This article,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/movies/oscars/24FRIE.html ,
in yesterday's New York Times rather fascinated me, because from the
film I had concluded that Jesse Friedman was likely innocent, and that
this was another of the many cases of fake therapist-induced memories.
Now I think the opposite, that it's more likely that he's guilty. The
victim's mom who says, "What fame is there in making a film about a
pedophile who's a pedophile? " is right, of course, and there's always a
devil's incentive for journalists -- the film is a form of journalism,
I'd argue -- to create a story when there is none. I'm not saying that
Jesse is or isn't guilty, and unlike many I actually didn't like the
film very much, but now I like it a lot less. Lie detector tests are
not truly reliable, but they are at much better than 50-50, I believe,
and Jarecki left out the fact that Jesse flunked his. Jeracki seems
confused as to whether he was trying to make on "objective" documentary
or write a legal brief for Jesse, and that confusion, which shows in the
film, now seems much more questionable.

- Fred