The sub standard world of conservative writing
Hirsen at NewsMax
had a piece
on the Roman Polanski issue, and I sent him this e-mail about it:
In your article, “Roman Polanski’s Defenders Look Ludicrous,” you write:
“[Former prosecutor David] Wells says in the movie that the judge took his advice and decided to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski more prison time.”
Then you say that Polanski’s “primary defense has been severely undermined, because the same deputy district attorney who triggered claims of misconduct is now telling a different story.”
But what IS that different story? You don’t tell us. And what is the SIGNIFICANCE of the lie Wells says he told in the movie? You don’t tell us. And why does it MATTER that Wells said then that he told the judge to renege on a plea bargain? You don’t tell us.
Also, what exactly is the lie? Is it that Wells said that he told the judge to renege, or is that Wells said that the judge reneged? You don’t make this clear.
After all, Wells doesn’t matter, as you tell us, since he wasn’t involved in the case. It’s the judge’s actions that matter.
But having completely failed to explain what the lie is, and what its significance is and what the real truth is, you then proceed to repeat about seven times that Wells has admitted he lied:
1. “Wells is now publicly admitting that he made it all up.”
2. “the same deputy district attorney who triggered claims of misconduct is now telling a different story.”
3. “‘I’ve got to tell you, I lied,’ Wells, told the New York Times. ‘I tried to butter up this story to make me look better.’”
4. “Wells said he had informed the district attorney’s office of his lie several months ago,”
5. “‘I’m a guy who cuts to the chase—I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me.’ he said.”
6. “‘I made that up to make the stuff look better,’ Wells said.”
7. “Wells said he would testify in court that he lied”
8. “Wells’ revelations don’t seem to matter to the director’s apologists.”
So basically your article consists of the endless repetition of the bare fact that Wells says he lied in the movie, with no perspective to tell the reader the meaning of this.
Aren’t you capable of writing a better, more informative column than this? Or is this as good as it gets?
Here is the column:
Roman Polanski’s Defenders Look Ludicrous
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 02, 2009 10:45 AM | Send
Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:32 PM
By: James Hirsen
Roman Polanski is in even more trouble.
The director’s defenders focus on a film dealing with his now infamous case. Polanski didn’t direct this one, but rather he was sort of the star. The film is supposedly a documentary titled, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”
In the documentary, David Wells, a former prosecutor, is shown as discussing the Polanski case with the now-deceased trial judge Laurence J. Rittenband. Wells says in the movie that the judge took his advice and decided to renege on a plea bargain and give Polanski more prison time.
But at a very bad time for Polanski, Wells is now publicly admitting that he made it all up.
So after being arrested for a 32-year-old case, Polanski may have to stand trial for the additional crime of leaving the jurisdiction during a pending criminal case. And his primary defense has been severely undermined, because the same deputy district attorney who triggered claims of misconduct is now telling a different story.
“I’ve got to tell you, I lied,” Wells, told the New York Times. “I tried to butter up this story to make me look better.”
Wells said he had informed the district attorney’s office of his lie several months ago, and offered to make a formal statement, though none was taken.
“They interviewed me in the Malibu courthouse when I was still a DA, and I embellished a story,” Wells told The Associated Press.
“I’m a guy who cuts to the chase—I lied. It embarrasses the hell of me.” he said.
“I cost the DA’s office a lot of money and aggravation over this,” said Wells, who retired as a prosecutor more than two years ago.
Wells was not officially involved in the Polanski prosecution, but was assigned to the Santa Monica courthouse where Polanski was charged.
“I made that up to make the stuff look better,” Wells said.
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. So far no one from the district attorney’s office has contacted him.
Wells’ revelations don’t seem to matter to the director’s apologists. If you read the Polanski victim testimony it makes his Hollywood defenders look ludicrous.
Whoopi Goldberg remarked on ABC’s “The View” that the Polanski matter was not a case of “rape-rape,” apparently meaning that it was not the kind of intentional crime normally associated with term, rape.
Whoopi apparently never read the testimony of Samantha Geimer posted on the Smoking Gun.
Geimer’s riveting testimony in front of a grand jury reveals that 43-year-old Polanski gave the 13-year-old drugs and alcohol, then told her to get into a Jacuzzi naked. When she begged the director to stop and take her home, he refused. She said her fear of the much older man kept her there.
He took care of himself sexually in every conceivable way despite her repeated pleas to let her go.
More than 100 film makers, actors, and entertainment industry figures, have signed a petition objecting to the fugitive director’s arrest and demanding his release from a Swiss jail.
Names on the list include Goldberg, Martin Scorsese, Monica Bellucci, and Tilda Swinton. One name on the list is truly preposterous, Woody Allen.
Allen had a 12-year relationship with actress Mia Farrow and had a highly inappropriate relationship with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, the adopted daughter of Farrow and André Previn. Allen and Farrow separated in 1992 after Farrow discovered nude photographs that Allen had taken of Soon-Yi.
These people are truly certifiable. They will forgive the likes of Polanski, the rapist, seek clemency for Tookie Williams, the murderer, but will never forgive Elia Kazan, the truth teller.