MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > Questions...

Questions...

posted 14 years ago by Gareth_Is_A_Benny
12 replies | jump to latest

Ok, this is the kind of film that incites dialog amongst viewers. I've seen this film twice and still haven't determined what I believe to be the absolute, undeniable truth. Here are a few questions that have haunted me. I know there will never be any cut and dry answers here, but I'd love the opinions of those who have seen the film.

1) THe obvious question: were Arnold and Jesse guilty of the crimes they were accused of?

I personally don't know, although I do lean towards them being "not guilty" in a court of law, simply because there just was no evidence (please note that I did not say "innocent" but only "not guilty" in a legal sense). I know many on here will disagree with me, and that's fine. Arnold was a complex man, and I wish the filmmakers could've interviewed him. He was obviously a sick person who engaged in incestuous acts with his brother and also acts of child molestation as an adult. I feel like had Arnold lived in a different time where the psychology behind pedophilia was more understood, he would've gotten the help he needed and perhaps this whole thing could've been avoided. In regards to Arnold and Jesse's charges, I just don't think it's a credible case at all without physical evidence. The idea that parents could pick up their kids from the Friedman house and never once suspect that their kids were sodomized or abused is astonishing. The testimony of children can be heavily influenced (see the McMartin preschool trial). But I also understand why people think they are guilty, even if I don't personally agree with their guilt in a legal sense. It's very ambiguous.

2) Do you think Arnold deserved jail time?

Here's where I feel a bit conflicted. Arnold admitted to molesting two young boys in the past and he got away with that. The very thought of that sickens me and there is a part of me that thinks he deserved to spend time in jail for his past deeds. It seems that while this may not be justice (him being convicted for something he MIGHT NOT have done in the 1980s computer classes), it does seem fair (because he did it before and got away with it). It's sort of like a wrong making a right, in a way. I don't really feel all that bad knowing that Arnold died in jail because I know that he molested kids before, even if there was no evidence for the later charges he faced. Pedophiles deserve jail time and that's that.

3) Do you think Arnold molested his sons?

The allegiance these boys showed to their father was astounding to me. They almost seemed to enable him in a way. They constantly took his side and seemed to completely gloss over his past misdeeds. The boys called their father normal and acted like he was perfect, despite the fact that he admitted to having sex with his brother as a child and two young boys when he was an adult. They were all in such denial, even excusing his ADMITTED sexual acts with children. I just don't see how they could overlook these acts unless there was something underneath the surface. It's been shown that kids identify with their abusers and feel a need to protect them, which could explain the boys behavior. Their outright disdain for their mother (who is a bit nuts in her own right, but certainly never did anything (according to the film) to deserve being treated the way she was by her own sons). (A side note: if I had ever talked to my mother the way these boys talked to Elaine, even if I was an adult, I would've been slapped senseless. I was gobsmacked at their lack of respect towards her.) Arnold even admitted his fear that he would molest his own kids and was brushed off. This all seems to be an enormous red flag of sexual abuse to me, but of course, with no evidence, there can be no certainty. Obviously Arnold's brother blocked out the sexual abuse he suffered at Arnold's hands (or else he was lying), so maybe the boys did the same thing??? (I'm discounting Jesse's alleged confession to his lawyer that Arnold abused him because he later recanted that.)

4) Anyone else find Arnold's silence unnerving?

There were many family scenes where the boys and the mother spoke with vehemence about their anger (the boys were angry at the police, Elaine was angry at Arnold), and yet, Arnold was nearly mute the whole time. I know Jesse mentioned that his father did get angry and speak up right before he (Arnold) reluctantly accepted the plea deal, but aside from that, Arnold seemed to just stay in the background for the most part. I felt like in all the home videos when the family fought so much, he just seemed to bite his tongue. I couldn't help but wonder if maybe it was because he didn't want to admit something to his sons that might have shattered them?

5) How do you think this case compares to other child-molestation cases involving the "hysteria" factor?(i.e., the McMartin Case, the numerous Bakersfield sex ring cases (see the film "Witch Hunt" for more on that..it's really good.)

I feel that Arnold Friedman is perhaps the least sympathetic of all adults who (may) have been wrongfully accused of child molestation. I saw Witch Hunt, which documents the cases in Bakersfield, CA in the 1980s, where numerous parents were wrongfully convicted of child molestation (in most cases, of their own kids) and then later had their convictions overturned because there was no evidence. These parents (like the McMartins) had no history of pedophilia and were never in possession of child pornography. They simply seemed to be average people who were railroaded by overzealous investigators. However, Arnold Friedman had an admitted problem with pedophilia. He'd done it in the past and admitted to "TRYING to control his urges" (note that he didn't just say "CONTROLLING his urges"). Even Jesse comes off as unsympathetic and unlikable because he defends his father to the very end and skates over his father's numerous misdeeds. I feel much more sorry for the McMartins and the Bakersfield parents who had their lives ruined and were completely innocent than I do for anyone in this film. That may not be right or fair, but it's how I feel.

Like I said in the beginning, I'd love more opinions. THis film made me think in a way not most films don't. I felt badly for this family, all of whom were torn apart by a very sick man who they all obviously loved at some point (in Elaine's case) and in some way. This is certainly the kind of film that asks more questions than it answers IMO.

"It's easy to be miserable. Being happy is tougher - and cooler."
Thom Yorke

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

1)"The idea that parents could pick up their kids from the Friedman house and never once suspect that their kids were sodomized or abused is astonishing."

Why - it has happened. Many priests have molested children for years without the parents noticing. Some of these children didn't come forward for decades. The church has paid out millions in these cases and many if not most didn't come out until years later with the parents not knowing about it for years if not decades after the fact.

2) I understand your stance - however - I wouldn't put a man in jail for a crime he didn't commit even if he was guilty of another crime. I however thought he did do the crime he confessed to.

3) I don't know either, but there are definite clues that he did. First Jesse stated he did, he was an admitted pedophile, along with other points you made. You discount his confession to his lawyer - and I suppose you discount his confession on the Geraldo show when he went into detail of the abuses he did (as he recanted that). I however - don't discount it as it was an unpressured confession by an adult who had the choice to make it or not. You can call do-over years later but that doesn't mean it should be discounted IMO.

4) I agree.

5) I agree as well. There are similarities but there are clear differences in the case.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

to hero - 1) Comment I've been wanting to make about the priest abuse scandals.

The biggest part of the scandal is that molestations by priests were reported by children to parents and then by parents to the Church but that little was done in response. Priests who were known molesters were simply transferred to other parishes and in many cases were still permitted to have contact with children. That is the saddest, most shocking part of the entirety of the so-called "priest abuse scandal" within the Catholic Church. This went on for decades.

Now, certainly there was also abuse that went undetected by parents and unreported by children.

I know of some cases where teenage boys were actually raped/sodomized. BUT - in the cases I know of, the priest had access to the teens for long periods of time, alone. They went on overnight trips together for example, or were alone for hours at a time after school or some other such circumstances. There was plenty of time for these teenagers to "clean up" and look presentable and "clean" upon going home to their parents. In some of these cases, the sex wasn't forcible rape, rather, the priest seduced & manipulated these kids over a period of time & the sex became, I guess "consensual" in the priest's mind, anyway.

I don't know of any priest abuse cases where abuse took place in a classroom of ten or 15 children during a 90 minute period, and where actual oral & anal sodomy took place.

If you have specific cases you can show me where priests abused children in groups of ten or more, actually raped them or completed sex acts with them and it all took place within 90 minutes after which the children were immediately picked up by their parents, I'd appreciate some links or references.

I certainly don't know of every priest abuse case that ever took place, but I am absolutely not aware of any where children were raped in large groups and then immediately handed over to their parents, post rape.

[–] labellamaffia-2 14 years ago

Gareth, you raise some very interesting questions!

I don't have time to reply to everything but I look forward to coming back & discussing more as time permits.

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

1) Were Arnold and Jesse guilty of the crimes they were accused of? Arnold was certainly guilty of possession of child pornography, but other than that, I don't think that they were guilty, but there is evidence on both sides of the issue.

I second labellamafia's post regarding the lack of connection between priest abuse and the silence of the alleged victims throughout what the Friedman's are supposed to have done. Consider this account of one of the accusers (from a Newsday article):

"Mr. Friedman pulled my pants half-way down and he made me hold onto one of the computer table chairs . . . I screamed 'Dad!' and Mr. Friedman said to me to be quiet. Mr. Friedman put his hands over my mouth. During this time the other kids were screaming and telling Mr. Friedman to get off me. I was scared and the other kids were scared, too."

I am unaware of anything remotely like this in any allegations of abuse by priests. It is not credible to me that this sort of thing would occur, week in and week out, without any of the children saying anything. It is said here again and again that pedophiles are experts at grooming their victims to put up with abuse without complaint. A roomful of kids screaming and telling Arnold to stop attacking a boy does not seem to me consistent with the sort of grooming that would be required to keep the alleged abuse quiet over a period of years.

That said, there is a wealth of contradictory evidence that both sides can point to here. Even summarizing it would take considerable time and space. Weighing all of the evidence, I don't think it adds up to guilt, but others differ with me.

2) The question of whether Arnold deserved jail time gets into all sorts of issues of the purpose of putting people in jail, and whether it is just for someone who committed one bad act to receive punishment for another act that he didn't commit. My posts run long enough without exploring side issues, so I'll skip this one.

3) I don't think that Arnold molested his sons. As far as I know, the only evidence we have that he did molest them are Jesse's 1989 statements (to his lawyer, the court, and the media), which he publicly disavowed in 1990. Even Jesse's 1989 statements on this subject seem a little off. Consider this from the Geraldo interview:

It started when I was about 8 or 9 and he would fondle me. He would read me bedtime stories and he would fondle me in bed. He'd shower with me. He'd play with my penis. And as I hit puberty he became activity involved in having sex with me.

Arnold Friedman was a pedophile, who by his own admission was sexually fixated on, what was it, boys between 8 and 10 years old? Yet with Jesse he waits until Jesse hits puberty to have sex with him? That doesn't make any sense.

4) I found Arnold to be strangely passive, but I didn't consider his response to be "unnerving." I'd hesitate to read too much into how he responded. People respond to stressful situations in different ways, and humans are actually pretty poor judges when they try to draw conclusions based on a person's manner.

5) I think that there are a lot of similarities between this case and the other mass sex abuse cases of the time. But there is one HUGE difference -- this case had an actual pedophile at its center, which I don't think is true in any of the others.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

As far as the priests - I was using them as an example because someone stated they couldn't believe parents didn't notice the abuse. I was explaining that it has happened that children were abused for years and parents didn't notice it so this case of the Friedman's wouldn't be impossible or unusual that parents didn't notice the abuse.

I suppose you don't know the power of threatening a child with physical harm, threatening to do harm to their parents, threatening to expose their abuse to the public, etc. To a child those threats can make them get rid of evidence, not tell anyone, and in fact make them want to return to the class so no harm or embarrassment is done. A pedophile can be "good" at their abuse by knowing what buttons to press - many times it's because their buttons were pushed that same way before by someone else when they were a child and getting abused. Sometimes it's just an abuser knowing how to get a child scared.

Sure the priest abuse wasn't exact as the Friedman's case - as no two abuse cases are the same. The point was abuse was not noticed by the parents for years. Many people bring up other abuse cases which would tend to put a good light on the Friedman case but they aren’t the same – yet the comparison is still used. The priest abuse and this abuse isn’t exact but there are many similarities – abuse over years and parents didn’t know about it and children didn’t come forward (in many of the cases).

You can scream now if you want.

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

The cases of molestation by priests aren't a great analogy to the Friedman case, at least because they didn't tend to involve molestation of entire groups of children, and because the children often did talk, only to have the Church cover up the problem. But what is the best analogous case (involving priests or not) that you're aware of that helps your cause? The Friedmans were alleged to have abused over 100 children over a period of years, in a group setting, without any of those children having breathed a word of the abuse. What's the best case that you're aware of that comes closest to fitting these parameters?

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

It is analagous as far as many of the children DIDN'T comeo forward at the time. Sure some did - but many have not and many parents didn't notice any of the signs at all. That is what is analogous.

As for the 100 children - who alleged he abused over 100 children? Where can I get that info. He certainly wasn't charged with abusing 100 children.

As for abusing the most children - someone has to be at the top - does that mean they didn't do it because nobody else did it.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

The number of children comes from that Newsday article, "The Secret Life of Arnold Friedman," that the Leadership Council cites:

THEY WERE secrets that would make the brick-and-shingle high-ranch on a proverbial tree-lined, suburban street in upscale Great Neck a chamber of horrors for dozens of children. Police said that 140 children - ranging in age from 7 to 12 - would finally admit what they had been too shamed and afraid to tell their parents.

Saying the Friedman case is analogous to sexual abuse by priests is like saying that the Friedman case is analogous to abuse by babysitters. Abuse by priests is many separate cases, accomplished by many unrelated perpetrators against many unrelated victims. What other case (singular) are you aware of that best fits the facts of the allegations against the Friedmans? I agree with you that even if the Friedman case is sui generis, it doesn't necessarily make the allegations false, but are you conceding that this is a one-of-a-kind molestation case? Is the Friedman case the only group molestation case involving abuse over a period of years in which no child told, or are you aware of any others like it? If you are aware of another case like this one, what is it?

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I'm not sure you're reading my posts. I didn't say the complete case was analogous to the priest abuse. I was talking about certain aspect. In both cases children didn't come forward and parents weren't aware of the abuse for years. It's a fact that it happened with many of the priest abuse cases as it is alleged here - thus analagous in that aspect.

As far as another case like it - no. I also know of only one time millions of Jewish people were murdered by the Nazi's but because I can't think of another time doesn't mean it didn't happen. I know that is an extreme example but the point is simple - just because I can't come up with another close example or even if one doesn't exist does not mean in any way that it didn't or couldn't happen. You can say the same thing about other cases which did happen - just because there weren't any with the same circumstances does not mean it didn't happen.

There aren’t too many crimes that have the exact circumstances.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] TopFrog 14 years ago

I 100% agree with you that just because there isn't an analogous case to the that of the Friedmans does not mean that the allegations against the Friedmans aren't true. Still the lack of an analogous case is significant.

Consider your statement earlier in this thread about "the power of threatening a child," and about how a "pedophile can be 'good' at their abuse by knowing what buttons to press." Since there is no other close case, apparently whatever power and skills other abusers may have, no abuser before or since has manifested the kind of power that Arnold Friedman had, the ability to abuse groups of children, over a long period of time, where all of the children remained silent. Ordinary abuser skills would not be expected to suffice to explain the silence of so many children over such a long period of time, since apparently no one before or since has been able to pull off such a thing.

As I see it, the closest analogies to the Friedman case are the other mass sex abuse allegations of the 80s and 90s. Those cases generally fell apart when subjected to scrutiny. As I stated before, the Friedman case is different in that it has a pedophile at its center, and it may be that the Friedman case is the exception, a mass sex abuse case where the allegations are actually true. But I remain extremely skeptical, at least because 1) two of the Friedmans' accusers have recanted their accusations (this is covered in the documentary); 2) several other students from the computer classes, including those that accusers say they saw abused, deny noticing anything untoward in the computer classes; 3) a parent who frequently dropped in unannounced during the computer classes says that she saw nothing out of the ordinary going on; and 4) considerable evidence has come to light that at least some of the police questioning was improper.

But hey, we've reached this point before, haven't we? I'm not expecting to change your mind on this, and you're not likely to change mine.

Finally, though it has nothing to do with the Friedman case, Hitler's murder of 6 million Jews has a fairly close analogy in the Armenian genocide of 1915-18 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide), in which 1-1.5 million died. Another somewhat less close example of mass ethnic genocide is the Holodomor, the man-made famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor), in which it is estimated that 2.4-7.5 million died.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 14 years ago

I gaurantee that are more differences than similarities with your analogy.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] fuchsiasattic 13 years ago

3.) I think that he probably did molest his sons. With his history and his confessed pedophilia tendencies, I can't imagine that nothing happened...and the way they were as adults, too, and in the home videos. They seemed really manic and so remarkably hostile towards their mother. It made me think of Stockholm Syndrome a bit, in cases where an abused person ends up relating to their abuser out of survival and becomes fearful or hateful towards anyone outside of that relationship. Perhaps if something was going on their anger towards her could have been a "Why didn't you stop this?" type of behaviour. I'm not saying for sure that something happened, it's just the impression that I get.

4.) I had exactly the same thought! He was so quiet, I only heard him speak a few times and that was briefly. His family (especially that one son) was talking about the case in such a weirdly enthusiastic way and Arnold just stared at things around him, never saying anything (I kind of expected him to say "shut up, stop talking about that" or something similar.)

I was also really disturbed by David (I think was his name?)Just the way he spoke (not his accent...) was weirdly offputting. It just seemed like he was speaking almost on autopilot. He was in such intense denial; it was really clear at that part where he was talking about what his father wrote, saying "I don't know what that sentence means!He could have been on a sailboat and been sexually aroused, or leaning against a tree! That sort of thing happens" (or something to that effect) It's as if he needs to believe anything else and he isn't even a whole person anymore.