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

> I have collected some articles about Fells Acres at URL
http://www.tiac.net/users/hcunn/witch/fa-new-art.html
[Editor's note: The URL has since moved to http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/fells.html]

Do you really think he gives a damn?

-- AK

========
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:38:23 GMT

Adam Kippes adam.kippes@pobox.com wrote:

[...]

>Do you really think he gives a damn?

I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. And even if he doesn't look at the site, some other passing newcomer might.

--Hugo S. Cunningham

========
From: lis@netcom.com (Elisabeth Anne Riba)
Date: 27 Sep 1999 17:47:05 GMT

"John A. Swartz" jswartz@mitre.org writes:

>As someone who has only followed this story by what he saw on TV, I have >one question regarding all of this:

>There is a lot of support for Cheryl Amirault LeFave and her >(now-deceased) mother Violet Amirault in all of this. Yet, support for >Gerard "Tooky" Amirault seems virtually non-existent (or at least isn't >reported in the news). Why? Is the general perception that he did >molest the kids, but the women did not? Do people just assume that he >could have done such things, but these women could not have?

Part of the problem was that the women were tried together, while Gerald was tried separately. Since they were separate trials, court rulings that apply to her will not affect him, and vice versa.

I think the reason for the current focus on Cheryl is because of the immediacy of her situation -- she was released by a judge and could be sent back to jail any day now. Gerald is still in jail, and his case faces a different path.

--Elisabeth Anne Riba

========
From: chesler@world.std.com (David S Chesler)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 11:32:43 GMT

In article 7soaip$ht7@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com, Elisabeth Anne Riba lis@netcom.com wrote:

>Part of the problem was that the women were tried together, while Gerard >was tried separately. Since they were separate trials, court rulings that >apply to her will not affect him, and vice versa.

And the court rulings have so far been on legal technicalities (the meaning of the verb "face") rather than the heart of the matter.

>I think the reason for the current focus on Cheryl is because of the >immediacy of her situation -- she was released by a judge and could be >sent back to jail any day now. Gerald is still in jail, and his case >faces a different path.

While the current juncture is immediate, Gerald HAS BEEN IN JAIL every day now, for the past four years (since Violet and Cheryl got out) and for the years before that.

I am also disturbed by the disparity.

--David Chesler
(chesler@post.harvard.edu, etc.)
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2955

========
From: "tonyp" tonyp@world.std.com
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 04:08:53 GMT

chessie chessie@tiac.net wrote:

> "Hugo S. Cunningham" wrote:

[lots and lots of stuff, some sensible, all snipped]

Hugo and chessie are not likely to convince each other.

I am not 100% convinced myself, but I lean toward Hugo's position. I don't expect to sway anyone either -- I just have a question:

Are any of the original Fells Acres _jurors_ reading this?

If it turns out that the original jurors have changed their minds over the years, I doubt even chessie would continue to insist on the correctness of the original verdict. If the original jurors would still vote for conviction _today_ it would give me pause about accepting Hugo's position.

FWIW, I have no connection to the case and I only know what we all read in the newspapers.

--Tony Prentakis

========
From: hcunn@removethis.tiac.net (Hugo S. Cunningham)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 20:17:02 GMT

"tonyp" tonyp@world.std.com wrote:

[...]

>Are any of the original Fells Acres _jurors_ reading this?

>If it turns out that the original jurors have changed their minds over the >years, I doubt even chessie would continue to insist on the correctness of >the original verdict. If the original jurors would still vote for >conviction _today_ it would give me pause about accepting Hugo's position.

The last time I saw a newspaper report, after Judge Borenstein's decision of 12 Jun 1998, I got the impression most jurors still supported the prosecution, but that one or two, after hearing reports of Judge Borenstein's decision, had doubts.

I believe it is harder for ordinary jurors than for the trial judge (John Paul Sullivan) to change their minds. Certainly in 1987, they were united in hatred for the horrible things that the Amiraults supposedly did, and bonded with the helpless and pitiful child witnesses. The children, of course, still believe what they were conditioned to believe back in 1984-87. To question it would mean unbearable tensions with their parents, who would not want to face the possibility that they themselves, even if from honorable motives, had exposed their children to harm.

Nevertheless, I suspect that if the jurors actually sat through the week of evidence that Judge Borenstein heard, more of them would have doubts. (Judge Borenstein offered the prosecution an opportunity to present their own experts, to defend the reliability of the testimony heard at the trials, but the prosecution couldn't find a single one willing to face cross-examination. That, in itself, speaks volumes.)

--Hugo S. Cunningham