Jon Keller’s Blog Post:
LaGuer Continued
Eric Goldscheider, a freelance journalist who has been diligently following the case of Benjamin LaGuer, forwarded us his analysis of how the case played into the governor’s race this year, and we in turn recommend it to you.
Having never covered the legal issues surrounding this case, only the political use of it in the campaign, I can’t speak to the issue of LaGuer’s guilt or innocence. I believe in the presumption of innocence for those not yet proven guilty, and I also believe in the presumption of guilt for those tried and convicted until that conviction is reversed. But Goldscheider does an excellent job of summarizing the very real lingering questions about the case that the SJC will hopefully resolve early next year.
However, a couple of points mar the presentation. Goldscheider makes much of the fact that right after Deval Patrick’s sweeping victory in the September primary Gov. Romney nominated James Lemire, the prosecutor in the Worcester County DA’s office who handled the LaGuer case, for a seat on the Superior Court. “Promoting Lemire, who would not likely have kept his job as a prosecutor in the new administration, to a judgeship can be seen as a way to help insulate him from the consequences of foul play in the handling of [the] conviction,” writes Goldscheider, who offers no corroborating evidence for this sensational charge.
Since the scrupulous avoidance of false charges is at the very heart of Goldscheider’s crusade, this seems an egregious self-indulgence. And in his description of the brief (and, as it turned out, passing) campaign firestorm that erupted after Patrick’s connections with LaGuer were exposed, Goldscheider refers to talk-radio discourse on the subject as “hate-filled” commentary whipped up by “hate mongers.” Say what you will about the tone and content of anything that was said about this case, but it is grossly unfair stereotyping to characterize citizens inflamed about an especially-brutal crime as rabid. In fact, this ill-disguised contempt for public outcry over LaGuer’s crime, or, to cite another controversial, politicized case, Willie Horton’s vicious crimes, is wholly misplaced. People have every reason and right to fear the brutality which thrives in our midst. And if voters become angered when they believe a politician is less concerned with protecting them from that than with the rights of criminal defendants, it should not come as a surprise or be dismissed as aberrant. In the end, Patrick struck the right note on the LaGuer case. He reached out to the victim’s family, made his contempt for the crime clear, and then made his perfectly-valid points about the crucial importance of equal justice under the law. I bet he even wound up getting the votes of some of those “hate-filled” talk-radio callers.
Anyway, read Goldscheider’s piece, go to his web site, www.BenLaGuer.com, and lend your attention to his commendable, committed journalism.
My emailed feedback to Keller:
Hi Jon,
Thanks so much for your post. I really appreciate the exposure as well as your kind words about my journalistic efforts.
I also appreciate your critique of what I wrote. Readers who actually engage in the material are always useful for keeping writers honest. In the interest of dialogue here is my response:
I agree with you that there is a proper presumption of guilt once the jury has spoken. What I find so offensive about this case as a citizen, a human being and as a journalist is that District Attorney John Conte has never been willing to look at new evidence that has come to light. A prosecutor I respect once told me that he had the best job in the world because his allegiance was only to the truth. If a guilty person is punished he wins and if an innocent person goes free he also wins. Conte’s attitude has always been that the conviction must be defended at any cost. This is where the rubber meets the road for me. My research has showed me that time and again his office has used fundamentally dishonest tactics and arguments in defending the conviction. I realize that this is a charge that demands corroborating evidence. I’d be glad to give you specifics if you like. We seem to be on common ground in hoping that the SJC will hopefully resolve the lingering questions about LaGuer’s trial.
I agree that the charge I make about Lemire is sensational and you are right that it does demand corroborating evidence. Here is some evidence. I’ll be the first to admit that it is not definitive evidence (there probably is no such thing absent mind reading) but I think you’ll agree it is evidence none the less. The incoming DA, Joe Early Jr. is the son of the former Congressman. Lemire, when he was in private practice, served as the Worcester area campaign manager for one of the elder Early’s Republican opponents. Also, Lemire was going to be a key player in Conte’s reelection campaign before Conte unexpectedly dropped out of the race. Lemire had helped Conte search for a campaign headquarters in what was shaping up to be a bruising campaign for the Democratic nomination between Conte and Early. Conte had built up a considerable war chest and it is unclear why he all of a sudden decided not to run. I have heard speculation from people that the LaGuer case and the fact that it was wending its way through the appeals process was a reason Conte decided to retire. Lemire is named in the briefs filed by LaGuer’s attorney, James C. Rehnquist, so his role in this case was bound to become an issue. But the larger point I was trying to make was that the timing of the Governor’s Council hearing and the onslaught by Mayor Mazzarella makes the connection look like much more than mere coincidence.
As for my characterization of the talk radio jocks as “hate mongers,” that is based on my own experiences listening to them and also being on their shows. Scott Allen Miller and John DePetro both invited me on and I complied. I thought I held my own pretty well, but even Miller’s engineer apologized to me when we went off the air for the disrespectful way he cut me off. I first became aware the issue had hit the airwaves when a journalist I know in Worcester called me to say that I wouldn’t believe what was going on about the case. I live in Western Mass and don’t get Boston radio but I figured out how to tap into the WRKO streaming signal and I tuned in and out of the incessant chatter for two weeks. I was not the only one who found the use of the LaGuer issue to be hateful, but I certainly am one of the people to hold that opinion. Of course it is legitimate for there to be a public outcry over a brutal crime. My point is that there was readily available evidence that serious people had legitimate concerns about whether LaGuer got a fair trial and indeed whether he was even guilty. Those doubts were totally left at the wayside. Yes, the crime was brutal. But the way it was utilized on talk radio did very little, if anything, to further a reasoned discussion about it. The agenda of using the graphic descriptions of a brutal crime to tar Patrick was very clear. My point was that in order to achieve that goal LaGuer had to be painted as a sub human. Only once that image took hold could Healey have tried to condemn Patrick for simply using the words “thoughtful” and “eloquent” in conjunction with LaGuer. Ultimately that didn’t stick, but I think you’ll have to agree that was her gambit.
You are also right that Patrick did the right thing by reaching out to the family. But when he did, they basically kicked him in the shins.
Again, thank you Jon for the e
xposure. And I hope you can accept this rejoinder in the spirit in which it is offered, as a good faith and collegial impulse to further dialogue on an important issue.Best,
Eric
