Gerald Amirault on WEEI (yes Coakley came up)

"When you're accused of something as heinous as child molestation, people are very reluctant to do anything.

And it takes years and years and years for the media to catch up with something like this. And once they did and once the Wall Street Journal starting taking an interest in my case, which is a very conservative law and order type of a newspaper, it kind of put up the antennas for everyone else ...

We always felt that if they would look at this, they would see the injustice that happened to my family."- Gerald Amirault, January 14, 2010

Give it a listen. They talk about the case, the evidence, how Gerald coped with being found guilty and a prison sentence, the prisons he spent time in, his efforts to regain his freedom and Martha Coakley's role in that history.

Gerald was found guilty and incarcerated in July 1986 with a 20 year sentence. He had a wife and kids and therefore a lot to live for, "I loved my family, I love my kids," he said this morning on the radio. When asked what was going through his mind at the time of his incarceration he said, "I've got to find a way to get used to it and be able to live in the environment."

If you're not familiar with the Fells Acres child rape case, here's brief summary:

Starting in 1984, the office of Middlesex County DA Scott Harshbarger announced that Violet Amirault, her daughter Cheryl Amirault LeFave, and her son Gerald Amirault, owners of the successful 20-year-old Fells Acres day-care center in Malden MA, had suddenly converted it into a factory of child pornography and the most horrifying ritual abuse of helpless toddlers. Juries were persuaded to convict the Amiraults in 1986 (Gerald) and 1987 (Violet and Cheryl), due exclusively to the coached testimony of 3- and 4-year old children. No physical evidence or adult witness for any of the charges was ever found, despite the fact that the day-care center had always been open to a steady stream of unannounced parents and tradesmen. Starting in 1991, psychologists demonstrated how the leading questions used in cases like Fells Acres can brainwash child witnesses, but the Massachusetts legal establishment has, despite the valiant efforts of three Middlesex County trial judges, refused to correct a scandal.

After nine years in prison, during 1995, Gerald said he saw some news coverage of a day care center child molestation case in New Jersey, and wrote the reporter who covered the case, and asked her to look at his case too. She did. The reporter was Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal and her coverage of Gerald's case was part of the work cited when she won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary.

After twelve years in prison, during 1998, Gerald's mothers Violet and sister Cheryl were released having won a new trial. Martha Coakley decided to not retry Cheryl. So the case was back in the news at that time and Gerald hears "Governor Celluci make a comment in the media saying he thought Fells Acres was a very serious injustice." So Gerald suggested to his lawyer they go for a commutation request before the parole board because he believes if the parole board will grant a commutation recommendation, the Governor will too.

After fifteen years of incarceration, in July of 2001, the Massachusetts Parole Board unanimously recommends Gerald's sentence be commuted to time served, saying that "...clear and convincing evidence that his further incarceration would constitute gross unfairness."

But then Gerald explains,

"Gov Celluci decided to become the ambassador to Canada and Jane Swift takes over. I knew I was going to have problem... And Martha Coakley was the DA at the time, and she rallied the parents and got them to go up to the state house and try to effect Gov. Swift's decision, which she did."

In August 2001, DA Martha Coakley recruited some accusers to campaign with her on local talk-shows against Gerald Amirault. Subsequently, Jane Swift decided to not grant the commutation of Gerald Amirault's prison sentence.

Gerald goes on to make some harsh judgments about Martha and Harshbarger and Reilly.

"You've got to remember that Martha Coakley, Scott Harshbarger and Tom Reilly were all in the same district attorney's office. They're all friends. They don't have the courage to say they made a mistake in this case."

Dennis or Callahan ask Gerald, "Did she know you were innocent, did she know you were railroaded?"

"I don't think she would ever say that in public but I'll tell you, as a lawyer, and knowing the facts in this case, if she didn't know it after she saw what happened, and the things she knows they had to change, since my case. (They don't do things...) They use my case and the interviewing techniques that were used in my case as a tool to teach people in college how not to do an investigation."

So what Gerald is saying is that if Martha is worth her salt as an attorney, and she is reported to be an excellent attorney, she would have to know that Gerald did not get a fair trial because of the interviewing techniques that were used during the investigation are now taught in law school as how NOT to do an investigation.

On Friday, April 30 2004, after eighteen years of incarceration, Gerald Amirault was released on parole.

Three months ago, during the primary David Kravitz of Blue Mass Group contacted Martha Coakley to ask if she stood by her 2001 decision to oppose the Massachusetts Parole Board's 5-0 recommendation that Gerald Amirault's sentence be commuted to time served.

Kravitz, a former Supreme Court justice clerk for Sandra Day O'Conner, gave Martha Coakley an opportunity to express what every other person in the Commonwealth who has looked at the facts in the case knows, Gerald Amirault was not guilt of child molestation and child rape, instead he was wrongly convicted and wrongly incarcerated for almost two decades.

Here's how Kravitz frames the question to Coakley: "I asked her campaign whether Coakley stands by her decision in 2001 to oppose the Massachusetts Parole Board's 5-0 recommendation that Gerald Amirault's sentence be commuted to time served, and if she would do anything differently if she had it to do over again." And here's how Martha Coakley responded:

"Gerald Amirault, after a three month trial that included extensive victim testimony, physical evidence, and expert witness testimony, was convicted by a jury of his peers on all counts in 1986.

In the years that followed, Mr. Amirault appealed his convictions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) three times, and to the First Circuit Court of Appeals once.

On each occasion, after a careful review of the law and facts, including all of the investigative and interview techniques employed by the Commonwealth, the courts determined that Mr. Amirault's convictions were sound and that he received a fair trial.

To this day, all of Mr. Amirault's victims steadfastly maintain his guilt, and in fact came forward to publicly identify themselves in opposing his commutation. It is also important to note that to date, three Massachusetts Governors have each reviewed Mr. Amirault's case and each denied commuting his sentence.

Based on my own extensive experience with child abuse investigations and cases, and my thorough review of all the evidence, including that which is often taken out of context and deemed "exculpatory," I also believe the convictions were sound, and that he received a fair trial. It is for all of the above reasons that I, as Middlesex District Attorney, opposed his commutation, and I stand by that decision to this day."

Martha may be the only person in the state who thinks Gerald Amirault raped and molested little kids wearing a clown suit and using long knives. Either that or she is committed to Gerald's guilt because of her position in 2001 or because of her former boss Scott Harshbarger's position in 1985 or both. Either way, what is the merit is promoting a person from Attorney General to US Senate when they can't or wont recognize injustice before their very eyes?

Dorothy Rabinowitz cannot let it lie either. She writes in today Wall Street Journal:

Attorney General Martha Coakley—who had proven so dedicated a representative of the system that had brought the Amirault family to ruin, and who had fought so relentlessly to preserve their case—has recently expressed her view of this episode. Questioned about the Amiraults in the course of her current race for the U.S. Senate, she told reporters of her firm belief that the evidence against the Amiraults was "formidable" and that she was entirely convinced "those children were abused at day care center by the three defendants."

What does this say about her candidacy? (Ms. Coakley declined to be interviewed.) If the current attorney general of Massachusetts actually believes, as no serious citizen does, the preposterous charges that caused the Amiraults to be thrown into prison—the butcher knife rape with no blood, the public tree-tying episode, the mutilated squirrel and the rest—that is powerful testimony to the mind and capacities of this aspirant to a Senate seat. It is little short of wonderful to hear now of Ms. Coakley's concern for the rights of terror suspects at Guantanamo—her urgent call for the protection of the right to the presumption of innocence.

If the sound of ghostly laughter is heard in Massachusetts these days as this campaign rolls on, with Martha Coakley self-portrayed as the guardian of justice and civil liberties, there is good reason.

Don't promote Martha Coakley to US Senate or she'll be in the job for life. Vote for Scott or Joe if they are your cup of tea; they are not mine; but don't stay home. If you don't like the candidates, write-in the name of a candidate from the primary that you do like. That's what I'm doing. I liked Capuano and Kahzei. I'll decide before Tuesday. On Monday think about judging Martha Coakley not by the color of her skin but by the content of her character.

If you're not compelled by this argument, read this one "Is Martha Coakley committed to justice?" by RADLEY BALKO, senior editor for Reason magazine published Wednesday January 13.