1) They should have seized Darin´t jeans for examination. They didn´t. Did they take photographs of him and take blood samples from his body, does anyone know?
Hi, SATA. Yes, they did seize Darin's jeans. He handed over his clothing at the hospital, was photographed, blood taken, etc.
Charles Linch's affidavit dated 7/11/2002:
Bart Epstein, Terry Laber and I met for approximately three hours on August 23, 1996 to discuss the evidence in the Routier case. During that meeting, Bart Epstein and Terry Laber reviewed the evidence in my possession, including but not limited to:
- All microscopic slides
- Darlie Routier's nightshirt
- The Hoover vacuum cleaner
- The large maroon pillow
- Pieces of carpet and flooring containing blood stains/spatters and
- Darin Routier's blood-stained blue jeans.
Darin shouldn´t have been left on his own in the street after Darlie was taken to hospital. I don´t know if this is accurate, but I´ve read that he sat on the curb outside the house for half an hour. Then he went to a neighbours´ house and washed up.
He really wasn't left on his own; there were police and paramedics all around. He couldn't go with Darlie in the ambulance, so he waited until a police officer could take him to the hospital. He claims he washed his face and hands at the Neal's home, but it's hard to tell. Darin lies a lot.
Blood on his face or hands wouldn't have evidentiary value anyway, because he was in contact with Darlie's blood and the boys' blood.
Could Darin have disposed of the sock in that - pretty long - interval?
Highly unlikely. He would have been missed.
The poor little boys should have been fingerprinted.
This bothers a lot of people, but child victims werent routinely fingerprinted in 1996. Heres why: fingerprints are usually taken for identification purposes...in other words, to compare the prints to prior prints of the individual so that the victims identity can be confirmed.
Newborn infants have the Palmar Reflex, which makes it almost impossible to fingerprint them, so footprints are taken instead. The medical examiner did take Damon and Devons footprints for identification purposes, but she was not required to take fingerprints, because it was unlikely that such young children would have had their fingerprints taken prior to their deaths.
Im not explaining this very well, lol. Heres Dr. Townsend-Parchmans testimony:
Damon (and Devons) footprints were taken, but not fingerprints. Routinely on small children,we take footprints for identification purposes. Children this age have had footprints taken when born, but seldom have had their fingerprints taken.
Whether or not that policy has changed since 1996, I dont know. In this case, though, I dont see how it would have made any difference in the outcome, because the bloody print in question was only a partial print. It cant be positively matched to anyone.