Child-sized dildos were found just outside of the classroom

Jarecki's viewpoint is decidedly skewed to have exactly that: a viewpoint. And you get valuable insight into just how invested he is in his viewpoint because he helped fund Jesse's appeal. I don't buy into what he presented so much as what the reality of the situation is. While I may not have all of the pieces and there is certainly a lot of grey area that may never be known fully, Jarecki's perspective is not something I put a lot of stock in.

To answer your question, yes. It is a fact that 3 sexual aids were found in the house. They were in the house. A news story states that dildos were found outside of the classroom. You're asking if I side with some dude from the internet / some filmmaker with a specific agenda or if I side with the records of the court / actual people who were there? Let me think, let me think. Oh, yeah. I believe it's very plausible. And I believe the victims in this situation. You know, the ones that weren't hypnotized and still stand by their testimony to this day. They are ultimately who I side with and emphasize with, especially because their voice has so easily been swept aside

January 29, 2004
Dear Judge Boklan:

I am writing to you because I need your help. I was a victim of sexual abuse as a young child. There were many other children who were also abused by the same perpetrators, Arnold and Jessie Friedman. Arnold Friedman died in jail, but Jessie Friedman is now attempting to appeal his conviction with the help of a wealthy filmmaker, the producer of the film "Capturing the Friedmans." My concern is that during this appeal my privacy will be invaded. I am asking for you to help all of the victims who were involved in the criminal investigation of Arnold and Jessie Friedman. We want to protect our privacy from further invasion and it is my position that the State should provide that help.

You may or may be aware that a motion picture was made about this conviction, and that the director of the motion picture is planning to fund some type of appeal. I have recently become aware of the fact that this film has been nominated for an academy award. I am sure that the cinematography is excellent. I wish the director the best of luck in the pursuit of his award, however, I find his position as a financial supporter and advocate for Jessie Friedman's appeal questionable at best. It seems obvious that ancillary to this appeal is an opportunity for him to advertise himself for the purpose of furthering his professional career. He is biased due to the substantial stake that he has in the outcome of the appeal. The culmination of his life's work is his movie that is now aligned with the legal status of Jessie Friedman. A victory in the courtroom would validate his film as a so called "important work" that carries with it the force to impose its will upon our criminal justice system. What aspiring director would not desire such recognition as a social force to project his or her career into the stratosphere of the film-making industry? This director's cause is wrong and his purpose is self serving at my expense as well as at the expense of the other victims.

Arnold and Jessie Friedman violated my trust for them as educators by sexually abusing my classmates and I at their home where they purported to teach computer skills to young people. As a child I was often placed by my parents into the custody of others whether be it at school, or at an after school care program or at a summer camp. This seemed quite common among my peers and I was comfortable with trusting adults as authority figures.

Arnold and Jessie Friedman portrayed themselves as educators who would teach young children how to operate a computer. Many parents were quite enamored with the idea that their child should be equipped with the advantage of computer literacy as the computer technology boom began in the mid 1980's. It was under the guise of an educator, that Arnold and Jessie Friedman used computer technology to show young children pornography, to take photographs of young children reacting to that pornography, and to take photographs of sexual acts being performed by young children. I was seven years old when I was in the custody of Arnold and Jessie Friedman. At that time I did not understand the dynamics of human sexuality, I only understood fear. I became afraid of everything beyond my control. My childhood curiosity was replaced with an inherent distrust for adults, authority figures, and every unknown.

As a victim of sexual abuse perpetrated by Arnold and Jessie Friedman, I should not be obligated to bear any burden, for the purpose of justifying their conviction ex-post. The criminal justice system is an apparatus that society uses to enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community. It operates by apprehending, prosecuting, convicting, and sentencing those members of the community who violate the basic rules of group existence. The action taken against lawbreakers is designed to serve three purposes beyond the immediate punitive purpose: 1) as a deterrent, 2) to remove dangerous people from the community, and 3) it gives society an opportunity to attempt to transform lawbreakers into law-abiding citizens. This system is imperfect. It is based in theories of retribution and punishment. Furthermore, the victims are entitled to closure, with no obligation lasting in perpetuity to certify, in whole or in part, the prosecution of the criminal defendant by the State ex-post.

I am now a twenty-four year old law student who has confronted my past. It seems absurd to me at this point that I may be subpoenaed by a court once again to authenticate my testimony that I gave to a grand jury as a seven year old child. It is my position that the State should protect me and all the other victims from having our privacy further invaded. As a victim of sexual abuse, I can tell you first hand how embarrassing it feels, despite having done nothing wrong. The sexual abuse was bad enough, but the process of being a part of an investigation and testifying before a grand jury was also very painful. It would be unjust for the State to abandon us now when our privacy may be threatened once again by Jessie Friedman, a convicted sex offender, and his ally, the director of the film "Capturing the Friedmans."

We need help to prevent our further exposure. Arnold and Jessie Friedman were found guilty of sexually abusing children. The Court determined there was no reasonable doubt that those defendants had committed those crimes. We victims bore our burden by participating in the investigation and testifying. I, nor any of the other victims, should now be placed in a position to defend the conviction of Arnold and Jessie Friedman ex-post. If there is anything that you can do to help us I would be eternally grateful.

Jarecki didn't mention Jesse's confession on Geraldo and didn't mention Ross's involvement as the third defendant who could implicate them. These two missing points, which would be vital to telling the entire story, were conspicuously left out. Thus leaving other things out that might implicate the Friedman’s in the movie does not imply that they didn't happen as we do know these other things did happen and weren't in the movie and would certainly implicate Jesse. His credibility is shot. If it was a true documentary he should have include these two vital pieces (and explained them if he could) - but he chose not to which sheds light on his agenda and what to believe when he left other things out.

You can scream now if you want.