Response: A Reader's Defense of Dennis Dechaine

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reader Misty Lake made such a well thought out response to my post Opinion: Dennis Dechaine and the murder of Sarah Cherry that I felt it deserved a blog post of it's own to respond to. Despite her persuasive enumeration as to 15 reasons why Dennis should be found not guilty, I remain unconvinced, and here's why.

Misty said:

1. Of course the DNA and blood found under Sarah's nails. Neither of them were Dennis' (and neither was the hair that was found on her). AND! There was this known pedophile (who had already raped one 12 y/o girl - there were similarities in these cases: Inserted items inside that other girl, bondage etc) that lived half a mile from the house Sarah was babysitting..his blood type was the same that was found under Sarah's nails. Child's footprints (barefooted ones..Sarah's shoes and socks were left inside the house) were found outside this pedophile's trailer..and a neighbor heard a child later the same day Sarah was kidnapped. This person (the pedophile) later told that no one ever interviewed him about Sarah, altho people had told the police what they had witnessed and police told them they would come and interview this man..actually his trailer was the only place the police never even checked in that neighborhood.
Extra: A shirt and one other piece of cloth (girl's clothes) was also found in the woods near this pedophile's home. 

Normally I would agree that the DNA under Sarah's nails was a clincher. If it didn't match the suspect then he could not be the perpetrator of the assault. Case closed. Two things make the DNA irrelevant. The first and most critical is the issue with the custody chain of the evidence. 

For a long time Dennis' attorney had Sarah's fingernail clippings in his possession. Somewhere there exists a person who would be tempted to find a way to tamper with that evidence to plant exonerating DNA. There's no saying Dennis' lawyer did this, but there's also no saying he didn't. Tragically, this renders this physical evidence irrelevant to me. Also, there could have been two perpetrators, Dennis just one of them, the other, his DNA found under her nails. Can we know for certain there weren't two men involved?

It is yet another mark of shame and ignorance on the investigators of this crime that they did not thorougly pursue the evidence pointing to the pedophile you mention. The only thing I can ask is why, if the pedophile had a cabin nearby and Sarah's footprints walking willingly to it, why he would have taken the chance to assault and torture her so far from it? Why would he have taken all the risks of obtaining the evidence to frame Dennis? Remember the notebook was "planted" and then found hours before Sarah Cherry was killed. So the "frame-up" would have had to be premeditated. Why and how could a local pedophile accomplish this or bother? 

Alternatively, and just as plausibly: Dennis could have heard of the assaults that the pedophile had been accused of and triggered his own desire to try it himself. Perhaps he himself chose a location close to the pedophile and simulated his modus operandi, all in order to cast suspicion upon the pedophile and not the other way around.

2. The fact that no trace of Sarah was ever found in Dennis' truck.

I believe Sarah was unconscious before she was ever placed in the truck. There was no struggle and she left no fingerprints. More on this later.

3. The fact that the police dog could not find any trace of Sarah in Dennis' truck..and didn't find any smell of Dennis anywhere near the place Sarah's body was found..in fact, the dog went in the opposite direction, where Dennis said he had gone fishing and shooting drugs.

Was the dog following the trail of Dennis or Sarah? A dog can't do both. He can't tell us what he was following so we can't say who or which trail the dog followed. Also, I find the investigators of this case clumsy and single-minded in their desire to find evidence to prove Dennis guilty. I don't trust their investigation, for the most part, and that also includes their work with the search dog. Dennis also had just finished hauling hundreds of pounds of slaughtered chickens in his truck, surely this would add complications for the dog in the immediate vicinity of the truck?

Following the trail from the car, which the dog indicated as belonging to Dennis, brings us within a few yards of where the second piece of rope from the truck was found. 

I think Sarah was unconscious in the truck, he bound her once he pulled off the road into the almost invisible spot he parked his truck. Then, Dennis locked his truck, locks it to keep anyone from stealing it and trapping him in the woods near his victim. He's carrying her, which would confuse a tracking dog. He then forged into the woods to the east looking for a spot to immobilize his victim and assault her. 

He encounters a shallow stream, a marshy area and in the distance he detects the only house on that whole section of road (at the time) he realizes he must make the risky move of going back, and heading west into the section of woods with no houses, and he must cross the road carrying his victim. 

He drops the extra piece of rope by accident at this time. He heads back, partly retracing his own path going west now, further confusing the dogs, and then furtively crossing the road. He then travels 1/4 mile into the woods to the west, following the creekbed past the marsh until he finds the high and dry spot under a tree where he places his groggy victim. He even describes this spot in his testimony as "a deciduous grove of trees that were particularly nice, and sat down to rest for a few minutes. I had done a lot of walking that day."

He has bound her with ropes from his truck and gagged her with a bandanna from his truck, He's got hours with his victim, no one to hear her in this location. 

Dennis said:

Well, what I did was after having sat down for quite sometime I got up and walked back to my truck. And it was at that point that I realized after walking for a short period of time that I didn't recognize anything. It didn't seem like I was going in the right direction. We were beginning to lose light at that time.

Q    So this is getting dark, towards..

A    Yes. That's one of the reasons why I started moving around because we had lost the light.

Who is "We"? He's supposed to be alone. Pronouns are instinctive, we don't use them incorrectly. "We" means Self and at least one other person. Who is with Dennis at dusk in the woods? I believe it was Sarah and this is why she was partly exposed in her near-complete burial, because "We" had lost the light. He stumbled from the woods after dusk.

Why does someone explain that they had to "start moving around" when he and a companion noticed the coming darkness? Dennis makes these kind of incriminating slips often. It's hard to imagine that every single quote from Dennis was contrived where he shows guilty knowledge of the crime. In fact in his own testimony he admits that he's not sure but he may have actually said some of the things he is accused of saying "I really don't believe I could have said that, If I did it was certainly a regrettable error of semantics."

Ultimately he exits the woods almost a mile to the west of his truck, after dark,  and on the side of the road where Sarah's body was found, not to the east in the direction the police dogs first track him. He's wandering lost in the same block of woods where Sarah's body is found. And he is across the road from his truck. He crossed the road. It's significant.

4. A fishing pole was later found in the woods..but the police + prosecutor disregard and hid that evidence..like many other evidence too.

This is moot. Dennis lists in his testimony everything he took with him that day and he doesn't mention a fishing rod, and he admits that he was lying when he told absolutely everyone that he was fishing. His defense to being in the location at all is that he just happened to be doing the only injectible drugs he had ever done in that precise set of woods while Sarah was coincidentally being murdered nearby. He now claims that he lied to everyone that he was fishing because he didn't want them to know he was doing drugs. There's no fishing pole. If a fishing pole was found later, no doubt it was planted to help boost his story. This could have been done whether he was guilty or not, so it's moot.

5. The truck was locked. Would someone, who is struggling to get his victim out of the truck lock the doors? Or even if the victim was dead at that point..which would make locking the doors even more bizarre! And that brings me back to the fact that no trace of Sarah was ever found anywhere in the truck. Yea..i mean what did Dennis do? Tell Sarah "wait a second, i'll lock the doors..then you can start kicking and screaming again"?? After of course arriving to the location with Sarah..and miraculously not leaving any trace of her anywhere near/inside his truck!?

His victim was neither struggling nor dead. I think he had injected her with a veterinary sedative. I think he charmed his way inside the house to use the phone and then injected her without leaving any sign of struggle. He transported her to his truck parked close to the door and then drove her to the pull-off of the road, which he had already scoped out. She wasn't struggling so she left no evidence in his car. There was no evidence of a struggle at the house either. He locked his car exactly for the reason he said in his testimony. "Probably because I was in a remote area and I was afraid it would be an easy thing to steal."  -And having his truck stolen would really get him in trouble. So would getting lost in the woods and not finding his truck, but he made that one mistake.

6. No traces of blood was found on Dennis. Again, Sarah was stabbed multiple times in the neck and chest area..there would have been lots of blood flying around.

Dennis could have brought a change of clothes and washed off thoroughly in the marsh. He admits to falling in the water as one of the few things he "remembers" from his long afternoon in the woods. He wasn't examined fully until the next day and he had already laundered the clothing he was found wearing.

7. No marks were found on Dennis that looked like someone had scratched (or anything!) him while trying to defend him/herself. However, there was one other man who had fresh scratch marks on his face (that had appeared the same day Sarah was kidnapped) and upper chest area. But the police never even thought about checking that person either.

Dennis actually did have a few scratches and bruises. Nothing that couldn't also be explained by being lost in the woods and falling in the creek though. He explains a large bruise as <i>I told him that was a pinch I received while doing some work in the barn or something of that sort.</i> Linguistically this is not the same thing as saying "It was a pinch I received while doing some work in the barn" Instead he says "I told him <the police officer> it was a pinch, or something of that sort. We are left not knowing where the bruise really came from. Because it certainly wasn't from a pinch given his unwillingness just to tell us so.

8. The tire tracks that didn't match. One tire of Dennis' truck had similar details, but wasn't a true match (and this one tire was one of the most common types used in Maine at that time). The other three tires didn't match with any of the tracks found. And again, the police decided to not get prints out of set of tires that was left by a truck a neighbor saw (with two men and a child inside!).

Sorry, tire marks etc are just symbols of how badly this investigation was botched. Officers walked and drove all over that driveway and it wasn't secured as a crime scene until hours after the investigation began. I place no weight on any tire mark evidence. 

9. A fingerprint that was lifted from the door of the house Sarah was in. A fingerprint that wasn't Dennis'.

It's just not enough. Unless it can be identified it's a red herring.

10. The witness that said she saw a red truck passing their and the house Sarah was in. Dennis' truck was orange. Senegal's truck was red. And she saw the truck moving..never stopping..so if that was Dennis kidnapping the girl how did he do it?

The witnesses seeing red trucks don't always remember which day they saw them and did not see who was driving them and cannot identify the specific truck. The sheer number of red trucks in this area just devalues this evidence. Also Dennis claims he drove up and down the roads of the area "looking for fishing holes" or a "quiet road to park and shoot up" depending on which of his two stories you believe.There's not that many roads in the area, they are long and intersect only every few miles. One witness did hear a vehicle turn into what they thought might be the driveway because he lost sight of the truck and heard the dogs barking. All of the witnesses live South of the house where the kidnapping took place, and Sarah's body was transported North. They would not have seen any vehicle transporting Sarah, Dennis driving or otherwise.

11. The two items found on the driveway. This is -in my opinion- the best part of this case! Out of +180 items (and out of 3 items that had Dennis' name on them) that were in the car somehow Dennis managed to pick up TWO, not one but TWO..the notebook that was always in between the front seats and a receipt that was..who knows where in the truck..and carry them allll the way close to the house and then what...he just left them there!? Even a blind person would see them lying on the ground and would pick them up! But i guess he couldn't pick them up because he was carrying a 12 y/o girl who is fighting and kicking and screaming so he decided to leave them there!?(no one did hear anything though ..no doors opening or closing..shouting or screaming..nothing..everything happened perfectly and perfectly quiet). Dennis must have had helluva lot of beginner's luck that day...

I agree its unlikely that just those two items would fall out, but not nearly as unlikely as all the misfortunes of Dennis' "wrong place at the wrong time" story strung together. It could happen. He wouldn't see them if they fell out of the truck while he was placing Sarah unconscious into the passenger seat -a moment of time likely fraught with fear, like when he also had to carry her unconscious body across the road. 

It doesn't matter who it was kidnapped Sarah when evaluating the absence of struggle, screaming etc. Whoever took her did it in a way that left very little evidence. I just happen to believe it was Dennis and he injected her with something from his animal veterinary bag to drug her helpless and likely unconscious. He left one empty syringe on his car seat and was terrifed this would tie him together to Sarah when she was found. This is why he lied to everyone about WHY he was in the woods, and in particular why he lied to at least four police officers telling them he didn't have his car keys, hid his keys in a patrol car and directed officers at every chance away from where his truck was actually parked.

12. Dennis himself. He has no history of violence or perverted child fantasies or ANYTHING. He is kind and polite. All the shrinks and therapists said the same thing: He is totally normal man with "normal way of thinking". Even FBI's special agents who was shown photos of the crime told that this was done by someone who had done it before, who was a loner and a person you'd feel uncomfortable being around with..someone you'd say to your kids to stay away from. Dennis was a married man, enjoying his life in his farm with his wife, planning on having kids of his own...

Everyone has a secret life. I think Dennis had one. Dennis is a smart man. He's convinced you. He fails to convince me. His own testimony leaks deception at every turn to me. He says he was too high to remember anything at all about his entire afternoon but that he was absolutely so clear in his mind that he remembers every fine detail of his time after he exited the woods and met up with the Buttricks (now deceased.) He lied to them, he lied to the officers who he first meets up with, and he lies to the investigators even after they tell him why they are questioning him. He lied and lied and lied. But now he's not lying? 

He says "You think I did this?", when he is made aware that Sarah Cherry is missing. He admits to this response, which contains an embedded confession- a trained officer would take note of this and recall it clearly. Yet, despite being aware he is a suspect in a horrifying felony, he continues to lie even after this. SO WHY LIE? He needs police to accept he's also a victim, someone is framing him, his car's been broken into, it couldn't have been him. SO WHY LIE? He's got no drugs left to be charged with a drug crime and he claims to not be stoned. SO WHY LIE? I can't get past this. 

You have to ask yourself: "Why did Dennis hide his truck keys in the cruiser if what he wanted most of all was to find his truck and get out of there?"

The thing that bugs me the most in this case is in fact that it has turned into a "oh yea yea, this NICE-LOOKING, EVERYONE'S FAVORITE, KIND man must be innocent huh?..he couldn't have done it because no one expects a guy who looks like that to be a killer!" ..i mean what has his looks got to do with anything!? I'm afraid he will never get a FAIR trial, because of things like that. What if he was fat and ugly with bad teeth? A loner? That would have been bad too. It's like "He is ugly and a loner..GUILTY!" or "He is kind and friendly and rather good looking...GUILTY!!!" 

Someone once said to me that 90% of homicides..the person who is the murderer is a family member..so is there, inside Sarah's family, behind those grieving faces a murderer? I know this is a mean thing to say, but if they are allowed to say that because Dennis is kind and good looking he is the murderer then others are allowed to say, that someone inside Sarah's family could be the real killer.

His looks have nothing to do with it *except* they could have been what charmed Sarah Cherry into opening the door for him. This was key to Ted Bundy's success as a serial killer of young women.

13. The fact that Dennis has always said he is innocent. It's not like he waited for 20 years and then suddenly decided to scream "i didn't do it!" He has also always wanted to test the DNA, RIGHT FROM THE START..would a guilty person want that? I mean if he was guilty he wouldn't want to take the risk that the DNA would suddenly show something that would be damaging to him!

Granted, an innocent person would want DNA to be tested, but so would a man who drugged his victim, immobilized her before she regained consciousness and can then say "I don't recall being scratched" and finally, who's attorney had possession of the fingernail evidence for a good period of time.

14. The fact that he is now demanding another type of DNA testing done..from the items that were located in the crime scene.

It's on the same biological sample though, as I understand it, the same one who's chain of custody has been compromised.

15. All the hiding and lying the police and the prosecutor have done. Changing Dennis' words into something he has never said..destroying evidence (the rape kit and the hair for example) weeks after Dennis had appealed and asked for a new trial etc etc.

Police misconduct does not prove innocence or guilt, only that they were overzealous in their desire to suspect, investigate and nail the crime on him. This shameful behavior does mean he should be given a new trial. They may have been correct in their assumption of Dennis guilt but that will never justify shenanigans that result in a life sentence.

That's about it. For now. :o)

Thanks Misty, you make excellent points and I appreciate the debate. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

I keep trying to craft an alternative narrative which ties all the pieces together but only contains Dennis as a tragically framed victim and not a perpetrator. I just can't do it.

Look at the "framing of Dennis" how elaborate and unlikely it is. The risks of getting caught were much higher than to just abduct her, assault her and then hide the body where she is never found again. 

The "real perp" comes across Dennis truck hidden in the woods. It's locked, but he finds a way to get into it. Committing his first two crimes, B&E and theft, without leaving evidence, no fingerprints, hair DNA etc of the "real perp" is found in the vehicle. 

He searches the truck and finds just what he needs, ropes to bind a victim, bandannas to gag a victim and papers with Dennis name. This required a thorough search of the truck and the assumption that the papers found would correctly identify the owner of the truck. 

The Perp locks the truck again, and then proceeds three miles away to kidnap Sarah and then, without leaving any evidence of struggle. He deliberately leaves the incriminating notebook and drives Sarah presumably, kicking and screaming back to where Dennis truck is parked. He drags Sarah 1/4 mile into the woods, binds her, tortures her and sexually abuses her for extended hours before finally killing her and attempting to bury her remains.

How could the perp luck onto exactly the vehicle he required to both frame the owner and to obtain the tools of bondage he required. So convenient that the driver is gone for extended hours allowing the perp to extract just the incriminating evidence necessary to frame the truck owner. The elaborate premeditation and scheming is exceptional. The actual crimes perpetrated against Sarah were not.

Why did no one hear Sarah? How did the killer get her to leave the babysitting home?

How did the perp subdue her while driving?

Where did he park his car during the hours he assaulted her? Why was he apparently not worried it would be noticed? Did he walk with his barefoot victim? Carry her, while still alive and struggling, through the deep brush for a mile or more, with his car hidden far away? Why?

How did he know Dennis wouldn't stumble across him and discover him torturing Sarah as he returned to his truck?

How did he know Dennis would be parked there long enough for it to be possible for him to be framed? If Dennis returned to his truck and ended up with an alibi before the kidnapping was complete the plot would have failed.

How did he know Dennis would not return to his truck and recognize it had been broken into, report it immediately, bringing law enforcement to the area, even before the kidnapping was complete or during any of the many long hours where Sarah was still being abused and he could be caught in the act?

How could it have been so convenient that Dennis truck just happened to have the bondage items he needed for his plan?

Why bring Sarah back to 1/4 mile from Dennis truck? Why bother? It doesn't aid the frame-up. It only creates huge additional risk. 50 feet from Dennis truck, he could leave the dead body, that's pretty incriminating. But buried 1/4 mile away? It's such a mixed message. "I hope they pin this on you Dennis, AND I hope they never find her body."

It is so painfully perfect for the "real perp's" plan that Dennis became lost in the woods that day and helped participate in his own frame-up. It's just too perfect. 

"Yes. That's one of the reasons why I started moving around because we had lost the light."

Opinion: Dennis Dechaine and the murder of Sarah Cherry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My opinion, Dennis Dechaine's trial wasn't fair. There is a lot of evidence that his supposed confession was highly contrived by law enforcement and even falsified. Important factual evidence was withheld from the defense by prosecution. There is compelling evidence from the coroner's TOD that he was in a police cruiser when they claim Sarah died, making it appear impossible that he was the perpetrator. The DNA evidence that remains should be examined, and he should be given a new trial because of the manipulation he was subjected to.

But I still believe he is lying and is likely right where he belongs. The uncontested aspects of the circumstantial case are so strong, and his testimony so weak. If someone conspired against him, the who/how/why is so close to impossibility that the circumstantial aspects tend to convince me there is no other explanation. It would have been difficult as an investigator not to have tunnel vision on this one. 

There is hardly an avenue of circumstantial evidence that doesn't lead right to Dennis 's doorstep. Even were it true that he had said not one of the quotes attributed to him by law enforcement - which so perfectly proclaim his guilt - I would still feel certain of his deceitfulness simply from the evidence I read in his testimony. He had eight months to prepare and he still couldn't get it right. In intricate detail or as a whole from a distance, his story just does not make sense to me.

His defense, his "story" as he calls it, is that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and brutal child-killer rapist torturers took the time to carefully frame him after burying their tiny victim. Or was it before burying their tiny victim?

Here's the story. At around noon Dennis decides he doesn't want to work any more that day.  Dennis gets in his truck and takes with him a soda bottle filled with water, three syringes, one of them made of metal, and a single dose of "street speed" in a film can. No fishing gear, nothing else it seems. According to the story this planned session of intravenous drug abuse is only the second dose he will have ever taken, and only the third time he had ever injected drugs.

Now, Dennis drives randomly around the countryside and "frequently" stops and walks up lumbering roads just to see where they go. He's never done this before, but today is the day. On three of these wanderings he stops in a serene oasis and injects himself with another dose of his watered down speed. Using the same syringe each time. And leaving no mark as he injected himself expertly. Except the third time where instead of an intravenous injection he gave himself a subcutaneous injection causing a large bruise. But still not leaving an injection mark because he did it expertly. 

He gets progressively more high until after rising from under the serene tree cradling him for speed trip number three -he realizes that he doesn't know which way to go back to his truck. Now he begins wandering in earnest, by some estimates for 8 hours he wanders until he is found at twilight. During his wanderings he remembers nothing of "significance" and this is why he has no memory of this time, simply because there are no signposts of events during this time to help him form specific memories. But drugs certainly did not affect his memory. No, not at all. He had "heightened awareness" and a razor sharp recollection of events from the moment he exited the woods. 

Meanwhile, Dennis 's truck is being robbed. Our "real killers" are stealing rope, a scarf and documents with his name on them from his truck. They lock his unlocked truck as they leave with exactly what they need to imprison their victim and to frame the truck owner. They drive to the Henkel home and soundlessly abduct the young babysitter, and conivingly leave the incriminating documents in the circular driveway. They return to the location of our wandering Dennis and his truck, taking their young victim to a spot only yards from Dennis's remotely parked truck and begin their cruel work. They don't apparently worry that Dennis himself might return at any moment to his truck  and discover them, or hear the girl or see the tracks, or discover the missing items from his truck. Somehow they seem to sense that he will be lost for many hours and that he will will not return to discover them -as Sarah Cherry's last hours were not short.

When they leave her, they bury her , but they leave her face exposed, so it must have been night time not twilight for them to have made this mistake, and by then Dennis was already in the back of a police cruiser. He has an aluminum clad alibi.  Dennis has emerged from the woods with a scratch he can't recall, a bruise caused by a pinch on the job of his farm, and a muddy hand print on his shoulder caused by him slapping a mosquito. He locates a senior couple who offer to help him find his truck and drive him all over searching fruitlessly. He lies to them about his reason for being lost in the woods and his place of residence because he did not want them to associate him with being a drug user as he suspected they could tell that he was high.

While searching, they encounter a police cruiser and Dennis is transferred to them to continue the search for his truck. That is until he tells them his name and they realize that he possesses the same name as on the documents found in Sarah's driveway. He is shown the receipt and notebook told where they were found, and ultimately told that a girl is missing and he realizes that he must be a suspect.

Now he begins to lie in earnest to the interrogating detectives. He lies about his day, his intentions in the woods, why he was there, where he got lost, why he got lost, where he was before he got lost, where his keys were, how he got injured, all because he didn't want the officer to discover he was using drugs that day. As soon as Sarah returned from wherever she was with her boyfriend he would be vindicated, and meanwhile, the risk that his wife would leave him because of his illicit drug use was more prescient and  fearsome than an enraged police detective screaming at him about whether he "often stopped to piss in other people's driveways? Especially driveways where innocent children have suddenly gone missing?"

He is eventually arrested and as a final insult on injury, in a rush to judgement due to the circumstantial evidence, the police force, en masse, from patrol officers, detectives, through to prison guards, all now conspired to put words in his mouth and together have fabricated a web of false statements and invented declarations of guilt and culpability. This is the story.

Dennis has a "story telling word." His version of "Once upon a time."  His magic word is "basically"  The word "basically" pops up in his statement like clockwork at every point where his narrative conflicts with the prosecutions reconstruction. It doesn't appear elsewhere. Only at these magic moments. Clockwork.

He doesn't remember, he doesn't remember, he doesn't remember, unless the prosecutor says "So drugs caused you to have memory lapse?" - then it's no, no, no I remember everything clearly. And he really does have very clear recollections. Surprisingly clear for someone supposedly so high that he has no specific recollections of the entire time he was in the woods, only yards away from the burial place and during  the same period of time as Sarah Cherry's rape, torture and murder. He's simultaneously victim to the worst drug trip of his life, getting lost in the woods, losing his truck, wandering for hours and all while simultaneously some evil.. someone.. was framing him for the gruesome murder of a missing pre-teen girl. Lousy bad luck.

He lied to the first people he ran into after coming out of the woods, not about who he was, but instead about what he was doing in the woods. This doesn't make sense. If he didn't want them to know HE was doing drugs, why admit who he was, and then lie about what he was doing. Why say fishing when you have no gear? Why was what he was doing in the woods sensitive instead of his identity if, as he said he didn't want them to know HE was a drug user? 

He is detained in a police car. He is interrogated. He lies and lies and lies again. Why he was there, how long he had been there, what he had been doing all day, who he spoke to, where he went, his home, the location of his keys, the cause of his bruises and scratches. So many lies! ALl admitted to in his testimony. And all this because he claims he was worried the police would know he was high. 

But wait. He had used all his drugs.    He's used up his one and only dose of speed, he can't even be charged with possession. He's not driving. What crime could they charge him with? Possession of the syringe?  It's not illegal and as a farmer he has every reason to possess one. Yet suddenly  he's no longer interested in finding his truck because of the syringe laying on his car seat and it could mean someone could .. gasp.. call him a  "drug user" and point their fingers. 

In fact, now he was so afraid they would discover that he was high that he simply stopped looking for his truck and sat meekly in the back of the police cruiser for eight hours. He doesn't want them to find the truck. 

He's inordinately aware of fine details of his detention and interrogation he is not making sense at all as to his reasoning about why he would be lying. Most particularly once he is made aware that a girl is missing and he is suspected. Why continue to lie? I'm afraid the only reason I can come to is guilty knowledge that his truck is parked meters from where the missing girl lies dead and buried.


Another striking moment in his testimony happens for me when he doesn't recall "having been scratched." Not "getting scratched" or "receiving a scratch" but " I don't recall having been scratched." To be scratched requires someone to do the scratching, not something. Listen to these  two: "I do not  recall having been scratched by a branch." vs "I do not recall having been scratched by her." What I hear is him recreating the assault in his mind's eye and saying truthfully he did not recall her scratching him. This leaped out at me.
 
The keys, oh the keys. He took his keys. He admits he never takes them, usually leaving the truck unlocked. He says that it was "probably" because he worried his truck could be stolen in a remote area. Most people worry the opposite. Congested, urban = lock your car and take your keys. Remote, isolated dirt road = nothing to worry about. But this one time he takes his keys. Did he need to prevent a companion from getting back in the truck?

When he is in the police cruiser and confronted with the notebook and receipt, even his testimony stumbles over the difficult questions. It appears he immediately recognizes the items and simultaneously understands the implication of them too - before being told where they were found. It is at this point that once left alone he attempts to hide his car keys under the front seat of the cruiser - according to him to avoid another confrontation with Officer Reed because he had already claimed the keys were left in the truck and he didn't wish to be caught in a mistake. Why would this matter at this moment? Because to claim to have been framed, to claim that the rope and the scarf and the notebook and the receipt had all been taken from his truck by the "real" perpetrator he can't be in possession of his keys while his truck doors are still locked tight. 


It really appears he did not expect to leave incriminating evidence with his own name on it in the driveway where the abduction took place, nor did he expect to lose his truck after walking in the woods. His efforts at trial are to explain away his presence at the crime scene with drug use, his vagueness of memory on drug use, and the strong circumstantial connection with the crime as conspiracy. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito come to mind.

I don't think he was high. Not one officer reports they believed he was. If he had intravenous drugs perhaps they were used to make sure that he couldn't have been scratched by the little victim. I think he was terrified that more than just a tampon box would be found in his truck. More than just a sealed syringe in paper. Then, while spying on his captors using their own police radio in the cruiser - he realizes that the locked truck door was his only obstacle to a story of car theft, burglary and meticulous and nefarious intricacies performed by the "real killers" who fearlessly and maliciously returned to the location of their child-abduction only to leave incriminating evidence framing Dennis Dechaine for their horrific crime. Just one locked door and the keys in his pocket.

Direct Testimony of Dennis Dechaine in the murder of Sarah Cherry

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Testimony extracts are taken from http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/Vol-6-3-89.pdf

My opinion and summarization of Dennis Dechaine's testimony is here : http://equinox-ecliptic.blogspot.com/2012/06/opinion-dennis-dechaine-and-murder-of_06.html


Page 136

Q    Mr. Dechaine, did you kidnap and murder Sarah Cherry?
A    No, I did not

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pages 136-155 He is questioned about his life, marriage and business history. He is very direct, specific and unwavering in his answers.

Suddenly on page 156 he is questioned about his drug use and his answers change dramatically.


Q    What I want to do is have you discuss for the jury when you first got involved in recreational use of drugs.
Do you recall when that first was?
A    Yes, I would say high school.
Q    What year in high school?
A    Probably my sophomore year.
Q    What did that consist of?
A    Smoking marijuana.
Q    Do you recall your first experience with marijuana?
A    I guess I can say I did, yes.

Q    With reference to cocaine use, did your use of coke increase over a period of time?
A    No, From the first time?
Q    Yes.
A    Yes, I would have to say it increased in that I did it again.
Q    How long after your first use did you use it again, approximately?
A    It was years, I would be guessing as to exactly when.
Q    A substantial time away?
A    Yes. Maybe a year or two or more.
Q    In the interim did you still use marijuana occasionally?
A    Yes.
Q    Did you use any other drugs intravenously?
A    No. I never did. Not at that time.

On page 10 he claims to only have ever used amphetamines once before.. and the second time he used them was on the day of the murder, July 6th, 1988.

On page 162:

Q    When you were at Madawaska was that an intravenous experience?
A    Yes. And one more time after that where I had been given some, and Nancy, and her discovering me using it at our home.
Q    Were there any other times that you used anything intravenous?
A    No.
Q    Other than the times you described how often have you used cocaine other than those three or four times?
A    I believe I snorted on more than one occasion. Probably another two or three times.
Q    Were those large quantities or small quantities?
A    Small quantities. Small quantities,

Page 164 - 165

He buys the one dose of speed in a bathroom in Boston

Q    What happened?
A    Nancy and I had some mutual friends, a young couple, I believe they are our age, that lived in 'Basx. And they were soon to leave for Bangladesh. We went down to Boston to basically see them off. And we spent the weekend there. One of the days that we were with them we visited the science museum in Boston, and in the lavatory of that museum I observed a transaction and made my own purchase as a result of that.
Q    Briefly explain what you saw. How did the transaction come about?
A    Well, what I was looking at was money being exchanged for something. And the fellow taking the money caught my eye and he said basically what the hell are you looking at. And I said nothing. I'm just curious. He asked me if I was interested. I said what he was selling.

Q    What did you do?
A    He told me he was selling speed and I purchased some from him.
Q    Was that preplanned?
A    Absolutely not, no.
Q    What were you told about the drug that you purchased?
A    That it was street speed. At that time I really didn't know what that meant.
Q    What did you do with that once you had that, once you obtained it?
A    I brought it - basically I just left it in in my pocket.And after our weekend in Boston we drove home back to the farm, at which time I put it in the barn. I believe this was probably early June. I'm not exactly sure of the date.
Q    And between the time in early June when you purchased it and the time later on when you were to use it, did you take it out and look at it and play with it?
A    No, I didn't.
Q    Did you know in the back of the mind it was there and did you think about it?
A    I knew it was there, but I didn't give it that much thought.I think I was reluctantly admitting to myself that was really an irresponsible thing to have done, and I was basically ignoring it.

Page 174

On July 6th, 1988 his workday involves particularly strenuous work fixing an error in the structure of a greenhouse he is building. He is not eager to do it.

A    So I went back into the barn. It was at that time that I recalled the speed being hidden there, and I took it out and I said this would be perfect day to do this; basically an extension of my northern Maine vacation.
Q    Had you planned earlier that day or thought about that day about doing the drugs?
A    I'm not sure, If I did, it certainly wasn't possessed in my mind.
Q    When you went out to the barn you originally went out there to get your shovels?
A    Yes. To do a few things. Get my shovels and check things out. We have a milk goat that I like to visit often.
Q    And once you procured the drug, once you grabbed a hold of it somewhere in the barn what did you do next?
A    I just put it in my pocket. I went back into the house and I filled an empty soda bottle with tap water and I walked out to my truck.
Q    Did you have any syringes with you?
A    Yes.
Q    Where did you get them?
A    From the same place in the barn. There is a green bin the back of the barn where the animals are housed that holds all of their medications, syringes and that's where I put the speed, That's where the syringes were.

He gets in his truck, drives to a spot his wife had mentioned was a good location to view wildfowl and takes 1/3 of the drug by injection. He claims to have not felt much effect, but cannot remember clearly how he got to the second location. He does recall where he was, just not how he got there. He goes into the woods in location #2 and injects a second 1/3 of the drug and now feels what he describes as a "heightened awareness"

He gets back into his truck, and now he claims he does not know where he went or what route he took getting there. He drives aimlessly up and down roads he claims to have never driven on before, just exploring in his truck on dirt roads. "Yes, And stopped frequently. And I don't know if you can say frequently, but I stopped a few times and walked on side roads just to see where they went."

At one of this random stops is where he claims to have lost his truck. The attorney asks him "What happened next?" His response: "Well, I guess after doing some wondering, basically I continued the pattern until I tried to get back to my truck from one of the walks I had taken and couldn't find it."

Page 182

Q    And after you had been in the woods walking around - how long had you been walking around, do you know?
A    I guess I walked for 15, 20 minute, maybe less. And I sat down for a while. I had come to a deciduous grove of trees that were particularly nice, and sat down to rest for a few minutes. I had done a lot of walking that day.

He injects the final third of his dose of speed in this area. He throws away the syringe and other paraphernalia. It is not found. By his statement he is supposed to be completely alone and lost.

Page 183

Q    How long did you walk around for before, until you realized that you didn't know where your truck was located?
A    Well, what I did was after having sat down for quite sometime I got up and walked back to my truck. And it was at that point that I realized after walking for a short period of time that I didn't recognize anything. It didn't seem like I was going in the right direction. We were beginning to lose light at that time.
Q    So this is getting dark, towards..
A    Yes. That's one of the reasons why I started moving around because we had lost the light.

Q    Was there any period you have no memory of?
A    I can safely say there are periods of time where my memory is probably not as sharp as it could have been, but I think that's because I was doing nothing of any significance to have to cause me to have reference points,
Q    Do you have a period in that space that is just a void, that you don't have any recollection of?
A    No.


His truck is ultimately found a football's field distance from the corpse of Sarah Cherry. He wanders until he is found 8 hours later and is immediately arrested because they were already looking for him because a notebook and a receipt from his truck were found in the driveway of the home where the victim was babysitting.

He emerges from the woods, still stoned and find a home where he explains he has lost his truck, but lies to the Buttricks saying he was fishing, being concerned, he claims, that they would detect that he was high if he just said he went for a walk. His clothing is not bloody, he has a few scratches and bruises and a hand print on his shoulder. Mr Buttrick drives him around to try and find his truck.

Page 192

A    Buttrick honked his horn, flashed his lights braked, and a police officer stopped and we backed up and met.
Q    At that time when you saw the police vehicle what was your attitude about the police vehicle?
A    I said fine. Good, They can help me find my truck.
Q    Were you scared of them?
A    Well, from the standpoint that I had been doing something illegal that day I was a little worried.
Q    Was your worry more than just a little?
A    I wouldn't say a great deal. Not at that time.

The officers put him in the back seat, ask his name, meet up with detectives, and instead of taking him to look for his truck begin to question him about the receipt and the notebook found.

Page 194- 195

A    After a short period of time Mr. Westrum exited the car and that's when Detective Reed began asking me some very pointed questions that I had a difficult time dealing with.
Q    Let's talk about that, What kind of questions was Deputy Reed asking you that you had a hard time dealing with?
A    I can't remember exactly. I can't remember if he had already shown me my notebook and the receipt.
Q    Do you remember being shown at some point the notebook and the receipt?
A    Yes,
Q    Is that the first thing that you remember in reference to Deputy Reed asking you questions of consequence?
A    I can't be certain.
Q    At some point you recall Deputy Reed asking you questions about the notebook?
A    Yes, He handed it over to me and he said: do you recognize these items?
Q    What did you say when he asked you if you recognized those items?
A    I looked at the receipt and I told him it was an autobody receipt. And I looked at the notebook and I found a Coastal Savings Bank stamp in it, and I said these are my items. Then he asked me if they would have been in my truck.
Q    What did you say to the question of whether or not they would have been in your truck?
A    I said I suspected that the receipt had been in my truck. But I was confused about why that notebook would have been in there. It was obviously a greenhouse notebook type of thing that we scratch notes in and keep by the cash register.
Q    When was the last time you saw that particular notebook?
A    I would be guessing,
Q    Was that notebook in your car on July 6th, 1988?
A    I couldn't say with any certainty.

He is interrogated aggressively in the police cruiser.

Upon being informed of the true nature of the  police inquiry, 

Dechaine blurted, “Oh my God, you think I did that?”
  (Westrum, transcript pages 354-392.)

Page 197

A    Finally he asked me a few more questions. Things had started - I really started getting scared of that man because every time I opened my mouth he twisted everything I said around and threw it back at me and in a form that I had never uttered. Finally I said what this all about? He said your notebook and paper were found in the driveway where a girl, we have a report that a girl is missing. That's what he said.
Q    What did you say when he told you that?
A    I told him that I had no idea what any of this was about , I told him I wasn't involved in this.
Q    Did there come a point when you said to him to the effect "you think I did this?"
A    I may have as a retort, yes.
Q    Was that spontaneous on your part or was it after questioning and his instructing you as to the finding of the notebook and the missing girl?
A    It would have been in response to his aggressiveness at that time.

Page 200

Q    What was your understanding as to why you were being questioned at that point?
A    Well, definitely in connection with the missing girl. One more thing did happen that I recall while we were, while I was being interviewed by Officer Reed, When he asked me where my truck was I responded I didn't know. He asked me if I had left the keys in it. I told him, yes,I had.
Q    Why did you tell him that?
A    Because I believed that I had left the keys in the truck

Page 201

Q    Excuse me. Later on you realized that was not the case?
A    That's correct.
Q    What did you try to do with the keys?
A    At that time I believe that was before they came in with the Miranda rights form.
Q    Prior to the form we just talked about?
A    Yes.
Q    What happened then?
A    I panicked.
Q    Why did you panic?
A    I did not want to have another go around with Officer Reed.
Q    So what did you do?
A    I took the keys out of my pocket and threw them under the front seat.
Q    What were you thinking at that time?
A    Just that I did not want to have to deal with Officer Reed again,
Q    Did you think that hiding your keys would make him go away?
A    I thought that hiding my keys would avoid another confrontation.

Page 210

Q    Did you tell him about your drug use at that time?
A    No. Well, I wasn't - I did not want to tell the police officer that I had been involved in illegal drug use.
Q    Did he ask you about the bruise on your arm?
A    Yes.
Q    What did you tell him that was?
A    I told him that was a pinch I received while doing some work in the barn or something of that sort.
Q    What happened next?
A    The conversation continued, I guess.
Q    This was where?
A    We are still in the vehicle.
Q    Go ahead.
A    He asked me about my activities that day. I responded basically the same way I had to Deputy Reed; that I had been wondering the back roads. I told him I had been looking for fishing holes.That was the excuse I had given them, that I had been fishing,And I basically told them I lost my truck when I became disoriented in the woods and had been picked up by the Buttricks and so forth.
Q    What was your concern in not letting him know about your drug use at that time?
A    I didn't want him to know. That's the extent of it.

Page 211-212

Q    At some point did you say to Detective Hendsbee that somebody was trying to set you up?
A    Yes. I believe I did. He asked me how - that maybe was with Officer Reed. I did tell somebody that night. He said if somebody set you up and I didn't have anything to do with the abduction of this girl how did the notebook and the receipt get in her driveway? I had no response to that except somebody placed them there.

Page 213

Q    At any point did you mention to you anything beyond abduction?
A    No.
Q    Did you have any inclination beyond abduction at that point?
A    At that point I told Detective H she was probably with somebody, Just gone somewhere, boyfriend or what have you, I wasn't as concerned as they were.

Page 214-215

Q    Turning your attention to State's Exhibit Number 21. What are those scratches?
A    Except for the small mark which would be my lower right-hand side, I honestly don't believe that there are any scratches on my back. These don't look like scratches to me,and I don't recall having been scratched. Its possible that I might have rubbed across a tree and received light marks. But they certainly aren't scratches.
Q    Did anybody on July 6th scratch you on your back with their hands?
A    No, sir.

Direct testimony begins again in this document: http://www.trialanderrordennis.org/pdfs/Vol-7-3-89.pdf

Page 11

A    I had been hoping all along that Sarah Cherry would be found or she would return home by herself and that everything would be basically taken care of. And when I found out that she had been found in the woods that was very upsetting to me.
Q    What was your understanding of what was going to happen to you as a result of that news?
A    I had been told I was the suspect in the case. I had not been told that there were any others, so I expected that the police would be coming to the farm

Page 15

Q    Was there a knife in the truck that you can recall?
A    I don't recall a knife being in the truck.
Q    Would it have been unusual for one to have been found in the truck?
A    No. Especially if it was some -- I don't know where it would have been, but it's possible.

Dechaine stated to officers on Friday, 7/8/88, after the  body was found, 

“I can't believe I could do such a thing . . . it
must have been somebody else inside of me . . . I can't believe

I could do that.” 
(Hendsbee, transcript pages 793-826)

In an extremely emotional scene, Dechaine allegedly made the following statements to Detective Westrum:

“Oh my God, it should never have happened . . . Why did I do this? . . . 

I went home and told my wife that I did something bad and she just 

laughed at me . . . I told  her I wouldn't kill myself; besides,
that's the easy way out . . . [P]lease believe me, something inside 

must have  made me do that . . . Why would I do this? . . . I didn't 

think it actually happened until I saw her face on the news; then 
it all came back to me. I remembered it . . .  Why did I kill her? . . . 

What punishment could they ever give me that would equal what I've

done? . . . I feel so bad for her. My God, how must her mother and 
father feel? It was something inside that must have made me do that . . . 

How can I live with myself again? . . . I wish I had never gone on 

that road that day. Why couldn't my  truck have broken down instead? . . . 

I don't think my  wife believes me. . . Why did I let this happen?
  (Westrum transcript pages 826-842)

Page 26-27

Q    During the period when you were having the conversation with Detective Westrum, what else did you talk about?
A    just I couldn't believe this was happening. I told him I was shocked and horrified by the whole thing. That a mistake had been made.
Q    Did you ever say I don't know whatever made me do that?
A    I told him that I don't know why this was happening.
Q    Did you ever say I don't know whatever made me do that?
A    No, I did not,
Q    Did you say I can't believe it happened?
A    I may have said that in reference to my arrest.
Q    Did you say: Oh my God, why did I do this?
A    No, I don't recall saying that.
Q    What were you saying at the time, do you recall?
A    Yes. I was telling him that I couldn't believe that this was happening to me. I told him I was really worried about my family. Basically I was just very upset and worried.
Q    Did you ever say to Detective Westrum that you went home and told your wife that you had done something bad and.. she laughed at you?
A    Of course not.
Q    Did you say that I told my wife I wouldn't kill myself because that's the easy way out?
A    No.
Q    Did you smoke cigarettes in there?
A    He offered me some, yes.
Q    Did you smoke?
A    Yes.
Q    Did you say to the officer: Mark, please believe; something inside must have made me do that?
A    No, I never said that.
Q    Did you say: Why would I do this.
A    I may have said, you know, I may have asked him why he believed that I would have done something like this.
Q    What was was your level of anxiety and worry about concerned during this period of discussion?
A    Probably as high as it had ever been in my life.
Q    Did you say to the detective: I didn't think that it actually happened until I saw her face in the news; then it all came back. I remember it.
A    No. On the contrary.
Q    What happened when you saw the picture?
A    When I saw her on the news. I told my wife that I had never before seen that child.

Page 28

Q    Other than those impressions from photographs that you have seen, do you have any impression in your mind as to her?
A    Absolutely none.
Q    Is that because you can't remember?
A    No. Because I had never seen her.
Q    Did you further say to Detective Westrum: I can't believe I did it?
A    I don't think I would have said that, no.
Q    During the period of time that you were being questioned did you believe that you did do it?
A    No.

This following statement refers to the testimony of several prison guards who claim he said the following:

Dechaine stated to jail guards, “You people need to know that I'm 

the one who murdered that girl, and may want to put me in isolation.” 

( Maxcy, transcript pages 850-868;
  Dermody, transcript pages 869-873.)

Page 32

A    I told them that I'm the an accused of the murder or Sarah Cherry.
Q    Did you tell them anything else?
A    That's about it.
Q    Did you ask to be put in isolation?
A    I asked to be placed accordingly. I may have said isolation.
Q    Did you know the term isolation at the time?
A    I don't believe I would have,
Q    Did you say to them you people need to know that I'm the one who murdered that girl and you may want to put me in isolation?
A    I really don't believe I could have said that, If I did it was certainly a regrettable error of semantics. To the best of my recollection I certainly thought nothing of it. I told them I was the one accused of murdering Sarah Cherry. They told me you don't have to worry; we'll be putting you in the holding cell.

Page 37

Q    When you were questioned by the police on the night of July 6th you had the keys in your position, did you not?
A    Yes.
Q    These keys?
A    Yes.
Q    Is that unusual to have your keys?
A    Well, not unusual but it was unlikely I would have had them with me. I don't know why I took them out of the ignition. Probably because I was in a remote area and I was afraid it would be an easy thing to steal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~