The other side of that "Coakley let a child torturer go free" story...

Here's the link to the original article:

http://www.boston.com/...

If you read what the rightwing is claiming, Coakley is responsible for letting a police officer named Winfield who raped his niece with a curling iron go free.

The truth is somewhat different.

First, it was a grand jury (in other words, a panel of citizens) convened by Coakley that initially failed to indict Winfield, primarily because of lack of evidence. (The extent of the evidence, at that time, seemed to consist of the fact that Windfield had been alone with the child for an hour during the day and he'd indicated that he did not enjoy talking care of her.) The moment that happened, a number of Republicans began to exploit this fact, framing it as evidence that Coakley herself was indifferent to the molestation of this child.

Coakley's Republican opponent in the race for Attorney General announced that he would have the parent's of the child file criminal charges. Such charges were never filed because Coakley represented the case, with additional evidence that had become available, to another grand jury and this time the grand jury returned indictments against Winfield.

After the indictments were handed down, Coakley did not require cash bail for Winfield while he was waiting for trial. (Coakley said she did not require bail because Windfield had no history of being a child predator.)

Actually, there seems to be evidence that requiring cash bail is in no way a deterent to a pedophile. Accoring to the Globe: (The italics are mine.)

Recently, the question of bail in child rape cases made local headlines when a Kingston man was accused of raping a 3-year-old girl while free on $10,000 cash bail, which was imposed after an earlier charge of breaking and entering and raping a 5-year-old girl  

Republicans implied that cash bail should have been a requirement, despite that fact that legislation to make it required for accused sexual predator was not introduced in the Massachusetts legislature (by a Republican politician****il after the Kingston incidents.

Winfield was eventually convicted. According to the Globe:

Winfield appeared voluntarily for trial, generally meeting the terms of his release.

In other words, after a grand jury refused to indict this man, based on a lack of sufficient evidence, the Republicans immediately began to use this horrific incident to their advantage. Because Coakley did not immediately reindict and did not require cash bail on the suspect, the Republicans labeled her as some one who "let a child molester go free" despite the fact that at that time, Windfield had not been convicted of anything.  When Coakley was given additional evidence, she again brought the case to a grand jury and the man was indicted, and later convicted.

But you'd never know those facts if you listen to Coakley's opponents.  



I thought there might be a little more to it.