Help- what are your favorite documentaries?

[N.Bailey]

Eh I would take that documentary about Polanski with a grain of salt. It's incredibly one sided and not totally accurate. Even on of the primary witnesses in the movie has now admitted that he lied.

It was all pretty new to me, but the judge had been dismissed from the case prior to his death. Even the prosecuting attorney went on the record in saying that what was said is true and that it's the biggest travesty of justice he's ever seen. He added that he would back the defense up on this at any point if asked and in any venue.

1 reporter went on the record in saying that the judge asked him what he should do about Polanski. The reporter said (paraphrasing) that he's no attorney, but he's knowledgeable enough to know that no judge should be turning to a reporter for this type of advice.

It was also stated that sending Polanski away for a 90 day evaluation could in NO way be used as a form of punishment. Doing so was illegal. That evaluation was set up within the state to determine how to proceed with sentencing of individuals (upon the psychiatric evaluation outcome) and not to be used as punishment of any kind. Yet the judge used the fact that Polanski wasn't held for the full 90 days (not many are, but it was stated most don't get out in like 45 days either) to say that he was to do 90 days, and however many remaining days he didn't serve while he was being evaluated, that's the amount of days he would have to serve in a prison. Illegal!!

That wasn't the crux of the argument however. The judge called attorneys into chambers and told them how he was going to rule. He then told them to go back out into the courtroom and argue their prospective sides so that it looks good for reporters. Then, he had the nerve to do it again, asking both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney to literally commit an illegal act. By this time, both of them agreed that they would not comply with the judge.

Then, the judge had the nerve to give a presser?

I'll dig in another time to see if there are untruths, but wow, it seemed pretty overwhelming.

 

[KikiFan]

The problem is that the entire defense of Roman Polanski was built on a lie:

David Wells — the charismatic prosecutor who claimed to have privately advised Judge Laurence Rittenband in Polanski’s case, thus setting up the claim of judicial misconduct alleged in Marina Zenovich’s documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired — lied to Zenovich in his interviews for the film.

“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.” […] 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’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.”

 

[N.Bailey]

The problem is that the entire defense of Roman Polanski was built on a lie:

I'm absolutely open for debate on this, but I suggest you watch the documentary for yourself. Wells was not even an attorney involved in this case. It was stated in the film that the judge approached Wells and asked him too (like he did the reporter) what he should do with Polanski. Wells said he was the one to recommend sending Polanski away for a 90 day evaluation at a certain prison because the defense could not appeal that. Of course Wells would back out of that now. It was ILLEGAL.

The CA Code of Judicial Ethics forbids this type of communication too, so Wells would be an idiot to not back out of his statements.