Was Man Convicted of Murder for Urinating on the Wrong Driveway? | Dennis Dechaine Case Analysis 

Heimlich mom, Heimlich the infant 😂

Or your mom could've signed you up for a cpr/first aid class to expand your skill set, then you would know what to do when someone is choking on a milkshake you made...

​@@heatherhoffman9869and miss out on an opportunity to teach avoiding responsibility?! you over estimate her mom...

😂

⏸️

Fanciful.

There was no dna evidence of her in the truck

Exactly what I thought too. 👍

The DNA not matching is a red herring. Not because that method isn't useful but because it is only useful if the victim actually inflicts an injury against the attacker and if the DNA is correctly collected. This horrific crime happened in 1989. The first time DNA was used to help solve a crime was 1986, so forensics knowledge of DNA was in its absolute infancy. That is why there was no DNA reports for the truck. It is also important to note that in 1989 children of her age still were active outdoors and in person with friends so it is much more likely that she's had stuff under her nails. If you go play outside vs play a video game, yes your nails are dirtier even if you wash your hands. DNA evidence is a powerful tool but it has to be used in context. Recently some cases where a judgment was decided entirely off DNA evidence were overturned. So if we didn't find his DNA under her nails that probably just means she didn't scratch him. The injuries reported didn't say "nail raking marks" which are pretty easy to identify. It just mentioned rather generic injuries he could have gotten dragging her into the woods. It is actually not common for DNA under the nails to solve a case because victims don't always fight back or get a chance to at least. The evidence they do have: - witness of a vehicle like his at the abduction site, his own items at the abduction site (likely fell out while he was loading her into the truck) - witnesses of him leaving the woods near where her body is found just after her murder - the rope in his truck matching the rope used on her He was at the scene of the crime AND the scene of her body AND had the means to do it. If this were a modern case we'd have his cell phone location and DNA forensics of his truck.

@@wobbuffetbuffet THANK YOU!!! I very much appreciate all of this information and clarification.

@@wobbuffetbuffet I remember playing tag once and accidently scratching a friend when I tried to tag him.

Their was another man that they looked at because he was going to trial for an offense (can't remember and the victim was going testify for the prosecution. He could frame denis.denis truck was near the body. He could of taken papers and planted them.

I remember because I live in the state.wasnt he in a blackout from drugs he took and doesn't remember anything that afternoon.

Me. When I get up I ask the question like a prayer and Dr. Grande gets a sharp pain in his head and hears my voice, and makes the video to shut it up. He thinks it’s audio hallucinations but, it’s just me.

Good point!

You feel joy listening to analyses of horrific murder cases?

@@TF80s- I feel “JOY” by listening to podcasts or music or RU-vid videos, as it helps occupy my mind with something other than the crippling anxiety and depression that keeps my mind racing. Was this an adequate justification of my word choice to Dr. Grande in my comment thanking him for his outstanding channel?

COINCIDENCE Theorist,!

As a parent I have to agree. Especially since this is back when kids would actually go out and play. As for Dennis, he might have been watching the Mother of the baby, not necessarily the victim. He could have acted on the unlocked door and taken her as a "I've come this far already" move. As another viewer pointed out the girl might have thrown his stuff out of the truck when he put her in. He emerged from the woods near where the body was found, the rope used on her matched more rope he had in the truck and so on. There have been some cases that hinge entirely on DNA that have been overthrown in recent years. DNA from my kids, friends and family are all in my house. If you used luminol you'd probably detect blood since it can detect it even after being diluted 10,000 times so even if I clean we still get hurt and there is probably traces of blood. Esp since I had feeling loss in my feet and would frequently not know I was injured until I left a blood trail. This doesn't mean DNA isn't a powerful tool but it has to be used in context. Put in context it doesn't mean much since he didn't have much for what could be defensive wounds as he likely could have also injured himself dragging her into the woods. Therefor her not having his DNA under his nails isn't too shocking. It is when a suspect has wounds consistent with someone trying to defend themselves AND the victim has DNA under their nails that it works.

Absolutely. He lied about the fishing and the Keys, he dropped his paperwork, her body was found by her truck and he admitted it to police. There isn't even a question whether he's guilty.

You think locked doors are safe?

@@kennyg1358 - No, not always, but they do help.

Unless she was involved

@@ambitionroad - not likely. She probably thought their neighborhood was perfectly safe.

@@ambitionroad agreed. she and her husband should take a dna test. just to rule themselves out🤔

Okay

Basically everybody in human history except for the last 2 decades.

A point is. 1/10 in the u.s is sitting for murders they did not comitt. It' a horrid statistic. A great shame.

Well, shame on your ex and his colleagues for being too lazy, incompetent and corrupt to record his statements properly.

@@icturner23Maine Justice is wacked.

This is the first case presented by Dr. Grande where I'm in serious doubt. DNA doesn't lie.

what was the evidence that changed your mind?

My thoughts exactly, but there was a predator lurking in the background.

She actually was 12. Yes, it's pure stupidity

Back in those days kids had more freedom and responsibility, and it's probably the multitude of scenarios just like this coupled with poor City design that contributed to kids being confined indoors well beyond adulthood

I babysat infants when I was 12. But only in my own neighborhood where I had lots of adults to call. And I always locked the doors. Back then, they taught us babysitter safety in HomeEc at age 11 and gave us certificates for passing it.

@timothysatyr6674 .." kids had more freedom " so did paedophiles .

Keep in mind that the baby mother found the notebook in her driveway before she even reported Sarah as missing. So it’s not like the police had a chance to frame this guy. They didn’t even know there had been a crime.

@@GoodnightJLH If someone stole his truck and also committed the murder, they could have easily thrown the paperwork out on the driveway. That would certainly make more sense than him doing it himself.

@@flingonber That’s possible. But the original post was about police planting evidence and that’s not the case since the evidence was discovered by the homeowner before the disappearance was reported. The thing is that he admitted that he had left his truck there. He didn’t say it was missing. He had the keys with him and the truck wasn’t hot wired. So, unless he left a 2nd set of keys in the car, it’s unlikely that his truck was stolen. I would love to know whose DNA was under her fingernails. DNA was relatively new technology back then and they weren’t doing DNA geneology.

@@GoodnightJLH That's not really a logical conclusion, though - when the police are "sure" that someone is guilty, they can and have manufactured confessions, which is what is known (in the case of Jason Roberts) and believed (in the case of Ronald Ryan) to have happened in the two cases that the OP mentioned.

What about that time blood from the victim was found on a suspects clothes, only for DNA testing to be reviewed by the defence team and they noticed mild shadow of a different persons DNA. It turned out the victim had a blood transfusion and the shadow matched the blood donor. The blood found on the suspects clothing had been taken from the victim while they were in hospital and after they recieved the blood transfusion.

He's guilty!

If you call this an explanation you are sorely mistaken. It's just a review from some guy who did a quick internet search and ran with his opinion.

I think this case is clear cut as can be. Guilty as charged.

Bottom line, going back to the young girl of twelve babysitting a 10 month old. . She's too young and that's proven out by the fact that she wasn't able to adequately defend herself. Also, twelve is just too young to be alone in a house with an infant to be responsible for. My opinion.😐

​@@MegaLivingItI agree.

“All right y’all, be back in 10. Gotta drain the main vein.” Cody (Jeff Healey) in ‘Road House’.

@@willer3399 well I’ve never seen that! 🤣

Interesting thought. That condition is way more common than people think.

@PFBM86 “You took the words right out of my mouth” as they say. I too am really perplexed about the absence of his DNA! Also I would like to hear more from Dr. Grande as to how this factor played into his analysis of guilt (in this case or a similar case like it.) Thanks for your comment PFBM!

Looking up "chimerism"...

" but was careful enough to avoid leaving any biological evidence". Maybe he merely "lucked out" by not leaving any, as in not being careful, but also not being careless either. another case that comes to mind in regards to some "mysterious blood/ DNA" was the one where the mother was convicted of killing her sons, but yet a sock that had blood on it was found a few houses down. blood from one of the sons, and some mystery blood with it. ill try to find the case for you

Darlie Routier of Rowlett Texas en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie_Routier

Only if that person was a repeat criminal with his DNA submitted to a data base.

they should have asked for a dna test for the 7 people who knew she was home alone

@@wilhelmhagberg4897 can't they do family tree DNA thing? I feel like it's pretty important to know whose blood it is. Could be someone who was with him.

I believe he's *probably* guilty, but that's not good enough...I don't think it's fair to say he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because of the blood under the girl's fingernails. If he was involved, somebody else was too, which is a pretty huge hole in the case. DNA evidence doesn't lie.

Seems to me he was merely an opportunist rapist and murderer, probably fueled by drugs of some kind. The opportunity presented itself either due to mere coincidence, or he had heard about "some young girl who was going to be babysitting nearby" thru the grapevine somehow, and decided to stalk his prey, hoping for a chance to make his move. Maybe he only planned to rape her, but then changed his mind (due to her fighting back at hime ?!), hence why his mind was so conflicted with the verbal outbursts of guilt. Some of the spiritual/religious sort could even argue that he was indeed, possessed by a demon. But even if that was the case, a person can control going so far as to kill someone else. Thus still guilty, regardless.

@@Gizziiusa if he was on drugs, he could make him easier to want to kill her

I don't think anyone's claiming he left no DNA (or other people's DNA) intentionally. It was just chance, and 1989 testing wasn't anything like what we have today.

@@eadweard. - The thing is, if his DNA matched, they'd be saying "there's no legitimate, innocent explanation for it". But since after 2 DNA tests, one more recent, that excluded him, they're saying, yes, well, there could be legitimate, innocent explanations for the unknown DNA.

THE BROSSSSS NEEED POWERRRRRRRRR LACK OF ULTIMATE BRO POWER IS THE SAME AS DEATH BROS MUST HAVE POOOWWWERRRRRRERR

I don’t think it’s too likely in his case

In my opinion, if just his documents were found in the driveway, I might believe in a story, but also he was seen by a couple that he was exiting the same woods that she was found, and the same day that she was killed so those two things together I would find it very hard to believe that he’s not guilty unless there’s some other pointS

Did Dennis say that or detectives said he said that? Is it recorded?

@@cindys9858 thank you, that's a great question.

The baby’s mother found the notebook in her driveway before she reported the babysitter missing. It would be a huge coincidence that someone planted that stuff then the defendant’s truck was found near the body.

@@GoodnightJLH Good points.

@@GoodnightJLH Yes, unless a perpetrator framed him because the man was a regular (predictable) visitor of that area.

How so?

@duvessa2003 there were only 39 murders in Maine in 1989. The death of a totally innocent 12 year old is still shocking to the core. These kinds of deaths are incredibly rare here.

@@duvessa2003 because the community here mostly believes in his innocence. The crime was shocking and many people feel that not only had justice not been served but an injustice has been made. I’m on the fence… the fact that got me doubtful was that out of the hundreds of things in that truck, the only two items with his name on them were the only two things that “fell from the truck” supporters of Deschaine believe those particular ones were taken from his truck to make him the fall guy. The odds of it being those two particular documents falling out naturally are astronomical

The documents on the driveway actually makes me MORE suspicious of a ”setup”. Just seems overly convenient. I also find it strange that a man who just commited a murder engages strangers + police to help go looking for his truck!

I'm highly suspicious of the evidence being used here. A pick-up truck "matching the description of Dennis's truck" (what does that even mean? ANY red truck might qualify) "was reported" (by whom? Someone associated with the same corrections officers who "reported" Dennis's "confession"?). Dennis must have cased the girl's home and "somehow" discovered that she was babysitting alone the next day? In the days before social media, how does a stranger "somehow" find this out? The girl apparently just hopped into a "stranger's" car and leaves a 10-month-old baby alone? It sounds to me as though this crime was committed by someone the girl knew and trusted. Dennis screwed himself by trying to lie about his "drug use" (what? Sparking up a doobie along the river bank?) and THAT'S what convicted him. I don't think "framed by police" is anywhere NEAR "beyond reasonable doubt."

You both make good points. Conclusion - this is a tough case

​@@wilhelmhagberg4897that would mean that the mom would have to be in on the set up too.

@@wilhelmhagberg4897 he didn’t really engage a stranger to help him look for his truck, the couple happened to see him spontaneously as he was exiting the woods. So I think in my opinion, he was trying to make a reason for him being in the woods.

I wonder if she did struggle, and the documents falling out of the truck happened during the struggle. When police say "no signs of a struggle", I'm not sure what evidence would have been left, if he got her to come out to his truck, and then quickly overpowered her and through her in the truck. She looks like a little girl, he would have easily overpowered her.

I feel like there may have been another culprit as well. Something seems off. Either way he's 100% involved.

Nice truck hard to find them nowadays

Yes…assuming the papers weren’t planted. But he seems guilty to me with the evidence they do have.

Why would he be doing drugs in the woods? Anyway, he was not a 15-year-old boy, but me, and that could if you wanted to use drugs in his own house.

Meant to write he was a man so he didn’t need to do drugs in the woodS. In my opinion, he was making up stories because he was feeling guilty because he was exiting the woods and a couple spontaneously saw while they were hiking.

I am not convinced that he is guilty knowing Maine “Justice” but I am also not convinced he is not guilty. I believe that none of Sarah’s DNA was found in his truck. I am not convinced he was stalking the house. There are a few other suspects. It is strange. I read a book on the murder, after I was convinced he was not guilty. But I don’t remember the book, so now I am back to the unknown. I think this case depends on whatever information one hears last.

I’m not so sure the DNA could be correct since for one thing the crime happened in the 80s and the DNA testing wasn’t available back then and then testing so much later

Easy answer, there were two offenders.

It belongs to somebody else that the girl came in contact with that wasn't the killer. Not exactly mysterious.

Maybe she didn’t leave voluntarily, maybe he put a gun to her head

Recreational drug use did not cause this incident. The dude was scoping out the place the day before. Even of he was using drugs, he would have been attracted to children before then

he was a perv, but the drug use lowered his inhibitions enough so he didn't care what he did.@@NealBurkard-ut1oo

Bulger was only 2, so would obviously behave differently to a teenage girl. Plus, why would her "fate being sealed" mean she wouldn't fight?

I don't understand your question. How does a 12 year old fight against a 250lbs adult male? By being taken from the house, her chances of survival dropped to slim to none. Secluded areas give the killer a sense of security that no one is going to stumble across them hurting their victims.

For the sake of conversation, if he had assaulted and killed her in the home the chances of this being discovered by a neighbor or that mom returned to walk in on the scene vs. Being taken into a secluded area where it buys him time and confidence no one is going to walk in on him.

@@R4di0Tr4sh That's very likely true but there's no reason to think she'd know that.

@eadweard. that's not my point. A stranger came into the house and she was terrified. No signs of struggle. She was too scared to fight back. As a child, I was taught to obey adults no matter what. The Delphi murders were the same. The girls were too scared to run or fight

She did not have anyone else's blood under her fingernails. It was simply an inconclusive test result. You have to have enough sample and it has to be in good quality to get results.

was not any to be tested, she was $@%ed with sticks. this whole case is shady as hell.

@@redbullwithoutapause7835 Sticks? I'd investigate her girlfriends first. You know, the ones that would know where she was. Sounds like some shit teen girls would do.

That was back in the 80s, I sort of doubt they kept all that evidence in a reliable way until the decade they could test it

Know only what I heard in this video about the case, but Dr. Grande said "blood". Not saying he cannot get it wrong. Guess I will have research it.@@griffrc

Please. DNA testing in 1993 with probably not enough sample to test? You seem to think it's perfect unless it gets the result you don't favor, then it's not perfect and can be explained away somehow.

@@griffrc DNA testing was sufficient in 1993. If there was an insufficient sample, the test would not have been performed. What a ridiculous comment/assumption you made as well.

Absence of his DNA under her fingernails is not proof that he didn't do it. He could easily have been wearing long sleeves and gloves. Also, she was bound with rope, greatly limiting her ability to scratch flesh.

@@griffrc Don’t be stupid. Did you not even listen to the video? They tested it twice and it seems very clear that the blood was not a match to his. You don’t have to have a complete D.N.A. profile for that - you only have to find contradictory aspects. It might even be as simple as the basic blood type being different. But the 1990s was not the nineteenth century - it was the era of ‘Jurassic Park’. That would not have been written even as a fiction were D.N.A. extraction not sufficiently developed and in the public consciousness.

@@briant7265 Sorry that your reading skills are so poor. I didn’t say that it was proof - I said that it was reason for doubt. Furthermore, I said that he might still have been involved but that someone else might have been too - the other blood had to have come from somewhere and if she had scratched e.g. a friend in a play (or real) fight or by pure accident presumably they would have come forward.

Because he just killed someone and had a very guilty conscience.

Right and how did the cops not notice he wasn’t locked out when he got to the truck? Someone is lying

Or it was just a coincidence.

I get what you’re saying to a certain extent, but I think you’re going overboard. Are you saying people in jail shouldn’t be fed or have health needs taken care of?

I think there is more to this story than just people defending a child killer.

I think he is saying most of us work our rear ends off, and still struggle with putting food on our table, and most of us can’t afford medications we need and physician care because we have crappy health coverage. Maybe if your taxes was supporting someone in prison, or death row…that murdered a loved one..you might feel different. They gave up their right to square meals and health care when they took a life. Period. They are horrible, evil people..and don’t deserve s***.

@@Sleepparalysisdemon2 I feel like this is more of a statement against the health care system than a statement against prison care. I can understand this sentiment at a surface level, but it's born of pure emotion. Firstly, death row inmates tend to take up a lot more money than lifers. The government doesn't rush towards killing people, and it shouldn't - there are countless cases where death row inmates have been exonerated , sometimes only hours before they were set to be executed, and the State came within a hairs breadth of killing an innocent person. If the government is going to go to the extreme of taking a life, that means it has to take the utmost procoutions and spare no expense - this is not something they'll be able to undo. That means a lengthy jury process. That means hiring more lawyers for the defendant, to make sure they're properly defendeded. That means a lengthy appeals process. That means solitary confinement, which is more expensive. All of this is essential, because, again, the government should never rush towards the ultimate option. And no, I don't like that my tax dollars go to fund reprehensible people, but that's the way justice works. If the state is going to house inmates, it has to meet basic human needs - they might be terrible, terrible people, but they are still PEOPLE, and have to be treated as such. I'm not saying they should live at the Ritz, but they shouldn't be subjected to torture, either, and that's what starving them and not making sure basic health needs are met would amount to.

Opinions and thoughts. I agree.

In spite of what you may have learned from watching Reefer Madness, it IS possible to be a productive member of society while using controlled substances recreationally.

Mayor Marion berry the people’s crackhead , for instance