Blogs and Stories
Polanski's Lost Alibi
“When [Judge] Rittenband saw the photograph of Polanski out on the town…he blew up. Said, ‘Screw the deal, he’s going to state prison.’ And he said it straight to a reporter from The Outlook. Polanski’s lawyer found out about it, of course. And that was that. He never showed up for sentencing.”
So he didn’t advise him on a strategy for how to send Polanski back for more prison—a clear ethical violation—after all parties, including Judge Rittenband himself, had ostensibly agreed to let the 42 days suffice? “No. It never happened,” he said flatly.
I believe him. It’s absolutely forbidden to have one-sided communications with a judge about a pending case. I once knew Wells—rather well, actually. He was a brilliant lawyer, a great raconteur, and he had a wicked sense of humor—but unethical? Hardly.
In the documentary, Wells said he’d never thought Polanski got enough of a sentence for raping a 13-year-old girl. And if anyone knew what Polanski had done, it was Wells. He’d been the one who first caught the case, and he’d interviewed the victim, her mother, her brother, and Polanski himself. Because that kind of involvement would have made him a witness if the case went to trial (which lawyers, and especially prosecutors must avoid), Wells was taken off the case and Roger Gunson was assigned. According to Wells, the switch rankled, “but I got it—they did the right thing, I just think they should’ve left me on as co-counsel. Hell, no one knew the case better than I did.”
A plea bargain was worked out, allowing Polanski to go into state prison for “90-day diagnostic testing.” Back in those days, it was fairly common to let a defendant plead guilty to a lesser charge and have him go in for that diagnostic—a series of psychological tests, and a thorough background check—and if the prison didn’t recommend any further time, the judge would abide by that recommendation. “It’s likely Judge Rittenband agreed to abide by the recommendation and give Polanski no additional time after he finished his diagnostic,” Wells said. “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.”
Although there’d been grumblings about the wrist slap of a sentence, Wells said, “You have to remember, this was the ’70s. People had a different state of mind about sex crimes back then. They were asking what the girl was doing at his house to begin with, talking about how she wasn’t a virgin anyway. I said, ‘What difference did it make? She was a child, just 13 years old. Who cares what she’d done before?’”
• Mark Geragos & Pat Harris: The Polanski Endgame
• Gerald Posner: Polanski's Next EscapeThose were the days when folks still believed rape was “easy to charge and hard to disprove.” And that old adage couldn’t have been further from the truth. Prosecutors well knew that unless the victim was Snow White, the case was toast. All too often, the victim got put through the shredder at trial, framed up as the “slut” who “deserved” it, only to wind up hearing the jury say “not guilty.” And the victims felt they’d gone through all that misery for nothing.
“Even so, knowing what he’d done, I thought that letting him plead to statutory rape was nothing. I wouldn’t have given him that deal,” Wells said.
Polanski’s lawyers will surely ask him that, and more, when and if the director returns. Wells is bound to have to come into court, raise his right hand, and admit he lied. “I’m going to have to eat crow,” he told me. “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,” Wells continued. “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.” Knowing Wells, I wouldn’t have put it past him to have lied in the movie just to stir the pot, and get the case moving in some direction again, which was certainly accomplished.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
The Race Card and the Jackson Doctor
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
Is Polanski the New O.J.?
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
The Lost Polanski Transcripts
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, served as a columnist for Justice Magazine and is finishing her debut crime novel.
crymeariver
Roman Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year girl then skipped bail and ran like a coward to France. We can spend all day debating the personalities in this story as well as the Polanski HBO propaganda "documentary", it's still not going to change the basic facts of the case. So everyone continue trying to muddy the waters, we the people have plenty of truth bleach to clear it back up.
olddog65
Too bad we don't feel that way about ex Presidents and Vice Presidents.
DougWhite
What does that mean? If you're snidely referring to Bill Clinton - and I have no idea what Vice President you might be referring to - do you actually think that raping a 13 year-old girl is the same as an adult having sex with another willing adult? You may understandably not like Clinton on an ethical level for his behavior with women - it was a sordid, sorry time for the man - but that's a far cry from rape.
crymeariver
Doug, I think it's a reference to Bush and co. Some people believe that brining Polanski to justice is somehow stopping the Justice department (who has nothing to do with this case) from getting Bush, Osama bin Laden and Swiss tax evaders. They are usually Polanski apologists.
Nancy4779
How true, are you serious everyone, this man is a child molester, he raped a 13 year old girl, are these famous people for real, they think their above the law, Whoppie Goldberg, Wood Allan, and all the other idiots who want to fight for this man to be free, make me ill. Because he is a famous movie producer that entitles him to rape this young lady, BS, I'm sick of famous people!
maluminse
You write this as if you care of the child. The child is an adult now and her wishes are that she be left alone. Does she really need to dredge up what she has made peace on?
Second a corrupt government is far more disgusting then a single crime. A corrupt government will harm thousands. Judges and prosecutors make up our government. Judges and prosecutors colluding to effect a result or trick people in the process is corrupt government action. This is the disgusting part.
CrottyFarmReport
There is something disturbing about the argument, often made by misguided liberals, that because a government, any government, has committed some crime, hurt more than one person, that somehow that is more important than the crimes of one individual. That means, of course, that German citizens convicted of rape or murder should never receive any attention from law enforcement because how could their crimes ever compare to the horrendous crimes of the Nazis. This argument is moral relativism at its worst.Here's the issue. It doesn't matter how great an artist you are, how much you have donated to worthy causes (see "Inside Man"), what a great guy you are, how much people adore you. None of this is useful exculpatory evidence for the defense in any just society. Polanski's case comes down to this: Did he flee the country, instead of fighting the perceived judicial mistreatment in court? Yes. There is no other point here. He got off easy on the rape charge. He should be grateful. But those were different times. If I was among his advisors, I would have him do this: A. Return to the USA under the agreement that he will only be charged for his flight, not for a retrial of the original conviction; B. Accept a plea bargain on the flight charge. Serve a year in prison. Become, at last a free man.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
crngndmhm
Maybe it's because he's rich, money buys lots of friends. Oh but wait all jews are rich so were saying the same thing.
Are you really that stupid and anti-semetic? Next time you feel like posting don't, instead i suggest you go jump off a bridge and save the world from having to deal with you or any progeny you might have.
pricklypear
The fact that he is a Jew and you are antisemitic is beside the point.
misha1000
"The fact that he is a Jew and you are antisemitic is beside the point."
That's the whole point. The girl and her mother have both said they do not want to prosecute. The end.
jarussell
misha1000
What the girl and her family want has no bearing on the case. In fact, I can't understand why they would be so selfish with this thing, other than they got paid off. If it (the whole affair) prevents one child from being raped/molested/abused in the future, it's worth every penny and heartache it causes. Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, Antichrist, whatever, you don't rape (sodomize, oral, penetrate) a 13 year old child, ever. The end.
Embers
When did the girl and her mother say that? I've seen the victim on TV and never heard her say that.
steff47
It's becaues they took money from him babe and a lot of money Jew, antisemitic, or orange with purple pockadots money talks no one walks Polanski will get off no one with money after 35 years will get prosecuted
delandjim
Embers, the 'victim' said in testimony before the superior court of Ca, county Los Angeles on Aug 7, 1977 case number A-334139
artois
Besides he's not Jewish. He's Catholic
misha1000
"But because he's Jewish, many are trying to excuse him."
Yes, and all Christians are as pure as the driven snow. Glad to see Hitlerites are alive and well. Goebbels did his job well.
Fentro
Anti-semitism is for stupid people (apparently about half who blog here), and irrelevant in this case. While one might understand Polanski was temporarily insane due to the murder of his wife and child, and committed a depraved act should be taken into consideration. But he committed a crime, admitted to it, and then used his wealth to escape his penance, like so many other wealthy people. It's not just Hollywood folk - it's wealthy folk, who seem to think they are above the law (because, let's face it - they ARE above the law, because our legal system is corrupt).
If the world was fair, many CEO's of the major banks, hedge funds, and investment firms would be in jail (as would Cheney and Bush..), but the world isn't fair. It's crooked as hell, and we let it be that way. Finally arresting Polanski decades later, when it is so much 'water under the bridge' reeks of politics more than anything, because the Swiss are not known for their ethics (just their 'discretion' - friggin cheese-making bankers..).
The rapist has led a gilded life, and we've enjoyed a lot of his work. Had he spent the year or so in jail at the time would have been the right thing to do, and we'd have forgotten about his crime by now (but would he have had the chance to make all those wonderful films had he been a convicted rapist?) Hollywood does forgive (as do many good folk).
Making Polanski suffer in his golden years may be the karma he deserves for escaping justice all these years. A just world would have extradited him from France back when. If Tommy Chong gets imprisoned for making bongs, then Polanski should do his time, if only to serve as a warning that when you commit perverted acts with children - no matter the circumstances, mitigating or otherwise - you can run but you can't hide. You WILL be held accountable. In a Just society. In America, wealth buys justice (remember OJ). I, for one, feel he should serve time, because we have enough spoiled, wealthy film makers. When need fewer rape victims.
crymeariver
Fentro: While one might understand Polanski was temporarily insane due to the murder of his wife and child, and committed a depraved act should be taken into consideration.
----------------------------------------
He committed the crime EIGHT YEARS after the death of his wife. Save me the "temporarily insane " crap. He was of sound mind and sound body enough to know that he needed to give this child drugs and alcohol first before attempting to rape and sodomize her! Unless he spent all eight years raping and sodomizing little girls!
His MOTHER was killed in the Holocaust, he WIFE was murdered? What DIRECT trauma has HE ever suffered? There are plenty of people walking around who have suffered a lot of DIRECT trauma, including people who were actually in gas chambers and managed to escape. THEY aren't going around raping and sodomizing little children in response. How much urban crime is caused by kids growing up in single-parent families and surrounded by daily crime, do we use it to excuse their crime? No because they aren't rich, famous and make good movies.
clearthinker
The law does not differentiate between Christian and Jew. I see misha got out of her straight jacket again.
dmjinc71
Could everyone drop the sarcasm, please? I'm having a really tough time following who is really Jewish and who is really Anti-Semitic. And since his religion has so much to do with this case, I feel I need to be able to understand it all so I can make an informed decision.
Chuckv
"But because he's Jewish, many are trying to excuse him."
Gosh it is good to see some of that old-time antisemitism: the international Zionist conspiracy, the "stab in the back" of the German army in 1918, the Jewish interests that controlled Roosevelt and Churchill.
I know that hidflect's claim is ridiculous, but I think it is good to actually look at facts. Exactly who is supposed to be excusing Polanski? Have you ever heard of a Christian or agnostic claiming that it was alright for Jews to be criminals? Even if there were some Jewish conspiracy, would it make sense for them to defend a child molester? Would not these master criminals just throw him to the wolves?
Bamos99
This is nonsense. The time elapsed and the alledged misconduct are the reasons for the sentiment, not his religion. His crime may be punishable and should be reviewed. I am astounded by how much anyone cares.
Embers
People are trying to excuse him because he's Jewish? Where do you anti-Semitic commenters come from? Why the hatred of Jews?
HiredGoons
ohferfuckssake...
lyndainfrance
Oh please now we have heard(read)everything...Jewish...What does that have to do with anything? He is guilty;he said so himself. Yes he did flee the country and like most people in the world with a few influential friends he's trying to get out of payig for what he did.I'm sure you would do the same if you were in a bad situation.The crime is terrible,yet there are many others that go unpunished when the price is right as with Michael Jackson etc...and I don't think he was jewish! your arguments trivialize the crime.
fblaze
Prosecutor lies to the press and admits submitting documents to the judge prior to sentencing, sounds unethical to me. To Hidflect, your comment that people are trying to excuse Polanski because he is Jewish sounds weird, what support do you have for that. Maybe his defenders feel that way because he is Polish, I do not know. More likely it is because he is a celebrity with great directorial skills.
theBUSHdemocrat
But it wasn't THE prosecutor, unethical does not always equal unlawful.
cdmsr13
But it was THE judge.
crymeariver
Giving a 43-year old man 42 DAYS in a psychiatry ward for drugging, rapping, and sodomizing a 13-year old child sounds unethical to me. The judge was going to give him an actual jail sentence-as he should have in the first place.
aperturemad
This article is missing a link. Someone needs to get out a spell as well. Hasn't ANYONE at The Beast ever heard of proof-reading and quality control? Ridiculous.
cdmsr13
Look up the words 'picayune', 'pedantic' and 'didactic'. Memorize the second definitions of each. Then, the next time you want to post a criticism such as this, recall and recite those definitions until the urge passes. Ten you might avoid looking silly.
("Someone needs to get out a spell as well.")
Would that be a love spell? Maybe a transformation spell that turns a human into a JACKASS? Oops, somebody done did.
duffybloom
Ah, I see. NOW he's lying. Or wait: THEN he was lying? Or way back when was he lying?
LA County DAs.Since Day 1 (literally--look back to the 1920s and follow the slime-trail forward): crooked, inept or both. Delicious irony points: article contributed by inept DA who lost a notable case by suborning crooked testimony.
CA should really look to other states (the one due north, for example) on how to run professional responsibility offices. Dishonesty is an ineffective engine for expedience. The public is woefully ill-served by negligent, corner-cutting, grandstanding and out-and-out unethical prosecutors.
Genni2002
Wells: "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."
Like Hollywood would even consider favoring people with film spots and etc. to get out of prosecution of all sorts of things?... attempt a charm offensive? Oh, goodness no! Would never ever happen in Hollywood!
Aranxa
Trial law 101 - Were you lying then, or are you lying now, or are you lying about your lying?
When the victim says she is victimized more by the prosecution than then defendant, who is the real offender? Can't she be allowed to move on, instead of living her whole life as "the woman raped by Polanski?".
jarussell
No, she cannot be allowed to 'move on'. She gave up that right when she took an out-of-court settlement and allowed her name published in the media. It was she, not anyone else that allowed that to happen.
seakiev
Absolutely, just as soon as Polanski is in jail for rape.
rustyr315
people seem to forget that he did the time for the crime in the 70's. he was sentenced to 90 days for evaluation. the 70's had a different view of this crime than we do today. He only skipped after hearing that he was going to be railroaded by a judge who was going to renig on the plea bargain. I am not defending this reprehensible act or person. Just that he entered a plea bargain in good faith, executed the terms in good faith, and was going to be basically punished twice for the same crime. Yes, he is a rich, talented man who thumbed his nose at the system. This all seems more about that than the actual event itself.
jarussell
Have you read any of the articles surrounding this affair?
He ran before the trial.
What was 'ASSUMED' to be misconduct on the part of the DAs office NEVER HAPPENED, because he never showed up for the trial.
That being said, you need to read the above article. What the one DA said happened in the documentary NEVER HAPPENED. He said he lied.
Tmikes
And Polanski never admitted in any legal way -- i.e., in court -- that he raped the girl.
jarussell
Tmikes
Oh, but he did. He admitted it at least once, right before he was sent for the psychiatric eval. You need to read the transcript on the Drudge Report. It's well documented that he admitted his guilt.
mjprocko
he didn't do 42 days as a sentence for the crime, he was held as a psych evaluation.
Hers's a quote from an interview the poor misunderstood genius gave about the incedent...
"If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But... f-ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f- young girls. Juries want to f- young girls. Everyone wants to f- young girls!"
yep we just don't get it. ha
I read another article that makes a good point for all the liberal protectors of this rapist. What if his name was "Father Polanski" would he rate a pass then? doubt it.
DougWhite
Why do you think a "liberal" would think that Polanski should be protected from the consequences of his crime? Many liberals - by which I think you might mean, for example, those who belong to the Democratic party or think the government ought to do more to protect the health of its citizens - would react the way you have reacted to the transcript of his interview thirty years ago. We think what he did was unforgivable, a horror not lessened with the passage of time.
Tmikes
How many priests can you name who have gone to prison for having sex of any sort?
dmjinc71
Hey Tmikes, no one told me there was going to be a test. I can't name any priests - period. Oh, except the pope - do I get partial credit?
Dylan111
I think we can all agree that most readers of The Huffington Post are liberal, right? Well, check out the fact that the comments to the posts on Polanski on Huffpo are running about ten to one against him right now. There is a lot of disgust about his rape of this girl.
Get off your righteous conservative high horse and deal with reality.
seakiev
Since when is 90 days an appropriate sentence for a 40 y/o man drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13 year old girl?
citivas
And don't forget the child porn he created by filming it.
MariosRight
Those charges were dropped and he was charged with a misdemeanor.
flynnwillow
He was NOT given a 90 day sentence He did NOT even go to trial. He underwent, 42 days of a 90 day court ordered psych evaluation. Time served, out he went and off to France. I truly hope he gets back here and has to go to trial. I always say let the punishment fit the crime. Under the law his sentence would be incarceration. I hope it happens.
Cashmoney
My sense, too.
Polanski's just more evidence for anti-Semites, tea baggers and right-wingers in general that America is somehow no longer "their" country. Sticking it to RP for a 32-year old crime is their way of sticking it to Obama and all the other liberals, Jews, Hollywood types they hate.
Marcia Clark is nuts if she believes that Wells claiming he lied about fixing the case makes the whole issue of judicial misconduct go away.
What is the matter with LA County DAs? If they're not incompetent (Marcia Clark's losing the slam-dunk OJ Simpson case) they're total scum who deserve to be disbarred (David "I was lying then but I'm not lying now" Wells).
Marcia, if you're reading this -- here's what's more likely to happen now that Wells is claiming he lied on camera. RP's lawyers will cite his "recanting" as further evidence that LA County justice is so corrupt that he simply cannot receive a fair trial. No way will the Swiss extradite a man to stand trial in which corrupt prosecutors play to the lynch mob out on the street.
My prediction: RP will be back at home in Paris by spring.
oakely
"What is the matter with LA County DAs? If they're not incompetent (Marcia Clark's losing the slam-dunk OJ Simpson case)"
The OJ case was no slam-dunk if you followed the trial closely. Remember, the prosecution and a couple of the police detectives were caught in lies, which helped in no small measure to highlight the defense theory of frame-up for the mostly black jurors.
I remember seeing one of those jurors in an interview and he said the DNA evidence was strong but so was the police lies and other misconducts. In other words, maybe the police attempted to frame the guilty man.
Apparently, the LA county DAs still haven't learned any lessons.
flynnwillow
You're wrong about the Swiss not willing to extradite. The feds demanded names and account numbers of AMERICAN bank account holders for possible prosecution as to the criminal nature of those deposits. The French are another story.
crymeariver
Since when did President Obama stand up for Polanski? He is the father of two young girls and don't see a universe where he thinks drugging, raping and sodomizing 13-year old kids trivial. This is not a teabagger issue, this is an issue that MOST liberals are united AGAINST Polanski. Getting justice for the rape of women and children is very much a DEMOCRATIC issue. But thanks Polanski apologists for trying to divide us.
dmjinc71
Whoa, stop the press. Did old Roman tea bag someone?
citivas
You are dead wrong. There are a ton of posts on this topic and 90% of them are very consistent. He committed terrible acts of drugging, kidnapping, rape, forced sodomy and child pornography and should be removed from society as a result. I see very few people focused on the fact that he ran or is ruch, etc. as the root cause of their indignation.
I don't understand apologists like you. This wasn't a simple stautory rape case. This man was a monster who did some serious crimes here. If he was a character in a movie the audience would all cheer when dirty harry put a bullet in his brain. And that was in the same '70's you use as an excuse to say his crimes weren't that bad by the standard of the time. What a pathetic point of view.
Cashmoney
If his crime was then so horrible (and it was), then why did LA county DAs accept a plea bargain in which Polanski's time served was limited to however long he stayed in a state psychiatric hospital?
Which turned out to be about 45 days.
That alone ought to tell you something about our attitudes at the time. The girl was regarded as a slut with a pimp for a mother. (Mom seems to have thought that a fling with Polanski would launch daughter's movie career.)
Attitudes on rape, child rape included, have changed. The victim's sexual history is now off-limits in a trial.
But even by the standards of the late 1970s, Polanski basically got away with child rape.
theBUSHdemocrat
The prosecutors said they accepted the deal because otherwise they would go to trial and the victim would have to testify in detail about everything that happened. They weren't happy about the deal, but wanted to save the girl face.
Which especially makes sense after reading this article and its description of what rape trials in the 70's were like.
crymeariver
Cashmoney: If his crime was then so horrible (and it was), then why did LA county DAs accept a plea bargain in which Polanski's time served was limited to however long he stayed in a state psychiatric hospital?
The girl was regarded as a slut with a pimp for a mother. (Mom seems to have thought that a fling with Polanski would launch daughter's movie career.)
-------------------------------------------------
1) One the crime WAS horrible, but at that time the influence of rich and powerful was more important than that of a victim. The tried to use the excuse that Polanski's mother died in the Holocaust when he was a child and that his wife was murdered EIGHT YEARS as reasons for his behavior so they put him in a psych ward.
2) Yeah, apparently men need to give drugs and alcohol to prostitutes to get them to have sex with them. And apparently rich and famous movie makers can't get anyone to have sex with them without drugging them first.
3) Even if a 13-year old CHILD is delivered to your door stop wrapped in a ribbon, what 43-year old man will rape and sodomize her because no one is looking?
4) What part of a little girl asking to go home and protesting having a dirty old man anally rape her was considered normal behavior in the 70's?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html
theBUSHdemocrat
When you legally enter into a plea bargain in good faith, you do so with the understanding that the judge has the legal right to ignore it.
crymeariver
EXACTLY!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0928091polanskiplea8.htm l
District Attorney: Do you understand that at this time, the Court has not made any decision as to what sentence you will receive?
Polanski: (No response.)
District Attorney: Do you understand that the Judge has not made any decision?
Polanski: Yes
maddymappo
Anyone who sympathizes with this jerk should have his head examined.
DocHumboldt
They don't call Los Angeles "La-La-Land" for nothing. It's an alternate Universe where all bets are off and a whole bunch of weird shit happens. The human version of the B.F. Skinner rat cage.
This is just the latest installment of Reality Television imitating Real Life or vice-versa. A scandal a week, forever. It makes good copy for the cover of TV Guide.
marmitelover
Hollywood babylon.
I'm sad that Polanski has had a tough life. But he shouldn't take it out on a child.
The child seems to have been neglected by her family. If she wasn't a virgin, why not?
Everybody failed that girl.
In what fantasy world does the likes of Polanski live in if he believes it was ok to sodomise a 13 year old?
Things haven't changed that much.
Imagine if this was a female film director, drugging, feeding alcohol to a 13 year old boy, making him submit to sex acts.
How would we feel about her?
She'd be a pariah not feted by the French intelligencia.
steff47
Dude maybe back in the day like the 70's this kid was a kid but by todays standards 13 is late. kids start sex at 9 and if Polanski goes to trial the standards jury will go by is 2009 not 1970 and between 1970 and 2009 their a whole lot of history not to say the money the family took from him and the written forgiveness they sign
crymeariver
What CHILDREN do you know who start having sex at age 9? Do you know what a 9 year old GIRL looks like? Exactly like a 5 year old girl except taller.
"YOU LIE!"
steff47
crymeariver
in NYC kids have sex starting at 9 babe by 16 on LI thay are already doing heroin--- you don't know jack about kids now a days fool
bestdr
How's that working for them Steff?
Shiga66
I highly doubt that a judge is going to allow Polanski to withdraw his guilty plea. It was an open plea. It would be detrimental to all parties to head for trial...
Cashmoney
Of course he can withdraw it. He has until the actual sentencing to demand a trial.
crymeariver
I hope he gets his wishes to get a trial. He took the plea originally because he knew he would not get away with drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13-year old girl. No matter how much they smeared that child, the jury will have locked him away for a LONG time.
The victim doesn't have to testify again, it's all on the records. Good-luck trying to get away with that type of a sexual crime against a child in California today with all the laws on the books. And good-luck finding a jury in 2009 who will fall for his sob story as a reason to rape a child.
Polanski and his lawyers are no fools, they are going to do EVERYTHING they can to avoid coming back to the U.S. He is going to try to get bail from the Swiss courts then run like the coward that he is across the border back to France.
Shiga66
A judge is not going to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea after 32 years, unless the other five charges aren't dismissed. Polanski can asked to withdraw it, but a court isn't going to allow it. Polanski avoided sentencing by fleeing, if he returns, he will probably be sentenced, and the work will be in appeals..
The only reason that his guilty plea is withdrawn, is not too prejudice the other five charges if they are not dismissed. Guilty pleas are incredibly difficult to dismiss or set aside.
bobby-b
His plea would be technically withdrawn, but how many jurors would know nothing about the factual basis he affirmed at the plea hearing? That transcript has been around forever, and having said "I raped the protesting 13-year-old girl after drugging her", I doubt he could unring that particular bell.
citivas
They should put Wells in prison too. What a pathetic excuse for a prosecutor. I lied then because I thought it would make a good story. Please.
But whatever he did, it should not be allowed to overshadow or excuse seeking justice against the monster that is Polanski. How can anyone with kids, neices, or any kind of human compassion whatsoever say we should just move on and let a man who kidnapped, drugged, raped, sodomized and filmed sex with a protesting 13-year-old girl go free?
rtfxgaol
Why is anyone paying attention to what a loser(remember OJ) like Ms Clark has to say? Why would any one believe anything an admitted liar like Wells has to say? Why isn't Polanski serving time for his crime? Why isn't the victims mother (who set up this whole thing) doing time? American justice you got to love it.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.