Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Goody]

There's appellate argument I've never heard. . . the courtroom was too cold and I couldn't think.

Goody, we DO need a spillchucker on this forum. I think its icicles, but don't hold me to it.

:laugh: I agree. My spelling memory has taken a hike lately. I can't spell anything. It is tough to get old. The brain cells are the first to go.

I agree on the cold courtroom excuse there, Jeana. It was not the most desirable situation but as the kids say these days....stuff happens. The courts just like the rest of us make do with what we have to work with. Nobody's teeth were chattering. Now that might have been an appellate issue. The juries teeth were chattering so loud they drowned out the testimony. LOL!

 

[Goody]

I wonder why, too! Until you explained the money issue, I couldn't think of any reason at all. Now, I'd say greed is the reason

How can you say greed????? He had three attorneys and one investigator at the very least to pay, and every attorney had a staff to pay as part of the representation plus outside expenses. The attorneys had to get considerably less than $30,000 and after expenses? You figure the math. Where is the budget for lab work?

. Let's read to see what Laber says:
8. In late October or November 1996, I met with Douglas Mulder and his investigator, Lloyd Harrell, to discuss the testing that Barton Epstein and I had conducted to date. Barton Epstein did not attend that meeting.

9. During the meeting, I provided Mr. Mulder and Mr. Harrel with a general overview of the work done to date by Mr. Epstein and I. It was my impression that neither Mr. Mulder nor Mr. Harrell seemed particularly interested in that work. Both men asked me only a few questions. The meeting lasted about two hours.

They didn't have a budget for it, unlike the PD's who did. The state was paying for their lab work. Surely you don't expect Mulder and team to pay for the testing FOR Darlie, do you?

10. Following the meeting, I expected that Douglas Mulder or one of his colleagues would follow up with me because the time in the introductory meeting was not sufficient time to explain in necessary depth the forensic significance of the analysis Barton Epstein and I had performed or had recommended be performed. Mr. Mulder did not retain either Barton Epstein or me to perform any of the testing we recommended, and so we discontinued all work on the case. I had no further involvement in the trial of Darlie Lynn Routier after November 1996.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-07.php


Mulder didn't even bother to meet with Barton Epstein!

Again, where was the money to pay for all this? That lab work would have cost thousands of dollars.

Here's what Laber says Mulder could have attacked:


6. Barton Epstein and I recommended to Mr. Parks and Mr. Huff that certain samples of physical evidence that we reviewed be analyzed to test the State's theory that the crime scene at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas had been stated. For example:

a. Fiber and Opaque Material Said to Have Been Removed from Bread Knife: We recommended that microscopic and/or elemental comparison tests be conducted on the fiberglass and opaque materials removed from a bread knife to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage of 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.!

Here are some keywords: to substantiate or dispute the State's theory What happens if the tests substantiate the state's theory? Good for the state, bad for Darlie?

b. Other Fibers Said To Have Been Removed from Knife on Counter: We recommended that the apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter be microscopically examined to determine their source.

c. Darlie Routier's Nightshirt: Based on defects (i.e. cuts) observed on the left side of the nightshirt, we determined that additional testing was required to identify the source of the defects. In addition, we recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of the nightshirt.

d. Hoover Vacuum Cleaner: Based on our visual examination of the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner, we determined that genetic testing was required to determine the source of the blood.

e. Carpet: We recommended DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on the carpet from 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.

f. Darin Routier's Blue Jeans: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans.

g. Pillow and furniture: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas on the living room furniture, pillow and on the wine rack.!

They were fishing. They had no hook to offer Mulder on which he could hang his defense on. Even worse, they were offering the possibility that much of this testing very likely would support the state's theory. Once their findings became a hard copy report, how was Mulder supposed to keep it out of the hands of the state?

I admit that I don't know all of the interworkings between the defense and state in cases like this. I have some law classes under my belt, but am certainly no expert. I am still learning. But it makes sense to me that attys would not want findings that go against their client to become carved in stone in some expert's report when it is so easy to try to create reasonable doubt around the state's reports. If you can get the jury to dance with you, you can bat a homerun without ever hitting the ball.

I think Mulder knew by then that she was guilty and felt his best strategy was to create as much smoke and mirrors as he could. Those old Texas farmers just didn't buy into it like the more liberal Dallas folks might have.

. Laber continued:

11. Based on the analysis I performed in this case, it was my professional opinion in November 1996, and is my professional opinion today, that there were numerous pieces of physical evidence we reviewed that were not consistent with a staged crime scene. .!

I don't believe the staging mattered that much. It was supporting evidence, that if they could prove the cast off blood on her shirt was not from the stabbing knife or the fiber on the bread knife was not from the screen, would have been worthy of a real focus. Without refuting these two things though, I am not sure it matters if she staged the scene or not.

. For example:

a. Review of the blood spatter on and near the vacuum cleaner indicated that the vacuum cleaner had not been pushed around by someone bleeding, but, instead, that most of the bleeding had occurred after the vacuum cleaner had been knocked down..!​

So what? They aren't accounting for the wheel marks THRU the blood or why the wheel marks stop at certain points,then start up again. If the vacuum was tossed into the kitchen by paramedics as some supporters claim, there shouldn't be any wheel marks at all. It is obvious that vacuum was in the kitchen the whole time and that there was some activitiy around it that was never explained, but what they are suggesting doesn't do it either.

. b. The placement of shards of glass below the location of the wine glasses indicated that the wine glass had broken while still in the rack and was not consistent with a person smashing or throwing the glass onto the floor as part of a staged crime scene..!

You never know how important a piece of evidence can be and this one has never been sufficiently explained, though Dani might not agree with me. She, by the way, is very, very good with this evidence. She knows it like the back of her hand. What I find most important about the breaking wine glass is that it proves both Darlie and Darin lied. If it happened while Darlie was still on the couch as the intruder left, Darin could not possibly have heard it where he claimed he did and when he claimed he did. That means he had to be DOWNSTAIRS when it broke, not upstairs as he claimed,and that not only did it not happen when the intruder fled as Darlie claimed but that most of her story is a bold faced lie. Why would she call upstairs for Darin when he was downstairs all along? She said she saw him come down the stairs. That would be a lie, too.


​

. 12. In my professional opinion, scientific testing of the physical evidence would have been critical to Darlie Lynn Routier's defense. Independent testing of that physical evidence was crucial to properly evaluate the State's case. There were numerous potential holes in the State's case that required testing to conform or refute the State's presentation of the evidence and to provide evidence that could well have refuted the State's forensics testimony. These and other tests would have been critical to developing the physical evidence to refute the State's use of forensic and physical evidence and establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence.

a. Based on my blood-spatter analysis experience, for the theory that direct hits of Darlie Lynn Routier's blood being spattered from her stab would precisely covered each blood spatter of her tow sons Damon and Devon to have been correct would have required an extremely unlikely sequence of events. My preliminary analysis of the shirt Darlie Lynn Routier was wearing indicated only minimal area of blood spatter and the critical areas of spatter were not subjected to genetic testing. Genetic testing should have been conducted on those blood-stained areas of Darlie Lynn Routier's nightshirt. In addition, a microscopic examination should have been performed to determine the source of cuts observed on the left-side of the neck of the nightshirt.


b. Testing of the fiberglass and opaque material said removed from the bread knife should have been conducted to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage, and the window screen was cut as part of the staged crime scene.

c. The apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter should have been microscopically examined to determine their source.

d, DNA testing should have been performed on the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner to determine the identity of the persons or persons whose blood was on the vacuum cleaner.

e. DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on carpet and flooring should have been pursued to determine the identity of those who bled or left prints.

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.

g. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas on the furniture, pillow and wine rack to reconstruct the location and movement of individuals at the crime scene.


​

12. It is my professional opinion that further testing and evaluation of the items referenced above in numbered paragraphs 6-11 would help establish if in fact the crime scene was or was not staged. Such testing is necessary to confirm or refute the State's testimonial evidence presented at Darlie Routier's trial and to establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence. For example:


a. DNA testing and/or microscopic examination should be conducted on blood stains left on Darlie Routier's nightshirt, the Hoover vacuum cleaner, furniture items, pillow, wine rack, and all flooring and carpeting samples in the State's custody.

b. Chemical testing of the flooring and carpeting samples should also be explored. In addition, all microscopic slides of fibers and other matter removed from 5801 Eagle Drive should be examined to determine their source and/or to rule out possible sources.

c. Testing of the brush and powder used to dust the knives in the home at 5801 Eagle Drive should be performed and may refute the theory that fiberglass was consistent with the material from the garage window screen.

13. In order to conduct such testing, access to the above-referenced items in the State's custody, as well as samples of the garage window screen and all known blood samples would be required. Although certain testing might use up a portion of the existing sample, none would destroy the sample completely. Thus, there would be remaining sample for the State to conduct confirmatory testing should it desire to do so.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-07.php

The lab gets paid no matter what the findings prove to be, but a defense atty has to be very careful not to set up things that can come back and bite his client in the butt. They aren't saying that they are willing to look for things to refute the state's case. They are saying, let us test all these things and see where it leads us. If it convicts Darlie, oops. Maybe Jeana can weigh in here and tell us what she thinks the proper stragedy should have been. Personally, I would love to know all these answers myself, but not because it would help Darlie. Because it would probably underline her guilt.

 

[Goody]

Instead of taking Linch's testimony further on the "next possible step" or "a test that can be done" or just letting Linch finish his sentences, the defense kept going back to the fact that Linch himself couldn't have done more testing. In fact, according to Linch, he did exactly what he was asked to do. Which, it is not insignificant to note, was absolutely nothing by the defense. So why do you think the defense, in their vigorous attack, didn't actually take the next possible step and have "a test that can be done" done?

Because that was his trial strategy....he was trying to prove that the state had not sufficiently investigated the case. In this instance, they had not done a thorough testing of the evidence.

What you are not taking into consideration is that that one little fiber would not exist anymore if that test they are talking about was done. At least that is my understanding of the testimony/affidavits,etc.

Mulder believed there were enough holes in the state's theories/case that he could win by creating reasonable doubt in the jury's minds. It just didn't work. In a more liberal jurisdiction, it might have worked just fine if not for the cast off blood analysis he didn't know was coming.

 

[Dani_T]

Instead of taking Linch's testimony further on the "next possible step" or "a test that can be done" or just letting Linch finish his sentences, the defense kept going back to the fact that Linch himself couldn't have done more testing. In fact, according to Linch, he did exactly what he was asked to do. Which, it is not insignificant to note, was absolutely nothing by the defense. ?

You're grudge against Mulder has been both amusing and infuriating until this point. However, now it is beginning to severely impair your ability to examine this case.

What the defense was trying to hammer home to the jury over and over again was that despire the fact that the glass rod and the rubber debris were identical to what was produced during the tests that there was still room for reasonable doubt (which of course there wasn't as any sane person would see) that it was all just one big giant coincidence. Of course I took the time a week or so ago to post at some length and in great detail about this piece of evidence and you didn't even bother to respond to it so don't expect me to waste my time on it again. Suffice to say the defense kept wanting Linch to admit that there was a test that COULD be done if it were POSSIBLE to get the material onto the media to confirm that the fibres were from the screen... but that the test WASN'T DONE, because it wasn't POSSIBLE for it to be done in this case and hey- that's gotta mean that there is reasonable doubt doesn't it.

You probably don't care in the slightest but I want to alert you to the fact that if you keep avoiding talking about the evidence and continue to allow your examination of the case to be impaired by your prejudice against the defense team, then people around here will get mighty tired of it very soon and will just stop responding. As I said, you probably don't care but just letting you know.

So why do you think the defense, in their vigorous attack, didn't actually take the next possible step and have "a test that can be done" done

:waitasec: Ummmm - because like any sane person would be able to deduce, they knew what the results of that test would be- that the evidence found on the knife was from the screen. At least by not having the test done they had a slim chance of convincing the jury that the knife fibres were just like the hair. That chance is gone now and so we now see the appeal documents saying "It should be tested!!!"

 

[accordn2me]

You're grudge against Mulder has been both amusing and infuriating until this point. However, now it is beginning to severely impair your ability to examine this case.

What the defense was trying to hammer home to the jury over and over again was that despire the fact that the glass rod and the rubber debris were identical to what was produced during the tests that there was still room for reasonable doubt (which of course there wasn't as any sane person would see) that it was all just one big giant coincidence. Of course I took the time a week or so ago to post at some length and in great detail about this piece of evidence and you didn't even bother to respond to it so don't expect me to waste my time on it again. Suffice to say the defense kept wanting Linch to admit that there was a test that COULD be done if it were POSSIBLE to get the material onto the media to confirm that the fibres were from the screen... but that the test WASN'T DONE, because it wasn't POSSIBLE for it to be done in this case and hey- that's gotta mean that there is reasonable doubt doesn't it.

You probably don't care in the slightest but I want to alert you to the fact that if you keep avoiding talking about the evidence and continue to allow your examination of the case to be impaired by your prejudice against the defense team, then people around here will get mighty tired of it very soon and will just stop responding. As I said, you probably don't care but just letting you know.

:waitasec: Ummmm - because like any sane person would be able to deduce, they knew what the results of that test would be- that the evidence found on the knife was from the screen. At least by not having the test done they had a slim chance of convincing the jury that the knife fibres were just like the hair. That chance is gone now and so we now see the appeal documents saying "It should be tested!!!"

Your effusive adulation for Mulder has blinded you to the fact that much of the State's case was not effectively refuted. I admit I have a major problem swallowing the State's "side of the story" because Mulder and team did nothing to show it could have happened another way. I would like to see the evidence actually addressed using scientific testing and expert intrepretation from other experts than those testifying for the State. I certainly don't claim to be on a level "like any sane person....able to deduce" results from DNA or other scientific tests, which require persons with advanced degrees using high tech labs to conduct. Maybe one day I will get there. It will be especially joyful if I am ever able to do that even before the tests are ever conducted!

I apologize if I hurt your feelings by not quoting you line for line and rudely pointing out your mistakes. My approach in replying to people who have different opinions than I is different than yours. I have read the things you asked me to read - not the entire transcript - but specific areas, and posted relevant material to support my position that Darlie's defense team did not effectively address the State's evidence.

I went back through this thread several times looking for a post of yours which I have not addressed. Where Fritzy's Mom had typed a rebuttal, I may not have added anything. She is a much better writer than I. You are also very good. I can see you have spent a lot of time on and are very knowledgeable about this case. I have learned a lot from you and Goody. If you would please post the number of your post that you believe I ignored, I would love to go back and answer.

 

[accordn2me]

How can you say greed????? He had three attorneys and one investigator at the very least to pay, and every attorney had a staff to pay as part of the representation plus outside expenses. The attorneys had to get considerably less than $30,000 and after expenses? You figure the math. Where is the budget for lab work?

OK, the math (my worst subject). From October 21, 1996 to February 4, 1997 is 106 days. If I simply divide $95,000 by 106, that = $896.23 per day that Mulder was paid if he worked weekends, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

If we subtract 35 days for the weekends and holidays, we will get 71 days (not taking off the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve day or New Year's Eve day). Divide $95,000 by 71 and that = a daily rate of pay at $1338.03.

If I use your figure of $30,000 divided by 71 it comes out to 3 attorneys paid $422.54 per day with $70.41 left over everyday for expenses or whatever.

They didn't have a budget for it, unlike the PD's who did. The state was paying for their lab work. Surely you don't expect Mulder and team to pay for the testing FOR Darlie, do you?


Again, where was the money to pay for all this? That lab work would have cost thousands of dollars.

According to Laber, he and Epstein were on the case from August until Mulder came on in late October. They had already done some testing and analysis for the PD. I'm guessing that they wouldn't have double charged for that work.

I wonder if Darlie and family were told by Mulder, "if you hire me, there will be no more testing to refute the State's evidence, and no money for the experts who have already done some work to come to court and testify for you."

Do you think Darlie wanted all those tests stopped? Do you think she's asking for them now because she knows she can't have them?

Here are some keywords: to substantiate or dispute the State's theory What happens if the tests substantiate the state's theory? Good for the state, bad for Darlie?

The same thing that happened to the psychiatrist for the State who wasn't asked by them to testify in the trial.

Things couldn't get much worse for Darlie.

I think Mulder knew by then that she was guilty and felt his best strategy was to create as much smoke and mirrors as he could.

OK. Did he tell her that? Was he honest and up front about it, and she agreed? If so, oh well! If not, I think she deserves to have the State's evidence refuted by other experts. She's on death row. Why not let all of those issues listed by Laber and the other experts like Linch and Palenick, why not have all of it tested and put to rest once and for all? And preferably before her sentence is carried out.

 

[Dani_T]

Your effusive adulation for Mulder has blinded you to the fact that much of the State's case was not effectively refuted. I admit I have a major problem swallowing the State's "side of the story" because Mulder and team did nothing to show it could have happened another way. I would like to see the evidence actually addressed using scientific testing and expert intrepretation from other experts than those testifying for the State. I certainly don't claim to be on a level "like any sane person....able to deduce" results from DNA or other scientific tests, which require persons with advanced degrees using high tech labs to conduct. Maybe one day I will get there. It will be especially joyful if I am ever able to do that even before the tests are ever conducted!

LOL

The evidence was microscopically identical in every way. You can see it in MTJD. I am not going back to waste my time to make this clear again. And just in case you missed it the first time around here it is in all it's detail. http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=670385&postcount=132

I apologize if I hurt your feelings by not quoting you line for line and rudely pointing out your mistakes.

Huh? What are you talking about????

I have read the things you asked me to read - not the entire transcript - but specific areas, and posted relevant material to support my position that Darlie's defense team did not effectively address the State's evidence.

Which is my point. How about you try addressing the evidence? How about you look at what we do know about the evidence and try to explain how it leaves reasonable doubt. The reason I went to such length to explain the knife fibres to you is because to me it is as close to a smoking gun as this case gets (maybe along with one or two other pieces of evidence) and I thought maybe, just maybe way back at your post #131 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=669872&postcount=131) that you were beginning to actually understand the evidence for yourself (or at least trying). But apparently not.

I went back through this thread several times looking for a post of yours which I have not addressed. Where Fritzy's Mom had typed a rebuttal, I may not have added anything. She is a much better writer than I. You are also very good. I can see you have spent a lot of time on and are very knowledgeable about this case. I have learned a lot from you and Goody. If you would please post the number of your post that you believe I ignored, I would love to go back and answer.

See above.

 

[Mary456]

Your effusive adulation for Mulder has blinded you to the fact that much of the State's case was not effectively refuted. I admit I have a major problem swallowing the State's "side of the story" because Mulder and team did nothing to show it could have happened another way.

I think it's appropriate at this time to ask how Mulder should have refuted some of the evidence. For instance, how could he have challenged the fact that Darlie had no cuts on her feet? By her own account, there was glass "all over the kitchen floor". By her own account, she made several trips from the kitchen sink to the family room and back again, directly across the broken glass.

I've heard it all from supporters. First, we had Darlie's "alligator feet" which were tough as nails. She could walk across hot coals unscathed, so glass was not a problem. Then, we had the nasty nurses who lied about Darlie's torn tootsies. Then we had the police who did a happy dance on the glass and kicked it all over the kitchen (which, btw, I don't understand, because that would support Darlie's claim).

You're very critical of Mulder's ability as a defense lawyer, so I would like to know how he should have refuted this evidence.

 

[accordn2me]

I need to take this a little at a time and respond. You gave me a lot of homework to do! I'm still working on it. I've also been looking at all the bruise testimony. Oh how I wish I could see the pictures that are referred to in the transcripts. :banghead: Does the 'other' Darlie site (not justicefordarlie.net) have the pictures labeled better? If so, could you please provide yet another link to it. thx

LOL- OK.

Let me lay it all out flat for you and then you can come back at me. This is one of the areas of the case which I have spent a lot of time researching and discussing - because I think it is absolutely instrumental to showing there was no intruder (just as I think that the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row). I'm taking this from the transcripts so feel free to look it up yourself. Vol 37 & 34

Please explain how "the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row."

What was found on the knife (designated knife 4)

A fibreglass rod about 10 microns in diameter
Some black/gray pigmented rubber debris
Some glass 'dust' embedded in the debris

Something also to note here- Linch attempted to do further testing on these but he was unable to do so because it was too small. He couldn't transfer them to the appropriate medium. It wasn't that he or the state couldn't be bothered- they were unable to do so.

Something else to note - apologies to everyone else for reposting the same thing again - Linch testified that there was another test that could be done, albeit not by him. Nevertheless, the defense for whatever reason didn't have it done. Oh, I've forgotten,:doh: they have that power which eludes me - to deduce what the tests are going to prove before the tests are done.

Here it is, from the horse's mouth (again):

8. The serration grooves in Knife #4 contained debris consisting of microscopic rubber dust particles and a microscopic fiberglass rod fragment. Based on my forensic microscopic comparison, this material was microscopically consistent *(not identical)* with debris obtained from the garage window screen at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. However, while I was asked only to perform microscopic tests on these samples, microscopic comparison is not the most discriminating method available to determine the source of this debris. If the rubber dust particles and fiberglass rod fragment can be located and removed from the mounting media for testing, more discriminating chemical testing can be performed on this evidence to determine if the debris found in Knife #4 is in fact consistent with the debris from the window screen material. For example, a Fouier Transform Infrared Microscopy (FTIR) test can be used to create a "chemical fingerprint" of the microscopic rubber particles. As a trace evidence analyst, I would recommend such testing be conducted if possible.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-09.php

 

[accordn2me]

I think it's appropriate at this time to ask how Mulder should have refuted some of the evidence. For instance, how could he have challenged the fact that Darlie had no cuts on her feet? By her own account, there was glass "all over the kitchen floor". By her own account, she made several trips from the kitchen sink to the family room and back again, directly across the broken glass.

I've heard it all from supporters. First, we had Darlie's "alligator feet" which were tough as nails. She could walk across hot coals unscathed, so glass was not a problem. Then, we had the nasty nurses who lied about Darlie's torn tootsies. Then we had the police who did a happy dance on the glass and kicked it all over the kitchen (which, btw, I don't understand, because that would support Darlie's claim).

You're very critical of Mulder's ability as a defense lawyer, so I would like to know how he should have refuted this evidence.

What number are you....208...I might be a while getting back to you. I am determined to address Dani's issues first. In the meantime, you could go back and look at my posts on this thread, on or about #195 & 196 are just two of several suggestions of what Mulder could have done. All Mulder did do during the entire trial was make feeble attempts to put out fires. Take a look at the list of defense witnesses, then compare that to the prosecution's witness list. It looks as if Mulder gave up before he ever started.

 

[Dani_T]

Please explain how "the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row."

The testimony (and common sense) tells you that the impression/imprint/outline (whatever we want to call it) was made by someone holding a knife in their hand and actively feeding blood onto that knife so that it was gathering at the tip which is where the blood outline is so heavy. The knife was in the hand of someone who had blood being fed onto the knnife through an open wound.

Something else to note - apologies to everyone else for reposting the same thing again - Linch testified that there was another test that could be done, albeit not by him. Nevertheless, the defense for whatever reason didn't have it done. Oh, I've forgotten,:doh: they have that power which eludes me - to deduce what the tests are going to prove before the tests are done.

Here it is, from the horse's mouth (again):

And here it is from my mouth (again and again)-

Linch was unable to do the test because the evidence was too small to transfer to the necessary media (see the transcripts and also the affidavit you posted). He was fully capable of doing the test and even attempted to do the test but the physical state of the evidence prohibited him from doing so.

The defense didn't have the test done for two reasons
1. Because in 1996 the technology didn't allow them to do so because the evidence was too small to put onto the appropriate media (note that in his 2002 affidavit Linch didn't say anything he had not already said at trial on this matter).

2. But the clincher is because they knew what they would find and end up having in black and white on the page for the world to see- the fibreglass rod and the black pigmented rubber debris with embedded glass particles were from the screen.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the results of the microscopic comparison and know beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence found on the knife was produced when it was used to cut the screen. If you have read through the post I linked to above you will already know that. Had they had that test done prior to her trial they would have had the matching chemical composition in black and white, on a piece of paper, for the state to wave around proving that someone in that house had used the bread knife to cut the screen.

The only chance they had on this particular issue was to not have the testing done and hope and pray they could convince the jury that these two independent pieces of evidence on the bread knife just both happened to be there from some other source, despite the fact that theywere microscopically identical to the elements in the screen. That's why the cross examination of Linch comes back to the screen fibre three of four times and throws in long and boring discussions on polymer substances (which have little or nothing to do with the evidence) and other possible sources and the process of Linchs experimentation etc. They came at him on every angle they could about the screen fibres and it just didn't work. It was clear to anyone with 2 licks of sense that it couldn't all just be coincidence on top of coincidence on top of coincidence (on top of all the other coincidences her case is based on).

 

[Dani_T]

Oh how I wish I could see the pictures that are referred to in the transcripts. Does the 'other' Darlie site (not justicefordarlie.net) have the pictures labeled better?

I just had a quick look for you at the galleries online. In Gallery 6 the images you want to look at for the bruising have the exhibit numbers on them- did you see that? You should be able to cross-reference the photos with the exhibit numbers in the transcripts when you read about the bruising testimony.

The arm photos they have in Gallery 6 are all state exhibits and are probably the best at showing the bruising. However, remember the ones where she is holding her arm out and not lying in the bed were taken on the 10th June at the police station and not at the hospital.

If you are super keen I just checked and there is a copy of MTJD being sold on ebay at the moment at a fairly good rate (considering it is completely out of print). http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4545145191&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V

 

[Mary456]

What number are you....208...I might be a while getting back to you. I am determined to address Dani's issues first. In the meantime, you could go back and look at my posts on this thread, on or about #195 & 196 are just two of several suggestions of what Mulder could have done.

I'm not a number, at least I don't think I am, lol! I'm just a simple person who asked you a very simple question: how should Mulder have refuted the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet after walking through broken glass?

If you can't answer it, fine. But please don't tell me to look up past messages from you that simply accuse Mulder of being an incompetent attorney. Some specific examples of how Mulder could have refuted this evidence (without making a fool out of himself) would be most appreciated.

 

[accordn2me]

If you are super keen I just checked and there is a copy of MTJD being sold on ebay at the moment at a fairly good rate (considering it is completely out of print).

THANKS! Since you were so nice to look it up, I ordered it.

I decided years ago (when someone offered to let me borrow a copy) that it would probably do a number on me to look some of those pictures. However, it's just too much I can't follow along on without having the others.

 

[accordn2me]

I'm not a number, at least I don't think I am, lol! I'm just a simple person who asked you a very simple question: how should Mulder have refuted the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet after walking through broken glass?

If you can't answer it, fine. But please don't tell me to look up past messages from you that simply accuse Mulder of being an incompetent attorney. Some specific examples of how Mulder could have refuted this evidence (without making a fool out of himself) would be most appreciated.

I called you 208, but that was your post. I see your number is 456.

About your question, Mulder should not have refuted "the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet." Is that really evidence? I don't think so. I don't think it's important in the least.

You know what I do think is important. That bloody knife imprint in the carpet. The state implied that the blood was Darlie's. However, of all the things they did tests for, they didn't offer a conclusive test saying it was in fact her blood. I wonder why they didn't. Mulder could have refuted their implication that it was Darlie's blood by at the least saying something to the effect of: "If that were Darlie Routier's blood don't you think the State would be waving the test results all around this courtroom! You know they would be, ladies and gentlemen, but they are not! Now ask yourselves why....." (Jeana, how'd I do? )

 

[Dani_T]

About your question, Mulder should not have refuted "the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet." Is that really evidence? I don't think so. I don't think it's important in the least.

Sorry Mary had to jump in here! Couldn't stand by and hear that it wasn't important


According to Darlie she ran through the area where the broken glass was found at least 5 times (almost certainly more) and the entire time she managed not to get a single cut on her feet from the shattered glass. Two of the times that she did it were in the dark. All the other times occurred as she 'frantically' ran between either the U-room and the living room and the kitchen and the living room.

Yet in all that frantic running around she didn't get so much as a scrape on her foot from the glass. We know the glass is there, we know that she had to take that route if she was moving back forth between the kitchen and yet suprise- not a scratch. What does that tell you?

You know what I do think is important. That bloody knife imprint in the carpet. The state implied that the blood was Darlie's. However, of all the things they did tests for, they didn't offer a conclusive test saying it was in fact her blood. I wonder why they didn't. Mulder could have refuted their implication that it was Darlie's blood by at the least saying something to the effect of: "If that were Darlie Routier's blood don't you think the State would be waving the test results all around this courtroom! You know they would be, ladies and gentlemen, but they are not! Now ask yourselves why....." (Jeana, how'd I do? )

Have you got a transcript link to the the discussion about whose blood it was? Whose blood do you think it is?

PS. Glad you bought MTJD. I still hestitate to open it because of the photos of the boys but someone gave me a hint ages ago to stick post-it notes over those particular photos... it made it somewhat more bearable.

 

[accordn2me]

Yet in all that frantic running around she didn't get so much as a scrape on her foot from the glass. We know the glass is there, we know that she had to take that route if she was moving back forth between the kitchen and yet suprise- not a scratch. What does that tell you?

It tells me she didn't cut her feet.

What am I supposed to think? She had a four inch slash across her throat, a stabbed shoulder and forearm, and the general consensus seems to be that she did all that to herself. If her feet would have been cut, would you think - now wait a minute, surely she didn't think to cut her feet, she must be innocent...

Have you got a transcript link to the the discussion about whose blood it was? Whose blood do you think it is?

I've not had the time to follow up on your replies today. Unfortunately, I'll be gone most of the day tomorrow. Tuesday & Wednesday will be hectic as well, but I might get to post a little more. It might take me a few days, but I will get back to you!

Here's all I've read today about blood. I didn't copy the link but it's from the same transcript we've been posting from. 37, I think. Mosty is the attorney, Linch on the stand. He asks Linch whose blood was on the pillow, but not on the door or carpet. I don't believe the State follows up either.

I think I don't know whose blood it is. I think if the State wants me (pretend juror here) to think it's Darlie's blood, I think they need to give me a definitive test saying it's hers. Otherwise, she's supposed to get the benefit of the doubt, right?

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.

 

[Dani_T]

It tells me she didn't cut her feet.

What am I supposed to think? She had a four inch slash across her throat, a stabbed shoulder and forearm, and the general consensus seems to be that she did all that to herself. If her feet would have been cut, would you think - now wait a minute, surely she didn't think to cut her feet, she must be innocent..

Exactly. She didn't cut her feet.

How did she not manage to cut her feet when she claims she ran through that area where the glass broke and shattered once in the dark following the intruder, back through it to turn the light on, back through it to get to U-room, back through it again to get back to Damon and yell for Darin, back through it to go to the sink and get towels and then at least once more back through it to go out to Damon (where both she and Darin place her at one point) and according to her even more times as she was running back and forth between the boys and the kitchen.

I'm not suggesting at all she should have self-inflicted wounds on her feet! Mary and I are simply asking how her story is true on this count and that she managed not to step on a single glass shard that entire time. Don't you find that just a little... 'coincidental'?

 

[accordn2me]

Well.......I don't find it that unusual - so my experience has been when I don't, it usually is!

I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures. You make it sound like it was a whole lot of glass on the floor. Wasn't it one wine glass? I know wine glasses are relatively thin but do they make that much mess when they hit the floor?

And would a "shard" cut your feet that badly? Again, from my experience with broken drinking glass glass, a tiny piece will stick in your foot - and my feet do seem to find it even after vacuuming and mopping - you can just scrape it out. It's painful, but not bloody.

Also, about Linch and the other "test that can be done," I want you to note who repeatedly says "it's too small to test." Hint: It's not Linch.

If I get back in time, I'll post more today. It might be a day or two...

ttfn

 

[Goody]

And would a "shard" cut your feet that badly? Again, from my experience with broken drinking glass glass, a tiny piece will stick in your foot - and my feet do seem to find it even after vacuuming and mopping - you can just scrape it out. It's painful, but not bloody.


ttfn

My feet find sharp objects, too. It could be the only tack in the house that several other feet walk past many times without finding until I come along and imbed it in my foot. Geez, a sliver of glass can create grrrrrrrreat pain and some pretty good slices, too. I got one stuck in my finger one time and it got so sore I couldn't touch it. I couldn't figure out what it was, so being a glutton for punishment, I squeezed my painful finger trying to squeeze the pain out of it (I was a dumb kid, what can I say?) and out popped a long sliver of glass. My finger bled like ....well, never mind. It bled.

I don't think the point is that she would have deep cuts on her feet, but that she would have at least little cuts on her feet, esp since Darlie Kee claims (and I don't doubt her) that the police tracked glass into the carpet in the family room. That shows that there was enough on the kitchen floor walkways for the cops to pick up on their thick rubber soles and track to the carpet in the next room. So how did Darlie's barefeet miss it completely unless the glass was broken AFTER everything else was done and just before she called 911.