So we can convict him again, sentence him again, and send him back "up the river" again for good!
Now, how can I fit that on a bumper sticker?
How is it this has ended up on three different threads...
Dennis has "quite a story". Many have chosen to become obsessed with it. The state appointed a special commission to look into the conviction. The negative outcome did nothing to quiet the uproar.
Is it "that" time of year again?
I recently ended a career that included supervising a real piece of crap of an inmate who has cost the state hunreds of thousands in medical care and was convicted based on new DNA evidence almost 20 years after the murder he committed his fourth one and a missing companion who has never been found.
I weigh that against the however remote chance that an error in prosecution has been made and an innocent man is in prison ! We can go the extra mile to establish guilt how far is to much to establish the possibility of innocence.
The system today is alot more sophisticated and advanced than it was then. The murderers I have dealt with rarely talk about their crimes neither professing innocence or guilt. This mans claim of innocence has been unusually long IMHO. Little is lost in a new trial .
Ms. Cherry's family would disagree. Also, many who testified before are no longer available. Al Hendsbee, one of the primary detectives wo worked the case, isn't around any longer. Letting a murder out is a kinda' "Willie Horton" thing to do, especially after a bunch of the prosecution witnesseshave died. Baldacci was smart enough NOT to do it.
I have no problem with any kind of objective testing, even after the fact.
I assume this thread is in response to the bill submitted by John Martin from Eagle Lake requiring a new trial . Apparently he overlooked the separation of powers article in our constitution when he wrote it. As former AG Mills stated, the wording of the bill, including the purpose of which is for just a single person, is problematic, i.e., its overstepping legislative authority by treading in judicial. The bill should not pass because of it.
TJC, I have followed this case for years, on a casual basis, reading newspaper stories mostly. I also know that there are lots of "innocent people" in prison as many will tell you. I have also followed the workings of the "innocence project" and know that more than a few have been released from death row due to their efforts. Last I knew they would only take on cases where DNA could be used to make a definite case for the accused.
I know that Dennis has denied his guilt since the beginning. I believe that I have heard several times that there now is DNA evidence. If you have knowledge of what this might be I would be interested in knowing more about it.
I have wavered back and forth on the death penality most of my life. I would be for it for some time and then something like the Innocence Project comes along and shakes my faith in the system. I think it clear that there are folks like OJ who walked away from a crime and then there are people such as the ones freed by this work, so it is pretty clear our system is not perfect, though the best we can devise I guess. I also believe that justice is different for people who have money as opposed to those who don't. Court appointed attys don't have the kind of wherewithal to mount a case like Johnny Corcoran did.
Does Dennis have anything at all with this DNA claim, or is he just full of it?
By the way there are very few innocent people in Maine jails. For all the compalints our system in this state is very
Look, even F.Lee Bailey consulted, looking over the evidence, and determined that he couldn't help. If that isn't a stinging indictment...
I suspect it had more to do with the depths of the Deschaine pockets though, IMHO. Sorry Dennis, even Big Al Martin can't help you. Rot in Peace.
And yet, here we are again. I thought this was put to rest last year.
Any DNA that has been handled the way the evidence in this case has been handled cannot be reliable. The DNA that some are claiming proves another man was involved can be simply from contamination from investigation or even the defense team. This DNA has such a sketchy history that I would not even begin to consider that it's reliable. I worked for YEARS during the development phase of PCR and other DNA analysis and I know how easily it can be contaminated. I'd want to know exactly how it was handled every step of the way. And if you can't describe that with complete certainty, then it's not good material. To me, DNA is far better at proving a person's guilt than innocence.
Tom Connolly recently was on the stand about this very issue. I cannot fault him for holding onto the fingernail clippings. The biggest problem, however, is the way the ME handled the "tools of trade" back then. Pre DNA, they apparently had all their (reused regularly) tools in a Sears tool box with towels in it.
They do things differently now.
I believe if we provided him with enough narcotics and benzodiazepines, the issue of his guilt or innocence would quickly be moot.
I recently saw a show on national television about this case. Among other things they went to visit the other suspect in Florida who chased them off his property and would not be interviewed. It sounds to me that Dennis's crime was to taking drugs which he was trying to conceal from his wife. He left his truck along the side of a road and became the perfect set up for the crime. It would have been easy for the real killer to drop evidence into Dennis's vehicle- just sitting along the road side with no one in it. He deserves a re-trial.
I loose my faith (if any ) in the court system when they rule out evidence. That should be the decision of the jury.
I've reviewed the transcripts. Pour salt on the man till he rots.
This is because you read the transcripts and that is all the public needs to know- or at least be told. End of Story???!?
However for those who wish to consider other "evidence" http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/articles/video-tv-radio/
"Among other things they went to visit the other suspect in Florida who chased them off his property and would not be interviewed."
Which other suspect are you talking about? Same guy who was molesting his daughter, who was a friend of cherry, same guy who spent the day with Dennis? Same guy that found out Cherry was going to make a written statement about the molestation? Just street talk.......thats all.
It's said that the fastest way to get your leg broken is this country is to stand between Gloria Alred and a television camera. A faster and messier method is to stand between F.Lee Bailey and a case he THINKS he can win. Those that do inevitably look like they had carnal knowledge of an industrial thresher. Bailey reviewed the case, and found nothing worth pursuing.
I submit this, from the BDN in 2003.
Mackenzie, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. you claim to hear hoofbeats.
Bailey not being interested sounds pretty conclusive from where I watch.
That said, this subject and Ron Paul advocacy seem to have a lot in common.
Bruce Libby asks "We can go the extra mile to establish guilt how far is to much to establish the possibility of innocence." I asked a similar question in another DD thread.
Regardless of how it's been handled, any remaining evidence should be tested. State prosecuters live and die by DNA and I think that axe ought to cut both ways. I accept that any result would be insufficient to convict someone else but it might be enough . . like it points directly to the other suspect . . to create the kind of doubt that would have spared DD his conviction.