MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > Everyone's a liar except the Friedmans

Everyone's a liar except the Friedmans

posted 12 years ago by osman_a1
6 replies | jump to latest

Jesse's claim now is that the children lied, the police lied, his lawyer lied, his friend lied and the judge was biased.

And watching the film it amazed me how the Friedmans (except the mother) all seemed to deny that there was anything wrong. But I also remember hearing a lady in the movie say something about how families in these cases typically get behind the accused and never concede their guilt even after conviction and sentencing.

The ability of human beings to deceive themselves is astounding.

[–] JackyBryant 12 years ago

Same thing happened with Sandusky (and to an extent Paterno). Lies and denials. Sandusky telling Bob Costas he did nothing wrong was just like the Friedman family repeatedly denying everything despite the mountain of evidence.

The Friedman two were guilty. The evidence that was omitted from the film is damning. They are as innocent as Jerry Sandusky. It is insane that people still are influenced by this film. If you look at the court records and trial transcripts you'd need to do Olympic level mental gymnastics to think that they are innocent.

If you want a film that is morally objective in proving innocence then look at HBO's Paradise Lost films about the West Memphis Three. Those films actually helped free innocent men from prison. They don't try to coverup horrific sexual violence against children to restore the reputation of a broken upper class family still clinging to their yuppy fantasy.

[–] polysicsarebest 12 years ago

Also watch the THIN BLUE LINE, who freed an innocent man.. who, in return for getting his life back, sued the director! Insane!

Anyway, the OP summed everything up "And watching the film"... you are indeed watching the film, which depicted the story in a certain way, not completely factual of course.

-
Shuji Terayama forever.

[–] rut88 12 years ago

"If you want a film that is morally objective in proving innocence then look at HBO's Paradise Lost films about the West Memphis Three. Those films actually helped free innocent men from prison."

You are joking right ? Paradise lost was far from impartial. They left out Echols extensive mental history, the fact that Misskelley confessed FOUR times including AFTER the trial with ONLY his lawyer present. He confessed even though his lawyer advised against it. Not the mention leaving out the people who overheard Echols bragging about the murder, people who have never recanted. The also left the fact Echols killed a dog, for nothing more than his own pleasure. He killed several animals and kept the skulls as trophies. Echols also displayed erratic behaviour in court, blowing kisses to victims family members, and taunting them on several occasions.

I could really go on with what the filmmakers (who by the way decided Echols was innocent after only a 5 minute talk with him) left out. Paradise Lost is a selective documentary.

[–] PizoDeMadera 11 years ago

They were still not guilty at that crime so stfu

[–] hero-de-celluloid 11 years ago

who was not guilty? the suspects were NOT found to be not guilty - at least as far as I read. can you clarify

User Error Please Try Again

[–] Felicia-Hardy 11 years ago

This post is so stupid. Echols has never denied his mental history. It's even in the freaking book he wrote. But you like many other stupid people think that "depression" and other mental problems mean you are a psycho killer.

Second the things you posted could never be proved and they were just rumors. Echols NEVER killed a dog. He just found a skull and kept it. My boyfriend found as skull of a dead animal in an open field and kept it but that didn't mean he killed the animal. He just found the skull and thought it was cool.

All the people who said Echols bragged about the killings recanted and said the police forced them to say those things. Even the little girls and the woman and his son.