MetroWest Daily News
By Eric Goldscheider/Guest columnist
Friday, January 19, 2007
Recent allegations that Robert Pino, an administrator at the State Police crime lab in Sudbury, misreported DNA results have major implications for the Benjamin LaGuer case.
Four fingerprints lifted from a key piece of evidence, and belatedly revealed not to be LaGuer’s, were lost by the State Police. At a hearing earlier this month assistant district attorney Sandra Hautanen told the Supreme Judicial Court that a 2002 DNA test implicating LaGuer should trump a constitutional requirement that prosecutors share potentially exculpatory evidence at trial.
So let’s look at that DNA test. The crime lab was closely involved with preparing the evidence and then determining the procedures for testing. Recent revelations show that lab supervisor, Gwen Pino, the wife and colleague of the embattled administrator, was grossly negligent in how she evaluated items sent to LaGuer’s California-based expert for blind testing. It was up to Ms. Pino and her associate, Kelllie Bogosian, to vouch for the integrity of the evidence.
An independent review by molecular biologist Theodore Kessis, done at the request of a state legislator, shows that Ms. Pino was working beyond her scientific competence and she violated basic procedural principles which lead to an incorrect result.
The underlying problem began before Ms. Pino’s involvement when the investigating detective mixed LaGuer’s underwear, socks and other personal items from his apartment (not the crime scene) with hospital specimens from the victim. Bench notes from 1983 show that the crime lab chemist handled the “interior crotch” of LaGuer’s underwear at the same time as he was examining the samples Ms. Pino approved for testing. The chemist’s report also shows that he misidentified the blood type on another piece of evidence.
Were she scientifically qualified to understand the sheer power of modern DNA amplification techniques, Ms. Pino would have spotted obvious problems with the documentation crossing her desk. Her antennae should have especially gone up when initial examinations of the evidence revealed almost infinitesimally small amounts of male DNA – an unmistakable danger sign for contamination. Instead, she signed an affidavit which led to a court order to pool evidence from a number of different sources so as to glean a genetic profile which turned out to be LaGuer’s.
Kessis, who has a Ph.D. in molecular biology from Johns Hopkins and 10 years’ experience as a forensic DNA expert, studied the reports by Edward Blake, LaGuer’s expert who conducted the blind testing. Kessis is highly critical of the decision to pool items listed in the reports as being of “unspecified” origin. He also notes that “the levels of DNA detected in the samples implicating Mr. LaGuer are entirely consistent with those seen during contamination events.”
William Thompson, a law professor who writes about forensic DNA, sees a “chronic problem… (with) the uneven quality of forensic DNA laboratories.” In his article, “Tarnish on the Gold Standard: Recent Problems with Forensic DNA Testing,” Thompson cautions that, “events have proven that DNA evidence is hardly infallible… Bad laboratory work is all too common…”
Kessis, as part of his review of the LaGuer case, criticized statements Ms. Hautanen made to the SJC during the hearing on the belatedly disclosed fingerprint report. She characterized the certainty of LaGuer’s actual guilt as a hundred million to one. Hautanen failed to acknowledge that LaGuer’s genetic profile was derived only after many items from the rape kit were pooled together. As a result, said Kessis, “statements by the prosecutor regarding the DNA profiles found on this evidence can only be taken as misrepresentations of the facts.”
Given what we know about problems at the crime lab with understaffing, inadequate funding, and now allegations of inaccurate reporting of DNA results, it is imperative that procedures leading up to the 2002 result in the LaGuer case be reviewed by an outside examiner. The premise behind LaGuer’s expert performing blind tests was that the State Police crime lab would perform the role of honest broker, competently vetting the evidence solely in search of the truth, and not as an arm of a prosecution intent on preserving a conviction.
Harvard geneticist Daniel Hartl, who also assessed the document trail in the LaGuer case, wrote, “there is, in my opinion, ample reason for a full inquiry into this case, and I hope that the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will agree.”
I am not certain why you choose to single out the ADA in this case.
<
p>
I understand if she has played a role in the case for a long time and has demonstrated in her arguments that she is willing to ignore the truth. However, if you simply feel that the position she presented as the Commonwealth’s is incorrect, I think that singling her out for lying is over the top.
<
p>
Please illuminate me on this SO. I always appreciate our dialogue, and am still trying to get my head around this case/issue.
I just looked in, but I need to run out right now (family duties call). I have been able to document seven things Sandra Hautanen told the Appeals Court last year, which simply contradicted the record.
<
p>
Sorry I have to rush. I’ll elaborate later in the day. In the mean time, if there are other questions (from anyone), I’ll sit down this evening and respond to them all.
Hi DS, I’ve read your bio so I see you know a thing or two about prosecuting bad guys.
<
p>
In my earlier posts here (I signed onto BMG in June) I never referenced the ADA, always directing my criticisms at her boss, former DA John Conte. He was in office from 1976 to Jan. 3, 2007 – the entire life of this case – and frankly the way his office handled it at every turn was despicable. I’ll be glad to elaborate at some point on that if you like. At this point I don’t think it would be fair to hang that baggage on Joe Early, who just came into office. I’ve met Early, I like what I’ve seen, and unless and until I have reason to believe otherwise, I really believe that he wants to be good a DA in every sense of the word.
<
p>
Sandra Hautanen has been on this case for as long as I’ve been following it closely. I started attending the hearings leading up to the DNA testing in 2001. I’ve approached her many times with questions about the case, but as you may know Conte had a strict rule about letting his ADA’s talk to the press or anyone else. I have also sent her several Freedom of Information requests which, with the case in active litigation, she has been resisting.
<
p>
This is to say, that as a close observer of these proceedings I know that she knows a number of things about the case that she chooses to lie about. I know this because we’ve been in correspondence and because I know that official reports – such as those relating to the DNA testing – were addressed to her office. As a prosecutor for the commonwealth she is a public servant so at this point I see no reason why I shouldn’t put her on the spot for “misstating the factual record,” as Ben’s attorney James Rehnquist delicately put it in his rebuttal brief. Frankly, I think she should be disbarred. I have been absolutely shocked by her willingness to stand in a court of law and say things that I know, she knows to be untrue.
<
p>
Case in point: At the Appeals Court, in her filings and in her oral arguments, she claimed that ‘B’ blood in the 1983 forensic report linked Ben to the crime. An August 2001 DNA analysis of that blood, which was addressed to her associate Joseph Reilly, showed that this blood belonged to the victim (who was Type ‘O’). This astonishing revelation that the State Police lab work was inaccurate on a basic chemical test was reported as the lead in a Boston Globe article. So there is no way she doesn’t know this. Yet, at the parole hearing in 2003 (where she and Reilly spoke together) they repeated this lie (there’s that word) to the parole board. She then included it in all her filings opposing a new trial in this case, including the most recent filing to the SJC. I called her on this in an article Worcester Magazine published and it didn’t come up in her oral arguments to the SJC.
<
p>
That’s just one of several distortions of the record and outright fabrications she trots out just about every time she speaks in court about this case. I documented seven of them on the BenLaGuer Web site. Go take a look and let me know what you think. I linked her statements to primary documents that show them not to be true.
<
p>
The most damaging thing Hautanen told the SJC just over two weeks ago was that the DNA proved the probability of Ben’s guilt to a certainty of a hundred million to one. First of all, that was totally irrelevant to the constitutional question about suppressed evidence at the time of trial. Secondly it wasn’t true. I quoted DNA expert Theodore Kessis’s comment on that in my MetroWest Daily News article (above). Here is the full text of the statement Kessis issued (and the mainstream press ignored) on that:
I have no problem with lawyers on both sides vigorously arguing their points. The adversarial system depends on that. What I do have a problem with is lawyers saying things that are not true and that they know are not true. How can any criminal justice operate fairly on that basis? I am not a lawyer, but as a lay person it seems like this should be obvious grounds for disbarment. What do you think?
Thanks SO for the detailed response.
<
p>
I was simply curious why you chose to single her out. I didn’t think you had any negative motive, I just wanted to make sure you weren’t shooting the messenger so-to-speak.
<
p>
It is good to know that you have your reasons for choosing to mention the ADA, and they certainly seem founded in genuine concerns rather than an attempt to score rhetorical points.
Thanks DS for the positive feedback, I really appreciate it. If I may be so bold, maybe you could urge your brother to join in calls for an external examination of the 2002 DNA test. As you probably know, Sen. Jarrett Barios is planning hearings on how the State Police crime lab has been functioning. It seems there should also be an inquiry into why four DNA experts with national reputations have found the test in Ben’s case to be so troublesome. I’d be glad to personally brief your brother, or a group of his colleagues, on the case. Just a thought.
OK I had said earlier that I wasn’t going to look into this LaGuer deal but you guys just keep shilling for him (even after Patrick said he was guilty?? did I get that right? Was Patrick throwing an innocent man to the wolves for political purposes?) Has anyone looked at the other side? Why does this guy keep getting found guilty over and over? Well, I finally looked – briefly! – and found this:
<
p>
http://www.truthinju…
<
p>
<
blockquote> As word of his case spread, the LaGuer camp grew to include author William Styron, Boston University President John Silber, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky, and several dozen volunteer lawyers.
<
p>
[…]
<
p> Local and national journalists, including ABC-TV’s Barbara Walters, soon began to investigate the case. She featured LaGuer on the news program ”20/20” two years ago, shortly after private investigators working on LaGuer’s behalf discovered a rape investigation kit in a box of evidence tucked away in Worcester Superior Court.
<
p> The kit included a sealed packet containing pubic hairs from the victim and a minimal amount of semen from her assailant. Convinced the evidence would prove that he wasn’t the rapist, LaGuer’s supporters spent two years fighting to have Conte agree to test it. Earlier this year, they sent the samples to a California DNA lab.
<
p> But the results, made public last Saturday, showed the samples matched LaGuer’s DNA profile. For the first time in nearly two decades of legal maneuverings, there was evidence directly linking him to the crime.
<
p> LaGuer now postulates that the police, desperate to prove that a rape had occurred, took underwear from his apartment back in 1983 and used it to deposit a small amount of his semen on the hair samples in the rape kit.
<
p>
AHEM. They supposedly stole underwear from his apartment, scraped off semen and pubic hairs and hid that in a rape kit, which was later uncovered by LaGuer advocates? Then it was tested in California and the very contents of the kit show LaGuer’s DNA?
<
p>
COME. ON.
<
p>
Well I guess it is the only plausible explanation, right?
<
p>
Even his former supporters seem to have chucked him after that one. (see article). Nothing like getting duped for $5K for a DNA test that provides the best evidence yet that he was actually guilty.
<
p>
At least it seems to be primarily the same 2 advocates posting this stuff over and over but I’m surprised at the utter lack of skepticism from the proud-to-be-reality-based set (coughcharleycough)
I messed up closing the quote – the article ends after “rape kit” and my comments begin with AHEM. not sure how to fix. sorry about that
Demolisher, your bio bills you as a libertarian. I thought people of that ilk (and I tend in that direction) are naturally suspicious of government power. But you seem to take the government’s word as gospel while easily dismissing hours of verifiable and documented research that tells a different story. You chose an interesting article to quote from. In fact, you cherry pick the lines that confirm your preconceived notions. It was written less than a week after the DNA results were announced on March 22, 2002, when long time LaGuer supporters where just digesting a very counter intuitive result. I’d encourage readers of this post to go and read the article in its entirety. Also, go see what some of those “former” supporters have said since then. Many have done a 180 since that article was written.
<
p>
The bigger question for me is this: If you are so sure of LaGuer’s guilt then why wouldn’t you want an independent review of that DNA test? If the test was valid than it should stand up to scrutiny. Yes?
sure, I’m absolutely suspicious of government power. Thats why I disagree with probably 90+% of everything that is said on this board – its always more laws, more government, more taxes, more handouts.
<
p>
But this LaGuer case seems to me to be a garden variety criminal who was identified by the victim, convicted, lost on al appeals, garnered a ton of support for a DNA test, lost that too, and now has some tall tale about how the DNA test could possibly be flawed… maybe he just likes the attention? Who knows! But this isnt government power vs. the little guy, its a simple criminal who has convinced people to take his side and thus had many more advantages than the average rapist in getting his case overturned. As his story becomes more and more convoluted, you have to emphasize more and more any problems wth evidence or whatever – real or fabricated – assign motives, theorize about evidence possibilities – its the stuff of conspiracy theory. You really think a fingerprint on a phone is compelling? Like no one else would have ever used that phone or something?
<
p>
How did his semen get into the rape kit?
<
p>
Answer that one and Bill Clinton will wish he hired you back in the 90s.
<
p>
Us libtertarians aren’t necessarily soft on crime, nor do we like to spend endless government resources on flights of fantasy.
<
p>
The other thing that bugs me is that it seems to fit the liberal meta narrative whereby a black man who victimized a white person, especialy judged in front of an all-white jury, is probably just another vicitim of white male oppression. Its a blind spot for liberals and others too where you can turn them into suckers so easily that they’ll even donate $5K to have a DNA test done and even after that shows guilt, some of them still believe?
<
p>
Doesn’t DNA matter? Not in the case of black and white, I guess. See: OJ, Duke rape case.
… the reports by four DNA experts who have reviewed the DNA in this case? Here are the links:
<
p>
<
p>
I think if you read those first, we could have a more fruitful discussion. I am not trying to duck your questions, but there is a lot of information in those reports. The Kessis letter is short and pretty well sums it up. It should take no more than a few minutes to read. After that, I’d be glad to respond to your questions. It would be easier and maybe more productive if you put each question in a separate post. Just an idea.
“read all of my material first then I’ll discuss your simple point…”
<
p>
Frankly, the stuff I’ve seen so far (from that first advocate you list, i think..) seems suspect, illogical or deceptive in a number of ways. I think I’m all done going down this rathole.
<
p>
I believe that you guys are being played for fools, and I guess I hope you find that out some day and learn something from it. Belief in meta narratives makes you vulnerable, I suspect.
<
p>
Signing off,
<
p>
D
Now you are getting close to name calling, which Blue Mass Group is not supposed to be a place for. I am not saying there is a secret cabal out to get LaGuer or me or anyone else. If you are referring to the fact that there is a large and growing group of people who think he was shafted, that’s not conspiracy. In fact, it’s the opposite. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to see that a rogue cop took personal items from a suspect’s apartment in contradiction of the terms of the search warrant and that those items then got mixed in with the rest of the evidence which years later led to an unreliable DNA result due to unforeseeably powerful amplification techniques. The fact that the case has become convoluted since that first day of the, quote unquote, “investigation,” does not mean that people questioning the fairness of the process are conspiracy theorists. What it does mean is that it takes a little effort to think it through and to examine events and the paper trail that lead to where we are today. I am more than happy to answer any questions respectfully and in a way that is grounded in logic. If you don’t want to participate in that conversation then Godspeed.
You really need to do your homework before you accuse anyone of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, Demolisher.
<
p>
Laguer’s case is a clear instance of prosecutorial misconduct, and I hope Conte gets nailed for it.
Maybe I’m a bit too optimistic, but is seems like the storm clouds may be rising. And please, if you are so moved, join the conversation on this issue. The more voices the better.
Not mentioned in any of this posting is the fact not once in thirty years did DA John Conte EVER admitted to a false conviction! While in other Massachusetts counties numerous convictions have been overturned!
<
p>
Perhaps it is well past time for the investigation into John Conte and his tactics. Conte during this time maintained a filing cabinet in his office which contained all the evidence in this case. Unless you can understand the mentality of WORCESTER, all the rhetoric in the world can not establish the truth.
<
p>
I have no doubt in my mind that DA Conte had the Power to have the evidence contaminated.
<
p>
Why did it take a two year and a court battle to have the DNA test?
<
p>
If John Conte was so sure of LaGuer’s guilt, he should have welcomed the DNA test.
<
p>
Instead Conte again controlled the mainstream media news reports and when the court ruled against him, suddenly with a broken seal on the evidence it was presented by his State Police associates to the State Police lab for assembly!
<
p>
Ask yourself if the woman was raped over an eight hour period why only was a very tiny amount of LaGuer’s DNA found?
<
p>
This case is about political corruption and a old empowered DA who under any circumstance refuses to admit he was wrong.
<
p>