Complaint Review: Andrew Jarecki - New York New York

This report serves as a resource to educate others on the truth about Andrew Jarecki and the innocent lives he is corrupting. 

Film director Andrew Jarecki is best known for directing Capturing the Friedman’s, which as been the subject of scrutiny from the sex abuse victims and the media.  Several sources indicate that Andrew Jarecki manipulated the evidence and lied to the sex abuse victims in order to create more ambiguity than actually existed about the case.  Andrew Jarecki took advantage of the innocent victims and their families so that his film would receive more attention.  Andrew Jarecki has zero respect for the sexually abused victims.  Andrew Jarecki used every tactic possible to gain more attention and make more money off his film at the expense of INNOCENT, SEXUALLY ABUSED VICTIMS.  Ruining the lives of victims and victims’ families so that he can MAKE MORE MONEY and generate more publicity around his film.  He is a selfish Hollywood slime ball, who posses no moral ethics, and is only out to better himself.

 Several publications have investigated Andrew Jarecki and have brought to light the immoral and conniving tactics used by Andrew Jarecki in the production of his film.  

These publications include:

• New York Times
• The Seattle Times
• Cineaste Magazine
• The Daily News
• The Independent (UK)
• The Leadership Council on Child Abuse & Interpersonal Violence

The Seattle Times asserts that Jarecki ignored facts and intentionally omitted lots of evidence against the Freidmans. Several victims have spoken out against the film and manipulating tactics used by Jarecki in producing the film, including distorting interviews. 

The Daily News stated: “It was a documentary loaded with fiction…The Nassau County DA’s office blasted the 2003 film ‘Capturing the Friedmans’ as misleading, and accused the moviemakers of interfering with the probe they were responsible for reopening. The report said the filmmakers misrepresented comments from an investigator and the judge presiding over the case, and took at face value comments by one victim that he was ‘hypnotized,’ when there’s no evidence of such.”

During a reinvestigation of the case, People v. Jesse Friedman, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, reported problems with Andrew Jarecki complying with officials for evidence needed.  The Review Team reported Jarecki was not “Forthcoming With Evidence” and only shared partial information, “Thereby Rendering It Of Poor Evidentiary Quality.”  Furthermore, the Review Team reported that Andrew Jarecki “Imposed Several Unrealistic Demands” in order to share information with the Review Team and ultimately “Several Key Interviews Were Never Shared At All.”

The victims have also stated they regret having participated in Jarecki’s film:

Witness 2 contacted the Nassau Country District Attorney’s office to reaffirm the abuse he suffered.

Witness 2 said that he deeply regretted participating in the film. He said that when he later saw how Jarecki distorted his interview, it “made [him] nauseous.” For example, Witness 2 said, Jarecki convinced him to lounge and be more relaxed during the interview. This pose, which was not the witness’s idea, had portrayed Witness 2 in a negative light, discrediting his account of the abuse he suffered. (Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, Conviction Integrity Review: People v. Jesse Friedman, June 2013, pg 105)

Witness 14 informed the Review Team that he felt ‘tricked’ by Andrew Jarecki, and that he stood by the statement he made to the Review Team. (Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, Conviction Integrity Review: People v. Jesse Friedman, June 2013, pg 112-113) 

The Leadership Council stated:

“Jarecki’s documentary creatively interweaves recent interviews with home movies shot by the older Friedman brother as the events were unfolding. The effect is a complex story where truth appears ever elusive. Many viewers leave the theater believing that they have seen an objective documentary presented by a director who entrusted audiences to draw their own conclusions on Arnold Friedman’s and Jesse Friedman’s guilt. A careful review of the original evidence, however, shows that the case against the Friedmans was much stronger than the film revealed.”

It is important that we stand with innocent victims and protect them from the money-hungry monsters of Hollywood like Andrew Jarecki.