MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > Clearly Guilty

Clearly Guilty

posted 15 years ago by AmericanMovieFan
63 replies | jump to latest

I'm a CJ major. I've been in school for a few years now. I've had a particular interest in religious extremists and pedophiles. One generality among many criminals (truly guilty criminals) is that their is no concern or remorse. If there was they wouldn't do it. It's why most people have vile ideas or thoughts at times but don't carry them out. We're incapable. We'd feel too guilty, too hurt, too regretful, to worried and concerned about the impact of our actions on others and we'd be able to weigh risk vs. reward and whether we'd regret an action that at the moment might feel good. Best example of this would be feeling the urge to strike someone in anger- also known simple assault or battery in some states.

Anyway, these people showed no concern. Not for the kids. I understand a lack of concern for the children, even if they didn't do it. Because if they didn't do it, then there's nothing to be concerned about in regards to the children who were the alleged victims. But just look at that home video footage. It's an indictment unto themselves for their crimes.

The ONLY way people are that chipper in the face of such dire circumstances if if A) you're guilty and you had no remorse to begin with, so screw it, just try to enjoy the ride or B) You're guilty, but you did something that you felt was justifiable or morally in the right -such as terrorism- so therefore you're happy you were caught because it means you did your job. You accomplished what you'd set out to do.

These people aren't martyrs for a cause, though. They aren't a victim's family member who made the decision to exact their own justice. They were the accused. They were the criminals. No innocent family jokes like they joked. You just don't do that. Like that lady journalist pointed out- families of innocent people who are in these situations drop their lives and commit all their time, money and energy to legal issues. It isn't a happy time.

And why was the mother singled out as the bad guy? Because she wasn't having a good time. She was mortified by the proceedings taking place around her, as most normal, innocent people would be. Even if she'd been indifferent, she wouldn't have been cheerful as they were.

They're guilty. I might say all of them are.

And one more thing- I think Arnie did sleep with his brother. They did have sexual relations. I know A LOT of gay families. A lot of gay people. I know families who have come together as step-siblings and independently growing up, the step-siblings end up gay. One was butch, the other was classically feminine, but both still lesbians. So I don't think that just because someone is gay, that means they were molested. not at all. But in this case...I don't know. That the film makers hid this fact until the very end of the documentary, about the brother/uncle being homosexual, I think that makes a huge statement about the film makers' conclusions.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Brian Peppers is my Homeboy

[–] lornamd-1 15 years ago

Having studied Criminal Justice for a few years does not mean that you can tell by watching home video footage if people are guilty or not and it certainly doesn't mean that you know every response an innocent person would have to being falsely accused. It is not at all unusual for a family who are about to lose one or more members to try to make the most of their time together by being as happy and upbeat as possible. No it wasn't a happy time. When my sister was diagnosed with terminal cancer that wasn't a happy time either but we still laughed and joked together, had lots of fun and smiled and maintained positive attitudes for a lot of the time. The reason for this was not lack of concern but because we wanted the little time we had left together to be as special as possible and we wanted to be left with lot of happy memories of her. I have encountered many other families in similar situation who have behaved like this both through counselling and through working as a care assistant and now a nurse. You might argue that these are different circumstances as Arnold and Jesse were not dying but loss takes many forms and knowing your father and brother are going to prison for decades is a very great loss especially when you, rightly as it turns out, are sure that your father is going to die as David was about Arnold. It made complete sense to me that they would joke and be cheery with each other the way that they did before I came to any conclusion about their innocence or guilt. Also if you watch the footage there were plenty of times that they were upset or angry about the case but they just didn't want to be that way all the time and wanted to make the most of the little family time they still had.

The Friedmans did drop their lives and commit their time and energy to legal issues. What Debbie Nathan said was that they didn't support each other the way families in those situations tend to do but the Friedmans weren't a very stable family anyway so that is not surprising.

I don't think the film makers "hid" Howard being gay. Howard was being interviewed about his family not his romantic or sexual life so it just wasn't mentioned that he was gay. I got the impression that his partner was shown at the end because thats when his partner started to speak. I personally didn't think much about it and don't see it as relevant to anything.

[–] AmericanMovieFan 15 years ago

I've also had sicknesses in my family, people who have been terminal. I've also had people get into serious legal trouble. There is a difference. I'm sorry for your loss, but it's not the same, at all. Prison and sickness just don't compare. Especially getting convicted of something so heinous. Child molestors are the most hated prisoners. And yes, studying CJ does make me a bit more qualified. This is what I study. Criminal mind sets and criminal behavior and sociopathic behavior. My brother went to jail for a DUI. A DUI. A DUI he didn't commit. I won't go into specific but essentially everybody in the case agrees he was railroaded and was the scapegoat in a situation that had nothing to do with him. Anyway, a DUI is a common, not too serious charge compared to what they were facing. Nobody was laughing. When he had to go to jail, he wasn't joking with the officers "hey, this arrest has no merit, so since I know I'm innocent, let's have a party!"

Again, a DUI plus the jail time incurred from that is nothing compared to what they were going through, but even so. Also, did you LOOK at those videos? Really look? They were joking about what was going on and essentially told their mother to get with the program or scram. What normal people do that to their mother? And ask yourself this; the woman is clearly normal, of reasonable intelligence. Why is she the only one who seems concerned? Why were the children giving her grief about her demeanor? It makes no sense. It doesn't. This family wasn't happy and close, they were unhealthy. I know happy families where everybody basically gets along and the brothers consider each other friends and they like one or more of their parents quite a bit. I know a few, from a few different regions. I've been around many of them during times of crises like this and nobody is joking around.

If your father was going to jail for something he supposedly didn't do or your brother was going to jail for something they supposedly didn't do, how could you find it within yourself to be HAPPY?

Jail is f'd up! Not jail. Prison. They went to prison. On kiddy-raper charges. Do you know what they do to kiddy-rapers in jail? They're called Diddlers. They're the most hated group. I've seen many interviewed about their experiences, both those who admit guilt and those who maintain their innocence. NOBODY feels comfortable, NOBODY feels jovial or jokes. They all say the same thing; "People try to kill me or threaten to kill me constantly. If I don't stay in my cell, I'm a dead man."

Sorry but you're just plain wrong.

Brian Peppers is my Homeboy

[–] kdavis-29 15 years ago

And yes, studying CJ does make me a bit more qualified. This is what I study. Criminal mind sets and criminal behavior and sociopathic behavior.

Wellllllllll, yes, but not really.

At the risk of quibbling, in a liberal arts sense, CJ's study the structure and functions of law enforcement, the courts, and corrections; with an in-depth look at the political, social, cultural, philosophical, and psychological forces that shape the policies, programs, and practices in the system.

An applied science program would, of course, command a more brief overall look at the structure and function, with a focus on one particular area.

I won't even get started on the stud(ies) of criminal and/or sociopathic behavior (altho props to you, AmericanMovieFan, for correctly using "sociopathic" versus the formerly acceptable, but acceptable no longer "psychopathic" behavior).

So, let's all of us put our diplomas and certificates of completion back in our holsters, and look at studying from a pragmatic perspective. [Editorial note: Just so you know, I did look up "pragmatic" to make sure I was using it correctly in this context]

Intelligent people study. It matters not where, in what medium, or to what end.

Intelligent people learn that answers beget questions. [Editorial note: Ibid with regards to "beget." Truth be told, Ibid with regards to "Ibid" - it's been awhile]

Someone on another thread said they couldn't find much (if any) info about this case other than what is referenced on this site.

With very little effort, I've found enough material to keep myself begetting questions for literally however much time I choose to persue such.

And everytime I think, ahhhhhhh, I'm getting somewhere, I learn something new, and find myself squarely back on the fence.

I'm sincerely interested to learn how people find/regard "clarity" in any/all of this.

Anyone?

[–] AmericanMovieFan 15 years ago

Granted, I'm no law enforcement official, nor did I pass the BAR anywhere. My uncle is a cop in Georgia, he put me in touch with a law enforcement official in New York that he knows, who's been in the game for a long time. He's familiar with the case. I talked to him at length and he said the evidence was insurmountable. The inconsistencies in the kids' stories was this; Not every kid was in the same session and the stuff about leap frog and naked games was an exaggerated version of events due to the police's constant question of the children which led to confusion and false memory syndrome. The proof was that the children who claimed they'd been taken into a separate room to be molested had much more consistent stories. They also would count multiple rapes in one session which led to the idea that these kids were getting molested on a constant basis. So in one afternoon they might have been assaulted multiple times, but the children, being children, probably had trouble getting the dates and different days separate. The stuff about naked games in the computer room was most likely an exaggeration of the truth, the fault of which lies amongst many different people constantly quizzing the kids and getting stories mixed up until they streamlined events to make things easier. The case wasn't entirely botched, the molestations did happen, but like in many cases the eye witness testimony was sometimes flaky at best.

The molestations that occurred in the separate room were confirmed. The 'group molestations' were most likely conjured up by an assortment of individuals trying to get facts straight and creating a falsified reality in the process.

What was done was done, they paid for their crimes and the people all just want to move on, is how he ended the conversation.

Brian Peppers is my Homeboy

[–] kdavis-29 15 years ago

I've obviously failed you with my messages:

I/You/We don't have to be an "authorit(ies)" to have informed opinions.

VERY few (if any) absolute answers exist when dealing with human behavior.

Your Uncle's cop friend is one more cop contemporary to the incident, and the child-interrogation techniques we now know to be suspect. As such, he's not a expert that furthers the credibility of your assertion.

He's also not a source furthering credibility if he really did end the conversation with, "What was done was done, they paid for their crimes and the people all just want to move on." Think about that. Does that sound right? Is that what you learn from the course materials to which you have access?

Don't be so quick to dismiss (and disrespect) lornamd-1's assertion. S/he's offering you an insightful comparison of how people behave in extreme situations. Comparisons invite understanding through the recognition of common ground.

You demonstrate a recognition of that common ground, but dismiss it as an invalid contrast. Contrasts invite understanding through the recognition of differences.

As a matter of discourse, refusing to recognize valid comparisons in favor of making them contrast cheapens your stance - one step up from picking part someone's spelling and/or grammar.

DON'T SHOOT YOURSELF IN BOTH FEET laboring under the types of false premises you offer in your posts on this thread.

My proffer to you as a student is to put down your pen and prick up your ears, close your mouth and open your eyes, THINK outside of your own personally perceived boundaries. [Yes, I purposefully mixed the mini-metaphors]

Capturing the Friedmans is far more than a documentary about Arnold and Jesse, et. al., and the way they whacked-out after the accusations of young boys having been molested in the Friedman home. The word Capturing is a first clue worth pursuing if you're interested in and capable of being fascinated.

[–] AmericanMovieFan 15 years ago

It's Capturing like Capturing Someone's Essence or whatever. I understood that the moment i hear about the film. I know it didn't mean Capturing them Red Handed or whatever. My assertions are my assertions and my conclusions. I was a bit harsh in my dismissal of an antithetical conclusion, but even so, I stand by my opinion. At least I had the guts to admit I'm a student. I'm not trying to pull one over on anybody and claim to be an absolute expert, but by the same token I don't subscribe to the idea that until you're a professional, you have no business considering yourself any sort of an expert. In terms of elementary judicial knowledge, I feel I am well versed enough to form a sound opinion, based on what information is out there. I didn't label under a false premise, either.

Brian Peppers is my Homeboy

[–] lornamd-1 15 years ago

You say the family were happy & comfortable about the events with only Elaine upset but using gallows humor & having fun moments during painful times doesn't equal being happy. Didn't you see David Friedmans video diary, the family rows, Arnolds upset & worried face when David said he would never get out of jail or hear the tape of Arnold throwing a chair? Did YOU not watch the videos? There's plenty of footage to show that they were far from happy about the events. You also say that they were angry at Elaine for not laughing along with them when she says in the film that they were angry with her for not saying that Arnold was innocent & encouraging Jesse to plead guilty.

Prison interviews & "being around" families without seeing them crack jokes is not the same as the private family moments in the home videos (especially since there were no prison interviews in the film). You say you've been around families in times of crisis but unless you lived with all of them you don't know if they ever had their lighter moments like the Friedmans or used gallows humor to try to cope.

Human behavior isn't an exact science & having interviewed many convicted child molesters about their experiences in jail doesn't mean you know everything about human reactions to false accusations especially since most of them were mostly likely guilty. To assume that because you have had a lot of experiences talking to a certain group of people it means that you can tell from looking at peoples behavior if they fit into that group is not only wrong but dangerous. To give an example a woman went to the police & accused her employers of kidnapping & beating her. While making her statement she giggled & initially forgot she was raped. In 15 years interviewing victims the policeman had never seen a genuine victim behave like that so he didn't believe her. That couple were serial killers Fred & Rose West who raped, tortured & murdered at least 10 women together & more separately. That man had over a decades more experience than you so even if you had witnessed families under the same conditions as the home video footage or interviewed lots of wrongly convicted people having never seen a family act like them is not proof of guilt anymore than the policeman never having seen a victim act like that young woman proved she was lying.

[–] kdavis-29 15 years ago

AMEN!

[–] denise1234 14 years ago

lornamd-1^

Yes! To your post :)

For another poster to have the audacity to arrive at the posted 'conclusions' based on the behavior of this family under stress is stunning.

It's also at the least naïve, and at the most bigoted. I know many people who use humor to defuse stress (and I am not talking just run-of-the-mill, every day types of stress, but also real life-and-death stress. It’s not called 'gallows humor' for naught). This kind of ‘humor’ can be used by people as an attempt to defuse the seriousness/sheer insanity of a situation. To think or believe that EVERYONE should respond in one certain ‘acceptable’ manner to stress misses 1) Family upbringing, 2) Cultural differences, 3) Individual differences, 4) The effect of novel experience on human behavior, 4) Genetics, 5) Life history, and on and on.

Additionally, people who have diagnoses along the Autism Spectrum (and, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Arnold could quite possibly have had Asperger’s Syndrome / Disorder) often don't emote always or in the same ways as 'neurotypical' people do, especially in regard to higher-level sets of emotions which usually accompany complex circumstances. I am not equating pedophilia with A.S. – I am talking about facets of Arnold’s personality that appear to be near, if not on, the spectrum. There were many A.S. folks, not that long ago (and some still today), who were never diagnosed, but who were otherwise labeled ‘eccentrics’ or ‘nerds’ or even ‘nebbishes’.

Here are DSM-IV criteria for Asperger’s Disorder (syndrome):

“(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least TWO of the following:

(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction

(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level

(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)

(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least ONE of the following:

(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus

(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals

(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)

(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

(IV) There is no clinically significant general delay in language .

(V) There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction) and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

In short, there are many reasons that people would act in such a manner when presented with dire circumstances, other than being ‘not caring’ or ‘guilty’.

Arnold is a difficult person to understand, much more so than Jesse, because his particular situation is very complex and also because we as the audience are presented with very limited information about him. He obviously (to me) appeared to feel 'guilty', but of exactly 'what' is difficult to ascertain– and, he may have felt guilty for a number of things. His ‘feelings of guilt’ could have originated all the way back to his sister’s death and/or the destruction of his family of origin at that time, and/or stemmed from his self-admitted behavior with his younger brother, and/or his self-admitted behavior with other children, and/or his pornography, and/or his ‘betrayal’ of his spousal relationship, and/or for the ongoing conflict in HIS family, and/or his belief that his ‘sins’ had caused his beloved youngest son to be accused, etc….None of these ‘guilt’ factors equates necessarily to ‘evidence’ that he was guilty of what he was accused of, or that Jesse was.

Also ‘feelings’ are not necessarily ‘facts’. I am not a major fan of polygraph examinations; however, it is not unheard of for a person to appear 'guilty' during the examination because s/he 'feels' guilty about ‘something’ directly / indirectly associated to what s/he is asked about during examination -- as in the case of a husband who was not at home during the time of his wife's murder who then shows ‘guilty’ during examination -- not because he is guilty of the murder itself, but because he 'feels' guilty because he was not there to protect his wife and possibly stop the murder. So, to him, he IS 'guilty' for his wife's death.

This family appears to have used humor and music throughout their lives: as both celebration and to offset other dysfunctions within their family (not to mention as career choices for some). It, then, would not be unusual for them to resort to same when faced with other circumstances, no matter how dire or harrowing.

The brothers also have an interesting dynamic: Seth (the rebel), David (the jester), and Jesse (the baby/follower). I also noted some misogyny (for wont of a better term) toward the mother from the sons, although to different degrees, and it would have been interesting to have been able to explore in more detail how this originated.

Their ‘jolly in the face of horror’ behaviors during some times and appearing ‘shut off’ during other times could also have stemmed from ‘denial’ – I don’t think people who haven’t experienced what they did could truly comprehend all the minutiae and feelings that accompany such a unique situation. No matter how ‘bad’ or transparent all the ramifications and consequences of what they were accused of seem obvious to armchair viewers after the fact, their very personal involvement in this extended, ongoing crisis most probably caused them to filter information in bits and pieces – in order to be better able to withstand everything that was going on without going absolutely insane. And, not all family members are going to react the same way at the same times – they are more likely going to be ‘popcorn’ – one may ‘pop’ while others don’t, and then others ‘pop’, and so forth, back and forth. So, we have one screaming while another is withdrawing, then two appearing agitated while one is quiet, etc., that we see portrayed in the film.

By the way, for the record, I AM an expert in human behavior – via degree and several years of experience and professional practice.

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] denise1234 14 years ago

kdavis-29^

I am in love with your post.

Well-done and Bravo!

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] wait_dream 15 years ago

I'm actually shocked and strangely relieved that though this thread is tense, it is fairly intellectual and rational.

I have far less experience than either AmericanMovieFan or jgrayson_au, but I understand where AmericanMovieFan is coming from. I'm not saying I'm right, but the question of the Friedmans' guilt was important to me.

Kdavis-29 noted that, "Capturing the Friedmans is far more than a documentary about Arnold and Jesse, et. al., and the way they whacked-out after the accusations of young boys having been molested in the Friedman home."

This is true. By the end of the documentary, I felt that the filmmakers were leaning towards the family's innocence. Apparently, the director admitted that he firmly believed in their innocence. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) This made the film a fascinating take on the question of guilt, hysteria, "evil," denial, perceptions, and grief. But jgrayson_au's comment, "Of course, I'm only going of what I saw in this documentary," relates to my concern with the movie: how much evidence was left out? Interviews with victims indicated that they were either lying or mistaken. But what about the rest of the victims' testimony? Why did the police believe them in the first place? How did their stories coincide?

Even though the focus was on the family, I found it somewhat irresponsible for the filmmakers to hint that suggestibility, the media, and mishandled police interviews were to blame for the Friedmans' convictions without presenting more specifics from the other side. Jesse and his lawyer directly contradicted one another. Why was the lawyer even divulging information that they had spoken about in confidentiality? (Perhaps a law student can enlighten me on this.) I just felt like there were many details missing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I also felt that the behavior and evidence (though disputed in the film) pointed to guilt - perhaps not of the wildest accusations, but of incredibly serious crimes. Even if Jesse was not a pedophile, he still could have been a sadist. The evidence for his innocence appeared to be the testimony of his friend (that he was always passive and calm, not exactly convincing evidence that he wasn't a sociopath) and his continued assertions of his innocence, which many criminals state. The mother's reaction was that of horror and anger, while the rest of the family were at the very least in denial. The sons actually blamed their mother for the guilty pleas.

One more reason why I thought Jesse was guilty, though maybe someone more familiar with psychology could enlighten me on this: why was Jesse crying profusely at his trial and then later in the day laughing and dancing? The only people I've seen who have acted like this have been individuals who lack empathy, and I include very young men.

[–] lornamd-1 15 years ago

Jesse crying in court was actually weeks after the scenes of him laughing and dancing outside the courthouse. The film makes it look like the same day but in fact he had been in solitary confinement for 2 weeks (I think it was 2) and was let out for the first time when he was crying. The director mentions this in the DVD commentary.

[–] wait_dream 15 years ago

You're right, I read that in a review of the DVD. However, after reading more about the case, I now completely believe that they were guilty. I also now think that the film and especially its reception are actually completely out of line, even if the director had good intentions. I understand that there was little evidence about the film when it came out, but no reviewers whatsoever seemed to do any research on the case. Sort of strange, when the movie left out so much. One wouldn't think to do research on a documentary, I guess.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] denise1234 14 years ago

jgrayson_au^

Your post is VERY well-written and extremely enlightening.

I appreciate your experience AND your insights :)

Thank you.

denise1234

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

@jgrayson_au who said "The behaviour of Jesse on the home videos, especially on the steps of the courthouse before his guilty plea, come across as a very stressed adolescent".

This. Absolutely. Anyone who has kids, who knows kids, who grew up with male siblings - knows this.

What I see is Jesse manning up to face the inevitable & dealing with it the best way he could. His parents were absent, one physically & one emotionally and he & his brothers were facing up to what was coming next.

If you watch the DVD & see the extras on Disc 2 there's a bit more footage of them - the night before the court date they stayed awake all night with Jesse to get their last few hours of being together as a family, to help him pack up his things etc.

Also, each time I hear someone denigrate these boys for displaying any jocularity, I want to say "Have you never heard of an Irish wake?" This was three L.I. Jewish boys having an Irish wake of sorts, for the soon-to-be imprisoned brother.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

what evidence does not support this?

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

What forensic evidence?

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

A lack of forensic evidence does not support this as there isn't always forensic evidence in these types of cases.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

A lack of forensic evidence does not support your statement.

I doubt the victims would consider their guilt ambiguous.

Their admission of guilt / confessions, multiple witness/victims, other defendants involved don't leave that much ambiguity - but I guess that is just my opinioin - and the state of NY's.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

If it was all done in plea deals, the state really didn't have much to say.

The state (prosecution) can deny any plea deal or accept it. It has a lot to say.

A lack of forensics evidence does not support someone's guilt. It voids their guilt.

A lack of forensic evidence does not void their guilt. I agree it doesn't support their guilt either. There are an incredible amount of convictions without forensic evidence. There are convictions on circumstantial evidence alone - and in this case there were numerous witnesses.

We don't put people in prison in America because of what the victims think--children, adult, whomever.

We put them in prison when they confess, there are numerous witnesses/victim, other defendants who could testify, and when they take a plea deal.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Using your logic, the DA can say whatever it wants--and it must be true.

No - he can't say whatever he wants. There were multiple victims and a third defendant - how can he say whatever he wants. And no it isn't "true" just because the DA says it. I'm going by what the victims said and what the third defendant said. There are many cases in which the pedophile is so good at what he does he leaves no evidence. Do we reward them for being good at molesting children? I'm not saying we just take the word of every victim - but when we have multiple victims and another defendant - that is a very good case.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

I agree with you that the case against the Friedmans is weak, for reasons that I've discussed at length in other threads here.

That said, I'm surprised that people see the lack of physical evidence as an important point. The accusations were made months after the events were supposed to have taken place, and there was a period of several weeks between when Arnold was arrested on pornography charges and when a full search of the house was performed by the local detectives. Given that, what physical evidence would have been findable, even if a search for it had taken place? Would blood or semen have been detectable in the carpets or elsewhere in the room after all that time? I tend to doubt it, but then I really don't know much about these sort of things -- I've never watched even a single minute of those CSI shows that seem to be all over television. Certainly it would be significant if there was physical evidence, but in these circumstances the lack of it seems consistent with both guilt and innocence.

By the way, "habeas corpus" is Latin for "you have the body." It doesn't mean "show me the proof."

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

The body referred to in habeas corpus is the body of the accused, not the body of the victim. The full name of the writ is "habeas corpus ad subjiciendum," which literally means "you have the body for submitting." The purpose of the writ was to force authorities to produce before a judge someone who was in custody, to enable the judge to release the person if the imprisonment was unlawful. Nowadays it is often used as a collateral attack upon a conviction, but can also be used when a person is held without being charged with a crime.

Your second paragraph indicates to me that your concern is less about the lack of physical evidence, and more about the implausibility of the alleged widespread and severe abuse having occurred over a period of months without someone having noticed. If that is so, I agree. I find it implausible that the sort of mass abuse that was alleged would have gone on for months, without a single child complaining of physical symptoms, a parent finding physical evidence of abuse, a child coming home upset from having just been abused, or a child refusing to return to such an abusive environment.

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

The other piece of physical evidence that is missing and was never found - the photos & videos that were supposedly taken of these kids during the abuse.

Some of the charges against the Friedmans & Ross Goldstein involved "using a child in a sexual performance". However - the FBI had torn the house apart with a search warrant and not found any self-made pornography. And then a month later, the County of Nassau tore the house apart again and found no self-made child pornography.

In addition, the FBI had corresponded with Arnold for over a year prior, trying to entice him to send them something illegal and when he did - it was the magazine from the Netherlands.

Not one piece of self-made CP was ever found. Why was he even buying magazines from overseas thru the US Mail, risking exposure, if he was in fact making his own? Yes, yes, I know that's not an argument that can be used in court. It is just something that makes it seem illogical to me that he would even bother with magazines if his MO was actually using his students to satisfy his urges.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I believe Jesse stated he traded those photos away. He didn't sell them - I believe Jesse explained it as if he was trading cards. Even if he was taking his own pics - I doubt he was satisfied with just them and could have been looking elsewhere.

He could have realized there was an investigation coming and got rid of them, just was at a point where he sent them to another person, or hid them in the house. I know they tore the house apart but believe me - unless they start taking apart beams and sheetrock - hiding a few photos isn't that hard to do.

Yoou don't think peds who have molested children and photoed them look elsewhere?

You can scream now if you want.

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

Jesse stated that his father traded them like a hobby. He didn't say any place that I am aware of that HE kept or traded any photos. What he said on Geraldo was that his father took the photos & traded the photos, that it was his father's hobby.

As for how easy it is to hide them, etc etc. that is all good for the purposes of our discussion & for convincing each other or informing each other why we think our position is "correct" however -

When the State accuses a citizen of a crime, the State has the burden to PROVE that the crime took place & that the accused is guilty of that crime.

Which of the following proves a crime took place beyond a reasonable doubt -

1. An accusation by a victim who says "This guy forced me to pose for pictures".
"Where are the photos?" "We don't know" "Where is the camera the accused took the photos with?" "We don't know".

or 2. Here are some illegal photos that were taken by the defendant on July 10, 1987. We recovered these photos from his basement. He took them with this camera that we also recovered from his home.

or maybe 3. An accusation by a victim who says "This guy forced me to pose for pictures". Police later raid the home of a different known pedophile & locate photos of the victim that meet the description of the photo first given when the victim reported the crime.

I'd say #2 or #3 meet the burden of proof needed to convict someone.

#1 alone might not.

Hundreds of charges, years of abuse, but not one photo found at either the Friedman home or the Goldstein home.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I was replying to you stating that no photos were found and was explaining a possibility on why they weren't. Yes - Jesse was talking about his father which was what I was talking about.

Just because the criminal disposes of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen or the prosecution is lacking. Criminals dispose of evidence all the time and that doesn't mean the prosecution must somehow come up with the evidence to make their case.

Perhaps since he was abusing the boys he didn't want or need the photos of them so he gave them to others. Either way - not finding photos does not mean they didn't or couldn't meet the burden of proof IMO. That's like saying a rape case in which the rapist got rid of his condom can't be prosecuted. If the victim saw the rapist and saw the condom and could identify the rapist - the lack of condom doesn't somehow mean the case can't be proven.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

Here is a case in New York City where a woman accused a man of raping her.

A rape kit was taken and came back negative. The prosecutor decided to prosecute anyway and the accused man was convicted and served five years in prison.

The victim decides five years later at great risk to herself to admit that she lied. The man's conviction was vacated and the woman was convicted of perjury and sentenced to 1 - 3 years in prison.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5332343-504083.html

Cases like this are why some of us remain skeptical of Jesse's guilt.

This is why physical evidence is so important.

This is also why, theoretically, now-grown child victims who are aware they lied might be reluctant to step forward and recant.

We are now in the age of DNA & we know that many, many falsely imprisoned men are being exonerated via DNA evidence.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Yes - but there are also many more cases in which the suspect did do it. Yes - I think more physical evidence would make a better case, but you just don't always get that - especially if the abuse is an expert at concealing his crime.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Pedophiles don't necessarily just forcibly rape these children and rip them apart. They know their "craft". They know how to groom these children to leave little to no evidence. They will also shame/scare these children to a point that if there was evidence the children would get rid of it so they aren't embraced or so nothing would happen to them or their parents.

So unlike TV - these rapes don't just happen all at once and an adult forces him on a child and rips him until he bleeds (at least not all the time). There is a process that they will do to limit any evidence. So their confessions do "jive" with the lack of evidence. These children could have scared for their lives or the parents or embraced and would get rid of and/or hide and/or clean their underwear so they aren't found out.

Many victims - especially child victims - think they are at fault and thus don't react as a rational person might. They can become attached to the pedophile - they can sympathize with him - they can think they are at fault - they can be scared or embraced.

Either way you look at - the lack of evidence - either by the parents or by the police long after the fact - does not mean the stories don't make sense. That's the best I can do at explaining it. It's not an uncommon occurrence.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

First off how do you know it wouldn't "work" if he went to trial. Look at Casey Anthony - they objectively felt there wasn't enough evidence to convict even though she was convicted by the public.

As far as forcible rape - when did the police become aware of it - that day - or days, weeks, months after? Like I wrote you can forcibly rape a person without blood if you groom them - and even if there was blood - the pedophile and/or child could hide/clean/get rid of any evidence.

Sure any DA would love to have loads of forensic evidence - but that doesn't always happen and not as frequently as TV portrays it to be. "All testimony" from numerous victims and defendant makes a great case.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

they take it easy in the beginning and work their way from there. i don't think you need the details on how they would take it easy.

as for the Anthony case - the point is they didn't use the public perception to determine their verdict - perhaps to them - untested science was good enough. same could happen with this case - you can't or at least shouldn't assume he wouldn't get a fair trial. the jury could have taken into account the lack of forensic evidence and use the testimony of the numerous victims and the co-defendant to determine the verdict.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] BreakfastClubBasketCase 14 years ago

it's glaringly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about

Wednesday's at that very special age when a girl has only one thing on her mind...

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

What evidence is there that the DA bribed or pressured or lied to these victims. There were a dozen or so victims - they were all pressured into lying about what happened? Many of these victims have spoken out as adults and have said their stories are true and accurate.

Lack of physical evidence does not imply anything. The proof can be eyewitness testimony from the victims themselves as well as co-defendants.

In hindsight - being able to have a dozen or so victims testify about the monsterous things that happened to them - having a third defendant testify about what happened - having a history of getting child porn - is not a weak case.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

This documentary (and call it that loosely) seems to be about the agenda of clearing the Friedman’s. I say this because it clearly left out the two most damning pieces that could lead a viewer into not sheepishly following this agenda. He left out the confession on Geraldo and the third defendant who would implicate them. In a valid documentary - they should include all the aspects even if it didn't fit the "agenda". Sure they can explain it the best they can - but the very least they should include it.

Hectoring (thanks for the word - never heard that before this) a witnesses into saying they were raped who has been raped isn't the same as hectoring a witness who hasn't been raped. These children were abused and threatened. They were afraid for their lives, their parents, they were afraid of having this abuse exposed to the public - what are the police to do - just sit back and say OK - you say you weren't abused so onto the next case? Police often aggressively interview witnesses who are afraid, are embarrassed, holding back because they were involved, or just aren't forthcoming for what ever reason. There is no literal evidence that I have been shown that proves that the witnesses lied.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I don't want evidence the accusers were lying? I was pointing out that even though the police stongly questioned the accusers - there was no evidence (as far as I know) to what they said was untrue. Yes the burden is on the prosecutor - I would call a dozen or so witnesses/victims and a third defendant who would implicate them - a good case.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

It's easy to recant confession year later when DA's, cops, detectives have retired and/or died and victims/witnesses have spent years trying to forget what happened. He was an adult and didn't have to take any plea he didn't want to take.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

It is easy recant it as he has done - it's just not easy to have everyone believe him and/or change the situation because he recanted his confesssion.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Just curious - when did the police tell the children to "lie and say they were raped".

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

Where in the "documentary" did the police actually tell the victim to lie - was it in a recorded interview - I don't remember.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

And other kids were visited as many as fifteen times by the police until they gave the "correct" answers. See this affidavit quoting one of the detectives in the case:

http://www.freejesse.net/Affidavits/KuhnAffidavit.pdf

There is the recorded interview you are referring to (which, by the way, is not mentioned in the film but Panaro reads the transcript of the recording on DVD disc 2) This recorded interview is also mentioned in the affidavit that Panaro gave on Jesse's behalf & was submitted to the court as part of Jesse's appeal.

http://www.freejesse.net/Affidavits/PanaroAffidavit.pdf

There is the victim who, in the film, states that he told the police that Jesse hit him (or pulled his arm, can't remember which) after being questioned multiple times and that he finally just said that in order to get the cops off his back.

In cases like this, it is never that the cops are explicitly telling kids to say certain things, it is suggestive, manipulative and high pressure questioning techniques that are used to get a desired result.

Cops are generally much more accustomed to interrogating suspects as opposed to questioning children or employing fair & impartial investigative techniques.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they just tend to go with what they know and what they know is how to pressure people who they've already decided are guilty (or at best, a suspect who's been caught in the act) into admitting guilt.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]