Innocent vs. Guilty

[Dani_T]

It did not have enough discernable points. After exhumating both children and removing their hands, it was determined that it was UNLIKELY that the prints belonged to the boys. However, you must also remember that the boys had been removed from a flooded coffin, several years after their murders. Furthermore, people who had been paid by the defense had to rehydrate their fingers to even get a print to begin with. These "experts" then made a determination. I may have missed it, but as I understand it, the documentation of this "scientific process" was never released.

Another defense paid "expert" said that it belonged to a juvenile or young woman, but again, not enough discerable points to make a ruling.

I think from Jantz's report we can fairly confidently say that the print doesn't appear to have belonged to either of the boys (not only on the basis of the whorl patterns and on ridge and detail comparison between it and the two boys but on comparison between a large sample group of children).

What is interesting about Jantz's report, however, is that
a) the result was that it was twice as likely to have belonged to an adult female than an adult male (which is when Jeff suddenly started saying that an adolescent/teen male had done it)
b) whilst he compared the details/stats of Damon and Devon's print with the blood print he doesn't appear to have done the same with Darlie's print- which begs the question of why the defense didn't jump at the opportunity to exhonerate her by doing so.

Which defense expert said it belonged to a juvenile or young woman?? I know the State's expert (Wertheim) cannot rule out Darlie's ring finger but I thought either one or two experts were hired by the defense and claim that it isn't Darlie's? ( Edit: Just checked and Lohnes compared the bloody print on the table to Darlie's and said it wasn't hers... so there was only one defense expert that has ruled Darlie out)

 

[lisafremont]

Shamrock:
Why didn't the Routier dog, Domain, a very feisty yappy dog who is said to go nuts if a stranger enters the house, bark that night?

Why would an intruder use a knife from the kitchen?

 

[lisafremont]

Shamrock, have you read the transcript of Darlie Routier's testimony?

Are you aware of the statements that she made in letters in which she said that she knew who the man was?

 

[dasgal]

I think from Jantz's report we can fairly confidently say that
Which defense expert said it belonged to a juvenile or young woman??QUOTE]
Hi Dani,
I was referring to Janzt. I couldn't remember the exact way he said it, just the jist of what he was saying.
As for the guy who supposedly "ruled" it out was one of the two NY cops, but it's not been substatiated.

 

[Sprocket]

Furthermore, people who had been paid by the defense had to rehydrate their fingers to even get a print to begin with. These "experts" then made a determination. I may have missed it, but as I understand it, the documentation of this "scientific process" was never released.

I'm no expert on this case. Haven't followed it at all. But I have heard about this process, of rehydrating fingers from a dead body to take a print. I'm of the understanding that it IS a valid, forensic method of retrieving prints.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I'm no expert on this case. Haven't followed it at all. But I have heard about this process, of rehydrating fingers from a dead body to take a print. I'm of the understanding that it IS a valid, forensic method of retrieving prints.

If you're eating, stop.

They have to remove the hands from the bodies in order to rehydrate them. This means that mom and dad let them dig up those poor babies from their grave and chop them up even more than mom did!

It is a valid method of retrieving prints, but that doesn't mean that it always works. Apparently, (and bear with me because its been a while), but I seem to recall hearing something to the effect of the boys bodies were not in the best condition either because of the length of time they were dead or some other condition that happened to them in the coffin.

Edited to add:

I'm no expert on this, but Dasgal can help us out. There is a chain of command when it comes to these things and if this person who dug the boys up and fingerprinted them acted alone, how can the defense prove the prints are the boys?

 

[Dani_T]

I've always been a bit confused why they exhumed both boys since they had a fingerprint card for one of them (Devon I think?).

 

[lisafremont]

I've been reading the transcripts and especially having read Darlie's testimony, I cannot understand why anyone thinks she didn't do it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I've always been a bit confused why they exhumed both boys since they had a fingerprint card for one of them (Devon I think?).

They were buried together in the same coffin.

 

[Dani_T]

They were buried together in the same coffin.

Oh ok - there you go.

I never knew that.

So the boys funeral and burial in one coffin cost $10 000?

 

[dasgal]

Hope I can help.

Rehydration works well only under the best conditions.
As it was the boys, who were buried in the same coffin, were at least exposed to cross decomposition, a flooded coffin, and several years before exhumation.
Let me try to explain how this works.
The hands or fingertips, (in this case hands) are removed. The fact that they have been in the ground for a long time makes them shrivel up, and dry, chaff, and flake. This includes the fingertip print.
A year after the almost record breaking Texas heatwave, it rains like crazy. The bodies, what is left, starts to bloat.
(I'm sorry but there is no kind way to explain this).
Cross contamintion means basically mold. Even when a body is preserved, it's only a temporary effect. Combined with the heat and the humidity inside the coffin, mold would grow in a rapid way. Mold eats human flesh. Including what may be left of the fingertips. Strangly though, fingernails continue to grow.
When you exhumate a person for prints, you must remove the fingers or the hands to do so. Basically and non techniqually, you insert moisture back into the musculature using a needle. In this case, I was told that this didn't happen due to the vast decomposion due to the elements. There was a "total emmersion", a technique I am not familiar with, and have no data for.
Supposedly, the fingers, "plumped up" allowing for a print.
I totally doubt that. If they indeed were able to retrieve prints from two badly decomposed bloated, chaffed, contaminted hands, I'd be amazed. Any print that they would have had left after that kind of environmnetal abuse would have been useless.
I have heard the boys have been excluded, but only by defense appealate folks. There is no documentation of any scientic matter to back this up.
Hope that helps.

 

[txsvicki]

This is a very short part of a very long discussion we are having elsewhere on the net. I can't pull the other people's comments, but here are a few of mine:

Well having shown it to lots of folks in the medical field, there are only two that keep coming back:

1. She nicked the bone and you are seeing a sort of lividity (closed system so I'm told vs. open system as in death or maybe it's the other way around, I can't recall any more).

2. "Wall Bruising"-one extremely hard blow from one large object to another ie: dashboard/torso in car wreck.

But, it definately DOES NOT fit with a beating. I guess that was the point I was trying to make. The only thing that looks like a possible attack to me, and I'm talking about every wound she has, is the restraint bruising on her wrists. But I also theorize that came from a very pissed off Darin.

But at any rate I'M SO GLAD TO SEE YOU!!!!



I guess I need to explain to you why I am saying people say that she couldn't have done it to herself, and then turn around and tell you that she did.

The reason is that every other thing in this case points to her killing those children. Every little tiny thing. And you know I don't take any of this stuff lightly.

So, if she killed the boys as I think she did, then she HAD to produce those bruises on her own. Darin didn't do it because it's just NOT a beating. There are no differing impacts. It is one impact by something large or it's internal bleeding. Period. So how could that happen from an attack? I can't think of one darn thing, but I CAN think of a few ways she could have done it to herself.

Brenda, I've looked at it every way I can think of. I keep asking the question because I'm hoping that I can find another plausible reason they could have happened. It's a piece of the puzzle that just doesn't fit as nicely as I would like.


1100.30 in reply to 1100.27 I'll have to send you an e-mail when I get more time. I have a Keno game to go to in just a bit. woohoo Keno!

What were you wondering about the shirt? Maybe I can just repost it.

As for the knife, from what I understand is that you CAN bleed both internally and externally from a stab wound depending on what is hit.
At first when I heard that, due to the way the bruising is on the inner arm, I thought it must have settled that way from having been unconcious. But then I had to rethink that because it's on the inner parts of BOTH arms. Then someone gave me the obvious answer. She was standing, and the internal bleeding went down. Having been stabbed (direction only) outer elbow to inner elbow, that allowed that to happen where and how it did. But then what about the bruising up to the underarms? Seems there was an answer for that too.
Once she laid down in that hospital bed, the blood that had pooled in the inner arm area leveled out. It didn't travel up, it just spread out.

I agree about the bruise not just being from a beating. There's no visible hand marks or variations. My daughter's creep of a husband once bruised her entire hand and forearm by hitting her with a board or something similar. It didn't bruise all the way up to the underarm area but was one solid bruised area with color variations in the bruising.

 

[AussieLela]

Mybe this is were Darin comes into it...He could of done them to help her story or he could of done them the night before??

PS Was the other sock ever found??

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Mybe this is were Darin comes into it...He could of done them to help her story or he could of done them the night before??

PS Was the other sock ever found??

What other sock? There was a laundry room with at least one basket full of clothing right in the kitchen. I think most of us are of the opinion that she simply plucked one of Darin's socks out of that laundry room and left her underwear in there at the same time.

 

[smellsarat]

What other sock? There was a laundry room with at least one basket full of clothing right in the kitchen. I think most of us are of the opinion that she simply plucked one of Darin's socks out of that laundry room and left her underwear in there at the same time.

I think she means the match to the alley sock..........

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think she means the match to the alley sock..........

I know, I'm just wondering why there needed to be a match in the alley? The sock was just plucked out of the dirty clothes basket in the laundry room. One was all that was needed. They do know that it was Darin's sock and came from the house. That it contained Darlie's DNA and both boys' blood pretty much tells the story of who took it there in my opinion.

 

[smellsarat]

I know, I'm just wondering why there needed to be a match in the alley? The sock was just plucked out of the dirty clothes basket in the laundry room. One was all that was needed. They do know that it was Darin's sock and came from the house. That it contained Darlie's DNA and both boys' blood pretty much tells the story of who took it there in my opinion.

I didn't know Darlies DNA was on it!!!
But still was the match in the basket????

 

[lisafremont]

What are the main things that make you think Darlie is innocent or guilty? I'll post mine (innocent) later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. Can't wait to read everyone's opinions!

Shamrock: You started this interesting thread on which I have posted a series of questions to you and you haven't come back to answer. I wish you would.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I didn't know Darlies DNA was on it!!!
But still was the match in the basket????

Yup! Darlie's DNA was in it. I seem to recall that there were several socks in the basket.

 

[Peake]

Shouldn't Darlie's DNA be in it? Guess I'm not sure on this, after reading a bit on the JBR forum. It seems to be an acceptable explaination that the DNA in JBR's panties could have come from where they were manufactured. I'd think Darlie's would not be unusual since she did the laundry. But then I'd have to wonder why Darin's DNA wasn't found if it was his sock :/

Cheers,
Pea