Posted on 01/28/2004 11:33:24 AM PST by Liz
Edited on 01/28/2004 12:52:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
And it's even more tragic that Jarecki is attempting to manipulate public opinion in order to get the convictions overturned.
I am positive that if Jarecki succeeds in this the surviving child molester will sue to get bigtime monetary compensation claiming he was "wrongly" jailed.
Operative word: victims. Are you suggesting that they be victimized again by reliving this nightmare? They don't owe anything to anyone.
They owe no one anything, absolutely. But, if any among them is strong enough, they are presented with an opportunity to do their part in stemming the tide of sympathy for child molestors currently fashionable in some quarters (not only as evidenced in Capturing the Friedmans, but also in mainstream media. Have you seen any Entertainment Tonight reports lately on Michael Jackson?) and at the same time might provide comfort and courage, and have a somewhat de-stigmatizing effect, for victims less able to stand up to their abuser.
It would be an act to be applauded if an adult male victim of old man Friedman, or better, two or threee of them, stood up and publicly announced that they were indeed molested by the guy and that, no, the late Mr. Friedman was not railroaded, as Capturing the Friedmans, so I have been told, implies. The victims would not expose themselves to litigation since the old man, a) pleaded guilty to the crime, and b) is dead and therefore cannot be libeled anyway.
Point taken. After I posted my response to you, I was thinking about how I would react if God forbid, this had happened to one of my precious children, or nieces/nephews. The more I thought about it, I came to this conclusion. I would urge them to fight back, and I would join them with every fiber of my being.
I'm an entertainment junkie. I love TV, music, and film. The Hollywood liberals are slowly but surely taking every ounce of enjoyment away from me with their mucked up, liberal values.
For the first time, in years, I will not be watching the Oscars. I remember as a child, mom letting us stay up to watch part of them before bedtime. They are especially tainted this year with this farce of a nomination. I don't know how much of a difference I can make, but I will urge my family and friends to do the same.
Yet Mel Gibson's film about Christ is roundly criticized, lambasted for any number of dubious reasons.
It exposes the elitist contempt these people have for middle-class American values that they disdain Mel's religious film but, by their silence, endorse the pedophilia film.
We are dealing with a weird bunch here. These are very disturbed individuals.
That said, I wish you would further explain how this documentary glorifies child molestation.
I saw clips of the film. But I am responding mostly to the massive PR effort launched by Jarecki and the surviving molester to get his conviction overturned. They now say he lied to the court when pleading guilty (which itself is a crime) and that he never abused kids.
I am convinced he intends to get the conviction overturned and then sue for damages which would force his victims to subsidize his crimes.
I also know that the biggest club Hollywood wields is proselytizing---that is to say brainwashing audiences without their knowledge or consent.
The news piece posted also indicates the community is in turmoil about the Jarecki film ----they know they are being co-opted by the child molester.
Because the film might show the deceased monster as a molester, the overall intent is to densensitize the public to child molestation..... a lonterm goal of the North American Man Boy Lovers Association (NAMBLA). You may or may not know that NAMBLA has approached schools--- and, in fact, may be in some schools----teaching about their particular aberration.
Judging by your response, the Jarecki MO is succeeding.
I agree with you that the oldest son's hope was to use the home movies to exonerate his father, but (at least for me) the film only further demonstrated the father's guilt. By the end of the documentary, everytime I saw the father I felt sick to my stomach. Plus, the father essentially admitted his guilt in the documentary.
I do not disagree that the Hollyweird crowd is in constant attack on traditional values and I do not disagree with you about NAMBLA. That said, I found that this film did not glorify child abuse, did not make the father sympathetic, or did not excuse him. If their goal was to do so, I think they failed.
I did not feel desensitized at all, I only felt revolted.
You might have responded as I did had you seen the interview the surviving Friedman did with Matt Lauer on Dateline Tuesday PM. Even liberal Lauer was unsympathetic to the molester's claims of innocence.
The judge in the case years ago was also interviewed. She said she saw nothing that would indicate the charges were false and that discredited "recovered memory" was used by the children molested. She's not in the film I gather.
In the final analysis you have to ask several questions: Why would the family actually make the realtime videos that comprise most of the film?
Why would someone plead guilty to over 100 heinous acts if they were innocent?
What is Jarecki's motive?
Incidentally, Jarecki is the guy who made a fortune on his idea for the movie phone.
What I would have liked to see is an interview with the third son -- who refused to participate in the documentary.
As to why they made the videos, I cannot even fathom an answer.
Lauer is not usually scheduled on Dateline, at least to my knowledge......but the Freidman segment was hyped and lokked like a must-see. I'm glad I caught it.
I do know that Hollywarped gives out Oscars with a subrosa political agenda in mind.
The Friedman scumbag was blatantly homosexual.....so the Oscar may be Follywood's attempt to give the degenerate creep visibility to advance the homo agenda.
Now that the USSC has endorsed the lifestyle, Friedman may start screaming discrimination any day now. Oh, how they love being "victims."
I think my point was that if it is possible to influence someone to develop false memories, which I believe it is, it is probably easier to do with small children, who are often a little vague on the difference between reality and imagination anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.