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.


Friedman’s Lawyer Accuses Andrew Jarecki Of Coercion

Professor Ross Cheit of Brown University, and Project Director of The Recovered Memory Project, brings to light the manipulative tactics used by film director Andrew Jarecki in Capturing the Friedmans.  Professor Cheit has written several posts on his website educating others on the truth about Andrew Jarecki and his controversial film Capturing the Friedmans.

“John Anderson’s story in today’s New York Times explores the ethical issues involved in the relationship between documentary filmmakers and their subjects. Great topic. Too bad that Mr. Anderson, who wrote at length about Capturing the Friedmans, did not actually research the court file in the case. He would have found this remarkable letter from Sam Israel,  Jesse Friedman’s personal lawyer at the time,

accusing Andrew Jarecki of the same kind of coercion and manipulation that Jarecki attributes to law enforcement in the underlying case.

Mr. Anderson might also have found this description of an e-mail from Andrew Jarecki, telling Jesse Friedman’s lawyer at the time: “I’m not going to give you access to materials now. Wait. Wait for the press to build up a little more.” (Hearing, October 3, 2007, p.10)”

Jesse Friedman’s recent loss in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was based on the statute of limitations. Accordingly, there is a good argument that his appeal was doomed by how Andrew Jarecki exploited the matter. Not that Friedman would ever have won on the merits anyway. See, Critiquing “Capturing the Friedmans.”

What is The Recovered Memory Project? find out more here.




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.

Victims of Andrew Jarecki’s Film Ask Academy To Reconsider

When Andrew Jarecki’s controversial film, Capturing The Friedmans, was nominated for an Oscar,  victims of the film spoke out, writing a letter Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  Andrew Jarecki’s portrayed the victims in his film as if they had invented their stories to satisfy an overzealous Nassau County police force.

According to the New York Times, the letter stated:

”We did not lie. We did not exaggerate. We were never hypnotized to tell our stories.” They said the director had twisted the facts in the film to make it appear that they had.

If the film wins an Oscar, they wrote, ”it will be won at the expense of silencing the plaintive voices of abused children once again, just as our own voices were silenced 16 years ago by the threats and intimidation of our tormentors.”

One of the victims who helped write the letter to the academy, also wrote a letter to the judge who presided over the case:

”This director’s [Andrew Jarecki] cause is wrong and his purpose is self-serving at my expense as well as at the expense of other victims.” 

Andrew Jarecki New York Times

Read the full letter on the Leadership Council website.  The Leadership council website is a resource of psychologists who specialize in child molestation.  The council has found fault with Andrew Jarecki’s film, and the manipulative tactics he used to create more ambiguity in his film, in hopes to make more money off his film.

“He Felt ‘Tricked’ By Andrew Jarecki”

In the Conviction Integrity Review: People V. Jesse Friedman, conducted by Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice, it was revealed that a witness (Witness 14) had felt tricked by filmmaker Andrew Jarecki.

Filmmaker Andrew Jarecki Tricked Witness

“In an edited interview done by the filmmakers, Witness 14 specifically disclaimed acts he once described to police in sworn statements. But, in light of the entire interview, and the witness’s subsequent statements to the Review Team, the ‘recantation’ is not credible. For instance, though Witness 14 told the filmmakers that he did not recall being abused by the Friedmans, he went on to state unequivocally that others were abused—’stuff really did happen,’ he said, and added that pornography was present in the classroom. And Witness 14 also balked at participating in an attempt to exonerate Jesse Friedman: ‘I’m certainly not, not going to sit there and let Jesse Friedman off the hook for what . . . he did to people that I know about.’ […] He explained that he had not told his wife or his children anything about his involvement in the 1987 case, and that he was upset to learn that his previous conversation with Andrew Jarecki had been covertly recorded. In late April, 2013, Witness 14 was informed that Jesse’s attorney, Ron Kuby, was seeking a court order requiring disclosure of witness statements to police, and grand jury testimony. In response, Witness 14 hired counsel, and informed the Review Team that he felt ‘tricked’ by Andrew Jarecki, and that he stood by the statement he made to the Review Team.”


Read the full reinvestigation that highlights the manipulative tactics used by Andrew Jarecki online at

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.