(AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)
Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts Attorney General, is not fit to be a United States Senator. Anyone who thinks so only needs to study the Fells Acres Day Care case. The Fells Acres Day Care was started by Violet Amirault and run with the help of her son, Gerald, and his sister, Cheryl Amirault LeFave. In the midst of the daycare sex abuse hysteria of the 1980s, all three were charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse.
The charges were some of the most heinous ever made. However, they were also ludicrous. Supposedly Gerald dressed up as a clown and assaulted the children in a secret or magic room. Some children claimed to be sodomized with two foot knives and lobsters. Some of the acts allegedly took place on the front lawn in full view of the highway.
The alleged acts would have caused bodily fluids to be left on carpets, the children's clothing and elsewhere, but none were ever found. The alleged acts would have been very painful to children, but no child ever complained about pain after day care, nor did parents ever notice any injuries..
Rather than go through the entire story of the trials and imprisonment of the Amirault family, I recommend reading some of the many articles readily available on the internet, or watch the following video.
Dorothy Rabinowitz brought the injustice of the Amirault case to national attention with a three part article, Darkness in Massachusetts, she wrote for the Wall Street Journal in 1995. You can read them here, here and here. Later Dorothy Rabinowitz would include the Amirault case in her book No Greater Tyrannies, which contains similar travesties of justice carried out during the mass hysteria about sex abuse which sent many innocent people to prison in the 1980s and 1990s.
So what does this have to do with Martha Coakley? Martha Coakley did not send the Amiraults to prison. Scott Harshbarger did. Harshbarger was the District Attorney for Middlesex County Massachusetts who decided to prosecute the case. He used the prosecution of this case to gain political prominence and eventually ran for governor of Massachusetts but lost.
When Martha Coakley became district attorney of Middlesex County in 1999, the Amiraults were still in the news. But by this time hardly anyone believed they were guilty of the horrendous crimes they were alleged to have committed. In fact there was no evidence that anyone had abused any children in the Fells Acres Day Care.
But what did Martha Coakley do when the Parole Board voted unanimously (5-0) to pardon Gerald Amirault? She did everything in her power to see that he stayed in prison, including sending an assistant DA to oppose his release at the hearing. Coakley also went on talk shows to spout her views about his guilt. (Read about Martha Coakley's involvement in Cheryl Amirault's Plea Bargain also).
In a bid to be re-elected Governor of Massachusetts, Governor Jane Swift, rejected the Parole Board's decision. There is little doubt, however, that Martha Coakley's actions strengthened Governor Swift's resolve to deny Gerald Amirault's release from prison.
Governor Jane Swift sold Gerald Amirault's freedom for what she hoped would be another term as Governor of Massachusetts, but the voters chose Mitt Romney instead. Martha Coakley worked harder than Jane Swift to keep an innocent man in prison, seemingly for political advantage also.
If Senator Edward Kennedy was a lion in the cause of justice, and there is some debate about that, then Martha Coakley is a barn cat whose actions are based on primitive instinctual forces of political survival and savagery. Her lack of a sense of what constitutes justice and injustice makes Martha Coakley unfit to be a United States senator, particularly considering she would be filling Ted Kennedy's shoes.
A letter to the editor of the Boston Herald by Margaret Hagen, a professor of psychology at Boston University and author of the book, Whores of the Court, sums up the case against Martha Coakley.
"The cynical manipulation by the Middlesex County prosecutor's office of the child witnesses against Gerald Amirault who are now young adults makes it depressingly clear that the office of prosecutor is intended by its occupants to serve their political ambitions and not the cause of justice ("Amirault victims come out of hiding to keep him jailed," Aug. 3). Martha Coakley and her cohorts and precursors know full well that children who were 3, 4 and 5 years old at the time of the Fells Acres trials some 15 years ago - 15 years filled with constant reassertions by prosecutors and parents of the validity of the original claims - do not, cannot and will not ever be able to have untainted memories of their experiences. Hauling these innocent young people out for a press conference was disgraceful.
These children were victims of politically ambitious and woefully ignorant prosecutors who chose to disregard the coercive interrogations by the inexperienced graduate student assigned to dig the "truth" out of the children, to ignore bizarre claims that defied all rationality (e.g. sodomy with lobsters and knives) and to close their eyes to the utter lack of substantiating physical evidence.".
Copyright Daniel Weaver 2009. Permission is granted to repost or republish the first two paragraphs of this article on any website as long as a link to the entire article is provided. Reposting the entire article is both unethical and illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Comments
Thank you- Coakley's involvement in the Amirault case needs to be highlighted during this campaign. She was a key part, despicably, right up until the end, when Gerald was granted parole and she had six months to decide whether she was going to pursue having him civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person. She could have let him go at any time during those six months, in time to, say, spend the holidays with his family for the first time in 17 years, but she chose (as Amiraults lawyers predicted she would) to wait the full six months before announcing that she would not pursue the case any further. She either believed him to be guilty but didn't have the courage to pursue a case that could become an embarrassment for her, or she knows he's innocent but didn't have the guts to admit she was wrong. Either way, not exactly a model of courage, and no one I want to vote for.
Don't forget who was instrumental in framing Louise Woodward for something that never happened. The Nanny Trial, more than the Fells Acres Trial, helped to rocket this lady to political stardom. And why has Cheryl LeFave been silent all these years? Ms. Coakley knows.
With all do respect to the memory of Ted Kennedy; he was not an angel. Without even bringing up Chappaquiddick, he was thrown out of Harvard for cheating and was fond of the drink and women. Despite his personal life, that often affected his judgment as Senator, he was still a great political asset to Massachusetts and the US. Martha Coakley is the perfect candidate for Kennedy's seat and should not be held over the coals for something she decided (which she felt was right at the time) over 15 years ago. Politicians are human, regardless of what the majority think, and Coakley, like Kennedy, has moved on. Maybe other people should too.
Cheryl Le Favre has been silent because the plea deal that got her out of prison included a strenuous gag order, preventing her from trying to clear her name so that the alleged victims 'would not have to be further traumatized by hearing their perpetrator deny her crimes.'
Sadly, Ms. Coakley has never retracted her actions in the case. I swore years ago never to vote for anyone who helped perpetrate this witchhunt.
Capuano's liberal credentials are excellent.
Perhaps if she knew how to be HONEST in reporting her assets.She is totally culpable re-the priest.She is NOT honest.professor watts BU
I am SO glad I read this article about Coakley - now I am DEFINITELY voting for her. These false memory nut cases who want to beleive child abuse doesn't happen can all live in their own little world of denial but perpetrators should be prosecuted and I'm glad they were in this case. When I say nut cases, I also mean all those who think Coakely was wrong in defending many children's assertions that they were abused. Just because someone is a child doesn't mean they fabricate stories. Children don't understand sex unless it's introduced to them by a perp. Bravo Martha - you have my vote and now i'm going to campaign for you.
Thank you for the article. It expresses beliefs and feelings I have long held about the Fells Acre case. It clearly articulates its injustice, the thoughtlessness in looking at hard evidence and the utter lack of reason used to reach for conclusions that should have given reasonable people pause to consider. What I do not understand is how the defense attorneys for the Amiraults failed to mount an adequate defense. Everyone involved in its prosecution should be ashamed.
Well, it now looks like we'll have Coakley in office for the balance of the late Ted Kennedy's term, anyway.
It's interesting to note that Coakley has NOTHING about Fells Acres in her Wikipedia bio. I can't imagine why not, as she should be proud of extracting a promise not to sue and to keep her mouth shut, not seek to clear her name, as a condition for her release. That "contract of adhesion" probably saved gthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts $2 or $3 million dollars, as that's the kind of settlements other "Ritual Bunny Rabbit Killers" got from the states where they were unjustly prosecuted--it's usually called "abuse of process".
Seems like most citizens, and the 4th estate, have the attention span of a gnat, and are so credulous that they're a real danger to the nation. They keep drinking the Flavor-Ade®.
...the "her" I'm referring to is Cheryl Amirault LeFave--apologies for the faulty reference.
people like PAT are morons.... IT IS BETTER THAN A 1000 GUILTY PEOPLE GO FREE THAN TO LET ONE INNOCENT PERSON GO TO PRISON....
No physical evidence, confessions bordering on imaginative lunacy, and yet, they go to prison, and those courtwhore tries to keep him there.
Yea, thats who I want as a Senator...NOT
This article leaves out important evidence about this case. There was physical evidence of abuse presented in court. The Amiraults were convicted after two separate trials. The children as adults came forward in the media stating they were abused.
"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"
(Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL 02/24/95 Hardoon)
“All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way...The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse. Some of the children testified that they were photographed during this abuse, describing a big camera with wires, a red button, and pictures which came out of the camera. The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse….The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified…She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls.”
(Commonwealth vs Amirault 424 Mass 618 - p, 624)
"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.”
“This family raped me, molested me and totally ruined my life,’’said Jennifer Bennett, who was 3 1/2 years old when she started at Fells Acres. “We weren’t coaxed. We weren’t lying. We’re telling the truth and we always will,” said Bennett, 22. “I was there. None of you were there. We weren’t coaxed, nor were we ever ever ever brainwashed.”Brian Martinello, 21, said he was sexually abused by Amirault.
(Mass. Victims Fight Commutation Plea Leslie Miller, AP 8/2/2001)
Veteran newsman Charlie Austin sat in that court room everyday of that trial. A trusted journalist, he said they were railroaded. Amirault was able to plea and get released, but he never did, because by doing that it would put into question his innocence. Also, the basic civil right of being able to face your accuser was never granted. The whole thing was a sham. $20,000,000 people. Face it, Coakly used it for political gain...disgusting.
Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of the trial, there was physical evidence backing up the children's testimony, plus they have publically stuck to their testimony, even as adults. Parents at the trial testified to the childrens' extremely sexualized behavior after the abuse occurred. If Amirault admitted he committed the crimes, what would have happened to him in jail?
The defense council accepted the altered seating, realizing this would be less traumatic for the small children testifying. What is a sham and is disgusting is how the defendant has been defended in some of the media, even with all the evidence showing his guilt.
To "the evidence proves his guilt" regarding your claim of physical evidence. Please provide physical evidence that:
1) a four year old boy was anally raped with a butcher knife that miraculously left no injury
2) a young girl was bitten on the arm by a green and yellow and silver "Star Wars" robot
3) a young boy was tied naked to a tree in the schoolyard, in front of all the teachers and children and in full view of passing traffic, while Cheryl cut the leg off a squirrel
Much of the evidence was collected in interviews with the children by Susan J. Kelley, an RN in search of a Ph.D. thesis topic who refused to take no for an answer. Her ceaseless badgering of the children was so egregious, and her interview techniques so biased, that Judge Isaac Borenstein commented, "This interviewer was so biased that she engaged in an investigation not to learn what really happened, but to make sure that the Amiraults were convicted." www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/bd-3C2.html#3C2b1
How does one explain the extremely sexualized behavior of the children?
How does one explain the strong symptoms indicative of trauma in the children, including regressive behavior, pain in their genital areas and fearfulness?
How does one explain the fact that a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician testified stating that there were findings consistent with abuse in several of the victims?
How does one explain that the victims as adults still state they were abused?
Obviously, the crimes occurred.
Or one can pull a few quotes from terrified and horribly abused children from a website that interprets legal statements its own way to discredit the victims.
Countering the claims of guilt posted on this board... not one child came forward with a complaint of abuse. It started with one parent concerned that Gerald had changed her son's wet underwear and grew from there based on the actions of the local police who told parents to "look for signs of abuse".
The children testified of abuse in a consistent manner because that is what they were coached to do. These kids were badgered into concocting all kinds of bizarre stories of abuse and it no doubt has done lasting harm to them.
The parents and (now adult) kids also have about $20M reasons to maintain that this did happen.
This was not a home based day care but a decent sized pre-school with several other teachers working there full time in addition to the Amiraults yet not one past or present teacher ever saw any signs of abuse. Mrs. Amirault operated the school for 20 years without complaint yet suddenly she and her children became heinous child molesters overnight... I don't thi
Two and three year olds do not normally come forward with complaints of abuse. Nor do they normally call the police and ask them to press charges. They exhibit strong symptoms of abuse (rape) like the ones the children in the Amirault case exhibited. These included masturbation, sexualized play with dolls and the simulation of sexual acts. Two doctors also testified that there were findings of abuse in four of the girls. One parent stated that their child came home from the day care with sores on his genitals.
The children were not "coached." A biased interpretation of the statements one's child's questioning on a website written to present the defendant's view of the story is not evidence.
There is no evidence of any "badgering" of the children. There is evidence the children were raped. In many cases, such as the clergy abuse settlements, the defendants have received monetary settlements. The settlement in this trial occurred several years after the original conviction.
To MTM, Martha Coakley stands by her ridiculous position to this day.
To Pat, these kids didn't understand sex until they were berated with it by the investigators who wouldn't stop interrogating them until they "stopped lying and admitted that they were abused."
To Amirault was guilty,
The Amiraults attorneys admitted that they made grave mistakes in their defense. As for physical evidence, children claiming they were anally raped with knives (including a butcher knife) had no physical symptoms. Don't cite a letter to the editor as proof. Please!
"One parent stated that their child came home from the day care with sores on his genitals." Ten years after the trial.
All of you, go read the accounts of the interviews that took place coercing these children into making accusations. Anyone who really researches this would have to be insane to believe the accusations. These children were abused for sure, but it was by the Middlesex County DA's office
There is no evidence the children were "berated." Repeating this misstatement does not make it true. Small children can be terrified into believing horrible things while being abused. One can show a child a knife and state they will use this and then rape them with something different and the child will believe this. The letter to the editor in the WSJ was from the prosecutor of the case. Of all the people that wrote about the case, he knew the most. The overwhelming evidence in this case shows he was guilty.
Swift won’t free Tooky by David R. Guarino, Elisabeth J. Beardsley 2/20/02 Boston Herald “Convicted child molester Gerald “Tooky” Amirault lost his best shot at freedom yesterday, denied commutation of his sentence by acting Gov. Jane M. Swift "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.”
Witness praises Amirault decision By John Ellement, Globe Staff, 2/23/02 "Hardoon...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."
It took the jurors far less time to admit their mistakes than it appears to have taken some here to admit they fell for a mean-spirited, scapegoating sacrificial vendetta triggered in guilt-ridden yuppie parents against the lowly workers they dumped their children with. The hideous transgressions which were the day care cases of the 1980s have all fallen to pieces. Yet some here will make excuses till the cows come home. But do we want such self-deceiving Inquisitors in the Senate?
I was referring to the jurors in the Salem Witch Trials in my previous comment. The did admit their mistakes within ten years of the travesty. How long will we wait for Coakley.?
Coakley is slime. Dorothy Rabinowitz deserves great credit for investigating this Amirault case, as well as the Wenatchee, Washington child abuse allegations. Coakley is your typical ambitious slime attorney who envisions senatorial largesse. Those that vote for this dope need to be investigated.
He was found guilty after several judicial reviews by democrats and republicans years apart. His victims as adults stated he was guilty and they were abused. Nine children testified to what happened. Major behavioral changes occurred in the children after they were abused. Physical findings were found that the children were abused. Stop picking on Coakley for this and stop defending convicted child abusers.
Did they ever catch the clown that teleported the kids to the magical room where you can be raped with knives and not show any physical evidence of abuse?
I'm just saying, since several commenters here believe the claims, that clown seems to be the one to go after... the use of real magic in child abuse is probably still illegal in Massachusetts. Maybe burning at the stake for witchcraft is still on the books?
Oh, and the disappearing animal sacrifices. Well maybe that was how the bad clown could perform witchcraft, I guess that makes sense. And it could explain why there was no physical evidence... at all. The "bad clown" who used animal sacrifices to gain magical powers used witchcraft to hide all the physical evidence.
Clearly this is what happened... did anyone find a sorcerer or culprit capable of actual magic? Anyone?
Could someone please point me to the physical evidence in this case? It has been asserted multiple times in comments here, but I have been unable to locate any information.
Could someone please point me to the physical evidence in this case? It has been asserted multiple times in comments here, but I have been unable to locate any information.
This whole episode was a travesty from the very beginning. To those that are saying physical evidence existed, what was it? Coincidentally while these so called incidents were occuring regularly all over the country in the mid 80's, they just stopped.
While I can't stand the thought of a republican representing Massachusetts in the senate I will not vote for Martha Coakley cecause of her role in this.
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 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.
All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way...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...The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified… She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls. (Commonwealth vs Amirault Mass 618 page 622)
"ll nine children testified in a broadly consistent way..."
After the first arrest, the local police brought the children's parents into a meeting and asked them to ask their children specific questions about "secret rooms", "clowns", etc. Right there you have the introduction of "broadly consistent" testimony. And after the "interviews", where the same leading questions were asked over and over, multiple times, there would be no way for the stories to be otherwise.
"The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified… She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls"
The only thing I could find that was mentioned by the gyn in court was vaginitis, which is not, in itself, evidence of abuse.
I'm not asking for testimony, I'm asking for actual physical evidence entered into court's evidence.
Obviously the crimes occurred??? What about all those cases where people on death row have been found totally innocent after years of being in prison? The crime "obviously occurred" just because a jury looked at all the "evidence" and convicted them, yet somehow they're found innocent after all?
You can see there can be corruption anywhere to try to get one's own way. Remember the Duke lacrosse team!! If information contrary to Nifong's preconceived ideas hadn't become public, there would have been another case of the "crime obviously occurring".
Good grief!!! How sheeplike can people be!!!
How much evidence is enough evidence in a rape case?
Testimony is evidence. And eye witness testimony is enough to convict alone in many cases. Nine children testified in this trial. In this case, findings included labial adhesions and hymenal scarring. A pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls. There were strong symptoms indicative of trauma in the children, including regressive behavior, pain in their genital areas and fearfulness.
The defendants were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts from both political parties. There is no evidence of questions being asked "over and over."
When is there enough evidence? Or is the problem that people do not want to believe this type of crime happens and the perpetrators do not want to confess to their crimes?
"How much evidence is enough evidence in a rape case? "
Any? Aside from the testimony of children.
"Testimony is evidence."
Testimony is not physical evidence.
" A pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls. "
Why only 4 girls? Where was the evidence of the "2 foot" knife? Where was the evidence of the "secret room"? Face it, there is NO physical evidence to prove the case. Even jurors say they convicted solely on the testimony of the kids.
"The defendants were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts from both political parties. "
Go to the Innocence Project and tell all those people released after years in prison that they should go back because a jury is never wrong.
"There is no evidence of questions being asked "over and over.""
From the Dorothy Rabinowitz article:
Interviewer: "Did anybody touch Penny [the child's friend] on her bum?"
Child: "Nobody. Nobody didn't do it."
Four more times the interviewer asks if anybody touched the children--to which she gets the same answer of "no," "no." Asked still again, the exhausted child finally erupts.
"Nobody didn't do it!"
In time, with subsequent interviews, the child would finally say what the interrogator wanted her to say. So was born another set of charges.
The Rabinowitz article is a one sided analysis of the case. The child as per post below repeatedly denied the suggestion. So even if this did happen, which is questionable, it didn't work.
Four children possibly because not all raped children will show signs of abuse. A secret room could have been any room there. The knife could have been destroyed or could have been a fake knife designed to fool the children.
One can keep ignoring all of the evidence cited below, like the poster below, or one can realize there is a great deal of evidence supporting the convictions, which were upheld several times.
The trial was fair trial, upheld several times with a lot of media scrutiny. One can keep denying the crimes occurred and keep allowing children to be disbelieved and ignored when they state they were abused or one can support abused children and stop child abuse.
Swift won’t free Tooky by David R. Guarino and Elisabeth J. Beardsley 2/20/02 Convicted child molester Gerald “Tooky” Amirault lost his best shot at freedom yesterday, denied commutation of his sentence by acting Gov. Jane M. Swift....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,” “All along, they’ve always told the truth,” said Harriet Dell’Anno of Lynn, whose daughter, Jamie, remains in therapy over the incidents. Barbara Standke of Tewksbury, whose son, Brian Martinello, was molested when he was 4, said, “He may be doing 20 years, but my son’s doing life.” Amirault, his sister, Cheryl LeFave, and their mother, Violet, were convicted after a parade of children told horror stories about being fondled, raped.
Witness praises Amirault decision By John Ellement, Globe Staff, 2/23/2002 ...wants Gerald Amirault to admit he sexually abused her when she attended the Fells Acres Day Care Center in Malden in the 1980s. Bennett was one of nine children who testified against Amirault during his three-month trial in 1986, which ended with his conviction on multiple rape and molestation charges. He was sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison...As for Amirault, ”...He is where he is supposed to be. I will fight against you to the end. He destroyed my childhood.”....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.
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.
This poor family and with no physical evidence of any crime. Children DO say things that are not true. SOme parents, through hysteria will ask questions over and over til they get the most horrific answer and want to go with that as testimony. I've seen it happen in my neighborhood. A man who grabbed a kids arm turned into a child abuser for "punching him". I saw what happened. This is so sad and a terrible injustice. No wonder people don't want to go into teaching, child care anymore. It's too risky. I hope the parents of these kids know that the therapy they need is due to guilt over putting these people away who were never guilty. There is no atonement for such testimony that is not true.
There is a difference between one child whose arm is grabbed and nine children (there were more but they didn't testify) that were raped and terrified by the defendants. There is NO evidence any parent repeated any question "over and over." This is just another myth promoted by those defending a convicted child abuser, who also lost several appeals.
The children are not in therapy due to their "guilt," they are in therapy due to being abused. The denial of those that repeatedly do not want to believe that these things do happen allows pedophiles to continue raping children in our society.
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.
Wonder if we shall hear eventually of charges against the state brought by people who, in their adulthood, find themselves traumatized by their accusations and the impact on the wrongly accused.
COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 424 Mass. 618 October 9, 1996 -March 24, 1997
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.
Thanks to Ertdfg for asking “Did they ever catch the clown that teleported the kids to the magical room where you can be raped with knives and not show any physical evidence of abuse?... Oh, and the disappearing animal sacrifices. Well maybe that was how the bad clown could perform witchcraft, I guess that makes sense. And it could explain why there was no physical evidence... at all. The "bad clown" who used animal sacrifices to gain magical powers used witchcraft to hide all the physical evidence.”
Martha Coakley was instrumental in keeping Gerald Amirault in prison for another three long years, despite the unanimous recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles that he be released immediately. Coakley was utterly determined to show the electorate how strongly she supported “the children” and how tough she was on sex crimes. In truth, she was tough only on the truth, and let an innocent man rot in prison for another three years to further her career...
One can take a few statements out of context from terrified childrens testimony and add to them as the poster below did, children that were tricked by their abusers into thinking a knife was being used when it wasn't, and ignore all of the testimony that solidly convicted the man or one can realize that the majority of the testimony was valid.
There were physical findings that supported the children's stories of abuse as well as strong sexualized behaviors that the children exhibited while at the day care. Or one can ignore these also.
And Swift a republican decided to keep him in jail three more years.
Swift won’t free Tooky by David R. Guarino, Elisabeth J. Beardsley 2/20/02 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.
Ah Martha. What a thug. Only to be hoped that justice - something you wouldn't understand: letting ten guilty pass for the sake of one innocent - the creed upon which i was raised - forsaken with you. For political purpose. 6 to 5 (so far) we disagree!
Thanks to Ertdfg for asking “Did they ever catch the clown that teleported the kids to the magical room where you can be raped with knives and not show any physical evidence of abuse?... Oh, and the disappearing animal sacrifices. Well maybe that was how the bad clown could perform witchcraft, I guess that makes sense. And it could explain why there was no physical evidence... at all. The "bad clown" who used animal sacrifices to gain magical powers used witchcraft to hide all the physical evidence.”
Martha Coakley was instrumental in keeping Gerald Amirault in prison for another three long years, despite the unanimous recommendation of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles that he be released immediately. Coakley was utterly determined to show the electorate how strongly she supported “the children” and how tough she was on sex crimes. In truth, she was tough only on the truth, and let an innocent man rot in prison for another three years to further her career...
One can take a few statements out of context from terrified childrens testimony and add to them as the poster below did, children that were tricked by their abusers into thinking a knife was being used when it wasn't, and ignore all of the testimony that solidly convicted the man or one can realize that the majority of the testimony was valid.
There were physical findings that supported the children's stories of abuse as well as strong sexualized behaviors that the children exhibited while at the day care. Or one can ignore these also.
And Swift a republican decided to keep him in jail three more years.
Swift won’t free Tooky by David R. Guarino, Elisabeth J. Beardsley 2/20/02 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.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!