Time for honesty

I honestly don't care whether Deval Patrick gave $5 or $5 million to help convicted rapist Benjamin LaGuer get a DNA test. By giving the money, at least he was trying to get at the truth.

And I honestly don't care that he helped a cop killer in Florida escape the death penalty. For good or bad, that's what defense lawyers do.

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.

I like this guy, Patrick. I really do. He's optimistic, and he's charismatic, and he'd give Massachusetts something different than it's had on Beacon Hill for the last 16 years, which is an activist government looking to solve problems at all levels of society.

But ever since he won the Democratic nomination, he's barely missed an opportunity to disappoint. The public doesn't need more slogans about togetherness and accusations that the other side is playing rough.

It needs honesty, and it needs maturity. Patrick can't change the past. The question nags over whether he can do better than he's already done.

Brian McGrory is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at mcgrory@globe.com.