The Sock

[Linda7NJ]

I can't understand how the sock ended up outside ...no trail of blood, not one drop. How & why did she deposit it there?

I know all of the evidence points to her, I am a VERY prosecution biased person. For some reason I just don't feel she did it. Something just isn't right.:snooty: I don't know what it is exactly.....but...

[HeartofTexas]

No matter who did the murders, I still have trouble with the sock. Why would one sock end up in the alley no matter who did it? And why just 2 drops of blood? (I think that's what it was). OTOH, I don't have any trouble thinking Darlie is guilty... as I said, the sock is confusing anyway. It seems staged but it's not my idea of very good staging. Heck, who's to say the police would find it for certain?

[HeartofTexas]

Linda, here's a quote I read today that pretty well sums it up for me, as far as Darlie being guilty:

"If Ms. Routier didn't commit this crime, what a fortunate assailant there must be running around this desolate Texas neighborhood. He goes in and brutally murders two children. He slashes their mother's throat as they're struggling face to face. He drops the knife and she wipes off his prints. He runs away, but leaves Darlie alive - the one woman who could identify him, and send him to the gas chamber. Then, d'oh, she gets amnesia and can't remember what he looks like. This must be the luckiest goddamn child killer in the universe."

That says it all for me! Damn lucky killer.

[Goody]

I can't understand how the sock ended up outside ...no trail of blood, not one drop. How & why did she deposit it there?

I know all of the evidence points to her, I am a VERY prosecution biased person. For some reason I just don't feel she did it. Something just isn't right.:snooty: I don't know what it is exactly.....but...
There are really only two pieces of evidence that tell us beyond any reasonable doubt that she is the killer.

1. The fiber on the bread knife. Microscopically it is the same size, substance, etc. as a fiber from the screen, and there is NO other explanation for how it got there. That knife cut that screen. Who else but Darlie had access to that knife. Certainly not an intruder.

2. The blood drops on Darlie's shirt. It is cast off blood, cast off of the murder weapon as it was raised to stab those kids. I have seen Dr Henry Lee conduct the same tests to determine cast off blood in two other murder cases. It is not just some wacky test Bevel thought up on his own. It is a generally accepted test that most forensic experts use to determine the paths blood takes as it is cast off of murder weapons. Plus I have never seen any defendant come up with some other explanation for how the blood could travel the path it does that exonerates the defendant. If it was so impossible as Darlie's defense wants us to believe, there should be all kinds of scientific theories to thwart Bevel's conclusions even if her attys were idiots.

We can toss around the mysteries all we want, but we can't ignore the bottom line. Throw out everything else and you still have the above in big flashing lights.

[beesy]

I can't understand how the sock ended up outside ...no trail of blood, not one drop. How & why did she deposit it there?

I know all of the evidence points to her, I am a VERY prosecution biased person. For some reason I just don't feel she did it. Something just isn't right.:snooty: I don't know what it is exactly.....but... Goody(I think) and I have discussed that the sock is not a plant. It only had 2 dots of blood on it and did nothing for her or against her. A better plant would have been in the Routier's backyard, since the story goes the "intruder/s" escaped thru the garage window. That might have helped her defense, MAYBE. The sock was found near a sewer drain and near a trash can. I think either Darlie or Darin threw it towards the drain and can to dispose of the sock, but missed. Either they didn't notice in the darkness or panicked as time slipped away. To me that's the only thing which makes sense. Neither side harped on the sock much because like I said, it did nothing either way. If you study the case you'll see how much forensic evidence there is against Darlie. I bet most DA's wish they had as much evidence as TX had against her.

[britgirl]

Goody(I think) and I have discussed that the sock is not a plant. It only had 2 dots of blood on it and did nothing for her or against her. A better plant would have been in the Routier's backyard, since the story goes the "intruder/s" escaped thru the garage window. That might have helped her defense, MAYBE. The sock was found near a sewer drain and near a trash can. I think either Darlie or Darin threw it towards the drain and can to dispose of the sock, but missed. Either they didn't notice in the darkness or panicked as time slipped away. To me that's the only thing which makes sense. Neither side harped on the sock much because like I said, it did nothing either way. If you study the case you'll see how much forensic evidence there is against Darlie. I bet most DA's wish they had as much evidence as TX had against her.
I know it's probably been discussed elsewhere and I'm being a bit dense, but...WHY would Darlie have been so keen to dispose of the sock? Why not just leave it in the room? I accept that she's guilty, don't get me wrong, but this sock thing really bugs me. I just don't understand why she deemed it so necessary to go and dispose of it.

[wenchie]

I forget who's blood was on that sock.

If it was Darlie's, she could have given herself a small cut before attacking the boys, and thrown the sock out there in advance of the crime as part of the staging.

[Goody]

No matter who did the murders, I still have trouble with the sock. Why would one sock end up in the alley no matter who did it? And why just 2 drops of blood? (I think that's what it was). OTOH, I don't have any trouble thinking Darlie is guilty... as I said, the sock is confusing anyway. It seems staged but it's not my idea of very good staging. Heck, who's to say the police would find it for certain?
For a long time I thought the sock was a deliberate plant to mislead the cops, but of late, I am leaning more toward the sock being a mistake. There is not enough blood on it to be a plant. I think what they found on it was very, very minute. It was found near a trash can outside of the man's house that she eventually accused of committing the crime, then had to back down when she realized that he did not fit the physical description she gave the cops. Not even close. There was a gutter right there, too. The police looked down the drain opening but the pipe bent soon after entry, blocking their view to anything thrown down there. They never did open it up and look down the main pipe. So it is possible that the sock was just part of other things that were thrown down the sewer to hide from police, and the sock was just accidentally left behind where it was found. That would certainly explain why Darin got so indignant about the cops not telling them they had found a sock in the alley. His anger seemed so misplaced until I started tossing around the idea that the sock was an "accident" and not an intentional plant.

[Goody]

Linda, here's a quote I read today that pretty well sums it up for me, as far as Darlie being guilty:

"If Ms. Routier didn't commit this crime, what a fortunate assailant there must be running around this desolate Texas neighborhood. He goes in and brutally murders two children. He slashes their mother's throat as they're struggling face to face. He drops the knife and she wipes off his prints. He runs away, but leaves Darlie alive - the one woman who could identify him, and send him to the gas chamber. Then, d'oh, she gets amnesia and can't remember what he looks like. This must be the luckiest goddamn child killer in the universe."

That says it all for me! Damn lucky killer.
Not only that, but you can you imagine a couple of thugs running around in a black car, looking for a place to rob or body to rape (depending on the motive you give them). They come up on the Routier house with the street light across the road from the alley entrance and another street light on Eagle Drive across the street from the Routier house and the water fountain in the front yard with three spotlights on it, lighting up the whole front and side of the house. Can't you imagine one saying to the other, "Hey, Joe, this one is great. Look at all the light here. We will be able to see what we are doing." So they roll down the alley 75 feet to Gary what's his faces house and park. One of them goes in (if you use the first version) and the other waits out in the car. He walks down this pretty well lit alley and around the privacy fence toward the driveway beneath the street light that is right there (in fact the driveway is pretty much sandwiched between two street lights, according to Gorsuch, the neighbor) and he goes to the gate that is broken. He struggled with it but he's seen enough wobbly gates in his time to know instinctively how to open it in short order (must lift it up & guide over the concrete). He slips into the back yard, which is partially lit by the street light and follows the walk around to the garage window closest to the house rather than choosing one near the gate where he has the most light. The glass sliding doors are only another couple of steps but doesn't even try to open them. He goes for the window, cutting the screen and then steps into the cluttered and dark garage, twisting his body around the huge cat cage, then follows an angled path between piles of boxes to the utility room door as if he knows the place. Lucky for him the door is unlocked so he just opens it up and steps inside. (He has already pocketed his pocket knife with which he cut the screen). He creeps through the kitchen and grabs a knife from the butcher block on the counter (picks the biggest butcher knife there) and steps into the family room....passing the wallet with the cash and the credit cards, passing the jewelry that is spread out on the counter, and spots the boys sleeping in front of the TV. He immediately stabs them to death and then decides to take care of the mother sleeping on the sofa. He slashes her neck, then gets the heck out of there, going back thru the cluttered and dark garage instead of out the front door or out the sliding doors, which he knows let out right next to the garage window. He manages to get back to the car without leaving the sidewalk in the back yard, which would have tripped the motion detector, turning on the flood lights there. He jumps in the car, dropping or throwing the sock he retrieved from the laundry room on his way out to wipe his hands on. His partner says, "What did you get?" He replies, "Nothing. Shiit, man, there was a woman and two kids in there. I forgot all about why I was there." His partner is stunned. "You forgot?" "Yeah, man, I killed them. I think I did." His partner is dumbfounded. "You killed a bunch of people and didn't get nuttin! Are you nuts?" They drive off into the sunset arguing like a couple of ten year olds over who gets the last coke.

Now I know criminals can be pretty dumb, but THIS dumb?????

[Goody]

I know it's probably been discussed elsewhere and I'm being a bit dense, but...WHY would Darlie have been so keen to dispose of the sock? Why not just leave it in the room? I accept that she's guilty, don't get me wrong, but this sock thing really bugs me. I just don't understand why she deemed it so necessary to go and dispose of it.
Good question. We don't know because we don't know what else may have been tossed with the sock. I suspect that she thought it would incriminate her....or Darin possibly. Remember he did not have a shirt on. We don't know if he had one on and managed to dispose of it before police arrived or if Darlie wore the socks and was just being cautious. Or maybe she knew she'd gotten traces of blood on it.

[Goody]

I forget who's blood was on that sock.

If it was Darlie's, she could have given herself a small cut before attacking the boys, and thrown the sock out there in advance of the crime as part of the staging.
Darlie's blood was not on the sock. Her DNA was though. One small droplet or trace of the boys' blood was found on it; Devon's on the toe and Damon's on the heel (or vice versa). You would think if she were planting it, she would have put much more blood on it to make sure it was found and tested positive. Most stagers put too much blood on an item rather than not enough.

[cami]

I forget who's blood was on that sock.

If it was Darlie's, she could have given herself a small cut before attacking the boys, and thrown the sock out there in advance of the crime as part of the staging.

It has Devon and Damon's blood on it. That's why I too believe it is not a plant.

[wenchie]

It has Devon and Damon's blood on it. That's why I too believe it is not a plant.
Then it makes sense that it was just something that missed the trash can - or that the kids left out there while playing.

[cami]

Then it makes sense that it was just something that missed the trash can - or that the kids left out there while playing.

I don't think the kids left it out there, it had both boys' blood on it but it was Darin's sock. If it was a plant, it should contain some of Darlie's blood. I too think it missed the can or the drain.

[wenchie]

I guess I should have said hello and introduced myself before I jumped in with a post.

I lurk on the Darlie thread 3-4 nights a week, but I believe that yesterday was my first post.


I don't think there's a doubt that Darlie did the crime - but the WHY is just unfathomable.

Maybe it was a case of extreme Munchausen's-by-proxy.

[Dani_T]

Then it makes sense that it was just something that missed the trash can - or that the kids left out there while playing.

I've wondered that myself- whether it was not tied directly to the crime. If it had just one of the boys blood on it I might be able to believe it- but both of the boys blood is just too coincidental. On the other hand it is very odd that there was so little of the boys blood on the sock. And why is there none of HER blood on it?

The only other option which I can come up with (and I don't think it is very viable) is that Darlie actually 'collected' that blood in advance (little boys get all sorts of scrapes and scratches) and then planted the sock that night before the crime- but that would point to her planning the crime way in advance. Besides which it seems just a bit too far fetched to believe.

BTW- welcome wenchie :)

[Goody]

Then it makes sense that it was just something that missed the trash can - or that the kids left out there while playing.
There was nothing in the trash can except cut grass so if the sock was thrown into it and just missed the can, nothing else that might have been thrown with it made it either. Also, the garbage can had a lid on it so one would have had to have lifted it before tossing anything in it. That obviously was not done.

So it makes more sense that the target was the gutter, which was located close to the trash can. The sock just missed it.

The boys didn't drop the sock out there with their blood on it. It also had Darlie's DNA on it and the experts said that one would have to wear it for some time to get their DNA on it from skin cells. Saliva could leave DNA on it instantly though. I think she had the socks on,that there were two that she felt she needed to get rid of. The other one is probably way down deep inside that sewer. If Darin did have a shirt on that night, it is probably down there too.

[Mama-cita]

I think she had the socks on,that there were two that she felt she needed to get rid of. The other one is probably way down deep inside that sewer. If Darin did have a shirt on that night, it is probably down there too.
Why oh why didn't LE search the sewer?

[Goody]

Why oh why didn't LE search the sewer?
They didn't have the key to open up the big sewer plate and thought they'd do it later, then no one followed up on it. I guess it was an oversight or one of those things they should have done that fell thru the cracks. Talk about luck. If there was anything down there to incriminate Darin, they ought to start calling him horseshoes.

[Goody]

The only other option which I can come up with (and I don't think it is very viable) is that Darlie actually 'collected' that blood in advance (little boys get all sorts of scrapes and scratches) and then planted the sock that night before the crime- but that would point to her planning the crime way in advance. Besides which it seems just a bit too far fetched to believe.


I agree...it is unlikely. I don't think Darlie could plan that far in advance in detail. I could be wrong though, but so much about the crime indicates that she did not plan well and what we know about her emotional state, the diet pills, money pressures, etc, it seems to indicate a more impulsive act with maybe some preplanning (if that is what one might even call it) but with lack of organization. Does that make sense?

[Leve]

Could it be that she wore the socks on her hand when using the knife? If she had 2 socks on her hand the inner one would have alot of her DNA but just a little seep through blood - the outer sock would be covered in blood (and probably made it into the gutter).

[HeartofTexas]

He goes for the window, cutting the screen and then steps into the cluttered and dark garage,
Goody, your post #9 above was a great one! But I think, to further complicate how much trouble these two mystical fellows went to, we also have to ask ourselves how they first managed to get into the kitchen to obtain the knife that actually cut the screen. So now we have an idiot who breaks into the house, pulls a knife from the cutlery board, goes back outside the same way he came in, cuts a screen on the window, and then lets himself in again! Makes sense to me! LOL!

[Goody]

Could it be that she wore the socks on her hand when using the knife? If she had 2 socks on her hand the inner one would have alot of her DNA but just a little seep through blood - the outer sock would be covered in blood (and probably made it into the gutter).
I don't really think that happened. I don't think there is enough blood on the sock for that to have been the case, plus the expert indicated that one would have to wear it for some time to get their skin cells on it (DNA). If she had worn it on her hand, I don't think she would have had it on long enough to do that and I think the blood droplets or smears from the boys would be not necessarily a lot but certainly overlapping in spots and we don't have that. We have just a little of one boy's blood on the toe, I think it was, and the other on the heel. They spots are not multiple and they don't overlap. That makes it seem more planned and staged than a natural occurence unless she were wearing it on her foot and managed to pull it off soon after stepping on an area that could have picked up different blood in two different areas. INitially there would not have been much blood about the floors because the boys bled internally and pooled blood beneath their bodies. Most of the blood at the scene was from Darlie and probably wasn't even cut yet at the time the sock was dumped in the alley.

As for the two socks idea, it sounds plausible but without the other sock or a statement from one of the parents, it is impossible to know. Good thought though.

[Goody]

Goody, your post #9 above was a great one! But I think, to further complicate how much trouble these two mystical fellows went to, we also have to ask ourselves how they first managed to get into the kitchen to obtain the knife that actually cut the screen. So now we have an idiot who breaks into the house, pulls a knife from the cutlery board, goes back outside the same way he came in, cuts a screen on the window, and then lets himself in again! Makes sense to me! LOL!
My favorite visual is the guy who knocks on the front door and asks to borrow a knife, manages to get it, then goes around to the garage window and cuts the screen, then goes back to the front door and knocks again to return the knife. He comes back later to steal through the dark of night beneath those street lights (breaking just about every rule burglars have to veto a target).

Burglars don't like corner houses. (Routiers)
Don't like houses near the beginning of the subdivision. (Routiers)
Don't like houses near street lights. (2 near entry gate)
Don't like flood lights. (Routiers: 3 in front/1 in back)
Don't like motion detectors. (1 in back yard)
Don't like broken gates to slow down entry and exit. (Routiers had to be lifted to open or close)

So this guy(s) overlooked a lot of negatives to target the Routier house. Of course, what I like best is him passing the jewelry and cash and credit cards twice to do nothing at all but go into a room he didn't have to just to kill two sleeping kids. I wonder is this intruder was mentally handicapped, maybe his brain damaged from drugs or something. The only thing he seemed to be good at was stabbing the boys.

[SpongeBathHotPants]

IMO, the sock was thrown to trigger the sensor light out back. That was a key point that was brought up at trial, the light would stay on for like 20 minutes or something and it was still on when the cops got there. I think it was throw from the house to set off the light....

[cami]

I agree...it is unlikely. I don't think Darlie could plan that far in advance in detail. I could be wrong though, but so much about the crime indicates that she did not plan well and what we know about her emotional state, the diet pills, money pressures, etc, it seems to indicate a more impulsive act with maybe some preplanning (if that is what one might even call it) but with lack of organization. Does that make sense?

Yeah it does to me. I don't think she was planning it that far in advance either. I do believe she thought of it and maybe actively planned it in her mind but stopped short at any heavy details, more of a what if scenario. She might have thought that just because she lived in the house there would be no way to tie her to the murders. She didn't know blood could speak.

[Dani_T]

IMO, the sock was thrown to trigger the sensor light out back. That was a key point that was brought up at trial, the light would stay on for like 20 minutes or something and it was still on when the cops got there. I think it was throw from the house to set off the light....

No, the light wasn't on when the police arrived. That is another one of the points against an intruder because if he left the house via the window in the garage he had to hug the side of the building to avoid setting off the light. The police tested the light and if he went anywhere near the path it would have been set off and have still been on when the police arrived.

Also, the sock was too far away to have been thrown- particularly when you consider that it is a light and flimsy item whose weight would not have carried it very far.

And they obviously had to be out the backyard anyway to throw the sock so they light should have either been activated then or they would have known where to take a single step so that it was activated...

[Goody]

IMO, the sock was thrown to trigger the sensor light out back. That was a key point that was brought up at trial, the light would stay on for like 20 minutes or something and it was still on when the cops got there. I think it was throw from the house to set off the light....



I know Dani already responded to this but her answer was not quite right either. The sock was found down the alley about 75 feet from the Routier property. It would have been impossible to throw it from the back yard and have it land where it did, even if you could pitch it high enough to go over the privacy fence for any distance. Oddly enough the gate was not on the alley side of the fence. It was on the side that let out onto the driveway. You would have to walk down the drive to get to the alley, then walk the 75 feet to the spot where the sock was found.

The flood light in the back yard was not on that night and that is what sparked the big debate about how a stranger could go to and fro thru the back yard without setting off the motion detector. How would he have known where to walk to avoid it? Could he have been that lucky to have walked the right path and not know it?

[Goody]

No, the light wasn't on when the police arrived. That is another one of the points against an intruder because if he left the house via the window in the garage he had to hug the side of the building to avoid setting off the light.
He wouldn't have to hug the building, just stay on the sidewalk.

The police tested the light and if he went anywhere near the path it would have been set off and have still been on when the police arrived.

The intruder would have had to stay on the sidewalk that ran thru the yard from the patio to the gate to avoid the motion detector. He would not have been able to step off the walk without setting off the motion detector. It is hard to imagine someone running from a murder scene staying on the walk without stepping off it as he went. At least that is my understanding of it.

[Goody]

Yeah it does to me. I don't think she was planning it that far in advance either. I do believe she thought of it and maybe actively planned it in her mind but stopped short at any heavy details, more of a what if scenario. She might have thought that just because she lived in the house there would be no way to tie her to the murders. She didn't know blood could speak.
We are pretty much on the same page here. I think she thought about it, more than just in passing but not with enough focus to wrap up the loose ends. She probably didn't know until that night that she was really going to do it. I am not sure I believe she didn't know blood could speak, but I will say that she probably didn't understand HOW it would speak. She was probably thinking of it more in terms of where it was than sizes and shapes of droplets and smears, etc. You know, if they find it on my shirt that is okay because I am right here in the murder scene rather than what the size and shape of those droplets on her shirt would tell them about HOW they got there. She probably was more concerned about her bloody footprints, etc.

[Dani_T]

The intruder would have had to stay on the sidewalk that ran thru the yard from the patio to the gate to avoid the motion detector. He would not have been able to step off the walk without setting off the motion detector. It is hard to imagine someone running from a murder scene staying on the walk without stepping off it as he went. At least that is my understanding of it. [/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that the light went on when they walked along the sidewalk in the testing. In fact I just checked and it was when Waddell was standing in front of the hot tub.

Isn't that why they made a big deal about 'mulch' under the windows not being disturbed, because he would have had to walk through it to not trip the light?

[cami]

My favorite visual is the guy who knocks on the front door and asks to borrow a knife, manages to get it, then goes around to the garage window and cuts the screen, then goes back to the front door and knocks again to return the knife. He comes back later to steal through the dark of night beneath those street lights (breaking just about every rule burglars have to veto a target).

Burglars don't like corner houses. (Routiers)
Don't like houses near the beginning of the subdivision. (Routiers)
Don't like houses near street lights. (2 near entry gate)
Don't like flood lights. (Routiers: 3 in front/1 in back)
Don't like motion detectors. (1 in back yard)
Don't like broken gates to slow down entry and exit. (Routiers had to be lifted to open or close)

So this guy(s) overlooked a lot of negatives to target the Routier house. Of course, what I like best is him passing the jewelry and cash and credit cards twice to do nothing at all but go into a room he didn't have to just to kill two sleeping kids. I wonder is this intruder was mentally handicapped, maybe his brain damaged from drugs or something. The only thing he seemed to be good at was stabbing the boys.

His stabbing Damon at two different times and two different areas of the room. Would an intruder stick around long enough to do that?

[cami]

The intruder would have had to stay on the sidewalk that ran thru the yard from the patio to the gate to avoid the motion detector. He would not have been able to step off the walk without setting off the motion detector. It is hard to imagine someone running from a murder scene staying on the walk without stepping off it as he went. At least that is my understanding of it.

I'm pretty sure that the light went on when they walked along the sidewalk in the testing. In fact I just checked and it was when Waddell was standing in front of the hot tub.

Isn't that why they made a big deal about 'mulch' under the windows not being disturbed, because he would have had to walk through it to not trip the light?[/QUOTE]


Yes and Yes Dani. Going through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. Taking the path triggered the lights. It's a lose/lose situation for Darlie.

[Dani_T]

By the way I got my W's mixed up again. I meant to write Walling not Waddell :)

[Goody]

The intruder would have had to stay on the sidewalk that ran thru the yard from the patio to the gate to avoid the motion detector. He would not have been able to step off the walk without setting off the motion detector. It is hard to imagine someone running from a murder scene staying on the walk without stepping off it as he went. At least that is my understanding of it.
I'm pretty sure that the light went on when they walked along the sidewalk in the testing. In fact I just checked and it was when Waddell was standing in front of the hot tub.

Isn't that why they made a big deal about 'mulch' under the windows not being disturbed, because he would have had to walk through it to not trip the light?[/QUOTE]
No. The state had the mulch location mixed up. You would not have to step on the mulch to go from the window to the the gate. As I understood it from posters who went to the house after the crime, the mulch was behind that location on the other side of the sliding door. The state had the mulch all over the place, right there at the window, along the exterior of the fence, etc. But it was in none of those locations.

One would not have to step in the mulch (which is what some state witnesses claimed) to exit the garage window to the gate. (Fugi can chime in here because she has a better visual, I think ,about the exact location of the mulch than I do.)

I think the hot tub building was several feet from the walkway, so you would have to step off of the walk into the grass to attract the motion detector and set it off. This would be the section of walk that went from the patio to the gate. There may have been another section that went to the hot tub house and maybe walking on it would set off the MD. I can't say. My focus has always been on the route the intruder would have to take to exit the property and going toward the hot tub would not be the exit route.

Ayone want to dispute that?

One more point, a common argument used to be whether a fleeing intruder would stick to the walk to make his exit. If he cut across the grass instead of following the walk to the gate, it would set off the MD. (How many men don't cut across grass and walk the sidewalks instead?) I think if one believe's the intruder stayed on the walk, they would almost certainly have to wonder if he knew the location and limits of the MD or if he just got lucky. There was a lot of light in the area outside though from the two street lights, so it is possible the yard was lit up enough to see the path the walkway took clearly enough to maneuver accurately to the gate without setting it off.

[Goody]

I'm pretty sure that the light went on when they walked along the sidewalk in the testing. In fact I just checked and it was when Waddell was standing in front of the hot tub.

Isn't that why they made a big deal about 'mulch' under the windows not being disturbed, because he would have had to walk through it to not trip the light?

Yes and Yes Dani. Going through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. Taking the path triggered the lights. It's a lose/lose situation for Darlie.[/QUOTE]
That is what they testified to, but was that an accurate recollection? As I understood it, they made some errors about the mulch. Maybe I am just confused because of all the debates we had with Jeff over it. I was sure he insisted that they were wrong. And you know some of their experts placed the mulch outside of the fence on the route to the alley. That was definitely wrong.

[Goody]

His stabbing Damon at two different times and two different areas of the room. Would an intruder stick around long enough to do that?
Good point, and probably not....esp since Darlie has him leaving before Damon even gets to the place where he was stabbed the second time.

[cami]

Yes and Yes Dani. Going through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. Taking the path triggered the lights. It's a lose/lose situation for Darlie.
That is what they testified to, but was that an accurate recollection? As I understood it, they made some errors about the mulch. Maybe I am just confused because of all the debates we had with Jeff over it. I was sure he insisted that they were wrong. And you know some of their experts placed the mulch outside of the fence on the route to the alley. That was definitely wrong. [/QUOTE]


No, the confusion is that the mulch was not directly under the alleged point- of-entry window but the window beside it. So Jeff jumped on that right away. Cron said the mulch wasn't disturbed hence no intruder, Jeff's argument was the mulch wasn't under the window.

However, running through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. The mulch was moist and would have showed footprints had anyone run through it. I wish I had my MTJD here, I could point out the page number and photo where you can see the quickest route to the gate/fence.

[cami]

I'm pretty sure that the light went on when they walked along the sidewalk in the testing. In fact I just checked and it was when Waddell was standing in front of the hot tub.

Isn't that why they made a big deal about 'mulch' under the windows not being disturbed, because he would have had to walk through it to not trip the light?
No. The state had the mulch location mixed up. You would not have to step on the mulch to go from the window to the the gate. As I understood it from posters who went to the house after the crime, the mulch was behind that location on the other side of the sliding door. The state had the mulch all over the place, right there at the window, along the exterior of the fence, etc. But it was in none of those locations.

One would not have to step in the mulch (which is what some state witnesses claimed) to exit the garage window to the gate. (Fugi can chime in here because she has a better visual, I think ,about the exact location of the mulch than I do.)

I think the hot tub building was several feet from the walkway, so you would have to step off of the walk into the grass to attract the motion detector and set it off. This would be the section of walk that went from the patio to the gate. There may have been another section that went to the hot tub house and maybe walking on it would set off the MD. I can't say. My focus has always been on the route the intruder would have to take to exit the property and going toward the hot tub would not be the exit route.

Ayone want to dispute that?

One more point, a common argument used to be whether a fleeing intruder would stick to the walk to make his exit. If he cut across the grass instead of following the walk to the gate, it would set off the MD. (How many men don't cut across grass and walk the sidewalks instead?) I think if one believe's the intruder stayed on the walk, they would almost certainly have to wonder if he knew the location and limits of the MD or if he just got lucky. There was a lot of light in the area outside though from the two street lights, so it is possible the yard was lit up enough to see the path the walkway took clearly enough to maneuver accurately to the gate without setting it off. [/QUOTE]



Goody, if you go look at the galleries on the justice site. Here's the link:

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/galleries/galleries.php

Go to Gallery 2 you will see the photos there of the back and you will see the mulch and the path.

[Dani_T]

I think the hot tub building was several feet from the walkway, so you would have to step off of the walk into the grass to attract the motion detector and set it off. This would be the section of walk that went from the patio to the gate. There may have been another section that went to the hot tub house and maybe walking on it would set off the MD. I can't say.

Looking at the photos the path
1) goes right up to the hottub building
2) verges off into another path about 3-5 feet before the actual enterance of the hot-tub building and leads to the gate.

Walling came into backyard through the gate so presumably walked up the path. He testified that the security light went on when he was standing in front of the huttub house. That doesn't mean he has to be right there at the door to the huttub but in the area in front of it. It makes perfect sense that it came on when he actually got to where the path merges in front of the huttub.

The motion detector on security lights go off when a certain point is breached. That point tends to be quite wide ranging - not simply if someone takes a step to the right or the left. I've yet to come across a security light which goes off because I take a step off the path I am following.

My focus has always been on the route the intruder would have to take to exit the property and going toward the hot tub would not be the exit route.

If he was going along the path then he would have been heading to the hot tub. The alternative is that he went through what looks to be a garden bed (perhaps wood chips- so the state wasn't too wrong on the mulch thing) which takes up the whole area between the path and the window. The problem with that is that area is blocked off near the window with a turned over chair and also some yellow plastic thing. LOL- I don't know why I am even arguing that line because there WAS on intruder which we both know!

Also, don't forget that we have wallings testimony about the light going off in front of the hot tub because he entered through the opposite enterance to the way the intruder fled. In other words the light may actualy be activated elsewhere in the backyard closer to the main house area. Just because Walling set it off in the area in front of the hot tub doesn't mean it couldn't have come on earlier if he had come into the backyard through the window.

[Goody]

Looking at the photos the path
1) goes right up to the hottub building
2) verges off into another path about 3-5 feet before the actual enterance of the hot-tub building and leads to the gate.
I can't find the photos leading to the hot tub. I only see two photos and both are taken near the house/garage areas. Neither show the whole paths or how they angle out to the hot tub/gate, etc.

Walling came into backyard through the gate so presumably walked up the path. He testified that the security light went on when he was standing in front of the huttub house. That doesn't mean he has to be right there at the door to the huttub but in the area in front of it. It makes perfect sense that it came on when he actually got to where the path merges in front of the huttub.{/QUOTE]

The way I understand it, the path angles along the house and garage to the gate. At some point it angles away from that part and goes to the hot tub. If you walk the part toward the hot tub, the MD turns on the flood lights. If you walk on the grass just about anywhere the MD turns the flood lights on.

[QUOTE=Dani_T]The motion detector on security lights go off when a certain point is breached. That point tends to be quite wide ranging - not simply if someone takes a step to the right or the left. I've yet to come across a security light which goes off because I take a step off the path I am following.
Correct but you are probably walking in commercial areas that would be a bit different from someone's back yard. However, since I haven't read those testimonies for a couple of years, I won't dispute you too much. It is possible that part of the walkway did trigger the MD. That would make sense for security reasons. But I must say that I remember that the police had a hard time getting the MD to trigger when they tried testing it. I remember thinking they should have devoted more variances to their testing to give a better idea of just when and where the thing would trigger.



If he was going along the path then he would have been heading to the hot tub. The alternative is that he went through what looks to be a garden bed (perhaps wood chips- so the state wasn't too wrong on the mulch thing) which takes up the whole area between the path and the window. The problem with that is that area is blocked off near the window with a turned over chair and also some yellow plastic thing. LOL- I don't know why I am even arguing that line because there WAS on intruder which we both know!
Agreed but it is still an important point because it can dispute the whole intruder theory. The mulch is a smaller area than it looks in the photos by the way. It could be that one would have to walk along the walk closest to the house to keep from triggering the MD. If one walked on the walk closest to the grass, it would trigger the MD. If that is the case, the intruder is looking pretty darned thin. How would a stranger know to do that? Most of us would just walk on the walk, not cling to the house. Do you that is what they were talking about maybe?

Also, don't forget that we have wallings testimony about the light going off in front of the hot tub because he entered through the opposite enterance to the way the intruder fled. In other words the light may actualy be activated elsewhere in the backyard closer to the main house area. Just because Walling set it off in the area in front of the hot tub doesn't mean it couldn't have come on earlier if he had come into the backyard through the window.
Agreed but because they didn't widen their testing area, it is one more thing that we can't know.

[Mary456]

That is what they testified to, but was that an accurate recollection? As I understood it, they made some errors about the mulch. Maybe I am just confused because of all the debates we had with Jeff over it. I was sure he insisted that they were wrong. And you know some of their experts placed the mulch outside of the fence on the route to the alley. That was definitely wrong.


No, the confusion is that the mulch was not directly under the alleged point- of-entry window but the window beside it. So Jeff jumped on that right away. Cron said the mulch wasn't disturbed hence no intruder, Jeff's argument was the mulch wasn't under the window.

However, running through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. The mulch was moist and would have showed footprints had anyone run through it. I wish I had my MTJD here, I could point out the page number and photo where you can see the quickest route to the gate/fence.[/QUOTE]



Cami, the mulch was one of the Darlie's first efforts to twist Cron's testimony, way back in 1999, long before Jeff came on the scene. Here's how it went:

Cron testified that he was looking for a disturbance in the mulch. The Darlies said, "Aha! There was no mulch under the window. Cron is lying!" They conveniently left out the fact that Cron never said there was mulch under the window. He was referring to the mulch beside that window, because running through it was the quickest route to the gate.

This was the very first thing I looked up when the transcripts were posted online. It was then that I realized how sneaky and deceitful the original Darlies could be. And they've never disappointed me since ;)

[Goody]

No, the confusion is that the mulch was not directly under the alleged point- of-entry window but the window beside it. So Jeff jumped on that right away. Cron said the mulch wasn't disturbed hence no intruder, Jeff's argument was the mulch wasn't under the window.

However, running through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. The mulch was moist and would have showed footprints had anyone run through it. I wish I had my MTJD here, I could point out the page number and photo where you can see the quickest route to the gate/fence.


Cami, the mulch was one of the Darlie's first efforts to twist Cron's testimony, way back in 1999, long before Jeff came on the scene. Here's how it went:

Cron testified that he was looking for a disturbance in the mulch. The Darlies said, "Aha! There was no mulch under the window. Cron is lying!" They conveniently left out the fact that Cron never said there was mulch under the window. He was referring to the mulch beside that window, because running through it was the quickest route to the gate.

This was the very first thing I looked up when the transcripts were posted online. It was then that I realized how sneaky and deceitful the original Darlies could be. And they've never disappointed me since ;) [/QUOTE]
But in looking at the photos, the concrete area there is rather wide. If someone were to step there (in the mulch) in a hurry to leave the scene, he might or might not step in the mulch. If he did, no more than one step would be necesary because the sidewalk is right there. Plus there may have been a block as is in the photo.

BTW, are there any maps of the back yard or multiple photos showing all the angles?

Glad to see you here. That dead end discussion over there was getting on my nerves and i was just reading it! hahahah..

[Mary456]

But in looking at the photos, the concrete area there is rather wide. If someone were to step there (in the mulch) in a hurry to leave the scene, he might or might not step in the mulch. If he did, no more than one step would be necesary because the sidewalk is right there. Plus there may have been a block as is in the photo.


It depends on the angle of the photo, Goody. In one of the pix in MTJD, the mulch area looks much wider than the sidewalk, with the yellow toy blocking only a small portion of the mulch.

The State didn't really pound it home, but I think their point was:

1. Not only would an intruder have to go 12' out of his way to follow the sidewalk, but it would also have set off the MD.

2. An intruder who left a living witness, armed with a knife, would take the shortest route through the mulch.

3. The mulch showed no disturbance.

4. Therefore, there was no intruder.


Glad to see you here. That dead end discussion over there was getting on my nerves and i was just reading it! hahahah

Yep, my blood pressure is finally approaching a normal level again :)

[Goody]

But in looking at the photos, the concrete area there is rather wide. If someone were to step there (in the mulch) in a hurry to leave the scene, he might or might not step in the mulch. If he did, no more than one step would be necesary because the sidewalk is right there. Plus there may have been a block as is in the photo.


It depends on the angle of the photo, Goody. In one of the pix in MTJD, the mulch area looks much wider than the sidewalk, with the yellow toy blocking only a small portion of the mulch.

The State didn't really pound it home, but I think their point was:

1. Not only would an intruder have to go 12' out of his way to follow the sidewalk, but it would also have set off the MD.

2. An intruder who left a living witness, armed with a knife, would take the shortest route through the mulch.

3. The mulch showed no disturbance.

4. Therefore, there was no intruder.
It pretty much does point to no intruder, either way. Hard to imagine a stranger just getting lucky as he goes through an unfamiliar yard and not setting off the MD no matter where the boundaries of the triggers are. I would like to get a better visual of this route though. I'll put it on my list of topics to research....someday. LOL!


Glad to see you here. That dead end discussion over there was getting on my nerves and i was just reading it! hahahah

Yep, my blood pressure is finally approaching a normal level again :)
hahahahahahahahah!

[cami]

No, the confusion is that the mulch was not directly under the alleged point- of-entry window but the window beside it. So Jeff jumped on that right away. Cron said the mulch wasn't disturbed hence no intruder, Jeff's argument was the mulch wasn't under the window.

However, running through the mulch was the quickest way to the fence/gate. The mulch was moist and would have showed footprints had anyone run through it. I wish I had my MTJD here, I could point out the page number and photo where you can see the quickest route to the gate/fence.



Cami, the mulch was one of the Darlie's first efforts to twist Cron's testimony, way back in 1999, long before Jeff came on the scene. Here's how it went:

Cron testified that he was looking for a disturbance in the mulch. The Darlies said, "Aha! There was no mulch under the window. Cron is lying!" They conveniently left out the fact that Cron never said there was mulch under the window. He was referring to the mulch beside that window, because running through it was the quickest route to the gate.

This was the very first thing I looked up when the transcripts were posted online. It was then that I realized how sneaky and deceitful the original Darlies could be. And they've never disappointed me since ;) [/QUOTE]

Thanks Mary. You've been at this far longer than me that's for sure! Yes, I remember this being the very first, ahem, falseness that the darlies on the .org threw in my posting face way back when.

I forgot to look up the photo number in MTJD, but I think Goody said her book is among the missing anyway. It wasn't until I saw that photo in MTJD that the whole thing clicked.

[Goody]

Cami, the mulch was one of the Darlie's first efforts to twist Cron's testimony, way back in 1999, long before Jeff came on the scene. Here's how it went:

Cron testified that he was looking for a disturbance in the mulch. The Darlies said, "Aha! There was no mulch under the window. Cron is lying!" They conveniently left out the fact that Cron never said there was mulch under the window. He was referring to the mulch beside that window, because running through it was the quickest route to the gate.

This was the very first thing I looked up when the transcripts were posted online. It was then that I realized how sneaky and deceitful the original Darlies could be. And they've never disappointed me since ;)
Thanks Mary. You've been at this far longer than me that's for sure! Yes, I remember this being the very first, ahem, falseness that the darlies on the .org threw in my posting face way back when.

I forgot to look up the photo number in MTJD, but I think Goody said her book is among the missing anyway. It wasn't until I saw that photo in MTJD that the whole thing clicked.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Goody's book is missing. My son put it up for me and I haven't been able to find it in months. The sad truth is I may never see it again. <sniff>

[beesy]

By the way I got my W's mixed up again. I meant to write Walling not Waddell :) Too many D's and W's in this dang case, if ya ask me! :bang: But, yes I remember in Springer's book, I believe, it was said, the light stayed on for 18 mins. after being tripped. Once again, we have a very coordinated intruder with very good eyesight, but who wasn't bright enough to bring his own weapon.

[beesy]

[QUOTE]The motion detector on security lights go off when a certain point is breached. That point tends to be quite wide ranging - not simply if someone takes a step to the right or the left. I've yet to come across a security light which goes off because I take a step off the path I am following.
We have to jump up and down and wave at ours!

[Desilu]

The sock is the thing that nibbles at my brain. I just cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for me. Such a small amount of the boy's blood and I just don't think Darlie could have come up with planting evidence. I also can buy into the theory that they were ditching multiple items, I don't think in the haste to dispose of them they would have made sure they weren't visible if they were stuffed down the manhole.

[Goody]

The sock is the thing that nibbles at my brain. I just cannot come up with a reasonable explanation for me. Such a small amount of the boy's blood and I just don't think Darlie could have come up with planting evidence. I also can buy into the theory that they were ditching multiple items, I don't think in the haste to dispose of them they would have made sure they weren't visible if they were stuffed down the manhole.
The sock doesn't belong. If you believe an intruder did it, it makes no sense for him to take a sock from the house and drop it (maybe as he got into the getaway car) with so little blood on it. If he didn't have a lot of blood on his hands why bother to grab anything? Even a moderate or smaLL amount of blood would leave more than was left on that sock. It just doesn't make sense that the intruder carried it from the house, through the back yard, out the crippled gate without dropping the sock, down the drive to the alley and back into the alley for 75 feet before dropping it. I don't think he would have carried it beyond the backyard.

If you believe Darlie did, it doesn't make sense that she would deliberately place just a smidgeon of each boy's blood on the sock, then go thru all she had to to plant it in the alley so far away from the house. If it was planted to give a false lead (unless the motive was purposely to point a finger at Gary Mize who lived there), you'd think much more blood would have been placed on it and it would have been dropped closer to the house to ensure discovery and reduce the risk of being seen under the street lights.

It seems much more plausible to me that several items were discarded down that drainage pipe and the sock was accidentally dropped prematurely or in the commotion. That also explains why the Routiers were so upset about not being told about the sock right away. If you thought you'd safely discarded it, you would be upset once you learned that you had not and the police had not let you know they had it. If you had known, you might be better prepared with answers. Nobody likes getting trapped by their own lies. It is just too bad that police didn't follow thru and open up that sewer. They might have found some great evidence down there.

[Desilu]

It seems much more plausible to me that several items were discarded down that drainage pipe and the sock was accidentally dropped prematurely or in the commotion. That also explains why the Routiers were so upset about not being told about the sock right away. If you thought you'd safely discarded it, you would be upset once you learned that you had not and the police had not let you know they had it. If you had known, you might be better prepared with answers. Nobody likes getting trapped by their own lies. It is just too bad that police didn't follow thru and open up that sewer. They might have found some great evidence down there.
Very interesting theory Goody, and very plausible. I have never driven by the house or alley to see the logistics, but I trust that you have studied the pictures enough to know that it is plausible.

The thing that always amused me regarding the explanation of the sock, was that the intruder grabbed two socks from the dirty laundry to cover his hands. Now while he's busy dropping the knife that has his prints on it as well as giving his victim a method of defense, he takes the socks off his hands so the cops will have that nice blood smear on the door, and those 'palm prints' on the window(?). Now does he throw away those socks like he does the knife in the utility room? Heavens no, those socks he keeps. Puts one in his pocket, one on top of his car roof and drives off.

[Goody]

Very interesting theory Goody, and very plausible. I have never driven by the house or alley to see the logistics, but I trust that you have studied the pictures enough to know that it is plausible.

The thing that always amused me regarding the explanation of the sock, was that the intruder grabbed two socks from the dirty laundry to cover his hands. Now while he's busy dropping the knife that has his prints on it as well as giving his victim a method of defense, he takes the socks off his hands so the cops will have that nice blood smear on the door, and those 'palm prints' on the window(?). Now does he throw away those socks like he does the knife in the utility room? Heavens no, those socks he keeps. Puts one in his pocket, one on top of his car roof and drives off.
hahahahahah! Yep, the explanations keep running into each other, don't they? If you are going to say the intruder did it (dropped the sock in the alley),then you have to explain why so little blood is on the sock, and that bumps into the streaming blood on the door jam (how could he have so much on his hand and so little on the sock?), and that bumps into the lack of blood on the window and the gate, garage floor, outside walkway, etc. If you have the guy with socks on his hands to avoid getting his fingerprints on the knife, then why does he drop the knife but hold onto the socks? How does he even hold onto the knife with the socks on his hands without his hands slipping off the knife (ever tried to hold onto a knife handle with a sock on your hands?)....questions just lead to more questions. And even after all that you've got Darlie's DNA on the sock and that needs yet one more explanation. LOL! So he must have shoved it in her mouth. (But if he does that how does he have it on his hands during the stabbings?) It is tough to be a supporter. You gotta empathize with those poor souls. :boohoo:

I have never driven by the crime scene. In fact, haven't even been in Texas for years and years. My opinions are based on what I have learned from the the trial transcripts, the photos in MTJD, and the three books written on the case. (I have never read CWB's theories but have discussed the evidence with some who swear by them.)

[Desilu]

I think that discovery of the sock just hurt them more than helped.

You just can't work it into a logical explanation with the evidence, because as you said if he had the sock on his hands to not leave any fingerprints then how did the blood smear get on the door with the partial fingerprint. Did he run over to Darlie, take off the sock, dip his finger in some blood and scamper back over to the door to leave that print?

[cami]

Very interesting theory Goody, and very plausible. I have never driven by the house or alley to see the logistics, but I trust that you have studied the pictures enough to know that it is plausible.

The thing that always amused me regarding the explanation of the sock, was that the intruder grabbed two socks from the dirty laundry to cover his hands. Now while he's busy dropping the knife that has his prints on it as well as giving his victim a method of defense, he takes the socks off his hands so the cops will have that nice blood smear on the door, and those 'palm prints' on the window(?). Now does he throw away those socks like he does the knife in the utility room? Heavens no, those socks he keeps. Puts one in his pocket, one on top of his car roof and drives off.

aaaaahahaha and he took them off--well one at least--before he stabbed Darlie as none of her blood is on the one sock found.

[Goody]

aaaaahahaha and he took them off--well one at least--before he stabbed Darlie as none of her blood is on the one sock found.
And somehow he carried that sock with his bloodied hands (Darlie blood) getting it all over the door but not a drop on the sock! That took some maneuvering, I'll bet!