Sorry for the long post, especially one that begins with a lengthy digression, but I don't see another way to adequately deal with the issues.
Are you familiar with the "Norfolk Four" case? An overview of the case can be found on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four. In it a woman was raped and murdered. Daniel Williams, a sailor who lived in the same apartment complex, was questioned on a hunch, and confessed after hours of interrogation, in vivid detail and on tape. When the details were contradicted by the autopsy report, Williams was subjected to another marathon interrogation, during which he confessed, providing completely different details that matched the autopsy report. But then Williams' DNA was found not to be a match with evidence from a scene. So he was interrogated again and implicated his roommate, Joseph Dick, who was on duty on a ship when the crime was committed, according to ship's logs. Dick was interrogated, and confessed after hours under questioning that he and Williams did the crime. But his DNA was not a match, so under further confession he identified two more men. These men were also arrested, confessed to the latest version that there were four men involved in the attack, but still there was no DNA match.
To make a long story short, in the end three of the four who confessed recanted, but Dick, who comes off as mentally slow and weak willed, came to believe that he actually had committed the crime. He made confession after confession, all in vivid detail, implicating whatever combination of attackers was required by the latest police theory. Seven sailors and ex-sailors were implicated, although some had airtight alibis showing that they were hundreds of miles away at the time the crimes were committed.
The police then received a tip that Omar Ballard, who was serving time for another crime, had boasted about being the murderer. He immediately admitted committing the crime, said that he acted alone, and his DNA was a match. No matter. Joseph Dick was now pressurized to change his story to include Ballard as part of the group of attackers, despite the fact that none of the seven defendants had any connection with Ballard. All four who initially confessed were convicted or plead guilty (for reduced sentences and to avoid the death penalty). Although they all are now out of prison, they are fighting to have their convictions overturned. The whole horrific story of the case was laid out by the PBS series Frontline, and it's available to watch for free online at www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/.
From the Norfolk Four case (and from other similar cases) three lessons can be drawn:
1. People under stress absolutely confess to things that never happened, and when pressed to do so, will provide elaborate stories that include vivid details.
2. People who confess to crimes that were not committed can and will in some circumstances testify against other people that are implicated in their confessions.
3. Memory is plastic. It is possible for at least some people to internalize a lie given enough repetition and reinforcement, even one as horrible as having committed a brutal crime.
Given that lengthy introduction, I turn now to the video that you linked to (blogs.brown.edu/recoveredmemory/2010/09/07/capturing-the-friedmans/) and address one by one what it states as the important facts that were left out of the documentary.
1. Jesse Friedman's confession on the Geraldo show.
This is mentioned in the supplements on the DVD. Here's Jesse Friedman's explanation for it (www.freejesse.net/Press_Information.htm#sympathy):
Only a few weeks after I enter [sic] prison, I agreed to be interviewed for the Geraldo television show. I was nineteen years old, in solitary confinement, at the very start of my prison sentence, traumatized and depressed. I spoke to Geraldo Rivera in what I believed to be a last-ditch effort to obtain public sympathy and explain the situation in some way. Up to that time the press had done nothing but vilify me. In my interview for the Geraldo show, I said that I had been molested by my father and sexually abused children in the computer classes. I am ashamed about going on the Geraldo show and telling those lies. I did this for the same reasons that I told Judge Boklan a similar confession. I had already pled guilty to these crimes (so protesting my innocence was moot), I was facing a long sentence, and it was the only explanation for this alleged criminal behavior which I thought would provide me an opportunity to be released from prison before the full 18 years of my sentence had passed.
So Jesse Friedman's explanation is that his confession on
Geraldo was similar to what he confessed in court, and was an attempt to garner sympathy. If he's to be believed, it was misguided and stupid, and I don't think he'd dispute that. People under enormous stress do misguided and stupid things, especially if they think it will reduce the stress.
What about the "vivid details" that Jesse provides in his
Geraldo interview? As we saw above from the Norfolk Four case, false confessions often include vivid details – the ones in that case are much more detailed than Jesse's confessions. I haven't seen anything of Jesse's
Geraldo confession but the clips in the linked video. In these clips Jesse is hesitant, and appears to be searching for what to say, for example in this excerpt:
GERALDO: What did you do to the children?
JESSE: [Long pause.] What did I do to the children? [Long pause.] I fondled them. [Pause.] Um, I was [pause] forced to, to [pause] pose [pause] in hundreds of photos [pause] for my father, in all sorts of sexual positions [pause] with the kids. And the kids likewise with myself. [Long pause.] Um, [pause] um, [pause] uh oral sex going both ways. Um, [pause] I was forced to pose with my penis against their anus. Um, I would [pause] control the kids. I would, I would, uh [pause] keep them in line if, if, if the class got too riled up.
Now there are a lot of reasons why someone would speak haltingly. But one of them is that he's fabricating on the fly, under stress. Jesse's way of speaking in the excerpt is certainly consistent with that.
As to the question of why the documentary does not even mention the
Geraldo interview (I think it should have), the linked video makes the point that Jarecki gave different reasons for not using the
Geraldo interview. In one place he says he couldn't get a release to use the tape, and in another that he considered it unnecessary since the film showed Jesse's confession in court. It seems to me that both could be true, that he couldn't get a release and that he considered it duplicative of the court confession.
Finally, Jesse's public confessions (in court and on
Geraldo) are contradicted by his private statements made at the same time to his brothers that he never molested any kids. We are faced with contemporaneous public confessions and private denials. The public confessions are made under a very stressful situation, with a motive to avoid facing lifetime in prison and in the hopes of getting released sooner. For the private denials made at the same time there are also possible motives for fabrication. It seems natural for people to place far more emphasis on a confession than on a recantation, even if the confession is given under duress, figuring that an innocent person would never confess. (This is a main reason why the Norfolk Four defendants spent years in prison for a crime they didn't commit.) I don't take either the confessions or the denials as the final word on the matter.
2. Ross Goldstein, who pleaded guilty and was ready to testify against the Friedmans.I agree that Goldstein should have been included in the documentary, and his part in the story is included in the supplements on the DVD. As you know, he pleaded guilty and received a six-month sentence, conditioned on his testifying against the Friedmans. People do lie all the time in order to save their skins. And people do confess and testify against others regarding things that never happened, as the Norfolk Four case demonstrates.
3. Andrew Jarecki spoke to fewer than half of the alleged victims, and the statement of the one victim that he used that he was hypnotized is denied by an affidavit of his therapist.With regard to how many of the alleged victims Jarecki spoke with, the linked video snidely makes the point that he's unsure how many he spoke with, but that it's less than half of the original 13 alleged victims (presumably the 13 victims acknowledged by Friedmans in their confessions). All well and good, but that in itself doesn't prove anything.
Next the linked video states that six of the victims have come forward to affirm their original statements. A letter by two of them, and an email by a third, can be found here:
www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html. All three remain anonymous for understandable reasons, though Judge Boklan vouched for their identities.
But there are also sworn affidavits of other computer students that absolutely no molestation happened during the Friedmans' computer classes:
www.freejesse.net/Affidavits/RonGeorgalisAffadavit.pdfwww.freejesse.net/Affidavits/BrianTilkerAffidavit.pdfwww.freejesse.net/Affidavits/ForrestAffidavit.pdfwww.freejesse.net/Affidavits/BienstockAffidavit.pdfWhat's going on here? There's no way that the two sets of statements are consistent with one another. Some of the students who deny that any abuse happened were students at the same time as the alleged victims, and were in the same classes. Either the alleged victims are wrong or the denying students are.
One possibility is that the alleged victims are either lying or have internalized the stories to the point that they believe them. I think that this is what is happening, and that it's not due to conscious lying. The questioning was clearly coercive, in that there were positive reinforcements for answers the police wanted (compliments, other positive attention, pizza parties, junior detective badges) and negative reinforcements for answers the police didn't want (disapproval, continued questioning). In the Norfolk Four case adults were coerced (not physically, just through questioning) to confess to a brutal crime they did not commit. In the Friedman case it was children who were coerced, and what they were coerced into saying was that someone else had done something wrong. By saying that their statements were coerced I don't mean that the police had the conscious design to get them to say something false. (The police in the Norfolk Four case thought they were doing the right thing too.)
The other possibility is that the denying students are either lying or have repressed memories of the abuse. I don't see any reasonable motivation for them to lie, to actively aid Jesse Friedman in trying to clear his name. Repressed memory syndrome is controversial to begin with, and it is dubious in the extreme that multiple students would maintain such repression in the face of direct questioning, and social pressure to conform.
Whichever possibility you go with, I don't see any way to square the two stories. The alleged victims and the denying students cannot both be right about what happened in those computer classes.
Finally, with regard to the hypnosis, the linked video questions the claims by the alleged victim featured in
Capturing the Friedmans that he was hypnotized in order to recall facts regarding the alleged abuse. The video cites a terse affidavit of a clinical psychologist that treated him, stating that she never used hypnosis in her treatment of him. I don't know whether this person was hypnotized or not, but it is possible that he was hypnotized, just not by the psychologist who provided the affidavit.
4. The film falsely implies that the second search of the Friedman home turned up nothing. Here's a transcript of the portion of the film in question (
www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/c/capturing-the-friedmans-script-t ranscript.html):
FRAN GALASSO: I think the most overwhelming thing was the enormous amount of child pornography. You would just have to walk into the living room, and it'd be piled around the piano. There were literally foot-high stacks of pornography, in plain view, all around the house.
NARRATOR: But photos taken during the search showed nothing of the kind.
The narrator's words are spoken over three photographs inside the Friedman home that show no pornography. The linked video does rightly point out that some pornography was found in the Friedman home. (Some of the items in the list shown, like issues of Oui and Genesis magazines, are clearly not child pornography. Some of the items look to be child pornography, or at least advertisements for it ("3 Sheets Advertising Homosexuality with Boys"), while others are ambiguous.) It seems pretty generous to think that you could make even one foot-high stack out of what is listed. The linked video concludes that "Detective Galasso does appear to overstate the amount of pornography found." "Appear to overstate" strikes me a gross understatement, but I'm not really sure what point the linked video was trying to make. The clip from the film showed that there were no "foot-high stacks of pornography, in plain view," as Galasso had stated. It's clear to anyone watching the whole film that Arnold Friedman was undeniably guilty of possessing child pornography, and that there was child pornography found in the Friedman home.
Hopefully the report that will be issued by the committee formed by Nassau County DA Rice will shed some more light on this matter, especially on what questioning techniques were used with the children, and whether some were hypnotized. It also would be nice if Ross Goldstein finally came forward and told his side of the story, whether it's to confirm or deny what he was willing to testify to against the Friedmans.
-- TopFrog
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Am I supposed to believe he had a lot of stress during his prearranged interview which he had time to prepare for and should have guessed what the subject was going to be? He had the interview after the fact in a sit down setting which he should have known what he was going to be talking about. What stress was there? He wasn't being interrogated, he wasn't blind-sided, he wasn't apparantly duped into the interview. Do you think he didn't know what was going to be asked? Do you think he couldn't prepare for his answers? Was Geraldo over-bearing and forcing him on issues? He was forthcoming and outright. He even expanded on Geraldo's questions.
As for your reason/excuses why it wasn’t used - he couldn't get the release to it - so what - that doesn't mean he can't mention/discuss it - think about how vital that would be to the impression people got from the movie. So he couldn't use the actual footage - that doesn't preclude him from putting in the fact that Jesse confessed on the Geraldo show.
The second reason/excuse was that he already used the court confession. Are you telling me there is no difference between a court confession and a detailed confession on the Geraldo show?
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
I think that going to prison would be stressful. Do you disagree? I don't think Jesse gave much thought to rehearsing his answers for the interview with Geraldo. If I was in prison for the first time, put into solitary confinement, I figure that I'd be traumatized and depressed, which is what Jesse claims he was, whether or not I was guilty. In that situation rehearsing what Jesse claims was a false confession for the Geraldo show might be low on his list of priorities. It looks to me like he was thinking over every sentence, and sometimes even parts of sentences, to pick something appropriate to confess to. But I make no claim to being able to determine his truthfulness by how he spoke in the interview. Human beings tend to be pretty poor judges of such things.
Hey, those aren't my reasons/excuses for not mentioning the Geraldo interview. Those are the reasons that Jarecki offered. I'm the guy who said already that Jarecki should have at least discussed in the documentary both the Geraldo interview and the Ross Goldstein plea/confession. The reasons Jarecki offers are not contradictory, but his views are not my views.
I'm interested in your take on the statements by the students that denied that there was any molestation going on in the classes. Do you think they can be reconciled with the recollections by the alleged victims? If so, how? If not, since you believe the alleged victims, how do you explain the statements by the students that deny the molestation?
-- TopFrog
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Pedophiles pick and choose who they are going to molest. They can usually tell which child is more susceptible to their threats and which ones could be a "problem". If he thinks they might be a problem then he wouldn't do anything in front of them. Just because a few weren't privy to the abuse doesn't mean it didn't happen. Another reason could be because they are in denial. It's not easy to admit that they were apart of these horrific crimes - either as victims or even just witnesses. Not all abuse victims come forward and many keep it inside for a long time. So the "expert" pedophiles can do their abuses out of the range of the one's they think might be a problem - as well as they just might be in denial which is common among the abused.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions concerning the disconnect between the statements of the alleged victims and those of the students who deny that there was any molestation ("the denying students").
I disagree with you that a possible explanation for the disconnect could be that the Friedmans only selected and groomed certain boys to molest, and didn't do anything in front of the others. I take this view because the allegations included mass sexual games, right in the classroom, presumably involving everyone. This is included in the documentary, in which a detective and one of the alleged victims described a leapfrog game, with Arnold and Jesse sodomizing boy after boy. If all that was being alleged was molestation in isolated settings (and there were plenty of allegations of individual molestation in the Friedman case), then I could see selection and grooming being a possibility. But it's not a possible explanation when the alleged molestation involves the entire group at once.
I suppose that one could try to save the selective molestation hypothesis by denying that the mass games happened, while still contending that the individual molestation did. However, once you concede that some things alleged by the "victims" didn't really happen, then you call into question everything that they alleged. There's really no good basis for thinking that the individual molestation allegations are true if you think that the mass games allegations are false. Alleged victims believe the mass games allegations presumably as much as the individual molestation allegations, the mass games allegations were the product of the same questioning techniques and environments that resulted in the individual molestation allegations, and there is no physical evidence to support either group of allegations. (It was alleged that hundreds of photos of the abuse were taken, and that the abuse was filmed, but not one photograph, film, or video was ever found.)
Moreover, the selection hypothesis is blown out of the water by an affidavit of Richard Tilker (www.freejesse.net/Affidavits/RichardTilkerAffidavit.pdf), the father of Brian Tilker, one of the denying students whose affidavit I linked to in my earlier message:
I remember receiving phone calls from the parents of other students who were allegedly abused. These parents were insistent that my wife and I should cooperate with the police and acknowledge that Brian had been abused. They told us that their son, who had been in class alongside Brian, had already acknowledged that he had been abused, and that he had seen Brian abused.
That leaves the denial hypothesis. Of course this goes beyond just denial, because here the students that deny that molestation took place have stepped forward, voluntarily, to try to clear the name of their supposed molester. They're not just keeping their knowledge of the molestation "inside," refusing to admit to what they know. To do what they're doing, if the molestation took place, they must have completely repressed any memory of anything untoward happening in the classes. Repressed memory syndrome is controversial to begin with, and that four people would so completely repress the same series events is simply not believable. That's why I think that the allegations of abuse are false, because that view is more credible than the alternative.
The idea that the allegations are false gains more strength the more that you delve into how the children were handled. There's this, from a Village Voice article by Debbie Nathan (
www.villagevoice.com/2003-05-20/news/complex-persecution/2/):
In 1990, I came across a paper that had been recently presented at the San Diego Children's Hospital's annual national conference on child abuse. The author was David Pelcovitz, chief of child and adolescent psychology at Long Island's North Shore University Hospital, and the paper ("Group Therapy and Hypnosis for Victims of Child Pornography and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse") concerned his therapy with kids in the Friedman case. Many of them, Pelcovitz noted, had no recollection of abuse, so he plied them with details about the Friedmans' purported crimes. The paper implies that he used hypnosis to jog their "memories."
Rooting around the web to try and find that paper, I came across this:
www.freejesse.net/SDR.htm, which looks to be a flier for a similar conference (the same conference?). Reading this brought to mind Mr. Sharkey, my 11th grade History teacher, who told us about a demonstration he used to do regarding the power of groups, and the difficulty of standing up to them. He would send a student out on an errand to deliver something to another teacher, and while the student was gone, enlist the rest of the class as his confederates. When the student came back he would draw two lines on the board, and have the class vote on which one was longer. The lengths wouldn't even be close, but when the vote was taken the student who had run the errand found himself in a minority of one. Everyone else, even the teacher, thought that the other line was longer. Couldn't he see that he was wrong? Invariably the result was extreme discomfort, and some eventually switched their position, agreeing with the rest of the class that the other line was the longer one. I didn't see this demonstration (Mr. Sharkey had stopped doing it, he said, because it was "too cruel"), but its message about the power of groups to force conformance rings true.
So what in the flier brought to mind Mr. Sharkey's demonstration? From a description of Pelcovitz's presentation, recounting group therapy of "fifteen victims of a child pornography and sex abuse ring which victimized children attending an after school program," there's this nugget:
Of the 15 children seen in the two groups, six children had no memories of being victimized even though members witnessed their abuse. A technique that was useful in helping these children remembering was having all group members draw pictures of the room where they were victimized and speak about their memories of the classes using the pictures as visual aid. With the help of this technique, two group members who had amnesia for the abuse, remembered most of the detail of their victimization. Two of the remaining four have had vague but not detailed memories and the remaining two continue to not remember their abuse. The group was also helpful in that those children who remembered, who initially had dissociated, were able to reassure those with amnesia that the process of remembering would not be painful (the children had been told by detectives who questioned them that when they remembered it would be traumatic).
You read that right -- the six children who had no recollection of the abuse were worked on by the group, with the aid of therapists, until most of them had conformed to the accepted story. Apparently the idea that the six children might be truthfully recounting that they were not abused and witnessed no abuse was never considered.
Given the statements of the denying students, the manipulation of the alleged victims that went on in both questioning by the police and in therapy, and the complete lack of physical evidence, the conclusion that the allegations were false strikes me as far and away the more likely than the alternative. But as I said before, I await the report of the committee studying the matter.
-- TopFrog
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
You write, " Repressed memory syndrome is controversial to begin with, and that four people would so completely repress the same series events is simply not believable. That's why I think that the allegations of abuse are false, because that view is more credible than the alternative."
Yet do you believe multiple people had the same false memories implanted? Implanting memories is extremely hard to do with one person - and on the scale implied would be unbelievable and IMO more unbelievable than repressing memories.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. The abused do repress memories and they also become "involved" with their abuses and in many cases do try to "protect" them because they are fearful, embarrassed or just formed an abnormal "relationship" with them.
One of the contentions is that the children had implanted memories. The video states that there was an appeal of some sort and there no evidence that indicated they were all even hypnotized before. Now I don't believe the video just because it states something (just as I don't with the movie), but as far as I can tell they aren't opening the case again as of yet and if there was evidence of implanted memories in all the victims - I haven't heard of it.
I will say you do state your case very well and make this subject interesting to debate, and although we don’t agree on it - that’s OK IMO.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
If this discussion were to continue, I would raise several points in response, especially with regard to false memories. (Hypnosis is not required, and they are nowhere near as difficult to induce as you think, especially given the circumstances of the Friedman case.) But I am content to let things stay where they are, with us agreeing to disagree.
Thank you for your part in our spirited exchange of views, an exchange that cannot but enrich us both by improving our understanding.
-- TopFrog
reply
share
Jags527
14 years ago
Yet do you believe multiple people had the same false memories implanted? Implanting memories is extremely hard to do with one person - and on the scale implied would be unbelievable and IMO more unbelievable than repressing memories.
You imply here that TopFrog believes that these children had memories implanted. I really don't think that's the case.
Please consider that these boys had several ways to fabricate similar stories. First of all, many of them were likely friends and thus would have had limitless opportunities to discuss the details and influence one another. Dominant boys making false allegations in this case would have motive and opportunity to encourage others to fall in line.
Second, their families appear to have formed a community of sorts and undoubtedly had conversations with each other and their children about the details of their alleged abuse. The film clearly demonstrates that at least one parent (and likely several more) were so convinced of the abuse that they actively attempted to convince other parents that had done their due diligence and were confident their child wasn't abused. Passionate parents seeking to protect their children and community in this case would have motive and opportunity to coerce their child, other parents, and the children of those other parents to believe what they believe. Even with the best of intentions, this kind of coercion is irresponsible without any physical evidence.
Third, these children were all interviewed by the same police officers, one of whom admits in the film to using extremely leading language during his interviews. The manner in which those interviews appear to have been conducted along with the woefully inept investigation makes it unquestionable that the police, intentionally or not, tipped their hand in so many ways that the corroborating nature of the boys' statements is suspect at best.
And lastly, in addition to asking leading questions, the entire investigation was tipped to the press before the majority of it had even been conducted. In other words, they had the class list for a month before the Friedmans' arrest. To avoid tainting the statements and subsequent testimony of the children -- not to mention making a best effort to avoid false statements -- the majority of the potential victims could have been interviewed simultaneously (and separately, of course) prior to the arrests.
This would have eliminated all of the above, leaving no room for the boys to influence one another, for the parents to network for support causing further coercion, and for the press to let many potential victims know that questioning was coming and what the content of that questioning would likely be. Had this happened, in addition to the police conducting those interviews without leading questions, the investigation likely would have uncovered the truth.
As it is, every allegation of abuse is suspect, and I find it troublesome that any lawyer would advise a false confession with so much room for reasonable doubt. Yes, I understand that the case had tainted the jury pool and that most of the community probably thought they were guilty. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that an innocent person would plead guilty to something so vile with a metric ton of reasonable doubt on the table.
Having said all of that, I'm honestly not convinced either way. While I find it damning that they both confessed multiple times to different people and think their calm and playful demeanors the night before and day of their respective incarcerations is also suspect, it's clear to me that there's just not enough information on either side to really be sure that the computer classroom abuse ever happened.
Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but the case has more holes in it than a chain link fence. The father certainly had his punishment coming, but though my gut tells me Jesse is guilty of something, that's hardly reason enough to send someone to prison for 13 years.
That's my two cents. Okay, probably more like thirty cents...
reply
share
Hdny42
14 years ago
Don't waste your time finding facts and evidence to support your theories with "Hero", because when you do present your argument well enough he just ignores you and pretends you never said it so he can continue to stick his head in the sand.
He's one of a growing number of Americans and people around the world who believe that the burden of proof rests on the accused and not the accuser, and that lack of any and all evidence is not enough to give even a reasonable doubt.
Arguing with someone like Hero-de-celuloid is like banging your head against a wall repeatedly, as the wall will still stay there and you won't cause it to change. Save yourself the time and effort of diligently finding evidence and links to support your well thought out (and I think entirely reasonable AND correct) conclusions and just take a few aspirin now and go to sleep.
Addendum:
This is a much bigger problem than with Hero-de-celuloid and people on IMDB. In the USA (and the world, but I live in the US) you have people who will choose to believe something and will denigrate and tear down any and all EVIDENCE that contradicts what they choose to believe. An example is climate change and the substantial evidence that human beings have played at least some part in it. Those who don't believe it say that EVERYONE (99% of scientists) who says otherwise than they believe has a motive and a bias to do so. They say that only they see things correctly and cite the 1% of studies (usually financed by groups or individuals that have fantastic economic reasons for being against protecting the environment, or at least slowing down our destruction of it) they agree with. There are VERY few of the 1% who don't have a dog in the fight and say there is no such thing as climate change, or that humans have no role in it. And yet, when those few ARE finally convinced by the evidence as often happens, the rest of the group writes THEM off (though as recently as a day before, they were happily citing their opinions as fact) for having a bias too.
People like Hero-de-celuloid pick a belief for whatever reason and stick with it until the day they die. He believes the Friedmans, in particular Jesse Friedman, were guilty and nothing you can say and no amount of evidence you can produce will change his mind...even your step by step answering of each of his contentions with facts to tear his argument to shreds does not change his mind...usually when you do that, he just ignores your response and A.) comes up with new questions, or B.) ignores you entirely. I am terrified for the future concerning people like this Hero of nothing, because there are some things whether regarding the environment or the innocence and freedom of an 18-year-old boy, that should be CAREFULLY decided and where bias has no place. Judge Bocklan and the Nassau Police saw themselves as avengers who, since they were thoroughly convinced of the guilt of the Friedmans, saw fit to deny them of the freedoms granted to them by the Constitution. The way they saw it: they were not railroading innocent people but making sure that "justice" was done to people they believed were guilty before they ever met them. They, like Hero, put the burden of proof on the accused and put them in a position where they could not defend themselves. Hero applauds the work of Bocklan while I am ashamed she is a fellow New Yorker who stood in judgment of many of my other fellow New Yorkers, including the Friedmans.
I say again...I am terrified for the future of this country...and this world.
"Well if you wanted to make Serak the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Let's get a few things straight. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and I believe they had plenty of evidence and could have met that. Multiple witnesses claiming the abuses took place, multiple confessions, a third defendant who implicated the others, etc. You say I ignored the evidence and/or reasons on why I am wrong - what evidence?
I have heard theories on possibilities on what might have happened – but that is not evidence. There was an appeal – what evidence was submitted that was different? Was there evidence the children were even hypnotized?
You can whine all you want and claim I would never change my mind – but you are ignorant. I am ready and willing to hear any argument and if there is any new evidence that supports your case I would definitely consider changing. As of now – I don’t see any evidence that would do that. Where are you pulling these “facts” from? You claim contradicting points to yours are biased - have you looked in the mirror.
I didn’t just pick a belief and am “sticking” to it. I saw a movie – did research into it – saw that it appeared biased – and made my own opinion based on the facts of the case. You should try the same.
Claiming I am putting the burden of proof on the accused is absurd. I listened to the arguments – including the accused confessions (which were very detailed), I listened to the witnesses who have still claimed the abuses happened, and I listened to the other defendant.
You wrote, “Save yourself the time and effort of diligently finding evidence and links to support your well thought out (and I think entirely reasonable AND correct) conclusions and just take a few aspirin now and go to sleep.”
What evidence are you even refering to?
I state there are multiple witnesses/victims to the abuse. Others say they were hypnotized with false memories. I don't see the evidence of that - only the contrary. Others say the police coerced them. I don't see the evidence of that. Police use hard tactics to get people to open up. Do you honestly think these victims would just come out and say what happened after being threatened by the abusers? The police wanted to get to the bottom of it. That doesn't mean their testimony was false. I state there was a third defendant. Others say that he would say anything to get a better sentence. That is not evidence - just a possibility - just like he is telling the truth - there is no evidence he is lying. I state there were multiple confessions. Others state they were made to get a lighter sentence. That is not evidence - that is just speculation - at the least it isn't evidence or proof. Any convicted person who confessed can say that - that doesn't mean it's true. The evidence is the multiple victims, the confessions, and the third defendant. As far as I can see - there is no proof or evidence that would change that - only speculation and assumptions - but I am willing to hear any arguement. This is just my opinion - as I am working with the information I can get (not an agenda laced movie).
How about finding out what evidence actually means. Evidence isn’t just some words on a movie blog and because it is written it is now fact. Learn before you write, open your mind to the possibility of being wrong. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are biased. I have no agenda. I have no bias. I am just looking at the facts and forming an opinion. You seem to be angry because I disagre with you. I am not angry at you - actually I feel sorry for you. You see - even if I don't agree with someone - I don't take it personally. I try to understand them - learn from them, and grow. That doesn't mean I am right all the times - sometimes I'm right - sometimes I'm wrong - sometimes there is no obvious right or wrong - but I can live with that. Try not to hate that much.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
"What evidence"? I've linked to evidence throughout this thread. The affidavits are evidence. The statements made in the movie are evidence. The flier I linked to is evidence. The statements of the alleged victims and Jesse Friedman are evidence. Relevant evidence is a pretty broad category of information -- it's any information that has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. So you know that this definition isn't "just some words on a movie blog," here's a link: www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule401.
As far as the information provided to the 2nd Circuit, I expect that you're already familiar with it, but here are links to Jesse Friedman's memorandum of law (www.freejesse.net/Friedman_Memorandum_of_Law.pdf) and to the affidavits that constitute some of the supporting evidence submitted with it (www.freejesse.net/Affidavits/ACP.htm).
There is indeed evidence that the children were hypnotized. First there's the statements made by the computer student in the documentary, the man you referred to earlier in this thread as "the 'anonymous' victim," who is identified in the court proceedings as "Gregory Doe" (www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/c/capturing-the-friedmans-script-t ranscript.html):
DOE: My parents put me in therapy right away. They put me in hypnosis and tried to recall facts that I had buried. And that's how I first came out, started talking about it, just through being hypnotized and everything I recalled things that I would bury. I was able to talk about them.
Q: For example, what would be something that you recall?
DOE: The actual first time I actually recalled that I was actually molested. Wow, I was actually molested. I can deal with it now. That was the first time.
Q: And you recalled through hypnosis the first episode?
DOE: Yes.
Q: So tell me about that, if you remember.
DOE: I don't remember much about it. It was so long ago. I just remember that
I went through hypnosis, came out, and it was in my mind.
This is strong evidence, although anyone who's seen the film I think would agree that Gregory Doe has serious credibility problems.
In addition there's the flier for the conference I linked to earlier, where the therapists who treated the accusers were to talk about the treatment of the accusers and the use of hypnosis in treating victims of sexual abusers. It's my understanding that those therapists have refused to provide further information, citing patient privacy. But still this is further evidence indicating that the accusers were hypnotized.
Jesse Friedman lost his appeal, but only because he failed to act in a timely manner. The panel of Federal appellate judges who heard the case, and who have no dog in this fight, had this to say about the evidence (
caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1535102.html):
Petitioner has come forward with substantial evidence that flawed interviewing techniques were used to produce a flood of allegations, which the then-District Attorney of Nassau County wrung into over two hundred claims of child sexual abuse against petitioner. Petitioner never had an opportunity to explore how the evidence against him was obtained. On the contrary, the police, prosecutors, and the judge did everything they could to coerce a guilty plea and avoid a trial. Thus, with the number of counts in the indictments and Judge Boklan's threat to impose the highest conceivable sentence for each charge, petitioner faced a virtually certain life sentence if he was convicted at trial. And the likelihood that any jury pool would be tainted seemed to ensure that petitioner would be convicted if he went to trial, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Nor could he have reasonably expected to receive a fair trial from Judge Boklan, the former head of the Nassau County District Attorney's Sex Crime Unit, who admitted that she never had any doubt of the defendant's guilt even before she heard any of the evidence or the means by which it was obtained. Even if innocent, petitioner may well have pled guilty.
As such, this case is unlike other appeals which raise concerns about the quality of the evidence and the guilt of the defendant. ... In this case, the quality of the evidence was extraordinarily suspect and never subjected to vigorous cross-examination or the judgment of a properly instructed jury.
That's more than "just some words on a movie blog."
-- TopFrog
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Let’s see you have the convicted abuser’s statement as “evidence”. You have affidavits of people who are stating it didn’t happen to them or they didn’t see any of the abuse – that does not mean it didn’t happen to others. On the other hand there are victims who are still professing that it did happen and they didn’t have memories implanted and they weren’t coerced into telling lies. From the affidavits on the site – none that I can see are from students that claimed they were sexually abused and are now recanting it. Just because there are affidavits from people who are stating they weren’t abused or didn’t see any abuse – does not mean it didn’t happen to others.
You state G Doe has some credibility problems – that is an understatement. Wasn’t there a statement from his therapist that she did not use hypnosis?
You also fail to address his multiple confessions with any logic. The Geraldo confession was in great detail. He even expounded on Geraldo’s questions with detail. He takes his time to think and details the abuse that was done to these victims. He talked about fondling them, posing with them in sexual manors, oral sex both ways, he controlled them, kept them in line, he told them if they told – terrible things would happen. This is evidence that can’t be manipulated or misunderstood or taken out of context – it is straight out of his mouth. He details the crime and abuse. He didn’t have to go into such detail. He had time to prepare for it and knew about the interview. It seemed cathartic and the details were part of that.
If you are claiming his pauses were to think up a lie or "he's fabricating on the fly, under stress" I must disagree. He knew about the interview and should be able to prepare on what was going to be asked. If he was going to lie - he could have rehearsed it. If he was going to lie - why go into great detail - why expound on Geraldo's simple questions?
the therapists who treated the accusers were to talk about the treatment of the accusers and the use of hypnosis in treating victims of sexual abusers. It's my understanding that those therapists have refused to provide further information, citing patient privacy. But still this is further evidence indicating that the accusers were hypnotized.
How does this indicate they implanted memories in these victims or that they were even hypnotized? You write they will talk about the treatment of the accusers and use of hypnosis in treating victims - are they saying they used hypnosis on these specific victims?
We might not agree on this but there was no reason to get so verbally demeaning in your prior post. Can’t you just accept the fact that people can disagree with you. Look, I don’t know Jesse – I don’t know if he’s a nice person now or a mean person – all I was doing was looking at the evidence and making a conclusion. If new evidence comes forward I would gladly look at it and change my mind if it showed his innocence. I have no bias or agenda.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
Regarding the statements of the students in the classes that denied witnessing any abuse, I have addressed this earlier in this thread at great length. I discussed the possibilities 1) that the abuse was selective, and occurred only out of view of the "deniers," and 2) that all of the deniers were abused but repressed any memory of it to the extent that they are actively aiding their abuser in proclaiming his innocence. I found both of these possibilities implausible, but of course you are free to disagree with me.
I'm glad we agree that Gregory Doe has severe credibility problems. His credibility problems affect not only his statement that he was hypnotized (which I agree is contradicted to some extent by the material in the short film you linked to at the beginning of the thread). Doe's lack of credibility extends to his statements regarding the alleged abuse. Since Gregory Doe is one of the authors of the open letter to the Academy Awards Committee, www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html#Academy, the lack of credibility extends to the statements made in that letter. (Gregory Doe is the "27 year old businessman," as explained in a Newsday article available here: www.lanternproject.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=1424&sid=51083e0d4 a2453055b5f7443aa70ad38.)
I have addressed the Geraldo interview at length earlier in this thread. (I thought that my posts were long enough already without repeating all the prior material in each new post.) Jesse Friedman has offered a plausible explanation for his decision to do the Gerlado interview. Just because he said it doesn't mean it's true, but Friedman would not be the first person to falsely confess to being a child abuser. As the appeals court stated in the opinion I linked to earlier, in other mass child abuse cases of that era "[s]ome defendants, fearing trial, pled guilty or 'no contest' to impossible acts of ritualistic abuse, and in some cases they provided detailed confessions in exchange for immunity or generous plea bargains." (I appreciate that the Geraldo confession was not part of a plea bargain. I've addressed this before, and I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree on interpretation of the confession, and the amount of weight that should be placed on it.)
You inquire about the relevance of the statements in the flier to the question of whether the accusers were hypnotized. What this shows is the very therapists who treated the accusers making statements, at the same time of that treatment, talking about how hypnosis can be effectively utilized in treatment of child abuse victims. Does this prove that the accusers were hypnotized? No. Is it strong evidence that they were hypnotized? Not as far as I'm concerned. But is it relevant evidence – does that fact increase the probably that they were hypnotized over what it would be without the evidence? Certainly. (Regarding the hypnosis, I haven't seen sufficient evidence to convince me, but you asked if there was any evidence that the accusers had been hypnotized. There is.)
Of course I can agree to disagree. I did so once before with you, and am glad to do so again. I can understand your objection to the tone and content of Heathny42's post, but he's not me and he doesn't speak for me. For myself, I was none too pleased with your prior post's implication that no one has linked to any evidence in this thread, and that anyone who thought so needed a refresher regarding what constitutes evidence.
Again, I thank you for a spirited and enlightening exchange of views.
-- TopFrog
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Why would abusing only a select few be implausible? Do you think the priests abused every altar boy? No – they selected the vulnerable ones just as it could have been done in this case. They could have abused the vulnerable ones as these pedophiles are experts in their abuse. They knew these children and which ones were more vulnerable. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
Gregory Doe – we tend to agree on.
As far as the confession – I could understand (not agree with) your point if he just said he did it for the courts – but he went on TV to confess and confess in great detail as to the ways he abused these children. I don’t know of any person that voluntarily went onto a major TV show and “falsely” confessed to child abuse in such vivid detail (but correct me if I’m wrong). I guess another agree to disagree point.
The flier – I don’t see how that is strong evidence or any evidence at all that they were hypnotized. Just because they are discussing hypnosis and abuse doesn’t mean they did it. They were discussing abuse – that doesn’t mean they abused anyone. I know that sound simple but maybe we are different wave lengths about this. There are therapists discussing hypnosis – maybe about how it shouldn’t be used in these cases, maybe how it wasn’t used in this case. It’s a topic that was significant by the accused and they are addressing it – that by no means or implies they used hypnosis (unless I’m not reading your thread correctly). Don’t you have the other therapist that actually makes a statement that she in fact did not use hypnosis? Agree to disagree again.
Sorry about the mix up with the previous poster – I was directing it towards him/her. Perhaps I was getting a bit defensive. My apologies. I also enjoyed these discussions – I have learned some and always appreciate a good debate – you are very informative and present your views well (even if I don’t agree with most of them) – I wish it was for something less horrifying that child abuse. Maybe next debate can be a bit lighter. Debating this type of subject is draining.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
One more quick comment, and then I'm out of here. (I too am drained.) I don't find abuse of select victims as implausible in general, but I don't see it as a plausible explanation for the different witness statements in this particular case. The accusers here made allegations that there was open molestation going on in front of the entire class, and in some cases involving the entire class. In addition, the accusers made specific allegations that they saw at least some of the deniers being molested. In view of these allegations it does not seem possible to me that both the allegations are true and that the deniers are correctly reporting that they did not witness molestation. If the allegations in this case were different, then selective molestation could be a viable explanation for the conflicting statements.
reply
share
Hdny42
14 years ago
It was not evidence you ignored, but the lack of evidence that there is guilt. To prove guilt all you use is a confession, but the idea of a false confession is far more plausible than the myriad of scenarios I've seen you come up with (about how EACH and EVERY child who returned to the class and was being abused did not say anything about it or show any sign because EACH and EVERY one of them was threatened and terrified). The incredible stretches that you and others have gone through to convince yourselves of guilt here are extraordinary to me, and far bigger leaps than believing a confession may be false. The things the police and judge did in this case were despicable, and you seem to side with them that evidence is not an issue because you can always come up with some bogus excuse to why there was none. Lack of a SHRED of physical or DNA evidence is easier for you to write off than a possibly fake confession? Have you SERIOUSLY not considered the very human reasons an innocent young man like Jesse (or the MANY other people who every day confess to things they did not do) might confess to something he did not do?
Again, follow this logic: Judge Bocklan had made it clear there would be no change of venue, the case would be tried on Long Island (where I am from) and where there was zero chance of a fair trial. They convinced Arnold to confess and cop a plea, making him believe this would give his son a better chance to survive on his own...as in, Arnold who had an ACTUAL history of pedophilia was being a stone around his son's neck and should be cut off to give him a chance. I'm no lawyer, but to me this seems like a trap to get both men.
Say you're a Long Islander in 1988 chosen to be a juror in the trial of Jesse Friedman. Arnold has VERY PUBLICLY confessed to crimes that also implicate his son. There is an atmosphere of extreme hysteria...which way are you leaning? Since the case was in the news ALL the time and Arnold publicly admitted to heinous acts where his son was supposed to be present, how could you POSSIBLY give Jesse a fair shake? Without a change of venue, his father's confession sank him.
So then you have the judge saying, "Confess or you'll spend your entire life in prison," and knowing that she's probably right...no change of venue + father's confession = no fair trial, a right we're guaranteed in the Constitution. This is what Judge Bocklan wanted however...the complete and total lack of evidence could not help but come out eventually and the case turn into a he said, he said. In a vacuum where the jury did not read of the case and have their own predisposed beliefs, perhaps that would point them in the direction of finding the Friedman's not guilty. However in Nassau County in 1988 there was no chance...however Bocklan and the DA even THEN did not want to risk a trial because they knew that no matter how biased the jury would be and how compelling the testimony of children can be, there was STILL a chance that the total lack of hard evidence would lead to a not-guilty verdict. She was able to get the ONE last thing that would convince people like you that the lack of evidence was a minor trifle...the "confession."
You can look it up, but there was a scandal in the 1980s and 1990s in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island because they had some of the highest rates of forced confessions in the country and it came out that they were using techniques like beatings with phone books and other things (most that, the cops had brilliantly learned, left no visible scarring) that led to confessions the police used to railroad them. In this case the Nassau police had made their minds up to the guilt of the Friedman's a long time ago, evidence or no evidence. What they needed to convince OTHER minds, such as yours, was a "confession."
So you're Jesse and you know you cannot possibly get a fair trial...you scream of your innocence at the top of your lungs to all who will hear you, but aside from your family in 1988, no one is listening. Your father is already in jail, having confessed to things your name is on too. What do you do? In his case you take remarkably bad advice thinking it is the only thing that can possibly lead to you ONE DAY getting out of prison and living your life. You confess to things you did not do and once in jail you cannot, to the powers that be, show that it was a BS confession because they'll never let you out unless you show "remorse" for what you have done. Bocklan may even have gone back on the deal if he went on Geraldo saying, "Yeah, I lied...sorry, but it was my only option." With the continuing awful advice of his attorney, he went on Geraldo to gain 'sympathy' from the public and hopefully future parole boards. The only way now, in the attorney's eyes obviously, for Jesse to get sympathy was to paint HIMSELF as a victim as well. "Sure, everything you guys said I did, I did...BUT I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself because I'm a victim too."
So yes, you ARE overlooking evidence, but not evidence OF innocence but the LACK of evidence of guilt. In my opinion and through my reading of the constitution it seems to me that the lack of ALL evidence outweighs confessions, especially knowing as I do that SO many confessions can be forced through intimidation or outright violence. You can say I'm stretching here, but I think it's a FAR less stretch to say "forced confession!" Than to say, "EACH and EVERY child kept going back because they were threatened and the threats worked...EACH and EVERY child who was molested showed no signs and said nothing about the abuse until the police came knocking because that fear was all enveloping." How is THAT easier to buy than, looking at the lack of all evidence, the idea that the confessions really don't seem to mean much? Which one of us is taking the greater leap here? And IF you're taking a leap and making connections like "this COULD have happened...they COULD have hidden all the abuse so well!" then it says more about you than Jesse Friedman.
This documentary is not the full picture, but I'm from Long Island and I remember the story from my parents. I was in Great Neck a lot around that time because I had doctors there. My parents have told me well of the hysteria, and knowing Long Islanders as I personally do, I KNOW there was 0 chance of a fair trial there and that the decision by Bocklan to deny change of venue is suspicious...until you add it to the rest of her decisions and realize she was sure of guilt and was, violating ALL the laws and ethics she was supposed to be upholding, going to make sure the public saw what she KNEW was true.
I do not think Jesse is innocent because of the documentary, but because as you said you have (though I don't buy it from the fact that ALL you ever post are the same tired links...I've read yours, but I've also read the links others post, which I never think you do) I have read a LOT about this case and used my inside knowledge of LI, Nassau, and its workings. Then throw in the McMartin trial (I've also read a lot on that) and the nature of the crime of pedophilia (which NO ONE on this board is defending...it is a horrific crime and if I DID believe that Jesse Friedman was guilty of it, you would not see me on this board defending him...I think any who actually DO violate children in such a way should never see the light of day again, but rot in small cells for eternity). My problem is always with proof...if you can prove to me someone is a pedophile or rapist, I'd actually be fine with castration for the bastard in question. But in this case there is such a lack of hard evidence that it becomes like the Crucible, and you're the type who would have held up the document and said, "SEE! John Proctor is a Witch! He signed here!"
Confessions to save your skin are not worth confessions made from truth...and I guess I'm just pretty damn disgusted by you and others on this site who, through their own biases, can SO easily overlook the lack of hard evidence just because it backs up what they want to believe already. They make excuses for implausible things while acting like the idea of a forced confession is nonsense. To wave a confession around and proclaim it and the few children who still hold to their stories outweigh the lack of all evidence to corroborate the stories of those children + the fact that many of them have come out and said nothing happening + the ridiculous nature of hypnosis to help children 'remember' abuse and the other ludicrous tactics used by the police + judge bocklan's obvious prejudices; makes no sense to me. Confession + a few kids cannot possibly outweigh MORE kids plus lack of ALL evidence...throw in the rest and it's a no brainer.
So please explain to me why a confession and the children who did not recant are more important than the lack of evidence plus the GREATER number of children who say nothing happened? The fact that you choose a minority of the children doesn't show your bias? If 7 people say one thing and 3 another and you side with the 3 I hope you have some evidence...in this case all the evidence is with the 7 (IE: the LACK of evidence for the 3 corroborates the story of the 7)...you have 3 plus a "confession."
Yes...you do have a view point that you will not change in the face of any and all evidence hero-de-celuloid, because in this case the lack of ANY EVIDENCE IS evidence...because you said you believe the burden of proof is on the prosecution as I do and the Constitution does...but then you go and prove you do NOT really think that because you show you need absolutely no physical evidence of any kind to condemn a man to prison, hatred, and a lifetime of scorn...In my case, I want the evidence to be overwhelming before I do that...you obviously don't have the same standards as either myself or the US Constitution.
I hope for my own good (and that of ALL the people in this country) that I never wind up accused of a crime with you on the jury I must stand before. If you are, let me know so I can point you out to the judge and have a new jury brought in, because you're supposed to recuse yourself if you have some sort of bias...as in, a "accused and arrested = already guilty."
"Well if you wanted to make Serak the Preparer cry...mission accomplished."
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
I'm not overlooking the "evidence" and there was enough evidence IMO to convict. Not only was it a confession - but it was a confession in great detail. He could have just confessed to the courts like most everyone who wants a lighter sentence - but he went onto TV and confessed in great detail.
With the confession aside - you also have victims who are still adamant about the crimes. Who are stating they weren’t hypnotized with false memories.
Just because some children state nothing happened to them does not mean it didn't happen. The abuse could have been done out of their knowledge. Abuser can be experts at picking the vulnerable and avoiding the children that can cause them problems.
You state there is lack of evidence - but there are multiple victim's statements, confessions, and a third defendant. That is evidence and very damning evidence.
I hope if a abuser is on trial you are not on the jury as you need to take your blinders off and let go of your agenda and just use the facts of the case to make a decision. You can keep claiming I'm biased but I'm not - I have no agenda - all I'm doing is looking at the facts - you should try doing the same.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share