 Hello and welcome to the Runlet and Baldachi Report. The report today, the incredible case of Dennis DeShane. Over 30 years ago, three decades, one of the most brutal murders in main history took place of a young girl around the age of 12. And the case that followed is still going on today, three decades later, more than three decades, because they arrested one Dennis DeShane because they were absolutely convinced in their minds, beyond any doubt, the police, the state of main prosecutors that Dennis DeShane had committed this horrible brutal murder. However, over the years, many people, many people, including a lawyer who is now a judge and a detective who did a book about Dennis DeShane, were convinced that this man was totally innocent of this horrible and heinous crime. Rob, our guest. We're very pleased to have John Nail, attorney in Waterville. John happens to be my cousin. But don't hold that against him. Don't hold that against either of you. Yeah, exactly. But John has a very distinguished career in the law, having tried many murder cases along his career. Just recently working with his brother and nephew, correct, John, on elder law. And you've taken this case on, John, pro bono, and you've been involved in this case for a long time. But what brings you to us today? What's significant that you would like to talk about? Just the fact that the man is innocent, and that over the last 35 years, he has been trying to prove himself innocent with more DNA testing that he asked for 35 years ago. We finally have that DNA test results. And we think that those results show even more that he's innocent. At the time, back in 1988, when he was first arrested, yes, you're right, Dairy. The prosecutor and the detectives, they all thought that he was the man. He was the one who did it right off the bat. What they were acting on there was they were acting on circumstantial evidence. It is our theory now of the case now that we have as much of the evidence that we're ever going to have, because there's no more DNA to be testing, the state destroyed the other evidence years ago that could have also contained exculpatory DNA evidence. Why did they destroy it, John? Yeah, why would they do that? Well there is a time after a trial, like there was in this case back in 1989, I think it's about five or six years that the clerk of court can destroy the evidence without objection. They just do it as a matter of course. But in this case, the attorney at the time, Tom Connolly, because appeals were still pending, he objected to the destruction of the evidence and he was able himself to go to the courtroom and thankfully, thankfully take control of some of the evidence and that is the evidence that we have now that was recently tested for DNA. The rest of the evidence, a rape kit that was destroyed, other evidence was destroyed. We were just left now with seven pieces of crime scene evidence that we have been able to just recently have DNA test results on. John, when Tom, a very able attorney, who also ran for governor of the state of Maine, when Tom took that evidence and kept it, I'm sure in a safe place, has the state raised the problem where, hey, that evidence left the courthouse, it's no good, now it's got tainted by the defense attorney, they raised that problem? Yes, they did, they absolutely did do that, so like, let's see, the items of evidence and the case that are today instrumental was the blood that was found under all ten of the victim's fingernails when she was unburied at the scene. We have photos of her hands with the blood caked underneath her fingernails. That is the blood of the assailant. Now at the outset, at the trial back in 1989, all that could be done for blood tests then was a serology type blood test. What do you mean by that? Blood typing, A, B, A, oh, okay, that's all that could be done, exclusionary type evidence. So when the evidence, when the blood from the fingernails was tested, it came out as being A-type blood. The shame is, oh, type blood. The victim had A-type blood, so they thought that it was all her blood. Now through DNA testing, we're seeing that the blood that is under her fingernails has an unknown male DNA. We're not talking about just DNA off a fingernail, we're talking about DNA that came from blood that was in all ten of her fingernails. And John, your point is going to be, I assume, there's no way that this girl would have ten fingers with blood underneath it, that that came from, and you demonstrated this earlier, and I'd like to have you do it again. Yeah, please, take us through that. You demonstrated that this man, she was scratching everywhere on his face wherever, because she's still out of here. Go ahead and explain that. Explain the blood under the fingernails was explained to the jury as being her own blood. Right. And it came from the limited amount of blood that she had up here from some scratches that she had up on her neck. So at the time of trial, believing that it was the victim's blood, the defense really didn't get too involved in that. There was a lot of evidence that could have been explored if we had known that it was not her blood, but that type of evidence was overlooked. Now that we know that it's not her blood, and we look at how her hands were found at the time of unburying her, yes, that would be good, that would be good if we had the picture. And you submitted that picture with your emotions, because that picture of those hands, which are actually hers, I hated to see it, but you're saying that picture was so important to you that you put that picture in, in your motion. Absolutely, because it shows blood under her fingernails that would have come from her only defense mechanism at the time, as the assailant was tying the scarf that came from Mr. DeShane's truck, at the time he was tying the scarf to strangle the victim with her hands up here, he missed tying it around the neck the first time, the first knot was tied up here. Because she's struggling, I assume. Because she's struggling and she could push it up. The second time when he wrapped the scarf around the poor girl's neck, now he caught it down here. And that's where the final knot was tied. And her hands were found here up under her chin tied. With the new DNA evidence now we can show through crime scene reconstruction that as he was tying that scarf around her neck and her hands up here, she dug him. She dug him either in the face, because she could reach up to the face, to the neck, to his arms or to his hands. Whoever committed the crime left the scene that night with 10 digmaks on them. Somewhere. Somewhere. Face, neck, hands or arms. That's how the blood gets under her fingernails. Now if you could please show the photo that was taken of Mr. DeShane. This is important. This photo too. You also submitted this photo, which by the way, John, when you showed me your motion and I'm reading it and I go, why would he include a picture of this defendant? But when you explained it, the audience would look at it and explain when it was taken, John. Yeah. Go ahead, John. Okay, so the photo that we have of him, and I don't know if it's being shown. He'll be up there. He will be. But you would see the photo of him. It looks like he really just got out of the shower. Right. There's not a scratch on him. Normal. There's no dirt on him. His hair isn't messed up. His clothing hasn't been stretched. It's not dirty. And for sure, he doesn't have 10 digmaks on him. Anywhere. The police relied solely on the circumstantial evidence and the fact that the body was found in an area that he hadn't been at that day. That's their circumstantial evidence that they have. And we're saying that that's not enough. But, John, tell us about that circumstantial evidence. The rope, the thing with his name on it, that's what, quote, killed him. Exactly. He was framed. He was framed by the real assailant. What we're saying there is. How was he framed? He was framed when the assailant went into his parked vehicle and took certain items from the vehicle. Two items in particular. One was his, this man was a young farmer, nonviolent farmer, nothing. And he carried along a notebook of his farm activities with his name on it. And then because he had his truck in the repair shop, there was a repair bill in there with his name on it. The assailant, the killer, rifled his truck, took those two pieces of evidence, took the scarf and then took rope from his truck, from his, then the assailant went and got the victim. Now whether it's random serial killer type thing or whether it's a person who had a motive, a purpose, we don't know that. But we do know that the victim was taken from the place where she was babysitting at, which was three and a half miles away from where she was buried. The assailant took the items from Dennis the Shain's truck, went to the home where she was again either randomly or with purpose and planted the notebook and the repair bill in the driveway, took the victim back to where the crime scene was three and a half miles away where Dennis's truck was parked, took the victim and struggled with her. I imagine all of the time she's not going voluntarily to do this. She's struggling, the assailant is struggling now with a 12-year-old scared girl. And he's got to control her all the time. So he must have parked the vehicle and then he had to struggle with her in one way or another to get her 500 feet into the woods. Through sticks and... Heavily wooded areas. Yeah, shrubs and stuff. Exactly, exactly. All that I'm telling you was everything that's in the record. It's in the record. They testified to the... You're not making any of this up. Heavily wooded area, 500 feet in the woods. That would have caused some type of change in the man's clothing or his skin or his face or his head, nothing. Then when they got to the scene, there's evidence again of there being an area where there was a wrestling type of a thing taking place. So that must have been the area where now they're both down on the ground and he's exercising control over her. Again, that's going to cause dirt and stains on the clothing. Yes, of course. And then when he finally gets control over the victim now, he's going to... He's sitting on her. He's straddling her to gain control over her body and to keep her in one place. And then as he's on top of her, he's tied the hands and now he's got the scarf and he's going to do the strangulation process with the scarf. And that's when he's there for the length of period of time and she has the time finally. The only thing that she can do with her defense is dig. And when we found her, when she was found, she was buried above ground burial, right? And when they found her, again they found her like this and that's what rigor mortis will do. Rigor mortis freezes you in the condition and the pose that you were in when you died. And the rigor mortis shows, as a result of the rigor mortis, we see that her hands were found up here, tied, and there's the knot. The strangulation knot is here, the knot is here, her hands are here, and then whoever did it, his hands are right there too and his face is right there too. Horrific. That's what it is. Horrific. Go ahead. This is chilling, John, and why has it, what makes this different, this attempt to have a new hearing makes this different than what the previous attempts have been? Is it the new technology or what, John? Well, yeah, why do you have a chance, for example? Well, like the new DNA test results now show that there's DNA on the scarf that can be compared to or match the DNA now found under the ten fingernails. Okay? So now we have unknown male DNA blood under the fingernails and now we have unknown male DNA on the scarf. But not the shanes. But not the shanes. The shanes is on the scarf because it is. You've got two places with DNA. Exactly. And the scarf has been in, the scarf has been in the shanes' truck. Will they argue that the DNA is somebody that was in the truck and picked it up, I mean? They're arguing even worse than that. Worse? They're arguing even worse than they have. When the unknown male DNA showed up on the blood under the fingernails, okay, rightly so, the prosecution at that time said, look, that could be contamination. And so then the prosecutor and the defense counsel at the time says, okay, so this is what we're going to do if you're thinking it's contamination. We're going to get a sample of everybody's DNA in the crime lab. Everybody's DNA in her family. Everybody's DNA that we think who could have even come close to that scarf, to that. And it came up empty. They came up. Oh, my God. Nothing. Okay? So then what they did was, so now in order to explain it, now what the state does is, now the state blames it on their crime lab. Oh, my God. They throw the crime lab under the bus by saying, hey, look, look, our crime lab must have been so dirty. Yeah, but they contaminated it. They got contaminated. They throw their own crime lab under the bus in order to again defend it. Right. John, there's one element that you talked about that reminded Rob and I of someone that you met first in the state of Maine, became friends with him, F. Lee Bailey, who wrote a book that Rob and I interviewed him on, thanks to Rob. Last interview with F. Lee Bailey was where he discussed evidence that he would have produced, that they would have produced, that when O. J. Simpson got on the plane, supposedly after a brutal murder, he's talking to the pilot, hey, good to see you. Oh, it's signed in autographs. Hello. Acting totally, quote, normal. And the forensic scientist that Bailey was going to bring was going to testify, unless you are a Bundy, a serial killer that's killed hundreds of people, that any ordinary man that has killed a person brutally is not going to be normal. And you've got that evidence from the elderly people that picked him up in the car. Tell us about that. Exactly. Yeah. So, John, I think it might be helpful if you kind of trace back the steps of Dennis Duchain, what he was doing during the course of the days. And then meets the people. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Very good. So, Dennis is a, at the time, he was a young man coming down into Bowdoin to start a farm with his wife. He was born and raised in Madawaska. Right. His mom and dad died when he was young. He put himself through college twice. He went to college first in agriculture and then again in French. He married his wife, came back to Maine, went down into Bowdoin, bought a small place, raising animals and vegetables. And because he's totally a nonviolent person, when it comes to slaughtering his own animals, he doesn't do that. He takes them to, he takes his chickens down to the slaughterhouse and they do it for him and then he picks the chicken up and takes it home. He cannot do that himself. So that day, July 6, after just coming back from a family gathering in Madawaska with his family for the 4th of July, he came back, July 6, he's now going to go pick up the chicken that he had slaughtered, okay, the chicken meat. And he did in Gardiner. He came home that day, brought his chicken, brought the chicken meat home and he told his wife that he was going to go out and look for different places to go fishing. But in fact, he was leaving so that he could go and get high on an amphetamine drug. His wife did not approve of that. That's why he had to leave the house. So he left the house and he drove to this deserted area, back roads in Bowdoin, and he parked his vehicle there. He left, went into the woods, did the drug thing, got high, sat there, walked around and he got lost. He got lost. He came out on another road. He came out on the other road at about 8 o'clock at night. You've been there, how many hours you think he was hanging around in the woods? Five or six hours. Five or six hours hanging around in the woods. Exactly, lost. Lost. High? Lost in the woods. But he comes out looking as he looked in the picture that we just saw. Which is normal. Which is normal. And now he's met by an older couple who stop and ask him if he's lost or does he need anything. And he says, yes, I'm looking for my vehicle. They invited him into their car. They then invited him into their house. These people testify? Yes, yes. Yeah. And they testified he's acting normal. Exactly, just like he looked in the photo that we just saw. Not a scratch on him. Not a scratch on him. But what you have is that while he's looking for his truck, you have the sheriff and the detectives now looking for a missing girl. Yes. Because she was taken from where she was babysitting. She was taken from that home sometime between 12.30 and 3. And here he is right in the area. And here he is. He's right in the area. Yep, no doubt about it. Right in the area. And then they find those items in the driveway of the home where the victim was taken. Which in itself to me would be strange. Why would somebody take a girl and leave a truck repair bill and I mean it's crazy. Rob, you see that point that you just made, John, when you say that this guy picks items out of the truck and now he's obviously planned to frame somebody. Yeah. Probably not knowing who John is. Not knowing. Exactly. But that's the thing, as Rob just picked out. You pick out a notebook with a name on it. And why if you were just going to go rape some girl, why would that notebook just be fall out of your pocket, whatever. And if you were going to rape and boom, you'd be pretty careful would you not. Not to leave. He left what? Four items. The scarf. Two items. Yeah. He left two items in the doyard. Yeah. Two items in the doyard. And then he had the assailant then had the other two items with him. The scarf and the rope. So John, it is so. So it's like a detective novel. Yes, the detective. Oh, here's the notebook are we getting. So you're saying that they jumped on that instead of even contemplating that he was framed. That concerns me that they did not contemplate that this man had been framed. They did not, in spite of the fact that the man voluntarily. Yeah. Explain this. The man voluntarily surrendered his body for photos, surrendered his blood for blood testing. Surrendered his fingerprints, surrendered his clothing for them to take, surrendered his truck for them to take, surrendered his home for them to go into and take sheets off his bed and other clothing that they might have had, cut his fingernails to see if he had any blood or debris under his fingernails, none. And he volunteered all of it. And then before the trial, he's volunteering, he's begging for DNA test results to be done that he would pay for. He's been, he's paid for. He's begging. Begging. But first of all, John, I think the three of us can agree that if we were accused, the three of us right here, of a heinous crime that we know we did not commit under any circumstances, killing our wives or best friends or whatever. You're right, John. I didn't do it. The first thing you'd be saying to people, at least I would be, take any DNA you want. Take whatever you want. By the way, John, the other guy, I would have no hesitation doing it if I was accused of a crime. I didn't do it. Give me a polygraph. Did he ever take a polygraph? No, he never did. Did anybody ever think about that possibility? I didn't. I didn't. And I don't even know that. Well, you're coming in 35 years later, I mean, first of all, John. There's no reason for him to take that risk, like that, because we know that the lie detector tests are not as accurate and not allowed in court. But John, I know they're not allowed in court, but my law firm and F. Lee Bailey used polygraph. We use polygraphs. So if somebody comes into our office and they're accused of some abuse of their stepdaughter, let's say, and they adamantly deny it, I've never touched it, well, this happened and that happened. No, we often say, well, you take a polygraph, and we hire the polygraph guy, nobody can find out about it. It's privileged. And so I'm just wondering, would you ever consider the possibility of just getting a private polygraph test? Nobody knows about it. You can do it. And just to see, because when we have had clients pass the polygraph... I don't see the need for it, Larry. I don't see the need for it. DNA is much more reliable than the polygraph. Elaborate on that, John. And here he is, he's begging for the DNA test results. I have to say that really points to credibility, in my opinion, because if you say to somebody, I'll give you anything you want, fingerprints, I have to say, because you used a word trace. One is circumstance and the other is trace. Tell the audience what the difference is between trace, evidence, and circumstance. Good question. The difference between trace evidence and circumstantial evidence is that circumstantial evidence can be placed there. With trace evidence, if there's trace evidence there, you have had to be there. Trace evidence is the type of evidence that comes from our body. Fingerprints, blood, serum, spit, semen. I was just going to say, if he spit or he urinated or whatever, I mean, if he did something about himself there, that would prove he was there. In other words, some evidence that he left there is here, whatever. Exactly. Exactly. So you have the lack of the trace evidence, and then you have him begging to do the DNA evidence, and then you have the photo of him that shows that his physical appearance was not changed at all. If a man went through and did what he did, you're going to see some trace. Carried on his pants. Carried on his pants. She was buried above ground. The man had to use his bare hands when he did that. Nothing. They took, they cut his fingernails to see if they had any debris under the fingernails. Right. Right. And the other thing is, John, is that you had just carried on this unbelievably brutal crime, and you're still somewhat high on drugs. And a little old lady and a little old gentleman, probably my age, say, you want to ride? You're going to say no. You're not going to want to deal with people. Exactly. You're not going to sit down and shoot the bullet in the car. Shortly after brutalizing somebody, yeah. And they testified that they asked him questions, where are you going, what are you doing, you want a glass of water, whatever. So you might ask, John, look, with all of the lack of the trace evidence that the jury must have seen, and they did, right? Mr. Connolly did a great job. No blood, no fingerprints, no trace, no fiber, nothing, nothing. Right. And when it came time for the prosecutor to address that in his closing argument, he told the jury that, look, the reason we don't have any of the trace evidence, that's because that's the way God wanted it. Say that again. Yeah, yeah. As the prosecutor was admitting to the jury. That's the way God wanted it. The reason we don't have the trace evidence. Because it just wasn't supposed to be there. Because that's the way God wanted it. To me now, that's an improper argument, but it wasn't objected to at the time. But to me, that's why our law court, when they reviewed the record and they says, look, after reviewing this voluminous record, we are left with troubling questions. That's exactly what they went on to say. But then they held it, it's okay, though. Well they held it, it's okay, because he had already been found guilty. And so they said, we've got some problems, but we're not going to... Not enough. Not enough. Because once you've been found guilty by a jury, and now you're before the court on appeal, post-conviction review, now the standard is you have to prove yourself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. John. And you think you've got the ammunition to do that at this point in time? Yes, if we can get it in front of a jury again and put now all of the evidence in. That's the question now. Are we going to be limited in what we can put in for evidence? John, you just explained something to the audience that I hadn't thought of. And that is when people watch a trial, the words, reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt, it's all you think about. That's why in the case that was just brought against Trump, they had to make it very clear to the jury, this is preponderance of the evidence. Skills of justice like this, all like this, but not beyond a reasonable doubt which lay like this. And what you're saying is once the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, by law. You got it. By law, the standard now says to you, you've no longer got the cloak of the presumption of innocence. You now have to come before the court and say, your honor, they screwed up so bad down below that we can prove to you his innocence and we're going to do it this way. And that's how you begin your brief and your motion. Talk, Johnny. That's where we are. Talk about your filing. Yeah, yeah, that's good. You submitted it last week. Yes. All right. Can you kind of summarize the arguments in here for the audience? So like just last week we filed a memorandum. The motion is already filed for a new trial. Now it's a matter of how much evidence can we put in? Because under the DNA statute, it's worded in such a way that we now have to rely on the existing record. Tell us what that means, the existing record. The existing records mean I'm limited to what the witness has testified to at trial. You can't recross examination of it. We can't recross exam. Oh my God. Okay. John, this is important to me as an attorney. You've got a record. You're the new attorney on here and you, with all this knowledge that you've got, you now, your cross-examination, I assume, would be quite different knowing what you know now than the cross-examination. But you can't change it. Absolutely. Because that would have to be incompetence of counsel, would it not? Exactly. You'd have to say this lawyer never raised this objection. And by the way, John, I've got to tell you something. When you made that comment about, you know, only God knows or it's God will, I have to say to you that if I was defense counsel, I'm not sure I would have objected either. I'm not sure I would have said that's the way God wanted it. I might have, you know, yeah, whatever. But you're saying you don't have that luxury, do you, John? No. Oh my God. It is already fixed. If we're going to convince the judge, we have to convince the judge that the new evidence, a superimposed on the old evidence is going to make a difference to a jury. We can't go back and say, now, wait a minute, now, when you guys told us that the blood was her own blood, we can't go back and argue that unless we can show it another way. Right. Oh my God. Which is what you're doing. You said, why would she have that much blood under both her, what was she doing, just rubbing it? Yeah. See, I get you. Can't do that. Yeah. Now we're going to be limited. Yeah. So you've outlined all of this in your memo. And then what we're telling the judge here is, is we're telling now, now listen judge, at the time of trial, the jury was told that the blood under the victim's fingernails was her own blood. Right. We now see that it isn't her own blood. That's huge. Okay. So we now see that the unknown male blood under the fingernails, the DNA from the blood under the fingernails matches the DNA on the scarf. That's powerful. So now judge, we can say, we can reconstruct this way. He had the scarf. He had her down on the ground. He put the scarf around her neck twice, nodded it twice. The second time he nodded it, his hands had to be there. And because the scarf was only a normal length of a will scarf, by the time he put it around her twice, he only had about that much left. And that caused his hands to be right there. He had to be that close to her because there was only about six inches of scarf left for him to have his hands on, for him to be tying it. And to complete strangulation, you have to maintain asphyxiation for about four, five or six minutes. Excuse me, John. Consistent. Right. John, this brings up the Floyd case, George Floyd. For that man and also the recent strangulation in the subway. So what you're saying is in order to kill somebody by asphyxiation, strangling them, you can't let up. You've got to make your knee is going to be on that man's throat. And what you're saying is this man had to spend that much time, a long time, not you can't just do it in a couple of seconds, like we see on TV, you're struggling with something. It's a long time. And she's fighting at this point in time, John. And she's fighting. She's doing the only thing she can do with her hands tied here, found here. Right. And then his hands right above her is the only thing she could do at that point in time. Is dig. With the use of fingers. And that's what she did. She dug. Yeah. And it's not, it's not the chain's blood. It's not the chain's blood. Not the chain's blood. No. Because she's screaming. She's screaming. That's why he takes her deep into the woods. Deep into the woods. Yeah. Yeah. John, one of the questions that we asked, I think the audience needs to know this. And that is, when you take a case like this, people might be wondering, oh my God, he's a big time lawyer and well established. When you say, when Rob says pro bono, that means you're doing it for free. And either one or two reasons, either you want to make front page news or two, you believe in this man's innocence. And what I want to ask you, however, is that even though you're doing a pro bono, who pays for all your experts, John? Yeah. Is there a fund out there that people can donate to or something? Who's paying for all that? Well, well, you're right. Myself and my co-counsel Stuart Tisdale, our pro bono. I know Stuart, yes. I know Stuart. Great lawyer. Yes. And then he, but Mr. Deshane does have a support group who in the past have raised money for him and they had a little bit left for us to at least be able to hire the two experts that we have now. We have a DNA expert and we have a crime scene reconstruction expert. But we do need more money. There's no doubt about that. There's no money going towards legal fees. We're just thinking that if we're going to move forward, we're going to need money for the expert. Expert testing. John, I want to say something to the audience that is important in terms of your quote, fundraising. That if you yourself start to use your own money from your law firm account, your wife's account, whatever, that unfortunately, as kind as you are doing that, it also raises a sort of a conflict of interest in that you now have a vested financial interest in the case. So if in fact somebody had come up to you and said, you take this case, we'll let you write the book on it and we'll give you an advance, then that's another quote, conflict of interest. So I think the audience needs to know that the money does need to be raised for those forensic expenses so that you can do your job as an attorney without any impropriety even thought of. Well, he's investing in the own case because if he wins it, he can do an inside addition or something. And I applaud you for that. John, talk a little bit about the main judicial system here and there all along the course of the last 30 some odd years where Deshane has consistently said that he was innocent and how many attempts to for trial and appeals and all of that. And repeatedly he's been knocked down by the Attorney General's office, etc., etc. What's going on here? Are you getting some resistance as well? And how do you expect the AG will react to these new findings and your motion for a new hearing? Just as they have reacted to everything this man has tried to defend himself and to prove himself innocent, they deny, they delay, they stonewall. We've been 35 years trying to get to where we are now. The DNA test results, 35 years. How big was DNA, you know, my recollection, how big was DNA 35 years ago? It was just beginning, wasn't it? That's around the time of OJ, isn't it? No, no, no, 1988 was when a scientist in England finally experimented with it and they were able to catch the criminal over there by DNA. And then, like, yes, we learned about it, maybe 88, 89 coming into Vogue, but you've got to know that the forensic community, they're following the development of the new technology for years. It might be new to the public. I got you. But in the forensic community, they're seeing it being used, they're seeing it in trials, they're seeing magazine articles. And trusted, and beginning to get trusted. Exactly, exactly. So in 1989, 1989 was when Tom Connelly filed the motion for testing. Granted, granted, it was new. It was novel, okay? But they were seeing the results, okay? And when he was denied at that point in time and then moved forward with it, they were able to develop new science, new technology. Now in the past, the DNA test results were inconclusive because in the past, in like 2000, the way they collected DNA from clothing was they would use a scalpel and scrape it or they would use a wet swab to collect it that way. When they collected the DNA from the scarf and from the t-shirt and from the bra and from other items, it came back inconclusive. Now they have the MVAC WetVac collection system. Now what's what that's all about? So what that is, it's like a vacuum that will, that they run over the clothing that sprays water on it to loosen up the DNA particles or whatever might be there and then it vacuums it up and then they run it through a filter and then the DNA is separated and that's how they do it. And that's what I learned of maybe two years ago, that hey, the test results from 2010 were inconclusive and that's what our law court says, inconclusive. It doesn't help the shame, it doesn't change the case at all. It goes nowhere, it goes nowhere. But then I heard of the MVAC WetVac collection system. So I called the AG's office and I says, look, there's this new technology out there, the MVAC DNA collection system. Did you agree that we should try that now to give this man the DNA, the DNA test results? What was the response? You know what I mean? There was no, no nail. No, we're not going to, we're not going to agree to that. So then it took me two years to finally get the judge, well not to finally get the judge, but to do the research because now we have to prove that that new technology was not commonly known and available because in order to have the court order new testing on new technology, we have to have brought the motion within two years of that new technology becoming commonly known and available. Now at the time I asked the state if they would agree to it, there was no way that the MVAC collection system was commonly known and available in Maine. The crime lab didn't even have it, okay? Not even close. No, no, stonewalling. No nail. We're not going to agree to that. This is upsetting. My thought on that is with the DNA testing, look, if they thought that they had such a great case, why not just say, hey, we're going to give you all the testing you want. Exactly. Because we got you. I've got to say that that's what's a little surprising for me. Rob is good an attorney, but not an attorney, but as an attorney I am somewhat concerned about your approach that was basically stone walled. I mean, they're adamants of innocence. I have to say he served 35 years. One of the questions I wanted to ask you is a rather personal question about him. For a man to have been just, how do we put this? The horrible fate of being in this wrong place in the wrong time with a perpetrator who frames him, I think of myself, John, I think of you, I think of Rob, when we've been alone somewhere, in the woods somewhere, hiking somewhere, and to think that you could be doing something with a high or straight, and there's no witnesses to corroborate, there's no Judge Mitchell Bill Cohen there to say we were just shooting the bull and fishing together. What I want to say is how is he doing mentally with this? I mean, how does a man cope with all that? I know. You can imagine. It's very difficult, very difficult. But look, 35 years in prison, which in itself can be a pretty violent place sometimes. Yes. He's a model inmate. He's a model inmate. They put him in charge of programs. He's running the agricultural program over there. Yes, he's a model inmate. He's trying to live a regular life. 35 years. Nothing on his record there, and as a civilian, 30 years, Madawaskar, everybody who knew him in Madawaskar just knew him as a great, hard-working kid. Nonviolent, never in a fight, nothing. Same thing in prison, 35 years in prison. The same. The thing is, John, if in fact he had a propensity to violence and drugs in prison, he can do both. Oh, yeah. He can get as many drugs as he wants, and he can be as violent as he wants. And yeah, so you commit one violent murder, which means that you are something wrong with you. You get into prison, and that character pretty much comes out. I just want to say to you, John, as a fellow attorney, that you remind me of an attorney of many, yes, years ago. And that attorney was John Adams, who was given the unbelievable task of representing the soldiers in the Boston Massacre and worked so high because of his belief in their innocence. I congratulate you for that. Thank you. John Adams. That's pretty good. Thank you very much. Pretty good company. I don't know how much time we have left here. But where are you now with this case, John? You filed your motion. You're waiting for the state to get back to you? We're waiting for the state to file a reply memorandum that is going to object with us putting in the witnesses the additional testimony, the additional crime scene reconstruction. They're going to object to all of that. Why? Because the statute allows them to. Okay. Okay. That's why. But like I just said earlier, to me, if they have such a strong case, why not just say, hey, Nail, if your client wants more evidence, we're going to give it to him. If he wants more testing, we're going to give it to him because we think he's the guy. I don't know why they're not saying that. We have a tight case, Nail, so go ahead. It's frustrating. As much testing as he wants. John, as I keep saying, because I'm thinking of my own experience, that when cases came into my office, whether it be an auto accident case, a criminal case, a divorce case, whatever, I had to make a decision right out, you know, very early, do I believe 100% of my client, that the wife was abused, that the husband did this, or that the husband did that, or that my client was indeed hurt in an auto accident and is not making it up, and you form your own beliefs. And what you really hope for in the other side, whether it's an insurance defense attorney or a prosecutor, is that you move yourselves toward justice, whatever that may be, with both of you hoping to achieve a result. But this case cannot be settled. Is there any chance, John, that they would just say to you, look, we don't want to go through this work anymore. We're tired of it. You keep bringing it up. You serve 35 years. Is there any chance you could work out a plea bargain where they just let them out? I mean, seriously. Is that possible? Well, so far, I've asked, on two occasions, I've asked for cooperation. And I've gotten none at all. No cooperation from the Attorney General's office at all. No cooperation. That's with the new Attorney General, the one that's Frye? Yes. Yes. No. You've got to understand, they're behind this because they made the initial decision that he's guilty. Right. And they're basically going to stick with that and say that, in essence, we have a duty to defend the verdict. But they also have a duty to make sure that somebody who is innocent and serving 35 years with this evidence to at least have a hearing. But I'm not sure... And open it up. I'm not sure I agree with that, Rob, I think that, because if they had a duty, then someone would be telling me, you've got a duty to start cooperating. And by the way, John, you're not able to go to a mediator, as we are in civil cases, where the media would say, listen, I'm going to recommend you cooperate on that aspect, you know, give them the evidence, whatever. Don't object to that. But what's happening is they are stonewalling because they are, quote, not being mean, I guess they're just, quote, protecting the verdict. Protecting the integrity of the jury verdict. I can understand that. I'm all for that. I'm all for it. Okay. I'm all for that. But as Rob said, we're in favor of defending the jury verdict when we believe that the defendant got a fair trial. Here's a man who was asking for DNA testing before the trial. I mean, if you're innocent, I mean, if you're guilty, you're not going to be asking for that type of testing to be done. And you know, John, I'm going to say this to you. We have all seen men in prison continue to profess their innocence, despite overwhelming evidence we've seen in politics, whatever. And what you're saying to me is that the reason why this case is unique is because this man has consistently said, and you think he'd give up after a because most of them do give up. And he has an attorney like you, he had an attorney like Tom Connelly. And I have to say that at some point in time, I'm going to find it hard to believe that a really good judge, I'm not naming any names, but a really good judge is going to say, I got nothing to lose. Give this kid a chance. Give him a chance. Exactly. I mean, that's what you're hoping for. Will you have the same judge, by the way, where you have, I mean, in these motions, you have different judges moved around. Yeah, same judge. One judge is assigned. Who is it? Bruce Maloney? Yes. From Bangor, I believe. Yes. I was going to say, I mean, it's a matter of public record, but there is a great deal of pressure on this judge, because what's going to happen every time you follow a piece of paper, it's front-page news. As in the Ayla Reynolds case, which my firm is handling, and all we have to do is follow motion. It's front-page news. And so the judge here is going to be, in my opinion, more watched than any of you. The judge here has got to make a decision. And if he makes the final decision that, no, this kid is going to stay there for the rest of his life, it's pretty much, is it over, John? It's over, isn't it? I mean, that's the question I was going to ask. I would say that. No other options, John. There's no more DNA evidence to be collected unless the real perpetrator comes forward. There's no court that you can appeal to. No court that we can appeal to. No court. The Supreme Court? John, this is your last chance right here. This is DeShane's last chance. Yeah, DeShane's last chance. I say yours, meaning here. You can't bring it to the Supreme Court, John? Well, maybe if there's a constitutional issue, you can bring it to the U.S. Supreme Court. But, I mean, we're not there yet on any of that. I don't see it, but. Well, let's hope that. Well, John, I have to tell you that in reading that very briefly in the cursory manner, but your explanation earlier before we came on the show was actually so well formulated. And I've got to tell you what I'm also impressed with is your knowledge of this case, because you would have had to read volumes of material. And I've got to ask you, John, we all think about the attorney on the hourly basis. You've got like tons of hours in this case, do you know? Oh, yeah. Do you keep track of your time, by the way? No. No, because if you did. My wife might. Yes, you know. Five minutes, okay. Can I ask a question? Sure, go ahead. Just can you kind of paint a picture for the audience, graphically telling them, you know, what your case is, John, why he's innocent? Just paint that picture, because I think the way you do it is very vivid. And I'd like to leave the audience with that impression. You know, it was basically, yeah, tell us how. So I guess there, I would say that I believe that he was framed. Yep. That's important. I believe that he was framed. But wait, John, I have to interrupt you here, because I wanted to ask this question. Would they have any idea of anybody living near that girl, who it might be? Do they ever have any possibilities? Tom Connolly did. He did. Tom Connolly did have an alternative suspect theory, but when you're denied the DNA test results, you don't have much to go on in order to bring that third-party suspect in. Okay, go ahead. That's what they lost. I looked at you framed. Go ahead. Okay, so I'm seeing it that he was framed. I'm saying that we have two victims here. We have the young 12-year-old girl, and we have Mr. DeShane. We have two victims. And I'm saying that the prosecution, when they got involved in the case and they relied so heavily just on the circumstantial evidence and hurried to bring the case to trial because the community wanted the conviction. That's in the record. Now here's a case that was only seven months old before it went to trial. That's pretty quick. That's quick. The guy read in the wonderful morning sentinel of a case that went to trial that was three years old. So seven months old is quick. So them knowing or believing that they had the right man, knowing that the community wanted an answer to it, they focused on this man here. They put the blinders on, and they railroaded him. They denied him the DNA evidence up front. They denied it to him after the trial, and as a matter of fact, after the trial, they wanted to destroy the evidence. And then what we have is we have them stonewalling him for 35 years. And the stonewalling comes in by them denying, denying, denying. And as I said here, when it comes to the DNA on the fingernails, they're willing to throw their own lab under the bus to blame it on their own lab. Which I find that, you know, that's one of the strangest things. So that's where I'm coming from. Right there. Right. John, we're going to wrap up. We've been given the warning. I just want to commend you again, my comparison to John Adams, because I remember watching him. Well, you know, what's it like when you go, hey, listen, you got two sides of the case. He's a lot better looking than John Adams. You are. That way. We don't really know. Giamatti played him on the TV series. But what I want to do is tell the audience that we know you folks enjoy the show we did on about Donald Trump. And we are having, indeed, David Jones back. You might as well have Trump on the show, because he knows everything about him. And we're also going to have, most likely, a DeSantis fan, because this thing is going to heat up. And Rob and I really enjoy, we're going to enjoy watching DeSantis and Trump go at it by bringing those two people back. But our next show, after John's show runs, is going to be a show much lighter than today's topic, a show about the temptations. Because the temptations came to Portland. And, Dino, we're going to send you a picture that I want you to put up. It's a picture of Rob and I with the temptations. We were invited backstage, specifically you and I, because we're such heroes, to meet with the temptations, and we met with the original Otis Williams, who was the founder of the temptations. Correct. And we have a very personal friend of the temptations that will be on our show, Maria Novi. And we'll also do a little discussion on, here's my involvement with Bobby Riedau. But so, the temptations, we saw, did you like that show, Bob? Loved it. Yeah. I loved it. And the four tops. Yeah, the four tops were there. And, of course, we gave our guest a front row seat, so she was touching the temptations and the four tops and shaking hands and stuff. Rob and I were in the back... Cheap seats. Back row, back balcony. But the good news is, Rob, you were able to take video, because people... I did. They don't want you to take video to Mero, which, by the way, I think they're wrong about that. I think if the band allows you to take video, you can take video. And most bands today, Taylor Swift, whatever, they don't mind that kids are doing the videos. They really don't. They're all out there with the videos. But anyway, so you get some video. We're going to show you the temptations. And John, thank you again for coming on this case. We wish you the best of luck. This is important. I think you presented a hell of a case for our viewers, for us. Frankly, Rob, I would say I got a reasonable doubt that you're going to present. Oh, my God. I think there's a shot of reasonable doubt. And if there's a shot of a reasonable doubt, I mean a really reasonable doubt, then I think hopefully the judge will go your way. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for watching the Runlet and Baldachi Report with, I guess, John Nail on the Dennis Dushane case. We'll see you again. Thank you.