Friday, January 19, 2007

Questions About DNA Still Linger, By Ben LaGuer

As readers know, the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in my case on January 4, 2007. A ruling in not expected for 3 months on whether a new trial may be held.

Worcester procesutors spoke about the DNA with special emphesis. A number of experts have found that the DNA test widely assumed to link me to the crime is invalid because the lab mistakenly matched my DNA to samples taken from me, and my apartment, and not the crime scene. Over the years of legal haggling in courts, the samples were intermixed in courthouse boxes and samples taken from me were mislabeled as crime scene evidence.

A top lawyer with the State Police recently told a reporter that a DNA review can be ordered, and any such issues as improper handing uncovered, but only if the DA requests it.

I have been urging this review for 4 years.

The State Police can retrace the origins of each sample in just a couple of hours. So why is DA Joe Early opposing such a review? If the evidence is confirmed invalid, Mr. Early would immediately need to concede that his prosecuter's DNA arguments before the SJC were wrong. Given his haste to declare me guilty, and the public criticism he got over doing so, a DNA review might not be what Mr. Early wants.

Mr. Early should ask the State Police to go ahead and uncover whatever truths they can find. Everyone involved in this case is owed honest answers. Standing in the way of a review can only lead to unnecessary speculations of a coverup.

Ben LaGuer W40280
Souza-Baranowski Supermax Prison
Shirley, MA 01464


There seem to be a lot of people that would like to believe that since Mr. LaGuer has been in prison for so long, and since a DNA test was conducted, that he must be guilty. I might be inclined to agree with this point of view if it had not been for the glaring issues with poor investigation and evidence management. Some of the highlights of these issues that make me sit up and take notice are:

-The missing fingerprints that seem lost proven NOT to be Ben Laguers. These fingerprints were on the telephone ripped from the wall, and the cord was used to tie the victim with. Not only were these prints lost by gross mismanagement of the evidence, but they were never even shared with the defense. Ben's lawyers were made aware of them 18 years later.

-evidence was kept in the trunk of a cruiser for two weeks before being entered.

-original notes were thrown out and edited by the investigating detective two weeks into the case.

-at the grand jury indictment hearing, the detective thought the crime occurred in Ben's apartment. This was later corrected.

-evidence has been popping up without explanation of it's origin, like underwear from Ben's apartment.

-the evidence chain of custody documents are being withheld from all requests to view them.

I simply ask those who read this to answer a question to themselves; doesn't this all seem a bit strange? Shouldn't we want to know why all this has happened? Even if Ben is as guilty as they get, why did all this confusion with the evidence take place?

No comments: