After the shocking decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) 18 Aug 1999 to railroad Cheryl Amirault LeFave back to prison, the only realistic hope to preserve her freedom was political, either through the Governor, or a plea bargain with the Middlesex DA Martha Coakley. Petitions on her behalf set off the following debate on Usenet newsgroup ne.politics.
Parts have been edited for economy and clarity, but arguments of Cheryl's opponents (Dan Kennedy and "Chessie") have not been distorted.
Space-saving note:
Except for the first message, the "newgroups" and "subject" lines will be deleted, since they are all identical:
Newsgroups: ne.politics,ne.general
Subject: Re: Fells Acres: Short-deadline petitions for Cheryl Amirault LeFave
I apologize for not posting this message sooner.
Cheryl Amirault LeFave's lawyers have approved a petition (attached) asking DA Coakley to agree not to send Cheryl back to prison. To get a properly formatted copy of the petition go to
http://www.ultranet.com/~kyp/petition.html
and print it out.
Signed petitions must be returned by 9:00 AM this Monday (27 Sep 99) to her lawyer James Sultan at Sultan & Rankin, One Commercial Wharf North, Boston MA 02205.
For those not planning to go downtown early Monday, you can also leave off completed petitions at the 1999 annual "Banned Book Reading" (and vigil) anytime from 5:00 PM Sunday to early morning Monday. The reading is at the Leland Center, Boston Center for the Arts, 541 Tremont Street. (In Boston's South End)
Why the 9:00 AM deadline? This Monday is the final hearing ("motion for reconsideration") before the SJC; if, as seems likely, the SJC turns Cheryl down, it will be Middlesex DA Coakley's decision, due quickly, whether to send her back to jail. Attorney Sultan believes a package of reasonably polite petitions might be helpful in encouraging her to let Cheryl's case slide, since she had already been in jail for eight years, longer than many murderers.
Many of us believe that Cheryl would eventually be vindicated by the Federal courts (eg last year a Federal Court in Florida threw out former Dade County DA Janet Reno's frameup of policeman Grant Snowden). That is a slow and uncertain process, however. Cheryl cannot even enter a "habeas corpus" petition to Federal courts unless and until she is sent back to jail. After that, it would be at least a year, and quite possibly longer, before her case was finally heard. Even if the Federal courts finally did their duty and released her, she would have to repeat the whole painful process of reacclimatizing and finding a productive job.
If an appeal for clemency to Massachusetts political figures can work, her family would rather have her live a normal life than become once again a martyr.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
////// text of petition follows //////////
Dear District Attorney Coakley:
We, the undersigned, oppose the further imprisonment of Cheryl Amirault LeFave arising out of the "Fells Acres" case. Cheryl has already served more than eight years in prison, and has more than ten years left to serve on her original sentence. Her mother, Violet, who was imprisoned with her, has since passed away. Her brother, Gerald, remains in prison after serving more than 13 years. No worthwhile purpose would be served by sending Cheryl back to prison now. She has suffered enough. We urge you to resolve this case in a manner that will enable Cheryl to continue her life as a productive and law-abiding member of the community.
| Name(signature) | Name(Printed) | Home Address |
Actually, I'd like to see Gov. Cellucci pardon her. She has suffered enough by now, REGARDLESS OF whether or not she was guilty as charged.
Failing that, perhaps the governor of some other state could give her a safe-conduct pass to relocate there?
--
Ron Newman
rnewman@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
========
[...]
I heard on the radio that Cellucci has said he would consider a pardon, but LeFave's lawyers had yet to apply for one.
========
[...]
So, what did she do and what are the reasons she shouldn't serve her sentence for it?
pciszek@otherworld.std.com
Multiple answers
========
[...]
She and several family members abused children at their day care center. Her appeals have been lost and she is headed back to prison. There is no reason she shouldn't
serve her sentence -- that's what convicted pedophiles do, unless they have massive publicity machines.
========
[...]
Well, what if they were denied the constitutional guarantee of facing their accusers?
What if there was no physical evidence of their crime?
What if witnesses testimony (children) was tainted by encouraging them to fabricate stories of abuse?
This was nothing but an Olde-Fashioned Massachusetts-Style Salem Witch Hunt.
The only difference being, that if the trial were held 300 years ago - we'd have nothing to argue about because the three defendents would already have been burned at the stake.
JP3 John Polcari jpolcari@bstone.com
========
John Polcari wrote:
[...]
> Well, what if they were denied the constitutional guarantee of facing
They weren't.
> What if there was no physical evidence of their crime?
A> There was.
> What if witnesses testimony (children) was tainted by encouraging them
> This was nothing but an Olde-Fashioned Massachusetts-Style Salem Witch
This was what is called the American system of justice --trial by jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction, extensive appeals. These people have been unable to win in the courts, so they have mounted a massive publicity campaign to escape
the punishment they deserve.
> The only difference being, that if the trial were held 300 years ago -
How many child abusers were burned at the stake in Massachusetts 300 years ago? Like your other assertions, not very accurate, eh?
========
chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
>John Polcari wrote:
[...]
>> Well, what if they were denied the constitutional guarantee of facing
>They weren't.
Your own pet SJC admitted that they were, in Justice Fried's 24 Mar 1997 decision. (But he invoked his infamous "finality" doctrine to claim that shouldn't be grounds for a new trial.)
>> What if there was no physical evidence of their crime?
>A> There was.
No child pornography, after a nationwide search, despite luridly prejudicial testimony to the jury by a postal inspector about unrelated child pornography he had seen.
No magic rooms, tortured animals, or other props for the children's bizarre stories.
No physical injuries on the children.
The only very weak "physical evidence" was a few cases of infection that might have happened from abuse (not necessarily at the day-care center), but much more commonly come from hygiene problems.
>B> Neither direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is required for sufficiency of
Apparently not in Massachusetts, but certainly in any civilized jurisdiction.
>Either is sufficient.
OK, I think I see what you were trying to say in your previous sentence, but you need to rewrite it.
>> What if witnesses testimony (children) was tainted by encouraging them
>What if three adults lied to cover up crimes that would ead to long prison terms and the
If it was just one adult, I would be more likely to believe you. But criminologists have found that abuse of small children is a crime of *individuals*, not of cults and gangs. See, for example,
Though skeptical of day-care "ritual abuse" (pp. 26-29), they are not pushovers for the defense in all abuse cases. They argue that tentative, even contradictory testimony from a young child should not be dismissed with the same automatic skepticism as similar testimony
from an adult, provided said testimony actually comes from the child's own memory. Careful recording (ie videotaping) of the first interview is crucial for later investigators, judges, and juries to distinguish
between original memory and later influence.
>The pedophiles have been unable to show that the testimony was
Nonsense. Read Judge Borenstein's detailed dissection of the case at
>that's why the convictions were upheld.
>> This was nothing but an Olde-Fashioned Massachusetts-Style Salem Witch
>This was what is called the American system of justice --trial by jury, proof beyond a
The correct legal papers were shuffled, just as they were 307 years ago at Salem. In other parts of the country, however, when "new evidence" comes forth (eg scientific *proof* that 3-4 year-olds can be
brainwashed by repeated sexualized questioning), courts have set aside fundamentally flawed convictions, even if they had seemed "reasonable" at the time. Retired Judge John Paul Stevens, who sat through the same evidence as Cheryl LeFave's jury, and like them believed she must
be guilty, now believes the verdict should be set aside.
>> The only difference being, that if the trial were held 300 years ago -
>How many child abusers were burned at the stake in Massachusetts 300 years ago? Like your
Some of the witches of 1692 were child abusers who haunted the accusing children in their dreams ("spectral evidence").
Incidentally [to both the previous posters], no Salem witches were burned. Some were executed (usually by hanging), and some died under torture in efforts to make them confess.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
========
"Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:
> chessie
> >> Well, what if they were denied the constitutional guarantee of facing
> >They weren't.
> Your own pet SJC admitted that they were, in Justice Fried's 24 Mar
That's not what they said, except in the most mindlessly literal sense (the children did not 'face' the defendants when they testified). They were certainly confronted by their accusers.
> >> What if there was no physical evidence of their crime?
> >A> There was.
> No child pornography, after a nationwide search, despite luridly
[...]
So, there was some physical evidence? Perhaps not convincing to you, but the statement was that there was "no physical evidence." When you shade the truth in one place, you lose credibility elsewhere.
> >B> Neither direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is required for sufficiency of
> Apparently not in Massachusetts, but certainly in any civilized
> >Either is sufficient.
> OK, I think I see what you were trying to say in your previous
Sorry, that's the verbatim from the nine wise. I'll let them know you feel they need some remedial work in writng.
> >> What if witnesses testimony (children) was tainted by encouraging them
[...]
> >The pedophiles have been unable to show that the testimony was
> Nonsense. Read Judge Borenstein's detailed dissection of the case at
The jury did not believe your clients --they convicted them. The trial judge did not believe your clients --he neither directed a verdict, nor vacated the jury verdict. One or the other would have been necessary if he believed the testimony were tainted. Many people who did not hear the testimony believe it tainted. Could that be that the Amirault's have better public relations people to spin the story their way than the children
they abused?
[...]
> In other parts of the country, however, when "new
But your clients didn't provide any 'new evidence' --that's why their convictions were upheld.
========
chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
>"Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:
[...]
>> No child pornography, after a nationwide search, despite luridly
[...]
>So, there was some physical evidence? Perhaps not convincing to you, but the statement was
But when the entire transcript of the prosecution is riddled with lies and wild implausibilities, we are supposed to pretend the lies and implausibilities were never said, and only heed the small fraction of
prosecution claims that *might* have happened?
>> >B> Neither direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is required for sufficiency of
>> >conviction.
>> Apparently not in Massachusetts, but certainly in any civilized
>> jurisdiction.
>> >Either is sufficient.
>> OK, I think I see what you were trying to say in your previous
>> sentence, but you need to rewrite it.
>Sorry, that's the verbatim from the nine wise.
Do you mean the MA SJC? On 18 Aug 99, there were only six of them, with one vacancy.
>I'll let them know you feel they need some
>remedial work in writng.
Go right ahead. That is the least of their problems.
[...]
>> >The pedophiles have been unable to show that the testimony was
>> >tainted --
>> Nonsense. Read Judge Borenstein's detailed dissection of the case at
>The jury did not believe your clients
They are not my clients. As a long-time supporter of "Skeptical Inquirer," I am a volunteer activist against pseudoscience, especially when (as with "repressed memory" and "Satanic Ritual Abuse") it destroys innocent lives.
>--they convicted them. The trial judge did not believe
True. When you wrote this, you apparently hadn't read my comments below about trial Judge John Paul Sullivan.
[...]
>> Retired Judge John Paul Sullivan, who sat through the
>> same evidence as Cheryl LeFave's jury, and like them believed she must
>> be guilty, now believes the verdict should be set aside.
>But your clients didn't provide any 'new evidence'
>--that's why their convictions were upheld.
That is the point where the SJC went so dreadfully wrong.
True, back in 1987, the defense did present one or two psychiatrists who gave theoretical testimony that the children's memories could have been tainted. This doesn't alter the underlying reality that a couple
of paid shrinks more or less would not change jurors' minds. Every juror knows that "expert" psychiatrists are paid by the Defense to lie on behalf of the guilty.
It would take the dramatic research of Dr. Maggie Bruck and Steven Ceci, not available in 1987, to show jurors in terms understandable and convincing to *jurors*, how the prosecution's investigation was guaranteed to brainwash young children. Such research made all the
difference to Judge John Paul Sullivan, convinced in 1987, like his jury, that Cheryl must be guilty.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Scroll ahead to start of Part 2 of this debate.
From: jpolcari@bstone.com (John Polcari)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:02:57 GMT
JP3 John Polcari jpolcari@bstone.com
From: pciszek@otherworld.std.com (Paul Ciszek)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:29:33 GMT
by "Chessie"
(follows immediately)by Hugo S. Cunningham
(further ahead)
From: chessie chessie@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 12:17:30 -0400
From: jpolcari@bstone.com (John Polcari)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:53:06 GMT
From: chessie chessie@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 15:00:49 -0400
> their accusers?
B> Neither direct evidence or circumstantial evidence is required for sufficiency of
conviction. Either is sufficient.
> to fabricate stories of abuse?
What if three adults lied to cover up crimes that would ead to long prison terms and the disgust of society? The pedophiles have been unable to show that the testimony was tainted -- that's why the convictions were upheld.
> Hunt.
> we'd have nothing to argue about because the three defandants would
> already have been burned at the stake.
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:50:34 GMT
>> their accusers?
As Jonathan Harris wrote:
'Prosecutors also introduced pediatric gynecologist Sara Jean Emans to satisfy the juries' and the public's need for "physical evidence" of the abuse. She told one jury that the vulvitis, an irritation and inflammation of the female genitals seen in three of the girls, is a
"significant finding" in an evaluation for sexual abuse. This testimony was admitted in spite of the fact that one of these girls had not been at the school for eighteen months at the time Emans had examined her. When due to rubbing from abuse, such irritations
generally heal within three weeks. She further added that it was unusual to see three girls from the same school with the condition, even though the gynecology book she co-authored states that the condition is common and usually due to hygiene problems.'
[end quote from Jonathan Harris]
>conviction.
>> to fabricate stories of abuse?
>disgust of society?
Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children's Testimony, American Psychological Assoc, Washington DC, 1995.
>tainted --
http://www.tiac.net/users/hcunn/witch/bd-cont.html
>> Hunt.
>reasonable doubt required for conviction, extensive appeals. These people have been
>unable to win in the courts, so they have mounted a massive publicity campaign to escape
>the punishment they deserve.
>> we'd have nothing to argue about because the three defendants would
>> already have been burned at the stake.
>other assertions, not very accurate, eh?
From: chessie chessie@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:21:26 -0400
> >John Polcari wrote:
> >> their accusers?
> 1997 decision. (But he invoked his infamous "finality" doctrine to
> claim that shouldn't be grounds for a new trial.)
> prejudicial testimony to the jury by a postal inspector about
> unrelated child pornography he had seen.
> No magic rooms, tortured animals, or other props for the children's
> bizarre stories.
> No physical injuries on the children.
> The only very weak "physical evidence" was a few cases of infection
> that might have happened from abuse (not necessarily at the day-care
> center), but much more commonly come from hygiene problems.
> >conviction.
> jurisdiction.
> sentence, but you need to rewrite it.
> >> to fabricate stories of abuse?
> >tainted --
> http://www.tiac.net/users/hcunn/witch/bd-cont.html
> evidence" comes forth (eg scientific *proof* that 3-4 year-olds can be
> brainwashed by repeated sexualized questioning), courts have set aside
> fundamentally flawed convictions, even if they had seemed "reasonable"
> at the time. Retired Judge John Paul Stevens, who sat through the
> same evidence as Cheryl LeFave's jury, and like them believed she must
> be guilty, now believes the verdict should be set aside.
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 03:49:50 GMT
>> chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
>> prejudicial testimony to the jury by a postal inspector about
>> unrelated child pornography he had seen.
>> No magic rooms, tortured animals, or other props for the children's
>> bizarre stories.
>> No physical injuries on the children.
>> The only very weak "physical evidence" was a few cases of infection
>> that might have happened from abuse (not necessarily at the day-care
>> center), but much more commonly come from hygiene problems.
>that there was "no physical evidence." When you shade the truth in one place, you lose
>credibility elsewhere.
>> http://www.tiac.net/users/hcunn/witch/bd-cont.html
>your clients --he neither directed a verdict, nor vacated the jury verdict. One or the other
>would have been necessary if he believed the testimony were tainted.
Return to index of Fells Acres articles.