13 Comments

AWG: a question, was the girl shown in Dr. Cici’s video actually victimized? Would you vote to convict the doctor if the case was brought up in a criminal court based on her videotaped demonstration? Why or why not?

What an awful video, simply shocking….

Thank you Mr. Olson for allowing me to present the other side of the story on your web page.

The show above is another one-sided attack on the Amirault victims.

Amirault was found guilty and this verdict was upheld several times by both political parties. There were physical findings of abuse in the children and the children showed signs of strong sexualized behaviors after the abuse. The children as adults continue to state they were abused.
 
 for more information on this case:
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/fells-acres-%E2%80%93-amirault-case/

Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL 02/24/95 Hardoon
The three Amiraults — Gerald, Violet and Cheryl – were convicted after two trials before different judges and juries almost one year apart. They were represented by able and well-known defense counsel. The convictions were upheld after review by state and federal appellate courts….in Amirault, the majority of the female children who testified had some relevant physical findings, as did several female children involved in the investigation who did not participate in the trial. The findings included labial adhesions and hymenal scarring of the sort present in avery small percentage of non-sexually abused children….The victims and their families in these cases have been irrevocably harmed by what was done to them by the Amiraults. Every argument raised by Ms. Rabinowitz was ably presented by the defense at the trials. The juries, by their verdicts, rejected these arguments. Justice was done.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010719201703/http://www.vocal-nasvo.org/hardoon.htm

Mass. Victims Fight Commutation Plea By Leslie Miller AP
http://web.archive.org/web/20010807011330/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010802/us/preschool_abuse_3.html

Witness praises Amirault decision By John Ellement, Globe Staff, 2/23/2002 Amirault supporters are focusing on 2 percent of the children’s claims that ‘’seem inexplicable and they are conveniently ignoring the 98 percent of the case that was overwhelming” against Amirault. http://web.archive.org/web/20020224045327/http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/054/metro/Witness_praises_Amirault_decision+.shtml

Amirault was found guilty and this verdict was upheld several times by both political parties.

The Amirault verdicts were also overturned several times with some harsh words from judges who found the conduct of the investigators, the prosecutors and the parents to that approaching criminal.

There were physical findings of abuse in the children and the children showed signs of strong sexualized behaviors after the abuse.

Actually, the children showed no signs of physical abuse that could be directly linked to any behavior of the Amiraults.

The children as adults continue to state they were abused.

Yet none of the children ever explained their testimony of people who did not exist, and a secret room that they could not find and has never been found.

Your passion concerning this case is admirable, but misplaced. Continually shouting that the Amiralts were guilty and linking to blogs with a bias does not strengthen your position.

[…] mystified by the justifications offered in support of Coakley’s witch hunts. Walter Olson provides us with a video of John Stossel investigating the Fells Acre prosecutions and convictions (be sure […]

My wife is a wonderful, intelligent woman. When I help her with her homework, she will write down what she thought I said. “But that makes no sense” would be my exasperated reply. “But you said.” Why would I say something that made no sense?” The problem in her case is that she doesn’t filter what she says or hears for sense. It might be because English is her second language. I do not know Thai so I can’t test that possibility. Obviously many jurors do not filter for sense either.

It is not a matter of education. Janet Reno got her law degree from Harvard as did the prosecutor in the Amirault case.

And I though the worst about Coakley and the Amiraults was already out there. I was mistaken.

Good lord!

Actually, they aren’t blogs. They are the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald and the Wall Street Journal. Gerald’s conviction was never overturned. I trust the jurors opinions’ over a series of one-sided opeds that did not consider the victims point of view.

The children did point to the convicted child abusers in the court room. And the majority of their stories did fit. These are ignored by the WSJ opeds.

COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 404 Mass. 221 December 6, 1988 – March 6, 1989 The parents of the child witnesses testified about their children’s behavior while, or shortly after, attending Fells Acres. The children complained and cried about the school; they complained of stomachaches, headaches, pain in their genital areas, and bowel problems. They began bedwetting, lost their appetites, had nightmares, used baby talk, became fearful of lights, of men, and of being left alone. The children also displayed sexually explicit behavior; some began masturbating. Two of the boys tried to stick their tongues into their mothers’ mouths.

COMMONWEALTH vs. GERALD AMIRAULT. 424 Mass. 618 October 9, 1996 – March 24, 1997 The Commonwealth also presented a pediatric gynecologist and pediatrician who examined five of the girls who testified against Gerald. She made findings consistent with abuse in four of the girls….The parents of several children testified that their children developed pronounced sexual behavior and regressed to infantile behaviors such as bedwetting and baby talk. The same child psychiatrist who appeared at Gerald’s trial testified that these behaviors were commonly indicative of sexual abuse.

I’ve deleted a number of comments in this and the related thread as repetitious, superfluous, scurrilous, or needlessly graphic. Those who wish to learn more about the views of anonymous commenter AWG are free to follow the links that he or she has provided, but I believe that his or her dispute with other commenters has by now gotten all the airing it needs and intend to moderate accordingly.

I trust the jurors opinions’ over a series of one-sided opeds that did not consider the victims point of view.

Yet your primary source of “http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/fells-acres-%E2%80%93-amirault-case/” is a blog. You have continually referred to that source and have also misrepresented other sources.

Gerald’s conviction was never overturned.
The women’s original judge, Paul Sullivan, believes that their convictions should be overturned. When Sullivan retired, the case was given to Judge Robert Barton. Barton is so convinced that a miscarriage of justice occurred that he recused himself, believing he could no longer be impartial. On July 6, 2001, the Massachusetts Parole Board voted 5-0 in support of commutation. Although the parole board is not permitted to consider guilt or innocence, its recommendation said: “(I)t is clearly a matter of public knowledge that, at the minimum, real and substantial doubt exists concerning petitioner’s conviction.”

The children did point to the convicted child abusers in the court room.

After being coached they did. At the beginning of the investigation, the parents were told to go home and talk to their children to find the abuse. They were not told to find if abuse had occurred, they were told to find it. The parents were told “not to take no for an answer.”

It is incredible that you believe that a child wouldn’t do or say what their parents, the police and other authority figures would want them to say.

The children did point to the convicted child abusers in the court room.

They did? Did they point to the “clown with the red nose?” Did they point to “Mr. Gatt?” (a fictitious person) Did they point to “Al?” (Another fictitious person.) Did they point to the robots they claimed had abused them? Did they point to the therapist that interviewed them that at least one child claimed had abused him?

And the majority of their stories did fit.

They fit the narrative you wish to believe. There was no physical evidence as horrific as would have been present had the children actually been abused. The bedwetting, nightmares, etc all started AFTER the investigators and therapists got their hands on the kids. In fact, no child ever made a spontaneous claim of abuse. Not a one.

This trial took place at a time when child abuse hysteria was rampant in the country. The techniques used to interview the children are long since discredited and no longer in use.

This was and continues to be an egregious miscarriage of justice.

I checked that source above (eass) and it does contain newspaper article excerpts. The excerpts do cover the childrens point of view, but it is refreshing to see a balance in the debate here.

The legal debate had two sides. Some judges and all of the juries believed he was guilty. Others as mentioned above did not.

I have not read of any accurate evidence of that parents were told to find abuse. The abusers could have worn costumes, this is common for abusers to do in group settings. The court testimony I read has shown that the childrens symptoms occurred well before any investigation. Usually 2 and 3 year olds do not make spontaneous claims of abuse.

IMO, both sides of the story need to be told. The children deserve no less.

IMO, both sides of the story need to be told. The children deserve no less.

Do it for the children!™

It appears that AWG has taken on a new persona.

The court testimony I read has shown that the childrens symptoms occurred well before any investigation.

There was one child who before the investigation began, was wetting the bed. He was taken to a doctor and his parents were told that there could be a variety of reasons for the bed wetting including abuse. The parents went with the abuse angle and that is what started the investigation. There is no evidence that any of the other children were exhibiting abnormal behavior.

The abusers could have worn costumes, this is common for abusers to do in group settings.

Yes, they could have dressed up as a therapist and abused them as one child claimed the state therapist did. None of the kids ever reported being blindfolded during the abuse, yet none could ever show investigators where the “special room” some of them claimed existed was.

Of course part of the problem is that you and others keep saying “they could have” done this or that. What a person “could do” is not relevant. What matters is what they did do. We shouldn’t convict people on what is possible, faulty testimony and hysteria. That is what happened here.

Usually 2 and 3 year olds do not make spontaneous claims of abuse.
Actually they do. When asked, they will respond openly in many cases. None of the alleged victims in this case did.

As proof that kids do make statements when asked, please look up the case of Keith Winfield and how Coakley dragged her feet against prosecuting a police officer who when a child seemed hurt told his parents “uncle hurt me.” The accusations in that case are so horrific that I am sure that Mr Olsen would rightfully edit them if I included them here.

IMO, both sides of the story need to be told. The children deserve no less.

Don’t the children deserve the truth? Don’t the Amiraults deserve the truth? You seem to be starting with the premise that the Amiraults were guilty and that a corrupt prosecution somehow is “for the children.”

The rest of us see this as a case where there are two sets of victims – the children and the Amiraults. The children had their childhood ripped away by overly zealous investigators, therapists and prosecutors. The Amiraults had their lives and livelihood destroyed by those same prosecutors, investigators and therapists.