Darlie's injuries

[Dena]

Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.

Then why would "he" take Darlie's kitchen knife if not to kill?
The children were the intended target, there is no question about that with the brutal way they were murdered.

 

[Rino]

Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.

Highly unlikely. Burglers usually will do anything to avoid hurting someone, it's the difference between a light sentence or slap on the wrist to life.

 

[nicola]

Then why would "he" take Darlie's kitchen knife if not to kill?
The children were the intended target, there is no question about that with the brutal way they were murdered.

I said INITIALLY came not to kill, obviously for some reason it changed, Im not saying that this is fact just that it is a possibility.

 

[nicola]

Highly unlikely. Burglers usually will do anything to avoid hurting someone, it's the difference between a light sentence or slap on the wrist to life.

Some burgelers, if you look at the texas death row website alot of men on the row are there because of murders that took place during robbery, also since America has more relaxed gun laws, than where I live, burgelers are risking thier lives, maybe intruder came to house believing it was empty or that everyone would be upstairs sleeping and when they found out they wernt grabbed knife for thier own protection etc.

 

[whitywendy]

Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.

If an "intruder" came to the home just to steal items, then why the Routier home? Their house wasn't the "nicest" in the neighbor, nor the most accessable (high fence in back yard). Darlie's rings/watches/purse were sitting right there beside the knifes. So if murdering these boys wasn't the main goal of this "intruder", why not just take the stuff and run. Shoot, even the DOG didn't hear the break in, so it would of been a clean get away.

 

[Dena]

I said INITIALLY came not to kill, obviously for some reason it changed, Im not saying that this is fact just that it is a possibility.

I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the evidence and what happened that night...

An intruder would have brought his own knife to the house to cut the screen. Then, he would have been walking around looking for stuff to steal. He walks in the family room to see the boys and Darlie sleeping, so he walks back into the kitchen and grabs one of her knives. Devon wakes up, so the "intruder" brutally murders him. Damon wakes up too, so he is brutally stabbed, all the while Darlie is sleeping. The intruder gets on top of her (or doesn't, whichever story you believe) and slices her neck. Darlie gets up and follows the intruder out, he drops Darlie's knife, taking his own with him. (although the screen fibers were found on another knife in Darlie's home)

I am just trying to see how the intruder theory might work, I don't think it does...

 

[whitywendy]

In regards to the fibers found on the knife, I do not believe it could be anything other than the glass rods from the window screen. I know in the transcripts they defense team tried to dispute it but couldn't. This knife does not have much meaning to me. I do not believe anyone came in or out of that window. Just as much as "the missing knife". The defense could not prove that Devon's injuries were actually caused by another knife.

Nicola - I am quoting myself because I just read something in regards to the fibers on the knife that you questioned. It is part of Judge Francis's final findings: LINK: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

315. Applicant states that “t was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen.” (Application at 48, citing Writ Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Palenik at 4). Palenik actually states in his Affidavit that contamination was a possibility, not that it was more plausible than the State’s theory at trial. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit at 10). Furthermore, the Court finds that the kitchen knives were not dusted with the fingerprint brush used to dust the window screen. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Affidavit of David Nabors; State’s Writ Exhibit 23, Report of Roger Smith).

One down, working on the others.

 

[Dena]

Nicola - I am quoting myself because I just read something in regards to the fibers on the knife that you questioned. It is part of Judge Francis's final findings:

315. Applicant states that “t was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen.” (Application at 48, citing Writ Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Palenik at 4). Palenik actually states in his Affidavit that contamination was a possibility, not that it was more plausible than the State’s theory at trial. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit at 10). Furthermore, the Court finds that the kitchen knives were not dusted with the fingerprint brush used to dust the window screen. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Affidavit of David Nabors; State’s Writ Exhibit 23, Report of Roger Smith).

One down, working on the others.

:woohoo:

 

[Rino]

Some burgelers, if you look at the texas death row website alot of men on the row are there because of murders that took place during robbery, also since America has more relaxed gun laws, than where I live, burgelers are risking thier lives, maybe intruder came to house believing it was empty or that everyone would be upstairs sleeping and when they found out they wernt grabbed knife for thier own protection etc.

Okay, that would fly if this intruder didn't attack 2 sleeping children and their supposedly sleeping mother.

 

[whitywendy]

Nicola - in regards to the juror who "changed his opinion", here is what I found, same final findings as I previous stated: LINK: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

484. The Court notes that Rule 606(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that “a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the jury’s deliberations, or to the effect of anything on any juror’s mind or emotions or mental processes, as influencing any juror’s assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment. Nor may any juror’s affidavit or any statement by a juror concerning any matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be admitted into evidence for any of these purposes.” Tex. R. Evid. 606(b).
485. The Court finds that a juror’s affidavit that the juror would have voted a different way based upon evidence not heard by the jury is necessarily testimony as to the “effect” of that evidence on the juror’s “assent to” the verdict. See Tex. R. Evid. 606(b).
486. The Court notes that the purpose of current Rule 606(b) is to prevent harassment of jurors and to protect the secrecy of jury deliberations. See, e.g, Cochran, Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook 560; see also Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107,118-21 (1987).
487. The Court finds and concludes that Samford’s Affidavit is not admissible, not competent habeas evidence, and cannot be considered by the Court in considering Applicant’s claim.
488. In the alternative, the Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit does not account for the probability that the State would have explained the surveillance video with other testimony or argument.
489. The Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit, executed over five years after the trial, indicates that he considered the surveillance tape alone, and not in conjunction with all the other testimony, photographic evidence, audio tapes, video evidence, and forensic testimony that the jury considered during deliberations.


2 down.....:woohoo:

 

[whitywendy]

:woohoo:

Thank you Dena :blowkiss:

My eyes are staring to blur from reading his findings but they are so informative.

 

[whitywendy]

Hey Nicola - it is me again . In regards to the "Fair Trial" : Link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

504. The Court finds that Applicant’s five-lawyer team presented a compelling opening statement, thoroughly cross-examined the State’s witnesses, adduced favorable testimony from the State’s witnesses, sought to exclude evidence, and objected to questions and testimony. Applicant’s team sought mistrials at various times, and they preserved many claims for appellate review. They presented favorable character evidence, favorable expert testimony, evidence of the “mysterious black car” in the neighborhood near the time of the murders, and evidence of other suspicious events in Rowlett on the night of the murders. The defense team presented compelling arguments attacking the State’s case and reinforcing the defense case. In the punishment phase, Applicant’s trial team called nine different witnesses to make a case that Applicant did not deserve a death sentence and to rebut the State’s punishment case. They also presented punishment arguments identifying weaknesses in the State’s punishment case, re-urging attacks on the State’s guilt case, and requesting that the jury give Applicant the benefit of any lingering doubt by returning a life sentence.

3 down :crazy: now I got to go and look for the rest of your post because I can't remember everything you mentioned.

 

[cami]

Some burgelers, if you look at the texas death row website alot of men on the row are there because of murders that took place during robbery, also since America has more relaxed gun laws, than where I live, burgelers are risking thier lives, maybe intruder came to house believing it was empty or that everyone would be upstairs sleeping and when they found out they wernt grabbed knife for thier own protection etc.

Why kill two sleeping boys who posed no threat?

 

[cami]

Nicola - I am quoting myself because I just read something in regards to the fibers on the knife that you questioned. It is part of Judge Francis's final findings:

315. Applicant states that “t was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen.” (Application at 48, citing Writ Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Palenik at 4). Palenik actually states in his Affidavit that contamination was a possibility, not that it was more plausible than the State’s theory at trial. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit at 10). Furthermore, the Court finds that the kitchen knives were not dusted with the fingerprint brush used to dust the window screen. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Affidavit of David Nabors; State’s Writ Exhibit 23, Report of Roger Smith).

One down, working on the others.

The fingerprint brush fibre was microscopically bigger than the screen fibre. There's rubber dust from the screen as well on the knife so try explaining that by dusting for prints.

 

[nicola]

Can any one clear up these questions for me?
1. The bloood splatter found on the back of Darlies shirt contained blood from both Darlie & the boys mixed together, if Darlie stabbed boys then injured herself how is her blood on back of shirt mixed with boys blood?
2. Robert Lohnnes -latent print consultant- signed affidavit stating that in his opinion the fingerprint - exibit 85J - was not made by Darlie. What proff is there to say that print is Darlies?
If anyone could answer these I would be very greatful. Thanks.

 

[Rino]

Can any one clear up these questions for me?
1. The bloood splatter found on the back of Darlies shirt contained blood from both Darlie & the boys mixed together, if Darlie stabbed boys then injured herself how is her blood on back of shirt mixed with boys blood?
2. Robert Lohnnes -latent print consultant- signed affidavit stating that in his opinion the fingerprint - exibit 85J - was not made by Darlie. What proff is there to say that print is Darlies?
If anyone could answer these I would be very greatful. Thanks.

I can only try.

1. Cast off blood would be on her back from the motion of stabbing her sons. As far as her own blood it could be cast off from the neck wound, the motion of slashing your own neck could leave the knive at an angle over your shoulder.Or even cast off from the towels she used on her own wound and the wet towels she claims to have used to aid Devon.

2. I don't know that there is proof the prints are Darlies, I'll look again. But that print has had a lot of play because they cannot ID the print, unidentified does not include or exclue her.

There are more unitdentified prints in the house as well as other prints made by rescue workers and police.

One fullsize footprint found in the kitchen, partial print belonged to Dect. Walling. Where are the prints of the stranger as he left the house?
Shoeprints were found behind the couch and they belonged to the paramedic. A partial handprint was found on the door between the garage and washroom door, unidentifiable.
On the sliding glass door from family room to patio had a partial print, unidentifiable

 

[whitywendy]

Rino - Were these prints bloody? Is there any way to distinguish whether they were from the crime, or just prints you would find in any household?

 

[Rino]

Rino - Were these prints bloody? Is there any way to distinguish whether they were from the crime, or just prints you would find in any household?

The only bloody footprints in the kitchen were Darlie's. If the killer killed the boys and stabbed Darle he too would have had to have left bloody foot prints. According to her telling on 20/20 she woke when Devon touched her on the shoulder, she saw the man a made chase unaware of her own injuries. Then returns to the living room to see her boys. If she had blood on her feet it would stand to reason the killer would have to have blood on his feet as well. In fact even if you only use what she says on 20/20 holes can be poked through her story countless times, imo.

The other prints, ID'd and not, came from the crime scene. Being they were from police and paramedics they would not be found in just any household. But the mystery pubic hair in my opinion could have come from anywhere at anytime.


More about the spatter or Darlies shirt, if I remember correctly (I'll look for it) the evidence shows that some of Devons blood was on top of her blood. Meaning he was stabbed after her injuries.

 

[whitywendy]

Thanks for your help. Question: How do they know whether prints are part of a crime scene or not (besides the obvious)? Like the print on the sliding glass door, how is it linked to the crime? I did read that Darren's print was found on the UR Door but was not in blood and of course he being a member of the household, wasn't associated with the crime but for some reason "her" team was leave this print "alone"

 

[nicola]

More about the spatter or Darlies shirt, if I remember correctly (I'll look for it) the evidence shows that some of Devons blood was on top of her blood. Meaning he was stabbed after her injuries.

I interpretated what I read about blood splatter on back of shirt as the blood was a mixture of both thier blood. If what your saying is right (that darlies blood was under devons blood) then what the prosecution said about her killing kids and then 'attacking' herself must be wrong.