I know in the film they said the evidence was based on testomonies..I just felt surely some kind of pshysical examinations must have taken place? I mean if so many young boys were raped, surely something would have shown up on their bodies? Were talking forced sodomy on young boys..there would be phsyical damage or signs there!
shareIt's absolutely impossible to tell anything from this movie. It's so frustrating. Everyone interviewed could be a liar. I don't know why polygraph tests weren't used for the people who were interviewed for the film.
And you're right. There had to be some marks on the boys. If they were anally raped, they would probably need stitches at the very least.
Just because you have anal sex - doesn't mean you are going to need stiches. Many child victims aren't held down and forcibly raped in the anus, they can be coerced and threatened, etc, and they can be raped without fighting. These abuses can take place over months and done in degrees in which they don't rip a child's anus apart so stitches aren't needed.
shareThat sounds great, when you are preaching propaganda, but if you read the actual testimony of the charges there is nothing therein along the lines of your scenario. The police claimed that the children were being forcibly, repeated anally raped - mind you in front of room-full of witness, none of whom ever corroborated any such abusive situations.
Keep barking Celluloid, but why not face me, and the truth, rather than shout at the wind where nobody hears you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "face" you. In my post - I never said that is what happened in the case - only that stitches aren't always needed when a child victim is raped. Only Jesse and about a dozen or so people know what happened in their house. He can change your story as many times ashe wants - there still are only one of a few that know what happened there. All I have to base my judgement on is the court ruling, his confession, his version, the statements of the victims, etc. That's all I have -
shareWhat??!! Hero, are you trying to say that "veganrus" is Jesse?! What are you basing this on?
shareNo - I don't know who he is - I meant his case as in the one we were talking about - and continued as if he was - it has been changed since I don't know if it is him or not. He has claimed to be http://imdb.com/title/tt0334405/board/thread/1726964?d=2810563#2810563
but I don't know for sure. I don't see why he would admit to it when it wasn't him - but I actually don't know. So I was basing it on that post where he claims to be - but I can not verify it.
Wow. That's crazy.
Veganrus - If you are Jesse Friedman, can you tell me why you and your brothers treated your mother so terribly?
[deleted]
I find it very hard, nigh on impossible to believe that from that many young boys being forcably raped as described by the prosecution and police, not a single one would show any physical signs. Grown women often who signs of forced rape never mind young boys.
Maybe it would be possible if it were just one child, but out of that many children it's just not plausable that they showed no physical symptoms.
[deleted]
there was no physical evidence in any of the alledged victims
those who still believe that the friedmans are guilty, needs to get the dvd
this is a great film, but in order to look non biased, the film maker left out alot of information, including the fact that many if not all of the victims had their testimony coerced
arnold friedman was indeed a pedofile
he had molested children in the past
but neither he nor jessie committed this crime
Maybe you should read this:
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html
Why, after all these years, would victims with protected identities write those letters?
Many of us have physical scars from what was done to us; all of us have psychological scars
Yeah, THIS WHOLE STORY IS A BUNCH OF BULL.
The Friedmans were found guilty because:
1. They are effin weirdos (and it started with the underwear)
2. They child porno books
3. THe McMartin crap.
I'm no expert but the police work seemed shoddy at best.
share " Many of us have physical scars from what was done to us;"
(This comes from one of the victim's letters)
Really?
Where are these scars?
Did you show them to the police?
If not, why not?
Do you think it is fair that two people are put in jail based solely witness statements and absolutely no physical evidence?
He probably used lube like the Catholic priests.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Even if there wasn't rips or tearing on the boys, there would be blood, feaces or semen in their underpants surely? The boys would be in pain, they would be in shock and this would be obvious to their parents, unless the whole town is filled with neglectful, unaware parents!
Also, in the film they mentioned the game "Leapfrog", from the sounds of that, there wasn't time or opportunity for 'lube' or coerction. I think there would be physical evidence in the form of skin ruptures to the anus.
I don't think the Friedmen's are innocent, but I do wonder why the Police would go by the testimony of an 8 year old rather than actual physical evidence, which can't be accused of lying or being confused!
Pedophiles can be very deceiving. They often don't just violently rape little boys but gradually molest them over long periods of time. This along with other ways - will make it very hard to detect by parents. Let's face it - children have been raped without parents knowing (good parents) - that's a fact. These pedophiles know the tricks to deceive the parents. They also can have their victims trick their parents - many of these children are so embarrassed of this crime (or threatened by the pedophile with harm to them or their family) that they also don't want to be discovered - so they will change underwear - wash stained clothing - etc.
shareFair points hero, but based on the documentary, the Father didn't have time for that and as stated in vicitm testimony, during the game Leapfrog, the Father went along the boys "sticking his *beep* into each boy before moving onto the next". If the police were willing to believe that game was played, then there would be physical trauma, shocked children and stained clothing to verify this.
If you had been raped anally, as the victim described on camera, no amount of hiding underwear would keep this fact from their parents because the blood loss would be sufficient that it would have soaked through clothing onto car seats etc.
Dont mean to sound graphic, it just stuns me that not one member of the police force thought about physical examinations!
I will be the first to admit that that victim's story was questionable. Now out of all the victims - this was the only one he could get on camera? Seems a little out of place that the only victim was this anonymous person whose story is a bit farfetched - which would tend to strengthen any bias towards innocence. Many victims have come out after denouncing the movie – none of these seemingly articulate victims would do the film? This was his only option? I am a bit skeptical to say the least. We don’t even know who this guy is (not that anonymity is a problem) - but there are many other victims and this is the only one he can get – I hope you see my point.
You can scream now if you want.
Actually, no, the amount of blood loss would not necessarily be enough to even show. I knew someone who was raped anally and I saw her right after it happened and she had no physical signs whatsoever.
Besides, people keep posting that there had to be physical damage. Many men have microphalluses that would not cause any discernible damage. We have no idea what size the Friedman's genitals are. I think we should stop assuming they're large or even average.
interesting point but it wud be more relevent and accurate if we were talking about an opening meant for and previously used for reproduction then that could be a valid point but unless we r talking world record threatening sizes a 10 yr old boys *beep* which is not meant for insertion of anykind will show signs mabye not excessive bleeding mabye not scars n rips that are overwhelming but at the very least noticable discomfort shud of been...noticed....and we arent talkin about 1 boy who may hav been an exception we r talkin heaps of kids.....sum1 has 2 show a sign or 2
shareFact is children can get raped with no obvious signs. Fact is - it has happened before without any person or parent noticing it. Fact it is - children have been getting abused over long periods of time without anyone noticing. Look at the priest scandal - some children were getting abused for years and they didn't tell or show signs of abuse. These monsters know how to "groom" children to show little to no signs and they know how to make the children afraid and/or embarrassed to tell anyone. These monsters won't just forcibly rip a child so they bleed - they do it so there aren’t any signs - and they can do this to any number of children. As far as the number of kids - just look again at the priests - they were so many children abused it was beyond belief.
You can scream now if you want.
You just never seem to tire of this subject. Perhaps you should get in touch with the District Attorney re-investigation committee and share with them what you know?
shareThe post last was about the signs of abuse and how pedophiles get away with it a lot of the times. I hope nobody gets tired of the "subject" as it is an important subject and the day people "tire" of it - I feel sorry for the children. Also - nobody is forcing you to read any of these posts.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rape kits are usually only valuable if they are done in certain short time frame. Using a rape kit a week/month after the actual assault isn't very useful. These crimes weren't reported right after they happened as the children were afraid or embarrassed to report it. This discovery of the crimes came long after many if not all of the crimes and not right after the assault which would make the rape kits virtually useless.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
That isn't contradicting - you write there aren't always signs - not there are never signs. What is contradicting?
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
Like the site said - the defendants plead out and confessed - also - in children the wounds physically heal quickly - and since they didn't find out about it right away felt the exam wouldn't be nessessary. I agree they could have ruled on the side of caution and did it anyway and put the children through more - but I understand.
People can colon bleeding for years with certain conditions. I don't know if the abuse caused some other type of condition, maybe it just doesn't heal, maybe he is just lying looking for attention - I don't know.
Either way - looking at the vast number of victims - sure Greg doesn't seem the most believable - but he is just one of more than a dozen.
This is just one aspect for forming my opinion.
He confessed on Geraldo - and in court. Now I know you don't care about that but when I watch it - I believe he is sincere. His statements like - It's worse than that - when asked by Geraldo are very telling.
Didn't he also fail two polygraphs?
The third defendant implicating him - etc.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
First you can have chronic bleeding and not die. Your statement is wrong and is not science. There are many conditions of the digestive system exemplify this. Bleeding ulsers can go on for years or decades. Other similar conditions can affect the intestine and colon.
What evidence did they plant?
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
We are not talking about cutting yourself shaving. They are two completely different kinds of injuries - one is an external injury the other is internal - just to name one difference. Are you saying bleeding ulcers heal themselves like a shaving cut and as quick? Are you denying that some internal bleeding can last for weeks, months, years?
How did they make it appear like there was porn everywhere - are you saying actually got porn and placed it in the house? Also don't believe everything a documentary says. I think the problem was a detective stated there was porn everywhere (possibly an exaggeration or possibly there was but when they searched the house - it was gone).
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
Who said the police spread illegal items around the house? Where are you getting that info from?
You can scream now if you want.
john-421, can I ask, do you believe nothing happened at all? The lewd computer programs, the past history of molesting children, Arnold's low threshold for becoming excited around children, Jesse's confessions (and subsequent questionable retractions), the testimonies (many victims who still maintain what happened and were not hypnotized), etc... Do you believe nothing at all happened in that house ever? All because our society was overreacting to cases at that time, and so this one must have been a byproduct of hysteria that led to 100% faulty charges? I'm just trying to understand your perspective.
---
Have a heart. Please spay and neuter your pets.
[deleted]
Okay, so you believe nothing ever happened.
---
Have a heart. Please spay and neuter your pets.
[deleted]
3) they felt that the case was solid enough with numerous witnesses, material, aids, etc and since the exams were not right after the abuse as the children were intimidated to come forward after the abuse - a negative finding wouldn't mean that it didn't happen and thus not warranted.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
A negative finding would not imply it didn't happen - it would imply that it either didn't happen, the exam took place too long after the assault, or the abuse that occured didn't leave any evidence.
All the evidence was the child porn, the testimony/statements of a dozen or so witnesses/victims, and the testimony/statement of the third defendant who would implicate them.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
First show me where it is impossible to have internal bleeding for years. I'm interested where you get your medical information from.
I - in no way - was trying to spin that lack of evidence is proof of guilt. Where did I write that. In fact I actually listed why I thought he was guilty and spelled it out for you. I mentioned the numerous victims/witnesses and the third defendant who would implicate him - and afterwards his detailed confession of his crimes. Don't try putting words into my mouth.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
I'm not sure you just typing it is impossible is any proof. Where are you getting your medical info that it would be impossible to bleed for years reference trauma? Also the trauma could have cause another condition that would cause bleeding.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
Trauma can cause other medical conditions. I am still waiting for where you get your information that internal bleeding from trauma can't go on for years. He could have diabetes which would make healing hard to impossible if gone untreated, other bleeding conditions that would make healing tougher. I don't know what his condition is - but I don't know of any place that states it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the bleeding to continue for years - but I am willing to listen.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
You're putting words in my mouth or just not reading. I wrote trauma could cause other conditions and then later wrote he could have diabetes - I didn't write trauma could cause diabetes.
As far as the odds of having diabetes - I thought it was from a field of 100 abused children. So 2 out of 100 aren’t that farfetched. Even 2 out of 20 - isn't that farfetched. Sure it isn't common or statistically likely to happen - but you're using statistics to fit your agenda. It's like me saying -how many convicted criminals who confessed didn't do it - and since that is a small percentage and Jesse confessed he most likely did it. Yes the odds of having two children with bleeding problems isn't likely but that doesn't mean it can't or didn't happen.
Perhaps I didn't read the entire case - but which two abusers state they still are having bleeding problems. I thought it was just one - but I might have missed that.
Also – did you find me that info that it is impossible for internal trauma to not heal for years. I’m interested in that.
You can scream now if you want.
[deleted]
If we're talking about physical trauma so severe that a man is still bleeding from it 15 or 20 years after it happened - then I must go back to thinking about how this initial trauma was allegedly inflicted in the course of a 90 minute computer class after which the victim was immediately handed back to his parents.
A boy could be injured this badly and then given right back to his parents, who don't notice a thing wrong?
And not only was he not bleeding enough for them to notice at the time, but there's no suspicious bleeding or other problems for one year or two years until the arrests happen?
But 15 or 20 years later he claims to still experience rectal bleeding from the incident?
He confessed on Geraldo - and in court. Now I know you don't care about that but when I watch it - I believe he is sincere. His statements like - It's worse than that - when asked by Geraldo are very telling.Do you know of where there may be more info on any polygraphs relating to the case? Edit: I just found this and things referencing them, including Jesse himself trying to talk around them, which seems like the par-for-the-course thing that a compulsive liar would do
Didn't he also fail two polygraphs?
One might wonder why someone who failed two lie detector tests, pleaded guilty, told the judge he was “sorry for [his] actions,” asked for “assistance with [his] problem,” and then reaffirmed his guilty plea from prison would ever be embraced as innocent.
No - I just read he failed two polygraphs in a few web sites - I have no other info on it.
I believe he responded to it by stating it was a false reading or something to that effect - but I can't find his response so I'm not so sure on how he counters the polygraph tests.
If you find any info about them that would be informative - as well as his reply or even if the tests were given.
You can scream now if you want.
Jarecki had access to at least one of the polygraph test results & submitted them for analysis.
There's an article on the web somewhere where Jarecki details how difficult it was to get the guy who administered the test to provide him with the results. I believe he waited almost a year to finally get the results.
I will try to get you more info & a link to where I read this.
Ok here you go -
http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/ajareckiinterview.htm
Quote from Jarecki regarding lie detector results below:
share
Q. Are you referring to a specific document?
A. Well... Okay, there was this lie detector test that was given to Jesse and the guy who administered the test reported that Jesse had failed it, and that is one of the key things that convinced Jesse to take the plea because, obviously, if he'd failed a lie detector test, that wouldn't look very good for him in a trial. Well, I wasn't satisfied with that and I went and found the guy who analyzed the test and, in a nutshell, I got the test and had another expert look at the test who said that essentially the test was completely inconclusive, was incompetently administered, and absolutely unclear. That no intelligent lie detector expert in the world could call the thing conclusive one way or another--okay, so that's that. But the more interesting part of it is really how long it took to get that test from a guy who was obviously afraid that I would use it to make some kind of point that would make him look bad. Listen, I mean, I had gotten permission from Jesse, from his attorney, from everyone who mattered, I had signed a piece of paper saying that I wouldn't use the test in the film--I had done everything I possibly could to inoculate this guy from the persecution, and it still took me a year to get that test. Basically, to me, this speaks to how... Well, let me put it another way: you learn a lot more from how difficult it was to get the test than anything that the test itself could ever teach.
Why would he be worried about having the test look bad in trial? I lie detector test can't be used in a criminal court. Even if he failed miserably - they couldn't use it - the jury wouldn't know that he failed. Taking it would only either solidify the prosecutions case to an extent of satisfying there course of the case - or it would have exonerated him if he passed it (at least to some extent).
Who are his experts and did they have the same agenda as he did?
What made it “obvious” that he was afraid it would be used to make him look bad? If he didn’t everything to inoculate the examiner then I guess he didn’t have anything to worry about – so perhaps it wasn’t obviously because he might look bad. Just because he didn’t give it up quickly doesn’t mean that. Many professional people don’t just give items involved/or potentially involved in criminal proceedings to who ever asks. His conclusion that the delay taught us something more than the test itself tells me that he is illogical.
Where is the second test?
I find that his experts saying it wasn’t conclusive a non-issue as IMO he has a history of manipulating the situation and excluding information that contradicts his agenda – especially since he feels the delay was more telling than the actual exam.
You can scream now if you want.
Even if they examined, I got the impression the victims weren't investigated until way after the abuses supposedly happened. Kinda odd nobody even said they were abused, then dude was arrested for child pornography and the cops said 'OH WE THINK SOMETHING BIG IS HAPPENING!' and THEN everyone 'comes out'. Kinda odd.
I got the impression that everyone was lying...
-
Shuji Terayama forever.
I didn't read the whole thread because the first post were pointless, sadly.
I would like to know that fact too. According to the documentary, there wasn't physical evidence (I'm assuming the kids wasn't examined/there wasn't any evidence of rape in those cases). If the rape was a few months ago, those childrens MUST have shown some kind of physical pain, bleeding, local irritation, and some kind of negative feeling against computer classes. Even if they behaviour was not changed, the physical evidence of a rape cannot be changed in a young child in a period of a couple of months (we are talking about the old legal term sodomy here). Molestation is another issue, it's more difficult to prove.
I am very sorry for the mother Elaine, for Jesse, for the childrens involved (real or not, this abuse is part of their lives and they believe it, so they are victimized. I hope it wasn't real, for the child's sake). I think Jessie wasn't a child molester, his father was a 100% pedophile, a confessed child molester (the incidents on the vacation house), we don't know if he was a rapist, but what we know about Jessie? this is so strange. I remember the sad case of the McMartins, and I don't know what to believe.
Edited trying to correct my atrocious grammar.
Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language