June 26, 2013 Comments Off on Report: “Jesse Friedman Was Not Wrongfully Convicted”
Report: “Jesse Friedman Was Not Wrongfully Convicted”
Independent advisory panel says that the Review Team was “prepared to recommend without reservation that Friedman’s conviction be overturned. But that was not how the facts played out…”
MINEOLA – The District Attorney affirms the 1988 child sexual abuse conviction of Jesse Friedman. In a 155-page report released Monday by Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, the Review Team tasked with conducting the conviction integrity investigation wrote that “…by any impartial analysis, the re-investigation process…has only increased confidence in the integrity of Jesse Friedman’s guilty plea and adjudication as a sex offender.”
An independent advisory panel appointed to guide the process found the Review Team’s conclusion to be “reasonable and supported by the evidence.”….
Three 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…..
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….
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….
While maintaining his innocence prior to his eventual guilty plea, Friedman commissioned and failed at least two lie-detector tests….
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….
In a separate letter written by the Advisory Panel following the conclusion of the investigation, the independent experts involved in the case wrote that the DA’s Review Team
“…approached their work with no preconceived notions about Jesse Friedman’s guilt, and no agenda to preserve his conviction…the Review Team was prepared to recommend without reservation that Friedman’s conviction be overturned. But that was not how the facts played out…” (p. ii)
“While it was not the role of the Advisory Panel to make an ultimate judgment about Jesse Friedman’s culpability or make factual findings, we do have an obligation to express a view as to whether we believe the conclusions expressed in the Review Team’s Report are reasonable and supported by the evidence it cites. We think they are.” (p. iii)
August 19, 2010 Comments Off on The Friedmans’ child abuse case bibliography – Capturing the Friedmans info
Jesse Friedman pled guilty and confessed on TV (Geraldo).
The movie “Capturing the Friedmans” left out the fact that there was a third defendant.
Ross Goldstein, the third defendant, confessed and agreed to testify against both
The victims as adults have gone public with their being abused.
describes crimes of abuse
Capturing the Friedmans: Annotated Bibliography
Many viewers leave the theater believing that they have seen an objective documentary presented by a director who entrusted audiences to draw their own conclusions on Arnold Friedman’s and Jesse Friedman’s guilt. A careful review of the original evidence, however, shows that the case against the Friedmans was much stronger than the film revealed.
Geraldo Rivera’s interview with Jesse Friedman “Busting the Kiddie Porn Underground” February 23, 1989 — Geraldo!
Jesse’s attorney, Peter Panera, is interviewed. He tells how he and Jesse made a special trip to Wisconsin to visit Arnold Friedman in prison to convince him to reveal where he had hidden the photos and videos of the children. Arnold refused to reveal what he had done with them, despite the fact that it would have helped gain lenacy for his son….Frances Galasso, the detective-sergeant who was in charge of the Friedman case, describes Jesse’s lack of remorse for his victims and describes how he and his brother harassed some of the victims’ parents at court proceedings. She says that Jesse told the grandfather of one victim: “Well maybe we are suffering now, but with what we’ve done to your children, they’ll suffer for the rest of their lives.” http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/ctf/geraldo.html
Excerpts from interview – based on videotape recording of the show, recorded on February 23, 1989.
Geraldo: “How many kids, Jesse, did you and your father actually physically abuse in your home?”
Jesse: (long sigh, appears to be mentally counting) “I guess 17.” ….
Geraldo: “What did you do to the children?”
Jesse: “What did I do to the children? I fondled them. I was forced to pose in 100’s of photos for my father in all sorts of sexual positions with the kids and the kids likewise with myself….
The Secret Life of Arnold Friedman By Alvin E. Bessent – Newsday — LI., NY
May 28, 1989
Bessent also reports on the victims’ fear of the Friedmans:
“As the abuse escalated so did the threats. Police said the children were extensively videotaped and photographed. No pictures of the children have been recovered. But police said Arnold Friedman told the children he would send pornographic pictures of them to magazines and tell the publishers to print their names if they told what was going on. He threatened to burn their houses down. He reportedly said he would kill their parents. . . . Some of the children who testified before the grand juries received threatening telephone calls warning them not to cooperate with police.”
“Some of them still wet their beds, take baseball bats to bed with them or are unable to sleep.”
State of New York v. Arnold Friedman.
Motion for order requiring return of property seized from 17 Picadilly Road, Great Neck, Nassau County, New York, seized pursuant to search warrant of November 25, 1987. Motion #C-427, Indictment #67104 & 67430.
September 14, 1990.
Judge Abbey L. Boklan approved Arnold Friedmans’ request for the return of all property seized at the Friedman home with the exception of pornographic materials listed in this document. Materials include such items as: 5 pornographic movies, assorted order forms for pornography, assorted pornographic magazine cutouts, 2 partially nude photos of children, 3 sheets advertising homosexuality with boys, 6 photos of naked people, 3 battery operated sex aids, 1 hypodermic needle, 9 pornographic computer games (with descriptions), list of names and phone numbers of 9 victims, 2 registration sheets with names of victims
The People of the State of New York , Respondent, v. Ross G., Appellant
163 A.D.2d 529; 558 N.Y.S.2d 603; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8786
June 28, 1990 The Supreme Court of New York responds affirmatively to an appeal by Ross Goldstein who asks the state to reduce his sentence to the terms recommended and agreed to by the prosecution. Although he was not mentioned in the film, Mr. Goldstein was a third defendant who was arrested along with Arnold and Jesse Friedman. According to this document, Goldstein, a former friend of Jesse’s who was between 15 and 16 years old when he committed the crimes. He later became repulsed by the abuse, and six months before the Friedmans were arrested, Goldstein disassociated himself from Jesse Friedman and his activities. Goldstein, now age 19, confessed to the crimes and agreed to testify against both Arnold and Jesse Friedman in exchange for leniency.
Victims break their silence Victor Manuel Ramos — Newsday — LI., NY February 29, 2004 Newsday staff reporter Victor Manuel Ramos interviews several of the victims who Arnold and Jesse Friedman plead guilty to abusing.
“For Gregory, the hullabaloo over Jarecki’s film — and whether the director will pick up an Oscar tonight — is a sideshow to the legacy of the abuse. Even now, Gregory said he sometimes wakes up at night shaking, especially after hearing of other child abuse cases on the news or elsewhere. What would be passing news to others, hits home for him.
Diagnosed in his preteen years, Gregory said he has persistent rectal bleeding from the abuse. Memories aside, the physical scar will never let him forget. `This is the constant reminder I live with every day,’ Gregory said, `that I was abused.'”
Case of Arnold Friedman and Jessie Friedman “Capturing The Friedmans”
Our research into the case shows that the director of the film sacrificed truth in favor of creating artistic ambiguity. Clear evidence is omitted and facts are distorted. In addition, the film relies on popular but erroneous myths about child sexual abuse. As a result, uncertainty is created about the guilt of two confessed pedophiles — who are recast as victims — while the real victims — the boys and their families — are portrayed as untrustworthy.
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS” Documentary or Whitewash?