Glenolden's Donald Grosso, on whose letter to the editor on Roman Polanski I remarked Sunday, has checked in to correct my impression that he didn't know the gorier details of the case.

He does, he said. But "I figured if I wrote the graphic details they would cut it out," he said in a message to me.

Still, he said, I "missed the main point" of his letter. Which was: The DA "wanted (the case) dropped. The victim wanted it dropped because the judge tanked the case. Once the judge tanked the case it was poison fruit. That was my main point. Not that I'm defending a child rapist... The judge went back on his word, can't have that."

My column can be found here. Readers can decide for themselves whether Grosso was defending a child rapist. It's pretty clear to me that he was.

As for the documentary to which he alludes, "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" Grosso would do well to read Bill Wyman's take on it in Salon. After reading Wyman, who is no right-wing kook, maybe Grosso will change his mind.

It begins:

Bad art is supposed to be harmless, but the 2008 film "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired," about the notorious child-sex case against the fugitive director, has become an absolute menace.

Read the whole thing.

In the meantime, dozens of liberal commentators have reviewed the facts of the case, from Katha Pollitt to Eugene Robinson and come to the conclusion that Polanski's defenders have gone completely off the deep end. They're right. It's good to see there are a few decent liberals out there who "get it."

Grosso invited me to call him to discuss the matter. He sounds like an entertaining guy. So I think I will.

UPDATE: I just talked to Donald. He is entertaining. Nuts, but in a good way. He wants the paper to hire him as a columnist. I told him the paper isn't hiring. He told me I should hire him as my assistant. He said he could be my "conscience." Like, I said, he's entertaining.