polanski_1

There’s a pretty startling revelation from Marcia Clark, former Los Angeles District Attorney and O.J. Simpson prosecutor, with respect to the decades-old Roman Polanski case. According to her article published last night in The Daily Beast, former LA prosecutor David Wells lied to the director of Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired about having advised Judge Rittenband (now deceased) about sending Polanski to prison. The director’s request for dismissal of the case against him stems in part from the allegation that Rittenband had this unethical counsel from Wells; if that did not in fact happen, where will Polanski’s lawyers turn now?

Here’s a recap: Polanski made a plea bargain, which led to a recommendation of probation. But, in Wanted and Desired, Wells said that he argued with Rittenband to get Polanski into jail for some time. “What you should do,” Wells says on film, “is send him up for a 90-day observation…it’s not a final sentence. He can’t appeal it. He has to go.” The agreement was that he’d go in for that observation, which was deferred for a year while Polanski worked on a film, and after that would be freed.

Quoted in The Daily Beast, Wells now says of Polanski’s initial sentence:

It’s likely Judge Rittenband agreed to abide by the recommendation and give Polanski no additional time after he finished his diagnostic. What he probably didn’t count on was that Polanski would promise to put everyone in the prison in his next movie and basically charm his way out of there in just 42 days.

But because the custodial sentence was deferred, Polanski had been able to fly to Paris to prep the film, Hurricane, he was working on, and from there he went to Oktoberfest. His photo was snapped there, and published all over the world. Because there was already question about whether Polanski was receiving lenient punishment, Rittenband was furious. In Wanted and Desired, Wells claims he brought the photo to Rittenband and said,

What I told him was, you’ve made so many mistakes, I think, in this case. He’s giving you the finger. He’s flipping you off. Haven’t you had enough of this?

Now Wells claims he only brought the paper to the bailiff and asked him to give it to Rittenband.

This is big for a couple of reasons. One is that, while Rittenband’s judgment on the case has frequently been in question — he was in fact removed from it after Polanski fled the country in 1978 — Polanski’s recent opposition to returning for sentencing was based in part on the revelation in Wanted and Desired that Wells had advised him, illegally, on giving Polanski the 90-day custodial sentence. Furthermore, Wells is now unreliable with respect to the case; either he lied to Marina Zenovich, director of Wanted and Desired, or he’s lying now. He claims he lied because he was told the film would never appear in the US, and because “it made a better story”.

Wells acknowledged his misdeeds, saying:

I’m going to have to eat crow…I know that. And I will. I know how it sounds, that I’m willing to lie about talking to Judge Rittenband, but I didn’t do anything unethical. But it’s the truth….Look, after 30 years, I never thought they’d get the guy back here. I figured no one cared anymore, and no one here would ever see the film anyway. What can I say? I don’t have a better reason than that. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

All of this just adds a wrinkle to a pretty clear cut-scenario: Polanski must return to the States to face the end of his case.

[Thanks to /Film reader Luis for the tip]

  • Jared
    He had sex, statutory rape, with a 13 year old girl. How could anyone see this as OK? He needs to serve his time. What if it was your daughter? Just because he made movies does not excuse his sick and perverse behaviour.
  • It wasn't simply statutory rape--that implies the possibility of consent. There was NO consent--in fact the girl repeatedly told him to stop. AND he gave her champagne and qualudes.
  • Annoymous
    His wife was also brutally murdered while carrying his child. Not that it excuses him, but I can't judge anyone morally who had to endure that.
  • Guest
    you can judge his moral cause you got to think he should know better how its going to effect someone else life.
  • Rob0729
    You do realize that many child rapists were raped as children. Many spousal abusers were abused as children. People go through horrible tragedies and most do not violate other people. If you excused criminals based on their past experiences, no one ever would go to jail.

    Sorry, losing his wife and unborn child isn't an excuse to rape a 13 year old girl.
  • Bomberman
    You Idiot. The article has to do with a man who lied about his involvement. No one mentioned that it was okay for him to have sex with a minor. What he did was awful and the proceedings are being dealt with now, finally. Since you only read the name "Roman Polanski", you think "oh my god! the monster, he's getting away with it!"

    Don't riddle Slashfilm with your "Fox News" reading habits.

    bye.
  • The Internet
    no one said it was okay. read the article

    go read the crucible and get off your witch hunt
  • Jared
    You sir are a jackass, go read the Crucible. I don't care what the article was about its a related comment. He is trying to hide his flight by trying to claim wrong doing on the judges part and not face up to the crimes he committed. Maybe you need to get you head out of your arse. If he raped your 13 year old wouldn't you want him to face justice?

    Or do you like raping children? Is that why you defend him?
  • Hey, how 'bout we don't do this.
  • krackajap
    I think you just lost the moral high ground with your personal accusations of liking to rape children.
  • The Internet
    You, sir, are the one who is now taking the title of Jackass. Nowhere in my in quick response was I indicating that I support child rape nor does it indicate that I am for the immoral acts done by Mr. Polanski. Furthermore, I never defended him. I'm calling you out for not reading the article... I don't have to though. You clearly show it

    Examples

    "He is trying to hide his flight by trying to claim wrong doing on the judges part and not face up to the crimes he committed. Maybe you need to get you head out of your arse."

    Grade, F: The filmmaker of "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" claimed wrong doing. He probably fled the country because he didn't want to go to jail. Just a wild guess. Also, my head is definitely not up my ass because I can smell other people's bullshit.

    "If he raped your 13 year old wouldn't you want him to face justice?
    Or do you like raping children? Is that why you defend him?"

    Grade, D: You tried to prove a point with sighting similar emotions. However, you lose any slight shade of credibility by immediately accusing me of defending him. In no way do I condone child rape, molestation, or any form of harm towards kids for that matter. To answer your question: No, I would not want him to face justice if he raped my 13 year old daughter. Like most fathers, I'd want to hunt him down with a battle axe and probably cook him for dinner. THEN, when I come to my senses, would want him to face justice.

    You're looking to get mad and riled up about something plenty of people have done in another article. It discusses his arrest and his terrible crime. This article calls attention to the fact that a man, who is representing law and order in this country, lied for the sake of face time in front of a camera.

    In short, go back to watching Fox News and leave slashfilm alone.

    -The Internet
  • shadow
    And who says how much time he is supposed to serve? You? Or the court system? He was arrested, they gave him a sentence, he served it. He might have gotten it reduced but he didn't do it illegally.

    I'm fucking sick of everyone acting like goddamn public avengers.

    The victim wants this out of her life, Polanski has gone threw so much shit about this he's never going to do it again. So what exactly is the fucking point of continuing a trial that is not protecting anyone from further harm and hurting the initial victim?

    Oh and to answer your question, If I let my 13 year old daughter go to a directors house a have bikini shots taken of her (which I wouldn't) I sure as hell wouldn't let her go back when she tells me he was acting weird around her and making her uncomfortable.
  • LR
    Read the transcripts at Smoking Gun.

    Enough said. If he was a nobody he wouldstill be in jail.
  • Aphestadil
    I completely agree ... kind of.
    On the other hand: If he was a nobody, he would still be in Switzerland.

    He was judged differently because he wasn't a "nobody". Now they judge him differently as compensation for their wrongdoing.

    I'm really relieved that I don't have to judge him now. And I have no intention to even try.
  • lawrenceABQ
    If he was a nobody he wouldn't have been allowed to leave the US to go to Switzerland in the first place.
  • Swarley
    It's because of his fame that he was able to get into this situation in the first place. Otherwise the girl's mother wouldn't have (most likely) let her daughter have private sessions with him.
  • OMGWTF
    "He was arrested, they gave him a sentence, he served it. He might have gotten it reduced but he didn't do it illegally.

    I'm fucking sick of everyone acting like goddamn public avengers."


    I'm fucking sick of people who don't know the facts of this story.

    He did not serve a sentence. He fled before sentencing. He only had 42 days of psychiatric observation.

    We do not not have a system of justice where someone can say he "has gone threw [sic] so much shit about this he's never going to do it again."
  • Name
    Shadow, I don't understand your point of view.

    Mr. Polanski was in his 40's when he knowingly had oral, vaginal and anal sex with a 13 year old girl. He KNEW she was underage yet proceeded to satisfy his own desires above her protests.

    If Polanski disagreed with the judge in his sentencing, why didn't he protest by facing the court, hearing the sentence, and appealing? That's how we do things in this county, a country that Polanski had lived in for almost a decade by the time he was indicted.

    The victim was awarded an undisclosed amount of money from Mr. Polanski after she sued him. That doesn't sound to me like she wants it out of her life.

    I'm personally tired of people who assume that simply because Polanski has suffered in his personal life or is gifted that he can get off of a felony because he ran away. People who are convicted of lessor crimes nowadays are registered as sex offenders in the US. Why should he receive better treatment than the rest of us? Simply because he could afford to leave the US and live in France?
  • Swarley
    While I don't disagree with you, I'd just like to say that the victim obviously sued him initially to get justice, but NOW wants it out of her life because she had no idea it would end up this way. And most of the people that are offering defense of Polanski are trying to avoid the fact that he was famous as much as possible and try and see it as if he were just another guy (from what I've read). Though, it's obviously impossible to do completely (and people may just be very good at hiding their biases.)
  • "The victim wants this out of her life, Polanski has gone threw so much shit about this he's never going to do it again. So what exactly is the fucking point of continuing a trial that is not protecting anyone from further harm and hurting the initial victim?"

    That's a generally good point, except that the reason the victim's had this particular chapter of her life in the open to the public for so long is because her assailant fled the country to escape additional punishment. The irony is that considering his wealth as well as the victim's mother's allegedly questionable conduct, he may have gotten off scott-free or maybe with a slap-on-the-wrist. Either way, it wouldn't be throwing unwanted attention on the victim now, 32 years after the fact
  • whsmith
    I'm fucking sick of people making excuses for the the crimes of celebrities. It doesn't matter what the victim wants at this point. We have a justice system, we have rules and laws. Making exceptions for the rich and famous, or when it's convenient, is not in fact the mark of a highly evolved civilized society, sorry France. What this creep did calls for serious jail time. If your 13 year old daughter was drugged and sodomized by a 43 year old man I somehow think you'd have a different attitude about it.

    The poor guy has "gone through so much shit"? As in, he's continued to have a glamorous life making major motion pictures with movie stars, winning awards while being idolized as a great artist? I wonder how many young girls he victimized across Europe in the last 30 years. Oh, but it's ok... he's an artist.
  • Hostile
    And are we simply supposed to TRUST that Polanski will not molest another child, that he has not already? The word we use to describe this type of person is "monster". A monster cannot be trusted to learn from it's misdeeds. He needs to be imprisoned, as any other violent child rapist would be.
  • Rob0729
    How did he serve his sentence when he fled the country before sentence was delievered. Did he travel to the future. The time he spent getting mental observations was not a sentence although the time he spent there can be reduced from his sentence if the judge who does sentence him desires.
  • Julie
    I wouldn't let my daughter stay with an unstable man with a reputation... alone. So that wouldn't be my daughter in the situation.
  • Rob0729
    The ironic thing is that all these movie people who are defending Polanski would be the first ones to have an offender of the same crime strung up and sent to prison if he was just an accountant living in their neighborhood in Beverly Hills or Bel Air. Apparently these people think there is an "brilliant director" exemption from rape cases.

    Judge Rittenband is dead. Whatever judicial misconduct he did cannot hurt Polanski for his sentence now. He will have a new judge and needs to face the California judicial system for his crime. I do fully support applying the 42 days he has already served to his sentence. But he should pay for the crime even if his victim was bought off long ago.
  • Guest
    Well said.
  • Name
    I'd rather he just serves what's left on his sentence. The judge was an asshole and self-serving. In most cases where shit like that happens, the case is dismissed and restarted. But for some reason we just insist on chasing him.
  • Hostile
    Possibly because he's a violent paedophile who drugged and raped a thirteen year old girl against her protestations? After already having had her strip while he photographed her naked?

    Maybe that's why we insist on chasing him, because he deserves to suffer for what he did like any paedophile should.
  • Craigasorusrex
    When you anally, vaginally rape and give oral sex to a 13 year old girl who is repeatedly telling you "No", and give her a sedative in champagne you need to go to jail.

    I don't care what movies you made but everyone needs to pay for their crimes. In this case what Polanski did is disgusting and cruel. Just because she's gotten past it doesn't mean that he shouldn't face jail time.
  • Dysthymia83
    In my book, drugging and anally raping a 13yo girl should warrant some serious jail time. But that's me.
  • Isaaac
    And the plot thickens.....
  • Frank
    That picture is funny. Throw on a big silly hat and he would look like the Pope, interestingly enough.
  • I think he should have to serve a lot longer now, just because he fled the country and has been living freely for over 30 years. You don't want to send the message that escaping from justice is okay.
  • freemachine
    He should get whatever you and I would get in the same circumstances, which would probably be the maximum sentence for the original crime plus additional sentencing (likely jail time) for the warrant. It's only fair that way. I hate when celebs and politicians skate on charges that would certainly put regular people in a jail cell.

    Oh, yeah, they should also fine the shit out of him, because California needs all the $$ it can get right now.
  • Swarley
    Damn, I was hoping people would actually comment about THIS article and not the Polanski case as a whole and their personal opinions on morals. I thought I'd be able to get some of this wording clarified because I understood it for the most part, but I figured I'd get it more simplified by people talking about it in the comments. But I guess not.

    I knew when I found out that he was arrested that I'd have to listen to unbearable ranting every time I tried to find out something new about the case...
  • Rob0729
    What do you want to comment about the documentary that most Polanski supporters use as their argument to support Polanski may be a lie and the director may have swayed the people she interviewed into lying to make Polanski look like a victim? I'm game. What do you want to talk about?
  • Swarley
    So, just to clarify, by saying that he didn't advise the judge to make the illegal sentence (like he originally claimed), Wells is revealing that Polanski had no solid reason for fleeing to France, that is wasn't based on a judicially-corrupt decision, and that he must have just done it because he didn't want to do the time. And (if that's the case), I'd say that the director wasn't trying to sway the voices of the people interviewed, but that they may have swayed it themselves anyway, especially if they knew the angle that the director was trying to take (in my opinion).
  • JeLe
    Or what's to say he's not lying now?

    To me, it seems equally as possible that, when he gave the interview for the documentary, he believed, as most people did, that Polanski would continue to live out his life abroad and that the case was essentially moot.

    Now that Roman's been arrested, it raises the possibility of more scrutiny of the events surround the trial, including the judicial misconduct he admitted to taking part in during the documentary.

    So, was he lying then? (And for what possible motive? It just seemed like fun? Yeah, that's real trust-worthy public servant there.)
    or, is he lying now to save his image and possibly career? (I don't know if there are statutes of limitation on misconduct, but if he's still on the Bar, I assume they could discipline him)
  • Swarley
    (JeLe, for whatever reason it's not letting me respond to you, so I'm just responding to my comment before yours, I hope you get it).

    I think it's more likely that he was lying to begin with and that he's trying to cover his ass now. Though I guess either scenario is equally incriminating for him. I just think that lying the first time seems SLIGHTLY less stupid on his part. Lying now would be worse because of the same scrutiny that would be the reason why he'd be deciding to tell the TRUTH now.
  • Chryseis
    To all those people who want Polanski locked up forever:

    He struck a deal with the victim, was sentenced to 90 days in jail for unlawful sexual behaviour, and served 42 of those. All that's left now is 48 more days. He should serve those and be let free.

    The justice system might not always work, but you can't just throw it out the window the one time it fails just so you can get personal gratification.
  • Jean
    Chrysels, I'm guessing you have not read the court documents because that is not what happened.

    I'm not going to get into this I have done that enough this week and my brain and heart are starting to hurt but here is a link with some info that might interest you.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009...
  • MrRich316
    Just a question? What about the 31 years he's been giving the finger to the American justice system? Should we just give him a pass on that? I say drop the hammer on this guy. It seems to me that alot of people want to write this off because the victim settled for some cash (probably thinking that was the only justice to be had), or that its gone on too long. I think that sets up a serious precedent where convicted child predators/rapists could argue that they were treated unfairly by the courts.I would bet there are a number of lawyers in this country that would try to make that case. Yes ,I'm thinking of you ACLU...
blog comments powered by Disqus