Maine Mensa

There is a cause which has occupied me for the past sixteen years, i.e. getting a new trial for a man who was wrongfully convicted of a most terrible murder.

As a retired federal agent, I’m probably the last person to condemn the investigation of anybody ultimately convicted in a court of law for any crime -- most certainly a man convicted of killing a child. However, my belief in this man’s innocence is based on scientific evidence, vital facts the State concealed, and official documents proving that two detectives testified falsely at his trial. http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf

My certainty of this man’s innocence motivated me to write a book, Human Sacrifice. This isn’t a sales pitch. I’ve taken no royalties for this book. My answer to certain officials who implied that the book offered untruths was to call them out. I posted ads in Maine newspapers offering $1,000.00 to anyone who can cite a single untruth stated by me in this book regarding the crime, the evidence or the official misconduct. Since then I’ve publicized that reward in articles and interviews. In all the years since then, no one has come forward to claim that reward.

All I (and other supporters) ask is a trial where jurors hear all the evidence. That seems like such a modest request.

It’s my fond hope that members of Maine Mensa will inform themselves about this case and use your collective intellect in an effort to achieve justice.

http://www.pressherald.com/holding/dennis_dechaine_maine_sarah_cherry_murder_case.html?searchterm=Dechaine

http://www.pressherald.com/holding/dennis_dechaine_maine_sarah_cherry_murder_case.html?searchterm=Dechaine

I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. My email address is author@suscom-maine.net

Jim Moore

No reaction at all?  What a breed!  

" Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it."- Mark Twain

Hi Nicole,

Four years after the crime and Dechainhe's conviction I saw a blurb in the local paper that some people were coming to town to say why Dechaine was innocent. Having read coverage of the trial in the newspapers at the time, and being a retired federal agent, I figured this woiuld be a bunch of boobs trashing law enforcement. Curious though, and having some time on my hands, I went to listen to them. Didn't come away believing he was innocent but I changed my mind about those people. Figured they were nice folks but sadly misguided. Offered to look into the case and find answers to all their little questions -- but only if asked by Dechaine and his lawyer. They asked, so I began with the trial transcript and the poilice reports the State had turned over to the lawyer (as they're required to do -- it's called "discovery.") Anyway, it didn't take too long to smell a rat, and the deeper I dug the worse the smell. After grousing to friends about it for months, somer of them asked why I didn't write a book about it. (I'd written a couple books before.) After the book was published, the state legislature ordered the attorney general to open his confidential file on the case. Thefre I found evidence suggesting innocence which they'd concealed. Lodged a lawsuit, got more evidence they were still hiding despite the legislature's order-- including proof that the two detectives who testified that Dechaine made incriminating statements had lied. Nasty case. Nasty officials. Very discouraging for an old cop like me. Disgraced my former profession. Pissed me off. Even more discouraged to see how few Mainers seem to give a damn.

Thanks for your interest, Nicole.

Jim

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your interest.

The State never tested that notebook for fingerprints because, when it was found, several deputies handed it around to one another, and one of them actually used it to make notes of his own. KI guess prosecutors figured it wouldn't do any good to test for prints. They also opposed DNA testing even though Dennis requested it and offered to pay for the testing  (and the judge agreed with the prosecutors) -- maybe because they'd already discovered that the blood under Sarah's nails wasn't Dennis' blood type. They said it was "probably" Sarah's own blood. It wasn't, of course. When DNA tests were finally done, it was found that it's male DNA -- not Dechaine's, not any of her relatives, not that of any cop or medical examiner person who touched her body.

Since the State Police towed Dennis' truck to their HQ (with his permission) and their lab techs found no trace of Sarah Cherry in the truck (no fingerprint, fabric, blood, DNA or even a hair) AND the police tracking dog could not detect Sarah's scent in the truck, it seems impossible that she could have been transported in that vehicle the 3.2 miles from where she was abducted to where the body was found on a day whe n temperatures were near 90 degrees.

The only possibility I see is that the killer lifted items from Dennis' truck and planted them for the police to find. This especially cruel sexual torture/murder (according to FBI profilers who study these creatures) was comnmitted by a predator with a prior history of less grotesque crimes (window peeping, molestation, non-fatal rapes), building up to this most horrible abuse of a little girl. Consequently, he was most likely already known to police, neighbor etc. and knew he'd be a logical suspect, so he took steps to misdirect suspicion. It wouldn't require a very high IQ to come up with that idea.

Dechaine, on the other hand, has no record or reputation for devient sex, pedophilia, or any violence whatsoever. 

Nevertheless, all that aside, my certainty of Dennis' innocence is based on the scientific evidence -- the male DNA in blood under Sarah's nails which is not Dechaine's DNA, and the opinions of two nationally recognized forensic pathologists that Sarah could not have been strangled to death until many hours after the poilice began questioning Dennis about those papers found in that driveway.

Science doesn't lie.

Jim:

Has a profiler previously unfamiliar with this case studied the crime (not the case but just the crime) and developed a profile for this specific situation?  I don't disagree with the general profile you provided but I think it would be interesting to see if anything extra or different would result (or has resulted if this has already occurred).  I understand that the defense came up with someone at least fitting the general profile as a potential suspect and that this person may have been facing charges for a similar but not fatal crime (?).  People in those situations want to avoid a second (potential) conviction.

Again, I'm not intimately familiar with the case but I believe there really would need to be a confluence of events for the killer (if it wasn't Duchaine) to have the wherewithal to semi-break into Dennis' truck, take a few identifiable items, and drop them conveniently on the Henkel's driveway.   Dennis would have to be the most unlucky man alive right then and there and the killer would have needed to have been having a really lucky day; had the owner of the truck instead been out there fishing, hiking, surveying, shooting squirrels, etc. not only would there be less reason to believe that person or persons had anything to do with it but they would have also represented potential witnesses to the crime.  Instead of attempting to provide a distracter I think the killer would have focused on getting out of there without being noticed or without being noticed acting strangely.  I'm not saying that the presence of the notebook means Dennis did it but I'm not buying into the defense's explanation.

Was the babysitting routine the same every day or perhaps every week?  If it was then it would have provided an opportunity for the killer to pattern her and the routines of the adults.

I'm a little bothered by no evidence of a struggle at the house in that I'm not convinced that the killer grabbed her and ran.  I would think the person either gained her confidence (Perhaps a friend of the family?  Aren't child molestations typically a family member or immediate friend of the family?) or the person brandished a weapon.  I really think there is something to be gained by figuring out how the killer got her out of the house and then how she ended up where she was found.  If the killer threatened her but was unaware of the baby, perhaps Sarah would have left to get him away.  Courageous for a kid?  Yes, but not unreasonable.  I also believe that while the killer might have carried rope with him he may have also needed to cut the rope on site.  If Dennis is the killer and was not found to have a knife on him, it would have needed to be ditched...potentially in the woods.  Of course proving a negative is difficult (Prove that God doesn't exist!) but the absence of such evidence may help slightly.  If such an item were disposed of it would probably still be there.

I can't figure out why the dog didn't track her down even if she was already dead.  We have three German Shepherd Dogs and one easily could have been a police dog - took me one very quick session to train him to actively protect.  He's a very good tracker, which has been used to find one of the other two when she ran off after a skunk several hundred yards into the woods.  Anyhow, while the dog may have been less than happy about the odor of a deceased body the dog can also still identify the odor it was tracking (they don't "combine" scents like us, they can differentiate amongst multiple ones).  Also, if the dog was that close I would have thought it would have been able to "air scent."  I wouldn’t be shocked if all three of our GSDs would have found her that close had she actually been there.  While the dog was apparently trained not to “run trash” it is still trained to also track in spite of it being nearby.  Is there any indication that the body was moved?  Could she have been in the back of a van or the trunk of a car for most of the time she was missing and then stashed there under the cloak of darkness?

Has Dennis ever submitted to a polygraph?  If so, what are the results?

I agree that the destruction of much of the evidence was at a minimum borderline unethical.  Hey, I’m not convinced Dennis didn’t do it but there should be zero reason for those representing the State to worry about any of it if they were actually as confident about his guilt as they showed; a good case doesn’t need any help.  I thoroughly enjoy fully documenting my professional decisions once they are made.

 - Dan

Hi Dan,

You seem un-persuaded by the scientific evidence and the inference I draw from the officials’ gross misconduct, so let me begin with something Scott Turow – lawyer, author, member of the Illinois Commission re the Death Penalty – wrote in his nonfiction book, Ultimate Punishment.

“…it is these extreme and repellent crimes that provoke the highest emotions – anger, especially, even outrage – that in turn make rational deliberation problematic for investigators, prosecutors, judges and juries.

“Under enormous pressure to solve these cases, police often become prisoners of their own initial hunches. A homicide investigation is not an academic inquiry allowing for even-handed consideration of every hypothesis. Instead, it’s conducted in an atmosphere where primitive fears about unknown, dangerous strangers imperil our sense of an orderly world. There is a strong emotional momentum to adopt any explanation. Cops often feel impelled to take the best lead and run with it…

“If law enforcement professionals respond in this fashion to the emotionalism of grave crimes, it is foolhardy to expect anything better from the lay people who sit on juries.”

Discussing a specific case where a convicted child-murderer was proven innocent, Turow writes:

“The case demonstrated to me the propensity of juries to turn the burden of proof against defendants charged with monstrous crimes. The notion of a ten year old girl being overpowered by an intruder and dragged from the safety of her parents’ home, sexually tortured and then in the end beaten to death is so revolting that I need to explain Alex’s and Rolando’s convictions by saying that I thought Mother Teresa might have been in jeopardy if she were in the defendant’s seat. Jurors are unwilling to take the chance of releasing a monster into our midst, and will not always require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Nevertheless, Dan, you ask good questions -- much the same ones I had before I got into this case and throughout my investigation.

My mention of FBI profilers’ analysis is drawn from several similar cases. Hiring a retired profiler to assess this case would be expensive and, ultimately, inadmissible in a court of law.

Taking your questions in the order asked:

Q - I understand that the defense came up with someone at least fitting the general profile as a potential suspect and that this person may have been facing charges for a similar but not fatal crime (?). People in those situations want to avoid a second (potential) conviction.

A - The defense didn’t exactly “come up with” this suspect. A police report described small bare footprints beside large footprints found by a civilian searcher leading down a dirt lane ½ mile from where Sarah was abducted. She was known to be barefoot since her sneakers and socks remained at that house. Their report stated that detectives Hendsbee & Drake followed these footprints which led into “a trailer named Fickett.” They did not knock on that door or ever interview Fickett although police had knocked on every other door in the area seeking potential witnesses. These facts were in the police reports made available re this case. What was not made available (or ever mentioned by the prosecution) was the fact that these same detectives were already investigating the resident of that trailer, Jason Fickett, for having oral and vaginal sex with another 12 year old girl. Fickett was later convicted of that crime and other sex crimes. According to all available records, police never questioned Fickett about this crime.

One suspect advanced by the defense was Douglas Senecal, married to the ex-wife of Sarah Cherry’s step father. At the time of Sarah’s murder, Senecal was under a 2-count indictment for sexually molesting his step-daughter. The family shipped the stepdaughter to California. Since she was then unavailable, charges against Senecal were eventually dropped. He has refused to furnish his DNA for comparison with the male DNA found in blood under Sarah’s nails.

Q - I believe there really would need to be a confluence of events for the killer (if it wasn't Duchaine) to have the wherewithal to semi-break into Dennis' truck, take a few identifiable items, and drop them conveniently on the Henkel's driveway.

A - No evidence that it would be necessary to “break into” Dechaine’s truck. It was left unattended in the woods across the road from where Sarah was strangled. Personally, the idea of a man -- probably known as a sexual offender and understandably fearing he’d be a suspect -- hoping to misdirect police by taking items from an unattended truck and planting them at the crime scene, is not difficult for me to imagine. What IS hard for me to imagine is, out of the scores of items inventoried in Dechaine’s truck, why the only two to “fall out” would be 2 of only 3 of those items to have his name on them. And why any item would fall out and be un-noticed while he was supposedly putting his victim in.

Either way these are matters of conjecture. Pick the one you think most logical.

Q - Dennis would have to be the most unlucky man alive right then and there and the killer would have needed to have been having a really lucky day; had the owner of the truck instead been out there fishing, hiking, surveying, shooting squirrels, etc. not only would there be less reason to believe that person or persons had anything to do with it but they would have also represented potential witnesses to the crime.

A - Unlucky? No doubt. Based on what we know of times, it’s likely that the killer and Sarah were already in that woods by the time Dechaine arrived in the area. Again, however, no hard proof either way.

Q - Instead of attempting to provide a distracter I think the killer would have focused on getting out of there without being noticed or without being noticed acting strangely.

A - IF the killer had a prior record for sex crimes (only a theory, based on the severity of the crime) AND feared he’d become a suspect, planting “clues” seems almost necessary.

Q -I'm not saying that the presence of the notebook means Dennis did it but I'm not buying into the defense's explanation.

A - With no hard evidence either way, we each take our best guess based on our most logical assessment of the facts we do know. My own mind tells me that if Dechaine committed this crime, there would be some forensic evidence -- a trace of Sarah in his truck, a trace of her on him, or a trace of him on her body. There were fingerprints on the door of the house where she was abducted which were not Dechaine’s and are (according to the State) “missing.” There were never-identified hairs on her corpse, not Dechaine’s, incinerated by the State shortly after he filed his appeal. All I can say is, go figure.

Q - Was the babysitting routine the same every day or perhaps every week? If it was then it would have provided an opportunity for the killer to pattern her and the routines of the adults.

A - This was only Sarah’s 2^nd babysitting job ever and her first for the Henkel family. The baby was usually taken to a day catre when Mrs Henkel was working but the day care person was on vacation that week, so they got Sarah.

Q - I'm a little bothered by no evidence of a struggle at the house in that I'm not convinced that the killer grabbed her and ran. I would think the person either gained her confidence (Perhaps a friend of the family? Aren't child molestations typically a family member or immediate friend of the family?) or the person brandished a weapon. I really think there is something to be gained by figuring out how the killer got her out of the house and then how she ended up where she was found. If the killer threatened her but was unaware of the baby, perhaps Sarah would have left to get him away. Courageous for a kid? Yes, but not unreasonable. I also believe that while the killer might have carried rope with him he may have also needed to cut the rope on site. If Dennis is the killer and was not found to have a knife on him, it would have needed to be ditched...potentially in the woods. Of course proving a negative is difficult (Prove that God doesn't exist!) but the absence of such evidence may help slightly. If such an item were disposed of it would probably still be there.

A - Interesting speculation.

Q - I can't figure out why the dog didn't track her down even if she was already dead. We have three German Shepherd Dogs and one easily could have been a police dog - took me one very quick session to train him to actively protect. He's a very good tracker, which has been used to find one of the other two when she ran off after a skunk several hundred yards into the woods. Anyhow, while the dog may have been less than happy about the odor of a deceased body the dog can also still identify the odor it was tracking (they don't "combine" scents like us, they can differentiate amongst multiple ones). Also, if the dog was that close I would have thought it would have been able to "air scent." I wouldn’t be shocked if all three of our GSDs would have found her that close had she actually been there. While the dog was apparently trained not to “run trash” it is still trained to also track in spite of it being nearby.

A - Police reports indicate the dog was pulled off the trail when police heard “a commotion” in the woods which they attributed to deer. They never saw any deer. The time (2AM) they claim having heard this commotion matches the earliest time forensic pathologists say she could have been strangled to death. (Police had been interrogating Dechaine since about 9:30 the previous night and didn’t take him home until 4AM. From then on, he was with his wife.)

Q - Is there any indication that the body was moved? Could she have been in the back of a van or the trunk of a car for most of the time she was missing and then stashed there under the cloak of darkness?

A - Blood found under the body suggests she was stabbed at that location but she could have been held and tortured anywhere before that.

Q - Has Dennis ever submitted to a polygraph? If so, what are the results?

A- There is no record that he was ever offered a polygraph. Nor did he ever request a polygraph exam. Frankly, I’d never volunteer to take one. First reason: I’ve actually witnessed a killer undergo a polygraph and fool it. 2^nd reason, since it’s not admissible in court it can’t help.

Q - I agree that the destruction of much of the evidence was at a minimum borderline unethical.

A - I disagree. Destruction of evidence is criminal. Try it when you’re suspected of a crime and see what happens. Lying is unethical and, depending on the circumstances, illegal. Perjury is always illegal. Hiding evidence is grossly unethical. I’m reminded of some dialog from an old movie, Charade:

Audrey Hepburn: “Why do people lie?”

Cary Grant: “Because they want something and the truth won’t get it for them.”

You might prefer this statement Assistant Attorney General Eric Wright made in his closing argument to a jury in another murder case only months before he prosecuted Dechaine:

“Concealment of evidence…is always taken

in the law as evidence of consciousness of

[State v. Saunders, November, 1988

in the law as evidence of consciousness of

[State v. Saunders, November, 1988

“Concealment of evidence…is always taken

in the law as evidence of consciousness of

[State v. Saunders, November, 1988

in the law as evidence of consciousness of

[State v. Saunders, November, 1988

Hey, I’m not convinced Dennis didn’t do it but there should be zero reason for those representing the State to worry about any of it if they were actually as confident about his guilt as they showed; a good case doesn’t need any help. I thoroughly enjoy fully documenting my professional decisions once they are made.

I agree, Dan. What’s wrong with a trial where jurors hear all the evidence?

Jim

Jim:

 Thanks for the thorough reply to my latest questions.  It isn't that I am not persuaded by the scientific evidence it is that I have not yet had time to review some of it and conduct some additional research to corroborate what has been presented, particularly the time of death information.  I also would also like to look a little more into Dennis' whereabouts during the time period, though you provided some additional insight in your reply.  My "guilty until innocent" leaning isn't due to the nature of the crime; it is because I generally believe in the justice system, Dennis was convicted, and because it serves little purpose for me to act as a "cheerleader" on his behalf and likely not contribute anything profound - if I approach it as if I think he is guilty, but open to changing my mind, and I want to prove it using the evidence then I think more is to be gained.  If the evidence does not support it (considering all of the evidence) then I have no compunction to take a stance other than he didn't do it.

Hailing originally from Baltimore, where 250+ murders a year is common, I was pleasantly surprised when moving here at how relatively few murders are committed in Maine.  I believe due to the dearth of murders in most areas other than perhaps the largest of the cities here, it may be inappropriate for local law enforcement in this State to investigate these cases since they would be rare or unique to their department.  Expertise comes with practice.  I believe I read that a day two detective was allowed to interrogate Dennis without anyone else present - I think I'd want my best and most experienced person in there with a tape recorder and perhaps one more officer, not the newbie.

You make a compelling argument regarding the vehicle.  With that said, the statistics go both ways in that the killer would have needed to look at a lot of documents to find two (of the three) that had Dennis' name on them.  I'm still having trouble buying into the killer spending the time to root through everything looking for the distracter.  And if you took a random sample of people (or weighted towards parking a truck in that location), how many would have ended up being fingered by police as the prime suspect?  The killer (if not Dennis) also would have greatly benefitted from the "efforts" of the police and DA's office to pursue that person (Dennis) almost exclusively; counting on the ir proceeding the way it did would have required divine insight.

Has anyone considered secretly obtaining DNA from Senecal and Fickett and then have it tested to compare against that found under Sarah's fingernail?  While the CoC would not hold up in court if there was a match it would give you much more certainty.  And perhaps more buy-in from the public.  While it is maybe possible that the DNA under her fingernail got there innocuously, to have the DNA end up being from someone who both lived nearby and had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime I think would be a game changer.  I know your focus is on Dennis but the push back from the Cherry family and friends would potentially be less and possibly cause some to support Dennis' cause IF one can offer a reasonably definitive alternative as the actual killer.

I take it the dog was never used to track towards the Fickett trailer?   I would also look into the dog's training and handler a bit more (if I didn't have anything else to do).  I recall a Cops episode in Pittsburgh where the office took his (pet) Rottweiler on patrol with him - not a trained K-9 dog.  Not to say that the dog in question wasn't trained but I wonder how good of a team they were.  The fact that they were looking for a missing girl, had the dog track into a wooded area nearby, and then hear something but not follow up is amazingly incompetent in my mind.  And just because deer are there doesn't mean the girl isn't.  And if the dog was only tracking deer that would have meant the deer was at some recent point in time at the starting location.  My comments here I don't think help your cause at all but it is extremely disappointing for them to mismanage using a tool that could have changed the outcome.

 - Dan

Hi Dan,

Our two minds function alike. As you can guess, being a retired cop (federal agent) myself, I entered this case certain that Dechaine was guilty for the same reasons you cite -- after all, he’d had a trial and was convicted by a jury. Besides, the State’s interpretation of the circumstantial evidence seemed logical.

If you read the book you’ll follow my progress and problems as I began to sort this all out. This isn’t a sales pitch -- I’m taking no royalties for the book, and it’s available at a lot of libraries in Maine. In fact, I think any library can get a copy via the interlibrary loan system.

I found many surprises but two things astound me -- the indifference of most Mainers to what was done, and the incredible stupidity of State Police Det. Hendsbee.

Imagine that you are a detective searching for a girl missing since yesterday whom you know to be barefoot. A civilian shows you small bare footprints beside large footprints leading down a dirt road half-a-mile from where the girl vanished. Those footprints lead you right into the residence of a man you’re already currently investigating for having oral and vaginal sex with another 12 year old girl. (His name is posted outside his trailer.) Would you consider this a clue? Would you knock on that door? The girl vanished yesterday from a house only half-a-mile away. Or would you walk away without even knocking on that door? Because that’s what Hendsbee did.

If you’re really serious about researching the facts, the AG’s file is now accessible under the Freedom of Access law. All you have to do is phone the office of Deputy AG Stokes (622 8571) and let them know you want to see the file. (They might get picky and ask you to send them a letter to this effect.) The material fills 6 or 7 bins and boxes. They’ll make the material available and give you space to examine it. The only thing they’re permitted to legally withhold is the autopsy photos, but who’d want to see them anyway? The medical examiner’s autopsy report is available and it’s quite detailed.

In Maine, police in the larger cities investigate their own homicides. For all other towns, the State Police have jurisdiction and the AG’s lawyers prosecute all murders.

You’re right about the 2-day detective. A real amateur. Check out his handwritten notes and compare them with the (undated) report he typed later and his testimony. Same with State Police Det Hendsbee’s notebook.

I understand people being skeptical about the efforts the killer made to misdirect suspicion. It might help to imagine the desperation of a vicious murderer’s need to avoid being suspected. It also helps to consider the liklihood that, out of 180 items inventoried by police in Dechaine’s truck (I refreshed my memory on the number), the only 2 to “fall out” were 2 of only 3 which had his name on them. Fell out when he was putting Sarah in? Were un-noticed and left there for police to find? Pretty sloppy for a master criminal who left no trace of himself at the scene or on the body of a victim he’d been so intimate with.

It would seem natural to the killer that police would focus on the person whose name they found at the scene -- and just to nail it down for the cops, he used a scarf from the truck to strangle her and rope from the truck to tie her wrists. Anybody who assumes that someone is stupid simply because he’s evil is really ill informed. I think most shrinks will say that psychopaths are often quite cunning.

Secretly getting Senecal’s DNA would be an expensive project. He lives in Florida now. The effort would require surveillance, probably extended, until Senecal dropped a cigarette or drank from a container he discarded -- time consuming, not even counting travel expenses.

If police were using their dog for this purpose, it’s logical to assume that they thought he could do the job.

As for the deer, that was their assumption. They never saw any deer in the area that night -- at least according to their reports. And you’re right -- incompetent, which is exactly what they never want to admit.

Examine the AG’s file by all means but I suggest you read the book first. That’ll give you a hint of what to look for in the AG’s reports AND will let you recognize anything significant in the file which isn’t included in the book, in case you should actually find anything like that.

Final suggestion: focus on verified, documented evidence and ignore all speculation, guesses and opinions -- mine and theirs -- except for the opinions of experts. Even with experts, use your own intellect. For example, despite the fact that it’s most common for a victim to scratch at someone who is strangling her, the state chemist said she didn’t think the blood under Sarah’s nails was scratched from her attacker because she found no skin under those nails, only blood which was the same blood type as Sarah (which made her assume it was Sarah’s own blood under her nails) and a different blood type from Dennis. When the first DNA test showed it was not Sarah’s DNA, Deputy AG Stokes opined it was from the infant Sarah was babysitting. The 2^nd DNA test showed it was male DNA; the baby was a girl.

Stokes then guessed aloud that it was DNA from one of Sarah’s relatives, or the police and medical examiner personnel who touched her body. Every time he makes a new guess, more expensive DNA tests are required. All of them were tested and eliminated. Stokes’ latest theory is that the clippers used to cut Sarah’s nails were contaminated in the slovenly room where the autopsy was conducted. Of course nobody can produce those clippers or show whose DNA may have remained on them to contaminate this evidence. If you’re looking for a word to describe Stokes’ ever changing theories, try “desperate.” Or perhaps “whimsical.” He’ll assume anything except the most obvious explanation because he doesn’t like that one at all.

One fact remains: my theory of the case accounts for ALL the evidence, including facts the State concealed. The prosecutor’s theory of the case does not account for all the evidence. In fact, much of their theory is contradicted by the evidence. That’s why they’re determined never to let a jury hear all the facts and render an independent verdict.

Jim

Jim:

I intend on reading the book sometime during the winter - still have firewood to process, haven't gotten a deer yet, and have several special projects at work that should be cleared up by the end of the year/January.

I didn't recognize it was a State Trooper that did the investigation...perhaps prejudicial but I wouldn’t have been as surprised at the mess-ups had it been the local constable.

I'm not sure if I need to look at the AG's file but will note that I can.

I had some more thoughts last night about the notebook and the receipt.  I would find it fascinating to see a combined aerial map (is there any other kind?) alongside a timeline.  I *think* it may reveal some interesting information.  One of the first things taught in engineering school when posed with a complex problem is “draw a picture.”

I still think the DNA checks on Senecal and Fickett are worthy.  Perhaps one could hire a PI in Florida (and wherever Fickett is) to do the dirty work.  Might not be 100% reliable but if (1) you get a good sample and (2) it was one of them that would completely change this situation.  What about finding a close blood relative locally to do the same?  While getting Dennis out would be justice for him the ultimate justice would be replacing him with the person who did do it (provided it wasn’t him).  If things in AG's office don't change under the (likely) new person to hold that position, I wouldn't worry too much about the time factor since Dennis wouldn’t be going anywhere.  While perhaps not a simple task I respond with it likely being much less difficult than say for when Simon Wiesenthal tracked down Karl Silberbauer.  If the current state of affairs is not getting Dennis another trial then enhancing the evidence against his guilt has to occur.  I’m not sure how many folks incarcerated who believe they are innocent have a support group actively engaged in the community and have had a book written about their situation – those who have conviction of his innocence need no additional evidence it seems to me more is needed.  I’m not saying that the public campaign hasn’t shifted opinions but Dennis is still in prison without a scheduled new trial.

- Dan

Hi Dan,

For a map, try Google Maps. A central location is the intersection of Dead River Road at Lewis Hill Road, Bowdoin, Maine. Henkel house is less than 3 miles south of there. Body was found on Hallowell Rd., now called Academy Rd. Distance from body site to Henkel house is 3.2 miles. Half-a-mile south of Henkel house is Fickett Rd. There’s a rough map reproduced in the book.

I agree this task is easier that Simon Wiesenthal's hunt for Nazies but then, Wiesenthal had help from more people who gave a damn.

Anyone who cares to finance an expedition to get DNA from Fickett and Senecal is welcome to do so, with much gratitude. I’m sure it would be very helpful. For that matter, anybody who'd like to help in any way would be most welcome.

But the ability to rationalize one's indifference is strong everywhere.

Jim

It’s now been more than two weeks since I furnished the facts and solicited your assistance in getting a man a trial where jurors hear all the facts -- including evidence which the State concealed, documentary proof of police perjury, and scientific evidence establishing his innocence, all of this documented in official reports and trial testimony now online at http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/report.pdf .

During the ensuing weeks, two Maine Mensans showed curiosity; none proved interested in anything beyond another game of trivial pursuit.You could make Mensa useful, a force for justice, an entity that benefits all Mainers. But you choose to let sleeping dogs lie (and lie and lie). You haven’t got what it takes to fight in a just cause.

You do nothing.

And so, dear trivial people, I bid an insouciant farewell to your insipid society.

James P. Moore

Nicole,

Recruiting for my cause? Please note the opening of this forum and my profile where you’ll see:

What do you like to talk about with other intelligent people?

I'd most like to get the views of intelligent people who're well informed about the Dennis Dchaine case. Extensive recent coverage in the Maine Sunday Telegram at http://www.pressherald.com/holding/dennis_dechaine_maine_sarah_cherry_murder_case.html?searchterm=Dechaine

So, did you notice any discussion? By anyone?

Sure, I hoped some would see the situation and be moved to act, but not merely on my say-so. I provided evidence.

Incidentally, most folks don’t consider justice to be “political.”

Nevertheless, as a potential attorney you’re wise to remain aloof. Maine’s legal community doesn’t suffer internecine criticism.

Finally, I am not criticizing Mensans -- merely saying I prefer not to be associated with complacent people who’re indifferent to rank injustice.

For all who can, enjoy your Thanksgiving.

Jim

Sorry, guys...I haven't perused the website lately.  This new website of ours is not as user-friendly as our other one...darn it.  Jim, it was great meeting you and talking with you about the case.  You opened my eyes.  I am sorry that Maine Mensa isn't fulfilling your needs right now.  I know personally I am sometimes dissappointed too that I don't find in Mensa what I am looking for......

But, I know Maine Mensa is less than 200 people...spread far and wide.  Did you look into the Greater Mensan Community through the National website and its' myriad Special Interest Groups?  Our own Kevin Tremblay has / runs a SIG on Conspiracies.

Hi Anne,

Enjoyed meeting you and thanks for the suggestion but if members right here where it happened can't see the menace posed by officials right here at home, there's no reason to think Mensans elsewhere will have what it takes, either.