘He’s thumbing his nose at you, your honor.’

"And that’s the only thing I said to him,” Wells said. “I never discussed this case with Judge Rittenband either on the record or off the record or in any other way.” Wells said he deeply regretted lying on the film.

Wells, 71, said that he made up the story, believing that the documentary would never been shown in the United States. The film was broadcast on HBO.

He said he decided to make the announcement public after the weekend arrest of Polanski, who fled the U.S. on the eve of sentencing after pleading guilty to sexual intercourse with a minor.

“Why am I owning up to it now? If Polanski does come back, that’s going to be an issue as to whether he can withdraw the plea,” Wells said.

Wells' statements in the HBO documentary make up a portion but far from all of the misconduct allegations Polanski's attorneys leveled at Rittenband for his handling of the original case. His attorneys cited interviews in the documentary in their unsuccessful effort to dismiss the case.

 

--Jack Leonard

[+ Charlie]

Today the prosecutor says that he lied to the makers of the documentary about influencing the now deceased judge, and says he's embarrassed about having "embellished" the story, apparently because he enjoyed the attention. That will give Polanski's lawyers heartburn.

[Guest zipperzone]

Rape of a child is right up there with the killing of 6 millions people during WW 2,

 

Greg: I usually agree with your viwepoint but really the above statement is one of the stupidist I have ever seen posted on this board. How can you possibly say that?

 

The rape victim is still alive. She has gotten on with her life and raised a family. She has said she doesn't want the issue raised again.

 

The 6 million dead Jews are DEAD. That's it - DEAD. They had no chance to get on with their lives, raise a family and nurture their children. In addition to the ones who were killed, the number of relatives who were affected is uncalcuable.

 

There is no way these two crimes are compreable!

 

And for you to say that some of us are defending him is completly false. No one has said that it what he did was OK. All that is being said is that after 32 years, it's time to move on. QUOTE]

[+ ArVaGuy]

I read today that Polanski has a 12 year-old son named Elvis. Wonder how he'd react if someone plied the boy with champagne and 'ludes then sodomized the kid? Then the perp skips out on his sentencing and evades justice for years and years.

[+ Lucky]

This poor kid is saddled with the name Elvis Polanski? Sheez!

[MsGuy]

I read today that Polanski has a 12 year-old son named Elvis. Wonder how he'd react if someone plied the boy with champagne and 'ludes then sodomized the kid?

 

Well, I'm sure he would be more forgiving if the guy was an award winning movie director.

[Guest TBinCHI]

People seem to be missing the point. Yes, everyone agrees that what Polanski did was reprehensible and that in any other circumstance he would and should be punished. However, one of the bedrocks of our judicial system is that when the system itself becomes corrupted in a particular case, society forgoes its right to punish the "victim" of the corruption. This has come up recently in another context. Some of the prisoners in U.S. prisons, such as Guantanomo Bay and other "black site" prisons, are indeed terrorists who have committed unspeakable crimes. However, because the justice system has been corrupted (tainted evidence, non-existent due process), many of those prisoners will go free despite the fact there is no dispute that they have committed crimes. Society does this to protect its system of justice. Here, there is no doubt that Polanski committed a crime, he admitted as much, however there is also no doubt that there was judicial corruption because the prosecutor admitted as much. Unfortunately, there will never be a complete understanding how deep it went because the judge is dead.

 

Please explain to me how Polanski is the victim of corruption? Even if the prosecutor and the judge talked about whether a rapist should serve time in prison, the actions amount to misconduct, which is a far cry from corruption. However, we will never know if the misconduct was even material, as Polanski skipped out before he was sentenced. And, now you want to say that we shouldn't arrest or punish him? He committed several crimes here folks, and the mere fact that he was slick enough to avoid punishment for 32 years does not equate with a pass on punishment.

 

As to your comments about how this is parallel to the Guantanamo detainess, again, I ask for an explanation. Who says that they are indeed terrorists who have committed unspeakable crimes? You? The whole point with the detainees is that they have been denied due process and none of them have had a fair trial, or any trial at all for that matter, which is THE bedrock of our judicial system. To the extent that they are now being released, it is not because the courts have found that corruption denied them their rights and that our society has "foregone" its right to punish them. It is because there is a lack of evidence to bring them to trial. The fact that we have imprisoned these people for years without a trial is a disgrace to our judicial system. However, no court is saying that because of it they should be released. The courts are saying that they must be tried or released. There is a huge difference.

[jackcali]

I think it's more than middle America. It's everyone other than the Hollywood elite defending its own. I'm enjoying watching some of them (e.g., Whoopi Goldberg) trying to backtrack on their earlier statements, and the seeing the increasing number of celebrities speaking out against Polanski apologists (e.g., Chris Rock on Leno last night). Now, I'm cynical enough to think that some of that is celebrities following the sentiment of their audience, but it can't all be so.