Darlie's injuries

[CathyR]

They are also a result from the stab wound to her arm which pierced a bone. That kind of wound would have resulted in large bruises. A normal part of healing from that would have been extensive bruising. This one of the reasons I don't think they are self inflicted as it takes a great deal of force to pierce a bone with a knife.

 

[chlban]

blefuscu;9981894

I think she got those bruises from Darin as part of the staging

Possible, but I always thought they were from Darrin because he was genuinely furious when he realized what she had done. Obviously that didn't stop him from covering for her in the long run, but his complicity does not preclude a "first reaction" of genuine rage.

 

[CathyR]

The Doctor who testified used medical terminology about the wounds being superficial. The neck wound came very close to severing her carotid artery within 2 mm so it was called superficial since it did not sever the artery, This does not mean her wounds were superficial just that the injury to that artery was superficial.

Think about it folks you have seen all the crime scene photos and no one bleeds that much from a neck wound or arm wounds that are not pretty deep. Pretty deep is not superficial wounds. The DR. DIDN'T LIE HE JUST DIDN'T CLARIFY WHAT WAS CONSIDERED SUPERFICIAL. THE WOUND TO HER ARTERY.

The arm wound did penetrate the bone and that is pretty hard to do to yourself, it borders on the insane to think she could do that, as the human instinct for self preservation kicks in even if you are faking your own wounds.

If you don't believe me do the research and look for cases were the person self injured them selves. None will have bled as much as Darlie did. Most of the blood in the house spread out in the kitchen and Roman room are from Darlie.

Devon bled pretty much right where he died and Damon did move around a bit and his bloody hand print is seen on the couch.

John Douglas made a statement about her wounds ,when asked what he thought about the case, and he called them classic self defense wounds.

Remember this guy worked for the FBI and is famous for his criminal profiling.

He was the model for the character of Jack Crawford in the Silence of the Lamb movie and other subsequent movies.

We don't always prosecute the right person for a crime. Texas has had a lot of overturned convictions. I just watched the story of Michael Morton a man convicted and served 25 years for killing his wife. The true perp went on to kill again and only after lengthy appeals and DNA testing was he found innocent and the true perp caught and tied to a second murder. The DA IN THAT CASE DELIBERATELY DID NOT CALL CERTAIN WITNESSES TO THE STAND. The defense was never told that the son who was present described the murderer and called him a monster. When further questioned about the identity of the monster and outright asked if it was his father he said no it was a monster with red hands. He also told the interviewers that the monster had his mothers purse and his fathers gun the two items stolen from the home. It was a bloody bandana found 100 yards from the house that was tested for DNA that proved Michael Morton innocent.

Does any of this sound familiar?
I don't imagine that the perp in that crime intended to drop that bandana he lost it while fleeing. The idea that the sock was planted is absurd. Who ever dropped it was fleeing and did not know he dropped it or yes he would have shoved it down the drain or put it in the trash can it was found next to.

Blood from both boys was found on the sock and none of Darlie"s blood was on it just epithelial cells. That could be skin, or saliva. Since Darlie did the laundry she of course had to touch that sock when taking it out of the dryer.

Damon could only have survived his wounds for maybe 9 minutes according to the medical reports.
So Darlie stabs the boys deposits the sock then comes back and wounds herself, turns over the table, breaks a glass, then screams for Darin and calls 911. Oh wait a minute she has to lay down on the couch to self injure herself because her pillow and pillow case are bloody. She also has to switch knives and cut the screen from the outside and put that knife back into the butcher block. After self injury she has to drop the knife in the utility room door as an imprint of the knife is found there as well as on the carpet.

I can't convince myself she could do all that in less than 9 minutes.

 

[PamelaC123]

They are also a result from the stab wound to her arm which pierced a bone. That kind of wound would have resulted in large bruises. A normal part of healing from that would have been extensive bruising. This one of the reasons I don't think they are self inflicted as it takes a great deal of force to pierce a bone with a knife.

Her bone wasn't "pierced." Attending physicians said the knife went "to the bone," nothing about it being "pierced."

 

[cami]

The Doctor who testified used medical terminology about the wounds being superficial. The neck wound came very close to severing her carotid artery within 2 mm so it was called superficial since it did not sever the artery, This does not mean her wounds were superficial just that the injury to that artery was superficial.

Think about it folks you have seen all the crime scene photos and no one bleeds that much from a neck wound or arm wounds that are not pretty deep. Pretty deep is not superficial wounds. The DR. DIDN'T LIE HE JUST DIDN'T CLARIFY WHAT WAS CONSIDERED SUPERFICIAL. THE WOUND TO HER ARTERY.

The arm wound did penetrate the bone and that is pretty hard to do to yourself, it borders on the insane to think she could do that, as the human instinct for self preservation kicks in even if you are faking your own wounds.

If you don't believe me do the research and look for cases were the person self injured them selves. None will have bled as much as Darlie did. Most of the blood in the house spread out in the kitchen and Roman room are from Darlie.

Devon bled pretty much right where he died and Damon did move around a bit and his bloody hand print is seen on the couch.

John Douglas made a statement about her wounds ,when asked what he thought about the case, and he called them classic self defense wounds.

Remember this guy worked for the FBI and is famous for his criminal profiling.

He was the model for the character of Jack Crawford in the Silence of the Lamb movie and other subsequent movies.

We don't always prosecute the right person for a crime. Texas has had a lot of overturned convictions. I just watched the story of Michael Morton a man convicted and served 25 years for killing his wife. The true perp went on to kill again and only after lengthy appeals and DNA testing was he found innocent and the true perp caught and tied to a second murder. The DA IN THAT CASE DELIBERATELY DID NOT CALL CERTAIN WITNESSES TO THE STAND. The defense was never told that the son who was present described the murderer and called him a monster. When further questioned about the identity of the monster and outright asked if it was his father he said no it was a monster with red hands. He also told the interviewers that the monster had his mothers purse and his fathers gun the two items stolen from the home. It was a bloody bandana found 100 yards from the house that was tested for DNA that proved Michael Morton innocent.

Does any of this sound familiar?
I don't imagine that the perp in that crime intended to drop that bandana he lost it while fleeing. The idea that the sock was planted is absurd. Who ever dropped it was fleeing and did not know he dropped it or yes he would have shoved it down the drain or put it in the trash can it was found next to.

Blood from both boys was found on the sock and none of Darlie"s blood was on it just epithelial cells. That could be skin, or saliva. Since Darlie did the laundry she of course had to touch that sock when taking it out of the dryer.

Damon could only have survived his wounds for maybe 9 minutes according to the medical reports.
So Darlie stabs the boys deposits the sock then comes back and wounds herself, turns over the table, breaks a glass, then screams for Darin and calls 911. Oh wait a minute she has to lay down on the couch to self injure herself because her pillow and pillow case are bloody. She also has to switch knives and cut the screen from the outside and put that knife back into the butcher block. After self injury she has to drop the knife in the utility room door as an imprint of the knife is found there as well as on the carpet.

I can't convince myself she could do all that in less than 9 minutes.

John Douglas has never made a statement on Darlie's wounds, Cathy. You're thinking of Dr. DiMaio who said they were classic defence wounds.

So Darlie cuts the screen first, puts that knife back in the butcher block then she takes the chef's knife, stabs the boys, overturns the table top, unscrews the light shade and let's it fall down the pole, turns the flowers over on their side, goes out the front door, puts the sock by the bin, returns, gets knife and cuts her arm at the kitchen sink, realizes Damon is not dead and is moving along the hallway, stabs Damon again--starting the 9:00 minute timeline that he lived, back to sink and cuts throat, cleans the blood from the sink and cleans up her bloody footprints, smashes the glass, rolls the vacuum in the blood, now she's bleeding so badly she gets scared and calls 911.

If you don't believe me do the research and look for cases were the person self injured them selves. None will have bled as much as Darlie did. Most of the blood in the house spread out in the kitchen and Roman room are from Darlie.

This really means nothing unless you can recreate the same situation. Did your research include folks who stood at a sink and sliced their own neck? Those little veins under the skin are what bled profusely, there were no arteries cut. Why won't you research the trial transcripts Cathy? No one testified Darlie split the bone in her arm, they testified the stab wound went to the bone. In a situation that Darlie was in, there is also the adreneline rush so she probably felt nothing until she went close to that carotid artery in her neck, then she flinched, causing the knife to bounce and cut her shoulder. Let's look realistically at the arm wound and tell me how it is a defence wound, it looks as if Darlie held out her arm for someone to slice it. Why are there no real defence wounds on her? Like the palms of her hands and the underside of her arms, or her head or face if she was holding up her arms to ward off blows. How likely is it an intruder only bruised the underside of one arm, ridiculous, IMO.

 

[Steel86]

Why are there no real defence wounds on her? Like the palms of her hands and the underside of her arms, or her head or face if she was holding up her arms to ward off blows. How likely is it an intruder only bruised the underside of one arm, ridiculous, IMO.

And the notion that she was rendered unconscious - no evidence of her being unconscious. An unconscious person couldn't be aware to throw up their arm(s) to ward off blunt force trauma blows, because they are "out".

Of course, I think she and her defense realized that it was absurd for her to continue to say she slept through such an attack.

 

[Madeleine74]

T
Damon could only have survived his wounds for maybe 9 minutes according to the medical reports.
So Darlie stabs the boys deposits the sock then comes back and wounds herself, turns over the table, breaks a glass, then screams for Darin and calls 911. Oh wait a minute she has to lay down on the couch to self injure herself because her pillow and pillow case are bloody. She also has to switch knives and cut the screen from the outside and put that knife back into the butcher block. After self injury she has to drop the knife in the utility room door as an imprint of the knife is found there as well as on the carpet.

I can't convince myself she could do all that in less than 9 minutes.

You're assuming nothing was done before the boys were stabbed (like window screen being cut).

Where are the shoe prints from the intruder? Luminol revealed multiple Darlie footprints. The intruder didn't levitate and we know the scene was bloody.

 

[Sinsaint]

You're assuming nothing was done before the boys were stabbed (like window screen being cut).

Where are the shoe prints from the intruder? Luminol revealed multiple Darlie footprints. The intruder didn't levitate and we know the scene was bloody.

The scene was bloody after Darlie and Damon got up and walked around. Prior to Darlie running around there would have been very little blood for an intruder to walk through.

 

[Madeleine74]

The scene was bloody after Darlie and Damon got up and walked around. Prior to Darlie running around there would have been very little blood for an intruder to walk through.

The blood around the boys and in the carpet was not insignificant. I don't understand how an intruder managed to leave nary a sign of himself in that house. We know blood was spattering from the knife blade stabbing the 2 boys, so you have at least some blood around. So far no intruder has been detected as having been there. And they're down to trying to say the only thing the intruder left was 2 limb hairs inside a sock. And why would an intruder need Darin's sock? And why would an intruder need to take a knife from the Routier's kitchen to commit murder if killing someone was the intent? And if it wasn't the intent and the intent was robbery and somehow the robbery went all wrong, why did the intruder kill 2 sleeping boys, slash their sleeping mother, and not take anything? Who was preventing this robber from grabbing a bunch of gold jewelry and money/wallet in plain sight?

I've also found it interesting that Darin said he heard nothing until a glass broke. This intruder was super duper quiet to the point that he left virtually nothing of himself, made no sound save for breaking one glass, used knives from inside the house, including one to cut a screen, felt that 2 little boys who were sound asleep needed to be taken out of this world and did the deed, took nothing of value (a tube sock?). Who is this super stealthy levitating silent killer of children?

 

[Madeleine74]

Now, back to the bruises, which are the subject of this thread.

I don't like to speculate or create stories to account for evidence because I'm not into fiction and I wasn't there. So Darlie had huge bruises on her arm -- bruises that were not seen during her (3?) days in the hospital.

Either the bruises are self-inflicted or someone else did it. I don't think it matters because there is no way to make a definitive conclusion about it. One side can say "intruder!" Another side can say "Darlie!" or maybe "angry Darin!" I can't say either because there's nothing that proves it one way or the other so ???

I'm looking at simple/basic things. Footprints, what was found on the kitchen knives. I'm not analyzing 911 calls or number and placement of towels or any of that because there's enough variability for anyone to create a story around it.

Where exactly are the signs of this intruder? 2 limb hairs on a sock? Sorry, that's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Think about the totality of the crime scene. Think about the activity occurring inside that house on the first floor. 3 people stabbed/slashed. Blood, fibers, footprints, shoeprints? Jewelry & wallet untouched. Slashed window screen--did the intruder actually go through this screen? How did he do that and not leave any evidence? Either of himself or anything he was wearing (fibers) or even any blood of his victims? Did he leave any of his own skin cells or his own fibers on Darlie or her Tshirt? Supposedly they were in contact in a struggle of some sort. There just has to be evidence of an intruder if there was an intruder. What are the odds an intruder left zero evidence, not even one footprint or shoeprint?

 

[Sinsaint]

Now, back to the bruises, which are the subject of this thread.

I don't like to speculate or create stories to account for evidence because I'm not into fiction and I wasn't there. So Darlie had huge bruises on her arm -- bruises that were not seen during her (3?) days in the hospital.

Either the bruises are self-inflicted or someone else did it. I don't think it matters because there is no way to make a definitive conclusion about it. One side can say "intruder!" Another side can say "Darlie!" or maybe "angry Darin!" I can't say either because there's nothing that proves it one way or the other so ???

I'm looking at simple/basic things. Footprints, what was found on the kitchen knives. I'm not analyzing 911 calls or number and placement of towels or any of that because there's enough variability for anyone to create a story around it.

Where exactly are the signs of this intruder? 2 limb hairs on a sock? Sorry, that's kind of ridiculous when you think about it. Think about the totality of the crime scene. Think about the activity occurring inside that house on the first floor. 3 people stabbed/slashed. Blood, fibers, footprints, shoeprints? Jewelry & wallet untouched. Slashed window screen--did the intruder actually go through this screen? How did he do that and not leave any evidence? Either of himself or anything he was wearing (fibers) or even any blood of his victims? Did he leave any of his own skin cells or his own fibers on Darlie or her Tshirt? Supposedly they were in contact in a struggle of some sort. There just has to be evidence of an intruder if there was an intruder. What are the odds an intruder left zero evidence, not even one footprint or shoeprint?

I would say the odds are fairly high. They are called unsolved crimes for a reason. Furthermore, there were quite a few unknown intruder break-ins in the Dallas area in the same time period. One in particular used the victims own knives, held a fork to a child's throat, and also used the victims own socks to gag and/or cover his hands. He was eventually caught. He is suspected in at least sixteen other intruder assault cases although there isn't enough or any evidence to link him to those crimes.

 

[Madeleine74]

Most unsolved killings involve situations that occur outside a home. Not all, but most. Abductions, etc.

So what did this intruder want? Let's analyze.

Robbery? Well, he (I'm assuming this is a he) didn't take anything of value. Unless one thinks a tube sock is somehow valuable.

So he comes to the house, slashes a window screen (and manages to leave fiberglass residue that matches said window screen on one of the kitchen knives).

He takes...nothing of value.

Okay so he must be there to harm/kill. For what purpose I don't know. But he didn't rob, he didn't sexually assault, he didn't kidnap, so what's left? Killing. Did he bring his own weapon? Did he bring it and decide not to use it? We don't know. We only know what was used/left in the house.

So he used another kitchen knife. To protect himself from 2 sleeping children and a sleeping woman on a couch? He has the advantage here. They're sleeping. He's not. He is armed. They are not.

Does he tie them up to contain them? No. Gag them so they won't give his presence away? No. Threaten them? (Darlie said no). Sexually assault Darlie? (she didn't think so). He just came in, stabbed the 2 kids because he wanted to, slashed at Darlie because he felt like it (remember she was asleep), and bypassed gold jewelry, wallet, cash. There was blood flying from this killing stabbing (remember at least one child's blood got on Darlie's Tshirt including on her back). He managed to avoid all blood, and not carry any of it with him/on him or drop it. He left none of his own skin cells, blood, hand prints at the scene. He left no footprints. Forget bloody footprints. He left no footprints that anyone could detect.

I'm not saying it's "impossible," but did these other break-ins involve anything else (like theft?). Were any other children slaughtered in these unsolved break-ins in the Dallas area in the same time period? Is this crime the same as what happened in other cases?

 

[Sinsaint]

Most unsolved killings involve situations that occur outside a home. Not all, but most. Abductions, etc.

So what did this intruder want? Let's analyze.

Robbery? Well, he (I'm assuming this is a he) didn't take anything of value. Unless one thinks a tube sock is somehow valuable.

So he comes to the house, slashes a window screen (and manages to leave fiberglass residue that matches said window screen on one of the kitchen knives).

He takes...nothing of value.

Okay so he must be there to harm/kill. For what purpose I don't know. But he didn't rob, he didn't sexually assault, he didn't kidnap, so what's left? Killing. Did he bring his own weapon? Did he bring it and decide not to use it? We don't know. We only know what was used/left in the house.

So he used another kitchen knife. To protect himself from 2 sleeping children and a sleeping woman on a couch? He has the advantage here. They're sleeping. He's not. He is armed. They are not.

Does he tie them up to contain them? No. Gag them so they won't give his presence away? No. Threaten them? (Darlie said no). Sexually assault Darlie? (she didn't think so). He just came in, stabbed the 2 kids because he wanted to, slashed at Darlie because he felt like it (remember she was asleep), and bypassed gold jewelry, wallet, cash. There was blood flying from this killing stabbing (remember at least one child's blood got on Darlie's Tshirt including on her back). He managed to avoid all blood, and not carry any of it with him/on him or drop it. He left none of his own skin cells, blood, hand prints at the scene. He left no footprints. Forget bloody footprints. He left no footprints that anyone could detect.

I'm not saying it's "impossible," but did these other break-ins involve anything else (like theft?). Were any other children slaughtered in these unsolved break-ins in the Dallas area in the same time period? Is this crime the same as what happened in other cases?

Okay, the window sill was dusted for prints first. Then Hamilton moved on to the kitchen. And by golly, he just can't recall if he dusted the knives at the scene. Linch testified they were not. He's since admitted he lied about that. It's call transfer. If you dust a window sill that has screen particles on it and then you dust the knives, there's a risk particles from one spot got transferred to another via the dusting bowl or brush he was using.

In the situations involving the other assaults the victims remain compliant. If Darlie woke up in the middle of being attacked and instantly started fighting instead of listening and complying, things could have went wrong really fast. All it would have taken was one boy, probably both waking up to the noise and now he's got a big dilemma.

A possibly dead woman and two little kids who could a) start screaming to alert people and b) possibly identify him. I think at that point the situation would turn from assault and robbery to "****... I just killed this lady and these brats are going to get me caught." He could have easily went into shut these kids up and get the Hell out of here mode. Her underwear were also never found. For some, that's called a trophy.

Charles Boney is a prime example of how a criminal's behavior, or normal crime pattern can go wrong. Mostly, he just beat up women and stole their shoes. Then he robbed two women at gunpoint and attempted to make them get in a car with him. Next, he broke into an apartment, robbed three women (he's got what he needs money-wise at that point) but still forces the women into a car and tried to leave with them. They were just lucky the cops managed to catch him in the parking lot.

What did he do next? Killed David Camm's family. Why he made the leap from attacking women for their shoes and stealing money? Who knows. My only guess is that the situation got out of hand, someone didn't cooperate, etc. nothing was stolen so one can safely assume after what went down, he thought it more prudent to just get out of there. Stopping to look for a little cash or jewelry isn't really worth the risk getting caught.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't like to guess because I try to avoid speculating. It's not always possible, but I do like to try not to. I like to go with the evidence, when it's available.

I've not heard before that there was dusting of window sill and then immediately "the" knife in the knife block was dusted.

I'm not convinced of Camm's innocence and in fact I think there well may have been a situation where he hired Boney. But that's another topic for a whole nother board.

 

[Sinsaint]

I don't like to guess because I try to avoid speculating. It's not always possible, but I do like to try not to. I like to go with the evidence, when it's available.

I've not heard before that there was dusting of window sill and then immediately "the" knife in the knife block was dusted.

I'm not convinced of Camm's innocence and in fact I think there well may have been a situation where he hired Boney. But that's another topic for a whole nother board.

Charles Hamilton works for the Rowlett police department. His testimony on January 15th, 1997...

1 Q. Can you tell the members of the jury
2 what area you processed first?
3 A. The area I processed first was a
4 window in the garage, it had a slashed screen, the window
5 was opened slightly. An alleged point of entry or exit
6 for a potential suspect. That was the first area I
7 processed for latents.
8 Q. Okay. And just again, why did you
9 pick that as the first area to go process?
10 A. That was just a starting point. I
11 felt it was important. My sergeant felt it was important 12 enough to process immediately....

9 Q. Okay. If you would, let's start again
10 with State's Exhibit 85-A, and just tell us where you
11 actually retrieved that latent print, sir.
12 A. This latent print, in addition to the
13 others, were recovered from the window I mentioned
14 earlier in the garage with the slashed window screen,
15 open window....

6 Q. Of that window screen. Let me ask
7 you, sir: Whether or not you processed the inside
8 portion of the window screen frame?
9 A. I did, in fact.
10 Q. The top, sides and the bottom?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Were you able to lift any latent
13 fingerprints from the inside portion of this frame?
14 A. I was not....

1 Q. What did do you after you finished
2 processing the utility room for latent fingerprints?
3 A. I came back and worked my way through
4 the kitchen....

24 A. I don't recall.
25 Q. Okay. Do you recall right now, do you
1 recall any other items in the kitchen that you processed
2 for latent fingerprints?
3 A. Not that I recall....

Cross Examination:

5 Q. To get a print. Okay. So, after you
6 have visually inspected the object, what do you do then?
7 A. I apply a light coat of fingerprint
8 powder, in this case black powder is the agent I used to
9 process.
10 Q. Okay. And --
11 A. With a brush, of course.
12 Q. Do you brush the whole object?
13 A. You might.
14 Q. How would you decide what to brush and
15 what not?
16 A. It's just a matter of experience,
17 common sense, and gut feeling. In this case on that
18 window, I pretty much processed the whole thing because I
19 felt it might be important.
20 Q. Okay. And, you, I guess, you have
21 this dust in a little bowl or something in your kit?
22 A. It's in a container, plastic jar
23 container.
24 Q. So you take off your container and you
25 get a brush, did you say?...

7 Q. Okay. And did you process any objects
8 on the counter?
9 A. On the center island?
10 Q. No, on the -- I'm talking about the
11 right --
12 A. The sink counter?
13 Q. Yes. The sink counter. On that side
14 that has the refrigerator on it, that is generally toward
15 the garage?
16 A. Okay. I don't recall processing any
17 specific items on there. If I did, I don't remember....

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/32_officer-charles-hamilton.pdf

He just can't seem to recall if he dusted the knives.

Then Charles Linch testified on January 20th, 1997....

3 Q. While you were there, did you ever see
4 a butcher block with some knives in it?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do
7 with it?
8 A. At that time, nothing. It was eight
9 knives remaining in this black, wooden butcher block....

10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside....

22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward
1 to the garage.
2 Q. So more suggestive of from the
3 outside?
4 A. Yes, sir....

10 Q. What sort of examinations did you do
11 with knife number 4?
12 A. I looked first with the naked eye for
13 any hairs or fibers that might be on it. And then I put

14 this knife under the stereo microscope, that is like a
15 dissecting microscope, to look for material that was
16 within the serration grooves of this knife.
17 Q. Okay. Did you find anything within
18 the serrations themselves?
19 A. Yes, sir, I did.
20 Q. What did you find?
21 A. There were some fibrous debris and
22 some gray-type debris.

Cross Examination:

2 Q. Okay. And, after you had done your
3 test, your miscellaneous test cuts, and you never did a
4 full T-cut for a test, did you?
5 A. I did a pretty long one, but not as
6 big as on the evidence screen.
7 Q. And in all of your tests, you found,
8 more or less consistent rubber particle compared to what
9 you found on the knife?
10 A. Yes, sir, I did.
11 Q. But in all of your tests, you found
12 more fiberglass rods than what you found on Number 4?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. So, in that sense, your testing was
15 inconsistent with what you found on Exhibit Number 4,
16 wasn't it?....

2 Q. So, in -- but the two tests, the
3 rubber dust is similar from the test to the knife, but
4 the fiberglass rods are dissimilar from the test to the
5 knife?
6 A. Only in the number found....

On Redirect:

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.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/39_charles-linch.pdf

Charles Linch affidavit from July 11th, 2002...

6. On or about June 8, 1996, I received several pieces of evidence from Detective Jim Patterson. This evidence included a butcher block with eight knives. The butcher block and knives were identical to the butcher block and knives I observed on the kitchen counter at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas, on June 6, 1996.

7. At the time I received this butcher block and knives at the SWIFS Laboratory, both the butcher block itself and all the knives in it had been dusted for fingerprints. This included a serrated bread knife which I later designated as "Knife #4." This knife was located on the left end of the bottom row of knives in the butcher block.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/second-affidavit-of-charles-a-linch-2.pdf

 

[Madeleine74]

A. The area I processed first was a window in the garage, it had a slashed screen, the window was opened slightly.

Am I understanding this correctly? The window that had the slashed screen was "opened slightly?" Was it left that way? So this intruder turned around and closed the window, leaving it only open slightly, after he came in and then left?

 

[Sinsaint]

Am I understanding this correctly? The window that had the slashed screen was "opened slightly?" Was it left that way? So this intruder turned around and closed the window, leaving it only open slightly, after he came in and then left?

Yea, at 9:00 a.m. after countless other people had inspected it.

Walling's testimony...

24 A. I cleared the garage, looked back over
25 here, looked over here to see if there was anybody in

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
477

1 there. I looked over this way. There was a refrigerator
2 here, and when I looked on the other side of the
3 refrigerator, and I noticed that the window screen had
4 been cut.
5 Q. Is there a door to that garage, an
6 over-head door?
7 A. Yes, sir, there is.
8 Q. All right. Where is that located?
9 A. It's located at the back here.
10 Q. Did you notice whether or not that
11 garage door was open or closed?
12 A. It was closed.
13 Q. Are there a number of windows on this
14 wall here?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Did you see anything wrong with any of
17 the other windows?
18 A. No, sir, I didn't.
19 Q. Which window was it where you saw the
20 screen cut?
21 A. It was this window.
22 Q. Okay. You're referring to this one
23 here?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Okay. Did you go over to the window

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
478

1 to inspect it closer at that time?
2 A. No, sir, I did not, not from the
3 inside of the garage.
4 Q. Okay. Why not?
5 A. With the window being cut, I was
6 making the assumption that he had left out that way,
7 possibly. So I was going to get around to the backyard
8 as quick as I could.

If the window were only slightly opened he would have mentioned it. He certainly would not have thought a person crawled through a slightly opened window.

 

[Sinsaint]

Okay, officer Mayne was one of the first on the scene to process it. This is his testimony...

1 A. I went to 5801 Eagle Drive.
2 Q. And about what time did you get to
3 that location?
4 A. Approximately 4:15 a.m....

16 Q. All right. The top portion of the
17 photograph, does it show the window that you believed, or
18 were told to be the point of entry?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Was there anything still on that
21 window?
22 A. Yes, sir. The screen was on the
23 window.
24 Q. Okay. Can we see the screen in the
25 photograph?

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1627

1 A. Yes, sir. You can see it with the cut
2 in the window screen.
3 Q. All right. This wooden object with
4 the wire next to it, what is that?
5 A. That's some type of animal cage.
6 Q. Okay. Were there any animals in this
7 cage?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. What's in the cage then?
10 A. It looks like some type of litter, cat
11 litter box maybe, and just bowls for animals, eating and
12 drinking.
13 Q. Beside them to the left of the window?
14 A. That's a carrying case for an animal.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. And we've also got a trash can here,
17 and some shoes here. In this area here, I determined
18 that it was some type of liquid Kool-aid, maybe some type
19 of --
20 Q. Okay. You talked about a presumptive
21 test for blood on the sock. Did you do a presumptive
22 test for the area that is shown here on State's Exhibit
23 40-B?
24 A. No, sir, I did not.
25 Q. Was it later -- did someone else do

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1628

1 some analysis on that?
2 A. Yes, sir. And also, you can see a
3 trash can here, and this would be the
4 refrigerator/freezer right here.
5 Q. Okay. Directing your attention back
6 to the window, was the window open or closed when you
7 first saw it?
8 A. It was open.
9 Q. Okay. Before you photographed this
10 window, sir, did you change the position of the window in
11 any way?
12 A. No, sir, I did not.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/30_officer-david-mayne-1.pdf

Makes you wonder who was messing with the window before Hamilton got to it. But that's besides the point. The point is Hamilton dusted the window sill and then the knives.

 

[PamelaC123]

I would say the odds are fairly high. They are called unsolved crimes for a reason. Furthermore, there were quite a few unknown intruder break-ins in the Dallas area in the same time period. One in particular used the victims own knives, held a fork to a child's throat, and also used the victims own socks to gag and/or cover his hands. He was eventually caught. He is suspected in at least sixteen other intruder assault cases although there isn't enough or any evidence to link him to those crimes.

Applicant asserts that the State violated Brady and deprived her of her due process rights by failing to disclose evidence of similar crimes that would impeach the testimony of Agent Brantley. (Application at 103, 108).

652. In support of her argument, Applicant tendered five police reports from the Dallas Police Department. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibits A – E). Applicant argues that the police reports constitute favorable impeachment evidence that directly contradicts Agent Brantley’s crime-scene analysis testimony because: 1) these crimes are similar to this offense and occurred in the year immediately preceding it; 2) in one of the offenses, the intruder held a small knife from the victim’s kitchen against the victim’s throat prior to the sexual assault; 3) in another case, the assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork; and 4) in four of the cases, the assailant “used a single tube sock—similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence—to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints.” (Application at 103).

653. The Court finds that each of the five police reports involved: 1) a sexual assault, 2) with no additional serious bodily injury, 3) committed inside an apartment or at an apartment complex, 4) in the city of Dallas, 5) by an African-American male, Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., who was apprehended through DNA testing, and 6) a demand for credit cards and cash from his victims. In the one offense involving a child witness, Cook did not sexually assault or physically harm the child.

654. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults as set out in the tendered police reports are significantly dissimilar to the instant offense for the following reasons:

a. Unlike the victims detailed in the Dallas Police Department’s reports, Applicant, her husband, and her children lived in a two-story, colonial-style house in an upscale, suburban neighborhood in the city of Rowlett, twelve miles from the closest sexual assault; two of the three children in the house were stabbed to death; none of the victims were sexually assaulted; the intruder did not speak to or threaten Applicant; and he never demanded or took any money or property.

b. Furthermore, although a bloodstained sock was found in the alley three houses down from the Routier crime scene (RR32:1260, 1265, 1271, 1387), Applicant never reported that the intruder gagged any of the victims with a sock (as did the intruder in two of the Dallas sexual assaults). In fact, Applicant specifically testified that she did not find “any tape, or any gauze or anything stuffed in [her] mouth.” (RR44:4934). Applicant also did not ever report that the intruder wore socks on his hands (as did the intruder in one of the Dallas sexual assaults). (RR44:4789-5031; State’s Trial Exhibit 76A).

c. The intruder in the Dallas sexual assaults was African American, and, although Applicant told Officer David Waddell at one point that she did not know if her assailant was black or white (RR29:319), she repeatedly told Lieutenant Matt Walling her assailant was white. (RR29:514-15, 522, 530). Similarly, Applicant told her friend, Barbara Jovell, that the assailant was white. (RR36:2569). Applicant testified at trial that she “wasn’t sure if [the intruder] was white or black because it was dark, but that I assumed that he was white because of his hair.” (RR44:4883).

d. The Dallas sexual assaults occurred at apartment complexes in an urban area along a narrow corridor on the east side of a major highway, Highway 75 – Central Expressway, in an area approximately one mile wide and five miles long. Two of the sexual assaults occurred at the same complex. (State’s Writ Exhibit 10). The proximity of Central Expressway (and Highway 635 in two cases) would have provided easy access to a major highway to lessen the chances of detection. The Rowlett murders occurred approximately fifteen miles from Central Expressway, in a suburban neighborhood cul-de-sac. (RR40:3666, 3705; State’s Writ Exhibit 10). As one of Applicant’s neighbors described Rowlett in relation to Dallas:

Rowlett, Texas, is located to the [north]east of Dallas, on Lake Ray Hubbard, the city reservoir. It’s about approximately 35 miles from downtown Dallas. It’s a suburb of Dallas, just east of Garland.

(RR28:179, 184). Regarding their particular neighborhood, the neighbor explained: “It’s a fairly upscale neighborhood, as it’s been described before. The neighborhood is mostly family oriented, lots of small children, and kind of a bedroom community.” (RR28:186).

e. Furthermore, in each of the Dallas sexual assaults, the assailant demanded and/or took cash, credit cards, or property from his victims. In contrast, Brantley testified regarding the Routier case:

Q. [Prosecutor]: [R]obbery, in this case, were you aware of, well, I guess, it was various items left around in the residence; is that right?

A. [Brantley]: That’s correct.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what types of items we’re talking about?

A. Well, primarily, the jewelry, the large amount of jewelry that was left there in plain view, and certainly, this also seemed to be in this path of entry and escape, and so, I mean, it was right there for the taking, and all someone had to do was just reach over and grab it.

Also, you looked at the purses that were in the area, and whether they were disturbed, or whether anyone was attempting to steal money, cash or credit cards. And there is no indication that anything like that has occurred.

As a matter of fact, nothing was disturbed. Nothing of value in that home seemed to be of interest whatsoever to the offender in this case.

(RR40:3694-95).

655. The Court finds that Applicant fails to prove that the Dallas sexual assaults “resemble” or occurred “in the area” of the instant offense.

656. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults in the police reports are not sufficiently similar to the instant offense to be relevant or material. See Willingham v. State, 897 S.W.2d 351, 358 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (to impeach a witness, it must be established that the evidence is relevant and material to the case).

657. Thus, the Court finds and concludes that Applicant has failed to prove that the facts she alleges are true, and therefore, the Court finds and concludes that Applicant has failed to produce evidence that entitles her to relief. See Ex parte Chappell, 959 S.W.2d at 628.

http://www.guiltybydefault.com/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

 

[Sinsaint]

Applicant asserts that the State violated Brady and deprived her of her due process rights by failing to disclose evidence of similar crimes that would impeach the testimony of Agent Brantley. (Application at 103, 108).

652. In support of her argument, Applicant tendered five police reports from the Dallas Police Department. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibits A – E). Applicant argues that the police reports constitute favorable impeachment evidence that directly contradicts Agent Brantley’s crime-scene analysis testimony because: 1) these crimes are similar to this offense and occurred in the year immediately preceding it; 2) in one of the offenses, the intruder held a small knife from the victim’s kitchen against the victim’s throat prior to the sexual assault; 3) in another case, the assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork; and 4) in four of the cases, the assailant “used a single tube sock—similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence—to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints.” (Application at 103).

653. The Court finds that each of the five police reports involved: 1) a sexual assault, 2) with no additional serious bodily injury, 3) committed inside an apartment or at an apartment complex, 4) in the city of Dallas, 5) by an African-American male, Sammie Luckas Cook, Jr., who was apprehended through DNA testing, and 6) a demand for credit cards and cash from his victims. In the one offense involving a child witness, Cook did not sexually assault or physically harm the child.

654. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults as set out in the tendered police reports are significantly dissimilar to the instant offense for the following reasons:

a. Unlike the victims detailed in the Dallas Police Department’s reports, Applicant, her husband, and her children lived in a two-story, colonial-style house in an upscale, suburban neighborhood in the city of Rowlett, twelve miles from the closest sexual assault; two of the three children in the house were stabbed to death; none of the victims were sexually assaulted; the intruder did not speak to or threaten Applicant; and he never demanded or took any money or property.

b. Furthermore, although a bloodstained sock was found in the alley three houses down from the Routier crime scene (RR32:1260, 1265, 1271, 1387), Applicant never reported that the intruder gagged any of the victims with a sock (as did the intruder in two of the Dallas sexual assaults). In fact, Applicant specifically testified that she did not find “any tape, or any gauze or anything stuffed in [her] mouth.” (RR44:4934). Applicant also did not ever report that the intruder wore socks on his hands (as did the intruder in one of the Dallas sexual assaults). (RR44:4789-5031; State’s Trial Exhibit 76A).

c. The intruder in the Dallas sexual assaults was African American, and, although Applicant told Officer David Waddell at one point that she did not know if her assailant was black or white (RR29:319), she repeatedly told Lieutenant Matt Walling her assailant was white. (RR29:514-15, 522, 530). Similarly, Applicant told her friend, Barbara Jovell, that the assailant was white. (RR36:2569). Applicant testified at trial that she “wasn’t sure if [the intruder] was white or black because it was dark, but that I assumed that he was white because of his hair.” (RR44:4883).

d. The Dallas sexual assaults occurred at apartment complexes in an urban area along a narrow corridor on the east side of a major highway, Highway 75 – Central Expressway, in an area approximately one mile wide and five miles long. Two of the sexual assaults occurred at the same complex. (State’s Writ Exhibit 10). The proximity of Central Expressway (and Highway 635 in two cases) would have provided easy access to a major highway to lessen the chances of detection. The Rowlett murders occurred approximately fifteen miles from Central Expressway, in a suburban neighborhood cul-de-sac. (RR40:3666, 3705; State’s Writ Exhibit 10). As one of Applicant’s neighbors described Rowlett in relation to Dallas:

Rowlett, Texas, is located to the [north]east of Dallas, on Lake Ray Hubbard, the city reservoir. It’s about approximately 35 miles from downtown Dallas. It’s a suburb of Dallas, just east of Garland.

(RR28:179, 184). Regarding their particular neighborhood, the neighbor explained: “It’s a fairly upscale neighborhood, as it’s been described before. The neighborhood is mostly family oriented, lots of small children, and kind of a bedroom community.” (RR28:186).

e. Furthermore, in each of the Dallas sexual assaults, the assailant demanded and/or took cash, credit cards, or property from his victims. In contrast, Brantley testified regarding the Routier case:

Q. [Prosecutor]: [R]obbery, in this case, were you aware of, well, I guess, it was various items left around in the residence; is that right?

A. [Brantley]: That’s correct.

Q. Okay. Do you remember what types of items we’re talking about?

A. Well, primarily, the jewelry, the large amount of jewelry that was left there in plain view, and certainly, this also seemed to be in this path of entry and escape, and so, I mean, it was right there for the taking, and all someone had to do was just reach over and grab it.

Also, you looked at the purses that were in the area, and whether they were disturbed, or whether anyone was attempting to steal money, cash or credit cards. And there is no indication that anything like that has occurred.

As a matter of fact, nothing was disturbed. Nothing of value in that home seemed to be of interest whatsoever to the offender in this case.

(RR40:3694-95).

655. The Court finds that Applicant fails to prove that the Dallas sexual assaults “resemble” or occurred “in the area” of the instant offense.

656. The Court finds that the Dallas sexual assaults in the police reports are not sufficiently similar to the instant offense to be relevant or material. See Willingham v. State, 897 S.W.2d 351, 358 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (to impeach a witness, it must be established that the evidence is relevant and material to the case).

657. Thus, the Court finds and concludes that Applicant has failed to prove that the facts she alleges are true, and therefore, the Court finds and concludes that Applicant has failed to produce evidence that entitles her to relief. See Ex parte Chappell, 959 S.W.2d at 628.

http://www.guiltybydefault.com/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

Yes. That is the reasoning the court gave to deny the Brady violation. Nowhere does it say the guy was questioned, investigated or ruled out. Only that the Dallas County DA had no obligation to turn over the information because they had no idea the Dallas County Police Department was investigating similar break ins. Oh, and I'll be more than glad to pull up the DA's response where they claim they shouldn't be held accountable for not turning the evidence over of those case because... By golly, you can't expect the Dallas County DA to know what the Dallas County PD is investigating.

But your inability to note the factual similarities of the cases is noted. I can post his appeal for you if you like. After you read it, come on back and let me know... With a straight face, his crimes aren't eerily similar.