Seksuaalista häirintää

Luin vielä ja tajusin että olet nyt naimisissa, sori kun kommentoin sinua tytöksi tms. Mutta joka tapauksessa anteeksianto oman suun tunnustuksella autaa ja vapautaa kahleista!

En ole siskosi. Onnea kuitenkin asian selvittelyyn.

Kiitos tiedosta! Olen lueskellut foorumin keskusteluja ja niistä on ollut minulle apua. Toisten kertomuksista, tunteista ja oireista löytyy yhtäläisyyksiä omieni kanssa. Helpottavaa jollain tavalla huomata, etten ole yksin. Matka on pitkä ja kivinen, mutta jossain vaiheessa sille on lähdettävä.

Scott Harshbarger

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN is a real and terrible problem, one that for too long was swept under the rug. But back in the 80s, when the issue provoked a nationwide wave of hysteria, there were other innocent victims: child-care workers themselves! Decent people from Massachusetts to California, and lots of places in be¬tween, were charged, on the basis of outlandish stories and the total absence of any physical evidence, with having committed horrendous crimes against children.

"Believe the Children" became the mantra. "Children don't lie about such things," we heard over and over again. "They don't make this stuff up." And too many prosecutors, for all sorts of reasons, were willing to believe anything the children said—no matter how bizarre the allegation and no matter how much the children were coaxed into saying things even they didn't believe happened.

There were many overzealous, politically ambitious prosecutors behind these cases—"prosecutorial zealots," in the words of the Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz, who won a Pulitzer for her investigative reports on child-abuse cases. They were, she said, "runaway prosecutors who, quite simply, in many cases don't care if you're guilty or you're not guilty." But none was more zealous, or even now remains so unrepentant, as Scott Harshbarger.

Harshbarger was the district attorney of Middlesex County, Massachusetts—not far from Salem, Massachusetts, where during another wave of hysteria they burned "witches" based on other outlandish stories. In 1984, Harshbarger launched his prosecution of the Amirault family, which ran a day-care center called Fells Acres in the town of Maiden. The case started with a five-year-old boy claiming that his "pants were pulled down," and, as in the case of the McMartin Preschool in California, which had broken just a few months before, the charges rapidly snowballed, becoming increas¬ingly grotesque and bizarre.

After questioning by social workers and police, the children began saying they had been fondled, violated, and photographed at "nude swimming parties," and taken to a "magic room" by a "bad clown," and, finally, that they'd been forced to eat human feces and attacked with knives. There was no physical evidence to support any of it, and though the day-care center was open, with parents and other adults coming in and out all the time, no one had ever seen anything to support any of the charges.

But none of that gave Harshbarger the slightest pause. As his friend and mentor, former Massachusetts attorney general Francis X. Bellotti only half-jokingly observed, "I used to say: 'Scott, you never let the law get in your way.'"

With everything he had, Harshbarger went after the Amiraults —sixty-one-year-old Violet, who ran the center, her son, Gerald, and her daughter, Cheryl LeFave, who also worked there. Solely on the basis of the children's stories—including one four-year-old's claim that Violet Amirault inserted a four-and-a-half-inch butcher knife into his anus (without leaving a mark)—they were convicted of sexually abusing some forty children. Gerald got forty years in prison, his mother and sister up to twenty.

Perhaps, given the hysteria of the time, Harshbarger and his underlings should be cut a little slack for their early zeal. Except, even as the climate changed and it became clear how monstrously unjust this case, like others, had been from the start, Harshbarger remained adamant about the Amiraults' guilt.

Never mind that there were tapes of the interviews between the prosecutors and the children, which revealed how the interrogators had been complicit from the outset in shaping the children's incred¬ible testimony. As Dorothy Rabinowitz noted, "The children were making the stories up because the interrogators were saying if you don't help me and tell me, we're going to be so disappointed. You're going to betray your little friends . . . and . . . [yet] none of the jurors ever saw this testimony."

"These were some really egregious interviewing techniques. I was very disturbed," is how an expert hired by 20/20 to review the tapes put it. "The child is repeatedly saying no. I can't even count how many times this child said no. And how many times the question was re-asked and redirected and the child's answers were seemingly not sufficient."

While in other cases, including McMartin, such revelations led to acquittals or had convictions overturned on appeal, Massachusetts prosecutors, led by Harshbarger, continued to fight for nearly two decades to keep the Amiraults behind bars. One judge, throwing out the convictions of the women after a review of the evidence, declared it would be "improper" for them to spend "even one minute more" in prison. Another judge, reviewing the conviction of Gerald Amirault, issued a 140-page ruling in which he labeled the children's testimony "incredible," adding the charges were investigated "in an atmosphere of panic, if not hysteria," and that investigators "just overwhelmed these kids. . . . All of the evidence leads this court to conclude that there is more than a substantial risk that the defendant was unjustly convicted."

You'd think all of this would have been enough for Scott Harshbarger to simply, and finally, let it go. And you'd be wrong. By now, he was the attorney general of Massachusetts, and in that position, as the chief legal officer of the state, he further dug in his heels and appealed the cases. He told the Boston Globe, "the Amiraults are right where serious child abusers ought to be." And, in response to Rabinowitz's stories in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote to the paper, comparing the Amiraults to child murderers Joel Steinberg and John Wayne Gacy.

There's a far better comparison to be made—and that is between Harshbarger himself and Inspector Javert, the pathologically obsessed officer of the law in Les Misérables, who doggedly pursues a good and decent man for stealing a crust of bread for a hungry child—and after he captures him, locks him up for nineteen years. At least Jean Valjean—the "thief"—was guilty of something. The Amiraults didn't do anything. As the Boston Globes Ed Siegel wrote after watching 20/20’s story on the Amirault case, "there will be a number of people who might ask of Harshbarger, [and his associates] Reilly and Dolan, 'Have you no decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?'"

It is likely such a question would be completely lost on Harshbarger, who seems never to have had a doubt about anything he's ever done. After his tenure as attorney general, and failing in a run for governor, he became head of Common Cause, the liberal activist group.

As for the Amiraults, by the time Violet and her daughter were released in 1995, Violet, at age seventy-two, was the oldest female inmate in state prison. Her son Gerald was not paroled until 2003. According to the Boston Globe, "Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, the Middlesex district attorney when the case was prosecuted, called the decision to release Amirault 'unfortunate.' He was concerned, he said, that the parole decision not be seen as an exoneration of Amirault."
Violet, the mother, died two years after she was released. "Near Amirault's bed at home," the Globe reported, "a photograph of a sign harshly critical of her nemesis, Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, provided her comfort, family members said.

Dbboy kirjoitti:

Scott Harshbarger

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN is a real and terrible problem, one that for too long was swept under the rug. But back in the 80s, when the issue provoked a nationwide wave of hysteria, there were other innocent victims: child-care workers themselves! Decent people from Massachusetts to California, and lots of places in be¬tween, were charged, on the basis of outlandish stories and the total absence of any physical evidence, with having committed horrendous crimes against children.

"Believe the Children" became the mantra. "Children don't lie about such things," we heard over and over again. "They don't make this stuff up." And too many prosecutors, for all sorts of reasons, were willing to believe anything the children said—no matter how bizarre the allegation and no matter how much the children were coaxed into saying things even they didn't believe happened.

There were many overzealous, politically ambitious prosecutors behind these cases—"prosecutorial zealots," in the words of the Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz, who won a Pulitzer for her investigative reports on child-abuse cases. They were, she said, "runaway prosecutors who, quite simply, in many cases don't care if you're guilty or you're not guilty." But none was more zealous, or even now remains so unrepentant, as Scott Harshbarger.

Harshbarger was the district attorney of Middlesex County, Massachusetts—not far from Salem, Massachusetts, where during another wave of hysteria they burned "witches" based on other outlandish stories. In 1984, Harshbarger launched his prosecution of the Amirault family, which ran a day-care center called Fells Acres in the town of Maiden. The case started with a five-year-old boy claiming that his "pants were pulled down," and, as in the case of the McMartin Preschool in California, which had broken just a few months before, the charges rapidly snowballed, becoming increas¬ingly grotesque and bizarre.

After questioning by social workers and police, the children began saying they had been fondled, violated, and photographed at "nude swimming parties," and taken to a "magic room" by a "bad clown," and, finally, that they'd been forced to eat human feces and attacked with knives. There was no physical evidence to support any of it, and though the day-care center was open, with parents and other adults coming in and out all the time, no one had ever seen anything to support any of the charges.

But none of that gave Harshbarger the slightest pause. As his friend and mentor, former Massachusetts attorney general Francis X. Bellotti only half-jokingly observed, "I used to say: 'Scott, you never let the law get in your way.'"

With everything he had, Harshbarger went after the Amiraults —sixty-one-year-old Violet, who ran the center, her son, Gerald, and her daughter, Cheryl LeFave, who also worked there. Solely on the basis of the children's stories—including one four-year-old's claim that Violet Amirault inserted a four-and-a-half-inch butcher knife into his anus (without leaving a mark)—they were convicted of sexually abusing some forty children. Gerald got forty years in prison, his mother and sister up to twenty.

Perhaps, given the hysteria of the time, Harshbarger and his underlings should be cut a little slack for their early zeal. Except, even as the climate changed and it became clear how monstrously unjust this case, like others, had been from the start, Harshbarger remained adamant about the Amiraults' guilt.

Never mind that there were tapes of the interviews between the prosecutors and the children, which revealed how the interrogators had been complicit from the outset in shaping the children's incred¬ible testimony. As Dorothy Rabinowitz noted, "The children were making the stories up because the interrogators were saying if you don't help me and tell me, we're going to be so disappointed. You're going to betray your little friends . . . and . . . [yet] none of the jurors ever saw this testimony."

"These were some really egregious interviewing techniques. I was very disturbed," is how an expert hired by 20/20 to review the tapes put it. "The child is repeatedly saying no. I can't even count how many times this child said no. And how many times the question was re-asked and redirected and the child's answers were seemingly not sufficient."

While in other cases, including McMartin, such revelations led to acquittals or had convictions overturned on appeal, Massachusetts prosecutors, led by Harshbarger, continued to fight for nearly two decades to keep the Amiraults behind bars. One judge, throwing out the convictions of the women after a review of the evidence, declared it would be "improper" for them to spend "even one minute more" in prison. Another judge, reviewing the conviction of Gerald Amirault, issued a 140-page ruling in which he labeled the children's testimony "incredible," adding the charges were investigated "in an atmosphere of panic, if not hysteria," and that investigators "just overwhelmed these kids. . . . All of the evidence leads this court to conclude that there is more than a substantial risk that the defendant was unjustly convicted."

You'd think all of this would have been enough for Scott Harshbarger to simply, and finally, let it go. And you'd be wrong. By now, he was the attorney general of Massachusetts, and in that position, as the chief legal officer of the state, he further dug in his heels and appealed the cases. He told the Boston Globe, "the Amiraults are right where serious child abusers ought to be." And, in response to Rabinowitz's stories in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote to the paper, comparing the Amiraults to child murderers Joel Steinberg and John Wayne Gacy.

There's a far better comparison to be made—and that is between Harshbarger himself and Inspector Javert, the pathologically obsessed officer of the law in Les Misérables, who doggedly pursues a good and decent man for stealing a crust of bread for a hungry child—and after he captures him, locks him up for nineteen years. At least Jean Valjean—the "thief"—was guilty of something. The Amiraults didn't do anything. As the Boston Globes Ed Siegel wrote after watching 20/20’s story on the Amirault case, "there will be a number of people who might ask of Harshbarger, [and his associates] Reilly and Dolan, 'Have you no decency? At long last, have you no sense of decency?'"

It is likely such a question would be completely lost on Harshbarger, who seems never to have had a doubt about anything he's ever done. After his tenure as attorney general, and failing in a run for governor, he became head of Common Cause, the liberal activist group.

As for the Amiraults, by the time Violet and her daughter were released in 1995, Violet, at age seventy-two, was the oldest female inmate in state prison. Her son Gerald was not paroled until 2003. According to the Boston Globe, "Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, the Middlesex district attorney when the case was prosecuted, called the decision to release Amirault 'unfortunate.' He was concerned, he said, that the parole decision not be seen as an exoneration of Amirault."
Violet, the mother, died two years after she was released. "Near Amirault's bed at home," the Globe reported, "a photograph of a sign harshly critical of her nemesis, Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, provided her comfort, family members said.

Yritätkö sinä vihjata, että alkup. valehtelee?

Jos niin on, puhu selvää suomea ja esitä asiasi omin sanoin, kuin suoraselkäinen ihminen - tarjoa tukea väitteellesi ja kerro, mikä motiivi sinulla on leimata seksuaalisesti hyväksikäytettyjen puheita valheiksi.

Sitten keskustellaan lisää.

Kiitos.

kissa kirjoitti:

Yritätkö sinä vihjata, että alkup. valehtelee?

Jos niin on, puhu selvää suomea ja esitä asiasi omin sanoin, kuin suoraselkäinen ihminen - tarjoa tukea väitteellesi ja kerro, mikä motiivi sinulla on leimata seksuaalisesti hyväksikäytettyjen puheita valheiksi.

Sitten keskustellaan lisää.

Kiitos.

Tämä on ihan puhtaasti vain sinulle ....... öh tarkoitan nykyinen kissa. Muistin että jaksat lukea tällaisia pitkiäkin juttuja joten kun löysin niin ajattelin heti sinua.

Dbboy kirjoitti:

Tämä on ihan puhtaasti vain sinulle ....... öh tarkoitan nykyinen kissa. Muistin että jaksat lukea tällaisia pitkiäkin juttuja joten kun löysin niin ajattelin heti sinua.

Puolustamassa lasten seksuaalista hyväksikäyttöä. Mitä mieltä olet uusimmasta hankkeesta asettaa teleyhtiöiden puolesta estot, etteivät laajakaista-asiakkaat pääsisi käsiksi netin pedofiiliseen aineistoon? Minusta se vaikuttaa tosi hyvältä jutulta. Lisää tällaista. Mieluummin kylläkin näkisin, että ko. aineiston imuroijat otettaisiin kiinni ja saatettaisiin edesvastuuseen.

... kirjoitti:

Puolustamassa lasten seksuaalista hyväksikäyttöä. Mitä mieltä olet uusimmasta hankkeesta asettaa teleyhtiöiden puolesta estot, etteivät laajakaista-asiakkaat pääsisi käsiksi netin pedofiiliseen aineistoon? Minusta se vaikuttaa tosi hyvältä jutulta. Lisää tällaista. Mieluummin kylläkin näkisin, että ko. aineiston imuroijat otettaisiin kiinni ja saatettaisiin edesvastuuseen.

Päästään tällaiseen joukkoon internetin sensuurin suhteen: Burma, Saudi Arabia, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, Kiina.....
En todellakaan kannata sensuuria mutta tästä sensuurista saattaa olla hyötyäkin, tiedän että turhautuneet ämmät etsivät hakukoneiden avulla lapsipornosivuja jotta pääsisivät pätemään ja tuntemaan itsensä tärkeäksi kun saavat sitten ilmoitella niistä ties minne. Tämä sensuuri plokkaa tehokkaasti nämä ääliöt pois ja tottapuhuen, luulen että se on ollut osittain päättäjien tarkoituskin jotta olemattoman ongelman kanssa ei tarvitsisi jatkuvasti länkyttää pönttöjen kanssa. Koittakaapa kuinka helposti löydätte googlella lapsipornoa... aivan, löytyy valtavasti pelkkiä tyhjiä linkkejä eikä mitään muuta, eli todellisuudessa tuo sensurointipäätös oli luhtasen ääntenkalastustemppu ja mikä paljon huolestuttavampaa, myös ovenavaus jollekkin todelliselle, olemassa olevalle vakavalle asialle, tarpeelle rajoittaa sananvapautta jonka sitten tulevaisuudessa näemme, ja silloin on myöhäistä katua. Internetin sensurointi kalahtaa todella helposti omaan nilkkaan kuten kaikenlainen muukin sananvapauden rajoittaminen. Nykyään ei kannata polttaa kirjoja.

Hail hitler ...

PS. Tämä tulee ehkä hirveänä järkytyksenä mutta osasin kiertää tuon "sensuurin" jo "edellispäivänä" mikäli tulee tarvetta.

PPS. Profiilissani on nyt sähköpostiosoite jonka täyttänette vihapostilla ja laittomilla uhkauksilla.