Luminol Evidence

[Mary456]

Okay, lots of folks were going through the crime scene. Even the neighbor (Neal) was inside the scene getting the dog off Officer Wyman who was trying walk through the house. That doesn't look too good either. Mary

Just wanted to point out that Karen Neal didn't enter the family room, i.e, the crime scene. She was allowed to go up the steps, which were right inside the front door, to retrieve the dog. A police officer watched her get the dog and immediately ushered her out of the house.

 

[Goody]

Thank you ma'am!

Luminol only exposes blood that has been wiped away. If the blood is on the surface, luminol melts it away which is what happened to the handprint on the sofa. There was another on the carpet though and that was preserved, proven to be Damon's. The other was probably hism too, since there is no evidence that Devon was ever anywhere but where he lay on the floor.

 

[Goody]

Hello!
First let me say this is such an awesome forum and site. I hope not to sound too stupid my first post on here!
Very interesting posts! It has been my experience that Luminol will fluores blood spatter and imprints for more than just one test (especially porous surfaces). We have used luminol on stains that were at least 2 years old and had been previously tested with positive results. I am still very confused about this dripping as well. If we are talking about a bloody "butt print" on a flat surface, one application of luminol SHOULD NOT destroy all traces of ?blood? if that is indeed what made the luminol react. A repeat application should still yield results especially if the first application was clear enough to produce a butt outline. As far as the drain goes, The piping can be dismantled and samples can be taken from inside the pipe, particularly at the first curve where liquid can pool. We must remember that luminol reacts to many different chemicals. It is in NO WAY a determinate of blood. Swabs should have been collected and tested for blood and typed.

Just my opinion!

It is my understanding that the butt print was pressed up against the side of the vinyl couch and the handprint on the cushion area. Also note that the vinyl couch was green making the blood a little more difficult to see.

 

[Goody]

I never disputed whether or not they were experts. I never said they didn't know how to operate a camera.... I feel like you're getting a bit hostile toward me? or I may be hyper-sensitive, either way it is no attack on you, Beesy.:blushing:

I understand the scene was processed originally in 1996, maybe they didn't have knowledge of some other tricks to document the luminol reaction.... I don't know why they couldn't/didn't document those prints with Luminol. I just know it can be done and was frustrated it wasn't. Now with this supposed "new evidence", missing stuff like this opens doors for the "prodarlie's".

The police mde mistakes. They made no record of which pics were taken first or in what order/ There was no crime scene photographer, just one of the cops and I am not even sure he had ever had to do it before. It made things more difficult later on but didn't blow the case out of the water. As for the luminol problem, I thinkthe cops who did that were not that experienced with the process either/

Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink.

Haven't heard about this one/ Tell us more.

Okay, lots of folks were going through the crime scene. Even the neighbor (Neal) was inside the scene getting the dog off Officer Wyman who was trying walk through the house. That doesn't look too good either. Chances are that "mystery print" belonged to someone being called to the scene that night after the murders. But this further undermines the integrity of the scene.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/6.html

As far as Darlie's bruising on her arms, I have always felt dear hubby had a part in this. From trying to hire someone to burglarize his house, to covering up after the fact for Darlie. I don't think he knew she was going to kill the boys though. My theory is he walked in on her cutting herself and he grabbed her and shook her a bit.
But this is just my opinion.
Mary

It would have taken a whole lot of shaking to make those bruises/ Let;s face it, the bruises don't fit. Not with what we know about what happened. They don't even fit with her story. What killer is going to stand over someone pounding on the upper arms and nowhere else on the body. Even if she was shielding her face, the guy was supposedly wiedling a knife. So why isn't he stabbing? What is he doing? Hitting her with the knife handle? That can't be. A knife handle would produce patterns that aren't that. It would not be blunt force trauma. The bruises almost have to be staged.

 

[Maryliz30]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryliz30
Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink.

Haven't heard about this one/ Tell us more.


I found that info on crimelibrary. I am not sure of its accuracy... I was wrong when I said next to the sink though, the article says the print was found on the counter.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/20.html

Barbara Davis, who wrote Precious Angels, and who once believed in Darlie's guilt, has changed her mind since reviewing these latest developments as well as the discovery that there was a latent, bloody fingerprint found on the Routier kitchen counter. According to two New York City police fingerprint experts, the print did not match Darlie nor Darin ...

you skip a paragraph then

In early June of 2002, Dr. Richard Jantz, a fingerprint expert, indicated that the unidentified bloody fingerprint left at the crime scene is "consistent with an adult" rather than a child.

 

[beesy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryliz30
Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink.

Haven't heard about this one/ Tell us more.


I found that info on crimelibrary. I am not sure of its accuracy... I was wrong when I said next to the sink though, the article says the print was found on the counter.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/20.html

Barbara Davis, who wrote Precious Angels, and who once believed in Darlie's guilt, has changed her mind since reviewing these latest developments as well as the discovery that there was a latent, bloody fingerprint found on the Routier kitchen counter. According to two New York City police fingerprint experts, the print did not match Darlie nor Darin ...

you skip a paragraph then

In early June of 2002, Dr. Richard Jantz, a fingerprint expert, indicated that the unidentified bloody fingerprint left at the crime scene is "consistent with an adult" rather than a child

The article above is from 2001.
The following is the court's final decision on her appeal from August, 2004.

Fingerprint Evidence
The Jantz Report, the Wertheim Report, and the Jantz Affidavit

6. Applicant claims that new fingerprint evidence demonstrates that a previously unidentified bloody fingerprint found on the coffee table belonged to an adult. (Application at 17-18).

7. Two lifts of this print were admitted into evidence at trial. (SX. 845I & 85J; RR.34: 2030).

8. Based on the testimony of James Cron, and the writ evidence of Dr. Richard Jantz and Pat Wertheim, the court finds that the fingerprint lacks sufficient points of comparison to make a comparison and that the fingerprint most likely was deposited by a child or adult female.

9. The Court finds that Jantz’s method is not a sound or accepted basis to identify or exclude an individual as having deposited a smudged, bloody fingerprint such as that in the instant case.

10. The Court finds that Cron’s trial testimony about the fingerprint was accurate. .

11. The Court finds that the technique Jantz used to prepare his report is not typically used by forensic anthropologists.

12. The Court finds that Wertheim’s critique of Jantz’s report is credible and persuasive.

13. The Court concludes that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that Jantz’s technique is valid, or that Jantz properly applied the technique in examining the fingerprint evidence in this case.

14. The Court concludes that Jantz’s report would be inadmissible under Texas Rule of Evidence 702.

15. The Court further finds that Applicant has always claimed that an unknown adult male was the real perpetrator of the murders. (See, e.g., RR.34: 2564-65; 2568; RR.44: 4468).

16. The Court finds that the tables in Jantz’s report each state that the most likely depositor of the print was an adult female. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit 4, Table 2, Table 5, Table 8).

17. The Court finds that Jantz’s report therefore undermines Applicant’s claim that an unknown adult male murdered her children.

18. The Court finds that Wertheim compared the latent print, State’s Exhibit 85I and 85J, to the print cards of all the paramedics, police, forensic technicians, and others who were in the crime scene from the time the murder was reported until the officer who collected the print left the crime scene. Of all those people, the only finger of a person that could not be excluded as contributing the print was Applicant’s right ring finger. (State’s Writ Exhibit 2 at 3).

19. The Court finds that Jantz’s report does not exclude the possibility that Applicant deposited the unidentified print.

20. The Court finds Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Jantz’s report is affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

Fingerprint Evidence
Affidavit of Glenn M. Langenburg and Report of Robert C. Lohnes

21. The Court has reviewed the Affidavit from Glenn M. Langenburg, dated July 24, 2003, and the Report from Robert C. Lohnes, dated June 3, 2003, attached to Applicant’s Second Renewed Request for Access to State’s Evidence, filed July 29, 2003.

22. The Court finds that the source of the bloody fingerprint located on a door from the crime scene cannot be individualized due to insufficient characteristics. (Langenburg Affidavit at 7).

23. The Court notes that multiple persons were present in the crime scene after the report of the crime and prior to the collection of evidence in this case.

24. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Affidavit does not account for the possibility that one of the other persons known to be in the crime scene deposited the bloody print in question.

25. The Court finds that Lohnes’s Report states that he examined a latent print developed with black powder “left on a portion of a door.” (Lohnes Report 6/3/03).

26. The Court finds the Lohnes’s Report states that he identified the print as belonging to Darin Routier, specifically the second joint of Darin Routier’s left middle finger. (Lohnes Report 6/3/03).

27. The Court finds that the record demonstrates that Darin Routier lived in the home and was present in the home at the time of the murders. (See, e.g., RR.28: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

28. The Court finds that the presence of Darin Routier’s fingerprint inside his own home is not to be unexpected.

29. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Affidavit and Lohnes’s Report establish that any adult in addition to Applicant or Darin Routier were present in the home at the time of the offense.

30. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print in question, that fact is affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

31. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Affidavit and Lohnes’s Report are not affirmative evidence of

Applicant’s innocence.
Fingerprint Evidence
Reports No. 1 and No. 2 of Glenn Langenburg

32. Applicant has attached Glenn Langenburg’s Report No. 1, dated May 5, 2002, and Report No. 2, dated December 14, 2003, to her Renewed Motion for Testing of Physical and Biological Evidence and Request for an Evidentiary Hearing filed on January 23, 2004.

33. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 states that he examined a bloody fingerprint from a door. The report states that the fingerprint had insufficient quantity and quality of ridge detail to identify the source, but had sufficient quantity and quality of ridge detail to exclude Applicant as the source of the print. (Langenburg Report No. 1).

34. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 relates to the same fingerprint discussed in Langenburg’s Affidavit and reaches the same conclusion stated in the Affidavit. (Compare Langenburg Report No. 1 with Langenburg Affidavit).

35. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report establishes that any adult in addition to Applicant or Darin Routier were present in the home at the time of the offense.

36. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print in question, that that fact would be affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

37. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report is not affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

38. The Court finds Applicant has failed to plead and prove facts, which if true, entitle her to relief. Ex parte Chappell, 959 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (citing Ex parte Maldonando, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).

39. In the alternative, the Court makes the following findings, assuming arguendo that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 refers to a different fingerprint than that referred to in Langenburg’s Affidavit.

40. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 does not account for the possibility that one of the other persons known to be in the crime scene deposited the bloody print in question.

41. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 establishes that an intruder was present in the home at the time of the offense in addition to Applicant and Darin Routier.

42. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print in question, that fact would exonerate Applicant.

43. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report No. 1 is affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

44. Langenburg’s Report No. 2 states that he examined another fingerprint, a latent fingerprint developed with black powder, located beneath the bloody fingerprint examined in Report No. 1. (Langenburg Report No. 2).

45. Langengburg states that this print is either a palm or finger joint print that is suitable for comparison. (Langenburg Report No. 2).

46. The Court finds that Langenbug’s Report No. 2 does not account for the possibility that persons known to be in the house prior to the crime could have deposited the latent print in question.

47. The Court finds that, as the latent print in question is not bloody, it cannot be connected to the crime.

48. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Langenburg’s Report No. 2 establishes that an intruder was present in the home at the time of the offense.

49. The Court finds that Applicant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, even if an unknown person deposited the print examined in Langenburg’s Report No. 2, it would constitute affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.

50. The Court finds that Langenburg’s Report Report No. 2 is not affirmative evidence of Applicant’s innocence.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

 

[Maryliz30]

That was awesome! you go girl! I am headed to your linked site for more information!! I also appreciate the book links!


Just went to site justicefordarlie.net. I am more confused than ever. I believe I will just sit back and read from the forums on Darlie and keep my mouth shut...

 

[Goody]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maryliz30
Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink.

Haven't heard about this one/ Tell us more.


I found that info on crimelibrary. I am not sure of its accuracy... I was wrong when I said next to the sink though, the article says the print was found on the counter.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/20.html

Barbara Davis, who wrote Precious Angels, and who once believed in Darlie's guilt, has changed her mind since reviewing these latest developments as well as the discovery that there was a latent, bloody fingerprint found on the Routier kitchen counter. According to two New York City police fingerprint experts, the print did not match Darlie nor Darin ...

you skip a paragraph then

In early June of 2002, Dr. Richard Jantz, a fingerprint expert, indicated that the unidentified bloody fingerprint left at the crime scene is "consistent with an adult" rather than a child.

The fingerprint Dr. Jantz is talking about was found on a sofa table located in the family room behind the sofa and between it and the kitchen entry. It is smudged and unidentifiable but can be used to rule people out. Supporters claim Jantz ruled Darlie out but that is not how I read his opinion. He says it is an adult print, probably female, and states that Darlie has a whorl pattern (as does it) on her ring finger. This is a bloody fingerrpint.

I have never heard anything about a fingerprint found on the counter. There are fingerprints on the utility room door jam that have been questioned. The bloody ones are too smudged to identify or use to rule people out, as I understand it. There is one non-bloody one belonging to Darin on it but it could have been left anytime, not necesarily that night.

I think counter is an error, but it sure would be nice if it were a fact and could be identified and dated.

 

[beesy]

The fingerprint Dr. Jantz is talking about was found on a sofa table located in the family room behind the sofa and between it and the kitchen entry. It is smudged and unidentifiable but can be used to rule people out. Supporters claim Jantz ruled Darlie out but that is not how I read his opinion. He says it is an adult print, probably female, and states that Darlie has a whorl pattern (as does it) on her ring finger. This is a bloody fingerrpint

This article is very outdated.
That hearing ruled that Cron's findings were sound.

I have never heard anything about a fingerprint found on the counter. There are fingerprints on the utility room door jam that have been questioned. The bloody ones are too smudged to identify or use to rule people out, as I understand it. There is one non-bloody one belonging to Darin on it but it could have been left anytime, not necesarily that night.

I've never heard mention of a counter print either.
Darin's print on the door is in the report also, his left knuckle middle finger. I think it said.

I think counter is an error, but it sure would be nice if it were a fact and could be identified and dated.

Yes, even Court TV articles can get things wrong. I remember in one of the docus on A&E said Darlie and both sons were taken to the hospital. I was yelling "no, that's wrong"!

 

[beesy]

I never disputed whether or not they were experts. I never said they didn't know how to operate a camera.... I feel like you're getting a bit hostile toward me? or I may be hyper-sensitive, either way it is no attack on you, Beesy

.Nah

Another example is this new adult fingerprint next to the sink. Okay, lots of folks were going through the crime scene. Even the neighbor (Neal) was inside the scene getting the dog off Officer Wyman who was trying walk through the house. That doesn't look too good either. Chances are that "mystery print" belonged to someone being called to the scene that night after the murders. But this further undermines the integrity of the scene.

These undentified prints are not "new" either. They were processed and tests were run in '96. The report I posted says Cron checked every known person in the house and the only person he could not exclude was Darlie. I don't think there was a print near the sink. Karen Neal was escorted directly to the upstairs master bath to retrieve the baby and Domaine. Walling and Waddell had herded him into the bathroom. Who's Officer Wyman?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/6.html

 

[Dani_T]

Darin's print on the door is...

I am fairly sure that the prosecution produced at least one expert witness which refuted the claim that that print could be positively identified as Darin's print. Not 100% sure but think I remember reading it somewhere- don't have time to check it now. Goody or Mary might know

 

[beesy]

I am fairly sure that the prosecution produced at least one expert witness which refuted the claim that that print could be positively identified as Darin's print. Not 100% sure but think I remember reading it somewhere- don't have time to check it now. Goody or Mary might know

You didn't quote enough of my post. It took me awhile to figure out which one you were referring to.
This is from the hearing results of Aug 2004(to which I was referring in that post) see my post #26...his fingerprint was not in blood, it was latent. So you're saying it's been refuted since this report? Why would the prosecution care if Darin's latent print is found on his own door?
26. The Court finds the Lohnes’s Report states that he identified the print as belonging to Darin Routier, specifically the second joint of Darin Routier’s left middle finger. (Lohnes Report 6/3/03).

27. The Court finds that the record demonstrates that Darin Routier lived in the home and was present in the home at the time of the murders. (See, e.g., RR.28: 311-12; RR.44: 4872-73).

28. The Court finds that the presence of Darin Routier’s fingerprint inside his own home is not to be unexpected.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...ancis-final.php

 

[Goody]

This article is very outdated.
That hearing ruled that Cron's findings were sound.



I've never heard mention of a counter print either.
Darin's print on the door is in the report also, his left knuckle middle finger. I think it said.


Yes, even Court TV articles can get things wrong. I remember in one of the docus on A&E said Darlie and both sons were taken to the hospital. I was yelling "no, that's wrong"!

My experience is that every hand that creates a new document in any case adds an error or two, so nothing is totally accurate.

As for the article being outdated, you lost me. I have forgotten which thread I am in but I am assuming it is the one about the fingerprint on the counter posted by CTV. It doesn't matter how old the article is. It matters if the information is accurate. So far no supporting information has surfaced so I going to toss it out as one of those human errors that pop up.

The hearing may have found Cron's conclusions as sound, but that doesn't mean they were. I think by now we know that the bloody fingerprint was not a child's and did not belong to the boys. Just as Jantz said, it is probably a female or small framed male. With it having a whorl pattern (and there are only three patterns for all of us) and Darlie having any finger with a whorl pattern is just too darned coincidental to me. I believe it belongs to her and if she gets that new test to determine gender dna, it would show no male dna present. Finger points straight at her.

 

[Goody]

I am fairly sure that the prosecution produced at least one expert witness which refuted the claim that that print could be positively identified as Darin's print. Not 100% sure but think I remember reading it somewhere- don't have time to check it now. Goody or Mary might know

Maybe Mary does. Goody never got into that print much simply because there is no way to date it. It was not bloody and proved nothing except that Darin was in the house standing in that doorway at some point. He lived there. It could have been the day before, the week before, a month before. It didn't help me at all.

 

[beesy]

My experience is that every hand that creates a new document in any case adds an error or two, so nothing is totally accurate.
As for the article being outdated, you lost me. I have forgotten which thread I am in but I am assuming it is the one about the fingerprint on the counter posted by CTV. It doesn't matter how old the article is. It matters if the information is accurate. So far no supporting information has surfaced so I going to toss it out as one of those human errors that pop up

We are on the Luminol thread.
Where did you get lost? I know that even sources we think we can trust, we cannot because of human error. That is why I mentioned the error on A&E. I was demonstrating to MaryLiz that even A&E can be wrong!

The hearing may have found Cron's conclusions as sound, but that doesn't mean they were. I think by now we know that the bloody fingerprint was not a child's and did not belong to the boys. Just as Jantz said, it is probably a female or small framed male. With it having a whorl pattern (and there are only three patterns for all of us) and Darlie having any finger with a whorl pattern is just too darned coincidental to me. I believe it belongs to her and if she gets that new test to determine gender dna, it would show no male dna present. Finger points straight at her

Jantz did not say that! He said "most likely adult, not a child", no mention of a small-framed male. Crone and Wertheim both said, that the print could be from an adult female(the female being the difference) or child. Did you see my post #26? I copied and pasted Judge Francis' findings on the fingerprint evidence.
The reason it is important that the article has old and inaccurate informantion is that in the Aug. 2004 report Judge Francis found that it was wrong, that the print is probably that of an adult female or child! That makes the info outdated and inaccurate. He even said Jantz's technique was invalid
This post has nothing to do with opinion. My opinion is, the print is Darlie's.
10. The Court finds that Cron’s trial testimony about the fingerprint was accurate. .

11. The Court finds that the technique Jantz used to prepare his report is not typically used by forensic anthropologists.12. The Court finds that Wertheim’s critique of Jantz’s report is credible and persuasive.

13. The Court concludes that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that Jantz’s technique is valid, or that Jantz properly applied the technique in examining the fingerprint evidence in this case

I am reporting what was decided in the hearing of '04, which is that Cron's findings are sound. Whether they are or not only matters to the court as they are the ones who could free Darlie. It doesn't matter what I think or my dog thinks, if Francis thinks Cron is right, then he's right.
They could not exclude Damon or Darlie, as you know there is no evidence that Damon was over there and there is evidence that Darlie was. Gee, I wonder who left it then? ahem
Again, I am reporting what Judge Francis decided in Aug of '04. Jantz released his findings in '02. I always thought Jantz was a woman for some reason.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

 

[beesy]

Maybe Mary does. Goody never got into that print much simply because there is no way to date it. It was not bloody and proved nothing except that Darin was in the house standing in that doorway at some point. He lived there. It could have been the day before, the week before, a month before. It didn't help me at all.
There is one non-bloody one belonging to Darin on it but it could have been left anytime, not necesarily that night

I was referring to the same latent you are referring to. Not the bloody one. It's too smudged. What I was asking Dani was why would the prosecution need to worry about Darin's latent print in his own home?! And does the prosecution even enter evidence at a hearing like that? The report says the latent is Darin's. If you notice I said "the report", not "beesy said" in my posts #28 and #29.

 

[Goody]

We are on the Luminol thread.
Where did you get lost? I know that even sources we think we can trust, we cannot because of human error. That is why I mentioned the error on A&E. I was demonstrating to MaryLiz that even A&E can be wrong!

Thought I was responding to your post to me. Think you said as much to me, too.

[/color]Jantz did not say that! He said "most likely adult, not a child", no mention of a small-framed male. Crone and Wertheim both said, that the print could be from an adult female(the female being the difference) or child. Did you see my post #26? I copied and pasted Judge Francis' findings on the fingerprint evidence.

Judge Francis is a state court judge. He isn't God. His ruling is just another opinion. I was talking about what JANTZ wrote in JANTZ's report. Not what the judge ruled.

The reason it is important that the article has old and inaccurate informantion is that in the Aug. 2004 report Judge Francis found that it was wrong, that the print is probably that of an adult female or child! That makes the info outdated and inaccurate. He even said Jantz's technique was invalid

And Francis is qualified to make that determination? It might be the good judge's opinion, but that hardly makes him right. Jantz is a well respected anthropologist. I don't mind the judge not wanting to accept the opinion to grant a new trial and he can certainly word his reasons anyway he wants to, but I don't agree that Jantz's technique was invalid. I think he did more to hurt Darlie than help. The defense can spin that report anyway they want and so can the state, but bottomline I thought Jantz was pretty darned honest in his approach and conclusions. Esp since he was not hired to ID the donor of the print but to only determine the age of the donor as adult verses child.

This post has nothing to do with opinion. My opinion is, the print is Darlie's.

You are preaching to the choir.

10. The Court finds that Cron’s trial testimony about the fingerprint was accurate. .

11. The Court finds that the technique Jantz used to prepare his report is not typically used by forensic anthropologists.12. The Court finds that Wertheim’s critique of Jantz’s report is credible and persuasive.

13. The Court concludes that Applicant has failed to demonstrate that Jantz’s technique is valid, or that Jantz properly applied the technique in examining the fingerprint evidence in this case

I am reporting what was decided in the hearing of '04, which is that Cron's findings are sound. Whether they are or not only matters to the court as they are the ones who could free Darlie. It doesn't matter what I think or my dog thinks, if Francis thinks Cron is right, then he's right.
They could not exclude Damon or Darlie, as you know there is no evidence that Damon was over there and there is evidence that Darlie was. Gee, I wonder who left it then? ahem
Again, I am reporting what Judge Francis decided in Aug of '04. Jantz released his findings in '02. I always thought Jantz was a woman for some reason.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.phphttp://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

As I said before Judge Francis' opinion is no more "right" as you say than anyone else's, esp since there is a whole federal court system that can overrule him whenever they see fit. Cron was wrong about the fingerprint belonging to one of the kids. They were exhumed and fingerprinted and ruled out as I recall. I still remember the outrage at Darlie for allowing that. It was Jantz who said that Devon also had the whorl pattern (not Damon) but other blood evidence shows that he never moved from the spot where he was killed, so it is not possible that it is his print. I would have to read the Jantz report again to refresh my memory on what he said about the small framed male/female as a possible source, but I do remember distinctly him pointing out that Darlie had the whorl pattern on her ring finger. Although he didn't come right out and say he could or couldn't rule her out, it is obvious that he wanted all his findings known. He was not hired to identify the donor of the print so I was impressed that he made sure his findings would not be misused.

 

[Goody]

I was referring to the same latent you are referring to. Not the bloody one. It's too smudged. What I was asking Dani was why would the prosecution need to worry about Darin's latent print in his own home?! And does the prosecution even enter evidence at a hearing like that? The report says the latent is Darin's. If you notice I said "the report", not "beesy said" in my posts #28 and #29.

You are losing me again. Who is challenging your opinion or even suggesting that your quotes are or are not your opinion? Let's just stick to the issues of the case, and not get off on these sidelines.

Besides, I wasn't even responding to your post. I was responding to Dani's suggestion that I might know the answer regarding the latent you were discussing and I explained why I probably don't.

 

[Dani_T]

I was referring to the same latent you are referring to. Not the bloody one. It's too smudged. What I was asking Dani was why would the prosecution need to worry about Darin's latent print in his own home?! And does the prosecution even enter evidence at a hearing like that? The report says the latent is Darin's. If you notice I said "the report", not "beesy said" in my posts #28 and #29.

Your post sounds a little antsy Beesy- sorry if I got you hyped up. I don't have much time to be talking and reading about the case these days so if I misunderstood your post quoting the report sorry. I just have a vague memory of some state experts refuting some of the defense findings about the prints on the door. As I said earlier I don't have to look them up right now- perhaps later. It may not have been about the latent but the patent. Can't remember.

 

[beesy]

Your post sounds a little antsy Beesy- sorry if I got you hyped up. I don't have much time to be talking and reading about the case these days so if I misunderstood your post quoting the report sorry. I just have a vague memory of some state experts refuting some of the defense findings about the prints on the door. As I said earlier I don't have to look them up right now- perhaps later. It may not have been about the latent but the patent. Can't remember.

No, it's my fault. I had surgery yesterday and I was cranky and nervous and HUNGRY when I posted. I didn't think Lohnes was hired by the defense. I'm confused about the hearings then. The prosecution can enter new evidence?