Roman Polanski will spend at least another night in jail.

Sources in Switzerland tell me that Polanski is not being released today from Winterthur prison.

The 76-year-old Academy Award-winning director of “The Pianist”’ remains behind bars until his estate in Gstaad is approved for his home sentence. Wire reports claim that workers have been preparing the property for his arrival.

Observers wondered today if Polanski would be transferred home after his lawyer visited him at the prison. But insiders say it may yet take a couple of days before everything is worked out.

Roman Polanski’s wife of’ 20′ years, Emmanuelle Seigner, and their young son and daughter, are reportedly “decimated,” friends say, over the director’s two-month incarceration in a Swiss prison.

The prison Polanski has been held in since September 25th is no country club, they say. “It’s a jail.”

So news yesterday that the two-time Academy Award winning film director and Holocaust survivor Polanski is about to be released to house arrest in Switzerland in exchange for $4.5 million has been met with tears and gasps of relief. The artistic community agrees: the Swiss court is doing the right thing. Polanski is not a flight risk. He’s doing this for his children. The children, they say, have been visiting their father once in a week in the prison, and it’s had a terrible effect on them.

Once Polanski is home, he can concentrate on finishing his film, “Ghost,” which, if done, could be the opening night at the Berlin Film Festival in February. Polanski would not be able to attend, of course.

He will also now concentrate on extradition to the U.S. This will be tricky since in 2009 there have been numerous contentious volleys between Polanski’s lawyers and the court. Many of them have been based on revleations from the Marina Zenovich documentary “Roman Polanski Wanted and Desired.” Zenovich is currently in Switzterland filming for a sequel.

I originally wrote about this in a column earlier this year.’The February 17th hearing which I attended in Los Angeles was a motion to dismiss Polanski’s case based on the documentary. Polanski’s lawyer, Chad Hummel wrote in his motion to dismiss the old case: ‘Following the release of the Documentary, the Los Angeles Superior Court has engaged in a course of conduct of issuing false statements with no factual support, denying fairness by ignoring facts readily available which are contrary to its assertions, violating its own Rules of Judicial Conduct”

The judge didn’t listen, and left the case in limbo. But that hearing may have triggered a renewed interest in trying to trap and bring Polanski to the U.S.

A few weeks later I wrote about secret emails that had circulated in the L.A. Superior Court about Polanski.

On February 20, 2009, here’s what I wrote:

Here’s an irony: Roman Polanski’s much admired and awarded’ famous 1975 film, “Chinatown,” is all about police corruption in Los Angeles in the 1930s.

In a documentary made last year, it was alleged that Polanski himself was the victim of judicial misconduct in Los Angeles Superior Court regarding his 1977 plea bargain in a teen sex case.

More recently, emails that this column has uncovered between the Los Angeles Superior Court’s press office and various media outlets suggest that the court has played an unusually aggressive role in defending itself and attacking Polanski at every turn.

The emails I’ve seen were all generated by the court’s Allan Parachini, the chief press officer, in regards to the June 2008 release of Marina Zenovich‘s highly praised HBO documentary, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”

The emails contain some of the most aggressive flackery seen in some time as the court went into overdrive to protect itself against a perceived threat by Zenovich. Parachini sent most of the emails in June 2008, right after the documentary debuted at the Cannes Film Festival and just before it was shown on HBO.

At the heart of Parachini’s campaign was an assertion by Zenovich, backed up by Polanski’s lawyer Douglas Dalton and Roger Gunson, a former assistant DA in the Los Angeles Superior Court. That assertion was: in 1997, twenty years after Polanski split for France, Judge Larry Fidler told the two lawyers that Polanski could only return to the U.S. for a hearing if it were televised. Polanski declined the offer.

Zenovich ended her film with this statement. Parachini jumped on it, and demanded it be removed before the HBO airing. He claimed in a media advisory and dozens of emails to media writers that the statement was a “fabrication.” A series of emails sent by him to various media outlets, not only chronicles his efforts to have the statement changed, but his gloating when it was accomplished.

Even more interesting: One recipient of those emails was a correspondent for website TMZ.com, who several months later left that job and went to work for Parachini in his office.

Complicating that scenario: in December 2008, when Polanski’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss his 32-year-old case, they also filed for access to all of the emails between the court, the D.A.’s office, and media outlets.

Parachini is particularly aggressive about this with the Los Angeles Times, and confides in emails to NPR’s Kim Masters his frustrations about getting the job done. When HBO finally agrees to alter Zenovich’s ending, he calls it a “surrender.”

In June 2008, when this was happening, Parachini pitched the story of HBO’s surrender to TMZ.com’s Vania Stuelp and her boss, Harvey Levin. On June 9th, he wrote to them:

“I know that Roman Polanski isn’t on your normal radar screen, but if you look at recent coverage of the documentary HBO is airing tonight, you might see it a little differently in view of the spurious allegation it makes about Judge Fidler. Let me know if you want to pursue. Thx.”

To Stuelp, at TMZ.com, he wrote on June 9th in his pitch:

“HBO has, in fact, altered the text that concludes the film, so what they’ll air tonight represents a major editorial change from the version they showed at Sundance and Cannes and have been using for media. Personally, this strikes me as huge, but I’m in the middle of it, I know.”

Stuelp responded:

“I agree, I think it’s a great story! I’ll see if I can get them to record it and maybe we’ll do it tomorrow.”

In fact, at least checking in TMZ archives, they weren’t interested. No TMZ story ran at that time. But six months later, Stuelp had left TMZ and gone to work for Parachini. After Polanski’s lawyers filed the motion to see his emails, this one turned up from Parachini to Stuelp on December 3, 2008:

“Because we have to assume that our interactions with HBO relating to Polanski could become the subject of a discovery demand, I did a search to identify all of my email that had anything to do with Polanski. There are, of course, a number of emails back and forth between you and me, all to or from your TMZ address. Some of them are responses that actually refer to the position vacancy you eventually filled. But some of them do address the situation relating to Judge Fidler’s concern about the original version of the documentary ending. There is at least one email from Harvey [Levin] about it, too.

“I think this is extremely unlikely, but it’s not impossible to imagine that Polanski’s lawyers could either make a discovery demand so broad that it would include any email that mentioned his name, in which case our email exchanges would surface. That, in turn, could lead to the attorney seeing some kind of kind of opportunity in the fact that you and Harvey and I had email correspondence relating to this episode and trying to link your eventual employment here to the court’s concern about Polanski. As bizarre as that might seem, his lawyers must represent their client as aggressively as they can, so anything is possible. If by any chance you still have electronic versions of any email between you and me relating you Polanski, please be sure that you do nothing to damage or delete it.

“For, you, Mary and me this means we need to be especially sensitive to inquires relating to any involvement in Polanski. In your case, I suspect TMZ would raise immediate First Amendment objections to disclosure of anything to or from you, but that would not prevent the court from being subject to a discovery for the same stuff. As you probably know, Mary was the one who initially handled the interactions with HBO and continued to be the primary contact until nearly the very end of the process.

“Should any of this come up as a discovery issue, our response will that discovery matters must be handled by our court counsel’s office and there is nothing we can say about it. Please don’t raise this issue with anyone at TMZ. We’ll cross that bridge if and when we get there, but I think the chances of this occurring are VERY low.”

Parachini was so proud of getting HBO to change the ending of the film that he even sent an email to Judge Fidler, who recently presided over the’ Phil Spector murder trials, with a clip from a blog called L.A. Observed.

To most of his other email recipients, Parachini mostly just cannot get over the fact that HBO has “surrendered” without much of a protest, and that the change, he believes, has totally altered Zenovich’s film.

In one email, to the L.A. Times’s Greg Braxton, Parachini writes on June 9, 2008: “I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of a content alteration of this degree of substance in a project like this, especially after it’s already been screened at Sundance and Cannes ‘”

And Parachini doesn’t even bother trying for a tone of objectivity when the subject of Polanski comes up with the media. He writes to Jack Leonard of the L.A. Times:

“Im not sure I’ve ever heard of the climactic ending of a documentary being changed under these circumstances before, but then [expletive] can always happen ….

Amazing.”

The next hearing is scheduled for December 10th in Los Angeles, where the judge’s staff is said to be meeting with all the lawyers to determine the next step. Many believe ‘ including Polanski’s now 45-year-old “victim,” that it’s time to offer amnesty and close the case for good.