After spending most of the day at the huge COMMON GROUND FAIR, I'm amazed how successful we've all become.
....there are people who know Dechaine, very, very well....that's why they are so passionate about his defense and claims of innocence. I'm not one of them, but have friends who are. Dennis wasn't a true hippie, more a back to the lander; more Bowdoinham than Bowdoin; and a successful farmer and businessman.I read the entire public file, and I wasn't convinced....but the question is, so find the person who did do it...and his defenders haven't, which raises a doubt. BTW...he is a model prisoner and a leader in the prison; usually sex offenders get a rough stay at Warren...what does that tell you?fjh.
FJH - thanks for your candid response. Like others, I'm merely speculating based upon what I've been able to read about the case. I wasn't there, either. But after reading this, I'm more inclined to believe he's guilty.
[url=http://trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/Appellant-Brief.pdf]http://trialande...From the appellate briefing:The next admission of consequence was the testimony ofSagadahoc deputy Mark WestrumÂ®While at the Lincoln Countyholding facility the defendant underwent a booking procedure.ii(T T 828). His attorney at the time George Carlton was at thefacility but was not allowed to see the defendant. (T T 828).Conversations insued between the deputy Westrum and the defendant.Oh my god, oh my god, it should have never happened.He said: why did I do this? At this time he againstarted to sob and he cried again. And then he saidto me: I'm sorry, I forgot your name. I remindedhim that my name was Mark. And then he was silent.He said: Mark, I went home and told my wife that Idid something bad and she just laughed at me....At that time when he was finished smoking hiscigarette he said to me: Mark, please believe me,something inside must have made me do that. Pleasebelieve me.He repeated that, please believe me....He was silent for a moment and then he said to me:I knew they were coming after me, I was waiting.He said: It was something inside that must havemade me do that. Again he said: I can only lookforward; that's all I have left. Then he was saying:Why would I do this? At that point I said I can'tanswer that question. I don't know. He's emotionalat this point. He walked around the room and keptsaying why? why? I let him walk around the roomiiAccording to the testimony the defendant became emotional andstarted to cry. (T T 829). According to the testimony ofdeputy Westrum the defendant then stated:40
T'nas J. Connollyttorney at Law2212Fore Streetr'O Box 7563 D TS.Portland. Maine 041121207) 773-6460again without saying anything.He went back andsat down in his chair or the chair he was sittingin.At that point he looked up at me and said:I didn't think it actually happened until I saw her face in the news; and it all came back to me.I remembered it.He started to cry again, and hesaid:Why did I kill her? At that point he criedand he was shaking his head back and forth. He was clasping his hands together very tightly. He said What punishment could they ever give me that would equal what I've done. At that point he started to cry very loudly. He was trashing about on hischair.He made a sort of shreaking noise. I gotup and walked over towards him. At that point he reached out and grabbed me around the waist andhe's crying as he was saying: Why? Why? He hugged me very tightly for about two minutes crying.======A discussion then was had with the witness as to herexperience with her husband's drug use. (T T 1101). Sheindicated that she was aware that the defendant had experiencewith drug use and that it became a serious issue in the house-hold.(T T 1102). Specifically, she described an incident inwhich she discovered the defendant using cocaine intravenously.(T T 1103).49Hon July 7, 1988, the interior of the vehicle was in a dramatically!different condition than when she had last seen it. (T T 1097-98).Specifically, there were items which had been contained inthe glovebox which were now scattered all over the vehicleincluding the drivers seat. (T T 1098). She recalled11Hparticularized items that had been in the glovebox that now werein a different location. (T T 1098).
Her reaction was to give the defendant an ultimatum that if heHever used intravenous drugs again she would leave him. (T T 11031T'- --nas J. ConnollyMornay at Law2213 Fore Street.0 Box 7563 0 T.S.Portland. Mama 041121207) 773-6460-04).This became an understanding in the household and the defendant could not be found in the possession of hard drugs or li hypodermics without a serious disruption in his home lifeIIIoccurring.==========The defendant testified further as to his background of drug use, commencing with smoking marijuana as a youth and leading tooccasional cocaine use as he became older. (T T 1198-99).The defendant described his first intravenous drug use and how he became involved with it. (T T 1200). The defendant then described his initial encounter with amphetamine use during college.(T T 1203).The defendant explained how he purchased the drugs thatwere used by him on July 6, 1988. He and his wife had gone to Boston to see some friends off for a trip to Bangladesh. A visit to the Science Museum in Boston occurred at which point the defendant made a purchase in the lavatory of what he was informed was speed. (T T 1208). The defendant purchased the drugs on impulse and kept them hidden from his wife for the fear that the exposure of his purchase would cause marital discord. (T T 1209)53 The defendant testified that he was not involved in any way what-soever with the kidnap and murder of Sara Cherry. (T T 1176).The defendant provided his background and his family history.was doing very well;itreturned to his home on the late evening of July 5, 1988.indicated it was the first vacationwas a very calm and peaceful time.that he arrived in Madawaska on the he'd had in a while and it(T T 1191-92). He indicatedFourth of July weekend and
T'-mas J. Connolly\ttorney at Law22'2 Fore Street,-O Box 7563 DTSPortland. Maine 04112(207) 773-6460On July 6, 1988, the defendant testified that he woke upearly in the morning in a normal frame of mind. (T T 1210).The greenhouse project that he had been working on needed attention but there was no deadline approaching. (T T 1211).After his wife left for work, the defendant drove his pickup truck to West Gardiner Beef Company in Gardiner, Maine topick up some birds that had been slaughtered before the trip toMadawaska.(T T 1211). The defendant left from the WestGardiner Beef Company between 9 and 10 o'clock in the morning.(T T 1212). The defendant testified that it took about half anhour to get there and he arrived between 9:30 and 10 o'clock inthe morning. (T T 1213). Previous testimony from Sharon Gilleyin that State's case established that the defendant had arrivedat the West Gardiner Beef Company between 10:30 and 11 o'clockin the morning. (T T 1213). The defendant felt that her timeframe was roughly consistant with his recollection. (T T 1213).The defendant had conversation with the Gilley's and picked uphis birds. (T T 1213-14). The defendant stated he left WestGardiner Beef Company around 11 o'clock. (T T 1214).The defendant took a circuitious route home and drove aroundi for a period of time. (T T 1215). The defendant did recall seeing Justine Dennison on the way back from Gardiner BeefCompany to his house, (T T 1215-16).The defendant arrived at home and put the birds in thefreezer and prepared himself some lunch. (T T 1216). Thedefendant then went out to the barn to begin work on the project.The defendant did not feel like working, hoping to continue hisvacation following his trip to Madawaska. (T T 1216-17).The defendant, while in the barn, thought it would be a perfect opportunity to use the drug which he had purchased a month or so earlier at the Boston Museum of Science. (T T 1217).The defendant had not planned to use the drug but basicallyfound an opportunity when his wife was away and when work was ata nondemanding level. (T T 1217). The defendant obtained somesyringes and the drug as well as a mixing device and got back54
T1- nas J. Connolly\ttorney at Law2213Fore Street.0 Box 7563 D TS.Portland. Maine 04112(207) 773-6460into his pickup and drove from the farm. (T T 1218).The defendant went to WildÂ°s Point which is a wildliferefuge on Merrymeeting Bay. (T T 1219). The defendant wentthere because it was a peaceful place to view water fowl andscenery and it was a good opportunity for him to take the drug inprivate.(T T 1219). While there the defendant did use some ofthe drug. (T T 1219). He was concerned about the drug in thathe had no experience with it and therefore used a small quantitywhile at Merrymeeting Bay. (T T 1219). The defendant testifiedthat he had a disappointingly small reaction to the drug andwent out walking for a period of 15Â°20 minutes. (T T 1220).11Because the tide was out there were no waterfowl around for him11to see and the mud flats made walking difficult. (T T 1220).i;The defendant returned to his truck and drove around again.(T T 1221). The defendant drove to the Litchfield Corners areaand onto the Hollowell Road. (T T 1222). At the time thedefendant did not know the names of the roads but had sincelearned the locations based upon his study of the map. (T T 1222)The defendant parked his truck on a woods road in order toexplore new territory and look for fishing holes. (T T 1222).The defendant consumed more of the drug. (T T 1223). Thistime the drug did have a noticeable effect. (T T 1223).The defendant described the drugs effect as a sense ofheightened awareness and increased lucidity.The defendantjjindicated that he did not feel remarkably different just moreenergetic and aware. (T T 1223). He did not hallucinate nordid he have feelings of grandeur nor violence or anger. (T T 1224)Following his exploration of the area, the defendant gotback into his truck and went down the Hollowell Road. (T T 1224).Time references were somewhat vague in that he was under theinfluence of the drug at the time. (T T 1224). The defendant did stop frequently and explored side areas of the roadways inthe area. (T T 1224). The defendant could not recall whatparticular area he was in due because of his intoxication aswell as his unfamiliarity with the area. (T T[[ 09-23-2005: Message edited by: laMaine.com ]
Rightwingwoman: "From the events that happened today, it looks like the defense didn't get the right judge... they wanted to parade and grandstand all sorts of stuff and play to the public (and a sympathetic press)"I agree about the press in general, but I was a little surprised at Bob Dyke's commentary on WGAN late this afternoon. He made a point of mentioning that DD was in prison orange, had put on weight, looked "dumpy", and was heavilly shackled. His tone of voice didn't sound sympathetic to Deschaine at all. I was surprised - I'm more used to WCSH's more flattering view of him.
quote:Originally posted by FJH:
[b]After spending most of the day at the huge COMMON GROUND FAIR, I'm amazed how successful we've all become.[/b]
If we could only send Rita to Unity this weekend, our state would be a much better place.
quote:Originally posted by FJH:
[b]....there are people who know Dechaine, very, very well....that's why they are so passionate about his defense and claims of innocence. [/b]
That's all that it is about: one of us couldn't do something like that!
quote:Originally posted by FJH:
[b]....BTW...he is a model prisoner[/b]
Wrong. He was found this spring with a screw driver that he stole from a construction crew at the prison. He got a month in solitary for it. This got reported in one of the weeklies down that way, but not by the main stream media because it does not fit with the image that they want to paint.
quote:Originally posted by Ray Richardson:
[b]The DNA that is other than Dechaine's makes me wonder.Either way, I do not want to see the Cherry family go through any more pain.If he did, fry him.[/b]
What is more painful, an innocent man in jail for life OR the Cherry's family pain? I would think the Cherry's would want to know the truth and I think they would want to know whose DNA is under her fingernails.
quote:Originally posted by laMaine.com:
[b]Yes, just a humble organic farmer walking through the woods in an amphetamine induced haze.Guilty.[/b]
Amphetamine aka speed doesn't make a person violent! Many young girls in this state take speed every day - it helps them loose weight.
Thanks for posting, lamaine. He's toast.
to all:I spoke with one of the MSP detectives, to whom he made some similar statements, along the lines of those made to deputy Westrum. He wasn't on their radar screen as a suspect, at the time. the detective told me this at a coctail function, after he was convicted. The detective was frankly startled that he was being told this kind of stuff from this fellow.They went where the evidence led them.[ 09-24-2005: Message edited by: thejohnchapman ]
quote:Originally posted by Stinky Geezer:
[b]Amphetamine aka speed doesn't make a person violent! [/b]
His habit was not the diet pills taken by young girls. Speed does indeed make a person violent.
I read the book that was written to show why he deserves a new trial. I was convinced of his guilt before I was halfway through it. I also think George raises an important point about custody of the DNA evidence. The defense did not want to proceed with a hearing because they were limited to presenting DNA evidence.
lamaine....I never read the full confession, after reading it, yeah, he committed the crime....[b]but the CSI, jr. in me wants corroborating evidence esp. after reading about his taking that drug he purchased at the Museum of Science and upping the dosage to get an effect; I have a serious doubt about not allowing him legal counsel; I have a serious doubt about NO TAPE RECORDING of the confession..were there corroborating witnesses who heard this confession?...what you've quoted is the recollection of Mark Westrum, not a transcript of a recorded confession. "said Westrum.
quote:"It was never my intention to formally ask any questions. He just blurted it out. I didn't write down every word, but I started typing my report soon afterwards because I didn't want to lose the flavor of what he said."
....doesn't this ring any alarm bells?
[/b] Fabricated? Exagerated? Let's blame it on the drugs and he won't be able to dispute it? The confession is very suspect.So either he didn't do it; or did it while under the influence of drug X...which could be home made extacsy or someother concoction of speed and hallucinogens.You can't pick and choose what of his testimony to believe. So if he says: "The defendant described the drugs effect as a sense ofheightened awareness and increased lucidity. The defendant indicated that he did not feel remarkably different just more energetic and aware. (T T 1223). He did not hallucinate nor did he have feelings of grandeur nor violence or anger." you have to assume that there was either a minimal effect of the drug, making the crime one of passion and premeditation; or if there was a black out, etc., then this is a mitigating circumstance. There is no evidence to cast Dechaine as a sociopath or psychopath; and the crime cries out for this type of criminal. "she was sexually assaulted, tortured, and killed'. So that leaves the very dangerous side effect of the mystery drug or another suspect who knew Cherry and was predisposed to commit the crime.This is a very troubling case...not sure he's guilty, not sure he's innocent, not sure of Westrum's confession after the revelation of his handwritten notes, not sure that the police investigate other people who knew Cherry, just not sure of a lot of things. GEORGE...always suspected you had the potential to be a mass murderer...your comment about having Rita wipe out Common Ground is very revealing...come to think of it, you do look like Hannibel Lector. Shall I post your foto?[ 09-24-2005: Message edited by: FJH ]
He was found near the scene of the crime.The victim was tied up with rope from his vehicle.There was stuff with his name on it on the driveway of the house where she was babysitting.He made statements that indicate his guilt.The rest is all smoke to confuse the clear picture.
Well, that clears it all up!
...obviously, you're no criminal lawyer. :D
quote:Originally posted by FJH:
[b]Well, that clears it all up!
It was good enough for the jury.
I got involved in this case intending to prove to Dechaine's supporters that he was guilty -- probably because I'm an old cop (retired Federal agent) who had never seen an innocent person convicted. After 4 years of investigation, the evidence convinced me he is innocent. I put my findings in a book, "Human Sacrifice." Public reaction to that book caused the state legislature to order that the Attorney General open his "confidential file" on this case. Documents I found there reinforced my conclusion that Dechaine is innocent so, in 2006, I published a 2nd edition of "Human Sacrifice" which includes actual copies of of documents previously concealed by the State.
This isn't a sales pitch. I'm taking no royalties from the book. Furthermore, reacting to snide accusations by members of the AG's staff, I called them out with an offer of $1,000.00 to the person who points to ANY false statement by me in the book concerning the evidence or the official misconduct.
No need to buy the book. Many libraries have a copy and any library can get it for you via Interlibrary loan. Anyone interested in facts and evidence rather than intuition or claims by ill-informed individuals should read the book.