Jarecki put two and two together and changed the focus of his film. David was distraught, but he and the family had already signed releases for [the Silly Billy documentary].
An obvious defense for this is that Jarecki is the one a journalist might use, that the story is one of public interest and so that overrides the problem where all kinds of parents may no longer be willing to hire Silly Billy as a clown after learning his family's story and seeing him in this film. But, if this were the case, you would think that Jarecki might then feel some responsibility to tell the story as accurately as possible. Nathan's article, however, suggests that Jarecki had additional footage that would lend more support to the idea that the Friedmans were not guilty of the specific molestation crimes for which they were charged:
While the film was in production, Jarecki told the Friedman family he thought the two were innocent of the charges. 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. Teaser ads pitch the film as a Long Island Rashomon: "Who do you believe?" For Jarecki and his PR people, the question is rhetorical.