The Bloody Sock

[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.

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]

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!

 

[JimPence]

Hi WS'ers,

I'm popping in from the world of lurkdom and book promotion to see what you all have to say about the "bloody sock". I'm sure this has probably been discussed in detail (perhaps many times), so if this rehashes an old thread, just point me in the right direction and I'll go read it.

First off, I'm approaching this as someone who is convinced of Darlie's guilt. I don't see the sock as something that demonstrates her innocence.

However, given the narrow timeline between the stabbings and the boys' deaths, the sock would need to have been planted quickly.

Would Darlie have had the time to stab the boys, plant the sock, clean up the blood in the kitchen, and do the 911 call all by herself? Or would she have needed an accomplice--at least in the cover-up?

What do you think?

Jim

 

[Goody]

Hi WS'ers,

I'm popping in from the world of lurkdom and book promotion to see what you all have to say about the "bloody sock". I'm sure this has probably been discussed in detail (perhaps many times), so if this rehashes an old thread, just point me in the right direction and I'll go read it.

First off, I'm approaching this as someone who is convinced of Darlie's guilt. I don't see the sock as something that demonstrates her innocence.

However, given the narrow timeline between the stabbings and the boys' deaths, the sock would need to have been planted quickly.

Would Darlie have had the time to stab the boys, plant the sock, clean up the blood in the kitchen, and do the 911 call all by herself? Or would she have needed an accomplice--at least in the cover-up?

What do you think?

Jim

Jim, have you ever considered the possibility that the boys were not stabbed at the same time?

 

[Desilu]

I've often wondered if Darin was the one who dropped that sock.

 

[britgirl]

I've often wondered if Darin was the one who dropped that sock.

I've considered that too...I believe the sock was found lying near to a storm drain? Maybe he threw some incriminating items of clothing down there and the sock missed...