January 15, 2010, - 5:03 pm

On Martha Coakley: Send to Your Friends on the Fence in Senate Race

By Debbie Schlussel

If you have any friends who live in Massachusetts, I hope you’ll send them the link to this terrific, heartbreaking article by my friend, Wall Street Journal editorial board member and author Dorothy Rabinowitz, about how Massachusetts U.S. Senate candidate Martha Coakley destroyed a family and sent them to prison when she knew the whole case was phony.

marthacoakley2whatmeworry

amiraultfamily

Martha Coakley:

She Destroyed the Amirault Family; Only Worried About Gitmo Terrorists

And send it to your friends before Tuesday’s special election for the Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat.  It’s so important that you send it to friends who were planning on not voting Tuesday or who were planning to vote for anyone other than Scott Brown (a vote for the libertarian candidate, Joe Kennedy, will help elect this witch Coakley).

As you may know, Dorothy, who does great investigative reporting, has been on the case of the outrageous, trumped up prosecution of the Amirault Family of Massachusetts and has exposed it as baseless in her reporting over the last three decades.  The Amiraults–hard-working, successful people who busted their asses to get off of welfare and make something of themselves–were sent to prison on ridiculous, phony, coached child molestation charges, without a shred of evidence.  And Martha Coakley, as a prosecutor, was chief among those who destroyed that innocent family.

An excerpt:

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.

Read the whole thing.  It will break your heart and make you angry, as it should.

And, again, please send the article to all of  your friends, telling them why it is so important to go to the polls and vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday.  Even friends who do not live in Massachusetts may have other friends who do.

If for no other reason than this (and there are plenty of other reasons), we cannot allow this woman–who cares more about the “innocence” and “rights” of murderous Islamic terrorists in Gitmo than she does about innocent hard-working Americans–to attain a U.S. Senate seat.  Regardless of ideology, basic human decency requires and demands that she be defeated for what she did to the Amiraults.

Learn more about what happened to the Amiraults and Martha Coakley’s role in it, from an excellent interview Dorothy Rabinowitz did on C-SPAN.

***

BTW, for readers who want to know why I dislike Mark Levin, Dorothy Rabinowitz is one of the reasons why.    He repeatedly, viciously attacked Dorothy Rabinowitz on his nationally-syndicated radio show as, among other things, “an old bag.”  Her crime:  supporting John McCain for President.  Not that, in his 50s, Mr. Levin is exactly a spring chicken, himself.  A longtime conservative and investigative journalist crusader for truth and what is right, she’s done more for other Americans than Mark Levin can ever dream about.  She helped free the Amiraults and other American families falsely accused of child molestation.  Levin helped free, um . . . oh, never mind.

When I was an undergrad and conservative activist at the cancerous, far-left Unversity of Michigan in the late ’80s, my father sent me a subscription to “Conservative Chronicle,” a compendium of syndicated conservative columnists.  Back then, Dorothy Rabinowitz was a syndicated conservative columnist, whose terrific columns and groundbreaking work were (and remain) unmatched on figures like Yasser Arafat, Jesse Jackson, etc.  “Read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s columns, this week,” my Dad would urge me over the phone.  “They’re the best.”

dorothyrabinowitz

Dorothy Rabinowitz

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

39 Responses

I’ve read the entire account of the Amirault case. Coakley is a fiend, as are all of the Democrat politician-lawyers, including that POS Harshbarger. If there is a God, and I’m increasing disposed against the notion, the Coakley and all the rest of the lawyers and judges who destroyed this family will contract some horrendous disease, die a painful and horrible death and then be be transported directly to Hell.

Mike on January 15, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Among Violet Amirault’s final words, “Do not vote for Scott Harshbarger.” Harshabarger is involved with the group Common Cause. He should be removed immediately and publicly shunned. Another phony is “child advocate” Wendy Murphy who used to appear on Fox (she has not been on for a while). Her words when an appeal for Violet’s daughter was rejected, “Put a fork in her . . . she is done.” Very nice, Wendy – problem is the INNOCENCE of the Amiraults. I wish somebody would start a civil suit for damages against Harshbarger, Murphy, COAKLEY, et al.

    AliceL. on January 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    The daughter, in order to be released from prison, was forced to agree not to “discuss the case”. Talk about denying somebody their constitutional rights! And yet Coakley, et al. give these rights to terrorists. Harshbarger belongs in jail. I believe that this case derailed his candidacy for governor but he has not paid enough as far as I am concerned. He is mentioned in Bernie Goldberg’s book “One Hundred People who Are Screwing up America”. His name should live in infamy and yet he is sometimes on local Massachusetts news programs and treated like a celebrity!

    AliceL. on January 16, 2010 at 12:20 pm

Ms Rabinowitz is a beautiful woman, and I’m looking forward to knowing her better. Thanks for article about her.

psych37 on January 15, 2010 at 8:38 pm

Gee, conservatives only seem to care about prosecutorial misconduct when it suits their needs. Coakley had nothing to do with the original trial of these people. The only thing Coakley did wrong in this particular case was to not help free Gerald Amirault or get his sentenced commuted earlier. Coakley played a small part in this fiasco. If you want to blame someone or something, blame Christian conservatism for its fervor against Satanism in the 80s leading to so many innocent people being accused of the ritual sex abuse of children.

What Coakley did was wrong but how is she a fiend if she truly believed the family was guilty of horrendous crimes against children?

I’d rather vote for Coakley than Brown whose pinky is bigger than his “junk”.

Norman Blitzer on January 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    Uuuuhhhhh…….
    You would pick a candidate based on the size of their junk?
    I guess I’d rather be a conservative.

    Captain on January 15, 2010 at 8:57 pm

      It has shown its preference for rather bizarre things before. I wonder how often its probation officer comes by?

      Worry01 on January 15, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Norman, Martha made sure that Gerald could not be released early. She campaigned with the governor of Massachusetts so that she would not sign off on the release. And yes, Coakley, Harshbarger, et al. knew they were innocent just as that other paragon of “virtue’, Janet Reno did when she was a prosecutor in Florida. Do not blame the Right on this – blame idiot LIB prosecutors who think they are “protecting” children when all they are interested in is advancing their careers.

    AliceL. on January 16, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Norman,
    I guess that your comment shows what head the libs vote with!!

    Bigtee on January 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm

It is too bad that we can’t filter out comments from the blitzers in the world. Maybe it is a good thing or else, none of us would have a say. When you read comments like this, you need to read them with an open mind and a grain of salt.

arejaymack on January 15, 2010 at 8:57 pm

Wow Blitz, that last line says much about you. Not good.

ted washington on January 15, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    I wonder how often his caregiver comes by to clean off the keyboard and screen? There are alot of thankless jobs out there.

    Worry01 on January 15, 2010 at 11:09 pm

Debbie, this looks like a good movie material. Looking at all the garbage movies regarding the so called “injustice” of the law from the likes of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, why not this thing be considered for making a movie?
Rex

Rex on January 15, 2010 at 10:30 pm

Martha Coakley did the politically correct thing, rather than the right thing. There is no independence of mind in that woman. I am amazed that she is Attorney General of Massachussetts with her background. Martha Coakley seems to have the ethics of a Mike Nifong.

Worry01 on January 15, 2010 at 11:24 pm

Perhaps Coakley should lose this election, but why didn’t Ms Rabinowitz mention the name of the governor who didn’t release Gerald in Feb. 2002?

“On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald’s commutation.”

Maybe because she was Republican Jane M. Swift. No politician in Mass. after what happened to Dukakis would dare release a “dangerous” criminal. Would someone ask Scott Brown if he would have released these folks? Fair is fair, right you all?

J: You gotta read the Rabinowitz article. She specifically noted that Swift did this. BTW, Swift was a huge fan of Sarah Palin and like Palin had her husband raise her kids while she was Gov. DS

Joseph on January 16, 2010 at 12:52 am

    She did. Try reading again.

    “Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board’s findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board’s ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.”

    Will you try being a bit honest in the future, or if you are you should improve your reading skills. Also, Martha Coakley was the person behind this, and not Governor Swift. Someone in Governor Swift’s position relies upon the veracity of people such as Coakley when making such decisions. I guess that was a very big mistake. In addition, why should Mr. Brown have to answer for Ms. Coakley’s lack of judgment? May you face a prosecutor like Ms. Coakley someday, and then think about what you have just said.

    Worry01 on January 16, 2010 at 3:47 am

    Joseph:
    Despite the crooked and corrupt actions of this lying piece 0f scum he was released, by a Massachusetts gov. Exactly how does your mind work?

    Thomas Jackson on January 16, 2010 at 7:38 pm

“Gee, conservatives only seem to care about prosecutorial misconduct when it suits their needs. Coakley had nothing to do with the original trial of these people. The only thing Coakley did wrong in this particular case was to not help free Gerald Amirault or get his sentenced commuted earlier. Coakley played a small part in this fiasco. If you want to blame someone or something, blame Christian conservatism for its fervor against Satanism in the 80s leading to so many innocent people being accused of the ritual sex abuse of children.

What Coakley did was wrong but how is she a fiend if she truly believed the family was guilty of horrendous crimes against children?

I’d rather vote for Coakley than Brown whose pinky is bigger than his “junk”.

Norman Blitzer on January 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm”

Blitzer I wonder idiot if you and the following commenter after the story ARE RELATED…

“PAUL SERRANO replied:

So, Coakley becomes Middlesex County District Attorney Martha Coakley in 1999, 14 years after charges were filed in the case, and 13 years after the convictions, however, it’s ‘all Coakley’s fault?’

The case was DUMPED into Coakley’s lap, and the first thing she did was reach an agreement with Cheryl Amirault whereby she would be sentenced to the time served and she was released. Yeah, really inhumane of Coakley..

The commentator fails to mention, surprisingly, that prior to Coakley’s taking over as DA, the the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had reinstated the conviction TWICE, overturning appeals by lower courts. Coakley’s total involvement in the case ended in April, 2004 when Gerald’s sentence was commuted; in the twenty year history of the case, Coakley’s brief tenure helming the prosecution marked the end of the Amirault’s ordeal, another point the writer glosses over as not worth pointing out.

It is clearly the assertion by the author is that Coakley was the prime mover behind the families ordeal, when in fact she took over a case that was already FIFTEEN years old when it was handed to her.

Why not try actually pillory the prosecutors or even the JURORS who got the Amirault’s thrown into prison, rather than the prosecutor who happened to be in office when they were released??”

TALK ABOUT SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO WORK IN COINTELPRO!

Bob Porrazzo on January 16, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Jurors have come forward and admitted their mistake. Coakley and Harshbarger have not and Coakley lobbied the governor to make sure that Gerald did not get an early release.

    AliceL. on January 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm

Didn’t know that about Levin. I knew he supported McCain uncritically, but didn’t know about the attack on Rabinowitz. That’s one thing about age discrimination; sooner or later the people doing the discrimination or hurling the epithets get there themselves.

One of the Republicans’ problems is that many of there most vocal spokespeople are hacks like Levin et al.

Little Al on January 16, 2010 at 7:18 am

Sorry — I read the passage about Levin and McCain too quickly.

Little Al on January 16, 2010 at 8:04 am

Surprising Coakley’s uncanny resemblance to Alfred E. But that is as far as it goes. From the time Alfred E came on the scene many years ago, I have found him much more credible, dependable and trustworthy in comparison with any of the devout socialists coming out of Massachusetts.

Jim on January 16, 2010 at 9:40 am

[Blitzer I wonder idiot if you and the following commenter after the story ARE RELATED…
Bob Porrazzo on January 16, 2010 at 6:36 am]

Well Bob Porrazzo, you certainly are a “wonder idiot”. Did PAUL SERRANO get any facts of the case wrong?

Norman Blizter on January 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Blitzer:

    Are you stupid or just too drugged to be bothered with the facts? I suppose you believe the stories about magic rooms, dead animals, and all the other pixie dust that just somehow these corrupt idiots couldn’t present any evidence for and railroaded innocent people?

    Tell us what facts these cretins got right6, just so we can get confirmation of your IQ.

    Thomas Jackson on January 16, 2010 at 10:37 pm

The email I just wrote to the Brown campaign. I am having trouble with Opera Mini Beta, so sorry if there are duplicates.

After Debbie Schlussel wrote in support of your man, I learned more. In the actual legislative record the good senator had nothing to say about illegal immigrants and seems unconcerned about Islam, as he seems never to have mentioned it. Also, he supports giving the House of Islam another beachhead in the Middle East (A.K.A. the “two-state solution”). Simply because the Israeli leftist establishment supports the extension of Islam it does not follow that the senator should. But he did want to trash a ridiculously generous statute of limitations by removing it entirely.

So, to review, in the two areas of vast illegal and dangerous activity, Brown is MIA. He may be better than the Croaker–but he lacks courage regarding the issues that can really kill us.

S: I was not aware of this. Thanks for enlightening us. But he is still miles above Coakley, who is definitely on the wrong side of all of these things and morally bankrupt. DS

Skzion on January 16, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Thank you for the irrelevant remarks. Also, the Massachusetts legislature has no authority over such matters. Could you actually cite the record book and page, rather than doing a troll spread here?

    Worry01 on January 16, 2010 at 6:14 pm

There were several of these types of cases in across America like this back in the late 1980s and into the 1990s.

There was one in Edenton,NC as well.

It was a bogus case and a very nice family was destroyed the same way the Amiraults were.

I wonder what was really happening with all these so-called child therapists.

I heard that one in Augusta,Ga was found to have been able to plant false memories in teens of child abuse at an early age. One teen claimed abuse from somebody they had never could have met… some politican who died 10 years before the kid was even born.

But the kid sworn up and down that he knew they guy and he had molested him!!

Sewsalot on January 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    You might as well as Mike Nifong why he pursued a very weak case and engaged in unethical conduct to preserve it. In Mr. Nifong’s case, he wished to remain the district attorney of his county and also build up his reputation to pursue higher office. A district attorney does not typically wish to remain in the position they are in, since the pay is mediocre to poor and the hours long. It is only a stepping stone to a position or positions higher up the food chain. Burglaries, armed robberies, and dull murder cases are not going to win one the notoriety one needs to move ahead, so a very bad temptation exists to either cook up a case or exagerate a legtimate one for the purposes of self-promotion. Martha Coakley was able to ride such cases upwards until she became Attorney General of Massachussetts.

    Worry01 on January 17, 2010 at 12:01 am

while we are thinking about the injustice of the judicial system, let’s give a few seconds at least to Terry Schiavo who was railroaded to death in a great surge of injustice.

Eliyahu on January 16, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Years ago I saw a made for TV movie about the Amirault case, and was horrified. Only last week did I realize that Coakley was involved. Now I want to move to Massachusetts just to vote against her.

Tom the Redhunter on January 16, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Worry01, I have little patience for someone who deflects commentary by trotting out the “troll” slur, especially when this person has yet to offer anything interesting or nonobvious. Would you like me to go through your comments one by one and demonstrate that you have said nothing worth noticing?

Your suggestion that immigration issues and Islam are irrelevant on a state level is preposterous. Who do you think does most law enforcement? Do you think giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens is done on the federal level? You can see what Brown did not do about such issues simply by Googling the candidate’s name, finding his campaign site, and reviewing the legislative record that his own campaign supplied. On the same site, but in the part that describes his views relevant to the position he is running for, he mentions the “two state solution.”

I agree that he is far preferable to the croaker. I would certainly vote for him easily over his opponent.

Skzion on January 17, 2010 at 12:57 am

    “Would you like me to go through your comments one by one and demonstrate that you have said nothing worth noticing?”

    You are free to do so, but you still have not furnished a reference. Provide an actual reference, and then I will be more impressed. Have fun.

    Worry01 on January 17, 2010 at 2:05 am

The first link displays the usual “political” campaign language. This is where will find the “two state solution.” One will also find a carefully vague discussion of immigration. The second and third links are about actual legislation. There one finds nothing about Islam and nothing about immigration per se. However, Brown does oppose (somehow–we would have to look at the “filed” bill to learn more) illegals committing sex crimes. You will also see how he crows about removing a statute of limitations. This is the sort of thing that facilitates legal abuses. However, this is not one of my main issues. I have no idea which of these bills became law. He is apparently no more ani-gay than the Dems are, which I consider a plus.

As for impressing you, you can understand that this is not a priority for me given your failure to say anything interesting, your slur against me personally, and your preposterous claims so far. If you have any integrity, you will apologize.

http://www.brownforussenate.com/issues
http://www.scottbrown.com/Legislative%20Issues.htm
http://www.scottbrown.com/bills_filed_09_10.htm

Skzion on January 17, 2010 at 1:47 pm

Note that my response to Worry had enough links to force it to require “moderation.”

Skzion on January 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm

What is so terrifying about this whole story is that every one of the millions of powerless peons like myself read this and know that the powerful heartless and soulless thugs that run our country can do the same thing to them and there is nothing we can do about it.
The very least we can do is not vote for these animals.

smg45acp on January 18, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Rabinowtz’ article was a 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.

Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL (J) 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….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

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

Swift won’t free Tooky by David R. Guarino and Elisabeth J. Beardsley Wednesday, February 20, 2002
, Swift said Amirault should be jailed at least until he’s up for parole in 2004 on his 30- to 40-year sentence. “She carefully analyzed every bit of information generated through the investigation and came to her decision that the verdict was just and the sentence was appropriate
http://web.archive.org/web/20020305205020/http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local_regional/swif02202002.htm

Amirault was guilty on January 18, 2010 at 3:07 pm

Rabinowtz’ article was a 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.

Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL (J) 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….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.

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

Swift won’t free Tooky by David R. Guarino and Elisabeth J. Beardsley Wednesday, February 20, 2002
, Swift said Amirault should be jailed at least until he’s up for parole in 2004 on his 30- to 40-year sentence. “She carefully analyzed every bit of information generated through the investigation and came to her decision that the verdict was just and the sentence was appropriate

Amirault was guilty on January 18, 2010 at 3:08 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field