Forensic expert tells media Dennis is innocent!

RETRIAL HEARING SET FOR JUNE 12!
See details below
BACKGROUND ON THE CASE

KJ Online Article: Was cause of justice served by judge's ruling?

The many recent exonerations of wrongfully convicted persons because of improved scientific forensic tools have exposed flawed judicial systems nationwide.

Too often the prime focus of courts is on a strict adherence to legal procedures that stifle the search for the truth. As a result, a number of state courts now accept overriding pleas of "actual innocence." Regrettably, Maine Superior Court Justice Carl Bradford, in a 2011 ruling, denied a claim of actual innocence entered during a preliminary hearing on Dennis Dechaine's 2008 motion for a retrial.
In 2009, famed trial lawyer F. Lee Bailey, after mounting a pro bono investigation of the Dechaine case, concluded that Dechaine was innocent. Forensic pathologist Dr. Walter Hofman and I were consulted concerning the critical issue of time-of-death.

After independently reviewing the evidence, we both concluded that the victim died of rapid strangulation at a time after Dechaine had been detained by the police.

Hofman is the coroner of Montgomery County, Pa. I am a board-certified forensic pathologist and also hold a law degree. I am past president of the American College of Legal Medicine and of the American Academy of Forensic Science and am the author of more than 550 professional publications.

I serve on the editorial boards of more than 20 national and international medical-legal and forensic scientific publications, and I have edited standard works on forensic sciences and medical negligence.

Bradford denied the claim of actual innocence on the grounds that no such claim had yet been accepted by a Maine court. He previously had disallowed any testimony regarding time of death to be presented in the upcoming hearing. One must ask whether the cause of justice was truly served by this ruling.
 
Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
Forensic pathologist
Pittsburgh, Pa.

HEARING CHANGED TO JUNE 12th.

The hearing that will decide whether to grant Dennis Dechaine a retrial has been rescheduled from May 23rd to Tuesday, June12th, plus the 13th and 14th if needed. This proceeding is not a retrial, but rather a hearing to decide if there will be a retrial.

The original trial judge, Carl O. Bradford, will conduct the hearing and be the sole decision-maker in granting or denying a retrial. Maine law stipulates that only DNA evidence can be presented at the hearing. Last fall, Dennis’ lawyer, Steve Petersen, made a motion that would have also allowed admittance of time-of-death evidence, based on a “claim of innocence” precedent used in other states. Judge Bradford denied the motion.

The significance is that two nationally known forensic experts independently reviewed the time-of-death evidence last year, and both concluded that Dennis could not have committed the crime. But the forensic evidence will not be presented at the hearing and will be heard only at the retrial, if the retrial is granted. The same is true for evidence related to alternate suspects.

Maine law also stipulates that the judge who first heard the case preside over subsequent appeals and motions. Judge Bradford ruled against Dennis’ request to have his DNA tested, at his own expense, before the original trial in 1989, and he also denied the post-trial appeal.

The hearing will take place in the Cumberland County Courthouse in Portland beginning at 8:30 a.m. on the 12th. Seating inside the courthouse is limited, and while we hope a large number of supporters will gather in silent support of Dennis, we ask that otherwise there be no overt demonstrations.

Please keep in mind that the courthouse has a metal detector at the Newbury Street entrance on the south side of the courthouse.

Hope to see you there!

(TWENTY)-THREE YEARS AND COUNTING!

What’s Happening in the Dennis Dechaine Case

To understand what is happening in the Dechaine case we must go back to August 2008 when Dennis’s lawyer, Steve Peterson, filed a motion with the court—i.e., Judge Carl O. Bradford, the original trial judge from back in 1989—for a retrial under Maine’s amended post-conviction DNA law.

Whereas the old DNA law in effect required Dennis to solve the crime to get a retrial, the amended statute placed DNA evidence on the same level with other material evidence, whereby a judge decides if a jury, having heard the DNA evidence, likely would have reached a different verdict. As allowed by the statute, Peterson requested that a new technique termed Touch DNA be utilized to test items of evidence. (In 1992 the state incinerated other potential sources of DNA after Dennis had filed an appeal.)

One might think that arranging for this testing would be a simple matter, but one would be wrong. Three years and counting, and we do not know if the testing has even been done. We believe that if the state had wanted this testing done it would have been completed years ago—delay upon delay has been the state’s game.  

In February 2010 the renowned forensic pathologists Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hoffman reviewed the autopsy report and independently concluded that Sarah Cherry was alive when Dennis was taken into police custody. (Given that Sarah’s neck was constricted to less than three inches she could not have suffered a lingering death.)

Citing language in the DNA statute arguably supporting the admission of evidence bearing on the significance of the DNA evidence, Peterson filed a motion seeking the admission of such evidence, including the time-of-death. In November 2010 Judge Bradford denied the motion, ruling that only DNA evidence could be admitted.  

In July, 2011, at a preliminary hearing, Steve Peterson filed three motions:

*The first asked Judge Bradford to recuse himself from the case, arguing that since it was Bradford who denied Dennis’s request for DNA testing before the 1989 trial, it would be hard for him to allow a new trial based on DNA evidence. Bradford denied the motion, reserving the possibility that he might recuse himself in the future.

*The second asked for the admission of a free-standing claim of “actual innocence,” based on the time-of-death findings of Drs. Wecht and Hofman. A number of states, on constitutional grounds, allow such claims, even if they conflict with state laws. In August Bradford denied the motion.

*The third involved the partial male DNA profile found in an analysis of scrapings from Sarah Cherry’s thumbnail, which excluded Dennis and was the basis for the 2008 motion for a retrial. Peterson asked that the identities of eight Maine males in the CODIS registry of criminal DNA profiles, who could not be excluded in 2004, and the identities of partial matches of Maine males whose DNA has since been added to the registry, be provided to the defense. Bradford granted this motion.

The hearing on the original motion for a retrial filed in 2008 will thus be scheduled some time after the DNA tests have been completed and after the State Crime Lab has revealed the identities of the partial matches of the thumbnail DNA profile.

Stay tuned!

Trial and Error, PO Box 153, Madawaska, ME 04756   www.trialanderrordennis.org

20  Reasons (in random order) Supporting Dennis Dechaine’s Claim of Innocence:

1. Dennis requested DNA testing of the blood under Sarah Cherry’s fingernails before the trial. This request was denied by the court on objection by the state.

2. The layered blood found under Sarah Cherry’s fingernails was not Dennis Dechaine’s type. The destruction of the fingernails would prevent any future testing of them for DNA.

3. DNA found under one of Sarah Cherry’s thumbnails, which had inadvertently escaped destruction by the state, was subsequently tested (twice) and found to be that of a male who is not Dennis Dechaine. All tests of DNA that could be obtained from any males likely to have come in contact with Sarah or her body also proved negative.

4. No physical or biological evidence links Dennis Dechaine in person to Sarah Cherry or to the crime.

5. No physical or biological evidence directly links Dechaine’s truck to Sarah Cherry or to the crime. Exhaustive examination by the state failed to produce any evidence that Sarah had ever been in the truck. The only scent trail detected by the police tracking dog from Dechaine’s truck led away from where the body would later be found.  The tire track that was similar to one of Dechaine’s tires was of a very common tread design.

6. Articles belonging to Dechaine that were found in the driveway and those that were employed in the murder were easily accessible to the anyone and could have easily been removed from the truck by the killer. Photos indicate that the contents of the cab had been “tossed.” Contrary to claims by officials, the lead detective’s own report shows that the doors could have been locked afterwards without a key.

7. Of more than 180 items in the truck cab, the only two (aside from the registration in the glove box) with Dechaine’s name on them were found in the driveway, positioned ahead of tire tracks which were not made by Dechaine's truck. The statistical odds against chance selection are 1.57 : 10,000, or, 99.9 percent unlikely.

8. The state's medical examiner’s testimony indicated that death likely occurred 5 1/2 or more hours  after Dechaine’s whereabouts were known by the police. The significance of this key finding was obscured in the prosecution's presentation to the jury. All of the three variables which effect the timing of the passing off of rigor mortis would have served to have increased the time elapsed between Dechaine’s exiting of the woods and Sarah’s death.    

9. Dr. George Chase, retired chief pathologist for Eastern Maine Medical Center, after reviewing all the evidence, estimated that death had occurred around 24 hours before autopsy, or, on the day after Dechaine was questioned. Recently, two world--renowned forensic pathologists, Drs. Cyril Wecht and Walter Hofman, agree that the time-of-death evidence excludes Dennis as the killer. Despite the heat-wave conditions, the body exhibited only minor lividity, an indicator of a later time of death.

10. Pathologists have stated that Sarah’s neck was constricted to less than 3 inches diameter, making it virtually impossible that she lived for more than a few minutes after being strangled. Also, her jugular vein had been pierced. Nevertheless, Deputy Attorney General Bill Stokes (Portland Press Herald, Feb. 25, 2010) suggested that Sarah had remained alive for some time fter being strangled and stabbed.

11. That Sarah's head was exposed to plain view, unlike the rest of her body, indicated that the body was “concealed” after dark. Dechaine exited the woods at twilight.

12. The killer (or killers) had nearly 3 1/2 hours to abduct Sarah and plant the evidence in the driveway. The police did not allow any searching of the area where the body was subsequently found until the scent dog arrived at 2 a.m., fourteen hours after it was last known that Sarah was alive. At 2 a.m.—the earliest possible time of death as indicated by the passing off of rigor mortis and an absence of decomposition of the body—officers handling the police tracking dog reported sounds of a commotion emanating from the area where Sarah’s body would be discovered the next day. At the time they attributed the commotion to deer, although they never saw any deer in the area.  In view of the timing—i.e. how that time matches the earliest time of death indicated by rigor mortis, lividity and decomposition—the “commotion” could have been Sarah’s struggle as her killer strangled her.

13. Despite the stated opinion of their own medical examiner, the state contended that when Dechaine, coming out of the woods, met the Buttricks, he had just committed a lengthy torture ending with a violent murder. Yet the Buttricks testified that Dechaine had acted “like a gentleman.” Dechaine willingly transferred from the Buttricks’ truck to the sheriff's cruiser. And although he lied to the Buttricks about where he lived, he gave them his real name. He also voluntarily consented to have his truck towed to the state police lab for a scientific search, which the lead detective assured him would “put you in or out of this case.” Swabbing, vacuuming, and fingerprint testing produced no indicated that Sarah had ever been in that truck. The state police tracking dog, given Sarah’s clothes to sniff, detected no trace of Sarah in that truck.

14. The depraved individuals who commit such crimes as this commonly keep a trophy, especially panties, yet Sarah’s missing panties were not found on Dechaine, and have never been found.

15. If Dechaine was the murderer he surely would have found the nearby road, which he would have had to have crossed with Sarah, and then would surely have found his truck.

16. The torture and murder of Sarah Cherry was an unspeakably horrific crime, yet there is absolutely no record of any violence, depravity, or sexual perversion in Dechaine’s past, or indeed, since. To the contrary, Dechaine is described by those who know him as a kind, gentle, and intelligent man. All psychological evaluations of Dechaine, even by the state's experts, concluded that he was psychologically normal, and was not in a drug-induced psychosis on the day of the crime. However, at trial, the state successfully blocked the inclusion of any psychiatric testimony, including that of their own experts.

17. If, as has been suggested, Dechaine acted under the influence of the drugs he admits to have taken, one must question how no biological evidence of Dechaine was transferred to the girl, how there could have been no blood on him, and what drug could have so quickly turned a peaceful and gentle man into a fiendish predatory monster, and then as quickly, returned him to the polite "gentleman" whom the Buttricks described 

18. Testimony by two detectives alleging incriminating statements by Dechaine (which they testified they were reading from their notes) is contradicted by the fact, discovered after the legislature ordered the state’s files to be opened, that those detectives’ notes do not contain the alleged incriminating statements. Their testimony was therefore false. 

19. Dechaine’s statement that at one point during his interrogation in the back seat of the cruiser by the police they may have convinced him that he had committed a crime involving a missing girl is entirely consistent with many other cases where individuals with compliant and submissive personalities—even when not under the influence of a drug— after being subjected to prolonged and severe police interrogation, have admitted to crimes they did not commit.

20. The claim that Dechaine stated at the jail that he was the one who killed Sarah Cherry and therefore needed to be put in “isolation” doesn’t pass the straight-face test. It is likely that he said that he was the one accused of having killed Sarah Cherry, and therefore should be put in isolation. The use of the term “isolation”(a term rarely if ever used by anyone outside the law enforcement community), rather than the term “solitary,” strongly suggests that his request for a cell without cellmates was based on the advice of law enforcement personnel who probably alerted him to criminal inmate violence against accused child killers.

                                                                                 Trial and Error

PO Box 153, Madawaska, ME 04756

www.trialanderrordennis.org

Judge in Denis Dechaine case allows DNA comparisons

Link to Maine Public Broadcasting

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MPBNNews/tabid/1159/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3762/ItemId/17438/Default.aspx

By DAVID SHARP, Associated Press Jul 29, 2011 3:16 pm

SunJournal

In this April 2005 file photo, Dennis Dechaine sits in a conference room at the Maine State Prison in Warren, Maine. A judge on Friday, July 29th, 2011 has allowed a DNA sample from a young murder victim's fingernails to be tested in a database of 21,000 other samples in Maine. Superior Court Justice Carl Bradford ruled Friday in a hearing in Dennis Dechaine's continuing effort to get a new trial in the 1988 death of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. He was convicted in 1989 and sentenced to life for the murder in Bowdoin. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach, File) - Pat Wellenbach

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — A judge on Friday ruled that a DNA sample from a young murder victim's fingernail can be compared against a database of 21,000 criminals in Maine, a move sought by Dennis Dechaine's defense lawyers but described by prosecutors as potentially leading to a "wild goose chase."

Superior Court Justice Carl Bradford ruled during a preliminary hearing in Dechaine's continuing effort to get a new trial in the 1988 death of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin. Dechaine, now 53, was convicted in 1989 and is serving a life sentence for Cherry's kidnapping, sexual abuse and murder. Authorities say Cherry was randomly targeted.

Bradford, who presided over Dechaine's trial, declined Friday to recuse himself from the proceedings but left the matter open to be decided later.

Defense lawyer Steve Peterson told the judge that he ought to remove himself to avoid being put in the position of having to strike down his previous rulings tied to DNA evidence.

"It is very difficult for this court to sit objectively and decide whether it's going to overturn itself on a decision from 22 years ago," said Peterson, who described the latest motions in the case as "Dechaine's last and best chance of getting a new trial."

The DNA from the fingernail showed material from at least two people, matching the profile of Cherry as well as someone other than Dechaine, a state DNA expert testified Friday. At the time of the crime, only a few labs were capable of examining samples and the DNA was not tested.

Catherine MacMillan from the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory in Augusta testified that even using the latest technology, the sample was too degraded to be of use for identification. Half of the genetic material necessary to establish positive ID was missing, she said.

Nonetheless, MacMillan said she was able to get nine "hits" from 4,000 samples that were in the state criminal DNA database in 2004 after she lowered the generally accepted standards due to the poor quality of the sample. She said she was later able to exclude all nine samples belonging to eight people and one unknown sample.

A defense DNA expert disagreed about the value of the tests, and the judge ordered the sample to be compared again with the current larger state database. The names from any "hits" will be turned over to the judge, who'll assess whether they should be turned over to the defense.

Deputy Attorney General Bill Stokes urged the judge not to open the door to a "wild goose chase" and said no court had ever allowed the type of testing used in this case.

But the judge said he was open to seeing what evidence, if any, is produced.

"There's always a first for everything Mr. Stokes," the judge replied. "The motion is granted."

The judge didn't rule on a request by the defense to introduce additional evidence including testimony from experts establishing the time of Cherry's death. Peterson said his own experts, including high-profile coroner Cyril Wecht, contend Dechaine was in custody when Cherry died.

Stokes said the science that's used to establish time of death isn't as precise as the defense suggests, and said the medical examiner said just that at the original trial.

"This is not new evidence," Stokes said. "This is the defense finding an expert who'll say what they want them to say, and presenting it as new evidence."

After the hearing, the Rev. Robert Dorr, a friend of the Cherry family, said Dechaine fits the profile of a sociopath who continues to torment the Cherry family. "It's continued harassment of the Cherry family from Dennis Dechaine from the cell he occupies," Dorr said.

Dechaine gets DNA legal victory

July 29 2011

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

PORTLAND – A judge has ordered the state's crime lab to compare a partial DNA profile – collected from the thumbnail of a 12-year-old murder victim in 1988 – against Maine's database of 21,000 DNA samples from convicted felons.

Dennis Dechaine

Related headlines

• Dechaine legal team tries again

RELATED: "Did this man kill Sarah Cherry?" (video, stories, photographs and more)

Friday's ruling by Justice Carl O. Bradford at Cumberland County Superior Court was seen as a rare legal victory for Dennis Dechaine, the Bowdoinham farmer convicted of kidnapping and murdering Sarah Cherry.

Dechaine's lead defense lawyer, Steve Peterson of Rockport, requested the DNA database comparison as part of Dechaine's latest bid for a new trial.

The pending appeal, filed in 2008, is based on DNA evidence that was not available at the 1989 trial. Analysts from the state crime lab and private labs examined part of Sarah Cherry's thumbnail, which was clipped during her autopsy. The labs discovered a partial, mixed DNA profile that was consistent with Cherry and at least one other person, an unknown male. The sample was not a match for Dechaine.

Peterson contends that the fragment of DNA belongs to the real killer. He wants a list of possible hits from the state's offender database, to allow investigators to vet those individuals for possible involvement in the crime.

Prosecutors the DNA could have come from anyone during incidental contact before Sarah Cherry died, or from nail clippers during the autopsy. They have no doubts that Dechaine was the murderer.

Cathy MacMillan, an analyst from the state crime lab, said the DNA from the thumbnail was "low-level, degraded," and contained less than half the genetic information of a full profile. It would be impossible to make a conclusive match of the sample to anyone, MacMillan told Judge Bradford Friday.

At best, the sample could be used to generate a list of possible matches, which would encompass a small percentage of the public.

MacMillan estimated that the database comparison ordered Friday would likely return 80 to 100 individuals whose DNA would match the thumbnail sample on at least one DNA location.

"Basically you're on a wild goose chase," said William Stokes, head of the criminal division at the state Attorney General's Office.

Stokes argued that the database comparison would rope in dozens of people, simply because they have a fraction of DNA in common with a profile that isn't reliable to begin with.

"It's dangerous," for the state to go down that route, he said.

Also on Friday, Bradford denied Peterson's motion requesting that he recuse himself from the case. Peterson argued that because Bradford had not allowed DNA testing before the trial, it would be hard for him to allow Dechaine a new trial based on DNA evidence.

Cherry, a straight-A student at Bowdoin Central School, was kidnapped while baby-sitting on July 6, 1988. The mother who had hired her came home about 3:20 p.m. and found a notebook and a receipt bearing the name Dennis Dechaine in her driveway.

Police began a search for the missing girl and Dechaine. About five hours later, he was seen walking out of the woods about three miles north of the home.

He told police that he had been fishing and he couldn't find his truck. He denied having anything to do with the girl's disappearance. Later that night, police found his pickup truck on a discontinued logging road nearby.

A search team found the girl's body about noon on July 8 near where the truck was found. She had been stabbed about a dozen times and strangled with a scarf. The scarf and the rope binding her wrists had come from Dechaine's truck.

Dechaine says he went into the woods on July 6 to inject speed and wander around. He says he was alone the entire day, he got lost, and someone must have grabbed his papers, the rope and the scarf from his truck.
 

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

A victory in court this morning for convicted killer Dennis Dechaine.
http://www.wmtw.com/news/28705?137/detail.html

www.wmtw.com www.wmtw.com Visit WMTW.com for breaking news and headlines from Portland, ME. Up-to-date Portland, Maine local news, headlines, national news, and top stories. Portland, Maine local TV news from ABC TV's local affiliate in Portland, Maine, WMTW - Portland's Channel 8.

TRIAL AND ERROR JULY NEWSLETTER
PO Box 153 Madawaska Me. 04756
www.trialanderrordennis.org


Dear Supporters;

There are several reasons why so many months have passed since our last
newsletter. Thank you all for being patient. In addition to working 50 hours
a week, I have had various other responsibilities to attend to, one after
the other. However this does not mean that our efforts to help Dennis ever
slowed down. It seemed that every time we were about to put out a newsletter
there was about to be an agreement reached between the state and Dennis's
lawyers over what remaining evidence was going to be tested for DNA, and
also how and where it was going to be tested. At the end of March an
agreement was finally reached, and the evidence has now been, or is now
being, tested. The results could be of great importance if new DNA is
discovered. We in Trial & Error do not know the details of these past two
and a half years of negotiations, but we believe that if the state had
wanted these materials to be tested it would have been done years ago.  But
better late than never.

BREAKING NEWS --  We have just learned that a preliminary hearing has been set for July 29th at 9:00am at the

Cumberland County Courthouse in Portland.  This hearing will be about what evidence will be allowed at
the hearing on Motion for New Trial based on DNA.  The hearing will be open to the public and we urge all

supporters to attend.  The courthouse may be packed but please stay outside to show your support.

We ask that there are no banners, buttons, etc. We presume that a news conference will be held outside the courthouse afterwards.

For some months this past Spring we delayed putting out a newsletter because we
thought it would be best not to attract attention to two bills before the
legislature which were intended to correct some of the problems we saw in
the post-conviction DNA statute. We hoped that the hearings would not be
turned into a circus like there was in 2006.

The Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on LD824 Tuesday, 5/10/11.
This was the bill to amend certain provisions regarding evidence in the
state’s post-conviction DNA statute, and also to respond to Judge Bradford's ruling as to what evidence was allowable.   Rep. John Martin, of Eagle Lake and the bill’s sponsor,
made a strong and balanced case for the bill, stating that it was needed to
help bring closure about the Sarah Cherry murder in 1988 for everyone on
both sides of the issue.  WABI-TV was there, and used a clip from his
opening statement on the 6 pm news.

Presenting for the bill was Walt McKee, the legislative liaison for MACDL,
the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.  Walt walked the
committee through the technical aspects of the bill, at the same time he
advanced a clear and simple argument for why a broader consideration of
evidence relating to DNA test results would improve the existing statute.

Former Attorney General Jon Lund spoke next, pointing to the increasing role
and value of DNA evidence in criminal justice.

Bernie Huebner drew from Judge Carl O. Bradford’s ruling of last November
denying Dennis’s submission of evidence related to DNA evidence (time of
death; alternative suspects; law enforcement investigative notes
contradicting their trial testimony that Dennis confessed to them), and used
the judge’s own statements that his denial was required under the current
statute as a reason for this Legislature to amend the law.

Bill Bunting offered a comparison to the JonBenet Ramsey case as an argument
for amending the existing statute to give more weight to DNA evidence that
was not identified with a defendant.

Finally, Shenna Bellows, executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties
Union, offered support for the bill, specifically for the provision to
broaden the scope of allowable evidence in a court hearing.

One part of the bill stipulated that DNA evidence material to a crime but not identified with the defendant should be treated as prima facie evidence, rebuttable by the state, that it belonged to the perpetrator, and that this presumption should be allowed as evidence in favor of the defendant.  Similarly, DNA evidence material to the crime but which the state had not preserved was also to be so regarded. Jan. 1, 1988 was given as the retroactive date for the law to take effect because July 1988 was when the state first did DNA testing, even though the AG opposed DNA testing in Dennis's case in 1989.

Among those opposing the bill, Commissioner of Public Safety John Morris made a point of
saying how important it was not to rely completely upon DNA evidence, but
that it should be weighed in the context of other evidence, a position
remarkably similar to part of our bill’s proposed amendments.  Assistant Attorney General Macomber told the committee that the AG also opposed the bill, but in explaining why, he, too, made our case for a
broadening of admissible evidence. His statement that the passage of the bill would "open the flood gates" indicated that he did not understand the many steps that are required before the post-conviction DNA statute can apply to a petitioner. 

The rest of the hearing was devoted to members and supporters of the Cherry
family.  Sadly, their testimony consisted mostly of a recounting of the
understandable pain and suffering they have endured for so long.  Equally
sadly, their testimony did not really address either the existing statute or
LD 824’s proposed amendments.  Instead, it continued to demonize Dennis
while offering no acknowledgement of all the new evidence developed over the
years.

LD824 was rejected on May 13, 2011. It would have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have looked at
LD824 without sensationalism, but that was not to be. It is unfortunate that
news reports were very inaccurate. LD824 if passed would NOT have
automatically given Dennis a new trial, despite what the media said. Also,
it had nothing to do with allowing testing of untested DNA.

Trial & Error was also the source of LD373, which, unlike the revised post-conviction DNA statute, was intended to give the the petitioner equal rights of appeal with the
state. This bill received a unanimous ought to pass from
the committee. It was signed into law by Governor Paul LePage on June 6,
2011. So our legislative efforts did produce some positive results. 

Our thanks to the sponsors and co-sponsors  Rep. John Martin, Rep. Ken
Theriault, Sen. Troy Jackson and Sen. Stan Gerzofsky.  Also to former AG Jon
Lund, who testified in favor of LD824, and especially to Walt McKee, the
lobbyist for the Maine Criminal Defense Lawyers Association who volunteered
his valuable time and great skill to give expert testimony on behalf of both
bills.   Also, a super "Thank You" to Bill and Bernie for their continued
hard work and total dedication with the 2 bills, LD824 and LD373.

Please forward this letter to everyone on your mailing list and ask them to
attend the hearing on the 29th at 9am in Portland at the Cumberland County Courthouse.  It may be a full house but please stay outside if you have to and show your support since the press may have questions for supporters of a new trial.

Also, please send letters to the press in support of justice and a new trial with ALL the evidence.

Sincere thanks for your continued support!

Carol Waltman, on behalf of Bill Bunting, Bernie Huebner, Steve Sandau, Don Dechaine and the membership of Trial and Error

If Dechaine were guilty, wouldn't he give up?

July 24 2011

Kennebec Journal

I totally agree with Peter Sirois (letter, July 1). I have been following the Dennis Dechaine case for more than 20 years and have saved most of newspaper clippings.

I believe him to be innocent. Most people, if they were guilty, would give up trying to prove themselves innocent after all this time. Why won't they give Dechaine a chance to prove it? What are they hiding?

God will be their judge, and their punishment will be worse than that handed down by any court judge.

Charlotte Beasley

Richmond

Stench of coverup in Dennis Dechaine case

July 18 2011

Webster's dictionary defines hubris as "wanton insolence or arrogance resulting from excessive pride," and defines complicity as "partnership in wrongdoing."

The Dennis Dechaine case illustrates how the Maine Attorney General's Office has demonstrated both for more than two decades. That office has seriously compromised its mission of "justice for all" and rendered its actions suspect, regardless of the attorneys serving in that office.

Starting with James Tierney in 1989, the year of Dechaine's trial, to William J. Schneider, the current attorney general, the AG's Office has been smug in its righteousness and self-granted infallibility.

"In Maine, we're different," asserted deputy AG William Stokes when I pointed out that in light of the frequent exonerations nationwide wouldn't it be possible that Maine has a few innocent people in jail?

The Legislature has long smelled the stench of coverup in the Dechaine case emanating from the fourth floor of the Cross Office Building. When that office steadfastly refused to open up its files on the case, the lawmaking bodies enacted legislation to open them up. The greatest find in the files was the flagrant altering of the notes of the police investigators to incriminate Dechaine.

When the Legislature discovered that deputy AG Fern Larochelle had incinerated possibly exculpatory evidence, it passed legislation ordering the AG's Office to keep all evidence in cases it prosecuted.

When I successfully sponsored a post-conviction DNA bill in 2006, that office was adamant in its opposition just as it was against a follow-up bill this year.

The only redeeming action was AG Andrew Ketterer's 1990's firing of prosecuting attorney Eric Wright in the Dechaine case.

Ross Paradis

Frenchville

Dechaine's jury didn't have all the evidence

July 18 2011

Kennebec Journal

Generally, I don't follow many criminal cases in the news.

I believe that a jury of peers will examine the evidence presented and come up with a verdict as designed by our Constitution and penal code. In the Casey Anthony trial, however, I did develop an interest because of "grocery line chatter. "

It seems that many people already had the woman declared guilty long before the trial was over. Of course, the jury was required to listen carefully to all of the evidence and non-evidence. Though I was not in the courtroom, I gathered from news reports that there never really was any actual evidence as to the how, where, who and when the crime was committed. Those are critical factors necessary to assign guilt, particularly in capital cases.

On the NBC News of July 6, I even heard the prosecutor say that to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was a high standard, and that none of the evidence he presented reached that standard with the jury.

And why should our courts not be held to a high standard? Is this nation based on the rule of law? Without high standards, do we become a ship of fools?

High praise to jurors who did their job as required by law.

At the local level: If Dennis Dechaine had a jury with the same high standards more than 25 years ago, he might not be in jail today.

In defense of Dechaine's jurors, however, if they had received all the evidence and truth from the prosecution and law enforcement, they also might have come to a "not guilty" verdict.

Peter P. Sirois

Madison

What does 'beyond a reasonable doubt' mean?

June 7 2011

How much proof is "proof beyond reasonable doubt"?

Wikipedia states, "Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems (such as the United Kingdom and the United States). Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard ... to the extent that there could be no 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of a 'reasonable person' that the defendant is guilty."

Is there reasonable doubt about the conviction of Dennis Dechaine? Let me count the ways:

Dechaine requested and offered to pay for DNA testing before the trial, but the court refused to allow it on grounds it would have delayed the trial. Yet both blood typing and later DNA test results from tissue under the victim's thumbnail exclude Dechaine.

Time-of-death analysis by two nationally renowned forensic pathologists indicate that Dechaine was already under police control when the victim was killed.

Police investigators' trial testimony claiming Dechaine confessed is contradicted by their own notes.

Far more plausible alternative suspects were ignored by police investigators at the time of the crime, and the existence of information about same denied to the jury by the prosecution.

Six weeks following Dechaine's filing a motion for retrial, the state incinerated the rape kit and other biological evidence without notifying either the court or the defense.

Surrounding all this is the implacable campaign by the Attorney General's Office to thwart any attempt to resolve these doubts. Meanwhile, Dechaine languishes in prison, the victim's family is prevented from gaining real closure, and the public's confidence in its justice system keeps eroding.

All this would -- no doubt -- end with a retrial, if only citizens would insist upon it.

Bernie Huebner

Waterville

More Letters to the Editor, June 9, 2011

1988 murder investigation wouldn't be bungled today

LD 373 was signed by the Governor and enacted into law.

June 6 2011

Here is the document,  follow the link and click on "Bill Text and other Docs."

:http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=280039466.  Click on “Bill Text and Other Docs.”

Bill could have freed an innocent man

Kennebec Journal

May 25 2011

There used to be a standard of justice here in the United States. There was a time that it was better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to languish in prison. Now we hear that the judicial committee of the Legislature has put the kibosh on a bill that could have freed an innocent man.

Whether Dennis Dechaine is innocent is really irrelevant. The ability to introduce evidence after a conviction, especially evidence of innocence, should be something that we all want.

I am appalled that Sarah Cherry's family is willing to keep in prison a man who may not have committed this atrocity.

I remember when she was murdered, and I have children of my own now. I would want justice if something happened to one of my precious little ones.

Dechaine isn't asking to be released from prison; he is asking for evidence that would possibly point to another killer to be seen and heard. I think that is a reasonable request.

I find it very sad that the Legislature hasn't the strength of will to defy the unreasoned and self-serving request by the attorney general and the impassioned yet sadly understandable request of the family of the victim.

Troy LaBreck

Vassalboro

Maine Voices: The state can resolve the Sarah Cherry murder case once and for all

Posted: May 18
Updated: Today at 7:52 PM

The only fair answer to all of the questions about this crime is a new trial for Dennis Dechaine.

By JAMES P. MOORE

BRUNSWICK — This controversy over the Sarah Cherry murder has gone on for 22 years. Enough is enough!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

James P. Moore of Brunswick is a retired federal agent and the author of “Human Sacrifice,” a book that argues Dennis Dechaine is innocent.

Prosecutors used circumstantial evidence to convince a 1989 jury that Dennis Dechaine was guilty. Regarding hard evidence that would have been present if Dechaine was guilty -- any trace of him on Sarah; any trace of her on him or in his truck -- prosecutor Eric Wright told jurors, "The point as we tried to make to you with regard to this kind of evidence, whether it be fingerprints or fibers or hairs or what have you, sometimes you have it and sometimes you don't. I can give you no better answer than to say that's the way God made it."

   So God intervened to remove the evidence that would have proved a bestial killer's guilt? That doesn't work for me.

   If Sarah came in contact with Dechaine or his truck, something would have been found. State lab technicians tried everything possible to find something, and came up empty.

   Prior to trial, Dechaine requested (and offered to pay for) DNA testing. Ever hear of a guilty man wanting DNA testing before his trial? Prosecutor Wright prevented that.

   Since the blood under Sarah's nails wasn't even Dechaine's blood type, DNA couldn't help Wright's case. And he obfuscated time-of-death evidence.

   Two nationally recognized forensic pathologists state that Sarah couldn't have been murdered until hours after police began interrogating Dechaine about a missing girl. The state medical examiner said nothing beyond a vague possibility to dispute that conclusion.

   Dechaine was with the cops for many hours before and after the crime was committed. Being with the cops when a crime is committed is usually considered an airtight alibi.

   Wright presented testimony by two detectives that's proved false by their own handwritten notes. Those notes were also concealed at Dechaine's trial. It took three lawsuits to pry them loose from the state, and prosecutors still won't talk about them.

   Wright told jurors there were no other suspects. Untrue! One was already under indictment for sexually molesting his stepdaughter; the other, a neighbor to whose door detectives were literally led, was already under investigation for (and later convicted of) having sex with a 12-year-old girl.

   Wright told legislators and others that Dechaine confessed, "and we have it on videotape."

   Untrue! Look at that tape yourself -- anyone can see it since the Legislature forced the AG to open his secret file on this case. Fingerprints (not Dechaine's) from the crime scene have been "lost."

   Wright guessed the blood under Sarah's nails was her own. Deputy AG William Stokes guessed it was from the infant girl Sarah was babysitting. But later tests proved it's male DNA. Stokes then guessed it came from one of Sarah's relatives. They were tested and eliminated.

   Then Stokes guessed it was from a cop or medical examiner who handled the body. They were tested and excluded.

   Now Stokes guesses it's possible the DNA was contaminated during the autopsy.

   Possible? Do we convict people because they might be guilty? It's possible that Jimmy Hoffa is alive and well, raising goats in Oxford County, but I don't think so. Do you?

   Shortly after Dechaine filed an appeal, the AG's men incinerated evidence they had that most likely contained DNA -- vaginal swabs, more bloody fingernails and the never-identified hairs found on Sarah's body.

   Now our new AG's personal plea has killed LD 824, a bill that would have given hope for justice to any Mainer in this predicament, including Dechaine. The AG men's position: The bill would have created a "flood of appeals." Where do they find these people?

   The only thing Dechaine's supporters ask for is a trial where jurors hear all the evidence. Is that too much to ask?

   It's too much for the AG's men. The idea of letting a jury hear all the evidence scares them silly.

   It's time we halt this never-ending debate that keeps reminding Sarah's family of their tragedy -- as if they'll ever forget, anyway. End it! Give Dechaine a trial where a jury of honest Mainers hears all the evidence and, win or lose, it'll be over.

   Until then, no matter how many lies, technicalities and phony arguments anybody comes up with, this case will never die. Never!

http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/16383/Default.aspx  

Proposed Bill Could Grant Convicted Murderor New Trial

by Laura Roberts - May 10th 2011 05:41pm - Read more Local News

Augusta - The statehouse hosted a public hearing on Tuesday on a bill that could grant a new trial to convicted murderor Dennis Dechaine.

The bill would amend current laws regarding post-judgment DNA analysis.

Dechaine was convicted back in 1989 of murdering 12-year old Sarah Cherry. Since then he has been claiming they got the wrong man.

Representative John Martin says he sponsors this bill so that this case can finally be closed for good.

"It seemed to me that both sides could bring this issue to a close so that the family of this young girl would no longer have to read about this every 6 months or every 3 months. And the Dechaine family could also get it over with and decide whether or not this person is innocent or guilty. And then we can all move on," said Martin.

Opponents of this bill say this would place too much weight on DNA evidence alone without considering all other evidence.

Though much discussion focused on the Dechaine case, the bill would affect all cases that meet certain criteria.

Video at:

http://www.wabi.tv/news/20094/proposed-bill-could-grant-convicted-murderor-new-trial

Dennis Dechaine’s drug case temporarily postponed

By Heather Steeves, BDN Staff Posted April 29, 2011, at 4:29 p.m. Print | E-mail | Facebook | Tweet

AP Dennis Dechaine

ROCKLAND, Maine — Dennis Dechaine, who is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin in 1988, will not have his first court appearance Monday as planned for a new drug crime.

Dechaine, 52, was indicted last July by the Knox County grand jury on a charge of trafficking in prison contraband. A hearing on the drug charge that had been scheduled for Monday, May 2, in Knox County Superior Court has since been postponed. It was not clear Friday when and where the hearing would be rescheduled.

Dechaine’s attorney, Steve Peterson of Rockport, also indicated Friday that new DNA tests of crime-scene evidence are being conducted in a pending bid to get a retrial on the murder case.

According to Peterson, the judge initially assigned to the contraband-trafficking case recused himself and a new one had to be found.

“It was assigned to another judge because of potential conflicts of interest,” Peterson said Friday. “There are so many judges who are familiar with his underlying case.”

Dechaine was taken to Maine Medical Center in Portland on April 5 for a drop in blood pressure and a high heart rate. The indictment alleges that on that day Dechaine was found in possession of the painkiller morphine and-or the anti-anxiety drug Klonopin, according to Knox County District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau.

Dechaine was in the Portland hospital for more than two weeks. At the time, Dechaine told the Portland Press Herald that he was hospitalized after he tried to kill himself by overdosing on prescription drugs.

Dechaine, a former Bowdoinham farmer who has served the last 22 years in the Maine State Prison for murdering Cherry, maintains that he is innocent. He and his attorney are pressing for a new trial based on DNA evidence.

Dechaine’s four previous appeals were rejected.

Cherry was kidnapped, stabbed and strangled in the woods of Bowdoin on July 6, 1988, and Dechaine was found wandering in the woods nearby. His truck was found 450 feet from where her body was found, and rope inside in the truck matched rope that bound her wrists.

Dechaine was convicted of Cherry’s murder in Knox County Superior Court in March 1989.

Peterson also indicated Friday that new DNA tests of crime-scene evidence are now being conducted. He has received preliminary results, but could not share them Friday, by order of the court.

“They’re doing a new kind of testing than they had done before. We are using newer techniques to retest items that had been tested earlier,” Peterson said.

It will likely be several months before Dechaine’s next hearing on his appeal, Peterson said. By that time, the DNA testing will be done and reports from the tests will be filed, according to the attorney.

If Dechaine is guilty of the new drug charge, he will face up to five more years in prison. Peterson has previously stated that the drug case would not affect the bid for a retrial in the murder case.

Playing Trial & Error by the Bonfire

Pilgrim's progress By SAM PFEIFLE | March 30, 2011

Jesse Pilgrim and the Bonfire do a couple things pretty well on their debut record, Trial & Error, that are hard to do well: create an album with a sense of place, and create an album with something to say. Combining those attributes makes for a pretty sharp piece of cowpunk and old-time folk that evokes the long musical tradition that manages to link Woody Guthrie to Joe Strummer and Shane MacGowan.

Pilgrim likes Portland pretty well — except when he doesn't. Coming just a bit more than half-way through this 11-song, half-hour full-length, "Love/Hate" is in many ways its heart. The distorted and fuzzed out guitar paired with the quick country strum (Pilgrim and Andy Barbo) and walk in the bass (Mica Jones) is pretty indicative of the cow-punk feel record, somewhat akin at times to No Depression, other times more of a mix between Johnny Cash and Soltero's Tim Howard.

On the one hand, Pilgrim refers to Portland as "this godforsaken town." On the other, he notes that if he and his gal left, "we'll both miss our home and have to wipe away our tears." Personally, I'm a Portland fanboy. I can't imagine it being godforsaken in any way. But everyplace sucks when you're unhappy, right? And everyone is unhappy sometimes. The stompy and off-kilter way Pilgrim brings the song to a halt is pretty unhappy-sounding.

Same with the opening and title track, which is ballsy in its take on the Dennis Dechaine case. Trial & Error is actually the title of the book and blog that focuses on Dechaine's innocence (go Google Dechaine and Sarah Cherry if you don't know what I'm talking about) and Pilgrim makes no bones about whom he stands with, finishing the song with "Dennis Dechaine, you should be free/But sadly the judges and courts don't agree."

I'm not educated enough on the case to have an opinion worth putting forth here, but I will say it's nice to see a musician write something political, and not just national big-picture stuff. We need more of this, and we need more acceptance of it as valid material that's not "corny" or "just politics." Putting some importance back in music is a good thing.

"Sawed Off" goes after our state's well-documented prison culture, focusing on an armed robber doing time and who "got stabbed in Warren state pen." Here Pilgrim takes on the prisoner's lament — what if I just didn't do it? Why did I do it? "His mind raced back to being 24/He could have had a wife, and he could have had a son/But he robbed a liquor store with a sawed-off gun." It's fairly punky, but the resonator-sounding guitar and the whining pedal steel effect keeps it grounded.

In addition to the rest of the Bonfire (Derek Gierhan gives the album a reckless feel on drums; Zach Pilgrim is on mandolin and has a piercingly pretty solo on "Whiskey"), Pilgrim also gets help of note from Aly Spaltro and D Gross. Spaltro's verse on the charming, bluegrass-pop "Lead Me Down" is typically self-assured and playful: "Don't you worry/I'll be just fine." Meanwhile, D Gross lends a lilting fingerpick to the old-timey "Now My Darling," which wins for bringing texting into a verse without seeming forced.

There are times where this disc is rough around the edges, but that's mostly on purpose; Eric Bettencourt and Jim Begley have combined to help Pilgrim do well in creating the rootsy-punk feel he's going for. Maybe he doesn't hit all the notes here with his singing voice (especially when he reaches up), but the record as a whole hits the mark for vision and feel.

Sam Pfeifle can be reached at sam_pfeifle@yahoo.com.

TRIAL & ERROR | Released by Jesse Pilgrim and the Bonfire | with Panda Bandits + Grant Street Orchestra + Butcher Boy | at SPACE Gallery, in Portland | April 2 | jessepilgrimthebonfire.bandcamp.com

Bill's passage will let Dechaine prove innocence

April 2 2011

Kennebec Journal

Thank God, after all these years, someone is finally doing something about Dennis Dechaine asking to have a DNA test.

Rep. John Martin, D-Eagle Lake, has crafted a bill to consider a trial for Dechaine using the DNA testing he has been asking for to prove his innocence.

It is hard to believe that the people with the power to get a trial for him have allowed him to sit in jail for 22 years when a simple test could prove his innocence. How do they sleep at night?

Dechaine's frustration must be unbearable, knowing that he is innocent and being denied every opportunity to prove it. It is understandable why he tried to commit suicide; one person can take only so much disappointment, agony and hellish conditions.

The same can be applied to the family of Sarah Cherry, every time a new trial or testing is discussed, they have to relive the whole thing over again. They will now know for sure whether Dechaine was the one who brutally murdered their daughter, or if the guilty one is still out there, perhaps reoffending.

When Dechaine is proven innocent, it will be a difficult job to find out who did do this heinous act and find out how many other innocent little girls he has brutalized in the 22 years he has been free.

Former Attorney General Janet Mills sees a problem with proving Dechaine's innocence because she feels it is going to step on too many toes. I believe she is right, and I also believe the time has come to find out the truth.

Gail French

Belgrade

Attorney general should reopen Dechaine case

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Attorney-general-should-reopen-Dechaine-case-.html

January 17 2010

In Colorado’s JonBenet Ramsey murder case, unidentified DNA on her pants eliminated her parents as suspects.

In Maine’s Sarah Cherry case, however, the girl’s pants, along with other evidence, were incinerated by the state after Dennis Dechaine filed an appeal, and the state refuses to act on the possibility that the unidentified male DNA found under Cherry’s thumbnail belongs to the killer.

The testimony of detectives regarding alleged admissions by Dechaine is contradicted by their notes, and two world-renowned forensic pathologists have concluded — as have other experts — that Dechaine could not be the killer.

The same judge who denied Dechaine’s 1989 request for DNA testing is still in charge of the case, and five Democratic attorneys general, perhaps fearful of being accused of being soft on crime, have evidently permitted a psychopathic killer to remain free.

Hopefully, Attorney General William Schneider will demonstrate his independence, intelligence, courage and dedication to the cause of justice by dropping his office’s opposition to a retrial, and, at long last, restore honor to the state of Maine.

William Bunting

Whitefield

MAINE SUNDAY TELEGRAM

Here are 25 stories that really clicked with readers

lhttp://www.pressherald.com/news/here-are-25-stories-that-really-clicked-with-readers_2011-01-02.html

January 2 2011

Last Sunday, the Maine Sunday Telegram published readers' picks for the 10 most significant news stories of 2010.

A group of women and men who had shed their tops march down a Congress Street sidewalk from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park. They were promoting the freedom of women to be topless in public. The group attracted many amateur and professional photographers.

Gordon Chibroski/Staff Photographer

Paul LePage speaks to supporters at the election results party at Champions in Waterville Tuesday night.

Staff photo by Michael G. Seamans

Today, we invite you to remember the 25 news articles and columns that were the most-read on pressherald.com.

With the exception of Gov.-elect Paul LePage's victory, there wasn't much overlap between the two lists. For one thing, news online can get picked up and shared with readers around the world. That's what happened with most of the top stories on the list.

Here's what had people clicking in 2010: 

1. Women march topless in Portland without incident

On April 3, about two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park in an effort to raise awareness about what they said was a double standard on male and female nudity. The news update posted soon after the march ended attracted international attention -- and more than 742,000 views. 

2. Marching for the right to bare breasts, women faced with sea of cameras

The more lengthy version of the topless march story, which appeared in the Maine Sunday Telegram print edition and was posted online early April 4, also attracted readers from all over the world. It garnered an additional 125,000 views. 

3. LePAGE IN THE LEAD

Readers waited throughout election night to see who would be Maine's next governor. This story, which was viewed more than 42,000 times, was the final word from early Wednesday morning. Republican Paul LePage, while expressing optimism, had not yet claimed victory and runner-up Eliot Cutler, an independent, had not yet conceded. 

4. Bill Nemitz: Call it class struggle: How politics went too far

Bill Nemitz's May 12 column discussed the controversy that erupted when a King Middle School teacher said that someone took a poster depicting the history of the labor movement from his classroom while Republicans were caucusing there during the state party convention. National websites linked to the column, which picked up more than 33,000 page views. 

5. Paul LePage is Maine's next governor

This story, which attracted more than 30,000 views, initially was posted only minutes after reporters learned that Cutler would concede to LePage and was updated throughout the day. 

6. Driver killed when trying to avoid porcupine

Police said that an Arundel woman was apparently trying to avoid a porcupine when she lost control of her car and hit a pole on Nov. 2. The story was viewed nearly 30,000 times.

7. Deadly Portland kayaking trip: Young women die in 'very cold' bay

Two young women, a Peaks Island summer resident and her visiting college friend, died in Casco Bay in a May kayaking accident after they apparently capsized. The story was viewed more than 23,000 times. 

8. Prom night crash kills one, leaves three injured

A Scarborough High School senior was killed and three other teens were hurt, one critically, when their car was hit by a tractor-trailer. The two couples were on their way to the Gorham High School prom when the crash occurred. The story was viewed nearly 22,000 times. 

9. Woman finds diamond from engagement ring lost in accident

Bill Nemitz in October told the improbable story of how a minister's wife recovered a diamond that flew from her engagement ring when the couple's motorcycle crashed on Interstate 295. It was widely shared through social media and received more than 21,000 page views. 

10. Man's body found hanging from tree in Fort Allen Park

Portland police said the man, who had recently moved to Portland, had committed suicide. The story was viewed just over 21,000 times. 

11. Sneaking a peek at Trader Joe's

Food writer Meredith Goad got a sneak peek at the hotly anticipated Trader Joe's on Marginal Way a few days before it officially opened in late October. Curious and possibly hungry readers viewed her story nearly 19,000 times. 

12. Bill Nemitz: Plane truth is that Donald Sussman's private jet flew dying Mainer home

Sussman, the fiance of U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, was revealed as the anonymous benefactor who provided a private jet to fly a dying man home to Maine from Kansas so he could be near family. The story was viewed more than 18,000 times. 

13. A single punch, then death

The death of a young man in Monument Square after a confrontation with another man was one of the year's most-read stories. This article, viewed almost 18,000 times, detailed the arraignment of William Googins, who faces manslaughter charges. He told police that he had no idea his single punch would injure Eric Benson so badly.

14. Incident spurs call for school use review

The King Middle School-GOP convention controversy continued to flare, with a Portland School Committee member calling for an investigation and review of the district's policies on outside groups using schools. This story was viewed nearly 18,000 times. 

15. Two local Tim Hortons among those to close

Mainers apparently take an interest in their coffee, with this initial announcement drawing lots of attention -- and more than 17,000 page views. (The closed locations turned out to be in Westbrook and Windham.) 

16. Woman drowns after saving her grandchild

Anne McNaughton Farley of Westbrook died after jumping in to save her granddaughter from a strong current off Old Orchard Beach in July, a story that was viewed more than 17,000 times. 

17. Pownal boy dies after being crushed by tree

In a freak accident, a child was killed by a tree. He had been playing in the hole left by tree when it suddenly snapped back upright as his grandfather trimmed branches away. The story was viewed nearly 17,000 times. 

18. Gray man, 20, charged in deadly assault

This story, which was viewed more than 16,000 times, detailed the arrest of William Googins in connection with the Monument Square assault that left Eric Benson dead. 

19. Alcohol, speed, lack of seat belts contribute to fatal crash

A two-car crash in Standish left one woman dead, her body found in a tree 40 feet above where her car came to rest. The story was viewed more than 16,000 times. 

20. Grinding ban has students griping

Portland High students complained after their principal announced a crackdown on suggestive dancing in advance of the school's homecoming dance, and the story attracted more than 16,000 page views. 

21. Poll: Cutler up, Mitchell down, Scontras even

This poll in the governor's race found a dramatic surge by Eliot Cutler, who ended up finishing second, and Democrat Libby Mitchell, who wound up third in the race. The story attracted just over 16,000 page views. 

22. Drugs, alcohol found in father, son who died at camp

A father and son from Saco were found dead in early August at their camp in Sangerville. In November, the state Medical Examiner's Office announced that the men had cocaine, painkillers and alcohol in their bodies. The story received just under 16,000 page views. 

23. Sex & the country

This story, which was viewed almost 16,000 times, described how some rural Maine establishments were turning to exotic dancers at night to augment their business. 

24. 'We're experiencing how fragile life is'

This story, which was viewed more than 15,000 times, focused on how students from several southern Maine schools were mourning after the prom night crash that killed a Scarborough High senior. 

25. Did this man kill Sarah Cherry?

Convicted murderer Dennis Dechaine pins his hopes for one final shot at a retrial on new DNA evidence from Sarah Cherry's body. Courts reporter Trevor Maxwell examined the case and both sides' arguments in this July investigation published in the Maine Sunday Telegram, which was viewed more than 15,000 times.

DNA clears Texas man who spent 30 years in prison

By JEFF CARLTON, Associated Press Jeff Carlton, Associated Press

January 3 2011

DALLAS – Prosecutors declared a Texas man innocent Monday of a rape and robbery that put him in prison for 30 years, more than any other DNA exoneree in Texas.

DNA test results that came back barely a week after Cornelius Dupree Jr. was paroled in July excluded him as the person who attacked a Dallas woman in 1979, prosecutors said Monday. Dupree was just 20 when he was sentenced to 75 years in prison in 1980.

Now 51, he has spent more time wrongly imprisoned than any DNA exoneree in Texas, which has freed 41 wrongly convicted inmates through DNA since 2001 — more than any other state.

"Our Conviction Integrity Unit thoroughly reinvestigated this case, tested the biological evidence and based on the results, concluded Cornelius Dupree did not commit this crime," Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins said.

Dupree is expected to have his aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon conviction overturned Tuesday at an exoneration hearing in a Dallas court.

There have been 21 DNA exonerations in Dallas since 2001, more than any other county in the nation. Only two states — Illinois and New York — have freed more of the wrongly convicted through DNA evidence, according to the Innocence Project, a New York-based legal center representing Dupree that specializes in wrongful conviction cases.

Dallas' record of DNA exonerations is unmatched nationally because the county crime lab maintains biological evidence even decades after a conviction, leaving samples available to test. In addition, Watkins has cooperated with innocence groups in reviewing hundreds of requests by inmates for DNA testing. Watkins, the first black DA in Texas history, has also pointed to what he calls "a convict-at-all-costs mentality" that he says permeated the DA's office before he arrived in 2007.

Dupree's 30 years in prison will surpass James Woodard, who spent more than 27 years in a Texas prison for a murder that he was cleared of in 2008.

Nationally, there are at least two other DNA exonerees who spent more time in prison, according to the Innocence Project. James Bain was wrongly imprisoned for 35 years in Florida and Lawrence McKinney spent more than 31 years in a Tennessee prison. Phillip Bivens was locked up for more than 30 years in Mississippi, but it wasn't immediately clear whether he or Dupree were in longer.

The DNA testing in Dupree's case also excluded a second defendant, Anthony Massingill, who was subsequently convicted in another sexual assault case and sentenced to life in prison. Massingill remains in prison but maintains his innocence. DNA testing in that second case is ongoing.

Dupree was charged in 1979 with raping and robbing a 26-year-old woman and sentenced in 1980 to 75 years in prison for aggravated robbery. He was never tried on the rape charge.

According to court documents, the woman and her male companion stopped at a Dallas liquor store in November 1979 to buy cigarettes and use a payphone. As they returned to their car, two men, at least one of whom was armed, forced their way into the vehicle and ordered them to drive. They also demanded money from the two victims.

The men eventually ordered the car to the side of the road and forced the male driver out of the car. The woman attempted to flee but was pulled back inside.

The perpetrators drove the woman to a nearby park, where they raped her at gunpoint. They debated killing her but eventually let her live, keeping her rabbit-fur coat and her driver's license and warning her they would kill her if she reported the assault to police. The victim ran to the nearest highway and collapsed unconscious by the side of the road, where she was discovered.

About five days later, two men whose descriptions did not match Dupree tried to sell the rabbit-fur coat at a grocery store two miles from the liquor store, according to court documents. The car stolen from the victims was found abandoned in the parking lot.

Dupree and Massingill were arrested in December because they looked similar to two suspects being sought in another sexual assault and robbery. The 26-year-old woman picked both men out of a photo array, but her male companion did not identify either defendant in the same photo array.

Dupree was convicted and spent the next three decades appealing. The Court of Criminal Appeals turned him down three times.

The Innocence Project, which took on his case in 2006, obtained DNA testing last summer on biological evidence taken from a vaginal swab. In July, shortly after Dupree's release, the test results cleared Dupree and Massingill.

The hearing is happening now because authorities needed additional testing to confirm that the 30-year-old biological material was a DNA match to the victim.

State continues to interfere with Dechaine's defense 

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/cost-shifting-hurts-the-insured_2011-01-02.html

 January 2 2011

Since January 1989, when Dennis Dechaine was first denied his request for DNA testing on the evidence surrounding the gruesome death of Sarah Cherry, this case has been massively tilted in the state's favor.

In the 22 years since, a plethora of new evidence has been unearthed and/or substantiated that both the state and the courts do not want considered in new proceedings that surely should result in a new trial for the 52-year-old Madawaska native.

What is the Attorney General's Office hiding this time?

The evidence, some of it sealed in the state's lockboxes for years, includes perjury on the part of testifying police officers; officers who were allegedly reading from their notes at the first trial but when those notes were finally unsealed we learned they said something very different than what the jury heard as revealed in trial transcript.

The time-of-death questions raised are clearly the most evocative, but so are the mathematically highly improbable statistics of Dechaine's identifiable possessions being discovered at and near the crime scene as they allegedly were. The odds against that were greater than 99 to 1.

And why did the state incinerate evidence, including hairs found on Sarah's battered body that would have exonerated Dechaine and perhaps identified her killer? As we now know, the male DNA found under her thumbnail did not belong to Dechaine.

Why is the state so reticent to have all the facts on the table, side by side, at the same time? Why does it want a potentially innocent man to remain in prison for life for a crime a massive amount of evidence says he did not commit? Why do the judge and the state insist on playing loophole games to keep information from a potential jury?

Understand, Dechaine is not looking for a get-out-of-jail-free card. He is only seeking a new trial -- a fair one.

Why is the state so opposed to that? Why?

Dennis Curley

President, CanXus Broadcasting Corp.

Caribou

Why was evidence proving Dechaine innocent withheld?

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Why-was-evidence-proving-Dechaine-innocent-withheld-.html

December 18 2010

On Nov. 18, the political cartoon on the the newspaper’s opinion page pictured four large knives and a little pair of nail clippers.

I immediately thought of Dennis Dechaine. His life is being cut up by the big justices, but a little pair of nail clippers could save his life. The justices refuse to allow the fact to be heard that the DNA on the nail clippings of Sarah Cherry is not that of Dechaine, but is that of another male, who very well could  have been the murderer.

In the same issue, Justice Carl Bradford refuses to allow the opinions of two highly respected pathologists. Their opinions are that Dechaine was in police custody at the time of the murder.

Bradford says the new evidence is exculpatory. Webster’s Dictionary says that means “free of blame or declare or prove guiltless,” but it should have been argued in earlier proceedings.

The problem with that was that all the evidence that would have proved him innocent was withheld. This tells me that Bradford believes Dechaine is innocent, but doesn’t want that to be proven, which makes me wonder what is being hidden. Why are they trying so hard to suppress evidence that could prove Dechaine is innocent?

In the Dec. 4 issue of the Morning Sentinel, there is an article about the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, trying to have a rock star pardoned of a 1963 charge of indecent exposure. Bob Butterworth, a past state attorney general, says, “It is very important to prosecute the guilty, but it is more important to exonerate the innocent.”

Gail French
North Belgrade

New trial for Dechaine

December 15 2010

Bangor Daily News

It is encouraging to read Dennis Curley’s Dec. 8 letter about Dennis Dechaine. Not a day passes that I do not think about Dechaine and the suffering and humiliation he underwent and must still undergo.
Some time ago, I watched a one-hour program about the Dennis Dechaine case. The program was broadcast in the middle of the night. The investigation was thorough and complete. In this program, two investigators followed the Dechaine case, speaking with him and others until they arrived in Florida to the home of the person they believed killed Sarah Cherry. He did not come out when they called to him. In this program, the investigators proved Dechaine is innocent. Check out this website: www.trialanderrordennis.org for more information and updates.

I, too, cannot understand why Dechaine does not get a new trial. It was found that the DNA at the scene did not match his DNA. Yet, he is not given another trial. I wonder if the trial is about winning instead of justice.

This reminds me of a television movie I saw quite a few years ago and will never forget. At the end of the trial, the judge reprimands both lawyers, telling them that their interest must be focused on justice and not on winning. Let’s keep this case at the forefront until Dechaine gets a new and fair trial and is finally set free. The real murderer may finally be caught, brought to trial and convicted of the murder of Sarah Cherry.

Anne Borreggine
Bangor

KENNEBEC JOURNAL and MORNING SENTINEL

 http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Stink-of-injustice-hangs-around-Dennis-Dechaine-.html

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/opinion/letters/Stink-of-injustice-hangs-around-Dennis-Dechaine-.html

Posted: December 12
Updated: Today at 4:13 PM

‘Stink of injustice’ hangs around Dennis Dechaine

‘Stink of injustice’ hangs around Dennis Dechaine

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Stink-of-injustice-hangs-around-Dennis-Dechaine-.html

December 12

There’s a smell around Maine’s judicial system, and it’s hung in the air around here for quite some time.

It’s the stink of injustice and its lingering, rancid odor that corrupts the independent minds of those who are so easily swayed to believe that their jobs are more important than the life of someone who is begging to prove his innocence. And you have to beg in front of the same judge who convicted you in the first place. What chance do you have? But that’s Maine law.

Dennis Dechaine has been in prison now for 22 years. He would like a retrial where all the evidence that the first jury never heard will finally be. Some being DNA evidence which in many other states, would have already exonerated him. Why are we in denial? Do we want to have a system that turns a blind eye to truth and scientific data?

Some say, “There are no innocent men or women in Maine jails.” Will Dechaine be our first? Certainly more could follow.

We do not have the perfect system; other states have already admitted this. In Pennsylvania, where nine men have been proven innocent by DNA testing in recent years, the state Senate created an Innocence Commission in 2006. California, Connecticut and Wisconsin also have created commissions to study the causes of wrongful conviction. In 2003, the Illinois Legislature passed into law 85 recommendations by a special commission that studied capital punishment and created safeguards against all wrongful convictions.

People who haven’t seen the movie “Conviction,” should see it. This story happened in Massachusetts, a place where “things of this sort never happen,” either.

Sandy Weston
Madison

Dec. 8 Letters to the Editor

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/Opinion/Dec-8-Letters-to-the-Editor,160919?ref=mostReadBox

BANGOR DAILY NEWS

 Dec. 8 2010

‘We all need the truth’ about Dechaine case

December 2 2010

The Kennebec Journal’s opinion of Nov. 19, “Judge right to limit scope of Dechaine hearing” held several mistakes, one being there are two books out, not one.

I disagree about not looking at every aspect. If I were on a jury deciding a person’s life, I’d want every piece of evidence, every blood sample, every DNA result in order to make a decision that I would have to live with.

Leave no rock unturned. Our justice system doesn’t allow that, and it makes you wonder why? What are they afraid of? A cover up? Why not hear the opinion of not just one but two forensic pathologists.

Why weren’t the local sex offenders questioned? There were several in the area. Why can’t the medical examiner fix a time and date of death?

It all reeks of something not adding up. Let’s let it all be heard. It’s been too long now for all concerned. We all need closure. We all need the truth.

Sandra S. Choate
Farmingdale

Hoping for justice

Nov 29, 2010

http://www.bangordailynews.com/story/bdn/Nov-29-Letters-to-the-Editor,160100?ref=mostReadBox

More than 21 years ago, Judge Carl Bradford decided that he didn’t want to waste time on DNA testing in the original Dennis Dechaine trial. Dechaine had asked to have the DNA testing done and even offered to pay for it. Then, after Dechaine appealed his conviction, the state incinerated likely DNA evidence including the rape kit, unidentified hair, and the victim’s pants, but kept items deemed evidence for the prosecution.
Soon this same Judge Bradford will be deciding whether Maine’s revised DNA statute will allow a new trial for Dechaine based on DNA of a male who is not Dechaine found under the victim’s thumbnail. Bradford has refused to consider new time-of-death findings by two renowned forensic pathologists that puts Dechaine in police custody well before the murder, and the fact that testimony given at the original trial by detectives is contradicted by their own notes.
But let’s all hope, for the sake of justice, that Judge Bradford makes a correct decision this time on the DNA evidence. Last year the state used DNA found under a victim’s fingernail to solve an even older murder case. It could also solve this case and set an innocent man free at last.
Jennifer Bunting
Whitefield

KENNEBEC JOURNAL

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Judge-doesnt-seem-to-want-to-learn-the-truth-.html

November 28 2010

Judge doesn’t seem to want to learn the truth

It comes as no surprise that Judge Carl Bradford has declined the opportunity to consider the merits of new evidence arguably bearing on the significance of the DNA found under Sarah Cherry’s thumbnail, male DNA that was not Dennis Dechaine’s.

At the upcoming DNA hearing — hopefully it will be held soon — Bradford will, in essence, be deciding whether he erred 21 years ago when he denied Dechaine’s request for DNA testing.

Evidently, Bradford would prefer that this decision, which could end Dechaine’s last hope for a retrial, not be complicated by the awkward findings of two world-renowned forensic pathologists that Dechaine could not be the killer.

Although Bradford’s narrowly construed ruling is backed by precedent, in the bigger picture it would appear that the search for the truth in this tragic case is not Bradford’s foremost concern.

William Bunting
Whitefield

            So, now Judge Carl Bradford has ruled that even though forensic evidence could well prove that Dennis Dechaine was already talking to police when Sarah Cherry was murdered, he will not consider it in his upcoming decision whether grant a retrial.
            Clearly, the letter of the law (or, more accurately, Bradford's interpretation of it) is trumping the spirit of the law.
Also trumping the spirit of the law is placing the power to determine Dechaine's fate in the hands of the same judge whose work on the original trial is questionable.
            I believe justice will not be served until all the evidence in the Dechaine case is finally heard, and I call on the governor or the Legislature to finally order a reinvestigation and retrial.

Robert MacLaughlin
Warren

What does the state have against a fair trial for Dennis Dechaine? I can find very few people who think the first trial was fair. We know there was evidence that was never heard, and we know that some of what was heard was incorrect.     So what's up?
            I hear that the Attorney General's Office said, "We don't make mistakes like that here," but that can't be true. As our governor-elect says, we all make mistakes. I agree. The Innocence Project agrees, as do the more than 200 convicted people they have exonerated.
            Who is so afraid of the possibility of being wrong that we can't look again at a case that may have the wrong man in prison for two decades while the real perpetrator is still free?

Steve Sandau
Brunswick

Judge ‘technically correct’ in narrowest sense

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Judge-technically-correct-in-narrowest-sense-.html 

November 25 2010

Judge Carl Bradford is technically correct in the narrowest legalistic sense: Maine’s statute governing a post-judgment conviction motion does not explicitly provide for Dennis Dechaine to present other than DNA evidence to support his motion for a re-trial.

This is a little like a drowning man whose cry “Throw me a rope!” is ignored as technically impossible by someone on shore surrounded only by life preservers.

Set aside that Bradford, having denied Dechaine’s pre-trial request for DNA testing, is now caught in an obvious conflict of interest and should not even be ruling on Dechaine’s motion for a re-trial.

The state would have the public believe that the pre-eminent purpose of the courts is to establish the truth. Why, then, is Bradford not interested in the recent reports of two world-renowned forensic pathologists, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman, demonstrating Dechaine was already in police custody when Sarah Cherry was killed?

Why is the judge not concerned that the sworn testimony of two detectives claiming Dechaine confessed to them is contradicted by their own police notes, which were withheld by the state until forced open by a lawsuit and an act of the Legislature?

And why is Bradford not disturbed that the state avowed to the jury that there were no other suspects, when tests now clearly show the presence under the victim’s thumbnails of DNA belonging not to Dechaine, but to some other male?

With or without the courts, the truth will out. In fact, it is already out in the minds of many of Maine’s citizens. The question for Bradford is whether he is only a lawyer, dancing on the head of a legalistic pin, or someone capable of living up to the meaning of the word “judge.” 

 Bernie Huebner

 Waterville

Dechaine Defense Restricted By Judge's Order
11/23/2010 2:00:00 PM
http://lincolncountynewsonline.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=50291

By Lucy L. Martin

The attorney representing Dennis Dechaine, convicted in the 1988 murder of Sarah Cherry, said this week he was "hugely disappointed and not at all surprised" by a recent setback in Dechaine's steps toward a new trial.

The upcoming hearing on that bid, most likely to take place early next year, will be limited to DNA evidence only, Judge Carl Bradford decided.

An order filed in Knox County Superior Court by Bradford, who presided over the original trial, denies defense attorney Steven C. Peterson's motion to allow testimony from forensic pathologists Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., and Walter Hofman, M.D. Earlier this year, both experts concluded that the 12-year-old Bowdoin babysitter died after Dechaine was in custody that July night in 1988, when the heinous crime was committed.

Bradford also refused to consider contradictory testimony by two detectives investigating the case. Peterson sought to challenge police officers' statements that Dechaine, now 52, made admissions of guilt after taken into custody.

On Tuesday, Peterson said, "The import of the decision is that unless something is tied explicitly or otherwise to the DNA evidence, (Judge Bradford) won't allow other evidence," even if it that evidence, such as time of death, supported Dechaine's claim of innocence.

Similarly, if the theory of an alternative suspect "can't be tied to the DNA, we won't be allowed at the next hearing to talk about it," the attorney said.

Peterson described the order as "a narrowing of what can be talked about at the hearing."

He said Bradford had a choice - to be strict in his interpretation or to take "a more liberalized approach, recognizing that items [related to the crime] have been destroyed and Dennis Dechaine asked for DNA testing before his trial and was denied."

Dechaine supporters organized as Trial and Error reacted with a statement prepared by member Bill Bunting, of Whitefield, who underscored the judge's refusal to allow DNA testing 21 years ago. "When the tests were later done the DNA was proved to belong to a male who is not Dennis Dechaine," Bunting said. Other evidence that might have contained additional DNA, notably the rape kit, was incinerated.

During the trial, the judge also rejected letting the jury hear any testimony about alternative suspects, said Bunting. Bradford's refusal to consider new evidence now, while strictly adhering to the statute "as he has chosen to interpret it," hobbles the search for truth, Bunting maintained.

In his order, Bradford wrote, "The State contends that the defendant is attempting to relitigate issues that were or could have been litigated in prior proceedings and effectively obtain a new trial in the guise of a DNA hearing."

In a WGAN news radio call-in program Nov. 20, prominent criminal defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey, who in 2009 agreed to join Dechaine's defense team as a consultant, said, "I'm uncomfortable that the jury never heard expert testimony about the victim being alive when Dechaine was already in custody." The defense attorney at that time "went along with what the state's expert said," Bailey commented.

A decision that a defendant had inadequate counsel would have to come from a federal court ruling, and that process would take at least a year, he said.

Speaking of Dechaine's offer to pay for DNA testing before he went to trial, Bailey remarked, "The State said no, even though it had used DNA testing

F.Lee Bailey interview on WGAN Radio on the Dennis Dechaine Case

November 20 2010

Click the link below to listen to the 2 part interview

http://560wgan.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=5017550

Our Views: Judge right to limit scope of Dechaine hearing

Posted: November 19
Updated: Today at 8:26 PM

Portland Press Herald

The purpose is to determine whether there should be a new trial, not to retry the case.

No criminal case in Maine history has been talked about more than the murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. Twenty-one years ago, a Maine jury convicted Dennis Dechaine of the crime, and a judge sentenced him to life in prison without possibility of parole. Instead of ending the story, however, that just got it going.

Since his conviction, Dechaine has steadfastly maintained his innocence, and so has a group of advocates, beginning with his friends and family, but growing over time to include people who have studied the case and become convinced of his innocence.

The case has been the subject of newspaper and magazine stories, a book, television documentaries and thousands of online postings and letters to the editor of virtually every publication in the state.

But just because every aspect of this case has been discussed at some time or another, it does not follow that it's always appropriate to look at every aspect all the time. Especially in court, it is right to focus on only the issues that could factor into a decision and not get distracted by the mountains of fact and opinion that have piled up over time.

At issue now is a decision by Superior Court Justice Carl O. Bradford to disallow opinions by two forensic pathologists offered in support of a motion for a new trial based on DNA evidence. The experts reach a different conclusion about the time of Sarah Cherry's death than the state's medical examiner, which is a key pillar in Dechaine's claim of innocence.

But the upcoming hearing is to decide whether Dechaine should get a new trial based on DNA evidence -- it is not a new trial itself.

The subject of the hearing should be the male DNA discovered on the victim's bloodstained fingernail, which did not come from Dechaine.

The proper focus of the hearing should be the DNA itself, how it got there and what it might tell us about the murder. Did the victim scratch her killer while fighting for her life? Were the fingernails contaminated over time? Is there proof that a jury that had seen the DNA would have reached a different verdict?

That's the important question now, and that's the one that should be answered by this hearing. Bradford is right to keep the focus where it belongs.

Exclusion of opinions a blow to Dechaine

November 18

Only DNA evidence will be admitted at a hearing to determine if the convicted murderer gets a new trial.

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

In a major blow to Dennis Dechaine's bid for a new trial, the judge in the case will not consider new forensic opinions offered by the defense that suggest Dechaine could not have murdered 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in July 1988.

Dennis Dechaine Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store

Dechaine's lawyer, Steve Peterson, obtained the opinions earlier this year from two forensic pathologists, Cyril Wecht and Walter Hofman, regarding Cherry's time of death. Peterson hoped to persuade Justice Carl O. Bradford to consider those reports, along with DNA evidence, at an upcoming hearing to determine whether Dechaine will get a new trial.

In an order filed last week in Knox County Superior Court, Bradford said state law strictly limits the hearing to DNA evidence and other evidence directly related to DNA. The opinions from Wecht and Hofman do not fall into that category, the judge ruled.

"New evidence that is exculpatory but not directly relevant to the interpretation of the DNA evidence will not be admitted," Bradford wrote. "To do otherwise would allow the defendant to relitigate issues that were or could have been argued in earlier proceedings."

Dechaine, 52, is serving a life sentence in state prison for the kidnapping and murder of Sarah Cherry in the Sagadahoc County town of Bowdoin. Through four unsuccessful appeals at the state and federal levels, Dechaine has maintained that he is innocent. A large group of vocal supporters continues to lobby state officials and legislators on his behalf.

Bradford's ruling leaves Peterson with only one key piece of evidence to present at the hearing for a new trial.

That evidence is a fragment of unidentified male DNA, extracted by scientists from a thumbnail that was clipped from the girl during her autopsy. The partial DNA profile was not a match for Dechaine, law enforcement officers who handled the body, or the girl's family members. Peterson says the thumbnail DNA holds the key to finding the killer.

Prosecutors say the right man is behind bars, and the DNA could have come from any incidental contact the girl had leading up to her death or from contaminated clippers used in her autopsy.

Prosecutors also note that the thumbnail clippings were kept for more than a year by Dechaine's trial lawyer, Tom Connolly, at his office in Portland.

To get a new trial, Peterson must convince Bradford that the thumbnail DNA evidence is reliable, and that jurors probably would find Dechaine not guilty of murder if they knew about it.

Peterson said the order denying admission of the Wecht and Hofman reports "seriously hamstrings us."

"I can't say that it was unexpected, the way this case has gone. The court adopted a very narrow construction of the statute," Peterson said. "We're going to forge ahead in whatever circumstances we're in, and try to get him a new trial."

William Stokes, head of the criminal division of the state Attorney General's Office, said he was pleased with the decision.

"It is the position we have taken all along," Stokes said. "The judge has made it clear that those opinions are not going to be heard at any DNA hearing in this case."

The opinions by Wecht and Hofman were provided at the request of the renowned defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey, who has longstanding business ties in Maine and recently moved to Yarmouth.

Bailey heard about Dechaine's case a few years ago. He met with Dechaine at the Maine State Prison in April 2009 and agreed to serve as an unpaid "ombudsman" in the case.

Bailey sent a packet including Cherry's autopsy report, portions of the trial testimony, weather reports and other case data to Wecht, a longtime friend. Wecht agreed to provide an opinion for free. Bailey sought a second opinion from Hofman, whose $1,000 fee was paid by Dechaine's advocacy group, Trial and Error.

Both forensic pathologists gave opinions that the earliest possible time of Cherry's death was sometime on July 7, 1988. Dechaine was detained by police on the evening of July 6.

Ronald Roy, the deputy state medical examiner who did the autopsy, testified at Dechaine's trial that he could not pinpoint a time of death, and that the girl probably was killed in the afternoon or evening on July 6, 1988.

On Wednesday, Bailey expressed frustration at Bradford's order. He said the opinions should be admitted at Dechaine's hearing for a new trial because they dovetail with the thumbnail DNA.

"The tragedy is, in my view, that there is a good chance that the state of Maine is going to ignore some powerful evidence that is totally exculpatory, without putting on paper the sworn testimony of these eminent forensic pathologists, two of the best alive, who arrived at their conclusions without discussing the matter with one another," Bailey said.

Cherry, a student at Bowdoin Central School, was kidnapped while baby-sitting on July 6, 1988. The mother who had hired her came home about 3:20 p.m. and found a notebook and a receipt bearing the name Dennis Dechaine in her driveway.

Police began a search for the missing girl and Dechaine. About five hours later, he was seen walking out of the woods about three miles north of the home.

He told police that he had been fishing and he couldn't find his truck. He denied having anything to do with the girl's disappearance. Later that night, police found his pickup truck on a discontinued logging road nearby.

A search team found the girl's body about noon on July 8 near where the truck was found. She had been stabbed about a dozen times and strangled with a scarf. The scarf and the rope binding her wrists had come from Dechaine's truck.

Dechaine testified at his trial that he went into the woods on July 6 to inject speed and wander around. He said someone must have framed him by grabbing his papers, the rope and the scarf from his truck.

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

Hearing delayed on Dechaine's bid for new trial

http://www.pressherald.com/news/hearing-delayed-on-dechaines-bid-for-new-trial_2010-10-21.html

Talks between the state and defense on DNA testing mean the motion likely won't be heard until next year.

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

A hearing, tentatively scheduled for this fall, to determine whether Dennis Dechaine will get a new trial has been pushed back until at least December, and is more likely to be held next year.

Through four unsuccessful appeals at the state and federal levels, Dechaine has maintained that he is innocent. A large group of vocal supporters continues to lobby state officials and legislators on his behalf.

Dechaine's latest motion for a new trial was filed in August 2008, but the sides have been bogged down for much of the past year in discussions about how to do additional DNA testing on some of the evidence, which is now more than 20 years old.

"There have been some delays, but now we're seeing progress," said Steve Peterson of Rockport, Dechaine's lead attorney.

Peterson said the rope, bandana and scarf that were used in the girl's murder will be analyzed at a private laboratory in Dallas, where scientists will search for DNA using an advanced scraping method. Sticks that were used to sexually assault the victim will be tested at the Maine State Police crime lab in Augusta. Previous testing on those items in the past decade failed to detect the DNA of anyone other than the 12-year-old victim. Peterson wants to be sure that nothing was missed.

The Maine Commission on Indigent Legal Services recently approved $4,500 for the tests.

"I don't believe any of the actual testing has been done," but it could begin any time, Peterson said. It will take several weeks for the labs to issue reports. "We're hoping we can come up with some new DNA evidence."

William Stokes, head of the criminal division of the state Attorney General's Office, said he has tried to move the process along by facilitating discussions between scientists at the crime lab in Augusta with staffers at the private Orchid Cellmark laboratory in Dallas.

"Let's get this thing going. That has been my basic position," Stokes said.

Dechaine's latest bid for a new trial is based primarily on a mysterious fragment of unidentified male DNA found during analysis of one of Cherry's thumbnails. The partial DNA profile was not a match for Dechaine, law enforcement officers who handled the body, or members of the girl's family. Peterson says that evidence holds the key to finding the killer.

Prosecutors say the right man is behind bars, and the DNA could have come from any incidental contact the girl had leading up to her death, or from contaminated nail clippers used in her autopsy.

To get a new trial, Dechaine's lawyers must convince Superior Court Justice Carl O. Bradford that jurors likely would have acquitted Dechaine if they had known about the thumbnail evidence.

The defense team recently obtained two new forensic reports suggesting that Dechaine could not have committed the crime. They will ask Bradford to consider the reports.

Cherry was a straight-A student at Bowdoin Central School. She was kidnapped while baby-sitting on July 6, 1988.

The mother who had hired her to baby-sit came home about 3:20 p.m. and found a notebook and a receipt bearing the name Dennis Dechaine in her driveway. Police began a search for the missing girl and Dechaine. About five hours later, he was seen walking out of the woods about three miles north of the home where Cherry had been baby-sitting.

He told police that he had been fishing and gotten lost and he couldn't find his truck. He denied having anything to do with the girl's disappearance. Later that night, police found his pickup truck on a discontinued logging road nearby.

A search team found the girl's body about noon on July 8 in the woods near the spot where Dechaine's truck was found. She had been stabbed about a dozen times and strangled with a scarf. The rope binding her wrists and the scarf had come from Dechaine's truck.

Dechaine says he went into the woods on July 6 to inject speed and wander around. He says he was alone the entire day, he got lost, and someone must have grabbed his papers, the rope and the scarf from his truck.

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at: tmaxwell@pressherald.com

Sept. 21 2010

What is happening with the Dennis Dechaine case. The man hasn't been given a new trial yet? The state says Dennis lied.

I know the state has deceived us. So, if I take out all the words, what would be left. Tire tracks, one similar and the rest not

in the driveway of the house where Sarah was taken and none of Dennis' fingerprints at the house tells me Dennis couldn't

have been there. Easy enough for a paper and notebook to have been dropped in the driveway. The unknown fingerprints

they found at the house are "missing." Not a single bit of evidence of Sarah being in Dennis' truck, as well as the tracking

dog not being able to pick up her scent tells me she couldn't have been in his truck. Knots tied in the rope that bound Sarah's

hands, not knots Dennis used. Hair and fiber found on Sarah's body and DNA under her thumbnails not Dennis' and a time of

death that makes it impossible for Dennis to be the one who murdered Sarah tells me Dennis needs a new trial and the state of Maine

owes Sarah real justice.

Rae Duval

Brunswick Me.

LePage on death penalty, Dechaine

September 20 2010

    GOP gubernatorial hopeful Paul LePage this week made some interesting comments about capital punishment and

convicted murderer Dennis Dechaine.
    LePage, answering questions about the state's judicial system, said, "On the record, and I'll be very candid, I do think Maine

should have the death penalty."
    Maine abolished the death penalty in 1887, becoming one of the first states to do so.
    LePage wasn't asked about his stance on capital punishment. His view was unsolicited, as were his statements about Dechaine,

who is currently serving a life sentence for killing 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in 1988.
    LePage was addressing transparency within the state judicial system when he brought up Dechaine.
LePage: "If you suspect you made a mistake, don't be ashamed to reopen (a case) and double-check yourself. There have been several

cases in the last couple of decades that the press has written about."
    Reporter: "Are you referring specifically to the Dechaine case?"
    LePage: "Yes, that's one case I've been hearing about. ... I keep reading that there's doubt, there's doubt, there's doubt. Well, if there's

doubt, why don't we go open it up and look at it? Why is the (Attorney General's Office) completely unwilling to go look at it?"
    To be clear, LePage said he didn't have knowledge of the case, nor did he proclaim that Dechaine was innocent.

The full story can be read at: http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/911231

Cracks in the Walls of Maine Corrections

http://www.scribd.com/doc/37384259/Cracks-in-the-Walls-of-Maine-Corrections

It was 1977, early in my ill-fated candidacy for Governor. In an effort to learn more about
our prison system, I made an appointment to visit Maine Correctional Center in South Windham.
I was met at the front lobby by the Superintendent. After a long conversation, he made a
statement thatI never forgot: "96% of the people in this institution should be taken out back and
shot. It is the other 4% that we are here for."
 
At the time, I thought well of that statement. Maine's state prison population was about 1/3
of what it is today (around 800), and I shared in the public perception that only the worst of the
worst were incarcerated. The fact that an entire prison staff was dedicated to saving 4% of Maine's
incorrigibles was impressive to me at that time.
The problem is that the statement, ´96% of the people in this institution should be taken out back

and shot,' remains a key obstacle to prison reform after 3 decades of nepotism, favoritism and political patronage.
The walls of the system, however, are beginning to crumble.
The recent disclosure by the Attorney General's Office that the State is investigating the
possible Nov. 27th homicide by prison staff of prisoner Victor Valdez at Maine State Prison in
Warren is a departure from past deflections of information by State government. The whereabouts
of Valdez's demise, whether in Solitary, the Infirmary or the hospital, is indeterminate at present,
but that he was declared dead without a medical examination and was cremated without an autopsy
is confirmed. The evidence having been destroyed, confirmation of what happened to him is now a
matter of the word of witnesses ² primarily other prisoners.
Valdez was the second of three suspicious deaths within the prison system over the period
of a year. Sheldon Weinstein died of a ruptured spleen in Solitary at Warren on April 24, 2009,
within two hours of my request that he be given toilet paper. He had been using his pillow case, but
it technically didn't matter because he had no pillow either. His death has been attributed to an
assault received four days earlier in suspicion of which Prisoner Sean Higgins remains in Solitary but
uncharged with the crime. The investigation drags on, while Weinstein's widow and family reel
from receiving his ashes with the official word that he died of natural causes, not to be corrected for
six weeks.
George McGee died in solitary at Androscoggin County Jail by hanging himself with torn
bed sheets on April 10, 2010. He had been placed there in full view of staff for his own protection.
Meanwhile, officials have suddenly become aware of drugs being carried into the prisons and
jails by staff, a long-standing tradition. Several guards are reported to have been released at Warren.
Maine's most notorious prisoner, Dennis Dechaine, attempted suicide in April with an overdose of
prescription drugs. From where, one might ask, was he able to obtain those drugs? It is doubtful
that the answer to that question will be soon forthcoming, as Dechaine is confined to the mental
health wing of Solitary for the foreseeable future. He has been charged with ´trafficking in
contrabandµ for carrying drugs within his system, while whoever provided the drugs thus far
remains anonymous. The notion that they came in through the mail or visitors is absurd in light of
such policies as the banning of a child's crayoned picture to Dad because the wax might be laced
with drugs.
The public will not long permit the Department of Corrections to make such blanket
statements as ´drugs are rare in the prison systemµ or ´our investigation will support (that Valdez
died of medical issues).µ The Shroud of Secrecy that has heretofore kept information from getting out
of Maine·s prison system is slowly being shredded. Along with that, we hope as we look forward to
a new Governor in January, will be the hiring of professionals with no ties to the Old Boy's
Network that passes judgment on who should and should not be taken outside and shot.
 

Rev. Stan Moody, Ph.D.
POB 240
Manchester, ME 04351
207/626-0594
Cell: 207/607-3055
www.stanmoody.com

Letters to the editor, Aug. 23, 2010
http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/monday-opinion_2010-08-23.html

August 23 2010

State looks worried in Dechaine drug indictment

   I am baffled about the motives of Maine's attorney general and local prosecutors for deciding to indict Dennis Dechaine for "drug trafficking."

   No drugs were found on Dennis or in his cell. There is no evidence that he bought or sold drugs. He ingested drugs in order to try to commit suicide. Had Dennis tried to hang himself with a sheet, would he have been indicted for trying to commit suicide or perhaps trafficking in bed linens?

   I can only suspect that state government is concerned that Dennis will in fact be granted a new trial and be acquitted. Do they want to make sure then, that even though he would have served 22 years for a crime he did not commit, that they can stick him with five more years?

   Or do they just want to try to make him look bad to a potential jury pool? If these are not their fears, why are they wasting their time and our money indicting a man for trying to commit suicide who is serving a life sentence without the chance of parole?

   As for Bob Dorr's Aug. 7 letter to the editor, he only gives credence to someone's opinion who heard trial testimony about Dennis' drug use.

   What is more important is what was not heard as trial testimony: DNA evidence, alternate suspects and the truth about investigators' notes. One can only ask why people who are convinced   Dennis is guilty are so afraid of a new trial where all the evidence is finally heard.

Betty Chase

Portland

www.channelxradio.com

August 16 2010

 VIEW OPEN LETTER TO ATTY. GENERAL ON CHANNEL X RADIO WEBSITE.

Open the channel x radio link, go to CX NEWS and click on the upper left hand link to "Open Letter to Maine's Attorney General".

4 August, 2010

Hon. Janet T. Mills, Attorney General

STATE OF MAINE

Department of Attorney General

6 State House Station

Augusta, Maine 04333

                                                                 RE: State vs. Dennis Dechaine

Dear Madam Attorney General:

              Dennis Dechaine is a native of Madawaska, one of the communities to which we are licensed. Members of his family continue to reside in the Saint John Valley. Many facts, some new, some old, continue to produce pivotal, but unanswered questions.  I have outlined below some of the facts various members of our audience find troubling:

• 1.       The State‘s evidence suggests that on July 6, 1988, Dechaine transported Sarah Cherry in his truck from the home where she was babysitting on the Lewis Hill Road in Bowdoin to a wooded area about three-miles due north, where, two-days later, she was found dead.

  2.        A microscopic search of that vehicle by lab technicians did not find a single trace of Sarah Cherry: not blood, sweet or tears, not hair, urine, or salvia, not skin, fabric or fiber; nor were Sarah’s fingerprints or DNA found there.

• 3.       A trained police tracking dog did not detect Sarah’s scent within that truck, or track her to or from .that vehicle, and the State failed to share that information with the defense prior to our during the trial.

• 4.       On Sarah’s remains, the State’s experts did not detect any forensic trace of Dechaine’s person; i.e., body fluids, DNA, fingerprints, hair.

• 5.       Since the 1989 trial and the 1992 motion for a new trial, DNA evidence has been

       discovered in blood under one of Sarah’s thumb nails, DNA not belonging to

       Dechaine; not from police or medical personnel, or family members, or any of the

       cadavers autopsied just prior to Sarah’s.  Some of this DNA belongs to a male (not  

       Dechaine), but yet unidentified. 

• 6.       In sworn testimony, state medical examiner Dr. Ronald Roy, testified that Sarah had died approximately 30 to 36-hours prior to his initial examination of her remains

(conducted at 2:30PM on Friday, July 8, 1988), although he did add that “it could have been longer.” That would mean Sarah expired between 2:30 and 8:30 Thursday morning—five-hours after Dechaine was in police custody.  

7.       That 36-hour time span has been reconfirmed recently by two extremely experienced and competent forensic pathologists: Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman, both of Pennsylvania. 

• 8.       During her ordeal, Sarah’s carotid artery was cut yielding a considerable volume of blood, yet there was no observable trace of her blood on Dechaine or on his clothing or footwear. This appears singularly telling inasmuch as the State suggests Dechaine was in a drug induced stupor at the time.  Had that been the case, would he have been able to avoid all contact with her blood, either from her cut artery or the multiple stab wounds Sarah endured?  Would he have been able to keep all forensic traces of Sarah Cherry from his person—and his from her?

  9.       At that time, Dechaine weighed 135-pounds; Sarah, 93.  Is it realistic to think he could have abducted this athletic young girl from that second floor home without some sign(s) of a struggle?  Police found no evidence of a struggle in or around that structure.  Does that fact, combined with the lack of forensic evidence, and more recently the mismatched DNA, create any doubts, any at all, for the State?  We are asked that repeatedly.

  10.   The AG’s office incinerated evidence on June 18, 1992: the rape kit and hairs found with Sarah Cherry’s body and did so even though a motion for a new trial had been filed 44-days earlier, on May 5, 1992.  Investigators were unable to match those hairs with Sarah or Dechaine.

                   Articles belonging to Dennis Dechaine were found at the home where Sarah was    

       baby-sitting, and in the woods off the Hallowell Road in Bowdoin between Sarah’s body  

       and Dechaine’s vehicle, while still others were with her remains.  We have been asked time and again how Dechaine could have been so “out-of-it”, so careless to do that, while not transferring any forensic evidence to or from her body? This question takes on added importance when one understands that Sarah ultimately died of strangulation—after she was cut—a murder method requiring extremely close and somewhat prolonged personal contact, contact that would reveal the transference of some forensic traces (hair, blood, DNA) from one to the other.   

        Another question our listeners have raised is about the objects found in the Henkel driveway: It seems odd to some that of the eight-score items in Dechaine’s truck, only two of those items “fell out;” the only two which bore his name. Mathematicians in the University of Maine system tell us the odds of that happening are: <1.6 in 10,000.  

        The State contends Dechaine’s truck was locked, and it might have been—but it wasn’t locked tight.  Trooper Thomas Bureau has no difficulty opening the sliding rear window, reaching into the cab to lace the seatbelt through the steering wheel prior to towing.  In addition, a report submitted by Detective Hendsbee a few days before the trial stated that the truck’s doors could be locked without a key.

   Dennis and Sarah had never met, never knew each other, and the State has never established or even suggested they were previously acquainted.  Thus Dechaine’s knowledge of her whereabouts was,.zero.

Now faced with Dennis Dechaine’s attempted April, 2010, suicide, another set of questions is being raised by those who would like to know:

• 1.                   How often does the State prosecute a person for attempting to end his/her own life?
• 2.                   How frequently does the State prosecute prisoners, especially those serving a life sentence, for drug possession?
• 3                    How often does the State prosecute prisoners for other criminal acts inside the prison: rape, drug use, destruction of property, inflicting bodily harm, etc.
• 4.                   From whom did Dennis Dechaine obtain those drugs:  from another inmate, from a doctor, a visitor, a guard or other prison personnel?

Given the number of unresolved serious issues in this case, we believe in would be in the public interest if the Attorney General asked the court to grant a new trial where jurors would hear all the evidence and the above questions could be answered publicly once and for all. 

   We will be pleased to share your response with our audience if you so desire.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dennis Curley

President

News Director

New Zealander chimes in with opinion on Dechaine

Kennebec Journal

August 13

After looking at the evidence presented recently in the Court TV documentary shown here in New Zealand, I am amazed that the great United States of America, which is undoubtedly a world leader in civil justice, has allowed such a disgrace as the Dennis Dechaine situation to exist, let alone continue for so many years.

Surely a people with a heart for truth and justice would want all of the evidence in a case such as this fully examined, leaving no possibility for error. That an innocent man is condemned to death by stealth is unkind enough without beginning to factor the injustice possibly dealt to the tiny innocent victim and her family by not properly resolving the identity of her assassin.

I pray that the real perpetrator, when finally discovered, is not found to have quietly continued his perverted ways for more than 20 years, undetected.

Please give Dechaine a proper opportunity to present in court the unclouded version of events surrounding the murder of little Sarah Cherry, including all of the forensic evidence, and restore some of the former faith we all had in your American system of law.



Clint Pearce

Auckland, New Zealand

Dechaine pleads not guilty to prison trafficking charge

August 5 2010

Morphine and an anti-anxiety drug were used in his suicide attempt.

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com

Staff Writer

Dennis Dechaine

More letters to the editor, Aug. 7, 2010
Dechaine case keeps readers involved

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/letters/commentary_2010-08-07.html

Nowhere is the need to avoid judicial conflict of interest more pressing than when it may affect the very freedom of an individual imprisoned for life or the certainty due a murder victim's family that the real murderer is no longer at large.

Dennis Dechaine listens to questions from a reporter during an interview at the Maine State Prison in Warren on March 22.

2010 Press Herald file

Both are powerfully present in the case of Dennis Dechaine.

We are fast approaching the two-year mark since Dechaine filed his motion for a re-trial, based primarily but not exclusively on DNA test results unavailable at the original 1989 trial.

Remarkably, not even a hearing date has been set by Judge Carl Bradford, the original trial judge who, by statute, holds the authority to rule on the motion

It is not too late, therefore, for Bradford to recuse himself in the public's interest of avoiding an apparent conflict of interest. I'm not questioning Bradford's integrity; I'm confident he made all his trial decisions believing they were right in terms of due process and fairness.

Among these are his ruling against Dechaine's pre-trial request for DNA testing (the results of which now strongly suggest his innocence), and his prohibiting testimony regarding alternative suspects, leading the jury to believe there were none (though now we know clearly there were).

But the public's confidence in its judicial system requires there be not even the appearance of such a conflict. And yet, to rule on Dechaine's motion, Bradford will have to choose between approving it, thus implicating himself in having obstructed due process, or rejecting it, even more damaging in its suggestion of his serving the personal interest of his judicial reputation.

The solution, of course, is to remove himself from this moral dilemma, with its appearance of a paralyzing conflict of interest.

Dechaine is serving a life sentence, so there is still time.

Bernie Huebner

Waterville

In response to the letters to the editor July 27, I find it interesting that only one of the four respondents has firsthand knowledge of the Dennis Dechaine trial and appeals, Christine Beckwith-Hout. The others respond out of speculation and emotion.

Christine heard court testimony of Dechaine's drug history that started in his early high school days. Evidently it continues today. This last overdose was not his first. Staff writer Trevor Maxwell should have had that information and included it in his article. He would have painted a much truer picture of Dechaine for his readers.

Christine speaks of Sarah Cherry's family's pain. She is right. But yet each year in July near the aniversary of Sarah's murder, The Press Herald reruns all the old file information as if it is new information.

Maxwell quotes me and includes pictures, most of which came from old files. His focus when talking to me was "the strong faith of the family."

I believe the indictment of Dechaine for drug trafficking is true based on his history. He wasn't the only one indicted. He isn't the victim here -- nor has he ever been. His claim of attempted suicide is just another Dechaine spin.

How about a real story on his drug history from this paper? Let's finally be honest.

Bob Dorr

Waldoboro

There aren't many mysteries here. Dennis Dechaine is in prison for the rest of his life, no parole. Prison life cannot be that great, so it's not hard to accept that after 22 years he might have had a moment in which he wanted to give up.

I can also accept that in prison one can "get things" that should not be available, i.e. enough prescription drugs to commit suicide.

What I really want to know is, in these tight budgetary times and state belt-tightening, who in state government put "indict Dechaine on drug trafficking charges" at the top of his or her to-do list, and why?

I worked for the state last year. We all had to prioritize our work carefully. Don't these guys have any real work to do? What is really going on here?

Steve Sandau

Brunswick

The letters July 18 concerning the Dennis Deschaine case by Emily Paine, Zach White and Genie Nakel ("Dechaine case, coverage disturbing") have, in my opinion, hit the nail on the head.

Conscientious jurisdiction should be of primary concern. Does Maine continue to condone incarceration of a man whose innocence or guilt is debatable, not proved "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Taking new evidence and past inefficiencies into account, could this state's jurisprudence make the error of committing a possibly innocent man to life behind bars -- especially considering the magnitude of the crime?

Is it, perhaps more convenient and empowering for our law enforcement, lawyers, judges et al. -- however irritating and/or inconvenient it may be -- to mitigate our residents' fears by claiming, "We found the criminal. See? Problem solved. We've done a good job. Now you can safely go on with your normal daily patterns"?

I intend no slur on our police forces, litigators, judges and penal system. I appreciate the comfort they offer and admire many of them. However, people of any occupation can be fallible. Every human being should keep in mind the need for justice.

During this period of economic hardship, environmental disasters, green concerns and seemingly perpetual wars, it would be uplifting to know that at least one traumatic experience is handled with accurate, thorough examination, philanthropically: It's the American Way.

Alice W. Ingraham

Yarmouth

Is Dennis Dechaine a murderer or a scapegoat? After following this case for years, I'm still in doubt whether he's guilty or not.

Let's see if I have all this straight.

1. Dennis was found under the influence of drugs in the vicinity of Sarah Cherry's body.

2. His truck was nearby.

3. Rope that was supposed to be the same as Sarah was tied with was found in the truck along with some of Dechaine's papers that were on the ground.

4. Sarah was beaten and tied and strangled and bloody. But Dennis had no blood on his person or scratches anywhere, There was no evidence of Sarah being in his truck.

5. At Dennis' trial, the prosecutor and the detective lied under oath (why weren't they charged with perjury?).

6. They found DNA under Sarah's fingernails that was not Dennis'.

Dennis is found guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. How many other murderers got 25 to life and were let out of prison early?

The judge has kept him from getting a new trial. Why? The investigators have burned all the evidence. Why?

I feel that Judge Carl Bradford should step down and let a new judge hear this case, as he has been too involved in this case where he has refused Dennis a new hearing.

If I'm correct, Judge Bradford has said Dennis must prove he had new evidence. What ever happened to a case being proven without a doubt -- that a man was innocent until proven guilty?

Whatever happened to our Attorney General's Office? Did it drop this case like a hot potatao?

Let's give Dennis a new trial and stop this once and for all, without Judge Bradford sitting on the bench.

Richard C. Campbell

South Portland

OldGuy said...

Poor old Bob Dorr. This former member of the AG's staff heard the bits of circumstantial evidence prosecutors fed the jury and can't get his mind around the evidence they concealed, nor the facts (like false testimony by police) unearthed when our Legislature forced the attorney general to open his "confidential file" on the case, nor the scientific (DNA and time of death) evidence discovered in recent years. Now he's whining that reporter Maxwell didn't offer him a forum for his out-dated perceptions of this case. Well, as Lincoln once said, "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."

August 7, 2010 at 4:34 AM

Dechaine Deserves New Trial, New Judge

http://timmooreat949whom.blogspot.com/

Tim Moore at 94.9 WHOM

Fact, Fiction & Fun, Not Neccesarily In That Order

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Justice.

Webster’s Dictionary defines it as : a)“the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b)(1) the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal.”

In a world where we see a known terrorist who murdered hundreds released by Scottish officials on “humanitarian” grounds, where we hear of admitted murderers get plea-bargained sentences that allow them to see the light of day a few scant years after their crimes, it is no wonder that the public has no appetite for going “soft” on criminals.
Justice is a joke when these abuses are made known.

But what about those wrongly accused?

Dennis Dechaine has been behind bars for over 22 YEARS for a crime he could not possibly have committed. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have happened to you or me.

An enormity of evidence—both denied to the jury at trial and discovered after the conviction—have, in my opinion, cleared Dennis Dechaine from any involvement in the abduction and murder of 12 year old Sarah Cherry back in 1988.

Despite this evidence, including DNA—Dechaine and his lawyers have been thwarted at every turn in their quest to gain Dennis a new trial. Legal procedure delays, petty maneuvering and the Maine “good ‘ol boy” legal community have conspired to deny a man with a compelling case for innocence the chance at a new trial.

Why?

Simple, really. The ego investment of the prosecutor, the judge and those police officers who failed to follow ANY OTHER leads or suspects would have their incompetence or obstruction of justice become completely exposed in a new trial.

The original prosecutor Eric Wright, in his zeal to satiate the public’s thirst for a suspect and a conviction, made a series of decisions that obscured the time of death (something defense attorney Tom Connolly acknowledged was a failing on his part to explore) This piece of critical evidence alone would have exonerated Dechaine. While finding the TRUTH should be the charge of the Prosecutor’s office, instead it was merely about finding someone to convict—and making the circumstantial evidence conform to sway a jury already predisposed by intense media exposure—to punish someone.

The judge?

Justice Carl O. Bradford. Many believe he made a series of errors in the original trial. I won’t assume his motives were suspect, but clearly the legal tradition of having the ORIGINAL PRESIDING JUDGE decide the fate of appeals is simply ludicrous!

Judge Bradford is semi-retired but still active enough to be the JUDGE WHO WILL DECIDE whether Dechaine gets a new trial in September?

Are you kidding me?

It’s been said that only judges have bigger egos than lawyers—and this judge has turned a blind eye to the JUSTICE principle defined above—to hide behind a stream of legal mumbo-jumbo, anything at all to divert attention away from the blunders he made that have ruined an innocent man’s life. Dennis actually pushed for DNA testing prior to his trial. Does this sound like the request of a guilty man?

Prosecutors opposed the introduction of this DNA evidence—and it was denied by Judge Bradford. One can speculate on WHY the state would oppose a method that would definitively isolate the true killer. Or, why, before Dechaine’s appeal could come to court, why the state INCINERATED all potential DNA evidence, save for a thumbnail, which, through an error of the court clerk, was placed in the possession of the defense counsel.

State laws were painstakingly changed to allow for the presentation of DNA evidence. Here’s another suggestion for a state law:

FORBID THE APPELATE REVIEW OF ANY CASE FROM BEING HEARD BY THE ORIGINAL PRESIDING JUDGE.

Yeah, I know that judges are SUPPOSED to be unbiased, but they are also human—and the last thing that Justice Carl O. Bradford will ever do is admit that he screwed up.

He did.
He probably knows it.
And he doesn’t care…….or does he? Does he really care for this concept called “justice”?

While we certainly can suspect the prosecutor’s office in the withholding and/or destruction of critical evidence, we will ASSUME the judge was not at all aware of these shenanigans. Revelation of these irregularities ALONE should compel the good judge to err on the side of…JUSTICE…and allow a new trial on this basis solely.

Judge Bradford’s upcoming decision on whether or not to grant Dechaine a new trial will define his career on the bench. Should he take into account the mountain of evidence that points in another direction, evidence that makes Dechaine’s guilt physically impossible and takes into consideration the criminally irresponsible behavior of the prosecutor’s office in the conduct of its investigation and subsequent trial, he will rule for justice, a forum where ALL of the evidence can be heard by a jury. Should he continue to hide behind the manipulation of words that lawyers use to distort the truth, he will concoct a lengthy document that, while filled with impressive legalese, will say nothing—other than the system he presides over is corrupt—and he is a part of that corruption.

Which will it be, your honor?


This case has haunted me ever since I read the excellent book by James P. Moore (no relation), entitled “Human Sacrifice”. It reads like a novel—gripping and astonishing, but to those connected to both the victim and the accused, it is nothing short of a real-life horror story. A retired law enforcement officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Moore attended a meeting of “Trial and error”, the group of Dechaine supporters who believe in his innocence and have, for over two decades, sought legal avenues toward gaining Dennis a new trial.

It is difficult to imagine living in prison, but to do so knowing that you didn’t commit the crime is beyond my ability to comprehend.

For those not familiar with the case, here are the basics.

On July 6, 1988, 12-year old Sarah Cherry was abducted while babysitting. Her body was found two days later in the woods. She had been strangled and tortured. Dennis Dechaine was picked up by police after leaving the woods. He was injecting drugs and had become disoriented, losing awareness of the location of his truck. He emerged from the woods around 8:45pm on the 6th.

After Sarah’s body was discovered on the 8th, Dechaine was arrested and charged with murder. He has not been free since.

I remember the case well. I also remember being convinced by news reports—ones that I myself delivered on the radio back then---that the police had arrested the right guy. I am about the same age as Dechaine. In 1988, I was 30 years old and living in Ellsworth, Maine. In the 22 years since then, my life has changed profoundly. Three children, two of whom are in college now. Advances in my career, moving to Portland, buying new houses and cars. Countless vacations, dinners out, family celebrations, holidays and excursions and simple pleasures have filled my days and nights. My wife and I just celebrated our 25th anniversary. It has truly been glorious.

For Dennis Dechaine?

Those same 22 years—losing his wife (a mutually agreed upon divorce to protect her assets from a civil trial), no family, no such simple pleasures—and the crushing boredom of endless days in the hell that is prison. No end in sight. Every hope, every wisp of a chance to introduce JUSTICE is delayed, blunted and thwarted by players in a legal system that’s more concerned with “following procedure/precedent” than finding truth. How Dennis has maintained his sanity and seemingly has come to terms with the bitterness of his situation is beyond my ability to comprehend.

Author James Moore was intrigued by the case—enough to conduct his own investigation—but warned members of “Trial and error” that if he found evidence to CONFIRM Dechaine’s guilt, he would make it public.

In fact, Moore, in his own telling of the circumstances, entered his investigation convinced of Dechaine’s guilt. After all, Dechaine was seen stumbling out the woods near where Sarah Cherry’s body was later found. Items from his truck were found in the driveway where Sarah was abducted. Police reports told of “confessions” by Dechaine-which was used as evidence in the trial, despite the absence of these so-called confessions in the police notes-and Dechaine’s denial of ever confessing to the crime.

The evidence that exonerates Dechaine (in my opinion) but at the VERY LEAST should gain him a new trial is overwhelming, but contains these highlights:

1) According to the medical examiner’s report—given huge windows on either side of the time of death of Sarah Cherry, Dennis Dechaine could not POSSIBLY have committed the crime-----because he was either in custody, being questioned or at home following his initial release by police—and under surveillance. Sarah’s throat was constricted in such a manner that she could not possibly have lived more than about 2 minutes from the time she was strangled. Dechaine was in custody when she died. It’s my opinion that Prosecutor Eric Wright was also aware of the problematic nature of the timing and thus, glossed over it at trial. Had the defense made this an issue, there could have been a different result.

2) DNA evidence from Sarah’s fingernails contain blood that is hers, but also blood from a man who is NOT Dennis Dechaine.


3) Forensic evidence concluded that Sarah Cherry was NEVER in Dennis Dechaine’s pickup truck. No fiber, no hairs, nothing. She was never there.

4) A known child molester with a history of violence was ignored as a suspect. Police notes outlining a set of footprints to this persons trailer—one adult and one barefoot child (Sarah was barefoot when abducted-her shoes left at the home of the people she was babysitting) were never followed up on.


5) Dennis Dechaine had absolutely no record of violence in his past. None. The mutilation that occurred to Sarah suggests a sociopath. Additionally, her panties were missing. Psychologists say that perpetrators of crimes like these often take a “souvenir” such as this. Dechaine had nothing like this on his person, in his truck or in his house. They have never been found—because the killer took them. A killer who is not Dennis Dechaine.
6) Of the nearly 200 items found in Dechaine’s truck, the only two that contained his name (and were part of the damning evidence that convicted him) where the ones that “fell out” of his truck during the abduction. The odds that only these two would be left behind is astronomical. This was a frameup. Remember, Sarah Cherry was NEVER in this truck that supposedly abducted her.

7) Dennis Dechaine did not know Sarah Cherry and would have had no reason to know that she would be at that house, at that time.


8) Dechaine himself pressed for examination of his house, his truck and his person, confident that an honest investigation would clear him. His mistake was in believing in the system, believing that his innocence would be evident.

9) There were multiple alternate suspects in the vicinity, men with criminal records of violence—and violence towards children. Dechaine’s arrest effectively halted all subsequent investigation into these more likely killers. Dechaine’s arrest was reasonable—he should have been a suspect, but certainly NOT the only one—and, as it turns out, the exclusive attention paid to him allowed the real killer to escape investigation and arrest.


There are many other pieces of evidence, circumstances—and just plain common sense that would point towards the notion of a new trial being a good idea.

Here is some video of Dennis himself, being interviewed in prison 6 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVIb2qplq_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KslcRNuk9iQ&feature=related


Dennis Dechaine tried to take his own life in April. It was not successful—and new charges of trafficking in the drugs he used may be pending. Who could blame him? If you ask: how someone with a new trial decision pending could possibly take his own life, my only response would be that after over two decades of one legal disappointment after another, it’s likely that Dennis is just about out of hope.

So what about the victim’s family?

Many believe that Sarah’s family has been short-changed in all of this—and I cannot disagree. While at least one juror who voted for conviction has publicly said that the introduction of this new evidence would have been grounds for acquittal, I have yet to read or hear from a family member of the victim who believes Dechaine is innocent.

Sarah Cherry, were she alive today, would no doubt be a beautiful and vibrant 34 year old woman. Judging from the details we know about her as a 12 year old, she would likely have graduated college with distinction, perhaps have been an athlete and would likely now be a mother herself.

Perhaps the only “witness” to the abduction of Sarah Cherry was the infant who was being cared for—and who would be about 23 years old today. Apart from the killer, this infant was likely the last person to see Sarah alive.

This brutal murder cries out for justice, not merely “closure”. The conviction of the wrong person does not constitute justice or closure, only retribution.

If you’d like to know more about this case, I highly recommend the book “Human Sacrifice” by James P. Moore. I also encourage you to visit the website of Trial and error: www.trialanderrordennis.org


The tragedy of Sarah Cherry’s death is the ultimate one.
The tragedy of Dennis Dechaine’s wrongful conviction is second in line---and vies with the knowledge that the TRUE killer got away with it (and did God knows what to others since)

Let’s not compound this series of tragedies by allowing Dechaine to be denied a new trial by a judge who has NO BUSINESS being involved with this case any longer. Judge Bradford has the final say, whether he deserves it or not.

It’s not about who made a mistake—or who may have concealed evidence.

It’s about justice.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Dechaine pleads not guilty to drug charges

http://knox.villagesoup.com/news/story/dechaine-pleads-not-guilty-to-drug-charges/343068

By Shlomit Auciello | Aug 04, 2010

Rockland — Convicted murderer Dennis J. Dechaine pleaded not guilty Aug. 4 to a charge that he was in possession of prohibited materials, in the form of drugs, while incarcerated at the Maine State Prison.

Dechaine, who attended the hearing at Knox County Superior Court by way of a video hearing from the prison, was represented by attorney Jeremy Pratt. District Attorney Geoffrey Rushlau represented the state at the hearing, which was heard by Judge John David Kennedy.

Dechaine, 52, has been at the Maine State Prison for more than 21 years for the murder in 1988 of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoinham.

Dechaine was indicted in mid-July for trafficking in prison contraband. The indictment alleged that Dechaine had morphine and/or klonopine on April 5 at the prison.

At the Aug. 4 hearing, Pratt said Dechaine's attorney in the Cherry case, Steve Peterson, had expressed willingness to be retained to represent Dechaine on the drug charges.

Rushlau said he was not seeking bail because Dechaine was not a flight risk while he remained at the prison. The district attorney said he would ask to revisit the question of bail if a new trial in the Cherry case, currently being sought by Dechaine, were to be granted. Rushlau asked to be notified if Peterson was assigned to the drug case.

Dechaine has maintained his innocence in the murder of Cherry who was last seen alive while babysitting at a Bowdoinham home. Attorneys for Dechaine are attempting to introduce DNA evidence to try to win a new trial.

The Herald Gazette reporter Shlomit Auciello can be reached at 207-236-8511 or by e-mail at sauciello@villagesoup.com.

Who named Bradford as Dechaine hearing judge?

July 31 2010 Posted: 12:00 AM

Kennec Journal

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/Who-named-Bradford-as-Dechaine-hearing-judge.html

When I read that the presiding judge in the court hearing for Dennis Dechaine was Carl Bradford, the same judge who convicted him 22 years ago, I was puzzled and uneasy.
Certainly the state of Maine has many judges, and it would look better if the judge were someone else.
Why Bradford? Who named him as the judge for this case? Isn’t he retired? Won’t there be questions?
It seems that with the national publicity this case has received, the judicial system would not leave itself vulnerable to questions such as mine.

Gail Schade
Hallowell

Dechaine: 'What I sensed ... was relief'

  http://www.pressherald.com/news/what-i-sensed-___-was-relief-_2010-07-25.html  

Posted: July 25
Updated: Today at 10:43 PM

In his first interview since trying to kill himself, Dennis Dechaine reveals his state of mind.

By Trevor Maxwelltmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

Prisoner Dennis Dechaine, in his first interview with the media since his suicide attempt in April, said Friday he believes prosecutors have charged him with trafficking in prison contraband as payback for his outspokenness about his case, and also to undermine his pending motion for a new trial.

Joined by his attorney Steve Peterson, left, of Rockport, Dennis Dechaine speaks to a reporter at the Maine State Prison in Warren in March. Dechaine, incarcerated since his arrest and subsequent conviction for the 1988 slaying of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin, has a court hearing in September which his attorney has described as his “last, best chance” at a new trial.

2010 file photo by The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram

SEE THE COMPLETE PACKAGE including multimedia resources here

"This is nothing more than a political ploy," Dechaine said in a 30-minute telephone interview from the mental health unit at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

"I think it's a case of kicking a man when he is down," he said.

Chris Fernald, an assistant district attorney for Knox County, declined to comment specifically about the trafficking charge against Dechaine, which was handed up by a grand jury July 15. But Fernald said it is not uncommon for prisoners serving life sentences to be charged with other crimes during their incarcerations.

"If we didn't prosecute these individuals, then basically the message would be sent to the inmates that if you are serving a life sentence you can do anything you want," Fernald said.

Dechaine, 52, was convicted by a jury and sent to prison for life for the 1988 kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in the small Sagadahoc County town of Bowdoin. He claims that he is innocent, but four court appeals at the state and federal levels have failed.

His latest motion for a new trial, filed by his attorney in August 2008, is tentatively set to be heard by a judge in September.

Dechaine said he tried to commit suicide on April 4 by overdosing on a combination of morphine and Klonopin inside his cell. The next morning, guards found him unconscious, with an extremely low pulse rate and blood pressure. He was taken by helicopter to a Portland hospital, where he spent the next two weeks recovering before being sent back to the prison.

The Department of Corrections investigated the incident and Knox County prosecutors sought charges against him. No date has been set for his arraignment.

Until Friday, Dechaine had been off limits to the media since his hospitalization. A spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections has said there were several reasons for prohibiting interviews of Dechaine in that time frame, but she said those reasons are confidential.

The suicide attempt raised questions about why Dechaine would try to end his life when he is just months away from a court hearing that has been described by his attorney as Dechaine's "last, best chance" at getting a new trial.

On Friday, Dechaine explained that by early April the cumulative impact of his years in prison had pushed him to a state of despair. Also, he came to believe that his appeal could not succeed, particularly because it will be heard by the same judge who sentenced him.

But even more than his doubts about the court proceedings, Dechaine said he arrived at the suicide decision because he felt that the life he could have had outside of prison had already been lost.

"Even if I do overturn my case, the best years of my life have been taken from me," he said. "I can't start a family. I'm too old to start a business. That is depressing."

"Oddly enough, what I sensed when I made the decision (to kill myself) was a sense of relief," Dechaine said.

He said he was devastated when he regained consciousness at Maine Medical Center. Dechaine said his outlook on life improved during his hospital stay thanks to the kindness of the medical staff, but that outlook deteriorated when he was returned to the prison. He said he has never attempted suicide before, and this is the first time that he has been housed in the prison's mental health unit, which consists of two areas of 16 cells.

For the first two weeks back, Dechaine said, he was on a strict suicide watch and he was not allowed to have any items in his cell except for a thin pad on the floor on which he slept. He said he now has a bunk and has been provided some reading and writing materials. He is allowed one hour per week for approved visitors such as family members, he said.

Dechaine said he was not taking any medications before his suicide attempt. He declined to say how he obtained the drugs he used on April 4, and said he has not answered questions about that from Department of Corrections investigators, because he is concerned about retribution.

In the mental health unit, Dechaine meets for one hour a week with a counselor, he said, and the only drug he is taking is a blood thinner to treat the effects of a clot suffered in the suicide attempt.

Dechaine said he has asked to be returned to the general prison population, but so far the request has been denied.

"It doesn't look promising," he said.

Dechaine's pending motion is based on a state law originally passed in 2001 and revised in 2006 that allows prisoners to seek new trials based on DNA evidence.

The evidence in question is a fragment of unidentified male DNA extracted from Sarah Cherry's clipped thumbnail five years after Dechaine's conviction. His attorney says the partial DNA profile discovered by scientists holds the key to finding the real killer. Prosecutors say the right man is behind bars, and the DNA could have come from any incidental contact Sarah Cherry had leading up to her death, or from contaminated nail clippers at her autopsy.

Sarah Cherry, a straight-A student at Bowdoin Central School, was kidnapped while baby-sitting on July 6, 1988.

The mother who had hired her to baby-sit came home around 3:20 p.m. and found a notebook and a receipt in her driveway, bearing the name Dennis Dechaine. Police began a search for both the missing girl and Dechaine, and about five hours later he was seen walking out of the woods about three miles north of the home where Sarah had been baby-sitting.

He told police that he had been fishing and had gotten lost and he could not find his truck. He denied having anything to do with Sarah's disappearance. Later that night, police found his pickup truck on a discontinued logging road nearby.

A search team found Sarah's body around noon on July 8, in the woods near the spot where Dechaine's truck was found. She had been stabbed about a dozen times, and was strangled to death with a scarf. The rope binding her wrists and the scarf had come from Dechaine's truck.

Dechaine says he went into the woods on July 6 to inject speed and to wander around. He claims he was alone the whole day, got lost, and someone must have grabbed his papers, the rope and the scarf from his truck.

Dechaine sounded despondent during the interview Friday, and while he did not expressly say that he was still suicidal, he indicated that his will to live was not strong.

"I'd rather not be here," Dechaine said.

When asked if he meant the prison's Special Management Unit, or if he meant he did not want to be alive, he said: "I'd rather not be here. I'll just leave it at that." 

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

Posted: July 25
Updated: Today at 1:14 AM

Maine Voices:
Dechaine story converts a skeptic

A close look at the claims of his defenders carries considerable weight for an online editor.

By TRACY SCHECKEL

GRAY - As a news editor myself, I'm always reading for the "editorial slant." I found the Dennis Dechaine series quite balanced, yet intriguing. In Maine for only three years, and hailing from New Jersey where Megan's Law originated after an equally heinous murder of an innocent child, I've been a proponent of the death penalty for certain crimes. I bear no sympathy for perpetrators of such unthinkable crimes.

James Moore’s account of the case for Dennis Dechaine’s innocence was impressive to this Maine writer.

Telegram file photo

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tracy Scheckel is editor and half-owner of Maine Hometown News LLC, publisher of the Gray and New Gloucester Gazette, an online journal (www.gnggazette.com).

Reading Trevor Maxwell's stories, I pondered, "If Maine had the death penalty, we wouldn't have been supporting this guy for the last 22 years."

I reflected on the horror that both Sarah Cherry's parents and Megan Kanka's family in New Jersey continue to endure. I became intrigued at the Trial and Error group, so convinced of Dechaine's innocence. They couldn't be right and not have prevailed after 22 years.

CRACKING THE BOOK

I really wanted to read James Moore's book, "Human Sacrifice," mentioned in Maxwell's stories. Aware that the proceeds from the sale went to the Dechaine defense fund, I was reluctant to "contribute."

Curiosity becoming the victor, I ordered the book. In two days I devoured all 418 pages. I re-read and thumbed back and forth, getting more incensed by the page. Moore portrays a miscarriage of justice that would be unbelievable in a John Grisham crime novel.

Recently, a reader from Waldoboro commented that he thought the Dechaine series running on Independence Day was inappropriate. In some ways he's correct; this must be a horrid time for Sarah's family, the state is brimming with summer tourists, and "Vacationland" is supposed to be a happy place.

His comments explain the zeal with which the police worked in July 1988 to see that justice was done. "It's the height of the tourist season, this is the worst crime ever committed here, and this is 'Vacationland,' crimes like this don't happen here, and, above all, the family of this child needs closure. This crime needs to be solved ASAP!"

Dechaine was an easy suspect. His truck, belongings and drug-impaired self, all in the vicinity of the crime, created an open-and-shut case for police. Based on trial transcripts, notes and police reports, the entire Dechaine saga is reminiscent of the Keystone Cops, Good Ol' Boys, and Catch 22 all rolled into one giant nightmare.

Everybody makes mistakes, but our legal system, through its appellate process and other legal mechanisms, is designed to assure that justice is ultimately done. In spite of numerous efforts by the Dechaine defense team, it is obvious that our judicial system has failed repeatedly.

The lack of hard evidence against Dechaine is far more compelling than the prosecution's circumstantial evidence. The judge disallowed evidence of the existence of two other viable suspects, both known child sex offenders.

The time of death, per the testimony of the state coroner -- if one could decode the rhetoric and do the math -- places Dechaine in the custody of police while Sarah was being murdered. There's DNA evidence that doesn't match Dechaine's. I could go on ...

The point is that the system has failed Dennis Dechaine and the family of Sarah Cherry. Her murderer is still out there, and an innocent man is imprisoned. One can't begin to imagine the eternal pain felt by little Sarah's family. In spite of the need for closure, one has to conclude that they would want the real murderer incarcerated.

"Human Sacrifice" brought mixed emotions. My assumption of fairness in our judicial system has been obliterated, yet I am glad to have provided even some support for Dechaine's defense. I now wonder if the death penalty should be abolished nationwide. I'm sure the judicial ineptness doesn't stop at Maine's borders.

I commend the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram for having the courage to tell the story and inspire readers like me to look at all the facts, not just what the jury saw and heard.

WILL A RETRIAL HAPPEN?

The Dechaine team will seek a retrial in September based on DNA information. I contacted Moore regarding his book and to see what might be done in support of Dechaine.

To my suggestion of a pardon request, he replied, "Dennis has consistently rejected suggestions that he apply for a pardon, since that would imply he'd done something to be pardoned for. He and some Trial and Error members have urged the governor to commission an honest, objective, bona fide inquiry into the case but to no avail."

He did suggest letters be sent to the Attorney General's office.

Maybe it's not too late.

- Special to the Telegram

Dechaine does deservea new trial, at least

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/opinion/letters/dechaine-does-deservea-new-trial-at-least_2010-07-24.html

Posted: July 25
Updated: Today at 7:20 PM

Morning Sentinel Staff

"Did Dennis Dechaine kill Sarah Cherry?" was the headline in the July 4 Morning Sentinel. It referred to a more than 22-year-old case in which a man was convicted of a crime for which he has always maintained his innocence.

Upon reading it, I was reminded of an interview I conducted three years ago for an access TV show I was producing. I interviewed retired federal agent James P. Moore and several people who had studied transcripts of the trial. At the end of the interview, I was convinced Dechaine at least deserved a new trial.

Moore drew an actual police investigative time line. This time line showed Dechaine to be in a lengthy police custody. Forensics by experts determined that Sarah Cherry died in the middle of that custody. It was even determined that there was a scuffle in the woods, 'in the same spot where Sarah Cherry's body was found.' At the time, the detective holding Dechaine refused to let police dogs investigate the scene. Had that search been allowed, the real killer might have been apprehended, and Cherry might still be alive.

Another troublesome fact was that one of the detectives changed the wording of his original notes. The new version implied guilt, while the original notes implied innocence. During the trial, another of the detectives actually testified in conflict with his own crime- scene notes. Again, the court version implied guilt, whereas the original notes implied innocence.

The position of Dechaine's truck also bothered me. According to the detective's version, Dechaine abducted Cherry, drove her to a location, killed her, walked way past his truck and exited the woods.

Why didn't he just get in his truck and leave?

Peter P. Sirois

Madison

The desperate act of a self-destructive system

Posted: July 24 2010
Updated: Today at 7:20 PM

Morning Sentinel Staff

Moved by news of Dennis Dechaine's attempted suicide, I've just studied that part of Maine law that pertains to "trafficking in prison contraband."

It's clear that Knox County (and AG's office?) officials are risking mental dislocation in their over-reaching attempts to stifle the growing awareness of the injustices visited upon MSP inmate #1725 by responding to his suicide attempt with an indictment for criminal possession of prescription drugs.

Forget the lawyers with their jargon and the bureaucrats their stone walls. In the court of public opinion, it's finally the straight face test that must be met.

Try and keep one here:

* While the indictment uses the inflammatory word "trafficking," the only drugs found were in Dechaine's blood stream. There were none in his cell or on his person.

* After 22 years of frustrated effort to present DNA and other new evidence of his innocence in a new jury trial, Dechaine's desperate but "reasonable response to an intolerable situation" (his words) is being twisted to conform to a section of the law code (Maine Revised Statutes Title 17-A, Part 2, Chapter 31, Section 756) whose heading, ironically, is "Aiding escape."

* Even though Dechaine is working out two hours a day and is reinvigorated, he is being kept in solitary confinement indefinitely, presumably because he is a risk to himself.

* Anyone who has visited prisoners knows how difficult it would be to smuggle in drugs. Likely Dechaine obtained them from prison staff, yet he is the only one being charged.

* Why go to the trouble and expense of trying to convict someone who is already serving a life sentence without parole?

Why, indeed. Unless it is the equally desperate act of a justice system trying to destroy itself.

Bernie Huebner

Waterville

More Letters to the editor, July 22, 2010
Dechaine series continues to elicit strong reactions

http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/letters/commentary_2010-07-22.html

July 22 2010

Since it is not against the law to attempt to commit suicide, Dennis Dechaine is to be persecuted, er, prosecuted for having traces of prescription drugs in his blood.

Traffficking" makes great headlines, even though legally the charge is a real stretch, and morally it is indefensible -- talk about kicking a guy when he is down!

No matter. The Maine Attorney General's Office -- and until told otherwise we can assume the local district attorney is a puppet for the state -- has shown no shame over having sealed the records on the Dechaine case; incinerated evidence; opposed DNA testing and the findings of its own psychological experts; presented perjured testimony; obscured the time of death, etc.

If Dechaine receives five years for trying to commit suicide, but is later exonerated on the wrongful murder conviction, do you suppose our attorney general will insist that he serve the five years before being freed? It's a fair question.

William Bunting

Whitefield

In the Dennis Dechaine case, DNA proves the wrong man has been in prison for 22 years.

I applaud Trevor Maxwell for his in-depth investigative story about the Sarah Cherry murder case and owner Richard Connor for publishing it. The two-part special report in the Maine Sunday Telegram and the multimedia information presented on The Portland Press Herald website are outstanding.

DNA technology has been used successfully by the Innocence Project to exonerate over 250 wrongfully convicted individuals. The Innocence Project lawyers believe the DNA profile found in the Cherry case is significant enough for Dechaine to be granted a new trial.

How can Maine prosecutors say that DNA in the Dechaine case is irrelevant? How can the head of the Criminal Division of the Attorney General's Office, William Stokes, say with a straight face that the DNA evidence from the 1988 Cherry case came from "dirty" nail clippers?

Stokes recently argued and won the case against Thomas Mitchell for the 1984 murder of Judith Flagg of Fayette using DNA evidence extracted from Flagg's fingernail clippings. The AG's office felt that DNA technology was relevant enough in the Flagg case to send material for testing in the summer of 1988, yet it opposed DNA testing to be done in 1989 in the Cherry case, saying that the technology was too new. Then-Judge Carl Bradford denied Dechaine's request.

I commend the AG's office for the conviction of Mitchell; however, the same degree of importance concerning DNA evidence should be used when it proves a wrongful conviction.

It is becoming abundantly clear that the Attorney General's Office can no longer be objective when it comes to the Dechaine case. For prosecutors, it is no longer about finding the truth but about upholding the jury's verdict.

Nancy Farrin

Pittston

With all the passion, facts, fiction and misinformation around the guilt or innocence of Dennis Dechaine, it's hard to keep one's eyes on the prize -- certainty about the perpetrator without doubt.

My fervent hope is that Justice Carl Bradford will allow a new trial so that all the evidence -- old and new -- can be laid on the table.

I believe the citizenry, the law enforcement community, the family and friends of Sarah Cherry, those of us who have followed this case since 1988 and certainly the AG's office and the judiciary want justice -- a fair, impartial, honest conclusion reached from consideration of true events and scientific data.

I believe there is more than reasonable doubt as to Dechaine's guilt. Once that is recognized, we can get on with following other lines of investigation and maybe find a child's killer.

Charlotte Henderson

Washington

Trevor Maxwell has done a stellar job again reporting on the Dennis Dechaine case. With all the facts of the case so thoroughly laid out, only questions remain.

The state's case is based solely on items from Dechaine's truck. Would the state have incinerated hairs, clothing and swabs if they showed any evidence whatsoever that Sarah had contact with Dennis or his truck?

If Sarah Cherry's hands were bound in front of her and had her own blood on them, how could Dennis emerge from the woods without a drop of blood on him?

If no forensic evidence was found in Dennis' truck, how could he drive her three miles from where she was babysitting to the woods?

How could he have carried her 350 feet into the woods without any trace evidence on either of them? Why was no missing article of Sarah's clothing or a knife found on Dennis, or anywhere else?

What guilty person asks for DNA testing to be done? There are potentially thousands of people worldwide whose DNA would match the partial profile in this case. But Dennis Dechaine is not one of them!

William Stokes, the head of the Criminal Division of the Attorney General's Office, states that DNA on a murder victim's fingers doesn't automatically identify the killer. But it certainly rules one out! The state would have relied heavily on this DNA evidence had it been a match for Dechaine.

Stokes states: "With partial profiles, you have to be careful because you may actually implicate a lot of innocent people."

Is Mr. Stokes more concerned about implicating an innocent person whose DNA does match the profile than he is about implicating an innocent person whose DNA does not match the profile? Let's have a new trial where all the evidence is presented. Let's finally have a fair trial.

Susan Pastore

Portland

It's not like Dechaine is asking for pardon

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/opinion/letters/98972129.html

Morning Sentinel Staff

July 22 2010

Thank you for publishing Trevor Maxwell's piece on the Dennis Dechaine case. It's journalism like this that makes me optimistic that local newspapers can survive.

Like most Mainers I've been somewhat aware of this case over the years but only in snippets or fragments. It was very helpful see the sad story from its beginning to the present. With a case this of this magnitude I can't understand why the authorities have fought a retrial for so many years, especially with the science of DNA being so much more developed.

The fact that Dechaine was denied the use of DNA testing from the beginning is grounds for a new trial. It's not like he's asking for a pardon.

It's almost like the prosecution doesn't believe in their own judicial system.

David Jordan

Somerville

July 21 Letters to the Editor

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/149215.html

7/20/10 07:37 pm  Updated: 7/20/10 07:45 pm

Not the whole story

Emmet Meara’s July 9-10 BDN column expressing his certainty of Dennis Dechaine’s guilt in the murder of Sarah Cherry would have been more convincing if his listed evidence had dealt with a thorough investigation of two factors that have left me questioning Mr. Dechaine’s guilt over the years.

Why hasn’t the government deemed it important to know who the DNA found under her fingernails belongs to and provided a clear reason why tha DNA hasn’t been compared with an extended family member who had been charged with child sexual abuse of other family members at the time of this murder?

When convictions are the result of circumstantial evidence, no matter how prolific, and hard evidence is ignored, doubts will remain.

I cannot imagine the pain that the Cherry family has endured over the years and they have my profound sympathy. But if Mr. Dechaine is not guilty, a murderer is still walking free among us.

Pat Jenkins

Bangor

Wasteful indictment

There aren’t many mysteries here. Dennis Dechaine is in prison for the rest of his life, no parole. Prison life cannot be that great, so it’s not hard to accept that after 22 years he might have had a moment in which he wanted to give up.

I can also accept that in prison one can get things that should not be available, i.e. enough prescription drugs to commit suicide.

What I really want to know is, in these tight budgetary times of state belt-tightening, who in state government put “indict Dechaine on drug trafficking charges” at the top of his or her to-do list and why?

I worked for the state last year. We all had to prioritize our work carefully. Don’t these guys have any real work to do? What is really going on here?

Steve Sandau

Brunswick

Wrongly convicted

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/149097.html

July 19 2010

I was saddened to read in the July 17-18 BDN that Dennis Dechaine had attempted suicide this past April. He obviously felt such despair from having lost faith in the Maine state justice system that even while waiting for a decision about a retrial, he didn’t have faith that the justice system would know what we all know would be right: a retrial.

Having been let down countless times before, from having concrete evidence that proved his innocence brought forward over the years and ignored by the AG’s office, it’s no wonder he felt the way he did. He’s only human. A wrongly convicted human.

Why would he be charged with “drug trafficking” for having it for the sole purpose to use to try to take his own life?

In Maine a life sentence isn’t 25 years, as in some states. It’s for life, unless you were wrongly convicted and can prove it. Why charge him for using something for the sole purpose of committing suicide? What’s to be gained from that? Tack on more years to a life sentence? That doesn’t make any sense.

In my opinion, these are very suspicious actions by an office that has fought to try to prevent Dennis from receiving a fair trial with all of the evidence that was not brought forth in the initial trial.

Add this indictment to the growing list of suspicious actions of that office, where Dennis and real justice is concerned.

Lori Dumont

Bangor

July 20 2010

  In the Dechaine case, DNA proves the wrong man has been in prison for 22 years.  I applaud Trevor Maxwell for his in depth investigative story of the Sarah Cherry murder case and Richard Connor for publishing it.  The two part special report appearing in the Maine Sunday Telegram and the multimedia information presented on the Portland Press Herald website are outstanding.  DNA technology has been used successfully by the Innocence Project to exonerate over 250 wrongfully convicted individuals. 

The Innocence Project lawyers believe the DNA profile found in the Cherry case is significant enough for Dennis Dechaine to be granted a new trial.  How can State of Maine prosecutors say that DNA in the Dechaine case is irrelevant?  How can the head of the Criminal Division of the state Attorney General’s Office, William Stokes, say with a straight face that the DNA evidence from the 1988 Cherry case came from “dirty” nail clippers?  William Stokes recently argued and won the case against Thomas Mitchell for the 1984 murder of Judith Flagg of Fayette using DNA evidence extracted from Flagg’s fingernail clippings.  The AG’s office felt that DNA technology was relevant enough in the Flagg case to send material for testing in the summer of 1988 yet opposed DNA testing to be done in 1989 in the Cherry case citing that the technology was too new.  Judge Bradford denied Dechaine’s request. 

I commend the AG’s office for the conviction of Mitchell, however, the same degree of importance concerning DNA evidence should be used when it proves a wrongful conviction.  It is becoming abundantly clear that the state Attorney General’s office can no longer be objective when it comes to the Dechaine case.  For them, it is no longer about finding the truth but about upholding the original jury’s verdict.

Nancy

Letter from Dennis to Trevor Maxwell at the PPH

 Dear Trevor,

I have received the first series of articles you wrote, published July 4.

I was surprised that there was such an interest in making public my recent

hospitalization. The reason why I was hospitalized on April 5 is because

on the evening of April 4 I ingested a combination of prescription drugs

in an attempt to end my life.

I didn't think I would ever have to explain myself, but since the state

now seems intent in charging me criminally, it appears that keeping this a

private matter is no longer a possibility. What drove me to suicide? A

combination of factors.

I have been imprisoned 22 years and the soul crushing monotony, boredom,

institutional food, pervasive violence, 24 hour lights, near constant

noise, harsh treatment, myriad petty rules, lack of resources, loss of

potential, separation from family and friends, along with a raft of other

negativity, simply conspired to erode my will to live.

Combined with the overwhelming oppression of prison were thoughts about my

case and my chances for justice. It seems that every time exculpatory

facts are revealed, state agents respond by digging their heels in with

greater resolve. The state, with its infinite resources, tilts the playing

field so precipitously that a defendant with limited resources doesn't

stand a chance. All I ever wanted is the right to present all of the facts

in my case to a jury of my peers, something our constitution fundamentally

affords. Why can't I do that in Maine?

Prosecutor Bill Stokes implied that I should not be allowed to continue

appealing my case because I failed to make my case in previous efforts.

That's the sort of flawed reasoning that drives me to distraction. Stokes'

office first argued against DNA testing and now it's arguing to keep a

jury from ever hearing the results of that testing. His office also fought

to keep any discussion of alternate suspects from a jury. One of his

colleagues had potentially crucial forensic evidence incinerated before

the value of that hair and fiber could be ascertained. Why would a

prosecutor want to make evidence disappear? Logically, anyone who destroys

evidence or sanctions its destruction, clearly isn't interested in truth

or justice. That no jury will ever benefit from the knowledge inherent in

that evidence creates frustration that weighs heavily on me.

Another source of frustration was also alluded to in one of your articles,

which stated that no other case in Maine has ever been litigated for so

long. The vast majority of that time has been wasted waiting for the state

to respond to motions, and for the courts to schedule hearings or make

decisions. As time goes by the torment of waiting worsens, diminishing any

hope for a return to a meaningful and productive life.

In Maine, a life sentence is a cruel and lingering death sentence that

eventually breeds despair and hopelessness. I have watched men grow old in

prison and I have been horrified by the thought of it. This is no place

for men weakened by age or disability. Given my prison experience, the

lack of control over my own life, the sense of frustration where

prosecutors and courts are concerned, it takes no great effort to

understand why I tried to end it all. Is it unreasonable to believe that

suicide may very well be a reasonable response to an intolerable

situation?

Sincerely,

Dennis Dechaine

7-10-10

WARREN, Maine (NEWS CENTER)

July 16 2010

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=120690

A man serving time for a high profile murder has been indicted on charges of trafficking in prison contraband.

Dennis Dechaine was convicted of murdering 12 year old Sarah Cherry in 1988.

NEWS CENTER'S midcoast media partner Village Soup dot com reports  that a Knox County grand jury has indicted Dechaine.

The indictment alleges that on April fifth, Dechaine had morphine and / or klonopine. That was the week that he was rushed to the hospital, reportedly near death after his heart rate and blood pressure dropped. Dechaine was hospitalized for two weeks.

Prison officials have never said what he was treated for.

Letters to the editor, July 18, 2010
Dechaine case, coverage disturbing

Posted: 12:00 AM

July 18 2010

What madness is this, that state officials, including prosecutors and judges, bound by some of the oldest and most revered oaths in U.S. history, would willfully ignore evidence that may not only prove that an innocent man has been imprisoned for a horrible crime, but also serve to lead investigators to the person who is truly responsible for the unimaginable atrocities committed against 12-year-old Sarah Cherry?

Dennis Dechaine, right, and his attorney Steve Peterson listen to a question asked by reporter Trevor Maxwell during an interview at the Maine state Prison in Warren on March 22.

2010 Telegram file

As an American citizen and citizen of the great state of Maine, it is inconceivable to me that the men and women we trust to uphold our values, defend our liberties and protect us from harm could be so casually dismissive in their attitude toward the overwhelming evidence that has come to light pointing toward Dennis Dechaine's innocence.

I do not know who killed Sarah Cherry in 1988, but I'd like to find out. I would like to be shown undeniable proof that some terrible monster who has been lurking around snatching up little girls has been caught and dealt with.

I'd like to think state officials would like this, too, and will finally leave their egos at the door and do their jobs as they swore an oath to do and listen to what forensic experts and witnesses to events surrounding the case have been trying to say:

They say there's more to this story, more facts to consider and suspects to pursue, and that there may still be a monster out there somewhere, free to take more innocent lives.

Professional integrity. Doing the right thing in the face of public humiliation. Officials owe that much to Sarah Cherry. They owe that much to Dennis Dechaine. They owe that much to you and me, and they owe that much and more to whoever destroyed that little girl.

It's time they paid up.

Emily Paine

Buxton

Hats off to?Trevor Maxwell and the Maine Sunday Telegram for such extensive coverage of the Dennis Dechaine case.

I do want to comment on a few points: What does state prosecutor William Stokes mean that Dennis "does not deserve a new trial"? How does he define "deserve" and under what circumstances would someone "deserve" a new trial?

As for being given "so many opportunities to make your case and you haven't done it," I would hope Mr. Stokes knows that appeals are based on procedural issues, not evidence.

Secondly, Mr. Stokes complains about how much the state has spent on the case. Think how much the state might have saved on incarceration expenses had Dennis been allowed to be tested and present DNA evidence that would have excluded him back in 1988.

Lastly, Mr. Stokes is quoted as saying Dennis said, "It must be somebody else inside of me." This statement comes from the trial testimony of Detective Alfred Hendsbee who claimed, under oath, that he was reading this statement from his notes.

However, when Jim Moore gained access to those notes, he discovered that no such quote is in those notes.

Webster's Dictionary defines "deserve" as "to have a right to because of acts or qualities; be worthy of." I always thought any person in America deserves the right to a fair trial.

If a defendant does not receive a fair trial, then he deserves a new trial. Dennis did not receive a fair trial because the investigation was incompetent, evidence was concealed and police gave false testimony.

I think those are grounds for "deserving" a new trial and Dennis is most certainly worthy of one.

Genie Nakell

Portland

Dechaine says he attempted to commit suicide

Morning Sentinel

July 17 2010

Dennis Dechaine, who is serving a life sentence for murdering a 12-year-old girl in 1988, says he tried to kill himself with prescription drugs earlier this year.

In a letter sent this week to The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Dechaine said he "ingested a combination of prescription drugs in an attempt to end my life" in early April at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

A grand jury in Knox County indicted Dechaine this week on a charge of trafficking in prison contraband. Dechaine wrote in the letter to the newspaper that he acknowledged the suicide attempt publicly because he is being charged in the case.

Dechaine, 52, was convicted in 1989 of killing Sarah Cherry of Bowdoin. The Madawaska native has maintained his innocence through four unsuccessful appeals, and the case has been the subject of intense legal and media interest over the years.

This fall, the judge who presided at his trial is expected to hear arguments on whether Dechaine should get a new trial, based primarily on a fragment of unidentified male DNA extracted from Sarah Cherry's clipped thumbnail.

Dechaine was hospitalized on April 5. His brother said Dechaine was near death, but prison officials have refused to comment, citing confidentiality laws.

According to the indictment issued Tuesday, Dechaine had morphine and Klonopine, a drug that's used to treat seizure and panic disorders. No one else was indicted in connection with the incident, according Geoffrey Rushlau, Knox County's district attorney.

Dechaine wrote in his letter, dated July 10, "I have been imprisoned 22 years and the soul crushing monotony, boredom, institutional food, pervasive violence, 24 hour lights, near constant noise, harsh treatment, myriad petty rules, lack of resources, loss of potential, separation from family and friends, along with a raft of other negativity, simply conspired to erode my will to live."

Dechaine's letter detailed frustration with his case and called his suicide attempt "a reasonable response to an intolerable situation."

Dechaine's attorney, Steve Peterson, said he doesn't expect the indictment to affect his client's push for a new trial.

If Dechaine were convicted of trafficking before his hearing on the request for a new murder trial, it could be brought up at the hearing, Peterson said, but a rapid conviction is unlikely.

"I don't know how much sense it makes to indict someone who's already serving a life sentence," said Peterson. "I've seen it happen before."

Asked if some might see the suicide attempt as an admission of guilt, Peterson said he has seen the letter his client wrote and doesn't think so.

"What it is, is a venting of how frustrated he is about being in jail and being wrongfully convicted," said Peterson. "Trying to get this righted has been a very frustrating thing for him."

Peterson said Dechaine is now in an exercise program at the prison and appears to be stable. "Whatever depression he was in that caused this to have happened seems to have passed," he said.

Dechaine's friends and family in Madawaska said they took the news of the attempted suicide hard.

"It was devastating for us," said Carol Waltman, a friend of Dechaine's since high school and the founder of Trial and Error, an advocacy group that maintains his innocence. "We've got to understand where he's coming from. Being in a place like that, it's a hellhole."

Both Waltman and Don Dechaine, Dennis Dechaine's older brother, were upset that he got prescription drugs in the first place.

Don Dechaine said people who visit inmates go through an intensive search. He said he believes the drugs had to have been smuggled in by a prison worker.

"They search, scan, there's no way to receive any drugs," said Don Dechaine. "It has to come from within the prison."

He said he plans to talk with Peterson about filing a complaint with the state.

Denise Lord, associate commissioner of the Department of Corrections, said the department is continuing to investigate the circumstances.

"We're concerned if drugs are coming, or are in the facility inappropriately or illegally," said Lord. "We're definitely looking into it."

Dechaine indicted following suicide try

July 16

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Dechaine-indicted-following-suicide-try.html

A Knox County grand jury has indicted convicted murder Dennis Dechaine on trafficking in prison contraband following a suicide attempt at the state prison in Warren.

In a letter sent this week to The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Dechaine said he had “ingested a combination of prescription drugs in an attempt to end my life.”

Dechaine, 52, is serving a life sentence for the 1988 murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin. The Madawaska native has maintained his innocence through four unsuccessful appeals – as have a number of friends, family and others – and the case has been the subject of both legal and media interest over the years. This fall, he is expected to get a hearing before the judge who originally convicted him on whether Dechaine should get a new trial based primarily on a microscopic fragment of unidentified male DNA extracted from Cherry’s clipped thumbnail.

Dechaine was hospitalized on April 5. His brother said Dechaine was near death, but prison officials have refused to comment, citing confidentiality laws. According to the indictment handed down July 13, Dechaine had in his custody morphine and Klonopine, a drug used to treat seizure and panic disorders.

Dechaine wrote in the letter that he was acknowledging the suicide attempt publicly because he was being charged criminally in the case.

“I have been imprisoned 22 years and the soul crushing monotony, boredom, institutional food, pervasive violence, 24 hour lights, near constant noise, harsh treatment, myriad petty rules, lack of resources, loss of potential, separation from family and friends, along with a raft of other negativity, simply conspired to erode my will to live,” Dechaine wrote in the letter dated July 10.

Dechaine’s letter detailed frustration with his case, and called his suicide attempt “a reasonable response to an intolerable situation.”

To read more about the Dechaine case and watch a video interview with Dechaine, visit our multimedia package.

July 11 2010

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

July 11 2010

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

The Defense Expert: Intrigued by case, prominent lawyer uses resources to scrutinize evidence

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

July 11 2010

Famed defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey thinks the unidentified male DNA found on murder victim Sarah Cherry's thumbnail is intriguing, but it might not be enough to get a new trial for prisoner Dennis Dechaine.

Inmate Dennis Dechaine shakes hands with attorney F. Lee Bailey, right, after a meeting at the Maine State Prison in Warren on April 8, 2009. “All that I promised to do, and have done, is to use past friendships and associations to get Dennis what he couldn’t afford,” Bailey said. “I don’t wish to be an advocate for anybody.”

April 2009 file photo/The Associated Press

F. Lee Bailey

Jack Milton

NEW EXPERTS WEIGH IN

• Dr. Cyril Wecht, based in Pittsburgh, has served as a medical-legal and forensic pathology consultant in civil and criminal cases since 1962. He is perhaps best known nationally for his criticism of the Warren Commission’s conclusions in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. For more information, see www.cyrilwecht.com.

• Dr. Walter Hofman is coroner for Montgomery County, Pa., and practices pathology at Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia. Hofman is a designated forensic pathologist for the State of New Jersey and is a consultant to the Department of Health for the State of Florida. For more information, see www.drhofmanfourn6path.com.

But Bailey does believe, based on two new expert opinions, that she was killed several hours after Dechaine was in custody, and that should tip the scales in favor of a new trial.

The reports were prepared in December, at Bailey's personal request, by Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman.

Both forensic pathologists have performed more than 10,000 autopsies each, and have testified as consultants for prosecutors and defendants in civil and criminal cases nationwide.

"If the pathologists are right, he has to be innocent," Bailey said of Dechaine. Bailey said it is not possible, given the nature of Sarah Cherry's injuries, that the 12-year-old survived for several hours after the attack.

Dechaine is serving a life sentence for his conviction in 1989. His latest motion for a new trial is tentatively scheduled to be heard by a judge this fall.

State prosecutors say the new opinions are not credible, and have no place in the upcoming proceedings.

"These are doctors who were not there, who are reviewing only a few facts and pieces of evidence, coming up with an opinion more than 20 years later," said William Stokes, head of the criminal division at the state Attorney General's Office.

"Most forensic pathologists that I have dealt with, when you ask them about time of death, are understandably cautious," Stokes said. "I don't think any medical examiner can give you a precise time of death. Anyone who tells you that is not credible.

"Dr. Wecht and Dr. Hofman are fine, but they weren't there," Stokes said. "It's speculation."

Bailey, 77, became famous for his work on high-profile cases, including the trials of Dr. Sam Sheppard, Patty Hearst and O.J. Simpson. He has been a figure of controversy in recent years.

He was jailed briefly in 1996 for refusing to return millions of dollars in stocks formerly held by one of his clients. Bailey was later disbarred in Florida and Massachusetts for his conduct related to that case.

Bailey has business ties in Maine and he is moving to Yarmouth this month from Massachusetts. A longtime pilot, Bailey is a close friend and business partner with Jim Horowitz, the founder of Oxford Aviation.

Bailey heard about the Dechaine case a few years ago from Waterville lawyer Jon Nale. Bailey read a copy of "Human Sacrifice," the book about the case by James P. Moore, a Brunswick author and retired federal agent. Bailey was intrigued by Moore's contention that Sarah Cherry's time of death was much later than the theory put forward by state prosecutors.

Bailey met Dechaine and his attorney, Steve Peterson of Rockport, at the Maine State Prison in April 2009. He agreed to serve as an unpaid "ombudsman" in the case.

"All that I promised to do, and have done, is to use past friendships and associations to get Dennis what he couldn't afford," Bailey said. "I don't wish to be an advocate for anybody."

Bailey said he receives about a dozen requests each year from lawyers and prisoners asking him to review their cases but he rarely gets involved. Moore's book was the difference-maker that prompted him to take an active role in Dechaine's case.

Bailey sent a packet -- including Sarah Cherry's autopsy report, portions of the trial testimony, weather reports and other case data -- to Wecht, who is a longtime friend. Wecht agreed to provide an opinion for free. Bailey also sought a second opinion from Hofman, whose nominal fee of $1,000 was paid by Dechaine's advocacy group, Trial and Error.

Both Wecht and Hofman disagreed with the findings of Ronald Roy, the deputy state medical examiner who conducted Sarah Cherry's autopsy after her body was found by a search team around noon on July 8, 1988.

At Dechaine's trial, Roy testified that when he examined Sarah's body that afternoon, rigor mortis -- the temporary stiffening of a corpse's joints and muscles -- was still present but was passing off. The body had been found in the woods in Bowdoin, covered by five to six inches of leaves, sticks and other forest debris.

In the estimate he provided for the jury, Roy said Sarah died a minimum of 30 hours before he examined her, or sometime before 8 a.m. July 7. But Roy said Sarah probably died much earlier than that, most likely sometime on the afternoon of July 6.

Dechaine walked out of the woods in Bowdoin around 8:45 p.m. on July 6, and his whereabouts after that time are accounted for.

According to the opinions written by Wecht and Hofman, if Sarah had died anytime on July 6, there is no way that rigor mortis still should have been present when Roy examined the body. There also should have been much more insect activity on Sarah's body, given the daytime temperatures of close to 90 degrees, the pathologists contend.

In Wecht's opinion, the earliest possible time of Sarah Cherry's death would have been 3 a.m. on July 7, six hours after Dechaine was picked up by police. Hofman's report said the earliest time of death would have been around noon on July 7.

Roy is retired and living in British Columbia, Canada. He did not respond to phone messages seeking comment for this story.

Peterson, Dechaine's attorney, continues to prepare arguments in hopes of convincing a judge to grant Dechaine a new trial. At that upcoming hearing, Peterson intends to introduce the DNA evidence found on Sarah Cherry's thumbnail; the time of death opinions written by Wecht and Hofman; and witness testimony supporting the defense's theory of an alternate suspect.

But it is unclear whether Justice Carl O. Bradford will consider the Wecht and Hofman reports at the hearing. Dechaine is the first prisoner to test the state law allowing this type of appeal. The law was passed in 2001 and revised in 2006.

"The scope (of the law) includes bringing in old and new evidence in any area that had been involved in earlier proceedings," Peterson said.

Stokes disagrees with Peterson's reading of the law. He said the defense is limited to the DNA evidence, and the law does not open the door to other evidence. Disagreements over time of death and the possibility of alternate suspects have already been heard in several previous appeals lodged by Dechaine, all of which have been rejected by the courts.

"This is a hearing on DNA evidence," Stokes said. "It is not an opportunity to retry the case."

Bradford will likely have to make a ruling before the hearing on what pieces of evidence he will consider.

The Hometown Perspective: For those who knew the young man, disbelief endures

By Matt Wickenheiser mwickenheiser@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

July 11 2010

MADAWASKA - The boys would play on the train tracks near their neighborhood, climbing ladders on the sides of the freight cars and jumping from one to the next.

In a yearbook photo from Dennis Dechaine's

junior year at Madawaska High School, the teenage Dechaine,

left, holds a camera that he used when he was on the yearbook staff.

"The camera was bigger than him," said his childhood friend Carol Waltman.

Courtesy photo

Jesse and Carol Waltman of Madawaska

were childhood friends of Dennis Dechaine

and remain among his supporters today.

Carol Waltman is the founder of Trial and Error,

the group advocating for Dechaine's freedom.

Maatt Wickenheiser photo

Down across the flood plains of the St. John River, they'd launch into the air on Tarzan swings that stretched from tall trees across old gullies.

One, Jesse Waltman, had moved to town when he was in fifth grade, after his dad died in Vietnam. The other, Dennis Dechaine, was 9 years old and had lost his mother to cancer. The two became best friends.

But in 1988, Dechaine's life took a dark turn. He was 30 when he was charged with the murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. Dechaine has been incarcerated since his 1988 arrest.

His path from life in this small mill town to the central role in one of Maine's most contentious and notorious murders is inconceivable to those who knew him.

"I've never been able to accept that Dennis could have done this," said Roger Martin, Dechaine's guidance counselor at Madawaska High School.

"I didn't see him getting into any fights in school, altercations with other kids ... Dennis was just a good kid, easy to talk to, always very polite -- just a nice kid."

Dechaine, the youngest of four brothers, grew up in a big house in a neighborhood off Main Street, behind the town's police station.

His father owned a gas station and ran a taxi service. After Dechaine's mother died, an aunt helped keep house and watch the kids.

But then, when Dennis was 14, his father died of a heart attack. His oldest brother, Phil, left the Coast Guard and returned home to take care of his brothers.

Dechaine was a good student, recalls Carol Waltman, Jesse Waltman's wife, who herself was a good friend of Dechaine's in high school. She is the founder and main force behind Trial and Error, the advocacy group that has been pushing for a new trial for Dechaine.

Even after losing both parents, Dechaine was a very positive person, said Carol Waltman, adding that he enjoyed photography and took pictures for the school yearbook.

"In high school, all you'd see was Dennis with a smile, and a camera -- and the camera was bigger than him," she said.

Carol Waltman said she didn't know Dechaine was experimenting with illegal drugs during high school. At his 1989 trial, Dechaine said he tried to hide that aspect of his life because he was embarrassed. He began smoking marijuana around his sophomore year, and he also tried cocaine and LSD while he was a teenager. At his trial, Dechaine said that when he was in his 20s, he sporadically used marijuana and cocaine.

In high school, Martin, the guidance counselor, recommended Dechaine for the Upward Bound program at Bowdoin College, an outdoors-based education experience.

Martin said Dechaine didn't have a lot of parental oversight, and he wanted him to experience a bit of the world, and to get him thinking about college. "I probably felt he had more ability than he used," he said.

Dechaine took part in the program for three years. After graduating in 1976, Dechaine enrolled at Vermont Technical College, where he studied agricultural business management.

Dechaine received his associate's degree and moved on to Western Washington University.

Steve Young didn't know Dechaine well in high school. But when Young was at the University of Maine at Orono, Dechaine came for a concert and stayed with him. The two became good friends.

The two talked about nature and jazz music, and canoed the Allagash. When Dechaine moved to Washington state, he convinced Young to join him.

Dechaine was always working, keeping busy, said Young.

"Dennis was the kind of guy that if it rained, he was out there picking up night crawlers to go fishing," said Young. "He represented to me what people say about the work ethic of people from northern Maine."

Dechaine had met a woman, Nancy Emmons, at Western Washington University. They graduated together in 1983, married that fall in Colorado and returned to Maine to work on a sheep farm in Bowdoinham.

The couple started their own business, with a vegetable stand, greenhouses and Christmas wreaths and gift baskets. They bought a house and called it Basswood Farm, where they raised sheep, goats, chickens, rabbits, geese and ducks.

Days before his arrest, Dechaine was in Madawaska for a family reunion. He visited with Young's parents, and with Young, who had a 3-week-old daughter. Dechaine wanted Young, an accomplished photographer, to take some product shots of the gift baskets he and his wife were selling.

"He was real happy," said Young.

A few days later, Young's sister called to tell him Dechaine had been arrested for murder. Young called the jail and spoke with Dechaine; his friend told him he didn't know what was going on.

"It was like a dream, but like a bad one, of course," said Young.

Nancy Dechaine and Dennis Dechaine divorced shortly after he was convicted in March 1989.

Tom Connolly, Dechaine's trial lawyer, said Nancy still supported Dennis but needed the divorce to protect her half of the marital property in a wrongful death lawsuit filed against Dechaine by Cherry's family. The family later won its case.

Nancy moved out of Maine, remarried and had children. She eventually told Dechaine that she would not be in contact because she did not want to expose her new family to the case, Connolly said.

Reached last week by e-mail, Nancy Emmons declined to comment for this story.

Over the years, Young said, he would visit regularly with Dechaine in prison, bringing photos of his daughter. But Dechaine eventually asked him not to communicate so often.

"It'd bum him out -- he'd think about what it was, about what it could have been," said Young.

Young firmly believes his friend is innocent, and a guilty person is free.

And his close friends wonder how Dechaine's life -- and their own -- would be different if he hadn't been charged and convicted.

"Compared to Sarah Cherry's family, or to Dennis -- you can't compare. But all his close friends and relations have never been the same," said Young.

At the end of an interview, Jesse Waltman leaned forward, tapping his finger where his neck meets his head.

"The Dennis thing's always here, in the back of my head."

Additional Photos

click image to enlarge Dennis Dechaine,1976 senior class photo	click image to enlarge Steve Young, a good friend of Dechaine’s from Madawaska, said “he represented to me what people say about the work ethic of people from northern Maine.” Matt Wickenheiser photo	click image to enlarge Retired Madawaska High School guidance counselor Roger Martin knew Dechaine as a student. "I've never been able to accept that Dennis could have done this," he said. Matt Wickenheiser photo

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell contributed to this report.

Staff Writer Matt Wickenheiser can be contacted at 791-6316 or at:

mwickenheiser@pressherald.com

The Author: Private investigator digs – and becomes an advocate for Dechaine

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

July 11 2010

In 1992, a retired federal agent from Brunswick saw a notice in a local newspaper.

Trial and Error, the group of people who believe Dennis Dechaine was wrongfully convicted for a murder in 1988, was holding a meeting in town.

James P. Moore, a private investigator who had retired in 1985 from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, recalls thinking that the group was likely a "bunch of birdbrains." Out of curiosity, though, he attended the meeting.

By the end of that evening, Moore agreed to look into the case, with one caveat.

"I told them if I found more evidence that he is guilty, I'm giving it to police," Moore said.

He began by reviewing the 1,500-page trial transcript. Moore was initially struck by the testimony of the deputy state medical examiner, who could not rule out the possibility that Sarah Cherry was killed after Dechaine was in police custody.

Other elements of the case concerned Moore: the lack of physical evidence and the fact that police did not pursue leads on other suspects, including a known child rapist who lived down the road from the house where Sarah Cherry had been abducted.

For the next 15 years or so, Moore devoted a significant part of his life to the investigation of the case, and he became one of Dechaine's fiercest advocates.

"You have some poor guy in jail that didn't do anything," Moore said in an April 26 interview. "I couldn't let go of it."

In the fall of 2002, Blackberry Press published Moore's book, "Human Sacrifice." Moore's central claim was that Dechaine could not have committed the crime and had been set up by another man. Moore contended that police and prosecutors, in their single-minded belief that Dechaine was guilty, ignored other leads, manipulated witnesses and withheld police reports from Dechaine's lawyers before the trial.

The book sparked a renewed public interest in Dechaine's case, and it swelled the ranks of Trial and Error. A revised version of the book was published in 2006, after Moore filed a lawsuit against the state Attorney General's Office and gained access to the investigative files.

Moore said he did not accept payment for his work as an investigator or as a writer. He also has received none of the royalties from "Human Sacrifice," which retailed at $15 and has sold more than 10,000 copies. Profits from the books have gone to Trial and Error, Moore said.

He said he decided a few years ago to cut down his advocacy work on the case, and to let Dechaine's lawyers go about their business of seeking a new trial.

In response to the book, the lawyers at the Attorney General's Office have said the evidence led to Dechaine, and to no one else, because he kidnapped, tortured and murdered Sarah Cherry.

Eric Wright, the prosecutor who represented the state at Dechaine's trial in 1989, now works as an attorney for the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection. He declined to comment for this story. But Wright did respond to Moore's book in 2003 in a newspaper article published in the Lewiston Sun Journal.

"Moore goes so far as to suggest, though not with proof, that the trial justice was unfair; that the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not give this case any more than cursory review; that Mr. Dechaine did not stand a chance against a self-protective, clubby legal profession; that the state's deputy chief medical examiner was incompetent, subject to manipulation, or a liar; that a dozen or so detectives and deputies from the Maine State Police and the Sagadahoc County Sheriff's Office were either bumblers or conniving co-conspirators in repeated perjury," Wright wrote in a five-page letter to the Sun Journal.

"This is no more than savaging good people for sport," he wrote.

Posted: 12:10 AM

The Alternate Suspect: Is former Mainer linked, or 'nothing but speculation'?

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

July 11 2010

Lawyers, friends and supporters who believe Dennis Dechaine was framed for the murder in 1988 of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry have pointed fingers at several possible alternate suspects.

But one name -- Douglas Senecal -- has been at or near the top of their lists since the beginning.

At least three judges, however, have found no credible evidence linking Senecal to the crime, and they have said Dechaine's alternate suspect theory is nothing more than speculation.

Senecal himself says the target painted on his back forced him to move out of Maine shortly after Dechaine's conviction. Being labeled as a possible suspect in one of Maine's most infamous murders has essentially destroyed his life over the past 22 years, Senecal said in a brief telephone interview last week.

"Whose life is ruined?" he asked tersely.

Senecal, 57, said he hopes he outlives Dechaine, but he still wants to hear a confession from the prisoner so his own name might finally be cleared.

"He won't do it," Senecal said. "He can't confess because he is too far into it, and he is too intelligent."

During the telephone interview, the retired drywall mason used profanity to blast Dechaine's camp and the media, including The Portland Press Herald, for dragging his name through the mud in the past two decades.

Since leaving Maine, Senecal has lived in North Carolina and Florida. He wouldn't say where he currently resides.

In 1988, Senecal lived in Phippsburg and ran a drywall business. He was under indictment in Sagadahoc County for the alleged sexual abuse of one of his stepdaughters five years earlier.

Senecal was connected to Sarah Cherry through a series of divorces and marriages. His stepdaughters were stepsisters to Sarah, and the girls lived in the same home in 1983 at the time of the alleged abuse.

A few days after Sarah Cherry's body was found in July of 1988, a tenant of a property owned by Senecal called a state social worker to report that she believed Senecal had committed the crime. According to court records, the social worker contacted detectives and told them Senecal had been acting strangely since the murder and was the subject of several allegations of sexual abuse in addition to the pending indictment.

Tom Connolly, Dechaine's trial lawyer, wanted to call Senecal and his tenant as witnesses at the trial, under the theory of an alternate suspect. Connolly theorized that Senecal feared Sarah Cherry would testify against him in the sexual abuse case. Connolly also claimed Senecal could have known where Sarah was baby-sitting on the day she was abducted.

Senecal's attorney said his client was running errands the afternoon of the abduction, and his whereabouts were accounted for. The lawyer, Joseph Field, said Senecal had no motive because Sarah was not on the witness list in the sexual abuse case. Field said Senecal had no knowledge of Sarah's plans to baby-sit.

Justice Carl O. Bradford agreed with Field, and he would not allow Connolly to present his theory at Dechaine's March 1989 trial.

"I admire your ingenuity, but this is inviting the jury to engage in nothing but speculation," the judge told Connolly during a conference in chambers, according to a court transcript.

Nor was Senecal tried on the sexual abuse charge. His case was scheduled for trial in late July 1988, but prosecutors continued the case twice because Senecal's stepdaughter left Maine earlier that summer. Several witnesses said in affidavits that Senecal's wife arranged for the girl to travel to California so she would not be available to testify. Prosecutors did not resurrect the charge after the girl returned to Maine.

Connolly focused on Senecal again in 1992 in a motion for a new trial for Dechaine. At the hearing, five witnesses provided information implicating Senecal in the murder. One man claimed to have heard Senecal's voice and the voice of a little girl on a road near the spot where Sarah's body was found.

Justice Bradford found the testimony was either not credible, hearsay or otherwise inadmissible. The judge ruled that the new evidence "still lacked the substantial link between Douglas Senecal and the alternative perpetrator theory of defense."

Then in 1994, laboratory testing done by Dechaine's legal team discovered a partial DNA profile from an unidentified male on Sarah Cherry's clipped thumbnail. The profile is sufficient to rule out some people, including Dechaine, but there is not enough genetic material to conclusively match the profile to any other individual. There are potentially thousands of people worldwide whose DNA would match the partial profile.

Undeterred by the odds, Dechaine's defense team has tried to identify the man whose DNA was left on or under Sarah's thumbnail.

In 1996 and in 1998, Dechaine asked the Superior Court to order Senecal to provide a sample of his saliva for the purposes of a comparison. Dechaine made the same request to a federal judge in 2000. The requests were denied.

In a 2004 interview with Bill Nemitz, columnist for The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, Senecal said he would not provide a DNA sample to Dechaine's defense team because he did not trust them. Senecal believed lawyer Connolly might have already secretly obtained his DNA -- perhaps by taking one of his hairbrushes or a dropped cigarette butt -- and transferred it onto Sarah Cherry's thumbnail.

Senecal reiterated that deep sense of suspicion in last week's telephone interview.

"There is not a soul on this earth that I trust, except my wife and son," he said, while noting that his wife died three years ago.

Senecal is aware that his name could come up once again in Dechaine's pending bid for a new trial. Dechaine's current attorney, Steve Peterson of Rockport, has said he will try to introduce evidence to support his theory that another man killed Sarah Cherry. But Peterson said a court order prohibits him from talking about that aspect of the appeal.

"When is it going to be done? I've been waiting 25 years," Senecal said. "I don't need an attorney, I have done nothing wrong except be born."

His son, 29-year-old Isaac Senecal, said anyone who truly knows his father knows that Doug Senecal had nothing to do with Sarah Cherry's death.

"Having seen what my dad and the rest of my family has had to go through, it is disheartening," Isaac Senecal said of the constant intrusions by reporters and private investigators.

Isaac Senecal lives in North Carolina and serves in the Air Force Reserves. He went on reserve status three years ago after seven years of active duty that included three years in the Iraq war. Isaac was 7 years old when his father's name was first connected with the Dechaine case.

"He is my best friend in the world," Isaac Senecal said of his father. "He is an awesome person, and I have a very close circle of friends that would say the same thing.

"You can go to anybody in prison and they have an army of people behind them who say they didn't do it. What bothers me is they have no facts," he said. "A name came up on the radar, it was my dad's, and he has had to live with that."

SEE THE COMPLETE PACKAGE including multimedia resources here

Posted: 12:13 AM
Updated: 10:21 AM

July 4 2010

Did Dennis Dechaine kill Sarah Cherry?

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

The prisoner says he is tired of telling the story.

Thirty-year-old Dennis Dechaine of Bowdoinham is escorted to his arraignment in the slaying of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry on July 12, 1988, four days after his arrest. Dechaine has been in custody since.

1988 file photo/The Associated Press

Additional Photos Below

COMING NEXT WEEK: In Dennis Dechaine’s latest bid for a new trial, the key piece of evidence is a fragment of unidentified male DNA, extracted by scientists in 1994 from a thumbnail clipping of 12-year-old murder victim Sarah Cherry. Serving a life sentence for the crime, the prisoner hopes this trace of genetic material can alter his fate.

But there’s a court hearing on the horizon that could be his last chance at a new trial. There are some things that he wants the public to hear again.

So Dennis Dechaine answers the same questions the officers asked on that summer night in the woods of Bowdoin in 1988. Did you take the girl? Did you kill Sarah Cherry?

“I’m not the guy who did this,” Dechaine said during a March 22 interview at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

“Somebody, somewhere in their heart of hearts at the state level has to know this.

“It is a nightmare,” Dechaine said.

The Dechaine case occupies a unique position in Maine’s collective consciousness.

No other case has been litigated in Maine’s court system for so long – almost 22 years and counting.

Maine knows Dennis Dechaine, inmate No. 1725, as the farmer convicted for one of the most shocking crimes in state history – the kidnapping, torture and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. Most Mainers also know that Dechaine, now 52, has maintained his innocence, and a large group of backers has provided the emotional and financial support behind his quest for a new trial.

In four appeals, state and federal judges have upheld the conviction and life sentence.

But he will get at least one more shot.

Sometime this fall, a judge is expected to decide whether Dechaine should get a new trial based primarily on a microscopic fragment of unidentified male DNA extracted from Sarah Cherry’s clipped thumbnail.

His lawyers must convince Superior Court Justice Carl O. Bradford – who presided at the 1989 trial – that the jury likely would have acquitted Dechaine if they had known about the thumbnail evidence. The lawyers also will ask Bradford to consider two forensic reports suggesting Dechaine could not have committed the crime. The hearing is tentatively set for September.

“We only get one shot at getting this right,” said attorney Steve Peterson of Rockport, who has worked on the case since 2003 and has been Dechaine’s lead defense lawyer since the fall of 2007.

“It’s his last, best chance,” Peterson said.

William Stokes, head of the Criminal Division at the state’s Attorney General’s Office, will argue that Dechaine does not deserve a new trial. The only mystery, as far as Stokes is concerned, is why the case has not been closed for good.

“When you have been given so many opportunities to make your case, and you haven’t done it, there’s that point where the family of the victim should get some finality,” Stokes said.

AN INCOMPARABLE CASE

The coming court battle was made possible by a state law enacted in 2001, and revised in 2006 at the urging of Dechaine's supporters. The law allows prisoners to seek new trials based on DNA evidence.

Only a handful of prisoners have filed motions based on the law, and Dechaine's motion would be the first to go before a judge if the hearing takes place as scheduled.

"In terms of public interest, there have been no other cases that compare to the Dechaine case. Never. Not even close," said prominent Augusta defense lawyer Walt McKee, who is not involved.

"Everybody has got their own take on the case," McKee said. "The first school of thought is that he had a trial with excellent lawyers on each side, the jury ruled, and how long do we have to go through this. On the other hand, there's the thought that the jury didn't hear some information that we now have, so let's put it in front of a new jury and let them decide."

The stakes are high. An advocacy group called Trial and Error, composed largely of Dechaine's family and friends, have raised and spent more than $200,000 on lobbying to change the state law regarding DNA appeals, DNA testing, private investigators, a website and the production and distribution of DVDs about the case.

The state, meanwhile, has spent thousands of dollars on Dechaine's court-appointed lawyers, court time and the prosecutors who have contested Dechaine's appeals. At least $10,000, including for the estimated cost of more than 200 hours of staff time, also has been spent by the state crime lab for DNA testing.

"We do not keep a running tab on any case, but this case has consumed literally thousands of hours of attorney time and law enforcement time as well as the lab and the court. So it's a lot of money, certainly tens of thousands," Stokes said.

The case has attracted the attention of some high-profile consultants.

The Innocence Project, a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to the exoneration of convicts through DNA testing, has been involved in the case since the early 1990s. One of the organization's staff lawers, Alba Morales, is helping Peterson. Lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, who created the Innocence Project in 1992, became famous for their work on the O.J. Simpson "dream team" that won an acquittal for the former football star in 1995.

Another member of the Simpson team, famed defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey, also has entered the Dechaine fray.

Bailey, who has business ties in Maine and is moving to Yarmouth this month, heard about the case from another attorney. Bailey met with Dechaine at the prison in April 2009. At Bailey's request, two nationally recognized forensic pathologists reviewed some of the evidence and gave their opinions that Dechaine could not have committed the crime.

"This was a strong circumstantial case put on by the state, but it is possible that someone could have set him up," Bailey said. "The inflammatory nature of the crime makes it rife for opportunity to go astray because the public wants someone to pay."

Dechaine said that the prosecution's desire to make an arrest and assure the public that the killer was behind bars denied him a full and fair investigation.

"I have forced it so far to the back of my mind that I don't like to think about it anymore," he said while sitting in one of the visitation rooms at the state prison in Warren. "I don't like to think about all of the events that led to my wrongful conviction ... It took a lot of, well, pounding square pegs into round holes to do what was done to me."

HEALTH SCARE, CRIMINAL PROBE

Lawyers on both sides will be watching Dechaine's health as the hearing date approaches, because of an incident that took place at the prison in early April.

On the morning of April 5, two weeks after he was interviewed for this story, Dechaine was found unconscious in his cell, with an extremely low pulse rate and blood pressure. He was taken by helicopter to a Portland hospital, where doctors inserted a tube to help him breathe. Dechaine was speaking and walking again within a few days. He was returned to the prison on April 21.

Don Dechaine, a brother who lives in Madawaska, said Dennis Dechaine apparently ingested an unknown medication that nearly killed him. The family does not know what the medication was, how it got into Dechaine's system or how it was administered.

"There are a lot of questions we don't have the answers to," Don Dechaine said. He said he spoke to his brother on the telephone last week, and he sounded good. Dennis does not appear to have any lasting problems, such as brain damage.

The Maine Department of Corrections investigated the circumstances surrounding the emergency, and passed on the results of their probe to Knox County District Attorney Geoff Rushlau.

Rushlau and Denise Lord, a spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections, declined to comment on details of the investigation.

"The matter is being reviewed for possible criminal charges," Rushlau said last week.

Peterson, Dechaine's lawyer, said any criminal charge arising from the April 5 incident would be dealt with separately from the DNA appeal.

"It will not affect that hearing at all," Peterson said.

VICTIM'S FAMILY SEEKS CLOSURE

Sarah Cherry's family members hope Dechaine's motion for a new trial will be denied and they will be afforded the closure they have been seeking since Sarah was kidnapped while babysitting on July 6, 1988.

Searchers found her body in nearby woods two days later. Sarah had been bound, gagged and sexually assaulted with sticks. She had been stabbed about a dozen times, and was strangled to death with a scarf.

"It's not right that he should be allowed to go on with this forever, to keep coming back to the courts time and time again," said Peg Cherry, Sarah's maternal grandmother.

Peg and her husband, Bud Cherry, live in Lisbon Falls, a short drive from the small town of Bowdoin, where Sarah lived with her mother and stepfather, Debbie and Chris Crosman.

Peg Cherry displays elementary school photographs of Sarah on cabinets. From her tidy living room, the 77-year-old grandmother can see where Sarah and her cousins used to play games of soccer, softball or tag.

Sarah would have been 34 years old on May 5.

Chris and Debbie Crosman declined to comment for this story because they say they still have difficulty discussing it more than two decades after their daughter's murder.

Many family members, including Peg Cherry, attended the trial in March 1989 at Knox County Superior Court in Rockland. Cherry has been in regular contact with prosecutors before and since. And no matter what Dechaine or his supporters say, she is certain he committed the crime.

"The evidence is overwhelming. There is no other answer," she said.

"He thought he was going to hoodwink everybody. Here is this pretty boy, really clean-cut, and he wants you to believe there's no way he could do it.

"Well, looks can be deceiving."

THE STATE'S POSITION

"No question, this was a circumstantial case, but sometimes that can be even more powerful than direct evidence," said William Stokes, the state prosecutor who inherited the Dechaine case from his predecessors in 1995.

Stokes said the state had more evidence against Dechaine than it does in many murder cases:

• A notebook and receipt from Dechaine's truck were found in the driveway of the home where Sarah had been baby-sitting.

• Dechaine was seen walking out of the woods in the general area where Sarah's body was later found.

• His truck was found 450 feet from the site.

• The scarf used to strangle Sarah and the rope binding her wrists had come from Dechaine's truck.

• Two detectives and two corrections officers testified that Dechaine made incriminating statements on the day of his arrest, including, "It must be somebody else inside of me."

Dechaine's testimony at the trial also was a key piece of evidence, Stokes said.

Dechaine said he went into the woods on the afternoon of July 6 to inject drugs, and got lost at some point. In an interview with the state's chief psychologist after the arrest in 1988, Dechaine said his history of drug use began with marijuana around the age of 13, and he had occasionally used various drugs, including cocaine and amphetamines, since that time.

During cross-examination at his trial, Dechaine conceded that his memory of the afternoon of July 6 was not as sharp as it might have been if he had not been using the drugs. But he insisted that he was not in an altered state of consciousness, and that he never saw Sarah Cherry that day. Dechaine believes another man took the items from his truck and used them to frame him.

Stokes takes offense at the accusations made by some of Dechaine's supporters, who claim that he and others within the Attorney General's Office have worked to protect the police and to hide and distort evidence pointing away from Dechaine.

"They have their point of view," Stokes said. "They are entitled to their point of view. What I do have a problem with is the personal attacks."

Stokes, an Augusta city councilor who also has served on the school board, said people sometimes ask him whether Trial and Error, the advocacy group that backs Dechaine, might be right in proclaiming his innocence.

"They're not trying to offend me, but I look at them and say, 'Do you really think I would fight and use my skills in the courtroom to keep someone in prison who I believe to be innocent?' " Stokes said.

"Consider the accusations that have been made, that we are basically conspiring to conceal evidence to keep a man we know is innocent in prison," he said. "That is personally very offensive to me, and I'm sure it's offensive to everyone else who bears the brunt of it."

WAITING AND HOPING, ON BOTH SIDES

At the Maine State Prison, Dechaine awaits the upcoming hearing with "reserved hope." There are some questions about his case that Dechaine wants the public to consider.

He noted that police never found physical evidence, not a hair, fiber or drop of blood, connecting him and Sarah Cherry. Investigators never found the knife used to stab Sarah, or her missing panties.

When the police dog tracked from Dechaine's truck into the woods, the dog took investigators on a few indirect routes, but did not lead to Sarah's body. Also, the dog did not find a scent of Sarah in Dechaine's truck, and that information was not provided to his lawyers before the trial.

"Had I abducted Sarah Cherry while in a complete stupor, which is what would have been required here, evidence of her presence in my vehicle would have been undeniable," Dechaine said. "Had I abducted Sarah Cherry in a complete stupor and killed her in the way that she was killed, I would have been covered in blood."

Dechaine said he would not have pushed for DNA testing of all the evidence, ever since the beginning of the case, if he had anything to hide.

More than anything, though, Dechaine said his own personality demonstrates that he was not capable of committing the acts that were perpetrated on the 12-year-old victim.

"I dare anybody to find a single incidence of violence in my life -- ever," he said. "It's not in my being. It's not who I am."

Peg Cherry says that claim of innocence has a hollow ring, in light of all the evidence against Dechaine. It defies common sense, Cherry said, to believe that anyone other than Dechaine could have been the one who killed her granddaughter.

In Lisbon Falls, Peg and Bud Cherry go about their own routines, supported by their community. They try not to get worked up by the actions of Dechaine's supporters.

Occasionally the phone rings and it is Bill Stokes, keeping them posted on a process that Peg Cherry describes as tiring.

"With each of these appeals, we keep thinking that it's going to be the last one, and then it isn't," she said.

Whenever Dechaine's pending motion goes to court, Cherry intends to be there.

"They're not going to get rid of us," she said. "As long as I can physically get in there, I will -- to my dying breath. And she is worth it."

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

Did this man kill Sarah Cherry?

http://www.pressherald.com/news/pressherald_com_2010-07-04.html

July 4 , 2010

by Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com Staff Writer

Thirty-year-old Dennis Dechaine of Bowdoinham is escorted to his arraignment in the slaying of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry on July 12, 1988, four days after his arrest. Dechaine has been in custody since. 1988 file photo/The Associated Press

The prisoner says he is tired of telling the story.

But there’s a court hearing on the horizon that could be his last chance at a new trial. There are some things that he wants the public to hear again.

So Dennis Dechaine answers the same questions the officers asked on that summer night in the woods of Bowdoin in 1988. Did you take the girl? Did you kill Sarah Cherry?

“I’m not the guy who did this,” Dechaine said during a March 22 interview at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

“Somebody, somewhere in their heart of hearts at the state level has to know this.

“It is a nightmare,” Dechaine said.

The Dechaine case occupies a unique position in Maine’s collective consciousness. No other case has been litigated in Maine’s court system for so long – almost 22 years and counting.

Maine knows Dennis Dechaine, inmate No. 1725, as the farmer convicted for one of the most shocking crimes in state history – the kidnapping, torture and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry. Most Mainers also know that Dechaine, now 52, has maintained his innocence, and a large group of backers has provided the emotional and financial support behind his quest for a new trial.

In four appeals, state and federal judges have upheld the conviction and life sentence.

But he will get at least one more shot.

Sometime this fall, a judge is expected to decide whether Dechaine should get a new trial based primarily on a microscopic fragment of unidentified male DNA extracted from Sarah Cherry’s clipped thumbnail.

His lawyers must convince Superior Court Justice Carl O. Bradford – who presided at the 1989 trial – that the jury likely would have acquitted Dechaine if they had known about the thumbnail evidence. The lawyers also will ask Bradford to consider two forensic reports suggesting Dechaine could not have committed the crime. The hearing is tentatively set for September.

“We only get one shot at getting this right,” said attorney Steve Peterson of Rockport, who has worked on the case since 2003 and has been Dechaine’s lead defense lawyer since the fall of 2007.

“It’s his last, best chance,” Peterson said.

William Stokes, head of the Criminal Division at the state’s Attorney General’s Office, will argue that Dechaine does not deserve a new trial. The only mystery, as far as Stokes is concerned, is why the case has not been closed for good.

“When you have been given so many opportunities to make your case, and you haven’t done it, there’s that point where the family of the victim should get some finality,” Stokes said.

AN INCOMPARABLE CASE

The coming court battle was made possible by a state law enacted in 2001, and revised in 2006 at the urging of Dechaine's supporters. The law allows prisoners to seek new trials based on DNA evidence.

Only a handful of prisoners have filed motions based on the law, and Dechaine's motion would be the first to go before a judge if the hearing takes place as scheduled.

"In terms of public interest, there have been no other cases that compare to the Dechaine case. Never. Not even close," said prominent Augusta defense lawyer Walt McKee, who is not involved.

"Everybody has got their own take on the case," McKee said. "The first school of thought is that he had a trial with excellent lawyers on each side, the jury ruled, and how long do we have to go through this. On the other hand, there's the thought that the jury didn't hear some information that we now have, so let's put it in front of a new jury and let them decide."

The stakes are high. An advocacy group called Trial and Error, composed largely of Dechaine's family and friends, have raised and spent more than $200,000 on lobbying to change the state law regarding DNA appeals, DNA testing, private investigators, a website and the production and distribution of DVDs about the case.

The state, meanwhile, has spent thousands of dollars on Dechaine's court-appointed lawyers, court time and the prosecutors who have contested Dechaine's appeals. At least $10,000, including for the estimated cost of more than 200 hours of staff time, also has been spent by the state crime lab for DNA testing.

"We do not keep a running tab on any case, but this case has consumed literally thousands of hours of attorney time and law enforcement time as well as the lab and the court. So it's a lot of money, certainly tens of thousands," Stokes said.

The case has attracted the attention of some high-profile consultants.

The Innocence Project, a New York-based nonprofit organization dedicated to the exoneration of convicts through DNA testing, has been involved in the case since the early 1990s. One of the organization's staff lawers, Alba Morales, is helping Peterson. Lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, who created the Innocence Project in 1992, became famous for their work on the O.J. Simpson "dream team" that won an acquittal for the former football star in 1995.

Another member of the Simpson team, famed defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey, also has entered the Dechaine fray.

Bailey, who has business ties in Maine and is moving to Yarmouth this month, heard about the case from another attorney. Bailey met with Dechaine at the prison in April 2009. At Bailey's request, two nationally recognized forensic pathologists reviewed some of the evidence and gave their opinions that Dechaine could not have committed the crime.

"This was a strong circumstantial case put on by the state, but it is possible that someone could have set him up," Bailey said. "The inflammatory nature of the crime makes it rife for opportunity to go astray because the public wants someone to pay."

Dechaine said that the prosecution's desire to make an arrest and assure the public that the killer was behind bars denied him a full and fair investigation. "I have forced it so far to the back of my mind that I don't like to think about it anymore," he said while sitting in one of the visitation rooms at the state prison in Warren. "I don't like to think about all of the events that led to my wrongful conviction ... It took a lot of, well, pounding square pegs into round holes to do what was done to me."

HEALTH SCARE, CRIMINAL PROBE

Lawyers on both sides will be watching Dechaine's health as the hearing date approaches, because of an incident that took place at the prison in early April.

On the morning of April 5, two weeks after he was interviewed for this story, Dechaine was found unconscious in his cell, with an extremely low pulse rate and blood pressure. He was taken by helicopter to a Portland hospital, where doctors inserted a tube to help him breathe. Dechaine was speaking and walking again within a few days. He was returned to the prison on April 21.

Don Dechaine, a brother who lives in Madawaska, said Dennis Dechaine apparently ingested an unknown medication that nearly killed him. The family does not know what the medication was, how it got into Dechaine's system or how it was administered.

"There are a lot of questions we don't have the answers to," Don Dechaine said. He said he spoke to his brother on the telephone last week, and he sounded good. Dennis does not appear to have any lasting problems, such as brain damage.

The Maine Department of Corrections investigated the circumstances surrounding the emergency, and passed on the results of their probe to Knox County District Attorney Geoff Rushlau.

Rushlau and Denise Lord, a spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections, declined to comment on details of the investigation.

"The matter is being reviewed for possible criminal charges," Rushlau said last week.

Peterson, Dechaine's lawyer, said any criminal charge arising from the April 5 incident would be dealt with separately from the DNA appeal.

"It will not affect that hearing at all," Peterson said.

VICTIM'S FAMILY SEEKS CLOSURE

Sarah Cherry's family members hope Dechaine's motion for a new trial will be denied and they will be afforded the closure they have been seeking since Sarah was kidnapped while babysitting on July 6, 1988.

Searchers found her body in nearby woods two days later. Sarah had been bound, gagged and sexually assaulted with sticks. She had been stabbed about a dozen times, and was strangled to death with a scarf.

"It's not right that he should be allowed to go on with this forever, to keep coming back to the courts time and time again," said Peg Cherry, Sarah's maternal grandmother.

Peg and her husband, Bud Cherry, live in Lisbon Falls, a short drive from the small town of Bowdoin, where Sarah lived with her mother and stepfather, Debbie and Chris Crosman.

Peg Cherry displays elementary school photographs of Sarah on cabinets. From her tidy living room, the 77-year-old grandmother can see where Sarah and her cousins used to play games of soccer, softball or tag.

Sarah would have been 34 years old on May 5.

Chris and Debbie Crosman declined to comment for this story because they say they still have difficulty discussing it more than two decades after their daughter's murder.

Many family members, including Peg Cherry, attended the trial in March 1989 at Knox County Superior Court in Rockland. Cherry has been in regular contact with prosecutors before and since. And no matter what Dechaine or his supporters say, she is certain he committed the crime.

"The evidence is overwhelming. There is no other answer," she said.

"He thought he was going to hoodwink everybody. Here is this pretty boy, really clean-cut, and he wants you to believe there's no way he could do it.

"Well, looks can be deceiving."

THE STATE'S POSITION

"No question, this was a circumstantial case, but sometimes that can be even more powerful than direct evidence," said William Stokes, the state prosecutor who inherited the Dechaine case from his predecessors in 1995.

Stokes said the state had more evidence against Dechaine than it does in many murder cases:

• A notebook and receipt from Dechaine's truck were found in the driveway of the home where Sarah had been baby-sitting.

• Dechaine was seen walking out of the woods in the general area where Sarah's body was later found.

• His truck was found 450 feet from the site.

• The scarf used to strangle Sarah and the rope binding her wrists had come from Dechaine's truck.

• Two detectives and two corrections officers testified that Dechaine made incriminating statements on the day of his arrest, including, "It must be somebody else inside of me."

Dechaine's testimony at the trial also was a key piece of evidence, Stokes said. Dechaine said he went into the woods on the afternoon of July 6 to inject drugs, and got lost at some point. In an interview with the state's chief psychologist after the arrest in 1988, Dechaine said his history of drug use began with marijuana around the age of 13, and he had occasionally used various drugs, including cocaine and amphetamines, since that time.

During cross-examination at his trial, Dechaine conceded that his memory of the afternoon of July 6 was not as sharp as it might have been if he had not been using the drugs. But he insisted that he was not in an altered state of consciousness, and that he never saw Sarah Cherry that day. Dechaine believes another man took the items from his truck and used them to frame him.

Stokes takes offense at the accusations made by some of Dechaine's supporters, who claim that he and others within the Attorney General's Office have worked to protect the police and to hide and distort evidence pointing away from Dechaine.

"They have their point of view," Stokes said. "They are entitled to their point of view. What I do have a problem with is the personal attacks."

Stokes, an Augusta city councilor who also has served on the school board, said people sometimes ask him whether Trial and Error, the advocacy group that backs Dechaine, might be right in proclaiming his innocence.

"They're not trying to offend me, but I look at them and say, 'Do you really think I would fight and use my skills in the courtroom to keep someone in prison who I believe to be innocent?' " Stokes said.

"Consider the accusations that have been made, that we are basically conspiring to conceal evidence to keep a man we know is innocent in prison," he said. "That is personally very offensive to me, and I'm sure it's offensive to everyone else who bears the brunt of it."

WAITING AND HOPING, ON BOTH SIDES

At the Maine State Prison, Dechaine awaits the upcoming hearing with "reserved hope." There are some questions about his case that Dechaine wants the public to consider.

He noted that police never found physical evidence, not a hair, fiber or drop of blood, connecting him and Sarah Cherry. Investigators never found the knife used to stab Sarah, or her missing panties.

When the police dog tracked from Dechaine's truck into the woods, the dog took investigators on a few indirect routes, but did not lead to Sarah's body. Also, the dog did not find a scent of Sarah in Dechaine's truck, and that information was not provided to his lawyers before the trial.

"Had I abducted Sarah Cherry while in a complete stupor, which is what would have been required here, evidence of her presence in my vehicle would have been undeniable," Dechaine said. "Had I abducted Sarah Cherry in a complete stupor and killed her in the way that she was killed, I would have been covered in blood."

Dechaine said he would not have pushed for DNA testing of all the evidence, ever since the beginning of the case, if he had anything to hide.

More than anything, though, Dechaine said his own personality demonstrates that he was not capable of committing the acts that were perpetrated on the 12-year-old victim.

"I dare anybody to find a single incidence of violence in my life -- ever," he said. "It's not in my being. It's not who I am."

Peg Cherry says that claim of innocence has a hollow ring, in light of all the evidence against Dechaine. It defies common sense, Cherry said, to believe that anyone other than Dechaine could have been the one who killed her granddaughter.

In Lisbon Falls, Peg and Bud Cherry go about their own routines, supported by their community. They try not to get worked up by the actions of Dechaine's supporters.

Occasionally the phone rings and it is Bill Stokes, keeping them posted on a process that Peg Cherry describes as tiring.

"With each of these appeals, we keep thinking that it's going to be the last one, and then it isn't," she said.

Whenever Dechaine's pending motion goes to court, Cherry intends to be there. "They're not going to get rid of us," she said. "As long as I can physically get in there, I will -- to my dying breath. And she is worth it."

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

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.

Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer

Dennis Dechaine is seen at Maine State Prison in Thomaston in June 1992, about a month after filing a motion for a new trial. It was denied in July.

1992 file photo/The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram

JULY  3 2010

Through 22 years and a conviction, Dechaine maintains the same story: innocence

• Through 22 years and a conviction, Dechaine maintains the same story: innocence
  July 3, 2010
  
• Judge in Dechaine hearing has history with case
  July 3, 2010
  
• Police reconstruct the day of Cherry's death
  July 3, 2010
  
• Faith sustains family of slain girl as trial enters new period
  July 3, 2010
  
• Group raises support, money for Dechaine's defense
  July 3, 2010
  

The case -- already litigated for almost 22 years -- is expected to be revisited this September, when Dechaine makes one more bid for a new trial, based on DNA evidence.

MaineToday Media reporter Trevor Maxwell conducted dozens of interviews and reviewed hundreds of pages of court documents and police records dating back to 1988. Maxwell, 33, is the newspaper's courts and legal affairs reporter. He has been a staff writer for the Portland Press Herald since 2005.

Learn more about the Dennis Dechaine case:

• • Maine law governing motions for a new trial based on DNA evidence
• 
  • Web site of Trial and Error, the group that supports Dechaine’s bid for a new trial. (provides links to trial transcript and other documents)
  

• • Judge's decision on Dechaine’s federal appeal in 2000
  
  
• • Autopsy report by Dr. Ronald Roy, former deputy state medical examiner (pdf)
  

• Time of death opinions by Dr. Cyril Wecht (pdf) and Dr. Walter Hofman(pdf)
• Excerpts from Reporter Trevor Maxwell's interview with Dennis Dechaine (pdf)

• March 2005 letter from Dennis Dechaine to Maine legislators (pdf)

• • Correspondence between defense lawyer Tom Connolly and CBR Laboratories, regarding DNA testing (pdf)
  
  

June 26th

To view the interview please follow the link below.

http://www.pressherald.com/holding/dennis_dechaine_maine_sarah_cherry_murder_case.html?searchterm=Dechaine

Maybe FBI, federal courts should take Dechaine case

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/maybe-fbi-federal-courts-should-take-dechaine-case_2010-05-01.html

Kennebec Journal Staff
May 1 2010

As the years in prison mount for Dennis Dechaine, the case refuses to go away.

When justice is achieved, the world overcomes tragedy and sorrow and settles in a restful closure. But when injustice is perpetuated on an innocent person, the whole universe is out of whack and cannot rest until justice is restored and the perpetrators exposed and punished.

Almost 22 years after he was convicted of first-degree murder in the slaying of Sarah Cherry, Dechaine has become synonymous with miscarriage of justice and wrongful incarceration. More and more people wonder why this state will not own up to its mistakes, release an innocent man and pursue the real killer and conveyors of injustice with all its authority and vigor.

An act of the Legislature several years go opened up the state's secret files to scrutiny and exposed contradictions between investigators' sworn testimony in court and their notes written at the time.

Why did the Attorney General's Office not pursue that as wrongful testimony that helped convict Dechaine? That office is mired in its own attempts to cover up illegalities and destroy evidence that would have cleared Dechaine.

Pertinent materials from the crime scene were incinerated, including the rape kit that exonerated Dechaine, just before an appeal was heard in court.

If Maine is incapable of rendering justice in this case, maybe it's time for the FBI and federal courts to step in.

Ross Paradis

Frenchville

***This letter was also published in the St.John Valley Times April 28 2010

Dechaine case alive since some believe he's innocent

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/dechaine-case-alive-since-some-believe-he_s-innocent_2010-04-28.html

April 28 2010

Kennebec Journal Staff

Once again (April 21), the Dennis Dechaine case raises its ugly little head in the Maine news.

Since it never goes away, one would think that it was the most heinous crime in Maine history or even in the past 21 years. But surprisingly, it is not.

It certainly is/was a horrific crime and tragedy. I remember as if it were yesterday, seeing Sarah Cherry's picture on TV, then the inevitable announcement of the crime, the pictures of her driveway, the notebook, the truck, Dechaine and the accompanying news coverage and trial.

As with any crime, there is always the debate amongst friends, family, etc. about the guilt or innocence of the accused. And when the accused is found guilty and is incarcerated, those who thought he was guilty have achieved all the compensation that they can possibly get, and the case "goes away."

So why does Dechaine remain in the news so often over the years? I think that many people are uncomfortable with this case -- uncomfortable because they believe that he is innocent and has been wrongfully imprisoned for a very long time.

In 1988, people were quick to convict, out of horror and rage -- now, they may not be so sure. I believe that the murderers of Sarah Cherry are still alive and in the area -- and comfortable that Dechaine is serving their punishment.

Rhonda Hamilton

Dechaine returns to prison after hospital stay

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/dechaine-back-in-prison-after-2-week-hospital-visit_2010-04-22.html Posted: 12:00 AM

April 22 2010

PORTLAND -- Dennis Dechaine is back in the Maine State Prison after staying at a Portland hospital for more than two weeks with an undisclosed medical condition.
Correcti

ons Commissioner Martin Magnusson said Thursday that Dechaine was transported to the prison in Warren sometime in the past few days.
He would not say whether Dechaine has been returned to his regular housing unit, or if he is staying in the prison infirmary or another special unit.
Dechaine, 52, is one of the state's best-known prisoners. He is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin in 1988. He maintains that he is innocent.
A judge is expected to hear arguments later this year in his most recent bid for a new trial, based on DNA evidence. Dechaine's four previous appeals have been rejected.
Dechaine's family members have said that he was found unconscious in his cell on the morning of April 5, with very low pulse and blood pressure. He was taken by helicopter to Maine Medical Center in Portland.
Don Dechaine, one of Dennis' three brothers, said he doesn't know what caused the emergency.
Magnusson said the Department of Corrections still is investigating the incident. He said it would not be appropriate for him to discuss the nature of the investigation, or any preliminary results, before it is finished.
Magnusson also said the law prohibits him from discussing Dechaine's health.
Don Dechaine said his brother suffered a similar, but less serious, incident about 10 years ago. He was hospitalized briefly at Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport. Don Dechaine said the cause of that incident was undetermined.
He said he doesn't think that Dennis Dechaine has been on any medications, except possibly one to lower his cholesterol.

Dechaine returned to prison after falling ill

The Department of Corrections is still investigating the medical emergency two weeks ago.

April 23

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

Dennis Dechaine is back in the Maine State Prison, after staying at a Portland hospital for more than two weeks with an undisclosed medical condition.

Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store

Corrections Commissioner Martin Magnusson said Thursday that Dechaine was transported to the prison in Warren sometime in the past few days.
He would not say whether Dechaine has been returned to his regular housing unit, or if he is staying in the prison infirmary or another special unit.
Dechaine, 52, is one of the state's best-known prisoners. He is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin in 1988. He maintains that he is innocent.
A judge is expected to hear arguments later this year in his most recent bid for a new trial, based on DNA evidence. Dechaine's four previous appeals have been rejected.
Dechaine's family members have said that he was found unconscious in his cell on the morning of April 5, with very low pulse and blood pressure. He was taken by helicopter to Maine Medical Center in Portland.
Don Dechaine, one of Dennis' three brothers, said he doesn't know what caused the emergency.
Magnusson said the Department of Corrections is still investigating the incident. He said it would not be appropriate for him to discuss the nature of the investigation, or any preliminary results, before it is finished.
Magnusson also said he is prohibited by law from discussing Dechaine's health.
Don Dechaine said his brother suffered a similar, but less serious, incident about 10 years ago. He was hospitalized briefly at Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport. Don Dechaine said the cause of that incident was undetermined.
He said he doesn't think that Dennis Dechaine has been on any medications, except possibly one to lower his cholesterol.
 
Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:
tmaxwell@pressherald.com

What if Sarah Cherry's real killer still at large?

April 21 2010

Kennebec Journal Staff

It sure is a wicked good thing we live in Maine, a state where the judicial system never makes mistakes.

Imagine how you'd feel if we lived in Connecticut, where James Calvin Tillman was wrongly convicted of rape in 1988 and had to wait, imprisoned, for 18 years for advanced DNA identification techniques to exonerate him.

What's worse for Connecticut, it took another two years for the same DNA technique to identify the real perpetrator, Duane Foster, who fortunately was already securely in jail for other crimes. Imagine if he had been at large, a continuing threat to assault other women.

At least Connecticut's prosecuting attorney, Edward R. Narus, had the courage and character to admit the state's grievous error: "We genuinely believed at that time that justice had, in fact, been served," he said when the real perpetrator, Foster, was sentenced recently (Kennebec Journal, 4/17/10).

But here in Maine, thankfully, we never make that kind of mistake.

Some say we did in the Dennis Dechaine case, which curiously also involves a horrible sex crime committed in 1988, and a man (still in prison after 21 years, actually) whom DNA tests strongly indicate -- still more curiously -- is innocent. But, as Assistant Attorney General William Stokes continues to assure us, "In Maine, we are different!" (Stokes' quote from a meeting about Dechaine with former state Rep. Ross Paradis of Frenchville).

And if Maine's judicial system is simply incapable of producing wrongful convictions, then there's not a chance the real perpetrator of the Sarah Cherry murder remains at large, where he might strike again. And again.

I'll bet you're really relieved we Mainers don't have Connecticut's problem. And aren't you mighty proud to live in a state that doesn't make mistakes?

Bernie Huebner

Waterville

bhuebner@roadrunner.com

In Loving Memory

Lilla Maclaren (Nicholas) Carter (Augusta Trial and Error Chapter Chairwoman)

We will miss you dearly!

CHELSEA -- Lilla MacLaren (Nicholas) Carter died unexpectedly April 14, 2010, at MaineGeneral Medical Center, Augusta.

She was born in East Millinocket on Dec. 1, 1924, the daughter of Carl and Josephine (Haskins) McLaren.

Lilla married Dennis Nicholas in 1945, with whom she had four children: Barbara, Bettijane, Jerry and Michael.

She and her family lived in the Gardiner area for many years and she worked as a housekeeper for various local families. Even though she was "retired," she couldn't bring herself to stop providing this service for a couple of very special clients -- who were actually as dear to her as family.

In 1969, she married Maurice Carter, with whom she operated L&M Lobster Pound in Chelsea for many years. He died in 1989.

"Ma" or "Gram" was a dedicated member of the Augusta Gardiner Lions Club, receiving Lion of the Year and Melvin Jones awards. She was the club's eyeglass chairwoman, assisting countless people in need to obtain eyeglasses. She was also a member of Trial & Error, and one of the happiest days of her life was when she met Dennis Dechaine, in whose innocence she profoundly believed.

Ma/Gram will be remembered for her strength, sense of humor and dedication to and love for her family -- as well as her willingness to help others in need.

She was predeceased by her parents; her husbands, Dennis and Maurice; daughters Barbara Nicholas and Bettijane Soule Goulet; son Jerry Nicholas; sister Jane Walls; and brothers Vernon and Frank MacLaren.

She is survived by her sister, Anne Jewett and family, of Lewiston; son Michael Nicholas and his wife, Paula, of Chelsea; grandchildren Katrina Evans and her husband, Rob, of China, Julie Anderson and her husband, Chris, of Australia, Michael Nicholas Jr. and his wife, Vaunalee, of Chelsea, Paul Soule and his partner, Brian Tompkins, of Augusta, David Soule and his wife, Kim, of Chelsea, and Laurie Soule, of Virginia; and daughter-in-law Margie Nicholas and family, of Randolph. She leaves nine great-grandchildren, Chelsea and Emily Soule, Nathan and Jacob Evans, Harper and Will Anderson, Michael (III) and Austin Nicholas, and Devonte Bivins; as well as many dear, close friends.

Ma/Gram will be missed more than words can say, but she would want everyone to remember this:

"Don't stand at my grave and weep, I am not there. I do not sleep ... When you awake in the mornings hush, I am the swift unflinging rush of quiet birds in circling flight. I am the soft star-shine at night, Do not stand at my grave and cry, I am not there, I did not die."

Friends may visit from 4 to 6 p.m. Thursday, April 22, at Plummer Funeral Home, 16 Pleasant St., Augusta, where a memorial service will be held at 6 p.m. Burial will be at a later date in the family lot in Belfast.

In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to HealthReach Hopsice & Volunteers of Kennebec Valley in Gardiner, c/o MaineGeneral Health Office of Philanthropy, P.O. Box 828, Waterville, ME 04903. Condolences to the family may be sent via the funeral home Web site at www.plummerfh.com.

Brother says Dechaine was found near death

http://www.pressherald.com/news/brother-says-dechaine-was-found-near-death_2010-04-09.html   

Posted: 12:00 AM: Updated: 12:22 AM
Don Dechaine says he isn't sure what caused the well-known prisoner's heart rate and blood pressure to drop on Monday.

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

PORTLAND — A brother of Dennis Dechaine said Thursday that the well-known prisoner continues to recover at Maine Medical Center, after being found near death Monday morning in his cell at the Maine State Prison in Warren.

Don Dechaine of Madawaska said he intends to visit his brother at Maine Med today. He will be the first family member to see Dennis Dechaine since the emergency.

Don Dechaine said he doesn't know what caused his brother's heart rate and blood pressure to plummet.

"We have no idea what happened," he said Thursday. "He has been pretty healthy. The good news is that he is getting better. He knows where he is, he knows who he is."

Dennis Dechaine is serving a life sentence for the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin in 1988. He maintains that he is innocent. A judge is expected to hear arguments later this year in his most recent bid for a new trial, based on DNA evidence.

Don Dechaine said he has not spoken with his brother since he was taken to the hospital. Family members are getting updates from employees with the Department of Corrections.

Denise Lord, a spokeswoman for the department, said this week that the circumstances of Dechaine's illness are being investigated. She declined to speak about his condition or his health history at the prison, citing confidentiality laws.

Lord could not be reached for comment Thursday. A spokesman for Maine Med could not confirm that Dechaine is being treated at the hospital.

Dechaine was taken to Maine Med by helicopter Monday morning, his brother said. Doctors initially inserted a breathing tube, but Dechaine's condition stabilized and the tube has been removed.

Don Dechaine said his brother suffered a similar, but less serious, incident about 10 years ago. He was hospitalized briefly at Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport. Don Dechaine said the cause was undetermined.

He said he doesn't think that Dennis Dechaine is on any medications, except for possibly one to lower his cholesterol.

"He is not a medication taker; that is what I don't understand," Don Dechaine said. He said he doesn't know how long his brother will remain in the hospital.

Steve Peterson, the lawyer in Rockport who represents Dechaine in his pending bid for a new trial, said he is unaware of what caused the emergency.

He said Dechaine has gained weight recently but has not had any major health problems.

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

Follow link below for latest on News 13 

http://www.myfoxmaine.com/news/90075037.html

Maine Prisoner Dennis Dechaine Hospitalized

Convicted killer seeking new trial is hospitalized

April 7 2010

ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE PHOTO Convicted murderer Dennis Dechaine stands by a window in a conference room at the Maine State Prison in Warren, Maine, April 6, 2005. Dechaine was hospitalized for an undisclosed illness.

WARREN, Maine — The Maine State Prison inmate who's seeking a new trial for the 1988 kidnapping and killing of a 12-year-old girl has been hospitalized for an undisclosed illness.

Corrections officials say 52-year-old Dennis Dechaine was removed from the prison on Monday. She declined to discuss his medical condition.

Bill Moore, a private investigator who's part of Dechaine's legal team, tells the Portland Press Herald that Dechaine had problems with heart rate and blood pressure.

Dechaine, a former Bowdoinham farmer, is serving a life sentence for the murder and rape of Sarah Cherry. Dechaine maintains his innocence and is pressing for a new trial based on DNA evidence.

Prisoner Dechaine falls ill, sent to hospital

Posted: 12:00 AM

Portland Press Herald

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

Dennis Dechaine, the one-time farmer from Bowdoinham who is serving a life sentence for the murder of a 12-year-old girl in 1988, has been hospitalized for treatment of an undisclosed medical condition.

Dennis Dechaine

File photo

Dechaine, 52, was taken from the Maine State Prison in Warren to a hospital Monday morning, and he remained there Tuesday night, said Department of Corrections spokeswoman Denise Lord.

Lord said she could not discuss Dechaine's medical condition or location because of confidentiality laws.

"He is hospitalized at this point," Lord said Tuesday night. "If and when he is returned to the prison, that would be public information."

Bill Moore, a private investigator who is part of Dechaine's legal team, said Dechaine went to the hospital because of problems with his heart rate and blood pressure. Moore did not have further details, except that he expects Dechaine to be returned to the prison soon.

Lord said the Department of Corrections is investigating the circumstances that led to the hospitalization. She declined to elaborate on the purpose of that investigation.

The prison has an area where inmates get routine medical care and mental health services, Lord said. Inmates are taken outside the prison in emergencies, or when they have to be seen by specialists.

Steve Peterson, the Rockport lawyer who represents Dechaine in his pending bid for a new trial, said Tuesday night he was not aware that Dechaine had been taken to the hospital.

He said Dechaine has gained weight recently but has not had any major health problems. Peterson does not think Dechaine has had any other medical emergencies during his incarceration.

On July 6, 1988, Sarah Cherry was kidnapped from the home in Bowdoin where she was baby-sitting. Her body was found in the woods two days later; she had been sexually assaulted, stabbed and strangled.

Dechaine was tried and convicted in March 1989. He maintains he is innocent, and that someone set him up by taking several items from his pickup truck. His appeals to the state and federal courts have been rejected.

This fall, a judge is expected to hear arguments in Dechaine's pending motion for a new trial based on DNA evidence.

The crux of the motion is a bit of DNA from an unknown male -- not Dechaine -- that was extracted from one of Cherry's thumbnails four years after Dechaine was convicted.

His lawyers say the DNA came from the real killer; state prosecutors say it was likely deposited on the nail from dirty clippers during Cherry's autopsy.

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at: tmaxwell@pressherald.com

Massive loophole' exists in Freedom of Access Act

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/letters/_massive-loophole_-exists-in-freedom-of-access-act_2010-04-02.html

Kennebec Journal

April 4 2010

A glaring omission in Judith Meyer's rosy account of the status of Maine's Freedom of Access Act (March 30) was the Maine Supreme Court's divided 2008 ruling regarding then-Attorney General Steve Rowe's Dechaine commission.

The commission was created and charged in its task by the attorney general, it used state facilities and employees and its findings were announced by the attorney general. In spite of those facts, however, the court ruled that the commission's records were closed to public scrutiny. Meyer's own newspaper (Lewiston's Sun Journal) was highly critical of this decision.

The Attorney General's Office serves as the ombudsman for the FOAA, but a deputy attorney general assisted the commission's lawyers in their successful effort to shred the act.

Any bureaucrat can now beat the system simply by picking a few non-bureaucrats to "investigate" an embarrassing situation.

The "investigators" then can produce a whitewashed finding without providing a scintilla of supporting evidence, even if -- as in the Dennis Dechaine case -- there is undisputed evidence to the contrary from the state's own files and/or court records.

Yet neither the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition or the Legislature has made any effort to correct this massive loophole.

Whatever his intentions, Rowe's prediction that no wrongdoing would be uncovered had the appearance of a self-fulfilling prophecy when, over the nearly two years that the commission labored at its task, no attempt was made to contact Dechaine's lawyers or supporters. Meanwhile, Rowe served out his remaining term without having to make any controversial decisions regarding the Dechaine case.

William Bunting

Whitefield

Evidence favoring Dechaine piles up

PORTLAND PRESS HERALD

March 15 2010

Dennis Dechaine is shown in a 2005 file photo while serving a sentence at the Maine State Prison, where he remains today.

Dennis Dechaine is shown in a 2005 file photo while serving a sentence at the Maine State Prison, where he remains today.

The Associated Press

Thanks to the Portland Press Herald for publishing an article on its front page about new opinions relating to the Dennis Dechaine case ("Analyses by two experts offer hope to Dechaine." Feb. 25).
It is interesting that the prosecutor in the case was not and is not interested in two key pieces of evidence.
One is murder victim Sarah Cherry's time of death. Prosecutor William Stokes states, "Dr. (Ronald) Roy never gave, and the state never relied upon, a precise time of death." If the prosecutor's job was to seek justice, why didn't the medical examiner give, and why didn't the state rely upon, the estimated time of death?
Was this because the evidence did not support the state's case against Mr. Dechaine since, at the estimated time of death, based on the autopsy, Mr. Dechaine was already in police custody?
The second piece of evidence is DNA. Again, the prosecution viewed this as inconsequential. Inconsequential? Dozens of innocent people are being exonerated as a result of DNA evidence, many saved from death row. I dare say they do not consider DNA evidence inconsequential.
As for the DNA being transferred during the autopsy, it has been determined that the DNA belongs to an unknown male and not to Mr. Dechaine or any male present at the autopsy.
One can only wonder why the prosecution continues to downplay evidence that exonerates Mr. Dechaine.
Genie Nakell
Portland

Perhaps the conclusion by two renowned forensic pathologists, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman, that Sarah Cherry probably died 16 to 20 hours after Dennis Dechaine was in police custody, will mark the beginning of the ending of this tragic and shameful episode of Maine history.
Deputy Attorney General William Stokes' response, inferring that death occurred long after the killer left the scene, is also notable in that Stokes did not mention that Sarah's neck was constricted to 3 inches or less, surely resulting in a quick death.
Stokes has stated that the DNA of an unknown male found under the girl's thumbnail bears no logical connection to the killer, while prosecutor Eric Wright has claimed that the DNA is of no significance because Dechaine had no scratches on him!
At trial, the state successfully opposed DNA testing, and after Dechaine filed an appeal, Deputy Attorney General Fern LaRochelle ordered the incineration of possible DNA evidence.
Over the past 21 years, not one new fact has surfaced supporting the state's case against Dechaine, while a mountain of exculpatory evidence – including proof that the damning testimony of two detectives was contradicted by their own notes – has been uncovered.
For the past 21 years, Dennis Dechaine has sought a new trial, one in which a jury would hear all of the evidence. In effect, the state would also be on trial, and perhaps that is why Stokes, in increasingly desperate opposition, makes statements that would be laughable were the circumstances not so tragic.
William Bunting
Whitefield

Science has changed
Mar 07, 2010

This is in response to Deputy Attorney General William Stokes' comment about
Dennis Dechaine, printed Feb. 25.

First, let me say that those “renowned forensic scientists” are putting
their reputations on the line by what they have determined to be the
evidence of Sarah Cherry’s tragic death timeline — something to be noted.

This would be a retrial to submit more evidence to prove Dennis Dechaine’s
innocence, not just the victim's time of death.

There is much more than just her time of death. This is so tragic because
while the police had Dechaine in custody, they could have still looked for
Sarah Cherry. I may add, it was found to be several hours after Dechaine's
arrest. DNA could hold a big clue that he didn’t do it.

Forensics has come a long way since 1986. Stokes is supposing that science
hasn’t changed much since then. I would be very surprised if Stokes wouldn’t
use DNA evidence to convict someone solely on that evidence alone.

Bev Gallant

Dixfield

Noted Pathologists Refute Time Of Death In Dechaine Case

March 3 2010

Lincoln County News
By Lucy L. Martin

Two nationally acclaimed forensic pathologists challenge conclusions
that helped convict Dennis Dechaine of the 1988 murder of a 12-year-old
Bowdoin girl.

Dechaine's attorney, Steve Peterson, of Rockport, said this week Dr.
Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman reviewed the case. They concluded
that when the Bowdoinham farmer came out of the woods July 6, 1988 and
was taken into police custody about 9 p.m., Sarah Cherry, who had
earlier disappeared from the house where she was babysitting, was still
alive.

In April 2009, criminal defense lawyer F. Lee Bailey joined the defense
team for Dechaine, who is serving a life sentence in state prison for
Cherry's murder. Speaking before Bangor businessmen last week about job
training for released prisoners, Bailey mentioned his consulting role
in the Dechaine case and recent reports by "two experts," describing
the pathologists as "one a household name, the other at the top of his
professional ladder."

Taped by WCSH-TV, Bailey said, "I have looked at the written reports
and they are totally inconsistent with guilt."

Medical examiner Dr. Ronald Roy argued at the 1989 trial that the
victim died a minimum of 30-36 hours - "and it could well be longer,"
he testified - before the body was discovered and before an autopsy was
performed (two days after Cherry's disappearance).

In reviewing Roy's findings, Hofman disagreed with the examiner's
opinion, placing the death at about 16 hours after Dechaine was taken
into custody, while Wecht said the earliest possible time was about
seven hours afterward.

Wecht is clinical professor at the University of Pittsburgh Schools of
Medicine & Dental Medicine and an editorial board member of more than
20 forensic scientific publications. His expertise and opinion have
figured in many high profile cases, including the assassinations of
Pres. John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, as well as the
JonBenet Ramsey and OJ Simpson cases.

Hofman spent nearly 25 years in the Depts. of Legal Medicine and
Forensic Sciences at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, is former
chair of laboratory medicine at Roxborough Hospital, Philadelphia, and
a designated forensic pathologist for the State of New Jersey.

Peterson is preparing for a court hearing in September. A change in
state law several years ago regarding DNA evidence allows the court to
"consider old evidence as well as new," the attorney said.

Peterson said he thinks the pathologists' reports tie in because of the
testimony given at the time of the 1989 trial alleging "30 hours and
possibly more" had passed between Cherry's death and the time she was
discovered on Friday noon, July 8. He will ask Justice Carl Bradford,
who presided in 1989, to consider Wecht's and Hofman's opinions as the
defense seeks a new trial for Dechaine.

Peterson also said he wants some of the original evidence to be
subjected to a new type of "touch" DNA testing. Earlier DNA analysis
used "a different methodology," he said, that tested "random spots" on
an item. Touch testing involves scraping an entire item, such as a
shirt or scarf, with a razor blade and doing DNA testing on everything
collected.

Six years after Dechaine was convicted, further tests revealed male DNA
from an unknown source under Cherry's thumbnail. State law was changed
in 2006 allowing the court to convene a new trial if it seemed possible
that DNA evidence would result in a different verdict.

Dechaine requested DNA testing at the time of his trial but the judge
ruled against it.

Peterson said his team will be discussing whether it is "prudent or
practical" to do a more sophisticated type of DNA testing, called
miniSTR, which allows highly degraded samples to be analyzed. The
technology was developed in the aftermath of the World Trade Center
9-11 attacks to identify victims' remains.

'Mountain' of evidence bolsters Dechaine's claims

Morning Sentinel Staff

Sunday, March 7, 2010

That two renowned forensic pathologists, Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman, have concluded that Sarah Cherry probably died 16 to 20 hours after Dennis Dechaine was in police custody should have been a front-page story, not hidden on B6.

Deputy Attorney General Bill Stokes' response, inferring that death occurred long after her killer left the scene, was also newsworthy, especially as Stokes did not mention that Sarah's neck was constricted to a diameter of 3 inches or less, surely resulting in a quick death.

Stokes has stated that the DNA of an unknown male found under Sarah's thumbnail bears no logical connection to the killer, while prosecutor Eric Wright has claimed that the DNA is of no significance because Dechaine had no scratches on him.

At trial, the state successfully opposed DNA testing, and, after Dechaine filed an appeal, Deputy Attorney General Fern LaRochelle ordered the incineration of possible DNA evidence.

Over the past 21 years, not one new fact has surfaced supporting the state's case against Dechaine, while a mountain of exculpatory evidence -- including proof that the damning testimony of two detectives was contradicted by their own notes -- has been uncovered.

For the past 21 years, Dechaine has sought a new trial, one in which a jury would hear all of the evidence.
In effect, the state also would be on trial, and perhaps that is why Stokes, in increasingly desperate opposition, makes statements that would be laughable were the circumstances not so tragic.

William Bunting

Whitefield

STILL ANGRY WITH ROWE AND STOKES ABOUT DECHAINE DNA

 St.John Valley Times

March 3 2010

Every day that Dennis Dechaine spends in jail, the worse Maine looks, resurrecting the image that the state is behind the times in stubbornly maintaining that it cannot make any mistakes, a position that is ironically held by the very agency that is supposed to keep up with the times-our won Attorney General's Office.

When I was in the House of Representatives, I met with then Attorney General Steve Rowe and Assistant AG Bill Stokes over the inconsistencies of the Attorney General's Office in the Dechaine case.

When I mentioned that in light of the frequent exonerations around the country Maine could also have a few inmates who are innocent, Stokes immediately retorted, "In Maine, we are different!" I couldn't believe what I heard.  Even Rowe winced, not that he ever did anything constructive to allay the growing public conviction that Dechaine did not receive a fair trial and that he might indeed be innocent given the results of DNA tests. 

Stokes, the state's chief prosecutor, has been particularly ambivalent in regards to DNA.  While he dismisses the results of two DNA tests related to the 1986 murder of Sarah Cherry, he has used DNA to help convict felons.

What Stokes doesn't get - but most states do-is that DNA cuts both ways; bit I can also prove the innocence of a defendant or convict - WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Ross Paradis

Frenchville

Dechaine lawyers doubt time of victim's death

http://www.kjonline.com/news/dechaine-lawyers-doubt-time-of-victim_s-death_2010-02-24.html

KENNEBEC JOURNAL  

25 February 2010

They claim the young girl died after he was in custody

BY TREVOR MAXWELL, Portland Press Herald

Lawyers for Dennis Dechaine said Wednesday that two renowned forensic pathologists have provided opinions that could help Dechaine get a new trial in the murder of a 12-year-old girl more than two decades ago.

Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman reviewed the case at the request of Steve Peterson, a Rockport lawyer, and F. Lee Bailey, the famed defense attorney who is a consultant to Dechaine.

In their opinions, Wecht and Hofman agreed Sarah Cherry likely died several hours after Dechaine emerged from the woods in Bowdoinham and was taken into police custody.

Dechaine, 52, is serving a life sentence for Cherry's kidnapping and murder in 1988.

The time of Cherry's death has been a point of contention ever since the trial. Wecht and Hofman reviewed the autopsy report, photographs, weather reports and the testimony of the late Dr. Ronald Roy, the state's chief medical examiner at the time of the murder.

"These are extremely reputable people who have given these opinions. They are putting their reputations on the line," Peterson said. "Both opinions basically would exclude Dennis from being the perpetrator."

The state prosecutor in the case has not been provided with the opinions. Nonetheless, William Stokes said Wednesday that any new attempts to pinpoint the time of Cherry's death should be treated with skepticism.

"It is absolute conjecture," said Stokes, head of the Criminal Division in the state Attorney General's Office.

"My point has always been, how do you know when she actually dies? Whoever said she died instantly? Dr. Roy never gave, and the state never relied upon, a precise time of death," he said.

Stokes said that even if Cherry's time of death was later than the estimate provided by Roy, that fact alone would not exclude Dechaine as the killer. The jury based its finding on several pieces of evidence, Stokes said.

Cherry disappeared while babysitting on the afternoon of July 6, 1988.

While police were looking for her, Dechaine wandered out of the woods three miles from the site of her disappearance, claiming that he had gotten lost while looking for a fishing hole. He admitted to police that he had been injecting drugs.

A day later, searchers found Cherry's body in the woods about 400 feet from Dechaine's truck. She had been raped with sticks, strangled with a scarf and stabbed repeatedly around her throat with a small blade. Her hands were bound with yellow plastic rope.

The rope was made of the same material as a yellow plastic rope found in Dechaine's truck. A piece of yellow rope matching the rope in the truck and on Cherry's hands was found in the woods near Cherry's body. Evidence technicians found that it had been cut from a piece of rope in Dechaine's barn.

A repair bill and a notebook belonging to Dechaine were found in the driveway at the site of the abduction.

Dechaine's supporters say he was set up. They note that there was no physical evidence linking Dechaine with Cherry. Someone easily could have taken items from the back of his truck, they say, and investigators failed to consider other suspects.

Dechaine was taken into custody at 8 p.m on July 6.

Roy, the medical examiner, testified at the trial that Cherry likely died 30 to 36 hours before he did the autopsy, at 2 p.m. on July 8. That would have put the time of death between 2 and 8 a.m. on July 7 - well after Dechaine was in custody.

But Roy called the 30 to 36 hours a minimum, adding, "It could well be longer."

Hofman, who reviewed the case for the defense, practices pathology at Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia and serves as coroner for Montgomery County, Pa.

In his opinion, the earliest time of Cherry's death would have been around noon on July 7, about 16 hours after Dechaine was taken into custody.

"I emphatically disagree with Roy's opinion that Cherry was dead 'probably 30 hours or more'" before the autopsy, Hofman wrote.

Wecht, the other pathologist, has gained a national reputation for his reviews of high-profile cases such as JonBenet Ramsey's killing. He is perhaps best known for his criticism of the Warren Commission's conclusions in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In Wecht's opinion, the earliest possible time of death would have been around 3:40 a.m. on July 7. For his calculations, Wecht used an autopsy time of 3:40 p.m. on July 8.

Peterson had not planned to discuss the opinions publicly until later this year. Those plans changed when Bailey mentioned the opinions while speaking with business leaders in Bangor on Wednesday morning.

Peterson did not provide copies of the opinions to the Portland Press Herald on Wednesday because he must submit them first to the Attorney General's Office. He declined to say how much the defense paid for the opinions.

Peterson filed a petition in August 2008 seeking a new trial for Dechaine based on a change in state law related to DNA evidence. The petition hinges mainly on a single thumbnail that was clipped during Cherry's autopsy.

Years after the trial, the thumbnail was tested and analysts discovered the DNA of an unknown male.

Supporters of Dechaine say the finding is proof that the one-time farmer is innocent. Prosecutors say the thumbnail is inconsequential when viewed in the context of all the evidence, and the unknown DNA most likely was transferred onto the nail during the autopsy.

Peterson seeks additional DNA testing over the next couple of months on remaining pieces of evidence.

Having lost a series of state and federal appeals, Dechaine could have his last chance for a new trial in the pending petition. Peterson and Bailey must convince Superior Court Justice Carl Bradford that the DNA evidence likely would have led to a different verdict if it had been admitted in the original trial.

A hearing is tentatively scheduled for September.

Peterson said he will ask Bradford to consider the opinions of Wecht and Hofman, as well as the DNA evidence. The lawyer contends that the new state law opens the door for the opinions.

"The judge will have to make a ruling on whether we can introduce this type of opinion evidence into the DNA hearing," Peterson said.

Stokes declined to give his opinion on the admissibility of the work by Wecht and Hofman.

Analyses by two experts offer hope to Dechaine

February 25 2010

Lawyers for the convicted killer say new opinions on the time of death back his bid for a new trial.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/analyses-by-two-experts-offer-hope-to-dechaine-_2010-02-24.html

By Trevor Maxwell tmaxwell@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

Lawyers for Dennis Dechaine said Wednesday that two renowned forensic pathologists have provided opinions that could help Dechaine get a new trial in the murder of a 12-year-old girl more than two decades ago.

Dr. Cyril Wecht and Dr. Walter Hofman reviewed the case at the request of Steve Peterson, a Rockport lawyer, and F. Lee Bailey, the famed defense attorney who is a consultant to Dechaine.

In their opinions, Wecht and Hofman agreed that Sarah Cherry likely died several hours after Dechaine emerged from the woods in Bowdoinham and was taken into police custody. Dechaine, 52, is serving a life sentence for Cherry's kidnapping and murder in 1988.

The time of Cherry's death has been a point of contention ever since the trial. Wecht and Hofman reviewed the autopsy report, photographs, weather reports and the testimony of the late Dr. Ronald Roy, the state's chief medical examiner at the time of the murder.

''These are extremely reputable people who have given these opinions. They are putting their reputations on the line,'' Peterson said. ''Both opinions basically would exclude Dennis from being the perpetrator.''

The state prosecutor in the case has not been provided with the opinions. Nonetheless, William Stokes said Wednesday that any new attempts to pinpoint the time of Cherry's death should be treated with skepticism.

''It is absolute conjecture,'' said Stokes, head of the Criminal Division in the state Attorney General's Office.

''My point has always been, how do you know when she actually dies? Whoever said she died instantly? Dr. Roy never gave, and the state never relied upon, a precise time of death,'' he said.

Stokes said that even if Cherry's time of death was later than the estimate provided by Roy, that fact alone would not exclude Dechaine as the killer. The jury based its finding on several pieces of evidence, Stokes said.

Cherry disappeared while babysitting on the afternoon of July 6, 1988.

While police were looking for her, Dechaine wandered out of the woods three miles from the site of her disappearance, claiming that he had gotten lost while looking for a fishing hole. He admitted to police that he had been injecting drugs.

A day later, searchers found Cherry's body in the woods about 400 feet from Dechaine's truck. She had been raped with sticks, strangled with a scarf and stabbed repeatedly around her throat with a small blade. Her hands were bound with yellow plastic rope.

The rope was made of the same material as a yellow plastic rope found in Dechaine's truck. A piece of yellow rope matching the rope in the truck and on Cherry's hands was found in the woods near Cherry's body. Evidence technicians found that it had been cut from a piece of rope in Dechaine's barn.

A repair bill and a notebook belonging to Dechaine were found in the driveway at the site of the abduction.

Dechaine's supporters say he was set up. They note that there was no physical evidence linking Dechaine with Cherry. Someone easily could have taken items from the back of his truck, they say, and investigators failed to consider other suspects.

Dechaine was taken into custody at 8 p.m on July 6.

Roy, the medical examiner, testified at the trial that Cherry likely died 30 to 36 hours before he did the autopsy, at 2 p.m. on July 8. That would have put the time of death between 2 and 8 a.m. on July 7 -- well after Dechaine was in custody.

But Roy called the 30 to 36 hours a minimum, adding, ''It could well be longer.''

Hofman, who reviewed the case for the defense, practices pathology at Roxborough Memorial Hospital in Philadelphia and serves as coroner for Montgomery County, Pa.

In his opinion, the earliest time of Cherry's death would have been around noon on July 7, about 16 hours after Dechaine was taken into custody.

''I emphatically disagree with Roy's opinion that Cherry was dead 'probably 30 hours or more''' before the autopsy, Hofman wrote.

Wecht, the other pathologist, has gained a national reputation for his reviews of high-profile cases such as JonBenet Ramsey's killing. He is perhaps best known for his criticism of the Warren Commission's conclusions in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In Wecht's opinion, the earliest possible time of death would have been around 3:40 a.m. on July 7. For his calculations, Wecht used an autopsy time of 3:40 p.m. on July 8.

Peterson had not planned to discuss the opinions publicly until later this year. Those plans changed when Bailey mentioned the opinions while speaking with business leaders Wednesday morning in Bangor.

Peterson did not provide copies of the opinions to the Portland Press Herald on Wednesday because he must submit them first to the Attorney General's Office. He declined to say how much the defense paid for the opinions.

Peterson filed a petition in August 2008 seeking a new trial for Dechaine based on a change in state law related to DNA evidence. The petition hinges mainly on a single thumbnail that was clipped during Cherry's autopsy.

Years after the trial, the thumbnail was tested and analysts discovered the DNA of an unknown male.

Supporters of Dechaine say the finding is proof that the one-time farmer is innocent. Prosecutors say the thumbnail is inconsequential when viewed in the context of all the evidence, and the unknown DNA most likely was transferred onto the nail during the autopsy.

Peterson seeks additional DNA testing over the next couple of months on remaining pieces of evidence.

Having lost a series of state and federal appeals, Dechaine could have his last chance for a new trial in the pending petition. Peterson and Bailey must convince Superior Court Justice Carl Bradford that the DNA evidence likely would have led to a different verdict if it had been admitted in the original trial.

A hearing is tentatively scheduled for September.

Peterson said he will ask Bradford to consider the opinions of Wecht and Hofman, as well as the DNA evidence. The lawyer contends the new state law opens the door for the opinions.

''The judge will have to make a ruling on whether we can introduce this type of opinion evidence into the DNA hearing,'' Peterson said.

Stokes declined to give his opinion on the admissibility of the work by Wecht and Hofman.

Staff Writer Trevor Maxwell can be contacted at 791-6451 or at:

tmaxwell@pressherald.com

BANGOR, Maine (NEWS CENTER)

-- Famed criminal defense attorney F. Lee Bailey made name for himself defending high profile clients such as O.J. Simpson and Patty Hearst.  He visited Bangor today to speak with business leaders about a program that helps put inmates to work once they leave prison.

"If he stumbles help pick him up and help give him another chance," Bailey told business leaders at the Bangor Region Chamber of Commerce breakfast.  

He added that an inmate soon to be released from the Maine Correctional Facility in Windham would be coming to Bangor looking for a job. That inmate took part in a Workready job training program.  

"We would like to see him get a job and we would like to see him succeed so this would be a good test case, widely watched," he said.

In addition to his inmate rehabilitation work, Bailey has also been working as a consultant in the Dennis Dechaine case. After consulting with two leading forensic experts Bailey told NEWS CENTER that he does not believe Dechaine should have been found guilty of the 1988 murder of 12 year old Sarah Cherry.  

"I have looked at the reports and they are totally inconsistent with guilt."

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=114838&catid=2

Praying for justice for Dennis Dechaine

Kennebec Journal Morning Sentinel

Februrary 7 2010

July 8, 1988, my 65th birthday, was a day I will never forget. I watched the TV and saw a young man arrested for a crime he did not commit. Since that day, I have felt that a miscarriage of justice was done but also felt t