Coward Baker Abruptly
Yanks Amirault Pardons,
Stunning Them and Supporters
|
Most Relevant News
Excerpts
(Full news reports follow Commentary)
|
|
The
retiring executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation on Thursday accused Gov. Charlie Baker of
cowardice in withdrawing his bid to pardon Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave, who were
convicted in a high-profile child sexual abuse case
at the Fells Acre Day Care Center in Malden in 1984.
Baker on
November 18 sought a pardon for the brother and
sister, who have always professed their innocence,
but withdrew his bid on Wednesday after several
members of the Governor’s Council indicated they
would not approve his request.
“Shame on
him," said Chip Ford, the executive director
of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“He should
have called their bluff, or put the Governor’s
Council on record, not blink first,” said Ford.
“There was no reason why he would withdraw that
except cowardice.”
Ford’s
comments on the Amirault case overshadowed the
central message of a virtual press conference he
called – to announce Citizens for Limited Taxation
was shutting down after 48 years and to urge the
organization’s followers, which he said numbered
1,500, to join forces with the Massachusetts Fiscal
Alliance....
Ford
brought up the Amirault case toward the end of his
press conference, clearly angry with Baker’s
decision to drop his bid for a pardon. Amirault
worked for Citizens for Limited Taxation briefly
after he was released from prison on parole in 2004
and clearing his name was a high priority for the
organization....
Ford
pointed to a
newspaper column written by his predecessor,
Barbara Anderson, who died in 2016. The January
22, 2015 column said Baker’s father was the first to
offer help in finding a job for Gerald Amirault. The
column said Baker himself pledged to move for a
pardon if he was elected governor after meeting
Gerald Amirault and his daughter on the campaign
trail. Baker’s opponent at the time was Martha
Coakley, one of Amirault’s prosecutors.
CommonWealth Magazine
Thursday, December 15, 2022
CLT chief accuses Baker of
cowardice on Amirault pardons
Speaks out as tax-cutting group shuts down after 48
years
By Bruce Mohl
Click
above graphic (or
here) to watch
Ford's comments on Gov. Baker's pardons betrayal
begin @21:15 mins
Frustration, skepticism and decades of emotional
pain filled a Governor's Council hearing room on
Tuesday as members took up Gov. Charlie Baker's
proposal to pardon two people convicted in the
supercharged Fells Acre child sexual abuse case of
the 1980s.
Over the
course of several hours of tense testimony and
pointed questioning, councilors heard from
supporters and opponents of pardoning Gerald "Tooky"
Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave, both of whom
were convicted, served prison sentences and today
remain on the state's sexual offender registry while
maintaining their innocence all along the way.
Laurence
Hardoon, who was the lead prosecutor that secured
convictions for the Amiraults, urged councilors not
to fulfill Baker's request, arguing that the trial
and a string of subsequent appeals -- including six
rulings by the Supreme Judicial Court -- indicate
there is no evidence indicating the duo were victims
of improper investigatory tactics as they allege....
Councilors
were not the only speakers to pose questions about
Baker's approach during Tuesday's hearing. Hardoon
said he could not figure out Baker's "motivation."
"I
approached the governor's office in an effort to
clarify the misleading information that I felt they
were relying upon, and they were not interested in
hearing from me," Hardoon said.
State
House News Service
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Some Councilors Balk
At Amirault Pardon Bid
The family
accused and convicted of abusing children at their
Malden day-care center in the 1980s have always
maintained their innocence, but less than a month
after possible vindication, Gov. Charlie Baker has
rescinded his recommendation that they be pardoned.
The
reversal comes a day after an emotionally fraught
and hours-long hearing on Baker’s Nov. 18 proposal,
during which supporters and opponents of pardons for
Gerald “Tooky” Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave
pitched opposing views on what the pardons would
mean.
“Following
yesterday’s hearing, it is apparent that there are
not sufficient votes from the Governor’s Council to
support a pardon for the Amiraults,” Baker press
secretary Terry MacCormack said in a statement.
“Therefore, the Governor is withdrawing his pardon
petition.”
It’s a far
cry from Baker’s reasoning last month, in which he
expressed “grave doubts” in the convictions based on
investigations that “took place without the benefit
of scientific studies that have in the intervening
years led to widespread adoption of investigative
protocols designed to protect objectivity and
reliability in the investigation of child sex abuse
cases.”
The
Boston Herald
Thursday, December 14, 2022
Charlie Baker withdraws
Amirault pardon bids
Minutes
before a vote could have occurred Wednesday on a
pair of controversial clemency bids, Gov. Charlie
Baker pulled back his request to pardon two Amirault
family members convicted in the 1980s Fells Acre
child sex abuse trials.
Baker's
reversal came a day after the Governor's Council
held a tense and emotionally fraught hearing on the
proposal, and some councilors said Wednesday they
thought the pardon petition should have been
presented differently.
"Following
yesterday's hearing, it is apparent that there are
not sufficient votes from the Governor's Council to
support a pardon for the Amiraults. Therefore, the
Governor is withdrawing his pardon petition,"
spokesman Terry MacCormack wrote.
State
House News Service
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Without
Votes, Baker Withdraws Amirault Pardon Bids
Governor
Charlie Baker withdrew pardon requests on Wednesday
for Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave,
siblings convicted nearly 40 years ago of sexually
abusing children at the family-owned Fells Acres Day
School, in a sharp pivot that has deepened wounds on
both sides of the contentious case.
The
Governor’s Council was set to vote on the pardon
request Wednesday, after holding a six-hour hearing
the day before, when Baker withdrew his
recommendation, citing an apparent lack of support
from the panel.
“After
they all go through this, he just changes his mind
and now everyone’s back to zero,” said Maggie Bruck,
a child psychologist who has closely followed the
Fells Acres case since the 1980s, and attended
Tuesday’s hearing in support of the Amiraults. Bruck
called Baker’s last-minute reversal “really
disgusting.”
The
Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Baker withdraws controversial pardon requests in
Fells Acres child abuse case
This is
yet another unsatisfying twist in what has always
been a deeply troubled case because of the outdated
methods used by prosecutors at the time to elicit
testimony from the victims. A pardon, if it had been
based solely on those concerns, would have been
justified, but councilors appeared to be worried
that such a move inevitably would have been
construed as exonerating the Amiraults.
Baker
himself did not say he believed that Cheryl, now 64,
and Gerald, now 68, were innocent (Violet died in
1997). Instead, he said he had “grave doubt
regarding the evidentiary strength of these
convictions.” That may seem like a too-cute
distinction, but it’s a critical one: Although the
Amiraults themselves have always proclaimed their
innocence, the justification for a pardon is limited
to the concerns about the 1986 and 1987 trials,
which have come to be viewed in a different light
given the evolving standards for investigating child
sexual abuse cases....
Ultimately, the failure to approve the pardons falls
on Baker, who did so little to explain or defend his
recommendation to both the Governor’s Council and
the public. (The governor also declined to talk to
the Globe about the pardon request.) Baker’s
handling of this pardon, and in particular the
failure to communicate with the victims, is a blot
on his last days in office.
Still, the
fact remains the Amiraults’ trials were tainted —
not because of malice or misconduct on anyone’s
part, but simply because of the times in which they
occurred. That does not mean they were innocent, but
it does mean that the state has unfinished business
to address those shortcomings. Pardons could still
be a legitimate choice, should the next governor,
Maura Healey, choose to go down that road. But what
she and the Governor’s Council must make clear if
this matter is ever back on the table is that
clemency in this case is the pardons are not about
guilt or innocence, but rather a step to uphold the
integrity of the justice system.
A Boston
Globe editorial
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
The Fells Acres saga
continues
The criminal trials in which Cheryl Amirault LeFave
and Gerald Amirault
were convicted of raping children would not pass
muster in a courtroom today.
In a
stunning reversal of a controversial policy
recommendation, Gov. Charlie Baker on Wednesday
withdrew his recommendation to pardon Gerald
Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave, who were
convicted in a high-profile child sexual abuse case
in the 1980s....
The sudden
reversal by Baker marked a rare display of serious
political misjudgment by a governor who has made
carefully calibrated moves a hallmark of his tenure.
A Boston
Globe editorial published Wednesday morning, before
Baker withdrew the recommendations, called the
pardons a “legitimate choice,” as long as they are
not equated with exoneration, but it nonetheless
ripped the governor for the way he dealt with the
case – singling out his failure to explain his
reasoning in any detail or notify victims ahead of
time. “Baker’s handling of this pardon, in
particular the failure to communicate with the
victims, is a blot on his last days in office,” the
paper said.
CommonWealth Magazine
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Baker withdraws Amirault
pardon recommendations
Cites lack of support from Governor’s Council
What was
Governor Charlie Baker thinking when he recommended
pardons for convicted child sex abusers Gerald
Amirault and his sister, Cheryl Amirault Lefave?
Baker
didn’t share his rationale with the eight members of
the Governor’s Council. Instead, he left them with a
hot potato they didn’t want to handle. As Councilor
Paul DePalo put it during Tuesday’s pardon hearing,
“The process stinks.” It did, and even a council not
known for its high-minded principle didn’t want to
go along with such a request from a lame-duck
governor. Acknowledging that he didn’t have the
votes, Baker withdrew his request Wednesday....
Was Baker
trying to fulfill a last wish of Barbara Anderson,
a conservative activist who headed the advocacy
group Citizens for Limited Taxation? In a
column published in The Salem News right after
she died in 2016, Anderson wrote: “There will be no
memorial service but if anyone wants to honor my
memory, please remind Governor Charlie Baker that
when he was running for office, he promised my
friend Gerald Amirault and his family that getting
Gerald off parole and his ankle bracelet would be a
first order of business. So far he has broken his
promise, and keeping it is my dying wish.”
Baker
recommended the pardons even though the Parole
Board, whose members he appoints, declined to give
Gerald Amirault or his sister a hearing. In the
press release explaining his reasoning, Baker wrote,
“I am left with grave doubt regarding the
evidentiary strength of these convictions.” Beyond
that, he provided “zip, zero, nothing,” as Councilor
Elaine Duff put it at Tuesday’s hearing.
The
Boston Globe
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Charlie Baker’s process on the Amirault pardons
‘stinks’
What was he thinking?
By Joan Vennochi
The
Howie Carr Show
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Tooky Amirault: “I Was a Better Father from Prison
Than People Are in the Streets”
Click
above graphic (or
here) to listen
|
|
CommonWealth Magazine
Thursday, December 15, 2022
CLT chief accuses Baker of cowardice on Amirault pardons
Speaks out as tax-cutting group shuts down after 48 years
By Bruce Mohl
The retiring executive director of Citizens for Limited
Taxation on Thursday accused Gov. Charlie Baker of cowardice
in withdrawing his bid to pardon Gerald Amirault and Cheryl
Amirault LeFave, who were convicted in a high-profile child
sexual abuse case at the Fells Acre Day Care Center in
Malden in 1984.
Baker on November 18 sought a pardon for the brother and
sister, who have always professed their innocence, but
withdrew his bid on Wednesday after several members of the
Governor’s Council indicated they would not approve his
request.
“Shame on him," said Chip Ford, the executive
director of Citizens for Limited Taxation.
“He should have called their bluff, or put the Governor’s
Council on record, not blink first,” said Ford. “There was
no reason why he would withdraw that except cowardice.”
Ford’s comments on the Amirault case overshadowed the
central message of a virtual press conference he called – to
announce Citizens for Limited Taxation was shutting down
after 48 years and to urge the organization’s followers,
which he said numbered 1,500, to join forces with the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance.
Ford, who now lives in Kentucky, said he is confident the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance would carry on the fight to
protect Proposition 2½, to thwart any efforts to change the
1986 tax cap law that returned $3 billion to taxpayers this
year, and to press for new tax cuts.
Ford brought up the Amirault case toward the end of his
press conference, clearly angry with Baker’s decision to
drop his bid for a pardon. Amirault worked for Citizens for
Limited Taxation briefly after he was released from prison
on parole in 2004 and clearing his name was a high priority
for the organization.
Several members of the Governor’s Council questioned why
Baker would back a pardon when his own Advisory Board of
Pardons opposed it.
Ford pointed to a
newspaper column written by his predecessor, Barbara
Anderson, who died in 2016. The January 22, 2015 column
said Baker’s father was the first to offer help in finding a
job for Gerald Amirault. The column said Baker himself
pledged to move for a pardon if he was elected governor
after meeting Gerald Amirault and his daughter on the
campaign trail. Baker’s opponent at the time was Martha
Coakley, one of Amirault’s prosecutors.
Click above
graphic (or
here)
to watch
Ford's comments on Gov. Baker's pardons betrayal begin
@21:15 mins
State House
News Service
Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Some Councilors Balk At Amirault Pardon Bid
Baker, Amiraults Do Not Testify At Council Hearing
By Chris Lisinski
Frustration, skepticism and decades of emotional pain filled
a Governor's Council hearing room on Tuesday as members took
up Gov. Charlie Baker's proposal to pardon two people
convicted in the supercharged Fells Acre child sexual abuse
case of the 1980s.
Over the course of several hours of tense testimony and
pointed questioning, councilors heard from supporters and
opponents of pardoning Gerald "Tooky" Amirault and Cheryl
Amirault LeFave, both of whom were convicted, served prison
sentences and today remain on the state's sexual offender
registry while maintaining their innocence all along the
way.
Laurence Hardoon, who was the lead prosecutor that secured
convictions for the Amiraults, urged councilors not to
fulfill Baker's request, arguing that the trial and a string
of subsequent appeals -- including six rulings by the
Supreme Judicial Court -- indicate there is no evidence
indicating the duo were victims of improper investigatory
tactics as they allege.
"This matter is not a public referendum. It's not a
popularity contest. I am sure the petitioners are indeed
very personable individuals. The letters they have provided
in support speak to that. I'm not suggesting they should be
back in prison, nor is anyone else I'm aware of. They have
served their sentences. Gerald does not need to be on an
ankle bracelet -- I was surprised, frankly, to learn that he
still was," Hardoon said. "However, there is no
justification for a pardon that will be promoted by the
petitioners and echoed by the media as a wrongful conviction
that nullifies the long, solid legal history of these cases
and that seeks to nullify the painful, emotional turmoil
that the victims and their families have lived with to this
very day."
Hardoon warned that awarding pardons would carry future
repercussions as well by "casting a pall over other children
who will not be believed" based on the council's ruling.
Along with their mother, Violet, Gerald and Cheryl Amirault
were convicted of sexually abusing children at the Malden
day care center they operated in a case that generated
national attention.
Cheryl, 64, served eight years in prison and another 10 on
probation, while Gerald, 68, served 18 years in prison and
has one more year before his parole ends, according to their
attorney, James Sultan.
The arguments Sultan and other speakers made on the
Amiraults' behalf took two different tracks on Tuesday.
Sultan went back and forth with councilors for nearly two
hours about the case itself, alleging that the children
involved produced their testimony in response to
"repetitive, suggestive and coercive questioning" that would
not be used today -- roughly the same line of argument that
Baker made when he proposed the pardons.
He said investigators were "in the Dark Ages back in the
1980s of how to properly question young children in a
non-suggestive, non-coercive fashion."
"The unjust convictions of the Amiraults based on such
tainted testimony are a relic of an earlier time, the
product of widespread hysteria and investigative blunders
that will never be repeated in our state," Sultan said.
Other speakers, including Gerald's wife, Patty, and
daughter, Katie, described an emotional toll they have
withstood over the past three-plus decades as a result of
the Amiraults' imprisonment followed by stringent parole
requirements and ongoing registration as sex offenders.
Gerald is still unable to find employment because of his
history, Patty said, despite repeated efforts to do so, and
he faces a nightly curfew to return home as part of his
parole.
"It's time to put an end to this ordeal and let this good
man, his amazing sister, our children and our family finally
have some peace," Patty Amirault said.
Councilors were still hearing testimony as the hearing
stretched past the four-hour mark, and it was not
immediately clear Tuesday evening when -- or even whether --
they would vote on the pardon recommendations.
Several councilors on the eight-member panel hinted they are
uncomfortable with the proposal or frustrated about the
process.
Councilor Christopher Iannella of Boston criticized the
Amiraults' attorney for referring to "alleged victims"
instead of "victims."
"I don't know how many of you are here -- parents, victims
-- I don't know how many of you are here today, but it did
take courage, and I can assure you of one thing: you can
count on me to stand up for you," Iannella said.
Councilor Marilyn Devaney of Watertown said she has a
personal friend whose child "was at that daycare, and she
was sexually abused." Devaney described graphic details
involving both her friend's child and other children that
she said were signs of abuse.
"This is not a pardon. This person doesn't deserve a
pardon," Devaney said. "There are people who are drug
addicted, there are people that he ruined their lives
forever, and he can't wear shorts because he has an ankle
bracelet, okay? He could travel, but he has to go through
certain things. He has to tell them that he's going
someplace or whatever. He doesn't have such a terrible life,
but those people live with it."
"I stand by the Parole Board. God bless every one of them
for voting no," Devaney added.
Later in the hearing, in an apparent reference to Devaney,
Councilor Eileen Duff said, "I don't know people who were
molested. I think that would make me -- I think I'd have to
recuse myself, frankly, if I did."
Duff said after reviewing clemency guidelines "over and over
and over," she believes Gerald is eligible for a commutation
but not for a pardon.
Neither Gerald nor Cheryl attended Tuesday's State House
hearing, a step that both Sultan and Councilor Terry Kennedy
said were Kennedy's idea.
"I asked them not to come because it's not a trial,"
Kennedy, who presided over the hearing, said. "The
temperature will be a lot lower without them here. I think
everybody would have a pretty good idea what they would say
because they've been saying it for the last 38 years."
The Amiraults filed pardon applications in February,
according to Sultan. He said the Parole Board notified the
Amiraults in August they would not hold a hearing on either
pardon application, then recommended Baker reject the
pardons.
Baker bucked the recommendations of the board, whose members
he appoints, and on Nov. 18 proposed pardoning Gerald and
Cheryl Amirault. His move was in effect an inverse of 2002,
when the Parole Board unanimously recommended commutation
for Gerald Amirault and Acting Gov. Jane Swift rejected that
step.
When he announced his pardon proposal, Baker said in a
one-paragraph statement that the investigation into and
prosecution of the Amiraults "took place without the benefit
of scientific studies that have in the intervening years led
to widespread adoption of investigative protocols designed
to protect objectivity and reliability in the investigation
of child sex abuse cases."
"Given the absence of these protections in these cases, and
like many others who have reviewed the record of these
convictions over the years, including legal experts, social
scientists and even several judges charged with reviewing
the cases, I am left with grave doubt regarding the
evidentiary strength of these convictions," Baker said in
his statement. "As measured by the standard we require of
our system of justice, Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault
Lefave ought to be pardoned."
Several councilors grew animated over the course of the
hearing, expressing frustration that Baker did not provide
more information for their review about why he believes the
pardons are warranted.
"Here's the problem I'm having. You said the governor did a
rigorous deep dive -- I'm paraphrasing -- into this and
decided it was robust enough to hand to us for a pardon,"
Duff, of Gloucester, said to Sultan. "He didn't give us
anything. Zip, zero, nothing. For a case like this, I'm
shocked. Every bit of due diligence that any of these
councilors have done, we've done it on our own."
Councilor Paul DePalo of Worcester said all he had from
Baker was the one-paragraph statement "buried in a press
release about other stuff."
"The governor has done a wild disservice both to the
petitioners and to the victims and to their families and to
the families of the petitioners by not following standard
procedure, by making it smell to high heaven, by throwing it
on the council with no rationale other than questioning the
evidentiary findings of the trial, which as we've ad nauseam
gotten to today is not even supposed to be a consideration
in the process by the governor's very own executive clemency
guidelines," DePalo said.
Baker's office did not respond to a News Service request for
comment Tuesday afternoon about the work he did that led to
his pardon recommendation or whether he submitted any
detailed information to the council.
Councilors were not the only speakers to pose questions
about Baker's approach during Tuesday's hearing. Hardoon
said he could not figure out Baker's "motivation."
"I approached the governor's office in an effort to clarify
the misleading information that I felt they were relying
upon, and they were not interested in hearing from me,"
Hardoon said.
The Boston
Herald
Thursday, December 14, 2022
Charlie Baker withdraws Amirault pardon bids
By Flint McColgan
The family accused and convicted of abusing children at
their Malden day-care center in the 1980s have always
maintained their innocence, but less than a month after
possible vindication, Gov. Charlie Baker has rescinded his
recommendation that they be pardoned.
The reversal comes a day after an emotionally fraught and
hours-long hearing on Baker’s Nov. 18 proposal, during which
supporters and opponents of pardons for Gerald “Tooky”
Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave pitched opposing views
on what the pardons would mean.
“Following yesterday’s hearing, it is apparent that there
are not sufficient votes from the Governor’s Council to
support a pardon for the Amiraults,” Baker press secretary
Terry MacCormack said in a statement. “Therefore, the
Governor is withdrawing his pardon petition.”
It’s a far cry from Baker’s reasoning last month, in which
he expressed “grave doubts” in the convictions based on
investigations that “took place without the benefit of
scientific studies that have in the intervening years led to
widespread adoption of investigative protocols designed to
protect objectivity and reliability in the investigation of
child sex abuse cases.”
Cheryl, now 64, served eight years in prison and another 10
on probation, while Gerald, now 68, served 18 years in
prison and has one more year before his parole ends,
according to their attorney, James Sultan. The pair ran the
Fells Acres Day School with their mother, Violet, who
herself spent eight years in prison only to die in 1997 soon
after her release.
Tuesday’s hearing presented opposing views of the
investigation into the case. Supporters claimed that the
1980s national moral panic surrounding day-car sex-abuse, of
which this case was a pillar, contributed pressure to
prosecute and that the family were victims of improper
investigatory tactics.
The lead prosecutor in the 10-week 1986 trial countered that
the convicted Amiraults had more than their due to challenge
this and had never succeeded. Appeals, including six rulings
by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, had not exonerated
them.
“There is no justification for a pardon that will be
promoted by the petitioners and echoed by the media as a
wrongful conviction that nullifies the long, solid legal
history of these cases and that seeks to nullify the
painful, emotional turmoil that the victims and their
families have lived with to this very day,” Laurence Hardoon
said at the hearing.
He added that to grant these pardons would carry future
repercussions and even cast “a pall over other children who
will not be believed.”
Sultan wrote at the time of the proposed pardons that they
were “deeply grateful” for the clemency, and that the
pardons “will help to rectify a grievous wrong.”
At Tuesday’s hearing, he said investigators were “in the
Dark Ages back in the 1980s of how to properly question
young children in a non-suggestive, non-coercive fashion.”
Upon Baker’s reversal Wednesday, Sultan wrote that the
family was “extremely disappointed,” and maintained that the
investigation and trial into his clients was not fair. He
described the change as “How sad, and how cruel.”
“Cheryl, Gerald, and their entire family have suffered
grievously over the past four decades as the result of false
accusations that were obtained through the improper,
coercive, and suggestive manipulation of young children,”
Sultan wrote. “This was their last chance to obtain some
peace, some justice, and some closure as they live out their
lives. Sadly, the rug has been pulled out from under them
one final time.”
— State House News Service
contributed to this report.
State House
News Service
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Without Votes, Baker Withdraws Amirault Pardon Bids
Councilors Cite Hearing Tactics, Lack Of Baker Input
By Sam Doran and Chris Lisinski
Minutes before a vote could have occurred Wednesday on a
pair of controversial clemency bids, Gov. Charlie Baker
pulled back his request to pardon two Amirault family
members convicted in the 1980s Fells Acre child sex abuse
trials.
Baker's reversal came a day after the Governor's Council
held a tense and emotionally fraught hearing on the
proposal, and some councilors said Wednesday they thought
the pardon petition should have been presented differently.
"Following yesterday's hearing, it is apparent that there
are not sufficient votes from the Governor's Council to
support a pardon for the Amiraults. Therefore, the Governor
is withdrawing his pardon petition," spokesman Terry
MacCormack wrote.
The administration's announcement to the press came just
eight minutes before the council's formal session on
Wednesday when potential roll call votes on the pardons were
anticipated.
The council spent six hours Tuesday hearing arguments about
whether to grant pardons to Gerald "Tooky" Amirault and
Cheryl Amirault LeFave, both of whom have maintained their
innocence after serving prison sentences.
Baker said last month that he believed the pair should be
pardoned because he had "grave doubt regarding the
evidentiary strength of these convictions."
During the hearing, which neither Baker nor the Amirault
siblings attended, some councilors criticized the proposed
pardons -- which the Parole Board voted not to recommend --
and aired frustrations at Baker over what they described as
a lack of explanation for his decision.
Multiple councilors, including a supporter of the Amiraults,
told the News Service on Wednesday they thought the hearing
had veered too much into "re-trying" the facts of the
original case, and did not focus enough on customary merits
for a pardon.
"I didn't think it went well," said Councilor Robert
Jubinville, a defense attorney who supported the pardons and
previously likened the Fells Acre trials to the 17th century
Salem Witch Trials.
The Milton Democrat said the Amiraults' legal team brought
up a "battle" and "both sides got into who did it and who
didn't do it, and where do you get with that? And as far as
I'm concerned, it's nothing to do with the pardon."
Pardons are intended to grant forgiveness for a criminal
conviction, not serve as a referendum on the convict's
guilt.
In Baker's own clemency guidelines, which the governor
issued in 2020, he wrote: "Review of a petition for a pardon
is not intended to serve as a review of the proceedings of
the trial or appellate courts, or of the guilt of the
petitioner. It is mainly intended to remove the barriers
that are sometimes associated with a criminal record,
thereby facilitating the reintegration of the petitioner
into his or her community."
"I don't think this petition met the governor's own
guidelines. And I think that was highly problematic,"
Councilor Eileen Duff said.
"Talk more about what they've done since they've been out,
and what they did in jail. You know, they had no record
going in," Jubinville said of the Amiraults. "Talk about all
of the restrictions, he's never had a violation. Talk those
things up to me. But we're not judges. We're not doing an
appeal here."
Councilor Terry Kennedy of Lynnfield, who said he would have
voted for the pardons, told the News Service that "the two
lawyers who came in on each side of the issue basically
tried to re-try the case, and didn't talk about what they
should have been talking about -- what the Amiraults have
been doing since they were released from jail. That's what I
wanted to hear. And it was barely mentioned."
Kennedy said Baker's move Wednesday to take the pardons off
the table was "the appropriate thing to do, given that they
didn't have the votes."
South Coast Councilor Joseph Ferreira said he walked into
Tuesday's hearing with an "open mind" and "definitely wanted
to hear and size up the witnesses" after reviewing hundreds
of pages of documents. A former Somerset police chief, he
said he was moved by testimony from victims and the original
case's lead prosecutor, Laurence Hardoon, and also read
letters from police officers who had been involved in the
case.
"We all make credibility assessments based on our
experiences in life. And I was impressed with the
prosecution's presentation, the victim witness advocate's
presentation, the victims recounting the things that
happened in their life 35, 40 years ago," the Swansea
Democrat said.
He added that he thought it "peculiar" the Amiraults would
seek pardons, suggested Gerald Amirault could have sought a
commutation of his remaining sentence, and noted that
pardons are acts "of forgiveness ... which presumes that
something happened to be forgiven."
Duff would not say how she would have voted Wednesday,
before adding, "I will tell you this: that I didn't sleep
last night. I really didn't. This has been a very difficult
thing, because we're not supposed to re-try it. We really
can only work off of the governor's guidelines. And the
governor didn't follow his own guidelines."
Some councilors faulted Baker for not making a case for his
request, or providing the council with any supplementary
documentation to back up the case.
"The governor gave us literally nothing. Nothing," Duff
said, adding that "every single bit of information that any
of these councilors got was on their own."
Councilor Paul DePalo emphasized at the hearing that a
one-paragraph statement in a press release was the only
argument he heard from Baker in favor of pardoning the
siblings.
The Worcester Democrat on Wednesday complimented the
Amiraults' lawyer, James Sultan, as an "effective advocate"
and said that documents Sultan sent to the council were "the
only materials the council received directly without
proactively seeking them out."
He contrasted the marathon hearing, which ran from 1 p.m. to
7 p.m., with another hearing councilors held earlier Tuesday
on the commutation case of convicted murderer Ramadan
Shabazz, whose clemency bid was unanimously supported by
councilors on Wednesday.
At the Shabazz hearing, DePalo said, "the focus was not on
the underlying conviction, but was on the petitioner's
efforts at growth and restorative justice in the intervening
years."
The Boston
Globe
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Baker withdraws controversial pardon requests in Fells Acres
child abuse case
By Ivy Scott, Matt Stout and Tonya Alanez
Governor Charlie Baker withdrew pardon requests on Wednesday
for Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault LeFave, siblings
convicted nearly 40 years ago of sexually abusing children
at the family-owned Fells Acres Day School, in a sharp pivot
that has deepened wounds on both sides of the contentious
case.
The Governor’s Council was set to vote on the pardon request
Wednesday, after holding a six-hour hearing the day before,
when Baker withdrew his recommendation, citing an apparent
lack of support from the panel.
“After they all go through this, he just changes his mind
and now everyone’s back to zero,” said Maggie Bruck, a child
psychologist who has closely followed the Fells Acres case
since the 1980s, and attended Tuesday’s hearing in support
of the Amiraults. Bruck called Baker’s last-minute reversal
“really disgusting.”
“He should have sat down and thought about, if this were
going to be done, how it would be done properly,” she said.
“But this was obviously improper, for everybody involved.”
Tuesday’s tense Governor’s Council hearing was supposed to
help the eight-member panel decide whether to approve
Baker’s pardon recommendations for the siblings, a decision
that can tip on factors including one’s behavior in the
years since their convictions or the reason for seeking it.
But observers on both sides said the meeting quickly
devolved into an emotional back-and-forth, forcing families
to relive decades-old trauma and dredging up a central issue
of the original case: how prosecutors elicit witness
testimony on sexual assault and abuse from young children.
Jenn Bennett, who testified in the mid-1980s that Amirault
sexually abused her and has repeatedly stood by her
testimony, said Baker’s decision to withdraw the pardons
“was the right thing that should have been done.”
“It was relief, it was excitement,” Bennett said. “There is
validation, not just validation for me but for everybody. I
was there, I know the truth. I’ve always said the truth. A
pardon is for forgiveness. There is no forgiveness” for what
happened, she said.
Baker recommended the pardon in his final months in office
against the recommendation of his Advisory Board of Pardons,
saying he had “grave doubt regarding the evidentiary
strength” of Amirault and LeFave’s convictions.
But after pushback from some councilors, and uproar from
survivors and child welfare advocates, the governor
determined that “there are not sufficient votes from the
Governor’s Council to support a pardon for the Amiraults,”
according to a statement from Terry MacCormack, a Baker
spokesperson.
“Therefore, the Governor is withdrawing his pardon
petition,” he said.
James Sultan, an attorney for Amirault and LeFave, said in a
statement Wednesday that the siblings were “extremely
disappointed” with Baker’s decision.
“They wanted the Governor’s Council to vote,” he said. “They
have suffered enough. They should be pardoned. . . . Sadly,
the rug has been pulled out from under them one final time.
How sad, and how cruel.”
If the matter had been brought to a vote, however, it
appears the council would have rejected the pardon request.
Several council members have pointed out that the current
Board of Pardons does not support clemency for either
sibling.
Councilor Marilyn Petitto Devaney said Wednesday that she
was disappointed to see the request withdrawn because she
wanted to vote “no” loudly.
“This person doesn’t deserve a pardon. There are people that
he ruined their lives forever,” Devaney said about
Amirault’s case. “The child victims . . . are never
forgotten. They live a life sentence. But [Amirault] is
home, he can travel, he takes care of his grandchildren, and
he has a pretty good life.”
The withdrawal marks a rare clash between Baker and the
council, which quickly greenlit many of the 15 other pardon
recommendations he made in recent weeks. One of Baker’s few
setbacks in the council came last year, when the panel
narrowly voted down one of his picks for the Parole Board.
But in nearly eight years, the panel has yet to reject any
of the nearly 250 judges Baker has nominated — though he did
withdraw two judicial nominations during his tenure.
In the days ahead of Wednesday’s meeting, Baker repeatedly
insisted that wiping away the siblings’ convictions was the
right move, saying as recently as Tuesday that he read
several court decisions, including a 1998 ruling issued by
Superior Court Judge Isaac Borenstein that vacated LeFave’s
conviction. (That decision was overturned, though LeFave
received a lesser sentence and was released in 1999 after
serving eight years in prison). In his ruling, Borenstein
said LeFave’s alleged victims were manipulated by
“overzealous” investigators who succumbed to a “climate of
panic, if not hysteria.”
“It’s a question, from my point of view, about whether or
not the process that everyone’s entitled to here in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts was properly applied or not.
That’s the issue,” Baker told reporters Tuesday. Amirault
was released on parole in 2004 after he spent 18 years in
prison.
Questions about testimony introduced in the case were raised
as early as the 1990s, when the Globe reviewed videotapes
and transcripts of interviews conducted with several of the
children, most ages 2 to 5, who accused Amirault and LeFave
in the 1980s. At the time, the Globe found “many instances
of the children denying abuse only to have the interviewer
plead and cajole, at times offering gifts . . . for the
‘correct’ answer.”
While some defense attorneys and child psychologists have
accused prosecutors of suggestive questioning that could
lead young children to fabricate or exaggerate stories of
abuse, other psychiatrists, lawyers, and child welfare
advocates insist that, as some of the most vulnerable
survivors of sexual abuse, every effort must be made to
listen to children when they report an act of harm.
Even so, experts acknowledge that interviewers today are
careful to avoid the kind of interrogation that could call
the credibility of a case into question.
“Now, young children are interviewed very carefully by
trained professionals under observation,” said Carmen Durso,
a sex abuse lawyer who represented several of the survivors
of assault by priests in the Catholic Church.
Durso said he does not believe prosecutors in the Fells
Acres case acted improperly, but said today children are
almost always interviewed by a specialist who intentionally
avoids what he called “suggestive questioning.”
“The people who are involved in these interviews do not ever
try to get the child to say a particular thing,” he said.
“They want the child to say only whatever there is to be
heard.”
Jacquelyn Lamont, a forensic interviewer with the Suffolk
District Attorney’s Child Protection Unit, declined to
comment on the specifics of the Fells Acres case but said
the 1980s were a time when “well-meaning people were trying
to make kids comfortable doing things that we would not do
today,” including offering children rewards or prodding them
toward a certain answer.
“It is true that a young child is more susceptible to an
untrained person suggesting an idea to them,” she said. “But
kids can be so reliable with the proper techniques.”
The radical evolution of child interview techniques since
the 1980s has cast doubt on the case’s credibility over the
years. But as the parent of one survivor noted, prosecutors’
arguments have always held up in court.
“Every argument . . . has already been raised and addressed
countless times,” Brenda Hurley McCarthy, whose daughter was
a victim of abuse, said Tuesday. “We believed our children,
and so did the courts.”
The Boston
Globe
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
A Boston Globe editorial
The Fells Acres saga continues
The criminal trials in which Cheryl Amirault LeFave and
Gerald Amirault
were convicted of raping children would not pass muster in a
courtroom today.
On Wednesday, Governor Charlie Baker withdrew his pardon
recommendations for Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault
LeFave, the siblings convicted in high-profile trials in the
1980s of child abuse at a day care run by the family. His
decision came the morning after the Governor’s Council held
a contentious hearing on the matter — and after it was made
clear that there weren’t enough votes on the council to
approve the pardons.
Along with their mother, Violet Amirault, Gerald and Cheryl
were found guilty on multiple counts of indecent assault and
of raping children under their care at the Fells Acres Day
Care Center. Those victims have never wavered, never
recanted. And some of them viewed the lame-duck governor’s
recommendation to pardon the Amiraults as a slap in the
face, made worse by his inexplicable and insensitive
decision not to inform them ahead of time.
This is yet another unsatisfying twist in what has always
been a deeply troubled case because of the outdated methods
used by prosecutors at the time to elicit testimony from the
victims. A pardon, if it had been based solely on those
concerns, would have been justified, but councilors appeared
to be worried that such a move inevitably would have been
construed as exonerating the Amiraults.
Baker himself did not say he believed that Cheryl, now 64,
and Gerald, now 68, were innocent (Violet died in 1997).
Instead, he said he had “grave doubt regarding the
evidentiary strength of these convictions.” That may seem
like a too-cute distinction, but it’s a critical one:
Although the Amiraults themselves have always proclaimed
their innocence, the justification for a pardon is limited
to the concerns about the 1986 and 1987 trials, which have
come to be viewed in a different light given the evolving
standards for investigating child sexual abuse cases.
The Middlesex County prosecutors who charged the Amiraults
were among the first to take child abuse with the
seriousness it deserves — meaning they relied on
investigatory techniques that were still in their infancy.
James Sultan, the defense lawyer representing the Amiraults,
referred to the period as the “Dark Ages back in the 1980s”
before investigators knew “how to properly question young
children in a non-suggestive, non-coercive fashion.”
Subsequent experience has raised doubts about some of the
methods authorities used at the time, which included leading
interviews with child victims. While they stand by the
verdict, and there is no hint of prosecutorial misconduct in
this case — still less a “witch hunt” mentality — even the
prosecutors concede that such techniques are outdated.
Opponents of a pardon had feared, quite reasonably, that
because the Amiraults have always proclaimed their
innocence, any pardon would have been viewed as an official
acceptance of their version of events, in which they were
loving caregivers who were simply caught up in a hysterical
moral panic. By implicitly calling the victims liars, a
pardon on those grounds could have deterred victims in other
cases from coming forward — “casting a pall over other
children who will not be believed,” as Laurence Hardoon, the
lead prosecutor in the case, said on Tuesday.
Sometimes a pardon does, indeed, serve as a de facto
exoneration. But not always. It can also give a fresh start
to convicts who have turned their life around. And it can
also be a safety valve for cases such as the Amirault
convictions in which legitimate doubts about the strength of
the evidence presented at trial emerge only years later. In
this case, whatever one thinks about the the Amiraults’
actual guilt or innocence, the trials would not pass muster
in a courtroom today.
Cheryl Amirault LeFave served eight years in prison. Gerald
Amirault served 18, and is still on parole. In 2001, this
editorial page argued that authorities should commute Gerald
Amirault’s sentence, but withhold a full pardon, in light of
the concerns about the evidence at the trial. That would
have certainly been the least bad outcome in this case, and
it’s unfortunate that choice was not available to
councilors.
Ultimately, the failure to approve the pardons falls on
Baker, who did so little to explain or defend his
recommendation to both the Governor’s Council and the
public. (The governor also declined to talk to the Globe
about the pardon request.) Baker’s handling of this pardon,
and in particular the failure to communicate with the
victims, is a blot on his last days in office.
Still, the fact remains the Amiraults’ trials were tainted —
not because of malice or misconduct on anyone’s part, but
simply because of the times in which they occurred. That
does not mean they were innocent, but it does mean that the
state has unfinished business to address those shortcomings.
Pardons could still be a legitimate choice, should the next
governor, Maura Healey, choose to go down that road. But
what she and the Governor’s Council must make clear if this
matter is ever back on the table is that clemency in this
case is the pardons are not about guilt or innocence, but
rather a step to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
CommonWealth Magazine
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Baker withdraws Amirault pardon recommendations
Cites lack of support from Governor’s Council
By Shira Schoenberg
In a stunning reversal of a controversial policy
recommendation, Gov. Charlie Baker on Wednesday withdrew his
recommendation to pardon Gerald Amirault and Cheryl Amirault
LeFave, who were convicted in a high-profile child sexual
abuse case in the 1980s.
“Following yesterday’s hearing, it is apparent that there
are not sufficient votes from the Governor’s Council to
support a pardon for the Amiraults. Therefore, the governor
is withdrawing his pardon petition,” Baker’s press secretary
Terry MacCormack said in a statement.
Amirault and LeFave were convicted of sexually abusing
children at Fells Acres Day Care Center in Malden in the
1980s. The 1984 case has long raised questions about the
integrity of the convictions, and the Amirault family has
always maintained their innocence. Their supporters argue
that the testimony of children, which formed the backbone of
the case, was coerced by improper interviewing
techniques. But after years of litigation, including two
trials and six Supreme Judicial Court rulings, the courts
upheld their convictions.
Baker recommended the pardons against the advice of the
Advisory Board of Pardons, which declined to give both
Amirault and LeFave pardon hearings. In recommending the
pardons, Baker wrote that the prosecutions “took place
without the benefit of scientific studies that have in the
intervening years led to widespread adoption of
investigative protocols designed to protect objectivity and
reliability in the investigation of child sex abuse cases.”
Baker said that, like many others who reviewed the case, he
was “left with grave doubt regarding the evidentiary
strength of these convictions.”
But the Governor’s Council must confirm any pardon
recommendation before it can take effect, and at a public
hearing on Tuesday, more than half of the eight councilors
expressed grave doubts about Baker’s recommendations. Lt.
Gov. Karyn Polito can break a tie in favor of the governor,
but if five councilors vote against the governor, a pardon
will not pass.
At Tuesday’s hearing, councilors Marilyn Devaney and Chris
Iannella both made clear that they would vote against a
pardon. Devaney said she knew a child who was molested at
Fells Acres, and she urged fellow councilors to vote no.
Iannella pledged to stand up for the victims and said he
would not contradict the Board of Pardons.
Councilor Eileen Duff said she does not believe the
Amiraults are eligible for a pardon because they did not
admit guilt. The governor’s clemency guidelines say a pardon
is not intended as a review of court proceedings or guilt,
and the governor will “rarely” grant clemency to a
petitioner who has not accepted responsibility.
Councilor Paul DePalo criticized Baker for providing no
rationale for the pardon, other than a paragraph in a press
release questioning the trial’s evidentiary findings – which
are not supposed to be considered in a pardon hearing,
according to the governor’s own clemency guidelines.
Councilor Mary Hurley also raised concerns about opposing
the Advisory Board of Pardons.
Councilor Terrence Kennedy blamed the Amirault’s attorney
for using the hearing to relitigate the case, telling him,
“I think you missed your mark.”
Amirault will be released from strict parole conditions in
another year. But both LeFave and Amirault will continue to
have to register as sex offenders in the absence of a
pardon.
Baker’s statement did not address any of the concerns raised
by the governor’s councilors.
The sudden reversal by Baker marked a rare display of
serious political misjudgment by a governor who has made
carefully calibrated moves a hallmark of his tenure.
A Boston Globe editorial published Wednesday morning, before
Baker withdrew the recommendations, called the pardons a
“legitimate choice,” as long as they are not equated with
exoneration, but it nonetheless ripped the governor for the
way he dealt with the case – singling out his failure to
explain his reasoning in any detail or notify victims ahead
of time. “Baker’s handling of this pardon, in particular the
failure to communicate with the victims, is a blot on his
last days in office,” the paper said.
The Boston
Globe
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Charlie Baker’s process on the Amirault pardons ‘stinks’
What was he thinking?
By Joan Vennochi
What was Governor Charlie Baker thinking when he recommended
pardons for convicted child sex abusers Gerald Amirault and
his sister, Cheryl Amirault Lefave?
Baker didn’t share his rationale with the eight members of
the Governor’s Council. Instead, he left them with a hot
potato they didn’t want to handle. As Councilor Paul DePalo
put it during Tuesday’s pardon hearing, “The process
stinks.” It did, and even a council not known for its
high-minded principle didn’t want to go along with such a
request from a lame-duck governor. Acknowledging that he
didn’t have the votes, Baker withdrew his request Wednesday.
Gerald Amirault and his sister were convicted nearly 40
years ago of sexually abusing young children at their
family’s Fells Acres Day Care Center in Malden. Gerald, now
68, served 18 years in prison, and in 2004 he was released
on parole, which ends next year. Cheryl, now 64, served
eight years in prison. Their mother, Violet, who was also
convicted and served prison time, died in 1997. Because of
questions about the methods used at the time to interview
children, and how they were shielded from face-to-face
confrontation with the defendants during trial,
this was a
highly charged case — and still is.
Was Baker trying to fulfill a last wish of Barbara
Anderson, a conservative activist who headed the
advocacy group Citizens for Limited Taxation? In a
column published in The Salem News right after she died
in 2016, Anderson wrote: “There will be no memorial service
but if anyone wants to honor my memory, please remind
Governor Charlie Baker that when he was running for office,
he promised my friend Gerald Amirault and his family that
getting Gerald off parole and his ankle bracelet would be a
first order of business. So far he has broken his promise,
and keeping it is my dying wish.”
Baker recommended the pardons even though the Parole Board,
whose members he appoints, declined to give Gerald Amirault
or his sister a hearing. In the press release explaining his
reasoning, Baker wrote, “I am left with grave doubt
regarding the evidentiary strength of these convictions.”
Beyond that, he provided “zip, zero, nothing,” as Councilor
Elaine Duff put it at Tuesday’s hearing.
Neither Gerald Amirault nor his sister attended the hearing,
which seemed orchestrated to give pardon proponents a chance
to advance their cause with maximum media exposure. Kicking
it off, Councilor Terrence Kennedy said, “This is not a
trial. It’s not about guilt or innocence.” Yet James M.
Sultan, the Amiraults’ attorney, got nearly two hours to
essentially relitigate this controversial case from the
1980s.
Then came emotional testimonials from Gerald Amirault’s
wife, daughter, and friends. After that, Laurence Hardoon,
who had been the lead prosecutor on the case, got a chance
to speak. But he was badgered by Councilor Robert L.
Jubinville about a 1998 ruling that claimed the victims were
manipulated by “overzealous” investigators, as the
now-retired judge who issued the ruling loomed behind
Hardoon. Finally, testimony came from victims and family
members — some five and a half hours after the hearing
began.
Baker did not speak with the victims, or to Hardoon, who
believed the children then, and still does. With that
failure to reach out, the governor underestimated the power
of their testimony and what victims like Jennifer Bennett —
who was 3½ when she attended the day care center and is now
44 — believe to be true. The skeptics “can believe what they
want. I know the truth. I was there, not them,” Bennett said
during a break in the hearing.
The Amiraults were convicted twice, by two different juries,
and the convictions withstood a series of appeals, including
six rulings from the Supreme Judicial Court. “There is no
justification for a pardon that will be promoted by the
petitioners and echoed by the media as a wrongful conviction
that nullifies the long, solid legal history of these cases
and that seeks to nullify the painful, emotional turmoil
that the victims and their families have lived with to this
very day,” Hardoon told the Governor’s Council.
Council member Marilyn Petitto Devaney, who said she has a
personal friend whose child was sexually abused at that day
care center, also spoke out passionately against the
pardons. So did council member Christopher Iannella, who
told the family members and victims “you can count on me to
stand up for you.”
Hardoon also issued a warning that any pardon would be
interpreted as exoneration, which would “cast a pall over
other children who will not be believed.” Who would want
that as their legacy?
Thanks to pardon resisters on the Governor’s Council, Baker
was spared that possibility.
The
Howie Carr Show
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Tooky Amirault: “I Was a Better Father from Prison
Than People Are in the Streets”
Click above graphic (or
HERE) to listen
|
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|