runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
[/QUOTE]
cami,
i am reading transcripts during lunch time so is slow going, talking about blood, was there and where was blood on darin when police/emt's got there?
Hi new to this forum.....my thoughts on the Routier case
- Thread starter misspriss26
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
UK - Sara Sharif, 10, found murdered in house, Surrey, Aug 2023 *POIs ARREST* #3
- Latest: Pinkestpanther
-
TX Melonie Ballenger, 46, Last Seen at Home - Wylie, TX
- Latest: truthfinder2019
cami,
i am reading transcripts during lunch time so is slow going, talking about blood, was there and where was blood on darin when police/emt's got there?
i am reading transcripts during lunch time so is slow going, talking about blood, was there and where was blood on darin when police/emt's got there?
Going slow and taking notes is the best way to do this. If you rush through or do it piecemeal you lose a lot. Invest the time, you won't regret it (especially if you want to discuss the case with others that have read the transcripts)
As for Darin...contradictory.
He says he performed CPR on Devon when he got downstairs. Waddell, the first responding cop, says he met Darin on the lawn and said nothing about blood on Darin. The issue was never resolved of whether Waddell saw blood or not, but I think it's reasonable to assume Waddell would have mentioned if he saw blood on Darin...especially given the amount Darin claims was on his chest, his face, in his mouth and hair. The only logical conclusion with the limited facts is that either it wasn't Darin on the lawn or Darin didn't have blood on him yet. Intriguing possibilities.
And don't forget, the neighbor - Gorusch I think - saw Darin meet Waddell and he, too, didn't mention Darin with blood on him.
I've tried several times to reconcile all the first responder's actions but have not been successful. It gets very confusing.
Going slow and taking notes is the best way to do this. If you rush through or do it piecemeal you lose a lot. Invest the time, you won't regret it (especially if you want to discuss the case with others that have read the transcripts)
As for Darin...contradictory.
He says he performed CPR on Devon when he got downstairs. Waddell, the first responding cop, says he met Darin on the lawn and said nothing about blood on Darin. The issue was never resolved of whether Waddell saw blood or not, but I think it's reasonable to assume Waddell would have mentioned if he saw blood on Darin...especially given the amount Darin claims was on his chest, his face, in his mouth and hair. The only logical conclusion with the limited facts is that either it wasn't Darin on the lawn or Darin didn't have blood on him yet. Intriguing possibilities.
And don't forget, the neighbor - Gorusch I think - saw Darin meet Waddell and he, too, didn't mention Darin with blood on him.
I've tried several times to reconcile all the first responder's actions but have not been successful. It gets very confusing.
Actually, Mulder is the reason the supposedly somber ceremony wasn't seen. I say supposedly because I've never seen it and I know of no one that has actually see it. I've only heard it described by her supporters as somber.
To continue, the judge never ruled the tape inadmissable, that's a lie. Mulder could have introduced this tape into evidence if he wanted but he was more interested in challenging the legality of the tape. Once he asked the officers, who were under oath, if they had committed a crime they had the right to invoke their 5th Amendment rights which means no tape could be authenticated, which means no tape. Mulder's no dummy, he knew what he was doing...which makes me think that tape is not nearly as innocent looking as it's been rumored to be.
By the way, that tape was challenged by Darlie Kee afterward and it was legally determined the tape was not a violation of anyone's privacy.
My mistake. While reading the transcripts I read that Mulder was objecting to a video and police officers taking the fifth which lead me to believe the objection was about the illegal video. I did some checking and you are correct. At first the tape was deemed inadmissable but Mosty argued and the prosecution then agreed the tape could be used. Mulder however stated (and I quote) "didnt really have any idea at that time that the Silly String incident would play such a major part for the jury after Darlie was convicted. He had decided that the SS tape wouldn't impact the jury so there was no need to enter the other tape. And if the jury watched that tape eight time during deliberations then yes, it carried weight with the jury.
That said, Darlie had never been in any legal trouble prior to this. I would expect her to know as much about effective legal representation as I would expect her to know about repairing an AC unit. If her attorney told her at the time that the SS tape meant nothing ergo no need for the other tape I wouldn't expect her to see the error in that. Do I think she should be on death row because her attorney made that mistake? No.
This is a point not brought up in this post specifically but I will bring it up now as it has been discussed in other threads and pertains to this issue. Darlie's attorney failed to do many things while defending her. Primarily, he told expert forensic analysts to stop testing evidence. In turn he had no witnesses to refute the state's forensic evidence. That was a choice he made that Darlie couldn't have been expected to realize was a bad one. Do I think Darlie should be on death row because her attorney made the choice for her experts to stop testing evidence? No. Do I think Darlie should be refused the opportunity to prove her innocence now because her attorney decided for her not to do it then? Again, no.
I have two bread knives, one with a round tip and one with a sharp tip.
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.
Yes. That is exactly my theory.
"Charles Linch's opinion that rubber and fiber glass debris from the cut window screen was on the blade of a bread knife in the butcher block was the most incriminating evidence because it meant that someone in the house staged the break-in, but there were substantial reasons for the jury to doubt whether it was true. RR.37: 2909, 3016. Officer Charles Hamilton could have accidentally contaminated the bread knife with debris from the window screen by dusting the blade with the same fingerprint powder brush that he used to dust the frame of the screen and the window. Hamilton testified that he thoroughly dusted the area around the cut screen with his brush before he did anything else. RR.34: 1980-1, 1983-4.
A retired veteran homicide detective, James Cron, who knew how to preserve physical evidence at a crime scene, warned the Rowlett police not to dust things that might have trace evidence on them for fingerprints before Linch had a chance to collect it, but Hamilton did not follow his advice. RR.34: 1980-1, 1983-4, 2207. Linch claimed that the bread knife was never finger printed, but there was "grayish black material" - "carbon black" on the blade and handle of the knife in a photograph that the State introduced without explaining how or when it got there. RR.37: 2909, 2911; State's Exhibit No. 116; RR.52: 116. Hamilton could have applied that fingerprint powder at the crime scene with a brush that was contaminated with rubber and fiber glass after he dusted the area around the cut screen."
Even Cron advised against dusting certain items until Linch showed up because he was aware there might be a cross contamination issue but his advice was ignored.Those fibers could have easily been either held in the brush from the window sill or transferred to the dust container and then transferred to the bread knife. And all this assumes that the fibers in question actual are screen fibers. As I said before, Linch swore in an affidavit that he cannot determine if the fiber is screen fiber. The test to determine if the fiber is screen material was never done.
There is much more to the blood evidence than just the shirt, all of it telling a story. But let's back up to a more telling blood pattern....the single direction of it on her shirt. She was not laying down when her neck started bleeding, the directional flow proves that.
As for the testing Bevel did, I think you should reread the testimony. You can access it at Darlie's website.
I have looked at the shirt. It shows a blood pattern pooling on the left upper collar area of the shirt along with blood covering the entire front all the way to the bottom. And I've already read it twice. If there is a portion of it that you think I should specifically read please specify which section and I will be happy to read it.
I know what I read from Bevel's testimony is that Darlie had to be bleeding first before both the boys were attacked (sections 3344 and 3345). So the theory that she planted the sock and then returned home to injure herself isn't possible. And I find it highly unlikely that she injured herself first, attacked the boys and then planted the sock without leaving a single drop of her blood on the sock or anywhere between the house and where the sock was found.
And there's the problem with most of the people that believe her innocent...they make up scenarios not supported by evidence and are often contradicted by the facts.
Let me set the scene: You have Damon on the floor next to Darlie and Devon in front of the TV. For her blood and their blood to get on her back she would have had to be attacked first (while the intruder stepped all over Damon to get to her without waking him up). Then she would have to turn her back on them while bleeding from the neck (which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever...is actually contradicted by the evidence as a matter of fact) and the blood had to fly from both boys, laying suspiciously still through all of this, over to their mother on the couch. The most telling part of your theory being that while an intruder's attack can make the blood fly, Darlie's attack doesn't
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.
Don't misconstrue my words. I never said one attack would make blood fly and another's attack wouldn't. Whoever attacked the kids (be it Darlie or an intruder) it is unlikely the person holding the knife would have blood on them because the projectory of the blood leaving the knife tip would be flying outward. Anyone standing or laying in the direct path of that projectory would end up with cast-off on them. And yes, cast-off can travel pretty far. I stood roughly eight feet from a wall when I did my experiment and the cast-off hit the wall.
To my knowledge the couch and the pillow Darlie used where not collected as evidence. And the prosecution's own witnesses told gave conflicting testimony about blood being on the couch. If you can point to testimony clearly stating there was no blood on the couch or pillow I would be more than willing to read that.
I'm also not understanding how you have decided where the boys were sleeping prior to the attack and that the intruder had to step over them to get to Darlie. I've seen the diagram of the room and it seems very likely that both boys were sleeping in front of the TV. That means an intruder didn't have to step anywhere near them to get to Darlie. But if you have information as to where exactly the boys were sleeping prior to the attack I would be willing to read that too.
Also, I've never thought there was anything odd about Darlie laying suspiciously still on the couch. Whether she herself said she saw sleeping makes no difference to me. I know the question "how did she sleep through.....?" Easy, she didn't "sleep" through anything. I believe she was attacked first (Bevel himself confirms this) and that at some point she passed out. When she came to the second time she had no recollection of her attack. On cross examination Darlie's doctors admitted that Darlie could have passed out during the attack and that it's not uncommon for patients to have a complete lack of memory about a traumatic event regardless of a head injury (see Dr. Santos pgs. 806-810).
Plus the technician dusted the window and screen and then the utility room. The chances that the brush then dropped two pieces of evidence(the fibre and the rubber dust)into two serrations of the blade is well nigh impossible) Lynchès affidavit addresses the chemical make up of the fibre, the fibre and the test fibres from the screen are microscopically identical. Nothing in the Routier home matched this fibre,identically, but the window screen.
My apologies to Cami for answering her points in this post but as she is having keyboard issues it was hard to tell if these were her comments or the previous poster's. Since they seem to pertain to 2 Percent's post I'll answer then here.
I believe you need to reread Linch's affidavit....
"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 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 came 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."
In layman's terms he is saying the fibers in question look like the same material as the screen but he isn't certain that they are. So all this arguing about fibers on a knife might be moot considering the fibers on the knife might not be screen fibers at all.
LOL, almost impossible conisdering there was none of the boyès blood on the back of the couch or the floor behind the couch. I know this is Texas but to think or expect the boys blood could have flown onto Darlieès shirt whilst she lay on the couch is ridiculous. They werenèt geysers of blood after all.
You need to read Bevelès testimony. When I saw his blood experiment on this case, the blood flew and landed exactly like the cast-off on the back of Darlieès shirt. Plus thereès a lot of cast-off on the front shoulders of her shirt.
Itès only one piece of the blood evidence. There is blood where there shouldnètbe blood and a lack of blood where there should be blood.
I'll address the top portion as I can't really speculate as to where you think there was blood where it shouldn't be or a lack of blood where there should be. And, as I said before, I have read his testimony (three times now I believe).
Firstly, I don't consider three spatters to be "a lot." There are two cast-off spatters high up on the right shoulder of her shirt and one spatter high up on the right back. Bevel's experiment produced multiple spatters specifically on his back after two swings. I read the autopsy report of both boys. The knife would have swung no less than ten times. If Bevel had multiple spatters after two swings then it stands to reason that after ten swings he would have been covered in spatter. Ergo Darlie should have been covered in spatter as well.
But for this argument I'll stick with his findings alone. After two swings he had multiple spatters on both the back and the front. Darlie had three spatters total on her shirt after no less than ten swings. Does that logically make sense? If he is covered in spatter after two swings how does she only have three spatters after at least ten?
As for the couch and floor behind it.... I stated this above. Most of the state's experts' testimony conflicted one another. Mayne testified he could visually see blood in different areas on the couch. Cron testified there was no "defect" on the couch. Long testified that she took a blood sample from one area of the couch and Linch testified there were "no hair or defects" on the couch. And then the couch isn't shown as evidence at the trial. How in the world can you know if Darlie's blood is or is not on the couch when investigators at the scene can't even agree about if there was blood on it or not? The state could have put the whole issue to rest by showing the couch (and a lack of blood if there was) as evidence. They didn't which makes me wonder why. If I had a woman claiming she was stabbed on a couch but none of her blood was on it I might want to show that to a jury to prove she's lying. For whatever reason the state opted for the "just take my word for it" approach. We'll never know about blood (or lack thereof) on the couch because it's gone now, as is Darlie's pillow. The absence of blood on the carpet behind the couch isn't really a worthy argument considering the couch was pushed up against a wall. All the cast-off would be on the wall.
And as I told the other poster, don't misclassify my word. I never once even insinuated that blood was coming out of the wounds in a geyser-like fashion, flying across the room and onto Darlie. Make no mistake.... my argument has nothing to do with blood flying out of the wounds themselves. My argument is that blood on the knife was "cast-off" during the swinging motion of the stabbings. And blood flying off of a knife during a stabbing is not a theory. It is a proven fact (Google bloodstain pattern analysis).
And don't classify me as a die hard Darlie supporter. I don't know the woman, don't know her family.... I have no interest other than being a common observer. I remember vaguely when it happened and seeing the SS tape. I thought she was guilty. I read Precious Angels and have seen a few TV shows that pretty much reinforced my opinion. I recently watch a show, Deadly Women, I think it's called and I started to wonder what happened with her case. I started surfing the web and ended up doubting she did it. I finally resorted to just reading the transcripts. Nothing in the transcripts leads me to believe she murdered her children.
To continue, the judge never ruled the tape inadmissable, that's a lie. Mulder could have introduced this tape into evidence if he wanted but he was more interested in challenging the legality of the tape. Once he asked the officers, who were under oath, if they had committed a crime they had the right to invoke their 5th Amendment rights which means no tape could be authenticated, which means no tape. Mulder's no dummy, he knew what he was doing...which makes me think that tape is not nearly as innocent looking as it's been rumored to be.
By the way, that tape was challenged by Darlie Kee afterward and it was legally determined the tape was not a violation of anyone's privacy.
My mistake. While reading the transcripts I read that Mulder was objecting to a video and police officers taking the fifth which lead me to believe the objection was about the illegal video. I did some checking and you are correct. At first the tape was deemed inadmissable but Mosty argued and the prosecution then agreed the tape could be used. Mulder however stated (and I quote) "didnt really have any idea at that time that the Silly String incident would play such a major part for the jury after Darlie was convicted. He had decided that the SS tape wouldn't impact the jury so there was no need to enter the other tape. And if the jury watched that tape eight time during deliberations then yes, it carried weight with the jury.
That said, Darlie had never been in any legal trouble prior to this. I would expect her to know as much about effective legal representation as I would expect her to know about repairing an AC unit. If her attorney told her at the time that the SS tape meant nothing ergo no need for the other tape I wouldn't expect her to see the error in that. Do I think she should be on death row because her attorney made that mistake? No.
This is a point not brought up in this post specifically but I will bring it up now as it has been discussed in other threads and pertains to this issue. Darlie's attorney failed to do many things while defending her. Primarily, he told expert forensic analysts to stop testing evidence. In turn he had no witnesses to refute the state's forensic evidence. That was a choice he made that Darlie couldn't have been expected to realize was a bad one. Do I think Darlie should be on death row because her attorney made the choice for her experts to stop testing evidence? No. Do I think Darlie should be refused the opportunity to prove her innocence now because her attorney decided for her not to do it then? Again, no.
I have two bread knives, one with a round tip and one with a sharp tip.
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.
Yes. That is exactly my theory.
"Charles Linch's opinion that rubber and fiber glass debris from the cut window screen was on the blade of a bread knife in the butcher block was the most incriminating evidence because it meant that someone in the house staged the break-in, but there were substantial reasons for the jury to doubt whether it was true. RR.37: 2909, 3016. Officer Charles Hamilton could have accidentally contaminated the bread knife with debris from the window screen by dusting the blade with the same fingerprint powder brush that he used to dust the frame of the screen and the window. Hamilton testified that he thoroughly dusted the area around the cut screen with his brush before he did anything else. RR.34: 1980-1, 1983-4.
A retired veteran homicide detective, James Cron, who knew how to preserve physical evidence at a crime scene, warned the Rowlett police not to dust things that might have trace evidence on them for fingerprints before Linch had a chance to collect it, but Hamilton did not follow his advice. RR.34: 1980-1, 1983-4, 2207. Linch claimed that the bread knife was never finger printed, but there was "grayish black material" - "carbon black" on the blade and handle of the knife in a photograph that the State introduced without explaining how or when it got there. RR.37: 2909, 2911; State's Exhibit No. 116; RR.52: 116. Hamilton could have applied that fingerprint powder at the crime scene with a brush that was contaminated with rubber and fiber glass after he dusted the area around the cut screen."
Even Cron advised against dusting certain items until Linch showed up because he was aware there might be a cross contamination issue but his advice was ignored.Those fibers could have easily been either held in the brush from the window sill or transferred to the dust container and then transferred to the bread knife. And all this assumes that the fibers in question actual are screen fibers. As I said before, Linch swore in an affidavit that he cannot determine if the fiber is screen fiber. The test to determine if the fiber is screen material was never done.
There is much more to the blood evidence than just the shirt, all of it telling a story. But let's back up to a more telling blood pattern....the single direction of it on her shirt. She was not laying down when her neck started bleeding, the directional flow proves that.
As for the testing Bevel did, I think you should reread the testimony. You can access it at Darlie's website.
I have looked at the shirt. It shows a blood pattern pooling on the left upper collar area of the shirt along with blood covering the entire front all the way to the bottom. And I've already read it twice. If there is a portion of it that you think I should specifically read please specify which section and I will be happy to read it.
I know what I read from Bevel's testimony is that Darlie had to be bleeding first before both the boys were attacked (sections 3344 and 3345). So the theory that she planted the sock and then returned home to injure herself isn't possible. And I find it highly unlikely that she injured herself first, attacked the boys and then planted the sock without leaving a single drop of her blood on the sock or anywhere between the house and where the sock was found.
And there's the problem with most of the people that believe her innocent...they make up scenarios not supported by evidence and are often contradicted by the facts.
Let me set the scene: You have Damon on the floor next to Darlie and Devon in front of the TV. For her blood and their blood to get on her back she would have had to be attacked first (while the intruder stepped all over Damon to get to her without waking him up). Then she would have to turn her back on them while bleeding from the neck (which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever...is actually contradicted by the evidence as a matter of fact) and the blood had to fly from both boys, laying suspiciously still through all of this, over to their mother on the couch. The most telling part of your theory being that while an intruder's attack can make the blood fly, Darlie's attack doesn't
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.
Don't misconstrue my words. I never said one attack would make blood fly and another's attack wouldn't. Whoever attacked the kids (be it Darlie or an intruder) it is unlikely the person holding the knife would have blood on them because the projectory of the blood leaving the knife tip would be flying outward. Anyone standing or laying in the direct path of that projectory would end up with cast-off on them. And yes, cast-off can travel pretty far. I stood roughly eight feet from a wall when I did my experiment and the cast-off hit the wall.
To my knowledge the couch and the pillow Darlie used where not collected as evidence. And the prosecution's own witnesses told gave conflicting testimony about blood being on the couch. If you can point to testimony clearly stating there was no blood on the couch or pillow I would be more than willing to read that.
I'm also not understanding how you have decided where the boys were sleeping prior to the attack and that the intruder had to step over them to get to Darlie. I've seen the diagram of the room and it seems very likely that both boys were sleeping in front of the TV. That means an intruder didn't have to step anywhere near them to get to Darlie. But if you have information as to where exactly the boys were sleeping prior to the attack I would be willing to read that too.
Also, I've never thought there was anything odd about Darlie laying suspiciously still on the couch. Whether she herself said she saw sleeping makes no difference to me. I know the question "how did she sleep through.....?" Easy, she didn't "sleep" through anything. I believe she was attacked first (Bevel himself confirms this) and that at some point she passed out. When she came to the second time she had no recollection of her attack. On cross examination Darlie's doctors admitted that Darlie could have passed out during the attack and that it's not uncommon for patients to have a complete lack of memory about a traumatic event regardless of a head injury (see Dr. Santos pgs. 806-810).
Plus the technician dusted the window and screen and then the utility room. The chances that the brush then dropped two pieces of evidence(the fibre and the rubber dust)into two serrations of the blade is well nigh impossible) Lynchès affidavit addresses the chemical make up of the fibre, the fibre and the test fibres from the screen are microscopically identical. Nothing in the Routier home matched this fibre,identically, but the window screen.
My apologies to Cami for answering her points in this post but as she is having keyboard issues it was hard to tell if these were her comments or the previous poster's. Since they seem to pertain to 2 Percent's post I'll answer then here.
I believe you need to reread Linch's affidavit....
"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 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 came 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."
In layman's terms he is saying the fibers in question look like the same material as the screen but he isn't certain that they are. So all this arguing about fibers on a knife might be moot considering the fibers on the knife might not be screen fibers at all.
LOL, almost impossible conisdering there was none of the boyès blood on the back of the couch or the floor behind the couch. I know this is Texas but to think or expect the boys blood could have flown onto Darlieès shirt whilst she lay on the couch is ridiculous. They werenèt geysers of blood after all.
You need to read Bevelès testimony. When I saw his blood experiment on this case, the blood flew and landed exactly like the cast-off on the back of Darlieès shirt. Plus thereès a lot of cast-off on the front shoulders of her shirt.
Itès only one piece of the blood evidence. There is blood where there shouldnètbe blood and a lack of blood where there should be blood.
I'll address the top portion as I can't really speculate as to where you think there was blood where it shouldn't be or a lack of blood where there should be. And, as I said before, I have read his testimony (three times now I believe).
Firstly, I don't consider three spatters to be "a lot." There are two cast-off spatters high up on the right shoulder of her shirt and one spatter high up on the right back. Bevel's experiment produced multiple spatters specifically on his back after two swings. I read the autopsy report of both boys. The knife would have swung no less than ten times. If Bevel had multiple spatters after two swings then it stands to reason that after ten swings he would have been covered in spatter. Ergo Darlie should have been covered in spatter as well.
But for this argument I'll stick with his findings alone. After two swings he had multiple spatters on both the back and the front. Darlie had three spatters total on her shirt after no less than ten swings. Does that logically make sense? If he is covered in spatter after two swings how does she only have three spatters after at least ten?
As for the couch and floor behind it.... I stated this above. Most of the state's experts' testimony conflicted one another. Mayne testified he could visually see blood in different areas on the couch. Cron testified there was no "defect" on the couch. Long testified that she took a blood sample from one area of the couch and Linch testified there were "no hair or defects" on the couch. And then the couch isn't shown as evidence at the trial. How in the world can you know if Darlie's blood is or is not on the couch when investigators at the scene can't even agree about if there was blood on it or not? The state could have put the whole issue to rest by showing the couch (and a lack of blood if there was) as evidence. They didn't which makes me wonder why. If I had a woman claiming she was stabbed on a couch but none of her blood was on it I might want to show that to a jury to prove she's lying. For whatever reason the state opted for the "just take my word for it" approach. We'll never know about blood (or lack thereof) on the couch because it's gone now, as is Darlie's pillow. The absence of blood on the carpet behind the couch isn't really a worthy argument considering the couch was pushed up against a wall. All the cast-off would be on the wall.
And as I told the other poster, don't misclassify my word. I never once even insinuated that blood was coming out of the wounds in a geyser-like fashion, flying across the room and onto Darlie. Make no mistake.... my argument has nothing to do with blood flying out of the wounds themselves. My argument is that blood on the knife was "cast-off" during the swinging motion of the stabbings. And blood flying off of a knife during a stabbing is not a theory. It is a proven fact (Google bloodstain pattern analysis).
And don't classify me as a die hard Darlie supporter. I don't know the woman, don't know her family.... I have no interest other than being a common observer. I remember vaguely when it happened and seeing the SS tape. I thought she was guilty. I read Precious Angels and have seen a few TV shows that pretty much reinforced my opinion. I recently watch a show, Deadly Women, I think it's called and I started to wonder what happened with her case. I started surfing the web and ended up doubting she did it. I finally resorted to just reading the transcripts. Nothing in the transcripts leads me to believe she murdered her children.
cami
Keep your fork......
cami,
i am reading transcripts during lunch time so is slow going, talking about blood, was there and where was blood on darin when police/emt's got there?[/QUOTE]
Darin's jeans are not evidence and they weren't entered into evidence because Darlie was on trial, not Darin.
runsdeep
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 5
Darin's jeans are not evidence and they weren't entered into evidence because Darlie was on trial, not Darin.[/QUOTE]
he said he administered cpr on the older boy (i get their names mixed up, all of them start with d) and that air and blood spurted on his face. i see no mention of blood on his face/hair, etc.
cami
Keep your fork......
My mistake. While reading the transcripts I read that Mulder was objecting to a video and police officers taking the fifth which lead me to believe the objection was about the illegal video. I did some checking and you are correct. At first the tape was deemed inadmissable but Mosty argued and the prosecution then agreed the tape could be used. Mulder however stated (and I quote) "didn’t really have any idea at that time that the Silly String incident would play such a major part for the jury” after Darlie was convicted. He had decided that the SS tape wouldn't impact the jury so there was no need to enter the other tape. And if the jury watched that tape eight time during deliberations then yes, it carried weight with the jury.
Yes, obviously it did, it was used by the state as impeachment material. Completely legal. And once again, it's one tiny piece of evidence. You're not reading the transcripts, you're reading the scewed, taken out of context appeal by the defence......all denied by the appeals court.
That said, Darlie had never been in any legal trouble prior to this. I would expect her to know as much about effective legal representation as I would expect her to know about repairing an AC unit. If her attorney told her at the time that the SS tape meant nothing ergo no need for the other tape I wouldn't expect her to see the error in that. Do I think she should be on death row because her attorney made that mistake? No.
OMGoodness, it's again one piece of evidence, it didn't put her on death row. In the evidentiary hearing prior to trial, the defence introduced something (don't know what) to prove Darlie was a grieving mother. The state entered the SS tape to impeach the defence...it's as simple as that
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.[/B]
Yes. That is exactly my theory.
But your theory makes no sense. To believe that the brush picked up two separate pieces of evidence, then dusted in the garage, in the utility room and then and only then, it drops two separate pieces of evidence into two separate striations of the knife is kinda magical thinking isn't it? Well when you want to believe this happened as opposed to it happening I mean.
As for the testing Bevel did, I think you should reread the testimony. You can access it at Darlie's website.[/B]
I have looked at the shirt. It shows a blood pattern pooling on the left upper collar area of the shirt along with blood covering the entire front all the way to the bottom. And I've already read it twice. If there is a portion of it that you think I should specifically read please specify which section and I will be happy to read it.
I know what I read from Bevel's testimony is that Darlie had to be bleeding first before both the boys were attacked (sections 3344 and 3345). So the theory that she planted the sock and then returned home to injure herself isn't possible. And I find it highly unlikely that she injured herself first, attacked the boys and then planted the sock without leaving a single drop of her blood on the sock or anywhere between the house and where the sock was found.
Well it appears you have intepreted the testimony incorrectly again. Darlie did not have to be bleeding before she attacked Devon and Damon. I suggest you re read it. I don't read anywhere that Bevel said Darlie had to be bleeding first except for one tiny stain that was mixed Devon/Darlie and he couldn't tell if this was one stain or two. Bevel's testimony is quite long on all the stains. Very disingenous of you to point out one tiny piece of his testimony and then attribute that to all his findings. Darlie very easily could have planted that sock as her dna in the toe suggests. You also don't compare how an intruder got out there without leaving any blood evidence on the alleged exit window or anywhere outside.
And there's the problem with most of the people that believe her innocent...they make up scenarios not supported by evidence and are often contradicted by the facts.
Let me set the scene: You have Damon on the floor next to Darlie and Devon in front of the TV. For her blood and their blood to get on her back she would have had to be attacked first (while the intruder stepped all over Damon to get to her without waking him up). Then she would have to turn her back on them while bleeding from the neck (which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever...is actually contradicted by the evidence as a matter of fact) and the blood had to fly from both boys, laying suspiciously still through all of this, over to their mother on the couch. The most telling part of your theory being that while an intruder's attack can make the blood fly, Darlie's attack doesn't
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.
Don't misconstrue my words. I never said one attack would make blood fly and another's attack wouldn't. Whoever attacked the kids (be it Darlie or an intruder) it is unlikely the person holding the knife would have blood on them because the projectory of the blood leaving the knife tip would be flying outward. Anyone standing or laying in the direct path of that projectory would end up with cast-off on them. And yes, cast-off can travel pretty far. I stood roughly eight feet from a wall when I did my experiment and the cast-off hit the wall.
Your experiment is faulty. As you bring the knife out of the body, the blood flies backwards from the knife as well as outwards Had Darlie been lying down and received the cast-off the direction of the stain would be east/west (sideways)and not north/south (up and down) the cast-off on Darlie was upanddown, the stains pointing to the object that carried the blood. Blood points in the direction of travel. Darlie has cast-off on the front and back of her nightshirt. How could that possible happen if she's lying down asleep whilst both boys are stabbed.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Again, what would be the significance
3 or the value of seeing a cast-off or a spatter, as
4 opposed to the others?
5 A. If you find spatter or cast-off on an
6 item that is going to place the person within a relative
7 area where an occurrence is actually taking place.
8 That could be somebody who is just
9 simply close enough to get spatter on them. It could
10 also be indicative of a person who is a person creating
11 this spatter or the cast-off.
I don't think your "8 feet" has any relative association to the cast-off on Darlie.
To my knowledge the couch and the pillow Darlie used where not collected as evidence. And the prosecution's own witnesses told gave conflicting testimony about blood being on the couch. If you can point to testimony clearly stating there was no blood on the couch or pillow I would be more than willing to read that.
I didn't say there was no blood on the couch. I said there was none of the boys blood on the back of the couch where certainly there would have been had Darlie been stabbed by an attacker leaning over the back. There is none of Darlie's blood on the couch where she would have been sleeping when attacked, according to her. Her blood is on the couch, easy to see in the CS photos and the tech testified she collected Darlie's, but it's not from an attacker,it's a straight line of drops across the cushions as if she were walking either on it or beside it and we know she was bleeding from the arm. They didn't have to colllect the couch as evidence. The CS video and the CS photos are enough.
Luminol also showed that blood was wiped from the couch.
Darlie's pillow was collected as evidence. You need to read Linch's testimony.
I'm also not understanding how you have decided where the boys were sleeping prior to the attack and that the intruder had to step over them to get to Darlie. I've seen the diagram of the room and it seems very likely that both boys were sleeping in front of the TV. That means an intruder didn't have to step anywhere near them to get to Darlie. But if you have information as to where exactly the boys were sleeping prior to the attack I would be willing to read that too.
I didn't decide anything. There's more than enough proof of where the two boys were sleeping. Their blood for one thing. Both boys had seepage wounds and their blood pooled around them where they lay.
Damon was not lying near the tv, he was right in front of Darlie on the floor when he was first stabbed as his bloody handprint shows. The blood evidence proves this. Have you seen the blood map of the room, not just a diagram? Damon's blood also proves he didn't die right away and either crawled or dragged himself across the room, where he was stabbed again. You can find all of it in the trial testimonyso you can read it there. I've seen the CS photos and the blood map of the murder room.B]
Also, I've never thought there was anything odd about Darlie laying suspiciously still on the couch. Whether she herself said she saw sleeping makes no difference to me. I know the question "how did she sleep through.....?" Easy, she didn't "sleep" through anything. I believe she was attacked first (Bevel himself confirms this) and that at some point she passed out. When she came to the second time she had no recollection of her attack. On cross examination Darlie's doctors admitted that Darlie could have passed out during the attack and that it's not uncommon for patients to have a complete lack of memory about a traumatic event regardless of a head injury (see Dr. Santos pgs. 806-810).
Me neither, although I don't believe Darlie slept at all that night. Bevel does not confirm she was attacked first. You're using one tiny portion of Bevel's testimony to try and prove this, that doesn't work, you have to take the testimony as a whole.
Darlie says she was sleeping downstairs because the baby rolling in his cot kept her awake. Then she says she was asleep whilst the two boys are stabbed and she herself injured. Quite hard to swallow.
Darlie was not unconscious. She never claimed to be unconscious, she had no injury to explain unconsciousness. She was alert as to time and place and quite easily gave the 911 operator details. She passed the shock test given at the scene and her vitals were normal at Baylor. It's only since her "I was asleep" excuse didn't fly that she developed TA. She wouldn't have stayed traumatized all this time, some memory would have filtered through by now. Why can't you read ALL the testimony before you post it. Just because you think she was doesn't make it true.
Plus the technician dusted the window and screen and then the utility room. The chances that the brush then dropped two pieces of evidence(the fibre and the rubber dust)into two serrations of the blade is well nigh impossible) Lynchès affidavit addresses the chemical make up of the fibre, the fibre and the test fibres from the screen are microscopically identical. Nothing in the Routier home matched this fibre,identically, but the window screen.
My apologies to Cami for answering her points in this post but as she is having keyboard issues it was hard to tell if these were her comments or the previous poster's. Since they seem to pertain to 2 Percent's post I'll answer then here.
I believe you need to reread Linch's affidavit....
"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 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 came 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."
In layman's terms he is saying the fibers in question look like the same material as the screen but he isn't certain that they are. So all this arguing about fibers on a knife might be moot considering the fibers on the knife might not be screen fibers at all.
No he isn't. He's saying the glass rod and rubber dust were microscopically identical to the screen and that nothing else he tested in the home compared. However, further chemcial tests could prove otherwise. Since neither defence nor prosecution subjected the glass rod to chemical tests, the rod and rubber debris remain as is, on the bread knife until someone proves otherwise.
Once again,read the trial testimony and not the affidavits. that affidavit was prepared for Darlie's appeal I do believe. Well she failed that appeal.
[be or a lack of blood where there should be. And, as I said before, I have read his testimony (three times now I believe).
You have read and presented here a tiny portion of Bevel's testimony that you are basing your opinions on. We call that "taking it out of context."
I'll address the top portion as I can't really speculate as to where you think there was blood where it shouldn't be or a lack of blood where there should be. And, as I said before, I have read his testimony (three times now I believe).
You have read and presented here a tiny portion of Bevel's testimony that you are basing your opinions on. We call that "taking it out of context."
Blood where it shouldn't be. Well there shouldn't be any cast-off blood on Darlie if she didn't stab the children. There should be blood all over that window and window sill, there isn't. There should be blood on the utility room floor where she says he dropped the knife...there isn't. There shouldn't be a bloody outline of the knife on the carpet but there is. Blood all over the kitchen floor,sink,counters and inside the cupboard....some cleaned up some not. Bloody footprints cleaned from the kitchen floor. No blood on the couch where Darlie says she was sleeping. None of Darlie's blood on the sock.
Firstly, I don't consider three spatters to be "a lot." There are two cast-off spatters high up on the right shoulder of her shirt and one spatter high up on the right back. Bevel's experiment produced multiple spatters specifically on his back after two swings. I read the autopsy report of both boys. The knife would have swung no less than ten times. If Bevel had multiple spatters after two swings then it stands to reason that after ten swings he would have been covered in spatter. Ergo Darlie should have been covered in spatter as well.
But for this argument I'll stick with his findings alone. After two swings he had multiple spatters on both the back and the front. Darlie had three spatters total on her shirt after no less than ten swings. Does that logically make sense? If he is covered in spatter after two swings how does she only have three spatters after at least ten?
But what you are not understanding is Bevel had NOTICIABLE blood stains because the garment he was wearing was pristine after the experiment. Darlie's wasn't, her's was covered with her blood and it was difficult to find more cast-off than they did even though it's most likely there. Bevel explains this in his testimony.
As for the couch and floor behind it.... I stated this above. Most of the state's experts' testimony conflicted one another. Mayne testified he could visually see blood in different areas on the couch. Cron testified there was no "defect" on the couch. Long testified that she took a blood sample from one area of the couch and Linch testified there were "no hair or defects" on the couch. And then the couch isn't shown as evidence at the trial. How in the world can you know if Darlie's blood is or is not on the couch when investigators at the scene can't even agree about if there was blood on it or not? The state could have put the whole issue to rest by showing the couch (and a lack of blood if there was) as evidence. They didn't which makes me wonder why. If I had a woman claiming she was stabbed on a couch but none of her blood was on it I might want to show that to a jury to prove she's lying. For whatever reason the state opted for the "just take my word for it" approach. We'll never know about blood (or lack thereof) on the couch because it's gone now, as is Darlie's pillow. The absence of blood on the carpet behind the couch isn't really a worthy argument considering the couch was pushed up against a wall. All the cast-off would be on the wall.
You're basing your opinion on Darlie being attacked first. I'm not.Plus you are taking things out of context. As I said above, there is a line of Darlie's blood going straight across the cushions. Obviously this blood was collected by Long. There is/was no significant amount of blood where Darlie places her head on the couch. If she was attacked on the couch, her blood should be all over the couch and yes on the back of the couch..it isn't....it's in the kitchen where she self-inflicted her wounds.
The couch was not up against a wall at all. It was in front of the sliding glass doors, with at least a metre (perhaps more) of space between the door and the couch.
Both Cron and Linch are talking about no cuts or nicks from the knife on the couch....defects.
The Crime Scene video and the CS photos of the couch are more than enough to show the jury there was blood on the couch. And you are wrong about the pillow as clearly shown in the trial testimony.B]
And as I told the other poster, don't misclassify my word. I never once even insinuated that blood was coming out of the wounds in a geyser-like fashion, flying across the room and onto Darlie. Make no mistake.... my argument has nothing to do with blood flying out of the wounds themselves. My argument is that blood on the knife was "cast-off" during the swinging motion of the stabbings. And blood flying off of a knife during a stabbing is not a theory. It is a proven fact (Google bloodstain pattern analysis).
Yes, I understand that, I mistook your post. But you did insinuate that Darlie could have received the boys blood just by being in the room. Then you also stated that Damon and Devon were in lying in front of the tv (which is incorrect). Please explain how the blood flew that far and landed on the front and back of Darlie's nightshirt?
Yes, Darlie has cast-off blood on her night shirt from the swinging motion of the knife. I know it's a proven fact, I'm not a babe in the woods. The blood flies in the direction the weapon is moving and when it lands, it points to the source. As she kneeled over the boys and stabbed them, their blood flew from the knife and landed on her nightshirt. Damon was attacked once but didn't die. He either crawled or dragged himself across the room to the hallway where he was attacked again. His and Darlie's blood is all over the wall there.
And don't classify me as a die hard Darlie supporter. I don't know the woman, don't know her family.... I have no interest other than being a common observer. I remember vaguely when it happened and seeing the SS tape. I thought she was guilty. I read Precious Angels and have seen a few TV shows that pretty much reinforced my opinion. I recently watch a show, Deadly Women, I think it's called and I started to wonder what happened with her case. I started surfing the web and ended up doubting she did it. I finally resorted to just reading the transcripts. Nothing in the transcripts leads me to believe she murdered her children.[/quote]
I never did classify you as that did I, I don't think I did. You're entitled to your opinions just as we all are. If you're content to take the transcripts out of context the way you did, that's fine by me. There's lots of people who doubt she did it. However she was convicted and her conviction has been upheld by every appeals court.....nothing new has been uncovered and it's been 15 years.
Yes, obviously it did, it was used by the state as impeachment material. Completely legal. And once again, it's one tiny piece of evidence. You're not reading the transcripts, you're reading the scewed, taken out of context appeal by the defence......all denied by the appeals court.
That said, Darlie had never been in any legal trouble prior to this. I would expect her to know as much about effective legal representation as I would expect her to know about repairing an AC unit. If her attorney told her at the time that the SS tape meant nothing ergo no need for the other tape I wouldn't expect her to see the error in that. Do I think she should be on death row because her attorney made that mistake? No.
OMGoodness, it's again one piece of evidence, it didn't put her on death row. In the evidentiary hearing prior to trial, the defence introduced something (don't know what) to prove Darlie was a grieving mother. The state entered the SS tape to impeach the defence...it's as simple as that
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.[/B]
Yes. That is exactly my theory.
But your theory makes no sense. To believe that the brush picked up two separate pieces of evidence, then dusted in the garage, in the utility room and then and only then, it drops two separate pieces of evidence into two separate striations of the knife is kinda magical thinking isn't it? Well when you want to believe this happened as opposed to it happening I mean.
As for the testing Bevel did, I think you should reread the testimony. You can access it at Darlie's website.[/B]
I have looked at the shirt. It shows a blood pattern pooling on the left upper collar area of the shirt along with blood covering the entire front all the way to the bottom. And I've already read it twice. If there is a portion of it that you think I should specifically read please specify which section and I will be happy to read it.
I know what I read from Bevel's testimony is that Darlie had to be bleeding first before both the boys were attacked (sections 3344 and 3345). So the theory that she planted the sock and then returned home to injure herself isn't possible. And I find it highly unlikely that she injured herself first, attacked the boys and then planted the sock without leaving a single drop of her blood on the sock or anywhere between the house and where the sock was found.
Well it appears you have intepreted the testimony incorrectly again. Darlie did not have to be bleeding before she attacked Devon and Damon. I suggest you re read it. I don't read anywhere that Bevel said Darlie had to be bleeding first except for one tiny stain that was mixed Devon/Darlie and he couldn't tell if this was one stain or two. Bevel's testimony is quite long on all the stains. Very disingenous of you to point out one tiny piece of his testimony and then attribute that to all his findings. Darlie very easily could have planted that sock as her dna in the toe suggests. You also don't compare how an intruder got out there without leaving any blood evidence on the alleged exit window or anywhere outside.
And there's the problem with most of the people that believe her innocent...they make up scenarios not supported by evidence and are often contradicted by the facts.
Let me set the scene: You have Damon on the floor next to Darlie and Devon in front of the TV. For her blood and their blood to get on her back she would have had to be attacked first (while the intruder stepped all over Damon to get to her without waking him up). Then she would have to turn her back on them while bleeding from the neck (which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever...is actually contradicted by the evidence as a matter of fact) and the blood had to fly from both boys, laying suspiciously still through all of this, over to their mother on the couch. The most telling part of your theory being that while an intruder's attack can make the blood fly, Darlie's attack doesn't
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.
Don't misconstrue my words. I never said one attack would make blood fly and another's attack wouldn't. Whoever attacked the kids (be it Darlie or an intruder) it is unlikely the person holding the knife would have blood on them because the projectory of the blood leaving the knife tip would be flying outward. Anyone standing or laying in the direct path of that projectory would end up with cast-off on them. And yes, cast-off can travel pretty far. I stood roughly eight feet from a wall when I did my experiment and the cast-off hit the wall.
Your experiment is faulty. As you bring the knife out of the body, the blood flies backwards from the knife as well as outwards Had Darlie been lying down and received the cast-off the direction of the stain would be east/west (sideways)and not north/south (up and down) the cast-off on Darlie was upanddown, the stains pointing to the object that carried the blood. Blood points in the direction of travel. Darlie has cast-off on the front and back of her nightshirt. How could that possible happen if she's lying down asleep whilst both boys are stabbed.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Again, what would be the significance
3 or the value of seeing a cast-off or a spatter, as
4 opposed to the others?
5 A. If you find spatter or cast-off on an
6 item that is going to place the person within a relative
7 area where an occurrence is actually taking place.
8 That could be somebody who is just
9 simply close enough to get spatter on them. It could
10 also be indicative of a person who is a person creating
11 this spatter or the cast-off.
I don't think your "8 feet" has any relative association to the cast-off on Darlie.
To my knowledge the couch and the pillow Darlie used where not collected as evidence. And the prosecution's own witnesses told gave conflicting testimony about blood being on the couch. If you can point to testimony clearly stating there was no blood on the couch or pillow I would be more than willing to read that.
I didn't say there was no blood on the couch. I said there was none of the boys blood on the back of the couch where certainly there would have been had Darlie been stabbed by an attacker leaning over the back. There is none of Darlie's blood on the couch where she would have been sleeping when attacked, according to her. Her blood is on the couch, easy to see in the CS photos and the tech testified she collected Darlie's, but it's not from an attacker,it's a straight line of drops across the cushions as if she were walking either on it or beside it and we know she was bleeding from the arm. They didn't have to colllect the couch as evidence. The CS video and the CS photos are enough.
Luminol also showed that blood was wiped from the couch.
Darlie's pillow was collected as evidence. You need to read Linch's testimony.
I'm also not understanding how you have decided where the boys were sleeping prior to the attack and that the intruder had to step over them to get to Darlie. I've seen the diagram of the room and it seems very likely that both boys were sleeping in front of the TV. That means an intruder didn't have to step anywhere near them to get to Darlie. But if you have information as to where exactly the boys were sleeping prior to the attack I would be willing to read that too.
I didn't decide anything. There's more than enough proof of where the two boys were sleeping. Their blood for one thing. Both boys had seepage wounds and their blood pooled around them where they lay.
Damon was not lying near the tv, he was right in front of Darlie on the floor when he was first stabbed as his bloody handprint shows. The blood evidence proves this. Have you seen the blood map of the room, not just a diagram? Damon's blood also proves he didn't die right away and either crawled or dragged himself across the room, where he was stabbed again. You can find all of it in the trial testimonyso you can read it there. I've seen the CS photos and the blood map of the murder room.B]
Also, I've never thought there was anything odd about Darlie laying suspiciously still on the couch. Whether she herself said she saw sleeping makes no difference to me. I know the question "how did she sleep through.....?" Easy, she didn't "sleep" through anything. I believe she was attacked first (Bevel himself confirms this) and that at some point she passed out. When she came to the second time she had no recollection of her attack. On cross examination Darlie's doctors admitted that Darlie could have passed out during the attack and that it's not uncommon for patients to have a complete lack of memory about a traumatic event regardless of a head injury (see Dr. Santos pgs. 806-810).
Me neither, although I don't believe Darlie slept at all that night. Bevel does not confirm she was attacked first. You're using one tiny portion of Bevel's testimony to try and prove this, that doesn't work, you have to take the testimony as a whole.
Darlie says she was sleeping downstairs because the baby rolling in his cot kept her awake. Then she says she was asleep whilst the two boys are stabbed and she herself injured. Quite hard to swallow.
Darlie was not unconscious. She never claimed to be unconscious, she had no injury to explain unconsciousness. She was alert as to time and place and quite easily gave the 911 operator details. She passed the shock test given at the scene and her vitals were normal at Baylor. It's only since her "I was asleep" excuse didn't fly that she developed TA. She wouldn't have stayed traumatized all this time, some memory would have filtered through by now. Why can't you read ALL the testimony before you post it. Just because you think she was doesn't make it true.
Plus the technician dusted the window and screen and then the utility room. The chances that the brush then dropped two pieces of evidence(the fibre and the rubber dust)into two serrations of the blade is well nigh impossible) Lynchès affidavit addresses the chemical make up of the fibre, the fibre and the test fibres from the screen are microscopically identical. Nothing in the Routier home matched this fibre,identically, but the window screen.
My apologies to Cami for answering her points in this post but as she is having keyboard issues it was hard to tell if these were her comments or the previous poster's. Since they seem to pertain to 2 Percent's post I'll answer then here.
I believe you need to reread Linch's affidavit....
"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 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 came 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."
In layman's terms he is saying the fibers in question look like the same material as the screen but he isn't certain that they are. So all this arguing about fibers on a knife might be moot considering the fibers on the knife might not be screen fibers at all.
No he isn't. He's saying the glass rod and rubber dust were microscopically identical to the screen and that nothing else he tested in the home compared. However, further chemcial tests could prove otherwise. Since neither defence nor prosecution subjected the glass rod to chemical tests, the rod and rubber debris remain as is, on the bread knife until someone proves otherwise.
Once again,read the trial testimony and not the affidavits. that affidavit was prepared for Darlie's appeal I do believe. Well she failed that appeal.
[be or a lack of blood where there should be. And, as I said before, I have read his testimony (three times now I believe).
You have read and presented here a tiny portion of Bevel's testimony that you are basing your opinions on. We call that "taking it out of context."
I'll address the top portion as I can't really speculate as to where you think there was blood where it shouldn't be or a lack of blood where there should be. And, as I said before, I have read his testimony (three times now I believe).
You have read and presented here a tiny portion of Bevel's testimony that you are basing your opinions on. We call that "taking it out of context."
Blood where it shouldn't be. Well there shouldn't be any cast-off blood on Darlie if she didn't stab the children. There should be blood all over that window and window sill, there isn't. There should be blood on the utility room floor where she says he dropped the knife...there isn't. There shouldn't be a bloody outline of the knife on the carpet but there is. Blood all over the kitchen floor,sink,counters and inside the cupboard....some cleaned up some not. Bloody footprints cleaned from the kitchen floor. No blood on the couch where Darlie says she was sleeping. None of Darlie's blood on the sock.
Firstly, I don't consider three spatters to be "a lot." There are two cast-off spatters high up on the right shoulder of her shirt and one spatter high up on the right back. Bevel's experiment produced multiple spatters specifically on his back after two swings. I read the autopsy report of both boys. The knife would have swung no less than ten times. If Bevel had multiple spatters after two swings then it stands to reason that after ten swings he would have been covered in spatter. Ergo Darlie should have been covered in spatter as well.
But for this argument I'll stick with his findings alone. After two swings he had multiple spatters on both the back and the front. Darlie had three spatters total on her shirt after no less than ten swings. Does that logically make sense? If he is covered in spatter after two swings how does she only have three spatters after at least ten?
But what you are not understanding is Bevel had NOTICIABLE blood stains because the garment he was wearing was pristine after the experiment. Darlie's wasn't, her's was covered with her blood and it was difficult to find more cast-off than they did even though it's most likely there. Bevel explains this in his testimony.
As for the couch and floor behind it.... I stated this above. Most of the state's experts' testimony conflicted one another. Mayne testified he could visually see blood in different areas on the couch. Cron testified there was no "defect" on the couch. Long testified that she took a blood sample from one area of the couch and Linch testified there were "no hair or defects" on the couch. And then the couch isn't shown as evidence at the trial. How in the world can you know if Darlie's blood is or is not on the couch when investigators at the scene can't even agree about if there was blood on it or not? The state could have put the whole issue to rest by showing the couch (and a lack of blood if there was) as evidence. They didn't which makes me wonder why. If I had a woman claiming she was stabbed on a couch but none of her blood was on it I might want to show that to a jury to prove she's lying. For whatever reason the state opted for the "just take my word for it" approach. We'll never know about blood (or lack thereof) on the couch because it's gone now, as is Darlie's pillow. The absence of blood on the carpet behind the couch isn't really a worthy argument considering the couch was pushed up against a wall. All the cast-off would be on the wall.
You're basing your opinion on Darlie being attacked first. I'm not.Plus you are taking things out of context. As I said above, there is a line of Darlie's blood going straight across the cushions. Obviously this blood was collected by Long. There is/was no significant amount of blood where Darlie places her head on the couch. If she was attacked on the couch, her blood should be all over the couch and yes on the back of the couch..it isn't....it's in the kitchen where she self-inflicted her wounds.
The couch was not up against a wall at all. It was in front of the sliding glass doors, with at least a metre (perhaps more) of space between the door and the couch.
Both Cron and Linch are talking about no cuts or nicks from the knife on the couch....defects.
The Crime Scene video and the CS photos of the couch are more than enough to show the jury there was blood on the couch. And you are wrong about the pillow as clearly shown in the trial testimony.B]
And as I told the other poster, don't misclassify my word. I never once even insinuated that blood was coming out of the wounds in a geyser-like fashion, flying across the room and onto Darlie. Make no mistake.... my argument has nothing to do with blood flying out of the wounds themselves. My argument is that blood on the knife was "cast-off" during the swinging motion of the stabbings. And blood flying off of a knife during a stabbing is not a theory. It is a proven fact (Google bloodstain pattern analysis).
Yes, I understand that, I mistook your post. But you did insinuate that Darlie could have received the boys blood just by being in the room. Then you also stated that Damon and Devon were in lying in front of the tv (which is incorrect). Please explain how the blood flew that far and landed on the front and back of Darlie's nightshirt?
Yes, Darlie has cast-off blood on her night shirt from the swinging motion of the knife. I know it's a proven fact, I'm not a babe in the woods. The blood flies in the direction the weapon is moving and when it lands, it points to the source. As she kneeled over the boys and stabbed them, their blood flew from the knife and landed on her nightshirt. Damon was attacked once but didn't die. He either crawled or dragged himself across the room to the hallway where he was attacked again. His and Darlie's blood is all over the wall there.
And don't classify me as a die hard Darlie supporter. I don't know the woman, don't know her family.... I have no interest other than being a common observer. I remember vaguely when it happened and seeing the SS tape. I thought she was guilty. I read Precious Angels and have seen a few TV shows that pretty much reinforced my opinion. I recently watch a show, Deadly Women, I think it's called and I started to wonder what happened with her case. I started surfing the web and ended up doubting she did it. I finally resorted to just reading the transcripts. Nothing in the transcripts leads me to believe she murdered her children.[/quote]
I never did classify you as that did I, I don't think I did. You're entitled to your opinions just as we all are. If you're content to take the transcripts out of context the way you did, that's fine by me. There's lots of people who doubt she did it. However she was convicted and her conviction has been upheld by every appeals court.....nothing new has been uncovered and it's been 15 years.
cami
Keep your fork......
he said he administered cpr on the older boy (i get their names mixed up, all of them start with d) and that air and blood spurted on his face. i see no mention of blood on his face/hair, etc.[/QUOTE]
Keep reading you'll find it. Darin was not allowed to accompany Darlie in the ambulance so he ran to a neighbour to get him to take him to Baylor. Whilst there he washed his face and hands of blood. Darin can clearly be heard on the 911 tape before the police arrived...Darlie tells the operator he is helping.
cami
Keep your fork......
Darin is telling the truth about giving Devon cpr. , his voice is clearly heard on the 911 tape and Darlie tells the operator he is helping. And he is clearly the man who met the officer on the lawn as testified to by the officer and Gorsuch..
cami
Keep your fork......
Why do the cops and the neighbour HAVE to notice blood on Darin before you believe them? Surely he wasn't dripping with blood. Perhaps Gorsuch couldn't see that far. Maybe the officer just didn't notice in the heat of the moment. Darin's statements were consistant with his movements unlike Darlie who lied everytime she became aware of evidence.
cami
Keep your fork......
Do what the jury did and throw out bread knife.
Obviously then the intruder used his own knife to cut the screen.
Why then did he go to the Routiers kitchen and use her knife on the boys when he already had one?
Obviously then the intruder used his own knife to cut the screen.
Why then did he go to the Routiers kitchen and use her knife on the boys when he already had one?
I have looked at the shirt. It shows a blood pattern pooling on the left upper collar area of the shirt along with blood covering the entire front all the way to the bottom.
The directional flow clearly shows she was vertical, not horizontal, the entire time she was bleeding. The slight pooling is from the nature of the wound - high up and around the side of the neck.
You can probably google forensic photos of directional flow of blood and you'll see what I mean, but beware....it'll probably be graphic.
As for your fiber theory, there's no evidence and the theory of magical contamination is hard to swallow. It's just too large a leap without evidence.
The directional flow clearly shows she was vertical, not horizontal, the entire time she was bleeding. The slight pooling is from the nature of the wound - high up and around the side of the neck.
You can probably google forensic photos of directional flow of blood and you'll see what I mean, but beware....it'll probably be graphic.
As for your fiber theory, there's no evidence and the theory of magical contamination is hard to swallow. It's just too large a leap without evidence.
cami
Keep your fork......
The cast-off blood as well clearly shows she was vertical, not horizontal.
As well we have to remember the defence did not ever claim contamination of the evidence.
cami
Keep your fork......
As well, I don't remember in their testimony that they were asked how bloody Darin was.
Sorry for the delay. Between being sick and babysitting my nephew I haven't had much time for posts..... I still don't but I'll at least post a shortish reply until I have more time to reply more in depth.
Cami.....
Let's please get one thing out in the open. I post what I believe the evidence shows. You post what you believe the evidence shows. Both of which are theories. Both theories are based on what we perceive the evidence shows. But in the end both are just theories.... mine as well as your your's.
I've read counteless posts and theories (here and elsewhere) about Damon sleeping on the floor right beside Darlie meaning an attacker had to step over him; Damon being attacked two separate times (voiding the ME's 9 minute time line); that Darlie cut herself after planting the sock; Blood spatter proves she was the assailant etc. All of this is theory. I've given your theories (as they are) as much thought as I can.
First.... I can find no evidence either of the boys slept between the couch and table. If you have a photo of a blanket or pillow beside the couch I'm willing to look at it. And not the pillow that floats all around the room either. Otherwise this presumption Damon was sleeping there based on blood stains is a theory. I will not assume that because there is blood located beside the couch the child in question was sleeping there. Why? Because blood evidence does not prove he slept there. It only proves he was located in that place at some point while he was bleeding (which Darlie said Damon was).
I could wake in my bedroom, walk to the kitchen, get stabbed, walked to my office and call for help. The puddle of blood in the kitchen isn't evidence I ever slept there. It's evidence I was there while I bled but doesn't prove where I slept. I could also fall asleep on my couch and get up only to get stabbed in the hallway. The puddle of blood in the hall certainly wouldn't indicate that I slept there. It only means that I was either attacked there or laid there and bled. It certainly doesn't indicate I was there prior to being attacked. The medical examinar admitted that Damon had the ability to talk and walk after the attack. What the medical examinar had no knowledge of is where Damon slept prior to or during the attack or who attacked him. You can surmise that he slept beside her and she attacked him there. I can surmise that Damon awoke in front of the TV during Darlie's attack, ran to her and then was attacked while he was beside the couch. The blood evidence cannot refute either theory. The blood evidence only proves he was beside te couch while he bled, not where he was when the attack started.
Second.... The theory that Damon was attacked two separate times. Nothing in the testimony or evidence proves this theory. I know that people who want to believe Darlie is guilty use this to debunk the nine minute time line but there is no evidence he was attacked two separate times. The idea he was attacked two separate times is just another theory. If anything his autopsy proves it was a singular attack. All of his wounds were to his back. Had Darlie attacked him the first time in the back only to find later he was still alive it stands to reason she didn't have the forethought to make both attacks look as if they were one and thus continue the attack in the same location as the first. If anything the testimony debunks this theory.
The medical examinar testified that Damon could walk and talk after the attack (and let's assume there were two). Darlie attacks Damon and leaves to plant the sock. While she is gone Damon has the ability and opportunity, according to the ME, to at least attempt to get to his father's help. Darin never heard any child yell for help and there is no blood evidence in the foyer, stairs, upstairs, etc. Damon ever attempted to go to his father which he had ample opportunity to do so. Darin and/or Darlie had no opportunity to cover up that attempt. In the end the evidence and testimony (or lack there of as far as evidence goes) leads to only one thing.... Damon was attacked once (evidence being his wound pattern indicates one attack and opportunity/ability to get help if there were two separate attacks is lacking).
Third..... Darlie inflicted her own wounds after the boys were attacked. Bevel testified, and I quote:
15 A. It certainly could be consistent. I
16 think we need an explanation here, however.
17 Q. Yes, sir. Why do you think it's
18 consistent with that?
19 A. Well, again as you are coming back,
20 you can certainly have blood stains that are being cast
21 off of the weapon, and they could be cast off, certainly
22 going in front of you, coming back towards you, or it
23 could also go back behind you.
24 But it certainly is consistent with
25 stains that can be cast off. And the explanation that I
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3345
1 think that is needed here, since we have again two blood
2 types. If it is two separate stains, then obviously, she
3 has to also be bleeding.
4 If it is one stain, and I cannot make
5 that determination, she still has to be bleeding, but
6 it's a mixture with her blood, with the other blood and
7 again, I'm not -- with that stain, able to say which it
8 is.
Bevel was clear about at least one thing...... the cast-off (as that is what the blood drops in question are) could only come about one of two ways. One, Darlie's blood was already on the knife because she was attacked first and the attack on Devon and Damon produced a mixture of her blood already on the knife and their's during the cast-off. If we go with Bevel's theory that she bled prior to the boy's being attacked (and we know blood spots show a mix of both Darlie/Devon blood and Darlie/Damon blood) then her planting the sock without leaving blood on it, a blood trail to it or a time line that allowed it isn't possible. Or we can go with the second option..... She stabbed both boys leaving very specific cast-off on her shirt. She planted the sock and then inflicted her own superficial wounds that weren't all that serious but serious enough to not only produce cast-off but make it land exactly overtop of the four cast-off stains of her children and nowhere else.
I also looked at a number of the crime scene diagrams and photos. None of the photos show a sliding glass door. Not to say there isn't one but I can't find a photo showing the couch she was on with a glass door behind it. Be that is it may, I looked into the door behind the couch thing. As I said, not a single photo or diagram (save for one) shows the couch further than a foot from the wall. My brother is an architect. I showed him the diagram of the downstairs, a house photo and info that that the house was roughly 3400sq.ft. He said the house couldn't be more than 28' to 30' wide. Once you subtract exterior walls and load bearing wall the room could only be 12' 6'' to 13'6'' wide. After I showed him interior video he said 13' wide max. None of the photos nor video show a sliding glass door behind the couch. None of this may seem to like much to most but I'm sure to Cami it does since she seems to believe cast-off would have to be behind the couch. The photos and video show no door behind the couch. The dynamics of the room make it impossible for a door to be behind the couch with enough room for the couch to be pulled out (2 to 3 foot), another 3 for the couch, at least a foot from the couch and then a 2 foot table, another foot (moreso I'm sure) for a path along with another chair. Assuming the room is at it's widest the couch still has to be against the wall as all pics and diagrams show. I'm looking at the diagram from Precious Angels (courtesy Rowlett PD) and even their diagram shows the couch pressed up against the wall.
And before you start complaining about reading the transcripts or anything else, I have. I've also looked at every available photo I can find. If you have any other photos I'll be happy to view them. But based on what I can see there is nothing that says she did this. I also watched a few videos. Two points really stuck with me in the videos I watched. One, a juror named Rina somethingorother said the SS tape stuck with her because she couldn't imagine acting the same way as Darlie did. Since there's no Proper Grieving Handbook her opinion on how Darlie grieved is moot other than it sent Darlie to death row.
Two, which concerns me more is the couch. The video I watched had Chris Brown going over the evidence on the couch. Chris Brown explained that there was a line of Darlie's blood on the couch that matched the edge of where her pillow would have been. He also explained the pillow case and pillow were soaked in blood. Once you would place the pillow on the couch it matched perfectly where a pillow, her and her blood would have pooled if she had been laying on the couch when she was cut. Her blood pooled onto the pillow, flowed over and then left a visible line where the pillow and the couch met leaving a clear line. There was also a discussion about how or why the couch was returned to the family. Prosecutor Bill Lane (not of this case) was there. Never once did he say that any of what was said was untrue. He admitted there was a pooling of blood consistant with a person bleeding onto a pillow and the blood then flowing onto the couch in an outline of the pillow. He admitted that the blood was Darlie's and matched the pillow outline.
His reasoning for her guilty verdict standing is that all this evidence was available to Darlie's defense lawyer's at the time of trial. None of this evidence is grounds for appeal because her lawyers knew about all this back then. According to Lane it's not that the evidence isn't compelling or proof of innocence. It's just that she had her chance and her lawyer blew it. The theory that no-do-over's should probably stand for a game of Monopoly but for a person's life? I could care less about what Darlie did or didn't know/do when it came to her legal defense. She trusted a lawyer who chose how he wanted to defend her case. He opted to do a minimal defense (and that's putting it in the nicest of terms) focusing on the "a mother wouldn't do this" defense..... Stupid in light of Susan Smith. He added one more to the "loss" column while Darlie was checking into death row.
I've never thought a person's life should hang in the balance of "too bad, so sad..... you had your chance and your lawyer F*__ed it up" over innocence. I could be wrong however. Could you imagine yourself on death row complaining that your lawyer failed you in many respects only to find out your evidence proves you are innocent but your DP still stands. because you lawyer messed up? Too Bad, so sad for you I guess.
Cami.....
Let's please get one thing out in the open. I post what I believe the evidence shows. You post what you believe the evidence shows. Both of which are theories. Both theories are based on what we perceive the evidence shows. But in the end both are just theories.... mine as well as your your's.
I've read counteless posts and theories (here and elsewhere) about Damon sleeping on the floor right beside Darlie meaning an attacker had to step over him; Damon being attacked two separate times (voiding the ME's 9 minute time line); that Darlie cut herself after planting the sock; Blood spatter proves she was the assailant etc. All of this is theory. I've given your theories (as they are) as much thought as I can.
First.... I can find no evidence either of the boys slept between the couch and table. If you have a photo of a blanket or pillow beside the couch I'm willing to look at it. And not the pillow that floats all around the room either. Otherwise this presumption Damon was sleeping there based on blood stains is a theory. I will not assume that because there is blood located beside the couch the child in question was sleeping there. Why? Because blood evidence does not prove he slept there. It only proves he was located in that place at some point while he was bleeding (which Darlie said Damon was).
I could wake in my bedroom, walk to the kitchen, get stabbed, walked to my office and call for help. The puddle of blood in the kitchen isn't evidence I ever slept there. It's evidence I was there while I bled but doesn't prove where I slept. I could also fall asleep on my couch and get up only to get stabbed in the hallway. The puddle of blood in the hall certainly wouldn't indicate that I slept there. It only means that I was either attacked there or laid there and bled. It certainly doesn't indicate I was there prior to being attacked. The medical examinar admitted that Damon had the ability to talk and walk after the attack. What the medical examinar had no knowledge of is where Damon slept prior to or during the attack or who attacked him. You can surmise that he slept beside her and she attacked him there. I can surmise that Damon awoke in front of the TV during Darlie's attack, ran to her and then was attacked while he was beside the couch. The blood evidence cannot refute either theory. The blood evidence only proves he was beside te couch while he bled, not where he was when the attack started.
Second.... The theory that Damon was attacked two separate times. Nothing in the testimony or evidence proves this theory. I know that people who want to believe Darlie is guilty use this to debunk the nine minute time line but there is no evidence he was attacked two separate times. The idea he was attacked two separate times is just another theory. If anything his autopsy proves it was a singular attack. All of his wounds were to his back. Had Darlie attacked him the first time in the back only to find later he was still alive it stands to reason she didn't have the forethought to make both attacks look as if they were one and thus continue the attack in the same location as the first. If anything the testimony debunks this theory.
The medical examinar testified that Damon could walk and talk after the attack (and let's assume there were two). Darlie attacks Damon and leaves to plant the sock. While she is gone Damon has the ability and opportunity, according to the ME, to at least attempt to get to his father's help. Darin never heard any child yell for help and there is no blood evidence in the foyer, stairs, upstairs, etc. Damon ever attempted to go to his father which he had ample opportunity to do so. Darin and/or Darlie had no opportunity to cover up that attempt. In the end the evidence and testimony (or lack there of as far as evidence goes) leads to only one thing.... Damon was attacked once (evidence being his wound pattern indicates one attack and opportunity/ability to get help if there were two separate attacks is lacking).
Third..... Darlie inflicted her own wounds after the boys were attacked. Bevel testified, and I quote:
15 A. It certainly could be consistent. I
16 think we need an explanation here, however.
17 Q. Yes, sir. Why do you think it's
18 consistent with that?
19 A. Well, again as you are coming back,
20 you can certainly have blood stains that are being cast
21 off of the weapon, and they could be cast off, certainly
22 going in front of you, coming back towards you, or it
23 could also go back behind you.
24 But it certainly is consistent with
25 stains that can be cast off. And the explanation that I
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3345
1 think that is needed here, since we have again two blood
2 types. If it is two separate stains, then obviously, she
3 has to also be bleeding.
4 If it is one stain, and I cannot make
5 that determination, she still has to be bleeding, but
6 it's a mixture with her blood, with the other blood and
7 again, I'm not -- with that stain, able to say which it
8 is.
Bevel was clear about at least one thing...... the cast-off (as that is what the blood drops in question are) could only come about one of two ways. One, Darlie's blood was already on the knife because she was attacked first and the attack on Devon and Damon produced a mixture of her blood already on the knife and their's during the cast-off. If we go with Bevel's theory that she bled prior to the boy's being attacked (and we know blood spots show a mix of both Darlie/Devon blood and Darlie/Damon blood) then her planting the sock without leaving blood on it, a blood trail to it or a time line that allowed it isn't possible. Or we can go with the second option..... She stabbed both boys leaving very specific cast-off on her shirt. She planted the sock and then inflicted her own superficial wounds that weren't all that serious but serious enough to not only produce cast-off but make it land exactly overtop of the four cast-off stains of her children and nowhere else.
I also looked at a number of the crime scene diagrams and photos. None of the photos show a sliding glass door. Not to say there isn't one but I can't find a photo showing the couch she was on with a glass door behind it. Be that is it may, I looked into the door behind the couch thing. As I said, not a single photo or diagram (save for one) shows the couch further than a foot from the wall. My brother is an architect. I showed him the diagram of the downstairs, a house photo and info that that the house was roughly 3400sq.ft. He said the house couldn't be more than 28' to 30' wide. Once you subtract exterior walls and load bearing wall the room could only be 12' 6'' to 13'6'' wide. After I showed him interior video he said 13' wide max. None of the photos nor video show a sliding glass door behind the couch. None of this may seem to like much to most but I'm sure to Cami it does since she seems to believe cast-off would have to be behind the couch. The photos and video show no door behind the couch. The dynamics of the room make it impossible for a door to be behind the couch with enough room for the couch to be pulled out (2 to 3 foot), another 3 for the couch, at least a foot from the couch and then a 2 foot table, another foot (moreso I'm sure) for a path along with another chair. Assuming the room is at it's widest the couch still has to be against the wall as all pics and diagrams show. I'm looking at the diagram from Precious Angels (courtesy Rowlett PD) and even their diagram shows the couch pressed up against the wall.
And before you start complaining about reading the transcripts or anything else, I have. I've also looked at every available photo I can find. If you have any other photos I'll be happy to view them. But based on what I can see there is nothing that says she did this. I also watched a few videos. Two points really stuck with me in the videos I watched. One, a juror named Rina somethingorother said the SS tape stuck with her because she couldn't imagine acting the same way as Darlie did. Since there's no Proper Grieving Handbook her opinion on how Darlie grieved is moot other than it sent Darlie to death row.
Two, which concerns me more is the couch. The video I watched had Chris Brown going over the evidence on the couch. Chris Brown explained that there was a line of Darlie's blood on the couch that matched the edge of where her pillow would have been. He also explained the pillow case and pillow were soaked in blood. Once you would place the pillow on the couch it matched perfectly where a pillow, her and her blood would have pooled if she had been laying on the couch when she was cut. Her blood pooled onto the pillow, flowed over and then left a visible line where the pillow and the couch met leaving a clear line. There was also a discussion about how or why the couch was returned to the family. Prosecutor Bill Lane (not of this case) was there. Never once did he say that any of what was said was untrue. He admitted there was a pooling of blood consistant with a person bleeding onto a pillow and the blood then flowing onto the couch in an outline of the pillow. He admitted that the blood was Darlie's and matched the pillow outline.
His reasoning for her guilty verdict standing is that all this evidence was available to Darlie's defense lawyer's at the time of trial. None of this evidence is grounds for appeal because her lawyers knew about all this back then. According to Lane it's not that the evidence isn't compelling or proof of innocence. It's just that she had her chance and her lawyer blew it. The theory that no-do-over's should probably stand for a game of Monopoly but for a person's life? I could care less about what Darlie did or didn't know/do when it came to her legal defense. She trusted a lawyer who chose how he wanted to defend her case. He opted to do a minimal defense (and that's putting it in the nicest of terms) focusing on the "a mother wouldn't do this" defense..... Stupid in light of Susan Smith. He added one more to the "loss" column while Darlie was checking into death row.
I've never thought a person's life should hang in the balance of "too bad, so sad..... you had your chance and your lawyer F*__ed it up" over innocence. I could be wrong however. Could you imagine yourself on death row complaining that your lawyer failed you in many respects only to find out your evidence proves you are innocent but your DP still stands. because you lawyer messed up? Too Bad, so sad for you I guess.
cami
Keep your fork......
[/QUOTE]
OH well she had one of the best law teams in Dallas, including investigators. She LOST the appeal for ineffectiveness of council. Oh come on get real, her life isn't hanging in the balance cause Mulder said so sad too bad. She certainly has one of the best law firms for her appellate case. They would have had a new trial by now. The onus is on Darlie to provide new evidence that no reasonable juror would have found her guilty. She has yet to profer anything. And don't tell me about photos. Those photos are in the public property. Her appellate attorneys could have them any time.
Oh and btw, cops always more stuff around at a crime scene so they can search for evidence. But only after they have initially video and taken photos.
Cami.....
Absolutely you're entitled to your theories as well as I am.
[
State's 11 Crime Scene photo.....MTJD, Page 306 clearly shows diagram of where both boys sleeping when attached.
I've never ever claimed an attacker had to step over Damon to get to Darlie. As noted, there was enough room in between the back of the couch and the glass door for an attacker to stand over Darlie and cut her throat. NOr would he have had to step over Damon in his place on the floor. I don't knwo where that got that but not from me. Damon's blood hand on the carpet on the floor and couch along with his blood wiped up from the couch proves to me he was trying to get away.
Darlie's told so many stories, we don't know where this attacked came from but let's go with the last one that she woke up and as a "blurb" at the end of her couch.
I fail to see how that destroys the 9 minutes time live. Damon was stabbed, moved 15 feet, was stabbed again and this second group of stabbings starts the 9 minute time line.
Damon's blood trail proves he was stabbed on the floor in front of the couch, he then dragged himself to the entrance way wall. All of this is fact proved by blood.
If a stranger managed to get the boys blood on the sock, why not Darlies?Why not stab in her heart as she lay unexposed on that couch. I mean this man is heartless, he's just killed two little boys.
Darlies blood is not on the sock but her dna from shed skin cells is the toe. That's why she made such a big deal about the sock...she had to stab Damon again and the sock was in the alley by that time.
There was his bloody drag marks from his original position on the floor. Injuries to his lungs and liver, he could make gasping sounds and most and a traumatized child is not going to scream Mummy did it.
Since he never called for Darin and never spoke to the police officer or paramedica, I have to believe he couldn't.
Damon's blood was found where he fell asleep, in front of Darlie on the floor. Had he been attacked over by the tv, his blood would be there.
The autopys does not prove that, if anything it proves a second attack due to the depth of the wounds.
Well I guess you're not reading the testiomny correctly, I believe she said he "could have" walked and "could have" talked. By the time the rescue arrived there his 9:00 minutes was up and he died in the arm of a paramedic. He did not talk.
Lastly, both Damon and Darlie's blood was found in the are on the wall where Damon's body was found.
NO one has debunked this theory but you.
Well we all surmise it since Darlie told us it happened and since the blankets and pillow he was using were there. I'm afraid as I said re read the autopsy, Damon was injured in his liver and lungs, he could no more than gasp, he was not up walking and talking. You appear to be the only poster that doesn't believe this. I think's in Darlie's own words.
However, you can keep him by the tv if you want....it doesn't hurt much except for......the autorities know the boys were asleep when attacked..they had no defence wounds except Devon. And his are mostly a gut wrench reaction, he died very quickly.
WEll I do have a photo but it's my book MTJD so I'd have no way to show you. Try the gallaries on the website [URLwww.guiltybydefault.com[/URL]
Well I guess you're not reading the testiomny correctly, I believe she said he "could have" walked and "could have" talked. By the time the rescue arrived there his 9:00 minutes was up and he could have talked to the cop or his father Darin. He died in the arm of a paramedic. He did not talk.
Lastly, both Damon and Darlie's blood was found in the area on the wall where Damon's body was found.
NO one has debunked this theory but you.
OMG, here you are again quoting one tiny stain as all the blood findings. Bevel said is one stain was on the shirt first, Darlie had to be attacked first. If Devon's was on the shirt first, Devon was attacked first. two tiny stains....that's. You haven't comment the least on the cast-off blood on the wall where Devon's body was found. The lack of cast-off blood if Darlie was fighging in the living roomYour last post your claimed Darlie had to be attacked first.
1 A. Okay. On this blood stain, again, we
2 have a direction that is coming from down to up. This
3 one is also, slightly going a little bit to the left as
4 you are looking at the photograph, and once again we have
5 a stain, that it could be either two stains, or it could
6 be one stain. And again, the reason I'm saying that is,
7 you go to the end of the long axis on the larger stain,
8 to the bottom there is additional stains that is up
9 above, that can either be an additional stain that is
10 touching, or it can be simply a continuation.
11 A lot of times on fabric it's
12 difficult to make that determination. So the only thing
13 I can say is, that if it is two, they are still
14 indicative of going in an up and down direction, even if
15 it is one stain, it is still indicative of going with an
16 upward trajectory.
17 Q. Okay. Now, you see the results here
18 that we indicate on 3-TB, which is T-10, we show that to
19 be a mixture of the blood of Devon Routier and Darlie
20 Routier, and T-9 or TB-2, that is marked as a mixture of
21 Darlie Routier and Damon Routier?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Bevel, let me ask you, let's
24 talk about each of these stains. Using State's Exhibit
25 No. 67?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3344
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, sir, whether or
3 not, first of all 3-TB, which is T-10 that is the mixture
4 between Devon and Darlie Routier. If that stain, as we
5 see it in State's Exhibit 120-A would be consistent with
6 the defendant in this case, kneeling down over the body
7 of Devon Routier, and with two motions, raising the knife
8 up, stabbing him in the chest, then withdrawing the knife
9 up, and then striking again in the chest, and stabbing
10 and then withdrawing the knife again, after that second
11 stab wound.
12 Would that stain here on 120-A be
13 consistent with that sort of motion by the defendant with
14 State's Exhibit No. 67?
15 A. It certainly could be consistent. I
16 think we need an explanation here, however.
17 Q. Yes, sir. Why do you think it's
18 consistent with that?
19 A. Well, again as you are coming back,
20 you can certainly have blood stains that are being cast
21 off of the weapon, and they could be cast off, certainly
22 going in front of you, coming back towards you, or it
23 could also go back behind you.
24 But it certainly is consistent with
25 stains that can be cast off.
Once again, Bevel is referring to two tiny stains, he doesn't know if it one stain or two. I read nowhere else in his testimony that Darlie had to be attacked first except for this tiny stain. That's not his theory on the whole of the nightshirt so please stop presenting it as such.
3 Q. Now, with regards to T-10 or T-15 here
4 on the back of the T-shirt, I want you now to assume
5 again that the defendant is wearing State's Exhibit No.
6 25, that she is bending over the body, kneeling over the
7 body of Devon Routier with State's Exhibit No. 67, again,
8 that she inflicts two stab wounds to his chest, again,
9 one of them two inches deep, another one five inches
10 deep, with State's Exhibit 67 as I am doing at this time
11 here on the floor.
12 Sir, let me ask you if that motion
13 also is consistent with having produced State's Exhibit,
14 excuse me, I mean, T-15 the stain that you marked as
15 TB-8?
16 A. Yes, sir, it is.
17 Q. Okay. Could you explain to the jury
18 how that particular stabbing motion can produce this
19 stain on the back of this T-shirt over the right
20 shoulder?
21 A. Yes, sir. In the drawback of the
22 knife, once the blood is being released from the knife
23 and following the same trajectory, the same direction as
24 the force, what it is doing is just simply coming over,
25 parabolic arc is taking over and at some point as it
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3355
1 comes back down it is going to land on whatever is there.
2 In this case, it would be consistent
3 with the T-shirt being the target that it ultimately
4 lands on.
5 In fact, on the motion that the
6 counselor was just demonstrating, if you watch the end of
7 the knife, you can actually see, if you just simply
8 follow the end of the knife, you could see blood, or
We will have very different views on the knife. Damon's and Darlie's blood was found on the knife, however Devon's blood is likely a hold back if she's ever tried for his murder. The handle wasn't removed, not all the blood was tested and lastely Darlie may have rinsed the knife off in the sink.
Darlie stabs Devon and Damon. Ooops notice she has some blood on the sock. She goes out the front door cause the back would take too long, slightly waking the neighbour across the street and causing all the dogs to bark. No one but Darlie knows why she did this.
OH so now you know you how their house was made up and I don't. Please everyone on tihs forum advise sinsaint the the Routiers had a sliding glass door behind the couch she was sleeping on. The couches were grouped together with tables in between them. Darlie even draws herself sleeping on this couch.
States 13-b Clearly shows sliding glass door. In fact it's Chris Brown's favourite photo. He shows the crooked slat where someone might have been looking in at DArlie.
You must be looking at the wrong photo because there was a sofa back table behind the second couch and then the hallway, not a wall. Sorry you can't make walls where are none.
State's 32 A B Diagram of room.
I said the couch Darlie was sleeping on had a metre or more space between the door and the couch. Since we know there was no intruder, there is no intruder back there. Had there been, the carpet and the couch would have at Darlie's blood going on your theory Darlie was attacked first. Hey Darlie's the one who said the guy was leaing her over her from the back not me...take it up with her.
My theory is Darlie self -inflicted her own wounds at the kitchen sink where all the blood is. Damon and Devon's blood pooled out around them and we are expected Darlie was stabbed on that couch yet none of her apprecialble blood is there...it's all in the kitchen.
What's the sense, you clearly have decided your a better Crime Scene Analyst than all those who worked on Darlie's case. You've taken a tiny piece of Bevel's testiomy and contributed as his findings that Darlie had to bleeding first, hence she could not drop the sock and she could not have cas-off blood on her. It's easy when you do that., when you ignore all the rest of his testimony.
You have no idea why the jury played that tape so many times. Maybe, just maybe they were looking for a sign or grief in Darlie....like Darin, who clearly looks uncomfortable and backs away from the silly string stuff. Rina Way her name is did not give that the only reason they convicted Darlie.
Of course there's no hand book. Why or why do people believe Darlie was convicted on that silly string tape. People do stupid things and that was a major one on Darlie's part.
CWB is not a lawyer, he's not a cop, he's not a homicide officer and he's not a CSI. His arguments mean nothing. There is a line of blood drops going straight across all the cushions as if she were walking on it or beside it with her cut arm. CSI's knows. CWB, means nothing to me, his interpretation of the evidence is completely bogus. And after all he got all his documents from the public venue so he has all the photos--which he has manipulated to serve his own needs.
I've watched this video three times and I have set to see Mr. Lane say anything about the couch and the pillow. Perhaps you could screen capture or it something.
Once again, the blood evidence puts the knife in Darlie's hands.
There's a whole lot more than has been discussed here.
Yes, all that evidence was awailable at trial but her attorneys were unable to refute it or to show reasonable doubt, that's why she was convicted.
[/QUOTE]
Huh, I think you are reading into this what you want to read into. For one thing there were at lease 10 or more cast-off stains on the front sleeve and shoulder plus cast-off of Devon on the back. After she planted the sock and stood at the kitchen sink she hears Damon moving, She catches up to him by the wall to the entranceway where she stabs him again, fatally, and that starts the 9 minutes time line. Very easy for her to get Damon's blood overlaying hers and vice versa.
Darlie's blood flowed in one direction, straight down.
Crow_Ascending
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 14
Sin Saint, Sometimes you're just not asking yourself the right questions. i.e. why is the blood on the knife only Darlie and Damon's and not Devon's. Why is the blood on the sock only Devon and Damon's and none of Darlie's. Why did an intruder go the long way to get out of the alley and drop a sock there. Why does the intruder take a sock and drop a knife. Why does the blood found in the sink belong to all three? The most obvious explanation for this is that Devon and Damon were stabbed and then Darlie washed the knife and put it back in the block. Blood from both boys is now in the sink trap. For misdirection, she ran a sock down the alley with both boys blood to make the cops think 'they went thatta way.' She came back to find out Damon was still alive and took the same knife out of the block to stab him again. She used this knife to cut her throat. Thus, only her and Damon's blood is on the knife. She makes some kind of noise that alerts Darin and he comes down before she has time to wash the knife again. Why would she want to wash the knife again? Because an intruder would probably bring his own weapon to cut the screen and Darlie knew if the knife used in the stabbing was from the house it would be more suspicious.
CanManEh
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 72
You know there is a very good and i believe correct conclusion of what happend and still have all the facts of why no sighn of an Intruder .There was no Intruder and It was the boys parent that killed them they just convicted the wrong parent .
cami
Keep your fork......
The bloody print on the back door is according to Darlie's team not her's, not Darin's, not anyone they know.
Really take a good look at this bloody print. There's blood running down the door. Why isn't there any blood on the exit window? None on the screen, window or window frame. Where'd it go?
Darlie said the intruder dropped the knife onto the utility room floor, no blood stains bear this out. Where did the blood go?
So the intruder Darlie followed was really Darin? Did she clean up the blood as she was following him?
cami
Keep your fork......
This line of blood drops came from someone bleeding down onto the couch, walking in one direction. It did not come from blood from Darlie's pillow flowing down onto the couch. That did not happen.
My best guess is this line of Darlie's blood drops is her going to check that Devon is dead and he's not going to move like Damon did. There's a small pool of her blood there from dripping off the knife, then the bloody imprint of the knife on the carpet near Devon's body. We know she was bleeding from the arm, and her blood ran down over the top of the knife and concentrated at the tip. She most likely laid it down for a second or two to check Devon.
MOO
CanManEh
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,827
- Reaction score
- 72
yes thier are 8 finger prints one is a smudge that are unaccounted for ..And it is also a fact that the boys were exzhumed because for whatever reason thier was never a finger print taken of either child at the coroners lab not to mention the fact that he failed a poly graph 3 times so bad that the poly grapher himself tried to get a confession from him ..