Talk:Gerald Amirault

message: The article says that he was "falsely convicted," yet he is included in the category "American rapists." Shouldn't he be removed from the category? -- El Payaso Malo 99.101.157.119 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: There is more of "the second-most notorious witch trial in Massachusetts history" ("the most outrageous miscarriage of justice since the Salem witch trials") here: Too immoral for Teddy Kennedy's seat by Ann Coulter. "The allegations against the Amiraults were preposterous on their face. Children made claims of robots abusing them, a 'bad clown' who took the children to a "magic room" for sex play, rape with a 2-foot butcher knife, other acts of sodomy with a 'magic wand,' naked children tied to trees within view of a highway, and – standard fare in the child abuse hysteria era – animal sacrifices.
There was not one shred of physical evidence to support the allegations – no mutilated animals, no magic rooms, no butcher knives, no photographs, no physical signs of any abuse on the children.
Not one parent noticed so much as unusual behavior in their children – until after the molestation hysteria began.
There were no witnesses to the alleged acts of abuse, despite the continuous and unannounced presence of staff members, teachers, parents and other visitors at the school.
Not one student ever spontaneously claimed to have been abused. Indeed, the allegations of abuse didn't arise until the child therapists arrived.
…To the children's credit, they held firm to their denials for heroic amounts of time in the face of relentless questioning." Asteriks (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ann Coulter's article is a legitimate source, and she does not have to be neutral.  It's her job to have opinions.  We have to keep the POV neutral here on Wikipedia, but on a topic of controversy, that's usually done by citing multiple sources.  So if you can find a good source who disagrees with her, please cite it and summarize its argument.  If not, it may not be that controversial. DougHill (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Coulter's article appears to be an opinion piece.  I wouldn't use it for much, and I'd rather substitute another reference for the factual claim it makes.  It also shouldn't be an external link.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's great to cite a book source for this claim, but it's probably a lot more useful for most Wikipedia users to have an online source they can click on.  Also, much of the national reporting on this case (including the most famous which in part won the Pulitzer Prize) was from Dorothy Rabinowitz on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal.  Surely we should not rule those sources out.  Furthermore, it's a notable fact that many (tho by no means all) of the prosecutors who have been involved in cases like this have prospered politically.  Coulter's article provides a nice example of this.  But I agree that her piece does not belong on the External Links list, so I've not restored it. DougHill (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Coulter

message: This article was in the category :Category:Overturned convictions in the United States. However, although I am unfamiliar with this case, having read the sources, I can't find it stated anywhere that his conviction was ever formally overturned. Although considerable doubt was placed on his conviction and it became clear it was not based on any reliable evidence, it seems that it remains legally valid; and so he is, in the eyes of the law at least, a convicted child molester. Obviously this is a tricky situation, but we can't categorise him in 'overturned convictions' if it would be factually inaccurate to do so. I'm not sure the article should currently describe him as 'falsely' convicted, either - that might seem POV, when perhaps we should just say 'convicted' and then explain the details. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Robofish (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Overturned convictions' category? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerald Amirault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115122250/http://booknotes.org/Watch/175675-1/Dorothy+Rabinowitz.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/175675-1/Dorothy+Rabinowitz.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerald Amirault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110827151730/http://sorb.chs.state.ma.us/ResultDetail.asp?btn24728=Detail to http://sorb.chs.state.ma.us/ResultDetail.asp?btn24728=Detail
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified