Prosecution of Innocent Man Seals Martha Coakley’s Defeat

2010-01-20
By

Following a breath-taking electoral surge, Scott Brown took the seat formerly held by liberal patron saint Ted Kennedy, handily defeating Democrat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts senate election.

Although the national press spun the contest as a referendum on Obamacare, another powder-keg issue lurked behind the headlines: Martha Coakley’s prominent role in prosecuting a child abuse case and her contended culpability of the “primary male offender.”

It was back in 1984 when Violet Amirault, son Gerald, and daughter Cheryl, operators of the Fells Acre Day School in Malden, found themselves accused of child molestation. The charges were lurid as they were absurd: plunging a butcher knife into a 4-year-old boy’s rectum (which miraculously left no mark of injury) and tying a naked child to a tree in front of the school to be anally impaled with a “magic wand” (an incident to which there were no witnesses).

The children also accused two make-believe persons, “Mr. Gatt” and “Al,” as well as the child therapist investigating the case, of molesting them as well. Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, and Mr. Greenjeans reportedly escaped legal scrutiny.

Following a sham trial, Violet and her daughter were handed an 8-20 year sentence, while Gerald was sent to the slammer for a 30-40 year stint.

Based on accumulating evidence of perjury and fraud, the case was reopened eight years later.

Following widely-publicized hearings, Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein sadly concluded, “Every trick in the book had been used to get the children to say what the investigators wanted.” The Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly similarly editorialized the prosecutors “seemed unwilling to admit they might have sent innocent people to jail for crimes that never occurred.”

Enter Martha Coakley, who took over as the local district attorney in 1999. By that time, public opinion was running sharply in favor of the defendants. (Violet had recently died of cancer, left penniless and broken by the accusations.)

Coakley was willing to allow Cheryl to go free. But as far as Gerald, that was a different matter. After all, he was a man, the “primary male offender,” as Coakley put it. (She never explained how it is possible to have a “primary offender” for a crime that never took place.)

So when the Massachusetts Governor’s Board of Pardons voted 5-0 to release Gerald Amirault in 2000, prosecutor Martha Coakley channeled her inner community organizer and media maven. She unearthed sympathetic parents to lobby the Massachusetts governor to overturn the Board’s recommendation. Then she organized media events where persons spoke movingly of their fear of Gerald’s planned release.

These maneuvers kept Gerald behind bars for two more years. Even afterwards, he was forced to wear an electronic tracking device, to report every time he left his house, to obey a curfew, and to avoid certain parts of town. This precluded him from finding regular employment.

This legal travesty did not attract national attention until last Fall. At that point, Coakley held a nearly insurmountable 30-point lead over her Republican challenger.

Then Ann Coulter devoted her December 9 column to the case, calling it the “second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history” and charging Coakley had “kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.”

A month later, Dorothy Rabinowitz delivered the coup de grace. Recounting in the Wall Street Journal how prosecutors cast Gerald as the chief predator, “his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role,” Rabinowitz adjudged the superfluous prosecution was “powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat.”

The Rabinowitz editorial was published on January 14. The same day a Suffolk University poll spotted Brown a 4-point lead over Martha Coakley.

And when the ballots were tallied nearly a week later, Scott Brown had defeated Coakley by a resounding five-point margin.

Four years ago prosecutor Michael Nifong’s political aspirations came to an abrupt halt for prosecuting the three Duke lacrosse players. And now Martha Coakley has lost her bid for the United States Senate.

Prosecuting innocent men for crimes they didn’t commit is no longer the sure-fire formula to electoral success it once appeared to be.

1,299 views

  • Mr.K

    Carey Roberts reports the latest outcome of the Amirault Case. It was also Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ who had the courage to cover the “witch hunt” while other media were cheerleaders when America went mad, almost like Germany as recounted by Daniel Goldhagen.
    Link to her book, recounting the hysteria.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html
    Quote
    “It was clear, when Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999, that public opinion was running sharply against the prosecutors in the case. Violet Amirault was now gone. Ill and penniless after her release, she had been hounded to the end by prosecutors who succeeded in getting the Supreme Judicial Court to void the women’s reversals of conviction. She lay waiting all the last days of her life, suitcase packed, for the expected court order to send her back to prison. Violet would die of cancer before any order came in September 1997.”

  • Mr.K

    When the feminists started started the child abuse hysteria their aim was to destroy the father’s abillity to obtain child custody in divorce proceedings by alleging abuse. But once the genie was out of the bottle, politicians began to use it as a “tough on crime” method to gain media coverage. Even the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated that the Constituion is like a pretzel. It can be twisted, shaped, molded by lower courts and sent half-baked to the Supreme Court which creates loopholes and makes it the law of the land.
    The 6th Amendment clearly states that a defendant has the right to confront witnesses. But the framers did not anticipate an electronic era so the Supreme Court ruled that it can be done via television.
    In a case that ruined a female defendant’s day care center the a newspaper had a picture of State Attorney General rehearsing his Supreme Court arguments with a State Appellate Court judge. So much for the separation of powers. The State won the case. Link;

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-478.ZS.html

  • Mr.K

    Because the 6th Amendment “Confrontation Clause” case was ruled by 5 to 4 majority, here’s a quote from Dissenting Opinion.

    “Because of this subordination of explicit constitutional text to currently favored public policy, the following scene can be played out in an American courtroom for the first time in two centuries: A father whose young daughter has been given over to the exclusive custody of his estranged wife, or a mother whose young son has been taken into custody by the State’s child welfare department, is sentenced to prison for sexual abuse on the basis of testimony by a child the parent has not seen or spoken to for many months; and the guilty verdict is rendered without giving the parent so much as the opportunity to sit in the presence of the child, and to ask, personally or through counsel, “it is really not true, is it, that I — your father (or mother) whom you see before you — did these terrible things?” Perhaps that is a procedure today’s society desires; perhaps (though I doubt it) it is even a fair procedure; but it is assuredly not a procedure permitted by the Constitution.

    Because the text of the Sixth Amendment is clear, and because the Constitution is meant to protect against, rather than conform to, current “widespread belief,” I respectfully dissent.”

  • daveinga

    the remnants of this type hysteria is still with us today. right below the surface. got men on sex offenders list now for taking a leak on the side of the road. teenagers prosecuted for sex with their peer aged girlfriends. and on and on. false accusations (rape, d.v., child molestation (divorce)) are rampant. bad bad bad men.

    slightly off topic – i have a suggestion that could save the u.s. taxpayers gazillions of $$.
    with obozo, pelosi, frank and company spending billions flying all over the world on the taxpayer’s borrowed dime, how about next time they want to fly over and help a fellow dem. campaign for office, conservatives could take up a fund and pay for a private jet to get them there. i would chip in.
    especially if obombo wants to campaign for someone. he’s on fire. 0/3?

  • Denis

    I posted the following:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.htm

    here:

    http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/12/women-and-children-first/

    on January 15, 2010.

    This case was a non-issue in the campaign. The local media spun this story (with the little media attention it actually gave the story) in a way to deceive the public. Brown’s success had virtually nothing to do with the Amirault case. I emailed this WSJ column to less tha 100 people who would have voted for Brown anyways. I just wanted to make sure they were motivated enough to actually go and vote. Brown got a million and a half votes and maybe ~100 votes went his way over this issue. The author needs to create original material. Much like David Usher, Carey reads the Comment posts here to get ideas on what to write about (yet again). Unfortunately (for the author here) Rabinowitz beat him to the press.

  • Mr.K
  • Chris

    Denis….just curious…what the HELL are you on about?

  • Mr.K

    Original D. A. (prosecutor) in the Amirault case. Link:
    http://www.zpub.com/un/un-sh.html

  • SgtMom

    As the mother of a juvenile falsely accused, I hope and pray this is an indication that false prosecutions of innocent men is on the wane. I don’t really hold much hope for it, it is a HUGELY profitable industry, but I keep my hopes someday this will end.

  • David

    I would never vote for Coakley because of Fells Acres. However, I think it is wishfull thinking to believe that it had anything to do with her downfall. Even Brown would not touch that issue and no mainstream discussions or interviews ever mentioned it. I think it is a real shame that it is still suicidal to side with those falsely accused of these crimes.

  • SgtMom

    Brown didn’t touch the subject of Gerald Amirault because he has ridden the sex offender witch hunt gravy train as much as anyone.

    He’s as bad, if not possibly worse, supporting civil commitment.

    An innocent person convicted of this crime is doubly punished – first they are convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, then punished for being ‘in denial’ of that crime – which is considered most dangerous.

    Most dangerous, indeed.

  • Marshall Goodman

    I was thinking that from Janet Reno to Martha Coakley, we can see that merely supporting feminist causes leads to authoritarian rule. In other words, feminists vying for power should be viewed as untrustworthy and likely to ignore the rule of law.

    This also happened to Gov. Bill Ritter in Colorado. It’s not just women who are dangerous feminists. Ritter, like Nifong (the Duke lacrosse team members “rape” prosecutor, went after innocent men just to advance destruction of family and the advancement of gender Marxist agendas.

  • SgtMom

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary

    You may have already seen this article, it connects the dots between feminism and incarceration.

  • Phillip

    I doubt most people realize how many innocent people, primarily men, are incarcerated on charges stemming from political ambitions. I recently watched the documentary “Witch Hunt” about the wave of hysteria that swept through Kern County, California in the 80′s sending innocent men and women to prison for decades for sexual child abuse. The debacle of convictions where there wasn’t even a crime swept the nation and continues today and is certainly not limited to sexual abuse of children.
    I highly doubt this one incident had anything to do with Coakley’s defeat as most people seem to feel that being charged of any form of child and/or sexual abuse is tantamount to a verdict of guilt. When the subject is punishing men, many seem to feel it permissible, even advisable to deem guilt even when there is questions that there was even a crime.

  • SgtMom

    The number of innocent men incarerated by false accusations is limited only by the number of people willing to make the accusation – and false accusations are rampant. It’s America’s dirty little secret, the DOJ refuses to keep statistics, but half to 3/4 of all acusatons are estimated to be false from the few studies allowed (McDowell, Air Force, Kanin).
    Women are rarely punished for making false accusations.
    It’s widely presumed the days of daycare witch hunts are decades in the past and no longer happen, but individuals falsely accused are an every day occurance.
    This attorney’s site explains precisely the elimination of constitutional rights, presumption of your guilt,no longer facing your accuser, hear say evidence no admitted – all Constitutional rights that no longer exist. Throw rape shield protections in the mix, and you see why child sexual accusations have the highest conviction rate of any crime. 98%.

    http://www.paulstuckle.com/home/the-elimination-of-constitutional-rights

    Read it and weep.

  • Robert Stevens

    It’s simple folks, go back to the constitution. That means the law is enforced fairly, ie you need competent witness’s , ie witness’s that understand that if you lie, you will go to jail!!! Make our “out of control” public servants accountable. If you break the law and violate someone’s right, you will pay and pay good. Men will have to learn the law and learn it well. When men do that and use the remedies to stop the injustice and abuse, and when those who abuse us get punished ,not petted on the head, this PROGROM( program is an institutionalized abuse of certain groups who get in the way of the “idiot overlords” plans for total control) will end!! Then those responsible will be on the dockets of justice, the right people will be in jail! We will restore the family, put down the feminist rebellion and go back to a safe, healthy, and growing nation.
    Our country will be great again. NO more out of control government, no more unjust and unfair laws, no more “failed social engineering experiment” posing as family law. We will still have problems, just not the created ones that “sacred cows” holler and scream about. Crime will not be a problem anymore, because the 80 percent of prison inmates will not existe , because the father will be in the home and working for a living will replace the government hand out. People will stop thinking that the government is the solution and realize that giving our “public servants” too much power is a bad idea. In effect this country will get back on course and the idiots who caused the God awful mess we now find ourselves in will be gone.

  • Dan
  • Marshall Goodman

    Her defeat is a defeat of all that is feminism: In Colorado, Bill Ritter was elected governor by groups like La Raza and ACORN (i.e., voter fraud). Last month, he announced he would not seek reelection. He was similar to Coakley — beholden to the femiNazi’s anti-Western agenda, and he put innocent men on trial and in jail, based on bogus evidence and testimony. He then proceeded to destroy the state economy, ruin the legislative process and create even more fraud, corruption and chaos.

    So, if you vote for a feminist (most any woman, for that matter), you’re voting for the detriment and destruction of jobs, families and liberty through massive, senseless spending and luancy in general. That’s what voters knew about Coakley and voted against her. (Also, just look at the horrors Janet Reno created for child care workers, police officers and military personnel — which is why Bill Clinton wanted her to head the U.S. Justice Department.)

  • SgtMom

    Ritter has been caught in a scandal and should be going to prison, not just passing up reelection.

    When I was young and the women’s movement new, the promise was a better world if run by women.

    So far we have the world’s highest imprisonment rates, the Constitution is lying in shreds, another never ending ‘hearts and minds’ war, and Bill Ritter-esque pandering politicians.

    Not that I bought into it – but I’m disappointed to say the least.






Search