Polanski, Lies and Videotape

On Friday night I watched the documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” and it’s without doubt the best piece of journalism ever conducted on Polanski’s indictment, the totally bizarre to-ing and fro-ing of the American justice system and above all the media circus and prevailing mindset of the time. Marina Zenovich’s film is not soft on Polanski, but limits its commentary on the events in question to the (expurgated) records of evidence given by both Polanski and the victim before the notorious judge Laurence Rittenband.

The documentary contains interviews with all the protagonists in the case, with the exception of the judge, who died in 1994. The interviewees include former prosecutor David Wells, who states in the film that he discussed with the judge the best means by which they could send Polanski to prison without running the risk that the trial might turn in favor of the accused, who at that time was a much-revered star.

But a few days ago David Wells announced on CNN that he lied in Zenovich’s film, “putting my part in the case bigger than it actually was” because he believed that the film, which was being made with French backing, would never be shown in the U.S. The plot thickens.

Wells’ earlier version of events was used this summer by Polanski’s lawyers as part of their attempt to have legal proceedings against their client dropped on the grounds that the judge in the original case had acted unfairly. So has Polanski’s defense collapsed? I don’t think so.

All of the witnesses interviewed – including the principal prosecutor, a Mormon named Roger Gunson – readily confirm that, throughout all of the legal quibbling, Laurence Rittenband was motivated only by personal ambition. Rittenband’s reputation, his ego and his fear of appearing either too weak or too harsh towards Polanski, all combined to completely distort the proceedings – and also explain Polanski’s flight.

Rittenband went back on his agreement to send Polanski to prison for only a brief psychological evaluation after seeing a photograph showing the director surrounded by girls at a table at Oktoberfest in Germany, where he had been given permission to finish a film. The picture gave the impression that the judge had been made a fool of by the accused, who seemed to be celebrating his reprieve by getting laid.

Wells previously claimed that he showed this photograph to the judge. Today he denies it. But it doesn’t matter either way.

I think his denials can easily be explained. Such clandestine goings-on between a judge and a prosecutor were illicit, and would have caused Wells some serious problems if they had been officially uncovered during a trial, even 30 years after the event. If Wells is now so sorry he spoke, it’s because he’s convinced that Polanski is going to be extradited to the U.S.

All the same, I still find it incredible that any documentary, no matter how good, can become a central element in a trial, a state of affairs which speaks volumes about the media frenzy that has surrounded this case since 1977. There’s one other ill omen I forgot to mention: the news of Wells’ denials was broken, and commented upon, on a blog by Marcia Clark – former prosecutor in the trial of O.J. Simpson.