Thanks to GoldsteinGoneWild for the earlier encouragement to read Adam Reilly’s piece in the Phoenix on Eric Goldscheider, who is SpeakingOut on BMG. It’s a terrific story, with Adam’s high standard of depth and compassion.
It seems that people are tired of hearing about LaGuer. I think that’s a damn shame. In fact, I’m totally convinced that he was utterly railroaded by the legal system, and I think it’s quite likely that he’s innocent. Read what the DNA experts say about the 2002 “test”. (Here’s the actual letter.) It sounds like a straight-up botch: They put LaGuer’s underwear in with the victim’s stuff, and guess what? The DNA test was very likely contaminated. Go figure!
And other than that, he’s in prison for life based an ID from the victim, a mentally ill woman who thereafter claimed that every black/Hispanic guy was the guy who raped her.
I’m sorry, but I can’t accept “He had his day in court”, “justice has been served” or any other mealy-mouthing of the issue that doesn’t directly address whether the guy actually did it or not. That’s the only thing that matters.
And I think it’s awfully likely he didn’t.
You wrote what I consider to probably be the first real, effective post on this matter that I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t think people were necessarily sick of the LaGuere case, I think there were other aspects to it that were… rubbing people off in the wrong way. It should be a lesson to people that the way you advocate is as likely to make a difference as the truth in what you’re advocating for.
<
p>
Charley
<
p>
a) summed up what was happening in a clear and concise manner
<
p>
b) didn’t just say “the dna is messed up” and not explain why
<
p>
c) didn’t go on glowingly for pages and pages on just how good LaGuere is or how he could never do it, etc. Or talk about how he’s such a great writer, etc.
<
p>
d) didn’t say the “dna was messed up” in a 1,500 word essay
<
p>
e) didn’t point the finger in a million different directions and say “look, that person did it!” when the person is still innocent according to all the laws of the land.
<
p>
f) didn’t include some ethereal post written by LaGuere himself, which is something many (most?) are entirely not interested in reading.
<
p>
When advocating for someone, people don’t want to necessarily hear how great they are, etc. They want to know the truth, in a succinct manner. Spending lots of efforts humanizing a person can seriously backfire – and at the very least make it actually LOOK like there’s some over compensation going on. It’s so much more effective to stick to the facts of the matter. So, kudos for proving yourself a good blogger yet again.
I hear there’s a need for someone to take over the Ben LaGuer website. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
I wonder why there isn’t more outrage over this story.
If your intention was to compliment Charlie, then fine, do so. Just remember that when passions run high, sometimes it is not always easy to keep them out of your work. Frankly I didn’t know you harbored this much animousity. Since Eric Goldscheider is a professional writer, I think he may have the upper hand on you as to knowing how to write. Sorry Ryan, but this seems to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attack, and not the praise you wanted it to seem. Quite frankly I am a little taken back by the lack of need for it.
<
p>
If you think it is that easy to advocate for a convicted felon, don’t tell me, show me. He needs all the help he can get.
<
p>
We had our differences about the article I wrote showing the picture of who is considered to be the most likely assailant. I took the picture down at your request, but nothing seemed to please you. I don’t think this comment was necessary, or as unemotional and concise as you seem to ask others to be.
John, I think what Ryan’s responding to is the tendency of folks to tune out to the overwhelming amount of information that has been on these pages regarding the LaGuer case.
<
p>
I do think the LaGuer webpage (for instance) needs to have an “elevator speech” that one lands on immediately upon getting to the site: A very brief, snappy, bullet-pointed summary of only the most compelling facts in the case. And then one could “drill down” deeper to get more information.
<
p>
Goldscheider (e.g.) has indeed done amazingly comprehensive work in the case, and that’s extremely important. But as a matter of communicating with the public at large, you need to provide the Cliff’s Notes version, too.
That no doubt Eric will read and contemplate.
Trial by jury is no longer viable. Most jurors are run of the mill American simpletons dazzled by prosecutors torturing facts and figures to fit a mold.
<
p>
Many of our prosecutors have axe’s to grind with certain elements of our society.
<
p>
Eye witness ID’s are proven to be over fifty percent inaccurate and certainly the mental health of victim’s renders that individual’s testimony null and void.
<
p>
It is likely that all of the secondary and tertiary circumstantial evidence in the La Guer case was manufactured.
<
p>
Perhaps we can have computer software to determine guilt or innocence.
Ever Read “A Trial by Jury” by D. Graham Burnett? A account by a decent writer of his exprience on a jury. Scary.
<
p>
Mind you, if people can’t be trusted to go on a jury and not be dazzled by irrelevancy, are we to still trust them to elect leaders?
How reliable might THAT be?!
and what happens to those convicted before the patches and the upgrade?!
Does not come in LaGuer’s innocence or guilt, but rather how this case has proven that the system cannot police itself. Whenever you have a system that administers its own checks and ballances, we risk that mistakes will be overlooked, deliberately or otherwise. The justice we deliver to the least of our convicts can easily be administered to any of us as well. Therein lies a point I see no point in denying, or ignoring.
LaGuer wrote a letter to the editor of the Valley Advocate commenting on my most recent article. For those interested it’s on the Valley Advocate Web site.