參與幼兒性虐待冤案，競選聯邦參議員高位(圖)

聯邦參議員肯尼迪剛剛過世，麻塞德賽州總檢查長Martha Coakley正式宣布競選議員職位。由於Coakley目前呼聲最高，人們把她90年代插手的一起幼兒性虐待案件Fells Acre Day Care又翻了出來。

80年代美國正陷入兒童性虐待恐慌，到了歇斯底裏狀態。Fells Acre案在當年就已經沸沸揚揚炒遍媒體。大多數美國人認為這是一起冤案，而且至今沒有完全平反。

Fells Acre家庭幼兒園由一老太太Violet Amirault和她的一兒Gerald Amirault 一女Cheryl Amirault LeFave經營。1984年，有一次一個4歲男孩尿褲子，老太太的兒子幫他換了褲子。到年底，這個男孩的媽媽發現他有一次和他的兄弟玩性遊戲，媽媽問誰教的，小孩說是幼兒園的老師(老太太的兒子)教的。媽媽報警。警察迅速查封幼兒園，逮捕老太太和其一兒一女。警察召集幾十個先後去過這家幼兒園的孩子家長，要求他們協助調查，性虐待症狀有小孩愛尿床，食欲不振，睡覺多惡夢。

經過警察，心理學家，精神治療師和社工的層層審訊，篩選出4個孩子作為證人。審訊方法包括誘導提問，重複不斷提問，用玩具做道具模擬提問。審訊成果是這些孩子被強奸(rape)了，強奸工具包括刀子，棍子，飯叉，魔杖。作案地點是“秘密小屋”或“魔屋”(樓上廁所)。孩子被強迫喝尿，裸體綁在樹上等等。

1985年，陪審團裁定被告有罪。老太太和女兒被判8-20年，兒子被判30-40年。

此案爭議最大的是小孩子證詞的可靠性和審訊方式。

1993年，新的心理學研究指出小孩證詞的不可靠性。州立法院試圖給老太太和女兒減刑準備釋放出獄。誰知州立最高法院推翻減刑裁決，說要等待最後裁決“finality”。等待中，老太太死在獄中。州立最高法院裁決此案不許重審。

1999年，州立地區檢察官Marthar Coakley與(老太太的)女兒達成協議，釋放出獄，10年監管(probation)，不許電視采訪，不許聯係小孩子們的家長，不許賣故事掙錢。

2001年，州立釋放機構(parole board)提出釋放(commutate)(老太太的)兒子，被代理州長Jane Swift 拒絕。

2004年，(老太太的)兒子Gerald Amirault 終於出獄。

Martha\'s involvement in the Fells Acre case (1983-84) began in 1999 and continued to the time of Gerald Amerault\'s parole in 2004. During that period, she consistently opposed granting pardon or parole to the Ameraults and managed to attach odious conditions to the two paroles finally granted.

For a number of years during the 1990s, she built a career on child abuse cases, most of which were valid and based on solid evidence, but some of which were based largely or entirely on the testimony of small children who had developed memories of abuse after manipulation by parents, psychologists, or police. The Ray and Shirley Souza case is one such cast prosecuted by Martha in 1993. They received incompetent counsel, were convicted without a jury trial, and sentenced to nine years of house arrest. In many ways, Martha did good service against child abuse, but in some cases she ignored the danger of tainted testimony of children and failed to insist on clear physical evidence. She also generally opted for harsh punishment in these questionable cases and opposed retrials, appeals, paroles, and pardons.

Her vigorous prosecution of doubtful cases and cases of self-evident innocence has bordered on the vindictive. Why? Lack of sound judgment or political ambition?