This is a case based on testimony alone without any direct evidence.
Do you even know what direct evidence is? This case was based on direct evidence. The statements and interviews of each victim is DIRECT EVIDENCE.
t's a case based on testimony alone and the record shows that much of that testimony was recanted, unreliable, way over the top and coerced by the police. Therein lies the fact that there will always be a problem knowing if the Friedman's were guilty of heinous abuse and deserved such long sentences.
From Nassau's /Independent advisory panel findings -
http://archive.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/DA/NewsReleases/2013/062413friedman.htmlThree victims affirmed their prior accounts to the Review Team, and at least three others maintained their accusations at various points within the last decade.
None of the five individuals who Friedman advocates suggest “recanted” have, in fact, recanted to any degree of legal certainty. Three have not recanted at all. Reviews of transcripts concerning these individuals reveal that abuse occurred. Another who spoke to the Review Team stood by his account, in contrast to the statement he gave to filmmakers. The subject of the most recent purported recantation has refused to speak to the Review Team or even confirm he wrote the letter outlining the claim, which was provided to the Review Team by Jesse Friedman’s lawyer.
Thirteen children accused Jesse Friedman of criminal misconduct within the first five weeks of the investigation.
The investigation also revealed additional statements alleging abuse by Jesse Friedman, obtained during the original investigation from three children who did not testify against Jesse Friedman in any grand jury and were therefore not known to anyone outside law enforcement until this Review. One additional student originally disclosed abuse against Arnold Friedman only, but has since told the Review Team that he was also abused by Jesse Friedman.
Incomplete and insufficient police paperwork at times hampered the Review Team’s ability to reconstruct portions of the police department investigation and decision-making process.
Friedman codefendant Ross Goldstein privately confessed to a childhood friend in 1989.
Unedited film transcripts of Judge Abbey Boklan and Detective Anthony Squeglia show that each was the subject of selectively edited and misleading film portrayals in Capturing the Friedmans.
The “Meyers Tape” – one of only two pieces of direct evidence of heavy-handed police interviewing techniques cited by Friedman, his advocates and the Court – is, in fact, no tape at all. All that remains of a tape that hasn’t existed for more than two decades are notes taken during its screening by a Jesse Friedman attorney. Those notes, presumably limited to information the attorney found helpful to his client’s case, were then reduced and curated by filmmakers, and read dramatically by Friedman’s attorney in Capturing the Friedmans.
A sworn affidavit from the therapist who treated former student “Computer Student One,” stated that she never performed hypnosis on the child. A portion of an unedited transcript of the film’s interview with “Computer Student One” contradicted his claim of pre-outcry hypnosis and had been edited out. “Computer Student One” claimed in a 2004 media report that Capturing the Friedmans “twisted” his account. The filmed allegations of “Computer Student One” remain the only direct evidence offered by Friedman or his advocates suggesting that hypnosis was used to induce victims to make accusations in this case.
An analysis of unrelated wrongful child abuse accusations across the country during the time period in question identified several material distinctions with the Friedman case, including: the comparatively older ages of the complainants, the plausibility of the allegations, and the criminal backgrounds of those involved (namely, Arnold Friedman’s inarguable and admitted pedophilia).
While maintaining his innocence prior to his eventual guilty plea, Friedman commissioned and failed at least two lie-detector tests.
Notes from Friedman’s attorney reveal that a psychiatrist hired by Friedman prior to his guilty plea, found Friedman to be a “narcissist” and “psychopath” who was capable of committing the crimes with which he was charged. The notes also reveal the existence of a second Friedman-hired doctor. Friedman’s lawyer eventually instructed both doctors not to issue formal reports “due to the extreme negative result”.
Prison disciplinary records show that Friedman was caught possessing a magazine photograph depicting two nude children, and was punished for writing allegedly fictional accounts of bestiality, incest and child rape.
Howard Friedman, brother of Arnold and uncle of Jesse, admitted to the Review Team that Arnold had privately confessed to him shortly after his arrest, and that Arnold admitted to him that Jesse was also involved in the abuse that occurred in the Friedman house, and that Arnold admitted molesting Jesse.
In a post-conviction interview by law-enforcement personnel, Arnold Friedman admitted to abusing 41 children and denied abusing 12 others.
Prior to his guilty plea, Friedman went to visit his father in an out-of-state prison in an effort to locate photographs of the abuse that Friedman once agreed may exist. Case files also reference a hidden closet near the computer room that was not searched by federal agents during the surprise search warrant and was later discovered empty during the execution of a state search warrant in the weeks following the Friedmans’ arrests.
Jesse Friedman’s willingness to tell the truth has been inconsistent, especially as it pertained to his many descriptions of his father’s guilt, his own possible victimhood, and his prior relationship with his former friend and codefendant, Ross Goldstein.
It's not a perfect case - and there were screw ups and exaggerations and even lies - but I'm using the evidence on a whole and making a conclusion - I think we are at a point of agreeing to disagree
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share
bpjtuition
8 years ago
Answer this?
If all that were true and there was such a compelling and powerful case against the Friedmans then why did they make up these ridiculous stories about mas rape games? Why even bother exacerbating the abuse if there was good evidence abuse occurred anyway?
I'll fully accept that Arnold Friedman may have molested his son, and that molestation may have gone on in the computer classes. Maybe Ross Goldstein saw or knew of this, thus implicating him.
However my issue with the case is that it was a case alleging violent rape and depraved rape games of multiple children. I just see NO compelling evidence any of this happened.
Just because Arnold Friedman had paedophilic interests, and may have touched a few boys in his class doesn't mean he and Jesse violently raped dozens of boys over an extended period.
Finally, agreeing to disagree aside, an adult CAN NOT penetrate a child or teenage boy for the first time in that child's life and not leave physical evidence. All consensual homosexual relationships between adults leave clear physical signs. That part is not up for debate.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
8 years ago
why did they make up these ridiculous stories about mas rape games?
Who said they made it up?
I'll fully accept that Arnold Friedman may have molested his son, and that molestation may have gone on in the computer classes. Maybe Ross Goldstein saw or knew of this, thus implicating him.
So his brother's admission is a lie?
Answer me this...Why did Jesse confess on Geraldo giving detail to the abuse of his father? Is that a lie as well?
Just because Arnold Friedman had paedophilic interests, and may have touched a few boys in his class doesn't mean he and Jesse violently raped dozens of boys over an extended period.
No it doesn't mean that - but you seem to disregard every other single piece of the puzzle. Multiple victims, third party involvement, confessions, lie-detectors, etc.
All consensual homosexual relationships between adults leave clear physical signs. That part is not up for debate.
It's not up for debate because you say it? Show me where it medically says conclusively that there must be evidence of anal sex every time. I have read medical literature that specifically states rape can occur without causing injury and the absence of signs does not mean it didn't happen. You can do a quick google search and find sites that specifically state that the absence of signs of rape does not mean it did not happen.
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share
bpjtuition
8 years ago
RE The Geraldo interview
Jesse had just got a very lengthy prison sentence. His only chance of early parole, preferential prison treatment etc was for him to play the victim admit his guilt and look for sympathy. He'd already pled guilty and was into his sentence, this was a media opportunity to sell himself as a poor victim who needed help. What other choice did he have? Say he was innocent and accept the entirety of his sentence?
(It's not up for debate because you say it? Show me where it medically says conclusively that there must be evidence of anal sex every time. I have read medical literature that specifically states rape can occur without causing injury and the absence of signs does not mean it didn't happen. You can do a quick google search and find sites that specifically state that the absence of signs of rape does not mean it did not happen.)
Sorry but you're really off base here. The word 'rape' can mean multiple different coerced or forced sexual acts upon an individual, and yes 'rape' in that sense definitely can occur without physical injury being left. Assuming, with a great deal of certainty, that none of these boys were already active homosexuals; their being anally penetrated would have been a first time experience.
Ask any homosexual man what happened when he first had anal sex, and that would likely be with all available aids and NO COERCION. You simply do not commit sodomy without physical repercussions, and rather serious ones at that. Even with consensual anal sex there is rectal bleeding, sensitivity, mild to severe pain. Parents would notice if their son came home after being anally raped once. Let alone raped over and over.
Regarding the sex games. You HONESTLY BELIEVE that Arnold and Jesse would set up multiple nude boys in plain view of everyone else and jump into them one by one raping them??? And that NO ONE would say ONE WORD about it? The leap frog and other so called game scenarios is as preposterous as anything I've ever heard.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
8 years ago
What other choice did he have? Say he was innocent and accept the entirety of his sentence?
He already confessed to it in court? It isn't as if he was proclaiming he was innocent - he legally said he did it and plead guilty to it - didn't he? Up until the Geraldo confession - he didn't proclaim innocence. He confessed already and plead guilty to the crimes. Also, why did he have to go into so much detail? He even expanded on Geraldo's questions. It sounded like someone coming clean and letting it go.
You make it seem like these rapes were all physically forced and always violent. A pedophile can convince, persuade, intimidate, scare a child into having sex without force.
Assuming, with a great deal of certainty, that none of these boys were already active homosexuals; their being anally penetrated would have been a first time experience.
It could have started with fingers, small objects, etc - it's called grooming. They gradually abuse these children to leave little to no evidence. I'm still waiting for the documentation that conclusively states anal intercourse will ALWAYS show signs and evidence. If you did your google search you will find it applies to all kinds of rape including anal. That is why a doctor usually can't conclusively say someone wasn't raped when there are no signs. Lack of signs does not signify lack of crime.
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share
bpjtuition
8 years ago
(That is why a doctor usually can't conclusively say someone wasn't raped when there are no signs. Lack of signs does not signify lack of crime.)
That applies with vaginal rape whereby a woman will normally have vaginal sex anyway. If a 13 year old boy is sodomized by an adult male there will be no lack of conclusion. Young boys do not have their anal orifices ripped open as part of life.
Also read your own posts. This wasn't a gradual subtle buildup. The charges were that Arnold and Jesse raped these boys with brutality not gradually.
If you think not one, but thirteen, boys could be anally raped by an adult without leaving evidence then you're crazy. You even believe the leap frog game!!! That wouldn't cause physical harm to just ONE BOY???
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
8 years ago
That applies with vaginal rape whereby a woman will normally have vaginal sex anyway.
NO - show me where it says that it applies exclusively to vaginal rape.
Also read your own posts. This wasn't a gradual subtle buildup. The charges were that Arnold and Jesse raped these boys with brutality not gradually.
Show me where it says there wasn't a gradual build up.
If you think not one, but thirteen, boys could be anally raped by an adult without leaving evidence then you're crazy.
Many of these children might not have been raped in weeks - I don't know the timeline but I doubt this was all done to ALL the children just prior to it coming out - and the investigation took weeks. The fact IS - it does happen and has happened.
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share
bpjtuition
8 years ago
(NO - show me where it says that it applies exclusively to vaginal rape.)
It doesn't apply exclusively to vaginal rape, it could apply to all types of oral rape aswell etc. The point is that a grown man cannot brutally anally penetrate a small boy and leave no evidence. It's just not medically possible. Hence the reason many experts were sceptical about the nature of the charges against the Friedman's.
Gradual grooming or not if that leap frog game actually happened that would be a very violent experience for the boys involved. A grown man, and an older teenager literally forcing themselves down into young boy's anuses. Get real.
I believe Arnold Friedman could have groomed one or two boys and ended up committing sodomy and by chance none of the boys; parents, friends, school teachers notice it. It's unlikely, but plausible. However, repeated anal rapes of dozens of boys over weeks and weeks, and NO ONE being suspicious AT ALL about ant discomfort these boys were in after class is just so way out.
Claims made by these boys were that they were raped multiple times a week, every week for seven straight weeks and don't say a word and keep re-enrolling.
At the VERYLEAST you must be able to accept the very high likelihood that these charges were exacerbated and that not all of it was true.
reply
share
hero-de-celluloid
8 years ago
Still waiting for any documentation about it. Unfortunately your writing it down does not mean it's true. You keep using the words brutally and violently - yet as I wrote it was gradual.
As I have pointed out - children have been molested on a large scale just like this for years and without a parent or child coming forward.
At the VERYLEAST you must be able to accept the very high likelihood that these charges were exacerbated and that not all of it was true.
NO - I wouldn't say there is a "high likelihood" they were exacerbated. They might have been exaggerated , they also might have been more than just what was found out. Like I said - all I'm going by is the facts that I can find -- the reports, the confession of Arnold, the confession of Jesse, the failed lie-detectors, Arnold's brother's admissions, the multiple victim statements, etc.
User Error Please Try Again
reply
share