The appearance on Geraldo was shortly after his sentencing, in Feb 1989. Jesse was sentenced Jan. 1989.
The father died in 1995.
When I watch the small Geraldo clip that's available on Youtube, Jesse does seem to be not very spontaneous and not very believable in his answers.
I actually recall hearing fleetingly about the case when it happened (I'm in the NYC metro area) AND seeing Jesse on Geraldo. I remembered & made the connection not from seeing Jesse in the movie as his appearance is somewhat different than it was on the Geraldo show.
When I saw the Youtube clip (after seeing the movie) it clicked for me which case this was - because Jesse on Geraldo resembles a kid I went to school with & I remember thinking that he was a dead ringer for my friend Russell in 1989, too!
I remember thinking THEN (seeing it 1989) that Jesse's affect was strange and the interview just seemed really staged & stilted. I didn't watch all the way through because it was just too heartbreaking. I remember thinking that if Jesse WAS victimized by his dad he shouldn't be upstate doing hard time, the system should have gotten him help.
I now lean toward believing he is completely innocent. The charges are just too far fetched, how could that go on for years and not ONE child complained, not ONE child had any physical symptoms. As for the victim's statements currently that they were humiliated and frightened at the time - remember, this is upper middle class Long Island in the 1980s.
These kids have parents who love them & dote on them,they are not neglected trailer trash who have no one they can talk to.
They have a pampered & entitled upbringing and don't tolerate slights & humiliation well. I cannot BELIEVE that LI kids would tolerate being pushed around by Jesse, let alone sexually abused, and not raise a stink to their parents - at the very least, refusing to return to the classes? Throwing a tantrum, maybe? Even if they were too embarrassed or naive about sex to report the molestation - with the mistreatment & violence that some of them describe is just not credible they would dociley return week after week and NEVER complain to ANYONE. If kids had come forward on their own to complain about the Friedmans, THAT would be a whole other ball game as far as I'm concerned. But this case didn't exist until the police started "investigating" & got the victims to "confess".
And, I see so many other issues that cast doubt on those charges.
I think even if I look at all sides and assume the worst case (but still credible) scenario is true it STILL leaves me with the belief that Jesse didn't get his fair day in court. He apparently convinced the Appeals Court of this too, since they've recommended that the DA "re-examine" his case. Sadly, they refused to throw out his guilty plea due to the issue of timeliness and not because of the merits of the case itself.
Arnold is another matter, I still don't think HE was guilty of hundreds of heinous charges, however, the point is rather moot since he WAS guilty of the CP charge and other molestations & belonged in jail anyway. IF *anything* happened, I think Arnold was guilty of perhaps fondling or inappropriate touching and I think even the possibility of that is questionable in a CLASSROOM FULL of children.
This man worked with children for decades, as a classroom teacher and as someone pointed out in the film, as a piano teacher who was ALONE with his students. Yet, no complaints of anything inappropriate, ever, til the witch hunt began.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Was he victimized by his father? Maybe according to his interview - but you believe that part and not the rest of it? Even if he was – which I would feel sorry for him as I do now – that isn’t a reason to not be punished for his crimes. I’m sure many, if not most, molesters have a history of being abused – that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished to the full extent of the law IMO.
I disagree with the sincerity of the interview. I believe what he said. Why would confessing in detail to Geraldo give him leniency? The probation board knows he did it (at least as far as the plea/confession in court). They probably wouldn't give a hoot if he confessed again and again and again. One confession would do the trick. It seemed as if he was clearing his conscience. He would say things like - it's much worse than that - and expand on Geraldo's questions. There would be no need to do that to impress a parole board. There would be no reason to even do the interview to impress a parole board. In fact – getting into such detail might even make it worse. I believe according to the plea13 children were abused but in the interview confessed to 17 ( I could be wrong with the exact numbers). Do you think a parole board is thinking – he just confessed there was more abuse of children than we know about – so he should get leniency. I would think it would be the opposite. So why say it – perhaps it’s just to clear his conscience. Only he knows for sure – but I don’t see how confessing to more abuse would lead to leniency.
As far as no complaints - there were certain priests who molested children for decades without a peep. Some of these victims didn't come forward until they were adults - why because they were scared for their lives, their parent’s lives, they were embarrassed, they were threatened to have their pictures exposed, etc. The fact that no child came forward doesn't mean they weren't abused - just that the abusers were very good at intimidating them. I don't think they should be rewarded for being good at intimidating children.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
TopFrog
14 years ago
Why would confessing in detail to Geraldo give him leniency? The probation board knows he did it (at least as far as the plea/confession in court).
Here's what Jesse says his reasoning was (from a radio interview, at www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOfpr-I7heY&feature=related):
My interview with Geraldo was not an honest one, per se. At the time I was resigned to my fate that I was going to be a convicted child molester, and I was going to be going to prison as a child molester. And once you admit your guilt in court, there is no longer anything you can do to say, "I didn't do it." And the judge was fairly clear that she was going to recommend that I serve all eighteen years of my sentence.
In order to get paroled you have to accept responsibility for what you did, and you also have to go for therapy and treatment programs, and be rehabilitated. And if you don't demonstrate that you're rehabilitated, they don't release you.
So I was basically put in a situation where if I went to the parole board and told them that I didn't do it, here's all the reasons why I didn't do it, all the proof that establishes that I didn't do it, but I had absolutely no choice but to take the plea bargain, because if I had gone to trial and lost, I would have been sentenced to 1000 years, like the guy in the cell next to me, they would have simply said that I was in denial, and wasn't remorseful, and hadn't been rehabilitated, and they weren't going to release me.
Now if I admitted that I did these things, what reason would the parole board have to consider releasing me? Granted, I'll be the first to admit, if there really is someone out there who did the things that I'm accused of doing, they should be kept in prison for a very, very long time.
So what am I supposed to do once I'm put in the situation where I have to plead guilty because it's the only way I'm going to have a chance of a life outside of prison, ever. It's to say that I did it, but there were extenuating circumstances here, and those extenuating circumstances are gone. My father forced me to do it, and it wasn't a voluntary thing, and therefore since there's no more computer classes, and my father is no longer alive, theoretically there's no chance of me reoffending because I wasn't doing this of my own volition.
To me that's coherent reasoning; it's a logical explanation of what he thought a confession like he made would accomplish.
Now just because it's coherent doesn't mean it was right. According to Jesse, he quickly learned from other inmates that this sort of strategy was not going to work, and he switched back to denying that the crimes took place at all.
And a coherent explanation of his reasoning, whether correct or not, does not say anything about whether Jesse was telling the truth on
Geraldo. It merely raises the possibility that the confession was fabricated. It gets us away from the position that the confession must have been true, because there would have been no reason for making a false confession.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
It doesn't explain why he went into such detail of the abuse. It doesn't explain why he expanded on Geraldo's questions - why he admitted to more than just the crimes from court.
This isn't a system of do-over’s (at least it shouldn't be) - you confess and take a plea - end of story. He could have gone to trial when all the witnesses had fresh memories and were still there and not scattered around. He could have gone to trial when the DA, detective, police were still working. It's easy to cry do-over when memories are lost (probably on purpose), people are retired, etc.
First he didn't do - then he did do it - then he did do it again - now he didn't do it.
To me it's not coherent reasoning - it's a person saying/doing whatever he can to convince people he didn't do it after he confessed in detail to the crime and plead to those crimes.
People get released for being sorry for their crimes without going onto Geraldo or any other TV show. Who would confess to molesting numerous children when they didn't do it - in both a court of law AND on TV later?
He learned from other inmates on how to get released? He got advice on how to get released from prison from people who are still in jail because they couldn't get released? Good idea. It took an inmate to tell him he shouldn't go onto Geraldo and confess to crimes he didn't commit let alone crimes he wasn't even convicted of?
With that said - it seems we have reached a point of agreeing to disagree. I see your point – and respect you view- you have clearly brought your view to these posts in an articulate intelligent way – and that is very appreciative. This discussion – even though we clearly disagree with each other – has been informative – but what it comes down to is we just don’t agree and I think we’re going to have to accept that as these numerous posts haven’t changed our minds. I’m willing to continue or listen to anything new – but we're getting repetative - including myself – saying the same thing over again.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
labellamaffia-2
14 years ago
Topfrog - I agree with you, this is certainly a plausible explanation for why Jesse followed thru with the false confession on Geraldo.
I read that during the pre-trial conferencing period, Jesse went for counseling at the Fortune Society to prepare for a possible prison term - he may have been informed of how parole & treatment really work at counseling sessions.
It is absolutely true that when you enter prison and/or treatment programs as an abuser (or an addict, for that matter) failure to admit to your crimes/addictions is labeled a sign of denial & non-cooperation.
It not only would have effected Jesse's status with the parole board, it would have effected his ability to successfully complete required programming for sex offenders in prison - you can't successfully complete treatment without admitting to what you were put in prison for. This is true even of inmates who went to trial and maintained their innocence to the end.
The jury finds you guilty, well then, you did it, and you better start showing remorse & amenability to treatment.
I think I actually read somewhere that Jesse lost some of his prison "good time" due to the fact that he started to deny taking part in the crimes & thus didn't complete required programming. That would be part of the reason he wasn't released in six years, the "minimum" of his sentence.
As you said, the above doesn't "prove" the confession is false but is certainly a plausible explanation for why a 19 year old who was naive to the prison system would do what he thought would help him avoid spending his life in prison.
reply
share
labellamaffia-2
14 years ago
Hero - you asked if I believe that part of the interview and not others.
I was only describing what my thoughts were when I saw Jessie on Geraldo in 1989. I said in my post "if" he was victimized by his dad "then" he should have received some kind of treatment instead of hard prison time.
The fact that Jesse was abused by the dad was widely reported in the news as fact, he said it himself on Geraldo and..that thought was my reaction to hearing about the sentence he received.
Was it true that Jesse was abused? I don't know, I wasn't that involved in following the case that I had formed solid opinions. I just thought it sad because "IF" this all happened the way it was reported in the media at the time, then this kid WAS a victim.
Now, does our justice system "care" only about some victims and not others?
He would have been a minor himself when at least some of the incidents took place and he reportedly took part under the direction of his father - thus, he is a victim. A victim who offends at a young age may deserve some punishment but he also deserves compassion AS a child victim. I think I agree with Peter Panaro when he asked the judge at the sentencing "Are we that cold as a society?" that we would not show *some* mercy to a young man who certainly WAS a victim of his father's pedophilia? (if this all happened the way the state & Jesse in court say it happened) : ) Just some food for thought, not necessarily trying to argue, just want to clarify my thinking at the time a bit more.
I also have some thoughts about the comparisons you make to priest abuse cases but I will have to come back to respond to those later. Interesting & very civil discussion on this board, though. I look forward to participating a bit more.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
I do agree that as a victim he should be allowed treatment and therapy - but in no way should that lessen his culpability. He was an adult when he committed the crimes and should be punished as such.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
labellamaffia-2
14 years ago
He was an adult when arrested, but the charges go back over a few years, he would have been a minor during some of that time.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Even if it's some - he should be doing time. He took a plea as an adult. He never had to take a plea - he could have gone to trial. There is no reason to assume his jury would be out to hang him. The Casey Anthony jury came to a not-guilty verdict even though the overwhelming public opinion crusified her. He could have had the same results but made the choice not to as an adult.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
labellamaffia-2
14 years ago
He had no witnesses. After the father confessed, the police went to all the computer students & community members who were willing to testify in his defense and provided them copies of the father's "close out statement" which was part of his guilty plea, and convinced these people that they shouldn't testify because something "must have happened, look at this confession."
This information was not included in the film itself, but is explained on the DVD Disc 2 extras.
No witnesses from the actual classes or the community and no money left to hire expert witnesses to testify (this is another reason given) - what kind of a defense could have he and his lawyer put on at trial?
It would have been the word of all the witnesses for the prosecution - the kids plus Ross Goldstein plus the father's confession - against Jesse.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
14 years ago
Yes - it would have been the testimony of all those victims and Ross Goldstein - that would be a good reason to take a plea. When it walks, talks like a duck, etc.
BTW - what did the father confess to? Did he implicate or exonerate Jesse - or didn't mention him. Did he implicate anyone else? What did he actually say - if you know.
You can scream now if you want.
reply
share
labellamaffia-2
14 years ago
I don't know exactly what he said in reference to Jesse, I would like to know, too. I wonder if that document was also made available to Jarecki. It's really so involved & so interesting, there could probably be a ten disc set about this case, instead of only 2 discs.
My opinion though -- I think no matter what Arnold specifically said about Jesse, by virtue of confessing to everything, he is implicating Jesse by default - since Jesse is the teaching assistant and is present at virtually every class, something that was never denied by anyone.
reply
share