Dave Wedge Stays On Top Of LaGuer Case (with a twist)

Monitoring and websites (0.00 / 0)

Many do not realize that when they visit a website, they leave a calling card, like this.  I am sure there are savvy ways to avoid leaving calling cards, but obviously whatever Republican went looking, they did not know how not to leave  a calling card.

I know I personally resent having myself "watched" when I go to a website, and logged.  But I have also never taken the time to learn how to visit a site, and not leave this kind of information.

This is the first time I have seen such information (who visited a website first) to have such a direct political implication.  I bet there have been other such instance, but I did not notice them.

On the other hand, a newsperson would naturally check out such a tip.

Thank you for covering this.

AmberPaw

Deborah Sirotkin Butler
AmberPaw dot @aol.com

"Failure to plan is planning to fail."
Proverb

---

by: AmberPaw @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:41:17 AM CST

Thanks for front paging (6.00 / 1)

The way this case insinuated itself into the campaign is fascinating. For those who haven't already, you can read my annalysis of that in an article called The Anatomy of a Political Hit. You can also read it (with embedded links) HERE.

---

by: Speaking Out @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:42:43 AM CST

Your annalysis.... (3.00 / 1)

is as good as your spelling.  Good luck with your book.

---

by: johnmurphylaw @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 20:58:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you saying (0.00 / 0)

there was no connection between the Governor's Council hearing on Lemire and Mazzarella's tirade? I don't mind you calling me out on my spelling, but if you want to take issue with the article at least give me something to work with.

---

by: Speaking Out @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 22:03:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, and if you want to read more... (0.00 / 0)

about what Wedge will be doing in court go read Dan Kennedy's take.

---

by: Speaking Out @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:26:09 AM CST

I'm Confused. (0.00 / 0)

Why WOULDN'T the Mass GOP look at the web site?  Were they prohibited in some way?  Why is that scandalous?  That they were monitoring a public issue?

And Charley, David, et al - I think that YOU need to think hard about the increasing phenomenon of posting IP addresses on BMG - they are the equivalent of address and phone number.  Friend or foe, do you really want to encourage that behavior?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:25:58 AM CST

caught with hand in the cookie jar (0.00 / 0)

Peter this is simply not true:

YOU need to think hard about the increasing phenomenon of posting IP addresses on BMG - they are the equivalent of address and phone number

 
Unless you have an organization which carries a registered ISP your name does not appear. As for the regular guy who has AOL,Comcast or MSN no way you can trace the numbers and they change on a regular basis. In the case of a crime
Law enforcement may get a court order to have them traced by the provider; a search warrant is required.

I think Peter it is more that the Republican were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, now ask yourself, why would they want to  be on the Benjamin LaGuer site to begin with.....

Keep up the good work speaking out in the end the truth will be exposed.
 

---

by: Mo Jo @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:08:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Big deal (0.00 / 0)

Firstly, I agree with Peter that exposing IP addresses should be done with extreme caution, only in the case of actual malfeasance.

Secondly, who cares where Wedge gets his stories from? If someone gave us a tip, it wouldn't matter who gave it to us, or for what reason. Either their info is true or not, and it's either newsworthy or not. In any event, Ms. Wallace-Benjamin's involvement is totally fair game for the press and for political opponents, as was true for Deval Patrick. *She went public* in her support for LaGuer, after all. I simply hope that the press will give the whole context to the story when they report, as Wedge has done in the past. Would that other journalists had done what he did in the above-linked article, only much sooner. Then we could have had a productive discussion about the actual merits of LaGuer's case. That never happened.

Furthermore, all of the Ben LaGuer testimonials have been hiding in plain sight all year, if not longer.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 18:13:16 PM CST

Wedge is doing a good job (0.00 / 0)

I agree that Wedge has been one of the better reporters on this case. What I find interesting is that the Republican State Committee would even see this as a worthy tip. I thought Wedge's article was fine. It reported Wallace-Benjamin's statements and gave a bit of context without sliming anyone.

The question boils down to whether Wallace-Benjamin is diminished for having said nice things about LaGuer, or whether LaGuer is enhanced for the fact that someone of Wallace-Benjamin's stature said nice things about him? My guess is that the MRSC was banking on Wedge going with a tone that implied the former. My reading of the article is that at the very least the tone is neutral and that it might even lean toward the latter.

As for publishing IP addresses. I did not put either the MRSC or the Herald IP address in my post, in case you didn't notice. I simply put the textual part of the Stat Counter data in as well as the time stamp. That said, these days unless you take steps to block it, your phone number turns up on a caller ID screen when you call someone. I don't see that as being different from an IP address showing up on a Stat Counter. So putting it on a blog posting is just like republishing a phone number that is already in the book. What's the harm? I did put IP addresses in my post last summer when it looked like the Reilly campaign was trying to use the LaGuer Web site to drop a dime with Wedge. The context of that was that it followed hard on the "killer Coke" dust-up. Because of the pattern it implied I thought putting the IP addresses in my post boosted the credibility of the point I was trying to make.

In this case, Charley is right to say it's no big deal. Still, when you get to see the inner workings of how a story winds up in the Herald, you have to admit that that is interesting. So, while there may be nothing to see here folks, I wouldn't blame you if you linger for a bit of rubber necking.

As for Wallace-Benjamin's comments. I think she has nothing to apologize for. The strategic deployment of the LaGuer case in the campaign rested on the notion that LaGuer's actual guilt was sealed by the DNA test. Readers of BMG should know by now that the DNA test was flawed and that four reputable DNA experts have said as much. Her past statements on the case speak well of Wallace-Benjamin's courage and integrity. They also speak well of LaGuer's tenacious efforts to show that he has been wronged by the judicial system.

By the way, it looks like I'll be speaking about this case again on the radio tomorrow morning. That would be WILD 1090 AM at 7:30 a.m.

---

by: Speaking Out @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 19:18:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If Ben is so guilty he'll stay in jail (0.00 / 0)

There are too many mitigating facts surrounding this case not to allow another trial. If a fingerprint report was requested, yet not given, then the state has an obligation to let another trial be conducted. The chain of custody has been broken on many of the items of evidence, and for the actual fingerprints to be missing is over the top. There is no way to justify the fact that these fingerprints were lost, or that the report was not given to the defense. I see that the prosecution tries to say the report would not have changed the juror's minds. It would have been the ONLY forensic evidence in this case, so I think that is an outright lie. I know if I were a juror and there were fingerprints on a phone touched by the assailant just moments before the police get there, and they weren't the defendant's, I would have serious doubts. I also know if I were a lawyer and prints were available to test, I would have compared them to the man who people suspect is the true rapist. I won't use his name, but everyone knows that this man went on to be convicted of raping someone else. He matched Ben's description so well that even Ben's own father mistook him for Ben at a distance once.

Yes, the fingerprints are that big of a deal. I want the truth to come out, and if the state thinks its case is so solid against Ben LaGuer they should stop running like they have something to hide. We need to make sure that we have the right man in jail instead of turning a blind eye. Sending an innocent man to serve life in jail is as heinous a crime as Ben LaGuer is accused of, so let's be sure.

---

by: John Hosty-Grinnell @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 19:39:59 PM CST