Perhaps we can send over to Chur for a transcript from the Lia Rumantscha? 
I don’t understand this crowing about how some other Swiss government behaved 70 years ago. It’s like criticizing the current US administration for the US’s treatment of natives in the 18th century or its participation in the slave trade in the 19th century. The current governments of both countries have nothing to do with any of those things.
Well yes, I would hope that all official pronouncements by the Federal Department of Justice are translated in all four national languages! If you then perform a mathematical average of the meanings in all four translations, you should get pretty close to the intent of the speaker. 
All I know is my gut says “maybe”.
Much as I think Polanski is a scum for his cavalier attitude about this case, I think justice is served in that:
[ol]
[li]his victim was eventually compensated in civil court[/li][li]his victim wants the case dismissed[/li][li]one of the options considered for his sentence was to be deporting, which is effectively been done, as he hasn’t been to the US in 30+ years.[/li][/ol]
From all the news articles I’ve read in this past week (Los Angeles Times, and Swiss newspapers), I am going to have to agree with that, reiterating what I said in post 256.
On the one hand, we have the ABC news article cited by Malthus, and the statement by California Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza. The ABC news article says that the Swiss have definitely declared that they do not need to see the transcript of Peter Gunson’s deposition. Judge Espinoza (according to a CrimeWatch article, also cited in one of Malthus’ posts) said he would only unseal the transcript if Polanski appeared for a hearing in the USA, and that this testimony is irrelevant to the Swiss review of the extradition request, because that’s what the Swiss said, so he is not going to provide it to the Swiss authorities. One would tend to believe that Judge Espinoza would have good reason to say that.
On the other hand, I have looked at every French language Swiss newspaper that I could think of, to find an article reporting on the statement made in May by Folco Galli (spokesperson of the Federal Department of Justice and Police). In the articles I found (about four of them), as I mentioned above, he is quoted as saying this: “Mr. Polanski’s attorneys are raising several issues about the American justice system, which are irrelevant to the Swiss review of the extradition demand.” (any translation errors would be mine.) One could read that to mean “Mr. Polanski’s attorneys are raising several issues … all of which are irrelevant …” or, alternatively, “Mr. Polanski’s attorneys are raising several issues … most of which are irrelevant …” So there’s that.
I also note that the official press release (see my link in post 247) states specifically:
“In the course of the extradition proceedings, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) on 5 May 2010 asked the US authorities to substantiate their extradition request by supplying the transcript of an interview conducted on 26 February 2010 with Roger Gunson, the public prosecutor in charge of the case in the 1970s”.
I have read interviews of the Minister of Justice, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, and I am pretty sure she is not a moron. I cannot believe that she would give a press conference saying “the US didn’t send us the documents we requested”, if she knew (as she would have) that a department spokesperson had said two months ago “we don’t need those documents”, and hope that no one would catch her on that. Additionally, in all the articles following the extradition request refusal, I haven’t seen in any Swiss newspapers a reporter wondering “wait a minute! you are contradicting what you guys said two months ago!” I haven’t seen that in the Los Angeles Times either, and the LA Times (for obvious reasons) is covering this extensively. I haven’t heard the LA District Attorney or Judge Espinoza say “This is BS, the Swiss told us they didn’t need to see that document”.
My conclusion from all this reading (subject to change, of course, if further facts are brought to light):
Judge Espinoza didn’t want to release the transcript, and thought he had good reason to affirm that the Swiss didn’t really need to see it either.
The Swiss, however, did want to see it.
From further reading, I conclude (perhaps mistakenly) that inside the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police, there was disagreement about what should be done regarding the extradition request. Then Minister Widmer-Schlumpf, who thought Polanski should not be extradited, took the position “I am the boss, and I get to decide” and she sided with the people who were against extradition.
I’m not a legal expert, and so I don’t know if the Swiss reasons are legally correct, but I am assuming that they are not totally devoid of foundation. If I had to make the decision, I would have extradited him, but I can’t bring myself to think that a horrible miscarriage of justice has been made, for reasons that I already stated in my post 140 in this thread.
New reports indicate that there were multiple failures by both US and Swiss authorities leading to this debacle:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_en_mo/us_roman_polanski
Of greatest significance is that the Swiss did indeed do an about-face; Judge Espinoza was not informed of it.
[Emphasis added]
In short, the Swiss are taking as their position that they did indeed ask for it - days before the ruling. They blame the US for not passing the message on to the Judge.
OTOH, the Swiss are directly to blame for the confusion - in that they changed their minds 180 degrees a mere days before the ruling was released, for reasons they decline to explain; a fact they entirely fail to address, or indeed mention in their press release.
Thanks for that! I’ll have to check the LA Times today to see what they have to say about that, I didn’t read it this morning.
I’m going to have to side with the Swiss here - an official request from a government agency obviously should trump what a spokesman said in a press conference, assuming AP reported correctly what Folco Galli had said (about not needing the transcript). Someone in the US Justice Department or LA District Attorney’s office screwed up - the US Justice Department should have let the LA District Attorney know that the Swiss wanted it. The article says “The Swiss had said from the beginning that their extradition laws allowed Polanski to be sent to the United States only if he was going to be required to serve at least six months in prison. They sought the testimony of Gunson to clarify the matter.”
There is no doubt that the US officials screwed up, but the Swiss share the blame. They created the confusion in the first place - generally, changing one’s position on a vital issue five days before the hearing is not a good idea; and it is moreover inexplicable (and I note the Swiss have declined to explain it). A private litigant who attempted to put affidavit evidence into the record days before a hearing, foir example, might well find themeslves shit outta luck in some jurisdictions.
It is not a question of one Ministry position ‘trumping’ another. There is no good reason for there to be more than one position in the first place.
When you say the Swiss changed their mind “days before the ruling” - did they know what day the ruling would be made? In any case, the AP report where Folco Galli supposedly said “we don’t need the transcripts” was also “days before the ruling”.
Sure, there can be good reason to have more than one position - if the lawyers in the offfice don’t agree! I have noticed, in my life, that two attorneys can often seem to have different opinions on the same case. What counts is the legal document, not press interviews. I have yet to see a case where someone can get out of a court request with the defense that “some guy in the newspaper said I didn’t need to follow your request.” If I was involved in a high-profile case, and I read the local District Attorney saying in the paper “Mr. Winkelried will not need to testify”, and then five days later I get a subpoena to appear in court, using the defense “you guys can’t make up your mind” is not going to help me when I go to the beach instead of appearing for testimony - I’ll still be at fault. And I would not think it even reasonable to state “the District attorney is the one to blame here.”
What ‘counts’ is the evidence before the judge. In this case, the evidence he had was that the Swiss did not require the transcript - evidence directly from the official spokesman for the Swiss authorities. The Swiss do not deny that their spokesman made that statement; its reliability is not, as far as I’m aware, in doubt.
Now, undeniably there is persuasive evidence that the Swiss changed their minds - evidence that, had it been available, would have been more persuasive - but this evidence was not before the judge. Part of the blame fior that is undoubtedly on the part of the US authorites, who failed or neglected to transmit that evidence to the judge. However, the timing was extremely tight; the request was made a mere 5 days before the hearing. The Swiss cannot escape some blame here for creating the confusion.
Having been at least in part to blame for creating the confusion in the first place, it is more than a trifle disingenuous on their part to speak of a “failure” on the part of the US to produce that very transcript. They must know that their own inconsistent positions are the very reason for that “failure”. They have the ability to read Mr. Justice Espinoza’s reasons and so they can be in no doubt that the reason for that “failure” was, in point of fact, their own ill-considered public statement! 
Now, one may argue that the US judge should have ignored what the Swiss had to say publicly - but that is, after all, a matter of US law.
And you would think that someone in the US Justice Department might have read Mr. Justice Espinoza’s statement and told the LA District Attorney’s office “hey, didn’t you get that request we sent you?”
If the timing was so tight (something I am not convinced that the Swiss knew), then the US Justice Department (who would surely be in a better position to know the date of the decision) should be the ones to exercise due diligence and make sure the information is transmitted promptly. I have not heard the Swiss deny their supposed change of mind, but I’ve never heard anyone challenge them with it in an interview either. In any case, since the first “legal opinion” given was in a press conference, I don’t know that there is even the faintest legal obligation to explain the change of mind, if there was one. And if the US Justice Department needed an explanation of this change of opinion, did they ask for one? In my example above, I could ask the DA why he changed his mind about the need for me to testify, but I’m sure he could tell me “None of your business.”
P.S. And if the Swiss did indeed say one thing, and then something different five days later, let me point out that maybe we learned this trick from US officials, where we see things like the US Justice Department saying “we did give this information to the LA prosecutors” and the LA prosecutors protesting “nuh-uh! You never did!” Now that is a mystery that one should delve into.
I do not deny that the US authorities screwed up.
However, a cluster-fuck need not have a strictly binary blame function. The issue is not whether the US authorities screwed up - they did - but whether the Swiss authorities also screwed up.
In my opinion, it is obvious on its face that they did. Moreover, they must know that they did, since even I, merely by the expedient of reading the news, was able to figure it out. The impression conveyed is that the Swiss have eagerly seized on a confusion partly of their making to refuse an extradition that they otherwise would have had no choice but to make.
Point is, whichever way you slice it, justice has not been well served by this incident. The estradition decision was not made on the basis of actual cogent evidence, but on the basis of a clusterfuck over whether a document was necessary or not - one that ought to have been easily solved by the merest iota of good sense and good will on the part of both/either set of national authorities. The Three Stooges could have arranged a better extradition process.
This is true no matter what one thinks of Mr. Polanski or his extradition.
In fact, from what the Yahoo! news article mentioned in your post 267 said, if the Swiss had found out that Mr. Polanski would have less than 6 months in jail time to serve, then by their own laws they would have had no choice but to refuse the extradition.
Now this I agree with. I’m no lawyer, but in a perfect world, something like this would have happened:
US Justice Department sees the judge’s decision and tell the LA Prosecutors “you should ask the judge to change his mind, the Swiss do want it after all, like we told you five days ago!”
OR
Decision was made, US Justice Department realizes that the judge is under the wrong impression, have someone ask the judge “how about we let the transcript be sealed but provide a confidential ‘For Your Eyes Only’ copy to the Swiss government because they need it.”
Of course, I don’t know if either of those options are feasible.
You say “the Swiss could have read the judge’s decision and realized it’s because of their own public statement that the judge refused the transcript”, but if I was a Swiss person, I’d be thinking “well, obviously the judge is wrong, since we asked them for it, they are using a bad excuse because they don’t want to unseal the transcript.” You could argue that the Swiss should have jumped on the phone, called the judge, and said “The heck do ya mean?”, but in this case, it’s the US asking Switzerland for something (the extradition of Polanski) and it should be up to the US to make sure that they provide everything needed to get what they want. In my very limited dealings with the law, I have found out that if I want something to happen, I can’t depend on the other party to make efforts on my behalf.
In the usual legal situation, “the other party” is adversarial in interest to you.
An extardition hearing is unusual in that, at least in theory, the “requesting” government and the “requested” government are not adversarial in interest (the "adversarial’ party is the person whose extradition is sought).
That’s what makes this whole situation so odd - it appears that the two nations are treating it as “adversarial”. They should not be.
Well, I look at it from the point of view of the Swiss (I’m from there!). This is a politically charged case, involving a prominent citizen of a neighbouring country, someone with friends at the highest governmental levels in that neighbouring country. Suppose they extradite Polanski to the USA, and, for example, Polanski gets sentenced to complete his term in the psychiatric hospital, or for any reason gets a term of less than 6 months - then Switzerland has broken its own laws, and I’m sure Mr. Polanski’s attorneys would quickly point that out, and the French government would not be too happy about Switzerland illegally extraditing one of its citizens. I could understand why the Swiss are being very careful about this.
If Switzerland asks for a document, and the US Justice Department tells them “we won’t give it to you”, then I’m sorry, but Switzerland is not at fault here. I view it as the US failing to make the necessary efforts to have the extradition happen.