Capturing the Friedmans

Convicted Sex Offender Sues District Attorney

Jesse Friedman served 13 years in prison after confessing to molesting children.  He continues fighting to clear his name with the help of Andrew Jarecki.  It was announced last month that convicted sex offender Jesse Friedman’s law suit against Nassau District Attorney Kathleen Rice will proceed.  Friedman filed a suit against the DA  and two of her aides for defamation.  After initially dismissing Friedman’s suit, the judge has now decided to let Friedman proceed with his case.

This law suit filed on behalf of Friedman, with the support of director Andrew Jarecki, has sparked a controversial debate:

If convicted of child molestation in the court of law, is it right for the offender to sue for defamation?

It is important to put ourselves in the shoes of Friedman’s victims, and victims family members.  How do they feel?  How do the victims feel seeing their attacker fight to clear his name after being convicted by a jury?   Even after the Nassau County Review Team conducted a reinvestigation of the case as requested, the conviction was upheld.  The report stated the original conviction against Friedman was justified.

In fact, the reinvestigation found several errors made by Andrew Jarecki while producing his film, Capturing the Friedmans.  Jarecki’s intention of his film Capturing the Friedman’s has been under scrutiny for a long time.  His failure to comply with the investigation team revealed his true intentions of the film: to create ambiguity and manipulate the victims to portray Jesse Friedman in a certain light.   This ambiguity created would earn Jarecki a storm of media attention and millions of dollars.

http---makeagif.com--media-8-05-2014-Pw8X9L

New York Post: Filmmaker Andrew Jarecki Biased In Favor Of Friedman

Andrew Jarecki

Andrew Jarecki: Advocate for a convicted child molester?

After the original conviction against Jesse Friedman, the Nassau County DA was pressured into conducting a reinvestigation of the case, according to Newsday.  The Review Team took three years to conduct the full reinvestigation, that resulted in the reaffirmation of Jesse Friedman’s guilty conviction.  The report also blasted filmmaker Andrew Jarecki for being biased in Friedman’s favor.

When the Nassau Country District Attorney submitted the results of their reinvestigation of Jesse Friedman,  the report revealed Jesse Friedman was caught with pornographic material in his prison cell.  According to the New York Post,

“Prison disciplinary records show that Friedman was caught possessing a magazine photograph depicting two nude children, and was punished for writing allegedly fictional accounts of bestiality, incest and child rape…”

The reinvestigation determined that original sanctions against convicted child molester, whom director Andrew Jarecki continues to advocate for, were accurate and were upheld.

 

ANDREW JARECKI PROPS UP JESSE FRIEDMAN AS THE POSTER BOY FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Andrew Jarecki, the multimillionaire director behind “Capturing the Friedmans,” continued his assault on victims of sexual abuse by throwing a party in honor of convicted child molester Jesse Friedman at his lavish New York City home last month.

In June, Friedman surfaced at a party hosted by Andrew Jarecki and his wife Nancy to celebrate the launch of the Marshall Project, a not-for-profit news organization focused on reforming the criminal justice system.

Jarecki’s celeb-filled bash – which landed him on Page Six of the New York Post – is the latest stunt by the controversial director to gain publicity for his films.

Friedman – who was found 100% guilty of sexually abusing children even after his case was reviewed by an independent panel of experts – is an ironic choice for the face of an organization that seeks to start “a national conversation” about the criminal justice system.

First, Friedman is middle-aged, white and male – which hardly speaks to the racial bias in our nation’s courts and prison.

Secondly, Friedman was not the victim of mandatory sentencing for low-level offenses, like marijuana possession. Faced with over 100 counts of sodomy, Friedman failed two lie-detector tests, confessed to his crimes and pled guilty to molesting 13 children. He was paroled after serving only 13 years of an 18-year prison sentence.

Lastly, Friedman’s conviction was not the result of bad or incompetent lawyers. A top-notch legal team including the famed civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby has long represented Friedman. On top of that, much of cost of Friedman’s numerous appeals has been bankrolled by the wealthy Jarecki.

But the hypocrisy doesn’t end there.

How does an organization dedicated to “excellent journalism about the U.S. court and prison systems” align itself with Jarecki – who has been publicly criticized for distorting crucial facts about the Friedman case?

After the release of his film, six victims of the Friedmans bravely came forward and accused Jarecki of creating “more ambiguity than actually existed about the case both to heighten the dramatic impact of the firm and to elicit sympathy for the Friedmans.”

Jesse Friedman was not wrongly convicted – and Andrew Jarecki is not an unbiased documentary filmmaker.

The founders of the Marshall Project should be wary of these wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Andrew Jarecki

“They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” – Matthew 7:15

Stay Aware, stay up-to-date: Follow @AndrewJareckiNo on Twitter.

Child-Abuse Experts Point Out Jarecki Intentionally Omitted Damning Evidence Against The Friedmans

In article published by the Seattle Times, Video Writer Mark Rahner states that Andrew Jarecki’s film, Capturing the Friedmans, may be a misnomer according to child-abuse experts.

According to Rahner, child-abuse experts pointed out that Andrew Jarecki intentionally omitted lots of damning evidence:

The Seattle TimesDirector Andrew Jarecki intentionally omitted lots of damning evidence against the Friedmans to maintain a “Rashomon”-like film with no clear judgments — and effectively acting as son Jesse Friedman’s advocate…” Rahner goes on to say, “To make an entertaining movie, Jarecki never answers the “How guilty” question.”

Several media outlets have published stories regarding Andrew Jarecki’s manipulative tactics in the product of his film.  This website serves as a source to educate the public on the investigations of Andrew Jarecki and reveal the truth.

It is all too typical that we see those in a position of power and money, take advantage of innocent people in order to better themselves.  In this instance, its a film director, Andrew Jarecki, who has no regard for the sexually abused victims involved in the case or their families.  Any type of abuse is  a serious matter that should not be taken lightly.  Victims of abuse should be treated with dignity and respect.

Andrew Jarecki | Seattle Times

Andrew Jarecki intentionally omitted evidence

 

Read the full story about Andrew Jarecki on The Seattle Times website.

Six Victims Expose Andrew Jarecki for Falsifying Film

Sharon Waxman, a correspondent for the New York Times, reported that film director Andrew Jarecki has been criticized by six former victims of his film, “Capturing the Friedmans.” (Watch Andrew Jarecki Exposed on YouTube for more information about why the director has been criticized).

In Waxman’s interview, the victims expose Andrew Jarecki for his misrepresentation of evidence in his film.  In the production of his film, in which he asserts was a fair representation of the Friedmans investigation, Andrew Jarecki omitted and distorted evidence, as well as other imperative information about the case.

“The six are suggesting that the director, Andrew Jarecki, created more ambiguity than actually existed about the case both to heighten the dramatic impact of the film and to elicit sympathy for the Friedmans.”

Read the full article on the New York Times website.

Visit the Andrew Jarecki Lies Facebook Page for the latest updates in the effort to expose director Andrew Jarecki for his insensitivity and disregard for the victims and victims family.

Andrew Jarecki

New York Times: “Victims Say Film on Molesters Distorts Facts”

NY Daily News: Andrew Jarecki Failed To Provide Comprehensive Account

In an article published by the New York Daily News, Dareh Gregorian exposes film director Andrew Jarecki for failing to provide a comprehensive account of entire case against Jesse Friedman, for which was the basis of Jarecki’s film, ‘Capturing the Friedmans’.

The conclusion reached by the Nassau County District Attorney’s three-year reinvestigation into the case, was that Jesse Friedman, was not wrongfully convicted.  The 172-page report also criticized director Andrew Jarecki for using misleading, out-of-context snippets of interviews to further his campaign to absolve Friedman and to create ambiguity in his film.

“‘Capturing the Friedmans’ was a provocative and entertaining movie, but it was not an exhaustive account of the entire case against Jesse Friedman. The Review Team had to go behind the excerpts and sound bites that the producers used in the film and other ‘reels’ and exhibits the producers have produced over the course of this re-investigation,”

According to the Daily News, the Nassau County District Attorney’s report also claimed Andrew Jarecki would not hand over some of the evidence under his control.  Withheld evidence included:

  • Unedited versions of interviews with Jesse Friedman
  • Unedited versions of interviews with Jesse Friedman family members
  • Unedited versions of interviews with another co-defendant involved in the case

Furthermore, Andrew Jarecki told the Daily News that he felt his investigation was far more thorough than the “DA’s ‘superficial’ probe.”

Andrew Jarecki continues to face a great deal of scrutiny for the deceitful tactics he used while making his film, ‘Capturing the Friedmans’.

Resources:

 

Andrew Jarecki Inconsistent In Defending Research

New York Times

In the New York Times article, “Victims Say Film on Molesters Distorts Facts,” author Sharon Waxman highlights the scrutiny faced by film director Andrew Jarecki and his work in Capturing the Friedmans.

When the New York Times asked Andrew Jarecki about his research for the film, Jarecki was inconsistent in his responses to the questions.  Furthermore, Jarecki was asked about a lie-detector test that Jesse Friedman took and failed while he protested his innocence, to which Jarecki claimed he knew nothing about the test.  However, an interview online revealed Jarecki had knowledge when he spoke in detail about the lie-detector test, saying he considered it “inconclusive.”

The New York Times article also brings to light the lack of in-depth research Andrew Jarecki conducted during his film production.  Lawyer Salvatore Marinello, who represented four of the victims involved in the case, told the New York Times that Andrew Jarecki, made no effort to reach his clients for interviews for his film.

”I see the film as a capsulized version of what was taking place in the Friedman household during the time the case was pending,” Mr. Marinello said. ”There’s no doubt that it’s fascinating. But why are we reliving these events? Because some director decided to make a movie. They believe the motion filed on Jesse’s behalf was simply a result of publicity garnered from the movie, that there’s no factual basis.”

Resources:

 

Director Andrew Jarecki Misses the Facts in Documentary

When it comes to documentary films, it can be difficult for viewers to tell where ethical research leaves off and self-interest steps in. Cineaste Magazine provides a detailed analysis of Capturing the Friedmans, the controversial film directed by Andrew Jarecki and the challenges of theatrical documentaries.

“How we see them [the Friedmans] is a product of Andrew Jarecki’s and editor Richard Hankin’s and composer Andrea Morricone’s pointed esthetic choices. Nor is this, I would contend, simply a bullshit countertruism. Jarecki, like Michael Moore and Steve James and a dozen other ‘cutting-edge’ documentary practitioners, traffics in grossly manipulative dramatic structures and effects of a kind usually associated with classical Hollywood…”

“So what is it, exactly, that Jarecki does to pump the dramatic quotient, hence raise the emotional stakes for his audience?” asks Paul Arthur, author of the Cineaste Magazine feature article. Andrew Jarecki raises the emotional stakes for his film by using certain methods including film editing, interview mixing, and even music:

  • Film editing- Footage found by Jarecki would be snipped into small segments. According to Arthur, the same camera angles, lighting, clothing of the interviewees throughout the film, point to and exhaustive editing and mixing. Additionally, unusual filters and altered footage speed create an unnerving sense for viewers.
  • Interview mixing – Arthur notes Andrew Jarecki chops up interviews and into bite-sized pieces, based on the camera angle, lighting, clothing of the individual being interviewed. Virtually all of the individuals who appear in the film were recorded in one session, yet Jarecki’s film took three years to produce. Therefore the individual pieces would be inserted at contradictory times and dialog throughout.
  • Music- Andrew Jarecki manipulates viewer’s emotional response by choosing particular music compositions in the film. “Emotional responses are pushed,” says Arthur. “Devices such as music played under the (silent) early home movies, and minor cues are give off by claustrophobic compositions…”

A lack of a relevant theme can be seen in Andrew Jarecki’s film. There is a strong emphasis on material that has nothing to do with recorded chronology, or relevance to the legal charges. Nevertheless Jarecki’s fast-paced assertions are undoubtedly exciting for viewers. Andrew Jarecki’s YouTube video highlights the reasons why his film faces a great deal of scrutiny.

 

“Calling the collection of putative facts and subject memories rehears by Jarecki a can of worms would be an understatement. It is more like a worm farm, and almost no one emerges from the cinematic argument without a slimy and slightly disgusting appearance. None of the people involved in this mess ‘tell their own story’, as in the utterly bankrupt documentary rubric; they engender neither trust nor skepticism, sympathy nor revulsion on their own.”

Read Paul Arthur’s full article, on the Cineaste Magazine website.