When even Ann Coulter is right

[fpb]

I have had a thing or two to say about Ann Coulter in the past, little of it sympathetic. But in this case, http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2009/12/09/martha_coakley_too_immoral_for_teddy_kennedys_seat?page=full&comments=true&sort=asc#comments , she is absolutely right, probably more right than she knows. When I heard Martha Coakley's name mentioned, I knew it sounded familiar; and suddenly I remembered that she was the prosecutor in the case of a British nanny who was convicted of murdering a baby in a "shaken baby syndrome" trial some ten years ago - a case that had made me boil with indignation. You may remember that "shaken baby syndrome", was the be-afraid-be-very-afraid child-related horror du jour, having replaced - what else - satanic abuse in that role. Since then it has been largely discredited, but at the time several people on both sides of the Atlantic were charged and sometimes convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. The reasoning seemed to be: "Here is a dead baby - someone must be responsible for it!" One detail from Coakley's case is burned in my memory. According to the prosecution so-called experts, the baby had suffered injuries "comparable to being hit by a train". The notion of a young woman, an ordinary young woman mind you, not only shaking a baby for minutes at a time, but doing so - shaking, mind you; not smashing against the wall or throwing on the floor, just shaking - "with enough strength to be comparable to being struck by a train"; where on the face of God's green Earth did they find twelve men and women to believe such an enormity? The jury ignored the defence experts, who showed that the so-called injuries were consistent with a rare but well documented syndrome where the plates of a baby's skull fail to stick together, and convicted the girl of murder. I said at the time that we should hear from Coakley again, in elected office, and I was right. One detail: the alternate jurors, who had been listening to the whole trial from a neighbouring room, were so furious at the verdict that they trashed the furniture.

Evidently, Martha Coakley makes a habit of seizing on false prosecutions based on popular but ill-grounded terrors to advance her career. Just the type the good people of Massachusetts want to represent their interests and values in the Senate of the nation.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

You should have mentioned that the nanny's conviction was overturned on appeal, her charge was reduced in involuntary manslaughter, and she was sentenced to only time served.

Shaken Baby Syndrome has not been discredited, nor was it invented for this case alone. Its description dates back at least to the 1940s and it is still commonly accepted as a form of child abuse that can lead to death under certain circumstances.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

There was a fit of SBS cases in the mid-to-late nineties, most of which were discredited and overturned on appeal. Whether or not SBS has scientific foundation, those cases were certainly of the be-afraid-be-very-afraid variety. I remember them very well. Are you telling me that the description of a young woman shaking a child so hard that the strength could be compared with that of a train impact has anything whatsoever to do with science? Collective psychology, perhaps.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, the appeal decision was a blatantly rigged decision intended not to make the prosecution and judge at the original trial lose face. Its real impact became clear when an agreement was reached almost immediately after, to let the nanny "spend the rest of her conviction" in Britain. Everyone, of course, knew that she would be paroled virtually as soon as she set foot on British soil, since nobody this side of the water believed in her guilt for one second. And she was. So: an atrocious sentence in the first degree followed by a nasty compromise with legality on appeal. What a way to run a railroad.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you sure about that "spending the rest of her conviction in England" bit? I thought she was released because the sentence was reduced to time served. And are you sure there was a second judge involved? I'm checking google, and I'm pretty sure the judge who reduced here sentence on appeal was the original judge.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I may remember it wrong. I am certain, however, that my impression was that of an inglorious botch. I was relieved that the girl was effectively set free, but angry that the condemnation remained on the record.

[(Anonymous)]

You're right that the conviction remained on the record. The nanny's defense tried to have it removed, but the judge refused. You have to remember, however, that the judge uses his powers to overturn a conviction very rarely, very advisedly, and (although this is not required by law) only to reduce a sentence. The judge is saying, in effect, "I don't care what the jury says", which is generally what happens at a kangaroo court.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

At any rate, that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If there is one thing I am certain of, is that Martha Coakley's name and attituded impressed themselves on me very badly indeed. That is why I recognized it when I heard it mentioned, and that is why the Coulter article struck me so much.