Martha Coakley and the child molesters
Just for a moment, forget about how compelling a candidate Scott Brown is. And forget about how nice it would be to have a Republican senator from Massachusetts, and a 41st vote against Obamacare.
Forget? Why?
Because, even if those things were not true, Martha Coakley should be defeated anyway, because of her record.
Most of Coakley’s professional experience has been as a prosecutor in Middlesex County, part of it as Chief of the Child Abuse Prosecution Unit, and some as DA. Compare and contrast the following four cases of child molestation with which Coakley was associated, and I think you’ll see what I’m talking about:
(1) In 2005 Somerville police officer Keith Winfield was strongly suspected of raping and genitally burning his 23-month-old niece with a hot curling iron. As DA, Coakley headed a unit that investigated without taking action at first, and later allowed him to be released on personal recognizance with no cash bail. Winfield ultimately was prosecuted by Coakley’s successor as DA and given two life sentences. And remember, the details of this story critical of Coakley appeared in the ultra-liberal Boston Globe (note the angry tone of the comments to the piece, as well).
(2) In 2008 a father punched out a janitor in a Market Basket supermarket because he found the employee reaching in under a bathroom stall in the men’s room to touch the leg of the man’s 4-year old child while the boy was urinating. The illegal alien janitor was charged with indecent assault (he later no showed at his hearing), but the boy’s father was also charged with assault. Coakley’s comment on a radio show? “We really discourage people from self-help.”
(3) Coakley was originally lax in prosecuting the man who ended up being one of the most notorious of the Catholic priest child abusers, Father Geoghan. In her defense in this case, however, is the fact that at the time the evidence first came into her hands (mid-90s), such cases were very difficult to prosecute. Read the whole thing for the rather complex details.
(4) But Coakley’s worst performance by far came in connection with the Fells Acres day care child abuse case (please read the entire link to get a flavor of the situation). Gerald (“Tookie”) Amirault, along with his elderly mother and sister, had been convicted during the day care child sex abuse scare of the 80s. But he was widely known to be innocent by the time Coakley came on the scene as DA, and his mother and sister had been freed years before.
Gerald had received a unanimous recommendation from the parole board for his release. But in 2001 Coakley lobbied that he be kept in prison, and she was successful. As a result, an innocent man was kept behind bars for another three full years to add to the fifteen he had already served.
If you read the message and comment boards for articles about Coakley, you will note the rage that still exists among locals towards Coakley for her treatment of Gerald Amirault.
Why did she do it? After all, she had not been his original prosecutor, so she wasn’t protecting her own decisions. Most likely, she was determined to defend the actions of her predecessor Scott Harshbarger, as well as reputation of the DA’s office, and to shore up her own creds as tough on crime and child abusers. Unfortunately, for that object lesson Coakley ruthlessly and despicably picked a man known to be innocent.
If you take a look at the history of the Fells Acre case, I think the original prosecutors can probably be forgiven. In the climate of the times, the widespread idea was that children always tell the truth and cannot be unduly influenced by the sort of leading questions the therapists used when interviewing them in the Fells Acres case. Now that we know the opposite to be true—that very young children are highly suggestible in such situations—almost all jurisdictions have put into place restrictions on such methods, and have trained special forensic units to be in charge of the children’s interrogations.
But by the time Coakley was blocking Gerald Amirault’s clemency, all of this was known. Her decision reflected a cold-blooded, small-minded, self-centered devotion to her own advancement at the expense of an innocent man. Let’s hope it backfires on her ambitions now.
From the guys at HillBuzz:
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/01/14/kurt-schilling-gives-yet-another-reason-not-to-vote-for-martha-coakley-who-hates-the-red-sox-and-thinks-fenway-park-is-stupid-and-i-hate-it-and-all-the-people-there/
Even Kurt Schilling gets it.
It seems she erred on both sides- being too tough, and being too lenient. And with a system that relies on good faith prosecutorial discretion (too heavily, I might add), you need someone with strong internal bearings and a sense of justice and not someone who dismisses questions with “Sorry…does anyone else have a question?”
Coakley isn’t just a so-so candidate running on the D-ticket; she epitomizes all that is wrong, terribly wrong, with the Democratic Party these days.
She deserves to lose, even in Mass., and the odds are looking better and better that she will.
Dorothy Rabinowitz’s WSJ columns, during the 1980s, exposed the horror of the Amirault, Wenatchee, WA and other cases of false accusations of child sex abuse. Without her “heroic” efforts many of these innocent individuals would still be in prison, today.
Attached is a link to a 2003 C-Span BookNotes interview with Dorothy Rabinowitz, by, the great, Brian Lamb, about her book, “No Crueler Tyrannies… .”
http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Rabinowitz_interview.htm
Standing there, as AG, watching a reporter get roughed-up by her goon was no sterling performance either.
Why did she do it?
because she is a neo liberal feminist and is following THOSE rules… and since you dont know them, you ahve to posit some other seeming logical idea that sounds good.
you didnt notice that the WOMEN got off…and the MAN is continued to be punished [there is even an organization of judges whose goals is to get people off AFTER the cases as thas easier]
“If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them.” — David Angier (Massachusetts District Attorney)
so under this doctrine, even false reports are always considered valid.
in family court (which your talking about) there is an asymetric situation of truth and such. that is, hearsay on the womans side is accepted as valid. that a womans freind can testify as to waht she said as a later date and its entered into the case as if she was a witness. rebuttal by the man is almost not allowed.
howevr one quote does not show you that this is part of the movement, and not what your musing it is.
“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience,” — Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.
[by the way, this statement parallels the statement by a convicted sociopath serial killer] “For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men.” — Wendy Dennis
the legal state in family courts was set by Katherine Mackinnon, and others who changed the constitutional burdens… ie made exceptions to precidence in violation of the constitition. things like not being able to see or know your accuser.
its why mens names (like the duke non rapists) are promoted publicly, but females, even if the purpetrator, are not. asymetrical application of the law. or as the rad fems say. one has to be treated by the law unequally to effect equal outcomes.
one has to take some time and read the books on feminist legal theory… Contemporary feminism holds that the prevailing culture is “patriarchal”, i.e. a male-dominated social structure, and the feminist agenda is not equal treatment for both sexes but the redistribution of power from the “dominant class” (men) to the “subordinate class” (women).
so such things as are happening to such men… are SOCIAL JUSTICE!!!! Alison Jaggar, Chairman of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on the Status of Women, writes in an essay in “Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Differences”, edited by Deborah L. Rhode, published by Yale University, that feminists should insist on “having it both ways”, i.e. “Feminists should embrace both horns of this dilemma….They should use the rhetoric of equality in situations where women’s interests clearly are being damaged by being treated either differently from or identically with men….Sometimes equality in outcome may be served best by sex-blindness, sometimes by sex-responsiveness”.
[ie.. if one position gives you and advantage, steal it. and if the opposite gives you and advantage steal it. this movement has nothing to do with merit, but only power. and power can only be felt by (sociopaths) by subjecting someone to something they dont want and hurts them and they cant do anything about.]
The Washington Supreme Court states that “we believe the removal from the prior rape statute of language expressly referring to nonconsent evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defence”. you also couple this with the idea that you cant let someone out who is accused becuase keeping him in is safer to protect the children.
A student at the University of Michigan was threatened with disciplinary action for pointing out on a computer bulletin-board exchange that a charge of date rape could be false. A memo from the Dean informed him that his opinion constituted “discriminatory harassment”.
Helen Garner relates a conversation she had with another feminist about the case: ‘”It’s terrible to me,’ I said, disconcerted, ‘to see the effects of this on his life, on his family”. ‘Oh’, (the feminist replied)
‘I don’t think he deserved what happened to him. He may be innocent – but he’s paying for many, many other men who have not been caught. It’s the irony of things, that sometimes the innocent or nearly-innocent pay for what the guilty have done'”.
“The hurting of women is . . . basic to the sexual pleasure of men.” — Andrea Dworkin, From The New York Times, Larry Elder, Smiting Moses, FrontPageMag.com July 10, 1998
[edited for length by neo-neocon]
effess,
I used to read the NYTimes every morning before work. It was a great newspaper. But, sometime in the mid-80’s it began the practice of putting op-ed peices on the front page as if they were news. My recollection is that they dealt with some feminist theory or another that was gaining favor. I switched to the WSJ primarily to read the editorial page. It was a breath of fresh air.
One day the WSJ carried an article by Dorothy Rabinowitz dealing with the terrible miscarriages of justice that were then taking place throughout the country in daycare centers. All of a sudden we were seeing an explosion of these cases, as if we were experiencing a new epidemic of flu. She followed up with additional articles over the years but, for a long while she was the only reporter acting as a real journalist. I was appalled at what she was reporting but very thankful that the WSJ gave her the prominent space her articles warranted. She was not afraid to take on the system and SHE won. My hero (heroine?)! I still read all of her articles because I know she has important things to say and she digs for the facts and tells the truth. She is one of the reasons why I am proud to be a WSJ reader.
Artfldgr, some unsolicited feedback. Neo’s posting was 734 words. Your posting was 3,368 words long. I am not going to bother to read a three thousand word comment. Write them if you want, but I am not going to read something that long.
Pingback:Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » Calling for Volunteers for Scott Brown Legal Team
Aftfldgr: I am well aware of the background of many radical feminists, as well as their opinions. I also (you may recall) have a law degree. What you may not know is that the interface of the law and therapists in the field of child abuse (including day care cases) is an area in which I have some background and expertise. And while I do not disagree that most radical feminists (the ones you quote) have had some influence (and still have an agenda) on that area, their influence is most definitely waning.
In addition, the Amirault case had nothing to do with family court. It was a straight criminal case. I studied the case in great detail when it happened, and afterward.
That said, I agree that part of what kept Gerald Amirault in prison longer than the women was that he was a man. But if you look at the facts of the case (see also this), the original allegations of abuse against him involved more children, and he got a longer sentence to begin with (perhaps also because he was a man). However, if you look at the long history of failed appeals for the women, the law was very hard on them, as well. In fact, the elderly mother, Violet, died at 74 while out on bail awaiting a new trial after serving 8 years of her 8-20 year sentence.
By the time Coakley worked her magic to keep Gerald Amirault in jail an extra three years, virtually everyone—men, women, and the parole board—knew he was innocent and were in favor of his release. Virtually the only people who wanted him still in prison were the parents (men and women) of the supposedly abused children, and the prosecution.
By that time, even many feminists were for his release, and were against the miscarriage of justice represented by his continuing imprisonment. For example, see this by feminist writer Katha Pollitt, which originally appeared in The Nation.
In yet another example of her stupidity, it was Coakley (who doesn’t think there are any terrorists in Afghanistan) who handled the “terrorist incident” of two men who placed Lite-Brite kits around Boston to promote the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie. Coakley defended her idiotic over-reaction by noting the terrifying nature of the Lite Brite kits.
“It had a very sinister appearance,” Coakley told reporters. “It had a battery behind it, and wires.”
[thx moonbattery]
Thanks for the wonderful answer…
and i totally agree with you
however, the whole scare happening and going after so many was from where and what ideas and whom?
i did not know that you also had law degree!!!
if i had only known i could have shortened that!!!!!!
i dont know if i agree that they are waning..
people have been saying that communism is dead… for dead its pretty spry.
you would be amazed at what i went through
[then again maybe not] with this system and what was changed and all that..
i wont even get into the unconstitutional powers delegated to CPS agents who regularly violate constitutional rights to warrants, due process, and other things
however i really wish you could show me the progress in this area. i would love to not be so upset and indignant as to where such presidential advisors, and such have taken us.
to really listen openly to what the result of all this is in our population is to hear a population dying because of a false situation created by rads and which foments such horrible results
heck… one thing i am glad of is that you realize that if i had a wand and could wave it and remove feminism… that wave wouldnt include the things that the women themselves earned for themselves that feminsms nut cases take credit for!!!!
women did what they were doing because they wanted to, not because fruitbats empowered them.
i put credit where credit is due.
and its due the women who did the work, who had the desires, and were willing to try
it does not belong to the harpies and seekers of power taking false credit and basically making everyone add a credit line to them in everything that is done.
you went to college, you paid the bills, you had the drive… i believe that without them… you still would have all those things…
the way i see it, i dont credit the surfer for the wave they are riding and taking credit for.
thanks for really really understanding and giving an incredibly good answer…
i have some more reading to add to my list now
Artfldgr: well, I know you can handle it, because you’re a speedy reader!
As far as feminism goes, when I was growing up there were a great many avenues that were either totally or virtually closed to women. For example, where I lived my brother had access to a very good private school my parents were willing to pay for, but it only took boys. They would have sent me too, if they could have—and there was no similar school for girls.
Instead I went to the local public high school, which was a completely different experience (a partly, but not altogether, bad one—and perhaps it was good because it served to toughen me up a bit). But looking back, I missed out on the very very fine education my brother got.
Later, his school became co-ed, and this was in part a result of the efforts of the earlier feminists. Too bad the movement got so taken over by the radicals—but I think that happens a lot in organizations when some of the goals are achieved. It’s the extremists who stay on and push for more. I well remember (although I can’t recall the date) when I began to notice that the women’s movement had been taken over by elements with which I, and most women I knew (even the ones on the left), had no sympathy.
Nowadays MADD is an established organization in search of a mission. Now they lobby to get the legal blood alcohol limits reduced. Since drunks who cause accidents or who get pulled over for driving erratically are usually way over the legal limit (see the police blotter section of your local newspaper), lowering the limit has exactly zero effect on problem drinkers and people who engage in recklessly irresponsible behavior. But it does>/i> ensnare moderate drinkers and generally responsible people who get caught at a checkpoint or who are stopped for a burnt-out taillight.
Not sure what happened there. I lost the first part of my comment. I’ll attempt to reconstruct it, because otherwise my 7:42 pm comment makes no sense whatsoever.
Neo:
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is a perfect example of that. The organization was founded to get the public, and the law, to take the problem of drunk driving seriously. Prior to that, offenders were often let off with a wink and a nod. They have succeeded in their original goals. Today punishments are severe and the laws are strictly enforced.
(Now go to my 7:42.)
I see I also got an angle bracket turned around at 7:42. Aargh.
I need a drink. 🙂
Years ago I saw a ‘made for TV’ movie about the Fells Acres day care child abuse case and was absolutely appalled. It wasn’t until just yesterday though that I learned that Coakley was the prosecutor. If my opinion of her could go any lower, it has.
Tom the Redhunter: she was not the prosecutor in Fells Acres. She was much worse. I repeat:
Thank you for this! This is a breath of fresh air. I really, really am afraid that this lightweight candidate will be elected.
Pingback:Keith Winfield Somerville | AXI
She’s a classic authoritarian, who cloaks herself in whatever she needs to to amass more legal power… liberal “gentle on the misunderstood,” conservative “tough on crime,” she can be both and neither as necessary to increase the scope of her power, and in particular to punish any who question her.
Every legal decision she’s made, the one consistent factor that seems to guide them is, “which of the choices will do most harm to my current political opponent?” Literally nothing else seems to matter to her.
Leaving politics out of this, how can a person like Margaret Coakley ever be allowed to be an attorney general of any state. Letting an officer off from abusing a 23 mo. old girl with a curling iron. What has this world come too? They thing water boarding terriorists is wrong, how can that be worse than this?
This article is a great example of cherry-picking information. Martha Coakley was very creative and successful in putting one of the most notorious Boston predator priests behind bars. I am one of Robert Gale’s many victims and will also appreciate what Martha did to get justice for us and try to protect other children from that monster.
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/082802_priest.htm
If all these are true then, it seems that she’s not someone people should trust to make the right decision for the general welfare of the people. If she has done these mistakes which has greatly affected the lives of innocent people as a DA, then she would be committing greater mistakes if she’s elected to the Senate. I hope people gets to know this before making a final decision to vote for her.
1993Victim: No one ever said Martha Coakley never did any good in prosecuting certain cases. She did. I”m glad she prosecuted your abuser successfully.
But she’s made an unacceptable number of egregious and very serious mistakes in judgment in other cases.
I strongly disagree with you on the national healthcare, I think that we need a national healthcare system because there are people like my mother who can’t get healthcare and medicaid doesn’t cover her medical bills, even though she is legally blind and was told she can’t drive and can’t work.
I do however think that Coakley is not only a horrible politician. Not only that, I think that based on her judgements in the cases you have mentioned and others, she is a horrible person. How are you going to charge someone with assault when the guy you assaulted was touching your child? If someone was touching my child I’d probably be in jail for murder, but as long as my child was safe I wouldn’t care. If someone abused her child, I wonder how she would feel about it.