Sorry I wasn't clear. Sometimes my writing appears to be stream-of-consciousness because I've just seen the movie and am still digesting it. Also, the way my mind works is to try to tie many different facts together and sometimes they are not totally clear. I try to preview the posts and edit out any ambiguities, but often I don't catch them all.
Now you write that:
I was writing it's possible those scars might have happened years after from the abuse.
When you say "the abuse," which abuse are you referring to? Are you referring to the abuse that was supposed to happen at the Friedman house during the classes?
To diverge, one thing I learned in college was that conspiracies work best between two people. Each time a new person is introduced to the conspiracy, there is more risk that the conspiracy will be exposed. If there were 500 kids that had taken these classes, that represents a huge risk of exposure. With that amount of people, it is hard to imagine that someone would not have exposed the abuse prior to being questioned.
We may not know the absolute truth,. But why wouldn't a parent, teacher, sibling or caregiver have noticed blood on clothing or injuries on the child? What about unexplained absences and medical reports? Back then, as now, social workers and teachers as well as medical providers were mandated reporters of abuse. Wouldn't this type of abuse have caused a pattern of injury linked to the computer classes? Also, as far as being checked for bruises (as stated by the witness who claims abuse), once a trauma occurs to tissue, how do you reverse a bruise? You can put ice on it, but the bruise then comes out and goes through a pattern of healing. The inconsistencies and spectacular nature of the claims does strain credulity.
Around that time, there was also the case of Lisa Steinberg, who died at the hands of Joel Steinberg. Hedda Nussbaum was also involved. It was very sensational and attracted national attention. It caused a scandal within the ranks of the child protective services in New York. Were the child and protective services in Nassau County ever contacted due to excessive bruises and other symptoms of abuse? If there was abuse of 500 kids, it is difficult to imagine that this case would not have gotten far more attention than the Steinberg case.
One more thing. Jesse Friedman says that computer didn't have hard drives at the time. This is not true. The IBM XT came out around 1983. This was designed and priced for the business user. However, for household use, computers with two drives were most frequently used. I have an old computer magazine from around then. If I come across it, I can check it out. Also, unless copied disks were labelled, it would be hard to discern what was on the disk unless the disk contents were checked and labelled correctly. Even back when I was in college, the computer Professor said that every term, games such as "Star Trek" would be placed on a Minivac computer, which was regulated by a data base administator and systems programmers. Even when they removed the programs, they would frequently reappear. There were many BBS users at the time, and they would post information about how to get software and how to break security codes. Ah, the good old days, when computers were primitive and simple, and when one could easily fix they system without having to shell out hundreds of bucks or call tech support!
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
17 years ago
I was writing that perhaps those scars -after the fact - could have done because of the abuse at the classes. As for the victims - many pedophiles pick and chose who they are going to abuse. Not all the students would be victims and they might not be privy to the abuse. As far as the blood etc., many pedophiles know exactly how to abuse without leaving much or any evidence. They don't always pound the kid the rear the first time leaving blood soaked underwears. They start slowly, etc. Fact is - children do get abused all the time and parents don't know about it. The priest scandal was about I believe hundreds of boys getting abused yet most at the time were not discovered until after the fact. The parents didn't know, didn't see the evidence, etc. If it could happen on that scale - I don't see why it couldn't happen on this scale. The Steinberg case involved very noticeable forms of physical abuse. The defendant there and in this case are only similar in that they abused a child. The pictures of the abuse made good front page news. But back to the Friedmans - many have stated - how can it happen with no evidence of blood stained underwears, semen stains, etc. The fact is children get abused all the time and it isn't always reported right away or at all sometimes. The children themselves aren't always forthcoming because they are threatened with physical abuse, threat of abuse to their parents, threats they will tell their friends, etc. Some of these children will actually go back to the abuser even though they know what will happen - just so there friends and family don't find out about what they were doing. These children will actually help clean up and make sure the parents don’t find out about it because they don’t want to be discovered almost as much as the monster doing it.
reply
share
broombie
17 years ago
Ok, from reading your post, I realize that you think that the Friedmans were guilty as charged.
One article I read quote an Assistant DA as saying that in New York (at least at the time), no physical evidence was required to charge a person with sexually molesting children. The evidence was based upon the testimony of children. It appears that is why the police went after the children to testify. In some states, video testimony is acceptable.
However, in doing some reading on this subject, certain authorities, such as the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit, have tried to analyze the types of offenders and their crimes. They describes types of offenders. For example, what they call "Day Care Offenders" are:
Day Care Sex Rings involve multiple victims and offenders fear and bizarre or ritualistic activity. Prescriptions of strange games of killing animals or photographing activities of wearing costumers are common(Douglas et al 241)(Gird 168)
There is also a classification called "Collectors."
6) Child/Adolescent pornography involves collectors who collect, maintain and prize child pornography. They are classified as:
A) Closet Collectors who keep secret their interest in pornography and deny involvement with children.
B) Isolated Collectors choose sexual activity with one child at a time and may be involved with their own children, children of neighbors, nephews etc. They may also seek out children not know to them by traveling.
C)Cottage Collectors are pedophiles who sexually exploit children in a group. The intent is to create a relationship with other pedophile collectors and as a method of communication.(Douglas et al 230-231)(Girod 167)
source:
http://www.freewebs.com/forensicprofilers/sexualoffender.htmMy knowledge of how these types of offenders are classified or if there are multiple classifications, is limited. My curiosity arose from working with sex offenders who are teenagers.
The movie,
Capturing the Friedmans, classifies Arnold Friedman as several different types of pedophile. Arnold classifies himself as a pedophile who is tender, seductive and loving and wants the children to enjoy the experience. The prosecution (police, DA, and inappropriately, the judge), describe him as a sadistic type of pedophile who enjoys power, pain and domination. The prosecution labels Jesse as a sadistic abuser. I guess if the Friedmans would have had enough money, they could have hired some expert witnesses to bring some clarity into this case.
I think that one flaw with
Capturing the Friedmans is that it tries to be many things. It seems to advocate for the Friedmans. It wants to be a dramatic movie about the destruction of the family. It wants to be an ambiguous movie which asks the audience to judge the case, ignoring the fact that most audience members probably have not studied this topic in much depth. In a sense, that gives the movie broad appeal. On the other hand, it doesn't give enough information for the audience to devise an informed opinion, particularly for those who are interested in learning about this in order to understand sex offenders or potential abuses in the justice system.
I am curious to know whether or not anyone has taken Criminal Justice, Law, or counselling classes in which this movie has been used, and whether or not this movie ever helped clarify these topics for the student of these disciplines.
reply
share
veganrus
17 years ago
I hear from students all the time who mention the film being used as part of the course curriculum. Sometimes it is law-oriented classes, but other times it is film studies, of sociology, or psychology classes. I have not been keeping track, but there has been a wide array of professors across the country who have added the film to their course curriculum.
reply
share
broombie
17 years ago
What kinds of things do you think that this film could teach students - or even the average citizen?
Another thing. How do you teach the average citizen to avoid becoming victims of a "witch hunt?"
reply
share
strongwoman
17 years ago
I have used this movie in three consecutive semesters of my Intro to Criminal Justice course. Since this is an introductory level course, I use the film to demonstrate more general concepts than the ones to which you refer. However, I've also used the film in a Senior Capstone course as a springboard for discussing the potential problems with plea bargaining, the reliability of evidence, the importance of objectivity in criminal investigation, and the challenges of prisoner reentry into the community.
reply
share
broombie
17 years ago
What kinds of classes do you teach?
I will now refer to the document section of disk 2 of the dvd.
Since the pertinent point right now is the way the evidence was gathered i.e. the way therapy was conducted, I wonder what you think of the portion of the paper by S. Kaplan and D. Pelcowics which described the type of therapy?
I worked on a crisis line around that time and we underwent intensive training. The type of therapy given to the children was unfamiliar to me. The approach we were taught was as follows. The group approach would mainly be for support of the feelings of the survivors. The particular details were relegated to individuals sessions, as was hypnosis. And with hypnosis, no specific diagrams were given, because that could be traumatizing and the therapy was to be done at the pace of the client. We were told that reexperiencing memories of abuse was traumatizing. To clarify, the training was about therapy for adults who were suffering from PTSD.
I think that giving hypnosis in a group session, while providing a diagram of the room (which looked cramped and seemed to hold nine students at a time) would "contaminate" the hypnotic state, where individuals are more open to suggestions. Additionally, the children were at an age where peer pressure was very high. Having other students give "helpful suggestions" strikes me as different from allowing the child to heal. It seemed as if the sessions were designed to create evidence for the prosecution. I have never experienced a forensic interview, but I recall that kids were given toys or models to use (individually) in order to demonstrate details that a highly trained, unbiased therapist could interpret.
I wonder if the now grown up "victims" (who by the way, were not called that by professionals. That would be more of a legal term. They were called "survivors" back in the 1980's) were more traumatized by the therapy than what actually happened.
Also, what did you think of Galasso's body language on camera? In the film itself, it wasn't stated that she was newly promoted and was looking to create a name for herself.
Additionally, at the showing of the film, she made a comment that the "videos and tapes" were destroyed. Why wouldn't the pornography have been destroyed at the same time?
Just curious of your take on that.
reply
share