tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post234326568000168081..comments2024-03-18T04:20:15.987-04:00Comments on Statement Analysis ®: Dennis Dechaine's Confession Within His Statement Statement Analysis Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13607372649929274491noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-78841967030076055822021-01-21T13:11:24.789-05:002021-01-21T13:11:24.789-05:00Guys guilty as any of them....I was incarcerated w...Guys guilty as any of them....I was incarcerated with Dennis for 10 years...he's guilty...trust mesherry millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09430916533785609276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-8433507370186708462017-12-26T16:23:06.056-05:002017-12-26T16:23:06.056-05:00equinox said...
Dennis: I'm not sure I could ...equinox said...<br /><br />Dennis: I'm not sure I could say that with any degree of accuracy. At the end of the day when I was lost as we were losing the light I can tell you.<br /><br />Q: "We," Mr. Dechaine?<br /><br />Dennis: Yes. "We were losing the light", Isn't that a common expression?<br /><br />Q: Not if we are alone, Mr. Dechaine.<br /><br />Dennis: I wouldn't say for instance that I had six inches of snow yesterday. I would say we had six inches of snow.<br /><br />Q Yes. Because the whole community gets snow.<br /><br />Dennis: The whole community experiences the sunset. Any great acts of nature are subject to pluralization.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br /><br />October 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM<br /><br />*************<br /><br />Any great acts of nature are subject to pluralisation.<br /><br />Which other "great acts of nature" does Dennis like to "pluralise"???MsGvioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06004223410202887213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-51266714951744179752013-06-18T11:48:11.429-04:002013-06-18T11:48:11.429-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-84186867050768743322012-10-11T21:23:15.140-04:002012-10-11T21:23:15.140-04:00I read an article on the website "the cell do...I read an article on the website "the cell door" the author of Human Sacrifice claimed it was the detectives that said "we're losing light." He threw that quote in there because he knew it was significant, yet chose to attribute it to a policeman. Amazing the lengths people will go to when they want to delude themselves. Nicolenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-25031419295856563892012-10-10T14:36:16.167-04:002012-10-10T14:36:16.167-04:00I put his confession low on my list of conclusive ...I put his confession low on my list of conclusive evidence only because the police who investigated Sarah's murder botched the investigation so thoroughly, and I do believe they falsified and hid information from defense. They were certain of Dennis' guilt but lacked forensic proof so they fudged. The confession comes from their testimony, not Dennis'. I don't disbelieve all of it, but I assume some of it is exaggerated and even fabricated. I would be guilty of what I have accused others on my blog of "cherry picking" my favorite evidence from the botched investigation if I gave it my highest priority. That it comes from so many sources, including prison guards and even his own wife is what is most persuasive. The actual wording was never recorded, not once, and there is proof that at least one officer added a supposed confession to his notes at a much later date.equinoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06437935108344559106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-74138168118502907922012-10-10T12:23:28.181-04:002012-10-10T12:23:28.181-04:00I didn't rank the "we were losing light&q...I didn't rank the "we were losing light", but I would put it at 3 or 4. It's hard to beat that lengthy confession. I realize that the police is capable of twisting the words, but the atatwnt was long and included too many unprompted components -- about driving downthe road, what he told his wife, "realizing" he did it after seeing Sarah on tv, along with the other severe problematic statements he made in that confession that were underlined by Peter in the post. I mean it is not credible that police would invent so many problematic statement, and as has also been pointed out here Dechaine has not completely backed off what he said. I am curious why it is so low on your list.Ivynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-61353522616758176192012-10-10T08:27:21.096-04:002012-10-10T08:27:21.096-04:00I agree Ivy. For me the order of importance is 1) ...I agree Ivy. For me the order of importance is 1) The keys 2)The use of the word "We" at a profoundly telling point of his testimony. 3) His vague drugged out memory of his day in the woods followed instantly by machine-like recollection of details 4) the notebook in the driveway 5) the rope and bandanna from his truck used on the victim 6) the syringe left on the car seat 7) his endless lying to police and everyone after he exited the woods 8) the absurd series of coincidences combined with conspiracy that make up his defense 9) and finally, his confession, which for some is ALL they need.equinoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06437935108344559106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-54530021142277144462012-10-10T07:55:25.494-04:002012-10-10T07:55:25.494-04:00More:
Dechaine: “It’s a brutal case. I think Stev...More:<br /><br />Dechaine: “It’s a brutal case. I think Steve (Peterson) will tell you that I don’t pester him much, at <br />least I try not to, and there is a good reason for that. It’s exhausting. It’s exhausting <br />dealing with this on a daily basis. So I’d rather focus my interests on more positive things <br />if I can. While understanding this is important, don’t get me wrong, I can tell you more <br />about the case than probably any living human being, but I don’t like to.”<br /><br />He said: "I can tell you more about the case than probably any living human being, but I don’t like to."<br />Kripes. This sentence always bothers me.Jazzienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-2394583482350307602012-10-10T07:46:12.307-04:002012-10-10T07:46:12.307-04:00This link has excerpts from an 2010 interview with...This link has excerpts from an 2010 interview with Dennis Dechaine. I have read through the timelines, evidence, and news. I have a difficult time believing he is innocent. It's strange that the following words don't convince me that he didn't kill Sarah Cherry:<br /><br />"Q: Did you kill Sarah Cherry? <br />A: “Absolutely not.” <br />“I can say that in 52 years of existence, I have never harmed another human being ... I <br />am a completely non-violent person.” <br />“I dare anybody to find a single incidence of violence in my life, ever. Ever. I mean I’ve <br />been in prison 22 years. This is a cauldron of extreme violence, and yet not once have I <br />ever been involved in violence in any way, shape, form or manner. So it’s not in my <br />being. It’s not who I am.” <br />“I’m not the guy who did this. Somebody somewhere in their heart of hearts at the state <br />level has to know this to be the case.” <br /><br />http://media.kjonline.com/documents/dechaine_interview.pdfJazzienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-18981032589762776372012-10-10T01:23:42.719-04:002012-10-10T01:23:42.719-04:00Also I think his wife testified that he had a penk...Also I think his wife testified that he had a penknife that he always caries with him until after the murder. Not much by itself, but as part of the circumstantial case...<br />Ivynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-59369842365494827352012-10-10T00:43:06.635-04:002012-10-10T00:43:06.635-04:00The things that to me show he is guilty in order o...The things that to me show he is guilty in order of importance 1) his confession to the police 2) the notebook in the driveway 3) his lie to the police about not having his truck keys going so far as to actually hide the keys in the police car 4) the materials from his truck used in the killing 5) the fact that he lied about who he was when he came out of the woods 6) the vagueness of his account of what he was doing -- I mean really -- driving through woods you don't know and stopping to wander around -- he said it was to enjoy his drug trip but it just seems implausible to me 7) the absurdity of the coincidence that someone framed a guy who would actually confessed and has an absurd alibi. He was an experienced drug user -- he recounted his drug history at the trial. What I have wondered about this case is whether he really did get lost and had originally planned to drive away or whether he intended to claim his truck had been stolen -- again being "discovered" wandering the woods because someone stole his truck but he forgot to leave his keys. The fact that he lied about who he was when he was found makes me think he planned to drive away but really did get lost after it got dark. Then he decided to suggest his truck tied to the murder scene was stolen and lied about his keys. The ten reasons or whatever it was that were listed on that website about his innocence were pretty ridiculous. I think sometimes these groups confuse their audiences a bit. Legally, people can be "wrongfully convicted" if e.g. their confession was admitted even though obtained In violation of Miranda or the evidence of their guilt was obtained in a search that violated the 4th amendment, or if they had ineffective assistance of counsel. That is not insignificant, however, while defense lawyers and the courts care a great deal about this the general public won't rally to free someone who is not truly innocent, i. e. didn't do it. As I recall some of the reasons listed on that website read more like they relate to legal innocence, which is part of the reason they seem so weak (some were just very petty quibbles with aspects of the trial and investigations I recall) I don't mean to belittle legal innocence -- the protections of the constitution are important, but in the context of wrongful conviction there can be some disconnect about what innocence means.Ivynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-31010288323258034212012-10-09T23:25:12.742-04:002012-10-09T23:25:12.742-04:00The nature of being a defense attorney is presenti...The nature of being a defense attorney is presenting the best defense that we can legally present, even if the best defense isn't really a very good defense. If the client says/does things that make them appear guiltier (and often that's EXACTLY what they do!) there's not much we can do about that.<br /><br />The complete quote from Steve Peterson, Dechaine's court-appointed lawyer, is : "The thing we're hoping for -- of course, we could have it backfire on us -- is that this could prove it's not Dennis Dechaine." http://www.pressherald.com/news/male-dna-found-on-girls-clothing-in-dechaine-case_2012-09-25.html I respect his candor that possibly this new DNA evidence could help exonerate Dechaine but he acknowledges is also possible that it will further incriminate Dechaine. Refreshingly honest, in my opinion.Katprintnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-25847249210156507222012-10-09T20:19:28.443-04:002012-10-09T20:19:28.443-04:00Peter, Thanks for analysis! I wanted to believe in...Peter, Thanks for analysis! I wanted to believe in Dennis, but his own testimony that you are reviewing here nailed it for me. While he was in the woods it was "I was high, I don't recall anything exactly. La La La. I'm such a nice guy. Nothing happened so I don't remember anything." Yet with photographic precision he remembers every minute, every word spoken once he emerges from the woods. So precise that he can remember what he "actually said" for every one of the dozens of incriminating utterances he claims the police fabricated to frame him.<br /><br />The testimony you are analyzing here is his direct testimony and I bet his defense attorney swallowed a bird when he said the "We" word twice. He changes direction fast. And the prosecutor DID catch it! But Dennis wasn't cross-examined until the next day, so he and his defense attorney have overnight to come up with an explanation.. of sorts. Here's the exchange with the prosecutor under cross examination the next day:<br /><br />Dennis: I'm not sure I could say that with any degree of accuracy. At the end of the day when I was lost as we were losing the light I can tell you.<br /><br />Q: "We," Mr. Dechaine?<br /><br />Dennis: Yes. "We were losing the light", Isn't that a common expression?<br /><br />Q: Not if we are alone, Mr. Dechaine.<br /><br />Dennis: I wouldn't say for instance that I had six inches of snow yesterday. I would say we had six inches of snow.<br /><br />Q Yes. Because the whole community gets snow.<br /><br />Dennis: The whole community experiences the sunset. Any great acts of nature are subject to pluralization.<br /><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />Do you buy it? I don't.<br /><br />One reader at my blog actually gave some good feedback in her comments that demonstrate that there is a fairly strong forensic case for innocence for Dennis that is supposed to trump the entire investigation. For once I just don't find I believe the forensic evidence, the case under SA just screams guilty to me. <a href="http://equinox-ecliptic.blogspot.ca/2012/08/response-readers-defense-of-dennis.html" rel="nofollow">Read here if you are curious</a> Her further comments after my post are very good. I haven't yet replied. I've been moving this month with no time to really put myself into a solid response, but I intend to. I value anyone else's contribution to the discussion there as forensically I'm taking a thrashing. I stick with my belief, much to the rage of readers who support Dennis.<br />equinoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06437935108344559106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-79094409903929623512012-10-09T18:52:21.729-04:002012-10-09T18:52:21.729-04:00OT
I live in a suburb of KC and was surprised to ...OT<br /><br />I live in a suburb of KC and was surprised to see on the local news just now, that Jessica Ridgeway's great-grandmother and father live here. A reporter interviewed Jessica's great-grandmother. She said her son was upset by people thinking he took her, so he wasn't speaking out. Great -grandma said SHE was, because she wants her back. Huh? Doesn't the dad? The reporter stated that the dad has been going to work every day since Jessica went missing, which I also find strange. Why isn't he pounding the pavement, searching for her? <br /><br />Here is a link to the interview:<br /><br />http://news.yahoo.com/police-release-video-missing-colorado-girl-165319357.htmlCECnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-62314315130731073282012-10-09T18:42:59.465-04:002012-10-09T18:42:59.465-04:00Agreed.
For someone to base everything on what a...Agreed. <br /><br />For someone to base everything on what an emotion triggers is not logical. I found the author who wrote the book showing weakness in his need to assert not only his experience, but the lack of experience from another detective. <br /><br />Every homicide detective's history began with one case. <br /><br />What speaks most to me is Dennis Dechaine's own words. He guides us and has a need to explain why he did things, rather than say,<br /><br />"I didn't do it, therefore, I don't give a ^%&*() about anything. I don't need to explain anything because I didn't kill Sarah Cherry."<br /><br />Did you see the documentary on TV?<br /><br />PeterStatement Analysis Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13607372649929274491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164794708270892518.post-78988233414065978712012-10-09T18:36:29.962-04:002012-10-09T18:36:29.962-04:00It speaks to the collective dumbing down of Americ...It speaks to the collective dumbing down of America that so many people proclaim his innocence. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com