How to Extort a Confession [Gerald Amirault]

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, April 22, 2002

[TroutStalker]

The latest obstacle to Gerald Amirault's freedom came without fanfare. A three-member panel of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections has now decided that, since the prisoner has refused participation in treatment programs for sex offenders, he was considered to be "in denial." Permission for him to appear before the Board that could grant early parole would therefore be denied.

[TroutStalker]

Thanks, I'll try and catch the Frontline show, or tape it anyway.

[TroutStalker]

Harshbarger is indeed one corrupt SOB, willing to trample anyone to get on top, just like Reno.

[ladyjane]

Wasn't the sister set free with the stipulation that she *not* talk to the media? I think the DA Martha Coakley made that part of her release.

[TroutStalker]

...the only news outlet that cares is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal because of the extraordinary Dorothy Rabinowitz.

Hey, the other so-called news outlets only report breaking news, not correcions or detailed discusson. That is so like old news.

[Deb]

You should have been out here in L.A. for the McMartin case. Since the story was broken by a local news guy at ABC (who was dating the social worker who invented the badgering technique of children to get accusations), the local media considered it their story and there's never, ever been anything like it.

KABC actually had a weeping teddy bear as their print and on-air logo for the daily stories.

[Deb]

Also, there's no link to Bush.

[Kevin Curry]

That road paved with good intentions has many, many stones with the mark "For the Children."

So what would you do--make it impossible to convict for crimes against children? Would that cheer you up?

I've always felt uncomfortable about this case, too. I remember watching the prison interview of one of the women on television. She had dark hair, a hint of a weak chin, and looked like some All-American mom who should be making cookies for a PTA meeting. But her eyes had a look of deep hurt and innocence in them, and I believed her implicitly when she said she had done nothing.

But it is possible to go too far the other way, and that's what you dipsticks do who sneer sarcastically, "it's for the children."

Yes, much of it is for the children--the weakest and most helpless among us. There's not a thing wrong with that. What's wrong is knee-jerk overreaction either direction.

The "adult freedom uber alles" mindset is just as dangerous and destructive as the "it's for the children" witchhunts that likely led to unjust convictions in this case.

Strive for balance, people. Strive for balance.

[Friedrich Hayek]

Albee had his target set on the Red Scares, the long series of anti-communist and anti-socialist hysterias that had swept up mnay Americans since the 1880's or so. And in particular what was to become the watershed mark of that long series of mass hysterias, the McCarthy hearings and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Well, I suppose you could compare the Amirault trial to the "Red Scares" except that, you know, the Communists were actually guilty.

[maryz]

Didn't she already turn him down?? But what about Mitt Romney (should he succeed in his bid)?

Yes, she turned him down. A while back the Supreme Judicial Court of MA rejected his appeal, in the interest of "closure" (justice was not mentioned).

The political problem for anyone who touches this is that, as I understand it, children who have been through those suggestive "interviews" about sexual abuse and are led (coerced?) after denial to say what the interviewer wants to hear remain convinced that they were in fact abused. Whenever the subject comes up, local talk radio draws many calls from the putative "victims," who argue -- near tears -- that they weren't lying. And they weren't; they had come to believe what they said.

[bvw]

The communists had "infiltrated" our government it is true. However so have Republicans and Democrats.

The Constitution is very clear on what a traitor is. No communist was a traitor, not the Rosenbergs -- even though Julius passed secrets to the Russians. Why? Because the Russians, the Soviets, were our *allies* not our enemies.

We never did get to officially declaring them an enemy, now, did we? And in World War II they were our ally.

The Red Scares were indeed a witch hunt. As *American* as John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts.

[SalukiLawyer]

So what would you do--make it impossible to convict for crimes against children? Would that cheer you up?

Yes, of course that's what I was talking about. Also making it impossible to convict any person of any crime. This is the studied opinion I have reached after years of experience and contemplation and have expressed here.

Now that we've gotten that silliness out of the way, I invite you to consider how child sex abuse cases are often different from other types of crimes, in terms of lack of credible evidence and high emotional charge. I also invite you to consider how easily the government can slip into the lives of law abiding citizens and completely disrupt families on the the flimsiest of excuses. In my experience the system has been designed to make a fair and accurate resolution of these cases exceedingly difficult simply because the process is UN-balanced.

[groanup]

Bump. All should re-read post #39.

[uvular]

Belated thanks for the ping; been in the process of moving the past month!

If Mr. Amirault ever gets out, I hope he sues everyone in the state, and at the top of the list to sue should be Scott Harshbarger. He was the original AG, and such as Reno, he was trying to make a name for himself, by prosecuting the Amiraults.

Hard to believe there will ever be a happy ending to this saga....