New information casts doubts on Dennis Dechaine’s role in the death of Sarah Cherry, and confirms the alternative suspect theory, an analyst hired to interpret DNA data from a 24-year-old murder case says.
Dr. Greg Hampikian, a DNA analyst from Idaho hired by Dechaine’s attorney, said Friday that his method of interpreting the results excludes Dechaine as a suspect because of the absence of a key marker present in Dechaine’s biological profile.
“It is clear from the ligature results that more than one male contributed DNA to the scarf; in fact there are at least three male contributors based on the result,” wrote Hampikian in a report to attorney Steven Peterson.
DNA lab Orchid Cellmark in Texas reported that DNA found on a scarf used to strangle 12-year-old Cherry included a mixture of samples from at least three different men. Cellmark states in its report provided by Peterson that Dechaine could not be excluded as a suspect. The testing was paid for by an organization called the Innocence Project, which works to exonerate people it believes are wrongly convicted.
Hampikian said Cellmark’s data show that a marker along Dechaine’s Y chromosome is missing from material scraped from the scarf. While Cellmark attributes that to an incomplete sample that may have degraded over the years, Hampikian said that if Dechaine’s DNA were on the evidence, the marker in question would be present.
“They used a different interpretation method of the Y chromosome than the method I would have used,” said Hampikian. “The method they use tends to include many more people as potential contributors. Even if we use their method, the alternate suspect is a much better match to the ligature that was used in murder.”
Hampikian said the DNA sample found on the scarf was of higher quality than that found on the shirt and bra, and the fact that the scarf was used in the crime elevates the significance of the DNA found on it.
But Deputy Attorney General William Stokes said Cellmark’s data proves what he has believed for decades: that Dechaine is guilty of murdering Sarah Cherry, who was 12 years old in 1988 when she was kidnapped, tortured and left dead in a wooded area of Bowdoin. Dechaine is serving a life sentence at Maine State Prison in Warren.
“According to Orchid Cellmark’s report, Dennis Dechaine is potentially present on all of this evidence,” said Stokes. “It only confirms my opinion of the case. In terms of the alternative suspect, I don’t know what that’s about.”
Peterson said Thursday that the match to an alternative suspect is not 100 percent conclusive, but that the DNA provides a close match to a person whose name has come up over the years as a possible suspect. Peterson would not identify the suspect because of a court order barring him from doing so.
Orchid Cellmark, in its report, said that in regard to DNA found on the scarf as well as a shirt and bra worn by Cherry, Dechaine cannot be excluded as a suspect.
Hampikian said the alternative suspect’s DNA was found at all of the areas where any DNA was found.
“Maybe we lost the piece from Dennis at that one [Y chromosome] site but the fact of the matter is that there’s an alternative suspect,” said Hampikian. “He’s there at every site and so are thousands of other people from Maine. Thousands of men in Maine are potential contributors to this sample, but Dennis Dechaine is not one of them.”
Peterson said he is awaiting further analysis of the evidence before calling for a conference with the court about how to proceed.
“But Deputy Attorney General William Stokes said Cellmark’s data proves what he has believed for decades: that Dechaine is guilty of murdering Sarah Cherry”
Ok so what Stokes is saying here is the testing confirms that this makes Dechaine guilty, OK fair enough….crime solved again by Stokes!
“According to Orchid Cellmark’s report, Dennis Dechaine is potentially present on all of this evidence,” said Stokes. “It only confirms my opinion of the case. In terms of the alternative suspect, I don’t know what that’s about.”
Woah wait a minute, now it is “potentially present” make up your mind, there is a difference between “Can’t exclude” and Potential, even though we really don’t have a good DNA sample that can confirm or deny who it belongs to.
I am all for throwing criminals in behind bars but, have some proof. I think Mr Stokes is concerned that a fair trial could happen here and the state could actually be wrong.
Sounds like a reasonable doubt to me.
xx
xxx
That’s very true, Elderly Gent. By the same token, the absence of Dechaine’s genetic marker on a scarf he owned says something about the utility of these tests results. The test cannot even conclusively identify the DNA of the scarf’s owner! This incomplete, degraded sample is not good evidence.
Another indication that the test is of little value: it can only narrow the number of potential contributors to the DNA on the scarf and other items to “thousands of men,” according the the DNA analyst hired by the defense. That hardly clears Dechaine, and it certainly doesn’t implicate the alternative suspect.
Of course, thousands of men did not drop their papers in the driveway of the home where Sarah Cherry was babysitting. And thousands of men did not park their trucks 400 feet from where her body was found. And thousands of men did not come wandering out of those woods that day. And thousands of men did not own rope that matched the rope binding the victim’s hands. Only one man did that.
x
xxx
The biggest problem I have with the staged crime theory, is that the papers from Deshaine’s truck were found in the driveway a couple hours after Sarah was abducted. How did the “real” killer set up Deshaine either before or during the crime and get her body near his truck some 10 or more hours after “placing” the papers…..its a pretty complicated scenario ,might make an a plot for CSI, but hard to see happening it in the real world.
Yes, Dennis Dechaine’s DNA was found on his scarf as well as Sarah Cherry’s bra. I understand it should be on his scarf. It should NEVER have been on her bra.
x
x
Nowhere does it say D.D.’s DNA was found on the bra. Read the article again
I urge people to re-watch the movie, “Enemy of the State” with Gene Hackman, et. al. to see how and to what lengths the “State” will go to frame a “suspect” in order to cover-up the real criminals …. (i.e. “investigators” collecting evidence from an unrelated location and then plant it at the “crime scene” in order to prejudice a “suspect” and to protect others who are the real criminals).
Just a suggestion…. and it’s a pretty good movie, too.
Ahhh, here we go again with Stokes trying to wiggle his way out of science. Stokes, people lie, you know that, your office has been doing it for years, but now science is telling the truth and I can see why it hurts so much. Dechaine deserves a retrial, or better yet, an exhoneration.
proud2work….Why would you be calling the District Attorney’s office a liar and say they have been doing it for years? That is stretch. You feel so strongly Dechaine should be exhonerated. OK, then perhaps you should be the one to live next door to him. I hope you don’t have a young daughter nearby. Now personally, I read that “Dr. Greg Hampikian, a DNA analyst from Idaho HIRED by Dechaine’s attorney” has found this latest evidence. Who knows, maybe science has evolved so much that the DNA of the person who made the scarf in China or whereever it was made is now evident on it?! The ONLY person casting the alternate suspect rumors is Dechaines attorney. However, good as the attorney is and if he were trying this case in the court of public opinion which he is doing well…, it doesn’t change or alter the FACTS of this case that have been known for several decades now. Dennis Dechaine is the ONE AND ONLY convicted murderer of 12 year old Sarah Cherry and that is a FACT.
Hey look I have been to court if it is politically correct to convict DA and police will LIE in a lot of cases . They are human most people LIE. Trust me I have Saw it , We all have are biases that will make us work hard to bend the truth in our favor. Its call human nature.
Exactly, people lie, science does not. I tend to believe science, not petty investigators out to claim their own piece of history.
I do not tend to believe in science . Lets say the DNA test I took said 300billion to one . How do you know I did not bribe the tester . How do you know they did not lose the sample and replace to cover a screw up. By the very nature or saying 300 billion it dose not take into account human factors. Well I better not complain too much I am off the hook for 17 years back child support lol. Nothing is 100%
I am thinking this alternative suspect is one they wanted to bring up in the first trial but the Jury never heard who they were…..especially with a pedophile living right next door to where she was babysitting…What about those facts?
I wish I could agree with you Survived2, but I cannot. Too many inconsistencies throughout the 24+ years Dechaine has been incarcerated. Personally, had Dechaine been able to be granted permission to have DNA testing when he first requested it, I’m POSITIVE the outcome would have been different. But the DA’s office made sure THAT did not happen. A speedy trial with lots of bad cop influence convicted Dechaine. That’s my position, sorry, you will NOT change my mind.
Why would there be a court order barring them from naming the other suspect? Seems odd…
Perhaps because they do not want the other suspect to flee?
He or she is not a real suspect. The alternative suspect was dreamed up by one of the original defense attorney’s when they realized the evidence was overwhelming. The idea was to create some doubt. The claim did not have to true, but only had to confuse the jury by creating “reasonable doubt”.
Dechaine did it. He confessed and the story about doing drugs in the woods was made up. One of his lawyers told police that the poor child was dead and that the police were looking in the right area. Only Dechaine could have told him that.
x
x
x
DNA by itself is not enough to cause a re-trial. Now if the AG’s office deliberately hid Brady material, and it’s proven, and the 2 detective’s commited perjury (and someone had better be real sure, and can provide outright proof, about this ! ) and that the rest of the collected evidence was destroyed before it was examined, as all evidence is suposed to be, then yes, there is sufficient cause for a re-trial. But I’ve been in criminal justice for over 25 years and I’ve seen my fair share of shaky case’s ‘nudged’ in Court. Might there be a legal reason to have the case reviewed ? Sure and that’s what Appeals Court’s are for. But for the defense to try the case in the press, and that’s what’s happening here anyway you want to call it, is just plain irresponsible. Even if Dechaine is granted a new trial, the mere fact that the defense has tried the case in the media is gonna make a re-trial all but impossible due to pre-trial publicity. The Kennebunk hooker case is proof of that. It’s time for this case to be finished, at the minimum for Sarah Cherry’s parent’s. Enough is enough.
This is one of the better comments i have read. This is not the place to be discussing these issues. They should gather thier facts and present them in court not the news paper. Just look at all the coffee shop laweyr comments here. I for one think that this is all heresay until it comes before the people in court.
Thank’s
Disagree. This is one of the best places to discuss these issues. In fact, it is probably the only place to do it, short of meeting at the local pub, where ever that is.
In Merry Ole England, that was how people met and discussed issues … at the local pub …. {public house} … where the public gathered for such discussions …. and have a cup’o grog, too.
These forums have, simply, replaced that forum.
So. No. These debates in this forum are not only interesting, but are the most convenient means ever devised to help people interact (internetwork) on the issues of the day at nearly any cost (much to the chagrin of the wealthy media moguls who would just love to reduce or eliminate this forum so that they can continue to “control the message”).
In fact they can limit this comment section. It is up to the paper as to wether they want to open these articles to discussion or not. But that does not stop you from talking about it at the local pub if you like.
Gas and beer prices too high. Nope. Not a good alternative. Lots cheaper this way. More and cheaper beer, too. Don’t forget the game at 4.
xxx
x
Then as I said, this is where the case needs to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court. If there’s anything wrong in this case, anywhere, then the Court of Appeals can order a new trial, out of the originating jurisdiction to prevent any type of jury influencing by the local media, and re-try the case. The same can be said of the Judge presiding. You can bet the farm that the next Presiding Judge, if it gets that far, is going to go over the Appeals case and the original trial and see just where, and who, screwed the last trial that got this whole thing this far a second time.
But if the Court of Appeals affirms the original verdict then that’s it, short of a appeal to the State Supreme’s and the Chief Judge, and they, maybe, finding a reason for a re-trial. Dechaine has made his case and cried to everyone that’s within earshot. There’s even a movie, on the Documentary Channel, that goes over this case, with both sides putting in their 2 cent’s worth. The issue of DNA and the chain of evidence, not chain of custody, has been repeatedly looked at and the likelyhood of the various piece’s of evidence all coming together, without any help, has been argued to the point of idiocy, if not stupidity. The evidence says it all, unless someone has REAL PROOF that the evidence was either tampered with (and that’s a whole ‘nother issue and case to be investigated ) or was mis-handled in some way during processing. Dechaine knows this. So does his lawyer. Like him or not, as Cochran said, ‘If the glove (the evidence) don’t fit then you must aquit”. But nowadays the means of verifying the evidence has improved. Maybe it needs a better look at. After all, if the evidence is what made the case the first time then it should stand up a second.
x
xxxx
LOL….Mike , Mike….you sound like a first year law student! ::sorry::
I read it. I also know, in the real world, that the new DNA ‘expert’ that Dechaine”s attorney hired had to find an alternate suspect or his future credibility, and fee’s, were going to go down the toilet. An expert witness is always gonna testify to what their mealticket hires them to find or testify to. Nothing new, just a re-hash of what’s already out there. And no, not 1st year law. 28 years of dealing with trash and getting them locked up in the Federal Court’s. Had this been a Federal case Dechaine would be doing time in Talladega or Marion. Child killer’s, in the Federal system, fare far worse than in the State one’s.
Not true. The State has an equal opportunity to cross examine and then bring their own expert(s) in order to persuade a Court’s decision on that evidence. But, in the end, regardless of the number of experts offered, it is up to our Judges to weigh that evidence, in their good jugdment, and decide one way or the other. … and, fortunately, our Judges are pretty darn good at doing it.
nicely done
Mike, do you really think that a state of Maine appeals board wants to review this case? Fearful that they might have the wrong man in prison is enough to make everyone nervous. It’s like a hot potato. No one wants to be found stupid of making a grave mistake. So push this case through ASAP so the family can rest easy. If I were the Cherry family, I would be very interested in finding out who really killed that girl. But they are not worried, they believed a corrupt prosecutor and in their eyes, he’s a hero. I’m so very sorry they were misled.
Disagree. Courts of Appeal give a high priority (the highest) to people who may be wrongfully jailed. They are always at the top of their lists on any given day.
“It’s pretty hard to dispute the state’s own documents.”
But that’s what you’ve done in two books on this case. You cherry pick material from the transcript and documents that support your contention that Dechaine is innocent; you trash that which doesn’t fit. The state documents are “evidence ” when it suits you; they are the work of corrupt imbeciles when it doesn’t.
x
x
Uhhh, hello!
That’s called “advocacy”. You “pick” material from the transcript that is relevant to your argument and “trash” what doesn’t fit…. especially if it actually doesn’t fit the facts, law or circumstances.
This is not to say that people are not properly charged, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced in our system. They are.
But we pay taxes to ensure “due process” and the rules are followed to the umpth degree. No matter what, where or when. That’s why we’re the best or, one of the best, countries, still, in the world.
“DNA by itself is not enough to cause a re-trial.”…..(another person who doesn’t believe the science presented before him!) If it was you, in Dechaine’s shoes, you might believe differently!
Better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man go to prison. If there is a reasonable chance (doubt) someone else was involved or actually did the crime, then that is certainly a reason to review the case …… of course.
No brainer. Read the Constitutiion … due process means due process, no matter how inconvenient for the prosecution. It is a founding principle that, a just system and one man’s life are worth whatever it takes.
This case is, obviously, not over … until it’s over.
His attorney knew the child was dead and where to find her. No one DISPUTES that. No one.
xx
xxx
Wrong, Dechaine’s attorney never knew the child was dead until the prosecutor said it publicly. I wonder how he knew that because Dechaine NEVER confessed.
I have been following this case for decades and Dennis has NEVER admitted to this terrible crime. One of the detectives “enhanced” his notes to say this.
that just simply is not true
No,the ‘other suspest’,actually had tiny bare footprints going up to his trailer on that day.Sarah C. was barefoot. He also had abused his stepdaughter in a similar way,and she was sent ‘outta state’..Something fishy here from the beginning.They needed someone to blame.D.D.was in the wrong place at the wrong time.God forbid it should ever happen to any of you…
Corection, Dechaine NEVER confessed. That was a brilliant story made up by none other than prosecutor Eric Wright. There is nothing in the transcript about a confession. And to top it off, Wright made the assertion that Cherry was dead long before her body was found. Hmmm, I wonder what he knew that many others didn’t. Maybe he knew the real killer and vowed to protect him/her and pin the blame on Dechaine.
Would it be reasonable enough if it were YOU behind those bars? Let it work through the court.
It already has…. several times
Wow. This is breaking news. The prosecution continues to make the same statement over and over, ad naseum, mean while Deschaine seeking all possible recourse throws them a major league pitch that possibly could over turn this. It is now obvious to the layman, that reasonable doubt is now beyond reasonable and doubt? You think? Vas doncs shia vous autres, Dennis is innocent.
Merci Taberoitte, toi tu as du bon sens.
The other person they have always kept in their radar is her step-father as he also was in the area due to living there. They never persued it due to getting Dechaine and that was enough for them. I am not saying he is innocent at all, have no idea but at least let them do the job right this time and see the outcome. The step-father quietly slipped out of state shortly after the murder. He and Dechaine did drugs together at times so perhaps they need to check his DNA which they never did. Why? Because Stokes got his man he thinks, then not sure then yes. Just believing that Dechaine is guilty according to Stokes does not mean he is. Let the real true evidence prevail.
Huh?…”they did drugs together at times?” Better check your facts!
I did as I used to live near them years ago
The step-father lived in Phippsburg which is not exactly near where Dechaine lived.
Last DNA test I had done put the odds at 300 billion to one.
um, this reporter has only written half the story and written the other half with the headline.
DOnt be fooled folks..if you are really interested in what happened, go online a read the evidence that was presented at court and the evidence that was gathered during the process, including statements made by this monster,,,ooppps, sorry, alledged monster…This alledgd monsters lawyers are looking for a coup-de-ta at the expense of maines justice system (see O.J. simpson)…evidence at the scene that was his, evidence at the murder scene his, his confession…I know weird….
His lawyers want to bypass all that and enter DNA that would only create doubt as it is not scientifically sound to soley convict or clear anybody..DNA is only to be used with all the evidence, not above all the evidence….look at the hstory of these cases, this is how lawyers use this stuff to clear guilty people…they get people al wound up like “oh, he could be innocent’, get a new trial and then muddy the waters to get an innocent verdict, without a lick of new evidence….This family recieved the justice they deserved, and the right justice….dont get wound up into this lawyers quest for stardom at the expense of this little girl…
The family should finally be thinking that someone else could have been involved….and still out there…
No,I actually do not think that justice has been served.Justice has been mocked.And the killer walks as a free man.
The comments continue toeing the prosecution and detectives line. Shoddy at best. It seems like there are a handful of people posting here that want to back the prosecution and detectives work as if it was professional. That is the problem. That is the mentality of ready shoot aim. Dennis uses the ready aim fire and all of sudden, how dare he. He is a monster, they got the right guy, the detectives were good, the police work was accurate. Please. Spare us. This was in Maine. Not CSI New York, so keep watching your crime shows on tv.
kinda funny how others DNA. and Dechaine’s DNA were both found on the girls clothing.. and this case being 24 years old… kinda fishy, but kinda not.. sorry, but this DNA evidence is inconclusive.. too many variables, and dechaine is still implicated in the new evidence..
Being found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime you did not commit is the most awful thing that can happen to anyone. I speak as a former juror in a murder trial and also knowing that in the United States hundreds of innocent people have either been executed or released from prison after being sentenced for a crime they did not commit – thanks to the modern age discovery and use of DNA. Just remember that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is not absolute nor is our court and jury system perfect. I don’t know if another trial would clear the air but if you believe in our judicial system – why not?
Disgusting comment….people will believe what they want no matter how this case ends up….very sad…
Thank God there may be justice after all. Keeping Dennis and the gang at trial and error in my prayers along with the innocence project. I know that God will somehow make this right…it’s been a long time coming!!!
There is one way to end this resentance him to fifty years. If he doesn’t take that then give him a new trial. If he loses then give him life , again. He may not want to take the chance.
DNA does NOT LIE!!!! He did Not Do this!! And he was NOT Involved In any way!!!!!
Mean while, They let a man who’s dna was found and matched to another person run free…
Something Is wrong with the maine legal system!!!
sad to say he’s still implicated… I don’t think you read the article.. cause you missed the part that both his and others DNA were found on her clothing…
It’s looking more and more like this guy got the short end of the stick.
They are covering their butts still. That’s why the other suspects name can’t be released …he is her step dad and his DNA is on her body and he planted the evidence in the driveway…