Bookmark & share: 
Welcome to reader comments forum, which is offered as
a "public square" for our audience. We view this space as our readers'
section of the Web site, separate from our journalistic offerings.
We hope you will use the forum to advance public dialogue and community
discourse. As such, we ask that participants refrain from personal
attacks and offensive comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate or
offensive, you can bring it to our attention by clicking on the 'report
abuse' link by the comment. It will be reviewed by online staff.
Please understand that 1) a comment is not "inappropriate" solely
because you disagree with its author; and 2) there may be a delay while
the comment is being reviewed.
Please review our Reader Comment Guidelines.
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
Tough2Name
of Brunswick, ME
Sep 14, 2008 4:00 PM
I'm a woman - could hardly be James Moore. Thank you for the compliment though. Everything I mentioned I learned by reading - a lot of information. James Moore suggested that people check facts for themselves, which I did. And he's right on.report abuseclaire clayton
of poland, ME
Sep 1, 2008 7:22 PM
Tough2name.....AKA James Moore.....Please!!!report abuseTough2Name
of Brunswick, ME
Fingerprints at the home where Sarah was taken from. Not Sarah's, not Dennis' or anyone else in the family. Missing.
Tire tracks. Consistant is not a match. Unless a match, pretty worthless, as too many tires with same tread.
Hand print on Dennis back - size of a man's hand. During the trial it shrank. An official stated in a TV segment that Dennis had two small handprints on the back of his shoulders. Absolutely nothing of this in the transcripts.(The visual he created made me physically ill.) Any handprint from a victim would have been on the front, pushing someone away, not on the back side of the shoulders as if holding on.
Newspaper report stating official said Dennis hosed himself off. No where in the transcripts is such a thing mentioned.
A few items taken from a truck (whether locked or unlocked, it had an opened window) could have easily been used to frame Dennis.
And evidence that is too obvious often times it planted - for obvious reasons.
Appeals are not retrials. The former checks procedure, the latter evidence. Dennis has not had a retrial.
Maine's former DNA law required not only DNA showing your innocence but also showing it came from the perpetrator. (Talk about doing the state's work for it) Only one other state had such an unjust law.
Rigor mortis process - would have been very short in Sarah's case, due to temperature (90's), her age and her physical/mental stress at time of death. She was on the ground in the woods mostly covered with leaves and twigs, so please do not mention the misinformation (lie) of a shallow grave. It is very likely that Dennis was in custody when Sarah was killed.
And to think they didn't bother knocking on the door of the trailer that had barefoot footprints leading up to it. That knowledge still makes me cringe.
Please feel free to check everything I've said.report abuse
Aug 31, 2008 1:13 PM
Evidence on Sarah's body when it was found - hair and fiber. Not her's, not Dennis'. State incinerated it.
Fingerprints at the home where Sarah was taken from. Not Sarah's, not Dennis' or anyone else in the family. Missing.
Tire tracks. Consistant is not a match. Unless a match, pretty worthless, as too many tires with same tread.
Hand print on Dennis back - size of a man's hand. During the trial it shrank. An official stated in a TV segment that Dennis had two small handprints on the back of his shoulders. Absolutely nothing of this in the transcripts.(The visual he created made me physically ill.) Any handprint from a victim would have been on the front, pushing someone away, not on the back side of the shoulders as if holding on.
Newspaper report stating official said Dennis hosed himself off. No where in the transcripts is such a thing mentioned.
A few items taken from a truck (whether locked or unlocked, it had an opened window) could have easily been used to frame Dennis.
And evidence that is too obvious often times it planted - for obvious reasons.
Appeals are not retrials. The former checks procedure, the latter evidence. Dennis has not had a retrial.
Maine's former DNA law required not only DNA showing your innocence but also showing it came from the perpetrator. (Talk about doing the state's work for it) Only one other state had such an unjust law.
Rigor mortis process - would have been very short in Sarah's case, due to temperature (90's), her age and her physical/mental stress at time of death. She was on the ground in the woods mostly covered with leaves and twigs, so please do not mention the misinformation (lie) of a shallow grave. It is very likely that Dennis was in custody when Sarah was killed.
And to think they didn't bother knocking on the door of the trailer that had barefoot footprints leading up to it. That knowledge still makes me cringe.
Please feel free to check everything I've said.report abuse
SteveS
of Brunswick, ME
Even though today's DNA testing methods were not available at the time of the crime, other DNA testing methods were, and other forensic evidence was, too. Dechaine requested DNA testing at the original trial, and the judge denied his request. Get that? He asked to have his DNA tested to prove that he didn't do this, and he was not allowed to!
As for other forensic evidence, there was no physical evidence (hairs, etc.) on either Dechaine or his truck that indicated any contact with the victim whatsoever. The State Police certainly pulled that whole truck apart looking for any stray hair for proof. None was found. None.
And for DougRoberts: of course he had scratches on him. He was in the woods! As for reasonable doubt on the jury's part, they didn't get to hear about alternate suspects, or other evidence that would have created more than a reasonable doubt.
This case is not a "slam-dunk" either way. Anyone who thinks it is does not know enough about it.report abuse
Aug 31, 2008 11:19 AM
To "TheSaint," Evidence suitable for DNA testing was collected at the time of the crime. The state incinerated some of it. The thumbnails were in an untampered-with evidence envelope. It was not handled outside of a lab. The AG's office's explanation is even better than yours. They say that the additional DNA on the nails came from dirty nail clippers in the police lab!
Even though today's DNA testing methods were not available at the time of the crime, other DNA testing methods were, and other forensic evidence was, too. Dechaine requested DNA testing at the original trial, and the judge denied his request. Get that? He asked to have his DNA tested to prove that he didn't do this, and he was not allowed to!
As for other forensic evidence, there was no physical evidence (hairs, etc.) on either Dechaine or his truck that indicated any contact with the victim whatsoever. The State Police certainly pulled that whole truck apart looking for any stray hair for proof. None was found. None.
And for DougRoberts: of course he had scratches on him. He was in the woods! As for reasonable doubt on the jury's part, they didn't get to hear about alternate suspects, or other evidence that would have created more than a reasonable doubt.
This case is not a "slam-dunk" either way. Anyone who thinks it is does not know enough about it.report abuse
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.
