On one of the televised profiles of the Routier case, Cron said he looked for the following when first entering a crime scene:
1. Point of Entry
2. An Injured Witness (how injuries compare to the dead/more seriously injured)
3. Sign of Struggle (typical signs they often find at like scenes)
4. Exit Route
(Gonna speak for Cron here as I don't have his words, but bear with me.)
In Darlie's case:
1. Point of entry shows no distinct signs that an outsider did it. The screen could have been cut by someone in the house as easily as someone outside. Though it proved to have been cut from the outside, there was easy access to it from the family room (only a couple of feet outside glass sliding doors) and in most scenes, they find the screen removed rather than cut, esp this type that just snaps out. So point one is looking suspicious.
2. Darlie is the injured witness and her wounds, though bloody, are superficial compared to the deep plunging wounds of the boys. Point two is suspicious.
3. Not much supports Darlie's claims of struggle. Nothing is broken except one lone wine glass. Nothing about the couch supports her story, even the overturned coffee table is an either/or. It could have been deliberately placed that way or it could have been knocked over. Point three is looking suspicious.
4. Exit route of intruders is questionable. They had to bypass two separate, easy to access exits in favor of going back through a cluttered, dark garage to climb out a window, maneuver through the back yard to avoid the motion detector, then exit through a heavy broken gate. Point #4 is suspicious.
Though Cron could probably do a better job of laying this out, it is easy to see why his years of experience told him this was an inside job in just thirty minutes. He couldn't even get one point to clear in the Routiers favor. Like in other scenes where the "injured witness" is innocent of any wrongdoing, they would likely find evidence of a jimmied door lock, the perp exiting by the front door instead of going back to the garage, where he knows it will be much more difficult to exit, witness wounds similar to the dead victim's wounds, etc. etc.
I just don't get why it is so hard for supporters to get this. It is simple deduction really. :doh:
[font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif][/font]
1. Point of Entry
2. An Injured Witness (how injuries compare to the dead/more seriously injured)
3. Sign of Struggle (typical signs they often find at like scenes)
4. Exit Route
(Gonna speak for Cron here as I don't have his words, but bear with me.)
In Darlie's case:
1. Point of entry shows no distinct signs that an outsider did it. The screen could have been cut by someone in the house as easily as someone outside. Though it proved to have been cut from the outside, there was easy access to it from the family room (only a couple of feet outside glass sliding doors) and in most scenes, they find the screen removed rather than cut, esp this type that just snaps out. So point one is looking suspicious.
2. Darlie is the injured witness and her wounds, though bloody, are superficial compared to the deep plunging wounds of the boys. Point two is suspicious.
3. Not much supports Darlie's claims of struggle. Nothing is broken except one lone wine glass. Nothing about the couch supports her story, even the overturned coffee table is an either/or. It could have been deliberately placed that way or it could have been knocked over. Point three is looking suspicious.
4. Exit route of intruders is questionable. They had to bypass two separate, easy to access exits in favor of going back through a cluttered, dark garage to climb out a window, maneuver through the back yard to avoid the motion detector, then exit through a heavy broken gate. Point #4 is suspicious.
Though Cron could probably do a better job of laying this out, it is easy to see why his years of experience told him this was an inside job in just thirty minutes. He couldn't even get one point to clear in the Routiers favor. Like in other scenes where the "injured witness" is innocent of any wrongdoing, they would likely find evidence of a jimmied door lock, the perp exiting by the front door instead of going back to the garage, where he knows it will be much more difficult to exit, witness wounds similar to the dead victim's wounds, etc. etc.
I just don't get why it is so hard for supporters to get this. It is simple deduction really. :doh:
[font=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif][/font]