Today’s front-page Globe story about Martha Coakley’s handling of the 1995 abuse of three children by Rev. John J. Geoghan highlights, in my view, the essential question of this campaign —
Does Martha Coakley have the temperament of Senator?
Here’s what she said last week (from the story):
Coakley, in a lengthy interview last week, said she handled the case appropriately, pressing the best case possible given the specific contact described by the three young brothers. She also said she successfully negotiated specific terms of Geoghan’s pretrial probation – a routine way of expediting minor criminal cases – requiring Geoghan to undergo psychiatric testing and be barred from unsupervised contact with children for a year.
“None of the boys disclosed any touching that was basically an indecent assault and battery,” Coakley said. Coakley also said she did not believe she could have won a conviction in the case on anything more serious than the charge of making harassing telephone calls, a misdemeanor.
I contrast this response to that offered by David Clohessy, noted clergy sexual abuse specialist, quoted in the same story:
But a longtime advocate for victims and, separately, a noted clergy sexual abuse specialist both said that Coakley should have opted for a public court proceeding, even on a charge as minor as making harassing telephone calls, to warn parents of Geoghan’s presence and generate publicity that might have encouraged more victims to come forward.
“Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence,” said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
Given Martha Coakley’s emphasis on children and family values, which direction is more senatorial — hers or Mr. Clohessy’s?
What does Martha Coakley’s answer communicate about her leadership on sensitive legal and moral issues — issues that, for many voters, transcend specific legal questions and strike a deeper chord?
the question was about her actions in her capacity as a prosecutor over 10 years ago. Why wouldn’t she respond in those terms?
Here’s what she said, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight:
<
p>Here’s what she could have said:
<
p>Same facts, same outcome, different frame, different message.
<
p>The first is a prosecutorial answer. The second is, in my opinion, closer to the answer I want from our next senator.
But it would not have changed anything then or, IMHO, now. Saying things like “if we had known then what we know now we might have behaved differently” is kind of pointless, no?
A senator would denounce his/her past actions at the first sign of trouble. She won’t fit in there!
by actions from 15 years ago, or would you think it more prudent people judge your character and temperment by how you have behaved recently?
Martha will continue to answer questions like a lifelong prosecutor, even if she changes careers at age 56. You want another example?
<
p>
<
p>Martha is much better at deflecting issues than explaining them. I don’t find her responses to tough questions Senatorial either.
<
p>She responds as if someone else is at fault, or she performed flawlessly when the facts show there’s room for improvement, too often for my tastes.
<
p>Did I mention she has difficulty explaining complex issues in simple terms?
Her leadership will translate remarkably to a seat in the U.S. Senate. Martha spent a career insuring the protection of children. She’s put five priests in jail for their actions toward children.
<
p>AG Coakley’s primary focus in this case was getting a dangerous man away from children, which is what she did. She got a stay-away order so that he was prevented from coming in contact with kids and got the Archdiocese to remove him from the priesthood so that he could no longer have contact with children through the church. These were disturbing allegations, but Martha charged him with the most she could under the law. If she could have charged him with more, she absolutely would have.
<
p>When she had evidence to prove that he had indecently assaulted another child, she prosecuted him to the fullest extent and sent him to jail for a ten year sentence. In fact, she was the one DA who prosecuted and sent Father Geoghan to prison for his reprehensible conduct with kids.
Martha Coakley – Zealot Prosecutor or Panderer to Predators?
<
p>I guess I did not get the memo on the change of messaging to undermine Martha.
<
p>There is no there there in this Globe story. If there was, the Globe would not have put the story below the fold. The most they pin her on is that she took a “dramatically different approach” in this case, then the case in which she ultimately convicted him. Coakley’s explanation? The facts in the two cases were different, therefore the results (sadly) were different. Did the Globe find one legal expert (locally or nationally) to argue otherwise? No. Game over.
<
p>Sure we’re in the middle of an election and this story will play into the evening news cycle. But when there is no there there, this story will be done by tomorrow.
I think page one is still page one. It wasn’t lead story, but it was the third item in their daily headlines e-mail this morning.
<
p>
…the story would have been slotted for 1 01. But it was behind the expansion of the Convention Center and another subject I forgot about. Nope, the Globe had nothing and they knew it. But they obviously invested lots of reporting time (to at least confirm the documents supplied by whomever) and had to give it some play.
I think another campaign put it in front of them. That’s speculation.
A recent ad from the Coakley campaign has her claiming that she’ll be a good senator because she “knows what it takes to protect children” and has the record to prove it. I disagree. Coakley’s record as a prosecutor proves that she is a capable attorney, NOT that she will make a good legislator. In fact, if you look closely, her record will show you that she might not make a good legislator.
<
p>This case is an example: She made a very grounded the law legal decision based on what would (or wouldn’t) get a conviction before the court. However, in making a legal decision, she decided against bringing attention to the case, which would have prevented the future abuse of children. Coakley stands behind her decision, but I wish she would have taken a bold stand against the abuse when she first received the evidence, which would have effectively stopped it years earlier than it was, by a private attorney and the Boston Globe not Martha Coakley. Senators use their positions and voices for effective action, whereas prosecutors have to stick to the book. It’s clear which one Coakley inherently is.
The scenario you illustrate would re-cast the attorney general as a muckraker. If a Boy Scout troop leader were found to have abused a child, would you have Coakley indict the head of the organization in case there was abuse going on then and there? That said, Coakley disappointed me for not putting together something on Law and the Archdiocese after all the facts came out.
It was Reilly who was AG when this broke open, not Coakley.
Suppose a PROSECUTOR had videotaped evidence that a Boy Scout troop leader:
<
p>
<
p>and then granted a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding with no formal charges and no criminal record.
<
p>You don’t think that there would be widespread and legitimate complaints (not to mention innuendo) about the prosecutor’s minimal response?
<
p>It’s bad enough that she did so little at the time.
<
p>I find it outrageous that even now, after all that has come out, she still expresses no sense that she could have and should have done more at the time to stop these abuses.