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 or for 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
"Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:
> chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
> >"Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:
> >> chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
[...]
> >> 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.
[...]
> >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.
> 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?
Proof? Prove the lies, prove the implausibilities. If you have no proof, you have no case.
> >> >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.
The US Supremes. AFAIK (and my memory may be faulty) the MA SJC has never had 9 members.
> >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
> >> http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/bd-cont.html
If the judge believes that the evidence cannot support the charge, he must direct a verdict. If a jury has rendered, he must vacate that verdict. He didn't, so he believed the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
[...]
> > 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.
> 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.
It isn't evidence. That's why s Amirault is headed back to prison. Even if you can prove children CAN BE brainwashed (which was testified to by defense experts) you have to prove that THESE children WERE brainwashed. It is provable that witnesses lie --by your logic, all testimony should be set aside because witnesses may lie. They didn't prove that any of these children did not testify truthfully, let alone that all of them lied.
========
In article 37EEC760.F653E30B@tiac.net,
chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
>It isn't evidence. That's why s Amirault is headed back to prison.
>Even if you can prove children CAN BE brainwashed (which was testified
>to by defense experts) you have to prove that THESE children WERE
>brainwashed. It is provable that witnesses lie --by your logic, all
>testimony should be set aside because witnesses may lie. They didn't
>prove that any of these children did not testify truthfully, let
>alone that all of them lied.
But it has been shown that the questioning of the children has made it impossible to determine what the truth really is.
It isn't that the children are lying, it's the fact that they may not be telling the truth while they think (at this point) that they are telling the truth.
Essentially, the argument is that those questioning the children may have placed unreal memories in the children's minds, and as such their testimony, the only basis for the case, is not credible.
The children's memories may or may not be accurate, but at this point, nobody can really tell anymore. Only since the original trial have there been scientific studies showing how the questioning techniques used by the investigators on these children can create evidence that is not the truth. These studies had not been conducted at the time of the original trial, so the validity of the children's testimony was accepted as uninfluenced and truthful.
The Amiraults may or may not be guilty, but it now seems that they were convicted almost exclusively on the basis of evidence that was tainted by the questioning techniques of the investigators.
Chuck Demas
========
> In article 37EEC760.F653E30B@tiac.net,
> >It isn't evidence. That's why s Amirault is headed back to prison.
> >Even if you can prove children CAN BE brainwashed (which was testified
> >to by defense experts) you have to prove that THESE children WERE
> >brainwashed. It is provable that witnesses lie --by your logic, all
> >testimony should be set aside because witnesses may lie. They didn't
> >prove that any of these children did not testify truthfully, let
> >alone that all of them lied.
> But it has been shown that the questioning of the children has
> made it impossible to determine what the truth really is.
There has been no showing, or studies, regarding these children.
> It isn't that the children are lying, it's the fact that they may
> not be telling the truth while they think (at this point) that they
> are telling the truth.
I meant lying as testifying contrary to the truth, not intentional untruth.
My loose use of language.
> Essentially, the argument is that those questioning the children
> may have placed unreal memories in the children's minds, and as
> such their testimony, the only basis for the case, is not credible.
May have. That isn't proof.
> The children's memories may or may not be accurate, but at this point,
> nobody can really tell anymore. Only since the original trial have
> there been scientific studies showing how the questioning techniques
> used by the investigators on these children can create evidence that
> is not the truth. These studies had not been conducted at the
> time of the original trial, so the validity of the children's
> testimony was accepted as uninfluenced and truthful.
But experts testified to this exact theory. The evidence isn't new; there are simply more studies, not necessarily authoratative.
> The Amiraults may or may not be guilty, but it now seems that they were
> convicted almost exclusively on the basis of evidence that was tainted
> by the questioning techniques of the investigators.
This was the defense put forth at trial, and it was not accepted by the jury. The defense presented expert testimony regarding this possible brainwashing, and the jury believed the witnesses. There is no evidence that these children were brainwashed -- only that they may have been. There are more studies now, but none of any of these witnesses.There is no proof that the evidence was tainted; it may have been. The jury was presented
with this defense and rejected it; therefore, it is not sufficient for appeal.
========
In article 37EED943.C88D334E@tiac.net,
chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
>Charles Demas wrote:
>> >It isn't evidence. That's why s Amirault is headed back to prison.
>> >Even if you can prove children CAN BE brainwashed (which was testified
>> >to by defense experts) you have to prove that THESE children WERE
>> >brainwashed. It is provable that witnesses lie --by your logic, all
>> >testimony should be set aside because witnesses may lie. They didn't
>> >prove that any of these children did not testify truthfully, let
>> >alone that all of them lied.
>> But it has been shown that the questioning of the children has
>> made it impossible to determine what the truth really is.
>There has been no showing, or studies, regarding these children.
How would you propose to study _THESE_ children?
What has occurred since the original trial is that there has been developed a significant body of research about the suggestability of children to the form of interrogation they underwent.
What makes these children unique that their behavior wouldn't be like the children studied? You say _THESE CHILDREN_, but it is not possible, practical, or worthwhile to subject _THESE_ children to further interrogation. That would further abuse them.
Are you seriously suggesting that these children (now grown) can be effectively studied to find the truth they hopefully have forgotten? Your use of _THESE_ children is a disengenuous argument for that reason alone.
[...]
>> Essentially, the argument is that those questioning the children
>> may have placed unreal memories in the children's minds, and as
>> such their testimony, the only basis for the case, is not credible.
>May have. That isn't proof.
Yes, but just like evidence where the police haven't kept a clear custody record, this evidence is suspect. It was a mere theory at the time of the original trial, but with a clear body of research after the trial, it is now more than one defense expert testifying about his theory against a prosecution expert testifying that the theory was bunk. Now that defense theory has many studies backing up the theory, and the prosecution's expert has many, many opponents. There may not even be a credible prosecution expert that would say that the children's memories were untainted.
[...]
>There is no evidence
>that these children were brainwashed -- only that they may have been. There
>are more studies now, but none of any of these witnesses.There is no proof
>that the evidence was tainted; it may have been. The jury was presented
>with this defense and rejected it; therefore, it is not sufficient for
>appeal.
It is impractical to study the children to determine if their testimony was tainted by their questioning. Do you expect one of them to remember and declare that they felt pressured at the age of 4 to change their stories to something their inquisitors wanted to hear?
I suspect that you set an impossible standard in your argument.
What evidence of the children being "brainwashed," as you put it, would be acceptable to you?
I suspect that you cannot name what that evidence might be, and that you are therefore rhetorically asking for the impossible. A nice rhetorical tactic, but not very productive.
Chuck Demas
[Editor's note: no answer was posted to this.]
=======
[...]
The claims of abuse are physically impossible.
She and the other family members are the victims of hysterical, paranoid parents and unethical therapists who repeatedly used very leading and influential questioning to draw false accusations of abuse from children.
What the therapists did was child abuse, THEY'RE the ones who ought to be in jail.
-- Mike Zarlenga
========
Can somebody point me at the information about how to
find and sign the petition to help the LeFaves, please?
I came in late on this thread and missed that info, but
as soon as I read the post by that clinically braindead
chessie it reawakened my desire to help that poor family.
========
mod@std.c.a.l.m (Michael O'Donnell) wrote:
>Can somebody point me at the information about how to
>find and sign the petition to help the LeFaves, please?
The best site to check is maintained by Bob Chatelle at
That includes a link to the draft petition I mentioned earlier, at
Letters and calls to Governor Cellucci would be particularly helpful at this time.
>I came in late on this thread and missed that info, but
>as soon as I read the post by that clinically braindead
>chessie it reawakened my desire to help that poor family.
What is chilling is that 5 current justices on the state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) are equally brain-dead (or, more precisely, conscience-dead), invoking "finality" to trump justice. In Stalinist Russia, just before the
Great Purge of 1936-38, people like them wrote a regulation banning appeals in convictions for "terrorist acts." While necessary, it is not enough for Gov. Cellucci to pardon the Amiraults. The Massachusetts legislature must act also, to overturn this SJC precedent, and ensure that *other* innocent people are not left to rot in jail in the name of "finality."
--Hugo S. Cunningham
Scroll ahead to Part 3 of this debate
From: demas@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas)
Date: 27 Sep 1999 02:13:31 GMT
Needham, Mass.
http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
From: chessie chessie@tiac.net
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 22:41:07 -0400
Charles Demas wrote:
> chessie
Appeals require new evidence -- there is none in this case, only pr hysteria whipped up in favor of the defendants.
From: demas@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas)
Date: 27 Sep 1999 05:42:33 GMT
>> In article 37EEC760.F653E30B@tiac.net,
>> chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:
>Appeals require new evidence -- there is none in this case, only pr
>hysteria whipped up in favor of the defendants.
Needham, Mass.
http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
From: Michael Zarlenga zarlenga@conan.ids.net
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 19:38:52 GMT
From: mod@std.c.a.l.m (Michael O'Donnell)
Date: 9 Oct 1999 16:13:05 -0400
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 00:28:12 GMT
http://www.ultranet.com/~kyp/amirtodo.html
http://www.ultranet.com/~kyp/petinstr.html
Although the petitions are addressed to Middlesex DA Martha Coakley, they are being collected by Cheryl Amirault LeFave's attorney James Sultan, presumably so he can make photocopies and send them to Governor Cellucci.
Return to index of Fells Acres articles.