TIGHT LIPS

I’ve been trying to sort myself out, to find the words to respond to your article in the Phoenix “Semper Paratus?” (Jan. 17). Consequently, I have pages and pages of notes and drafts and have decided to fill the trash can this morning. It’s hard to find the words. Essentially, I want to tell you that your article of January 16 was the first notice to families and friends, (who have been existing on rumors since October 29) of just where the USCGC Wrangell was headed. The crew of the Wrangell slipped out of Portland Harbor with no chance of goodbyes and certainly no fanfare. About a week later, we were allowed to know that they were in Virginia for “Special Training.” The crew was given a Thanksgiving leave, and a Christmas leave — and I am grateful for that — but when the crew left for VA again, it was to complete their “Special Training.” And we still had no answers.

As a mother, I want to hug my son. I want to take pictures. I want to tell him I love him, give the blessings I can — to say be careful. I want to say goodbye. We should have been told. We should have had a chance of talk about it. I feel robbed. Since October, we (family & friends) have been telling each other that this “Special Training” must be to help the crew deal with potential security problems off the Maine coast, or in Portland Harbor. After all, the Coast Guard is “Search & Rescue” — their training tends to be focused on helping, Not Combat. (I don’t believe that machine gun mounted on the fore deck has seen much use.) Everything I’ve read indicates the all of the cutters are outdated, outmoded, and all in need of replacement. I just can’t understand the purpose here.

The US Coast Guard does a truly admirable job — with an aging fleet, outmoded equipment, and not enough of anything. They are always balancing priorities. And lives are on the line. With friends and family who make their living on the sea, I’ve lived all my life hearing stories from fishermen. It’s a love/hate relationship for every sailor. No one loves those safety-check boardings or having to pitch that bale of marijuana into the sea. When a “May-Day” call comes in from the “Banks” — an iced-over trawler with an engine fire — there is no sight more welcome than the USCG. There aren’t enough ships to protect our coast or our harbors. Sending them off to the Persian Gulf strikes me as really stupid.

On Friday, January 24, a “Pre-Deployment Informational” meeting was held for spouses of the Wrangell crew. Even at this meeting, (with an Admiral, a LCDR, and Capt. officiating), I was told there were MANY questions left unanswered. No one in charge was willing to commit anything about duration or actual destination. (My guess is that none of these officers are Phoenix readers, as they really had NO IDEA that anyone had “let the cat out of the bag”!) My daughter-in-law hadn’t seen your story, and when I told her about it that evening she was shocked. And very sorry that she hadn’t had a copy to pass out at the meeting!! I have been told that Bibles were offered to all those attending this meeting. (And that, too, I find offensive and appalling.)

All this is “old news” now. The official USCG “Press Release” was made on January 29, that the Wrangell and seven other USCG cutters had been deployed to the Persian Gulf. I don’t know how you managed to get the news that you did when you did. I wonder if any Coast Guard commissions or jobs were lost. Certainly, someone must have been called on the carpet for it. Release of “Top Secret” information is frowned upon, needless to say. Quoting the official press release — from Commander James McPherson — one of the “aims of this deployment is to deter the suicide bomb threat.” I find little comfort in the thought.

I am opposed to this war. I would be opposed to this war under any circumstance. I was proud to be present at the first “March on the Pentagon,” against the Vietnam War. I am opposed to any needless loss of lives. In my heart I can see no possible excuse for this war. And I am so afraid. Thank you for your time, and for listening. I did want you to know that you were the first to break the story. (And I do wonder if there were repercussions.)

Anonymous

Portland

DECHAINE’S THE SAME 1

I write to ask you to take another look at the Dennis Dechaine case and ask again whether you think a jury, after hearing the evidence from the book, could really convict Dennis Dechaine beyond a reasonable doubt (see “Failer,” Jan. 31).

A major problem for the original jury was that it did not see all the evidence, due to exclusions by the court. The DNA testing was excluded and not even permitted by the court. The psychological testimony was excluded, which would have emphasized Dennis}Dechaine’s character and the improbability that the drugs he injected could have transformed him into a pedophile/murderer.

The evidence of other suspects was excluded or not presented by the prosecution and unknown to the defense.

Each of those rulings of excluding evidence has been upheld on appeals by the standards they apply to appeals, i.e. “not an abuse of the trial judge’s discretion.” That’s a hard standard to overcome. As has happened in other states where innocent people have been convicted, even with good prosecutors and good police work and good judges, mistakes in the judicial system are made. Sometimes they are corrected by other parts of the process, but in Dennis Dechaine’s case, the self-correcting process failed.

It seems very unlikely that the identifying paper and notebook left in the Rolands’ driveway fell there by accident. If they had fallen from Dennis Dechaine’s truck, he surely would have heard them fall or seen them fall and would have picked them up. (It’s a rare member of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) who is a litterbug; even more rarely a murderer.) Instead, it’s more likely that the papers were planted there by the real murderer.

There was zero evidence that Sarah Cherry was ever in Dennis Dechaine’s truck and the dogs were not able to find any scent from the truck to Sarah’s body. The real killer used his own truck, but, after finding Dennis Dechaine’s truck, took items from it to bind Sarah Cherry and took the papers back to the Roland’s to deflect suspicion.

Again, please consider revisiting the Dennis Dechaine case in your future columns. I believe that his case is similar to those across the country where an innocent man has been found guilty, and sacrificed, by a system which was very eager to serve justice quickly, too quickly.

Morrison Bonpasse

Newcastle

DECHAINE’S THE SAME 2

Thanks to Al Diamon for focusing attention on James Moore’s important book, Human Sacrifice (see “Failer,” Jan. 31). While Al cited several debatable points to back his contention that Dechaine is guilty — a conclusion with which I differ — he made no mention of the twice-convicted pedophile who lived just down the road and who the police never questioned, despite finding the tracks of a child leading to his door! Al is surely correct when he states that the book embarrasses lots of people! Nor did Al mention DNA evidence which clears Dechaine but which the state chooses to ignore. While Moore proves that there is not one shred of scientific evidence connecting Dechaine to Sarah Cherry, Al suggests we shred Moore’s book! Go figure.

William Bunting

Whitefield

 

The author responds: This letter misstates the nature of both pieces of evidence. Police did investigate the footprints (Moore even mentions that in the book), but concluded they were not Sarah Cherry’s. The DNA evidence is questionable at best, since the blood sample from which it came could have been contaminated while in the possession of the Dechaine defense. Neither of these tidbits negates the fact Dechaine’s first lawyer knew Sarah Cherry was dead and approximately where her body was buried well before police found her. He could only have learned that from his client.

Al Diamon