How did memory play an active role in the Friedman's case?

Criticism intensified as Jarecki's role in deliberately choosing not to pursue his firm belief in the Friedmans' innocence became publicly known. In his review, Ebert had recounted Jarecki's statement at the Sundance Film Festival that he did not know whether Arnold and Jesse Friedman were guilty of child molestation. Ebert roundly praised Jarecki for communicating this ambiguity,[10] but subsequent scrutiny revealed that Jarecki in fact had stated repeatedly that he firmly believed in their innocence before learning of the artistic expedience of claiming otherwise. In addition it has since emerged that Jarecki funded Jesse Friedman's appeal.[12] Writing for The Village Voice, Debbie Nathan — who was hired by Jarecki to appear in the film — wrote of Jarecki, "Polling viewers at Sundance in January, he was struck by how they were split over Arnold and Jesse's guilt. Since then, he's crafted a marketing strategy based on ambiguity, and during Q&As and interviews, he has studiously avoided taking a stand.