Martha Coakley of Middlesex Witch Hunt Fame, Now Attorney General of Massachusetts

Mulling over the Paul Shanley case and marveling at the ability of ambitious, corrupt prosecutors to place innocent people in jail no matter how ridiculous the charges are against them, I ran into this letter from 2001 involving Martha Coakley (now ATTORNEY GENERAL). You recall Martha from my prior post involving Paul Shanley.

This letter is eye opening. I'm just glad to see that at one time, in a galaxy far away, a few sane people existed, even in a witch-burning, Martha-loving state like Massachusetts. How wonderful that a human being, as loved as Martha Coakley, as full of integrity and sociopathological instincts, can rise from being a mere prosecutor to being Attorney General, and in such a progressive and educated state. How many bodies did she have to step over? How many innocent people did she have to jail? How many thousands did she have to fool?

And now, the letter.

The Boston HeraldAugust 12, 2001 Sunday ; Pg. 026
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A scandal continues

The cynical manipulation by the Middlesex County prosecutor's office of the child witnesses against Gerald Amirault who are now young adults makes it depressingly clear that the office of prosecutor is intended by its occupants to serve their political ambitions and not the cause of justice ("Amirault victims come out of hiding to keep him jailed," Aug. 3). Martha Coakley and her cohorts and precursors know full well that children who were 3, 4 and 5 years old at the time of the Fells Acres trials some 15 years ago - 15 years filled with constant reassertions by prosecutors and parents of the validity of the original claims - do not, cannot and will not ever be able to have untainted memories of their experiences. Hauling these innocent young people out for a press conference was disgraceful.

These children were victims of politically ambitious and woefully ignorant prosecutors who chose to disregard the coercive interrogations by the inexperienced graduate student assigned to dig the "truth" out of the children, to ignore bizarre claims that defied all rationality (e.g. sodomy with lobsters and knives) and to close their eyes to the utter lack of substantiating physical evidence.

- Margaret A. Hagen, Department of Psychology Boston University.
_____

Margaret A. Hagen is the the author of Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony & the Rape of American Justice (1997); Regan Books-Imprint of Harper-Collins.
-
A great piece on Amirault here.
-

Paul Shanley Deserves a New Trial - When Will Prosecutor Martha Coakley and Judge Lynn Rooney Admit They Were Horribly Wrong?

Was Paul Shanley jailed by people who themselves should be in jail?

Before anyone goes berserk on me, let's agree that facts are facts. You can hate Catholic priests all you want, you can believe all the negative, biased press you want, you can point to the theatrics of sobbing accusers (remember the Salem witch trials?), you can quote Freudian nonsense till you verge on Oedipus Complex, but facts are facts, and only those should matter when it comes to deciding guilt or innocence.

Several years ago, a priest named Paul Shanley was accused by prosecutors Martha Coakley and Lynn Rooney of the Middlesex District Attorney's office (Rooney is now a district court judge who, like Coakley, made her reputation with "recovered memory" cases) of sexually molesting a boy in his parish 20 years earlier. Without a single witness to corroborate a single charge, Lynn Rooney put on a theatrical performance in the court room worthy of an Oscar. Why? Because she had no choice. All she and Martha Coakley had on the accused were the "recovered memories" of a solitary man, Paul Busa, who had a background of gambling and questionable ethics.

Other accusers seeking millions in compensation were shouting to be heard, also claiming the accused priest had fondled them, but apparently the honorable district attorney of Middlesex decided they were utterly unreliable (which they were), dropping three of them (buddies of Paul Busa-what a surprise!) before the trial. God, what I would give to have a video tape of the meeting between Martha Coakley and those guys!

Anyway, let's review the proper sequence of events involving Paul Busa, his recovered memories, and Lynn Rooney's crowning achievement--the prosecution of her victim in a kangaroo court:

- Paul Busa suddenly remembered the sexual abuse on the afternoon of Feb. 11, 2002, when his girlfriend told him about a newspaper article that reported someone he knew (Gregory Ford -- dropped as a credible witness by Martha Coakley because of his changing story and mental history) had alleged molestation by Father Shanley.

- The next day, brimming with recovered memories, Busa was talking to a personal-injury lawyer about pursuing a lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Church (according to testimony by his own psychologist, Dr. Drozd, and documents presented in the criminal trial).

- Busa and his personal-injury lawyer, Roderick MacLeish, make the outrageous public claim to the press that the accused was "a founding member of NAMBLA and openly advocated sex between men and little boys." (NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association -- It was later proven this charge was a total fabrication.)

- The honorable Lynn Rooney decides to prosecute. The public and the press are frothing and demanding justice! The window is open!

- Not a single juror in the case had not heard of the false NAMBLA charge (they had all been biased by the press).

- Busa testifies that Shanley pulled him out of Christian doctrine classes and molested him in the church bathroom, the pews, the church confessional and the rectory.

- Not a single witness of the prosecution confirmed any of Busa's "recovered memories" of Paul Shanley removing him from classes or doing anything else that Busa claimed had taken place over a SEVEN YEAR period in the 1980's. (Not a single teacher or classmate of Busa could be found to agree with him, not a single person who Busa had been in contact with for seven years, SEVEN WHOLE YEARS during which he alleged he was repeatedly sexually abused.)

- At the end of the trial, Paul Busa declares, "I want him [Paul Shanley] to die in prison, whether it's of natural causes or otherwise. However he dies, I hope it's slow and painful."

Wouldn't you say that Paul Shanley deserves a new trial with an unbiased jury?

A few useful links on this subject:

The Railroading of Paul Shanley (interesting facts about his accusers and their mental history)
http://www.ncrj.org/Shanley/JimShanley2.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02192005.html

http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2005/050218_1.html

http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/x1878563848/Lawyer-for-ex-priest-questions-repressed-memory-science

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/September-October-2004/feature_wypijewski_sepoct04.msp