accordn2me said:
Get ready....maybe I have wrongly intrepreted this....I said MAYBE, I did. :razz: You may not declare victory, yet. I'll letcha know when I say UNCLE.
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
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.
What happened when Linch used the bread knife to cut the identical screen
- Fibreglass rods- the diameters of which were identical to the diameter of the onee originally found. Furthermore the rods were in every way identical underneath the micrscope. There was no visible difference except for the length which was just because they broke off at different places.
Pigmented rubber debris
- Rubber debris which was pigmented exactly the same as the one originally found on the knife
and with glass debris embedded in the debris. Again there was no difference under the microscope between this and what had been found on the knife.
Other Sources
Linch testified that he searched the house for other sources and was unable to find anything which would produce the same results.
Fingerprinting etc
Officer Hamilton was the one who did the dusting at the scene. It took him no less than five hours to do it all.
The first thing he dusted was the window and the screen. After that he did:
Chairs outside the window
Trash can in garage
Cat carrier/cage
Refridgerator/Freezer
The other window (frame, trim, glass)
The U-room/Garage door on both sides
Washer
Dryer
Counter tops in the kitchen
Island in kitchen
Refridgerator in Kitchen
Drawers
Wine glass
So, for the Defense's theory to work you have to have the fingerprint brush picking up both a microscopic fibreglass rod and the rubber debris with the glass embedded in it whilst he was fingerprinting the window/screen. And then he has to brush everything else I have just listed with his brush being in constant motion (swinging back and forth as they do) for that entire time. And
then hours later the fingerprint brush just happens to deposit not only the fibreglass rod but also the rubber debris right near each other on the one knife.
Any reasonable person would have to agree that that proposition is just untenable.
But wait... there is more
Officer Hamilton gives no testimony or evidence that he brushed the knife block. He goes into great detail explaning everything he fingerprinted but never says he brushed the knife block or the knives inside it. So- not only is the scenario to incredible to believe but there is no evidence that the same brush used on the screen/window was used on the knife block.
So if the knife was fingerprinted (which Linch in one of his affidavits says it was) there is absolutely no evidence that Charles Hamilton was the one who printed it- let alone with the same brush he used at the scene. He meticiulously describes everything he printed at the scene but never mentions the knife block of the knives.
So the theory that the brush picked up the fibres and then deposited them on the knife hours later is ludicrious and completely unreasonable.
Alternatively the defense claims that the fibreglass rod came the fingerprint brush and the rubber debris was fingerprint powder. However Linch in his testimony showed that the bristles on the brush were much large than the one of the knife. Furthermore the fingerprint powder used was carbon powder (like the stuff used in copier toner catridges). Now I'm no scientist, let along chemical guru... but the debris on the knife was pigment synthetic rubber/polymer
with embedded glass. That does not sound at all consistent to me with carbon powder (which I would think is organic anyway?). How on earth did the carbon powder get glass dust embedded in it??
And even if it WERE possible that the rod came from the brush and the debris from the powder then how is it that these two separate pieces of evidence which were exactly replicated in Linch's experiments both ended up right next to each other on the same knife??
I don't think you would find Laber and Epstein mentioned by name in the State's closing arguements. They just said "their experts are not here!" Implying that was because they too thought Darlie guilty, which is not the case at all.
I'm presuming that your previous quote about them being mentioned by name was directly from a defense writ? I only ask because it makes my point- as pedantic as it may seem: the defense documentation continually asserts things which are just false. I've seen it over and over again (Jantz's fingerprint analysis, the blood on the jeans etc) and I long ago got to the point where I check everything they say against the transcripts- but I can't trust what they claim.
Here's some things about Linch. I have no idea if they are credible or not. I do not know the context, either. I was looking to see what I could find about his "illness."
I don't have much time to respond now (dinner is almost ready!) but the long and short of it is that Linch was hospitalised for approx 2 weeks for alcoholism (and depression though I don't know if he was diagnosed at the time). SWIFS (his employer) pulled him out of the hospital to go and testify at cases during the middle of his treatment (I think from memory he protested at the time but was compelled to do it). There was something about him not having taken a hair/fibre test or something (will have to look it up again) when he was meant to but he took it not long after and passed with flying colours without having any further training. He claims that he had not been drinking from after his hospitalisation until after the Routier trial.
Now it is clear that they man had some major stuff going on in his life (I also think from memory it began after he had to work the scene of an airline disaster which disturbed him greatly)... but that was in 1994. He testified in the Routier trial over 2 years later. There is absolutely no evidence that his judgement or work was in anyway impaired at that time. Whether it was earlier is another question- and whether all that media hype was because of him personally or because of a large issue is also another story. However, my point is that there is nothing to hold against him regarding his work on the Routier case. It seems a complete double standard to me for Darlie supporters to say regarding Darlie's suicide note "Oh it was just a passing thing- she got over it really quickly and was perfectly mentally healthy" but then to absolutely denigrate a man who was suffering from depression over 2 years previously and claim that he couldn't have been in his right mind
Furthermore I think we need to be very careful how we talk about people who have gone through alcoholism and clinical depression. Clincal depression is a medical condition and one which the patient has no control over (beyond taking medication). If Linch was clinically depressed in 1994 (which it seems he was) I think we should feel very sorry for him rather than berating him as I have seen countless people on these boards doing.
But again, it all comes back to the fact that there is no reason to doubt his work on the Routier case. It's a strawman argument that defense puts up because they don't have anything else and are willing to try anything. Fair enough- let them have a go at it... but there is nothing that refutes all that evidence I have listed above.
Ok. Gotta run. Dinners on