Marcia Clark: Polanski Defense Based on Lie
by Big HollywoodPolanski’s grounds for dismissal center around the former prosecutor inappropriately advising the judge about how to send Polanski back to prison. But the former prosecutor, David Wells, now tells Clark that “I lied” in the movie about advising the judge, and that “it never happened,” which could undermine the director’s case for dismissal.
“David Wells is the former prosecutor at the center of the Roman Polanski case—I knew him well back in the day. What he told the director of the 2008 documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired—that he advised the judge in the case how to elegantly send back Polanski to prison—gave Polanski’s lawyers a opening to try to dismiss the case last year, setting off a collision with the district attorney’s office. The result? Polanski now sits in a Swiss jail.
“I just spoke to Wells—and what he told me is going to make things worse for Polanski.
““I lied,” Wells told me yesterday, referring to his comments in the movie that he told the judge how he could renege on a plea bargain agreement and send Polanski back to jail after he had been released from a 42-day psychiatric evalation—the heart of Polanski’s claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. “I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did. The director of the documentary told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do.”
“Recanting these statements is a bombshell. Especially, since it was Wells’ comments in the movie that directly led to the international legal showdown we’re now facing.”
You can read the full article here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
89 Comments
Everyone wants to know Who Is the American Police Force
Well here you go http://mywhitehouse.org/2009/09/30/who-is-america...
Hmmm. Is Wells still practicing law anywhere, or has he retired by now? Sounds like a good case for disbarment.
Why would he lie? There seems to be a lot more to this case than meets the eye. Frankly,. the facts remain that Polanski did his time as required and then they reneged on his deal for no reason. That is why he fled. He saw what a circus this whole thing was becoming. When a court makes a plea deal, they are supposed to uphold it and not change their mind because the judge wants to be on TV more.
What Polanski did is a crime, but he did go to court, he did go to jail. He did everything he was supposed to. Until they suddenly reneged on hm. And that is an issue that needs to be discussed. People are getting all worked up about what Polanski did, but he served his time.
Thats not how it played out. Polanski's lawyers and the DA's reached a plea bargain agreement/recommendation. The DA recommended that Polanski serve the 42 days, then be deported from the US. The actual potential sentence was much higher. Polanski found out that the judge planned to accept his guilty plea but not the sentencing recommendation, then impose a far higher prison sentence than the agreed upon recommendation (which is well within the judges right) Polanski fled the night he got tipped off about it.
Served his time for raping a 13yr old is 42 days?
Sign me up
Well said Bop.
I'm not defending it, but even the prosecutor wasn't seeking a long term. She was a groupie. It's statutory rape. And the drugs were what typical party drugs of that era. They probably see cases like that all the time in LA.
The courts actions deserve as much scorn as what Polanski did. The whole thing is absurd. They shouldn't make plea deals and then renege on them just because the press is all over it.
This is like a cracked out fairy tale – He lied to make a better story ? Are you serious? Bring the rapist back to the US and throw his old ass in jail – Period. He violated any or all deals by running to avoid prosecution all these years.
Umm, actually, it's not everybody. Please count me out.
Have you read some of the original testimony of the 13 year old girl?
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roman-polansk...
Hadn't read that, and I am not interested in defending Polanski, however, in cases like this there is an element of he said she said. A kid can get scared of a prosecutor and say whatever they want them to. The bottom line is a 13 year old should know better than go to some strangers house and pose for nude pictures and think nothing is going to happen. Where was her mom? It seems to me a typical LA hustle scene. A lot of that going on then and now.
Even if what was said above is true, the court still handled it badly and Polanski did serve time in Chino. And now the Prosecutor said he lied in that ocumentary/ Why do that? It seems to me there is more going on here.
"The bottom line is a 13 year old should know better than go to some strangers house and pose for nude pictures and think nothing is going to happen."
Well I have to disagree with that. I kind of figured that you had watched the documentary. I was 13 once and I was pretty yielding to older people, especially men. I don't think she went over there knowing that she would be posing topless.
Of course it is all he said she said but the law is the law and he fled. Some of the 60's radical bombers fled and were caught 20, 30 years later and served their time. Some had even led respectable, productive lives.
Like I said, I am not defending Polanski. I just think the case was mishandled as they often do in celeb cases in LA (see OJ). Especially back then. It seems to me there is more to this than has been said and it deserves to be revisited. But if the girl doesn't care, and so much time has passed, the guy's career was unalterably changed (he probably would have been a much bigger director here if nit for this), I'd say a degree of justice has been met. He will never be able to get back all those years. He is an old man now. People are acting like he's a nazi war criminal.
I suspect they won't give him a lot of time. But who knows?
He never served any time. Where did you read that? On the defending Polanski with lies petition?
anyone who takes any kind of advantage of any child should be dealt with harshly…raping one?? oh please, I cant even say what I want to…..
its called pedophilia, not just rape. she was 13, not 18 not 17 13…….. They should have let Manson get at him for an hour.
He won't get those years he spent in Europe living like a king and hanging out with the world's glitterati back. Boo freaking hoo.
There was no justice in this case. Letting this guy off is telling all child molesters and rapists that all they have to do is hide out for 30 years and be important and wealthy enough to get away with their crimes.
Well, I can see people's emotions are running pretty hot. I am not defending him. I just think the courts acted badly. I also think people should understand that he has gone through more suffering than most people. He is a Holocaust survivor. His family was wiped out by the nazis. His wife and child were killed by the Manson family. And after doing this stupid act, his career was more or less ruined.
I can understand why people are mad, but he's 77 years old and his victim said she doesn't want him to go to jail. She also said that back during the trial. She has forgiven him. I think people should take that into consideration. That is not the same as saying it's no big deal.
Cry me a river…
My sympathy is with the 13 year old he raped…
And what about that 15 year old girl, what about that? Or have you CONVENIENTLY forgotten all about Nastassja Kinski?
If his life was so bad in Europe hiding from the law, maybe we should send some folks from along Crenshaw over, let the Eurotrash get a feel for the poor people who don't have it so good…
"He is a Holocaust survivor. His family was wiped out by the nazis. His wife and child were killed by the Manson family."
Completely irrelevant to this case.
"he's 77 years old"
The fact that she was 13 is the only age that needs to be taken into consideration.
"She has forgiven him"
She is not the law.
While you say you are not defending him, you sure are putting up a defense (a weak one, but a defense nonetheless).
Hudnall says…". I also think people should understand that he has gone through more suffering than most people."
How in the HELL can you make such a statement? "…people should understand…" Should? Allow me a moment to be less than tactful..you freakin elitist. You think you know enough of suffering to dictate to others that they should understand that what you believe Polanski has endured is so incredibly more than even their most dakest hours that he "should" be given a pass? People's careers have been "ruined" by drinking too much, smoking a joint, insulting the boss, taking a business risk that failed, miserably. Careers, goals, dreams, lives, even, have been shattered by the likes of pervs like Polanski. Understand this, Hudnall…his "stupid act", the one we know of, was of his own will, he is responsible and thus accountable. Stop making excuses for cripe's sake.
I was a thirteen year old girl once too and I never ever was yielding to men who weren't family members. I guess the difference was that I had a mother who wasn't screwed up. My mother would not send me out to work as a model with strange men. Polanski definitely broke the law, but read the court papers, that girl's mother is a piece of work. He's guilty of rape. The victim's mother is guilty of child negligence and endangerment.
The question should be HOW IS JUSTICE BEST SERVED? Exactly WHO aside from Polanski will be hurt if this case is re-opened? Now I couldn't give a rat's ass about Polanski being harmed. Here are other people who will be harmed:
1) The victim – who has forgiven Polanski and doesn't want to relive the rape.
2) The victim's children, who will read about what happened to their mother.
3) Polanski's current wife and minor children.
Finally, the cash-strapped California government will suffer from having to prosecute a high-profile celebrity case. In the meantime, the California budget is so lean, prisoners are being released EARLY. In LA county, 13,000 rape kits lie in storage, unprocessed due to budgetary constraints. That means that 13,000 rapes remain unsolved. The Polanski rape has been solved. Never has the thirst for vengeance cost so much. Already, the extradition proceedings are costing California and the US government a pretty penny.
Now do I think that Polanski should NOT face any punishment? NO WAY. Gov. Ahrnold should tell shrimpy little Roman to take out his check book and write a big, fat, morbidly obese check to the State of California. $100 million might go a little way to ensuring that more cops and prison guards get hired for example. Polanski, in addition, would agree to never, ever try to enter the US. Permanent banishment from the US would be punishment because it would continue to put a crimp in his career and he could not ever visit the grave of his late wife, Sharon Tate.
He retired two years ago, according to the story in the AP.
Actually you are defending him. Go back and read your list of "excuses." I'm sorry, but his age and tragic events in his past do not give him a free pass. I would hold anyone else to the same standard.
You certainly didn't see the Hollywood "elite" offering this same kind of defense to any Catholic priests. How about you? I'm sure we could find some sob stories there if we tried. No?
Jeez, do you have some liberal friends you're trying to impress? You're sure as hell not impressing me with your "logic." I cannot respect anyone who would defend a child rapist.
OK, thanks for the fact check.
Agreed!!! I don't know how anyone could defend a man who drugged a 13 year old girl and took advantage of her, sexually.
I'll give you that point, the LA criminal justice system does mishandle celeb. cases. Still Polanski needs to be sentenced and sent to jail. He's a fugitive, and fled.
I feel sympathy for the horrific events that befell him before this event, as well. However, that's still NO excuse for his behaviour. He commited a crime plead guilty and scrammed, simple as that. It's time for him to man up and pay the piper.
If he is let off, what incentive would anyone have to remaining in the jurisdiction where they are to be sentenced should they be found guilty, of any crime???
I'll confess that I'm a little confused by the legal intricacies here (and why Wells' recanting makes such a difference), but certainly hopeful that it means this rapist will do some serious time in a US prison. Hollywood apologists be damned.
Hey, see you finally registered!
Do you realize your original account name, mycityblog, the name of the dot net site you were spamming us with, still shows up with the mouse pointer on this name? Since you just picked up mywhitehouse.org on Sept 28, is this a completely new site or a renaming of the old one?
Do you even read replies, or just auto-spam any new article that pops up?
The recanting matters because once again a documentary, the category of which expands to include Michael Moore-style documentaries, has been taken as absolute truth and stirred up a response of outrage and cries of injustice. Now that, once again, a critical piece of a documentary has been declared false, it becomes an intelligence test to see how long Polanski's supporters will continue to believe the "documented fact."
Since history has long shown that film trumps reality, a hundred years from now there will be law students studying "this great injustice" while referring to that piece of work.
Oh, the "legal intricacies" really are not there. He plead guilty, he ran, he still has to pay for the original crime and now for at least one more. The documentary was used basically to justify a plea for clemency, saying the court could not be trusted to not sentence him to further punishment for the rape (as if 42 days of a normally 90 day "Psych Evaluation" was enough), and he was justified for running and should not be punished for that.
Not counting any new charges, basically he is right back where he was in 1977, waiting to see if the plea bargain gets thrown out and if he wants to withdraw his guilty verdict. Justice delayed, and that is about it.
I am surprised. The liberals love to whip out the race card these days. Where are the charges of him being a victim of anti-Semitism way back then? They are certainly playing up his Holocaust-related suffering, why not that?
Could it be that "current" politics are coloring the issue, as the President the Hollywood elite have elected has determined the "real victims" are among the enemies of Israel?
Uhhh…that probably didn't come out the way you intended it. I hope…
"I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do."
That comment makes absolutely no sense without some context. Was David Wells peddling a story which somehow became a documentary, or was he approached by Polanski's apologists who were producing the documentary? It makes a difference, because if the filmmakers put Wells up to it, which seems most likely, it invalidates the entire content of their film. But Wells seems to be saying that he initiated the story. For what reason would he have done that?
"I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do."
That comment makes absolutely no sense without some context. Was David Wells peddling a story which somehow became a documentary, or was he approached by Polanski's apologists who were producing the documentary? It makes a difference because if the filmmakers put Wells up to it, which seems most likely, it invalidates the entire content of their film. But Wells seems to be saying that he initiated the story. For what reason would he have done that?
I read them now
. Was a little difficult before without the nifty notifications from Intense Debate. The site is the same, just renamed to better suit the content of the site. You can still access it via mycityblog.net.
Chicken hawk rapist. You'd probably have a much different opinion if it were your daughter. Which is the point.
It shouldn't matter who the victim was, or was not. It's about a criminal committing a crime.
I'd say you're full of crap. 32 years of European mansions, world wide accolades, and the red carpet treatment is sufficient punishment for raping a child? Not in my book.
The ones that end up in prison do. My dad told me a story told to him by an acquaintance of his who did serious time once.
Every morning him and his buddies would draw straws to see who got to beat up the pedophile that day. I imagine that was one long stretch up the river.
It certainly shows you something when crooks, thieves and murderers consider themselves morally superior.
Get his face on the big screen. Who doesn't want to be a star? (Well, besides me.)
You should apologize for that. I wasn't defending him. I have an issue with what the courts did.
I'm NOT defending him. I am questioning the court's actions. I said about 8 times in this thread I am not defending him.
I do think there is more to this story than what is being told. That is what I was talking about.
I agree that, having fled that is the issue here. Not the crime itself because he pleaded guilty. The problem I have is the apparent reneging of the judge. All of this has to be examined, the question is, will he get a fair hearing with the emotions running the way they are. I never defended him, I merely pointed out that it's not as simple a case as people are making it.
Nope. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Let me put it this way, if you were defending him, what exactly would you say differently?
I agree that he should just pay a fine and face exile, which was going to be part of his original punishment anyway. Not sure about your figure, but the issue of his feeling needs to be settled.
Your points are also valid. I merely spoke out about this thing because people were getting too obsessed on the words "rape", "drugged" and ignoring that it wasn't that simple. He did go to court, copped a plea deal. Served some time in jail. It's not like he paid people off and was laughing about it like some celeb creeps we can name.
Because the victim herself said: ""I do not believe that it was Mr. Polanski's intention to frighten me or cause me harm," Geimer, wrote to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler. "I am sure that he now understands why his actions were in fact inappropriate and damaging to me." Noting that she had "substantially recovered from the harm that Mr. Polanski caused me,"
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0...
The issue here is that he fled. That is what needs to be resolved. He's not like your typical rich perv who pays people off. He actually went to court, did some time, the issue that I am questioning is did the court renege on his plea deal; That's all. I am not defending him. I said that a zillion times.
All I was doing is pointing out there is more to this story than people are saying.
I wouldn't defend him. And that's why your remark is offensive. I just think there are two sides to every story and this is not like the Elizabeth Smart case or Phillip Garrid who kept a girl in a tent for 18 years. This is the case of a girl to went over alone to some middle aged guy's house multiple times after he wanted to take topless pictures of here and her mom didn't seem to care. Obviously, he thought she was open to sex like your typical star Hollywood Star F'er. Yeah, he seems to like them young. Charlie Chaplin married women around that age. We can all get creeped out about that. But the issue here is it's a 30 year old case. He copped a plea deal and lived up to it until he felt they were changing his deal on him. That is the only part of this I was questioning.
The fact is he fled. So that is what the issue is here. He already plead guilty to a crime. Unlike a lot of rich celebs, he didn't try to buy her off .
As for his other younger wives, he obviously has some issues, but considering what happened to him in his life,. it's not surprising. Apparently in Europe it's no big deal to marry a teen. Which is why he probably thought he was in the clear here.
I just think this case is a lot more complicated than people are making it. That does not mean I support his actions.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt – that you're not defending him – but you're using pretty much the exact same argument every one who is supporting him uses.
When it comes to protecting children, I'm glad there are plenty of people who get emotional and angry. It's a trait in America that I completely agree with.
I went through this all before when the Catholic Church finally cleaned this ilk out of their closet. I believe every priest who did should rot in jail for the rest of their lives. Every bishop who turned their back on the children should be in the next cell, rotting for the rest of their lives. And every priest who knew it was going on but said nothing should be defrocked, and tossed out on their asses.
And I see no difference between those horrible actions, and Polanski's.
There are always two or more sides in any issue, that's why they are issues. But regardless of any other side issues, the fact remains, an adult male had sex with a 13 year old child. I don't care if she through herself at him, as an adult, it was his responsibility to act like an adult, and put an end to the situation.
Also, skipping to Europe is a separate and very serious crime in of itself.
And I do believe there was a an undisclosed financial settlement with the child's family.
And there's this wonderful little nugget. It tells me everything I need to know about the case.
Here’s a section of the first quote it contains from Polanski.
“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!”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaeldeacon/1...
A plea deal between the prosecution and the defendant does not a judge is bound to that agreement. It's agreement the two sides present to the judge as a solution acceptable to both sides.
The judge can accept it, alter it, or throw it out altogether.
The prosecution presents charges, the defense defends against them, the juries sit in judgment, and the judge is the referee.
The prosecution and defense can make pleas on how to conduct the trial, and in the case of sentencing, mitigating factors on why it should be more or less severe.
But the judge has the final word. Except for the inevitable appeal.
I don't see where it matters a whole lot if he lied or not. A crime was still committed. Grand jury testimony has been filed. Throw out original case if they can, and start a new investigation. Granted it won't be easy, but I don't see where double jeopardy would be violated.
Oh, I don't know about that. I bet the other prisoners would have fun with their new "toy."
Excellent point.
I don't think so, anti-Israeli is very big on the left these days. And most of the left aren't smart enough to know the difference between anti-Israel, anti-Semitism, and anti-Zionism.
I think, other than the Holocaust reference, they'd rather not draw any more attention to that than is possible.
Look, that he advised the judge is bad but judges aren't bound by plea agreements. I don't buy the DA's new story though.
You're willing to give him more credit than I am. Just the fact that Hudnall is looking for loopholes in this feels wrong. "Talking" to him, even in this forum, makes my skin crawl. He can claim he isn't defending Polanski all day long, but that's bull**it. Trotting out a tragic history is the same thing as trying to excuse the old perv. The fact that he doesn't understand why people are worked up over this further demonstrates a dispassion for rape (of a child no less!) that is appalling.
"I was lying then – and slandering the judge, too – but now I'm telling the truth. Honest!"
This is not the statement of a prosecutor, but rather of a PERSECUTOR.
Polanski may be as guilty as can be and belong in prison for a time; but frankly, he also now deserves at least SOME reexamination of the evidence, the prosecutor's and judge's conduct and the sentencing process.
…and I suppose that Wells will claim it was all an idea he got from Laura McKinny!
Now we find out that the prosecutor is a liar. How many other cases did he fabricate evidence or taint? He can no longer be trusted to tell the truth and all cases he prosecuted could fall into question and should probably be retried or thrown out. This is the problem with people in the legal system when they try to make a name for themselves. Right Marcia???
As I understand it, they made a plea bargain to settle the case, You agree to a deal before the judge and if you honor that deal you serve that sentence. This is what he did. But then they changed the deal. This is the part that was bugging me. I really don't have a problem with him being punished for what he did. I am not defending it.
I agree he should have to face the court for fleeing, but here again what bugs me about this. They could have grabbed him decades ago this way. They only seemed interested after this movie came out. Which suggests to me all they care about is the publicity. This is why I even got into this discussion. It seems to me there is a lot of govt waste and BS going on. The goal of Polanski's punishment is that he serve time (he did, 42 days) and then he was to be deported (that is effectively what happened, anyway). It seems to me they wanted to drag thinge out for publicity. And they were upset they didn't get to keep this ting going longer.
The justice system is rife with all kinds of absurdity as we have seen with other famous celeb cases. That is what I feel is behind this. It seems like a publicity stunt. They could have done all this a long time ago.
So, I wanted to discuss the aspects of the case people weren't dealing with. I didn't expect to open a hornet's nest. Sheesh!
If I come off dispassionate about it it's because I happen to write crime fiction and research crime for story ideas and this is an old case. I am not shocked by it, I have been reading about it since it started.
No, it's not a defense. I am merely pointing out there is more to this story than meets the eye and people are being way too simplistic about it. The issue isn't whether or not he committed the crime. He plead gulty. The issue is did the judge renege on the deal because of the notoriety of the case. What are all the relevant details that are mitigating factors. He should face the music for fleeing. But IF the judge reneged on the plea deal, that deserves consideration.
People's emotions are running pretty hot on this thing, but it happened 30 some odd years ago. The victim said: "I do not believe that it was Mr. Polanski's intention to frighten me or cause me harm," Geimer, wrote to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler. "I am sure that he now understands why his actions were in fact inappropriate and damaging to me." Noting that she had "substantially recovered from the harm that Mr. Polanski caused me," <a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0…” target=”_blank”>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0…
The issue here is that he fled, not what he did. He served the time in his plea deal. He's not like Michael Jackson who denied everything and and paid people off, Polanski faced the music and fled when he felt they were railroading him. The justice system can be very arbitrary.
BUT I AM NOT DEFENDING HIS ACTIONS. I am merely pointing out there is more to this case than people are saying.
I wouldn't defend him. And that's why your remark is offensive. I just think there are two sides to every story and this is not like the Elizabeth Smart case or Phillip Garrid who kept a girl in a tent for 18 years. This is the case of a girl to went over alone to some middle aged guy's house multiple times after he wanted to take topless pictures of here and her mom didn't seem to care. Obviously, he thought she was open to sex like your typical star Hollywood Star F'er. Yeah, he seems to like them young. Charlie Chaplin married women around that age. We can all get creeped out about that. But the issue here is it's a 30 year old case. He copped a plea deal and lived up to it (served 46 days in Chino) until he felt they were changing his deal on him. That is the only part of this I was questioning.
The fact is he fled. So that is what the issue is here. He already plead guilty to a crime. Unlike a lot of rich celebs, he didn't try to buy her off .
As for his other younger wives, he obviously has some issues, but considering what happened to him in his life,. it's not surprising. Apparently in Europe it's no big deal to marry a teen. Which is why he probably thought he was in the clear here.
I just think this case is a lot more complicated than people are making it. That does not mean I support his actions.
A plea deal between the prosecution and the defendant does not mean a judge is bound to that agreement. It's agreement the two sides present to the judge as a solution acceptable to both sides.
The judge can accept it, alter it, or throw it out altogether.
The prosecution presents charges, the defense defends against them, the juries sit in judgment, and the judge is the referee.
The prosecution and defense can make pleas on how to conduct the trial, and in the case of sentencing, mitigating factors on why it should be more or less severe.
But the judge has the final word. Except for the inevitable appeal. There was no "deal."
What I was trying to do is provide more context. Everyone here seems to make it into more simplistic than it was. Again, I was interested in the legal aspects and naturally people want to turn it into some personal attack when I wasn't even defending him.
It's at the sentencing the judge officially accepts the deal, as an official representative of the state, and the people. Until that is done, nothing is officially off the table. Polanski's lawyer may have thought the judge would accept the plea, then started second guessing himself, and Polanski chickened out.
You are right, when it comes to protecting children from predators, that will stir up a hornet's nest. And quite frankly, I'm glad to see it does. There are some things in life that should be beyond partisan debate, and protecting children is one of them.
What's really stirred up the nest on this one is the way the MSM presented the entire fiasco. I think most people are just plain shocked that anyone could stand up for him. And there are a lot of people doing just that. And for the worst possible reasons. I can't think of a worse reason to let a pedophile go free than he had a hard life, he's had to live in the lap of luxury for 30 plus years, and it wasn't that bad, even though she was 13. Those are extremely pathetic excuses. As a parent myself, those are darn close to fighting words. It's instinct, protect.
Cases like this may have fuzzy edges, but it still comes with a really wide line right down the middle. With adults preying on children, its extremely black and white, over all. While you presented your position as an abstract one, looking at oblique legal aspects, you inadvertently came across as supporting the likes of Allen, Wienstien, Goldberg and the like, because that's what they did.
My advice for next time, if the issue involved is as emotionally compelling as this, watch from the side lines. There are somethings in life that are just plain wrong, and there is nothing anyone can say that will convince people it's not.
And I apologize for the chickenhawk rapists jab.
Thanks. You're right. I was too casual in my replies and it came out wrong,
I think this whole thing with Hollywood is going to be a cultural watershed. People are really tired of them telling us what's normal. You just know this will be the next thing they want to mainstream
Polanski's defense is not based on a lie…nd Polanski’s arrest in 2009 has nothing to do with his crime 32 years ago, because if it had – he would have been arrested far far far sooner!!!!!!!
Roman Polanski’s arrest in 2009 has everything to do with Polanski’s movies, his politics, and Marina Zenovich’s documentary movie, “Polanski: Wanted and Desired”
Polanski’s arrest is in retaliation for his politics, & for Marina Zenovich’s movie which blows the whistle on Judicial and Prosecutorial discrimination & corruption against Polanski that occurred in the Santa Monica Courthouse in 1977 & 78.
As far as Polanski’s current accusers in the Los Angeles’s DA’s office, retaliation has already been found in a different case.
A Federal Court on 3/2/2010 found striking and rampant evidence of a retaliation where the LA DA & LA County officials discriminated against their own prosecutors, see the link below:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/jud...
A Federal Court could find striking & rampant evidence that the DA retaliated against Roman Polanski and arrested him in 2009 using the original 1977 crime as a pretext
a) since Polanski had already served his prison sentence at Chino and was released early with the recommendation by prison officials – no further prison time
b) since Marina Zenovich’s documentary movie, “Polanski: Wanted & Desired” exposed the judicial and prosecutorial misconduct against Roman Polanski that occured 32 years ago, which caused his flight from the Los Angeles injustice in the first place.
A Federal Court may also find that Polanski’s arrest is in retaliation for Polanski’s movie “The Ghost Writer” which uncovers what happens to people who expose war crimes or official crimes against them –
Rather than an individual having any 1st Amendment rights in America to free speech to expose war crimes, and/or official crimes against them, the movie “The Ghost Writer” shows instead extremely well, the hidden impact of an individual attempting to expose secrets which the more powerful group want to remain under wraps – If the individual persists against the ruthless group, the pot will boil over, and the individual will be drowned, run over – and exterminated like kittens, with their demise passed off as an “accident” or some other spin.
Botox…
[...]leading studies show that Botox is dangerous[...]…
Diabetes…
[...]free diabetic tools for diabetes patients[...]…
Dark Circles Under Eyes…
[...]new studies show eye circles are a problem of the p[...]…
iPhone eBook Reader…
[...]your Apple iPhone can also display eBooks in various formats[...]…
Blood Glucose Levels…
[...]why diabetics need to maintain glucose levels[...]…
Hydroxatone Reviews…
[...]I couldn’t be happier with my results through dark under eye[...]…
Superb website…
[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……
Blogs ou should be reading…
[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……
Websites you should visit…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……
I need to start a website what needs to be dynamic in regards to content and ability to run auctions and connect to payments functionalities. Can anyone advised of a suitable application / ISP/Hosting/ practical guides to allow me to under take this …
Where is a good place start a website for business at a very low price?…
Best Links 2011…
I would like to thnkx for the efforts you have put in writing this blog. I am hoping the same high-grade blog post from you in the upcoming as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to get my own blog now. Really the blogging is …
Best Links 2011…
Thanks for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbor were just preparing to do a little research about this. We got a grab a book from our local library but I think I learned more from this post. I’m very glad to see such wonderful information being sha…
Best Links 2011…
Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit, but other than that, this is great blog. An excellent read. I wi…
Awesome website…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Best Links 2011…
This blog is definitely rather handy since I’m at the moment creating an internet floral website – although I am only starting out therefore it’s really fairly small, nothing like this site. Can link to a few of the posts here as they are quite. Thanks…
Best Links 2011…
Good write-up, I am normal visitor of one’s website, maintain up the excellent operate, and It is going to be a regular visitor for a lengthy time….
… [Trackback]…
[...] Informations on that Topic: bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/09/30/marcia-clark-polanski-defense-based-on-lie [...]…
You must be logged in to post a comment.