Linch's Affidavit

8. The serration grooves in Knife #4 contained debris consisting of microscopic rubber dust particles and a microscopic fiberglass rod fragment. Based on my forensic microscopic comparison, this material was microscopically consistent with debris obtained from the garage window screen at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. However, while I was asked only to perform microscopic tests on these samples, microscopic comparison is not the most discriminating method available to determine the source of this debris. If the rubber dust particles and fiberglass rod fragment can be located and removed from the mounting media for testing, more discriminating chemical testing came be performed on this evidence to determine if the debris found in Knife #4 is in fact consistent with the debris from the window screen material. For example, a Fouier Transform Infrared Microscopy (FTIR) test can be used to create a "chemical fingerprint" of the microscopic rubber particles. As a trace evidence analyst, I would recommend such testing be conducted if possible."

The bold is mine. While Linch's affidavit does acknowledge that further testing is warranted on the glass fibre, he found no other sources at the Routier home that would match this fibre. And it's larger than the fibres from the dust brush.

1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Let me ask you about one other source
3 of fiberglass. Fingerprint brushes, are they also made
4 of fiberglass?
5 A. Yes, they are. Some of the most

6 common fingerprint brushes used by the police are made of
7 fiberglass.
8 Q. Okay. Over this past weekend, did you
9 meet with Officer Charles Hamilton of the Rowlett Police
10 Department?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Okay. Did you obtain a fingerprint
13 brush from Rowlett?
14 A. Officer Hamilton left his fingerprint
15 brush at my laboratory over Saturday.
16 Q. All right. Did you compare the

17 fiberglass that made up his fingerprint brush with
18 fiberglass that you found on the knife blade and the
19 screen also?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. All right. What were your findings

22 when you looked at his fingerprint brush and fiberglass
23 that made it up?
24 A. The fiberglass rods that make up these
25 fingerprint brushes are almost twice as thick as the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3038

1 fiberglass in the screen. So they are very, very
2 different. The fingerprint brush rods are much larger.
3 Q. Let me ask you, when you looked at the
4 butcher block and the eight knives were still in the
5 block, correct?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. When you looked at it? Did you ever
8 find any black fingerprint powder inside the butcher
9 block?
10 A. Not inside. The only fingerprint
11 powder I observed was on the knives on either side of the
12 open slot. None of the other knives had been printed.

13 Q. Okay. The Number 4 knife that you
14 tested where you found the fiberglass and the rubbery

15 material, was there any fingerprint powder on that knife?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Let's talk about fiberglass on the
18 other knives inside the butcher block. Besides Number 4,
19 the knife where you found the fiberglass and the rubber
20 material, did you look at the other seven knives to
21 determine whether or not you could find any fiberglass or
22 rubbery material on them?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. Okay. What was the result?
25 A. Didn't find any fiberglass on any of
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3039

1 the other knives in the block.
2 Q. Okay. So the only knife in the
3 butcher block where you did find this fiberglass was on
4 Number 4; is that right?
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. That is the same knife that has the
7 black rubbery material on it also?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Do you have an opinion whether or not
10 the rubbery -- the dusty, rubbery material and the
11 fiberglass that you found on Number 4 were deposited at
12 the same time or not?
13 A. With regards to the intact rod, they
14 may or may not have been in the same substance. However,
15 the glass debris that is smaller than the rod that was --
16 had mixed with the rubbery material, they were at one
17 time together. That would be my opinion.
18 Q. Okay. So the black, rubbery material
19 and the glass fragments that were in the material, in
20 there at the same time, right?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. And when you did the test cutting on
23 the screen, you looked at the material, did you find on
24 your test knife, the rubbery material and the glass
25 fibers again wed together?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3040

1 A. Not the fibers, but the debris that
2 doesn't have shape but it's glass and smaller than the
3 rod, yes.
4 Q. Okay. So the rubbery material and

5 let's say the flakes, if you will, were they together on
6 your test knife?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Okay. Mr. Linch, you were indicating
9 to Mr. Mosty a range that you could show the jurors, just
10 an approximate range where you found the fiberglass rod
11 and the black, rubbery material. Can you indicate for
12 the jury the range where you found those two items on the
13 knife blade?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. It would be approximately an inch in
17 from the tip and maybe in the broad area of an additional
18 five or six inches, maybe this far, but none was
19 collected from the area right up close to the handle.
20 So, broadly speaking, it would be in
21 this area here.



There is also the rubber dust on the knife. There's two separate pieces of evidence. How did the rubber dust get there? If the polymer fibre is from the dusting brush, what's the source of the rubber dust on the knife?

18 Q. Okay. Mr. Linch, when you found the
19 fiberglass and the rubbery material on that knife blade,
20 on knife number 4, and you found the same material in
21 that window screen, sir, did you look at other sources of
22 fiberglass?
23 A. Yes, sir, I did.
24 Q. All right. And, in looking at those
25 other sources, possible sources of fiberglass, did you
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2927

1 see any samples that were consistent with what you had
2 found on that number 4 knife, sir?
3 A. In looking at other sources of
4 fiberglass, I didn't find the glass in combination with
5 the material that was the same as the screen. And so,
6 no, I didn't find any other material that appeared the
7 same microscopically once you damage it with a knife or
8 some other object.

9 Q. Let me go back, just a couple of steps
10 here. Another item, the hairs that you retrieved from
11 the house or that were retrieved by Rowlett, do you
12 remember that?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. Okay. Did you have an opportunity to
15 examine all those hairs?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. Compare them against known hair
18 samples from the two children, Devon and Damon, as well
19 as the defendant and her husband, Darin Routier?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Were there some hairs that you looked
22 at that were inconsistent with having come from any of
23 the Routiers?
24 A. There were some hairs that were
25 different from all of the family members.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2928

1 Q. All right. Did you consider that to
2 be unusual?
3 A. No, not really.

4 Q. Okay. Why not?
5 A. Well, unless you have never had any
6 visitors at all, then it's ordinary to have hairs from
7 many people in your home, in the carpeting, on the
8 furniture. Any visitor is apt to shed a hair just in
9 daily activity.

10 Q. Okay. And, I want to also talk to you
11 one more time about the blood stain that was observed in
12 the garage. First of all, again, what was the appearance
13 of that blood stain? Was it a drop? Was it some other
14 type of appearance?
15 A. The blood in the garage, it was not a
16 drop, it was not a fresh drop, or it didn't have that
17 appearance. It was more like a powdered, faint residue.
18 Q. Was James Cron there with you when you
19 were looking at it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. If you would look at State's Exhibit
22 No. 111-D, do you recognize that as being a portion of
23 the garage that you looked at on June 6th, 1996?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Okay. Would that photograph contain
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2929

1 the part of the garage where you later on that day saw
2 this faint, powdery residue sort of smeared or whatever
3 it is?
4 A. Yes, sir. It was on this white sign
5 that is in front of the freezer. The door from the
6 utility area is about here, and the garage window that,
7 or the screen had been slashed in that direction, but
8 this is the sign that the little, faint smudge was on.
9 Q. Okay.
10
11 MR. GREG DAVIS: Your Honor, at this
12 time we will offer State's Exhibit 111-D.
13 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: No objection.
14 THE COURT: State's Exhibit 111-D is
15 admitted.
16
17 (Whereupon, the above

18 mentioned item was
19 received in evidence
20 as State's Exhibit.
21 No. 111-D,

22 for all purposes, after
23 which time, the

24 proceedings were
25 resumed on the record,
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2930

1 in open court,
2 as follows
3
4 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
5 Q. As I understood your testimony, the
6 blood that you saw later in the day, was it on this white
7 piece of paper here?
8 A. That is actually more like a piece of
9 plastic, but, yes, sir.
10 Q. All right. Is it present there in
11 that photograph?
12 A. I don't see it there.
13 Q. Okay. What does that lead you to
14 believe about the timing of this photograph then?
15 A. The photo was probably taken prior to
16 the transfer of blood onto the white plastic sign.
17 Q. Okay. What time are you looking at
18 this on June 6th, 1996?
19 A. 12:30 or 1:00 o'clock that afternoon.
20 Q. Mr. Linch, the blood samples that you
21 actually retrieved from 5801 Eagle Drive, did you submit
22 those to Gene Screen for DNA analysis?
This testimony also includes the faint transfer of blood found on a sign in the garage. It speaks for itself.

9 Q. Now, other than the blood on the sign,
10 is that the extent of the blood that you saw in the
11 garage?
12 A. Yes, sir, other than the small
13 particulate stuff on the top of the window.

14 Q. What kind of bug was that?
15 A. One with a bunch of legs.

One has to ask why Darlie's new lawyers, her appellate attorneys, have never had this sample analyzed further. Or Mulder? Are we positive Mulder didn't have it analyzed? That leads me to believe they have accepted Linch's findings on the knife.

There was no blood from the crime found in the garage, the window, the fence, the gate, etc. Lots of blood dripped in the Utility room that leads to the garage. Darlie lied about going into the utility room..that's where the dirty wash was--panties---bloody fingerprint on the door.

Two officers canvassed the alley that morning, they saw no blood or other evidence, however they did find a sock with blood on it. As it turned out, this sock contained blood stains from Devon and Damon only and came from the Routier home. Darlie's dna was found in the toe of the sock. Apparently from shed skin cells.

Are you saying Darlie lied about the exit route the alleged intruder took? There should be blood somewhere else in the neighbourhood? Blood that was never collected and washed away during the rain of the 7th?

MOO

cami said:

One has to ask why Darlie's new lawyers, her appellate attorneys, have never had this sample analyzed further. Or Mulder? Are we positive Mulder didn't have it analyzed? That leads me to believe they have accepted Linch's findings on the knife.

There was no blood from the crime found in the garage, the window, the fence, the gate, etc. Lots of blood dripped in the Utility room that leads to the garage. Darlie lied about going into the utility room..that's where the dirty wash was--panties---bloody fingerprint on the door.

Two officers canvassed the alley that morning, they saw no blood or other evidence, however they did find a sock with blood on it. As it turned out, this sock contained blood stains from Devon and Damon only and came from the Routier home. Darlie's dna was found in the toe of the sock. Apparently from shed skin cells.

Are you saying Darlie lied about the exit route the alleged intruder took? There should be blood somewhere else in the neighbourhood? Blood that was never collected and washed away during the rain of the 7th?

MOO

Click to expand...

(my bold)To my knowledge, Mulder had no forensic experts look at anything! That's appalling to me. In this particular case, I have a problem with the state's experts being the only ones to examine the crime scene and evidence. I believe they did miss evidence, and made unwarranted judgement calls about what was important and what was not important to collect and/or process. The police, bless their hearts, made a lot of mistakes. IMO, Officer Hamilton contaminated the serrated bread knife with the fiber & material from the screen via the fingerprinting brush.

I don't know if "There should be blood somewhere else in the neighbourhood." I know there were knives, or a knife, that had been in a neighbor's backyard, just down the alley, that was missed initially.

I would like to know what independent experts (not working for police) would say about this crime. I would prefer said experts to have either no position, or a favorable one to the death penalty. I probably wouldn't have much faith in an expert who was affiliated in any way with anti-death penalty advocates.

Read Laber's affidavit!

accordn2me said:

Read Laber's affidavit!

Click to expand...

I've read it. I see it as grasping at straws. I told you once I think that Laber did impressive work on the blood spatter in the MacDonald case, that's what his expertise is. To recommend genetic testing on the blood is skirting the issue IMO. Analyze the blood spatter and refute it. Refute the cast-off blood, refute the bloody knife imprint in the carpet. To test the holes in Darlie's shirt is also grasping at straws..it's evading the main issue don't you think. Test the fibre from the knife under a microscope..well that's been done and they matched. Subject Darin's jeans to genetic testing of the blood? You should know Terry by the blood spatter patterns whether or not Darin was involved in the murders...he'd have cast-off blood on his back anyway if he had stabbed one of the boys. Tsk Tsk Laber. Darin had the blood of all three victims on his jeans..Darin was with and aiding all three victims so you'd expect his jeans to have their blood on them. The bloody knife had blood concentrated at the tip..which could mean someone holding it was bleeding from the forearm..since it's Darlie's blood and she was bleeding from the forearm, I don't think genetic testing will show anything different.

Here's a thought about the new dna tests. What if the run those prints through AFIS and they get a match--to Darlie? It would be all over then.

Hi! New to this board but The reason I joined was because of this case-
The defense did have experts test the blood- they actually had first crack at the samples on the back of darlie's nightshirt- Davis describes this all in his closing arguments- the defense sinply did not call their experts and that in and of itself is very telling.
I am all for re-testing the evidence and am frankly surprised that it hasn't been done already since it was called for several months ago. perhaps it will go the way of all of the other refuted evidence and not be spoken of since it doesn't exonerate darlie- her lie detector test, her hypnotherapy, the defense experts, etc.
I think Linch's screen evidence should be sent through a more comprehensive test, and I think it will show that he was right. There are many things that can be done to put this case to rest.
I have wondered often about Darlie's innocence and the thing that finally swayed me to her guilt, even after reading the entire trial transcript and the three books written about this case was when I started researching the MacDonald case- it is almost the same thing just 16 years earlier.
I do not think darlie should have gotten the death penalty the way her trial went, but frankly, if she were tried again today with all of her "new evidence", she would be convicted again, even in Dallas. Just my opinion

WASHINGTON -- A congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council finds serious deficiencies in the nation's forensic science system and calls for major reforms and new research. Rigorous and mandatory certification programs for forensic scientists are currently lacking, the report says, as are strong standards and protocols for analyzing and reporting on evidence. And there is a dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific bases and reliability of many forensic methods. Moreover, many forensic science labs are underfunded, understaffed, and have no effective oversight.

....

To ensure the efficacy of the work done by forensic scientists and other practitioners in the field, public forensic science laboratories should be made independent from or autonomous within police departments and prosecutors' offices, the report says. This would allow labs to set their own budget priorities and resolve any cultural pressures caused by the differing missions of forensic science labs and law enforcement agencies.

...

In addition to investigating the limits of the techniques themselves, studies should also examine sources and rates of human error, the report says. As part of this effort, more research should be done on "contextual bias," which occurs when the results of forensic analysis are influenced by an examiner's knowledge about the suspect's background or an investigator's knowledge of a case. One study found that fingerprint examiners did not always agree even with their own past conclusions when the same evidence was presented in a different context.

...

The committee also concluded that two criteria should guide the law's admission of and reliance upon forensic evidence in criminal trials: the extent to which the forensic science discipline is founded on a reliable scientific methodology that lets it accurately analyze evidence and report findings; and the extent to which the discipline relies on human interpretation that could be tainted by error, bias, or the absence of sound procedures and performance standards.

The report points out the critical need to standardize and clarify the terms used by forensic science experts who testify in court about the results of investigations. The words commonly used -- such as "match," "consistent with," and "cannot be excluded as the source of" -- are not well-defined or used consistently, despite the great impact they have on how juries and judges perceive evidence.

In addition, any testimony stemming from forensic science laboratory reports must clearly describe the limits of the analysis; currently, failure to acknowledge uncertainty in findings is common. The simple reality is that interpretation of forensic evidence is not infallible -- quite the contrary, said the committee.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12589

coloradoteacher said:

Hi! New to this board but The reason I joined was because of this case-
The defense did have experts test the blood- they actually had first crack at the samples on the back of darlie's nightshirt- Davis describes this all in his closing arguments- the defense sinply did not call their experts and that in and of itself is very telling.
I am all for re-testing the evidence and am frankly surprised that it hasn't been done already since it was called for several months ago. perhaps it will go the way of all of the other refuted evidence and not be spoken of since it doesn't exonerate darlie- her lie detector test, her hypnotherapy, the defense experts, etc.
I think Linch's screen evidence should be sent through a more comprehensive test, and I think it will show that he was right. There are many things that can be done to put this case to rest.
I have wondered often about Darlie's innocence and the thing that finally swayed me to her guilt, even after reading the entire trial transcript and the three books written about this case was when I started researching the MacDonald case- it is almost the same thing just 16 years earlier.
I do not think darlie should have gotten the death penalty the way her trial went, but frankly, if she were tried again today with all of her "new evidence", she would be convicted again, even in Dallas. Just my opinion

Click to expand...

I believe Darlie's dna tests will go the same way MacDonald's did...only proved his guilt even more.