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).
The Bloody Sock
- Thread starter Linda7NJ
- Start date
HeartofTexas
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 4,320
- Reaction score
- 43
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!
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.Leve said:
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.
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).HeartofTexas said:
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
❤️ Know your worth and add tax ❤️
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 354
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
Keep your fork......
Goody said:
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.
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...
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.SpongeBathHotPants said:
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?
He wouldn't have to hug the building, just stay on the sidewalk.Dani_T said:
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.Dani_T said:
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.cami said:
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?
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
Keep your fork......
Goody said:
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
Keep your fork......
Dani_T said:
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.
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.Dani_T said:
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.
cami said:
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.
cami
Keep your fork......
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]Goody said:
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
Keep your fork......
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.Goody said:
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.
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.
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.