Talk:Gerald Amirault
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
I changed the category from Wrongful convictions to Disputed convictions, because it is disputed but far from proven wrongful. LanternLight 01:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
Amirault was and is guilty. The definitive statement in the opening paragraph that this was a "hysteria induced child-molestation case", and the tag of "day care sexual abuse hysteria", is evidence of profound bias and they should be removed.
I'd do it myself, but "ritual abuse" entries in Wikipedia have a mysterious tendency of silently reverting back to their original form, regardless of the reasoning behind the change.
In the last ten years, the commentators that have proclaimed Amirault's innocence have produced no new evidence, or raised new issues that were not considered in his trial. The claims that the children were asked leading questions, or that their narratives couldn't possibly be true, were considered by two judges, two juries, and the state's Supreme Judicial Court, and found to have no substance.
Amirault caused profound harm to the children in his care, and that harm is ignored and camouflaged by his legion of supporters, who have built up a psueodo-civil rights movement on a groundswell of public denial that people engage in sadistic and organised forms of abuse. This article is an illustrative example of this. --Biaothanatoi 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Frankly, it's your claims that have no substance. You don't think Susan Kelly asking a child for 37 minutes whether she saw a naked clown at the day care center isn't asking leading questions? You claim that "two judges" found the claims to have no substance -- that's two out of how many? It certainly doesn't include Judge Isaac Borenstein, who declared "The evidence in [the] case is nothing short of overwhelming with improper interviewing techniques." It certainly doesn't include Judge Robert Barton who called the decision a disgrace and said "Of the 22 years I was a Superior Court judge, it's the only case I know that I had any part of where someone did not get a fair trial and is doing time." Oh, but I forgot -- anyone who doesn't say what you want them to say doesn't count, do they? You say that you care about the truth, but you automatically discount anyone who doesn't say what you want to hear, announce that the rest is "the truth", and demonize anyone who didn't do your pre-filtering act as "denialist". The one that's in denial, Biaothanatoi, is you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
