| Trial&Error believes Dennis
Dechaine deserves a new trial |
||||
| Home |
Evidence |
Chronology |
Who
is Dennis? |
Articles |
| News |
Events |
What you can do | Books |
Petition & Support |
| Documents | Related sites | Convicted Innocents |
Fundraising |
Contact
us |
Twenty Reasons to support 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 to Sarah Cherry or to the crime. 5. No physical or biological evidence links Dechaine's truck to Sarah Cherry or 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. Threee of the four tire tracks in the driveway at the abduction scene were "excluded" from having been made by Dechaine's truck; one track was of very common tread that was similar to one of Dechaine's tires. 6. Articles belonging to Dechaine which were found in the driveway and those which were employed in the murder were easily accessible to anyone and could have easliy 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 detectives'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. The statistical odds against chance selection are 1.57: 10,000 or 99.9 percent likely. 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 signigicance of this key finding was obscured in the prosecution's presentation to the jury. All of the three variables which affect 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. 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. 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. 11. 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. Despite the heat-wave conditions, the body exhibited only minor lividity, an indicator of a later time of death. 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 AM, fourteen hours after it was last known that Sarah was alive. At 2 am-- the earliest time of death indicated by the passing off of rigor mortis and an absence of decomposition on 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 timng - i.e. how that time matches the earliest time of death indicated by rigor mortis, lividity and decomposition - the "commotion" was most likely Sarah's struggle as her killer strangled her. 13. Despite the stated opinion of their own medical examiner, the state contended that when Dechaine met the Buttricks he had just committed lenthy torture ending with a violent murder, yet the Buttricks testified that Dechaine had acted like a gentleman. Dechaine willingly transferred from the Buttrick's 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 fringerprint testing produced no indication 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 road, which he would have had to have crossed wth 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. 17. If, as has been suggested, Dechaine acted under the influenceof the drugs he admits to have taken, one must question how no biological evidence of Dechaine was transfered to the girl, 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 you man who the Buttricks described. 18. Testimony by two detectives alleging incriminating statements by Dechaine (which they testified they were reading from their notes) is disputed 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. 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 consisent 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 interrogation, have admitted to crimes they did not commit. 20. The claim that Dechaine stated at the jail that he was the one who likked Sarah Cherry and therefore needed to be put in "isolation" doesn't pass the straight-face test. It is likely theat he said he was the one accused of having killed Sarah Cherry, and therefore shold 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 NEWSLETTER OCTOBER 2008 Edited January 7, 2009 P.O. BOX 153 MADAWASKA, ME. 04756
Dear Supporters
Another year has passed with Dennis still in prison. Let us hope and pray St. John Valley Times - newseditor@sjvnews.com Brunswick Times Record - rlong@timesrecord.com
Editorials
No easy path toward a Dechaine retrial Portland Press Herald September 4, 2008 The state sets an appropriately tough standard for overturning old convictions. Dennis Dechaine could receive fair trial – unlike his first one Portland Press Herald Maine Sunday Telegram
The Press Herald is to be commended for its evolving position regarding Dennis Dechaine's attempt to gain a retrial with DNA evidence. A Sept. 4 editorial stated, "A new trial order in this case would probably mean freedom for Dechaine." But Dechaine would only be freed, either by a jury or by the state taking a pass to avoid an embarrassing trial, if the evidence supporting his innocence was compelling– as indeed it is. It should not be "very difficult" to conduct a fair retrial; as for those few witnesses who are deceased or unavailable, their 1989 testimonies could remain in play.
Dechaine conviction may console, but not justice Kennebec Journal
Two years ago, I posted this ad in the Kennebec Journal and most of Maine's Having an innocent man pay for a tragic murder might console some people, Brunswick Maine
September 9, 2008 Portland Press Herald Incarceration rates at the Maine State Prison and elsewhere should be a public issue – as should the imprisonment of Dennis Dechaine. Having just read the Maine Voices column Aug. 30 ("Dechaine investigation badly flawed") by James Moore, I am recalling recent statistics regarding prison populations in the United States. For example: Although the United States has 3 percent of the world's population, we have 26 percent of the world's prisoners. Furthermore, the prison industry is the fastest-growing industry in the country. I find it interesting that the prison industry and the justice system are not topics of conversation among political candidates. Growing up as a flag-waving American in the fruit belt country of Pennsylvania, I believed justice was a given in my America. Moving to Maine to raise my family, I felt even more secure that justice was alive and well. As Americans and Mainers strive for changes in the world view of our politicians, elected and appointed officials, I would think a retrial for Dennis Dechaine would go a long way toward renewing any Mainer's faith in our justice system. I believe that responsible Maine officials can step up to the plate. Maine can join so many other states that have had the courage and strength of character to admit that errors may have occurred and that justice has failed in the face of science. Susan Strode Pastore Portland NEW TRIAL St. John Valley Times September 3 2008
Dennis Dechaine has applied for a new trial based on new DNA legislation. His lawyer, Steve Peterson of Rockport, has filed the necessary papers in hopes that new technology will increase the possibility of discovering if the state has erroneously incarcerated the wrong man and let the real murderer go free for 20 years. The old post-conviction DNA statute allowed a new trial for an inmate imprisoned for murder, rape or other major crime if DNA testing after conviction showed no trace of the convicted person, as the new law does. However, the old law also required the convicted person to link the DNA to the real perpetrator of the crime. Since this requirement is impossible, it virtually denied someone like Dechaine a new trial that could very likely find him innocent. The new legislation does not have that requirement, only that new DNA evidence raise the probability of innocence. Although the new law was not aimed at Dechaine specifically, it benefits his quest for justice. In 1989 he was convicted to life without parole for the murder of 12-year-old Sarah Cherry in 1988. He had requested DNA testing during his trial, but was refused by Judge Carl Bradford. Fortunately, some nail clippings from the murdered girl still existed and were twice tested by excellent national labs under the supervision of the Maine Crime Lab. The results were the same: The male DNA is not from Dennis Dechaine! Then, to whom does the male DNA belong? Ross Paradis Frenchville Maine DNA technology could exonerate Dechaine Kennebec Journal - Morning Sentinel 09/10/2008
Through DNA analysis, the Innocence Project has gained freedom for 220 innocent people convicted of violent crimes across the United States. Wrongful convictions happen in every state. Maine is no exception. The Maine Attorney General's Office has repeatedly used DNA technology to solve crimes and win convictions. However, it falls short in recognizing the value of DNA technology in post-conviction exonerations. Dennis Dechaine has served 20 years of a life sentence for the murder of Sarah Cherry. He asked for DNA analysis to be done before his trial at his expense. The judge denied his request. The Attorney General's Office incinerated hairs, the rape kit and other potentially DNA rich evidence while the case was still in the appeal process. A 2001 DNA statute allowed for post-conviction DNA analysis to be performed on the remaining evidence. In 2004, the Maine Crime Laboratory revealed a male DNA profile under the victim's fingernail that does not match Dechaine. Further testing ruled out male family members, police officers or medical examiner office personnel who may have inadvertently contaminated the evidence. Nevertheless the Attorney General's Office continues to refuse to acknowledge the importance of post-conviction DNA analysis in exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals like Dechaine. It is time for the Attorney General's Office to step up and support a new trial for Dechaine. Nancy Farrin PittstonBUT WHO JUDGES THE JUDGE? October 18, 2008
So, it comes down to you and me. If we don¹t ask questions, write letters, rattle cages and otherwise shine the light of public awareness on the Dechaine case, who will? If we don¹t make sure our justice system is just, who will? *************
The Dennis Interview is now on You Tube! Click on these links to open the 2 part interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVIb2qplq_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KslcRNuk9iQ
A great example of supporters giving of themselves is indicated below. Their support and constant stamina is way beyond words can say. Not only do we raise awareness on wrongful convictions, but the people we meet at these public events are quite impressive. You never know who that someone may be—perhaps just the one we need to help carry this case to the halls of justice!
September 2008
There were always those who seemed afraid to approach us, but a smile and a question if they knew about Dennis would usually draw them in. More people than in past years seemed unaware of Dennis's case. Others would say, "Yes, we know about him; we are surprised you're still here." A number of people had just moved here; some were college students who don't remember the murder happening. One hostile person asked why we thought Dennis was not guilty. When told of the exculpatory DNA evidence, he seemed shocked and said, "Well I didn't hear that!" He argued some more, then walked away befuddled. A man who had just moved here from Boulder, Colorado, said that where he came from a similar incident happened to friends of his and that no one would believe them until this new DNA testing was done to prove them innocent. He was talking about John and Patsy Benet. He said his son and their son, Burke, were friends. He recounted some cover-ups the police allegedly made in that case, too. The new DNA testing he spoke of was "touch DNA," the same recently developed use of DNA testing on residues left on clothing that has been mentioned for possible use in Dennis's case. The number of folks who expressed a belief that Dennis is guilty was extremely small. A few passers-by glared. A Maine state trooper kept repeating "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" but wouldn't stop to talk. Yet another DVD went to a woman from Rockland whom Bob McLaughlin had talked with on Friday, who had read the handouts and came back for more discussion
As in past years, many people stopped to say that they thought Dennis was innocent, wished us "Good Luck!" and then departed. And once again we wished that there were more who asked, " How can I help?" People who did help by manning the booth, in addition to Sandy, Bob, and Bill, were Nancy Farrin, Lilla Carter, Heidi Masselli, Jim Moore, Tom Weston, and Bernie Huebner. Our special thanks to all of them for their continued dedication and support.
So supporters, as you can see, public awareness is our number-one vehicle to carry on this case. Please let us know if there is anything you can do to help in this matter. Please use the links above to write letters. Your letter may be the one that opens the eyes of a citizen that may otherwise not have been involved if he or she had not read your letter.
wbunting1@roadrunner.com
Former
Attorney General Jon Lund's
unpublished letter to the Editor
of the Bangor Daily News.
|
| email the webmaster |