Return to general index (in part 1)

index for this section only

Scroll back to end of previous section

4. Notes on the Boston media.

A. The "Boston Herald"--

(1) The editors have called on the state to drop the Fells Acres prosecution, on grounds that similar prosecutions are being overturned nationwide, after prodigious waste of time and money.

(2) Reporter/columnist Tom Mashberg is a tough-minded skeptic who has covered the case extensively (eg in Dec 1995, also on 14 Sep 97, the day after Violet Amirault's death). He also wrote a deft analysis of the "Globe"s Chatelle smear [Para 4B(6) below].

(3) Margery Eagan, a center-right columnist with a common-sense, often humorous approach, is also a skeptic.

(4) Columnist Peter Gelzinis supports the prosecution. Apparently he identifies with the accusing children as underdogs. (But who was it, really, who victimized them?)

B. The "Boston Globe"--

Opinions have been divided, but this year (1997) the witchhunters, led by columnist Eileen McNamara, seem to have been given a lead.

(1) Two years ago on 19 Mar 1995, the "Globe" ran an excellent 2-page spread on the Fells Acres case by Charles M. Sennott, who allowed both prosecutors and skeptics to present their best case.

(2) Paul Langner covered the original trials (1986, 1987), and is a rabid supporter of the prosecution. He has not been assigned to more recent Fells Acres stories, however.

(3) On 10 May 1997, in the wake of Judge Borenstein's decision to order a new trial, the "Globe" ran shorter items by William F. Doherty, Matthew Brelis (legal analysis), Francie Latour, Judith Gaines, and David Armstrong (of whom more below). The articles were fine as far as they went. Nevertheless, in a one-and-a-third page spread including legal analysis, a very dry chronology, complaints by the prosecution, indignation of the accusers' families, and Gerald Amirault's prospects, there was no article explaining why, in contrast to the usual criminal case, so many people nationwide questioned the Amiraults' guilt.

Judy Rakowsky and John Ellement have also recently contributed or co-authored Fells Acres articles.

[Note: in this section 4B(3) above, I have not identified anyone as "skeptic" or "pro-prosecution," for fear of making trouble for them with their co-workers. Anyhow, in many cases, I have no idea.]

Matthew Blowen and Traci Watson have written perceptively on related fields, in turn the Edenton NC "Little Rascals" case, and a recent study by psychologist Stephen Ceci on children's testimony.

Astonishingly, I could not find any "Globe" report on the 29 Oct 97 MA Supreme Judicial Court decision, to let a lower court weigh, whether testimony by the child-accusers was "tainted" by leading techniques. It finally showed up in a 350-word article on 30 November (p.B3), above a notice, "Is there a local story you'd like to see updated? Use our web-site to fill us in."

Return to index


(4) Earlier in 1997, the "Globe" conspicuously failed to cover a 14 Jan "Day of Contrition" in Salem MA on the national "Satanic ritual abuse" hysteria, despite the presence of nationally known scholars, authors, and victims. (The principal organizer was Carol Hopkins, of the Justice Committee, 625 Broadway #1111, San Diego CA 92101; E-mail: CAROLHOP1@aol.com) The only coverage was a generic dismissal by Eileen McNamara, who hadn't even been there (despite a deceptive Salem byline).

Being entirely devoid of specific information, McNamara's 15 Jan article could not be accused of falsehoods, apart from putting a word in the mouth of skeptics: "conspiracy" (eg UFOs and black helicopters). Fells Acres skeptics have never suggested an equivalent of Stalin's NKVD with a quota of false arrests to fill; instead they have criticized a plague of junk science and media gullibility, leading independent law enforcement personnel and community activists, some with entirely honorable motives, to perpetrate individual injustices.

The "Globe"s Fells Acres blackout may well have misled the MA Supreme Judicial Court into believing they could achieve "finality" by ratifying injustice on 24 March 1997.

(5) Columnist Eileen McNamara has been a constant enemy of the Amiraults, persistently misrepresenting their defense (See "two red herrings" above). To her, political commentary is blood sport; no remark is too unfair or too hateful, if it adds spice to a column. She is a local, left-leaning version of George Will-- fun to read when you agree with her, infuriating when not. This year, she had the inside track for the Pulitzer Prize for commentary, and the "Globe"s management wanted nothing to stand in her way.

Some Fells Acres skeptics have wished to avoid tangling with McNamara. She had seemed to be on the "right" side of the debate on "repressed memory" (aka "false memory syndrome"), writing, in her typically scathing style, an expose of Freudian psychotherapist Bean-Bayog, whose age-regression therapy drove a patient to suicide. But McNamara has been unable to see the connection between brainwashing of adults and brainwashing of children.

On Sat 6 Sep 1997, the "Globe" ran an Eileen McNamara column all-but-endorsing Scott Harshbarger as 1998 Democratic candidate for MA governor.

Update, Oct 1998: I believe Eileen McNamara has not written anything more about Fells Acres since June 1998.

Return to index


(a) The Fells Acres cause attracted the attention of professional writer, free-speech activist, and National Writers' Union officer Bob Chatelle, who helped organize a rally on 6 April 97 in Cambridge, to protest the 24 Mar SJC decision. Unfortunately for him, however, he went on to draft a letter challenging the Pulitzer Prize to Eileen McNamara, on the grounds that her commentary on Fells Acres at least was demonstrably false and unethical.

He sent his letter to the "Boston Globe," with copies to several journalists, including Dorothy Rabinowitz of the "Wall Street Journal," a leading skeptic, and left-wing Alexander Cockburn, a tart-tongued advocate of reason.

(b) Dorothy Rabinowitz, a veteran of national media bloodbaths, warned Chatelle to withdraw the letter, lest both he and the Amiraults be made to pay. Chatelle agreed, but too late-- his letter had already provoked Alexander Cockburn to write his own unflattering assessment of McNamara, Fells Acres, Boston political circles, and the process for awarding Pulitzer Prizes.

(Alexander Cockburn, a well-known contributor to "Nation" magazine, puts out a twice-monthly newsletter in partnership with Ken Silverstein:
"Counterpunch"
P.O. Box 18685
Washington CD 20036
yearly subscription $40 individual; $100 institution; $25 student/low income)

Cockburn's articles on the McNamara affair appeared in the April 97 and 1 May 97 issues of "Counterpunch." The short (April) one is available at this site: http://users.rcn.com/kyp/pfaker.html
Cockburn also appears to have referred to Fells Acres in the May 1-7 issue of the "New York Press."

(c) About this time, French Wall, an outspoken gadfly, wrote an unkind article in his gay monthly "The Guide" (May 97, p. 10). His sharpest line compared McNamara unfavorably to Janet Cooke: "Compared to abusing one's position as a reporter to help railroad innocent people to prison, making up a story about a fictional heroin addict seems almost benign."

Return to index


(6) Apparently in reprisal (though "Globe" management admits nothing), reporters Kevin Cullen and David Armstrong were sent to do a hatchet job on Chatelle: "Amirault supporters have diverse agendas," 6 May 97, pp. A1, A20. Of the 32 paragraphs, 4 are introductory, and 8 are factual descriptions of leading Amirault supporters Jonathan Harris, Carol Hopkins, and Dorothy Rabinowitz. Of the remaining 20 paragraphs, however, 2 make a general allegation that pedophiles support the Amiraults, 4 caricature Chatelle as a NAMBLA activist, 1 links Chatelle with French Wall (who has little significance to the Amirault defense), 4 paint Wall with even more lurid colors than Chatelle, 2 generously(?!) allow Chatelle to deny he advocates sex with four-year-olds, and 7 quote leading Amirault supporters as appalled that any pedophiles might try to associate with them.

[In case anyone hasn't heard of it, NAMBLA, "North American Man-Boy Love Association," advocates legalization (ie recognition of "consent") for at least some sexual encounters between adult men and minor "boys." Most gay organizations wish NAMBLA would simply disappear.]

As "Boston Herald"s Tom Mashberg pointed out ("Boston Herald," 9 May 97, p. 29), it was classic McCarthyism: Cullen and Armstrong could piously point out that their text didn't actually claim that the Amirault defense was a NAMBLA operation, but the smear would stick anyways. Perhaps, since it was so blatant, no major damage was done to the Amiraults (who most likely were not the real target anyways), but the effect on Chatelle was devastating.

(a) To paint Chatelle as a NAMBLA activist, Cullen and Armstrong cut-and-pasted an article on censorship posted by Chatelle at this site:
http://www.eff.org/pub/Groups/BCFE/limit2.html
Cullen and Armstrong ignored the fact that neither Chatelle (a secondary player at that time) nor any other Amirault defender had ever suggested that "consent" to sex by children was an issue at Fells Acres. They certainly had to dig in order to find Chatelle's old article.

[For Chatelle's extensive account of this episode, check this site:
http://users.rcn.com/kyp/globsmer.html
]

Return to index


(b) I examined Chatelle's article, "The Limits to Free Expression and the Problem of Child Pornography," herafter referred to as "LFE."

1. Bob Chatelle would make the sort of candidate that gives nightmares to a campaign manager and purest joy to opposition researchers. His article LFE, read carefully, contains nothing seriously objectionable to a reasonable person, but offers "hooks" to malicious folks who don't want it read carefully.

2. The 14,000-word article is divided into 12 sections, covering such topics as US censorship advocates, types of obnoxious speech, copyright, homophobia, "recovered memories," and day-care witchhunts. Sections 6 and 8-12 touch in part or entirely upon child pornography and NAMBLA.

3. Among the potentially controversial remarks made by Chatelle:

A. To see what the fuss is about, Chatelle has actually read some NAMBLA literature (unlike the rest of us, including me, who wouldn't want to be seen anywhere near it).

B. For the same reason, Chatelle gives the impression he viewed some child pornography, describing it in general terms (LFE, Section 8. He might, however, simply be relaying someone else's report second-hand.). (He describes the stuff as mostly voyeurism of non-sexual nudity. Some showed what looked like sexual play among children, but never with adults. None of it showed pain or sadism, everyone's nightmare [and a common scenario in "ritual abuse" scares]. Production in the USA stopped cold after harsh new Federal laws were established in 1978 and 1982; the small, not-well-paying US market simply was not worth the extreme risk.)

C. Chatelle actually described "much" of NAMBLA's literature as "thoughtful, clearly reasoned, and provocative" (Section 10), a line that Cullen and Armstrong (hereafter referred to as C&A) gleefully snipped out of its context and pasted into their hatchet-job. What they cut out was the rest of Section 10, which rejected NAMBLA's key arguments ("thoughtful" though they might be) for a lowered age of consent: "Unless compelling evidence is presented for thinking otherwise, I believe that the immature should be off-limits sexually." Cullen and Armstrong replaced this real context with a false, malicious, and libellous statement that Chatelle praises NAMBLA "because the group advocates for sex between men and boys." No such statement is found anywhere in Chatelle's article, despite the fact that C&A misleadingly place it in front of extensive quotes from the article.

D. (What Chatelle actually praised NAMBLA for was informing pedophiles of the serious legal risks they ran, and condemning the use of force; he claimed this probably reduced sex crimes with children.)

E. Given what Chatelle actually said in Section 10, another C&A statement becomes misleading, that like French Wall, Chatelle has "argued against laws that establish an arbitrary age at which sex between adults and minors is legal."

(1) Later asked by Mark Jurkowitz [para 4B(6)(c) below] to explain himself, Armstrong claimed that Chatelle had made such remarks in a phone conversation they had on the eve of the C&A article. Anyone familiar with Chatelle would recognize that he can be coaxed into saying that, given a 17-year age of consent, there are some 16-year-olds with established sexual histories who would suffer less from an additional sexual encounter than might some virgin, naive 17-year-olds. Such a commonsense remark, given orally under prompting, could not, by any fair person's reckoning, cancel out what Chatelle has actually written and be placed in a context of day-care centers. Indeed, there is no consensus among US states on where to set the age of consent; many set it at 18 years, while others choose 16 or even 14 years. Is every state that allows an age of consent below 18 to be accused of fostering molestation of 4-year-olds in its daycare centers?

(States favoring lower [14-16 year] ages of consent seem primarily concerned with the reality that many teenagers are already sexually active. States favoring the higher age [18] often see it as a way to reduce teenage pregnancy [for girls] and AIDS transmission [for boys in homosexual encounters]. One state explicitly draws a distinction between virgins and those already sexually active.)

Armstrong has shown himself to be considerably sneakier than average even in a rather sneaky trade; barring some change in character, the general public would be better advised to deal with other "Globe" reporters.

Return to index


(c) The C&A article, and irate complaints about it, piled up on the desk of Globe "ombudsman" Mark Jurkowitz, away on vacation that week. (In the meantime, the "Globe" printed a 480-word rebuttal by Bob Chatelle as a "letter to the editor" [15 May 97, p. A26].)

Some felt let down by Jurkowitz's eventual appraisal ("Boston Globe," 2 Jun 97, p. A17). I, however, see the glass as half-full. Jurkowitz had a delicate task: dissociate himself (and by implication the "Globe") from the indefensible Cullen-Armstrong smear, while avoiding offense to Eileen McNamara. In this he was reasonably successful. Though enumerating the faults of Cullen and Armstrong's article, he appeared to avoid exposing himself to the arguments against the Fells Acres prosecution (just as a good defense attorney never pushes to find out if his client is guilty). Thus he was able to sound convinced that McNamara's hostility to the Amiraults was reasonable. I tend to agree with Jurkowitz that McNamara's bogus Salem dateline was not in itself a capital offense. When he goes on, however, to deny that "Chatelle [was] a victim of tit for tat," he is taking his readers to be morons.

(d) So could Chatelle sue for libel? In theory, he has a solid case, both for the article's obvious malice, and for its damage to his community standing. In reality, however, the fact that he had even one kind word to say about NAMBLA guarantees that any competent defense attorney could inflame a jury too much for them to study its actual context.

C. The "Boston Phoenix" (weekly)

(1) Dan Kennedy strongly supports the prosecution.
To the "Phoenix"s credit, however, they have published letters by skeptics in response to Dan Kennedy's anti-Amirault articles. More recently, he served up the messy divorce between Violet Amirault and Bob Leighton [See para 5C(3) below] to challenge Violet's credibility in general. On the other hand, he criticized the "Globe"s smear of Bob Chatelle. ["Boston Phoenix," 15 May 97, pp. 22-24].

(2) Occasional contributor Barry Crimmins, a self-styled "radical," is a true believer in "repressed memory." In a lead article "Baby Rape" ("Phoenix," 9 April 93), he claimed to have "recovered" memories of being anally raped at age 2.




D. The "Christian Science Monitor"

They are a national paper, rather than one devoted to local reporting. On 5 September 1995, however, they ran an editorial asking the Middlesex County DA to drop the Fells Acres prosecutions. In particular, the leading and repetitive techniques used to interview the children raised "more than reasonable doubt."

Scroll ahead to section 5