Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Talking to the Differently Winged about Ben LaGuer

By

(cross posted at Live, Love and Learn)

Yesterday afternoon I spent time on some of the rightwardly winged Massachusetts blogs to see what they were saying about Ben LaGuer. Gov. Elect Deval Patrick’s appointment of Joan Wallace-Benjamin as his chief of staff was getting a workout. Like Patrick, she had spoken out on the injustices of the LaGuer case in the 1990’s. So the conservative bloggers were busy opining as to when the prison doors in the state are going to swing wide open. I happen to have a lot of respect for true conservatism. So my post to their blogs is aimed at appealing to their better angels. Feel free to use the links to add your $.02.

I am glad to see that there is a two-sided debate on Hub Politics and Wizbang! and Universal Hub on Benjamin LaGuer’s actual guilt. (Which is a separate question from whether he got a fair trial. That question will be taken up by the SJC in January.)

Having researched the case I have come to the conclusion that not only did LaGuer not commit the crime, but the police overlooked a likelier suspect who went on to be charged with another rape and who is still living in the community. Does that make me a bleeding heart liberal? Absolutely not. It makes me someone who takes law enforcement and public safety seriously. As I argued on Hub Politics last August when it looked like the Tom Reilly campaign was trying to smear Patrick for his comments on the LaGuer case, true conservatives are instinctively suspicious of government power. In this case, the Worcester legal establishment (long dominated by Democrats, by the way) has been going to extraordinary lengths to defend a bad conviction.

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the 2002 DNA test sealed the question of LaGuer’s guilt in the minds of many people. I would be among them had I not taken a closer look at the case. The fact is, there is a growing awareness in the DNA expert community (read: Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing, by William Thompson) that just as in everything human beings do there is potential for error when it comes to forensic DNA. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an important tool and law enforcement has and will use it to good effect. But there are now dozens of case studies showing that the results are susceptible to mistakes through lab error, contamination and occasionally fraud. As the saying goes, The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance. So whether you are liberal, conservative or somewhere else on the spectrum, don’t ever make the mistake of kissing away your Constitutional rights through a blind faith in supposedly scientific proclamations.

In LaGuer’s case four highly reputable DNA experts have looked at the paper trail associated with the evidence and they have looked at the DNA reports (which are available in full at www.BenLaGuer.com) and concluded that contamination is the best explanation for how the results turned out. One of them had this to say:

“In summary, there are numerous deficiencies in this case relating to the criminal investigation, evidence collection, evidence handling, evidence storage, chain of custody, serology testing, and DNA testing. The types of errors and mistakes in this case are the result of individuals not adhering to the accepted standards and practices of criminal investigation and forensic laboratory testing.”

– Dean A. Wideman, certified forensic consultant

So whatever your political leanings, always view the government with suspicion. I think if you take a hard and honest look at this case you will agree that LaGuer deserves a new trial. After all, the commonwealth hid a State Police generated report from him at the time of trial that showed there were four fingerprints found on the base of the trimline telephone, the cord of which was used to bind the victim’s wrists and that they belonged to someone other than LaGuer. Under our system of justice (which I wouldn’t want to trade for any in the world) that is just plain unacceptable. If you oppose a new trial that means you are for saying it is okay for the government to hide key and potentially exculpatory evidence. If that is the kind of country you want to live in, then God help you. A new jury at a new trial will have every opportunity to examine the DNA and any other evidence the commonwealth wants to introduce. It will also have the right and indeed duty to reconvict LaGuer if that is their conclusion.

By the way, for those who don’t know this already, the lawyer who is working for free to argue LaGuer’s case in the upcoming SJC hearing on January 4, 2007 is a guy named James C. Rehnquist. His father was the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, one of the towering figures in conservative jurisprudence of the latter part of the 20th century. So before you join in the political spinning that characterized how all sides used this case in the campaign, ask yourself what it means to be an American, and what the right to a fair trial might mean to you or someone you love some day.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. D.R. Tucker over at Hub Politics had this response to my post:

    Thank you, Eric, for clearly stating your position on the LaGuer affair (although I don’t understand why you make reference to the Rehnquist family in this fashion. Just because the father was conservative doesn’t mean the son is–even heard of Ron Reagan? Plus, you refer to the former Chief Justice as “…one of the towering figures in conservative jurisprudence of the latter part of the 20th century.” What a minute–I thought the left believed that Rehnquist was nothing more than a racist, bigoted Nixon hack.)

    I’ll ask the same question I asked of Fred: since you believe that Ben LaGuer was the victim of police and prosecutorial mischief, do you believe that the Governor-Elect is lying when he says that he believes justice was done in the LaGuer case?

    Posted by: D. R. Tucker at November 19, 2006 04:10 PM

    This was my response to his response:

    Thanks D.R. for the comment. In truth I don’t know what the son’s politics are. For all I know he’s a member of the Spinach Party. But I am impressed by the fact that he’s taken this case on pro bono. The name is relevant, I think, because the point I want to drive home is that being for fair trials doesn’t make you one thing or the other on the political spectrum. Love him or hate him, William Rehnquist was a towering figure on the right. Having served at the pinnacle of one of the co-equal branches of government for a quarter of a century arguably makes him a historically more influential figure than any of the presidents who came and went during his tenure.

    As for Patrick and what he should do. I think he has an obligation to keep an arm’s length from the case (just as Lt. Gov. Healey should have) while it is actively in the courts. Once that process has run its course he and the Governor’s Council should look at it with an open mind just as they would any case.

    Not to get too Clintonesque in the parsing of phrases, but justice was done in LaGuer’s case from the standpoint of what Patrick was advocating for at the time. He did get a DNA test, and his case is currently in the Supreme Judicial Court. What more could Patrick have asked for? The fact remains that new evidence has emerged since then that the executive branch has a right to look at. At the appropriate time. Sorry D. R., but I’m not going to characterize Patrick’s statements during the campaign. I would expect him to treat LaGuer’s claims fairly, just as I would have expected Healey to had she been elected. I’ll also be glad to criticize anyone who I think is abusing their power.

    Posted by: Eric Goldscheider at November 19, 2006 05:05 PM

  2. The rest – actual guilt or innocence, fair trail, etc. – are inherently APOLITICAL, as they will be decided by an independent judiciary which will be privy to information and analysis the rest of us cannot possibly have.  Therefore, it is not a political matter.

    <

    p>
    Deval Patrick’s response to being questioned about his involvement IS political – and as I posted at the time, had he been frank and said, why yes I WAS involved, and even wrote some letters, but dropped the matter when the DNA tests confirmed at least his involvment if not guilt – it would ahve been a one-day wonder.  Instead, he was evasive and defensive on what was pretty mcuh the first time he was asked specifics.  I’ve said before that I regard Deval as sizzle with no steak, and he confirmed this impression of him.  It did not strike others the same way, apparently.

    • You have no argument from me that Patrick didn’t handle the initial questions about LaGuer as forthrightly as he should have. I said as much in my Valley Advocate article.

      <

      p>
      But to say that a wrongful conviction that has been festering for 23 years because an entrenched (until this year, thankfully) district attorney has turned it into a grudge match is not political??? That is an off the charts dumb comment, if you ask me. Ensuring justice is one the most important (the most important, according to many conservatives) thing the government does. And since when are postings to BMG limited to Political (with a capital ‘P’) content?

      <

      p>
      Patrick may have bungled his initial response to the LaGuer issue. But Healey is the one who twisted the facts of a case currently in the courts and turned it into her first, second and third top issues in the campaign. How much more political could that be?

      <

      p>
      By the way, the conversation at Hub Politics continues with this from one of your fellow Republicans.

      <

      p>

      Compliments to fredct, DR, Eric et als — at last, a substantive, respectful, honest exchange of facts, ideas and opinions entirely devoid of invective or insult. More of the same, please!

      As for Jim Rehnquist, the old saying that The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From the Tree could never be truer. A towering intellect, a razor-incisive mind. Why his political ideology would have anything to do with his willingness to take this particular case has more to do with the questioners than the questioned.

      Posted by: wave maker at November 20, 2006 07:18 PM

Archives