MASSACHUSETTS INJUSTICE

Victor Bloom MD

My longtime friend who lives in Plymouth, Mass. sends me clippings from the Boston Globe on the Amirault case and controversy. I became interested in it almost ten years ago, after an investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal wrote a long article on the editorial page. She wrote that innocent owners of a day care center were accused and imprisoned for sexually molesting some small children. What made the accusations dubious from the start was the wild allegations that were completely unsupportable, except for the stories the children told, children around the age of four.

The drumbeat at the time was that children must be believed, that they have not yet learned to lie, and that they do not make up stories. Given this piece of mis-information, inexperienced social workers questioned the children in such a way that their initial answers, the truer answers, were not believed; it was thought that they were covering up because they were traumatized, they felt guilty, they were frightened. Then the social workers asked the children, could it be this, could it be that. Initially, many kids said "no", but the investigators did not take "no" for an answer. They grilled the kids and eventually led them to 'remember' stories that basically the social workers made up out of their own imaginations.

The social workers tried to act professional, knowledgeable and experienced, but they were not. In response to a parental outcry, which spread like wildfire, the chief prosecutor used the children's manipulated testimony to prosecute the alleged perpetrators. Half of the parents did not think any sexual molestation occurred, but they were shouted down by the many enraged and inflamed parents, who could only think of the worst case scenario. Emotions carried the day.

Since the social workers were overly concerned with the comfort of the children, the children's testimony in court was done with a partition between them and the defendants. Eventually, the jury believed the children's stories, even though some were so wild that they taxed credulity and imagination. Not only was the jury stacked in favor of the fiery prosecutor, but the daycare owners' attorney did not realize that he could have objected to the partition, as the accused has the right to italic>face<italics the accusers. It was reasoned that an exception should be made for sensitive and vulnerable children, but that put the accused at a terrible disadvantage.

They were found guilty. They went to jail. The Amirault son for 40-80 years, the two women, a mother and daughter, for 8-30. A great price to pay if nothing criminal ever happened. A great price to pay for the overblown ambitions of the state prosecutor and his social work hirelings. This was over fifteen years ago. It was maybe ten years ago that the investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal wrote her compelling article, citing the pressure tactics used on the children by the social workers.

Meanwhile, horrified child psychiatrists searched the literature to see if children must be believed. The answer is, not necessarily, not a surprise to most sane, aware people. Everybody knows children make up stories, but they are not 'lies'; they are made up stories, fiction, and there is a certain fascination to that, even among adults. Every work of fiction is made up, every poem, every movie. It is a sign of creativity to make up good stories.

However, the child's mind is often not ready to distinguish fantasy and reality. When they make up a really good story, they come to almost believe it, and may have stored it in their memory bank as a memory. This process is why many people carry amazing and incredible 'memories' of their early life. The mind is such that confusion between fantasies and memories can happen. In extreme degrees, the person is mentally ill and in need of psychiatric help, because the 'memories' get in the way of their adult life.

Freudian psychotherapy was under attack for the recent spate of <italics 'recovered memories'>italics. Poorly trained therapists were making diagnoses of sexual abuse in children, encouraging adult patients to confront their aging parents. Many of the parents were horrified at the accusations and denied them, some even suing the therapists. The Massachussetts social work investigators might well have learned this distorted approach to therapy. Meanwhile, serious clinicians and researchers checked out the fact that young children are easily swayed to conform to the expectations of adults. There is no surprise to that.

As a result of appeals, the women defendents were released pending decisions. The jury finding of guilty was overturned several times, but the SJC (Supreme Judicial Court) cancelled these, saying that the partition (between the children and defendents) should have been challenged at the time. The defense attorneys were at fault and the defendents paid the price of having their lives ruined. Now the daughter faces imprisonment yet again, as a new trial was not ordered and the son is still behind bars.

A federal appeals judge overturned the decision of the jury and called for a new trial, and that was recently overturned again by the SJC. This is pure insanity; there were similar cases in other states, but the guilty decisions were eventually overturned.

What happened was the equivalent of the Salem witch trials; what is there about the state of Massachussetts?

Dr Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and on the editorial board of the Wayne County Medical Society. He welcomes comments at his email address--- vbloom@comcast.net