The subject of the notorious Fells Acres child abuse case has arisen a number of times in our discussions of Martha Coakley‘s US Senate candidacy. So I asked her campaign whether Coakley stands by her decision in 2001 to oppose the Massachusetts Parole Board’s 5-0 recommendation that Gerald Amirault’s sentence be commuted to time served, and if she would do anything differently if she had it to do over again. Here is her response, reprinted in full.
“Gerald Amirault, after a three month trial that included extensive victim testimony, physical evidence, and expert witness testimony, was convicted by a jury of his peers on all counts in 1986.In the years that followed, Mr. Amirault appealed his convictions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) three times, and to the First Circuit Court of Appeals once.
On each occasion, after a careful review of the law and facts, including all of the investigative and interview techniques employed by the Commonwealth, the courts determined that Mr. Amirault’s convictions were sound and that he received a fair trial.
To this day, all of Mr. Amirault’s victims steadfastly maintain his guilt, and in fact came forward to publicly identify themselves in opposing his commutation. It is also important to note that to date, three Massachusetts Governors have each reviewed Mr. Amirault’s case and each denied commuting his sentence.
Based on my own extensive experience with child abuse investigations and cases, and my thorough review of all the evidence, including that which is often taken out of context and deemed “exculpatory,” I also believe the convictions were sound, and that he received a fair trial. It is for all of the above reasons that I, as Middlesex District Attorney, opposed his commutation, and I stand by that decision to this day.”
Discuss
100 Comments . Leave a comment below.I'd like to see the evidence they reviewed that compelled them to vote unanimously for Gerald Amirault's release. Are records of their deliberations secret or available to the public? What age were the victims when the crimes occured?
Are all of the following considered true?
1. The parole board ... only considered whether he has improved himself in prison and whether his sentence was unfair.
2. Amirault ... was sentenced unfairly compared to his co-defendents, his mother and his sister, and others convicted of similar offenses.
3. You can get parole if you've served time comparable to others who've been convicted of similar crimes, despite the amount of time left on your sentence?
What am I driving at? I wonder if it would be reasonable to support Amirault's parole even if one believed wholeheartedly that he was guilty despite the lack of physical evidence, based on law that deems it appropriate to parole felons if they've served sufficient time as compared to similar convicts. If so, then why would Coakley feel compelled to recommend against parole? Her explanations all surround the question of his guilt, when in fact the above three points, if true, seem to imply that parole would have been appropriate even if he were really guilty instead of merely convicted in a court of law.
First, sex offenders convicted of crimes like the one Amirault supposed committed--and as high profile--are generally not eligible for parole in any real sense. By that I mean if the parole board truly believes that the con is guilty of the crimes charged, there's little likelihood he would get a serious parole hearing. After all, would you want to be responsible for Amirault's next victim?
Second, a sex offender is not eligible for parole if he or she does not admit his/her crime openly as a component of completing sex offender therapy. The inmate must explain, in detail and in writing, the crime committed and take full responsibility for it. Without that, no parole board will take you seriously.
Amirault refused to admit his guilt, ergo, he was ineligible, if you will, for parole in any meaningful sense. The fact that the parole board voted as it did under the circumstances reveals much about the integrity of the conviction in the eyes of the board members.
Sex offenders, btw, make for the most manageable of prison populations, so if what you suggest were the case, sex offenders would be released on parole (where sentencing provisions exist) most often as long as they admit their crimes.
We're talking about a sentence commutation. This was recommended by the Parole Board, which (confusingly) is also the Advisory Board of Pardons. But it required action by the Governor, since only the Governor can issue pardons or sentence commutations. Acting Gov. Jane Swift rejected the recommendation; hence, Amirault's sentence was not commuted.
He was, though, eventually paroled, by a 3 - 0 vote in 2003.
Yes, thank you clarifying that what we're talking is the commutation hearing. What I have written, however, still is accurate vis a vis his parole in 2003. Sorry for the confusion.
Is there anyone out there that isn't from the Middlesex DA's office or a Republican governor who thinks that Gerald Amirault is even guilty, let alone got a fair trial?
I'm a liberal Democrat. I'm not from the Middlesex DA's office. I don't live in Middlesex County, although I did at the time of the Fells Acre case.
Granted I have only seen evidence through the imperfect filter of the news media. Yet, I believed then as I do now that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the Amiraults are guilty as charged.
the hysteria associated with these day care cases in general, and the psychiatric and psychological communities' repudiation of both methods used in these so-called "rape" cases.
So, yes, there are people but they usually lack facts regarding the three areas I just listed.
Many of us may not be familiar with the precise details of the Fells Acre case, but as AG Coakley has correctly pointed out the fact that others have:
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the case details three times. - The US First Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case once. - Three different Massachusetts Governors reviewed the case. All concluded the case was properly adjudicated.
Just because a parole board released Amirault early doesn't prove anything. Unsavory characters are released early all the time for all sorts of reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the original prosecution. Witness the Lockerbie bomber.
And remember, your allegation of hysteria is merely your opinion, not a fact.
The 244 inmates exonerated through the Innocence Project experienced mutliple defeats at all levels of the legal system. In general, those cases were also appealed and reviewed repeatedly, and guess what? Innocent individuals were convicted and incarcerated for long periods of time. The legal system makes mistakes at the lowest and highest levels, as these 244 exonerated folks will attest.
I have no idea about this case or the guilt or innocence of Amirault, however, this is pretty compelling (from Coakley's statement).
Wouldn't the SJC have gotten the details of the case you describe? I'm willing to believe that none of our Republican governor's wouldn't consider reviewing the case for political reasons, but the SJC, three times and a federal appeals court? I read the articles from the WSJ and I agree that much of the evidence they point to seems awfully suspect, but what that article doesn't do is present the entire case, all the evidence. Wouldn't the jury and the appeals courts get that?
Maybe he didn't rape kids with a knife, maybe he didn't rape kids in a clown suit, maybe he didn't rape kids tied to a tree, but maybe he did rape kids. Maybe the jury and the Supreme Court ruled that even if you throw out all that evidence, there's still enough to convict him. I don't know, but unless you can point to specific political motivations on the part of the court that show they acted improperly, I'm happy with this response from Coakley.
For what you say to be true, the SJC has to unfamiliar with the facts of the case, or they need to be motivated by something other than the truth - I'm willing to be convinced, but haven't been yet.
Appalling. I can't even begin to describe my frustration with this answer and my disappointment in her as a professional.
Wow. Well, I'll send this around to the members of my town committee as there was much interest in her current views. But, I can say in all honesty that she's just lost a boatload of votes in this race and in any race other than AG in the future.
Putting her in the Senate, which will be dealing with politically unpopular detainees, would just be letting her proceed from one witch hunt to another.
You Capuano supporters need to make up your minds.
Either Coakley is "overly cautious" or an overzealous prosecutor going "from one witch hunt to another." Obviously, she can't be both.
And please, just because you prefer Capuano doesn't automatically mean that you have to bad mouth Coakley.
Face it. Both would make excellent US Senators.
Where is it demonstrated that same people calling Coakley "overly cautious" are the ones calling her an overzealous prosecutor going "from one witch hunt to another."
I don't think she conducts witch hunts. I believe she is driven to do the right thing. I believe part of her calculus in doing the right thing is doing the right thing for colleagues too but not necessarily wrongfully charged suspects.
For example, choosing to make a deal whereby she would drop charges against Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens (arrested as domestic terrorists for plating hoax devices) in return for an apology from them and community service. They were wrongly charged and yet they were required to apologize and perform community service. Coakley could not make the case on hoax devices or intent. Coakley didn't apologize for accusing them of being domestic terrorists, instead she demanded as terms of droppnig the charges that they apologize.
Their "crime" was making some money by workign for Turner Boradcasting and not having he foresight to anticipate how the public would react.
Of the $2 million she received from Turner, $1 million was for law enforcement to reimburse their public safety response, and $1 million for good will. $0 was used to reimburse Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens legal fees.
And the demand from Not Sure that anyone not voting for Coakley must have the same reason as everyone else not voting for Coakley is the least reality based thing I've seen on this blog.
This more or less seals the deal for Capuano as first choice in my book. There's always the chance of a tactical vote if it comes down to her and Pags, who I just don't trust because he's running on the Romney rationale if not the Romney platform.
How much slack should we cut Coakley for the fact that she's a prosecutor and thus wears law-enforcement blinders? Your reaction, lightiris, is a very understandable one -- if she will back up that flawed prosecution, it's a character issue of the highest order.
Commenter dhammer above raises a good point about the SJC, whom we have no reason to suspect of political or institutional bias. When they denied the appeals, did they (as Coakley suggests) have the legal option of throwing out the conviction as a miscarriage of justice, as my non-lawyer's view of the case suggests that they should? There are lots of times when an appeals court can't do that, as I understand it -- they are asked to rule on specific points rather than the whole case. I would love to hear more from an expert on what went on with those appeals.
is probably this one from 1997. Money quote:
Earlier opinions in the case are available here (1987), here (1989), here (1990), here (1993), and here (1999).
Can you provide a lawyers perspective on this argument?
Isn't it up to appelate judges to decide whether a convicted felon has an appealable issue?, regardless of how long ago the case was decided and how many appeals have been heard since?
It certainly won't affect my support for Coakley in this race. You haven't provided anything that would indicate that the AG is wrong to conclude that the case was fairly adjudicated.
We've got experienced lawyers on both sides of the issues -- the SJC judges determining that the particular unfairnesses presented to them did not warrant reversing the conviction or even allowing a new trial, and the Lawyers' Weekly editorial below calling the whole prosecution and trial a travesty. From my lay perspective, it looks like the whole legal system went somewhat insane. Martha Coakley was one of lots of people who were part of that insanity, and maybe it isn't her responsibility to be the one to confront it and deal with it. (But if I'm looking for a senator instead of a prosecutor, should the standard be different?)
This is not a Capuano/Coakley thing, it's a Fells Acres thing. There are a lot of people who have been horrified by this particular issue for a long time, and held it against the otherwise laudable Scott Harshbarger as well as Coakley. I wanted to know the extent of her commitment, and I now know that she's 100% behind what her office did and I'm disappointed. Probably most professional prosecutors in such a position would stand by what their office did without some legal judgment to the contrary. Hey, I perform Gilbert and Sullivan -- I understand the mentality of taking legal constructs as actual truth, and I suppose it's hard to be a lawyer without that mentality.
So you Capuano supporters are frustrated and appalled?
He'll probably say no. He'll probably say that Mike Capuano is a great choice. And I'd agree with him for a host of reason not to mention Fells Acre.
So when you want to lump all of us "Capuano supporters" like the undead into one nice little package of frustration and discontent, you can include him, okay? Not cool. Totally not cool.
If AG candidate Martha Coakley has been absolutely convinced "Gerald Amirault's convictions were sound and he received a fair trial," throughout the protracted case history, why did Middlesex DA Martha Coakley, in October 1999, insist, on a conditioning the "time served" prison release on Gerald's sister and co-defendant, Cheryl Amirault LeFave, on Cheryl agreeing to decline all media interviews during her ten year probation period. Such an extended prohibition on all media interviews by a key stakeholder in this highly controversial child sex abuse case contradicts the public's Constitutional "right to know," represents an unconscionable effort to obstruct the search for truth and justice in this case, raises serious questions about Coakley's commitment to open government, and suggests that, despite her protestations to the contrary, Coakley does have lingering doubts about whether justice was done to Gerald Amirault and his unfortunate sister, Cheryl.
The grotesque persecution is the Amiraults in the same state that executed women as witches stands as a stain on the American criminal justice system. There was never a single piece of evidence against the Amiraults that should have held up in court.
Martha Coakley will burn in hell with the rest of them for her crime against the Amiraults.
If the evidence should not have stood up in court, that was the judge's determination to make under our system.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any good reasons to vote for Capuano. All we see from the Capuano supporters here is a weak attempt to raise Coakley's negatives. Lame.
Which is why we are attacking the woman who released 2 of the Amiraults instead of the men who prosecuted the case. Hmmm, makes sense....to Capuano supporters.
...as someone who is so snarky against supporters of a different candidate.
doesn't reflect well on anyone. I've been waiting for people to be embarrased as to how far these attacks are going. "Martha Coakley will burn in hell" is a disgusting way to support your candidate.
Martha Coakley submitted testimony opposing reinstatement of the death penalty in 2007, and was the recipient of the Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty's 2008 Erhmann Award.
Coakley filed the lawsuit challenging DOMA, she submitted testimony in support of the Equal Rights Bill for Transgendered and self expression, organized trainings for police and prosecutors on how to handle GLBT hate crimes, she supported the passage of the MassHealth Equality bill ensuring health care access for same-sex couples and families and same sex domestic violence.
Coakley filed "An Act to Require Commercially Reasonable Efforts to Avoid Foreclosure" and "An Act Regarding Community Leadership, Neighborhood Revitalization and Urban Violence Protection". Coakley testified in front of a US House Committee on the importance of Mass v EPA on the environment, she has taken on the Big Dig Contractors, big Pharma and Goldman Sachs, Martha fought for expanded buffer zones around clinics and filed legislation.
But maybe the most courageous was her willingness to stand up and advocate for undocumented workers who are taken advantage of and victimized and afraid to turn to the authorities. These people do not constitute a voting block and yet there's Martha Coakley once again, champion for those who truly need one.
Martha Coakley is an inspiring leader that I am proud to support. Michael Capuano is also a good candidate, but you can't really be proud of the mud-slinging of some of his "supporters."
...that I do not endorse the attacks either. I've decided on Capuano primarily because, especially given the compressed timeline and no orientation/transition like there would be if elected on the regular cycle, we will be best serve by someone who can move across Capitol Hill while others will need a bit more time to get acclamated. Sometimes I think adhering to Reagan's 11th commandment wouldn't be a bad idea for us either. I will of course support the nominee.
I share your opinion that the Amiraults were wrongly convicted and that the evidence was irredeemably flawed.
Given the sorry state of what was accepted "scientific" evidence of child abuse at the time, and the fact that Governors (as far as I know) have the power to commute or pardon, "burn in hell" is more than a bit unfair to Coakley.
You have to remember that for decades before Fells Acres, few in American society believed children (and often women) who reported sexual abuse/assault, except in the most flagrant cases. Even then, the victims were often blamed and stigmatized. Our society had only recently become broadly aware of the extent and nature of sex crimes such as rape and child sexual abuse.
This does not justify unfair treatment of the Amiraults --or the failure of Governors to act upon new information-- but for me it certainly keeps Caokley out of the category of "morally damned" in which I place, say, Webster Thayer and the prosecutors of Sacco and Vanzetti.
I suspect this is because if she were to have any doubt, then she'd have to really examine the methods she used, which would be uncomfortable for her.
However, her lack of doubt should cast doubt on the idea of promoting her to the US Senate.
So, she has doubts?
Please explain.
in 1999:
You can read the entire text here:
The way I read this story
Martha Coakley's decisions in this case have been validated over and over. What am I missing here? This is a woman with a long history of commitment and integrityLet's stop dredging up dirt that is not based on fact- This election should be based upon fact not personal animosity or half truths- this is much too important.I don't work for the Middlesex DA's office. I don't work for a Republican governor. I strongly support Mike Capuano. I reject this entire topic as misguided, negative, and inappropriate.
I find this focus on Fells Acre revolting and disgusting. I think it distracts from far more important discussions we should be having. The exchanges here sound more like Republicans dredging up Chappaquidick than fellow progressives passionately seeking the best new Senator from Massachusetts.
For those who, like me, support Mike Capuano, I think this line of attack (and that is what it is) demeans us. For those who oppose Martha Coakley, there are far more current and persuasive reasons to challenge her suitability.
I don't like the hostility it breeds among us, and I don't like the ammunition it gives our opponents.
Enough already.
BMG asked the question and presented her full answer.
The question is on the table, it's been asked, and it's been answered. The thread starter is well-done and professional, as are David's few and limited comments.
I'm referring to the inappropriately (in my view) nasty exchanges that follow.
But I find your criticism overly strident. The exhanges above are barbed, but no one is swift boating that I can see.
Somebody writes "Martha Coakley will burn in hell with the rest of them" and you characterized that as "barbed"?
I think you need to reset your civility meter. It sounds to me like you've forgotten that we're supposed to be the good guys.
You're right, that comment is over the top. But you dissed the whole thread.
not here:
ok, where?
I mean comments like this, this, and this.
I think she made a judgement call nine years ago about a highly-publicized sensational case that was decided fifteen years earlier. Passions and hysteria -- on both sides -- were high during the case and remain high now. No new evidence has been presented, the facts in the case have been reviewed multiple times at multiple levels in the judicial system, and those who are most familiar with those facts come to a consistent conclusion.
I think the examples I cite distort the record, distort the facts, and are immensely unfair to a candidate who I do not support in her current campaign. I find these attacks demeaning to their authors and demeaning to the other candidates who implicitly stand to gain.
Meanwhile, did you notice that you made this criticism earlier, and that I already answered it, when you offered this most recent comment?
Bob Gardner thinks Coakley does not have sufficient regard for fair rteatment of suspects and detainees but doesn;t substantiate his claim. This is a prejudicial statement and one that could be answered by asking Coakley her position on handling the Gitmo and Bagram detainees. We could use Obama's frame of categories of prisoner's for discussion.
Without substantiation, Mark B compares the prosecution of the Amiraults to a persecution, to the Salem Witch Trials, then condemns the jury for its finding of truth, and possibly also blames the judge for evidence s/he allowed in. Mark B believes Martha's involvment is tantamount to a mortal sin (via-a-vis venial sin) and will live in the fires of hell for eternity as a result of her presumed incompetence or malfeasance (not specified.) I find it hard to take this view seriously. It's pretty outrageous.
lightiris finds her answer to the question "Does Coakley stand by her decision in 2001 to oppose the Massachusetts Parole Board's 5-0 recommendation that Gerald Amirault's sentence be commuted to time served, and if she would do anything differently if she had it to do over again" extremely frustrating and disappointing as a professional although lightiris does not spell out in detail the specific reasons.
I pointed to this action in her past to predict how she might act in the future. What in the world do you mean by "substantiate"? How do you substantiate a prediction? "What in the world do you mean by calling my post "prejudicial"? Prejudicial to what? This is an election, not a judicial proceeding. During an election, examining a politician's record is about as appropriate as it gets. Feel free to dispute my charactarizations of her actions on Fell's Acres, or to dispute whether they have anything to do with how she will act in the Senate. You could be right. But substantiate? Prejudicial? Enough with the pseudo legal jargon. For the record I have not decided who to vote for--I've just eliminated one candidate.
You probably have very good reasons for your opinion about Coakley's suitability for the Senate, it's just that you are not being specific about your reasons here. What I'm getting at is a request for people to relate a specific decision or behavior to their characterization of it, so it can be debated. What exactly did she do in Fell's acres that you are objecting to?
You say witch hunt so in what way is Coakley responsible for a witch hunt in Fell's Acres and how do you see that replaying out in the Senate?
I'd be happy to use other words rather than 'prejudicial' and 'substantiate' but I found them to be the best way to express my thoughts and I don't know other words I might use. If you have ideas, let me know.
Coakley's decisions in the Fell's Acre's case have a strong parallel to what she might have to decide in the Senate. In both cases very unpopular people were put in jail (and of course Coakley is not responsible for that). In the Fells Acres case,however, she was vehement and public in opposing parole and defending the original trial. I'm relying on the various descriptions in this blog for what she did specifically. My opinion is that her public actions suggest that at least some of her motives were political. The detainees as a group are also pretty unpopular. We've seen a lot of politics played in the Senate about not releasing detainees, not putting Guantanamo prisoners in US jails etc. How will Coakley react if there is more controversy? Will she take the side of someone who is unpopular if there is a political price to be paid? My opinion is that Coakley's record in the Fell's Acres case suggests that she will do whatever is expedient. I don't hold her responsible for the witch hunt surrounding the prosecution at Fell's Acres but she did play a part.
Coakley released 2 and opposed the release of the third. If you wish to then say she would favor releasing some Guantanamo detainees and not others - probably fair. You are aware Senators do not vote on such matters.
For comparison value Capuano told the Herald, ""I'm against the death penalty, but if we're going to have one, then there are few people more deserving of it than those who committed those particularly heinous crimes,'' after voting for the death penalty for terror suspects. He also stated, "Now that doesn't necessarily mean they're subject to the same procedural rights that Americans are entitled to."(http://www.askyourlawmaker.org/tags/51), and on his webpage "Mike understands we live in a dangerous world. When considering military commissions to try suspected terrorists, he was willing, for example, to discuss changing standards of proof from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the preponderance of the evidence." (http://www.mikecapuano.com/pages/civil-liberties-and-human-rights). Now I don't hold Capuano responsible for the witch hunt surrounding Muslims.....
...but it doesn't rehabilitate Coakley. Maybe we should consider other candidates. I have seen lives ruined by the commonwealth, using DSS, the courts and prosecutors. So from my perspective, we should look very skeptically at ambitious prosecutors.
It happens both ways.
Seriously, you can make anyone look stupid. How does that inform anyone?
The issue I'm the most interested in is Health Care. Fixing health care means saving thousand of lives, even more from bankruptcy and lifting an increasingly expensive burden off business. Martha will fight effectively and never let go until it's done.
Some people keep trying to make him look stupid by dragging up an old case where finality was achieved. I've sure Governor Perry thinks he has more important things to talk about.
my comment, what? Please resist the temptation to throw everyone posting on this thread in the same gunnysack.
contribution upthread: Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 18:02:44 PM EDT.
If we exclude her record, what conceivable criterea do we have to decide whether she would be a good Senator?
I didn't say we should "exclude her record". Instead, I wrote:
"For those who oppose Martha Coakley, there are far more current and persuasive reasons to challenge her suitability."
In my view, she is far too closely tied to the political machine of Mayor Menino. I think her initial comments (that I've already posted) were inappropriate. I think her belated "interest" is too little too late.
Her record is currently unfolding as we speak, as is Mike Capuano's, and I think that record speaks compellingly (at least to me) that Mr. Capuano is a better choice.
I think this issue is a harmful distraction from far more important discussions we should be having.
because you think the Amiraults were guilty. You've said so in other comments.
If you think, as I and many others do, that they were not guilty, then it behooves one to ask why what happened to them, happened.
I've not made up my mind on Coakley's specific record in this case. But I do think that the bill for overzealous prosecution comes due eventually, and you don't just keep promoting people upward if you don't trust their judgement.
We'll see. I need to know more.
It's the job of judges to determine admissibility and juries to decide guilt or innocence.
Ya have to question the vitriol directed at Martha.
For all those self-righteous Capuano supporters - where was your concern for the Amiraults before now?
If you've failed in the past to express outrage at the conduct of the actual prosecutors, then this is clearly political Swift Boating.
to this comment, I would never have believed you wrote it in a million years.
Questioning the integrity of people who have concerns about Martha Coakley's record is not going to win hearts. The only record she has is her record as a prosecutor and as an AG, hence she will stand or fall by that record.
As for the crack about the "outrage," I don't imagine you've had a chance to have a personal conversation with some of the folks who are concerned and have been concerned about this issue in the past, so it's rather unfair of you pass judgment in that regard.
My concern about the post-conviction treatment of the Amiraults as it reflects on Martha Coakley does not make me a Swiftboater--translation: a lying bastard willing to do anything to take down a candidate. Why don't you come to the next town committee I chair and call the twenty-five or so people sitting around the table "swiftboaters" to our faces and see how that goes?
Your insinuation is unbecoming of one held in such high regard in the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Well, this is going to be ugly, I guess.
You wrote:
Especially if progressives like you insist on making it so.
There are many of strong, current, and public reasons to challenge Martha Coakley's suitability for the office she seeks. Why do you insist on pursuing this one?
That wouldn't be "tone" setting, would it?
If you can't engage in the conversation without trashing the people you are talking to, that's not my problem, it's yours. Bad form.
I worked for the Department of Correction. I have a vested interest--as all of us should--in making sure that the people we incarcerate belong there. Prison is freakin' hell. It's fucking hell if you don't belong there. I also have a vested interest in making sure our public officials admit mistakes when they make them, especially when they result in wrongful conviction and incarceration. The system isn't perfect. Pride is a bad thing.
Clearly, you don't care about the Amiraults. Well, I do. I care that our system failed miserably in the fog of a "ritual abuse" hysteria that echoed the witchery/red scare of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, a drama I teach thoroughly every year. I care that the Amiraults were among the last to be released from prison, and I care that the Massachusetts' Attorney General is clinging to a testimonial practice that is so thoroughly discredited everywhere else.
There are judges in this case who tried hard to get people to see reason. They failed. I would vote for one of them for Ted Kennedy's seat before I voted for someone who insists on validating an injustice.
I don't know who you're addressing in your comment, but I haven't given out any 3's in this thread, and I'm sorry you hear my comments as "trashing" you. I think your comments are way out of line and I've said so. Mea Culpa.
Your opinion on this still your opinion, not fact -- no matter how passionately you hold or express it. I wonder how much of your opinion finds it way into your words in the classroom when you teach "The Crucible", bearing in mind that your students are required by law to be there and you are an authority figure to them. If I were a parent of one of your students, I would be far more concerned about your ability to help them come to their own conclusions about the meaning of The Crucible -- and this case -- than any of the rationalizations you've offered here.
A number of us "care" about the same things you care about -- the mere fact of your passion does not make its target any more valid. To the contrary, our system is based on due process because our culture has learned that passion such as you express often results in terrible outcomes when reflected in law.
I hear your passion. I disagree with your analysis and opinion.
Your personal attacks are of little consequence, but they do reveal much about you.
I neither require nor need your advice on how to do my job, thus I'm not interested in your concerns. If it makes you feel more righteous to attack my professionalism, have at it. That sort of behavior is common on this site, so you'll have good company.
Teachers make easy targets, I'm well aware of that. Your hubristic disrespect for the profession and the professionals who work hard every day is disappointing, to say the least. You really think you are qualified to judge teaching quality based on posts on a political blog? Wow.
You don't have to like my opinions--which is what we all impart here, but a political forum forms no basis upon which to judge my competence and ethical compass as an educator. I, in turn, cannot and should not make judgments about your professional competence or ethics, and I have not. The notion is patently ridiculous.
And you have the nerve to lecture people about tone. Unbelievable.
Hmm...
I stand by my comments.
I was mistaken on the 3--it came from Bean in the Burbs, not you. My apologies. I was too distracted by your personal attack and forgot to correct the record. My bad.
I note, however, that you have disregarded everything I said to focus on the 3 business. Oh, the irony. I stand by my comments, too, as a result.
It sounds as though we have agreed to disagree.
Let's move on.
I reject entirely your personal attacks on my professional ethics and integrity. As a result, there no "us" in "let's move on." You may do whatever you wish, but I'm hopeful ignoring me and my comments is in your plans. I know ignoring you is in mine.
lightiris,
On this primary race, we obviously disagree. You seem to like Capuano more, while I like Coakley more. But there is no need to destroy each other's candidate. Both Capuano and Coakley are good progressives (I actually prefer the term liberal). Their differences on the issues are minor, if that.
I enjoy your posts. I thought your post lamenting the conservative objections to Obama's address to schoolchildren to be particularly moving and persuasive. [I hope you don't mind, but I have quoted it on other blogs (giving you attribution, naturally).]
There's no need to work ourselves into a lather on this race. If Capuano wins, we all win. If Coakley wins, we still win.
of the issues is always a good thing. For people on this site to tell other people not to discuss something because it happened in the past, or that the past is irrelevant now, or that other accomplishments should be focused on instead is, in my view, antidemocratic. A candidate's record is open for debate.
So I'm not in a "lather" so much about the issue itself (which disappoints me greatly because I like Coakley, as I've said before) at this point so much as I'm in a lather about the responses, and, indeed, attacks I've received for raising the matter. I have tried very hard to remain focused on the issue and not on the people I am debating, but I cannot say that about some of the people commenting on this thread. In one fell swoop, I've been called a Swiftboater and characterized by strangers as professionally unethical and fraudulent in my interest in this case. I am sure you can see why that is problematic.
Thank you, though, for your measured--and kind--words here. I do appreciate them.
I think a discussion of the case is completely relevant. The closer we get to her role and her reasons the more informative it is. I still don't know enough about the facts to draw a reasonable conclusion about her handling of this case. I can also see why some commenters took exception. I wish the criticism they offered of the criticism had been narrow and specific rather than blanket condemnation; I wish it had been a challenge of specific claims rather than a condemnation. Now that I think of it, the criticism of Coakley should be just as responsible. Oh I'm good for advice but we'll see if I can abide.
You introduced your professional role to the discussion, not me.
You wrote (emphasis mine):
It is you who wrote that the "ritual abuse" hysteria -- your word, "hysteria" -- echoed the "witchery/red scare" of The Crucible. This is your opinion -- not fact. It was you who connected your opinion about the Fells Acre case (and Martha Coakley's peripheral role in it) to your teaching, not me.
Your obvious defensiveness about my "personal attack" on your "professional ethics and integrity" suggests to me that you have at least some awareness that you have a professional obligation to separate your political views from your classroom teaching. Did I draw the wrong the conclusion from your phrase "a drama I teach thoroughly each year"? If so, I apologize.
It is likely that some of the children in your classroom come from families who feel differently about the Fells Acre case than you. If you didn't want us to infer that you taught The Crucible as you describe, what did you intend? Why else did you introduce it -- and your profession -- to the discussion?
To the extent that you convey your obvious contempt for those students and their parents who dare to disagree with your opinion -- and especially those who have the courage to express that disagreement -- then you are violating your professional ethics. That's your issue and concern, not mine.
I certainly hope that your behavior towards your students and their parents differs from what you display towards me here.
on your offer. Let me know when and where.
This passed ugly a while ago with the daily character attacks on Martha Coakley. Coakley has a stellar record as progressive that has effectively advocated for the environment, immigrants, workers, equality and all the causes we care about. I like Mike and have been waiting to hear his supporters inspire us with his accomplishments. Instead of inspiration, we get a daily dose of demeaning mud slinging.
I don't know if its the ridiculousness of this, or that its the same day that the Republicans sent out a press release that Gen. McChrystal should put Nancy Pelosi, "in her place", or just the general over the top, angry, ugly, unbecoming statements that culminated in the thread with, "Martha Coakley's suitability" and "Martha Coakley will burn in hell"
Well, I'm disappointed to read your response. Our committee dealt with you in some depth on Deval Patrick's campaign, but I suspect this won't be a good fit moving forward. You know who I am, so this won't be a problem in the future. We can avoid each other.
I'm sincerely sorry you believe we are bad people. I'll be sure to pass on your views to my committee as well as the Patrick campaign organizer(s) on my committee you have worked with in the past. They will be quite astonished to learn they are "swiftboaters."
I hope SueKennedy and BrooklineTom take issue with the statements they object to such as "Martha Coakley will burn in hell" and every other statement or argument on the merit rather than condemn the entire thread and all who contribute to it.
nor a Coakley supporter. I'm genuinely undecided.
I've been kicking around this issue in some of the threads because heretofore I genuinely didn't know anything about her involvement.
Clearly, she doesn't bear the primary responsibility for what I consider an insanely botched prosecution. That's with Harshbarger.
But seeing as a.) she did not significantly depart from that strategy, and b.) seemingly used the case to boost her own profile statewide, one ought to ask whether that reflected well on her or not.
DA's and AG's often run for higher offices. That is fine, and how it's always been. If they're going to run on their records (which they always do), some scrutiny is in order.
and others responsible for the prosecution. Although I may not agree with some of the decisions in this case, I still have immense respect for the body of his accomplishment in public service as do others. Earlier this year there was a post about Harshbarger's possible appointment as US Attorney. Where was all this fury?
Coakley is the one who did release 2 of the Amiraults even after the SJC found their conviction to be sound. She did not continue to employ the same investigative techniques that produced the evidence in the Fells Acre case, but she did refuse to throw Harbarger under the bus.
Scrutiny is fair, but in context this goes into the category of daily smears from the truth stretches, (email gate) to the patently untrue, (death penalty).
Martha Coakley has worked hard to achieve success in domestic violence, protection of the environment, immigrants and equal rights. She has earned the right to throw her hat in the ring and whether you support her or an opponent, to be treated with the respect due someone who has been such an exemplary public servant.
I don't recall the post ... but he was never seriously in the running for that job, IMHO.
I don't know what "smears" you're talking about specifically. Seems to me people have strong feelings about her decisions, and express them bluntly (maybe rudely) -- but that's not the same as "smearing" her.
Giving Coakley credit for releasing two of the Amiraults is a very, very generous reading of her role, as far as I can tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Coakley's campaign pointed out that Capuano, despite his stated opposition to the death penalty, was among those US representatives in December 2001 who voted to authorize the United States to execute terrorists who bomb public areas or government buildings. "I'm against the death penalty, but if we're going to have one, then there are few people more deserving of it than those who committed those particularly heinous crimes,'' he told the Boston Herald at the time. Capuano said yesterday that the legislation was much broader than just the death penalty issue and included stronger laws in terrorism cases. And while he opposed the death penalty provision, he said, he had to vote for the legislation as a whole, which he considered "95 percent good.''
During the last few days Coakley has been accused of being pro-death penalty, hindering the investigation of Menino, responsible for the prosecution of the Amiraults, continuing the investigation techniques used in the Amirault case, responsible for overcharging in the Woodward case - all patently untrue. The same could be done to any of the other candidates. You could take Capuano's statement to the Herald, "I'm against the death penalty, but if we're going to have one, then there are few people more deserving of it than those who committed those particularly heinous crimes,'' after voting for the death penalty for terror suspects and combine it with "Now that doesn't necessarily mean they're subject to the same procedural rights that Americans are entitled to."(http://www.askyourlawmaker.org/tags/51), and "Mike understands we live in a dangerous world. When considering military commissions to try suspected terrorists, he was willing, for example, to discuss changing standards of proof from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "the preponderance of the evidence." (http://www.mikecapuano.com/pages/civil-liberties-and-human-rights). This could easily translate into Capuano supports killing Guantanamo detainees without a fair trial. If you wished you could add a touch of innuendo and a dash of stretch the truth to concoct, a "Mike deserves to burn in hell for murdering innocent Muslims." One could do that. It would be a gross mischaracterization that is in stark contrast to his strong progressive record on the issues. The point is any candidate can be victim to unfair cherry picking and innuendo as some are doing to Coakley. Because of the constant linking of Coakley to the Amiraults, a percentage of the people on this thread seem to have understood that Martha was responsible for the prosecution of the Amiraults. What exactly is the innuendo behind a statement that she attached conditions of no press, no profit and no contact with the victims or unsupervised contact with other children, when reaching an agreement for the release of the Amiraults? The obvious answer seems to protect the young victims or while having the courage to release such controversial prisoners insure there wasn't another Willie Horton moment. Sure conspiracy theories make for a more robust discussion than parsing subtle narrow differences on the economy, health care and foreign policy. But isn't that what most of us complain is wrong with the main stream press?
it does not mean all inquiries into her actions in the Amirault case are unwarranted or all inquiries into her death penalty policy position over the years or all inquiries into her handling of the mooninite domestic terror case are unwarranted.
It's completely reasonable to object and debunk unfair criticism but doing that is not the same as saying the topic, any of the topics, amount to swifboating.
if there is something reasonably relevant to the issues that need inquiries, fine.
The Amirault prosecution is a salacious story, not relevant and Martha DID NOT prosecute the case, i.e. those were someone else's actions. Those who did prosecute the case are discussed here without mention of the Amirault case.
It was front paged again today. The amount of front page space given to a story with only purpose to link the lead candidate to a salacious story vs. their position on the economy, jobs, health care and oh we do have 2 wars going and Iran and Korea are on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. It's a clear attempt to swiftboat.
P.S. Coakley was not responsible for charging in the Woodward case. The moonite terror case??? Martha, et al forgot their meds that day.
This does deserve greater scrutiny. Maybe we should ask him about this.
Let's see...
"We live in a dangerous world" -- yup, I agree.
"When considering military commissions to try suspected terrorists, he was willing, for example, to discuss changing standards of proof from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'the preponderance of the evidence.' -- yup, discussion is good. Preponderance works for a bunch of civil cases, maybe they want to make these more like civil actions. Discuss? Definitely, I agree.
"He was not, however, prepared to tolerate trials conducted on the authority of the President alone, as the previous administration attempted to do through Executive Order." OUCH! That one left a mark. I definitely agree.
"He believes we must remain a government of laws." Absolutely. I like apple pie too (although it seems the prior administration hates it).
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has honored him with their Champion of the Constitution award." Hmm, is that like the Nobel Prize or something? I wonder if he earned it?
Well, I looked at again, I still like it.
I like Mike.
The point was more that if you have a need to you can make anyone look like an idiot. Mike has been honored by the ACLU as he has been fighting hard in the trenches for civil liberties when they were under assault like never before. It was also a time when there was a need for increased protection and the balance was a difficult one.
On the issue for lowering the standard in criminal cases, he got it wrong. We already have enough innocent people in our jails. You can't execute someone or send them to jail if there is reasonable doubt of their guilt.
I loved Coakley's response to a media inquiry to her former stance on the death penalty for cops and lifers, "I was mistaken." How honest and refreshing!
I would like to see us focusing on what our candidates do right -- "Accentuate the positive". Sometimes we have to address a negative, and when we do so I think it should be in a context of seeking a better alternative.
I don't read Mr. Capuano's comment as proposing that we lower the standard in criminal cases. Instead, I see him as demanding that we return to the rule of law in handling "suspected terrorists". Specifically, it seems to me that he is addressing the problem of people (whether innocent or guilty) in military lockups like GITMO -- how we get them out of the purely arbitrary "because-I-said-so" world of President Bush's military and back into the civilized world of American due process. I feel (as I think you do as well) that it is better to free ten guilty men or women than to incarcerate one innocent. In my view, we should not ever execute anyone, for any reason.
I, too, welcome Ms. Coakley's candor regarding her former stance on the death penalty -- in no small part because it mirrors my own journey. I, too, supported the death penalty when I was younger (though, in my case, for child molesters). Ironically enough, it was the debate about abortion (I have always been passionately pro-choice) that ultimately swayed me.
And, I suppose you think Louise Woodward was guilty of FIRST degree murder. I've watched that overrated zealot prosecutorbot for years - I've got plenty of vitriol built up, it has nothing to do with this election, and everything to do with her incompetence. As you might expect, I am an anybody-but-Coakley voter.
am I misremembering, or was the charging decision actually made by Tom Reilly?
Gerald Leone prosecuted the case in 1997 and brags about it on his website. Reilly was Middlesex County DA. Harshbarger was the A.G. at the time.
we can agree or disagree with certain decisions and still recognize the great leadership of these men. Minorities and women candidates sometimes evoke extreme anger that looks for an excuse to release extreme venomous rage. As you point out one issue after another that is patently untrue, the rage remains and continues to search for an outlet.
Those who want Obama to fail and Martha to burn in hell need to step back and re-evaluate. These discussions do not improve our condition or elevate our society.
We have some great candidates for Senate, with compelling stories. Let's hear something positive that leaves us inspired and hopeful.
...I very clearly recall Coakley touting her involvement in the Woodward case when she ran for DA. It may well be the case that the specific decision regarding charges was not hers, but it certainly sounded like she was taking ownership and approved of how the case was handled during that campaign.
I've written why I think it's a distraction. I am not generally known as someone who is reluctant to speak their mind or share their motivations.
I haven't attacked you for having a different opinion than me about the Fells Acre case. I think you hurt all of us by making this an issue in this campaign. I think you're conducting cheap-shot politics of the lowest, snarkiest, most Republican sort and I wish you'd stop.
...is how absolutely positive people can be about whether a crime occurred. Whether it's Fells Acre, Ben Lagueur, even OJ Simpson, they decide based on gut and whatever research they did that they are right, and 12 people who lived and breathed the trial minute by minute were wrong. And that the whole system is twisted against/for the accused, as the case may be.
I'm not advocating blind trust, but my default is admittedly to put a heavy burden of proof on those saying the entire system was wrong top-to-bottom. The Fells Acre thing is questionable, but doesn't meet that heavy burden of proof in my book.
Why did Coakley not oppose LeFave's motion to reduce her sentence to time served - 8 years - and yet "adamantly opposes commuting Gerald Amirault's sentence" after 14 years in prison?
Why did Coakley not oppose LeFave's motion to reduce her sentence to time served - 8 years - and yet "adamantly opposes commuting Gerald Amirault's sentence" after 14 years in prison?
Ten months Swift's decision, the Middlesex County District Attorney's office [Coakley], which did not oppose freeing Cheryl Amirault LeFave, adamantly opposes commuting Gerald Amirault's sentence.
The star and highly paid expert witness for the defense delivers an affidavit supporting her client's innocence. There's a shocking piece of news. Nearly as shocking as StoneTurn finding it impossible to account for all the emails between Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Kineavy.
Here's an excerpt from another shocking contemporary piece:
The defense says "no diagnostic medical evidence". The prosecution says "physical evidence". The argument took place ten years ago, and Martha Coakley wasn't part of it.
Will you be similarly energetic in casting doubt on Senator Kerry's war record in his next election?
I don't think John Kerry was involved in the case in any way but Coakley was as DA Middlesex County.
You argue that the Ameriaults are all clearly guilty and that guilt is corroborated by the physical evidence of abuse. While I have my issues with that position, the question I am raising now is why Coakley stands behind the childrens' testimony in opposing Gerald's release but apparently not in supporting Cheryl Amirault LeFave's release. That was her involvement; supporting the release of one of of the criminals Cheryl while adamantly opposing Gerald's release. Why?
Here are additional articles backing Coakley's view of the case.
Amirault was found guilty and this verdict was upheld several times by both political parties. There were physical findings of abuse in the children and the children showed signs of strong sexualized behaviors after the abuse. The children as adults continue to state they were abused.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com...
Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL 02/24/95 Hardoon The three Amiraults - Gerald, Violet and Cheryl - were convicted after two trials before different judges and juries almost one year apart. They were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts...in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation who did not participate in the trial. The findings included labial adhesions and hymenal scarring....The victims and their families in these cases have been irrevocably harmed by what was done to them by the Amiraults. Every argument raised by Ms. Rabinowitz was ably presented by the defense at the trials. The juries, by their verdicts, rejected these arguments. Justice was done. http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Mass. Victims Fight Commutation Plea By Leslie Miller, Associated Press Writer CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) - Victims in the Fells Acres child abuse case broke down Thursday as they described their pain publicly for the first time in hopes of keeping the last person convicted in the case behind bars. Victims urged her to keep Amirault in prison. "During counseling meetings as a child, I would speak of a tall man touching me and taking pictures of me," Phaedra Hopkins, 20, said at an emotional news conference. "So many times, Mr. Amirault hovered over me, touched me and hurt me and committed many disgusting acts of abuse." Those children, now adults, stood by their testimony Thursday. http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Governor explains Amirault decision Says she needed to 'live with myself' By Douglas Belkin and Frank Phillips, Globe Staff, 2/21/2002 Swift said...But ultimately, she said, she concluded that the sentence was appropriate and consistent with other cases. Pressed on how she could come up with a far different judgment than the five members of the Parole Board, Swift said her staff conducted "a more exhaustive review of all of the legal aspects" than the board did. http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Witness praises Amirault decision By John Ellement, Globe Staff, 2/23/2002 CAMBRIDGE Hardoon also said the quality of the investigation and the actions of prosecutors, police, and social workers working with the children were all scrutinized intensely during Gerald Amirault's trial - and still the jury convicted. He said Amirault supporters are focusing on 2 percent of the children's claims that ''seem inexplicable and they are conveniently ignoring the 98 percent of the case that was overwhelming" against Amirault....Middlesex District Attorney
Martha Coakley, who inherited the case from former district attorneys Scott Harshbarger and Thomas F. Reilly, said Amirault's insistence that he is innocent does not make it true. She drew a parallel between John Geoghan, the former Catholic priest sentenced to 9 to 10 years in prison Thursday for molesting a child. Like Amirault, Geoghan insisted that he, too, was innocent, she said. "Admitting to child abuse is a very difficult and often, a never-seen thing," she said. Coakley said it was time for Amirault and his supporters to end their pursuit of an early release from prison so that the victims can finally begin to fully heal from the trauma he caused them as children. http://web.archive.org/web/200...
Swift won't free Tooky by David R. Guarino and Elisabeth J. Beardsley Wednesday, February 20, 2002 Swift said Amirault should be jailed at least until he's up for parole in 2004 on his 30- to 40-year sentence. "She carefully analyzed every bit of information generated through the investigation and came to her decision that the verdict was just and the sentence was appropriate." http://web.archive.org/web/200...
More evidence of guilt in this case where the conviction was upheld after several appeals.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com... COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 404 Mass. 221 December 6, 1988 - March 6, 1989 "The parents of the child witnesses testified about their children's behavior while, or shortly after, attending Fells Acres. The children complained and cried about the school; they complained of stomachaches, headaches, pain in their genital areas, and bowel problems. They began bedwetting, lost their appetites, had nightmares, used baby talk, became fearful of lights, of men, and of being left alone. The children also displayed sexually explicit behavior; some began masturbating. Two of the boys tried to stick their tongues into their mothers' mouths."
COMMONWEALTH vs. VIOLET AMIRAULT (and eleven companion cases [Note 1]). COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 424 Mass. 618 October 9, 1996 - March 24, 1997 "All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way. [Note 6] The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse....The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse. Parents and relatives of the children testified and related the circumstances in which the children's disclosures of abuse took place. These parents also testified to instances of extremely sexualized behavior on the part of the children including masturbation, sexualized play with dolls, boys sticking their tongues in the mouths of their mothers, and the simulation of sexual acts. Many of the children also developed generalized symptoms indicative of trauma such as bedwetting, baby talk, pain in their genital areas, headaches and stomach aches, and fearfulness....The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified against Gerald. She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls...The parents of several children testified that their children developed pronounced sexual behavior and regressed to infantile behaviors such as bedwetting and baby talk. The same child psychiatrist who appeared at Gerald's trial testified that these behaviors were commonly indicative of sexual abuse. "
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 22 May 7:11 AM