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.

[Argus]

Janet Reno did the same thing to a guy in Florida when she was DA down there. Railroad the innocent into prison, get headlines, and make sure he stays in there to rot lest someone question your role. Refuse to knuckle under to liberal inquisitors, and you find out quickly how compassionate they really are.

[TroutStalker]

FYI.

[TroutStalker]

The man you refer to is Dwight Snowden, a former cop. Fortunately for him he was eventually released.

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

I'm a little confused here.... is the guy innocent or guilty? Obviously a jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is he somehow different than every other criminal claiming innocence?

If he's innocent then he needs better lawyers, if he's guilty then let him rot in jail. I personally don't get the idea of letting someone out early for "good behaviour". Good behaviour while in prison? Bizarre.....

[okie01]

The piece was by Dorothy Rabinowitz, I presume.

It is truly appalling that Amirault is still imprisoned. But it is good to see that Dorothy is still on the state's case.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts evidently still practices the Salem Witch Trial Alternative. Either:

a. Confess and be burned at the stake, or

b. Don't confess and be tested in the drowning chair -- survive and be found guilty, then burned as a witch, or be drowned and...acquitted.

[aristeides]

I saw a documentary on TV (PBS, I think) some years ago that detailed Janet Reno's railroading of both that cop and of a teenaged Dutch boy living in Florida.

[Tymesup]

He was convicted on the basis of statements made by children from his day care center. After extensive interviewing by child experts, young children made statements to the effect that Amirault had abused them. It is debatable whether these statements were, in fact, true. Dorothy Rabinowitz has written about this case in the Wall Street Journal (I suspect she wrote this article, too).

[aristeides]

Dorothy Rabinowitz has written persuasively in the past that he's innnocent. My recollection is that the testimony at trial was completely unbelievable.

[Tymesup]

And I suppose if Amirault took the treatment program, that would be an admission of guilt that would affect his parole application adversely, too.

[jackbill]

Janet Reno did the same thing to a guy in Florida when she was DA down there.

You might want to check out yesterday's editorial in the Washington Times. It discusses her despicable performance in that case (Grant Snowden).

The return of Janet Reno

[TroutStalker]

He is an innocent man. His mother and sister were both convicted as well, later having their's overturned. This was a political witchhunt. Unless you read the Wall Street Journal, you will never hear about this case.

More information can be found here: [Dorothy Rabinowitz] Gerald Amirault Has Reason to Celebrate">

[TroutStalker]

It was an unsigned editorial, however Dorothy Rabinowitz is on the editorial board, and has championed this case as well as other mass hysteria abuse cases around the country.

[dts32041]

Bingo, you got it.

If goes into tratment he admits he did something wrong.

Remeber this is the state where FBII's lie and covered up and cost a man thirty years of his life, then said what me worry.

Do not doubt that justice in MA is limited only to the kennedy's of the world.

[Rainbow Rising]

Meanwhile, real child molesters con their way through these so-called "treatment" programs, and are then set free to live among an unsuspecting public, despite the high recidivism rate of such criminals. The system is truly topsy-turvy. I can't imagine how Gerald Amirault stays sane in the midst of this nightmare. I'm glad the Wall Street Journal has kept up with his story, because few other media outlets seem inclined to do so.

[Right Wing Professor]

Something else should be mentioned; the guy who railroaded Amirault is a political liberal by the name of Scott Harshbarger. He was Mass. DA at the time, and made the cynical but correct political judgement that by joining in a feminist witch-hunt, he could both appeal to the left and appear 'tough on crime'. He's now President of Common Cause and a major campaigner for 'Campaign Finance Reform'. Another one of McCain's good buddies.

[SamAdams76]

I truly believe this man is innocent. I remember the case vividly from back in 1985. There was no physical evidence whatsoever presented in court that this abuse ever took place. Only the testimony of children who were coached extensively by "social workers." A child is very impressionable. I remember when I was six, my father threatened to throw me out the second story window of our house if I didn't behave and that he had already done it to another "bad" boy who is now dead. Of course this never happened. But my father told me that's what happened and I believed him at the time (probably after he had one too many shots of whiskey). I believed this for years until my father told me when I was around 10 that he made the whole thing up. But for years, I pictured this boy being thrown out the window by my father and would have have breathlessly told the tale to anybody that would listen to me. It doesn't take much to get a little kid's imagination running wild.

This case occurred during a time when there was a "witch hunt" of child molesters. Anybody accused of child molestation was automatically convicted in the media. Anybody brought up on such charges in a courtroom would get convicted, even if the evidence was not convincing. After all, what juror could let an accused child molester walk free?

It is because of this witch hunt mentality that I never became a Scout leader or a Little League coach and never worked with kids in any way. Why risk some kid pointing a finger at me and making a false accusation? My life would be over as I know it. A false accusation can have such horrendous consequences. We now read how teenage girls (and boys) concoct charges to "get back" at a strict teacher or some other hated authority figure. Some of them recant the charges but the falsely accused will have a cloud hanging over their heads for the rest of their lives, nevertheless. As for those who never recant, the poor guy ends up sitting in a jail cell, scorned by his fellow inmates and abandoned by his friends and family.

All Gerald Amirault had to do to go free was admit his guilt. He could have been home with his family many years ago and seen his kids grow up. But if you are innocent, how can you ever admit guilt? I try to put myself in Amirault's position and I would probably do the same thing, painful as it may be. No way would I ever admit to something so horrendous if I never did it.

The DA, social workers and other politicians in Massachusetts are too gutless to do the right thing. They want to cover their own asses so they will never admit that maybe they railroaded an innocent guy.

Remember, there was absolutely no physical evidence at all in this case suggesting that any sexual abuse took place at that day care. It certainly is a stretch to presume that Gerald Amirault, as well as his mother and sister could sexually abuse all these children without leaving a shred of physical evidence. It is even more of a stretch that not one of them would strike a deal with prosecuters and rat out the other two (or one) and that all three would willingly sit in jail for years when they knew that an admission of guilt would set them free. That is not what true pedophiles would do. A true pedophile would do whatever it takes to get out of prison so that they can do it again.

[jackbill]

Dorothy Rabinowitz has written about this case in the Wall Street Journal (I suspect she wrote this article, too).

Ms. Rabinowitz won her Pulitzer in part for her series on the Amiraults - mother, daughter and son. She has my undying respect for keeping up the fight.

Some day, this case will end up in the same history chapter as the Salem Witch Trials

[TroutStalker]

FYI

[SalukiLawyer]

This is routine. Typical case: an allegation of sexual abuse by parent is extracted from child by police. Without any other evidence this is sufficient for criminal charges and removal of child by DCFS. Since case may be (often is) weak, parent may indeed be permitted by the prosecutor to plead guilty to a lesser (often MUCH lesser) charge rather than run the risk of an unpredictable jury convicting him (or, yes, her) and the mandatory prison term that would entail. (This is sometimes called a "plea of convenience." The less polite term is an extortion.)

The return of the child now depends on the parent satisfying the State that he or she has "taken responsibility" for abuse that never occurred. This means confessing to a particularly horrible crime that never happened. When the desparate parent finally decides to parrot the required words and try to sham his or her way through group therapy, the State will say that doesn't count because the parent "doesn't mean it." Of course the State operates the psycho-social evaluation apparatus, too, backed up by still more court-recognized child advocacy volunteers and attorneys whose sole goal is to "play it safe" so there is absolutely no chance that the child is not "at risk." (Meanwhile, sexual abuse DOES go on in foster care, and not always by foster parents but by troubled OTHER children they are keeping.)

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