Let’s start by listing the pre-DNA lapses in the Lab with regard to this case. The most obvious is that the lab LOST OR DESTROYED a set of four fingerprints from a key piece of evidence. We know from a belatedly released report that those prints were NOT LaGuer’s. But whose were they? Letters to Selavka from two state senators and six representatives inquiring about this were largely ignored.
In August 2001 DNA testing on blood from the crime scene, long said to be Type B (the same as LaGuer’s) turned out to belong to the victim (who was Type O). This is all the more remarkable because six blood stains from the crime scene were brought to the crime lab and the forensic report stated that the analyst couldn’t determine a type for any of them except the one, which turned out to be WRONG. This is basic stuff. You don’t just get a blood type wrong and then say “oops, sorry.” Especially as this erroneous match has been cited in several court decisions denying LaGuer a new trial. Granted, this was before Selavka’s time. But that doesn’t absolve him of looking into it once it was brought to his attention. The muck is deep and yucky.
And then of course there is the 2002 DNA test implicating LaGuer which Kerry Healey and many others have said should be the final word on his guilt or innocence. The test, they say, was conducted by LaGuer’s own expert (paid for by John Silber, Deval Patrick and several others). The point I have made in my previous posts on this topic is that the crime lab played an integral role in LaGuer’s DNA test. Just to sum it up, LaGuer’s expert did his testing blind. The State Lab cataloged and vouched for the integrity of the evidence. A State Lab employee flew to California (at Silber’s, Patrick’s and others expense) to witness the testing. And most importantly, the State Lab drafted the affidavits that formed the basis for the judge’s order that guided the testing. Four nationally recognized DNA experts have since examined the evidence chain of custody paper trail along with the test results and determined that at the very least bright warning signs of contamination were ignored. This information has been available for a long time. To his great credit, Charley Blandy picked up on this months ago and the mainstream media has yet to catch up.
Now that the lab will (hopefully) be getting the scrutiny it richly deserves, it is important that the LaGuer case be part of that review. One way of uncovering systemic problems is to burrow down into counterintuitive results to see what accounts for discrepancies between predicted and actual outcomes. But as Thompson notes in his article, falsely incriminating results based on contamination are the hardest to ferret out:
“[I]f the suspect’s DNA is accidentally transferred into an evidentiary sample, the error is not obvious because there is another explanation–i.e., that the suspect is the source of the evidentiary DNA. Errors that incriminate a suspect are unlikely to be detected as errors; they are likely to be treated as incriminating evidence.”
We would let the let the crime lab get away without scrutiny of this case at our own peril. All this is especially alarming because Sandra Hautanen, the prosecutor in this case, lied to the SJC about the certainty of guilt implied by the DNA tests at the recent SCJ hearing.
Everyone should remember how Willard Romney was drooling to execute criminals with the aid of “foolproof” DNA evidence . (He’s pro-life now, right? His stance on that is as foolproof as his DNA evidence I suppose.)
If you click the link, you’ll see a nice pic of Wil holding his hand just as Christ is depicted when giving a blessing.
Especially in light of the fact that Selavka served on the panel that drew up the guidelines for the supposedly fool proof death penalty.
…I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s an idiot, regardless.
<
p>
All that positive DNA evidence match can tell you is that the alleged perpetrator (“perp”) was at the location of the alleged crime at some point in time. That’s all. (The same with fingerprint evidence, by the way.) It might be persuasive, along with other evidence, that the perp committed the crime, but it alone will never tell you that the alleged perp committed the crime. DNA evidence can be used to reduce (but not eliminate) the likelihood that an alleged perp committed a crime, but that’s about it.
<
p>
BTW, a number of years ago, I was rather agnostic on capital punishment, but the longer I’ve considered the matter, the more opposed to it I’ve become. Not because of DNA evidence, but because the discretion allowed prosecutors to pursue the death penalty is so huge, as is the likelihood that bias by the jury will influence their decision of whether or not it should be applied. I’ll merely refer to the case of Calvin Burdine down in Texas (!), although there are others.
<
p>
The report of the Burdine case in the cited page is accurate, but not complete. The gist of the matter is that Burdine, a homosexual, and another, a heterosexual, conspired to rob Burdine’s partner (it’s unclear whether or not he was his lover, keeper, sugar daddy, pimp, whatever), and the partner was murdered during the robbery. Reports suggest that it was the hetero who actually committed the murder, but the prosecutor decided to prosecute Burdine–the homo–for the murder under the “felony-murder” doctrine, and plea-bargained the hetero’s case down to a relatively light sentence in exchange for his testimony against Burdine. Prosecutorial discretion? Yes. Evidence of bias? Most definitely yes.
You raise a good point, Raj. Last month the King County, WA prosecutor was faced with an interesting situation (story here). A few years ago he didn’t seek state-sanctioned murder* against a serial killer, in exchange for info from the killer on location of other victim remains.
<
p>
Now the prosecutor has before him a man who stabbed to death a young mother, a young aunt and two little boys, then burned down their house to conceal the crimes. The family’s father was serving in Iraq at the time. This is the type of case proponents of state-sanctioned murder* drool over.
<
p>
But if you don’t seek state-sanctioned murderfor a serial killer who is responsible for 48 murders, can you ever seek it for anyone else? Answer: sadly, yes. The prosecutor did decide to go for state-sanctioned murder in the stabbing case. Is that justice? The WA Supreme court said close enough. Well, at least this has revivied the conversation in the state.
<
p>
*state-sanctioned murder – I use this term because “death penalty” to me sounds too much like a frivolous sports term. Murder for retribution, especially in our error-prone system of justice, is not frivolous and should never be so treated.
…the so-called “CSI effect” among juries. The CSI program has proven to be so popular that jurors want to see a lot of forensic evidence. Unfortunately for prosecutors, most of the forensic “tests” that are performed on CSI don’t exist, and most of the databases that William Peterson et al supposedly access don’t exist either.
<
p>
This was hilariously related in an article in Scientific American a few months ago.
<
p>
NB: this is an interesting aside, and not a response to your comment.
Going back just a little, remember the Boston Police fingerprint scandal? The three years it took to identify a murderer through DNA? State Police crime lab evidence that has to be sent to Maine to be processed? And nobody in the State Police knew? What about the fellow that was arrested for murder and held although the evidence denied his guilt? Is anyone in charge? Are there any standards and procedures for police in this state? So how many people are out on the streets when they should be on the inside and how many are on the inside that should be free?
<
p>
Certainly it takes more than a hint to get some change in this state. Betcha’ a thin dime that “when all is said and done, more will be said than done.”
The DNA results were horribly botched in the LaGuer case, and it draws attention to the fact that no testing is perfect when human error can be part of the equation. What people seem to forget is that evidence from the crime scene was stored with evidence taken from LaGuer’s apartment. The chain of custody as to who had the evidence and when they had it is in question, so at any time this evidence could have been mistakenly or deliberately tainted. When evidence/items are stored together, of course you are going to find micro amounts of cross contamination including the DNA collected. You would have more DNA on your shirt from having a 5 minute conversation with someone face to face than what was found collectively on all of the evidence put together. People lack the scientific knowledge to understand what has occurred because it was not properly explained to them. That’s why Ben LaGuer is owed a new trial; so all the facts can be represented fairly. Justice is only alive when all facts are weighed, and the DNA in this case is just one of many questions that beg to be answered.
I believe there was an eyewitness identification. Lie the poor woman who was viciiously and savagely beaten and raped said, ” That’s the guy who did it”. Y
<
p>
Are you suggesting that the cumulative weight of the ID, finger prints, and circumstantial evidence was insufficient for a conviction? (the DNA evidence was introduced years later as exculpatory evidence and drove the last nail in his coffin!)
<
p>
A womans ID of a rapist is now insufficient? What extra hoop does a woman have to jump through to get justice?
If this were Florida this guy would be on death row!
…eyewitness evidence is highly unreliable. Heck, even Perry Mason knew that. As did the author of the Perry Mason stories, who actually had been a trial lawyer.
It’s clear if you think the fingerprint evidence is against LaGuer you do not know what you are talking about. Read up on the case at benlaguer.com, and you will understand why all these people are wondering what the truth is.
“In August 2001 DNA testing on blood from the crime scene, long said to be Type B (the same as LaGuer’s) turned out to belong to the victim (who was Type O). This is all the more remarkable because six blood stains from the crime scene were brought to the crime lab and the forensic report stated that the analyst couldn’t determine a type for any of them except the one, which turned out to be WRONG. This is basic stuff. You don’t just get a blood type wrong and then say “oops, sorry.” Especially as this erroneous match has been cited in several court decisions denying LaGuer a new trial. Granted, this was before Selavka’s time. But that doesn’t absolve him of looking into it once it was brought to his attention. The muck is deep and yucky.”
<
p>
I can still remember in my sophmore year of high school learning how to type our blood in science class. The other point that makes me sit up and take notice is that after they seemed not to be able to get what type of blood the stains were, the incorrect type they said it was JUST HAPPENED to be Ben LaGuer’s? That coincidence would be worth noting were it alone, but in the sea of “coincidences” in this case it screams something far more sinister.
It’s called a “settled matter”. The commonwealth bears no obligation to absolve a convicted rapist of anything.
<
p>
How about we start refusing to use DNA as exculpatory evidence?