MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > Excerpt from secretly taped police inter...

Excerpt from secretly taped police interview with computer student

posted 16 years ago by lornamd-1
11 replies | jump to latest

Det Hatch: We've had kids who stated that they saw you, and that you were involved, ok?

Det Jones: We want to go through this with you, don't deny it yet.

The Boy: I didn't see it. I didn't hear it.

Det Hatch: You're reasonably intelligent. I wouldn't say you're a genius but you're reasonably intelligent. Arnold Friedman stipulated in open court that he sodomized a large number of children. Why would Arnold Friedman admit to something that wasn't true?

The Boy: No, he never touched me.

Det Hatch: Oh, it happened to everyone else but not to you? How many sessions did you have at Friedmans?

The Boy: Eight to twelve.

Det Hatch: Most people who abuse children have been abused themselves. Its a monster created within you. The little monster inside you. The little voice, every now and then, it rears its ugly head. It's a no-win situation unless the person goes and gets help and admits he was victimized.

Do you remember games of a sexual nature? Stroker? Strip poker? Exploding fists?

The Boy: Exploding Fists was a karate game.

Det Hatch: Did you ever see any porn magazines?

The Boy: No.

Det Hatch: Did you ever go to any other room in the house?

The Boy: Yes.

Det Hatch: What room?

The Boy: Jesse's bedroom to play with the Commodore computer and nothing happened.

The interview ends and the boys mother is called in.

Det Hatch: Your son was a wise guy and I didn't like his answers.

[–] Goomba01 16 years ago

The thing that bothers me about this is that it is one inappropriate incident with the police being presented in the movie and it is being used as a blanketed explanation for all of the victims. I went looking up info on the McMartin case and just found scads of inappropriate incidents with the police, with supposed "experts", with the judicial system on a whole but Jarecki used this one incident and presented it in such a way as to lead the audience to think it happened many times when it quite possibly didn't. When I try to find more information about the Friedman case from other sources online, I get nothing, zero, zip and I can only assume that it is because it wasn't a case of notoriety in it's time because it wasn't inappropriately handled by the law on a whole.

If you have access to other incidents such as this, I'd surely like to see them.

"We're not going to Guam are we?--Frank Lapidus (Lost S5 "316")

[–] itsalltears 16 years ago

this was the only recorded interview with the police because the mother secretly recorded them interviewing her son. otherwise there would be NO record of what was said in the interviews and only the police's word which obviously isn't very good.

[–] Goomba01 16 years ago

So there was only one recording. But where are the police reports? There had to be written records on this case. Why aren't they present in the film? I'm just trying to picture 20/20 or Dateline presenting this case in the same way. I'm sure they would present newspaper articles of the time, tv news reports, police reports, court records, notes on the hypnosis (and info on how many kids were put under hypnosis), interviews with doctors and other professionals involved, specific info on what coercion took place and how often and they would've asked more than two witnesses to participate.

"We're not going to Guam are we?--Frank Lapidus (Lost S5 "316")

[–] itsalltears 16 years ago

maybe. they should make that show. is capturing the friedman's the only film made of this case?

[–] Goomba01 16 years ago

I was wondering that today. I haven't checked on it. I've done searches to find more information from other sources and haven't found much--mostly the victim's statements in the Leadership Council site. I just now tried finding the videotaped interview Jesse did on Geraldo. I checked YouTube and tried doing a Google video search and couldn't find it. I've only seen the written transcipt. I would like to see what another news show would do with it.

"We're not going to Guam are we?--Frank Lapidus (Lost S5 "316")

[–] whereismikeyfl 14 years ago

Actually the film does use police records to discredit memories of both the police and the family.

The best example is hearing the detective say that there were stacks of pornography all around the living room while the police photos of the scene show that there were no such stacks anywhere.

[–] lornamd-1 15 years ago

If you want other incidents of this then watch the film. There is testimony from students, parents and even a Detective in the case about the cops pressuring the students.

How can you say that Jarecki used this one incident when the tape doesn't even appear in the film?

You say that "it quite possibly didn't" happen many times which still leaves room for a lot of doubt and legal cases "it might have happened this way" isn't good enough.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] korn_mythe 11 years ago

A slightly longer transcript can be read here: http://www.freejesse.net/a-faulty-investigation/22-gary-meyers-interviewed-by-detective-hatch-and-detective-jones

It's a pity most of Gary's answers were inaudible. Whatever he was or perhaps wasn't saying, certainly was getting the two officers worked up.

[–] aldiboronti 10 years ago

What's quite clear is that the detectives back then had no clue as to how they should interview minors who might be victims of abuse. My guess is that many of the interviews were hopelessly tainted and of no solid evidentiary value at all. A dog shouldn't have been convicted on evidence such as this. (And I believe both Arnold and his son were guilty.)

[–] hero-de-celluloid 10 years ago

From my understanding - which could be wrong - these "excerpts" are from his lawyers notes. These notes are the only record of this "recording" and you should take them for what they are - notes made by a defendants lawyer with no way to corroborate them.

If we are talking about the same tape - here is the findings from the investigation itself.

The “Meyers Tape” – one of only two pieces of direct evidence of heavy-handed police interviewing techniques cited by Friedman, his advocates and the Court – is, in fact, no tape at all. All that remains of a tape that hasn’t existed for more than two decades are notes taken during its screening by a Jesse Friedman attorney. Those notes, presumably limited to information the attorney found helpful to his client’s case, were then reduced and curated by filmmakers, and read dramatically by Friedman’s attorney in Capturing the Friedmans.

User Error Please Try Again