Updates? Whatever happened to David, the bitchy clown? And Seth and Jesse?
Capturing the Friedmans
|by Anonymous||reply 59||06/25/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 1||09/23/2012|
The mother was the worst.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||09/23/2012|
Jesse suffered the worst kind of betrayal from his mother. I see he mentions an "Elisabeth" in r1's link. Is that his wife? What about his brother the clown and Seth who refused to be part of the documentary?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||09/23/2012|
WTF R2? The mother, and perhaps the son who refused to be part of the whole thing, are the sanest of them all.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||09/23/2012|
Jarecki needs to do a documentary about Jerry Sandusky's family
|by Anonymous||reply 5||09/23/2012|
"The mother was the worst."
Right. This is DL where some misogyny trolls just completely abandon any semblance of logic and reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||09/23/2012|
She was a very annoying Jewish women, typical of her class. BUT, by comparison she was a saint.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||09/23/2012|
Guilty or innocent? I am still undecided. They certainly treated the mother HORRIBLY either way.
I was glad at the end of the movie when she started her life anew w/ her new husband.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||09/23/2012|
Something hinky may or may not have gone on, but the accusations became preposterous. And I don't believe the son who was convicted was guilty.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||09/23/2012|
this sickened me - I'll never forget the prison dayroom scene where he had to turn away from the prisoner with the young boy on his lap because he said it excited him.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||09/23/2012|
r10 - Jesse said that? I guess I don't remember the doc that well.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||09/23/2012|
The father said it, R10. Actually, the story was told by their horrible lawyer, so who knows if its true.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||09/23/2012|
I know Andrew Jarecki (we went to same college, were even in the same singing group together, hell, same vocal part, good buddies, and keep in touch). I also know the lawyer (from the Fire Island scene back in the nineties). They both take their work very seriously.
Andrew kept himself a true outsider, letting the cards play as the events were recounted and unfolded for the screen (it was originally supposed to be a documentary about clowns - until that older brother started yapping, and Andrew said "Hmm this is more interesting")
The lawyer is a bit of a ham, so he played the cameras, but he is a very sweet guy after all is said and done ... and yes, caught in defense-lawyer hell (representing someone who disgusts you)
Andrew has never had an official opinion, preferring viewers to reach their own conclusions ... but Jesse is not innocent. When I confronted andrew about it, after a brief pause, he gave me one of his deceiving smirks that leave you wondering whether he's kidding or not, but I knew he was concurring with me.
Poor Jesse's one twisted individual who was sucked into it early enough. And as we can see, all three brothers who participted in the documentary worshipped their father. Jesse, being the youngest, cutest (and thus handpicked by Dad) and most impressionable, simply couldn't turn the other way in denial.
He was groomed. Too many unanswered questions... and still claiming town "hysterics" did him in. Frankly, had he played the victim of a controlling, sexually abusive father (which he was), I would have believed some glimmer of innocence. But using the same arguments his denying father - caught with child pornography in the home - used until the day he died simply makes him out to be Daddy's cohort.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||09/23/2012|
Interesting, R14. My impression was Jesse was innocent and the father guilty of child porn possession only.
Is David the clown gay?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||09/24/2012|
[quote]Something hinky may or may not have gone on,
By which you mean some hinky hanky-panky?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||09/24/2012|
Bullshit, r14. What exactly are you saying Jesse was guilty of? Being molested by his father? Maybe. But it's obvious from the movie that the director doesn't think the alleged crime at issue ever happened, so there's no way he thinks Jesse was complicit. What do you get out of making up bullshit like that?
|by Anonymous||reply 17||09/25/2012|
[quote]But it's obvious from the movie that the director doesn't think the alleged crime at issue ever happened,...
No it isn't.
The only thing obvious from the movie is that the director wants the viewer to reach his/her own conclusions.
The rest of the things I said in my post (other than the facts that I know Andrew and the Lawyer) are my opinion, so it's really stupid of you to assume I'm making stuff up when it's MY opinion.
Your passionate post only shows you come from a biased stance. Clown, is that you?
To answer r15, I have no idea whetheror not David the Clown is gay. Perhaps r17, the AUTHORITY AND LAST WORD on EVERYTHING re "Capturing the Friedmans" could answer you or better yet, force his/her opinion on you, cussing and all.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||09/25/2012|
I remember this being the best documentary I have ever seen, for the simple fact that the viewer was left having to decide for himself. Fascinating that Jesse wasn't as innocent as I originally thought. It did sound very odd some of the things that were reported (leap frog, etc.) in the computer class and I thought this sounds like the kids' imaginations. The way the police and psychologists hounded them made it sound very "McMartin" to me. Add to that the fact that most of the children recanted their charges except for one "student" and I was sure it never happened. I must admit, it's a shocker that Jessee was involved. One of the oddest families ever. I remember being shocked to realize the father was guilty when, in jail, he asked his lawyer to move to block Friedman's sight line of a young boy who he said was turning him on or something.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||09/25/2012|
"Andrew has never had an official opinion, preferring viewers to reach their own conclusions"
Oh, he had an official opinion, alright;
"Criticism intensified as Jarecki's role in deliberately choosing not to pursue his firm belief in the Friedmans' innocence became publicly known. In his review, Ebert had recounted Jarecki's statement at the Sundance Film Festival that he did not know whether Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guilty of child molestation. Roger Ebert roundly praised Jarecki for communicating this ambiguity. It has since emerged that Jarecki funded Jesse Friedman's appeal. Writing for The Village Voice, Debbie Nathan â who was hired by Jarecki as a consultant after having been interviewed for the film â wrote of Jarecki, "Polling viewers at Sundance in January, he was struck by how they were split over Arnold and Jesse's guilt. Since then, he's crafted a marketing strategy based on ambiguity, and during Q&As and interviews, he has studiously avoided taking a stand."
I personally don't give a damn what happens to these freaks. The father admitted molesting at least two boys; the guy was a pedophile. And Jesse has no credibility at all. In a 1989 interview with Geraldo Rivera in prison, Jesse said he was sexually abused by his father and apparently confesses to abusing children himself. He has since recanted these statements, saying that his lawyer advised him to make them because it would help his appeal case. You can't believe anything he says.
If I recall correctly there was a scene in the film where Jesse arrived at court for his sentencing. Out in the parking lot he was capering and mugging and acting goonily for the camera, the way he and his goofball father and brothers had a tendency to do. He acted like he didn't have a care in the world and was obviously enjoying himself. Once in the courtroom he did a complete turnaround, acting tearful and sorry and remorseful. He's obviously quite a bullshit artist.
The father and the brothers created a weird, incestuous boy's club for themselves, completely shutting the mother out. I don't know how she stood it for so long.
I can believe that these weirdos were capable of anything.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||09/25/2012|
OK, let's re-cap once more -
IN THE MOVIE, Andrew Jarecki did not have an official opinion. His intent was very clear, as said to me by him and as made clear from the cinematic POV: let the audience decide.
PERSONALLY, including whatever other actions he may have pursued afterwards, is another issue altogether.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||09/25/2012|
The way I figure it in regard to Jesse is that he was groomed to procure for his father and he also had the same tenancies as his father. I also think that the father molested all of his sons.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||09/25/2012|
r20 - Just because someone is a "weirdo" in your pea brain doesn't mean they're automatically guilty, nor is it 'good enough' to charge someone for crimes he didn't necessarily commit because of incidents in his past.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||09/25/2012|
R22 = Catherine Holly
|by Anonymous||reply 24||09/25/2012|
"I also think that the father molested all of his sons."
Based on what evidence?
You idiots are pulling things out of your asses.
They were not guilty. They were victims of a McMartin-esque witch hunt.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||09/25/2012|
Jesse's tweezed, jailhouse tranzz eyebrows told a sordid tale. The father was spine-tinglingly repulsive. Guilt by intuition. Glad the mother escaped. Obviously, it was a "he-man woman haters club" kind of household, very macho and alpha all around.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||09/25/2012|
I agree. I thought they were brutal to the mother. I actually liked the mother. I'm glad she found peace in a second marriage and lives a tranquil life.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||09/25/2012|
Are you queens really so unsophisticated that you couldn't tell the director thought they were innocent of the crime they were accused of (although obviously Arnold was a creepy pedo)?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||09/26/2012|
I was always forced to sit on my ancient gay uncle's lap, presumably to warm over his wizened old todger. God it was tiresome. My whole life has been given up to the pleasure of men, with very little return!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||09/26/2012|
[quote]Are you queens really so unsophisticated ...
The only unsophisticated things here are your tired unsupported argument (shoving it at people repeatedly won't make it any more factual), your language, and your people skills
|by Anonymous||reply 30||09/26/2012|
Wtf are you talking about, r30? Why are you personally insulted? Are you the same dizzy queen pretending to know the director upthread?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||09/26/2012|
So, r14 was pretending to personally know the director, referring to him severally by his first name, and trying to mislead us into believing the director thought the Friedmans were guilty only to be caught out by indisputable evidence of his belief in Jesse's innocence? How embarrassing for you.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||09/30/2012|
Last I heard, the Friedmans have started a daycare franchise. They've partnered with the Catholic church, and the first location will be in Vatican City. The chain is called Heavenly Bodies.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||09/30/2012|
If I remember correctly, not sure if its in the DVD extras or at the end of the movie, Jesse is the only son willing to forgive his mother despite the betrayal. The clown (David) and the other brother who refused to be part of the documentary because he didn't want it to affect the lives of his young family (Seth) had rightfully cut the old witch off and had refused to see or speak to her for years.
Such a vile woman ... she remarried but that doesn't cover up for the hatred from her own kids. She got what she deserved and will probably die alone and her kids won't be at her funeral.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||09/30/2012|
R34: How is the mother a vile woman when there is not even a shadow of doubt that her husband was stashing kiddie porn in their home and molesting kids? I'm not sure how her actions could be considered a betrayal when she wanted her husband to do the right thing and spare their children.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||09/30/2012|
r35, the mother condemned her own son who many believe to be innocent. And I don't think there's "not even a shadow of doubt" of molestation at the computer school. Many of those kids recanted, they had been coached on what to say. Also, in the extras, one of police women tried to insinuate Jesse and his best friend had a homosexual relationship i.e gay ergo pedophile.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||09/30/2012|
Please. This was such a clear cut case of hysteria and tainted witnesses that it is text book how NOT to investigate this kind of case.
I absolutely believe that Jesse's lawyer led him to his guilty plea which included his statements about being abused and falsely confessing to molesting. As someone who has handled these cases for two decades I can tell you that there are ways to get your client to a certain position and make it seem like you just laid out the options for him. This can happen in any kind of case.
When you are faced with life in prison or some unimaginable sentence of 30 years then you start to calculate what a false confession and a guilty plea to an endurable sentence will cost you in the end. It is a very difficult position for a lawyer to be in. But in the final analysis the lawyer was not present at the time of the alleged offense and almost always has to accept their client's word if he wants to plead guilty.
There is absolutely no credible evdence that sexual molestation occurred in that computer class. Further there was no physical corroboration and the described alleged scenarios defied belief. All of the witness evidence was tainted by discredited police interviews and, as pointed out above, recanted except by the original kid the police got to say there was molestation. That kid was emotionally disturbed and had serious issues. None of the accusations were independent - they all arose as a result of bullying by the investigators and out of the initial investigation of a mail order magazine ordered by the father. The police assumed there must be molestation going on because of the magazine. They created the case out of thin air and it is terrifying how easily the kids and parents were manipulated. Even scarier is how easily juries are willing to believe such charges.
And quite frankly it doesn't matter to me what Jarecki thinks. He may have done a documentary but he's not an expert in this area. And thinking you have a clue to the case because you think someone gave you a wink and a nod is ridiculous.
We've hashed this out ad nauseum years ago here and nothing has changed.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||09/30/2012|
Why is no one making interesting documentaries about people anymore? They're all about politics or bad food or dirty water or evil companies; shit everybody already knows about. I want to see more docs about people.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||09/30/2012|
Exactly r38. After seeing Capturing the Friedmans, I started keeping an eye out for new documentaries about people and the interesting lives the lead. Sadly, they're few and far between. Recommendations would be most welcome.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||09/30/2012|
Just because some of us are not prone to mass hysteria shouldn't give you cause to label us pesos, r40.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||09/30/2012|
R39, this was posted elsewhere and I watched it last night. It made me think of Capturing the Friedmans.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||09/30/2012|
Thanks r42. Looks interesting. Bookmarked to watch later.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||09/30/2012|
Somethings Wrong With Aunt Diane has a similar vibe, R38.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||09/30/2012|
r41 - I believe what r40 was implying is that gay men are by nature sympathetic to pedophiles. Not worth replying to. Just F&F.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||10/03/2012|
'Aunt Diane' is indeed similarly disturbing and intriguing even though it isn't about pedophilia.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||10/03/2012|
Well exploiting mentally-ill people is one of the usual documentary subjects. TV seems to do a lot of that these days as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||10/03/2012|
"They were not guilty. They were victims of a McMartin-esque witch hunt."
The father ADMITTED molesting two boys, you idiot. As for Jesse, nobody can believe anything he says. He confesses and then recants. He's not credible.
I felt compassion for only the mother. Her life must have been a living hell for decades. Imagine having a creepy pedo for a husband and a bunch of weirdo goofballs for sons. They rejected her in favor of each other, the douchebags.
The cunty Debbie Nathan, author of "Sybil, Exposed" is in this documentary. She's of the belief that most child abuse accusations are bogus. What a bitch!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||10/03/2012|
'Aunt Diane' is indeed similarly disturbing and intriguing even though it isn't about pedophilia."
The only thing disturbing about "Aunt Diane" is the total cluelessness of her idiot husband and sister-in-law and the film's attempts to portray Schuler as a "good" person who made a mistake (driving drunk and killing eight people, including herself; that's a pretty big "mistake). Obviously, and I do mean obviously, Diane Schuler was a closet alcoholic, a control freak with a lot of anger issues. She was a time bomb, and none of her idiot friends and relatives had the slightest idea that something might be wrong with the driven, aggressive, secretive Diane. It took the horrific deaths of eight people, four of them children, to make them wake up and see that there were something wrong with Aunt Diane.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||10/03/2012|
R39, try 'Crumb.'
A more messed up family is hard to imagine. Does anyone know what became of the sisters?
|by Anonymous||reply 50||10/07/2012|
[quote]Well exploiting mentally-ill people is one of the usual documentary subjects. TV seems to do a lot of that these days as well.
Keeping up with the Kardashians Real Housewives of NY/NJ/Beverly Hills/ECT Gallery Girls
|by Anonymous||reply 51||10/07/2012|
"Crazy Love" is another documentary about people that'll leave you shaking your head at the strangeness of certain people. You won't believe this couple.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||10/13/2012|
Those two are mentally ill r52, both of them.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||10/13/2012|
The mother put up with a lot of shit from her sons. She was treated like dirt. Give her a break.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||10/13/2012|
That mother also seemed to be living on a self-made island of denial, like many mothers of people who are molested. My mother was molested by her father (using the terms "mother" and "father" loosely) when she was young. The mother knew. Oh yes she did. And she did nothing to protect her daughter.
In the doc, Mom comes across sympathetic and did seem totally bullied by her family. But her denial was extreme. She mentioned that her husband liked to "meditate" over these kiddy porn magazines. Of course she knew what he was doing. That should have been her first clue.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||10/13/2012|
R55, Though the mother did admit that the husband told her YEARS ago about his dalliance with a child. So, she knew something and chose to block it out or ignore it.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||10/13/2012|
Did you watch the same movie r55? The mother was treachery personified ... to her son. Remember, we're talking about Jesse here, not his father, who may have had some disturbing issues, but certainly didn't mass abuse the kids at the computer class.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||10/13/2012|
Any good docs this year?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||10/22/2012|
I always thought maybe the father was guilty of something, obviously, but that Jesse was innocent...I figured he was caught up in the hysteria surrounding his father's arrest and had to sacrifice 13 years of his young life in prison for him.
But now it turns out he was guilty all along.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||06/25/2013|