It would appear, in fact, that the arrest itself was motivated by PR considerations. This breaks down into two areas: (a) blowback from a highly influential 2008 documentary on the case, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, which alleged prosecutorial and judicial misconduct; and (b) just a plain-old desire for publicity, which has helped many a prosecutorial career over the years. Michael Wolff makes a good argument, here; somewhat counteracted by a post in the LA Times, here, that punches some holes in the theory, to wit:
There are a few holes in Wolff's theory, especially since I'm not so sure that the current inhabitants of the D.A.'s office are really so invested in defending the actions of their long-ago predecessors, especially since the documentary's most damning revelations involved the sitting judge, not the prosecutors.In the end, though, I agree with Wolff -- this is all about PR for the DA's office. And the effort will go on, running the gambit from attempting to affect (and change) perceptions in the media, to quiet lobbying to influence the highest levels of the US State Dept. and the Swiss government (neither a stranger to the swells of public opinion, by the way).
And as Wolff points out, let's not kid ourselves -- they could have gotten him at any time. It's only the documentary (and, more specifically, the appeal spurred by the documentary's appearance, which is going to be argued in the coming weeks) that moved the authorities to act.
Stay-tuned: this battle is going to have more twists and turns than one of Polanski's movies (indeed, note the sudden appearance of Marcia Clark, LA prosecutor of O.J. Simpson fame, described here by the ever-reliable WSJ Law Blog). A bruising battle, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment