MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > Do you believe the lawyer or believe Jes...

Do you believe the lawyer or believe Jesse?


The lawyer's story made absolute sense to me, and I suspected from the beginning that Arnold had molested his children. He even tried going to therapy because he was afraid he would, and the therapist said he was fine and had nothing to worry about. I don't know if Jesse participated in what happened in the computer room or not (even anything did happen) but I absolutely believe without a doubt that Arnold molested at least one if not all of his children.

reply

The film is mostly lies or lies by omission. The actual evidence presented in court and on FBI record and obtainable through FOIA is overwhelmingly damning. This case was as easy as the recent Sandusky case.

The film is deliberately ambiguous. The full evidence was not. The worst evidence is basically absent from the film. If you watch the film you might lean towards the innocence of one or two of the accused. But you get the full picture by digging through newspaper archives or trial transcripts and they'll make your skin crawl.

reply

What evidence is out there that makes this for you "as easy as the recent Sandusky case," the omitted "worst evidence" that you've found (preferably with links)? In the Sandusky case there was Mike McQueary, someone who actually witnessed Sandusky raping a boy, and reported what he saw to multiple people within days. I am unaware of anything remotely like this level of evidence in the Friedman case, but if I'm wrong you'd be doing me a service by enlightening me.

reply

There was an attorney, Salvatore Marinello, who represented some of the kids who were molested. They all had overwhelming evidence that both Jesse and Arnold molested and sexually assaulted them. That is why Jesse and Arnold took guilty please. Because if the case went to trial they'd have been buried.

Jesse knew if he fought the case that those kids would testify and the prosecution would bring a mountain of evidence with them. So he plead guilty for a reduced sentence. The prosecution, FBI, and the kids of the parents wanted a plea. Why? Because it would spare the kids from having to testify in court over and over like the kids who had to agonizingly be on the stand at Sandusky's trial.

There was a third witness who was scheduled to testify that he saw sexual abuse. But they plead guilty to avoid that. Jesse also said to reporters that his father Arnold had molested him. Those are all avoided being mentioned in the film. After the film came out several of the victims talked to reporters about the film containing lies. None of them were interviewed for the film.

reply

Thanks for responding, but everything you refer to I've seen before. Some of it is covered in the documentary, some is addressed in the extras on the DVD, and the rest has been discussed here before. You do know that some of the boys who appeared before the grand jury (and presumably would have testified at trial) have since recanted? I could get into this in more detail if you want, but probably I'd just end up saying things I've already said in other posts here.

reply

Most did not recant. In fact most victims doubled down and said Jesse was and is guilty. Why would the majority of victims double down on that lie well later into life? The majority of victims have all backed up their stories and Jesse himself confirmed his guilt many times for years. He only changed his story after this film came out and saw an opportunity to make himself a victim.

Secondly, many victims of child abuse or rape recant, because of the shame and embarrassment. They will remove the abuse from their lives that way. Jesse himself recanted his abuse at the hands of his father. He said to Geraldo Rivera that his father molested him for years. But he seems to ignore that entire aspect of his life because it doesn't fit into this fantasy narrative that he isn't a child molester.

reply

In fact most victims doubled down and said Jesse was and is guilty.

Nope, not true. Neither the majority of the 14 boys who testified before the grand jury, nor the majority of the over 100 alleged victims, are still pushing the idea that they were abused.


Jesse himself confirmed his guilt many times for years. He only changed his story after this film came out and saw an opportunity to make himself a victim.

Again, not true. Jesse Friedman has been maintaining his innocence since about a year into his sentence, many years before filming even started.


Secondly, many victims of child abuse or rape recant, because of the shame and embarrassment.

You got a source for that statement? One that would support the idea that people who were actually sexually abused maintain their accusations for months or years, and only then later recant?


Jesse himself recanted his abuse at the hands of his father. He said to Geraldo Rivera that his father molested him for years. But he seems to ignore that entire aspect of his life.

He doesn't ignore it, but addresses head on that he lied on the Geraldo show, and that it was a mistake to appear on the show (http://www.freejesse.net/case-story):

I don’t remember how The Geraldo Rivera Show became interested in my story. Geraldo wanted to do a show about what happens when the victim becomes the victimizer; addressing the questions of how should society handle these unfortunate situations.

Laying in my cell covered in urine, locked in the dark in solitary confinement, believing that my next prison was going to be even more dangerous, I hoped the show would reach those prisoners and they would be more sympathetic and less likely to hurt me. I guess I still hoped that someone would treat me with some measure of decency.

I worried about what I would one day be able to tell the Parole Board when I had a chance for parole? If I continued to admit to having committed those crimes, then what reason would the Parole Board have for releasing an admitted serial child rapist? One of the few inmates who was nice to me at the jail explained that I could never again say, "I didn’t do it. I'm not a child molester!" That would only result in me being labeled as, "In denial. Unremorseful" and denied parole. The only seemingly viable option was to say, "Yes, I did do those bad things, but there is an explanation."

I know it seems today like going on the Geraldo show is like going on "The Jerry Springer Show" -- accepting an invitation to be publicly humiliated on national television. But back in 1988 Geraldo was just a guy with a television show who I thought was offering me an opportunity to tell a sympathetic story. The show was a nightmare and in retrospect one of the biggest mistakes I ever made.

reply

I would bet that some victims won't recant, in this case in particular, because their testimony ruined two men's lives, drove one to suicide and destroyed a family.

I'm not saying that the alleged victims are lying, but if they are, they'd be publicly vilified, probably charged and sued to death.

reply

The lawyer. Ultimately, he's got nothing to hide, whereas Jesse has everything to hide.


What I've got in my head you can't buy, steal, or borrow. I believe in live and let live.

reply

The problem is - the lawyer shouldn't really be telling us this. Jesse was his client and this is a real breach of confidentiality. His views on Arnolds guilt, the story about the kid bouncing on the knee in the visiting room, personal revelations about Jesse - it's great viewing and it contributed to the feeling that they were guilty, but it's bad form on a lawyers behalf which made me wonder what kind of guy Panaro is. Nobody in this movie comes out squeaky clean.

reply

I think it's safe to assume that Jesse Friedman waived his confidentiality and agreed to let Panaro talk. If not, it's way beyond "bad form" -- it's something that could get a lawyer suspended or even disbarred.

reply

But Arnold wasn't his client so I assume he is in fact allowed to talk about that situation in the prison.

reply

Actually a lawyer is supposed to "not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent," www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/ABA_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.6. "The confidentiality rule ... applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source." www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/aba/current/CRule_1.6.htm.

reply