-Caveat Lector- Dear List, Below please find info and excerpts on this case. Several are legal decisions. Sincerely, Neil Brick This may be very heavy for survivors of abuse to read. Quotes from below : "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 of the sort present in a very small percentage of non-sexually abused children." "The defense table was not directly behind the child witness, so some profile view was observable. All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way.(6) The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse. Some of the children testified that they were photographed during this abuse, describing a big camera with wires, a red button, and pictures which came out of the camera. The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse.... Parents and relatives of the children testified and related the circumstances in which the children's disclosures of abuse took place. These parents also testified to instances of extremely sexualized behavior on the part of the children including masturbation, sexualized play with dolls, boys sticking their tongues in the mouths of their mothers, and the simulation of sexual acts. Many of the children also developed generalized symptoms indicative of trauma such as bedwetting, baby talk, pain in their genital areas, headaches and stomach aches, and fearfulness." "Authorities said there were about 40 victims between the ages of 2 and 4." "On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against granting new trials for Violet Amirault, Gerald Amirault and Cheryl LeFave. The court determined that any flaws at trial were outweighed by the evidence presented by the prosecution." excerpts from : http://www.socialaw.com/superior/Amirault.html This case comes before the court on defendant, Cheryl Amirault LeFave's, motion for a new trial pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b). The defendant contends that she is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that newly discovered scientific evidence proves that there is a substantial risk that the evidence used to convict her in this case, namely the testimony of child witnesses, was unreliable, depriving her of due process rights... "On October 3, 1984, Officer Healy and Karen Gaughan, a DSS social worker from Lowell, went to JO s home where they interviewed JO in the presence of Mother and Father. Prior to the interview, Father stated that he had asked JO about the magic room and she had said that the "spooky" magic room was in the cellar. (Ex. 56, 5/47, Ex. 2A-216) JO had told Mother that another female child had touched her vagina. (Ex. 56, 5/48, Ex. 2A-220) Father asked JO about pictures and JO stated that Cheryl and Tooky took them. Father described his questioning of JO as more confrontative than Mother s. (Ex. 2A-220) The interview with JO lasted approximately 1 ? hours and Ms. Gaughan did most of the talking. (Ex. 56, 8/62) Ms. Gaughan testified that she did not suggest things to JO. (Ex. 56 8/77-81) During the interview, JO played with anatomically correct dolls, dressing and undressing them, and she did not seem interested in discussing FADS. (Ex. 2A-221) Officer Healy questioned JO in a leading fashion when he asked her if there were "bad guys" at school. JO replied that "bad guys" had touched penises and vaginas of her friends. She said that Tooky and Cheryl did the touching and denied that she herself was touched. (Ex. 2A-221). Others had their "pants took down" by someone. JO also denied that any pictures were taken. (Ex. 2A-221) On October 9, 1984, Officer Healy and Gaughan interviewed JO again at home. (Ex. 56 5/21) JO informed Gaughan that if she and Officer Healy left the room, she would talk to Mother. (Ex. 56, 5/21) Gaughan and Officer Healy listened to JO's conversation with Mother from an adjoining room. At that time she informed Mother that Tooky touched her on her vagina in the magic room and Ann Marie walked in and said stop it. (Ex. 2A-219, Ex. 56, 5/22). JO pointed to an anatomically correct doll and said that Cheryl s boobies were bigger and that she knew this because she saw them. (Ex. 56, 8/69-70) JO identified the rear of a black and white anatomically correct drawing as Cheryl. She said that the white adult front views were her parents. (Ex. 2A-223) By the end of this second investigative interview, JO had still not disclosed any allegations of sexual abuse by the defendant. On October 9, 1984, the DSS substantiated the reports of sexual abuse. Neither of the two interviews was videotaped, however, both the DSS report and the police report completed on the day of each interview clearly indicate that coercive and suggestive interviewing techniques were used which contributed to the unreliability of JO s testimony. For example, DSS notes indicate "As JO was not volunteering, Officer Healy asked her directly about "bad guys" at school. (Ex. 2A-222) It is very important to note that Officer Healy s notes directly contradict Gaughans recollection of the encounter insofar as they indicate that JO volunteered that information." excerpts from : http://www.vocal-nasvo.org/hardoon.htm Letters to the Editor: The Real Darkness Is Child Abuse WALL STREET JOURNAL (J) 02/24/95 Copyright (c) 1995 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Larry Hardoon's Letter "Her suggestion that the convictions were based on "some of the most fantastic claims ever presented" presumptuously ignores the reality of the cases. 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. The McMartin case in California was the result of a botched legal system and Kelly Michaels's conviction was overturned because of legal errors. Contrary to Ms. Rabinowitz's implication, the Amirault convictions were neither of these. The first trial involving Gerald Amirault lasted a record three and a half months. Nine children and their parents testified and were subject to extensive cross-examination. The second trial of Violet and Cheryl Amirault involved five children. The entire proceedings were public and extensively covered by the media. The children testified to being photographed and molested by acts that included penetration by objects. To the average person unfamiliar with the gruesome-ness of child pornography, the allegations of penetration by objects seem bizarre. The testimony of a postal inspector experienced in child pornography was properly admitted to educate the jury regarding the plausibility of the children's testimony. Studies show, as did testimony from a nationally recognized pediatric gynecologist, that most sexually molested young children have absolutely normal physical examinations. However, 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 of the sort present in a very small percentage of non-sexually abused children. COMMONWEALTH vs_ VIOLET AMIRAULT (and eleven companion cases) excepts from http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/7077.html "In 1986, Gerald Amirault was found guilty on eight indictments charging rape of a child and seven indictments charging indecent assault and battery on a child. We affirmed the denial of his request for a new trial in Commonwealth v. Amirault, 399 Mass. 617 (1987), and affirmed his convictions and the denial of his renewed motion for a new trial, Commonwealth v. Amirault, 404 Mass. 221 (1989). In a separate trial arising from the same allegations of abuse at the Fells Acres Day School, Violet Amirault(2) was found guilty on two indictments charging rape of a child and three charging indecent assault and battery on a child, and Cheryl Amirault LeFave was found guilty on three indictments charging rape of a child and four charging indecent assault and battery on a child. We affirmed these convictions, Commonwealth v. LeFave, 407 Mass. 927 (1990), and vacated on appeal a judge's order revising their sentences, Commonwealth v. Amirault, 415 Mass. 112 (1993). Each child witness testified at a small, child-sized table which was placed directly in front of the jury box. A microphone was placed in the center of the table into which the child was directed to answer. The defendants remained at the defense table which was positioned behind and to the side of the child witness. The Commonwealth and the defendants quibble over the specific parts of the child witness's face the defendants could view and the exact degree of the sight angles available from the defense table. There is sufficient agreement as to the basic features of the arrangement, and our decision does not turn on the features about which there is disagreement. The defense table was not directly behind the child witness, so some profile view was observable. All nine children testified in a broadly consistent way.(6) The children testified to numerous instances of sexual abuse. Some of the children testified that they were photographed during this abuse, describing a big camera with wires, a red button, and pictures which came out of the camera. The children testified that the defendant threatened them and told them that their families would be harmed if they told anyone about the abuse.... Parents and relatives of the children testified and related the circumstances in which the children's disclosures of abuse took place. These parents also testified to instances of extremely sexualized behavior on the part of the children including masturbation, sexualized play with dolls, boys sticking their tongues in the mouths of their mothers, and the simulation of sexual acts. Many of the children also developed generalized symptoms indicative of trauma such as bedwetting, baby talk, pain in their genital areas, headaches and stomach aches, and fearfulness." excepts from http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/archives/1999/aug/19/fells19.htm Cape Cod Times New trial denied in Fells Acres case (August 19, 1999) " In 1984, allegations surfaced that LeFave, her late mother Violet, and her brother Gerald Amirault had sexually assaulted children at the family-owned day care center. Gerald Amirault was convicted in a separate trial in 1986 and remains in prison. Violet Amirault, who was tried with her daughter, died in 1997 at age 74. The young children gave graphic testimony about how they had been tied to trees, sexually penetrated with knives and tortured by a "bad clown" in a "secret room." The shocking testimony was enough to send the three to prison for lengthy terms for child rape and indecent assault. Authorities said there were about 40 victims between the ages of 2 and 4." http://www.nemasys.com/rahome/resources/ra_cases.shtml Massachusetts - Malden Gerald Amirault, 32, was convicted in 1986 of 15 counts of child abuse, including rape and indecent assault, and sentenced to 30 to 40 years in prison. Nine children who attended the Fells Acre Day Care Center testified that Amirault sexually assaulted them in a "magic room" while dressed as a clown. One child testified that small animals were killed. (Ross, 1986). His mother, Violet Amirault, 62, owner of the school, and her daughter, Cheryl Amirault LeFave, were given 8- to 20-year sentences. In August 1995, a judge ordered new trials for Violet Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave.** (Rabinowitz, 1995). On March 24, 1997, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against granting new trials for Violet Amirault, Gerald Amirault and Cheryl LeFave. The court determined that any flaws at trial were outweighed by the evidence presented by the prosecution. (The Survivor Activist, 1997). <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
