Dirigido por Andrew Jarecki, este documental se centra directamente en la investigación de Arnold y su hijo Jesse Friendman acusados de abuso sexual de menores en los años ochentas.
Jarecki antes de ni siquiera poner la mira en esta tormentosa historia planeaba hacer una película de los bufones de las fiestas de niños en Nueva York incluyendo al popular payaso David Friedman. Durante el proceso de investigacion, la vida de David comenzó a salir a la luz. Su padre y hermano habían sido acusados de abuso sexual a menores de edad. Jarecki no pudo evitar interesarse por el tema y poco a poco fue adentrándose en la historia, primero en base a la recopilación de testimonios de los niños afectados y después enfocando el motivo de su película a la familia Freidman.
Arnold Friedman comenzó a ser investigado , a traes de una redada federal en la que encontraron revistas de pornografía infantil en su casa. Poco después la policía descubrió que el Sr. Friedman daba clases de computación a menores de edad lo que comenzó a levantar las sospechas que de que Arnold podría ser un abusador en potencia.
Los testimonios, se contradijeron a partir del documental de Jarecki, en donde las opiniones aparentaban chocar con las entrevistas originales echas por la policía. Al parecer las entrevistas habían sido un poco alteradas, los niños se sentían a presionados ante una calidad que se les presentaba ya construida , muchas veces sin ellos poder explicar o pensar lo que realmente había pasado, solo asentían.
Jarecki, navega por las vidas de esta famiiia disfuncional, en donde a momentos parece que todos son enemigos de todos. Una madre indignada que conforme va pasando el documental, demuestra su fuerza y su inconformidad ante el asunto. Una posición dura que olvida su rol como madre y sustentora emocional de una familia que esta pasando por una situación tan adversa. Recorremos su casa, sus cuartos y en ocasiones regresamos a los momentos mas íntimos del pasado.
A pesar de tener al espectador en una clara incertidumbre , poco a poco las piezas toman su lugar, cada actitud , cada reacción, cada gesto cobra sentido y explicación. Ambas posturas a favor en contra se ponen a competir dentro del mismo documental, convirtiendo al espectador no solo en testigo de esta historia, sino en juez , obligado a inferir una conclusión.
Entrevista con Jesse Friedman
"False Memory Syndrome", "Repressed Memory Syndrome" and "Recovered Memory" are highly controversial and now widely researched fields. I do not try to speak as an expert. I do not intend to imply that any one psychological evaluation can be used as a uniform explanation of every situation. However, I know one thing that the experts can't know for certain. I know that no children were being sodomized playing some bizarre "naked leap-frog" game or being raped during those computer classes. Therefore anyone who now, as an adult, remembers being molested is suffering from the implanted memories of therapist. That, to me, is a horrific fact. How horrible it must be to live with the scars of such a traumatic experience when it never even happened!
Jesse Friedman
Why did the children say they were abused if it was not true?
The children said they were abused only after they were suggestively and coercively questioned by detectives. Not one child made any allegation of abuse until after police initiated an investigation and began knocking on doors and interviewing children. And that investigation wasn't precipitated by any complaint brought to the attention of authorities. It was initiated after the postal inspectors searched my house looking for child pornography.
What about the pornographic computer games?
The computer's were not “loaded” with pornographic video games. The programs were on five inch floppy disks in a file box along with hundreds of other floppy disks, all unlabeled. Computers in 1986 did not have hard-drives or store programs. In order for one of those games to end up being viewed by a computer student the program would have to be located and then it would take ten minutes for the program to load into the computer's RAM. I never allowed any computer student to play an inappropriate game. I'm sure some of the children had seen the "pornographic" games which the police speak about however, because virtually every kid who had a Commodore 64 had those same games which they had traded with their friends.
You already served your time. Why are you continuing to pursue these matters?
Even though my parole is now over, I will forever remain a convicted sex-offender, and I'll have to register as such under Megan's Law for the rest of my life. But that's really not the issue.
The easy thing to do would be to put the past behind me and move on with my life. No matter what the outcome before a judge may be, nothing can restore to me all the years of my life which have been lost. But I am not a child molester and I will never stop fighting to prove that fact.
This is no longer just about some sense of justice for myself. Clearly, my incarceration and parole are over. I am moving forward with my life. However, my arrest affected and hurt many people other than myself. There are these now grown men, formally of my father's computer classes, who have grown up believing they were sexually abused, when I know it is not true. The parents of these men; the siblings of these men; so many people have been hurt by the actions of the police (with their inappropriate investigation methodology) and also, as we are now learning, the inappropriate practices on the part of the therapists who were involved with the investigation. The light of truth needs to be exposed upon this case not just for myself, but because of so many others. The exploration of these matters is necessary for healing to take place.
Why did you tell the press that you committed these crimes if, as you say now, you are innocent?
Once I had decided to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence I was faced with two equally bad options. I could either continue to protest my innocence, in which case I would be considered in denial about my criminal behavior, a danger of re-offending, and the Parole Board would never release me. Or I could appear contrite, and accepting of responsibility for my criminal behavior, in which case it would mean agreeing with the State that I was a serial child rapist, and the Parole Board would never release me. The advice that adults gave me was to say was that I had done these terrible crimes, but that there were mitigating circumstance – that I was a victim too.
Yes, but why did you plead guilty in the first place if, as you now say, you are innocent?
The judge made it clear that she would sentence me consecutively on every count of guilty after a trial by jury. With 243 counts against me, even if they jury debated if each and every crime was proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" they could have returned a verdict of "Guilty" on maybe only ten counts. That would have been fifty years in prison.
It was impossible for me to call any defense witnesses. Theoretically I should have been able to call as witnesses children who were in the very same computer classes where another child was claiming to having been raped, and who told the police, "I was there and I never saw anything like that happen." However, the police and District Attorney withheld discovery material from me and my attorney. This violation of my Constitutional rights made it virtually impossible for me to take my case to trial proving my innocence.
Plus, my father had already pleaded guilty. Once my father had plead guilty it was extremely difficult for me to mount a defense as my father and I were charged (in legal terminology) with "a common scheme and plan" -- meaning that we acted collectively in carrying out the crimes. In fact a number of the charges to which my father plead guilty to in court also charged me as aiding and abetting -- claiming I held a child down while my father raped the child. My father's guilty plea directly implicated me making a trail all the more difficult.
A pesar de la realidad y la intensidad de la historia, la construcción del posee una ambigüedad deliberada evidente en los testimonios y recuerdos a menudo contradictorios. Esta es una película plagada de contradicciones, lo que refleja la montaña rusa emocional de todos los participantes
Probablemente el elemento más poderoso de este documental fue la decisión del director de no adoptar una postura sobre la culpabilidad o inocencia de los Friedmans capturados.
La exploración en la subjetividad de la verdad , la memoria y el tratamiento, que entrega Jarecki a traes de la película provoca a la audiencia a pensar profundamente en donde la verdad se establece. Permitir que el relato contradictorio vuelva a crear la confusión emocional del evento original , es el mejor acierto.
www.imdb.com/title
www.rottentomatoes.com/
www.netflix.com/Movie/Capturing_the_Friedmans
www.slate.com/id
www.wickipedia.com
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario