Granted that the Dechaine case is complicated, but two vital facts were left out of your story (“Dennis Dechaine seeking new trial after DNA revelations,” May 17).
It was proved many years ago that the DNA obtained from the thumbnail — the fingernail inadvertently not incinerated along with the others by the state even though the case was still open — was of a male who was not Dennis Dechaine. And the new tests found this same DNA on the scarf as well, blowing up the state’s claim that it was from an old cadaver and left on the clippers because of sloppy crime lab procedures.
It will be interesting to see what theory the state comes up with next.
William Bunting
Whitefield
Copy the Story LinkSend questions/comments to the editors.
Related Stories
Latest Articles
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.