To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
Her tone is the defensive and hostile manner of a prosecutor, rather than the insightful and retrospective approach of a would-be Senator.
The more I see of her, the more convinced I become of her unsuitability for the office she seeks. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
What Coakley didn't do is expand the evidence beyond the eyewitnesses testimony from the three boys. She didn't contact the law enforcement in places Geoghan used to live to see if there was a longer record of pedophile issues or even request/subpeona Geoghan's personnel file from his employer, the Roman Catholic Church. The Boston Police had a substantiated record of complaints about Geoghan, which Coakley did not seek and did not have. Had she sought and found those records, she could have pressed for much more "stringent" terms in the pre-trial parole agreement.
"we accomplished was taking Father Geoghan out of commission basically, letting the church know that we knew... I did exactly what we should do I went the extra mile to keep those kids safe and to keep other kids safe" - Martha Coakley, post Nov 23 WGBH forum interview
Coakley did not keep other kids safe with this pre-trial parole agreement and she should be more honest about that:
...court records show that he may have violated the probationary condition that said he was to have no further unsupervised contact with minors for a year. Those records include a 2002 civil suit that said Geoghan molested a Roxbury boy, later represented by Garabedian, in "approximately 1996.'' link
With 900 cases a year, you can't spend a ton of time making a Federal case out of a phone harassment misdemeanor. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
A: Uh they were not available to us. They didn't umh. We tried. In a prior case, we just tried uh against Father Manning uh they were not relevant to this particular charge. Uh we knew that uh well first of all we didn't know the church had other records at the time, and there was no way to know that. This was the first public complaint that we had had about Father Geoghan. We had no idea that they were sitting on thousands and thousands of documents. And so even if we had gotten those records they wouldn't have affected what we could do about Father Geoghan at that time. And we did exactly what we should have done.
I take it from this answer that she did not ask for Father Geoghan records even though she had asked for Father Manning's records in a prior case. If she didn't, is that malpractice? www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
"And so even if we had gotten those records they wouldn't have affected what we could do about Father Geoghan at that time."
Clearly the church's records would have changed the situation from a case of a misdemeanor phone harassment to serial chronic pedophile. Therefore, Coakley's claim "wouldn't have affected what we could do" is logically incorrect if not a deception.
Now what's interesting is that Coakley says they had done a case about Father Manning and asked for records. It's not completely clear but it seams as though they did receive the records in Father Mannings's case.
So, if her office had asked for records in the subsequent 'three Waltham boys' case and not received them, she would have known something potentially big was up. Nonetheless, I don't think she ever asked for them. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
Martha: So I think we made exactly the right decision given all the facts and circumstances. Um we certainly didn't know the church was sitting on complaints about him. Um they weren't available to us and even if we'd known that it wouldn't have changed what we could do in that instance with those boys.
Q: But did you know that the Boston Police Department and social services had done two prior investigations on other cases this is according to b--- accountability? That there were other substantiated claims that might also not have risen to the level of charges but could have um alerted people to what kind of person this was, had it been tried in a public court? :36
Martha: It seems we didn't that and there was no way for us to know that, either from the church or from Boston. That would also have been irrelevant to these charges. What was most important and what we accomplished was taking Father Geoghan out of commission basically, letting the church know that we knew, getting psychiatric records that he waved his privileges for, that we used, uh later on.
That was the first complaint that we had had in Middlesex County around Father Geoghan. We did exactly what we should have done. I've been protecting kids for uh a long time. And then had experience knowing that, we had limited options, we did exactly what we should do we went the extra mile to keep those kids safe and to keep other kids safe.
Q: Why couldn't you get the church records? 1:13
Martha: They were not available to us. They didn't... um, we tried in a prior case, we just tried, uh against Father Manning. They were not relevant to this particular charge. Uh we knew that umm, well first of all we didn't know the church had other records at the time, there was no way to know that.
This was the first public complaint that we had had about Father Geoghan. We had no idea that they were sitting on thousands and thousands of documents. And so even if we had gotten those records they wouldn't have affected what we could do about Father Geoghan at that time. And we did exactly what we should have done.
Q: Do you think you'll lose some votes from those victims? 1:46
Martha:I don't believe so, at all. I think that people know that I have a strong record as a child abuse prosecutor; that we took 900 cases a year, we fought for every case we could, we brought charges when they were appropriate, we tried to keep the kids safe when we couldn't bring charges, that's what we did in this case. I stand on stand on my record as a prosecutor, and I will not take a back seat to anybody on my record as protecting kids and keeping kids safe.
Q: It's interesting you didn't see any DSS or foster, public police department, any other information about... {Martha interrupts to answer } 2:15
Martha:I was the DA in Middlesex County. We wouldn't have seen that or had access to it and particularly in this case, there was no DSS involvement because it didn't involve a caretaker. And so we worked with just the mom and the police in this case. We did everything we could have and I believe we did a very good job in recognizing uh that we were limited in what we could do but in getting Father Geoghan out of commission, on probation, not to have contact with -- , particularly having to go to a psychotherapist and we had access to those records, that was an important first step for many of the cases that... remember we brought successfully after that to convict him uh and to hold him accountable.
If there is uh uh anyone here who should answer to this, it is the archdiocese. Thank you www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
When I watch this video, I see someone who has a fine grasp of the law and her role within it, who understood what evidence she had to work with and what she didn't; what she could charge Geoghan with and what she couldn't. Most importantly, I see someone with an eye on the ultimate goal, which was getting this perv away from little kids. I would argue that that precision of thought and focus on results is exactly what we need in a senator.
Coakley's also able to explain her reasoning calmly and respectfully, including, yes, what she could and couldn't know from the church and other authorities at that time. Contrast that with Rep. Capuano's pedantic and confrontational tone when explaining the how a bill becomes a law to those lacking his legislative experience.
I think Rep. Capuano has confused anger and passion from the very start of this campaign. It's as if he's trying to channel the lion of the Senate, but when he tries to roar, a shrill little squeak comes out instead. I respect the emotion he brings to his work, but I would argue that perhaps it's he, not Coakley, whose temperament may not be suited to the more deliberative confines of the United States Senate.
I guess that's why we exchange views in a forum like this, and why we each get one vote two weeks from now.
"Diversity" includes a diversity of styles and approaches as well as demographics. It sounds to me as though we should chalk this up to an opportunity for us to celebrate our diversity. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
More posturing, more I-did-the-right-thing. No acknowledgment that, knowing what we now know, she could have done more.
Geoghan, we now know, had some 130 victims. These people were suffering through their own private hell. The factor that is relevant to this discussion is that they were private... How does a criminal get away with, at least, 130 separate acts? With the assistance of the Archdiocese of Boston and the unwillingness of the public to believe the acts were more than individual crimes. That's how. If you want to fault Martha Coakley for failing to breach that... well, there's a long line of politicians in front of her (she was Middlesex DA, not Boston... ) who similarly fell down.
The law, like life, is messy. Sometimes bad guys get away, despite the earnest and strenuous efforts of the best of us... Sometimes victims, no matter how victimized, don't want to come forward. Sometimes, people what to stuff violence and assaults they've experienced back into the darker, unseen corners of their lives. We can all muse, in hindsight, how things could have been done better, but I don't think that informs us much of where we are now...
The more I see of her, the more convinced I become of her unsuitability for the office she seeks.
I see the opposite: she's been in a number of knock-down, drag-out brawls and she keeps on getting up and dusting herself off, win or lose. In as much as I like Capuano and respect Khazei, neither of them have the track record of bruising wins and losses and, the important part to me, continued fighting. Reading 'True Compass', Ted Kennedy's memoir, I'm confident in asserting that Coakley'd make Kennedy proud. ---
"Providing health care to the uninsured is a job killer, while not providing health care is merely a people killer.... Bonus: Job Openings!!"
--Stephen Colbert
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat.
And yes, the argument seems to be that Coakley wasn't initially aggressive enough on Geoghan but was too aggressive on Fells Acres. Of course, she did put Geoghan in prison later, when allegations that clearly constituted indecent A&B arose.
Asking in the most general terms, is there legislation might she advocate for as a Senator (or what legislation did she support over the years) that would have led to better results in some of these cases that keep getting dragged up? Or more simply, what can Martha the Senator do to help out Martha the DA or Martha the AG?
(Hint: It would be nice to hear from the candidate in this forum)
I'd like to see her demonstrating more leadership, as Jasiu offers here, about what she now feels would have helped then and would therefore help prosecutors now. In 1995, as prosecutor, she was constrained to enforce the law. Today, as Senator, she asks to be empowered to write the law.
I'd like to know what she'd do differently.
This is what I mean by acting senatorial instead of prosecutorial. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
the mistakenly low-key way she settled the 1995 case.
You can say "mistakenly" only in hindsight, as you yourself seem to acknowledge elsewhere.
You mean if she had different information in 1995? Or do you mean she should have handled things differently in 1995 even given the status quo?
Yes, yes, we all get that Senators get to write the laws. But that is emphatically not what the Globe asked her, as far as we can tell -- not even close. I continue to think that you're asking her to answer questions that nobody has asked, and that in fact nobody (other than you) seems particularly interested in -- after all, Senators do not get to write state laws, and that's what at issue with the Geoghan case. That's why so many people are confused by your posts on this.
Martha Coakley made a similar good-faith decision in 1995. She was given an opportunity this week to reflect on whether she feels she did the right thing.
I would have been happier if she would have put rather more emphasis on what she might have done differently given what we all now know and rather less emphasis on defending her position. Only Martha Coakley knows what information she had, what concerns she felt, what tension she might have felt between her gut sense that something terrible was going on (surely she felt that, right?) and her duty and constraints as a prosecutor.
The related issue that simmers underneath the surface is the question of her own religion, the religion of a majority of her peers in the lege and the judiciary, and how her own conflict perhaps played out in her decision making. That tension is surely front-and-center in the current political climate, given the abortion debate and the simultaneous conflict playing out in Rhode Island. The tension between the reality of the moral corruption that did permeate the Boston Archdiocese at the time and their public posture was known and felt by a good many people even in 1995. The sex scandal did not burst full-bloom from nothingness. Martha Coakley (and Tim Reilly) was in a position to know what was really going on -- whether or not she could prove it. We will never know how what additional evidence she might have obtained, either directly from her own investigations or indirectly from other victims who might have come forward, because she joined too many civil authorities in avoiding the ugly reality whose symptoms were in front of her.
She chose the safer, easier, and more expedient path. I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask what that says about her values, her behavior, and -- ultimately -- her suitability for the office she seeks. In my view, her behavior in this echoes her treatment of email-gate. In both cases, she avoided facing the reality and instead chose the safer, easier, and more expedient path. I note that you (and others here) defend both choices. It seems to me that we have a genuine difference in what we want from our next Senator.
A doctor sometimes misses a diagnosis, because the symptoms of a serious disorder sometimes masquerade as something far more trivial. I prefer a doctor who, when asked to reflect fifteen years later on a case where the patient turned out to have a serious and life-threatening disease, is willing to say "While I did the best I could at the time, in retrospect a more aggressive approach would have been better."
Perhaps, as I wrote above, it is just a matter of style. If so, I prefer Mike Capuano's style to hers. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
2. How can Coakley sidestep the question raised by A.W. Richard Sipe, the former priest, that Coakley was negligent for not taking the 1995 public in order to create public awareness about Geoghan's (then alleged) acts?
3. How can Coakley say that "none of the boys disclosed any touching that was basically an indecent assault and battery'' when the record shows that "Geoghan soaped up one of the brothers in the shower"?
4. Why are the other candidates not drawing attention to the fact that Coakley took a decidedly cautious approach on the 1995 case AFTER losing the highly publicized 1994 case in Woburn with Father Manning? Does this not directly speak to Coakley's propensity (as alleged by her opponents) that she is too calculated in her acts as an elected official and worries too much about political ramifications?
2. "Negligent" seems like an overstatement to me. Had she taken the 1995 case public, that would have meant bringing (and probably losing) criminal charges. Alternatively, she could have charged some trivial crime like harassing phone calls, as to which even if he was convicted he wouldn't have been deemed a sex offender and he almost certainly would not have gotten prison time. It was a judgment call, which is what she was hired to make.
3. The indecent assault & battery statute is quite technical. If there was no touching of genitals, buttocks, or a girl's breasts, you probably can't convict. AFAIK.
4. The loss in the Manning case is, presumably, precisely why she took a different approach with Geoghan in 1995. What it "directly speaks to," it seems to me, is that she didn't want another embarrassing loss, which would likely have been a huge setback for holding pedophile priests accountable. Better to get half a loaf than nothing in that circumstance. Again, a judgment call, which I find it hard to disagree with.
While the three Waltham boys/Father Jack case amounted to misdemeanor phone harassment , Father Jack's other behaviors - physical contact, soaping, etc - were strong signals of a bigger threat.
In other words, was she seeking to serve the interests of the three Waltham boys and other potential victims (who turned out to be Roxbury boy) in a way that served her own career interests too, cautiously after a recent loss.
3. the law then required they be touched on buttocks or genitals and apparently they weren't.
2. An expert in her own right, I don't understand how after prosecuting child abuse cases and being the head of the Child Abuse Unit for years, she could not have considered this factor in her decision. (That said, I may not have all the facts.)
1. She can't claim she took Geoghan out of commission. Presumable the parole officer was reading the psychiatrists report weekly but it appears Geoghan abused another kid in Roxbury during his one year parole period. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
You do not have all the facts: chief of which is the clear understanding that being an expert in legal prosecution of child abuse (itself a wide net) is not the same thing, nor ought it to be, as expert insight into child sexual abusers behavioral traits.
1. She can't claim she took Geoghan out of commission. Presumable the parole officer was reading the psychiatrists report weekly but it appears Geoghan abused another kid in Roxbury during his one year parole period.
Geoghan never again assumed duties in a parish and the diocese was cautioned not to allow him to have unsupervised access to children. Absent chaining him to a basement wall in the Middlesex DA office, I'd say this is 'out of commission'. It is unclear when the Roxbury incident actually happened as opposed to when he was charged (and when a victim was willing to testify...) He was defrocked in 1998.
Rather than continually pointing out where you think Martha Coakley fell down on the job, why don't you educate yourself on the facts of the case...?
---
2. An expert in her own right, I don't understand how after prosecuting child abuse cases and being the head of the Child Abuse Unit for years, she could not have considered this factor {How can Coakley sidestep the question raised by A.W. Richard Sipe, the former priest, that Coakley was negligent for not taking the 1995 public in order to create public awareness about Geoghan's (then alleged) acts? }in her decision. (That said, I may not have all the facts.)
{How can Coakley sidestep the question raised by A.W. Richard Sipe, the former priest, that Coakley was negligent for not taking the 1995 public in order to create public awareness about Geoghan's (then alleged) acts? }
You said:
While those two things are not the same thing, the latter is clearly relevant to the former and significant in helping her do her job well. As the person who handled the medical evidence in the Woodward trial, we know she has the ability to learn this kind of material. Learning the nature of pedophiles strikes me as fundamental responsibility for a responsible professional whose job it is to head of the Child Abuse unit. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
Marry in Massachuesetts, "No Breakthroughs in Senate Race" In last evening's final scheduled TV-broadcast debate on GBH's Greater Boston, we got too much Emily Rooney but still plenty of the four candidates. The style of the five should have given voters all the info they had lacked before. Despite Rooney's waste of a lot of time with silly, parochial questions, the candidates showed their stuff.... etc
In last evening's final scheduled TV-broadcast debate on GBH's Greater Boston, we got too much Emily Rooney but still plenty of the four candidates. The style of the five should have given voters all the info they had lacked before. Despite Rooney's waste of a lot of time with silly, parochial questions, the candidates showed their stuff.... etc
2. Inre the comment that "the loss in the Manning case is, presumably, precisely why she took a different approach with Geoghan in 1995. What it "directly speaks to," it seems to me, is that she didn't want another embarrassing loss, which would likely have been a huge setback for holding pedophile priests accountable," how so?
Isn't the mere act of bringing cases into open court the key aspect of holding pedophiles accountable regardless of the court outcome? Or are secret-closed door deals more effective in terms of holding sickos accountable?
Why would it not be prudent from a prosecutorial perspective to bring some form of charge that would have held Geoghan accountable in open court (whether misdemeanor or felony)?
Because the accused, however monstrous they may be, have rights as well. One such right is to have their case tried in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion. Another such right is to be charged and to face his accusers. In this instance, Geoghan was not charged with 130 counts of felony child sexual abuse. He was charged with 3 midemeanor. Whatever 'accountability' you, personally, may want with respect to all of Geoghans crimes, it's not Martha Coakleys job to give it to you. And, however much you might think the justice system ought to be able to discover every felony behind each misdemeanor, that's not the way it works.
Inre the comment that "the loss in the Manning case is, presumably, precisely why she took a different approach with Geoghan in 1995. What it "directly speaks to," it seems to me, is that she didn't want another embarrassing loss, which would likely have been a huge setback for holding pedophile priests accountable," how so?
I think you have it wrong. I don't the the thought process was to 'avoid an embarrassing loss'. I think it was to get Geoghan away from children, which they did. I think the choice was to go to court on a misdemeanor charge, and possibly have the case settled out of court (common practice for the Church), without affecting any change, or to plea Geoghan into some form of treatment and restrictions upon his contact with children. I have maintained, and continue to do so, that the second choice is the right one.
Accountable to whom? If he was to give an account for each of his 130+ victims why should that come from a misdemeanor charge? Why is it that Coakley is responsible for each of the victims? In this instance the Middlesex DA (Coakley) was dealing with one small aspect of his overall sickness... and, like I said, however monstrous the overall acts, Martha Coakley had a duty to deal with only those acts put before her... ---
Because the accused, however monstrous they may be, have rights as well. One such right is to have their case tried in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion.
There's no reason to believe that Martha could not charge and try Father Jack in a court of law with a case she could make, misdemeanor phone harassment, without violating his rights.
Your assertion that he could not be tried without violating his rights is a straw man.
In the process, she could get the quality and essence of Father Jack's seductive, suggestive and repulsive language on the public record in the three Waltham boys' case. She might even be able to get in the actions such as soaping up the boys in the shower, especially if they could testify about the conversation during that time.
There's no doubt the three Waltham boys' mom could have obtained a protective order.
If he was to give an account for each of his 130+ victims why should that come from a misdemeanor charge?
That is silly strawman talk. Nobody suggested he would testify to more.
Why is it that Coakley is responsible for each of the victims?
Another strawman.
In this instance the Middlesex DA (Coakley) was dealing with one small aspect of his overall sickness... and, like I said, however monstrous the overall acts, Martha Coakley had a duty to deal with only those acts put before her...
You've got to be kidding. If Father Jack had his way with these boys he would have violated them. "one small aspect of his overall sickness...." Do you ever get tired minimizing and making excuses?
Each act on its own was monstrous. It doesn't take looking at them as a group of work to consider each one so.
Because Martha failed to ask the church for his personnel file, which she had done in the Father Manning case, she was unaware of his history of pedophilia and list of victims.
This is the one questions she would not answer: Why couldn't you get the church records? She will not answer "why."
Q: Why couldn't you get the church records? 1:13 Martha: They were not available to us. They didn't... um, we tried in a prior case, we just tried, uh against Father Manning. They were not relevant to this particular charge. Uh we knew that umm, well first of all we didn't know the church had other records at the time, there was no way to know that. (read that closely. she won't answer why)
(read that closely. she won't answer why)
I believe he answer is: I couldn't get them because I didn't try.
She also failed to see if there was a record at police departments or DSS in other jurisdictions Father Jack lived prior to moving to Middlesex.
If you think she would have settled for - one year of probation, one year of supervised visits only and one year only of psychiatry - had she known the scope of the threat Father Jack posed, you think less of her than I do. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
The only thing I'm minimizing is your insistence upon the obviousness of your case.
If Coakley asked for, and received from the church, the personnel file of Father Manning... and Manning was acquitted, what good was the file? What outcome did it affect? Why this insistence on believing the file was the key when there's no reason to believe (then) that it would be... ?
I know the answer (for you) is: I don't like Martha Coakley so therefore I have to paint everything she's done in a negative light, no matter what contortions I have to go through to do so. It's kinda sad. ---
A truthful answer would damage her campaign for US Senate. It also portends trouble ahead when Martha is questioned about important issues and instead of being able to handle the question, she ducks it.
I don't blame her for your excuse-making. That's your problem. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
I think it was to get Geoghan away from children, which they did. I think the choice was to go to court on a misdemeanor charge, and possibly have the case settled out of court (common practice for the Church), without affecting any change, or to plea Geoghan into some form of treatment and restrictions upon his contact with children. I have maintained, and continue to do so, that the second choice is the right one.
The trouble with this is that it is not what actually happened. He was already seeing a therapist weekly, and so the "treatment" was moot. In practice, there were no restrictions on his access to children. He had moved to a retirement home, and even then (according to the Globe report) he molested a Roxbury boy "in approximately 1996". A 1999 Suffolk County indictment says he groped a Weymouth boy "in 1995 and 1996".
In short, the path she chose let him walk -- and had no substantive effect on either him or his victims. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
2.Inre the statement "Another such right is to be charged and to face his accusers," why then did Coakley not allow Geoghan to do so in open court as the victimized family had made statements to the authorities and could be called as witnesses?
3. Inre the comment that Coakley's actions were designed "to get Geoghan away from children, which they did," how so? The record shows that Geoghan continued to molest children after this deal was cut.
4. Inre the question "Why is it that Coakley is responsible for each of the victims? In this instance the Middlesex DA (Coakley) was dealing with one small aspect of his overall sickness... and, like I said, however monstrous the overall acts, Martha Coakley had a duty to deal with only those acts put before her..." my question is, why in the world did she abdicate her responsibility to prosecute Geoghan for what he did to these three kids?
Inre the statement "Another such right is to be charged and to face his accusers," why then did Coakley not allow Geoghan to do so in open court as the victimized family had made statements to the authorities and could be called as witnesses?
My comment had less to do with the 3 victims in the case at hand, and more to do with the 127 other victims of crimes that people here insist ought to have been mitigating... Frankly, as has been stated ad infinitum, the trial in question was of minor offenses. Had Coakley gone to court Geoghan might have been put on probation, forced into therapy and had limits placed on his access to children... oh, wait...
Inre the comment that Coakley's actions were designed "to get Geoghan away from children, which they did," how so? The record shows that Geoghan continued to molest children after this deal was cut.
Do you fault the prison system for escape attempts? Will you fault each and every DA for recidivism? Why don't we just go ahead and call Geoghan 'Willy Horton'...? We might as well, as his circumstances are being put to the same use, here.
Eventually, even the patience of the church was worn out and he was defrocked. At some point you're going to have to confront the fact that Geoghan could not control himself. Given that fact, any limits on his contact with children likely saved some children from predation. My understanding of the Roxbury incident, for which he was ultimately charged, is that it occured in a public swimming pool. Presumably, Geoghans ability to go to a public swimming pool was not covered in the deal that prevented unsupervised access to children... Maybe he was indeed supervised at the time and still couldn't control himself. I really can't say. Apparently any child in his vicinity was in danger. Why and how this should reflect upon Martha Coakley, I don't know... It's not like she didn't follow up on the breach of the probation terms and send Geoghan up later... or do you think that a 9 year prison term derives from a single instance of inappropriate touching in a public swimming pool?
Apparently, a lot of criminals get plea deals and end up committing more crimes. Sometimes we even applaud plea deals when then involve petty criminals giving up evidence on less-petty criminals.
Inre the question "Why is it that Coakley is responsible for each of the victims? In this instance the Middlesex DA (Coakley) was dealing with one small aspect of his overall sickness... and, like I said, however monstrous the overall acts, Martha Coakley had a duty to deal with only those acts put before her..." my question is, why in the world did she abdicate her responsibility to prosecute Geoghan for what he did to these three kids?
In the eyes of the law, what he did to these three kids was a minor offense. The existence of larger crimes in his past (and future) doesn't change that fact. Coakley gave Geoghan probation. Years later Geoghan was back in court and Coakley gave him 9 years in prison. It might be a noble wish to have seen the nine years (or more) applied earlier, but that's not how the law works nor how DAs operate: I, for one, like living in a country where District Attorneys' can't incarcerate even the worst of the population merely because they want to... Due process for a uncontrollable monster like Geoghan means innocents like you and I are protected from abuses of power. ---
For example (emphasis mine), in this you wrote:
As I've already pointed out, though Geoghan was a sick criminal, even sick criminals are allowed due process and basic rights in court. That was Martha Coakley's job.
and above your wrote:
Whatever 'accountability' you, personally, may want with respect to all of Geoghans crimes, it's not Martha Coakleys job to give it to you.
The job of the prosecutor is to aggressively pursue the accused -- that's what "prosecutor" means. The task of protecting the due-process rights of the defendant is actually the job of the defense attorney -- that's why the state ensures that every accused has one -- and the Court. The approach you mistakenly describe is a glaring conflict of interest -- no individual can simultaneously prosecute a case and also protect the rights of the defendant.
In this case, it most certainly was Martha Coakley's job to incarcerate someone that she suspected was guilty of repeated instances of child abuse. If she was denied the tools (in law) or the facts (because of stonewalling by the Archdiocese of Boston), that's a different argument.
It most certainly was, however, her job to use whatever tools were available to her in 1995. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
Surely we agree that a prosecutor can "aggressively pursue the accused", while not hiding evidence, and while pursuing the truth -- I would hope that this is what happens during every successful prosecution.
In this case, if it was "the truth" that Martha Coakley had pursued more aggressively, justice would have been served far earlier. "If the Republicans will stop lying about the Democrats, the Democrats will stop telling the truth about the Republicans" -- Adlai Stevenson
In this case, it most certainly was Martha Coakley's job to incarcerate someone that she suspected was guilty of repeated instances of child abuse. If she was denied the tools (in law) or the facts (because of stonewalling by the Archdiocese of Boston), that's a different argument. It most certainly was, however, her job to use whatever tools were available to her in 1995.
It most certainly was, however, her job to use whatever tools were available to her in 1995.
Which, I contend, is exactly what she did, aggressively and appropriately. She used all tools available to her.
It is you, and others, who are questioning why she didn't go farther. She does not have free license to prosecute 127 instances of child abuse when presented with 3... not without 127 accusers. She was not allowed to throw Geoghan in jail just because she thought he deserved it, any more than it is allowed you to do the same. You don't like that? Get over it. And you better be thankful, this thanksgiving season, for that: someone might someday object to your freedom and, under the system you are advocating where mere suspicion is sufficient to incarcerate, you would lose your freedom without recourse.
it most certainly was Martha Coakley's job to incarcerate someone that she suspected was guilty [ ]
Martha Coakleys suspicions are not sufficient to put someone behind bars. It is solid proof, or clear evidence presented to a jury, or a guilty plea, that puts people behind bars. It is the jury that decides, under the directions of a judge, who is incarcerated.
2. Inre the comment "I, for one, like living in a country where District Attorneys' can't incarcerate even the worst of the population merely because they want to... Due process for a uncontrollable monster like Geoghan means innocents like you and I are protected from abuses of power," how pray tell is holding a trial in open court an abuse of power? Or a lack of due process?
Oh my, your answers keep raising more and more questions. Which leads me to another:
3. Do you really believe the stuff you are posting?
4. Last question (for now): Why has the Globe not tracked down the mother of the three victims or her legal counsel? I imagine this poor woman would have a LOT to say about Coakley's work on this case.
Do you really believe the stuff you are posting?
Especially the specious construct that trying Geoghan for phone harassment is tantamount to trying him in the court of public opinion... or this specious construct:
District Attorneys' can't incarcerate even the worst of the population merely because they want to...
The DA had a case to make and CHOSE a pre-trial parole agreement instead. She had three credible witness, the victims who had testified to investigators and, if Martha did her homework, phone records that identified the number(s) from which the calls were made, the number of calls and the duration.
You say: "DAs can't incarcerate even the worst of the population merely because they want to..." Merely becuase they want to? She didn't want to. She wanted to pursue a pre-trial parole agreement and she had the evidence in hand that convinced opposing counsel to accept the terms. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
Yes. I do. ---
Why couldn't you get the church records? "They were not available to us."
Why couldn't you get the church records? "They didn't... um, we tried in a prior case, we just tried, uh against Father Manning."
Why couldn't you get the church records? "They were not relevant to this particular charge."
Why couldn't you get the church records? "Uh we knew that umm, well first of all we didn't know the church had other records at the time , there was no way to know that."
Martha says she "couldn't get the records" because she didn't know they existed.
Yet she frequently produced subpoenas to compel opposing council to produce documents relevant to a case although she didn't know in advance what documentation they had.
Her decision to seek a pre-trial parole agreement precluded a trial and thus the discovery process in which document are produced.
What concerns me is that she doesn't have the words to explain this with confidence and so hides behind obfuscation. www.bit.ly/7Wousr - "Must include a public option" www.bit.ly/7yaoMv - Coakley shifts, backs abortion curb www.bit.ly/5f8CVb - John Kerry reporting for duty! www.bit.ly/6rJnZU - Questions for Martha Coakley on Civil Rights
