|
To the editor:
Over the years I have found it utterly astonishing that our state has
been so tenacious in clinging to the myth that Dennis Dechaine was
fairly convicted of the murder of Sarah Cherry 20 years ago.
For some time now, we
have all known that vital evidence was concealed, ignored or not known
when Dechaine was convicted. Without any lengthy rehash — which could
not in any event improve on the superb work of James Moore, William
Bunting and many others — just focus on the undisputed fact known now,
but not at the time of trial, that the blood of a male other than
Dechaine was found under the fingernails of the victim.
Add to that the
undisputed fact that there was no DNA on or about the victim that links
Dechaine to her.
Finally, consider that
there were a number of known sexually violent offenders in the general
area, none of whose DNA has been compared to the DNA under Sarah's
nails. Dechaine has no history of any sexual deviance or violence.
It is unlikely that if
Dechaine were granted a new trial, he would ever be retried, not
because evidence has been lost, but because new exculpatory evidence
has been found.
I am a Harvard Law
School graduate who had a law practice, including trial law, for almost
40 years in Massachusetts. Shamefully, I have kept my silence on this
because the trial judge was a close friend of mine since 1963, and
Maine has an absurd practice of having the trial judge retain
jurisdiction of criminal cases even when his own actions and rulings
are under scrutiny.
Some things must
transcend friendship, and justice is certainly one of them.
To those who knew and
loved Sarah Cherry, I urge them to consider that — aside from the fact
a man was unfairly convicted for the crime — the state of Maine very
likely has the evidence it needs to find and convict the real murderer.
This is not a case of harmless error.
Weld Henshaw,
Brunswick
|