Comments on: Don't talk to strangers, remember what happened to Sarah Cherry....

Don't talk to strangers, remember what happened to Sarah Cherry....

anastasiav — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:59:12 -0800

On July 6th, 1988 Dennis Dechaine of Bowdinham, Maine came home from work (transporting frozen chickens from a slaughterhouse) and planned to work on constructing a greenhouse. However, that project hit a glitch and sometime that afternoon he decided instead to take some amphetamines and go exploring in the woods near his home. When he emerged from the woods, lost and looking for his truck, about 8:30 pm that night he was questioned by the police who were looking for a missing 12 year old girl named Sarah Cherry. Two days later, Sarah's body was found and Dennis Dechainewas charged with the girl's murder. He was convicted in March of 1989 to life in prison without parole and an entire generation of Maine girls were told to 'remember Sarah Cherry' as a caution to not talk to strangers.
The question before us now, is, of course, did he do it?

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:30:17 -0800

From the site: "At the time of Sarah Cherry's death, Dennis Dechaine was actually in the back seat of a police car in the custody of the police, wher were then investigating a case of a missing girl. At the trial, the medical examiner gave an estimate of the time of death as being 30-36 hours before the time of initial examination of her body, based upon the degree of rigor mortis in her body. The 36th hour began 5 hours AFTER the beginning of Dennis' custody with the police." !?! Any Coroners out there like to prove his innocence here? Seems he proved his loss of memory when he lost his truck.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:35:40 -0800

That's what I always do when my projects hit glitches, take some drugs and go wandering in the woods. On the initial read it looks like the timeline doesn't quite work out for Dennis to have killed the girl. And, even when I'm not quite sure how I spent every minute of a day, I'm pretty positive to have remembered kidnapping, raping and killing a little girl. I can't imagine he would have "forgotten" that either. Looks like he might have been railroaded a bit.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:48:11 -0800

That's the kind of stuff that makes me think: what sense in the death penalty ? What if he really is innocent and what if he was sentenced to death penalty instead of imprisonment ?

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 10:53:31 -0800

I spent every minute of a day, I'm pretty positive to have remembered kidnapping, raping and killing a little girl. Is there more links besides a site defending him? I'm speculating he used "no memory of what I did in the woods". Then the prosecution used it against him since he was couldn't find his truck.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:27:17 -0800

as a veteran of numerous drug enhanced woods expeditions, i am proud to say i have never once LOST MY FUCKING VEHICLE FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!!

By: garethspor

garethspor — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:34:09 -0800

Dennis Dechaine unfortunately chose to take the afternoon off from his farm work and use speed (amphetamines, to enhance his perception) in the woods in the same geographical area. Nothing wrong with that, I always have a little stash of amphetamines handy for those times when I feel that my perception might not be up to the task at hand.

By: junkbox

junkbox — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:46:52 -0800

There's an interesting letter from a jury member (albeit one who heard the evidence but did not pass judgment) here. This article outlines some of the evidence in favor of his guilt. While this news report says that new tests discovered DNA from an "unidentified male" under Cherry's fingernails.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:58:46 -0800

Isn't it time that justice prevails Isn't it time that "we got our man -case closed" being longer than a 24hour period. The police are interested in a quick closure for the community, not justice. Guess they feel that it's the courts job.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:07:10 -0800

Before the girl went missing she was babysitting, yet nothing says who saw her last. She just left the kid alone? Although a notebook and a repair estimate for Dechaine's vehicle were found in the driveway of the home where Cherry was baby-sitting, Moore believes the real killer placed them there. The authors & defendants alibi, could have done better. Dechanine could not find his vehicle because someone used it in the kidnapping and placed it back in the wrong spot...but framed him? Think the notebook and repair estimate just fell out.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:13:54 -0800

This is amazing! I never gave much thought to the man's alleged guilt- protestations of innocence are pretty commonplace among criminals. But reading this, there does seem to be a compelling case for Dechaine's being wrongly convicted. I would like to know more. It's very plausible that someone in Maine could be convicted of a murder just for being drugged up in the woods nearby. I went to high school in the next town over from anastasiav, and we're the same age, and I second the notion that Dechaine was turned into a bogeyman. The idiot rumor was that he was part of satanic cult and there were more like him waiting to murder teenage girls.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:20:42 -0800

One biased website is insufficient for drawing any conclusions whatsoever.

By: mosch

mosch — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:27:24 -0800

I honestly can't say I'm surprised. I have an acquaintance who is currently serving 9 months, incorrectly. I don't say that because I'm taking his word, I say so because I was with him at the time of his alleged crime. Unfortunately, it's not considered a solid alibi to say 'four of us were sitting around, taking turns spinning records, and smoking weed.' Maybe if we'd said we were drinking beer instead.... If he's innocent, I wish him well. If not, I congratulate him on having an effective PR machine.

By: wobh

wobh — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:59:14 -0800

hey quonsar, what about for someone else's sake?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:14:19 -0800

What is less amazing than the question of his guilt or innocence, is how people feel justified to come to conclusions about his guilt or innocence based on fragmentary, biased, second-hand contact with the evidence. (And I would argue bias exists on both sides here.)

By: Zed_Lopez

Zed_Lopez — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:50:48 -0800

Is this the story that "Dude, Where's My Car?" was based on?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 14:15:36 -0800

Whoops, should have said more amazing back there.

By: sacre_bleu

sacre_bleu — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 16:31:32 -0800

Who knows whether the website includes all pertinent information. As someone who closely watched more than a hundred criminal trials, including dozens of homicide cases, I'd have to say it's not difficult for a motivated prosecutor to convict an innocent person.

By: crush-onastick

crush-onastick — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:19:10 -0800

kirkjs: people feel justified to come to conclusions about his guilt or innocence based on fragmentary, biased, second-hand contact with the evidence that's what american juries do sorry, that's my job, and the misapplication of the reasonable doubt standard is one of my soapboxes. i'm an appellate criminal defense attorney and while the majority of my clients did actually commit the crimes of which they are convicted, a fair number did not. but more to the point, those who were convicted by juries were convicted on fragmentary, biased, secondhand information. by the idea that "well, they're trying him; they must be pretty sure he did it." believe me, they're not. he was just the first guy they picked. god knows, our system is great when it works, but it rarely works up to the level it's supposed to. every single day i am surprised by how little hard evidence it takes a jury to overcome their reasonable doubt. a reasonable doubt an honest and reasonable uncertainty in your minds about the guilt of the defendant after you have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence; it is not required that the state's evidence remove all possibility of doubt from your mind. a reasonable doubt is one that would cause you hesitation in the conduct of your own important affairs. . . . i'm pretty sure most jurors, if they were the ones about to be convicted on that evidence would suddenly find their doubt to be a whole hell of a lot more reasonable.

By: DBAPaul

DBAPaul — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 08:44:50 -0800

While I read no evidence that would convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that "DD" is guilty, I see a lack of info regarding the girls death that shows "DD" is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.

how did she die? could she have been left alive allowing her to die while "DD" was in custody?Every one of these "free-a-wronged-convict" websites makes me think "of course he's innocent", but that's the purpose of these websites (assuming it isn't just to get people to buy the book in this case).