Trial and Error

Mar 07, 2010

This is in response to Deputy Attorney General William Stokes’ comment about Dennis Dechaine, printed Feb. 25.

First, let me say that those “renowned forensic scientists” are putting their reputations on the line by what they have determined to be the evidence of Sarah Cherry’s tragic death timeline — something to be noted.

This would be a retrial to submit more evidence to prove Dennis Dechaine’s innocence, not just the victim’s time of death.

There is much more than just her time of death. This is so tragic because while the police had Dechaine in custody, they could have still looked for Sarah Cherry. I may add, it was found to be several hours after Dechaine’s arrest. DNA could hold a big clue that he didn’t do it.

Forensics has come a long way since 1986. Stokes is supposing that science hasn’t changed much since then. I would be very surprised if Stokes wouldn’t use DNA evidence to convict someone solely on that evidence alone.

Bev Gallant

Dixfield