Polanski Freed

[Bob]

In the end, I have to come down on the side that says what the Judge and the prosecutor said in private should be released.

 

I'd have no problem with that either as long as private conversations existed. There's no doubt that the prosecutor had discussions off the record with the defense counsel (they could have talked many times in an attempt to settle the case) and it's very likely that the judge held the pre-trial hearing in chambers with both counsel present (thus both prosecutor and defense counsel heard what he said there). But unless either the court and/or counsel violated judicial canons or the attorney canons of ethics, there were no (zero) discussions between the judge which were separate with either the prosecutor or the defense attorney.

 

So far, what I gather is that Polanski thought that the 90-day psychiatric study was supposed to be the total amount of time he would spend "incarcerated"; however, that's not what was said at the hearing where he pleaded guilty and anybody can understand that by reading the linked transcript.

 

The involved judge, of course, is dead so my guess is only the defense counsel and the now-retired prosecutor can clear the air.

[Guest fountainhall]

There is one issue which I think worthy of note here – the different public attitudes towards sex in the United States and many European countries. France, where Polanski has lived for much of the time since his flight from justice, is notably one of the most liberal. Sexual scandals involving politicians are far from rare, but equally receive little attention in the media. In the US (as in the UK), they are headline news for weeks. A good example is President Francois Mitterand who, it was discovered shortly before his death, had kept a mistress for many years and fathered a child with her. His widow invited both to his funeral. Would we have witnessed that had it been a US President or a British Prime Minister?

 

Whilst Mitterand’s affair was no crime, this more relaxed sexual attitude does perhaps explain why European opinion about Polanski’s release has been greeted with more enthusiasm than in the US.

 

Bernard-Henri Levy, the controversial French writer who spoke out passionately in defence of Polanski, said: “Roman Polanski ended up with a bad judge . . . It happens in every country. The judge decided, and then he un-decided. He agreed to a deal and then he went back on it. It isn’t that the judge went against the recommendation of the prosecutor; he went back on his own word.”

 

Roman Polanski: Justice Served? - The Daily Beast

 

True? We just don’t know. But isn't it interesting that the equally controversial Judge Rittenband ended up with a lot of high-profile celebrity cases - the Polanski case, Elvis Presley's divorce, Marlon Brando's child-custody case and the paternity suit against Cary Grant. There was a lot of criticism of Judge Ito in the O J Simpson case that he enjoyed playing to the media too much, even with allegations that he invited the courtroom staff to his chamber to watch the previous evening's trial coverage on The Tonight Show. If it has not already been done, with so many celebrities living in the state, is it overly simplistic to suggest that the California judicial system would do well to consider its guidelines to judges who find themselves in the limelight as a result of being allocated a high profile case?

 

Perhaps the system has already changed. Back then, most agree there were a lot of goings-on behind the scenes, a point noted by Loyola Law professor Stan Goldman in yesterday's LA Times. ". . . the environment back then facilitated back-room deals," Goldman said. "These back-room shenanigans have finally come home to roost this week."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-polanski-20100714,0,7265164.story

[Bob]

We just don’t know. But isn't it interesting that the equally controversial Judge Rittenband ended up with a lot of high-profile celebrity cases - the Polanski case, Elvis Presley's divorce, Marlon Brando's child-custody case and the paternity suit against Cary Grant.

 

The judges are selected on a blind-draw basis (i.e., the judge doesn't get to pick the case, it was just luck (good or bad) of the draw. It would violate judicial and/or attorney canons to even attempt to pick a given judge. Regardless, it has happened at least once that I know of (the lawyer brought several cases to file at the same time, the clerk drew the blind draws all at once and laid them out on the counter in a row (innocently violating protocol), and the lawyer sneakily saved the one case he wanted for the one judge - and for that he was later disbarred and the clerks were subsequently ordered to only pull one blind draw at a time and to do that after one case at a time was filed).

 

I do agree with you that Judge Ito made the OJ case worse than it was in the first place by allowing television in the first place and then not controlling his courtroom. But the real problem with the OJ case was it was a news sensational case and that the admissible evidence was rather poor (the prosecutors locked themselves into an almost impossible timeline) and twelve reasonable jurors (who later said they were fairly sure he killed the two victims) commendably followed the law and couldn't find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Guest fountainhall]

The judges are selected on a blind-draw basis (i.e., the judge doesn't get to pick the case, it was just luck (good or bad) of the draw. It would violate judicial and/or attorney canons to even attempt to pick a given judge.

I certainly did not mean to imply that attorneys could pick a judge. I just assumed there must be someone in overall charge of judges who allocated cases. I had not realised it was completely impartial.

 

But the real problem with the OJ case was it was a news sensational case and that the admissible evidence was rather poor . . . and twelve reasonable jurors (who later said they were fairly sure he killed the two victims) commendably followed the law and couldn't find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I always felt the tipping point in that trial was the glove. Johnnie Cochran was actually wrong when he famously remarked: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Were the the prosecutors all asleep at that point? I'll bet half those watching the trial knew perfectly well that if you try to place a reasonably tight-fitting leather glove over a rubber one, you'll never get it on.

[Bob]

I always felt the tipping point in that trial was the glove. Johnnie Cochran was actually wrong when he famously remarked: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Were the the prosecutors all asleep at that point? I'll bet half those watching the trial knew perfectly well that if you try to place a reasonably tight-fitting leather glove over a rubber one, you'll never get it on.

 

There were tons of problems with that case. The most glaring problem was the inability of almost anybody to believe anything that came out of the mouth of Detective Mark Fehrman (spelling?). Marsha, the lead prosecutor, was less than brillian [and her assistant Chris (forget his last name) was much better].

 

But the biggest problem was the timeline. A person who almost decapitates two other people with a knife would be absolutely soaked in blood. Yet, according the prosecutor's timeline, OJ was getting into a limo 45 minutes later and there wasn't blood smeared all over the house or his car (and it would have been detectable with even a cleaning job) nor did they ever find any blood-soaked clothes. A real mystery at least factually (saying that, I personally believe he did it while high on meth but the timeline had to be a couple of hours or more and I believe at least one other person assisted his movements, disposition of his clothing, and showering elsewhere).

[Guest fountainhall]

A person who almost decapitates two other people with a knife would be absolutely soaked in blood. Yet, according the prosecutor's timeline, OJ was getting into a limo 45 minutes later and there wasn't blood smeared all over the house or his car (and it would have been detectable with even a cleaning job) nor did they ever find any blood-soaked clothes. A real mystery at least factually (saying that, I personally believe he did it while high on meth but the timeline had to be a couple of hours or more and I believe at least one other person assisted his movements, disposition of his clothing, and showering elsewhere).

Very interesting. So who do you reckon probably helped out? His friend Al Cowlings who drove the car? Or could the prosecutor's timeline have been wrong?

[Bob]

Very interesting. So who do you reckon probably helped out? His friend Al Cowlings who drove the car? Or could the prosecutor's timeline have been wrong?

 

I don't really have a clue. I don't think Cowlings had anything to do with it as he was involved days later (whenever OJ returned to LA).

 

If OJ did it, the prosecutor's timeline had to be wrong. Nobody could do what they say he did, drive home, thoroughly clean up, essentially dispose of all physical evidence (except the one glove Fehrman claims to have found - which, if you really think about it, makes absolutely no sense at all), and appear to be normal and non-perspiring in less than an hour by the limo driver. It makes no practical sense at all.

 

Remember the prosecutor bringing in testimony about the barking dog? Why anybody would pin their theory (that the neighborhood dog barked signaling the moment of the murders) to that type of "evidence" but, once you propose it, you end up eating the foolishness of it. Once that time was set in stone, it was downhill from there. And, unfortunately, it also made no sense that there was essentially no other physical evidence when there should have been a ton of it.

 

I remember a serious and deliberative interview with most of the jurors a week or two after the trial. While many (who got their information from television snippets) thought the jury had to be nuts, my impression from those interviews was that they were generally a very bright group that did what they swore an oath to do. They spoke as if they wanted to find OJ guilty and were sadly disappointed that the evidence presented wouldn't allow them to do it.

 

Oh well, OJ is where he belongs now, at least for a few years.