Skip to comments.Witchcraft's Candidate (Ben Stein on Coakley and the Amiraults)
Posted on 01/18/2010 8:26:57 AM PST by reaganaut1
In the entire history of jurisprudence of the United States of America, there are no cases that I know of more shameful than the prosecutions of several groups of day care operators on totally false, trumped up charges of child abuse. In the Fells Acres case in Massachusetts and the McMartin Pre-School case near Los Angeles and in some other cases in the 1980s, wildly, insanely fabricated charges were made against totally innocent men and women running child care centers.
These charges involved such mental illness artifacts as that teachers at the schools put meat cleavers in the rectums of small children and then drew them out -- without leaving a mark -- that teachers flew around the school yard on brooms, that teachers cut off the legs of animals in front of children, all with zero evidence, of course.
The Fells Acres case in Massachusetts put several totally innocent men and women in prison for extended periods and ruined their reputations and lives -- all, again, on charges that could not possibly have been more insane.
These were cases that made the Stalinist Show Trials of the 1930s, with prosecutor Andrei Vishinsky, seem sensible and temperate by comparison. They were abuses of prosecutorial discretion on a monstrous scale. They were brought to ridicule by many writers, chiefly the great Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
Now, here come some really breathtaking parts. These cases were little by little overturned and sentences commuted by authorities in various places, even in Massachusetts. But in the Bay State, guess which state prosecutor fought like a tigress to put the totally innocent Gerald Amirault back in prison and keep ruining this innocent family's life?
A woman named Martha Coakley.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
It is an amazing case. She should be in prison IMO. Has the media in Mass not mentioned this? How is this woman getting ANY support?
Sickening. I didn’t realize it was Coakley that was behind that freak show set of trials.
It was not. Martha Coakley’s involvement took place more than ten years after the original trials, when she used her position to keep Gerald Amirault in prison because (to summarize) he was a man.
Oh, thank you for explaining. She supported the injustice even after we all knew it was unjust. Even worse in a way.
I followed the links back to make sure I had the point.
And you’re right, it is worse, in a way, than having been swept up in the original hysteria.
I hadn’t seen anything on these cases in years, I guess not since the original WSJ research appeared. It boggles the mind that people could have been convicted of rapes with *no* physical evidence that anything of that nature occurred.
Let us not forget that Mitt Romney could have commuted this guy’s sentence but he refused.
He likes to brag that he never ever commuted or pardoned anyone.
Just so we're extra crystal clear, she wouldn't prosecute a man who so badly burned a 22 month old's vagina with a curling iron that she needed to spend months in a hospital, yet she wouldn't lift a finger to release an innocent man.
Sounds like an archetypical liberal to me
I will never forget those insane trials and the obscene behavior of law enforcement. Even worse, as a former mental health administrator,I was enraged by the woman psychotherapist who badgered children in to making those outrageous allegations. After thirty years in the profession I know that there are many in the feild who have no business being there.
I don’t think that she ever did a day in jail. It is almost impossible for me to understand how that whole thing could have happened. Every single person who perpetrated that crime against innocent people should still be in prison.
If Coakley’s feminist proclivities caused her to fight to keep innocent people in prison she needs to be incarcerated rather than elected to the Senate. My question is why have the Brown campaign people not reminded voters of the history of this goof ball A.G.?
Yes, it does.
As with the current Democrat Governor and Senator in North Carolina, what really stands about Martha Coakley is how incredibly, unutterably dumb she is.
Then there was the case of a little boy molested in the bathroom of a supermarket by an illegal alien. The father punched the illegal in the mouth and cut his lip. Martha prosecuted the father for assault saying he should have waited for the police.
Martha also was responsible for pressuring the Cambridge Police to drop the charges against Skip Gates. No wonder the Cambridge Police endorsed Brown.
And still, she was the bestest candidate the democrats could find in the whole gosh-darned state. Go figure...
“Martha prosecuted the father for assault saying he should have waited for the police.”
Actually the father was not prosecuted. The illegal charged in the molesting of the little boy was let out on bail or personal recog and fled the state. The charges were dropped against the father. CHARGES THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. That dad should have received a medal for protecting his son. Martha’s statement on local talk radio about the dad’s actions were that she “didn’t encourage self help”.
ELECT SCOTT BROWN FOR US SENATE!
She’s a fraud .. like the rest of the democrats .. so why wouldn’t they support her ..??
The worse these people are, the more the dems support them and give them awards.
These people are SICK!
They have ONLY ONE GOAL - POWER OVER YOU AND ME.
I believe Coakley has already stated the public “cannot understand the healthcare bill” .. meaning YOU - yes, YOU .. ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW WHAT’s GOOD FOR YOU .. AND of course what’s good for you is to just shut up and let the dems do what they want.
This kind of arrogance is over the top .. and I believe America has finally had enough!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.