Dear Editor,
In her April 9 column, Eileen McNamara states, "We see that rallies are being staged (by people who never attended the trials or read the transcripts) to demand a pardon for Violet Amirault, Cheryl Amirault LeFave and Gerald Amirault."
The only such rally I'm aware of took place on April 6 in Cambridge. I was one of the organizers. McNamara did not speak with, nor did she attempt to speak with, any one of us. Her statements about us are not merely baseless -- they are lies. Jonathan Harris, for example, has a thorough knowledge not only of the transcripts of both trials, but also of the medical reports, the DSS and police reports, and a great deal other documentation.
The more one learns about the Fells Acre case, the more certain one becomes that the Amiraults are innocent. If McNamara ever decides to do some real investigation she will discover that both the so called "physical" evidence and the children's testimony have long since been definitively discredited.
Only four children had any physical signs consistent with abuse. Two had rashes -- one which appeared a full year after the school had closed -- that were far more likely caused by soap. Two girls had hymenal bumps now known to be common in small children.
The children's testimony was worthless because of the coercive and leading methods used to confabulate it. For the best summary of current knowledge about the sug- gestibility and reliability of child witnesses, I refer McNamara to Jeopardy in the Courtroom by Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck. I also call her attention to Carol Tavris' excellent article in today's Los Angeles Times.
On April 9, the rally's chief organizer, Carol Hopkins of the Justice Committee, phoned McNamara and asked to meet with her. According to Hopkins, McNamara's response was: "I don't give a whit who you are and what your organization stands for. You and your supporters have already made your position on my Salem column perfectly clear. There is absolutely nothing you could tell me about the Amirault case which could change my opinion about the guilt of these people." When Carol Hopkins tried to respond, McNamara said "I don't have time for this conversation," and hung up the phone. A closed mind (an asset for no one) is a fatal liability for a journalist.
McNamara makes reference to her "Salem column." On January 14 of this year, a conference was held in Salem, Massachusetts to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the 1697 Day of Contrition for the innocent people tried and executed during the Salem Witch Trials. A focus of the 1997 event was the innocent people -- such as the Amiraults -- who've been falsely accused and imprisoned as a result of modern-day hysteria. Speakers at the conference were nationally respected psychologists, writers, defense attorneys and a prominent prosecutor -- Alan Rubenstein, District Attorney, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Videotaped messages of support were sent by Arthur Miller and William Styron.
On January 15, McNamara published a factually void Globe column that dismissed the conference and insulted its organizers and participants. The column carried the dateline, Salem. The second sentence refers to a "conference here." But there was no mention of who attended or who spoke. Her only "quote" is unattributed. No one at the conference was interviewed by McNamara -- no one even saw her there. She stated that the conference was based upon a belief "that there is a mass conspiracy to railroad the innocent into prison cells" -- a claim no one in attendance made or would make. McNamara even incorrectly identified the location as the Peabody- Essex Institute when it in fact took place at the Hawthorne Hotel! A reasonable person can draw but one conclusion: McNamara was not there and her attempt to give Globe readers the impression she had been there was deliberate fraud. For McNamara now to dismiss those Amirault-family supporters who didn't attend the mid-80s trials is the height of temerity.
I am painfully aware that McNamara was recently named a Pulitzer Prize winner. I fervently hope that the Pulitzer Committee will reconsider and revoke this embarrassing decision. If allowed to stand, the Pulitzer will be cheapened and tarnished for years to come.
Like McNamara, I am a journalist. I'm also a longtime activist with one of America's largest and most respected writers' organizations, the National Writers Union. (I speak, however, for myself and not for the NWU in this letter.) A great many of my writing colleagues are journalists -- honest and hard working men and women. Because I know good journalism and good journalists, I say that McNamara is a bad journalist who discredits our profession.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Chatelle
cc: Arthur Miller; William Styron; Justin Kaplan; Anne Bernays; Alexander Cockburn, The Nation; Nat Hentoff, Village Voice and Washington Post; Dorothy Rabinowitz, The Wall Street Journal; Tom Mashberg, Boston Herald; David Shaw, L.A. Times; Marty Gottlieb; New York Times; Larry Wright, New Yorker; Trevor Armbrister, Reader's Digest; Harvey Silverglate, Boston Phoenix; Stephanie Salter; San Francisco Examiner; Michael King; Texas Observer; Marcy Rein, American Writer; Elinor Craig, Rough Draft; Columbia Journalism Review; Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting; Jake Kreilkamp, PEN American Center; Wendy Kaminer; Judith Levine; Carol Tavris; Elaine Showalter; Nancy Hass; Ellen Willis; Gayle Rubin; Susie Bright; others