MovieChat Forums > Capturing the Friedmans (2003) Discussion > For anyone proclaiming Jesse's or Arnold...

For anyone proclaiming Jesse's or Arnold's innocence

posted 13 years ago by willard86
37 replies | jump to latest

...And if you just repeat assertions from the film about police coercion and hypnosis (which remains unconfirmed anyway), that is not a justifiable argument.

Arnold:

Near the beginning of the film, David says his father "didn't like to spend a lot of time with his wife" and that he held computer classes for boys (not girls) so that he wouldn't have to be around his wife. Think about that in relation to how he felt about his wife and in the context of his past. He admitted that he'd had sex with his 8-year-old brother (incest already part of his personal development), that he had later gone to a therapist because he was concerned he would sexually molest his own sons, and that he had in fact sexually molested boys (plural) at his family's summer home, one of which was the son of a friend.

So, he isn't "just" a pedophile.

Consider this information given by Debbie Nathan, who served as a consultant to Jerecki for CTF as an expert on false accusations:

"The Friedmans wanted me to look into their case, but I demurred. I was put off by Arnold, who told me in a quavering, stop-start voice over a prison pay phone: 'Since childhood I've been tortured by this problem. You have to remember, those magazines used to be perfectly legal. I was trying so hard to control my urges. To not touch a child."'

He was trying to control his urges. If he had succeeded, he would not put it that way.

For anyone who says there must have been noises coming from screaming kids in the computer room, remember Elaine says you had to go down a hall and around a corner to get to the room, and that Arnold wanted his privacy undisturbed, and that she never went in there. And later, Jesse told Geraldo that part of what he did in there was to keep the boys in line, keep order.

When someone has already committed an act they tried so hard to refrain from, and committed it more than once, it is very unlikely they will stop.

Jesse:

There is a lot of sympathy for him on these boards and insistence of his innocence. It's been argued that he only pleaded guilty because of the threat of heightened charges and longer jail time. But if he were actually innocent, why would he be okay with his father, who he was clearly close to, not at least trying to help him (his father clearly wanting to help him so much that he killed himself so Jesse would get his insurance money--looks more like guilt money than selfless assistance).

If Jesse weren't guilty, he could have gone to as many computer students as possible and formed a defense for himself. If all those kids were coerced, it should have been easy to get them to simply tell the truth, if they weren't in fact raped or molested. If Jesse weren't guilty, and was terrified of going to jail, he could have done everything he could to bring truth to light.

His confession at court does not look in any way like a lie. His spontaneous crying and saying that he wished there was something he could do to stop "it" sooner speaks to more than the incestual abuse from Arnold. He apologizes over and over, saying he is so sorry it happened.

AFTER he made his plea bargain and had already been sentenced, he spoke to Geraldo and confessed in full detail what had happened. There was no way confessing would lessen his sentence. On his site he says he lied to Geraldo to gain public sympathy. However, talking about his father abusing him would have gotten him sympathy. Admitting in serious detail how he participated in the molestation and was an accomplice to child rape in no way could have gained him sympathy. He had no motive to say that he thought "if anybody ever found out, it would be horrible for everybody." He clearly states that the kids didn't speak up "for the same reason" he didn't speak up. He was afraid.

Perhaps all those on these boards who simply repeat assertions from the film and parrot common ideas of coercion and false accusations have not had experience with sexual abuse. Perhaps you all have the tendency to side with the abusers as in a dysfunctional family.

Understand that abusers were often abused. Just because Jesse was a victim does not make him innocent.

If you want to reply, please don't make broad, unfounded statements or blame faulty interviewing or even the mother, who obviously had nothing to do with any abuse, as her husband did.

[–] youaresquishy 13 years ago

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/geraldo.html

[–] kjaworski 13 years ago

The film and the story and so explosive...people on both sides still arguing with absolute conviction about absolute guilt and innocence.

I hate to make a 'broad, unfounded statement', but to this day, there has been absolutely zero physical evidence to support either Arnold or Jesse's guilt. I presume you've read about the McMartin case? The claims in that case match the level of implausibility of the claims made in this one and the interviewing/interrogative techniques were the same, i.e., have since been shown to be beyond unreliable and have been proven, yes, PROVEN to lead to false accusation. Yes, the people involved in the McMartin case were, in time, completely exonerated.

The Friedman case appears to be more nuanced because you have, in Arnold Friedman, a confessed pedophile. The question THEN becomes: are the Friedmans guilty of EVERYTHING they were charged with, EVERY single count?

IF the answer is NO, then, could they be guilty of something further down the scale, but still not completely innocent? Yes, that is possible. But no evidence has ever been presented. ALL you have are the statements. If the statements are called into question, so is the entire case. The statements HAVE been called into question.

A correction about the Geraldo thing:

Jesse said he had two options once convicted: protest his [supposed] innocence or admit his [supposed] guilt. He said to protest his innocence after his conviction would not help him with the parole board, which would likely interpret such action as just a failure to reform. To admit to guilt, and paint himself as a victim of his father, was the only way he knew to conceivably make a good argument for parole.

"I was trying so hard to control my urges. To not touch a child."'

He was trying to control his urges. If he had succeeded, he would not put it that way."

Well, as they say, that's semantics and not a supportable argument. I fully realize that this is not a good comparison, but for the sake of an internet board discussion: I can have a desire to eat too much and struggle against it, to 'control my urges' in this way, and succeed, without an eating binge, over time, even though the urge doesn't dissipate. I'd refer to it in the same way Nathan says Friedman did.

"But if he were actually innocent, why would he be okay with his father, who he was clearly close to, not at least trying to help him (his father clearly wanting to help him so much that he killed himself so Jesse would get his insurance money--looks more like guilt money than selfless assistance). "

This is subjective, and a little verbally unclear. Not sure what your argument is here, except that, in your opinion, Arnold's suicide in effort, at least in part, to help Jesse, was rooted in guilt, and that said guilt is somehow OPPOSED to 'selfless assistance', which could only be motivated by some kind of LACK of guilt. If I were spending the rest of my life in jail and knew I could help my son by suicide, I'd probably do the same thing regardless of guilt or innocence. But that's subjective as well.

"If Jesse weren't guilty, he could have gone to as many computer students as possible and formed a defense for himself. If all those kids were coerced, it should have been easy to get them to simply tell the truth, if they weren't in fact raped or molested. If Jesse weren't guilty, and was terrified of going to jail, he could have done everything he could to bring truth to light. "

'It should have been easy'? Even watching the movie as a comfortable audience member, one gets a feeling for how severe and highly-charged this case was with hysterical energy. NOTHING about this story seems easy. It's ALL tough. If you were wrongfully accused of something by 100 people, do you really think it would be easy to just go to them and say 'hey, tell the truth, regardless of whatever bizarre forces have compelled you to lie, or convinced you it IS the truth?' Besides, when Arnold pleaded guilty, Jesse's hands were tied.

"His confession at court does not look in any way like a lie. His spontaneous crying and saying that he wished there was something he could do to stop "it" sooner speaks to more than the incestual abuse from Arnold. He apologizes over and over, saying he is so sorry it happened. "

Totally subjective. How would you feel if you were facing life in prison, especially as a kid? If your life had been thrown into total disarray before being taken from you? I'd probably cry like that every single day.

There's too much at play here. This period in American legal history is factually recorded to have had a litany of false child sexual abuse prosecutions. No physical evidence. You have the statements from the children, yes. But you also have false accusations in MANY similar cases, AT THE SAME TIME. Accusations proven to be false.

A weak case.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

He could have played the victim part without confessing to those horrific crimes - but he didn't - he went into detail about the abuse and his part in it. There were multiple witnesses and victims - was each and every single victim hypnotized with false memories or coerced? The ability to implant false memories into one person is difficult - to do it on this scale is preposterous. There was also the third defendant who implicated him I believe - but I'm sure someone is going to say he did that just to get a better sentence. That's what's happening here - he confesses in court and someone says it's for a better parole. He confesses on national TV and he is doing for sympathy. Confessing in court would be sufficient to make the point. There's a third defendant who implicated him and someone says it's for a better sentence.

As far as false accusations - sure it happens - but does that mean we just forget about it because it's possible there were false accusations. Look at the priest scandal in the Catholic Church - it happens on large scale and it can happen for decades - with no physical evidence. These monsters can be experts at concealing their crimes - do we congratulate them for being a good pedophile by not prosecuting them? These children were vulnerable - threatening them with harm or embarrassment is a strong motivation.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

For those who think that this type of molestation can't go on for a while without anyone knowing about it -

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/29/missouri-man-allegedly-admits-instances-child-rape-molestation/?test=latestnews

granted these were 8 and 9 year old girls instead of boys - the parents were unaware for a long time and there were no signs of abuse that were apparant.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] GethinVanH 13 years ago

FOX News is a reliable source? They would never sensationalize a story like this, right?

And someone admitting to a crime does not necessarily mean that they committed it. There were plenty of Kangaroo Courts and show trials in the past and still are today.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

"And someone admitting to a crime does not necessarily mean that they committed it"

Ok - I can see your angle on this.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] Garchomp 7 years ago

He DID have to confess to the crimes because he was pleading guilty. The whole point of pleading guilty was to not get a life sentence, and the whole point of gaining sympathy was to mitigate the sentence. He would not have bothered to try to gain sympathy by claiming his father raped him if he wasn't going to plead guilty.

And yes, pedophiles can be experts at concealing their crimes, but can ANYONE be THAT expert?

The Friedmans allegedly held what amounts to orgies (the leapfrog game) in the computer room.

They would rape some boys multiple times in a single 1 and 1/2 hour session (56 cases of sodomy in 10 weeks for one boy).

Some boys claim that NOTHING sexual ever happened even though they allegedly were forced to play sexual computer games.

A grown man is anally raping tiny boys multiple times in one hour and there is no reported injury whatsoever to these boys? I would think that getting anally raped multiple times in a short period of time when you're that small would cause some kind of bleeding or irritation that you might complain about to your parents.

What kind of pedophile gets his son and his son's friend to join in? That's crossing over into full psychopath territory and it seems awfully careless. When you involve more people in your crime you really increase the likelihood of getting caught.

I am not saying it's impossible that Arnold and Jessie did something. I highly doubt it was the several hundred counts of anal rape that they were accused of, but I wouldn't be surprised if they both did participate in some molestation. To me the most convincing evidence is that Arnold's uncle claimed that Arnold confessed to him that both he and Jessie did "misbehave".

That being said, due to the paucity of evidence (especially physical evidence) and the outlandish nature of the accusations you cannot blame people for being very skeptical of the convictions.

[–] willard86 13 years ago

Kjaworski, saying you 'hate to make a broad, unfounded statement' and then making one undermines your argument.

In the McMartin case, first of all, the primary accusations were made by a woman who had acute, paranoid schizophrenia. The investigation method was launched by sending a form letter to parents. Right off the bat you have huge differences in the two cases.

Even if the Friedmans were guilty of many but not every single count, they would still be seriously guilty. We're not talking about misdemeanors.

You are saying *you* can have an urge to overeat and succeed in overcoming *your* urge. This is apples to the oranges of Arthur saying he had 'tried so hard to control his urges' to not touch a child.

About Arthur's suicide to give Jesse insurance money. Yes, guilt *is* opposed to selfless assistance. Giving from a standpoint of guilt is done in hopes of relieving some of that guilt. If I were facing life in jail and knew my son was innocent, I would not kill myself. I would organize from jail as much as possible a defense for my son. But notice in my post I wasn't using personal examples in place of logic. That would be "totally subjective."

About Jesse: I didn't say it should have been easy for him to approach the kids and ask them to tell the truth. But if they had been coerced into lying (which is different than if the kids had wrongfully accused without being coerced), it would have been worth a shot to talk to as many as he could to try to avoid decades of prison.

The Friedmans case is not in any way connected to other cases. Your argument that the atmosphere of false accusations regarding pedophile promotes the Friedmans innocence is like saying that since there were a series of false bomb threats in the U.S. in the 90s, no one actually was guilty of planting and detonating a real bomb during that era.

[–] SweetD19 9 years ago

Pathetic apologist. I see the same argument on this board over and over. He's a pedophile get over it.

[–] joshtennyuk 13 years ago

How do you explain some of the kids wanting to return to class year after year, then?

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

They could have been threatened by either harm to them, harm to their families, or they would be embarrased if they didn't come back or if their families found out. It's also possible some became attached which might seem extreme - but it could happen. There are many reasons why an abused child would go back to the abuser - fact is - it happens all the time and there is no reason to believe this case would be different.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] joshtennyuk 13 years ago

I'm rewatching the movie now, and this thread has caused me to re-evaluate my original opinion. I have no idea what to think, really.

[–] lornamd-1 13 years ago

Hero-de-celloloid - I find your statement that because its possible there were false accusations it shouldn't be forgotten very bizarre. Are you saying the accusations might have been false? If so then that possibility shouldn't be forgotten. Either way I don't think anybodies saying the case should be forgotten. I think the case should be investigated again. Those who say they were coerced should be spoken to. Those who still say abuse happened should be also be listened to and it should be looked into if they were hypnotized or coerced at the time. If after a fair investigation - unlike the first one - it is decided there is enough evidence to prove Jesse's guilt then thats fine.

You ask if every victim coerced or hypnotized with false memories? Maybe. Its not like every child in the computer class say they were abused or witnessed abuse. It is not that propesterous as in studies hypnotism has created false memories in 1 in 4 people.

Jesse had no chance of anyone believing he was innocent back then so he felt his only chance was to claim he was a victim of his father. Could it be that he is lying now when he says he's innocent? Of course but its not so unlikely that a falsely accused person who has no chance of being believed would try and find some other way of not spending the next few decades in prison. Yes I am going to say that Ross Goldstein had a motive to lie because he did. Surely you have to acknowledge its a possibility that someone in that situation would do that?

willard - Police coercion and hypnotism are not unconfirmed. There is a tape of a boy being interviewed by police repeatedly denying witnessing abuse and the police telling him it must have happened and if he doesn't admit it and get help he'll probably end up an abuser. A policeman interviewed has said that he would tell kids he knew it happened. Nobody denies hypnotism was used - one of the victims talks about it - and if you do research into it you will find it can plant false memories.

Maybe Jesse did try to get the kids to tell the truth but there is such a thing as witness tampering. You acknowledge false accusations have happened and in those cases the accused didn't get the kids to take it back so why couldn't that have happened with Jesse? If Jesse believes his father is innocent he would have no reason to be angry with him. His father was advised by their lawyer that if he pled guilty he would help Jesse so he actually did try to help him.

Its unclear in the film but Jesse crying in court was actually just after he had come out of solitary confinement for about 2 weeks so its natural he would be very tearful. Yes there are differences from the McMartin case - good luck finding two cases that are exactly the same - but the McMartin case and others proves that these things can happen.

Questioning the guilt of a case with proven police misconduct is about not wanting innocent people to get punished. It has nothing to do with identifying with abusers. Maybe if you had ever been falsely accused of such a crime you would have a different view. My mother was the victim of childhood molestation - admittedly nothing as horrific as the accusations in the film - and she believes in Jesse's innocence. If you think I defend abusers read my comments on the Polanski board.

Its not impossible that some abuse took place. Maybe by them both or maybe just by Arnold. I don't believe that the children were bleeding and crying as the police reports say and nobody notices anything. Yes sexual abuse has gone on for years before but I've never heard about parents entering a room just after violent sexual abuse that leaves bleeding and noticing nothing wrong for years. It doesn't make sense. Also its a minor point but Elaine said those things about Arnolds study not the computer room.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

Many of the victims have spoken up as adults. I have previously provided sites which include their view on the crimes, the hypnotism, and the case as adults

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/vict.html#academy

Implanting memories and/or changing testimony via coercion is possible and happens - but to each and every child that testified - I find that hard to believe. Implanting memories isn't easy to do - even with a child and doing it on a scale this large would make it astonishing.

I don't think you're defending abusers just to defend them - but I have followed the case, read/heard the confessions in court and on the Geraldo show and , read the victim's statements as adults. I don't think implanting memories at this scale is as easy as people think.

As for the bleeding - these children could have been groomed to a point where there was no significant or any blood evident. It happens - the priests have abused children for years in which parents didn't know about it. How did they do it? They built up trust, they instilled fear, and they were "experts" at not leaving evidence. These victims went home and/or were picked up or they were abused in their own homes - and the parents didn't notice anything. These priests abused children for long periods of times without parents noticing. These monsters aren't going to do it so they victim would have a blood soaked underwear. They could start off slow and work their way to a point where no evidence would be noticed. I think believing that abusers couldn't get away with this type of crime is naive - as abuse has occurred for years if not decade without parents noticing.

Look - I wasn't there so all I can do is look at the courtroom proceedings, the confessions which were of free will, the testimonies of the numerous victims as children and their statements as adults, the other defendants who were convicted and then form an opinion on what happened.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] lornamd-1 13 years ago

How many children did testify? In the McMartin case 41 children claimed to have been abused after being coerced.

The police reports claimed that children were bleeding and crying after extremely brutal rapes. Yes abuse can go unnoticed for long periods of time but how could no parent notice that. If abuse did happen it didn't happen the way the police reports say it did.

Reading those letters just re-enforces my belief that the case should be re-investigated. I don't think that anonymous letters with nothing to back up their contents except an authentication by a biased judge count as proof but all the victims should be allowed to have their say. If they still say they were abused and an investigation shows they weren't hynotized then that is different but those letters aren't enough.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

they made their statements to those monsterous acts before - do you actually expect them to do it again. do you have any idea how hard it was the first time and how hard it would be again to relive those days. he plead guilty - end of story. he didn't have to, he wasn't forced - i believe he confessed in court and on a TV show - he had a choice which is more than many people get.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] lornamd-1 13 years ago

It is extremely unfortunate that innocent people would have to put themselves through that again but unfortunately it is necessary. The blame for this lies with the police for their highly unprofessional and incompetent handling of the case.

It is proven by interviews with detectives, victims and tape made by a victims mother that the police coerced children into saying they were abused and used hypnotism to get testimonies. If Jesse is guilty then is their gross mishandling of the case that calls into question his innocence and puts the victims in the position of having to defend themselves. Even if another investigation found that Jesse was guilty the detectives in the case should still lose their jobs.

Jesse was advised by his lawyer and the police that he would either be sent to prison for the rest of his life or plead to a lesser charge. Who wouldn't plead guilty under those circumstances? Innocent people have confessed in the past and it could have happened in his case. The tv interview was an attempt to paint himself as the victim of his father in the hope of getting a reduced sentence. It will always be painful for victims to have to testify but unless you are saying that people should never be given a chance to clear their name it is sometimes a necessary evil.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

Jesse was an adult who pleaded guilty. He had a choice to go to trial and/or appeal any conviction if possible. Now it's do-over time? A choice was made and the bed was made - so it's time to sleep in it. It isn't nessessary for the victims to do it all over again because he chose to plead guilty. There wasn't a gun to his head and he could have chosen to go to trial in which he could have been aquited or convicted.

He had a chance to clear his name - during the court proceedings. He chose to plead guilty - thus I don't see a need to put these victims through it again. I can't see any new evidence that would have changed anything. All the victims aren't claiming he didn't do it - in fact the one's I have read about are still claiming he did.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] lornamd-1 13 years ago

So you are saying that once someone pleads guilty the case shouldn't be re-investigated? What about the cases of innocent people plea bargaining? Was it wrong to re-investigate them?

Saying "there wasn't a gun to his head" is highly simplistic. An innocent person can feel forced to confessed for reasons other than a gun being put to their head. Whatever you believe about Jesse's guilt surely you can understand that under some circumstances if an innocent person is told by the police, their lawyer and their parents that they will go to prison for the rest of their life if they don't plead to a lesser charge they will do it.

Not all the victims are claiming he didn't do it but some are and if its going to be decided that Jesse is guilty based on claims that victims who weren't hypnotized still say it happened then it should be investigated whether that is the case.

I notice you didn't answer my question as to how many children testified so I can only assume you don't know the answer to that. What if only a tiny percentage of the children testified, a significant percentage of those who did now say they were coerced into it and the abuse didn't happen and hypnotism is found to be used on those who did? I'm not saying this is the case but if it is surely that warrants another investigation.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

He plead guilty and there is no new evidence or testimony showing he is innocent as far as I can see.

To answer your question - I don't know - he plead guilty so I don't know when they would have to testify. They made statements. If he would have went to trial - as he had that CHOICE to make - they would have had to testify and they could have been cross-examined - but he CHOSE not to go this route. Have you actually heard what the victims are saying about not being hypnotized or are you just going by what the "movie" is telling you?

No I don't think a case should be re-investigated if a person pleads guilty unless there is direct evidence that there would exonerate the person - which I don't see.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] lornamd-1 13 years ago

You still don't answer the question as to whether you can see that an innocent person would plead guilty if the police, their lawyer and parents told them they'd go to prison forever if they don't and how much choice they would feel they have in that.

The new evidence is that some of the victims now say they were not abused and that they were coerced into saying they were, proof the police used coercive methods,

I've read the letters on the website you provided links for and I've read articles about this case on the internet. If there are victims who still say abuse happened and weren't hypntised then that'll be enough to make me 99.9% sure that Jesse is guilty but links to letters on a website authenticated by a biased judge wouldn't stand up in court as proof.

My reasons for questioning Jesse's guilt are:

- the statements from kids were gotten by police that have been proven to use coercive methods and hypnotism
- some of the adult victims now say they did not witness abuse
- the evidence that there are victims who weren't hypnotised are letters on a website
- Jesse plea bargained because he was told he would go to prison forever if he didn't (and innocent people have plea bargained before)

So the evidence comes down to statements that were gotten using unprofessional methods and a guilty plea that made by someone told they had no choice with only letters on a website and the belief that an innnocent person wouldn't plea bargain to prove Jesse's guilt. You say that hypnotism on that scale doesn't happen but since you don't know how many children did give statements you don't know what scale that was. So yes I think the case needs to be re-investigated though I'm sure it never will be.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

Your question was "how many children testified" - in which I wrote I don't know because Jesse chose not to go to trial - thus probably didn't testify in the court but gave statements - they might have testified in grand jury or some other form - but the case didn't go to a trial as far as I know.

I believe there about 13 children who gave statements. If you watch the video from the site I gave - it describes how many children there were and how many were actually interviewed for the film. I hope that answers your question. Whether there were 10, 13, or 20 - hypnotizing false memories on that scale would be astonishing. Implanting false memories in one person is hard to do - let alone a dozen. According to the film - there was no proof given that they were even hypnotized before the trial during his appeal. Now I don't know if that is true or not as I wasn't there - but where are you getting the info that they were hypnotized - the film?

You can scream now if you want.

[–] isleworld-1 13 years ago

The only legal question is whether the state could have proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In Arnold's case, I am fairly confident they could have. In Jesse's case, it is a close call.

There is a vast distinction between "innocence" and "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." I seriously doubt Jesse was innocent, mind you, but just as uncertain that with an unbiased jury the prosecution would have met its burden of proof against him.

[–] hero-de-celluloid 13 years ago

"I seriously doubt Jesse was innocent, mind you"

So you think he was guilty of doing it - but don't think the prosecution had enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't know - they would have had numerous witnesses and/or victims and a third defendant who could have/probably would have testified against him. That is pretty damning even with lack of physical evidence.

You can scream now if you want.

[–] isleworld-1 13 years ago

Yes, that's where I am. That's not to say the state could not have prevailed against Jesse, but I don't think that was by any means certain. There would have been inconsistent statements to use against witnesses and the third defendant would be suspect due to his plea bargain.

[–] TopFrog 13 years ago

I agree with hero-de-celluloid, at least to the extent that he implies that the evidence was similar with regard to both Arnold and Jesse. (He and I draw very different conclusions from the totality of the evidence.) The prosecution would have had children testify that they were molested by both Arnold and Jesse. They would have testified, for example, that naked boys were lined up and serially sodomized by both Arnold and Jesse. Children in the classes alleged that Arnold, Jesse, Ross Goldstein, and two other teenagers forcibly raped boys, with one holding a child down while another raped him. Presumably they would have testified to this as well. Ross Goldstein was going to testify for the prosecution that he witnessed both Arnold and Jesse molesting boys.

Given all this, I don't see how a jury could find Arnold guilty and not find Jesse guilty as well. What additional evidence was there against Arnold that moves this from what you view as the "close call" that is the case against Jesse? As far as I see it, the only additional evidence was that Arnold received and possessed child pornography, and that Arnold admitted that he was a pedophile. None of that directly relates to the molestation charges that he was facing.

Of course my conclusion, from looking at the evidence we have available, is that the most likely thing is that no molestation happened in those computer classes, and that the allegations were the result of poor questioning techniques, misguided attempts at therapy, and community-wide hysteria. (My views are set forth in another thread, www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/board/nest/180126998?p=1.) But whatever happened, given the nature of the allegations, I don't see any way that Arnold was guilty of all he was accused of without Jesse also being guilty.

-- TopFrog

[–] isleworld-1 13 years ago

Here's one difference. I'll elaborate later on the others when I get time to read your link.

Prior past bad acts can come in under certain circumstnaces. I believe some of the past bad acts you cited would have been admissible against Arnold if he took the stand. As far as I know, there was nothing similar available to the prosecutors to impeach Jesse if he testified. There simply was no way the defense could prevail without the testimony of the defendants.

I will follow up.

[–] TopFrog 13 years ago

Actually, if you're referring to the possession and receipt of child pornography, you wouldn't have to wait for Arnold to take the stand to bring them up. I can think of at least four ways to get them in in the prosecution's case in chief. As far as an admission of being a pedophile goes, was this available to the prosecution? Everyone would infer it from the child pornography, but did he actually make an admission to the police or other person available to the prosecution?

As a defense attorney, do you really want to put Arnold on the stand? What in heaven's name would you gain with that? Sure he'll deny the molestation, but the man will be absolutely crucified on cross-examination. After the prosecution gets through with him, getting him to admit his sexual desire for children, and maybe even sexual contact with other children, is the jury going to be likely to believe him over the victims? Are they going to be sympathetic toward him? No way -- they're going to be disgusted with him. Think about Panaro's reaction during his visit with Arnold, as recounted in the film. He knew in the abstract that Arnold was a pedophile, but when he heard from Arnold's own mouth that he was excited by the presence of a small boy, he was shocked and revolted. You want the jury to have that reaction too? Put Jesse on the stand. Put Elaine up there, or the children in the classes who saw no molestation, or a parent who came in while the class was going on and saw nothing out of the ordinary. Anyone but Arnold.

-- TopFrog

[–] isleworld-1 13 years ago

...and you answer your own question about the difference in the cases between Jesse and Arnold, do you not? Jesse could take the stand, deny everything, and--as far as I know--there wouldn't be material like that you cited to impeach him. The jury might believe him, they might not, but he wouldn't be covered in the same slime as Arnold when he got off the stand. This is what I meant by a slamdunk conviction of Arnold, and a possible hung jury or, much less likely, outright acquittal of Jesse.

Let's assume that, in fact, the prosecution could have introduced the kiddie porn through pattern or common plan or scheme, or maybe something else that isn't hitting me at the moment (I think you are right but recall the old probative value vs. prejudice, which gives the judge so much discretion). That also distinguishes the cases between Jesse and Arnold, does it not?

I'll add something further to the mix in a moment, and if the answer is different from what I think it is, Jesse likely could not have taken the stand and there would indeed be the same probability of conviction.

To answer a question you posed, I really do not think Arnold's admission of past molestation was available to the prosecution. This was relayed to Nathan after the trial, from memory, and his brother only came forward after the fact as well--from memory.

That something further to add to the mix is the pornographic computer games. I've obviously read Jesse's website, and his explanation is quite convoluted about how they came into the Friedmans' possession. Was there ever proof as to whether he or Arnold or both obtained them? If Jesse, that would have destroyed him as well on the stand although not to the same degree the bad acts of Arnold would have destroyed him.

No, Arnold wasn't getting near the stand. Jesse might have been able to go there. That is what I meant regarding the differences in the cases. I think if either did not take the stand, the procession of unrebutted children alleging rape would have overwhelmed their impeachment and any defense witnesses.

I did read your link even though this had nothing to do with it. Thanks for providing it.

[–] TopFrog 13 years ago

I appreciate that there was some additional evidence against Arnold that wasn't there for Jesse, but I think that for both of them the charges stand or fall on whether the accusers are believed. The credibility of the accusers depends on not only how they come across during testimony, but also on what you've got concerning the questioning techniques of the police and the therapists, any experts who will testify to the effects that improper techniques might have had in shaping the accusers' testimony, and the strength of the testimony of other witnesses who were present in the classes and saw no molestation. What I can't see from all this is that someone would conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Arnold was a monster who openly molested the boys, but somehow Jesse, who was present at the time and is accused of the same things, perhaps didn't do it.

Regarding the pornographic computer games, I confess I don't see what is so convoluted about Jesse's explanation. Judd Martin, a friend of Jesse's, gave them to Arnold amid a bunch of other programs he no longer wanted (www.freejesse.net/Affidavits/MaltinAffidavit.pdf):

My family moved to a smaller home in the winter of 1987. By that time I had lost interest in personal computers, and I decided to give to Arnold Friedman my entire collection of software. This included some pornographic video games which were in common circulation among the community of Great Neck youth who used personal computers and with whom I had traded software. I hadn't thought to remove these video [games] from the collection when I gave it to Arnold Friedman. I am certain that the pornographic video games that were discovered by the police were part of the large software collection I had given Arnold Friedman. I never heard Arnold or Jesse Friedman make mention of any of this software, and I think it is highly likely that he never used any of the software that I gave him.

Given that, I don't see any potential that the issue of the games would have destroyed Jesse's testimony. It seems to me that he could testify that he knew nothing about them, that they were never used in class, and that they might have been among disks that were given to them by someone else.

I wouldn't recommend letting the accusers' testimony go unrebutted, but actually testimony by Arnold and Jesse isn't going to go far as rebuttal. Guilty or innocent, if they take the stand, they're going to deny the charges. The main reason to put Jesse on the stand is to show that he isn't some kind of monster, or at least that he doesn't come across as one. (This is why you can't put Arnold up there, because the best you can do with him is have him come across as a monster, but just not the same kind of monster he was accused of being.) Much better for them would be witnesses who were there in the very classes where open molestation was supposedly occurring, and who witnessed nothing of the sort.

[–] isleworld-1 13 years ago

We will have to agree to disagree on this point: whether a conviction of Arnold would have meant Jesse also would be convicted. You are right that the defendant's testimony, standing alone, would not be enough to rebut the accusers. Yet I have to conclude, based on past observation, that it would be necessary to push a jury toward acquittal based on the facts of this case as I understand them. I have absolutely no doubt that at least some of the accusers, particularly those who were hypnotized and/or subjected to a leading and/or bullying interrogation, would be badly wounded. The bizarre and unlikely "leap frog" claims, for example, would be met with incredulity on their own merit. But it only would take one accuser who came across as credible, even after a rough and masterful cross-examination, to push a jury toward conviction unless the defendant testified and didn't come across as a monster. As you know, "beyond a reasonable doubt" really isn't defined and juries tacitly use subjectivity to decide if that burden is met. Perhaps I put too much weight on the "X" factor of defendant testimony but I don't think that to be the case.

I had read the affidavit, but it still didn't clear up in my mind whether Jesse--who taught a computer class, after all--couldn't be tied to the discs and, by implication, shared them with students.

In the event you care to know what I think really happened outside a legal analysis, here it goes. I do believe Arnold molested some of the children, and Jesse at least knew about it and likely was involved to some extent. Some of the others students found out and the hysterical reaction began. Many if not the vast majority of the claims were false, but Arnold had set up his equivalent of Neverland Ranch and from time to time took liberties, most likely extraneous of the actual classes. The police took a slamdunk case or two of child rape, turned it into another McMartin-like circus, and created so much ambiguity about a garden-variety crime that we are on a message board exchanging opinions about guilt.

[–] iand247 13 years ago

Without the physical evidence I don't see how this case was continued. I mean they couldn't have had at least one child inspected by a doctor or sex crimes professional to detect any physical evidence of sodomy?

Babe 2: Pig in the City is by far the best talking pig movie of the last three hundred years.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gailmor1 13 years ago

Did you watch the second dvd? It pretty much tells you why Jesse pleaded guilty. When the police couldn't pin anything specific against Jesse and they knew he wouldn't testify against his father they decided that the classroom set up a gang bang atmosphere and therefore others must be involved. The police went after a close friend of Jesse's and coerced him into saying that he took part in events that never happened. Then they forced him to implicate others. One guy is interviewed on the film stating, under cover of darkness, that he even chased down Ross or Russ and confronted im. He admitted that he had lied. Oh, and how much time did this guy serve in jail? Well he got a reduced sentence of 6 months with a sealed criminal record. That was for stating that he had been a party to these gang bang parties. This is all of the extra footage on the second disc that didn't make it into the movie. Frankly, I was even more convinced of Jesse's innocence after watching the second disc.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 8 years ago

@ willard86

I agree with your post but for two details that I consider important. The first is that Jesse's tears in court when mitigating circumstances were being presented looked inauthentic to me. I didn't believe for one moment he felt tearful, or remorseful.

Secondly, mum may have been ignorant of the crimes and her husband's paedophelia but that does not make her an innocent in a dysfunctional family where she had no inkling of anything abnormal. It makes her an important part that enables such families to appear normal.

In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer

[–] nathan515 8 years ago

I agree, I wanted to find out that it was all a lie. I really did. The fact is that Arnold Friedman is a pedophile, 100%. I'm about 95% sure he and Jesse had sexual relations,(maybe even consensual in a way). That family is very messed up. David? Pff, he's just a clueless dumbass.
I have no doubt that Arnold and Jesse molested kids. Maybe they didn't actually play 'leap frog' or whatever, but that computer class was NOT on the up and up.