Posted on 01/18/2010 9:32:36 AM PST by Nachum
Not since the Salem witchcraft trials has there been a worse disgrace in the annals of Massachusetts jurisprudence: the railroading of an innocent Malden family during the legally sanctioned insanity known as the Fells Acres child-abuse case. Probably the apogee of the mass hysteria that gripped the U.S. beginning about 1995, the Amirault case continues to resonate – in part thanks to Martha Coakley’s inexplicable disinterest in seeing that justice was done.
You can read up on the case here and here. Be sure to steel yourself. And then ask yourself: how could any rational human being have possibly believed the charges were true?
(Excerpt) Read more at bigjournalism.com ...
We will all be happy to be well rid of Coakley.
IF Scott Brown wins this election... can we assume that something will be done for Gerald Amirault?? At present, he is on parole, has to wear some sort of a gps ankle bracelet which he has to pay the state for (just like in North Korea), is classified as a dangeorus sex offender, and is not allowed outdoors between 11:30 pm and 6 am. You’d like to think that something could be done.
bttt
I think this is more than stupidity. It is more like a Nifong, Duke Rape Case, where an ambitious Prosecutor railroads people for career advancement.
The legal system that put Amirault away for twenty years is distorted by moral hazard. These people who were apparently raped by 'robots' and 'clowns in hot-air balloons' don't need to work for the rest of their lives - unless they admit that nothing whatever happened to them.
And we look down on the Salem Witch trials.
There's that, too, just as you say. But it's harder to sum up in a 5 word insult. I'm just trying to keep it pithy. ;0)
Just so we're extra crystal clear, she wouldn't prosecute a man who so badly burned a 22 month old's vagina with a curling iron that she needed to spend months in a hospital, yet she wouldn't lift a finger to release an innocent man.
Protect the guilty.
Punish the innocent.
Naked classic liberalism at its finest...
That can't possibly be an excuse when everybody knows the truth of the case at this point. What I mean is, that there would be no possible excuse for Brown to win this senate race and not try to do something for Gerald Amirault.
As I recall, Vincent Bugliosi wrote that the prosecutor is the only court officer SWORN to ensure that justice is done. The judge, the jury, and the defense attornies have no such sworn duty. The judge’s role is to ensure that the rules are followed, the jury to carry out their responsibilities as charged by the judge, and the defense attornies can pretty much do whatever they like. This is all a slight exaggeration, but that was the gist of his viewpoint....
hh
“an ambitious Prosecutor railroads people for career advancement.”
You’d think that in 2010, kooks like Coakley would have been relegated to the dustbin of history, but the fact that she’s advanced to a major party nomination shows that witch-hunting never goes out of style. Seems the wrong person was behind bars.
I agree this was that bad.
Yes, the vics
cashed in. Here's a 1997 piece in the Herald by Tom Mashberg:
Although 10 children testified against Violet, Cheryl, and Gerald "Tooky" Amirault during their two criminal trials in the 1980s, a total of 16 families received financial settlements related to the Fells Acres Day School abuse case, documents obtained by the "Herald" show.Those 16 settlements, totaling $20 million, were negotiated by independent civil litigators representing the plaintiffs and their parents. The awards were all approved by the Amiraults' insurers, Worcester Insurance Co., in a series of out-of-court agreements completed in 1991.
Violet Amirault, 74, and her daughter, Cheryl Amirault LeFave, 41, are likely to be sent back to prison soon. Four weeks ago yesterday, the Supreme Judicial Court reinstated their convictions in the much-disputed 1984 Fells Acres abuse case.
Although the SJC's ruling was to have taken effect yesterday, it has been delayed until the seven justices can consider a motion for a rehearing submitted by the family's lawyers two weeks ago. In the event that the justices dismiss that motion -- perhaps as early as Monday -- Middlesex County prosecutors will be free to ask a judge to order the women back to jail.
The cash settlements with the families vary greatly, and in some cases children who did not testify in court received bigger awards than those who did so. Some of the children, who were 4 and 5 years old when the school closed, will be turning 18 this year and receiving lump sums of about $50,000.
For some, there will be lump sums again at 21 and 25, and then monthly payments for life. Eight of the 10 children who testified at the Amiraults' 1985 and 1986 trials received financial settlements, the documents show. The other eight who were awarded cash did not testify but attended the Malden day school.
None of the lawyers for the children or for the Amiraults would comment on the awards, which were kept confidential as a condition of the settlements.
But Patricia Amirault, Gerald's wife, said: "For some of the people, I think the money was a clear-cut motive. And for others, I absolutely think they believe in the State's insistence that these kids were sexually abused, and money came later."
The mother of one child who did testify told the "Herald" in 1995: "I've said it before. I'd give up all the money if it meant this never happened."
In one settlement, a young girl who attended the school for less than two months and did not testify received $70,000 up front, and will receive lump sums of $35,000 at ages 18, 21, and 25. At 25, she will recieve $378 per month for life, starting in 2011. Her parents were also granted $70,000. Another girl who did not testify received $85,000 up front and will receive $2,385 per month for life, starting in 2011.
The young boy whose allegations prompted the initial investigations of the school received $75,000 up front and $35,000 at age 18. He will receive $45,000 at age 21, $65,000 at age 25, and $110,000 at age 30.
Monetary awards have been granted by insurers representing other day-care providers convicted of sex abuse in the 1980s, including cases in New Jersey and North Carolina that were subsequently overturned.
In those two cases, insurers continue to make payments and have declined to sue the authorities despite the fact the defendants were later vindicated.
To the extent there are victims in this case, they are Worcester Insurance and the children in whom the Commonwealth planted painful false memories, in order to advance the careers of ambitious prosecutors. And the perp is Massachusetts, and a significant accomplice is Martha Coakley!
Disbar her. Now.
Wasn’t it a similar situation that endeared Janet Reno to Slick Willie prompting him to appoint her AG?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.