Violet Amirault - No Crime - Poor defense

Amirault, Violet; MA; NRE: no crime, child sex abuse hysteria, perjury/false accusation, inadequate legal defense, child welfare worker misconduct, misconduct that is not withholding evidence, witness tampering or misconduct interrogating co-defendant

Suggestibility issues

556 N.E.2d 83; Sup. Jud. Ct. of MA 7/11/90; affirmed, but one dissenter

"Amirault was the owner and director of the Fells Acres Day School...in Malden...When the rest of the school's population went on field trips, some children occasionally remained at Fells Acres in the care of Amirault, [Cheryl Amirault] LeFave [Violet's daughter] or Gerald 'Tooky' Amirault [Violet's son].* The four victims in this case were among the children who occasionally were left at the school during those field trips."

[* Cheryl Amirault LeFave and Gerald Amirault are not on the NRE. The reasons for this are unclear, particularly given that the entire Fells Acres case is widely seen as a gross miscarriage of justice.]

"On September 2, 1984, a mother of a Fells Acres child made an allegation of sexual abuse against Gerald Amirault. After Fells Acres was closed, in September, 1984, a parents' meting was held at the Malden police station, where parents were informed of the symptoms of sexual abuse and directed to question their children* about a magic room, a secret room, and a clown."

[* Parents should not have been 'directed to question their children' at all, because that's a recipe for suggestiveness and permanent memory contamination, given that parents are not properly-trained forensic child interviewers. (Then again, the same could be said of many 'professionals' who interview children even to this very day.)]

"The children's descriptions of the sexual abuse varied in some detals, but were similar over-all. The three female [supposed] victims each testified that the defendants took them separately to the 'magic room,' described as a bathroom on the second floor of the school with a small, child-sized door. The girls testified that [Violet Amirault and LeFave] touched her naked 'bum' and vagina with their (the defendants') hands or a purple 'magic wand.' One of the girls testified that only LeFave touched her vagina and 'bum.' One child was forced to touch both of the defendants' [Violet and LeFave, who were tried jointly, separately from Gerald] 'bums' and to kiss their vaginas. One of the girls testified that both of the defendants inserted their fingers, a thermometer, and the 'magic wand' into her vagina or 'bum.' A second girl testified that LeFave inserted a thermometer and a pencil into her vagina and rectum.

"The male victim testified that the defendants took him to a garage at Amirault's house. There, Amirault 'stuck a stick up [his] bum' and LeFave 'put her mouth on his private spot [penis].' He stated that the defendants hurt birds and squirrels in front of the children and the teachers; that they gave him white pills which he never took; and that they tied him, naked, to a tree in front of the other children and teachers.

"Each child testified that she or he was photographed in the nude by one of the defendants while the abuse occurred. Two of the children described a black camera on a tripod. The other two described a black camera with pictures that came out its front. While at home, one child spontaneously demonstrated 'sexy' poses in the nude for her mother.

"All of the children testified that they were threatened by one or both of the defendants that if they told anyone about the incidents, they would be sent away or killed by their mothers or that the defendants would kill the children's parents. A child who attended Fells Acres but who was not a victim testified theat he heard [Violet] Amirault tell the male victim that 'you better keep quiet or else I'll cut your mother's arm off.'"

"In their defense, the defendants offered testimony from twelve teachers and teachers' aides employed by Fells Acres. Those employees stated that they never heard of a magic room nor did they see any indication of sexual abuse...Each denied seeing the male tied naked to a tree or that animals were harmed."

[from dissent, by Chief Judge Liacos:]

"The crimes of which the defendants have been convicted are indeed heinous. Nevertheless, the facts of this case should not drive the court to a distortion of sound evidentiary principles, nurtured and developed over many years as an essential guarantee of a fair trial."

"The testimony of the expert witness, [U.S.] Postal Inspector [John] Dunn was not legally relevant to the indictments before the jury...The [prosecution] offered as evidence of the defendants' motive Dunn's detailed descriptions of pornographic photographs of children taken by persons not in any way connected to the defendants. Dunn also described objects, not mentioned by the children in this case, such as gun barrels, scissors, and dildos, which were inserted into the genitals of minors who were completely unrelated to this case. Additionally, Dunn was allowed to engage in a generalized discussion before the jury of the child pornography industry."

"Dunn's testimony suggested to the jury that these very photographs could have been photographs of the children in this case. Without any supporting evidence, and placed just beyind the view of the jury, these photographs were used by the witness in the presence of the jury. This testimony and Dunn's related testimony served more to inflame the passions of the jury than to assist them in deciding an issue in this case."

"This testimony served only to stir the indignation and disgust of the jury, distracting them from the relevant, admissible evidence in this case."

[Dissent FN5:] "No photographs taken by the defendants were ever found to corroborate the testimony of the child witnesses."

1995 WL 1146854; Superior Ct. of MA 8/29/95; reversed, due to confrontation clause violation

"[Due to special seating arrangements in the courtroom,] it was impossible for the defendants to see the children's profiles or lip movements. The special seating arrangements for the child witnesses prevented the defendants from confronting their accusers face to face..."

[However, the above ruling was subsequently itself reversed.]

from NRE synopsis (by Maurice Possley):

"On August 20, 1984, a five-year-old boy told his uncle that he was undressed two months earlier* at the Fells Acres Day School in Malden..."

[* What could have prompted the boy to say something on that particular day? And why two months after the alleged event?]

"The allegation triggered one of the first of a series of investigations of child sex abuse at day care and pre-school facilities across the country in the 1980s and 1990s -- a convulsion of child sex abuse hysteria driven by suggestive and coercive interviewing techniques by social workers, therapists and law enforcement.

"After two weeks of questioning by relatives, the five-year-old boy told his mother he was raped by a man at Fells Acres..."

"The allegations by the children included that a robot would bite them if they refused to engage in sex, that the 'bad clown' [Gerald] would 'throw fire around the room,' and that...LeFave captured a squirrel and pulled its legs off. Other children alleged that they were tied naked to trees, forced to eat human feces and attacked with knives. As before, there was no physical evidence."

[This sort of (virtually impossible) nonsense is the hallmark of 'satanic ritual abuse'/child sex abuse hysteria cases. Moreover, if children really were bitten, burned, or knifed, there was apparently no evidence of any wounds.]

[The two women's convictions were reversed in 1995 due to the confrontation clause/seating arrangement issue. (See above.)]

"[O]n March 24, 1997, the Supreme Judicial Court reinstated their convictions, ruling that the case required 'finality.'

"Less than two months later, Middlesex Superior Court Judge Robert A. Barton declared that Violet and Cheryl were the victims of a 'miscarriage of justice' and removed himself from the case.

"The judge who took over the case, Isaac A. Borenstein, granted a new tial to both women on the ground that their defense attorneys did not provide constitutionally adequate representation because they failed to object to the children testifying with their backs to the defendants.

"In his opinion, Judge Borenstein shredded the prosecution's case, saying the children were manipulated by 'overzealous' investigators who succumbed to a 'climate of panic, if not hysteria.' The children's accounts were tainted by suggestive interviewing techniques and were coerced by investigators who refused to take a denial of abuse as an answer.

"The judge barred the victims from testifying at any retrial."*

[* To the best of our knowledge, this has never happened in New York, and is likely unprecedented in most other states as well, except for New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, which provide for 'taint hearings' under some circumstances.]

"On September 12, 1997, Violet Amirault died of cancer. On June 28, 1998, Borenstein dismissed the charges against her, posthumously.

"On August 18, 1999, the Supreme Judicial Court set aside Borenstein's ruling as it applied to Cheryl LeFave.

"On October 21, 1999 Cheryl LeFave reached a deal with the prosecution to settle her case. She agreed not to appear on television to discuss her experiences* or profit from the case. In return, prosecutors agreed that LeFave, who had been free on bond, would not have to return to prison to finish her sentence. Gerald Amirault was released from prison on parole in 2004."

[* What were prosecutors afraid LeFave would say? This sort of post-conviction 'gag order' truly does appear to be unprecedented.]

[Thus, it seems clear that none of those wrongfully convicted in this case received any financial compensation.]

[Unfortunately, neither the legal opinions in this case nor the NRE synopsis of it actually name any of the 'bad actors' here.]

[All emphases added unless otherwise noted.]