Ex-prosecutor admits he lied about Polanski case

[MajorChode]

(CNN) -- A retired prosecutor whose comments in a 2008 HBO documentary threatened to derail a 31-year-old sex case against film director Roman Polanski now says he lied.

David Wells told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Thursday that he "buttered up" his role in the Polanski case for the documentary crew. He said he lied about trying to goad a judge to sentence Polanski to prison in 1978 for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Wells' comments in "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" raised questions of judicial misconduct and spawned Polanski's most recent effort to get the case dismissed. But the legal challenge stalled when Polanski refused to return to the United States, where he faced certain arrest.

"I made these imprudent comments, just to liven it up a little," Wells said. "In retrospect, it was a bad thing to do, and I never knew this thing was going to be shown in the United States."

Wells now says he never spoke with the judge about the Polanski case, as he had claimed in the documentary. "I never discussed this case with at any time," Wells told Blitzer.

...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/01/polanski.prosecutor.admits.lie/index.html

I guess this is a huge blow to the rape apologists' argument that the judge acted improperly.

[Fresh_Start]

1. I enjoyed that it was Polanski's lawyers efforts

which led to his arrest.

They jumped on the docudrama as justification for dismissal which woke up the sleepy prosecutors office.

[naaman fletcher]

2. When did he lie?

Did he lie then, or is he lying now?

But you know what? It doesn't matter.

Polanski plead guilty, and then fled justice. Perhaps he can make some sort of claim that judicial misconduct should result in a new trial.


Q. What did he say?
A. He asked, he goes, “Are you on the pill?”

And I went, ‘No.”

And he goes, “When did you last have your period?”

And I said, “I don’t know. A week or two, I’m not sure”.

Q. And what did he say?
A. He goes, “Come on. You have to remember.”

And I told him I didn’t.

Q. Did he say anything after that?
A. Yes. He goes, “Would you want me to go in through your back?”

And I went, “No”.

Q. Did he say anything else?
A. No.

Q. How long did he have his penis in your vagina?
A. I can t remember how long, but not a very long time.

Q. Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before March 10th?
A. Yes.

Q. Approximately how many times?
A. Twice.

Q. How did you know that he had his penis in your vagina?
A. I could tell. I could feel it.

Q. What happened after he says “Do you want me to – “was it go through the back?
A. Yes.

Q. What happened then?
A. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, “Oh, I won’t come inside of you then”.

And I just went– and he goes — and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q. When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
A. He put his penis in my butt.

Q. Did he say anything at that time?
A. No.

Q. Did you resist at that time?
A. A little bit, but not really because –(pause)

Q. Because what?
A. Because I was afraid of him.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib13.html

[Gabi Hayes]

4. beat me to the punch. doesn't help your case too much when you've already

PLED guilty!

[MajorChode]

8. The claim was that Polanski was justified in running because he was getting railroaded

However, that argument never held much water because the accusations of judicial misconduct weren't made until well after Polanski was out of the country. So he used his financial means to flee simply because he knew he was going to do jail time and he probably figured the 42 days he had already served was his penance for raping a 13 yr old.

[Chemisse]

3. Hmm, that guy must really be blushing right about now. - nt

[anonymous171]

5. I don't care. Thousands of poor people get fucked by the Justice System everyday

And yet, Hollywood never makes Documentaries about their troubles. Monica Belluci and Penelope Cruz don't sign petitions asking for their release.

[closeupready]

34. Please tell me Penelope Cruz did not sign a petition. Please, no.

???

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. News gets unrec.

Good job DU! :sarcasm:

[Hepburn]

7. Wells was NOT the DA assigned to the case.

That DA ~~ the one actually involved in the case ~~ signed a document under penalty of perjury that the judge did certain things such as order in chambers the manner that the counsel were to put on the sentencing hearing, the judge had ex parte contact with the media, and a few other actions which clearly are evidence of judicial misconduct. That DA never recanted a thing.

The fact that Wells has changed his story appears to have been done to avoid his own culpability for ex parte communication with a judge who is sitting on a case. It does not matter if the attorney represented any person and/or interest in the case ~~ it is a volation of the Calif Rules of Professional Conduct for Wells to have done this. That is why he recanted.

The only huge blow is to your opinion that Wells statement matters one twit on the huge amount of judicial misconduct which was evidenced in a sworn statement by the actual DA on the case. Suggestion: Before you opine, get ALL the facts, OK?

:eyes:

Edit to add: Roger Gunson was the DA assigned the the Polanski case ~~ not Wells.

[MajorChode]

11. You really think you have all the facts?

The statement in which you are referring was signed in 1997 and involves a completely different judge and was a completely separate incident from the original trial.

Here's the statement:

At the meeting, Judge Fidler advised Mr. Dalton that if Mr. Polanski returned to Los Angeles, that he, Judge Fidler, would allow Mr. Polanski to be booked and immediately released on bail, require Mr. Polanski to meet with the probation department, order a probation report, conduct a hearing, and terminate probation without Mr. Polanski having to serve any additional time in custody. That there was a deal worked out between Judge Fidler and Mr. Dalton was reported in the New York Daily News as early as October 1, 1997.

One of the issues raised by Mr. Dalton during the meeting was the question of media coverage. All understood that any proceedings would be open to the public as required by law. During the meeting, Mr. Dalton pressed Judge Fidler for a resolution of the case that would allow for minimal news media. Mr. Dalton recalled that Judge Fidler would require television coverage at the proposed hearing due to the controversy. Mr. Gunson recalls television coverage discussed at the meeting. Mr. Dalton told documentary director Marina Zenovich of this requirement.

It is our shared view that Monday's false and reprehensible statement by the Los Angeles Superior Court continues their inappropriate handling of the Polanski case.

Roger Gunson
Douglas Dalton

Now you pretend to know why Wells is lying when obviously you can't know. Furthermore your reason for him recanting makes absolutely no sense. If Wells were culpable for anything he said on the documentary, this would have happened years ago. Recanting now does nothing but harm him. He's also agreed to take a polygraph and if he were lying now that wouldn't make much sense, now would it?

[Hepburn]

13. Yes, Fidler on the 2nd statement from Gunson....

....Gunson also never recanted about Rittenband and his conduct in chambers. That is what I am talking about. Rittenband was the judge who was to take the plea way back when. Fidler was the 2nd judge to whom the matter was assigned. Rittenhouse retired somewhere around 1988 and died in the early 1990s ~~ maybe 1992.

Sorry I was not clear. The original DA was Gunson and he never recanted in his statements about either judge. Wells was never assigned to the case. Wells is the one who recanted. There are two judges that Gunson spoke about in regard to what went on in Chambers.

[Hepburn]

18. This is what I was talking about:

Also in the film are Polanski's defence attorney Douglas Dalton, and Roger Gunson, the assistant DA who was prosecuting him. Remarkably, both men agreed that justice had been undermined by the presiding judge, Laurence Rittenband. At one point in the film, Gunson describes the legal proceedings as "a sham".

"It isn't about whether Polanski is likeable or not," Zenovich told me. "It's about whether he was treated fairly under California state law. And clearly he was not."

Rittenband (who died in 1994) had a taste for celebrity cases, and wanted to make his name as the man who jailed Roman Polanski. He was egged on by an ugly-minded media, which dubbed Polanski "the poison dwarf", stressed his foreign origins, and described him in terms of thinly veiled anti-Semitism. And the judge, it turned out, belonged to an LA country club that barred Jews from membership.

Crucially, no one in California had served jail time for a comparable offence in the previous two years, and Dalton secured an agreement with Rittenband that Polanski's 42 days was sufficient time served. Polanski, it now appears, fled the US because it was clear that the judge had reneged on this agreement and planned to incarcerate him anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6240914/The-hunt-for-Roman-Polanski.html

I recall being told of an indicent at Hillcrest ~~ the all white no Jews L.A. Country Club that the sentencing judge belonged to ~~ my law partner personally knew about what was said by Rittenband to another member of the Club. He ~~ Rittenband ~~ was going to see that "the fucking Jew" went to jail for life.

There is more to this story than just the last deal with Fidler about which Dalton and Gunson issued the written statement.

[MajorChode]

19. You're simply quoting the one sided documentary

The alleged conversation at Hillcrest came 3rd hand from a friend of Polanski's and we're supposed to believe it. Right. It supposedly paints Rittenband (who conveniently can't defend himself) as an anti-Semite with zero corroboration. It also doesn't fit the available facts. The judge allegedly was mad because Polanski was released after 42 days of evaluation and the original agreement was that he serve 90 days. He had a meeting with both sides and ordered them to present arguments as to why Polanski shouldn't be jailed for 48 additional days (the balance between 90 and the 42 days served), or be deported. Polanski fled because he couldn't do 48 days in jail. So exactly where is the alleged impropriety on behalf of the judge? And Polanski got treated unfairly for getting sentenced to 90 days for what should have been 6 felony counts had the victim's mother not allowed her to testify at the trial.

[Toucano]

9. Lied in 1978, lied in the documentary, or is lying now?

Take your pick. Excellent behavior from a government official!

THE WHOLE FREAKIN' THING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN!


What a fantastic judicial system!

[krawhitham]

12. +1

[anonymous171]

14. Yeah I know. If you have money you can get away with anything.

Like raping underage girls or corporate fraud.

[Toucano]

15. If someone is convicted and awaiting sentencing, isn't it customary to ask for their passport?

The way this case has been mangled from the beginning is boneheaded.

[MajorChode]

21. Per the agreement, Polanski was allowed to work overseas while awaiting sentencing

Since the only sentence that was being considered was 90 days, I would guess that all of the parties believed nobody in their right mind would skip out for an additional 48 days. But nobody in their right mind would have raped a 13 year old girl to begin with.

[seabeyond]

16. unless there is proof he fabricated what he said on documentary and he is getting ahead of 8 ball

cause he knows it is coming.

cant think of any reason for him to fess up but that

[naaman fletcher]

27. perhaps

But don't forget that Polanski in fact did the crime, and in fact plead guilty, and then in fact fled the country before sentencing.

[Toucano]

28. I'm not forgetting anything.

In fact, a criminal reaches a plea agreement, and in fact, is ALLOWED to leave the country before sentencing.

What lunacy is that?

When does that EVER happen?

It is obvious that the system didn't care all that much about punishing him in 1979, or he would have been sentenced immediately and remanded to the prison authorities on the spot. There's no international work-release program!

The WHOLE thing stinks. The WHOLE thing.

[naaman fletcher]

37. He's a rapist.

Why do you defend this guy?

She said no repeatedly, and he raped her. What don't you understand about that?

[msongs]

10. lol he admits he is a liar. he has no credibility to say anything anymore nt

[MajorChode]

22. Fine. So everything he said in the documentary was BS

He had no ties to the original case anyway. The only reason his name came up at all was because the producer of the documentary used him to try and show how Polanski got a raw deal.

[HughMoran]

17. "Hide Thread"

squared - please - get off this stupid Entertainment Tonight bullshit story.

[Thickasabrick]

20. I think it's important to clarify that Wells was not the prosecutor on

the Polanski case. He was the one that was supposedly advising the judge.

The actual prosecutor on the case and the victim's attorney have not changed their positions that they expressed in the documentary.

[LisaL]

23. I find it really ironic that Polanksi might end up spending more

time in Swiss prison awaiting extradition than he would have spend in US prison for pleading guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor. Sometimes karma is a bitch.

[Thickasabrick]

24. Especially if he fights and appeals every ruling....could be months nt

[LisaL]

25. Yep.

[Dirtyhairy]

26. Much to the dismay of many DUers who think a rapist should'nt pay for his cirme.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

39. C ya, douchebag.

[redqueen]

29. They do love citing that movie as evidence, don't they?

It's very odd...

[SIMPLYB1980]

30. Well don't you know that a documentary always

represents the 100% truth on any matter?

[redqueen]

31. I wanted to laugh...

but then I thought of all the people who might really believe that. That made it sad. :(

[SIMPLYB1980]

32. I'm sorry I guess I should have used the,

:sarcasm:. But yeah that makes me sad to.

[madmusic]

35. The filmmaker issued a statement

Via http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/10/1/194939/288">TalkLeft.

"“Mr. Wells was always friendly and open with me,” says Zenovich. “At no point in the four years since our interview has he ever raised any issues about its content. In fact, in a July 2008 story in The New York Times, Mr. Wells corroborated the account of events that he gave in my film."

And "Wells appeared on CNN today, and Wolf Blitzer challenged him to take a lie detector test:"

[redqueen]

36. *roffle*

[girl gone mad]

38. Oops!

Maybe building a documentary out of statements given by someone who just wants to get their face on tv isn't such a good idea..

Whatever happened to vetting sources?

[closeupready]

33. Exactly. They'll have to come up with some other excuse. Quick.

n/t