MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > Questions for those of you who think Art...

Questions for those of you who think Arthur is innocent of molestation

posted 9 years ago by threehundreddogs
7 replies | jump to latest

I think it's definitely possible that he never molested any of his students.With the false memory problem and all those totally insane accusations there's just too much left unsure to really know what happened. But what about the unrelated molestation cases he confessed to? What about his brother/his friend's son/those kids at the beach house? Why do you guys think he's innocent of those? There's a lot of anger on this board, which is understandable, but I'm not trying to bring any more of that. Just want a better understanding of this case.

I also found the lawyer's interview where he said Jesse confessed to him very convincing. He really didn't seem like he was lying to me. I know that's not factual, but he just seemed to find the whole situation genuinely shocking. Jesse's explanation for their contradicting stories didn't make sense to me either. He said the lawyer wouldn't defend him knowing he was lying due to his ethics, but then he says the lawyer also straight up asked him to lie in court about being molested. That doesn't make any sense.

Personally I believe Jesse was molested and Arthur molested others too, though I don't know if any of the victims were his students. I'm not sure about Jesse, although Howard's recent confession is pretty convincing. Thoughts?

EDIT: Another note I thought of. Both the lawyer and Jesse mentioned that the lawyer refused to go into court and defend something he knew was a lie. If he was so ready to lie that he basically made up all of Jesse's defense, why would that have even been mentioned? Maybe that's something a lawyer would say to try to sound more convincing, but why would Jesse bring that up? If Jesse was telling the truth, there's no way the lawyer would have mentioned a refusal to lie in a court room right before suggesting lying as the best option.

[–] Pixie_Cat 9 years ago

Who is Arthur?

[–] eaverard 9 years ago

I think they mean Arnold

[–] eadwinn 9 years ago

Those other cases, which have a good dose of ambiguity of their own, have nothing to do with the case presented in the movie. This does not unmake the injustice or make it any less outrageous and sad.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 9 years ago

Ambiguity?

To claim that prior acts of child abuse have nothing to do with a case is crazy. Even if it couldn't be admitted into evidence - as a viewer - it sure does/should have a lot to do with it. If you do believe that he was a child molester (a "condition" that most experts agree is one of the toughest or even impossible to change) then that would lend credence to him continuing his molestation. With that said - it isn't proof positive that he did molest his students - but to deny it has anything to do with it is absurd. I'm not sure of the actual legal case against him as the movie obviously has skewed perspective - or when these revelations came about - but in many cases prior acts would be admitted into evidence as they could show a pattern.

User Error Please Try Again

[–] !!!deleted!!! (25863049) 9 years ago

Howard's recent confession?

[–] amychicago 8 years ago

I'd like to know what Howard's recent confession was, as well.

[–] amychicago 8 years ago

Found it:
Aug 8, 2013 - Howard Friedman confirmed to "Nightline" he had indeed told investigators that his now dead brother confessed to him and also told him Jesse was guilty, but declined to elaborate.