..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

January 9, 2004

Capturing The Friedmans
A Factual Response To An Angry Attack

January 9, 2004

Dear Editor,

I am one of the lawyers working on a pro-bono basis (without compensation) on the Jesse Friedman case, and I am responding to the posting on your site regarding the case and the movie Capturing the Friedmans.

This unsigned posting is rife with inaccuracies. At this very sensitive time, when Jesse's motion is in front of a judge in Nassau County Court, having patently inaccurate information appear on the internet can only harm his chances of succeeding in the already difficult task of overturning his conviction. This information should have been fact-checked before it was posted; most of these items are not matters of opinion and we have identified the correct facts, with citations, in Jesse's legal brief. In addition, I will respond to each of the inaccuracies below.

Earl Nemser, Esq.
Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman
New York City

______________________________________

(Unsigned posting in italics - Earl Nember response in bold)

"CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS"
Documentary or Whitewash?
Have you seen Andrew Jarecki's award-winning film? Did it leave you with the impression that Jesse Friedman and maybe his father, Arnold, were victims of a witch hunt conducted by an inept and overzealous investigation team? That conclusion is no accident. Jarecki omitted incriminating evidence that might have made you think differently about Jesse and Arnold. Consider this information, and decide for yourself if this well-reviewed "documentary" can be trusted.

[This comment implies that the filmmakers shaded the film to support the Friedman version of the events. In fact, more than half of the 21 people interviewed in the film were members of the police department, the prosecution, and prosecution witnesses. Because of this objectivity, viewers are permitted to draw their own conclusions from information gleaned during the filmmakers' three-year investigation of the case, just as a jury would have, if there had been a trial. The Friedmans had no prior relationship with the filmmakers and were not permitted to see the film until it was complete.]

1. What Arnold and Jesse admitted under oath: The film shows--but minimizes the fact- - that Arnold and Jesse admitted to molesting 13 boys, ages 7-11. Arnold pled to 8 counts of sodomy, 28 counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and also admitted to ramming a child's head into a wall in front of other children. Jesse pled to 17 counts of sodomy, 4 counts of first degree sexual abuse.

[Rather than minimizing the guilty pleas, the film shows them using archival television footage of both pleas. It also shows the evidence the prosecutor withheld from the Friedmans, which included the improper methods - such as hypnosis -- used by the police to elicit the testimony of the alleged victims who initially said nothing had happened to them. Without this information, in an atmosphere of hysteria associated with the now-debunked "sex-ring" cases of the late 80's, and with Judge Boklan's decision to allow cameras in the courtroom for the first time in Nassau County history, the Friedmans had little chance of succeeding at trial. Jesse Friedman has said in his motion that threatened with a life sentence, he pled guilty to crimes he did not commit, in return for a 6-18 year sentence.]

2. Arnold had an established history as a child molester: The film acknowledges that Arnold was an admitted pedophile. He admitted to abusing his own brother when the brother was 8. Although initially admitting to abusing only one boy, Arnold admitted in a therapy session with Elaine to abusing (though not sodomizing) two boys, one of whom was the child of his good friend. He went to therapy out of fear that he would molest his own children.

[Arnold Friedman was a user of pornography and confessed to contact with two boys. Jesse has no such history. This is extensively covered in the film.]

3. Was no evidence found in the house beyond one stack of porn? (1) Although Jarecki shows the house looking porn free and a voice-over says porn was only found in the office, the prosecutor says in the movie that child pornography was found all over the house.

[This is false. The prosecutor in the film actually states "There was a dearth of physical evidence" and "We didn't find any of that." In fact, the complete Search Warrant Inventory, the official record created on November 3, 1987 by the postal inspector and shown in the film, shows that the only pornography that was found in the house was a small pile of old magazines behind a piano in Arnold Friedman's private office. A later search by police, documented on November 20, showed no additional material.]

(2) In 1986, Arnold Friedman mail-ordered "Boy Love," a magazine featuring graphic pictures of men having sex with children, which led to a sting operation. Jarecki doesn't say that other child- porn magazines were found on classroom shelves; the boys said Arnold used them to initiate discussions of sex.

[This false statement about pornography found on classroom shelves is directly contradicted by the November 3 and November 20 police Search Warrant Inventories, the authoritative documents on what was found in the house and where. The author of the Newsday article in which this statement appeared received this information from the police but did not fact-check it against the Inventory documents. The willingness of the police to make false statement to the press in this case is documented in Jesse Friedman's legal motion.]

(3) a) Jarecki fails to mention that parents were not allowed into the classroom.

[This is false. In Jesse Friedman's legal motion, a parent of one computer student (Margalith Georgalis) signed a sworn affidavit stating that she regularly entered the Friedman house before, during, and after classes, and never saw anything improper. Other parents confirm this in interviews.]

b) or that nine obscene computer games were found in Friedman"s classroom such as "Dirty Movie" ("animation of woman who undresses, spreads her legs and then masturbates/ urinates"), and "Seasons Greeting" ("animation of Mickey Mouse, dressed in a Santa suit, appears with erection and ejaculates"). An early newspaper report said "Talking Sam", in which a male figure exposes his genitals, was used to demonstrate and initiate touching games with the boys. Boys were allowed to take these computer disks to their homes, where a few were found by police.

[The film did not fail to mention these games, and in fact shows the games onscreen. Witness Judd Maltin states in his sworn affidavit that these games were commonly available and that the ones found by the police came from Judd's own collection of computer discs which he had given to the Friedmans.

By that time I had lost interest in personal computers, and I decided to give to Arnold Friedman my entire collection of software. The games that were discovered by the police were in common circulation among the community of Great Neck youth who used personal computers and with whom I had traded software. 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.
-Affidavit of Judd Maltin, 440 motion, January 8, 2004

In addition, a former computer student states in his affidavit that he never used pornographic computer games in the Friedman home.]

(4) Numerous children, ages 7-12, disclosed similar details about sexual "games" such as leap-frog and Simon says.

[No child's testimony in the case ever stated that they participated in sexual games. The charges related to these games were only that others had "witnessed" these games being played. The children who were allegedly forced to play these games have never been identified and never pressed charges. ]

(5) Jarecki didn't mention that child-sized dildos were found in a cabinet just outside the classroom.

[This sensational phrase comes from a Newsday report, not from the Search Warrant Inventory. There is no product manufactured by this name. One adult sexual aid was found in the home, and not near the computer class.]

4. What about the witness who was left out of the film? Jesse's friend, Ross Goldstein, witnessed and admitted to participating in the crimes, could identify the victims, and would have testified in court. He pled guilty to 3 counts of first-degree sodomy. Both he and Jesse pled to one count of using a child in a sexual performance (pornography).

[Goldstein was actually one of a series of neighborhood boys brought into the case by the police, who had theorized that there was a "sex ring" operating out of the Friedman house with more than five adults simultaneously raping ten children. After vehemently defending himself, and being threatened with a 50 year jail term if found guilty, Goldstein ultimately accepted a deal to testify against Jesse in return for a 6 month term in county jail and no criminal record. Once Ross testified, no charges were ever brought against any of the other boys who had been alleged to be involved. We understand that this story is included in the DVD version of Capturing the Friedmans.]

5. Why didn't the boys tell anyone? Children "tell" about abuse indirectly. In 1989 some wet their beds, took baseball bats to bed, could not sleep. The children reported Arnold threatened to burn down their houses, kill parents, if they told.

[This homespun theory is disproven by numerous scientific studies. In one well-known study (E. Gray, UNEQUAL JUSTICE: THE PROSECUTION OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE (MacMillan 1993) it was shown that two-thirds of child victims of sexual abuse who were threatened not to disclose the improper conduct revealed it anyway.]

6. Why was there no physical evidence? Jarecki fails to mention that the Friedmans pled guilty so none was sought. Physical evidence is typically rare in such cases. Many assume that child sexual abuse must leave gaping tears and telltale scars, but due to the nature of children's bodies, even when there are physical signs, most disappear in a few days.

[The idea that evidence was not sought by the police is false. As stated by the prosecutors and police in the film (Assistant D.A. Onorato, Det. Galasso) they searched unsuccessfully for evidence for months while Jesse Friedman prepared for trial. They also did not find any of the hundreds of photographs and videotapes they alleged the Friedmans had made. As for medical evidence, the police alleged the Friedmans had "slammed" children's heads into walls and committed other non-sexual violent acts that would have produced physical trauma even if sexual abuse did not.]

7. Can Jesse's retraction of his father's abuse of him be believed? Jesse said in a 1989 interview that he was "halfway between loving and hating" his father. He said Arnold fondled and later sodomized him. Jesse started seeing a psychiatrist at the age of 10; he was diagnosed manic depressive. He started using drugs at 16 and was soon stoned on a daily basis; his weight ballooned; he had no friends. Court psychiatric testimony described Jesse's joy when his father turned from Jesse to children in the class. When interviewed on the Geraldo Rivera Show, Jesse sobbed while describing sexual abuse by his father and confessed to abusing three children. He said, "I fondled [the children]...I was forced to, to pose in hundreds of photos for my father in all sorts of sexual positions with the kids..." He now claims that his story and his tears were "fictionalized to win leniency". However, he had already been sentenced. So which is the truth -- his admission or his recent retraction?

[When Jesse Friedman pled guilty, he asked for leniency on the basis that he was a victim of his father. He has stated that this was because he wanted the parole board to read his statement in the future when considering the possibility of releasing him before he served his full 18 year sentence. He made similar statements to the press in an effort to win leniency from the future parole board. This is why the story was still relevant even after his sentencing. He was also hopeful, having already been attacked while in jail, that this story might reduce the chances of his being killed in prison.]

8. What else do we know about the Friedmans? They often appear confused. Sometimes they remember that "it" happened, sometimes not. Arnold's brother and David hit their heads, saying maybe someday they'll remember something, but they don't, now. Jesse describes them as sweeping things under the rug. When Elaine saw one of Arnold's child porn magazines she didn't register what it was until she looked again. The film shows her being mistreated by her sons for questioning Arnold's innocence. Victoria News describes "one astonishing sequence [of the film], on the morning of one of the sons' sentencing, the boys decide to shoot footage while harassing the parents of some of the alleged victims."

[The contention that the Friedmans are confused or sometimes remember the abuse happening is false. There are no such quotes in any interview in the film.]

9. What else do we know about Arnold? As a child, Arnold witnessed his mother having sex with various men. Elaine, in a 1989 article, said that her normally emotionless husband was almost in tears when police took his child porn photos. Arnold's motion from prison to have them returned (as well as the names and numbers of numerous victims) was denied. In the film, Jesse's attorney describes Arnold in a prison visit asking to move to another table because he is excited by a 4 or 5 year old boy bouncing on his father's lap nearby.

[The claim that Arnold made a motion from prison to have pornography or other materials returned to him is false. Many of the family's other possessions had been seized by the police and the family (not Arnold) made a request to return those normal household items.
With respect to the attorney's story about Arnold Friedman asking to move to another table, the more likely explanation is the one from Arnold Friedman, who said that it was accepted practice in prison for convicted child molesters not to sit near children in the waiting room to avoid recriminations from the children's incarcerated relatives.]
____________________________