Just when I thought the Boston Globe was going to let its excellent criminal justice reporter take a hard look at the LaGuer case, it turns out that they are more interested in perpetuating the political circus Kerry Healey set in motion during the campaign. Reading this morning’s article “Convict Will Appeal on Patrick’s Day” you would be hard pressed to tell whether the criminal justice reporter even read the briefs before the Supreme Judicial Court. Instead, the Globe tries to make cute of the coincidence that the justices scheduled LaGuer’s hearing for the same day as Patrick’s swearing in. By pressuring Cyndi Roy into commenting on a confluence of events that she wasn’t even aware of, and which, if justice is the goal, don’t have much to do with each other, the Globe casts LaGuer as the skunk at the garden party, raining on Patrick’s parade. The bigger point is that Healey, for political reasons, turned a case that was currently before the SJC into a political football. That angle was never reported. And those machinations weren’t LaGuer’s doing as wasn’t the timing of this week’s hearing. Unfortunately the Globe squandered valuable space reporting happenstance, and having their criminal justice reporter do the work an intern on the political desk could have done.
A redeeming feature of today’s story is that one of the DNA experts who is highly critical of the forensics in LaGuer’s case got to be heard in the mainstream media.
“It’s not a reliable test result,” said Theodore D. Kessis of Applied DNA Resources in Columbus, Ohio, who reviewed the tests. “When postconviction testing happens, everybody assumes that it’s perfect. The irony here is that the fallibility of humans has, in a sense, made Ben look even guiltier.”
It’s too bad that Roy, who didn’t seem to want to talk about the case, got more ink than Kessis, who did. Let’s hope the Globe has gotten this impulse to turn a complex issue into a one-dimensional game of gotcha out of its system and, when the hearing comes around, let its criminal justice reporter do what he was not only hired to do, but is very good at. That would be, studying and analyzing the legal case and reporting on it in a way that informs, rather than in a way that confirms conventional wisdoms. If the Kessis quotes could be combined with the otherwise good AP story on today’s wire, readers would be getting a decent picture of what’s happening. And if you haven’t already, please read my article on “What’s at Stake in Commonwealth v. LaGuer” which I posted last night. I don’t usually make such appeals here on BMG, but whatever yall can do to give that post more prominence and to get it out into the wider blogosphere (and the MSM) would be appreciated.
See I told you all that he would be a headache for Patrick but think about it…it is his own supporters that continues to give this story legs. Gee didn’t I even say I thought the press was about to do a story. Smarter than ya’ll think. Be cautious, be very cautious. đŸ™‚
Here’s a guy who has been in prison for 23 years for a crime he did not commit and you only see it as a “headache” for Patrick. Where, sir or madam, is your decency? Look, Patrick was elected with more than a 20 point margin in spite of an uninformed and/or cynical attempt by Kerry Healey to turn a case that ALREADY WAS BEFORE THE SJC into the new Willie Horton phenom. Ben had nothing to do with the fact that the justices chose this date for the hearing. If Ben wins, and he should because the law is on his side, the real headache will be for candidates who in the future again try to use racist, “soft on crime” scare tactics to appeal to the electorate’s baser instincts. If you have a bone to pick with LaGuer supporters I wish you would go over to this post and engage with the issues it raises, rather than riff on why you think this story has legs.
First I find humor you refer to the dirtbag by his first name. I never claimed to have decency at least whenever I’m involved in the political arena. Patricks admirable margin of victory has absolutely nothing to do with this case. His past support and likely future non-support does.
<
p>
Soft on crime is racist??? That tells me all I need to know, to know who and what I’m dealing with. Nuff said. Gosh this is fun. Too easy, but fun.
I won’t be referring to you by your first name as I don’t even know what it is. Do you care to reveal yourself? At least let us know if you are a sir or a madam?