Grasping at Straws?

The Boston Globe has been all over Deval Patrick for the past 2 days. They’ve got themselves a story and they are doggedly pursuing it. The topic? Deval’s support of convicted rapist Benjamin LaGeur’s drive for a new trial & DNA testing last decade.

For those who don’t remember, LaGeur was convicted in 1983 of a vicious attack in Leominster where his neighbor was savagely beaten and raped. Ever since, he has maintained that the victim mistook him for somebody else. He has also pointed out problems with the chain of custody of the evidence that was presented against him. The fact that he is black and was living in mostly-white suburbs filled with folks who had recently fled Boston after the racial strife of the 70s also lent credence to his arguments.

After 15 years of courting high-profile politicians, social activists, the Innocence Project and the media, he finally won his long-sought DNA testing of the evidence. The result? The DNA was a match.

LaGeur is still behind bars, though he continues to maintain his innocence.

(Incidentally, one has to wonder why police departments and district attorney offices fight DNA tests. What’s wrong with confirming convictions or making sure that they got the right person? That’s another column, though.)

In addition to being a rapist, Benjamin LaGeur is a con artist, to be sure. And the fact that Mr. Patrick got caught up in his exhortations of innocence do raise legitimate concerns over his ability to make sound decisions. It’s a valid issue for voters to consider before casting a vote for him. Unfortunately, the tone and driving force behind these stories smacks of “Gotcha” journalism.

The Globe’s coverage is peppered with pointed highlights of inconsistencies with Duval Patrick’s account of when and how he was involved with this case. They note how he told the AP that he hadn’t been involved in the case for “15 years” and then released an e-mail saying that his last involvement was a letter written on LaGeur’s behalf (advocating for the DNA test) “10 years ago.”

When were the letters written? 6 years back.

Heavens to Murgatroid!!!

When asked, Deval couldn’t remember the exact dates of a letter that he wrote during the previous decade. Did he deny writing them? Did he deny involvement? Did he disavow his position?

Not hardly. To the Globe’s credit, they did include the meat of Deval’s position from his e-mail statement, though they added the caveat that he only “referred vaguely” to the eventual DNA test:

“My sole involvement in this case was more than 10 years ago, when I wrote a letter on Mr. LaGuer's behalf. At the time, there were serious unanswered issues concerning the facts and the fairness of the original trial.

“I understand that, in addition to other review, DNA testing was done in 2002,” he said. “On the basis of my review, I believe that the right outcome has been achieved and that justice has been served.”

There didn’t seem to be anything “vague” about the DNA test in that statement. In fact, if you hit CTRL + F on your keyboard and look for “DNA”, you will find it right smack in the middle of Deval’s e-mail above. What that one little word does put a negative connotation onto his words. Instead of simply presenting his explanation, they implied that Deval was ducking the issue by making a statement at all.

Instead of examining the issue and presenting readers with perspective, we get fed “but he said this… then he said this… and it was actually this…”

Please.

How about an examination of the entire situation. Why did Deval support the cause? Was it because of his background? Does his perspective as a black man having fought his way through the mostly white world of elite schools, law, government and corporations make him susceptible to cries of institutionalized racism? What does this say about his decision-making abilities? I want to know, dammit!

That leads me to Kerry Healey.

Back 25% in the polls, she is throwing mud like a bratty kid at the beach at low tide. Here’s a choice line from her:

“I will always come down on the side of the victim and the victim's family,” she said. “I will not be looking out to release dangerous offenders into society prematurely.”

Good grief! This case was never about should a rapist go free? It was about do we actually have the rapist? Nobody is on the “side” of criminals and looking to “release dangerous offenders.” There were legitimate concerns raised about the integrity of the system that convicted LaGeur. That fact that he’s now been proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt is a vindication of the system, a vindication that never would have taken place had DNA tests been allowed in the first place.

Kerry Healey knows this all too well. She’s just looking to score cheap political points, because they’re the only ones that she can get.