Darlie's injuries

[Madeleine74]

A claim is being made that the way the fiberglass got to the knife edge in the butcher block is via transfer? From the transcript it wasn't window sill straight to *that* knife; the last question posted (was something left out?) was about processing the utility room before moving on to the kitchen. Utility room may include the window but does not mean only the window or window sill.

I do not buy the fiberglass transfer theory. It's a convenient story to try and explain away a piece of evidence, but I do not see any proof of that, just lots of innuendos.

And why is it believed that fiberglass transfers onto a knife edge so easily because maybe someone used a fingerprint brush that maybe/possibly picked up fiberglass from the screen/window sill, but hairs on a sock do not/cannot transfer and therefore if any hair is on that sock it must (MUST) be from an "intruder"? Kind of convenient to use transfer to explain one piece of evidence and then disregard transfer when it's even more likely (sock in the house, outside the house).

I think the folks who believe (or want to believe) Darlie understand that fiberglass is a nail in Darlie's coffin. Therefore it *has* to be there through some mistake or transfer or something/anything besides that someone in the house used that knife to stage the scene. Because if that fiber is there and it's not there through transfer then... game over.

Saying it 'could have' gotten there from transfer is not proof. And posters on the Interwebs suggesting this hold no weight for me. Did an expert opine this on the stand? Was the jury given this viewpoint to consider? If yes, they clearly rejected it.

And even if one decides to discard the fiberglass evidence altogether because they don't trust it, there's still so much else to look at and none of it points to an intruder in the house. I can understand why some people look askance at Darin. Afterall he was the only other adult in the house that night/morning. So if it was an inside job and there was no intruder, it was either Darlie or Darin, right?

Show me the evidence of an intruder. I've not seen it.

Why was the scene staged? Some of it was cleaned up--luminol allowed us to know that. For what reason if not as part of a hasty staging?

 

[Sinsaint]

A claim is being made that the way the fiberglass got to the knife edge in the butcher block is via transfer? From the transcript it wasn't window sill straight to *that* knife; the last question posted (was something left out?) was about processing the utility room before moving on to the kitchen. Utility room may include the window but does not mean only the window or window sill.

I do not buy the fiberglass transfer theory. It's a convenient story to try and explain away a piece of evidence, but I do not see any proof of that, just lots of innuendos.

And why is it believed that fiberglass transfers onto a knife edge so easily because maybe someone used a fingerprint brush that maybe/possibly picked up fiberglass from the screen/window sill, but hairs on a sock do not/cannot transfer and therefore if any hair is on that sock it must (MUST) be from an "intruder"? Kind of convenient to use transfer to explain one piece of evidence and then disregard transfer when it's even more likely (sock in the house, outside the house).

I think the folks who believe (or want to believe) Darlie understand that fiberglass is a nail in Darlie's coffin. Therefore it *has* to be there through some mistake or transfer or something/anything besides that someone in the house used that knife to stage the scene. Because if that fiber is there and it's not there through transfer then... game over.

Saying it 'could have' gotten there from transfer is not proof. And posters on the Interwebs suggesting this hold no weight for me. Did an expert opine this on the stand? Was the jury given this viewpoint to consider? If yes, they clearly rejected it.

And even if one decides to discard the fiberglass evidence altogether because they don't trust it, there's still so much else to look at and none of it points to an intruder in the house. I can understand why some people look askance at Darin. Afterall he was the only other adult in the house that night/morning. So if it was an inside job and there was no intruder, it was either Darlie or Darin, right?

Show me the evidence of an intruder. I've not seen it.

Why was the scene staged? Some of it was cleaned up--luminol allowed us to know that. For what reason if not as part of a hasty staging?

The jury was never given this option to opine. For whatever reason, Linch lied to the jury about the knives. We could go into the fact that the utility room was dusted then the kitchen. Answer me this... Did anyone test the utility room areas for fiber evidence? That would be no. There could be screen fibers all over where he dusted. We don't know because no one looked for screen fibers on the door, washer or anywhere else he dusted.

And you are discounting the fact that when dusting any surface, the fingerprint technician is using A brush and A dusting bowl. He takes the brush, dips it, brushes it, dips it again, maybe brushes more, gets out the tape if he needs it. Then he moves on on. All the while he's using the same brush, same bowl... Just collecting fibers in his brush, depositing some in his dusting bowl, others still left behind in his brush. He's just working away, depositing dust and fibers on whatever his brush touches.

 

[PamelaC123]

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.

Was the Routier case decided on the facts of his case? What I posted is the answer to Darlie's appeal and I repeat:

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.

That was the Court's answer to the issue you're raising.

 

[Sinsaint]

Was the Routier case decided on the facts of his case? What I posted is the answer to Darlie's appeal and I repeat:

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.

That was the Court's answer to the issue you're raising.

What you repeat to me makes no difference. Read about his crimes and tell me, with a straight face, they aren't similar. They are. You know it. I know it. You just won't admit it.

 

[PamelaC123]

What you repeat to me makes no difference. Read about his crimes and tell me, with a straight face, they aren't similar. They are. You know it. I know it. You just won't admit it.

"Read about his crimes and tell me, with a straight face, they aren't similar."

They aren't similar. :drumroll:

Seriously, it doesn't matter what you think, doesn't matter what I think. What matters is what the Court thinks. They were found "not sufficiently similar." And yes, I agree with the Court's ruling.

 

[Val830]

The jury was never given this option to opine. For whatever reason, Linch lied to the jury about the knives. We could go into the fact that the utility room was dusted then the kitchen. Answer me this... Did anyone test the utility room areas for fiber evidence? That would be no. There could be screen fibers all over where he dusted. We don't know because no one looked for screen fibers on the door, washer or anywhere else he dusted.

And you are discounting the fact that when dusting any surface, the fingerprint technician is using A brush and A dusting bowl. He takes the brush, dips it, brushes it, dips it again, maybe brushes more, gets out the tape if he needs it. Then he moves on on. All the while he's using the same brush, same bowl... Just collecting fibers in his brush, depositing some in his dusting bowl, others still left behind in his brush. He's just working away, depositing dust and fibers on whatever his brush touches.

Only if that CSI is a completely uneducated idiotic unprofessional moron.

Crime scene techs know all about transfer @@. They make efforts to keep it from occurring. That's like assuming a CSI didn't think to wear gloves.

Madeline is right. The screen fibers on the bread knife are the nail in Darlie's coffin. If they're legitimate, then it's game over. Supporters know this - hence their coming up with one lame excuse after another to try and discredit it.

DNA? Contamination! Planted!
Fibers? Transfer!
Confession? Coercion!



Sometimes the evidence is there because....drumroll....

The convicted party did it.

It's such a tired old story. When strong evidence points to a convicted person, it must be planted or contaminated. Otherwise it would have to mean the person is guilty. And we just can't believe that, can we?

My god, this is one lucky intruder! He got away with it b/c CSI didn't have a clue how to do their jobs. He leaves only one fingerprint and he's just so darn lucky that it happens to get smudged and made unusable. His adult victim, clearly suffering from a psychotic episode, wipes up all the blood he leaves at the sink when he rinses the knife he took from the house instead of using the one he obviously brought with him to cut the screen - and then she FORGETS that she did it.

This intruder must hit the jackpot every time he plays the lotto. Because he is just oozing luck.

 

[Sinsaint]

Only if that CSI is a completely uneducated idiotic unprofessional moron.

Crime scene techs know all about transfer @@. They make efforts to keep it from occurring. That's like assuming a CSI didn't think to wear gloves.

Madeline is right. The screen fibers on the bread knife are the nail in Darlie's coffin. If they're legitimate, then it's game over. Supporters know this - hence their coming up with one lame excuse after another to try and discredit it.

DNA? Contamination! Planted!
Fibers? Transfer!
Confession? Coercion!



Sometimes the evidence is there because....drumroll....

The convicted party did it.

It's such a tired old story. When strong evidence points to a convicted person, it must be planted or contaminated. Otherwise it would have to mean the person is guilty. And we just can't believe that, can we?

My god, this is one lucky intruder! He got away with it b/c CSI didn't have a clue how to do their jobs. He leaves only one fingerprint and he's just so darn lucky that it happens to get smudged and made unusable. His adult victim, clearly suffering from a psychotic episode, wipes up all the blood he leaves at the sink when he rinses the knife he took from the house instead of using the one he obviously brought with him to cut the screen - and then she FORGETS that she did it.

This intruder must hit the jackpot every time he plays the lotto. Because he is just oozing luck.

Enlightening. Back to the subject. Why lie about the knives?

 

[Val830]

Enlightening. Back to the subject. Why lie about the knives?

"If I did, I don't remember" (paraphrased) is not the same thing as a lie.

You've not exhibited any proof that the same finger print brush went from window to knife block, which would be required for it to be transfer.

You speculate that's the case - b/c otherwise your theory doesn't hold up - but you've not provided proof of that.

 

[Madeleine74]

"If I did it, I don't remember" is allegedly what Darlie said during her interrogations, more than once or twice when asked if she killed her 2 boys.

 

[Val830]

"If I did it, I don't remember" is allegedly what Darlie said during her interrogations, more than once or twice when asked if she killed her 2 boys.

Good point.

I don't put much stock in that, to be honest.

We don't know the context of that statement.

If I pretend for a second that she's innocent and a skilled interrogator tells her "you absolutely did this, I know that 100%" - then that might be something she'd say.

I put very little stock into that, to be honest.

Darlie is really not all that bright. Neither is Darin. They both say absolutely stupid things, have a horrible usage of language, and Darlie made way too many amateur mistakes to be very bright.

In fact, if I wanted to believe she's innocent, I could tell myself "no one could be that stupid" about some of her dumb claims. In actuality though - she really is.

 

[Madeleine74]

It would be good if it was contained on tape to get the context.

I do find it ironic that things are used to try and discredit state witnesses, but those same things are disregarded by supporters when it applies to Darlie. It's like mistakes can only happen in one direction, physics only applies in one direction, and everyone is ganging up on an innocent housewife with absolutely no reason and no evidence.

For me, when I look at the evidence and not try and create stories around it, the evidence keeps pointing to it being an inside job. That means either Darlie, Darin, or both.

 

[Sinsaint]

It would be good if it was contained on tape to get the context.

I do find it ironic that things are used to try and discredit state witnesses, but those same things are disregarded by supporters when it applies to Darlie. It's like mistakes can only happen in one direction, physics only applies in one direction, and everyone is ganging up on an innocent housewife with absolutely no reason and no evidence.

For me, when I look at the evidence and not try and create stories around it, the evidence keeps pointing to it being an inside job. That means either Darlie, Darin, or both.

Exactly what are we disregarding?

BTW... The statements made by Darlie "if I did it I don't remember" that can't even be verified as something said by her are far different from a guy testifying on the record that absolutely those knives weren't dusted at the scene and then later signing an affidavit stating "those knives I said weren't dusted... Well, they were."

 

[Madeleine74]

Darlie supporters claim that any hairs found on or in the sock cannot (definitely cannot) be the result of transfer from anywhere either inside the house or outside in the alleyway and that it must be from the elusive intruder. Meanwhile the finding of both fiberglass thread(s) and fiberglass dust must (simply must) be the result of transfer from a neglectful CSI who didn't process the scene correctly and therefore transferred this debris from the utility room window directly to the knife in the knife block in the kitchen.

That is the conveniently disregarded (and then conveniently included) transfer theory when (but only when) it benefits Darlie.

 

[Val830]

Exactly what are we disregarding?

BTW... The statements made by Darlie "if I did it I don't remember" that can't even be verified as something said by her are far different from a guy testifying on the record that absolutely those knives weren't dusted at the scene and then later signing an affidavit stating "those knives I said weren't dusted... Well, they were."

"Absolutely those knives weren't dusted?"

Earlier you provided this testimony:

A. Okay. I don't recall processing any
17 specific items on there. If I did, I don't remember....

In what universe, does that testimony mean "absolutely those knives weren't dusted?"

Even if you did prove the point you're trying to make (which you didn't), the screen fibers on the knife being a result of transfer is a HUGE bit of speculation - a theory with nothing more than an unlikely possibility.

The more likely scenario is that the screen fibers were on the knife b/c the knife cut the screen.

You can only use these crazy and completely speculative and unsubstantiated theories once or twice in a case before it starts looking ridiculous.

 

[Sinsaint]

"Absolutely those knives weren't dusted?"

Earlier you provided this testimony:

A. Okay. I don't recall processing any
17 specific items on there. If I did, I don't remember....

In what universe, does that testimony mean "absolutely those knives weren't dusted?"

Even if you did prove the point you're trying to make (which you didn't), the screen fibers on the knife being a result of transfer is a HUGE bit of speculation - a theory with nothing more than an unlikely possibility.

The more likely scenario is that the screen fibers were on the knife b/c the knife cut the screen.

You can only use these crazy and completely speculative and unsubstantiated theories once or twice in a case before it starts looking ridiculous.

Lol... I guess you should have read the rest when Linch testified...

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.

Oh, but then he said this...

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.

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble... Transfer is highly likely when you dust a windowsill with screen particles using the same brush and the same bowl to dip said brush in as you go along your merry way. If transfer were so far out of the realm of possibility no one would have lied about the knives. And it's very clear they did.

And let me ask, are you also one of those clinging to your belief that the screen was cut from the inside as well?

 

[Mystymiss]

here's something that said Darlie did this to her boys!

According to the trial documents, the children were found with deep stab wounds. Darlie had two not so deep slice wounds and one stab wound to her forearm. Now why would the intruder savagely stab the boys but yet be so different in his attack on Darlie? IMO she did it herself..

 

[RANCH]

I'm trying to understand how the screen particles were transferred by the fingerprint brush. The technician transferred the particles from the brush to the bowl and the only place that anyone looked for fiber evidence, that had been previously dusted, was the one knife that the screen particles where found on. Or was the knife the only thing that happened to get the transferred particles on it?

 

[Sinsaint]

I'm trying to understand how the screen particles were transferred by the fingerprint brush. The technician transferred the particles from the brush to the bowl and the only place that anyone looked for fiber evidence, that had been previously dusted, was the one knife that the screen particles where found on. Or was the knife the only thing that happened to get the transferred particles on it?

It's not like Linch was going to check door knobs, the washing machine, countertops, table tops, etc. for particles. They could have been deposited all over the place but nobody had any reason to look for them on those items. It's not like they suspected she used a countertop to cut the screen. And it's not like there were even tons of particles on it. There was one fiberglass rod and a few bits of rubber dust particles.

 

[Sinsaint]

here's something that said Darlie did this to her boys!

According to the trial documents, the children were found with deep stab wounds. Darlie had two not so deep slice wounds and one stab wound to her forearm. Now why would the intruder savagely stab the boys but yet be so different in his attack on Darlie? IMO she did it herself..

Tommy Lynn Sells stabbed a victim approximately sixteen times and in the same attack only slit the other victims throat. One attack, two victims, different wounds.

 

[Madeleine74]

Tommy Lynn Sells was caught and his execution date has just been scheduled (for this April). Sells didn't kill the Routier boys.

Sells bypassed a young male teen, the mom, and a younger (10 yr old) sister, all sleeping, in that last crime. Sells specifically went in to the trailer to sexually assault the 13 yr old girl he did kill--she was his target. He cut off her clothes with his knife (he brought his own weapon, btw, unlike the Routier case). He later slit her throat twice (before any other stab wounds). Then the 2nd young gal whose neck he also slit (ie. his 2nd victim that night) nearly died--she was sharing a bunk bed and the reason she was attacked was because she was in the same room and thus was a witness. Her injuries, unlike Darlie's, really were life threatening. Her windpipe was severed.

The surviving victim was able to describe her attacker to the point where a sketch could be drawn up and circulated. That helped catch him.

Point is: Sells did have a motive and it was sexual assault.

What motive did the "intruder" into the Routier home have? Sexual assault? Robbery? He didn't do either of those things.