What if...

[Cowgirl]

What attempt to clean it up?

I still haven't 100% ruled out an intruder so I'm still open to there being one or more than one even. Given that, I'm thinking that if there was an intruder(s), they didn't come in to rob, change their minds and butcher two sleeping kids. Dead-of-the-night house buglars are usually not violent. I would say an intuder that would do something like this was a violent-type :laugh: (I shoulda been a detective, huh), he came for something violent - murder...maybe...what if...rape...here's where the sock and the knife come in. He stuffs a sock into her mouth, begins toying with her with the knife, unfortunately one of the kids wakes up...next thing we know is Darlie on 911.

:twocents:

Just one more thing on the "what if" idea here...Darlie would have to allege something for it to be even considered as a "what if" question, would she not? And that is not what she said. Her story is that the guy who just thrust a huge knife from her kitchen deeply into the backs of her sleeping boys then tried to cut her throat instead of stabbing her, and he didn't slash it because the evidence says it was a slow, hesitating cut, not a clean slash, that missed any lethal areas. Are we going to "what if" about things that even the defendant is not saying? As much as she thinks of her own body and those prize *advertiser censored* of hers, she should at least imply he wanted her badly enough to kill her kids for her and she has never said that.

 

[accordn2me]

HoT, there were hairs that were never identified - a pubic hair and a limb hair.

Cowgirl, I'm not exactly new to this case....several years ago I posted for a while on another forum...unfortunately, my recall is not as good as Goody's...I have to relearn stuff...so I feel new again. As far as Darlie trying to clean up blood, I know the police, with their pictures of cleaning supplies sitting on the countertop next to the sink, implied that Darlie tried to clean up. But in the picture, you can see blood everywhere! It doesn't look like she tried to clean anything up. There was very little blood in the sink because she wet towels. Wet towels are an undisputed fact. Whether she tried to clean up or not...I think that is an allegation made by police and bought into by authors trying to sell sensational stories.

Luminol, a substance used to detect the presence of blood where it is not visible to the naked eye, was used in this case where you not only see blood, you see several pints of blood. I don't believe they used the Luminol on places like the gate, window in garage, or anywhere they couldn't already see blood. :doh:

Just like y'all are saying it makes no sense for an intruder to________, well, it makes no sense for Darlie or Darin to have done this either! A perfect stanger makes more sense to me than a family member. Darin arranging a hit on Darlie is a long shot idea, but stranger things have happened - like mothers killing their children. Making the intruder story work is hard. It's harder for me to make Darlie doing it work. Darin doing it is another story.

 

[HeartofTexas]

Accordn, I guess I don't remember anything about the pubic hair. Like you, it's been a few years and my memory isn't near what some of these girls have!

Why is it hard for yo to make it work with Darlie? Is it because we, as a society, are conditioned to thinking moms could never commit such heinous crimes? I'm always shocked when I read about these crimes but I've definitely found myself allowing it to sink in. The main thing I've found myself doing in recent years is watching two things... their words and their actions. If they match, I'm okay with everything they say. But if they don't match, I go only with their actions because it's much harder to lie about them. What I've begun to realize is that almost invariably when their words and actions don't match I'm staring in the face of a sociopath. And once that happens, I know anything is possible. I don't always know the motive (as if any motive that involved killing children or wives could even be explained in the first place), but I can tell when things don't add up. Maybe words and actions not matching is too subtle for some people to believe but for me it always takes me to the bottom line. The truth is so easy to tell... it doesn't involve anything except repeating what has taken place. But lies will trip you up every time because it involves a whole series of adding and deleting and keeping up with what you said 3 minutes earlier. Another important thing about lying is that it screams a message to whoever is listening that this person is covering something up. And when I put a murder with a cover-up, it's easy for me to arrive at the truth as I know it. Darlie's story changed over and over (16 times?), and I won't bother recanting each of them. But they involved so many different versions to the point she finally claimed total traumatic amnesia... which was probably just her way of finally saying I can't explain all of the inconsistencies in what I've said.

 

[justice2]

Dani_T

I'm like you. I wonder what's up with Dana. The thing that I found strange is she is the only one of the two families that acts like she has any emotions. I did wonder why she never answered what kinda of "mood" Darlie was in when she left the Routier house that night (from the Leeza show).

Blood evidence. I'm glad everyone here is sticking to the evidence and not getting emotional about this case. Could someone who is well-read on the blood evidence post a sticky to this forum summarizing it so we have a good reference to go to?

Personally I "thought" she did it even before I saw the silly-string video, but as far as convicting her I don't know enough yet. And like 90% of you here I think Darin is involved.

 

[Cowgirl]

But a stranger could not have cut that screen with a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and that is the ultimate bottom line for me. Someone asked me to opine on something disregarding that fact. Well, I cannot disregard that fact because it is the damn bottom line. It cannot go away, no one can make it go away, and there is no innocent explanation for it. None. Almost all the other evidence you can explain away, even with a lame story. But not the knife and screen and the knife back in the butcher block. It just could not happen with an intruder. I don't know or care about Darin, frankly, because if he is in on it, Darlie is letting him off. She would not do that if he did it and she had no part in it.

I know for me it is hard to figure how any mom could do this. But then I see her with her shorts on and the silly string, chomping on gum like a cow, and it isn't so much that partying like a kid is inappropriate for me. I am amazed that she is up and walking around. You would have to put me in a straight jacket had that happened to me and I could not be going about the business of burying my kids. I would be tearing through the streets of Rowlett to find the son of a biatch who did that to my kids! That is why I don't care that I don't get her motive because I don't get her reaction to the death and/or murder of her kids. Even if I lost my mind and did it, once I realized the kids were dead, my life would be over.

 

[HeartofTexas]

I agree, Cowgirl. It's not the spectacle she made of herself over the silly string, or the chomping and chewing and smiling and twisting and contorting herself before the cameras... it's the entire lack of any emotion other than performing. How could she even stand upright? She says it's what they would have wanted. Riiiight. What they wanted was to live.

I would think anyone who stepped in that house that night and saw the carnage there would be forever changed. Forever.

 

[Dani_T]

Wet towels are an undisputed fact.

They are? I must have missed the memo on that one. Could you point out where you heard that they are an undisputed fact?

Whether she tried to clean up or not...I think that is an allegation made by police and bought into by authors trying to sell sensational stories.

How did blood get onto the bottom of the cabinet handle underneath the sink - the cabinet which held cleaning supplies? And how did blood get inside that cabinet?

 

[beesy]

accordn2me]HoT, there were hairs that were never identified - a pubic hair and a limb hair.

Those hairs mean nothing unless they were found on Darlie, especially the pubic hair. It would need to be found near her whoo-hoo for it to mean anything. There is no way everybody who had ever sat on that sofa could be tested. A rape test was done and showed no semen or foreign pubic hairs. A limb hair was found on the sock, a deer hair was too. Neither means much one way or the other.

As far as Darlie trying to clean up blood, I know the police, with their pictures of cleaning supplies sitting on the countertop next to the sink, implied that Darlie tried to clean up. But in the picture, you can see blood everywhere! It doesn't look like she tried to clean anything up. There was very little blood in the sink because she wet towels. Wet towels are an undisputed fact. Whether she tried to clean up or not...I think that is an allegation made by police and bought into by authors trying to sell sensational stories.

Did you even read my post? The evidence I'm referring to has nothing to do with the blood that could be seen. You don't need cleaning supplies to wipe up fresh blood from a surface like the counter or leather sofa or was it "pleather"? I don't remember a photo showing cleaning supplies on the counter anyway. There is not blood everywhere on the kitchen counter top, there is not blood everywhere on the sofa. There are a few smears and dots. Again, Darlie didn't mention wetting towels until the walk-thru when she noticed they'd taken the kitchen sink.

Luminol, a substance used to detect the presence of blood where it is not visible to the naked eye, was used in this case where you not only see blood, you see several pints of blood. I don't believe they used the Luminol on places like the gate, window in garage, or anywhere they couldn't already see blood. :doh:

Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).

Just like y'all are saying it makes no sense for an intruder to________, well, it makes no sense for Darlie or Darin to have done this either! A perfect stanger makes more sense to me than a family member. Darin arranging a hit on Darlie is a long shot idea, but stranger things have happened - like mothers killing their children. Making the intruder story work is hard. It's harder for me to make Darlie doing it work. Darin doing it is another story.

:banghead:

 

[accordn2me]

They are? I must have missed the memo on that one. Could you point out where you heard that they are an undisputed fact?

I would love to look it up for you but I'm suffering from poison ivy exposure and I have about 24,000 things I need to do before school starts...next week!

How did blood get onto the bottom of the cabinet handle underneath the sink - the cabinet which held cleaning supplies? And how did blood get inside that cabinet?

The same way it got on the garage and kitchen floor. The same way the glass got on the carpet. The same way the cleaning supplies got on top of the counter next to the sink.

 

[accordn2me]

Those hairs mean nothing unless they were found on Darlie, especially the pubic hair. It would need to be found near her whoo-hoo for it to mean anything. There is no way everybody who had ever sat on that sofa could be tested. A rape test was done and showed no semen or foreign pubic hairs. A limb hair was found on the sock, a deer hair was too. Neither means much one way or the other.

It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?

I don't remember a photo showing cleaning supplies on the counter anyway.

Well, there must not be one then!:doh:

Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).

:banghead:

There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts) and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

 

[accordn2me]

Why is it hard for yo to make it work with Darlie? Is it because we, as a society, are conditioned to thinking moms could never commit such heinous crimes?

It's probably that along with lack of motive.

 

[accordn2me]

But a stranger could not have cut that screen with a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and that is the ultimate bottom line for me. Someone asked me to opine on something disregarding that fact. Well, I cannot disregard that fact because it is the damn bottom line. It cannot go away, no one can make it go away, and there is no innocent explanation for it. None. Almost all the other evidence you can explain away, even with a lame story. But not the knife and screen and the knife back in the butcher block. It just could not happen with an intruder.

I know. It's also the clincher for Dani_T and she really knows a lot about it.

Without a rebuttal from a defense expert, I can not accept Linch's opinion about the fiber and dust. He was wrong about the hair being Darlie's. He very well could be wrong about this. The hair was police contamination. This could easily be the case with the fiber and dust. Linch himself said that further testing is needed. Additionally, he said it was a grave error on the part of the defense not to have further testing done.

 

[Mary456]

I would love to look it up for you but I'm suffering from poison ivy exposure and I have about 24,000 things I need to do before school starts...next week!

The Darlies always seem to get very busy when they're hit with a hard question, lol! I've seen it at least a hundred times over the years: "gotta vacuum the carpet, gotta plant a tree, gotta study for my final exam in criminal justice. I'll get back to you next week."

They figure people will forget to follow up, but I'm holding you to this one, Accordn2me. I'm looking forward to hearing you back up the 'indisputable fact' that Darlie wet towels in the sink. Is it ok if I check back on August 15th? That gives you 8 whole days!

 

[Dani_T]

The same way it got on the garage and kitchen floor. The same way the glass got on the carpet. The same way the cleaning supplies got on top of the counter next to the sink.

Oh dear- the police? Them nasty little buggers. The should know better than to have blood dripping off their hands to leave a nice little run of blood in that cabinet underneath the sink.

BTW- sorry to hear about the poison ivy. We don't have it down here but I always remember being intrigued as I read about it as a kid.

 

[Dani_T]

Without a rebuttal from a defense expert, I can not accept Linch's opinion about the fiber and dust. He was wrong about the hair being Darlie's. He very well could be wrong about this. The hair was police contamination. This could easily be the case with the fiber and dust. Linch himself said that further testing is needed. Additionally, he said it was a grave error on the part of the defense not to have further testing done.

:bang:

He was not wrong about the hair being Darlie's. Everything he said about that hair was completely correct. I'd challenge you to show me how he was wrong but since you are busy I'll do it myself.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

Microscopically, the hair recovered
4 from this window was similar to the defendant's head
5 hair. It was naturally brown down toward the root end
6 and the distal portion of the hair had been bleached.
7 By bleaching, I mean that there was
8 chemical treatment that removes the pigment grains, and
9 that sort of handicaps the examiner because in doing a
10 hair comparison under the microscope the examiner is
11 looking for pigment grain pattern.
12 And so, the hair comparison becomes a
13 matter of pigment grain comparison. In this particular
14 hair, there was no pigment grain to compare, so all you
15 had was the bleached to compare.
16 And so microscopically, the hair from
17 the window did look like the hair that I had gotten from
18 the defendant.
19 Q. Well, did you just leave it at that,
20 or did we have additional testing done on that head hair?
21 A. In doing forensic hair comparison, the
22 first step is, and always will be, microscopic
23 comparison. But now in 1997, we're able to go further,
24 if there is root tissue present to attempt genetic marker
25 typing. And, in addition to that, even the absence of
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2849
1 root tissue, perhaps the newest technology, mitochondrial
2 DNA, that you can do on just a dry hair shaft. The only
3 people in the country doing that now is the FBI, but we
4 plan to implement it.
5 Q. Now, on this head hair then, was there
6 enough root material that you could actually do DNA?
7 A. There was enough to attempt. You
8 never know until you try the test.
9 Q. All right. When the testing was done,
10 did the head hair actually come back to belonging to
11 Officer Sarah Jones of the Rowlett Police Department?
12 A. The genetic typing from this hair from
13 the window was consistent with Officer Sarah Jones with
14 the Rowlett Police Department.
15 Q. All right. Now, if you had that head
16 hair today, and you were asked to do a microscopic
17 comparison between that head hair and that of Darlie
18 Routier over here, would your microscopic comparison
19 results be any different than they were before the DNA
20 testing?
21 A. No. Microscopically, the hairs that I
22 got from the defendant and the hairs that I got from the
23 Sarah Jones are microscopically identical.
24 Again, they are hairs that are
25 naturally brown, that have been bleached, and bleaching
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2850
1 removes the comparison feature from the microscopy, so I
2 would have the same conclusion

He was not wrong about the head hair.

You have absolutely no reason to mistrust or doubt his conclusions about the knife fibers. The pictures are in MTJD for everyone to see- you can tell they are microscopically identical. There are two separate pieces of evidence on the same knife both of which were produced by cutting the screen.

Ack. Why do I bother? We've been through it all before. It's just an excuse for you to hold onto any hope that there was an intruder.

BTW- I'm still waiting to hear how the bloody knife imprint/impression holds up under the intruder theory.

 

[accordn2me]

Here's the rest of it Dani_T:

BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. You know there was a conclusion you
21 drew to -- I will get to it I guess in a minute, where I 22 was thinking that very same thing. It's sort of like the
23 glass is half full or the glass is half empty. You could
24 draw whatever conclusion you wanted to from it, couldn't
25 you?


1 A. I report a scientific finding and I
2 leave it to the lawyers to do the conclusions.
3 Q. Well, whoever drew a conclusion that
4 that was Darlie Routier's hair in that window was wrong,
5 didn't they? Isn't that right?
6 A. That firm conclusion was not reached.
7 The conclusion that was reached was, at that time, she
8 could not be excluded as the donor of that hair.

9 Q. No, my question is: Anyone who drew a
10 conclusion from what you had testified, from what you
11 reported and from what you have testified to, anyone who
12 drew a conclusion that that was Darlie Routier's hair

13 that was taken out as she went out that window, that
14 person drew a wrong conclusion, didn't they?
15 A. They would be wrong in concluding
16 that, and they would also be wrong in not concluding the
17 other possibility of how that hair got there.

2 Q. Okay. So, were you made aware of the
3 fact that your microscopic analysis -- well, your
4 microscopic analysis was correct, wasn't it?
5 A. I would issue the same report today,
6 yes.
7 Q. You later found out that a scientific
8 testing method had proven that what you saw was not --
9 well, that it was not fair to draw the conclusion that it
10 was Darlie Routier's hair from based on what you had
11 seen?
12 A. A more discriminating test excluded
13 her as the donor of that hair.

21 Q. So, in any event, it's more
22 discriminating than your eyeball with your microscope?
23 A. If done properly, yes, sir.

22 Q. And so, what that shows is, that your
23 microscopic evaluation, although done with the highest 24 technology and with the greatest expertise, later proved,
25 or it was later proved that that head hair was not in


1 fact Darlie Routier's?
2 A. That's right. And it was also done
3 with the knowledge that it was least conclusive because I
4 didn't have a large number of comparison characteristics.
5 Q. But it was not so inconclusive that
6 you didn't feel comfortable testifying in a court of law
7 about it?
8 A. No, I would testify today, that the

9 hair from the window was microscopically similar to the
10 hairs that I got from Mrs. Routier, and I will also
11 testify that the hair from the window is microscopically
12 similar to the hairs of Sarah Jones, who is

13 microscopically similar to Darlie Routier.
14 Q. So if a person puts too much stock in
15 what is microscopically similar, they might draw the
16 wrong conclusion?
17 A. Oh, yeah

 

[accordn2me]

I would love to look it up for you but I'm suffering from poison ivy exposure and I have about 24,000 things I need to do before school starts...next week!

The Darlies always seem to get very busy when they're hit with a hard question, lol! I've seen it at least a hundred times over the years: "gotta vacuum the carpet, gotta plant a tree, gotta study for my final exam in criminal justice. I'll get back to you next week."

They figure people will forget to follow up, but I'm holding you to this one, Accordn2me. I'm looking forward to hearing you back up the 'indisputable fact' that Darlie wet towels in the sink. Is it ok if I check back on August 15th? That gives you 8 whole days!

Look, Mary456, last time we went through this - you accusing me of being a liar to be specific - I looked it up. You know Darlie wet towels. She did. What's the point? Just like last time, there is no point. It is insignificant. Why do you insist on focusing on things that don't matter one bit - like if she cut her feet or not. It's stupid.

 

[accordn2me]

:bang:

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php#1

BTW- I'm still waiting to hear how the bloody knife imprint/impression holds up under the intruder theory.

Here's what I have on the knife imprint:

Mosty/Linch:

22 Q. Let's talk about the knife. What you
23 have -- you can't say that that impression in the carpet
24 is a knife, can you?
25 A. Not to the exclusion of all other
1 objects, no.
2 Q. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't?
3 A. It could be.
4 Q. Could be, and the corollary to could
5 be is could not be or maybe not?
6 A. Or there is, find me something better.
7 Q. Well, but you know that is not my job,
8 don't you, Mr. Linch? That is the State's job, isn't it?
9 A. I see.
10 Q. You know that, don't you?
11 A. I have not been to law school, Mr.
12 Mosty.
13 Q. Okay. How about trusting me on that
14 one?
15 A. I'll trust you on that one.
16 Q. That is the State's job to exclude all
17 of those other.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. So, how about if we go with maybe so,
20 maybe no? Is that good enough?
21 A. It -- of all of the objects in the
22 house, it was the one that fits best in that imprint.
23 Q. So, you won't agree with me, maybe so
24 or maybe no, maybe it is or maybe it isn't?
25 A. Of all of the objects in the house, it


1 is the only one that I identified.
2 Q. Okay. But there are also lots of
3 other things that could do that kind of stuff too. It
4 could be a partial.
5 As a matter of fact, reasonable people
6 could differ about the importance of a blood stain,
7 couldn't they?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. I mean, there are lots of different
10 ways that blood stains could get there. It could be, for
11 instance, the print out on the -- in the garage was not a
12 full print, was it?
13 A. It was a shadow of a smudge.
14 Q. Okay. Would you call it a shoe print?
15 A. I couldn't be that specific, no.
16 Q. The one behind the carpet, would you
17 call that a shoe print?
18 A. That was a faint --
19 Q. Behind the couch, I mean.
20 A. -- that was a faint shoe print.
21 Q. Okay. Now, was this area of carpet
22 cut out?
23 A. Where --
24 Q. Here.
25 A. Not where the imprint is, no.


1 Q. Okay.
2 A. The fibers that make up the imprint
3 were snipped for blood testing.
4 Q. All right. You had apparently been
5 out there two times before and missed this?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. And Cron had been out there and missed
8 this. When did y'all find this?
9 A. This was found after the carpet is
10 removed from the house and has been taken to the Rowlett
11 Police Department.
12 Q. In November, as I recall?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. One thing I remembered was that
15 we came and saw you on November 20th. Did you already
16 have this appointment to go out there on the 21st? Or
17 was it after we talked to you on the 20th, did you call
18 Mr. Davis?
19 A. No. I -- that was one time I did get
20 called. I was called by him to go look.
21 Q. Okay. And y'all went on the 21st, if
22 I remember right.
23 A. Well --
24 Q. It sort of struck me because it was
25 the day after we were there.

1 A. The day after that you visited with
2 me?
3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Is --
5 Q. Well, anyway, it was in November,
6 wasn't it? I don't need to belabor that.
7 A. I think so, yeah.
8 Q. Okay. And so everybody up until that
9 time, nobody had said, "Golly, that could be a knife
10 print in that carpet," to your knowledge?
11 A. That's right.

16 Q. Now, you said that perhaps an intruder
17 might flee with blood on their hands?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. That would be consistent with finding
20 some blood, for instance, on a doorknob, or an exit door?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. It might or might not leave, it would
23 depend on which hand it was on?
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. All right. You saw blood on an exit
1 door, didn't you, on a handle, on the utility room door?
2 A. On the facing area, yes, sir.
3 Q. Now, did you ever see this maroon
4 pillow?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you take that?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. Who collected that?
9 A. That was collected by the Rowlett
10 Police Department.
11 Q. And, it had blood, it had -- this
12 maroon pillow had blood on both sides of it, didn't it?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. But did you collect any of that blood?
15 A. Did I actually remove it from the
16 pillow?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Did Kathryn do that?
20 A. Kathryn did some, yes.
21 Q. Remove that from the maroon pillow?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Did you do any testing on it to
24 determine whose blood was on one side of the pillow and
25 whose blood was on the other side of the pillow?


1 A. I didn't, no.
2 Q. Where was it done? Was it done?
3 A. I think some of it was done down at
4 our laboratory and some was done at Gene Screen.
5 Q. Are you aware of the results of that?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. You know that on that maroon pillow,
8 on one side is the blood of Darlie Routier and on the
9 other side is the blood of Damon Routier?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You know that?
12 A. Right.

13 Q. Okay.
14
15 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: That's all I
16 have.

 

[beesy]

It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?

Interesting, the Darlies are the ones who do what you are saying "oh, that means nothing". So much forensic evidence is dismissed by them as police conspiracies, shoddy work, crappy photos. Not one single Darlie has any proof of an intruder, however there is a mountain of evidence showing that Darlie is a killer.
No, I don't need a video, I have common sense. How could an intruder leave a pubic hair? Where was it found? What color was it? Was every LE tested for it? Was every person who had been in the house tested? Was Dana tested? Was the maid tested? Was Darin tested? Was Darlie tested? Were the paramedics tested? There was no sexual assualt on Darlie, which means most likely an "intruder" would not be walking around with his pants undone, anymore than any of the other people I just mentioned were.

Well, there must not be one then!:doh:

That's not what I meant. It's possible there are photos of cleaning supplies. I'll check out my handy dandy MTJD

There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts)

According to my source there was no HUMAN blood found in the garage or on the window. Who cares if a dog or whatever bled in there? Maybe the dog did it! LOL
You do realize that the defense is entitled to it's own experts, don't you? In other words, they had no rebuttal.

 

[beesy]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: