Two weeks before the special election to replace Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Boston Globe brings attention to criticism Democratic candidate Martha Coakley got in 2005 for seeming lax in the treatment of a rape suspect. Coakley’s camp cannot be happy with the recounting of this story in the local paper:
Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.
But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.
It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.
Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.
Coakley argues that she followed all appropriate procedures, that the suspect had deep roots in the community and no criminal record, giving her little reason to ask for cash bail.
Still the Globe’s description of the crime is pretty devastating, as are the quotes from the victim’s family and the fact that the victim spent a month in the hospital recovering from burns.
There’s also a timely, local angle that will give this story an even more visceral quality for voters:
Jules Crittenden, on Coakley’s justifications:
Back to Coakley’s run, this is just the latest friendly fire. Earlier the Globe wacked her for a go-lightly deal that left the late infamous diddler priest, John Geoghan, free to diddle.
Indeed, in November the Globe hit on this issue:
But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.
Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.
Once again, Coakley says she acted appropriately, that she could not have gotten a conviction, and used what she had to leverage for probation requirements. But the paper’s quotes from parents and victim activists make for uncomfortable reading, as do the details of the case.
Crittenden tries to figure out why the Globe is being so diligent about Coakley’s past:
As for the Globe, while the due diligence is impressive, I sense a nose-holding, “She’s timid and inept, coddled diddlers, but we need her to carry on Ted’s legacy” final endorsement coming on.
Still the close scrutiny of Coakley is good for voters (though not something they’re always afforded when it comes to Democratic candidates) and the blue-on-blue fire can’t hurt Brown’s chances.
Below the fold, another WEEKLY STANDARD reader weighs in on Brown’s chances, and why Massachusetts gubernatorial races make him think the GOP has a shot:
The GOP, as usual, is making a strategic and tactical blunder by not supporting this man. My anecdotal observations place the electorate’s mood as similar to 1994. Not so coincidentally, 1994 was the last year MA elected Republicans to Congress and multiple statewide officials (Governor Weld in a landslide, no less).
