State ought to release
Dechaine report to public

Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.

E-mail this story to a friend

What should one make of the report of the supposedly independent Rowe Commission charged with reviewing alleged improprieties or worse in the investigation and prosecution of Dennis Dechaine?

The commissioners interviewed six members of law enforcement or the Attorney General's Office -- those involved in the allegations -- yet chose not to interview those members of Dechaine's defense team whose efforts were compromised by the alleged actions.

They also shed no light on the controversy surrounding contradictions between the criminal investigators' notes and their trial testimony, saying only, "What happened with regard to the notes was fully explained to us, and we find the explanations to be satisfactory." Well, that's helpful. Why the secrecy? The public needs substantive answers, not just more of the same "take our word for it" offered by the prosecution.

But then how much credibility should be afforded to a report that misspells the names of both the defendant and an assistant attorney general? Or that doesn't appear to understand the significant difference between an "alternative suspect" -- "one of two mutually exclusive choices," according to Webster -- and an "alternate suspect" -- "a person authorized to take the place of another who is temporarily absent." The report uses both interchangeably.

The public waited far too long for this report, which now offers whitewash in place of a clear finish to the troubling questions surrounding Dechaine's trial. But then Dennis -- not "Denis" -- has been waiting nearly 18 years for his answer.

Bernie Huebner

Waterville

bhuebner@adelphia.net