October 2, 2009 9:41 PM

Polanski Prosecutor: I Lied in Documentary

By
CBSNews
(AP)  A former prosecutor says he made up a story he told a film crew about advising a judge handling Roman Polanski's sex case to send the director to prison.

In "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," David F. Wells is depicted as conferring with a trial judge more than 30 years ago about Polanski's case. Wells said in the documentary that the judge took his advice in deciding to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski additional prison time.

"I made that up to make the stuff look better," Wells said.

He also said he overstated his actions after being told the film would air in France, not the United States. The film aired on HBO.

Wells' statement on the documentary later became part of the basis for a move by Polanski's attorneys to dismiss the case against the fugitive director, who was arrested in Switzerland on Saturday.

Wells, who retired more than two years ago, did not handle Polanski's case but was assigned to the courtroom where it was heard and had frequent interactions with the now-deceased trial judge Laurence J. Rittenband.

"They interviewed me in the Malibu courthouse when I was still a DA, and I embellished a story," Wells said about the film crew in an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday. "I'm a guy who cuts to the chase - I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me."

Wells said he was sorry about making the comments for the documentary.

"I cost the DA's office a lot of money and aggravation over this," Wells said.

Polanski was accused of plying a 13-year-old girl with champagne and part of a Quaalude during a modeling shoot in 1977 and raping her. He was initially indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child molesting and sodomy.

He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of unlawful sexual intercourse; in exchange, the remaining charges were dropped, and the judge agreed to send Polanski to prison for a 90-day psychiatric evaluation.

But Polanski was released after 42 days and fled the country for France before sentencing after the judge reportedly told lawyers he planned to add more prison time.

Polanski's attorneys later argued in a motion to dismiss the case that the communications between the judge and Wells were clear misconduct and violated Polanski's constitutional rights.

That motion was dismissed because Polanski was a fugitive at the time, though the judge acknowledged "substantial misconduct" in the original case. The matter is now in the hands of an appeals court.

One of Polanski's attorneys, Chad Hummel, declined to comment on Wells' comments. District Attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office also had no comment.

Marina Zenovich, who directed the film, did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Wells' admission was first reported in a story by former O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark on the Web site The Daily Beast.

Polanski's victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself, has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She testified at the time that Polanski forced himself on her - which he acknowledged in his guilty plea - but has said she forgives him and wants the ordeal to be over.

Wells said he would testify in court that he lied and has offered to give a sworn declaration to prosecutors about his actions, in case they need it. No one from the district attorney's office has contacted him since he made the offer several months ago, he said.

Wells said he showed Rittenband a copy of a newspaper that pictured Polanski with girls at an Oktoberfest event. Wells said he never talked about potential sentences and the judge would have seen the paper anyway.

Wells said he still believes Polanski should receive a much stiffer sentence.

AP
Add a Comment See all 52 Comments
by losercharles October 1, 2009 3:06 PM EDT
Polanski's GOONS went to Hawaii, WITH A LIVE NEWS CREW, and they told samantha Geimer to "PUBLICLY FORGIVE POLANSKI, or we will harass you and your husband till you do". Then they saw he children and they threatened to HARASS THEM TOO! ON LIVE TV (I watchewd in the Atlanta, GA area).
Geimer said she would IF THEY GAVE HER MONEY!

BUYING OFF A VICTIM MAKES HER COMMENTS AN ACT OF FRAUD!!
ALL THE TESTIMONY SHE GAVE AT ANY HEARINGS ARE CRIMES (lieing under oath)-- FELONY CRIMES!!!
STOP BEING A CHUMP FOR HOLLYWOOD PERVERTS!
Reply to this comment
by losercharles October 1, 2009 2:53 PM EDT
You are WRONG!
WOODY ALLEN MOLESTED HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL DAUGHTER (DILLON?) AT THE SAME PARTY!
Nicholson was FAMOUS FOR PROVIDING MINORS FOR SEXUAL PURPOSES, to MOVIE STUDIO EXECUTIVES!! And NICHOLSON WAS HOME THAT DAY, MOLSTING A GIRL HIMSELF!
How do I know this?
It was BROADCAST ON LIVE TV, and I WATCHED IT IN THE CHICAGO AREA!
I WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO REPORT THE CRIME, OVER THE PHONE, and DFACS GOT THERE IN LESS THAN 1 1/2 hours AND CAUGHT THEM ALL IN THE ACT!!
(This was all covered up.)
Polanski was the only one to go to trial, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN LEGALIZED IN THE USA! Poor judge Rittenband tried and tried to explain to Polanski that JUDGES DO NOT WRITE LAWS, they just see that both innocent and guilty people get a fair trial and are punished fairly.
Polanski, as a BIG BABY, told the judge that he should do whatever he said, because studio executives PROMISED THAT THE JUDGE WAS ALWAYS FAIR TO CELEBRITIES, and POLANSKI DID NOT THINK it was fair to not give him what he wanted!!!
MIa FARROW, and the other supporters, have ALL CONSPIRED T COVER-UP MILLIONS of HOLLYWOOD FELONIES, while publicly PRETENDING THAT THEY ARE "PROTECTING CHILDREN". The news media are part of the conspiracy!
Reply to this comment
by shazmiforce October 1, 2009 1:30 PM EDT
I smell someone knows me too well here....Take off your burka let me see that pretty face bumbble bee....lololol
Reply to this comment
by shazmiforce October 1, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
Actually the real sex starts after 35 before that its just the birds stuff ....lololol
Reply to this comment
by tomanyt October 1, 2009 1:09 PM EDT
shazmiforce...So SweetPea, you would have waited until your 18?? Somehow I doubt that very much, sugarlumps.
Reply to this comment
by jimmyc1955 October 1, 2009 4:43 PM EDT
Appropriate assumes consensual - this wasn't consensual. It was a dirty nasty old man who drugged and liquored up a 13 year old, and penetrated her every way he could, not matter how often she said NO. No is NO.

He is a child rapist and he needs to serve his sentence.
by shazmiforce October 1, 2009 1:06 PM EDT
Yes? sweet cakes I said 18 is not a bad number ....But the world we live in where any age is considered okay by certain group of human beings ....
Reply to this comment
by tomanyt October 1, 2009 12:58 PM EDT
shazmiforce....
The question was: What is the "appropriate" age for a human being to have s.e.x????
Reply to this comment
by shazmiforce October 1, 2009 12:56 PM EDT
Well this was a rape of a 13 years old against her will.....

At what age to have sex per say is total different issue...

18 is not a bad number but as soon as a person understands the consequences of his sexual desires ...He can go ahead and have it and create future generations ....We are not against sex by any means ...We dispise paedophiles,rapists....
Reply to this comment
by tomanyt October 1, 2009 12:47 PM EDT
What is the "appropriate" age for a human being to have s.e.x????
Reply to this comment
by jimmyc1955 October 1, 2009 4:41 PM EDT
It isn't 13
by shazmiforce October 1, 2009 12:40 PM EDT
Yes? Priests are wrong and so is polanski raping and sodomizing a 13years old girl against her will ...Its a horrible act and a serious crime for which this man must pay the price for not keeping his *********** deli in check.....Hang em high...Fight for children protect our children from these deviant thugs....
Reply to this comment
See all 52 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook