What if... [Archive] - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Dani_T

08-05-2005, 09:42 AM

Hi guys,

I was just wondering the other night what Darlie could ever say which would shock the socks off us all about who committed the murders... and I came up with an idea (well at least it would shock the socks off me).

Now I am not suggesting this is even remotely possible or plausible (please hear that!) but I wanted to see if anyone could come up with evidence to shoot it down in flames (mainly to see how well we know our evidence). I'm not talking about opinions on Darlie or Darin's behaviour etc but actual physical evidence. I personally haven't really put it to the test yet.

Again- I'm not suggesting it is even a remote possibility (not the least because I also don't think there is any evidence to support it either) and in some ways I am reluctant to even post it because I'm not sure if even speculating in this fashion is fair on the person involved... but here goes...

What if in the next little while Darlie was to come out and say that she honestly did not kill her kids but she was covering for Dana. What if Darin had never taken Dana home that night? Can the evidence refute it?

Goody

08-05-2005, 08:24 PM

What if in the next little while Darlie was to come out and say that she honestly did not kill her kids but she was covering for Dana. What if Darin had never taken Dana home that night? Can the evidence refute it?
I have tossed this one around already, and we just don't know much about Dana and the evidence at all. I don't see how we could shoot it down in flames. The state did not go into much detail about things that were not directly linked to Darlie, and occassionally Darin. I don't think they ever gave us any isolated information about how it applied to Dana at all.

I don't think she did it though. I am not totally convinced she wasn't there when it happened, but that could be easily shot down with her boyfriend's testimony on what time he got in that night and if Dana was home when he got there. Even that is not available to us.

Cowgirl

08-05-2005, 10:31 PM

Who called the cops? Who told them lies about the crime scene? Who had injuries that didn't match those of the murder victims? No one else has a motive, even though Darlie's doesn't make sense either. No one had anything to gain by the boys' deaths except maybe a new life for the Bimbo.

If her jewelry were taken then maybe I could believe some crazed intruder was there. There have been no other such murders around there and dammit, how did that knife used to cut the screen to get in end up being one of the ones from the butcher block? No one outside could have done it and no one inside had any reason to kill two little boys that way, thrusting a knife deep through their bodies while gently making sure not to cut too deep on Darlie. Conclusion:

DARLIE DID IT.

:laugh: :laugh: She went to death row covering for someone else? :laugh: yeah, right!

Dani_T

08-05-2005, 11:48 PM

Cowgirl

08-06-2005, 01:42 AM

I am a firm believer Darlie did it. I believe I made it more than clear that I was speaking completely hypothetically. If that wasn't clear then please go back and reread my post.

I don't think there is any evidence that it was anyone other than Darlie. I was wanting to see if anyone could come up with any physical evidence which refuted the hypothetical I posed.You did make your position clear. I was not trying to direct the questions at you. The questions are what any person who knows the facts of the case are going to ask whenever anyone else is suggested as a possibility. No one makes good sense, but anyone but Darlie makes even less sense.

I guess I just don't understand what hypothesis you are trying to make unless you have evidence to support it to begin with? Too many variables for me to what if about. Maybe someone else can.

accordn2me

08-06-2005, 01:57 AM

Dani_T

08-06-2005, 05:02 AM

Dani_T...why Dana? And if Goody's already tossed it around a bit...by all means...fill me in...why would that even occur to either one of y'all?

Because as I said I was thinking the other night 'What could Darlie come up with that would really shock me' and that idea came to me. I don't believe there is any evidence to support it, I feel very uncomfortable even using it as a test case (because I'm not sure it is fair to Dana) and I'm not suggesting it is even a possibility.

All I was looking for was to see if anyone could find any known evidence from the scene to disprove it- as a test case.

Let's just forget I mentioned it OK? Obviously I am not making myself clear.

Who called the cops? Who told them lies about the crime scene? Who had injuries that didn't match those of the murder victims? No one else has a motive, even though Darlie's doesn't make sense either. No one had anything to gain by the boys' deaths except maybe a new life for the Bimbo.

If her jewelry were taken then maybe I could believe some crazed intruder was there. There have been no other such murders around there and dammit, how did that knife used to cut the screen to get in end up being one of the ones from the butcher block? No one outside could have done it and no one inside had any reason to kill two little boys that way, thrusting a knife deep through their bodies while gently making sure not to cut too deep on Darlie.

I think, if you take the hypothetical I proposed, that you will find a lot of those questions are either irrelevant or answerable. The hypothetical was not some random intruder.

accordn2me

08-06-2005, 12:01 PM

Cowgirl

08-06-2005, 12:47 PM

Dani_T

08-06-2005, 08:00 PM

No....don't forget you mentioned it. I think it's fun to throw stuff like this around. It was Goody who threw me for a loop when she said she had tossed this around too. It strikes me as really strange that two of you, at least, thought....what if Dana did it. Now I'm suspicious that y'all are keeping secrets from me. TELL WHAT ABOUT Y'ALL KNOW ABOUT DANA...or I'll....or I'll hold my breath!:p

Honestly, we know nothing about Dana (well at least I don't) beyond the fact that she was in the house that night, allegedly driven home around 10.30 by Darin and has been very quiet on the whole issue (did not testify even though she was the last two see both of them that night and very small media appearances).

No secrets being kept. I don't for a moment think it was her (no evidence)- just sharpening up evidential skills with the hypothesis.

Dani_T

08-06-2005, 08:01 PM

So then if Darin did it, he cut Darlie's throat, etc? And she is not telling on him? Yeah, sure.

I didn't say Darin.

Goody

08-06-2005, 09:18 PM

Darin doing it makes way more sense than Darlie doing it.

Dani_T...why Dana? And if Goody's already tossed it around a bit...by all means...fill me in...why would that even occur to either one of y'all?
Because she was there that night and we didn't get to hear from her at trial. And except for the Leeza show, I don't think she has ever granted an interview either.

I only tossed around the possibility briefly that Dana might have been involved in the murders. I seriously doubt that, but she might know something and I am sure she could shed a whole bunch of light on what was going on with Darlie in that time period and esp that night, which exactly why she probably won't talk.

Cowgirl

08-06-2005, 09:21 PM

I didn't say Darin.Sorry, got my quote mixed up.

accordn2me

08-06-2005, 10:39 PM

Cowgirl

08-06-2005, 10:55 PM

I said Darin doing it makes more sense than Darlie doing it. He had motive, more than she did. The problem with Darin doing it, is Darlie covering for him. That goes both ways though. I can't believe she did it while he slept and he doesn't know it was her.Motive is the only part that astounds me. I am sure she did it. I think he is a big enough doofus to believe she didn't do it. But who would murder their kids for such a pittance of money? They spent every bit of the insurance on burying them. So she just didn't want them around any more. What a biatch. Could it be post partum? If the crime scene was legit, I would believe her story. It just does not work. The screen, the blood, her cut--all of it. It just doesn't work. Sometimes I wonder if she just flipped out at one of them and then felt she had to kill the other one and pretend the intruder story. It just makes no sense at all.

accordn2me

08-06-2005, 11:11 PM

Her motive couldn't have been money - at least not insurance money. With Darlie dead, Darin stood to collect a significant amount of money by some standards. Unless they were banking on book deals, movies, magazine interviews and such, money couldn't have been it.

Have you seen the photo of Damon's back on the justicefordarlie site? Those small cuts that are circled in red freak me out. What in tarnation could those be? I can't imagine! They sort of lend credence to the flipped out explanation.

You say if the crime scene was legit you could believe her. For the sake of argument, forget the screen for now, what is it about the blood that doesn't add up for you?

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:14 AM

I said Darin doing it makes more sense than Darlie doing it. He had motive, more than she did. The problem with Darin doing it, is Darlie covering for him. That goes both ways though. I can't believe she did it while he slept and he doesn't know it was her.
The problem with Darin doing it is that Darlie was wearing the cast off blood from the knife. That points at her, not him. She was the one who raised the knife and stabbed the boys. The evidence proves that. The only question for Darin is: Did he know it was going to happen and did he do anything to stop it?

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:15 AM

Sometimes I wonder if she just flipped out at one of them and then felt she had to kill the other one and pretend the intruder story. It just makes no sense at all.
That is a strong possibility.

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:18 AM

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 12:27 AM

Well, there could be a third question... did he do anything to cover it up... which I think he did. I truly do not think he had anything to do with the murders, and nor do I think he knew they were going to happen, and nor do I think he did anything to stop them because I don't think he saw them taking place.

I know I don't really have anything to contribute here, but I am enjoying all of you bantering ideas around. All of you are soooo much better educated on this case than I am that I know enough to stay out of it!

So, having said the above and knowing full well it has nothing to do with this conversation, I have wondered if Darin and Dana might have been "seeing" each other on the sly, and that Darlie perhaps either suspected it or knew about it. Knowing Darlie, and the fact that she was molested during her younger years, her rage would be directed at Darin (and possibly men/boys) and not Dana. What if during their "fight" that night, when Darlie said she wanted a separation, Darin agreed and even went so far as to say, "suits me, I'll just start seeing your sister" (as sort of a strike back at Darlie, to let her know he still appealed to other women)... which perhaps was enough to push Darlie over the edge. A conversation along those lines could be enough for Darin to feel like he "caused" the events of that night... and even more so if he was actually "seeing" Dana.

I don't mind being attacked on the above... it's no doubt filled with holes... and it's all speculation.

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:40 AM

I have wondered if Darin and Dana might have been "seeing" each other on the sly, and that Darlie perhaps either suspected it or knew about it. Knowing Darlie, and the fact that she was molested during her younger years, her rage would be directed at Darin (and possibly men/boys) and not Dana. What if during their "fight" that night, when Darlie said she wanted a separation, Darin agreed and even went so far as to say, "suits me, I'll just start seeing your sister" (as sort of a strike back at Darlie, to let her know he still appealed to other women)... which perhaps was enough to push Darlie over the edge. A conversation along those lines could be enough for Darin to feel like he "caused" the events of that night... and even more so if he was actually "seeing" Dana.

.
The biggest problem I see is that Dana was engaged. She was only 17 and apparently dropped out of school, though I can't say that for sure. I suppose she could have been engaged and just waited to graduate before marrying, although I thought she got married not long after these killings. Or was supposed to maybe. Whatever, the girl apparently lived with her boyfriend because I recall her saying somewhere that she didn't want him to come home to an empty apartment and that is why she went home (Leeza Show maybe). That struck me as odd because she gives a totally different reason for going home that night than Darlie gives.

I think Dana and Darin flirted about but that was as far as it went. I doubt if Darlie was jealous but we don't know enough about their lives to make a real quality judgement there. I wonder if Dana will ever write a book if Darlie is executed.

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 12:44 AM

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:46 AM

Cowgirl

08-07-2005, 12:48 AM

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:49 AM

Somehow I don't think anyone in that family will ever tell the truth. As you said, we don't know enough about some things and it's hard to make a quality judgment... and so much is just pure speculation. I don't get the feeling that telling the truth is a priority on that (Darlie's) side of the family (and nor with Darin, although I don't know enough about his entire side of the family to comment on). I think there are too many "family secrets" for any one of them to start spilling the beans.
That last statement of yours is probably closer to the truth than you know. I suspect Sarilda Routier supports Darlie in order to protect her son.....from what exactly I am not sure. But it seems strange to me that Darlie would be afraid that Sarilda would take her children away from her if she and Darin split up but when she is accused of murdering those children,the woman is completely devoted to her.

Goody

08-07-2005, 12:53 AM

Her attempt to clean it up, for one thing. Who would be thinking about wiping blood up around the kitchen with murdered babies? And an intruder not taking her jewelry? So what did he want? To murder a couple little boys and injure their mother? Not buying.
What about the bloody partial fingerprint that Darlie claims belongs to the intruder but is small like a woman's and has a whorl pattern in it like Darlie's ring finger?

What about the blood on the UR door that Darlie claims she did not put there, the blood drops on the floor, and the drips on the dryer? That blood came from a BLEEDING person, not from someone transferring it. Why would she insist she didn't put it there when she is the only one who could have put it there?

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 12:57 AM

Was it proven thru testing/DNA that it was definitely Darlie's blood on the UR door and the dryer and the floor? And yet she still denied it?

Goody

08-07-2005, 01:16 AM

Was it proven thru testing/DNA that it was definitely Darlie's blood on the UR door and the dryer and the floor? And yet she still denied it?
I don't think they tested the blood on the door. I am not sure about the drops on the floor. They knew it was not the boys because they would have left a trail to follow. Their positions were very limited. Darlie was the only one able to move around. Plus the defense never challenged it except to say the intruder left it.

She must have gone into the UR before she cut her throat. Only her arm would have left those drops on the floor and what was on the door, dryer, etc, and there are no bloody footprints leading up to or in the UR.

The throat wound would not have spurted. The blood would have seeped out of the wound and been absorbed by her shirt (which we can see happened) but as it continued to seep, the shirt would not have absorbed it all so some of it would have had to have streamed down her legs to her ankles and feet. As she walked, the blood flow would continue, giving her a constant blood source to leave footprints with. When you look a the crime scene, it makes sense.

The only thing that makes me pause is wondering why she went into the UR and what she was doing there so long that she had time to bleed everywhere.

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 01:21 AM

Thanks for your detailed response. I don't know how you keep all of that info in your head at one time... your recall is extraordinary. Can I ask you yet another question? If her arm was bleeding to the point there were drops on the floor, were there blood marks on the two boys that were similar in droppings (as in, from her arm)... or was it proven so to speak that she cut her arm following the boys being stabbed. Not sure if I made my question clear enough as it's all a bit convoluted.

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 01:27 AM

That last statement of yours is probably closer to the truth than you know. I suspect Sarilda Routier supports Darlie in order to protect her son.....from what exactly I am not sure. But it seems strange to me that Darlie would be afraid that Sarilda would take her children away from her if she and Darin split up but when she is accused of murdering those children,the woman is completely devoted to her.
I don't really know enough about Sarilda to be talking (just what I know from the books I read and I don't remember that much)... but many many women I talked to following the murders were of the mindset that a mother just simply could not do that. Sarilda seems to be a bit from the "old school" so maybe she is just adamant that any mother, including Darlie, could not have done that. OTOH, it could be just as you said... a family secret of sorts. She could easily be protecting her son at any cost, and for what reason I don't have a clue. It would be so helpful if anyone in that family finally just screamed out what happened that night, to clear up all of the questions in all of our minds!

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 03:17 AM

The problem with Darin doing it is that Darlie was wearing the cast off blood from the knife. That points at her, not him. She was the one who raised the knife and stabbed the boys. The evidence proves that. The only question for Darin is: Did he know it was going to happen and did he do anything to stop it?
I disagree. Mulder did not address the state's interpretation of the evidence. The state put on an aggressive, impressive, well-planned case that Mulder did nothing to counter.

If Darlie were in a fight for her life and/or defending her sons from a knife-wielding assailant, what would you say the probability of her getting cast off blood somewhere on her would be?

My question for Darin is: Did he catch her doing it, nearly kill her, then decide to cover for her?

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 04:13 AM

The throat wound would not have spurted. The blood would have seeped out of the wound and been absorbed by her shirt (which we can see happened)
If this is true, then why would one expect to see blood on the couch?

If Darlie was lying on the couch when her throat was cut, and this was a seeping-type wound, that explains why you would not see blood there.

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 04:21 AM

I don't mind being attacked on the above... it's no doubt filled with holes... and it's all speculation.:waitasec:

And it doesn't make any sense.:p

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 04:39 AM

Her attempt to clean it up, for one thing. Who would be thinking about wiping blood up around the kitchen with murdered babies? And an intruder not taking her jewelry? So what did he want? To murder a couple little boys and injure their mother? Not buying.
What attempt to clean it up?

I still haven't 100% ruled out an intruder so I'm still open to there being one or more than one even. Given that, I'm thinking that if there was an intruder(s), they didn't come in to rob, change their minds and butcher two sleeping kids. Dead-of-the-night house buglars are usually not violent. I would say an intuder that would do something like this was a violent-type :laugh: (I shoulda been a detective, huh), he came for something violent - murder...maybe...what if...rape...here's where the sock and the knife come in. He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.

:twocents:

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 04:42 AM

What about the blood on the UR door that Darlie claims she did not put there, the blood drops on the floor, and the drips on the dryer? That blood came from a BLEEDING person, not from someone transferring it. Why would she insist she didn't put it there when she is the only one who could have put it there?
Could you give me a link to Darlie claiming this? I can't find anything she says about it...or anything the prosecution or defense says about it for that matter. :banghead:

beesy

08-07-2005, 05:06 AM

What attempt to clean it up?
..
Someone, guess who, wiped blood out of the sink and off the counter top next to the sink. Luminol detected this as well as some wiped up blood on the sofa. They saw Damon's handprint which had been wiped off. Luminol is a chemical which causes blood invisible to the naked eye to glow in the dark. If blood shows up when Luminol is sprayed on it, it means it was wiped off. It shows patterns, prints, how much blood, etc. The blood was in a swirl pattern indictive of cleaning up, not bleeding.

He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911. There was no salvia found on the sock, only some skin cells which were Darlie's. Oh, and a deer hair, can't leave that out.

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 05:53 AM

..
Someone, guess who, wiped blood out of the sink and off the counter top next to the sink. Luminol detected this as well as some wiped up blood on the sofa. They saw Damon's handprint which had been wiped off. Luminol is a chemical which causes blood invisible to the naked eye to glow in the dark. If blood shows up when Luminol is sprayed on it, it means it was wiped off. It shows patterns, prints, how much blood, etc. The blood was in a swirl pattern indictive of cleaning up, not bleeding.

Hmmm :waitasec: I don't think so...what's your source? Please give me a link. If it's that dam book I'm never getting, forget it! I want real proof. :D

beesy

08-07-2005, 07:01 AM

Hmmm :waitasec: I don't think so...what's your source? Please give me a link. If it's that dam book I'm never getting, forget it! I want real proof. :D It's not in that book because Chris would do anything to protect Darlie. It's in Patricia Springer's Flesh and Blood, pages, 104-105. Wiped up footprints, the handprint, what appeared to be Damon's butt/back sliding down the sofa and the bloody smear from where Damon crawled across the floor also showed up. When Darlie was taken on a walk-thru with LE and noticed the kitchen sink had been removed, she suddenly recalled wetting towels for the boys. No witness but Darlie places Darlie at the sink.
It's also in Barbara Davis' book, Precious Angels, can't find the page because it's nearly 6 AM here. I've read Springer's book many times so I know right where that section is.
The cover of Davis' book even shows a bloody handprint on the sofa. Of course it's a drawing and the handprint is shown in red, but the point is that it was there in red at one time before it was wiped off. This is in the transcripts somewhere, I've read it there too. The blood found by Luminol is common knowledge, not obscure at all. No blood was detected by the chemical anywhere in the garage.

Cowgirl

08-07-2005, 09:31 AM

What about the bloody partial fingerprint that Darlie claims belongs to the intruder but is small like a woman's and has a whorl pattern in it like Darlie's ring finger?

What about the blood on the UR door that Darlie claims she did not put there, the blood drops on the floor, and the drips on the dryer? That blood came from a BLEEDING person, not from someone transferring it. Why would she insist she didn't put it there when she is the only one who could have put it there?Exactly. The "Blood Will Tell," as that book was titled for another murderer, and those were drops of blood cast off from a bleeder, not transfer. It was such a poorly staged crime scene that the cops smelled a rat just moments after looking at the scene because Darlie started lying. When there are two savagely attacked youngsters there to distract them, the fact that the evidence looks staged that fast tells you she did a lousy job of it. A legit crime scene would have evidence of another person being there and a tiny smudge of a fingerprint is not it. For someone to do what was done, there should have been hair and fibers, etc. It was obvious that the plan was not very good. The lone sock, the cut screen from a knife from inside the house--all of it stunk out loud and it didn't take a Dick Tracy to figure out that the pieces didn't add up to anything but Darlie.

Because Dallas is in the heart of the Bible belt, I always wonder if people like her are believers. I don't see how she could be. If she is, what does she tell her maker about this? I had the same thoughts about Walker Railey.

And as far as the blood clean up at the sink, accordn, are you new to this case? That was evidence reported very early on. I am not going to chase after links about basic evidence that went undisputed at trial. This is common knowledge.

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 10:58 AM

Cowgirl, I agree re the blood evidence around the sink ... that one I can remember pretty easily!

And, Accordn, re this....

I still haven't 100% ruled out an intruder so I'm still open to there being one or more than one even. Given that, I'm thinking that if there was an intruder(s), they didn't come in to rob, change their minds and butcher two sleeping kids. Dead-of-the-night house buglars are usually not violent. I would say an intuder that would do something like this was a violent-type :laugh: (I shoulda been a detective, huh), he came for something violent - murder...maybe...what if...rape...here's where the sock and the knife come in. He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.
:twocents:
... I will never believe in a million years that any kind of intruder was in that house for a minute. Forgetting all the obvious stuff, like lack of DNA, hairs, fingerprints, etc., just think about how ludicrous it is that an intruder, or more than one as you mention, would feel a need to all but obliterate the lives of two small boys but NOT kill or rape the mother. An intruder hell bent on having his way with Darlie would not have wasted precious time, or risked waking up the entire household, killing two small boys. It makes no sense for an intruder to have been in that house that night. None.

Cowgirl

08-07-2005, 11:33 AM

What attempt to clean it up?

I still haven't 100% ruled out an intruder so I'm still open to there being one or more than one even. Given that, I'm thinking that if there was an intruder(s), they didn't come in to rob, change their minds and butcher two sleeping kids. Dead-of-the-night house buglars are usually not violent. I would say an intuder that would do something like this was a violent-type :laugh: (I shoulda been a detective, huh), he came for something violent - murder...maybe...what if...rape...here's where the sock and the knife come in. He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.

:twocents:Just one more thing on the "what if" idea here...Darlie would have to allege something for it to be even considered as a "what if" question, would she not? And that is not what she said. Her story is that the guy who just thrust a huge knife from her kitchen deeply into the backs of her sleeping boys then tried to cut her throat instead of stabbing her, and he didn't slash it because the evidence says it was a slow, hesitating cut, not a clean slash, that missed any lethal areas. Are we going to "what if" about things that even the defendant is not saying? As much as she thinks of her own body and those prize boobs of hers, she should at least imply he wanted her badly enough to kill her kids for her and she has never said that.

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 12:54 PM

HoT, there were hairs that were never identified - a pubic hair and a limb hair.

Cowgirl, I'm not exactly new to this case....several years ago I posted for a while on another forum...unfortunately, my recall is not as good as Goody's...I have to relearn stuff...so I feel new again. As far as Darlie trying to clean up blood, I know the police, with their pictures of cleaning supplies sitting on the countertop next to the sink, implied that Darlie tried to clean up. But in the picture, you can see blood everywhere! It doesn't look like she tried to clean anything up. There was very little blood in the sink because she wet towels. Wet towels are an undisputed fact. Whether she tried to clean up or not...I think that is an allegation made by police and bought into by authors trying to sell sensational stories.

Luminol, a substance used to detect the presence of blood where it is not visible to the naked eye, was used in this case where you not only see blood, you see several pints of blood. I don't believe they used the Luminol on places like the gate, window in garage, or anywhere they couldn't already see blood. :doh:

Just like y'all are saying it makes no sense for an intruder to________, well, it makes no sense for Darlie or Darin to have done this either! A perfect stanger makes more sense to me than a family member. Darin arranging a hit on Darlie is a long shot idea, but stranger things have happened - like mothers killing their children. Making the intruder story work is hard. It's harder for me to make Darlie doing it work. Darin doing it is another story.

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 01:40 PM

Accordn, I guess I don't remember anything about the pubic hair. Like you, it's been a few years and my memory isn't near what some of these girls have!

Why is it hard for yo to make it work with Darlie? Is it because we, as a society, are conditioned to thinking moms could never commit such heinous crimes? I'm always shocked when I read about these crimes but I've definitely found myself allowing it to sink in. The main thing I've found myself doing in recent years is watching two things... their words and their actions. If they match, I'm okay with everything they say. But if they don't match, I go only with their actions because it's much harder to lie about them. What I've begun to realize is that almost invariably when their words and actions don't match I'm staring in the face of a sociopath. And once that happens, I know anything is possible. I don't always know the motive (as if any motive that involved killing children or wives could even be explained in the first place), but I can tell when things don't add up. Maybe words and actions not matching is too subtle for some people to believe but for me it always takes me to the bottom line. The truth is so easy to tell... it doesn't involve anything except repeating what has taken place. But lies will trip you up every time because it involves a whole series of adding and deleting and keeping up with what you said 3 minutes earlier. Another important thing about lying is that it screams a message to whoever is listening that this person is covering something up. And when I put a murder with a cover-up, it's easy for me to arrive at the truth as I know it. Darlie's story changed over and over (16 times?), and I won't bother recanting each of them. But they involved so many different versions to the point she finally claimed total traumatic amnesia... which was probably just her way of finally saying I can't explain all of the inconsistencies in what I've said.

justice2

08-07-2005, 04:50 PM

Dani_T

I'm like you. I wonder what's up with Dana. The thing that I found strange is she is the only one of the two families that acts like she has any emotions. I did wonder why she never answered what kinda of "mood" Darlie was in when she left the Routier house that night (from the Leeza show).

Blood evidence. I'm glad everyone here is sticking to the evidence and not getting emotional about this case. Could someone who is well-read on the blood evidence post a sticky to this forum summarizing it so we have a good reference to go to?

Personally I "thought" she did it even before I saw the silly-string video, but as far as convicting her I don't know enough yet. And like 90% of you here I think Darin is involved.

Cowgirl

08-07-2005, 05:50 PM

But a stranger could not have cut that screen with a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and that is the ultimate bottom line for me. Someone asked me to opine on something disregarding that fact. Well, I cannot disregard that fact because it is the damn bottom line. It cannot go away, no one can make it go away, and there is no innocent explanation for it. None. Almost all the other evidence you can explain away, even with a lame story. But not the knife and screen and the knife back in the butcher block. It just could not happen with an intruder. I don't know or care about Darin, frankly, because if he is in on it, Darlie is letting him off. She would not do that if he did it and she had no part in it.

I know for me it is hard to figure how any mom could do this. But then I see her with her shorts on and the silly string, chomping on gum like a cow, and it isn't so much that partying like a kid is inappropriate for me. I am amazed that she is up and walking around. You would have to put me in a straight jacket had that happened to me and I could not be going about the business of burying my kids. I would be tearing through the streets of Rowlett to find the son of a biatch who did that to my kids! That is why I don't care that I don't get her motive because I don't get her reaction to the death and/or murder of her kids. Even if I lost my mind and did it, once I realized the kids were dead, my life would be over.

HeartofTexas

08-07-2005, 06:37 PM

I agree, Cowgirl. It's not the spectacle she made of herself over the silly string, or the chomping and chewing and smiling and twisting and contorting herself before the cameras... it's the entire lack of any emotion other than performing. How could she even stand upright? She says it's what they would have wanted. Riiiight. What they wanted was to live.

I would think anyone who stepped in that house that night and saw the carnage there would be forever changed. Forever.

Dani_T

08-07-2005, 07:38 PM

Wet towels are an undisputed fact.

They are? I must have missed the memo on that one. Could you point out where you heard that they are an undisputed fact?

Whether she tried to clean up or not...I think that is an allegation made by police and bought into by authors trying to sell sensational stories.

How did blood get onto the bottom of the cabinet handle underneath the sink - the cabinet which held cleaning supplies? And how did blood get inside that cabinet?

beesy

08-07-2005, 07:42 PM

accordn2me]HoT, there were hairs that were never identified - a pubic hair and a limb hair.Those hairs mean nothing unless they were found on Darlie, especially the pubic hair. It would need to be found near her whoo-hoo for it to mean anything. There is no way everybody who had ever sat on that sofa could be tested. A rape test was done and showed no semen or foreign pubic hairs. A limb hair was found on the sock, a deer hair was too. Neither means much one way or the other.

As far as Darlie trying to clean up blood, I know the police, with their pictures of cleaning supplies sitting on the countertop next to the sink, implied that Darlie tried to clean up. But in the picture, you can see blood everywhere! It doesn't look like she tried to clean anything up. There was very little blood in the sink because she wet towels. Wet towels are an undisputed fact. Whether she tried to clean up or not...I think that is an allegation made by police and bought into by authors trying to sell sensational stories.
Did you even read my post? The evidence I'm referring to has nothing to do with the blood that could be seen. You don't need cleaning supplies to wipe up fresh blood from a surface like the counter or leather sofa or was it "pleather"? I don't remember a photo showing cleaning supplies on the counter anyway. There is not blood everywhere on the kitchen counter top, there is not blood everywhere on the sofa. There are a few smears and dots. Again, Darlie didn't mention wetting towels until the walk-thru when she noticed they'd taken the kitchen sink.

Luminol, a substance used to detect the presence of blood where it is not visible to the naked eye, was used in this case where you not only see blood, you see several pints of blood. I don't believe they used the Luminol on places like the gate, window in garage, or anywhere they couldn't already see blood. :doh:

Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).

Just like y'all are saying it makes no sense for an intruder to________, well, it makes no sense for Darlie or Darin to have done this either! A perfect stanger makes more sense to me than a family member. Darin arranging a hit on Darlie is a long shot idea, but stranger things have happened - like mothers killing their children. Making the intruder story work is hard. It's harder for me to make Darlie doing it work. Darin doing it is another story.
:banghead:

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 07:55 PM

They are? I must have missed the memo on that one. Could you point out where you heard that they are an undisputed fact? I would love to look it up for you but I'm suffering from poison ivy exposure and I have about 24,000 things I need to do before school starts...next week!:eek:

How did blood get onto the bottom of the cabinet handle underneath the sink - the cabinet which held cleaning supplies? And how did blood get inside that cabinet?
The same way it got on the garage and kitchen floor. The same way the glass got on the carpet. The same way the cleaning supplies got on top of the counter next to the sink.

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 08:08 PM

Those hairs mean nothing unless they were found on Darlie, especially the pubic hair. It would need to be found near her whoo-hoo for it to mean anything. There is no way everybody who had ever sat on that sofa could be tested. A rape test was done and showed no semen or foreign pubic hairs. A limb hair was found on the sock, a deer hair was too. Neither means much one way or the other.It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?

I don't remember a photo showing cleaning supplies on the counter anyway. Well, there must not be one then!:doh:
Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).

:banghead:
There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts) and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 08:13 PM

Why is it hard for yo to make it work with Darlie? Is it because we, as a society, are conditioned to thinking moms could never commit such heinous crimes?
It's probably that along with lack of motive.

accordn2me

08-07-2005, 08:21 PM

But a stranger could not have cut that screen with a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and that is the ultimate bottom line for me. Someone asked me to opine on something disregarding that fact. Well, I cannot disregard that fact because it is the damn bottom line. It cannot go away, no one can make it go away, and there is no innocent explanation for it. None. Almost all the other evidence you can explain away, even with a lame story. But not the knife and screen and the knife back in the butcher block. It just could not happen with an intruder.
I know. It's also the clincher for Dani_T and she really knows a lot about it.

Without a rebuttal from a defense expert, I can not accept Linch's opinion about the fiber and dust. He was wrong about the hair being Darlie's. He very well could be wrong about this. The hair was police contamination. This could easily be the case with the fiber and dust. Linch himself said that further testing is needed. Additionally, he said it was a grave error on the part of the defense not to have further testing done.

Mary456

08-07-2005, 09:13 PM

Dani_T

08-07-2005, 09:28 PM

The same way it got on the garage and kitchen floor. The same way the glass got on the carpet. The same way the cleaning supplies got on top of the counter next to the sink.

Oh dear- the police? Them nasty little buggers. The should know better than to have blood dripping off their hands to leave a nice little run of blood in that cabinet underneath the sink.

BTW- sorry to hear about the poison ivy. We don't have it down here but I always remember being intrigued as I read about it as a kid.

Dani_T

08-07-2005, 09:40 PM

Without a rebuttal from a defense expert, I can not accept Linch's opinion about the fiber and dust. He was wrong about the hair being Darlie's. He very well could be wrong about this. The hair was police contamination. This could easily be the case with the fiber and dust. Linch himself said that further testing is needed. Additionally, he said it was a grave error on the part of the defense not to have further testing done.

:bang:

He was not wrong about the hair being Darlie's. Everything he said about that hair was completely correct. I'd challenge you to show me how he was wrong but since you are busy I'll do it myself.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

Microscopically, the hair recovered
4 from this window was similar to the defendant's head
5 hair. It was naturally brown down toward the root end
6 and the distal portion of the hair had been bleached.
7 By bleaching, I mean that there was
8 chemical treatment that removes the pigment grains, and
9 that sort of handicaps the examiner because in doing a
10 hair comparison under the microscope the examiner is
11 looking for pigment grain pattern.
12 And so, the hair comparison becomes a
13 matter of pigment grain comparison. In this particular
14 hair, there was no pigment grain to compare, so all you
15 had was the bleached to compare.
16 And so microscopically, the hair from
17 the window did look like the hair that I had gotten from
18 the defendant.
19 Q. Well, did you just leave it at that,
20 or did we have additional testing done on that head hair?
21 A. In doing forensic hair comparison, the
22 first step is, and always will be, microscopic
23 comparison. But now in 1997, we're able to go further,
24 if there is root tissue present to attempt genetic marker
25 typing. And, in addition to that, even the absence of
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2849
1 root tissue, perhaps the newest technology, mitochondrial
2 DNA, that you can do on just a dry hair shaft. The only
3 people in the country doing that now is the FBI, but we
4 plan to implement it.
5 Q. Now, on this head hair then, was there
6 enough root material that you could actually do DNA?
7 A. There was enough to attempt. You
8 never know until you try the test.
9 Q. All right. When the testing was done,
10 did the head hair actually come back to belonging to
11 Officer Sarah Jones of the Rowlett Police Department?
12 A. The genetic typing from this hair from
13 the window was consistent with Officer Sarah Jones with
14 the Rowlett Police Department.
15 Q. All right. Now, if you had that head
16 hair today, and you were asked to do a microscopic
17 comparison between that head hair and that of Darlie
18 Routier over here, would your microscopic comparison
19 results be any different than they were before the DNA
20 testing?
21 A. No. Microscopically, the hairs that I
22 got from the defendant and the hairs that I got from the
23 Sarah Jones are microscopically identical.
24 Again, they are hairs that are
25 naturally brown, that have been bleached, and bleaching
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2850
1 removes the comparison feature from the microscopy, so I
2 would have the same conclusion

He was not wrong about the head hair.

You have absolutely no reason to mistrust or doubt his conclusions about the knife fibers. The pictures are in MTJD for everyone to see- you can tell they are microscopically identical. There are two separate pieces of evidence on the same knife both of which were produced by cutting the screen.

Ack. Why do I bother? We've been through it all before. It's just an excuse for you to hold onto any hope that there was an intruder.

BTW- I'm still waiting to hear how the bloody knife imprint/impression holds up under the intruder theory.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:32 AM

Here's the rest of it Dani_T:

BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. You know there was a conclusion you
21 drew to -- I will get to it I guess in a minute, where I 22 was thinking that very same thing. It's sort of like the
23 glass is half full or the glass is half empty. You could
24 draw whatever conclusion you wanted to from it, couldn't
25 you?

1 A. I report a scientific finding and I
2 leave it to the lawyers to do the conclusions.
3 Q. Well, whoever drew a conclusion that
4 that was Darlie Routier's hair in that window was wrong,
5 didn't they? Isn't that right?
6 A. That firm conclusion was not reached.
7 The conclusion that was reached was, at that time, she
8 could not be excluded as the donor of that hair.

9 Q. No, my question is: Anyone who drew a
10 conclusion from what you had testified, from what you
11 reported and from what you have testified to, anyone who
12 drew a conclusion that that was Darlie Routier's hair

13 that was taken out as she went out that window, that
14 person drew a wrong conclusion, didn't they?
15 A. They would be wrong in concluding
16 that, and they would also be wrong in not concluding the
17 other possibility of how that hair got there.

2 Q. Okay. So, were you made aware of the
3 fact that your microscopic analysis -- well, your
4 microscopic analysis was correct, wasn't it?
5 A. I would issue the same report today,
6 yes.
7 Q. You later found out that a scientific
8 testing method had proven that what you saw was not --
9 well, that it was not fair to draw the conclusion that it
10 was Darlie Routier's hair from based on what you had
11 seen?
12 A. A more discriminating test excluded
13 her as the donor of that hair.

21 Q. So, in any event, it's more
22 discriminating than your eyeball with your microscope?
23 A. If done properly, yes, sir.

22 Q. And so, what that shows is, that your
23 microscopic evaluation, although done with the highest 24 technology and with the greatest expertise, later proved,
25 or it was later proved that that head hair was not in

1 fact Darlie Routier's?
2 A. That's right. And it was also done
3 with the knowledge that it was least conclusive because I
4 didn't have a large number of comparison characteristics.
5 Q. But it was not so inconclusive that
6 you didn't feel comfortable testifying in a court of law
7 about it?
8 A. No, I would testify today, that the

9 hair from the window was microscopically similar to the
10 hairs that I got from Mrs. Routier, and I will also
11 testify that the hair from the window is microscopically
12 similar to the hairs of Sarah Jones, who is

13 microscopically similar to Darlie Routier.
14 Q. So if a person puts too much stock in
15 what is microscopically similar, they might draw the
16 wrong conclusion?
17 A. Oh, yeah

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:39 AM

[QUOTE=accordn2me]I would love to look it up for you but I'm suffering from poison ivy exposure and I have about 24,000 things I need to do before school starts...next week!:eek:[QUOTE=accordn2me]

The Darlies always seem to get very busy when they're hit with a hard question, lol! I've seen it at least a hundred times over the years: "gotta vacuum the carpet, gotta plant a tree, gotta study for my final exam in criminal justice. I'll get back to you next week."

They figure people will forget to follow up, but I'm holding you to this one, Accordn2me. I'm looking forward to hearing you back up the 'indisputable fact' that Darlie wet towels in the sink. Is it ok if I check back on August 15th? That gives you 8 whole days!
Look, Mary456, last time we went through this - you accusing me of being a liar to be specific - I looked it up. You know Darlie wet towels. She did. What's the point? Just like last time, there is no point. It is insignificant. Why do you insist on focusing on things that don't matter one bit - like if she cut her feet or not. It's stupid.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:54 AM

:bang:

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

BTW- I'm still waiting to hear how the bloody knife imprint/impression holds up under the intruder theory.
Here's what I have on the knife imprint:

Mosty/Linch:

22 Q. Let's talk about the knife. What you
23 have -- you can't say that that impression in the carpet
24 is a knife, can you?
25 A. Not to the exclusion of all other
1 objects, no.
2 Q. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't?
3 A. It could be.
4 Q. Could be, and the corollary to could
5 be is could not be or maybe not?
6 A. Or there is, find me something better.
7 Q. Well, but you know that is not my job,
8 don't you, Mr. Linch? That is the State's job, isn't it?
9 A. I see.
10 Q. You know that, don't you?
11 A. I have not been to law school, Mr.
12 Mosty.
13 Q. Okay. How about trusting me on that
14 one?
15 A. I'll trust you on that one.
16 Q. That is the State's job to exclude all
17 of those other.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. So, how about if we go with maybe so,
20 maybe no? Is that good enough?
21 A. It -- of all of the objects in the
22 house, it was the one that fits best in that imprint.
23 Q. So, you won't agree with me, maybe so
24 or maybe no, maybe it is or maybe it isn't?
25 A. Of all of the objects in the house, it

1 is the only one that I identified.
2 Q. Okay. But there are also lots of
3 other things that could do that kind of stuff too. It
4 could be a partial.
5 As a matter of fact, reasonable people
6 could differ about the importance of a blood stain,
7 couldn't they?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. I mean, there are lots of different
10 ways that blood stains could get there. It could be, for
11 instance, the print out on the -- in the garage was not a
12 full print, was it?
13 A. It was a shadow of a smudge.
14 Q. Okay. Would you call it a shoe print?
15 A. I couldn't be that specific, no.
16 Q. The one behind the carpet, would you
17 call that a shoe print?
18 A. That was a faint --
19 Q. Behind the couch, I mean.
20 A. -- that was a faint shoe print.
21 Q. Okay. Now, was this area of carpet
22 cut out?
23 A. Where --
24 Q. Here.
25 A. Not where the imprint is, no.

1 Q. Okay.
2 A. The fibers that make up the imprint
3 were snipped for blood testing.
4 Q. All right. You had apparently been
5 out there two times before and missed this?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. And Cron had been out there and missed
8 this. When did y'all find this?
9 A. This was found after the carpet is
10 removed from the house and has been taken to the Rowlett
11 Police Department.
12 Q. In November, as I recall?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. One thing I remembered was that
15 we came and saw you on November 20th. Did you already
16 have this appointment to go out there on the 21st? Or
17 was it after we talked to you on the 20th, did you call
18 Mr. Davis?
19 A. No. I -- that was one time I did get
20 called. I was called by him to go look.
21 Q. Okay. And y'all went on the 21st, if
22 I remember right.
23 A. Well --
24 Q. It sort of struck me because it was
25 the day after we were there.

1 A. The day after that you visited with
2 me?
3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Is --
5 Q. Well, anyway, it was in November,
6 wasn't it? I don't need to belabor that.
7 A. I think so, yeah.
8 Q. Okay. And so everybody up until that
9 time, nobody had said, "Golly, that could be a knife
10 print in that carpet," to your knowledge?
11 A. That's right.

16 Q. Now, you said that perhaps an intruder
17 might flee with blood on their hands?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. That would be consistent with finding
20 some blood, for instance, on a doorknob, or an exit door?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. It might or might not leave, it would
23 depend on which hand it was on?
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. All right. You saw blood on an exit
1 door, didn't you, on a handle, on the utility room door?
2 A. On the facing area, yes, sir.
3 Q. Now, did you ever see this maroon
4 pillow?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you take that?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. Who collected that?
9 A. That was collected by the Rowlett
10 Police Department.
11 Q. And, it had blood, it had -- this
12 maroon pillow had blood on both sides of it, didn't it?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. But did you collect any of that blood?
15 A. Did I actually remove it from the
16 pillow?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Did Kathryn do that?
20 A. Kathryn did some, yes.
21 Q. Remove that from the maroon pillow?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Did you do any testing on it to
24 determine whose blood was on one side of the pillow and
25 whose blood was on the other side of the pillow?

1 A. I didn't, no.
2 Q. Where was it done? Was it done?
3 A. I think some of it was done down at
4 our laboratory and some was done at Gene Screen.
5 Q. Are you aware of the results of that?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. You know that on that maroon pillow,
8 on one side is the blood of Darlie Routier and on the
9 other side is the blood of Damon Routier?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You know that?
12 A. Right.

13 Q. Okay.
14
15 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: That's all I
16 have.

beesy

08-08-2005, 01:37 AM

[QUOTE=accordn2me]It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?
Interesting, the Darlies are the ones who do what you are saying "oh, that means nothing". So much forensic evidence is dismissed by them as police conspiracies, shoddy work, crappy photos. Not one single Darlie has any proof of an intruder, however there is a mountain of evidence showing that Darlie is a killer.
No, I don't need a video, I have common sense. How could an intruder leave a pubic hair? Where was it found? What color was it? Was every LE tested for it? Was every person who had been in the house tested? Was Dana tested? Was the maid tested? Was Darin tested? Was Darlie tested? Were the paramedics tested? There was no sexual assualt on Darlie, which means most likely an "intruder" would not be walking around with his pants undone, anymore than any of the other people I just mentioned were.

Well, there must not be one then!:doh:
That's not what I meant. It's possible there are photos of cleaning supplies. I'll check out my handy dandy MTJD

There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts) According to my source there was no HUMAN blood found in the garage or on the window. Who cares if a dog or whatever bled in there? Maybe the dog did it! LOL
You do realize that the defense is entitled to it's own experts, don't you? In other words, they had no rebuttal.

beesy

08-08-2005, 01:48 AM

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
[QUOTE=Mary456
The Darlies always seem to get very busy when they're hit with a hard question, lol! I've seen it at least a hundred times over the years: "gotta vacuum the carpet, gotta plant a tree, gotta study for my final exam in criminal justice. I'll get back to you next week."

They figure people will forget to follow up, but I'm holding you to this one, Accordn2me. I'm looking forward to hearing you back up the 'indisputable fact' that Darlie wet towels in the sink. Is it ok if I check back on August 15th? That gives you 8 whole days! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Mary456

08-08-2005, 01:57 AM

Look, Mary456, last time we went through this - you accusing me of being a liar to be specific - I looked it up. You know Darlie wet towels. She did. What's the point? Just like last time, there is no point. It is insignificant. Why do you insist on focusing on things that don't matter one bit - like if she cut her feet or not. It's stupid.

Sooo, is it ok if I check back with you on August 15th? That gives you lots of time to look up testimony that supports wet towels, wet clothes, maybe even some water drops on the floor.

After all, it was you who said that Darlie was wetting towels in the sink and "wet towels are an indisputed fact." I'm just asking you to back it up.

Btw, try some calamine lotion for that poison. It will definitely work long enough for you to hit the transcript!

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 02:21 AM

Here's the rest of it Dani_T:

Thanks for that - but maybe you could explain to me in your own words how any of that testimony shows that Linch was wrong in his examination and conclusions regarding that hair?

Seems to me that you only helped argue my case for me.

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 02:23 AM

Here's what I have on the knife imprint:

No.

That's what the trial transcript says about the knife imprint. I asked how you think the knife imprint got there if it was an intruder who had it in his hand.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 02:40 AM

:laugh:Seems to me that you only helped argue my case for me.
Accordn2me, Linch said the hair found in the screen was microscopically similar to Darlie's hair. He stated this in a way as to give a strong implication that the hair was Darlie's.

It was not Darlie's hair. It was similar to Darlie's hair.

Linch said the fiber and dust found on the knife were microscopically similiar to the fiber and dust he found when he cut the screen with the bread knife. Do you need me to take this all the way for you.....OK....microscopically similiar does not mean it is whatever. Like the hair...the fiber and the dust were similar (i.e. having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way) to the fiber and dust in the experiment. Similar does not mean exact. Similar hair = Darlie's hair and cop's hair. Similar fiber and dust = screen rod/dust and fingerprint brush/dust.

Linch's bottom line conclusion: The bread knife could have been the knife that cut the screen. Take that a step higher....something else could have cut the screen (it may not have been the bread knife).

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 02:42 AM

No.

That's what the trial transcript says about the knife imprint. I asked how you think the knife imprint got there if it was an intruder who had it in his hand.
IF it was in fact a knife imprint, he must have dropped it or laid it down.

Mary456

08-08-2005, 02:46 AM

and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

The RPD should have brought in at least 6 tanker trucks filled with luminol. That way, they could have sprayed the interior and exterior of the house (including the roof), the lawn, driveway, alley, Rowlett, and half of Dallas for invisible blood.

Honestly, they were such boobies.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 02:49 AM

Sooo, is it ok if I check back with you on August 15th? That gives you lots of time to look up testimony that supports wet towels, wet clothes, maybe even some water drops on the floor.

After all, it was you who said that Darlie was wetting towels in the sink and "wet towels are an indisputed fact." I'm just asking you to back it up.

Btw, try some calamine lotion for that poison. It will definitely work long enough for you to hit the transcript! Check away! I'm not looking for this one. If I happen across it and remember you want to see it, I'll post it. You know she wet towels though. Look at the pictures - can't you see wet towels? I don't have pictures so I really don't know the answer to that one. Do you think she cleaned up with dry towels? You do think she tried to clean up that massively bloody scene don't you? You think dry towels were the way to go? Well, wet towels weren't either! :razz:

And calamine ain't touchin' this stuff. Prescribe me something that works!

beesy

08-08-2005, 03:18 AM

[QUOTE=accordn2me]Check away! I'm not looking for this one. If I happen across it and remember you want to see it, I'll post it. You know she wet towels though. Look at the pictures - can't you see wet towels? I don't have pictures so I really don't know the answer to that one. Do you think she cleaned up with dry towels? You do think she tried to clean up that massively bloody scene don't you? You think dry towels were the way to go? Well, wet towels weren't either! :razz:

Yes, she wet towels to wipe up her blood from the sink and counter top. She did not want anybody to know she cut her throat there. There would have been too much of her blood in one location for her to explain. The blood on the counter and in the sink should have been on the sofa if she had been attacked there. You seem to think we are saying Darlie tried to clean up the whole house. She didn't, she only tried to clean where she thought her story wouldn't mesh. Yes, wet towels can be seen in some crime scene photos. Nobody, not even Darin, puts her at the sink, so she must have done all that towel wetting before Waddel got there or before Darin came downstairs, depending on your thoughts of his involvement.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 03:31 AM

Interesting, the Darlies are the ones who do what you are saying "oh, that means nothing". Both sides do it, VB.
How could an intruder leave a pubic hair? This is a rhetorical question, I hope.
Where was it found? In the house, downstairs.
What color was it? I'd venture to guess it was black. Was every LE tested for it? Was every person who had been in the house tested? Was Dana tested? Was the maid tested? Was Darin tested? Was Darlie tested? Were the paramedics tested? Remember, it's Mulder's philosophy that it's the state's job to do all of the testing.

According to my source there was no HUMAN blood found in the garage or on the window.And that source is.....Who cares if a dog or whatever bled in there? Maybe the dog did it! LOL Domain?:eek: Naw, it was bugs' blood.
You do realize that the defense is entitled to it's own experts, don't you? In other words, they had no rebuttal. Darlie had no defense! Apparently, she is not entitled to experts testing certain things in evidence at this point. She is SOL, big time!

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 03:36 AM

The RPD should have brought in at least 6 tanker trucks filled with luminol. That way, they could have sprayed the interior and exterior of the house (including the roof), the lawn, driveway, alley, Rowlett, and half of Dallas for invisible blood. I hope they hose down every dark car and all the occupants in the entire state of Texas. :woohoo:

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Honestly, they were such boobies. Careful you don't start sounding like Darin, Mary! :clap:

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 03:58 AM

Yes, she wet towels to wipe up her blood from the sink and counter top. She did not want anybody to know she cut her throat there. There would have been too much of her blood in one location for her to explain. The blood on the counter and in the sink should have been on the sofa if she had been attacked there. You seem to think we are saying Darlie tried to clean up the whole house. She didn't, she only tried to clean where she thought her story wouldn't mesh. Yes, wet towels can be seen in some crime scene photos. Nobody, not even Darin, puts her at the sink, so she must have done all that towel wetting before Waddel got there or before Darin came downstairs, depending on your thoughts of his involvement.
Thank God! Somebody that stipulates wet towels. :bang: Just for that VB, I will stipulate that the gate was tested for blood - but NOT with luminol. They swabbed it.

What if I told you the facial hair was not found on the sock but on a rug - would that make a difference, or mean nothing?

beesy

08-08-2005, 04:06 AM

This is a rhetorical question, I hope.
Not really, would he have to have the hair on his hands from using the bathroom, or was he unzipped hoping to attack Darlie?

In the house, downstairs.
Where? This is important if you are trying to connect the pubic hair to the attacks.

I'd venture to guess it was black.Well, natural red heads have red pubic hair. So knowing the color would help

[QUOTE]Remember, it's Mulder's philosophy that it's the state's job to do all of the testing.
That's not just Mulder's philosophy, that's how our court system is run. The prosecution must prove guilt, thru testing, etc. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence, but they usually hire their own experts to rebute the state's experts unless, of course, Darlie's experts said the same thing....
Darlie had no defense! Apparently, she is not entitled to experts testing certain things in evidence at this point. She is SOL, big time!
What do you mean Darlie had no defense, as in no excuse, or as in council? She had Mulder, remember? Her case is closed, not all things are approved for appeals. Her defense, which she does have, has to ask for the certain things to be done. It's not just randomly handed out. She's been turned down at all the state levels, you're right, she's SOL, big time!

beesy

08-08-2005, 04:13 AM

[QUOTE]Thank God! Somebody that stipulates wet towels. :bang: Just for that VB, I will stipulate that the gate was tested for blood - but NOT with luminol. They swabbed it. I didn't say the gate was tested with Luminol. It's very hard to see Luminol outside because in our modern world, there's always a street light. I said there was no blood on the gate.

What if I told you the facial hair was not found on the sock but on a rug - would that make a difference, or mean nothing?According to Lynch's testimony(thanks mary), there was a deer hair and a limb hair found on the sock. I know nothing about any hair at all being found on a rug. Fill me in.....

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:45 AM

:laugh:
Accordn2me, Linch said the hair found in the screen was microscopically similar to Darlie's hair. He stated this in a way as to give a strong implication that the hair was Darlie's.

It was not Darlie's hair. It was similar to Darlie's hair.

Give it up. Seriously.

Linch was not wrong about the hair. For the complete set here is the bond hearing testimony

12 A. The head hair from the window itself
13 had been forcibly removed, and it had the same microscopic
14 characteristics as Mrs. Routier.
15 Q. Were there any particular
16 characteristics that you looked to, to make that
17 comparison?
18 A. Well, there are a number of internal,
19 structural things that the microscopist looks at, in doing
20 side by side comparison. Her hair is treated or bleached,
21 and has some untreated root end components. So, all of
22 those things are taken into account.
23 Q. Okay. Did you compare the length of
24 her untreated -- the untreated portion of her hair, that
25 she submitted to you with the untreated portion of the
1 hair that you obtained from the window?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. What was the results?
4 A. The amount of untreated shaft on the
5 found hair was within the range of the amount of untreated
6 shaft, at the time of her visit to the Institute.
7 Q. It would be contemporaneous?
8 A. It could be.

Could you please tell me how exactly he was wrong? What did he say that was incorrect? What mistake did he make?

Linch said the fiber and dust found on the knife were microscopically similiar to the fiber and dust he found when he cut the screen with the bread knife. Do you need me to take this all the way for you.....OK....microscopically similiar does not mean it is whatever. Like the hair...the fiber and the dust were similar (i.e. having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way) to the fiber and dust in the experiment. Similar does not mean exact. Similar hair = Darlie's hair and cop's hair. Similar fiber and dust = screen rod/dust and fingerprint brush/dust.

Ok. And do you need me to remind you about the nature of the evidence that was found on the knife? The diameter of the microns of the fibreglass rod? The pigmented rubber with glass debris that was found next to it but separate from it? And the fact that you got a microscopically identical result when you used that exact same knife on the screen? Identical in every way and there in pretty coloured pictures for us to see ourselves.

Linch's bottom line conclusion: The bread knife could have been the knife that cut the screen. Take that a step higher....something else could have cut the screen (it may not have been the bread knife).

Oh sure. Something else could have cut the screen. But then you'll need to explain how the microscopically identical fibres got on the bread knife. I'll give you a head start. In the past we have already had Darin hacking away at a computer motherboard with the bread knife and later on that day Darlie using it to open a package. I think we've also had someone suggest she took to trimming the drapes with it as well. Prizes go to the most creative answer. I'm sure you can beat those lame examples.

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:47 AM

IF it was in fact a knife imprint, he must have dropped it or laid it down.

And did he have a blood transfusion bag linked up to his arm to feed the blood running down his arm so it would gather on the tip of the knife as well?

Must have been one of the Routier's blood in that transfusion bag though since there was no foreign blood found at the scene.

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:48 AM

The RPD should have brought in at least 6 tanker trucks filled with luminol. That way, they could have sprayed the interior and exterior of the house (including the roof), the lawn, driveway, alley, Rowlett, and half of Dallas for invisible blood.

Honestly, they were such boobies.

Nah. Too late.

The ramaging, blood covered deer had already bounded (gracefully) out of the area.

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:54 AM

Look at the pictures - can't you see wet towels?

Nope.

You can see towels.

cami

08-08-2005, 10:47 AM

Motive is the only part that astounds me. I am sure she did it. I think he is a big enough doofus to believe she didn't do it. But who would murder their kids for such a pittance of money? They spent every bit of the insurance on burying them. So she just didn't want them around any more. What a biatch. Could it be post partum? If the crime scene was legit, I would believe her story. It just does not work. The screen, the blood, her cut--all of it. It just doesn't work. Sometimes I wonder if she just flipped out at one of them and then felt she had to kill the other one and pretend the intruder story. It just makes no sense at all.

What if Darlie and Darin didn't know how much a funeral cost? Maybe she thought she could bury them for the insurance policy on one of them and she'd have her $5000 vacation money with the other policy.

Hmm interesting, I think we've bandied that about before. That Devon was intially the one she flipped out on and Damon was a necessity.

Cowgirl

08-08-2005, 11:11 AM

What if Darlie and Darin didn't know how much a funeral cost? Maybe she thought she could bury them for the insurance policy on one of them and she'd have her $5000 vacation money with the other policy.

Hmm interesting, I think we've bandied that about before. That Devon was intially the one she flipped out on and Damon was a necessity.Maybe, but even $5 grand without funeral expenses is nothing. I don't see that as a motive at all. Surely if the two of them conspired to murder their children they would at least check to see what it would have cost to bury them. Even those two doofuses would do that. And then they would probably decide to increase the insurance and do it after they could make more money. I just cannot picture two rational adults planning to murder their two boys.

Fortunately (for justice) motive is not something the government needs to prove. People always want to know though. I vacillate from post partum depression to wanting a new life but neither of them is a bingo for me.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 11:14 AM

Give it up. Seriously. NEVER!

Could you please tell me how exactly he was wrong? What did he say that was incorrect? What mistake did he make? He was wrong to lead someone to believe it was Darlie's hair when it wasn't.

And the fact that you got a microscopically identical result when you used that exact same knife on the screen? Identical in every way and there in pretty coloured pictures for us to see ourselves. microscopically similar :hand: teasing me about the pictures :(

I'm sure you can beat those lame examples. Thank you for the vote of confidence, sweetie. I don't know what's wrong with my creative thinker lately. It must have been broken when I had the idea that maybe one of the boys used the knife to cut the screen earlier in the day. Like Goody said, that may have been the reason Darlie killed them.:rolleyes:

Cowgirl

08-08-2005, 11:18 AM

Nah. Too late.

The ramaging, blood covered deer had already bounded (gracefully) out of the area.There are no deer in that part of Rowlett, ramaging (?) or otherwise!

cami

08-08-2005, 11:41 AM

I disagree. Mulder did not address the state's interpretation of the evidence. The state put on an aggressive, impressive, well-planned case that Mulder did nothing to counter.

If Darlie were in a fight for her life and/or defending her sons from a knife-wielding assailant, what would you say the probability of her getting cast off blood somewhere on her would be?

My question for Darin is: Did he catch her doing it, nearly kill her, then decide to cover for her?

I say slim to none. She would have the knife in front of her, in the intruder's hand, the blood would most likely fling back to him and out to the sides. She probably would get some cast-off on the front of her shirt but not the back. She has no defense wounds anyway so she wasn't fighting someone with a knife.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:09 PM

I didn't say the gate was tested with Luminol. It's very hard to see Luminol outside because in our modern world, there's always a street light. I said there was no blood on the gate.
Someone must have edited your post---->: Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).
See that last part, I thought that was you...talking about the gate in the back yard. Oh well.
According to Lynch's testimony(thanks mary), there was a deer hair and a limb hair found on the sock. I know nothing about any hair at all being found on a rug. Fill me in..... Judith Floyd:
17 Q. You were asked to test some facial
18 hair as well, were you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know where that facial hair
21 came from, where it was located at the scene?
22 A. The best of my knowledge, I believe it
23 was from a rug, but I am not sure where the rug itself
24 was located.
25 Q. Okay. And, the results of your DNA
1 testing of that head hair showed you what? I'm sorry.
2 Was it a head hair or do you know?
3 A. Facial hair.

4 Q. Facial hair?
5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Okay. The results of that was what?
7 A. The result of that particular facial
8 hair was that it did not match any of the three
9 individuals in this case.
10 Q. Okay. And, also did not match Darin
11 Routier either, did it?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. So that is an unknown facial
14 hair? Unidentified is maybe a better word?
15 A. Yes.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12
13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Ms. Floyd, just two questions.
15 Besides the facial hair, were there any other
16 unidentified samples which you tested?
17 A. There was a pubic hair which I tested,
18 and no result was obtained from that hair.
19 Q. I guess I'm talking about samples
20 where you actually got a result that you could report out
21 any other unidentified samples?
22 A. No other samples.

7 RECROSS EXAMINATION
8
9 BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. Right. And were you able to see --
21 were you able to have enough of the pubic hair to run a
22 DS180 test on that pubic hair?
23 A. From the unknown specimen that I
24 received?
25 Q. Right.
1 A. There was a root, and therefore, that
2 is the portion that contains the DNA and it may have
3 issued a result, it may not. Hair gives a success rate
4 of about 60 percent.
5 Q. And yours was no result?

6 A. On that pubic hair, yes.
7 Q. So from that pubic hair, it, at least
8 for now, remains unidentified?
9 A. Correct

I haven't read where they found the pubic hair. I'll let you know if I come across it. I would think your sources would have it too...OH, but that could support that there might have been an intruder so maybe they wouldn't print that part.

cami

08-08-2005, 12:10 PM

It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?

Well, there must not be one then!:doh:

There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts) and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

the hair could have come from anywhere A2m. If it were found on the victims, i.e. Devon and Damon, in one of their hands, etc, that might be a different case but there has to also be some other evidence to go with it to rule out Darlie as the killer. One public hair and one bloody fingerprint ain't going to do it, especially when they can't rule Darlie out as the leaver of the print. We all shed hair daily, we all track hair into our homes from other sources daily. Unless Darlie's carpet was sanitized prior to the murders, that one pubic hair could have come in on someone's shoe/clothing from an innocent source. The kids could have tracked that hair in. Damon was still in his outdoor clothes when he died.

cami

08-08-2005, 12:13 PM

Could you give me a link to Darlie claiming this? I can't find anything she says about it...or anything the prosecution or defense says about it for that matter. :banghead:

Read her voluntary statement. She says she went to the utility room door, bent down to pick up the knife and back to the counter to place the knife on it. Never does she say she went into the utility room.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:20 PM

And did he have a blood transfusion bag linked up to his arm to feed the blood running down his arm so it would gather on the tip of the knife as well?
This is what happened: When Darlie was frightening with him, she pushed the knife out of his left hand with her bloody right hand. He picked it up, ran toward the garage, threw the knife down, she picked it up and now they can't get the prints. Ta da!

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:26 PM

the hair could have come from anywhere A2m. I know, like an intruder for instance.
If it were found on the victims, i.e. Devon and Damon, in one of their hands, etc, that might be a different case but there has to also be some other evidence to go with it to rule out Darlie as the killer. One public hair and one bloody fingerprint ain't going to do it, especially when they can't rule Darlie out as the leaver of the print. We all shed hair daily, we all track hair into our homes from other sources daily. Unless Darlie's carpet was sanitized prior to the murders, that one pubic hair could have come in on someone's shoe/clothing from an innocent source. The kids could have tracked that hair in. Damon was still in his outdoor clothes when he died.
So, unless attackers happen to cooperate and leave hair directly on the victims, or leave more than one (two in this case) bloody fingerprint, it means nothing?

Cowgirl

08-08-2005, 12:27 PM

cami

08-08-2005, 12:27 PM

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:28 PM

Read her voluntary statement. She says she went to the utility room door, bent down to pick up the knife and back to the counter to place the knife on it. Never does she say she went into the utility room. In her voluntary statement, she doesn't say she wet towels either.

Just because she doesn't say it, doesn't mean she didn't do it.

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:33 PM

What is "frightening with him"? Is this board in code or something?
Go to the transcripts and read Darlie's testimony. If she didn't do it literally, she cut her throat on the stand when she tried to tell Toby Shook she didn't say "fighting" on the 911 call. She said the word was "frightening." :doh:

accordn2me

08-08-2005, 12:35 PM

What purpose would anyone have for luminoling the gate? Do you think this tidy killer cleaned the gate after he went over or through it? Or do you think it should have been done just as a process of elimination?
Luminol is to detect the presence of blood that can't be seen. They couldn't see any blood on the gate but luminol might have illuminated it better.:D

Did they dust the gate for fingerprints?

cami

08-08-2005, 12:48 PM

Maybe, but even $5 grand without funeral expenses is nothing. I don't see that as a motive at all. Surely if the two of them conspired to murder their children they would at least check to see what it would have cost to bury them. Even those two doofuses would do that. And then they would probably decide to increase the insurance and do it after they could make more money. I just cannot picture two rational adults planning to murder their two boys.

Fortunately (for justice) motive is not something the government needs to prove. People always want to know though. I vacillate from post partum depression to wanting a new life but neither of them is a bingo for me.

Oh I agree with you. I don't think this was planned for the insurance money either. Just throwing things out to consider. It's obvious to me that the two boys were the targets of the attack and no one else. I don't get bogged down with motive. It is unfathomable to me why anyone would kill their own children but they have, they do and they will continue to do so. Darlie did this no doubt.

cami

08-08-2005, 01:00 PM

Someone must have edited your post---->: Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).
See that last part, I thought that was you...talking about the gate in the back yard. Oh well.
Judith Floyd:
17 Q. You were asked to test some facial
18 hair as well, were you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know where that facial hair
21 came from, where it was located at the scene?
22 A. The best of my knowledge, I believe it
23 was from a rug, but I am not sure where the rug itself
24 was located.
25 Q. Okay. And, the results of your DNA
1 testing of that head hair showed you what? I'm sorry.
2 Was it a head hair or do you know?
3 A. Facial hair.

4 Q. Facial hair?
5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Okay. The results of that was what?
7 A. The result of that particular facial
8 hair was that it did not match any of the three
9 individuals in this case.
10 Q. Okay. And, also did not match Darin
11 Routier either, did it?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. So that is an unknown facial
14 hair? Unidentified is maybe a better word?
15 A. Yes.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12
13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Ms. Floyd, just two questions.
15 Besides the facial hair, were there any other
16 unidentified samples which you tested?
17 A. There was a pubic hair which I tested,
18 and no result was obtained from that hair.
19 Q. I guess I'm talking about samples
20 where you actually got a result that you could report out
21 any other unidentified samples?
22 A. No other samples.

7 RECROSS EXAMINATION
8
9 BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. Right. And were you able to see --
21 were you able to have enough of the pubic hair to run a
22 DS180 test on that pubic hair?
23 A. From the unknown specimen that I
24 received?
25 Q. Right.
1 A. There was a root, and therefore, that
2 is the portion that contains the DNA and it may have
3 issued a result, it may not. Hair gives a success rate
4 of about 60 percent.
5 Q. And yours was no result?

6 A. On that pubic hair, yes.
7 Q. So from that pubic hair, it, at least
8 for now, remains unidentified?
9 A. Correct

I haven't read where they found the pubic hair. I'll let you know if I come across it. I would think your sources would have it too...OH, but that could support that there might have been an intruder so maybe they wouldn't print that part.

How were Darin and Darlie eliminated from this pubic hair then? She says she received no result from dna testing the root. Or am I not reading this correctly?

cami

08-08-2005, 01:51 PM

Luminol is to detect the presence of blood that can't be seen. They couldn't see any blood on the gate but luminol might have illuminated it better.:D

Did they dust the gate for fingerprints?

I know Hamilton didn't dust it for prints and he did the inside of the house. I don't recall if there was another print man/woman that did. You'll just have to try and embarass me with testimony. :eek: :p

Yes, I realize that's what luminol is for. I think they use something else in Canada but not too sure--malachite green, don't have to wait until dark or darken the area as with luminol. I was thinking why bother if you've luminoled the inside of the house and found incriminating evidence so I didn't form my question correctly. You know no one went over or through that gate bleeding or otherwise.

Yep mistakes were made, no one gets a perfect investigation or a perfect trial.

cami

08-08-2005, 02:04 PM

I know, like an intruder for instance.

Absolutely.

So, unless attackers happen to cooperate and leave hair directly on the victims, or leave more than one (two in this case) bloody fingerprint, it means nothing?

That's not what I said. That's your interpretation. Stop trying to twist my words. A couple of hairs does not an intruder make. You know it, I know it. The hair means nothing in this case because the overwhelming blood evidence, forensics evidence points to Darlie as the killer. Ignore it all you want, the jury didn't.

beesy

08-08-2005, 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=accordn2me]
Someone must have edited your post---->: Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).
See that last part, I thought that was you...talking about the gate in the back yard. Oh well

That was supposed to be WAS NOT, typo! sorry, that's why I edited it

Judith Floyd:
17 Q. You were asked to test some facial
18 hair as well, were you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know where that facial hair
21 came from, where it was located at the scene?
22 A. The best of my knowledge, I believe it
23 was from a rug, but I am not sure where the rug itself
24 was located.
25 Q. Okay. And, the results of your DNA
1 testing of that head hair showed you what? I'm sorry.
2 Was it a head hair or do you know?
3 A. Facial hair.

4 Q. Facial hair?
5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Okay. The results of that was what?
7 A. The result of that particular facial
8 hair was that it did not match any of the three
9 individuals in this case.
10 Q. Okay. And, also did not match Darin
11 Routier either, did it?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. So that is an unknown facial
14 hair? Unidentified is maybe a better word?
15 A. Yes.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12
13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Ms. Floyd, just two questions.
15 Besides the facial hair, were there any other
16 unidentified samples which you tested?
17 A. There was a pubic hair which I tested,
18 and no result was obtained from that hair.
19 Q. I guess I'm talking about samples
20 where you actually got a result that you could report out
21 any other unidentified samples?
22 A. No other samples.

7 RECROSS EXAMINATION
8
9 BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. Right. And were you able to see --
21 were you able to have enough of the pubic hair to run a
22 DS180 test on that pubic hair?
23 A. From the unknown specimen that I
24 received?
25 Q. Right.
1 A. There was a root, and therefore, that
2 is the portion that contains the DNA and it may have
3 issued a result, it may not. Hair gives a success rate
4 of about 60 percent.
5 Q. And yours was no result?

6 A. On that pubic hair, yes.
7 Q. So from that pubic hair, it, at least
8 for now, remains unidentified?
9 A. Correct

I haven't read where they found the pubic hair. I'll let you know if I come across it. I would think your sources would have it too...OH, but that could support that there might have been an intruder so maybe they wouldn't print that part

I don't know much more about the pubic hair than you obviously do. It wasn't found on any of the victims or on the sofa, I do know that. THAT's when it would mean something. That was a big house, random hairs which are found even downstairs do not prove an intruder, facial or pubic. And its becoming rather gross talking about a dang pubic hair, but like cami said, hair of all types can be brought in on anything or by anybody. These few little things do not cancel out all of the blood evidence against Darlie.

beesy

08-08-2005, 02:29 PM

Nope.

You can see towels. I do believe she wet towels, but not for the boys, especially since nobody saw her wetting any towels. I'm not saying she drenched the towels. More like dampened them to wipe up her blood from the counter, etc. I'm thinking she figured she wouldn't have to bring up wet/dry towels at all until she noticed the kitchen sink had been removed. And you're right, there are towels in the pix. You can't tell if they are wet or dry.

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:28 PM

He was wrong to lead someone to believe it was Darlie's hair when it wasn't.
:banghead:

No. A person who arrived at the conclusion that a single bleached blonde hair (which had been stripped of all characteristic because of the bleach) was definitely Darlie's was wrong. Linch never said it was Darlie's. His microscope did not lie to him - the hairs were microscopically identical (yes, identical- look up the transcripts).

[b]microscopically similar

21 A. I couldn't tell the difference between
22 this debris and the debris found on the knife and,
23 therefore, this knife could have been used to cause the
24 cut, defect.
25 Q. Okay. It's certainly -- are you
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2926
1 saying that the material that you found on this knife
2 blade is consistent with the material that makes up this
3 screen right here?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. You couldn't see any difference?
6 A. That's right.

Last time I checked when someone looks at two objects under a microscope and sees that there is no difference between them it means that they are 'microscopically identical'.

It must have been broken when I had the idea that maybe one of the boys used the knife to cut the screen earlier in the day.

Oh wait. Now you are saying the bread knife did cut the screen?

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:29 PM

There are no deer in that part of Rowlett, ramaging (?) or otherwise!

It was a joke.

Nevermind

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:34 PM

This is what happened: When Darlie was frightening with him, she pushed the knife out of his left hand with her bloody right hand. He picked it up, ran toward the garage, threw the knife down, she picked it up and now they can't get the prints. Ta da!

No that's not what happened. Couple of problems there straight off.

Bevel testified that the knife had to have been fed blood running down the arm of whoever was holding it for it to gather on the tip like it did. That puts it in the hand of someone who was actively bleeding.

If it had been knocked out of the intruder's hand there would be spatter around where the imprint is, not a nice little outline of the knife.

If he threw it down in the u-room again there should be some blood pattern which will indicate that it was ever there, and some spatter to indicate it landed on the hard lino floor.

Dani_T

08-08-2005, 06:37 PM

I do believe she wet towels, but not for the boys, especially since nobody saw her wetting any towels. I'm not saying she drenched the towels. More like dampened them to wipe up her blood from the counter, etc. I'm thinking she figured she wouldn't have to bring up wet/dry towels at all until she noticed the kitchen sink had been removed. And you're right, there are towels in the pix. You can't tell if they are wet or dry.

There was probably at least one wet towel because it is cleared she wiped out the sink and would presumably have wet the towel (or sink) to do that. However, it may simply have been the one she put on her neck. What is disputed is if she was running back and forth between the sink and the living room wetting towels as she and Darin claim.

Jeana (DP)

08-08-2005, 06:38 PM

There was probably at least one wet towel because it is cleared she wiped out the sink and would presumably have wet the towel (or sink) to do that. However, it may simply have been the one she put on her neck. What is disputed is if she was running back and forth between the sink and the living room wetting towels as she and Darin claim.

That seriously would take a hell of an imagination to picture!

beesy

08-08-2005, 06:50 PM

Mary456

08-08-2005, 09:03 PM

[QUOTE=accordn2me]Look, Mary456, last time we went through this - you accusing me of being a liar to be specific - I looked it up.[QUOTE]

I have never called you or anyone else on these message boards a liar. Never.

And I very much resent you telling people that I have.

Crimson Sky

08-11-2005, 12:53 PM

Hello, New here

Just wondering what peoples opinions were about the bruises that covered darlie's arms:waitasec:

Dani_T

08-11-2005, 08:42 PM

Hello, New here

Just wondering what peoples opinions were about the bruises that covered darlie's arms:waitasec:

Welcome :)

Everyone of the nursing staff who attended Darlie whilst in hospital and who testified at the trial said that the bruising evidence on her arms in the photos taken at the police station 4 days after the murders were not there whilst she was in hospital for the 2 days after the murders. None of them saw even the beginning of massive bruising like that and they testified from looking at the photos that the brusing on show there could only was the around 24hours (max 48 hrs) old.

That means that the bruising occured after the murders and most likely after Darlie had been released from hospital.

Hope that make sense!

Dani

ravenmad

08-11-2005, 09:07 PM

Does anyone know if they tested the toe nails of Devon for Darlies DNA? [I wonder if his kicking is what caused the scratches on Darlie] If this has been brought up before, I apologize.
raven

Goody

08-12-2005, 11:13 PM

Hello, New here

Just wondering what peoples opinions were about the bruises that covered darlie's arms:waitasec:
Welcome aboard, Crimson!

We have had many, many discussions about the bruises and nothing has ever really been settled on that issue. Personally, I don't think they are terribly important because the bruising has no explanation whatsoever in relation to the crime. If you believe Darlie was a victim and an intruder did it, how did her manage to bruise only one arm from elbow to armpit yet both wrists? How did he manage to miss her face entirely, her torso, and her legs?

I think the most logical explanation is that Darlie bruised easily and that a combination of hospital treatments probably caused them. Nobody beats someone just in the arms, and even if they tried, they couldn't possibly deliver every blow to the arms and only the arms without hitting any other part of the body unless the victim was holding the arm stationary to be hit. I think it is safe to say that an intruder did not bruise Darlie's arms.

Goody

08-12-2005, 11:19 PM

Does anyone know if they tested the toe nails of Devon for Darlies DNA? [I wonder if his kicking is what caused the scratches on Darlie] If this has been brought up before, I apologize.
raven
I don't think they did, Raven. The scratches are blown up in the photos and their actual size is probably much smaller than they appear. I have even wondered if maybe it was just a flaw in the skin from some past injury. Now that I am older and my skin is getting thinner, I can see a scar for every scratch I ever got. That stuff doesn't go away, it just waits for you. hahaha. Anyway, I am thinking that a camera could put so much light on an area like that that such flaws just under the surface could be magnified. Then when the photo is blown up (enlarged), distortion is bound to be misleading.

ravenmad

08-13-2005, 09:23 AM

I don't think they did, Raven. The scratches are blown up in the photos and their actual size is probably much smaller than they appear. I have even wondered if maybe it was just a flaw in the skin from some past injury. Now that I am older and my skin is getting thinner, I can see a scar for every scratch I ever got. That stuff doesn't go away, it just waits for you. hahaha. Anyway, I am thinking that a camera could put so much light on an area like that that such flaws just under the surface could be magnified. Then when the photo is blown up (enlarged), distortion is bound to be misleading.

Thanks so much for answering my question Goody!!!!!!!!!!
I really appreciate it.

beesy

08-14-2005, 03:25 AM

Hello, New here

Just wondering what peoples opinions were about the bruises that covered darlie's arms:waitasec: Welcome! I think many of the bruises were caused by IV's and needles. I still have a bruise on my arm from where I had blood drawn last week. Some of her bruises were yellowish and you can even seen a little pin prick in one which is from the IV or a shot. I also think some of the bruising may have been caused by Devon pulling up his legs and kicking at Darlie, he had bruises on his feet. I think it's Dani T's theory that Darlie didn't mean to be a victim, but that she was injured in some way in a struggle with Devon. I haven't decided where she was accidently injured, but even bruises would have tied her to the murders. If he kicked at her, she would naturally assume she'd been bruised. Was it the arms or somewhere else? Those are not typical defense-type wounds, but seem to fit if a small child was kicking upwards. Any fight at all would have worried her enough to turn herself into a victim. But, like Dani said, the bruises did not show up in the hospital. I really believe that something happened to freak her out enough to make her think she had to cut her throat

Goody

08-14-2005, 10:46 AM

But, like Dani said, the bruises did not show up in the hospital.
There is something wrong with that, too. I got with a flying phone the other day. No, we weren't fighting. The phone was being tossed to me and hit me like a torpedo. My leg was under a comforter and I guess that softened the blow some but it still hurt like the dickens. Point is, it made a oblong bruise an inch or so in length and maybe a half inch wide. The first day it was red, the second day rosy to blue, and the third day a navy blue, and the fourth (today) purplish. So, the nurses should have noticed something if she received the injuries that night. She was released from the hospital on the 8th. By then blue should have been surfacing. On the tenth, with would have been the fourth day, we shouldn't be seeing any red but we should be seeing purple. I haven't viewed the photos for a long time and now they have been so doctored up with supporters attempts to get a better view of them, mostly by enlargements that have only served to distort the color and size, etc., I am not sure it is possible to make any kind of accurate guess on them. If these bruises do not follow the normal bruise patter, it is probably because they coloring comes not from bruising but from some type of internal bleeding or settling, etc. Nothing else makes sense.

And speaking of Devon kicking Darlie during the attack, he could not have targeted only her arm. So if he kicked her hard enough to bruise her, you'd think they would have found bruises also on her torso. Afterall, her arms were extended above his legs. I would think that the only place he could have kicked her would have been in her stomach and thighs of her legs. Maybe a lucky shot could have hit her arm, but I can't visualize multiple hits there.

Goody

08-14-2005, 10:47 AM

Thanks so much for answering my question Goody!!!!!!!!!!
I really appreciate it.
No Problem, Raven. Ask away and I will answer any time I know the answer. Or think I do. :waitasec:

beesy

08-14-2005, 06:23 PM

[QUOTE=Goody]

And speaking of Devon kicking Darlie during the attack, he could not have targeted only her arm. So if he kicked her hard enough to bruise her, you'd think they would have found bruises also on her torso. Afterall, her arms were extended above his legs. I would think that the only place he could have kicked her would have been in her stomach and thighs of her legs. Maybe a lucky shot could have hit her arm, but I can't visualize multiple hits there.
Is it possible bruises to her torso were missed? Was she ever photographed naked? I think I read that Darin was and it is usually done. Maybe they were scared of her boobs. LOL
I'm still going around on where Devon could have kicked her. When Dani T. mentioned that she didn't plan to be a victim, it made sense, except that I can't find a wound or bruise that fits that theory. Devon had to have fought with her, even without the bruised feet, we have the cut on his butt too. It could be that even if he didn't bruise her torso or thighs, she thought he did.
I think it's a really good theory and I believe it could be true. If Darlie and Darin talked before the 911 call, they could have worked out a plan then, not a good plan, but a plan just the same. What it comes down to is that we don't know where or when those dang bruises on her arms happened, except for the IV and other needles.
Sorry about your evil phone. Hope your leg doesn't hurt anymore.

Dani_T

08-14-2005, 07:32 PM

When Dani T. mentioned that she didn't plan to be a victim, it made sense, except that I can't find a wound or bruise that fits that theory.

I think her arm wound fits nicely.

If Darlie and Darin talked before the 911 call, they could have worked out a plan then, not a good plan, but a plan just the same. What it comes down to is that we don't know where or when those dang bruises on her arms happened, except for the IV and other needles.

Well. obviously with my thoughts on Darin I don't think they worked out a plan- I think it was all her.

But I do also have some problems with the ideas that the IV and other needles made those bruises on her arms. I'm sure someone who bruises easily would end up with some sort of patterned bruising from an IV (do we in fact know she had other needles?). But the fact of the matter is that pretty much both arms are bruised fairly regularly and significantly heavily right up and down from wrist to at least upper arm. I just don' see how anyone could be bruised that badly on both arms from 2 days stay in hospital. It doesn't make any sense to me.

beesy

08-15-2005, 02:25 AM

[QUOTE=Dani_T]I think her arm wound fits nicely. The stab or the bruising? Do you think Devon kicked her hand out of the way and the knife hit her arm?

Well. obviously with my thoughts on Darin I don't think they worked out a plan- I think it was all her.
You think he knows though, right?

But I do also have some problems with the ideas that the IV and other needles made those bruises on her arms. I'm sure someone who bruises easily would end up with some sort of patterned bruising from an IV (do we in fact know she had other needles?). But the fact of the matter is that pretty much both arms are bruised fairly regularly and significantly heavily right up and down from wrist to at least upper arm. I just don' see how anyone could be bruised that badly on both arms from 2 days stay in hospital. It doesn't make any sense to me. No, I'm not saying all the bruising came from the IV and no I don't know for sure she had other needles. There is a pin prick on the underside of her left arm near the wrist(gallery 6 justicefordarlie). There's a strange pattern on the underside of the right arm which is a small circle of unbruised skin(gallery 7, justicefordarlie). I was saying that basically the most we know about the origins of the bruising is that some of it was caused by the IV, certainly not all of it.

Dani_T

08-15-2005, 05:17 AM

[QUOTE] The stab or the bruising? Do you think Devon kicked her hand out of the way and the knife hit her arm?

The cut on her arm. I think it all went downhill from there.

You think he knows though, right?
I think he probably knows now (although maybe he is still not compltely willing to admit it to himself) but I theorise that he probably didn't, in all honesty, think it was possible for months and months, probably well after the trial and after his TV apperances. It's just a theory but I certainly, at this point, don't believe that he came downstairs, found that all hell had broken loose, his wife had slashed his two sons to death and decided on the spot that he would happily side with and cover for the murderer he found himself married to.

I do think he covered up for her later though- not because he believed she was guilty but because he thought she was innocent and tried to give her some more credibility by tweaking his story. Didn't work obviously.

[color=darkred][b]No, I'm not saying all the bruising came from the IV and no I don't know for sure she had other needles. There is a pin prick on the underside of her left arm near the wrist(gallery 6 justicefordarlie). There's a strange pattern on the underside of the right arm which is a small circle of unbruised skin(gallery 7, justicefordarlie). I was saying that basically the most we know about the origins of the bruising is that some of it was caused by the IV, certainly not all of it.

Hmmm - well we can speculate that some of it was caused by the IV etc but I don't see how we can know that for certain.

Then again maybe she did bruise well with the IV (confined to a small part of that arm) and got the idea from there...

Goody

08-15-2005, 05:04 PM

The cut on her arm. I think it all went downhill from there.

The cut was to her right arm and she was right handed so it is unlikely she would have accidently cut herself during the attacks.

Also, the blood evidence seems to indicate that the cut on her arm had to occur rather late into crime, and that would long after Devon was dead most probably.

Dani_T

08-15-2005, 06:42 PM

The cut was to her right arm and she was right handed so it is unlikely she would have accidently cut herself during the attacks.

Yeah I thought about that- I still think it is possible in those kind of attacks to end up with wierd wounds. She obviously got it somehow- so it was either during he attack or part of the staging.

Also, the blood evidence seems to indicate that the cut on her arm had to occur rather late into crime, and that would long after Devon was dead most probably.

What blood evidence?

Goody

08-16-2005, 12:24 AM

Yeah I thought about that- I still think it is possible in those kind of attacks to end up with wierd wounds. She obviously got it somehow- so it was either during he attack or part of the staging.

What blood evidence?
No blood drippings outside near the screen where it was cut or down the alley, etc. That could be explained with a premeditated murder plot, of course, but that would rule out a sudden outburst of temper that ended in Devon's death, regardless of exactly when you place the attack on Damon. For some reason, I want to place the dripping blood from the arm wound not long before the cut to her throat, and that would put her in the utility room before she cut her throat but after her arm was cut.

Dani_T

08-16-2005, 01:49 AM

No blood drippings outside near the screen where it was cut or down the alley, etc. That could be explained with a premeditated murder plot, of course, but that would rule out a sudden outburst of temper that ended in Devon's death, regardless of exactly when you place the attack on Damon. For some reason, I want to place the dripping blood from the arm wound not long before the cut to her throat, and that would put her in the utility room before she cut her throat but after her arm was cut.

I would think that the screen would have been the first thing she did- not I wouldn't expect to see blood there.

The sock down the alley is a bit trickier because the blood on it but again if she had cut her arm accidentally and had wrapped a towel over it then I wouldn't expect to see much if any blood dripping from it. What other injuries did she had beside the neck? I can't remember...

Goody

08-17-2005, 01:46 AM

I would think that the screen would have been the first thing she did- not I wouldn't expect to see blood there.

The sock down the alley is a bit trickier because the blood on it but again if she had cut her arm accidentally and had wrapped a towel over it then I wouldn't expect to see much if any blood dripping from it. What other injuries did she had beside the neck? I can't remember...
She had a small cut on her shoulder on the same angle as the neck wound. It was probably done at the same time the neck wound was done. She had a small puncture on her chest, I think. And that was about it. The wounds doing all the bleeding were her neck and arm. The neck, I believe, fed the blood on her feet which created the bloody footprints and the arm wound did all the dripping (round blood drops). If she had a towel that could stop her arm from bleeding, you'd think she would have used it when she was in the UR. And what about the blood she had on her hands from that arm wound (remember the knife imprint)? I think it unlikely that she could get all the way down the alley with that sock without getting any of her blood on the sock or anywhere else along the way. I just don't think she did the sock run. Still open to anything that might challenge me though.