In 1987, Arnold Friedman and the youngest of his three sons – Jesse – were charged with a large number of child sexual abuse offenses. Arnold was found guilty of at least some of the charges. It is less likely, but it is possible to be guilty of some crimes from child abuse. There is little chance that he was specifically charged with all these crimes. In the meantime, Jesse is unlikely to do anything.
The document in this case concerns Friedman with contemporary interviews with the family (except for one of the three sons, who refused to participate, and Arnold himself, who had died in prison in the meantime), attorneys and others involved in the case; alleged victims and third parties experts.
But what is undoubtedly the most unexpected is also the great power of “home movie” type footage Friedman from that time. As it happens, they recently got a video camera and in the habit of filming a lot of the everyday stuff of the family. Then when allegations of child abuse arose, they continued filming. According to what I’ve read about the movie, there’s a huge amount of such footage, and it’s become such a norm to have a camera running that it’s likely most people weren’t even aware of it or changed their behavior in response. . So it’s not 100 percent white, but it’s a beautiful picture of a bright, clear family in an extraordinary situation.
The case began with Friedman, a grammarian, who was found pregnant with pornography. This is not a controversy; He was returned with him.
But when law-enforcement it was discovered that the disciples used to meet in his house. And he taught with Jesse, who in their minds had become a strong presumptive, even a violent boy. So they all came together in a list of students.
The inquiry is certainly leading from what is said in the films, unless the line is coercive. According to the example, which in the height of the child’s infamous routine of sexual abuse was terrifying, the kids were shocked until they told the researchers what they wanted to hear.
In the end, they accumulated a large number of accusations, up to hundreds of incidents of alleged abuse. And not only was the father involved, but eventually the story included Jesse, who, if anything, abused him more violently.
He gave no evidence other than the stories of the students, i.e. no physical injuries, no blood, no semen, no information he ever gave to anyone before he was questioned by the police. At the same time there were serious circumstances against the allegations. Especially since many of these things happened, as if in group situations, in a house where people, including the students’ parents, came and went without ever being called beforehand. And the students returned week after week for more lessons, and some even signed up for further lessons in subsequent semesters. (Also, all depressingly familiar to those who have looked more elaborately, and playful Satanic ritual-type sexual abuse allegations of that time).
Some disciples always assert that absolutely none of this happened in their presence. Some of the alleged victims admit to doing the whole thing to get the police off their backs. Some stick to their guns, but they’re not very convincing. Even the “memories” (which still sound pretty vague) didn’t even come back to him until he was hypnotized, which notoriously disturbs the imagination and reality.
Debbie Nathan, who has done an amazing job reporting on such cases, provides the voice of reason in the film, showing how believable it is that something like this could happen. My only complaint is that there isn’t much of it.
Reading about the film later, I think it might be that the filmmaker didn’t want to put it on the stage to make it look like it was reclining. As it is, it shows enough without beating people over the head that the crime is false, and later it is surprising that the film’s viewers tend to split the guilt or innocence of the Friedmans.
So I don’t want it to sound like a documentary that is simply a very fair account of a miscarriage of justice. I do not shy away from pointing out that people will wonder if perhaps one or the other of them was not guilty after all. And certainly as much about the family dynamics of the Friedmans, as about the matter itself.
For the first time as much first bargain, as many believe that he is never innocent. do. That turns out to be a little accurate belief in general, but it’s a little odd that he claimed to be the father. He acted as if he were sacrificing himself to his son, when such a thing was not in the place, and in truth he made it harder, in order to vindicate his son’s innocence, such as he was in the least present, when he now admitted this intercourse. abuse was done by his father. And as far as Jesse plea-bargain, he still claims that it was a pragmatic decision from his family. and especially the mother-in-law, if the matter was relevant to the case, would say with the patron, no, confessing everything to herself and affirming that it had really happened. In addition, the attorney claims that Jesse was abused by his father, and Jesse claims that the attorney came with him to pretend he was trying to get a judge. So one of them is simply a liar. (The attorney seems a little lighter to me).
Likewise, Arnold admitted in his letters that he had slept with boys at other times and places, although there is enough ambiguity to make one wonder if he did it for some opportune reason, or if he himself believed it, or. What is. For he said that he and his brother had slept together for years with little children. He reports this to his brother, who says there is no such thing to remember. (I am often here. I would see my brother denying it with some shame.) Arnold also admitted that there were other occasions in which he had intercourse with the minor in some way, but as his son David indicates, he was angry. , the concept is so vague that it only refers to something.
The main conflict with family dynamics is with the mother. The children consider Arnold and his brother Jesse and his brother Arnold to be false accusations, but their mother like hedges. What is confirmed is that Arnold’s consumption of child porn, his admitted sexual attraction to boys, his confession to some sort of confused obscenity with other children’s lewd behavior – it’s disturbing enough for him that he’s not going to hug him and offer. against these crimes without exception relying on support. They had far from ideal relationships even before these revelations, with mostly no sex life.
It’s all totally fascinating, and sometimes quite creepy. It is surprising that the participants agreed to this. I guess he felt he could make his case against the two innocent Friedmans by having all his dirty laundry aired on the movie screen.
The film is well done. I don’t know what stands out to me as a movie; The matter is being dealt with, and I restrain myself as much as possible. But I like the fact that it’s done in a simple, easy-to-follow manner, that is, the filmmaker is not too cute or too arty to get into the sensational stuff.
As I say, my catch is that certain allegations of these wild identity groups of six parties with the Friedmans beating and kidnapping all these kids< /a> also and it is also improbable, or much less than what happened, or nothing at all. But since Arnold is already without a doubt a consumer of child porn, most of us think that he is guilty of whatever else is brought, or it must be taken as if there is someone who deserves worse than
