Dennis Dechaine
inquisitor
Hello,
If I'd been on Dennis Dechaine's jury, I'd have convicted him,
but only because his jury never heard critical evidence concealed,
obscured and suppressed by the prosecution.
Against hard, documented evidence, officials insist that the trial was
fair. Unable to refute the evidence, they change the subject. Denials
are made without substantiation. False allegations, disproved by the
evidence, are repeated to the public again, and again. No media person
asks any official to substantiate his allegations.
Hard evidence proving these facts is in the AG's file, finally opened
by Maine's legislature after 15 years of official secrecy, and now
accessible to you, and to the public.
An innocent man serves life in prison. The real killer is free to prey
on others.
I hope this interests you. I hope you care.
My personal motive? After 25 years as a federal agent, my feelings
mirror the attitude of honest journalists toward reporters who sully
their profession by fraud and deceit. I accepted no payment for my
investigations, no royalties for Human Sacrifice.
No one can objectively examine all the evidence and believe Dechaine
guilty.
This is the State's evidence -- key elements of which were hidden to
promote the self-serving theory that the crime was solved at the moment
Dechaine's papers were found near the crime scene. They connected a
few dots and never looked back.
If you possess the ability to objectively consider all of the
thoroughly documented evidence, please examine this report. If you have
doubts, view the AG's file. Use your judgment. Reach your own
conclusions. Then, I hope you'll follow your conscience.
FACTS PROVED, AND EVIDENCE CONCEALED AT TRIAL
(All are documented in the official record of this case.)
The only facts involving Dennis Dechaine and relevant to the murder
proved beyond a reasonable doubt were: Dechaine's truck was across
the road and 450 feet through the woods from where the victim's body
was found, and Dechaine exited that same woods more than five hours
before Sarah Cherry was murdered. >From that moment on, his actions are
accounted for by the State's own witnesses.
The only links established are between the crime and items removed from
Dechaine's truck - i.e. the papers left in the driveway, and the
items used to bind and gag the victim.
There is no direct or forensic link between Dennis Dechaine or his
truck and the crime or the victim.
The state's expert testified that tire tracks in the driveway of the
house where the victim was abducted do not match three of the tires on
Dechaine's truck; one track is "consistent with" one of those
tracks - as are (according to that expert) every other tire with a
similar tread design. Further, after chemically swabbing and vacuuming
the entire truck, and microcopically examining its contents, the state
police lab found no trace of the victim: no fingerprint, no hair, no
blood, no fabric from her clothing.
Dechaine lied to various people on that day to conceal his use of
drugs, but none of these lies relate in any way to the victim or the
crime. (As an alibi, "I was in the woods doing drugs" is the worst
story any guilty man could concoct.)
There is no recorded or signed confession. Alleged admissions contain
no detail of the crime or victim. Det. Westrum's allegations lack
credibility due to his suspicious "improvement," concealed for 15
years, where his own notes show that he later went back and changed the
original words, "How could I kill her" into the quote he testified
to at Mr. Dechaine's trial, i.e. "Why did I kill her?"
ADD TO THIS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE INCRIMINATING DECHAINE, the vital
evidence which was obscured, concealed and suppressed by prosecutors:
· Time of death (concealed before, during and after the trial)
· The police tracking dog's failure to detect victim's scent
in truck
· State psychologists official conclusion that, despite the use
of a drug, Dechaine was not in a psychotic state of the day of the
crime.
· Report by former FBI expert on DNA, hired by the State,
confirming the tests which discovered the DNA of another person (not
Dechaine, not Sarah Cherry) in the blood under the victim's
thumbnails.
· Detective Westrum's original notes "improving"
Dechaine's words.
· Evidence of small bare footprints beside large footprints
leading into a trailer owned by a known sexual pervert already facing
charges of having sex with another 12-year-old girl - only
half-a-mile from where Sarah Cherry was abducted; evidence of that
pervert's record.
Would any jury, hearing all of the evidence, find Mr. Dechaine
guilty?
REPORT: THE COMPLETE EVIDENCE IN THE DENNIS DECHAINE CASE
No direct or scientific evidence links Dennis Dechaine to Sarah Cherry,
or to her murder. The State's case rests on the prosecutors'
interpretation of circumstantial evidence, and the so-called confession
-- nothing else. (See Exhibit A.)
Critical facts concealed by the State, including indisputable
scientific evidence, prove conclusively that it is physically
impossible for Dechaine to have committed this crime.
THE SO-CALLED "CONFESSIONS"
No confession purportedly made by Dennis Dechaine contains a single
detail of the crime or the victim. Words quoted by officers shift from
"I couldn't have done it" to "I must have done it" (when
confronted with seemingly significant evidence - his papers in the
driveway, the body near his truck). Scientific research on false
confessions is treated in detail on pages 205-11 of Human Sacrifice.
Dennis Dechaine's documented personality included all three
characteristics of innocent persons who make false confessions.
The only extensive "confession" was reported by Mark Westrum, who
had been a detective for two days. Experienced investigators in the
next room with a tape recorder were not summoned to record or witness
Mr. Dechaine's alleged words. Mr. Westrum's original notes quoting
Dechaine as saying, "How could I kill her?" clearly show that
Westrum went back some time later, crossed out "How could." and
wrote over those words "Why did" -- changing the quote from "How
could I kill her?" to "Why did I kill her?" At trial, Westrum
testified to his "improved" version. (Exhibit 7.)
Mr. Dechaine denies making those statements attributed to him by Mr.
Westrum.
There is no signed statement, nothing beyond Westrum's unsupported
allegation that Mr. Dechaine said anything. Mr. Westrum's subsequent
revision of the words he attributes to Dechaine justifies doubt
regarding this officer's ability and/or credibility.
Westrum's notes were withheld and concealed until the secret files of
the Attorney General were finally made public through an Order of the
Maine Legislature.
THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
Science has no axe to grind, no client to defend, no wrong to avenge,
no career to advance. Scientific evidence, supported by the concealed
facts, trumps the prosecutors' interpretation of circumstantial
evidence in this case. Science doesn't care who wins.
It's useful to examine the objective scientific evidence.
Time of Death
State Medical Examiner Ronald Roy's testimony -- supported by the
opinions of other pathologists and conforming to the science reported
in every textbook on forensic pathology -- totally destroys the
State's case! This fact may account for why prosecutors obscured,
concealed and suppressed this scientific evidence.
Prosecutor Wright never asked the standard question, asked at all
murder trials to show that a defendant had opportunity to commit the
crime, i.e. "At what time, in your medical opinion, did the victim
die." Dr. Roy testified that death occurred 30-to-36 hours before he
observed that "rigor mortis was still present but passing off."
Since jurors were never told at what time Dr. Roy made that
observation, they couldn't know from what hour one must measure
backwards to determine the time of death. Official reports show that
Dr. Roy made this observation at 2PM on Friday, July 8th. This
evidence places the earliest time of the murder at two o'clock on the
morning of Thursday, July 7th -
5½ to 11½ hours after Dechaine's actions are accounted for by the
State's witnesses, including the police.
Dr. Roy's casual conjecture that the rigor's duration "could have
been longer" is contradicted by science: the outer limit for duration
of rigor mortis in this situation is 36 hours. (Official and textbook
sources are quoted on pages 257-63 of Human Sacrifice.)
The retired Chief Pathologist for the Eastern Maine Medical Center
concluded that death occurred even later than Dr. Roy's estimate.
(Human Sacrifice, p. 437.)
Some officials claim that, "there are variables" which might
affect the interval of rigor mortis. However, they never specify a
single variable which could possibly place the time of death earlier
than 2AM on July 7, 1988.
Other pathologists and every textbook agree - only three variables
could affect rigor mortis in this case: ambient temperature, the
victim's age, and being in a state of terror at the time of death. If
all or any of these affected the rigor mortis, it would prove that
death occurred even later, making Dechaine's guilt even less
possible.
Prosecutor Wright attempted to fix the time of death via progression of
the victim's digestion - a factor pathologists know to be totally
irrelevant in this case.
"The stomach usually empties itself in about three hours if it is not
prevented from doing so. Great excitement, marked fear, and actions of
some drugs, severe injury, and death . . . all delay or stop gastric
activity." (Emphasis added.) From Investigation of Sudden Death -- A
Manual For Medical Examiners, by Robert C. Hendrix, M.D., Michigan
medical examiner and professor of pathology at the University of
Michigan
Even the State's own medical examiner, Dr. Roy, testified that:
"There are many factors that can slow down digestion. Strong alcohol.
Notably stress will do it. It's not uncommon for people under great
stress to find out later that they still have not digested the meal
from the six or 12 hours or the day before..." (Transcript, page
585.)
The importance of this evidence is confirmed by the State's efforts
to hide it.
1. Time of death was obscured at trial, as shown
above.
2. It was concealed before trial: the question on the
autopsy report form asking specifically "Date and Time of Death"
was not answered. Instead, it notes: "Found 7/8/88." No opinion
regarding time of death appears anywhere in the autopsy report.
3. The former chief forensic pathologist for the State
of Vermont, furnished with everything the State claimed to possess
regarding the autopsy, pronounced this autopsy report,
"preliminary." She also stated that "it's what's missing that
could be important to confirm the time of death."
4. When I asked to see the complete autopsy report,
Deputy Attorney General Fern LaRochelle ordered clerk Sandra Hickey to
"Show him what we gave [defense lawyer] Connolly and nothing else."
Under the law, there's not supposed to be anything else!
If the time of death isn't important, why would authorities try so
hard to conceal it?
Concealed Evidence Indicates That Sarah Cherry Was Never in
Dechaine's Truck
The victim's body was found 3.2 miles from the house where she was
abducted. Chemical swabbing, thorough vacuuming, and microscopic
examination of Dechaine's truck revealed no trace of Sarah Cherry -
no fingerprint, no fabric, no hair, no blood. The police tracking dog,
given the victim's clothing to sniff, detected no scent of her in
that truck. The dog officer's report was concealed from the defense
and the public. These facts were revealed four years after the trial,
in a signed statement by Bowdoinham Police Officer Jay Reed who
witnessed this event, and were confirmed in a tape-recorded interview
with State Police Detective Hendsbee in 1992. (page 286, Human
Sacrifice).
Items in the Driveway
The State inventoried 180 separate items in Dechaine's truck -
everything from bottle caps to magazines. Dennis Curley of Caribou
consulted a statistician who stated that the odds against two items
bearing Dechaine's name to be the only ones to "fall out" of that
truck in that driveway are 1.57 : 10,000, or 99.9 percent unlikely.
It is important to keep in mind that, while items lifted from
Dechaine's truck were connected to the crime, no witness nor any
scintilla of forensic evidence links Dechaine, himself, or even his
truck, to the crime or to Sarah Cherry.
Prosecutor Wright often states that Dechaine's tire tracks were found
in the driveway of this house where the victim was abducted. In a
Brunswick Times Record interview (12/5/03), Mr. Wright stated,
"Nothing I've heard explains how Dechaine's tire tracks ended up
in that driveway." This is untrue! The state's expert reported,
"The impressions seen in the casts could have been made by the left
front tire, however this does not exclude any other tire with a similar
tread design." The other three tires on Dechaine's truck were
excluded as having made any track in that driveway.(Exhibit 9.)
The expert I consulted examined the tire tracks and estimated that
30,000 tires on Maine roads "could have made" the tracks found in
that driveway.
The State's case - which depends totally on the prosecutors'
interpretation of the circumstantial evidence - was sold to jurors
only by hiding even stronger evidence which the State possessed but
kept secret.
DNA Testing
Prosecutor Wright proffered misleading and factually incorrect
testimony upon which the Court relied to prevent DNA testing of the
blood under the victim's nails before the trial. DNA tests were
performed in 1993 by Dr. David Bing of CBR Laboratories in Boston. The
nails were photographed upon arrival in their original package with the
state seals intact. Dr. Bing certified no sign of tampering. He
discovered the DNA of two persons: Sarah Cherry, herself, and another
person who is not Dennis Dechaine. (Exhibit 5.)
The Office of the Attorney General hired Dr. Harold Deadman,
a retired FBI expert on DNA, to assess Dr. Bing's results. Dr.
Deadman attested to Dr. Bing's character, reliability, and integrity,
and to the correctness of Dr. Bing's procedures in analyzing the DNA
under Sarah Cherry's nails. Dr. Deadman's report was also kept
secret. (Exhibit 5)
The nails were returned to prosecutors. It is not known why recent
tests by the state police laboratory and two private labs failed to
find the DNA of that other person. Nor is it known why the mystery DNA
did not survive storage in official custody.
Think: Why would any defendant ask the State to do DNA testing (rather
than having it done secretly) before his trial? If he were guilty, the
DNA would seal his fate!
Psychologists' Conclusions
Undisputed testimony characterized Dechaine as a gentle man whose
aversion to the sight of blood was so intense that this farmer had to
pay others to kill his chickens. At age 30, he had no criminal record
and no record or reputation for sexual perversion.
But, because Dechaine used drugs on July 6th, jurors may have concluded
that the drugs caused this gentle man to commit what has been
accurately termed a crime of "savagery, brutality and depravity."
Prosecutor Wright overcame defense lawyer Connolly's motion to have
the state psychologists testify. Jurors never heard their official
conclusion, that Dechaine "was not in a psychotic state on the day of
the crime." (Source: trial transcript, page 1156, statement by Judge
Bradford out of the jury's presence.)
The real killer, according to those who have studied such predators,
possesses a personality antithetical to Dechaine's.
In the book Mindhunter, Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit,
the author and former member of this FBI unit states:
With most sexually based criminals, it is a several-step escalation
from the fantasy to the reality, often fueled by pornography, morbid
experimentation on animals, and cruelty to peers. [Page 114,
Mindhunter]
It may be relevant to this case to consider:
With an incident like this, we see how pressure from many sources can
corrupt an investigation, punish the wrong people, and damage trust in
public officials. [Source: Page 132 of The Unknown Darkness by Gregg
McCrary, another alumnus of that same FBI unit.]
Lawyer/novelist Scott Turrow was a member of Illinois Governor Ryan's
commission that discovered numerous wrongful convictions and death
sentences in that state. Turow states, "When someone's on trial
for a grotesque crime, jurors aren't trying the defendant -
they're registering their reaction to the crime. They'd convict
anybody the prosecution puts before them."
Alternative Suspects Ignored by the State
According to official reports, the State's investigation focused
exclusively on Dechaine from the moment the search for Sarah Cherry
began on July 6, 1988. (Exhibit 1.)
Considering the facts known on July 6, that focus was appropriate.
The next day, however, Detectives Hendsbee and Drake followed small
bare footprints beside large footprints leading into a trailer bearing
the name "Fickett." They both knew Sarah Cherry to be barefoot --
her sneakers and socks remained at the house from which she vanished.
They both had investigated Jason Fickett three weeks earlier for having
sex with another 12-year-old girl. Nevertheless, Hendsbee decided
they'd ask game wardens to "look into" this clue the next
morning. Neither detective so much as knocked on that door. This clue
was never pursued. (Exh. 2, Drake; Exh. 3, Hendsbee.)
Detective Hendsbee now says he didn't know that the owner of that
trailer was the same Fickett he'd previously investigated.
Even if there had been no name on that trailer, Hendsbee's failure to
take any action whatsoever -- while searching for a barefoot
12-year-old girl who vanished only a half-mile away -- clearly
demonstrates that official minds were firmly closed to the possibility
of any suspect except Dennis Dechaine.
Jason Fickett was later convicted of having sex with that 12-year-old
girl (which included insertion of objects, similar to acts committed
upon Sarah Cherry); then he was convicted of having sex with an
11-year-old girl; then convicted of sex "by compulsion" with a
young woman. He has subsequently been arrested for at least two
attempted rapes. He is currently wanted by police for the sexual abuse
of another child. The State has his DNA but has never tested it against
the evidence in this case, even though Fickett's blood type
(determined during Hendsbee's earlier investigation ) is type A --
the same as the "mystery blood" which Dr. Bing found under Sarah
Cherry's fingernails.
Mr. Fickett recently told private investigator Tom Cumler that no
officer has ever interviewed him about the Sarah Cherry case.
(Documented with additional incriminating evidence in Attorney M.
Michaela Murphy's motion to test DNA in the Dechaine case.)
Mr. Fickett was not the only person worthy of scrutiny. The former
wife of Sarah Cherry's stepfather had married Douglas Senecal who
was, in July of 1988, under indictment for sexually abusing his
step-daughter. Senecal's "alibi" failed under scrutiny. Det.
Hendsbee, in a recorded interview, admitted that he'd never even
asked Mr. Senecal for hair or blood samples, or permission to search
his pickup. Asked, "Why," Hendsbee offered this excuse, "If
Senecal did it, no one knew it." (Human Sacrifice, page 288)
Despite defense lawyer Tom Connolly's presentation to the Court of
evidence implicating Mr. Senecal - facts never heard by the jury --
Prosecutor Wright stated in his summation that, "there is no
evidence, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in this case of an
alternative perpetrator." (Trial transcript, page 1489)
Mr. Senecal told private investigator Ron Morin, "The only man on
the face of the earth I will ever trust is [prosecutor] Eric Wright."
Senecal also refused to answer his own lawyer's private question as
to whether he was involved in the Cherry murder. (See Cumler affidavit,
motion by Attorney M. Michaela Murphy to test DNA in this case.)
Another possible suspect in southern Maine in 1988, Richard Evonitz,
was later proven to have sexually assaulted and murdered at least three
little girls. (Exhibit 4)
Russell LeSage, who murdered 11-year-old girls in Iowa and New York
State has been traced to Maine during 1988. Police were aware that he
resided in Augusta.
Maine's Sex Offender Register lists 34 sexual predators within ten
miles of where Sarah Cherry was abducted and murdered. None were
investigated in this case. A recent rape/murder case in Waterville was
solved when investigators looked at sexual predators in the area of the
crime. They report that the suspect they zeroed in on has confessed.
The scientific evidence regarding time of death was reported by
Medical Examiner Roy (and concealed) after officials had announced to
the world that they'd solved the horrendous slaying of Sarah Cherry
and arrested her killer.
Evidence Destroyed by the State
Evidence incinerated by authorities after Dechaine's trial includes
the rape kit, a hair found on the victim's body (which they'd
eliminated as being Dechaine's), and various other items. The
evidence destroyed would have been valuable in future DNA testing.
The State has preserved all of the evidence it sees as incriminating
Dechaine
Deputy Attorney General William Stokes "explained" to me that they
simply disposed of evidence they "didn't need for the case against
Dechaine."
Also missing from the Attorney General's files are the fingerprints
lifted from the door of the house from which the victim was abducted
- fingerprints which do not match those of the victim, the residents
of that house, or Dennis Dechaine. (See Exhibit 6.)
This evidence was destroyed one month before Dechaine's appeal for a
new trial was filed - an appeal which prosecutors were forewarned was
imminent.
QUESTIONABLE OFFICIAL CONDUCT
Numerous actions in this case raise disturbing doubts. Among them:
· Westrum's inexplicable alteration of Dechaine's words in his
handwritten notes.
· Detectives' indifference to the small bare footprints, beside
large footprints, leading to the door of a known sexual predator only
half-a-mile from the abduction site.
· Concealment of that predator's record and crimes from the
defense.
· Obscuring/concealing/suppressing the time of death and other
scientific evidence.
· Concealing confirmation of Dr. Bing's DNA evidence by the
State's own expert.
· Concealing the tracking dog's failure to detect the victim's
scent in Dechaine's truck.
Another incident raises questions about ex-prosecutor Eric Wright.
On the afternoon of September 1, 1994, Attorney General Michael
Carpenter consented to meet with Trial & Error founder Carol Waltman,
Dechaine brothers Phil and Don, State Senator Judy Paradis, and State
Representative Douglas Ahearne. The meeting was also attended by Eric
Wright.
Asked for Det. Westrum's original notes of Dechaine's
"confession," Mr. Wright stated that they weren't available. AG
documents prove a copy was faxed to him that day.
When Don Dechaine began to question how they could believe Dennis
guilty, considering the totally circumstantial nature of the evidence
presented at trial, Mr. Wright interrupted to state that Dennis
Dechaine had confessed to the state psychologists, "and we have it on
video tape."
This allegation devastated Dechaine's supporters.
Fact: that tape contains nothing that can be construed as a
confession. Anyone may now view it at the Office of the Attorney
General as part of the formerly secret file.
One must agree with what, ironically, Mr. Wright told another jury:
"Concealment of evidence...is always taken in the law as evidence
of consciousness of guilt, and so of guilt. So, too, is lying. This
principle is so simple, so logical, that I would be surprised if
any of you would say during deliberations that the defendant's
history of lying throughout this case is simply to be ignored."
(State v. Saunders, 11/88)
. Official misrepresentations of evidence persist today. Detective
Hendsbee told reporter Christopher Cousins (Brunswick Times Record,
12/5/03) that Dechaine admitted being at the house where Sarah Cherry
was abducted. That is untrue. Mr. Dechaine's actual words, quoted in
Deputy Dan Reed's official report, were only that Dechaine stopped in
a driveway, somewhere, to relieve himself that day. (Exhibit 7.)
Aside from ex-prosecutor Wright's untrue claim that tracks in that
driveway were made by Dechaine's truck, other officials quoted in the
same article claim that no sound theory has been advanced suggesting
how a killer could have framed Dennis Dechaine. That's also untrue. A
logical hypothesis detailed on pages 361-366 of Human Sacrifice,
unlike the official theory of this case, accounts for all of the
State's evidence, including every fact which the authorities have
concealed and suppressed for 15 years.
Eric Wright and other officials continue to claim that Dechaine's
truck was locked when officers found it. That's untrue. The trooper
who prepared it for towing to the crime lab entered through the
unlocked rear sliding glass window. Beyond that, anyone lifting the
ropes and papers from Dechaine's truck could have locked it when
closing its door.
" [Gentlemen of the jury,] this is a big lie at work. If you tell a
story
grandly enough, often enough to enough people, in a way and at a time
when it cannot be demonstrated to be untrue, then you come to hope
and maybe believe that people will believe you."
Eric Wright, State v. Alfred Saunders, 11/3/88
Two people have told me that no killer is smart enough to have framed
Dechaine. Apparently, they've never met a cunning criminal. I have.
Often. Some killers are bright.
This killer didn't need a high IQ to devise this easy frame-up. He
chose Dechaine merely because his unoccupied truck was handy and
accessible. If yours had been there ...
Justice in the Appeals Process
The U. S. Supreme Court recently heard an appeal by Delma Banks, Jr.
Lawyers for the State of Texas pooh-poohed the proof of prosecutorial
misconduct.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "Why wasn't it the obligation of the
prosecution, having deceived the jury and the court, to come clean . .
. rather than let this falsehood remain in the record?"
Justice Stephen Breyer: "What bothers me ...is that if we were to say
that defense counsel behaves unreasonably if he relies on the
prosecution, that's to say that the justice system lacks integrity,
and indeed it might contribute to a lack of integrity."
Justice Anthony Kennedy: "So the prosecution can lie and conceal, and
the defense still has the burden to discover the evidence?" And,
"Do you want us to say that the defendant relies at his peril on the
representations of the state?"
On February 24th, the Supreme Court blocked Mr. Banks' execution.
Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, stated, "When police and
prosecutors conceal significant exculpatory or impeaching material, it
is ordinarily incumbent on the state to set the record straight... A
rule declaring "prosecutor may hide, defendant must seek,' is not
tenable in a system constitutionally bound to accord defendants due
process." Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, O'Connor,
Kennedy, Souter and Breyer agreed with Ginsburg. Justices Thomas and
Scalia also stated they would send the case back to the federal appeals
court. (Sources: articles in the New York Times and Washington Post,
December 9, 2003; AP wire 2/24/04.)
Unfortunately, Maine's guardians of justice have concealed facts
from courts in other cases, too. In July of 2001, regarding a case
prosecuted by officials of the State of Maine, the Federal District
Court "supportably found four reckless omissions and one intentional
withholding of information...." (Source: United States vs. John B.
Stewart, U.S. Court of Appeals No. 02-1938, decided July 29, 2003.)
Prosecutor Eric Wright was found to have made improper statements to a
jury in still another murder case. (Portland Press Herald, May 24,
1995, Page: 4B)
Have we in Maine reached that point described by Daniel Patrick
Moynihan as a "tolerance for impropriety"?
Officials tell us that appeals courts affirmed Mr. Dechaine's guilt.
That's not true. When Prosecutor Wright's 1988 conviction of
another murder defendant was appealed, the state's attorney quoted
State v. Blier, ME 1977 to remind the appeals court judges that
"..the reasonable doubt which will prevent conviction . . . must be
in the mind of the jury, the trier of facts, and not that of the
appellate courts." Appeals courts don't examine the evidence.
Appeals courts merely certify that legal bases were touched at trial.
IN THE END, it doesn't matter how many remote possibilities are
dreamed up to explain away the documented evidence. Science proves the
impossibility of Dennis Dechaine's guilt. Concealment of vital
evidence by prosecutors clearly suggests that they knew the devastating
impact of these indisputable facts.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING GUILT: Time of death, the DNA, knots
binding victim different from all knots at Dechaine's farm and barn,
police lab evidence (and tracking dog) that victim was never in
Dechaine's truck; fingerprints at crime scene which are not
Dechaine's; concealment by officials; and psychiatric examination
showing Dechaine's personality (even on drugs) as inconsistent with
perpetrator of a depraved crime. Think: if a killer concocted an alibi,
"I was in the woods using drugs" is the worst possible story he
could invent.
Getting the Answers
The questions I posed in Human Sacrifice, published more than a year
ago (Exhibit 10), have never been answered. No one has ever claimed a
single evidentiary element in Human Sacrifice is inaccurate. No one has
ever claimed that a single relevant bit of evidence is left out of that
book, or any evidentiary fact misstated..
Considering the fact that Trial & Error members support all allegations
with documented evidence, it's reasonable to expect the same of
anyone disputing them.
The vital evidence documented in Human Sacrifice, and in this report,
is not my evidence. It's the State's evidence -- much of which they
concealed for 15 years.
No one wants to believe that an innocent man is serving life
imprisonment. Or wants to believe that our police did a poor job. Or
wants to believe that our prosecutors would conceal evidence that
proves a defendant to be innocent.
No one wants to believe that Sarah Cherry's murderer is free to
attack other girls.
And we all tend to believe what we want to believe. It's only human.
But those who won't face facts inevitably suffer the consequences.
Perpetuating injustice stains the honor and scars the soul of Maine.
Can anyone suggest a credible or moral argument against an independent
inquiry, or giving Dennis Dechaine a trial where jurors hear all the
evidence?
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing."
--Edmund Burke
If they aid evil by doing nothing, what makes them think they're
"good men"?
Exhibits
1 - Report by MSP Det. Patrick Lehan that, upon arrival at Command
Post, 9:30am, 7/7/88, he and Det. Fizell were instructed only to make
inquiries about a red pickup truck and Dennis Dechaine.
2 - Report by MSP Det. Steven Drake that at 7:38pm, 7/7/88, he and
Det. Hensdsbee tracked two sets of footprints "to a trailer by the
name of Fickett. The tracks were barefoot but showed two different
sizes going right into this trailer."
3 - MSP Det. Alfred Hendsbee's report of same event as Exhibit 2
regarding "a small sized barefooted footprint as well as a larger
sized barefooted footprint leading from the roadway into the Fickett
trailer."
4 - Newspaper report regarding Evonitz who "spent about a year in
Maine in 1988 and 1989.... Investigators believe Evonitz was a sexual
psychopath... are tracing his history" to determine whether he
committed other crimes in addition to the abduction murders of the
young girls he is known to have committed. "Stephen McCausland, the
Maine State Police spokesman said they were not aware of unsolved
murders from around 1988 and 1989..." And a letter from Lt. Anne
Schaad, Esq, of the MSP stating that Evonitz' name "does not appear
in the master name index ... means that his name does not appear in any
of our criminal record reports..."
5 - Report by Dr. David H. Bing certifying two DNAs discovered in the
blood under Sarah Cherry's nails, neither of which are Dennis
Dechaine. And a summary from the files of the Attorney General
establishing Dr. Deadman's conclusions about Bing and his procedures,
plus all the other facts on this topic detailed in the Report.
6 - Report by MSP Det. John C. Otis and Det. Ronald K. Richards
regarding fingerprints from the door of the house from which Sarah
Cherry was abducted.
7 - Photocopy of original "confession" notes by Det. Mark Westrum
plainly showing his alteration of words he attributes to Dechaine.
8 - Official report of Deputy Daniel Reed sowing that Dechaine
acknowledged relieving himself in a driveway, somewhere, during the day
of 7/6/88.
9 - Report by MSP Det. Otis and Det Richards showing that none of the
tires from Dechaine's truck could be matched to the tracks in the
driveway of the house from whch the victim was abducted.
10 - Questions from pages 323-324 of Human Sacrifice, never answered
by authorities.
If you desire a copy of any exhibit, please email me at
aut...@blazenetme.net
ronpen...@gmail.com
you aren't ATF anymore.
