The defense team for Dennis Dechaine, the man convicted 34 years ago of murdering 12-year-old babysitter Sarah Cherry in Bowdoin, is preparing to seek a new trial based on new DNA test results.

On Sunday we published an in-depth report about “state-of-the-art” DNA testing that excludes Dechaine from some key crime scene evidence. Jordan Andrews’ story was widely read and drew a considered response from readers of pressherald.com. We’re publishing a selection of those responses here.

The opening comment in this round-up comes from Jeffrey Evangelos, an independent Maine State Representative for Friendship, who attributed his decision not to run for reelection this month to standstill on criminal justice reform in Maine. Evangelos sponsored a bill, which died earlier this year, that would have lifted the deadline for filing petitions for post-conviction review based on newly discovered evidence.

• “Shame on the state of Maine. Dennis (Dechaine) isn’t the only innocent person being held in a cage at the Maine State Prison. Maine’s attorney general opposed this testing, as they have opposed all innocence petitions, using arcane provisions of law. Our cold case homicide unit is not bound by these restrictions. Imagine having a loved one sitting in prison, knowing there is evidence to free them, being blocked by the Attorney General’s Office, an agency which is supposed to protect our rights. This is no one’s idea of justice. In the 130th Legislature, both houses passed L.D.-54, the bill that would have ended these draconian time limits. Attorney General (Aaron) Frey killed the reforms by slapping an enormous and unjustified fiscal note on this bill, despite it passing in the House and unanimously in the Senate. It’s time for the U.S. Justice Department to put Maine’s Attorney General’s Office and our entire criminal justice system under review.” – JeffreyEvangelos

• “This is one reason why I am entirely opposed to the death penalty. There are no mulligans when playing capital punishment.” – Kennebunkportindependent

• “Try to imagine he is innocent. Then try to imagine what the victim’s family will feel if that is true. Tragedy all the way around” – Sue

• “It’s about time. I wholeheartedly agree with Dennis’ comments: relief but disgust. I have followed this case from day one, from hanging out with his original lawyer and hearing his frustration that the cops and ‘those in charge’ were railroading Dennis and just wanted to close the case. They refused to look at any other theory. This is what happens when bad people are in power and do shady things. It just doesn’t go away.” – Namaste

• “In a case like this that sparks fear across the state, there is pressure to close such a case. I would bet those who worked the case really believed they had the right person and information (which) at the time supported most of a theory. DNA should have been tested as technology emerged. Maine’s statute should demand testing within two years by the state if DNA has previously unsupported a case or been lacking, i.e. not in cases already proven by DNA.” – raysgirl

• “It’s about time this gets resolved. I remember well this whole case. It’s been troubling since day one. Something has always been strange about this case.” – NoGreyArea

• “DNA found at the scene of a crime is not the one and only evidence that is used to convict someone, the lack of same should not be used to eliminate someone. The totality of the circumstances is what is presented to a judge/jury, including DNA, if any, and other evidence. There are many crime scenes that do not contain DNA evidence but other evidence identifying the perpetrator is found.” – Justsaying