Bloodstains on Darin's jeans

[beesy]

You should of seen 'em pounce on me when I said Darlie's sentence should be commuted. Challenges get things moving around here. Makes posting much more interesting

Nu uh, don't you dare start that up again, girl

 

[beesy]

My favorite Lucy show was the bread making scene where she gets pinned against the wall by a giant loaf of homemade bread. Reminds me of my first attempt to make dumplins. hahahahahahah.

Ha! Ha! Mine is the one where she gets the loving cup stuck on her head. Then she and Ethel take the subway with Lucy wearing a bee keeper's hat and they get separated

 

[deanws]

I like the one where she is trying to do the commercial on vita-veta-vegium. It must have had a lot of liquor in it because she gets drunk while practicing.

 

[beesy]

I like the one where she is trying to do the commercial on vita-veta-vegium. It must have had a lot of liquor in it because she gets drunk while practicing.

Yeah, I think the bottle said 80 proof or something like that. I remember the stage manager reading it aloud

 

[Goody]

Ha! Ha! [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_1_115.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/7/7_1_115.gif[/url] Mine is the one where she gets the loving cup stuck on her head. Then she and Ethel take the subway with Lucy wearing a bee keeper's hat and they get separated

Let's not forget the one where she lit her artificial nose on fire trying to disguise herself from some actor friend of Ricky's. Was it Milton Berle?

 

[Goody]

I like the one where she is trying to do the commercial on vita-veta-vegium. It must have had a lot of liquor in it because she gets drunk while practicing.

O, that one was funny. So was the one when she was on the assembly line in the chocolate factory. hahahahahah.

 

[deanws]

O, that one was funny. So was the one when she was on the assembly line in the chocolate factory. hahahahahah.

Yeah...when she starts stuffing her face! LOL....Oh and don't forget the one where she is holding cheese wrapped up in a baby blanket.

 

[beesy]

Let's not forget the one where she lit her artificial nose on fire trying to disguise herself from some actor friend of Ricky's. Was it Milton Berle?

William Holden

 

[beesy]

I like the one where she is trying to do the commercial on vita-veta-vegium. It must have had a lot of liquor in it because she gets drunk while practicing.

It's Vitameatavegimon

 

[Goody]

Yeah...when she starts stuffing her face! LOL....Oh and don't forget the one where she is holding cheese wrapped up in a baby blanket.

I don't remember that one, but I loved Lucy. LOL! She was really good at getting into mischief.

 

[beesy]

I don't remember that one, but I loved Lucy. LOL! She was really good at getting into mischief.

She bought this HUGE thing of cheese in France to take back home. It would have cost alot of money on the plane because it was over-sized. So she then found out babes in arms travel for free. She sat with another woman with a baby. The stewardess asked if they needed to put their bottles in the fridge. Lucy said that her baby didn't need to eat because he needed to lose some weight. hee hee..she eventually found out that babies do not travel free on international flights. "LUCY!"
Do you know that somewhere and at sometime Lucy is always playing? It has never gone off the air since the 1st show. It went straight into syndication. Right now somebody is giggling at Lucy

 

[Goody]

She bought this HUGE thing of cheese in France to take back home. It would have cost alot of money on the plane because it was over-sized. So she then found out babes in arms travel for free. She sat with another woman with a baby. The stewardess asked if they needed to put their bottles in the fridge. Lucy said that her baby didn't need to eat because he needed to lose some weight. hee hee..she eventually found out that babies do not travel free on international flights. "LUCY!"
Do you know that somewhere and at sometime Lucy is always playing? It has never gone off the air since the 1st show. It went straight into syndication. Right now somebody is giggling at Lucy

O, but, of course. I wanted to grow up and BE Lucy. She made people laugh.

 

[deanws]

It's Vitameatavegimon

LOL...Ok.

 

[SnootyVixen]

You would make a good point here IF, and I do mean IF you could show us where they found other fibers, even one other fiber the same size and consistency as the one on the bread knife that compares to the screen fibers.

This is what it seems to me. I have a bit of doubt in my mind that a knife used to cut this screen would not have more of these fibers and rubber dust on it. I would believe in that possibility. But then I can also believe that the little brush that they use to scatter the dust particles on the materials that they are investigating for fingerprints could possibly pick up such a thing as scattered microscopic fiberglass peices and dust from the screen. They investigated the window parts around the cut screen with the brush and I think that when the screen is cut that the tiny fibers would fall to the wooden sill below which was brushed and could have picked up some fibers.
Perhaps I am wrong and the fiber was larger than I am thinking but I am thinking that Linch say that he look at it with microscope and saw what looked the same to him as when he cut the screen and gather his own fibers. I think he say that they are look alike to him with the microscope. And that is all he ever did say about this. For the reason that he did not recover another fiber or a larger amount of the dust and so could not do the tests that would say whether or not it was really the same and not just look like the same thing.

To my thinking this is the exact situation as the blonde hair he found in the screen. He look at the hair he find in the screen with his microscope and he also look at a hair from the head of Darlie with his microscope and he think that they appear to be the same because they look the same when he looks at them with his microscope. But with this hair he is able to do more tests that are more positive than looking in a microscope and he then say that the hair does not come from the head of Darlie and later says who it did come from by using DNA investigations.
This is the same exact thing as with the fiber we talk about. Only difference is that he did not have enough to do the more testing and so we all are left with just what he thought when looking at them with the microscope. If the hair evidence had been left at this level of investigation we all would be thinking that the hair was definately from the head of Darlie.
Can you see what I mean?

It is easy to say there could be others there without having to present them as factually correct. No matter how much they tested, there would always be someone saying they might have missed the very one itty bitty, teensy tiny fiber that was just like the one they found, defeating Linch's theory. So that is an argument that doesn't carry much weight. If they tested one hundred things, someone would insist they should have tested 200. If they tested one thousand, someone would be yelling for 2000.


I'm sorry but I can not understnad just what it is you are saying here.


As for his error on the hair, I think he said the blonde hair was consistent with Darlie's bleached hair. The policewoman it belonged to also had bleached hair. But they didn't stop there. They went on with their testing and discovered that it was hers rather than Darlie's.

Yes, this is exactly what I think also.

Ironically, I don't think the policewoman was ever even in the house so the hair must have been transferred by one of the maile police officers, which just shows how easily it is to transfer hairs.

I think she was there and probably stuck her head through the cut in the screen. JonGalt tell us a long long time ago that many or probably most of the police would present themselves at a crime scene such as this when they had no official responsibilities there and also that it was not unusual for these extra looking only police would not be written down by the one who was charged with writing down who entered the scene. She said that it was very common that this happen and I believe her because she was in a former employment a homicide investigator police officer for many years. So what she say about this is the expert opinion. Also she is a police officer in the same area as this crime so she would know what happens there.

(Keep that in mind when you are looking at the deer hair and the negroid pubic hair.)

I do not think there is any thing to be learned by a hair that is found outside and down the street. I do not think that deer hair tell us anything. Even if it is very much a part of the crime scene it can not tell us so because it is found outside and not even just outside, but down the street a little bit. The negroid pubic hair is of a different quality because it was found in the house in the room of the crime I think. Is that not so? And so what is found in the area of the crime scene would have greater value to the investigations. And it would be an easy matter I think to determine if a person with negroid pubic hairs had been in the room. Don't you think so? For myself I have never heard the answer to this question. Was some person ike that there or not. Do you know?
Linch was not wrong about the blonde hairs. They were consistent with each other. They just did not come from the same woman.


Exactly! This is just what I mean about the fiber. It was consistent with the fiber from the screne underneath the microscope. But no stronger tests were ever able to be done on it because it was not enough material I think. What ever was the reason, no more investigation was done and Linch was only testifyng that the two fibers look alike in the microscope. Please say that you understand what I mean.

What are the chances that another fiber the same size and shape and consistency, made out of the same materials would be found in the same house?


Who can say? Who could say what were the chances that a hair that look just like Darlie hairs would be found in the screen she is said to cut and yet it not be from her but from a person who they say was not there? This is not a greater mystery to me I don't think. I would have been thinking that the hair was from Darlie had Linch no done the further investigations.


How coincidental would it have to be for one of those fibers to come from the screen in question and the other from some innocent source in the house? I can't think of a single thing that should cause the fiber to be on the knife that has nothing to do with the murders? Can you? Wouldn't it have to be another screen, from some other window? What innocent explanation could that possibly have?

I must confess that I have not the knowledge of these fiberglass rods to answer your question. I just do not know. I have no proof but it is my opinion that the fiber on the knife is likely to be connected to the crime. I just do not know just how this connection happens.

 

[beesy]

This is what it seems to me. I have a bit of doubt in my mind that a knife used to cut this screen would not have more of these fibers and rubber dust on it. I would believe in that possibility.

[/color]
Ever thought that maybe they rinsed off the knife? Besides it wasn't one teeny weeny piece

But then I can also believe that the little brush that they use to scatter the dust particles on the materials that they are investigating for fingerprints could possibly pick up such a thing as scattered microscopic fiberglass peices and dust from the screen. They investigated the window parts around the cut screen with the brush and I think that when the screen is cut that the tiny fibers would fall to the wooden sill below which was brushed and could have picked up some fibers.

Where'd you get that idea? I don't remember her defense ever bringing that up. Did you read that on her site? Give the man some credit. I think that Linch knows the difference between a screen fiber and a print brush fiber.

To my thinking this is the exact situation as the blonde hair he found in the screen. He look at the hair he find in the screen with his microscope and he also look at a hair from the head of Darlie with his microscope and he think that they appear to be the same because they look the same when he looks at them with his microscope. But with this hair he is able to do more tests that are more positive than looking in a microscope and he then say that the hair does not come from the head of Darlie and later says who it did come from by using DNA investigations This is the same exact thing as with the fiber we talk about. Only difference is that he did not have enough to do the more testing and so we all are left with just what he thought when looking at them with the microscope. If the hair evidence had been left at this level of investigation we all would be thinking that the hair was definately from the head of Darlie.
Can you see what I mean?

Ah, but it wasn't. I love how everybody likes to say LE messed up when they themselves looked closer at that blonde hair. It would never have been admitted as a "for sure" thing. If there was no further testing done, it would have been presented as it was thought: a bleached hair.

I do not think there is any thing to be learned by a hair that is found outside and down the street.

I don't either, but it was found on the sock. Most of her defenders say it proves someone else who had been around deer touched it. Or possibly the deer itself

The negroid pubic hair is of a different quality because it was found in the house in the room of the crime I think. Is that not so? And so what is found in the area of the crime scene would have greater value to the investigations. And it would be an easy matter I think to determine if a person with negroid pubic hairs had been in the room. Don't you think so? For myself I have never heard the answer to this question. Was some person ike that there or not. Do you know?

Why is it imporant? If you could give me some idea of why you feel it's so important that would help. Was the intruder walking around with his pants down? If the hair was found on one of the victims, it MIGHT mean something, but only then. It would also help your argument if Darlie had said the intruder was black

 

[Goody]

But then I can also believe that the little brush that they use to scatter the dust particles on the materials that they are investigating for fingerprints could possibly pick up such a thing as scattered microscopic fiberglass peices and dust from the screen. They investigated the window parts around the cut screen with the brush and I think that when the screen is cut that the tiny fibers would fall to the wooden sill below which was brushed and could have picked up some fibers.

Then they should have found fibers dropped elsewhere as well. The chances that the brush picked up only ONE FIBER and ONE FIBER DUST is pretty darned slim. IF it could happen as you describe, then the brush would surely have picked up two or three and dropped it at variousl locations it was used to dust along the way to the knife block. How do you account for the fact that no other sign of screen fiber or screen fiber dust was found anywhere but in the knife block? It seems to me that it was carried there by the knife, unnoticed by the person who used the knife to cut the screen.

To my thinking this is the exact situation as the blonde hair he found in the screen. He look at the hair he find in the screen with his microscope and he also look at a hair from the head of Darlie with his microscope and he think that they appear to be the same because they look the same when he looks at them with his microscope. But with this hair he is able to do more tests that are more positive than looking in a microscope and he then say that the hair does not come from the head of Darlie and later says who it did come from by using DNA investigations This is the same exact thing as with the fiber we talk about. Only difference is that he did not have enough to do the more testing and so we all are left with just what he thought when looking at them with the microscope. If the hair evidence had been left at this level of investigation we all would be thinking that the hair was definately from the head of Darlie.
Can you see what I mean?

Yes, and you make some good points....EXCEPT that there were all kinds of sources for hair that day. We don't have any other known sources for the fiber and the fiber dust. If you have identical rods and identical fiber dust, even if it is just to the human eye, you have pretty much eliminated all known sources. Certainly every other fiber did not match under the same test.

And so what is found in the area of the crime scene would have greater value to the investigations. And it would be an easy matter I think to determine if a person with negroid pubic hairs had been in the room. Don't you think so? For myself I have never heard the answer to this question. Was some person ike that there or not. Do you know?

A person does not have to be present to have their hair found. Hair can travel on shoes, pant legs, just about on anything it can rest on. So the female cop could have just been standing near another officer for her hair to be found on him later or for him to leave it somewhere else. Same with the public hair. The donor of that hair might have been the garbage man who left it in the alley without even knowing it, then along comes a couple of little boys who pick it up on the shoes and end up tracking it into the house later. There are all sorts of ways the hair could have been transferred. Darin might have picked it up around his shops somewhere and inadvertantly brought it home unbeknownst to him. Unfortunately this hair is not worth much without someone to point at as the donor. If we knew who it belonged to, we might have a better idea what role it might played in the murders, if any at all. We can't just assume because it exists that it automatically means an intruder left it.

Exactly! This is just what I mean about the fiber. It was consistent with the fiber from the screne underneath the microscope. But no stronger tests were ever able to be done on it because it was not enough material I think. What ever was the reason, no more investigation was done and Linch was only testifyng that the two fibers look alike in the microscope. Please say that you understand what I mean.

Have you ever used a microscope to compare things? They magnify every little flaw, grain,etc. It is not the same as you and I looking at it with an untrained eye. Most of the time further testing only confirms the scientist's opinion. Considering how rare the screen fiber and its dust should be in a home, I think they should not have looked alike under the microscope when compared by the scientist. It is not like there was an abundant supply of fibers and most of them were similiar under the microscope. I think you are minimizing the ability of both the expert and the equipment.


The scientist only said the defense should have tested further because he knew that further tests would likely confirm his analyzation. When you look at his statement, he is only factually stating that the defense should have tested further. He never states that he thinks a different result would be found. Imagine how devastating it would have been for Darlie if they had tested further and confirmed Linch's findings. They wouldn't be able to point fingers now in an effort to create doubt about he did find. Surely you can see that?

Who can say? Who could say what were the chances that a hair that look just like Darlie hairs would be found in the screen she is said to cut and yet it not be from her but from a person who they say was not there? This is not a greater mystery to me I don't think. I would have been thinking that the hair was from Darlie had Linch no done the further investigations.

Well, everyone on the scene that night had hair...all different colors of hair. So there were plenty of sources to question. Hence, the reason for the further testing. True, many of those heads were eliminated because of color, but still there was a pretty strong possibility that it was not Darlie's hair.

The fibers are a completely different thing. There are no other plausible sources for it. That knife would have had to cut something that would produce the fiber and fiber dust in order for it to be in the knife block. Not even Darlie remembered using the knife for anything like that. Nothing in the house has ever been suggested as a secondary possible source. In fact, no one has ever suggested even a remote possibility as an alternative source. Why? Because the fiber is from the screen. The only question is who used the knife to cut the screen.

I think you are minimizing the importance of this evidence.

I must confess that I have not the knowledge of these fiberglass rods to answer your question. I just do not know. I have no proof but it is my opinion that the fiber on the knife is likely to be connected to the crime. I just do not know just how this connection happens.

Okay. But if you were on a jury you would have to do better than that. You would have to decide whether to consider the fiber evidence against the defendant or not. And that then comes down to a numbers game. How likely is it really that the fiber came from any other source other than the screen? Most would say not very likely at all.

 

[Desilu]

There is a really great thread here about the fiber evidence on the knife, I remember reading when I was browsing thru the forum.

Post #132 by Dani. And bravo Dani, I learned a lot from this one.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=670385#post670385

 

[SnootyVixen]

There is a really great thread here about the fiber evidence on the knife, I remember reading when I was browsing thru the forum.

Post #132 by Dani. And bravo Dani, I learned a lot from this one.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=670385#post670385

Because I wish to respond to some things said by Dani I have copied this post below.


Quote:
The jury never heard from forensic experts Terry Laber and Barton Epstein, who were retained by Petitioner’s appointed counsel – both of whom were identified by name in the State’s closing arguments as witnesses the defense never called to rebut Linch and Bevel’s testimony.

The investigators Laber and Epstein were relieved of their duties or fired if you will by Mulder.

That's interesting because I just did a word search on the closing arguments for the State using 'Laber' and 'Epstein' and there was nothing found. furthermore I don't see how Laber and Epstein could have been called to rebut Linch and Bevel since if you actually read all of Labers affidavit everything he says is pretty much brought up at trial anyway (eg. the wine glass shards, the whole saga of the vaccum cleaner, how the boys blood got on her shirt etc). There is nothing whatsoever earth-shattering in his affidavit (except perhaps everything he has managed to achieve by the age of 21... looks like he is a pretty smart cookie that one!)

Quote:
The jury never learned that before Linch tested Knife Number 4, the kitchen knives recovered from 5801 Eagle Drive already had been dusted for fingerprints using a fiberglass brush composed of the same material as the fiber removed from that knife.


Strike #89382492384732 for the Darlie Routier appeals team. I gotta tell you I really am getting sick of the misinformation they have published in their writs etc.

2 Q. Let me ask you about one other source
3 of fiberglass. Fingerprint brushes, are they also made
4 of fiberglass?
5 A. Yes, they are. Some of the most
6 common fingerprint brushes used by the police are made of
7 fiberglass.
8 Q. Okay. Over this past weekend, did you
9 meet with Officer Charles Hamilton of the Rowlett Police
10 Department?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Okay. Did you obtain a fingerprint
13 brush from Rowlett?
14 A. Officer Hamilton left his fingerprint
15 brush at my laboratory over Saturday.
16 Q. All right. Did you compare the
17 fiberglass that made up his fingerprint brush with
18 fiberglass that you found on the knife blade and the
19 screen also?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. All right. What were your findings
22 when you looked at his fingerprint brush and fiberglass
23 that made it up?
24 A. The fiberglass rods that make up these
25 fingerprint brushes are almost twice as thick as the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3038
1 fiberglass in the screen. So they are very, very
2 different. The fingerprint brush rods are much larger.

Quote:
No definitive tests were conducted to determine the source of the fiber. Linch could testify only that the fiber was “consistent” with the garage screen window... he had reached a similar conclusion about a hair found in the same garage window screen that he opined was “consistent” with Petitioner’s hair


And the question that needs to be asked from here is- was he wrong? On either count? No. The hairs were microscopically identical and he himself testified that he would issue the exact same report today. DNA testing showed it was not her hair but under the microscope they have the same microscopic charactertistics. Are you suggesting that perhaps he should have reported that they were NOT microscopically identical when they in fact were? No matter what he does Linch just can't please anyone can he?


As for testifying that the fibreglass rod - the hair is a strawman article. Whether it belong to Darlie or not it was still a hair. The fibreglass rod and the rubber debris were microscopiclaly identical to exactly what was produced when you cut that screen with that bread knife. There was absolutely no difference between the fibres and debris. They were two separate pieces of evidence which he testified came from the same source. He went through the house and was unable to find anything else that could have remotely produced that evidence in combination. He compared Hamilton's brush and it was clearly inconsistent.


This is the important part. The hair whether or not belonging to Darlie or another is still a hair????? Yes, I think all probably agree with that statement. But the fact that it was a hair is not realy what is important is it? I think that what is important is that the hair did not come from the head of Darlie but from the hair of someone that the EVIDENCE say was never even present. Because Linch tells that the two hairs are identical to him with his microscope the law assumes that it is the hair of Darlie and for a while it was used for evidence of her being the guilty one. later Linch did more complicated testing and discover with DNA that it was not the hair of Darlie and so it have to be dismissed as evidence against Darlie. The damage was done however.

Now to the fiberglass rod and the dust and debris. All microscopic I will also say. Linch cuts a similar screen but not THE screen I think and gets a lot of these fiberglass rods and dust and debris upon his knife. He look at both these and the ones from the kitchen of Darlie and he say that they are both identical to him with using his microscope. And there he stops and there you are believing him that because they are identical with the microscope they are a fact of being identical.
You only have to go to your argument above to see that this cannot be a wise thing to be thinking. We all have already seen a case with the hairs where identical with the microscope turn out to be not identical at all with more investigation.

But there is now the situation where Linch cannot do further investigations on the fiber and debris. Because there is not enough of the evidence collected to do any more investigating into their absolute source. So all he can say is microscopically identicle which we already see does not matter.

When Linch cuts his screen he get a large amount of these fiberglass rods and debris on his knife. Not a tiny amount like on the Darlie knife. I can believe that some of the stuff on the Darlie knife fall off on the way back to the kitchen. But there is no evidence of that.
Whatever the rods making up the fingerprint brush is not what is important, that is not the same thing as using the brush on the window and then using it on the knifes and being able to say of a certainty that the brush did not contaminate the knife. It simply cannot be proven that it did and there is that liklihood as transfer of evidence inadvertently is known to happen.
In the trial Linch say the knife had not been used for fingerprinting and now he say that it had. Both times he speak he is under the oath to tell the truth.

You cannot say that because no more of these fibers and debris were found along the path that the fingerprint brush was used is important, because Linch did not look at all these things with his microscope. Things like washing machines and like that. And you cannot say that something collected on brush fibers by accident will fall off at any certain point. Logic says that it would fall off more likely on the things brushed right after doing the window.
But, is there any evidence that Linch examined the fingerprint sticky tapes that were collected with his microscope to see if there were more of these finbers that might be transfer contamination? I do not remember any testimony to that.

What I see here is that you are using hair and fiber and apply vastly different standards for proof to them.


Quote
ikewise, the jury was given no evidence regarding a possible alternative source of the fiber Charles Linch said he recovered from Knife Number 4.


What strike number are we up to now?



Zero I think.

Quote:
Linch testified that the fiber was “consistent” with the material from the garage window screen. This testimony invited the jury to infer erroneously that Petitioner had cut the screen herself to create the false exit of the alleged intruder


Well gee whiz. We've got a bread knife with two independent pieces of evidence which were at one time joined which are microscopically identical to what is produced when you cut the screen with the same knife (right down to the diameter of the rods and the coloured pigment in the rubber. We've got no other possible sources in the house to produce this combination of evidence. We've had the fingerprint brush excluded. What other reasonable inference is there?


PALENICK: It is my opinion that if Knife Number 4 was dusted using a brush and fingerprint powder, and if the knives in the same block were also dusted using a brush and fingerprint powder, then it is possible that the fibers in Knife Number 4 came from the brush used to dust the knives found in the kitchen, rather than from the garage window screen.

It was already ruled out during trial that the fingerprint brush was the source of the fibre.

Here I think is a lack of complete understanding of what this Palenick is telling. When he say thqt it is possible that the fibers in knife number 4 came from the brush used to dust the knife then he may be saying that it was a transfer of evidence from the windowsill to the knife. Where does he say that he is speaking of the fibers composing the brush hairs?

Quote:
If defense counsel had presented evidence demonstrating that the knives had been contaminated by the fingerprint dusting that was done before Linch received the knives for testing, counsel could have eliminated the significance attached to that otherwise dramatic piece of scientific eviden

No they couldn't have. There were two pieces of evidence on the knife which had at one time been in combination. The fingerprint powder would not and could not account for this.

The piece of evidence is as dramatic as ever.

I agree that the fingerprint powder was not it qnd the brush was not it. But I still say that the transfer of fiber and debris from the windowsill to the knife by the brush is a possibility. Please do note that I do not claim my thoughts are the absolute correct ones.

 

[beesy]

Oh surely Darin could have been hacking away at one of his motherboards with the bread knife Goody

ha, ha..now I see why their work orders were dwindling.

 

[beesy]

LOL...Ok.

I looked at my tree ornament and it's actually Vitameatavegamin. Remember the first spoonful she took she shivered and made this horrible face? A few times later, she was swigging it from the bottle.