The following is from a letter that convicted rapist Benjamin LaGuer wrote to Jose Masso of Northeastern University on June 1, 1999 (HT to Keller@Large):

“I am happy to say that Davel [sic] Patrick spoke with one of the managing partners of that New York City law firm, and my friend at the firm was told to help in whatever was necessary. I had sent Patrick a copy of my friend’s letter to John Silber, and Patrick brought me up in conversation during one of those high-flying meetings.”

So Deval Patrick, who only sent a letter to a parole board, oops make that 2 letters to a parole board, oops make that 2 letters to a parole board and 2 “Dear Ben” letters, oops make that 2 letters to a parole board, 2 “Dear Ben” letters and a $5000 check to pay for a DNA test was also telling people in a NYC law firm to make this a case a high priority.

So much for being barely involved over 15 years ago. As I said yesterday, Deval Patrick has a problem with the truth.

Brian McGrory at the Globe agrees:

But there is something profoundly and fundamentally wrong with Patrick’s letters to the Massachusetts Parole Board on behalf of LaGuer, aggravated by his ever-changing explanations of them. The bottom line is this: If Deval Patrick had his way, a thug who bound a 59-year-old woman and repeatedly raped her over the course of eight hours would have been granted parole. There’s no other way to see it.

For proof, look no further than his letters, reported this week by the Globe’s Andrea Estes. On one recommendation, Patrick wrote: “I receive a crushing volume of mail, much of it from prisoners in facilities all over this country. None of it is as thoughtful, insightful, eloquent, or humane as that I receive from Mr. LaGuer. I urge you and your colleagues on the Parole Board to act favorably on his application.”

On another, he wrote: LaGuer “appears well prepared to make a positive re-entry and important contribution to the community of responsible citizens.”

It’s important to note that these letters were not simply an expression of concern that LaGuer’s trial was tainted by racism, or a request for a new trial, or a plea for definitive DNA testing.

No, they were a recommendation that the prison doors be flung open and that the rapist be set free, based, it seems, on the fact that he was “thoughtful, insightful, eloquent.” A consultation with the victim’s family? Why bother.

Nearly as bad are Patrick’s explanations over the past week. First, Patrick told reporters he recalled a letter he wrote “maybe 15 years ago.” That was quickly changed to, “My sole involvement in this case was more than 10 years ago.”

Then it was reported by the Globe that he wrote at least two “Dear Ben” notes apologizing to the rapist that he wasn’t writing more, as well as a letter to the Parole Board as recently as six years ago. And finally, that he likely gave a $5,000 check to the cause five years ago.

For a candidate who is constantly decrying politics as usual, he seems to have followed a strategy familiar to politicians throughout history: He lied.

Yesterday, Patrick apologized “to anyone who feels we didn’t come forward with all the facts.” That would be everyone who was paying attention. And what’s with the pronoun we? The questions were about Patrick, directed at Patrick, evaded by Patrick.

His campaign has spent a week making arguments that are, at best, specious. When aides point out that Patrick was not the only high-profile supporter of LaGuer, they’re correct. But that only makes him one of those pathetic celebrities who champion violent criminals they know virtually nothing about, then pour each other another chardonnay.

When aides point out that the jury pool might have been tainted by race, correct again. So why didn’t Patrick push for a new trial, not freedom?

When aides point out that Patrick dropped his active support after DNA tests in 2002 proved that LaGuer was the rapist, they fail to address why he didn’t wait for the tests before recommending his release.

Exactly.

Scott Lehigh also questions Deval’s judgment in this case:

Certainly Patrick has seemed less than forthcoming about what he has done to help LaGuer.

Initially, Patrick said that his “sole involvement” had been to write the parole board 10 or 15 years ago.

Actually, as the Globe reported Wednesday, Patrick sent one letter in 1998 and a second, virtually identical one in 2000.

And then there’s the 2001 contribution Patrick made to help pay for the DNA testing — a contribution Patrick initially told Globe columnist Adrian Walker that he had “absolutely no memory of.”

Further, Patrick’s own account of the role he played leaves one wondering about his judgment. In a Wednesday interview, Patrick said that he didn’t know LaGuer, adding that “I can’t say I studied the record with care.”

“The issue that came to my attention at the time was the fairness of his trial and particularly the fairness of the jury deliberations,” he told me.

Legitimate concerns, certainly, but why, then, had he pushed for parole for LaGuer and not a new trial? Because he wasn’t representing LaGuer, and anyway, “you don’t address that to the parole board,” Patrick said. “The only thing you can address to the parole board is his readiness for parole.”

But if he didn’t know LaGuer, it’s difficult to see how he could make a responsible assessment of that readiness.

“I had corresponded with him,” Patrick noted later. “You get an impression of him from that correspondence.”

Or a misimpression, perhaps. So does Patrick now feel deceived by LaGuer?

“No,” he said. “Ben wouldn’t be the first guilty person in prison who was maintaining vigorously their own innocence. . . . I am glad he got the DNA testing. I hope that is the end of it.”

After the DNA results came back, did he tell LaGuer he no longer supported him?

“I don’t think I conveyed anything to him when I found out, because I didn’t have a relationship with him,” Patrick said. “Understand, I wasn’t looking, by writing to the parole board, to have his conviction up-ended.”

No. Rather, he was trying to get LaGuer released, based on a sense he felt he had of the convict from his letters.

Forgive me if I don’t find Patrick’s role or his reasoning — or, for that matter, this week’s political performance — particularly reassuring.

Massachusetts needs a governor who knows who the real victim of a crime is. We don’t need a gullible governor who runs off on a whim trying to free a violent rapist because he is “thoughtful, insightful, eloquent”.

Archived in: Crime, Deval Patrick, Massachusetts, New York City