SEE THE COMPLETE PACKAGE including multimedia resources here
Can a trace of DNA change this man’s fate?
By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer
In prisoner Dennis Dechaine’s latest bid for a new trial, the key piece of evidence is actually old news.
Accompanied by his attorney Steve Peterson, Dennis Dechaine listens to a reporter's questions during an interview at the Maine State Prison in Warren on March 22. With a new appeal more than two decades after his conviction in the death of Sarah Cherry, no other case has been litigated in Maine's court system for so long.
March 2010 photo by Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer
Thomas Connolly, the Portland lawyer who represented Dennis Dechaine at his 1989 trial, says he regrets not pushing harder for pretrial DNA testing. "I wasn't hanging my hat on the DNA at the time," Connolly said this spring. "It was only after the verdict that I realized the enormity of it.'
December 2006 file photo/The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram
It is a fragment of unidentified male DNA, extracted by scientists in 1994 from a thumbnail clipping of 12-year-old murder victim Sarah Cherry.
Dechaine was convicted of the murder in 1989 and is serving a life sentence. He says he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that another man set him up.
Prosecutors say the right man is behind bars.
Although the mystery DNA was discovered 16 years ago, an upcoming court hearing would be the first time for that evidence to be considered by a judge. It took a new state law in 2001, a revision of that law in 2006, additional genetic tests on the thumbnail by the state and the defense, and a great deal of legal wrangling to reach this point.
At the hearing, tentatively scheduled for September, Dechaine’s legal team must convince a judge that jurors in 1989 probably would have acquitted him if they had known about the thumbnail DNA.
His lawyers also will ask Justice Carl O. Bradford to consider other evidence in the case, such as recently obtained opinions about Sarah Cherry’s time of death, and information about alternate suspects.
But the crux of the motion is the DNA, whether it will be deemed credible by the judge, and whether it raises enough doubt for a new trial to be granted in one of Maine’s most notorious homicides.
“That is overwhelming evidence, in our view, that it was not Dennis Dechaine who did this,” said his attorney, Steve Peterson of Rockport.
‘THIS CAN’T ... BE RANDOM’
Sarah Cherry was abducted while baby-sitting at a home in Bowdoin on July 6, 1988. Her body was found two days later, in the woods about three miles north of the home.
Her wrists were tied together in front of her chest. A gag had been placed in her mouth and a scarf was wrapped around her neck. The killer sexually assaulted her with sticks, and tortured her with a small blade before strangling her.
Papers belonging to Dechaine were found in the driveway of the house where Sarah had been baby-sitting.
His truck was found about 450 feet from the body. The rope and scarf used to commit the crime had come from Dechaine’s truck. He walked out of the woods on the night of July 6 in the general vicinity of his truck and Sarah Cherry’s body.
Dechaine maintains that he went into the woods that afternoon to inject drugs and to wander around. He says he was alone the whole day, got lost, and someone must have grabbed his papers, the rope and the scarf from his truck.
“I offered up my truck willingly for them to go through,” Dechaine said during a March 22 interview at the Maine State Prison in Warren.
“They went through it microscopically. There was absolutely no proof that Sarah Cherry had ever been in my vehicle.
There’s no proof that Sarah Cherry ever knew me, or that I ever knew her.
“And there is no doubt in my mind that whoever took Sarah Cherry knew who she was and where she was. This can’t possibly be random.”
Dechaine hopes his defense team will be able to obtain DNA samples from a number of people, including a list of alternate suspects put together by private investigators who have worked on his behalf.
DNA ‘DOESN’T SHOW ANYTHING’
State prosecutors say Dechaine murdered Sarah Cherry, the evidence proved it, and the DNA is irrelevant.
The thumbnail was subject to possible contamination both during the autopsy and during the year it was in the custody of Dechaine’s trial lawyer, Tom Connolly, said William Stokes, head of the criminal division at the state Attorney General’s Office.
“Our position has been that the most likely source of that DNA is contamination at the time of the autopsy, since nail clippers were reused from autopsy to autopsy at that time and were stored in a way that was conducive to contamination,” Stokes said.
Clippers, blades and other equipment used by medical examiners in 1988, he said, were stored in a toolbox lined with a towel.
While scientists have confirmed the existence of the DNA on Sarah Cherry’s thumbnail, they cannot say what type of material it is. It could be from blood, saliva or even a particle of skin. The only other biological material found on the thumbnail was her own blood.
Stokes said there was no evidence suggesting that Sarah Cherry had scratched her killer; state chemists found no tissue underneath her fingernails.
Even if the unknown DNA somehow got transferred to the thumbnail before her death, that doesn’t prove someone else killed her, Stokes said. Unlike a rape case, where a sperm sample can identify or clear a defendant, DNA on a murder victim’s fingers doesn’t automatically identify the killer.
“What does the DNA prove? From our perspective, it doesn’t show anything.”
SEARCH CONTINUES FOR IDENTITY
The male DNA profile found on Sarah Cherry’s thumbnail is incomplete; there is enough genetic material to rule out most people as the source, but there is not enough to conclusively identify an individual.
In 2004, the state crime lab ran the partial profile through a database containing DNA profiles of convicted felons in Maine. Seven possible matches were identified.
Crime lab officials reviewed the histories of the men, and conducted further analysis on the DNA profiles, and ruled them out as potential suspects.
The list of the convicts whose DNA matched the partial profile on the thumbnail remains under seal by an order of the court.
“With partial profiles, you have to be careful because you may actually implicate a lot of innocent people,” Stokes said. “We just don’t have enough of a profile to make a perfect match.”
Dechaine criticized the Attorney General’s Office for not doing more to determine the source of the DNA.
“Is that really why we hire prosecutors? Is that why we hire police?” he said. “It would seem to me that anything that could be examined and investigated should be. I would obviously put DNA at the top of that list.”
Although neither side has determined whose DNA is on Sarah Cherry’s thumbnail, they have ruled out more than a dozen people who had contact with her.
Lawyers who handled the evidence envelopes, police officers and members of the Medical Examiner’s Office were all tested and excluded. Family members of Sarah Cherry also were ruled out.
Peterson said the defense also reviewed some autopsies that were performed before Sarah’s body was delivered to the Medical Examiner’s Office. None of the autopsies reviewed provided a match.
JUDGE DENIES TESTING
After Sarah Cherry’s fingernails were clipped during her autopsy in July 1988, a state chemist used up all of them – except for the thumbnails – while testing for blood types.
Chemist Judith Brinkman determined that the blood found on her fingernails was a match for Sarah. Because her hands had been bound in front of her body, the blood likely was transferred as Sarah groped at her upper chest and neck, where she had been stabbed repeatedly.
About three months before his trial was set to begin, Dechaine asked for a continuance and for DNA testing of the bloodstained thumbnails.
DNA profiling was considered pioneer science at the time. In 1988, an appeals court in Florida was the first U.S. court to admit DNA findings as evidence. Courts around the country were developing standards for how DNA evidence would be handled by lawyers, judges and juries.
While DNA findings had not yet been admitted in a Maine court, the state Attorney General’s Office was using the technology by the summer of 1988. Several months before Dechaine made his request, the state sent out items for testing at a commercial lab in New York in connection with a homicide in Fayette.
A hearing on Dechaine’s request for DNA testing was held in front of Justice Bradford on Jan. 27, 1989.
The judge relied primarily on input from Brinkman, who had spoken with staffers at a lab in California. They thought the chances of getting usable results were remote, because of the small amount of blood on the nails.
In light of Brinkman’s testimony and the other evidence in the case, Bradford denied the request for testing, which would have delayed the trial for at least a few months.
“I have never gotten over the fact that the judge ruled against me,” Dechaine said. “My personal feeling is that there was one overlying reason, and that was that it was simply inconvenient to the court schedule.”
Connolly, Dechaine’s trial lawyer, blames himself for not pushing harder for pretrial DNA testing. Connolly said he failed to bring in his own expert to argue against Brinkman and the state prosecutors.
“I wasn’t hanging my hat on the DNA at the time. I thought we were going to win with or without it,” Connolly said during an interview at his office in March.
“It was only after the verdict that I realized the enormity of it.”
LONG, STRANGE JOURNEY FOR CLIPPINGS
But Connolly did one thing that has essentially kept the case open ever since: During the trial, he placed a defense exhibit sticker on the sealed envelope that contained Sarah’s thumbnails, even though they technically belonged to the state.
Then he got a letter from court officials in 1992, saying the exhibits would be destroyed if the lawyers did not pick them up. After writing back to make sure there was not some mistake, Connolly picked up the envelope.
Connolly sent the package for DNA testing at CBR Laboratories in Boston, using money raised by Dechaine’s supporters.
State prosecutors found out that Connolly had the nails, and he returned them to state officials under an order from Bradford in late 1993. The results from the lab came back in 1994, showing a mixture of Sarah’s blood with DNA from an unknown individual, not Dechaine.
Dechaine filed two court appeals in the years following the discovery of the thumbnail DNA – a petition for post-conviction review with the state supreme court in 1995, and a federal habeas corpus petition in 2000 – asking the court to decide the legality of his imprisonment. Connolly resigned as Dechaine’s lawyer in 1995 because the appeal focused on the claim that Connolly had provided ineffective counsel.
In both appeals, judges determined that the case did not merit any new hearings.
State supreme court Justice Donald Marden and U.S. Magistrate Judge David Cohen, in written opinions, said that even with knowledge of the thumbnail DNA, a reasonable juror could have found Dechaine guilty.
“The presence of a DNA profile inconsistent with those of either Cherry or Dechaine does not in itself undermine the weight of the evidence against Dechaine,” Cohen wrote.
DOORS OPEN FOR DNA APPEALS
Just as it seemed that Dechaine had exhausted all of his legal options, the Maine Legislature in 2001 passed a law giving prisoners the right to seek new trials based on DNA evidence.
Dechaine’s new lawyer, M. Michaela Murphy of Waterville, filed a motion for a new trial in May 2003.
She got help from the Innocence Project, a national organization founded by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, who became famous as members of O.J. Simpson’s “Dream Team.” The project is dedicated to the exoneration of wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing. Six staff lawyers are currently working on about 300 active cases, including Dechaine’s.
According to statistics compiled by the Innocence Project, 255 people in 34 states have been exonerated through DNA evidence in the past 21 years. None of those exonerations has been in Maine. In New England, Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only states to have adjudicated DNA-based exonerations, with nine and three respectively.
The majority of the exonerations have occurred after a full DNA profile was obtained from testing of evidence such as blood or semen found on a victim, and the profile did not match the person convicted of the crime, the Innocence Project reports. The group does not keep data on exonerations based on partial DNA profiles, such as the one extracted from Sarah Cherry’s thumbnail.
Murphy and state prosecutors agreed in 2003 to a new round of DNA testing for the thumbnail clippings. The results confirmed those from the 1994 test: One of the thumbnails contained a mixture of Sarah’s blood with unidentified DNA. The new tests also showed the unidentified DNA belonged to a male.
A hearing was scheduled in September 2005, but Murphy abruptly withdrew her motion just before it was set to begin.
In order to get a new trial, Dechaine would have needed to prove that the DNA on the thumbnail was not his, and that only the real killer could have left it on Sarah’s thumbnail. It was an unfair demand on the defendant, and one that the lawyers could not possibly meet, Murphy said at the time.
Michigan and Maine were the only states in the country that put such a heavy burden on convicts.
Dechaine’s supporters lobbied for a change in the law that would bring Maine in line with the majority of states. In the spring of 2006, the Legislature revised the statute. Lawmakers critical of the revision dubbed it “The Dennis Dechaine Bill.”
Under the revised law, a convicted person has to show that the DNA evidence, had it been available at the trial, probably would have resulted in an acquittal.
In August 2008, Peterson filed the motion for a new trial based on the revised law. Murphy was forced to leave the case behind because she took a post as a Superior Court justice.
Since the time that Peterson filed the motion, little progress has been made toward a hearing. But Peterson and Stokes recently agreed on a schedule that set a hearing date for September.
In the meantime, Peterson has asked the court for $6,500 to have some of the original evidence tested again for DNA. That evidence includes the sticks, the rope, the bandana and the scarf used to kill Sarah Cherry.
Tests on those items in the past decade failed to detect the DNA of anyone other than the 12-year-old victim, but
Peterson wants them tested again using a scraping method that has not been tried on the items. Peterson also intends to have the thumbnail clippings tested one more time.
The court has not yet ruled on his request for funds. If he is denied, Peterson said he will turn to private sources.
Other evidence that might have yielded DNA results was incinerated by the state in 1992. At that time, it was routine for the state to destroy evidence that was not introduced by either side at trial. Several items from the murder investigation were incinerated, including the jeans Sarah Cherry was wearing, hairs found on her body and swabs of Sarah’s body that were obtained during the autopsy.
The state is now required to preserve all physical evidence in cases where the identity of the perpetrator is disputed.
That requirement was part of the 2001 state law governing post-conviction appeals based on DNA evidence.
“It’s unfortunate,” Peterson said of the 1992 incineration. “Now that we’ve proven the technology to be as good as it is, it would have been helpful to have those items available for testing.”
Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:
tmaxwell@pressherald.com
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
261 COMMENTS
MyPortland said...
Guilty...
July 11, 2010 at 3:58 AM Report abuse
GregHoward said...
MyPortland, I am sure your review of the facts of the case is as extensive and in depth as your comment.
July 11, 2010 at 4:28 AM Report abuse
UofA said...
This whole case sounds like a Keystone cops rerun. Did Saturday Night Live have anything to do with the State's part?
July 11, 2010 at 5:18 AM Report abuse
otisslee said...
Dechaine said. “My personal feeling is that there was one overlying reason (for failure to test the DNA at the original trial), and that was that it was simply inconvenient to the court schedule.” I'll bet truer words were never spoken. What a shame that court process was more important than pursuit of truth. Had these knuckleheads simply been thorough, they would have either extinguished all doubt or learned the truth. Clearly they were more interested in their vacation schedule.
July 11, 2010 at 5:23 AM Report abuse
tallngoofy62 said...
William Stokes and his cronies are desperately trying to cover up a botched investigation and trial. Dechaine is a scapegoat. The "authorities" were under pressure to convict a person as soon as possible and they grabbed the first person that they found. So instead of investigating further blatant leads the "authorities" convicted the wrong person. This isn't the first time that something like this has happened to an innocent person and it won't be the last. Stokes and all his cronies must feel the guilt of this travesty. And they must right their wrong.
July 11, 2010 at 6:02 AM Report abuse
BenMatlock said...
Innocent people don't say "You have no proof." Dechaine IS the killer. Based on the totality of the circumstances, trace male DNA is NOT reasonable doubt that can overturn the enormous mountain of evidence against him.
July 11, 2010 at 6:04 AM Report abuse
otisslee said...
Ben Matlock. You are correct that innocent people seldom say "you have no proof". It is also true that innocent people seldom willingly turn over their trucks to police, undergo lie detection, etc. Ben, when innocent people have spent years in jail they do begin to say "you have no proof" because there is nothing else for them to say.
July 11, 2010 at 6:18 AM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
THE REASON prosecutors didn't want DNA tests before the trial is simple: their own lab expert told them that the blood under Sarah's nails wasn't Dechaine's blood type -- so they knew that DNA tests coouldn't help them to convict him, and might well destroy their circumstantial case against him.
July 11, 2010 at 6:30 AM Report abuse
tallngoofy62 said...
Circumstantial proof. Not positive proof. And what, might I ask, is this "mountain of evidence" against him? What Directly links Dechaine to Cherry's murder? What is the Positive, absolute evidence? Not the hearsay "evidence". Not the made up stuff.
July 11, 2010 at 6:33 AM Report abuse
califbound said...
They are so willing to cover up their incompetence at investigating this case that they are opening the door for probably many more retrials. If they are allowed to maintain that the nail clippers may have been contaminated, they are saying that any and all who have been convicted by such evidence should be allowed a new trial. Is that really what they want to happen? And what about the footprints that they found and did not immediately investigate. They may have saved her life if they had followed up on that. If I were part of Sarah's family, I would want to be SURE that her killer was in jail. My heart continues to go out to her family.
July 11, 2010 at 6:42 AM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
tallngoofy -- the notebook, receipt, rope, bandanna, and scarf were made up? The corrections officers made up the statements that Dechaine made to them? Wow -- talk about a vast conspiracy . . .
July 11, 2010 at 6:44 AM Report abuse
califbound said...
Hey OldGuy, I like your thinking!
July 11, 2010 at 6:44 AM Report abuse
tallngoofy62 said...
Absolutely. Hundreds of thousands of new trials. Everywhere. Hell, there goes Stokes tripping all over his big tongue again. With "authorities" like these clowns, our world is in for one messed up future. And we must watch our backs diligently or we will be in the same boat as Dechaine. As for those footprints...they led directly to a convicted child molesters home. And yet that sheriff deputy who discovered these prints didn't follow them and inquire about them at this home. Just another one of the botches to add to all the other ones.
July 11, 2010 at 7:00 AM Report abuse
JWR said...
When he gets out I hope he seeks counseling for his drug addition. And maybe he could help all those other innocent people in prison get out. You know, 9 out of 10 people in prison are innocent.
July 11, 2010 at 7:37 AM Report abuse
Art said...
The DNA does not exonerate Dechaine but merely suggests that he may not have acted alone.
July 11, 2010 at 7:49 AM Report abuse
Roscoe said...
There are 2 cases currently in the news in Illinois. In 1 case the man who made the "False Confession" has been completely exonerated. In the second case, it is looking like a man who has spent 5 years in jail waiting for trial will soon have his "False Confession" thrown out because of new evidence that indicates he is not guilty. Those who review the facts of the Dechaine case and are convinced of his guilt should read about these 2 cases in Illinois. You might begin to understand why some of us are skeptical of the police work surrounding this case. If the cesspool that is the Illinois legal system can get it right... Why can't we do it in Maine. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-forced-confessions-20100711,0,5509713.story
July 11, 2010 at 7:51 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
“I offered up my truck willingly for them to go through,” Dechaine said during a March 22 interview at the Maine State Prison in Warren.________Sure you did! Dechaine actually hid the key in the back seat of the cop car. His truck was found locked by police. Dechaine claimed the truck was unlocked when he parked it. Truth is he locked the truck after forcing the victim from the vehicle into the woods. When he was first questioned he knew the items used to bind and gag the victim would come back to haunt him. Dechaine then slid the key between the seat of the cop car in attempt to claim someone else had access to the truck. He further claimed they took those items and must have relocked the vehicle taking the key too. That's when the alternate suspect tale begin. What was Dechaine really doing in that patch of woods that day?
July 11, 2010 at 7:54 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
otisslee said...It is also true that innocent people seldom willingly turn over their trucks to police,...when innocent people have spent years in jail they do begin to say "you have no proof" because there is nothing else for them to say.__________Dechaine did not "willingly turn over" his truck for examination. Dechaine hid the key in a cop car and police themselves obtained a search warrant as a routine matter. Convicts who can't come to grips with their commission of a crime always profess innocence even in the face of overwheling evidence. Dechaine will never admit the crime because to do so he himself will have to live with the killer inside his own sick persona.
July 11, 2010 at 8:03 AM Report abuse
Kate said...
I'm surprised the State didn't destroy any DNA samples. MyPortland, hope you are never on the wrong side of the law. I don't know all of the facts, but if he is innocent, I hope he goes free. I am certain there are many behind bars who shouldn't be.
July 11, 2010 at 8:09 AM Report abuse
skowreader said...
He is Guilty Portland... there is no dubt the right guy is behind bars. Some of these people forget that Dechaine told many stories, but that doesn't matter.. the state is covering things up. I can't believe people are trying to free a murderer. The evidence against dechaine is overwhelming. They can put him at the residence, in the woods where the body was found, material from his vehicle, and on and on and on!! This thumbnail means nothing. He is where he belongs . I just hope before he dies in jail that he finally ask for forgiveness,but he will be judged by a much greater power!!
July 11, 2010 at 8:12 AM Report abuse
america said...
it amazes me people are so convinced one way or another. noone knows or will ever know the truth, except for dennis, as any eveidence that could have helped find the truth is gone. saying you were in the woods doing drugs was like confessing, as he will never be beieved because he is a drug addict, any other reason, and they might have treated him fairly,
July 11, 2010 at 8:13 AM Report abuse
mainelined said...
In my opinion Deschaines own words are completely inconsistent with innocence, and any competent attorney will tear him up on the stand. But...... I don't have a problem with another trial, even though I doubt any judge will grant one with this flimsy non-evidence. The DNA could have been picked up in any number of ways and does not have to have been placed at the time of murder. However, I'd like to see another trial. When he is found guilty a second time, maybe we will be free of him and his rabid supporters.
July 11, 2010 at 8:19 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
From the 2000 ruling. “Finally, three Attorneys aver that Carlton indicated to them that Dechaine was guilty; most chillingly, that Carlton conveyed to LaRochelle of the Attorney General’s Office on the morning of July 8, 1988 _ before Cherry’s body was found _ that Cherry was no longer alive and that searchers were looking in the right place. Dechaine was arrested that afternoon and charged with the murder of Cherry. Id., Vol. IV at 803 (testimony of Alfred Hendsbee). Westrum, who helped book Dechaine that day, testified that Dechaine became emotional, crying and sobbing and saying, “Oh my God; it should have never happened. . . . Why did I do this?” Id., Vol. IV at 827, 830 (testimony of Mark Westrum).
July 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
According to Westrum, Dechaine’s comments at that time included the following: “I didn’t think it actually happened until I saw her face on the news; then it all came back to me. I remembered it. . . . Why did I kill her? . . . What punishment could they ever give me that would equal what I’ve done.” Id., Vol. IV at 831. Dechaine was transferred that evening to Lincoln County Jail. Id., Vol. V at 850, 854 (testimony of Darryl Robert Maxcy). Darryl Robert Maxcy, a Lincoln County corrections officer, testified that Dechaine said, “You people need to know I’m the one who murdered that girl, and you may want to put me in isolation.” Id., Vol. V at 855. A second corrections officer who was also present, Brenda Dermody, recalled Dechaine having made a nearly identical statement. Id., Vol. V at 872 (testimony of Brenda Dermody). Dechaine admitted the crime to Detectives, 3 attorneys, including his own, and two guards.
July 11, 2010 at 8:22 AM Report abuse
NurseCabin69 said...
Would it not seem that another person's DNA would have created "reasonable doubt" so that the jury may have come back with a different verdict? Is it not a person is considered "innocent until proven guilt beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT"? What is happening with our jurdical system?
July 11, 2010 at 8:24 AM Report abuse
SueBK said...
I followed this when it happen, through the courts, etc as much as I could. Although I wasn't in the court room, I'll never understand how they convicted this man on such shoddy evidence and obvious blunders. This is a bogus case connived by investigators and attorneys to make a quick conviction. Made them all look pretty good, set the public at ease, and ruined this mans life while the real killer remains free. How wonderful.
July 11, 2010 at 8:27 AM Report abuse
JWR said...
NurseCabin69,--That's what they hope to plant in the jury's mind if it goes to court again. DNA is the science and half of it is junk science. It has already been shown time and time again it is not fool prof. But with a 'reasonable doubt', he walks. And that boys and girls is the name of this new game.
July 11, 2010 at 8:30 AM Report abuse
irishvet said...
Let's remember that he was tried, judged and CONVICTED. I feel for the family that has to listen to all of this being brought up again. Try to remember that there is a family who will never talk to their little girl ever again.
July 11, 2010 at 8:33 AM Report abuse
JWR said...
What case is ever without missteps in investigations ? This case doesn't stand out then any other one except for the victim and brutality. He's got the best PR money could never buy,,,The Portland Press Herald. Yeah, this thing stinks, but not because of all the allege shoddy police work, but because it's taken the public 22 years to get really upset about it, why is that ? So, you think his time served has equal what you all view in your minds as a bad investigation ? Can any of you honestly say you know he's innocent ?
July 11, 2010 at 8:36 AM Report abuse
Jack24 said...
Guilty as charged.. This guy should shut up and do his time like all the other inmates at MSP.. We are spending to much money and time on this case. Let this poor little girls family griev in peace and not have to worry if this MONSTER will get another trial!
July 11, 2010 at 8:47 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Dechaine denied having the key to his locked truck until cops found it tucked between the seats in the police car. Think! Yes, think logically about what Dechaine and his supporters are asking people to believe. The real killer(s) come along to that very same patch of woods and find the truck. They then take rope, a bandana, and pocket knife from the truck to brutalize this poor girl. Then they grap Dechaine's personal papers and return to the scene to plant those documents in the driveway. Let's not forget too that at a later date after repeated denials Dechaine did admit he stopped in the driveway of the residence where the abduction took place. He claimed he stopped there only to urinate. Urinate in broad daylight of a residence he didn't even know the occupants. Is his story of all these events believable? Sure! So isn't the UFO aliens captured in Roswell New Mexico!
July 11, 2010 at 8:49 AM Report abuse
MainelyJack said...
"You know, 9 out of 10 people in prison are innocent."-JWR Putting on the tinfoil hat a bit early today...
July 11, 2010 at 9:10 AM Report abuse
EFitz said...
Sounds to me like TheSaint was there! Anyway - one has to ask oneself why certain evidence was incinerated, no? If the state routinely incinerated old evidence back in the day, then why wasn't all the evidence incinerated since the case was "closed"? Why only some? Anyone think maybe there could have been some evidence on the now-incinerated items that would have placed reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors?
July 11, 2010 at 9:11 AM Report abuse
Jonathan said...
PPH, why are you wasting reporting resources on this garbage?
July 11, 2010 at 9:14 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
The last time the same “evidence” was brought to the federal the judge ruled against Dechaine and wrote a detailed answer. It the best recorded of the events and DNA. If you have any question of Dechiane guilt read the record. http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Cohen/2000/DMC_07282000_2-00cv123_DECHAINE_V_WARDEN.PDF
July 11, 2010 at 9:15 AM Report abuse
WhoME said...
If I was on a Jury, there is still plenty of circumstantial to convict, a trace amount of DNA under a thumbnail that had a high chance of being contaminated, is not reasonable doubt. If some other suspect had taken the stuff out of his truck to frame him, why would they then lock the doors to the truck? They would have left them open for the police to search easily.
July 11, 2010 at 9:17 AM Report abuse
TJ said...
I have to apologise to Dechaine and all of his supporters who have maintained his innocence. I now understand! The proof of his innocence rest with DNA that was not his found under a nail clipping , believe it or not! A nail clipping that was, admittedly obtained at the autopsy by using common nail clippers that were not sanitized after each use, and kept in a common container with other implements that were similarly not sterile. A clipping that was in an envelope kept for years by his Defense attorney! Chain of custody- broken! My apology? You people are at best misguided or blinded by your feelings, or just no I won't say it!
July 11, 2010 at 9:19 AM Report abuse
Ladydiodes2 said...
This man does deserve a new trial, since the investigation was totally blotched to begin with. This DNA should have been tested, and proven one way or another if it is the defendants DNA. This man is not without blemish either, but as the saying goes "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit". Here is a clear example of botched investigation and an incompetent jury sent this man to prison.
July 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM Report abuse
dogz said...
This entire investigation was so bungled. I remember thinking this guy was railroaded was back then. Still feel the same way. Good luck, stay strong and never lose hope. May justice prevail soon and set you free, Mr Dechaine!
July 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM Report abuse
Janie said...
Nothing personal but give me a break folks..this is Maine..do you really think a coverup would last this long without someone saying something? Highly unlikely, also highly unlikely that the murderer of Sarah would stop with her. We've all had opportunity to look into the facts and they all lead to this man who is in jail where he belongs. I'm wondering if his family has some stake in the newspaper, we're sick of hearing about this one..leave him in jail and put this to an end.
July 11, 2010 at 9:23 AM Report abuse
Dee said...
After all these years in jail, Dechaine’s arguments still are very weak. Plus, how many times can a DNA test be done on one little clipping of a fingernail?
July 11, 2010 at 9:24 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
EFitz said... Sounds to me like TheSaint was there! Anyway - one has to ask oneself why certain evidence was incinerated, no? If the state routinely incinerated old evidence back in the day, then why wasn't all the evidence incinerated since the case was "closed"? Why only some? Anyone think maybe there could have been some evidence on the now-incinerated items that would have placed reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors?________All bio-evidence in trials that are considered Res Judicata are destroyed. The only bodily evidence that wasn't destroyed was the nail clipping that Dechaine's lawyer kept and handled unscientifically for over a year. That is the piece central to his appeal. That small nail clipping is very corrupted because of the chain of custody. Now will you please shut up for once until you can come up without something factual?
July 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM Report abuse
Dee said...
I also wonder if they tested the DNA found under his nail against the family members who she was working for at the time. If one of the children were male she could have scraped a small bit of skin from the child.
July 11, 2010 at 9:28 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
dogz said...Good luck, stay strong and never lose hope. May justice prevail soon and set you free, Mr Dechaine!________So you can kill again!
July 11, 2010 at 9:30 AM Report abuse
August1961 said...
"There was absolutely no proof that Sarah Cherry had ever been in my vehicle...There’s no proof that Sarah Cherry ever knew me, or that I ever knew her...." Where is the emphatic, desperate: "I didn't kill her her!"? Did he say that during the March 22 interview?
July 11, 2010 at 9:33 AM Report abuse
JWR said...
MainelyJack,--(I know it's over your head, but not the tin foil hat)
July 11, 2010 at 9:34 AM Report abuse
paperbackwri said...
This was a really horrible crime; I remember it clearly. I hope that after this last piece of evidence is examined, that this case is closed for good. I believe that he is the killer.
July 11, 2010 at 9:48 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
It fun to note the defenders will not address the confessions to 7 people. How Dechaines attorney told the DA the girl was dead and they were looking in the right place before the body was found. This is also part of record and can be used against Deshaine.
July 11, 2010 at 9:50 AM Report abuse
UofA said...
heyyou- Mark Westrum is nothing but a bald face liar and can't be depended on for anything he says under oath or just BSing.
July 11, 2010 at 10:02 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
One minor point. The knot used on the victim was very unsual. It's not commonly seen. Few people even know how to fashion it. One of the very few places where this type of knot is used and taught is agricultural programs of studies. Anyone want to take a guess what educational training our innocent Maine farmer Dechaine has?
July 11, 2010 at 10:11 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
Ok UofA, lets discount Westrum, what about the 6 other people DeChaine confessed to? His lawyer lying too?
July 11, 2010 at 10:23 AM Report abuse
Jack24 said...
This Monster Dechaine is getting his jollies by dragging this thing out.. He loves to put his victim's family thru Hell.. It helps him pass his time in Warren. I say enough is enough ignor this Monster and let him rot alone at the MSP and never to be heard from again until his Obituary! Case Closed..
July 11, 2010 at 10:24 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
If Westrum is lying, DeChaine’s lawyer conspired too. He told the girl was dead before she was found.
July 11, 2010 at 10:36 AM Report abuse
wingnut said...
The arguments presented here are more venomous than any seen during a political debate. While I would rather free 100 guilty than confine one innocent, I have to..gulp..I don't believe I am saying this..agree with The Saint. There should be little faith placed in a badly mishandled scrap of evidence. If the chain of custody had been maintained there might be some question. Are we even sure the nail clipping even came from the victim. I have yet to read the proof that the clipping actually belonged to Sarah. (I may have missed that while the trial was going on so long ago.) There is a mound of evidence against Deschaine. I guess we will have to sit back and wait. Maybe Libby the lawyer would like to take this one on.
July 11, 2010 at 10:37 AM Report abuse
heyyou said...
I understand why you people cannot address the facts about DeChaines’s lawyer. It kills any augment you have. The 6 other people who witnesses confessions is just icing on the cake.
July 11, 2010 at 10:40 AM Report abuse
MyPortland said...
GregHoward.... since this story came up AGAIN for this killer... yes, I did read up on his case... I can get into it, but ALL the inconsistant statements made by Dechaine, along with the facts can be taken one way, Again.... Guilty happy now?
July 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM Report abuse
Old-school said...
What would Dechaine's supporters say about DNA evidence used at trial to convict him if the evidence had been kept by someone not authorized to have custody of it for a prolonged period? They would say throw it out, it can't be admitted. But they want this in A jury of 12 people saw the evidence, heard the testimony and convicted this guy. He has made several spontaneous admissions. There are several pieces of critical physical eviedence. His truck was in close proximity to the body. He was seen coming out of the woods. A juror is not compelled to check his common sense at the door of the jury room. There is more than enough evidence to convict this guy. His friends and conspiracy theorists will never accept it, nor will he. He has spent all this time in prison convincing himself that the evidence was tainted or not admitted at trial. He cannot convince himself of his innocence, because he did it. If he gets a new trial, the result will be the same, and his disciples won't stop.
July 11, 2010 at 11:07 AM Report abuse
cowman said...
The truck could be locked without a key. The nail was in sealed state envelope. Confession testimony by Westrum and Hendsbee contradicted their own notes. Evidence was incinerated AFTER appeal was filed. Dennis has often stated he did not kill Sarah. Dennis never said he urinated in Henkel driveway. Gang, let's try using the facts!
July 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
"The DNA does not exonerate Dechaine but merely suggests that he may not have acted alone." gee didn't I see that same argument on 20/20 this week ?? YUP They sucessfully tried 2 guys, who had never met, for the same crime and called it a conspiracy. Looked to me like they had botched the case (DNA LATER found the right guy,) but they couldn't admit they were wrong so cooked up a NEW story conspiracy--they worked together!!! They had NEVER MET.
July 11, 2010 at 11:29 AM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
One of his supporters maybe can please explain how his lawyers would ever have been able to tell investigators that she was dead, and they were looking in the right place, if he is innocent... unknown DNA under the nails? Maybe he had an accomplice? Maybe he was afraid to implicate the accomplice? Maybe that accomplice is dead now, or really old and sick. Could well be that he figures now it's safe to do so... But is he "innocent" of any involvement in Sarah's abuse and death? Not until I hear some explanation as to the knowledge of Sarah's condition and location came to his lawyers.
July 11, 2010 at 11:36 AM Report abuse
baha said...
Hope the inmates do what is right. End this for all of us.
July 11, 2010 at 11:38 AM Report abuse
Divinity said...
AKMaineiac said..."is he "innocent" of any involvement in Sarah's abuse and death? Not until I hear some explanation as to the knowledge of Sarah's condition and location came to his lawyers" _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ While walking in the woods, a man noticed a dead bear. He told someone what he had seen and where. What is his crime?
July 11, 2010 at 11:41 AM Report abuse
Old-school said...
Cowman, explain the lawyer's statement concerning looking in the right place. Why did Dechaine try to hide the key in the cruiser? Where did the scarf, notebook, knife and bandana come from? How about the other people who testified to admissions or incriminating statements? How about Deschaine admitting he was in the driveway, whether urinating or not? There is no evidence, none, that someone else took items from his truck and planted them in the driveway. There is no evidence that someone else took the scarf and other items from his truck used to kill the girl. Saying that someone could have done those things is not evidence. There has to be a reason to believe it before actual eveidence can be ignored. And there isn't one. The thumbnail was outside the chain of custody for a year, sealed envelope on not. You would be screaming if it was used to convict, but it is no problem now. Common sense, Cowman, common sense.
July 11, 2010 at 11:42 AM Report abuse
Snooks said...
I, too, have been following this case since it all began many years ago, with disgust and disbelief. My heart truly goes out to lil Sarah and her last moments here on Earth. And it is only for HER, that I want the real killer to be behind bars where he belongs. Deep down, I have had my doubts about whether Dennis did this or not. I thought then and still believe that there was a mishandling of justice. Firstly, why wasn't there any of Sarah's blood on Dennis or his vehicle? Wouldn't there have been blood splatter? Secondly, if I remember correctly, wasn't Sarah supposed to testify for a female family member on a molestation case against a male that Sarah knew well? (don't quote me, but I THINK it was her stepdad). Then after Dennis was convicted, that "supposed" male sex offender moved out of state. I have to ask, was the DNA tested against THAT male? I want to believe that all this is for the victim's peace in the afterlife, and that we all can finally put it to rest. God Bless~ Sarah
July 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM Report abuse
VickiJ said...
I always thought this crime was what was botched . . . by Deschaine.
July 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM Report abuse
jude said...
Where are all the capital punishment advocates today? In death penalty states this one's a slam dunk for execution. I tend to oppose capital punishment in the abstract, but in this case, with this kind of brutality against a child, I say take him out and shoot him.
July 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Old School, Dennis never said he was ever in the Henkel driveway. Atty. Carlton was an alcoholic felon (tax evasion) who denied he ever said what others claimed he said, but did once say that if a suspect said he couldn't remember everything, he probably did it. Evidence that the truck had been tossed included a Tampax box left in plain sight. Of course the scarf, rope, bandanna, papers came from the truck -- the killer took them. He had 3 1/3 hours to plant the papers, which were found AHEAD of the tire tracks, 3 of which the State Police expert stated could be "excluded" as being Dennis's. The 4th was a common tread. No knife was ever found. Let's stick with the facts, gang.
July 11, 2010 at 12:04 PM Report abuse
MICKEY1947 said...
Everyboby at the srare prison says they aren't guilty, they were set up, someone else must have down it. "You do the crime you do the time". Dechaine is - GUITY. He is going to get out of Maine State Prison WHEN HE DIES. All kinds of evidence places him at the crime scene. GUITY-GUILTY-GULITY-GUILTY-GUILTY-GUILTY.
July 11, 2010 at 12:06 PM Report abuse
jude said...
One paragraph on page 3 is all this story merits. For the newspaper to keep milking this thing, giving this guy a soapbox, is shameful.
July 11, 2010 at 12:14 PM Report abuse
Festus2 said...
where I do believe that police want to close cases whether or not justice has been served because their performance reviews depend on closure of cases, this case has been beaten to death (no pun intended). This guy is probably believing his own lies, being a self confessed injector of drugs. Enough already. Put him in a cell with Bubba.
July 11, 2010 at 12:15 PM Report abuse
BHO said...
This man is GUILTY....and anyone that doesn't know that is.....BRAIN DEAD!
July 11, 2010 at 12:20 PM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
Divinity said... While walking in the woods, a man noticed a dead bear. He told someone what he had seen and where. What is his crime?___ If the bear is tied up with rope from the man's truck, and paperwork from the man's truck is found in the driveway of the bear's cave, "poaching".
July 11, 2010 at 12:22 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Today's MST story states that months before the trial the state was having evidence from a murder/rape in Fayette tested for DNA. This case was finally solved this year with fingernail DNA. Yet in Dennis's case the state opposed testing of fingernail DNA evidence, and still claims that it is of no significance. They can't have it both ways. The people truly interested in law and order are to be found in Trial & Error, not in the AG's Office.
July 11, 2010 at 12:29 PM Report abuse
Theresa42 said...
The autopsy report was reviewed in 2009. According to the forensic expert, little Sarah's death happened no more then 24 hours before she was found, not 30 hours as concluded initially. http://media.kjonline.com/documents/dechaine_tod_op_hofman.pdf
July 11, 2010 at 12:44 PM Report abuse
Ramparts said...
Festus2....no case has been "beaten to death" when there is a possibility of an innocent person incarcerated. Lets hope this type of situation (being in the wrong place at the wrong time) never happens to you or your family!
July 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
AKMaineiac said..."If the bear is tied up with rope from the man's truck, and paperwork from the man's truck is found in the driveway of the bear's cave, "poaching"." _____________________________________________________________________________________ OK, so it's not the "Not until I hear some explanation as to the knowledge of Sarah's condition and location came to his lawyers" question that prevents you from considering his innocence. Ak is like a stubborn dog - if shaking it up and down doesn't get what he wants, he just switches to shaking it sideways.
July 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM Report abuse
Me13 said...
I believe he really doesn't have enough evidence through just the finger nail clipping... Maybe he would have had a chance and we could all have our minds set at ease if they wouldn't have destroyed all evidence that contained DNA in the first place. Bad move on the authorities part..Thank God our technology has come a long way.. If Dechaine is innocent-then I'm deeply sorry for an innocent mans LIFE to be completely ruined...while the real murderer is still out there...who KNOWS! But- if Dechaine is guilty- we could have found that out a LONG time ago through REAL factual evidence...Case would be closed by now. So, for someone to destroy the evidence because maybe they thought they were so certain they caught the right guy? Something about this case doesn't seem right.. I don't know who to believe. All we need to remember is that innocent people HAVE suffered for other peoples crimes. Hope someone fesses up whether it be Dechaine or authorities.
July 11, 2010 at 1:07 PM Report abuse
heyyou said...
Yes, Thereas you can find an expert to say anything. But the expert at the trial is the one the counted.
July 11, 2010 at 1:09 PM Report abuse
Robinwhod said...
Remember OJ was innocent too...
July 11, 2010 at 1:18 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...Old School, Dennis never said he was ever in the Henkel driveway. Gang, let's try using the facts!_________Actually, Dechaine denied being in the Henkel driveway_____at first! When confronted with the fact his personal papers were found in the driveway Dechaine said someone must have put them there. When the cops weren't buying into that fantasy, Dechaine added that he did stop in a driveway on that road to urinate and his papers must have fallen out. His vehicle was also seen by a neighbor on that very stretch of road the day of the abduction. Even to this day Dechaine claims he stopped at a house to relive himself. The police report itself confirms Dechaine's statement. Who in this world stops at a stranger's house in broad daylight to urinate? More BS from Dechaine. Yes, "let's try using the facts"!
July 11, 2010 at 1:25 PM Report abuse
YimWingChun said...
If this guy is in fact innocent (which I'm not saying he is- I have no idea), wrongly convicted, and been spending all of these years in prison, he should be awarded a minimum of $50,000 for each & every year that he has been incarcerated.
July 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
Divinity said... AKMaineiac said..."If the bear is tied up with rope from the man's truck, and paperwork from the man's truck is found in the driveway of the bear's cave, "poaching"." __________OK, so it's not the "Not until I hear some explanation as to the knowledge of Sarah's condition and location came to his lawyers" question that prevents you from considering his innocence. Ak is like a stubborn dog - if shaking it up and down doesn't get what he wants, he just switches to shaking it sideways. _________ No more than you, Divinity. You want me to ignore the "totality of the circumstances", and reality, and view the single piece of the entire picture through a microscope. Then you want me to tell you what color I see, and determine the color of the entire picture based on the microscopic image. You don't get to frame the debate, that's not your position here. It's a comment board, you're not the moderator. See it how you do, I'll see it how I do.
July 11, 2010 at 1:39 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
relieve himself
July 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM Report abuse
Me13 said...
Snooks.. I don't know if anyone payed attention to your comment- but I think it makes a lot of sense. Hopefully that's something that was even considered in the trial..______________________People, please remember that not every case is the same..Even if there are thousands of people in jail, does that truly mean that every single one of them is guilty without the proven DNA evidence? This case is mysterious, and who is any one to judge without actually KNOWING what truly happened??
July 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
DRUGS DID IT....at least it seems to me the tact that the A.G.'s office took since Dechaine was incapable? of remembering what he took and what happened while tripping...growing weed or shrooms in someone else's woods? Giving DNA evidence to Connerly was a great way to have it disallowed at a later time....and the A.G.'s office knew it2 drag back the local child molester who fled to Florida; interview his buddies who knew Sarah Cherry and preyed on other teens, and find out who really 'did it'.
July 11, 2010 at 1:40 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Divinity said...Ak is like a stubborn dog - if shaking it up and down doesn't get what he wants, he just switches to shaking it sideways._______Actually, I'd say AK like most people are finding Dechaine's story a bit of a long stretch to say the least. A fair logical examination of the facts points directly to the real killer. That killer is being housed at the MSP and is still trying to weasel his way out after twenty-two years behind bars because Dechaine doesn't want to share a cell with the killer inside himself. The amazing thing is some people are actually buying into Dechaine's continual bull-shi______t!
July 11, 2010 at 1:52 PM Report abuse
mainelined said...
So much ruckus about one piece of trash in the state pen. Just let him be. Let him grow old and gray. And die. As a guilty piece of trash.
July 11, 2010 at 2:03 PM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
Should he actually pull this dog and pony show off, and is "acquitted" as a result, he will have "gotten away with murder". He'll be another O.J., and our justice system will once again have proven, "It is better to see a guilty man go free than to imprison an innocent man." So be it.
July 11, 2010 at 2:05 PM Report abuse
gramlil said...
it does sound like he did it, but what if the DNA proves different. Are the enforcement officers so self important that they would let a killer remain at large while a man who is innocent pay for the rest of his life for wrong doing. The system repeatedly makes deals with those they take in custody. Either you plead guilty for the lesser crime or we will nail you will the bigger one and the person didn't actually do anything. I think bullying people who are suspects needs to stop, enforcement needs to accept that they are human and not superman with never makeing a mistake. So bite the bullet and take the DNA and check it out.When the DNA comes back then argue your points of not. Maybe it will be his afterall, what can it really hurt to at least try it.How would you like your , parent, partner or loved one in jail for something they did not do and someone else dies later by the real killer. who is to blame then someone arrogent or the real truth.
July 11, 2010 at 2:15 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
August1961 said... "There was absolutely no proof that Sarah Cherry had ever been in my vehicle...There’s no proof that Sarah Cherry ever knew me, or that I ever knew her...." Where is the emphatic, desperate: "I didn't kill her her!"? Did he say that during the March 22 interview? ________Good point! I watched Dechaine's video interview on the Portland Press site a few minutes ago. I found it interesting Dechaine kept saying things like "I'm not a stupid man. If I did this I wouldn't have left my papers in the driveway". He also mentions other things he wouldn't have done if he was the killer. He's doing nothing more than being a Monday quarterback to his own mistakes during the killing he committed. Some will argue Dechaine is simply trying to explain reason of why he couldn't have done this. Too much evidence against him!
July 11, 2010 at 2:18 PM Report abuse
ontherun said...
If and when this ends, and if the sentence is upheld can someone PLEASE go around and peel the Deschaine bumper stickers off the cars and trucks?
July 11, 2010 at 2:19 PM Report abuse
mainermike said...
AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike Brown --- Murderers like the one that killed this victim enjoy seeing the one they're about to kill suffer. Killers typically feel that they're the ones that have been the victim, and now it's their turn to be the one with the power.
July 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM Report abuse
wingnut said...
Watch the video interview with this guy. He can't even keep eye contact with the interviewer while he proclaims his innocence. Constantly looking away, using his hand to partially hide his mouth., semi-slumped in the chair. I guess we will just have to wait and see who has hired the biggest liars.
July 11, 2010 at 2:31 PM Report abuse
gramlil said...
ok. a man and his wife go fishing and see another man sitting on a dock, the man has had enough of this wife and borrows the other mans boat, takes his wife out and dumps her into the ocean. comes back and goes home. Someone calls the cops and says a man with a boat just dumped a woman in the ocean. They go to the pier and there the other man still fishing, is this your boat, yes it is, well come with us you are a suspect for dumping a body into the ocean. but i was only fishing, your boat, her scarf and stuff is in it, now if you plead guilty now we will let you rot in jail for 25 years or we can have a trial and find you guilty as its your boat her stuff,or we can just execute you for her death in a week or so, your choice, 25 yr or death. you have 5 min to choose. ok, i take the 25 yr,ha ha, so you admit by doing this you are guilty as charged. Off to prison you go you murderer. Meanwhile the woman's husband goes to the pier picks up his pole and fishes.
July 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM Report abuse
AFVET said...
Baha: Good idea! Why don't you do it?
July 11, 2010 at 2:41 PM Report abuse
Sam said...
It is interesting that the prosecution rebuttal of the defense's case rests largely on the state' assertion that their own lab was extremely sloppy in handling key evidence and contaminated a murder victim's fingernail clipping.
July 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM Report abuse
mainermike said...
AS I SEE IT, by Mainer Mike Brown ---- The victim never gets a second chance at life, but the perpetrator does even after he's been convicted. How unfair to the loved ones of the deceased. I know that it's important for the law to be careful that they have the right person locked up. But their comes a point where the poor loved ones of the murder victim shouldn't have to worry about the individual they feel is the killer to be let out of the slammer someday.
July 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
Not interested in debating dead bears in the woods, people fishing. If there is DNA evidence under her fingernails, it proves there is DNA evidence under her nails. It does not exculpate the guy they have in jail now. Nor does it implicate the person the DNA belongs to. It's one part of a very large picture. To most people, that picture is Dennis killing Sarah.
July 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Read the headline. "Can a trace of DNA change this man’s fate"? It could if it wasn't so contaminated and came from a proper evidential chain of custody. Keep in mind Dechaine's very own attorney had this small clipping for over a year in a desk drawer. Also, look at this thing another way. There is zip, zero, nothing to support Dechaine's claim of innocence. The opposite is overwhelming! The nail clipping "trace" DNA itself has already twice been ruled as meaningless by both State and Federal judges. It doesn't prove anything. That DNA could have come from almost anyone and anywhere. Just how many shots at innocence does a guilty man get when he can't bring anything to the table other than a claim "I didn't do it"? I guess the deceased and her family are just that______victims!
July 11, 2010 at 3:07 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Dechaine says,"There’s no proof that Sarah Cherry ever knew me, or that I ever knew her." Sorry, but that sentence is wrought with guilt. Innocent people would argue they did not know the victim, not refute that there was actual proof. Everything except the possible trace DNA from under the victims single nail points to Dechaine, and the victim is not able to explain the trace DNA. Who's is it? A friend, sister, brother, parent, maybe it's there with a fully logical innocent reason.
July 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Most people here have CSI syndrome. Suddenly all the television shows make solving crimes look fast and easy and you think it's reality. Actual DNA testing doesn't happen nearly is fast in the real world. Conclusive evidence and methods that you see on TV didn't exist when this case was being solved, thus the evidence was never collected as it would be today. Maybe you'd like to let all murders be retried under the new methods of evidence collection?
July 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
The State’s theory of the case is disproved by science, the documented lies they’ve told and the evidence they concealed until the Legislature and a court forced them to open their secret file. The scenerio offered by Dechaine’s supporters is supported by ALL of the evidence. IT’S THE EVIDENCE, STUPID!
July 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
OldGuy said... "THE REASON prosecutors didn't want DNA tests before the trial is simple: their own lab expert told them that the blood under Sarah's nails wasn't Dechaine's blood type -- so they knew that DNA tests coouldn't help them to convict him, and might well destroy their circumstantial case against him." Yeah, because the police and AG's are much more interested in jailing anyone than the real killer right? You fools and Dechaine are just wasting more taxpayers money. All the other stuff was just coincidence, that he happen to be a convenient person to frame that day? Who could have known he'd be off in those woods getting high? Man how about a freaking dose of reality! GUILTY!
July 11, 2010 at 3:30 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Anybody interested in seeing official documents PROVING POLICE AND PROSECUTORS' LIES need only click on http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf
July 11, 2010 at 3:36 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
What evidence disproves his guilt? He was in the immediate area? Items from his vehicle were found with the body? Papers scattered in the driveway from Deschaine's truck? Where is the evidence he did not commit the crime? The fact that Horatio Caine can't show you step by step the actual scientific evidence? Do you know how many guilty parties have not had this evidence pre-2000? His statements refute the proof, not the actual. He's snubbing his nose that there's "no proof" she was in his vehicle, or that he "knew here or she knew him". He doesn't argue the actuals, just that they can't prove it. GUILTY!
July 11, 2010 at 3:37 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
The guy calling himself "heyyou" here is Eric Wright who prosecuted Dechaine for this crime. The one calling himself Saint is another prosecutor. These men keep repeating their carefully chosen circumstantial evidence WITHOUT EVER addressing the official documents proving their chicanery which is online at http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf TRUTH TRUMPS A COUNTERFEIT CONVICTION!
July 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...These men keep repeating their carefully chosen circumstantial evidence WITHOUT EVER addressing...________OldGuy, what exactly do you believe your boy Dechaine was doing in those woods that day? Waiting! Waiting, tra, la, la.
July 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM Report abuse
heyjoe said...
Fatal mistake No.1...doing the crime. Fatal mistake No.2...hiring Tom Connelly as your lawyer!!!
July 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM Report abuse
Divinity said...
AKMaineiac said ,,, "See it how you do, I'll see it how I do." ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The two most memorable times I've heard that were from Pontius Pilate and Richard Nixon.
July 11, 2010 at 4:16 PM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
Divinity said... The two most memorable times I've heard that were from Pontius Pilate and Richard Nixon. ____ No more or less self-important in their own minds than yourself. I don't hold Dennis' fate in my hands, others do. They're qualified to do that, I'm not. Nobody who commented here today is.
July 11, 2010 at 4:26 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
"http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf" That's proof? Who conducted this report? Who paid them? What was their motive? Look at the very first set of "discrepancies" they are grasping at straws. "How could I kill her" could be a statement of innocence or it could be a guilty breakdown. This report starts out like a desperate attempt to inject one iota of reasonable doubt. But you've piqued my interest, I'll be happy to read further.
July 11, 2010 at 4:28 PM Report abuse
AKMaineiac said...
Divinity said... AKMaineiac said ,,, "See it how you do, I'll see it how I do." The two most memorable times I've heard that were from Pontius Pilate and Richard Nixon. *** You actually heard Pilate say that? Amazing... ;)
July 11, 2010 at 4:29 PM Report abuse
baha said...
AFVET i would if i was sitting in jail with the scumbag!
July 11, 2010 at 4:38 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Gramill: Wha .. ? Is this supposed to be some sort of weird allegory? Please tell us it's not one of those "I have a friend who . . ." confessions. First of all, the "scarf" (the murder weapon) belonged to Dechaine (the "husband"?), not to Sarah (the victim) and was found on her body, not in the truck ("the boat"???). Secondly, . . . . oh, forget it. Back slowly away from the Allen's bottle . . .
July 11, 2010 at 4:39 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
"http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf" The report is clearly biased toward Deschaine's innocence and cannot in any way be seen as anything more than offering opposing opinions and questionable facts. The out of character large bold stating "THAT REALLY DOESN'T SEEM TO MUCH TO ASK" at the bottom of page 7 reveals the motive of the author. Clearly some interesting statements are made, though who corroborates these? The State would lie, but not those who seek to have a friend exonerated? The only thing thus far this report proves is that if there is any truth to any of it, Deschaine had a terrible lawyer.
July 11, 2010 at 4:41 PM Report abuse
Old-school said...
OldGuy, do you seriously believe anyone is going to think that Dechaine's website if packed with unbiased truth. Are you kidding? All the evidence supports his innocence? Are you so blindly biased that you actually believe that? Read the Federal Magistrates ruling. What axe is he grinding. Face it, your boy is a murderer. 12 people heard the case, he testified, they went with the evidence and did not believe his thin story. And, Cowman, how about sticking to the real facts. He did say he stopped in the driveway. Who cares if the lawyer was an alcoholic, he said the girl was already dead and the cops were looking in the right place. His information, gotten from Deschaine, was correct. That is the important point, not your sack of red herrings.
July 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM Report abuse
Jseeley said...
For you people who say he's guilty all because he was a drug addict you are just as much a low life as the people who put Dennis away as quickly as possible so they could get there brownie points. Being a drug addict does not automatically make you a murderer or anything else. You people need to grow up. My mother knew Dennis and said he was a great person who would never have done something like that. You should'nt jump to your own conclusions especially when you know nothing!!!!
July 11, 2010 at 5:29 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
I stand corrected. Dennis did say he might have urinated in a driveway. But the description he gave of the roads he took could not have put him on the road the Henkle's lived on so this is of no significance. He described no house, contrary to Deputy Dan Reed's assertion on CourtTV, which contradicted his own testimony.
July 11, 2010 at 5:55 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Police and prosecutors might have really considered Dechaine guilty at first and perpetrated their misdeeds -- hiding evidence and lying -- “for the greater good” to nail a man they believed guilty. BUT THEN, with scientific evidence and other facts literally tossed into theuir laps, they commenced a COVER-UP that continues to this day for the sole purpose of SAVING FACE. It’s pride, folks and, as someone recently pointed out to me, PRIDE WAS THE DEVIL’S SIN! All they do when anyone asks them to explain their lies and derstruction of DNA evidence is what they always do: change the subject.
July 11, 2010 at 5:59 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Jseeley said...My mother knew Dennis and said he was a great person who would never have done something like that.___________American serial killer Ted Bundy was also considered a "great person". Even the cops said Bundy was very charming and polite. Like Dechaine he was likeable. Bundy even managed the political office of then-Presidential candidate Nelson Rockfeller after graduating from college. Yup, Ted was a wonderful fellow! Just like you and mom believe Dechaine to be. My guess is Dechaine would have gotten away with this killing if he had managed to locate his truck, and never dropped those personal papers in the Henkel driveway. I also think it's reasonable to believe Dechaine would have killed again, and again, and again. He's simply one sick but "great person" just like mom said!
July 11, 2010 at 6:07 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...I stand corrected. Dennis did say he might have urinated...____You were wrong and you're still wrong. A neighbor across from the residence testified a small red pick-up slowed at the Henkel drive around 1 PM. She testified the Henkel dogs started barking. 15 minutes later heard the truck pull out of the Henkel drive. You believe Dechaine, from his own admission, was doing drugs and was not in a right state of mind (whatever that is)? How can you now dismiss his account of exactly which location he stopped at to urinate? Also, as I said before___NO reasonable person urinates in broad daylight at an unknown residence. Also, a track matching Dechaine's front tire on his pick-up was in the Henkel driveway. It wasn't admitted as evidence because it was too faint for the judge to allow under the prejudicial rule of evidence. I'll chance you that a more scientific examination today would pass muster of evidence. Unfortunately, the tire is no longer with us.
July 11, 2010 at 6:28 PM Report abuse
Dino90000000 said...
The continued sadness of this case is that people continue to profit from it by bringing it up yet again.
July 11, 2010 at 6:59 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Saint (one of the prosecutors) tries to correct cowman but the truth is, that neighbor across the road heard some dogs barking and saw A RED TRUCK PASS GOING UP THE ROAD -- SHE DID NOT SAY SHE SAW IT COMING FROM THE HENKEL HOUSE! Saint is sticking to his tactic of changing the subject and ignoring detectives' and prosecutors' crimes without which they'd never have convicted Dechaine. WHEN THEY LIE, IT TELLS US THEY KNOW THE TRUTH WON'T HELP THEM. That tire track "evidence" is similarly misrepresented here.
July 11, 2010 at 7:19 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Saint loves to talk about "likeable" Ted Bundy. Well what's that mean? Deputy AG Stokes is a likeable chap and oh yes, let's not forget that Bundy was a student LAWYER!
July 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Hey Old School, don't question the truth of material on Trial & Error'ds website unless you can point to something that's untrue. Because I CAN SPECIFY AND DOCUMENT NUMEROUS LIES BY POLICE AND PROSECUTORS IN THIS CASE!!! Why do they lie? Because THEY KNOW the truth can't help them.
July 11, 2010 at 7:42 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
No matter what, if the only new evidence you can provide to "prove" Deschaine innocence is a trace DNA sample under one thumbnail, it's not nearly enough. It could only serve to prove that she had contact with another person other than those ruled out. If you can conclusively prove that it was in fact a convicted child rapist such as Fickett, you might have something. What is the type of human DNA under the nail? Skin, blood, saliva? Can you prove she had no other means of obtaining this under her nail in the school yard, at a friends house? It certainly doesn't erase the mountain of other damning evidence, not to mention his confession (court legal or not). This has nothing to do with labeling him the scapegoat because of his drug use, but likely because he committed an unspeakable actin a drug fueled episode. GUILTY!
July 11, 2010 at 8:16 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
???
July 11, 2010 at 8:23 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Why have my last two posts been blocked? Weird -- absolutely NOTHING offensive and no ad hominem attacks unlike some others (not to change the subject).
July 11, 2010 at 8:28 PM Report abuse
Robinwhod said...
Why was Dennis doing drugs in the woods where the body was found? Didn't he know he might be considered a suspect? Why did he take the rope and scarf and receipt with him when he went to do drugs? Didn't he think the real murderer might steal them and plant them at the murder scene and at the victim's house? Boy, he really wasn't thinking about how vulnerable he was that day was he? I hope he didn't buy a lottery ticket... Where did he get the drugs?
July 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
OldGuy -- instead of just repeating the same things over and over, just provide a link to this documentation (other than the Trial and Error website) or specifically detail the lies, misdeeds, and mistakes here and give all "the prosecutors" who post on this forum a chance to respond publicly. Wouldn't that make for better discourse than vague accusations and innuendo? It might clarify your argument for those who have not read "Human Sacrifice."
July 11, 2010 at 8:42 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Robinwhod --according to his own testimony in the bathroom of a museum in Boston.
July 11, 2010 at 8:49 PM Report abuse
SL said...
Ask the convicted child killer why he confessed to his then lawyer who then told the State Police where to look. Ask the convicted child killer how rope and tape matching items in his truck were used on the dead girl. Ask the convicted child killer why his multiple stories never matched anything he did. Asked the convicted child murderer why he waited until most everyone involved with the case was dead before filing appeals. Ask the convicted child killer why he thinks this tactic will work while others simply solidify his conviction. Don't bother asking him anything, it just gives him a soapbox to stand on. Guilty!
July 11, 2010 at 9:10 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
I mean"according to his own testimony, in the bathroom of a museum in Boston."
July 11, 2010 at 9:11 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Time to get a new grip, folks. With the testimony re. so-called confessions by Westrum and Hendsbee discredited by their own notes, the ONLY unimpeachable evidence that the state has left is that someone -- who knows who -- removed certain items that were involved in the crime from Dennis's truck. The rest is all just huffing and puffing in hopes of confusing people. And that just ain't good enough. They can shout (or peck) GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! til my cows come home but that doesn't make it so. They need evidence, and they don't have it.
July 11, 2010 at 9:20 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...Time to get a new grip, folks. the ONLY unimpeachable evidence that the state has left is that someone -- who knows who -- removed certain items that were involved in the crime from Dennis's truck. ______There is zero evidence anyone but Dechaine removed those items from his own pick-up. How do you discount he hid his truck key between the seat cushions of the cop car? Doesn't sound like the action of an innocent man. You'll say he was scared. I'll say of what? It's inanity to believe 'someone' committed this crime and framed Dechaine as he claims. They would have to be a very savy criminal genuis. Anyone with an abducted little girl would not have even stopped at that location after seeing Dechaine's pick-up. They wouldn't know if there were more than one occupant of the pick-up and would fear they might even be out in the woods hunting with guns. Just nonsense this story Dechaine and his fools are promoting. You and Denny need to go back to the drawing board!
July 11, 2010 at 9:52 PM Report abuse
dee81 said...
I honestly believe he is innocent! Read the book written by a former tobacco firearms employee! I think he certainly deserves the dna to be tested! I think that he simply was in the wrong place at the wrong time! Good Luck Dennis!!!!
July 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
GGO820 There's nothing vague about proofs of official corruption detailed at http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf but it's too much proof and too many copies of official documents to detail in this small space. Prosecutors can read it and answer the evidence . . . if they can. BUT PROSECUTORS MUST keep pretending to think Dechaine is guilty. It's either that or give up and admit their crimes. HEY EVERYBODY -- JUST BE GLAD your vehicle wasn't parked where the killer could lift your possessions and use them to frame you!!!
July 11, 2010 at 10:18 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Jim Moore isn't just a former ATF "employee." His distinguished career as a federal agent included service with the US Justice Dept. Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Force and with INTERPOL where he directed international investigations of murder, terrorism, and other violent crimes. No one in the AG's Office or the State Police can come close to matching his record as a criminal investigator. So take no offense, Saint, but I think I'll give a little more weight to his findings and conclusions than to yours.
July 11, 2010 at 10:32 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
Watching CSI over the past decade has taught us how primitive the Prosecutor's investigations were; how circumstantial the evidence was....a violent, gruesome crime and no blood on Dennis???, token search for other suspects, Zero motivation found or any relationship between Cherry and DEnnis....Rush to judgment...you betcha. like he went riding around stoned looking for a 12 year old to rape, torture and kill?...and no evidence whatsoever to support this wacky theory. Stuff from his truck spread around, but no evidence of the crime other than some stuff that could have been taken from his parked truck by the real perps. AG lied about confessions which were done without legal counsel...civil rights violated..maybe?
July 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Old Timer and Cowboy: The trial and erroe website and comparison of testimony vs. notes is all BS. You expect any Det. to write word for word everything a person tells them as they spout off about the crime they committed. Notes are taken in all forms of short hand, hen scratching and shortened sentences. The exact wording would not be good enough for you fools as you would just say the Det. lied, as you are now. Thankfully a jury of 12 rational citizens will understand how hard it is to make and 100% accurate written account in any testimony. Those of you blinded by your bias will be sadly distraught and further disillusioned with the justice system when Deschaine dies in prison. The website you provide also seems to jump around and leaved out tons of pages of documents, no doubt more damning of your murderous friend. Most of you fail to realize that few conspiracies and cover-up stand the test of time. This one would be no different, with far to many people having to be "in on it".
July 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Common Cents: to bad TV isn't reality. You got your expertise from watching CSI huh? Figures. Tell us which crime labs in the US can process DNA overnight like CSI? Maybe they can use math to solve this crime like on NUM3ERS? Or how about calling in Dionne Warwick and her psychic friends?If anything, these TV shows distort our justice system by provide a false sense of how conclusive all evidence can and must be.
July 11, 2010 at 10:44 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
Sorry no-SAINT, but the 'evidence' wasn't examined in the lab for other prints. They assumed since it came from Dennis's truck it was his; and then contaminated it. Watch CSI some time, and learn how real pro's work a crime scene...pay attention to 'splatter' ...remember they never found the site of the crime, nor processed it. Contradictory facts: " Official report of Detective Drake, interview with Shelley Murray, RR2 Box 3306 Bowdoinham, phone 721 3068 in which Ms. Murray stated that her brother, Peter Christianson, had worked and lived with Douglas Senecal; and that Senecal has asked Christianson to give him an alibi for the day of Sarah Cherry's murder"
July 11, 2010 at 10:45 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Jim Moore's report on the Trial and Error site provided prove that he cannot be an impartial investigator! His use of biased statements and using oversized bold fonts show he has an obvious bias. To bad to shoot a supposed exemplary career in the proverbial foot for a convicted child rapist and murderer.
July 11, 2010 at 10:49 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
1bright1 Detectives DO write down what's important, especially if it incriminates him or helps resolve the case. BUT THE IMPORTANT QUOTES DETECTIVES TESTIFIED THEY WERE READING FROM THEIR NOTES ARE NOT IN THEIR NOTES. As proved on the report cited above, they wrote down a lot of irrelevant conversation, which was all Dechaine really said. Please don't tell me you approve of creative testimony.
July 11, 2010 at 10:54 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
more facts: "Hendsbee's notes record that he met with Prosecutor Eric Wright on the same day, February 2, 1989, that he recorded the conviction that day of another alternate suspect, Jason Fickett, of a sexual assault. This was one month before the trial of Dennis Dechaine, at which trial his defense was without any knowledge of the activities of alternate suspect Jason Fickett." "Where did the scarf that she was strangled with come from...Dennis's truck..on July 7th?...where are the sticks she was tortured with come from? She was kidnapped while baby sitting? How old was the baby? was there any struggle to corroborate this theory of the prosecutor?
July 11, 2010 at 10:55 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Those insisting Dechaine is guilty certainly do stick to their guns. Too bad they're loaded with blanks.
July 11, 2010 at 10:58 PM Report abuse
common_cents said...
GENETIC, DLT and the FBI do overnight DNA testing using FEDEX, and results come back via email.. did you know it's 2010, not 1950? ....not only do I watch CSI, but have learned a lot about from it...you should do the same!
July 11, 2010 at 11:00 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Old Guy et als. Those of us not moved in the least by your stories and conspiracy theories are the ones with the "blanks"? I do believe your boy Deschaine is still in prison for a murder he committed. He is, right? Still in prison? It seems the burden of proof is on you folks to somehow disprove what the state has proven in a court of law, not your internet kangaroo court. So to recap: Dennis Deschaine is in prison tonight for the murder of Sarah Cherry. When's Dennis due to get out? Tomorrow? Nope. Tuesday, don't think so. How about you folks start holding your breath.
July 11, 2010 at 11:17 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
common_cents said... "GENETIC, DLT and the FBI do overnight DNA testing using FEDEX, and results come back via email.. did you know it's 2010, not 1950? ....not only do I watch CSI, but have learned a lot about from it...you should do the same!" Please tell us how many cases these folks can process per day and the backlog? Try 60 Minutes or 48 Hours as they've provided some actual facts on DNA testing times. Watching CSI is akin to the old Cracker Jack box. Why can't they hire a Medium then? Or use some algebra to prove his innocence?
July 11, 2010 at 11:21 PM Report abuse
ohgreatone said...
What's up with the same judge in the original trial deciding whether there should be a new trial? That's like asking a doctor who botched your surgery permission to sue for malpractice. Do other states work this way or is this some kinda backwards, thirdworld deal? The more I read about this case I'm astonished that lawyers don't see this trial as a shame to their profession.
July 11, 2010 at 11:22 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
common_cents said... "GENETIC, DLT and the FBI do overnight DNA testing using FEDEX, and results come back via email.." Oddly this seems not o match an OLR Report on Forensic testing turnaround in the 50 states dated Feb 2010? But lets not let facts cloud your argument that CSI has taught you all you need to know. Heck don't let facts persuade you that you're wasting your time on a guilty murdering rapist. No, just make up your argument as you go so you can sleep well knowing you're making the world a better place by righting the wrongs of the criminal state.
July 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
common_cents said... "GENETIC, DLT and the FBI do overnight DNA testing using FEDEX, and results come back via email.." Did you get those from CSI as well, as GENETIC and DLT don't even show up on Google? Or are they top secret testing firms? Also I'd think using Fed Ex would sort of be a break in the chain of custody of evidence? But again, let not facts stand in your way.
July 11, 2010 at 11:35 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Wouldn't it be interesting if 1bright1 and his ilk could offer anything beyond their ill informed opinions and the verdict of a jury which was denied access to evidence concealed and/or incinerated by the State? OPINIONS (even mine) MEAN NOTHING. Facts are important. ALL the facts! It's the evidence, stupid!
July 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM Report abuse
Dale6767 said...
Jim Moore is an author. The more controversial his books, the more he sells. This isn't the only (tell all) book he's written. The evidence in this case is overwhelming. For those of you that sing the praises of Dennis Dechaine, how many of you would want him meet your 12 year old daughter or granddaughter alone in the woods if he's released? Are you that convinced he's innocent? His locked truck was found 450 feet from her body, and he had the key in his pocket (which he tried to hide). She was bound and gagged with items from his locked truck. His papers were in the driveway where she was abducted. He confessed to numerous people. Quite a conspiracy you guys have going here. even Dechaine is apparantly in on it.
July 12, 2010 at 5:07 AM Report abuse
Dale6767 said...
BTW in fairness and to clarify one point. I don't believe Jim Moore accepted money for this particular book. I believe he donated proceeds to Dechaines cause.
July 12, 2010 at 5:22 AM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
OldGuy -- your argument and your book would have more credibility if you could cite the sources of your information. Since there are no footnotes, endnotes or citations all of your information seems to be based on hearsay and on public documents. I am not trying to be confrontational, but I really want to know: did you interview Wright, Hendsbee, Tierney, Westrum, the witnesses or any of the others that you "quote" in the book? Your entire argument AND your book appear to be based on Trial and Error and on the second-hand information garnered from others (apparently most sympathetic to Dechaine). I understand that you are neither a professional journalist or writer, but it would be helpful to have citations so that the reader would be able to gauge the reliability of your sources. After all,you have reached an audience of 10,000 with the book and apparently many others with your related posts.
July 12, 2010 at 5:48 AM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
I really hate to say this, but PPH has a clear editorial bias in regard to this story. The sidebar of the story contains this: "Editor's note: A girl was abducted and brutally murdered, and police and prosecutors say the right man -- Dennis Dechaine -- was sent to prison for life. But countless others think that Dechaine was wrongly convicted." Police, prosecutors, A JURY OF HIS PEERS, AND SUBSEQUENT APPEALS COURTS say the right man was sent to prison for life. And "countless others" feel think that the judicial system worked and the Dechaine belongs in prison for life.
July 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM Report abuse
ReallyAmazed said...
If you really want to know how the case got screwed up, read "Human Sacrifice, on the Alter of Injustice”, this was one of the scariest books I have read. Our System really screwed up, and it is very possible they the system is the one that actually allowed this little girl to die. Had they not had their mind all made up that Dennis Dechaine was the one that did it they could have prevented her from dyeing. Go ahead; read the book and see if you still feel the same.
July 12, 2010 at 7:52 AM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
OldGuy said... "Wouldn't it be interesting if 1bright1 and his ilk could offer anything beyond their ill informed opinions and the verdict of a jury which was denied access to evidence concealed and/or incinerated by the State? OPINIONS (even mine) MEAN NOTHING. Facts are important. ALL the facts! It's the evidence, stupid!" So morning recap: Dennis Deschaine is still in prison for the rape and murder of Sarah Cherry, which he was convicted of in a court of law. The burden of proof lies with him to prove his innocence, not the State to prove yet again that he's guilty. So, who are the stupid ones?
July 12, 2010 at 7:56 AM Report abuse
SL said...
Common...All of these alternate theories don't need to be disproven to gather a conviction, just enough evidence that this CONVICTED CHILD KILLER is GUILTY. Undoubtedly they have proven their case to a jury of his peers and then again and again and again on appeal. Do you have an aliby for that day? If you don't does that mean you are a suspect and we need to prove you didn't do it? NO.
July 12, 2010 at 8:05 AM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Jim Moores report is so full of misleading statements he should be on the investigators wall of shame. He implies that the Det.'s notes should be 100% word for word, knowing full well that they were documentation after the fact as Deschaine confessed to the Det. as he was trying to exit his car, certainly he didn't pull into the driveway and start writing while a murder suspect rapidly approached his car from the porch. Even the discrepancy includes the damning statement by Deschaine "I can't beleive I would do such a thing- the real me is not like that- I know what you're here for do what you have to do." I'm certain that 12 reasonable people anywhere would see this as an admission of guilt. Unfortuenately for all of us the police didn't record everything like they do today, and none of this waste of the taxpayers money would be happening.
July 12, 2010 at 9:26 AM Report abuse
SL said...
AGAIN..the real truth, not a book not a bunch of locals and not a bunch of left wing fools pushing an agenda.: http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Cohen/2000/DMC_07282000_2-00cv123_DECHAINE_V_WARDEN.PDF
July 12, 2010 at 9:28 AM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
What does "left wing" have to do with this? This is not a political issue.
July 12, 2010 at 9:51 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...Detectives DO write down what's important, especially if it incriminates him or helps resolve the case.____I worked over twenty years as a licensed private investigator for a large NY corporation with over 30,000 employees. I was the lead investigator in over 500 state criminal prosecutions and 11 federal cases. One of the federal cases involved the Tampa based mob. Yes, that mob. Two federal trials became case law. We won every case except one state trial. You're correct investigators attempt to write down what's important. Several times I wore a wire. The notes of an investigator are just that - notes. An investigator is trained to write concisely. Once a suspect is talking the last thing you would want to do is tell him to slow down so you can keep up with note taking. The investigators involved in the Dechaine case took the best notes they could. Even without any of their notes and Dechaine's very own confession - the physical evidence is overwhelming.
July 12, 2010 at 10:00 AM Report abuse
Skidoo31 said...
Hes as Guilty as can be people!! The DNA means nothing especially since he wasnt convicted on it and shouldnt be aquitted b/c of it. Just b/c this loser was too high to remember it does not mean he didn't do it!
July 12, 2010 at 10:01 AM Report abuse
VHJpYWxzaXpl said...
Before you go and condemn this man, why not do what the jury was unable to do? Hear all the facts. Read the book "Human Sacrifice", ALL of it...I dare you.(I realized that for many of you, it would be the first book you have probably read in years) I have been following this case from day one, Sarah's body was found on my 23rd birthday, I will never forget it. Even then I remember thinking something is not right. How does a man emerge from the woods after abducting a child, dragging her through the woods, torturing & stabbing her repeatedly, without a single drop of blood on his body, not one piece of physical evidence connecting him to the victim? All while he was under the influence of hard drugs? Mr. Dechaine deserves a new day in court, where a jury is allowed to hear ALL the facts. This case was botched from day one.
July 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM Report abuse
Bole said...
Do it like Texas. Ignore the evidence and execute them anyway.
July 12, 2010 at 11:44 AM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Saint defends THESE cops? Even the trial judge said, in court and on the transcript following one cop's testimony, that they "sound like the gang who couldn't shoot straight." If Saint's competence to comprehend evidence is no better than what he shows here (EEK), I'd hate to think I'd actually emplotyed him to do anything.
July 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM Report abuse
converv said...
Let's also not forget the this girls step father had police ties too. It is very possible that she actually knew the person, and they knew she was going to be babysitting at that location. Let's give the man another trial if he is guilty then he is guilty, but I don't believe he is. I think the answers lie with the stepfather!
July 12, 2010 at 12:28 PM Report abuse
null said...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_syndrome I think you all are suffering from this. DNA under the fingernails means absolutely nothing when put into context. There's no evidence Sarah scratched her attacker. There was no skin material found under her nails. Just her blood and the mystery DNA which could have come from literally anywhere. DNA cannot exclude suspects in cases like this. If she was covered from head to toe in another man's DNA, then that would be a different story. However, considering his truck was found a football field's distance away from the body, which was bound with materials from his truck, and the penknife keychain was not on his keys. The state has no motive for this so-called "conspiracy" to keep him in jail. It doesn't make sense. Dennis is guilty.
July 12, 2010 at 1:45 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
With over 250 wrongfully convicted men having been freed by DNA it is obvious that we have serious criminal justice problems in this country. Dechaine's case proves that Maine is no exception. Maine's old DNA statute required the convicted not only to prove that the DNA was not his, but that it belonged to the real perpetrator -- One might well think that that is what we pay cops to do. At the hearing for the revised DNA statute -- which simply placed DNA evidence on the same level as other physical evidence -- not a single witness representing law enforcement testified in favor of it. Fellow Mainers, that is very scary. PS How many here have ever urinated at the end of a long driveway, with no house in sight? Well, I guess to TheSaint that proves that we are monsters who should be locked up for life.
July 12, 2010 at 2:03 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
OldGuy said: "If Saint's competence to comprehend evidence is no better than what he shows here (EEK), I'd hate to think I'd actually emplotyed him to do anything." Geez, OldGuy -- yesterday you were assuring us all that Saint was one of the prosecutors in the case. Amazing powers of deduction . . .
July 12, 2010 at 2:34 PM Report abuse
Dale6767 said...
Most of the wrongly convicted people were convicted through wrongful victim/witness identification in rape cases. In those cases the DNA undoubtedly belonged to the rapist (i.e. body fluid). We don't even know if the phantom DNA found under Sarah Cherry's nail belonged to her killer. It sat around in a lawyers office for a year. The medical examiner already admitted it could have even been contaminated in his office. It's no good as evidence. It wouldn't prove guilt and it won't prove innocence.
July 12, 2010 at 3:16 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Dale, Null, Saint et al: Please! Stop trying to cloud the issue with facts and logic!(not to mention good grammar and spelling)
July 12, 2010 at 3:51 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
VHJpYWxzaXpl said...How does a man emerge from the woods after abducting a child, dragging her through the woods, torturing & stabbing her repeatedly, without a single drop of blood on his body, not one piece of physical evidence connecting him to the victim?______According to the actual autopsy report the victim had several very small puncture wounds with very little blood loss. Keep in mind Dechaine not only repeatedly stabbed her with his now missing pen knife that he ALWAYS carried. He also strangled her. At the point of death from strangulation the heart stops and so too does blood pressure fall flat. With very small puncture wounds at that point there would be very little blood loss. Keep in mind there is or was a small stream in those woods. Dechaine is reasonably intelligent. Although very sick! He easily washed himself in the stream after he killed this kid. This isn't brain surgery to figure out. What exactly was Dechaine really doing in the woods that day?
July 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
He also washed himself with the garden hose at the home of the "elderly couple" (to use OldGuy's term) who spotted him wandering through a neighbor's yard.
July 12, 2010 at 4:04 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
GG0820,there is no mention of any hose washing in any police report. Let's try to stick to facts, not fantasy. That Westrum came up with this story many years after the murder does not make it factual -- indeed, I would suggest just the opposite. Westrum testified that Dennis told his wife he had done something bad, but in his notes he wrote that Dennis told his wife that something bad had happened. Big, big difference.
July 12, 2010 at 4:25 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Sarah Cherry was NOT the regular sitter. The usual sitter couldn't be there that day. Sarah was pretty much a last minute replacement. Dechaine keeps saying, even in the March interview, this wasn't a random act of a killer. I've found criminals in denial usually unconsciously leave verbal tell-tales of what they did referring to someone else but really about themselves. Even honest people do that everyday. Not sure how far police went with that part of the investigation. The OTHER sitter was the real intended target. I believe Dechaine was fixated on the absent sitter thinking she would be at the Henkel residence, not Sarah Cherry. Dechaine might not have known the regular sitter but likely saw her a time or two at an acquaintance somewhere else and casually inquired. He found out she was the sitter at the Henkel residence. Dechaine is right. This was no random act! The woods were the secondary destination only because it was near the Henkel residence.
July 12, 2010 at 4:32 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...GG0820,there is no mention of any hose washing in any police report. Let's try to stick to facts, not fantasy.______I think the hose washing might actually be correct. Tell Trial & Error to "try to stick to facts, not fantasy". Even a casual reading of the site suggest info is slanted towards Dechaine's benefit. What can't be spun is simply not reported. Remember Cowman, facts, only facts!
July 12, 2010 at 4:41 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
GG0820 -- I still think Saint is one of the prosecutors. After all, he hasn't posted anything yet that I believe. Most of his comments (like his latest one) are "supported" with disclaimers like "might have," "could have," and "possibly" -- precisely like the guesses loffered by the prosecutors. Furthermore, when Dechaine refers to "random" he means the killer's choice of who to frame. IF YOUR VEHICLE HAD BEEN HANDY, YOU'D BE DOING LIFE IN PRISON.
July 12, 2010 at 4:49 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Cowman: Oooh brother . . . how about we all play nice and dispense with the insults. When Dechaine entered the "old people's" yard he went straight for the garden hose. The "elderly man" told him to come inside if he needed water. Not fantasy -- pure fact. OldGuy: Yes, but didn't you also assert some time ago that MOI was one of the prosecutors or officers involved with the case? Very, very far from the truth.
July 12, 2010 at 4:59 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...when Dechaine refers to "random" he means the killer's choice of who to frame._____ Go listen to his interview. I believe he's referring to the 'killing' was no random act. But, you would know better than I. I mean you visit him at least monthly at MSP. Correct? Ask Denny if he knew ever even casually the regular sitter? Odds are he did.
July 12, 2010 at 5:11 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Perhaps Saint is judiciously using qualifiers because he did not directly witness the crime, the crime scene, any of the interrogations, or the actual trial. You know -- like most of the rest of us. Seems like he has quite a bit of experience with this stuff.
July 12, 2010 at 5:20 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
GGO820, how is that hosing himself down, as Westrum asserted? And Saint, if there was no great amount of blood, and if the bleeding stopped with the strangulation, how come the shirt was(is) drenched in blood? And how could a piercing of the jugular (see autopsy) not result in bleeding? And thanks for mentioning the stream -- if Dennis was the killer the stream would have kept him from losing the road. And once he found the road -- which was almost in sight from the crime scene -- there is no way he could have lost his truck. And he surely would have wanted to get himself and his truck out of there as soon as possible.
July 12, 2010 at 5:26 PM Report abuse
ohgreatone said...
Now that we're near the end of this thread it seems there's only people involved with the prosecution and those challenging it posting. As an observer I have to say those insisting on guilt seem more and more desperate. I don't know what they are hiding but it is clear to me that if they were certain they had such a good case they would be the first ones to say let's try this with all the evidence. Their refusal speaks volumes, and don't think Mainers aren't paying attention. I've always trusted the judicial system but I gotta tell you something is stinking pretty bad.
July 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Cowtown: Maybe you think that Dennis would lie about "losing the road" and an inability to find his truck? Considering he raped and murdered a child, I'd say his credibility is shot.
July 12, 2010 at 6:51 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Saint does it again. He says to me, " you visit him at least monthly at MSP. Correct?" WRONG (again). Poor Saint would be batting 1,000 if strikeouts counted. ALL these characters opposing a trial where jurors hear ALL the evidence are, well, would "un-American" be too harsh? Those guys aren't posting from Soviet Russia, are they? I do wish they'd specify their objections to letting a jury of Mainers hand down a verdict based on all the evidence.
July 12, 2010 at 7:30 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
A few things are certain about this fantasy that Dennis Dechaine didn't kill Sarah Cherry and just happened to be in the very same patch of woods where this brutal murder was committed. The physical evidence alone is more than enough to find beyond a reasonable doubt Dechaine is the killer. Forget his confession. Forget the police notes. Forget any hearsay. The DNA at the heart of his latest appeal doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove the person this DNA belongs to is the killer and it doesn't prove Dechaine is not the killer. Two judges already have ruled on that very same issue. The last and most important thing that is certain is the real killer is Dennis Dechaine and he will someday die in prison like he deserves to.
July 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...I do wish they'd specify their objections to letting a jury of Mainers hand down a verdict based on all the evidence.______First off a jury of Mainers already found Dechaine guilty. I never said I have a problem with a new trial IF something of substance developed. No one is saying that. Meaningless DNA from a very contaminated specimen is not substance. If it was found to be your DNA OldGuy, I would not believe you were the killer. Come forward with a confession, an actual eyewitness, or get all the cops, prosecutors, judges, every witness, and even the jury to admit they all had it in for Dechaine and made everything up. You need to find another cause OldGuy. Go save a whale!
July 12, 2010 at 9:41 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Saint says, "Forget his confession" [the one he never made]. "Forget the police notes." [which created the "confession" out of whole cloth]. HAW HAW sure, and forget all the prosecutors' bald faced lies. Saint wants folks to forget everything except the carefully selected bits of circumstantial evidence they chose to show the jury. Gosh Saint, I can't believe you've cleared all these dopey statements with ex-KGB chief Putin. Hey folks, maybe Saint's one of those Soviet spies sent here to disrupt our justice system. If he won't support a trial where jurors hear ALL the evience, he certainly isn't an honest American. There's nothing funny about the Dechaine case but it sure attracts more than its share of clowns. ALL THE EVIDENCE IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO SEE so there's no point in debating these dimwits any more.
July 12, 2010 at 10:30 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...Saint says, "Forget his confession" [the one he never made]. "Forget the police notes." [which created the "confession" out of whole cloth]. HAW HAW sure, and forget all the prosecutors' bald faced lies. Saint wants folks..._____Give it up OldGuy. Go find a noble cause like saving whales or cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico. This child killer Dechaine is just playing you and everyone else for suckers. What exactly was Dechaine really doing in those woods that day? Waiting. Waiting. Tra, la, la.
July 12, 2010 at 11:19 PM Report abuse
Larry said...
False confessions with notes to back them up, DNA of a male under the finger nails of some one being strangled, 2 of the worlds best forensic pathologist saying he could not have committed the crime, the state intentionally incinerating other dna enriched evidence, a peaceful farmer who has no history of violence prior to the crime or since, absolutely no trace of the victim in Dechaines truck- or on him (although some unidentified (not Dechaines) hairs were found on victim and destroyed), no dna, hair, finger prints, fibers, no trace of victim on Dechaine, no scratches, blood, fibers, hairs--Dechaine offered to pay for dna tests PRIOR to his trial and was denied-6 years later ala-dna thats not his - And these silly folks are requesting a new trial?
July 13, 2010 at 8:15 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Larry said...False confessions with notes to back them up, DNA of a male under the finger nails of some one being strangled, 2 of the worlds best ..._______All one big conspiracy, right Larry? The State of Maine decided they needed to jail this "peaceful farmer". Ted Bundy was a very likable guy too. So wasn't that guy arrested for cannibalism a few years back who kept body parts of murdered victims in the fridge right next to the mustard. If Dechaine didn't do it, maybe the Easter Bunny did it Larry.
July 13, 2010 at 9:21 AM Report abuse
SL said...
Larry, how about a few facts: http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Cohen/2000/DMC_07282000_2-00cv123_DECHAINE_V_WARDEN.PDF
July 13, 2010 at 9:29 AM Report abuse
Larry said...
The facts are right here boys. Backed up with official trial transcripts...Why can't you discuss the proof... It's all right here to discuss--or ignore and change the subject as some of you've elected to do.. http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf
July 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM Report abuse
Larry said...
SL you've offered an opinion. One that was offered by some one who wasn't privy to the FACTS that I'm talking about. Saint- it wasn't a conspiracy until the state was too far into it- it was just a half a** investigation until they realized they had the wrong man. Then yes, it was a cover up - or conspiracy as you put it. Awful sad, isn't it?
July 13, 2010 at 11:27 AM Report abuse
c3BhcmtsZXNnZWVr said...
They illegally put him in jail. Sarah Cherry's footprints and another man's footprints led in and out of a trailer in the woods. The police did not search the trailer. it isn't there anymore and the real killer is gone. A truck similar to Dechaine's truck slowed down while going past the house where she would be babysitting. the key word was SIMILAR, not his! he belongs out of jail
July 13, 2010 at 11:30 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
c3BhcmtsZXNnZWVr said...Sarah Cherry's footprints and another man's footprints led in and out of a trailer in the woods. The police did not search the trailer.________Never heard or read about a trailer in the woods with footprints. Where are you reading that?
July 13, 2010 at 11:39 AM Report abuse
Larry said...
Saint...It was in lead Det. Hendsbee's police report. The trailer belonged to a Jason Fickett. The same Jason Fickett who Hendsbee investigated a month prior to Sarah's abduction. He was investigated and charged with raping a 12 year old. His drive way (containing a "large and small set of bare foot prints" was located a half mile from where Sarah was abducted.Sarah was bare foot. Yup, the cops found the trailer where the prints were leading up to but it was getting dark so they decided not to knock on the door. Report said they'd have the wardens check on it in the morning. Its all in the book and the AG's files if you care to look.
July 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
c3BhcmtsZXNnZWVr said... They illegally put him in jail._____Like I told Larry. If Dechaine didn't do this than possibly the Easter Bunny did. Are you folks looking at the Easter Bunny as an alternate suspect?
July 13, 2010 at 12:12 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
No one but Dechaine in the immediate area of the murder. His personal papers at the abduction. Physical evidence from his locked truck used to bind and gag the victim. An eyewitness seeing his truck stop at the Henkel residence for about 15 minutes the day of the abduction. Dechaine's confession which he later recanted. His evasiveness to investigators including a changing story of what he was doing in the woods. Hiding his truck key in the cop car. Lies to the couple Dechaine chanced upon after coming out of the woods. His missing key chain knife that was used to repeatedly stab the victim. A trace of someone's DNA from a very contaminated specimen of the deceased which doesn't prove anything. His very own lawyer telling cops the girl was dead before she was even found and where the body was. _____And NOW we have some unknown footprints over a half a mile away from the crime. Yup, guess Dechaine is innocent after all!
July 13, 2010 at 12:28 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
saint: your denial of the trailer and the footprints makes one think that you do know about the trailer and you do know what was going on in that trailer and that makes you stink.
July 13, 2010 at 12:37 PM Report abuse
Larry said...
It's quite obvious that the saint has a dog in this fight. I'd guess he's......."The Rev. Robert Dorr of Waldoboro has been a trusted supporter, spokesman and sometimes guardian of Sarah Cherry's family"
July 13, 2010 at 12:52 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Saint, it is a hopeless task to try to enlighten you. Most of the many falsehoods in your last posting have previously been refuted, obviously to no effect. For the benefit of more open minds, it should be noted that the police did not allow any searching of the area near where the truck was found until the dog arrived, at 2 AM. So there is no way to know if someone else was in the area. And when the dog reacted to something which the cops decided was a deer, the dog was pulled back. Right where the "deer" was heard was where the body was later found. Go figure.
July 13, 2010 at 12:56 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Roxieow said... "saint: your denial of the trailer and the footprints makes one think that you do know about the trailer and you do know what was going on in that trailer and that makes you stink."The footprints were not identified as Sarah Cherry's or anyone elses correct? The conspiracy would have to have started almost immediately with the Det. taking Deschaine's confession the day after he raped and murdered the girl. Also, while Fickett clearly is a POS child rapist as well, his MO included intercourse with his victims, why would he deny himself the same with Cherry? Very unlikely...
July 13, 2010 at 1:10 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Just thought of something. One person poor Sarah would have willingly admitted to that house where she was babysitting was that preacher -- the one who's always been so feverishly determined despite the evkidence to preserve the frameup against Dechaine. What was his name? Rev. Dork? Something like that.
July 13, 2010 at 1:13 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Larry said... It's quite obvious that the saint has a dog in this fight. I'd guess he's......."The Rev. Robert Dorr of Waldoboro has been a trusted supporter, spokesman and sometimes guardian of Sarah Cherry's family At the 2004 Democratic convention in Portland the good Rev. Door had his wife distribute leaflets in the ladies rest room claiming that little girls' underwear was found in Dechaine's house. This accusation was easily shown to be completely false. (And if it had been true don't you think the state would have used it at trial?) Many vile and false rumors that have been spread about Dennis -- one was told to me by a state senator who also told me that he was a close friend of Judge Bradford. This rumor was also easily shown to be without even a scintilla of truth to it. I wonder who he had heard it from?
July 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
1dim one: there is reasonable doubt whether he is guilty or not.
July 13, 2010 at 1:28 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
If you are looking for someone why wouldn't you knock at the door of the trailer especially if you are a cop. The excuse was "it was getting dark so we did not knock" What kind of investigative work is that? There are too many holes in this and if the guy is guilty then the cops really screwed this up.
July 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Roxieow said... "1Super Bright1: there is reasonable doubt whether he is guilty or not." A little late is it not? If we can find reason to provide reasonable doubt long after every person is convicted we'll turn this land upside down. No, it now is the convicted killers burden to prove that enough compelling evidence is available to require another trial. Still have yet to see enough evidence. Doubt? Maybe, though the obvious bias by most of the persons pushing this clouds the actual fact from fiction. He's going to die in prison, move on with your lives.
July 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
In viewing the laws of postjudgement DNA evidence one must wonder if it was Deschaine's lawyer who has been in possession of the thumbnail DNA, if the chain of custody can have been remotely preserved? And even if allowable, it merely proves Cherry had physical contact of some sort with another human being. This in no way exonerates Deschaine for his heinous crime.
July 13, 2010 at 1:59 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Roxieow said...saint: your denial of the trailer and the footprints makes one think that you do know about the trailer and you do know what was going on in that trailer and that makes you stink.________I didn't deny anything about a trailer or footprints. What I said was like the DNA it is meaningless. The footprints were never identified as being Sarah Cherry 's or anyone else's for that matter. It's logical to expect footprints outside a trailer. The DNA is contaminated and proves absolutely nothing about innocence or guilt. You're grasping at straws. Might I ask if you are related to the now infamous former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin?
July 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM Report abuse
Roxieow said...
whatever. I am not defending this man either way. The whole case stinks of bad judgement on both parts. I BELIEVE A LOT OF facts were contradicted by both sides or not allowed for bogus reasons. I beleieve the sheriff's department did a sloppy job. The trailer was a known den of molesters. There are too many ifs. And if Descahine is guilty, the cops have done a horrible job if this gets overturned. There IS reasonable doubt.
July 13, 2010 at 2:44 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Too bad some of you are wasting your time and talent on this. There are plenty of innocent people that could use supporters gaining attention for their plight. Try working for help in Darfur or something. Deschaine's is not going to to be released from Sate custody, as he's guilty of a despicable crime.
July 13, 2010 at 2:47 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
It's amazing that some of you think that this nice farmer couldn't possibly have committed a crime, yet you allege multiple law enforcement persons of committing crimes to keep an innocent man in jail. Do you think none of these men are capable of feeling? Could they all be heartless enough to let an innocent man rot in jail, while dear of Dennis couldn't possible hurt a flea. You can't see the forest for the trees. Numerous detectives, supervisors and lawyers would all have to ignore putting an innocent man away, something I doubt most good hearted people could do, yet you throw this accusation out as a last line of defense for a stone cold killer.
July 13, 2010 at 2:53 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Roxieow said... "The trailer was a known den of molesters." Really? Did you know it was? Who knew about it and failed to take action? Pretty easy after the fact toss around accusations as such, it doesn't make it factual in any way. How about facts?
July 13, 2010 at 2:55 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
1bright1 said... Numerous detectives, supervisors and lawyers would all have to ignore putting an innocent man away, something I doubt most good hearted people could do, yet you throw this accusation out as a last line of defense for a stone cold killer. 1bright1, take a look at the more than 250 cases of the wrongfully convicted men who have been released by DNA evidence and you will find many instances where numerous "good hearted" detectives, supervisors, and lawyers have fought against the exoneration and release of these men. We are discovering that rogue prosecutors and incompetent law enforcement personel have long run rampant. Why should Maine be any different?
July 13, 2010 at 3:43 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...We are discovering that rogue prosecutors and incompetent law enforcement personel have long run rampant.______True. There are "rogue" employees in the criminal justice system like every other field. Nothing is perfect. That still doesn't dismiss all the evidence against Dechaine. Even his ex-wife said in an interview some years ago that thinking about it he could have done it. I believe she used the term there was a "strangeness in some ways" to Dennis. For her, the breaking point was what Dennis told her the day before his arrest. The real breaking point was his missing key chain knife she said was endlessly with him.
July 13, 2010 at 4:04 PM Report abuse
Les said...
I love how so many supporters keep saying "look at trialanderror.com". yeah a website that is pro Dechaine. That shouldn't be slanted. That's like me saying UFO's are real, go to ufosarereal.com!
July 13, 2010 at 4:27 PM Report abuse
null said...
The difference between the majority of the cases released after DNA testing and this one are as follows: 1. Most of the people convicted without DNA were convicted based off of an eyewitness account that was wrong. This happens. Humans are not perfect. 2. Dennis Dechaine was arrested because he wandered out of the woods near the location of the body and lied to the police numerous times. (pole-less fishing, anyone?) His truck was found a stone's throw from where the body was found. Documents from his truck were found in the driveway, and ropes from his truck were used to kill Sarah Cherry. He made several incriminating statements. This is a mountain of evidence and is certainly enough to convict someone. This is clearly different from a rape survivor picking the wrong person out of a lineup. And before OldGuy can accuse me of something, I am in no way connected to this case or its prosecution.
July 13, 2010 at 5:11 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
OldGuy wrote: "One person poor Sarah would have willingly admitted to that house where she was babysitting was that preacher -- the one who's always been so feverishly determined despite the evkidence to preserve the frameup against Dechaine. What was his name? Rev. Dork? Something like that." These are the PPH comment guidelines:" Comments with threatening, intimidating, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or profane language. Name-calling about private individuals or commenters [are forbidden]." Why was OldGuy's disgusting innuendo about Reverend Dorr not blocked?
July 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Why was OldGuy's disgusting innuendo about Reverend Dorr not blocked? It is blatantly obvious the the PPH is in the tank for Deschaine. I doubt they even care one iota about Sarah Cherry or Desachaine, but the story sells papers. The fact that this makes a banner on this website only proves they have little journalistic integrity.
July 13, 2010 at 8:53 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
TheSaint wrote: Even his ex-wife said in an interview some years ago that thinking about it he could have done it. Saint, I know of no such interview -- let's see you produce it. Beyond that, it would be natural for anyone in her situation to wonder about allegations made with such certainty by the police. At the trial she took the stand in Dennis's defense, and when she remarried she sent her finance to Maine to get Dennis's approval. Bottom line no one's subjective opinions -- especially yours, Saint, carry any weight against the scientific evidence, particularly re. time of death, that says that Dennis could not have killed Sarah Cherry.
July 13, 2010 at 10:28 PM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
1bright1 -- Absolutely. I have had three posts in which I responded to OldGuy filtered out. None contained the name-calling, insults, or innuendo that are characteristic of his posts. This rhetoric is escalating -- now those with views unlike his are "KGB" or some other nonsense. Sadly, thwew seems to be such an obvious editorial bias that there is no recourse. So much for objectivity and civil discourse.
July 13, 2010 at 10:28 PM Report abuse
Larry said...
http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf Here are the problems this case possesses. Yes, it come from the trial and error web site-the site of Dechaine's backers. These accusations are very disturbing. ONE QUESTION! Who can point out an error or false statement in these accusations? I've researched them and find them to be totally truthful-and very damning towards the states prosecutors and police officials. If they are indeed true, who can object to a new trial?
July 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM Report abuse
cowman said...
Larry said: I've researched them and find them to be totally truthful-and very damning towards the states prosecutors and police officials. If they are indeed true, who can object to a new trial? And if any aren't true, why hasn't anyone asked for the $1,000 reward? The state screwed up this case in the first several hours, and now has spent 22 years trying to persuade themselves that they haven't put an innocent man in prison and let a psycho go free. They don't have the courage to face the facts -- look at how TheSaint changes the subject when confronted with an error in his argument. Science says that Dennis is innocent -- none of our opinions matter.
July 14, 2010 at 1:03 PM Report abuse
MartyD said...
I agree with Cowman. The science shows that Dechaine is innocent and deserves a new trial.
July 14, 2010 at 1:36 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said July 12, 2010 at 4:49 PM___"Furthermore, when Dechaine refers to "random" he means the killer's choice of who to frame".______"There's no doubt in my mind that whoever took Sarah Cherry knew who she was and where she was. This can't possibly be random"._______Dennis Dechaine (PPH interview verbatim).
July 14, 2010 at 2:48 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...look at how TheSaint changes the subject when confronted with an error in his argument.________Not quite cowman. Only the facts. Look what I just wrote about OldGuy's fabrication of Dechaine's "random" remark. I know I'm right that Dechaine slipped during the interview. He was really talking about himself when he said this "can't possibly be random". He went to the Henkel residence with the sole intent to kidnap a young girl and sexually assault her. The woods near the Henkel's was secondary. If he was simply looking to go fishing (without a pole) or shoot drugs (even though no needle was ever located) he would have gone to the woods on his own property. No, his real target was the regular babysitter. Sarah Cherry was not the regular sitter from testimony at trial by the Henkel's. Dechaine had seen the other sitter and she was intended target. Only she wasn't there to be abducted.
July 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM Report abuse
Larry said...
Now your dreaming saint. Who was the other sitter? Truth is, there wasn't another sitter. The Henkels used a day care business and that day care was closed for the holiday. There was never another sitter who was used regularly by this family. Keep grasping Saint- but pleae realize, your fabricate fantisies make you look like your quickly loosing your grip here son.
July 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Saint, address the science. Forget the bluster.
July 14, 2010 at 4:54 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Larry said...Now your dreaming saint. Who was the other sitter? Truth is, there wasn't another sitter. The Henkels used a day care business and that day care was closed for the holiday.____Not true Larry. Go to the transcript of the Henkel testimony. They said Sarah Cherry was a fill-in for the regular sitter who sat in their home. The Henkel's child was one year old. Kids that age typically do not go to a daycare. Go read the testimony instead of burying your head in Comedy BS Central also know as Trial & Error. Making things up you can't defend won't help your new found killer pal Dechaine. Just the facts Larry. Just the facts!
July 14, 2010 at 8:22 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Larry - the transcript of John and Jennifer Henkel reads that their infant was 10 months old. They did not use a daycare. A ten month old infant does not go to any daycare I've ever heard of. The Henkel's never used a daycare as you claim. Sarah Cherry was NOT the regular sitter. She was a fill in. Even if I knew the regular sitter's name I wouldn't give it to you or publicly name her. I'd fear one of your T&E demented fanatics would finish the job for Dechaine. She, not Sarah Cherry was the real target. Once again you're making up things as you go along. The more Dechaine groupies like you, cowman, OldGuy and ThomasPaine speak out the more the undecided become convinced about Dechaine's guilt. Keep up the good work for justice Larry. You people remind me of Charlie Manson's family members.
July 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
The science, Saint, the science. Your theories are all meaningless. Two world-renowned forensic pathologists, one taking no fee, the other taking a nominal fee, have staked their professional reputations on their findings that Dennis could not have killed Sarah Cherry. Give it up. And if you have played a role in the wrongful conviction of Dennis Dechaine, and the granting of freedom to a psychotic killer, you have a great deal of soul searching to attend to. I'm glad that I am not in your skin, and I wish you well.
July 14, 2010 at 10:23 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...The science, Saint, the science. Your theories are all meaningless.______Just the facts cowman. Just facts. No more of your speculative junk science. Only facts will free Charlie 'Dechaine' Manson and everything points conclusively to him as the killer. Everything. What happened to your pal Larry? Is he hiding now that he was proved wrong about both the Henkel's never using a daycare for their 10 month old infant, Sarah Cherry was not the regular sitter, and Dechaine's real target was the usual sitter? Give it up cowman. Quit trying to free a convicted killer like Dechaine. He's right where he belongs until the day he stops breathing which can't come too soon. You and Larry need to find some other cause. Try saving a whale or cleaning up the Gulf mess. You'll feel better about yourself and have more respect.
July 15, 2010 at 7:34 AM Report abuse
Larry said...
Saint-read all the transcripts you want--The Henkels used a day care! They had an older daughter that used the day care as well. Speculation gets you no where. Let's talk about the facts. Why wont you discuss whats in this report? Because you have no ammo when the real disturbing issues are in front of you! Go away. Your ignorance is too taxing.
July 15, 2010 at 9:45 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Larry said...Saint-read all the transcripts you want--The Henkels used a day care! _______Larry take one of your pills you are losing it. Let me explain again...NO 10 month old child goes to a daycare. Kids in daycare have to be ambulatory at the very least. Obviously you never had children. Get over this Dechaine fascination. Life is way too short to be wasting time with a dedicated already convicted killer like Dechaine.
July 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Hadda drop in and see whether saint and his cronies are still changing ths subject, avoiding the documented evidence of official corruption and ignoring the scienbtific proof of Dechaine's innocence. Silly me -- of course they are. What else have they got? Poor pathetic souls -- they imprisoned an innocent man and allowed the real killer to go free. They must think all Mainers are dense enough to fall for their tricks.
July 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
July 4 The Day of the Crime: What investigators found on path to grisly slaying By Trevor Maxwell "On the day she was kidnapped, Sarah Cherry of Bowdoin went to baby-sit for a local couple whose regular sitter had backed out. It was the 12-year-old's second baby-sitting job, and her first time watching a baby.__There you have it Larry. Right from the Portland Press Herald. You can still find it by clicking the Dechaine banner and looking for the title "the day of the crime...". Yup, just like I said before, the regular sitter was Dechaine's real target. Not Sarah Cherry. There's even witness testimony that Dechaine asked about the other sitter in passing like "who is she". Your boy Denny is one sick pup! Little dogs like you hanging out with rabid dogs like Dechaine get the same illness and should be taken out and shot. Maybe, next time the convicts at MSP will get to finish the job they attempted twice so far. Even they recognize Dechaine is ill and don't want him around.
July 15, 2010 at 7:50 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Ah the innocent man is yet charged with a crime while in prison as well: http://knox.villagesoup.com/news/story/notorious-murderer-dechaine-indicted-for-prison-drug-charge/338009
July 15, 2010 at 8:30 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
1bright1 said... Ah the innocent man is yet charged with a crime while in prison as well: http://knox.villagesoup.com/news/story/notorious-murderer-dechaine-indicted-for-prison-drug-charge/338009 _________ They'll say the cops slipped the drugs into Dechaine's cell to frame him. I wonder what spin Trial & Error will put on this one or will they take their usaual tactic of simply not posting it. Shame, shame, shame! Dennis has been a real bad boy in the hotel we let him use. Rent free at that!
July 15, 2010 at 9:24 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
Hey PPH you see this news or is it too contrary to your Deschaine position for print?
July 15, 2010 at 10:36 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
1bright1 said... Hey PPH you see this news or is it too contrary to your Deschaine position for print?_____They'll never respond. They print the Herald in the same cell Dechaine occupies. ++++++++ Hey Larry___what do you have to say about the baby-sitter fact? It came from this newspaper which seems to be pretty pro-Dechaine. If Dechaine does get a new trial, which is real doubtful, the regular babysitter being the real target will come out according to my police insiders. Better tell Denny about that so he can prepare more lies. Dechaine's counting on you!
July 15, 2010 at 10:47 PM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous and evil he cannot believe it exists”—John Edgar Hoover
July 16, 2010 at 4:01 AM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
FYI: http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/148880.html You will have to scroll down to find the Dechaine's name in the list of indictments. Apparently -- at least at BDN -- is no more important than any other common criminal.
July 16, 2010 at 6:25 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy...____One thing is certain OldGuy ~ Dechaine doesn't have to worry about losing his good time and it slicing into his life sentence for an earlier release with this new charge. He's in the joint until he turns to dust. Where's Larry? What about the regular sitter there Larry? You didn't believe me until I showed you the PPH source. Come on Larry. Don't go wilting on Denny now. He needs you.
July 16, 2010 at 6:45 AM Report abuse
GG0820 said...
Well, this should make for an interesting follow-up to Trevor Maxwell's investigative report on Dechaine. I can't wait to read it . . . on BDN and the other news outlets across the state that are reporting on the indictments. There were a few others indicted also and apparently some involvement by others outside the MSP facility -- sounds like it could be an episode of Oz.
July 16, 2010 at 7:08 AM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
Obviously, there guys have NOTHING to say about evidence OF THE CRIME or proof of official misconduct. If they did they'd have said it by now. Relying on nothing more than the thin circumstantial evidence presented at trial, they should have taken Sherlock Holmes' very basic advice, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. ~(from A Scandal in Bohemia, 1891)
July 16, 2010 at 7:57 AM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
"Obviously, there guys have NOTHING to say about evidence OF THE CRIME or proof of official misconduct." Clearly if you call the Trial and Error report pointing out inconsistencies in testimony between memory and notes as proof of official misconduct, you fail to understand the law. Funny you don't hold Deschaine's proof against him to the same light now do you? Please, someone address the moment the conspiracy started as I'm failing to see how you can even remotely conclude these is rational.ANd BTW, the in prison drug charge really has no bearing on anything, even I could understand anyone in prison until they die, breaking rules, what are you going to do to them? Put them in solitary for 7 days? Oooh, please no...
July 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
OldGuy said...Relying on nothing more than the thin circumstantial evidence presented at trial,..._________My money OldGuy is on if Dechaine himself finally admitted his guilt (again) this very day you would still say he's innocent and a confession was forced out of him. "...thin circumstantial evidence"! LMAO ________Larry, time to answer the babysitter proof from the PPH you denied. Come on Larry! Don't be hiding on us. Denny needs you to come up with something on it. Oh, Larry where are you?????????
July 16, 2010 at 11:07 AM Report abuse
Larry said...
Anybody interested in seeing official documents PROVING POLICE AND PROSECUTORS' LIES need only click on http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf If this is not proof necessary for a new trial, what is? Notice GG0820 and saint will not address these issues-because there is no argument available. Yup, they found some drugs in his cell a few days after the PPH interviewed him. Who knows the storry behind this incident but it certainly doesn't mean he's a killer.
July 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM Report abuse
Larry said...
Saint.... I suppose you're acting like a type of saint...maybe a fairy? The Henkel's used a day care prior to the abduction. This is FACT!! Don't need to impress, influence, or even care what your thoughts are on this case. It is quite obvious your part of the states case who has covered this up for 22 years. Other wise why would you care enough to hang around on this site for days on end to post BS that isn't even true. Yup, your here to defend erroneous deeds and the cover up. Afraid of prison your self probably. Ya know, in Illinois, they placed corrupt officials in prison for this same type of official misconduct. Your afraid the truth will come out, arent you Saint? I hope the Feds look into it and expose this and all the other slippery deeds you've done saint.
July 16, 2010 at 11:21 AM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
Larry said...Henkel's used a day care prior to the abduction. This is FACT!!_________Not for the 10 month old infant moron. No infant that age can even be admitted to a daycare. I figured out you T&E fanatics! Anytime you're stumped and faced with facts you're told to refer the questioner to the Trial and Error site. Then you all add "for proof of official misconduct". Bunch of Dechaine robots. PS Sorry Larry about calling you a moron. I was looking for a better word but for lack of and certainty of definition it fit. Best regards, your pal TheSaint
July 16, 2010 at 5:33 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
Last I knew there is no law against committing suicide. But there is a law against inducing someone to commit suicide. The state screwed up, then railroaded an innocent man. As a result, he lost his wife, his farm, his freedom, his future, and 22 years and counting. But he never lost his innate sense of decency,his self-respect. There is no more popular man st MST among both inmates and guards, a few ignorant yahoos excepted. The people who should be facing censure are the so-called public servants who drove this long-suffering, courageous, and profoundly wronged and decent man to try to take his own life.
July 16, 2010 at 5:58 PM Report abuse
cowman said...
It should be noted that the DA who filed charges against Dennis for trying to commit suicide, Jeffrey Rushlau, was the same DA who dropped the indictment against Senecal for molesting his step-daughter after the Senecals sent the girl to CA so she couldn't testify against him. They should have been charged with obstruction of justice. A former Assistant Attorney General once told me that there were other now-prominent officials who were in the loop re. that decision, and who therefore now also have a dog in this fight.
July 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM Report abuse
TheSaint said...
cowman said...As a result, he lost his wife, his farm, his freedom, his future, and 22 years and counting. But he never lost his innate sense of decency,his self-respect...who drove this long-suffering, courageous, and profoundly wronged and decent man to try to take his own life.__________Please stop cowman! I can't stop crying for poor Denny.
July 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
cowman said... "Last I knew there is no law against committing suicide. But there is a law against inducing someone to commit suicide. The state screwed up, then railroaded an innocent man. As a result, he lost his wife, his farm, his freedom, his future, and 22 years and counting." Or he could have chose not to rape and murder a child... Just saying, the fact is that he's been convicted of the crime and there is yet to be any actual proof to the contrary. T&E only serves to try and offer some reasonable doubt, something thats only 22 years too late. Now you'll need actual proof. Again, can some brainwashed fool point to the time and date the conspiracy started? Looks like it would have had to been hatched that first night to go along with T&E?
July 17, 2010 at 8:20 AM Report abuse
OldGuy said...
PLEASE NOTE: Critics of the PPH and Dechaine have STILL NOT explained the undisputed proof of official misconduct (hiding evidence, false testimony) or the scientific evidence of Dechaine's innocence which is far more powerful than the State's carefully chosen bits of circumstantial evidence. NOR HAVE ANY OF THEM made any effort to collect the $1,000 reward to anybody who can point to a single false statement in the book "Human Sacrifice" regarding evidence of the crime and proofs of official misconduct. Instead, ALL THEY DO IS CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Why? Because they can't address the facts!
July 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM Report abuse
1bright1 said...
PLEASE NOTE: Critics of the PPH and Dechaine have STILL NOT explained the undisputed proof of official misconduct (hiding evidence, false testimony) or the scientific evidence of Dechaine's innocence which is far more powerful than the State's carefully chosen bits of circumstantial evidence. Please explain this "so called evidence"? T&E's biased report in no way can be realistically seen as "proof" of anything, except that the author cannot conduct an non-bias look at the facts, and instead injects his feelings into his "report". Not to worry, the burden of proof is now on you to prove his innocence, please if you truly beleive, hold your breathe for his release.
July 19, 2010 at 7:28 PM Report abuse
holly sawyer said...
the guy is innocent. the police found an easy target and just wanted to close the case.
July 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM Report abuse
said...
Way too much evidence has surfaced since this mans trial in 1989. The dna testing that he requested PRIOR to his trial have been done and show another mans dna under the victims finger nails-in a strangulation case that's huge because you're obviously going to scratch the person strangling you. No sign of her in his truck or on him and no sign of him on her? Great alternate suspects found living close by years after the trial. Notes that show the cops perjured them selves on the stand found well after the trial. Then the state elected to incinerate all the remaining forensic evidence that also could have been tested- this just 2 weeks after an appeal was filed This year 2 world renowned forensic pathologist say based on the time of death dechaine could not have done this. And we have the pathologist who performed the autopsy up in Canada and won't even return calls from the states Attorney Generals office? Give this man a trial where a jury of his peers hear all the evidence.
July 20, 2010 at 2:19 PM Report abuse