View Full Version : Martha Coakley: Too Immoral for Teddy Kennedy's Seat

12-10-2009, 09:17 AM
I remember this hysteria (http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2009/12/09/martha_coakley_too_immoral_for_teddy_kennedys_seat )from back in the 80's. I remember my kids threatening to call and rat me out when they got punished! But this is dispicable! Why does This state always want loons representing them!?!
From Ann Coulter!

In Tuesday's primary election, Massachusetts Democrats chose as their Senate nominee a woman who kept a clearly innocent man in prison in order to advance her political career.

Martha Coakley isn't even fit for the late Teddy Kennedy's old seat. (What is it about this particular Senate seat?)

During the daycare/child molestation hysteria of the '80s, Gerald Amirault, his mother, Violet, and sister, Cheryl, were accused of raping children at the family's preschool in Malden, Mass., in what came to be known as the second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history.

The allegations against the Amiraults were preposterous on their face. Children made claims of robots abusing them, a "bad clown" who took the children to a "magic room" for sex play, rape with a 2-foot butcher knife, other acts of sodomy with a "magic wand," naked children tied to trees within view of a highway, and -- standard fare in the child abuse hysteria era -- animal sacrifices.

There was not one shred of physical evidence to support the allegations -- no mutilated animals, no magic rooms, no butcher knives, no photographs, no physical signs of any abuse on the children.

Not one parent noticed so much as unusual behavior in their children -- until after the molestation hysteria began.

There were no witnesses to the alleged acts of abuse, despite the continuous and unannounced presence of staff members, teachers, parents and other visitors at the school.

Not one student ever spontaneously claimed to have been abused. Indeed, the allegations of abuse didn't arise until the child therapists arrived.

Nor was there anything in the backgrounds of the Amiraults that fit the profile of sadistic, child-abusing monsters. Violet Amirault had started the Fells Acre Day School 18 years before the child molestation hysteria erupted.

Thousands of happy and well-adjusted students had passed through Fells Acres. Many returned to visit the school; some even attended Cheryl's wedding a few years before the inquisition began.

It's one thing to put a person in prison for a crime he didn't commit. It's another to put an entire family in prison for a crime that didn't take place.

In the most outrageous miscarriage of justice since the Salem witch trials, in July 1986, Gerald Amirault was convicted of raping and assaulting six girls and three boys and sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison. The following year, Violet and Cheryl Amirault were convicted of raping and assaulting three girls and a boy and were sentenced to 8 to 20 years.

The motto of the witch-hunters was "Believe the Children!" But the therapists resolutely refused to believe the children as long as they denied being abused. As the police advised the parents: In cases of child abuse, "no" can mean "yes."

To the children's credit, they held firm to their denials for heroic amounts of time in the face of relentless questioning.

But as copious research in the wake of the child abuse cases has demonstrated, small children are highly suggestible. It's surprisingly easy to implant false memories into young minds by simply asking the same questions over and over again.

Indeed, the interviewing techniques in the Amirault case were so successful that the children also made accusations against three other teachers, two imaginary people named "Mr. Gatt" and "Al" and even against the child therapist herself -- the one claim of abuse that was provably true.

But only the Amiraults were put on trial for any alleged acts of abuse.

continued (http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2009/12/09/martha_coakley_too_immoral_for_teddy_kennedys_seat ?page=2)

12-10-2009, 10:03 AM
I don't remember hearing about this case. I remember the McMartin case in LA, and the one with the female teacher in New Jersey. I would think that the MA dems could find a better candidate-are they all out of Kennedys?

I came into children's services when a lot of these cases were starting to fall apart. We were trained to interview kids properly-never put words in their mouths, never suggest anything to them. We had one trainer in my early days, however, who was totally discredited later as a therapist. She evaluated a child in a custody dispute, and decided that the dad was a likely molestor, even though there were no allegations of abuse, nor any physical evidence. The training I went to that she was part of was at UM in Ann Arbor, and also had more reputable people involved, including UM's pediatric ob/gyn, cops and a good prosecutor. I remember all of us thinking that the therapist in question was full of crap, and that was a couple of years before her downfall. The things she told us to do were in direct conflict with what every one else on that panel had to say.

I have a coworker who took her daughter to a therapist because she wanted to prove that the girl's dad molested her, so that she could get visitation cancelled (yet still receive her child support). The therapist saw right through her, told her she had a smart child but that there were no signs of anything like that. I suspect when it's a custody case and false allegations are being made, the person behind the allegations is not necessarily the therapist, but the parent who brought the child in for the evaluation.

12-10-2009, 11:00 AM
This case is so notorious that has been used as an example of gross miscarriage of justice in numerous books, articles, and documentaries.

Every single Democrat who votes for this woman is voting for judicial tyranny. Every single one. :mad:

12-10-2009, 03:36 PM
Every single Democrat who votes for this woman is voting for judicial tyranny. Every single one. :mad:

In other words, they would be standing on their principles.

12-10-2009, 06:57 PM
WAIT - and this is what the dems of Mass picked for their candidate???

12-10-2009, 07:30 PM
WAIT - and this is what the dems of Mass picked for their candidate???

They probably couldn't find worse. Going from a murderer to this, its a whacked state!

12-10-2009, 10:32 PM
and they'll prolly elect the nutter :rolleyes:

12-11-2009, 12:54 AM
and they'll prolly elect the nutter :rolleyes:

The special election will be held Jan. 19; if the Repub wins, that would send earthquakes throughout the Democratic Congress. Health care legislation would die or be severely wounded. .

12-11-2009, 04:40 PM
She was the token woman on the ballot. For weeks before, the local rags were waxing rhapsodic about how historic an opportunity this was and how gender unity was required nationwide.

To be honest, she's actually worse than Kennedy - he had a personality.