whitywendy
New Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 618
- Reaction score
- 27
Hmm, well, that sounds absurd.
Thank you, whitywendy
you are very welcome....
Hmm, well, that sounds absurd.
Thank you, whitywendy
Well, her defense to that is cross contamination. Her attorneys tried to say the bread knife was contaminated by the fingerprint brush they were dusting with. Yeah, right. I totally agree with you.
Well, her defense to that is cross contamination. Her attorneys tried to say the bread knife was contaminated by the fingerprint brush they were dusting with. Yeah, right. I totally agree with you.
YES, and wasn't the examiner later rebutted along with the cops for a corrupt crime scene?? Just Curious??
YES, and wasn't the examiner later rebutted along with the cops for a corrupt crime scene??
Linch testified that the fiberglass "rods" which made up the fingerprint brush were at least 25% thicker than the rods in the bread knife.
It gets even better. What makes this evidence so compelling is that fiberglass rods and rubber dust (the two materials in the screen) were both found on the bread knife. Linch looked throughout the house, but couldn't find anything else that contained the fiberglass in combination with the rubber dust material found in the screen.
Neither could the defense. Ouch!
Only on Darlie's website, and most of what's there isn't true.
Supporters started a rumor that the Routier case was used in police training sessions on "how NOT to investigate a crime scene", when in fact the opposite is true. Many of the officers, over the years, have been asked to speak at various functions because of how exceptionally well the crime scene was preserved and processed.
Much of the thanks for that goes to Jim Cron. The Rowlett police, to their credit, realized that they needed an experienced crime scene investigator and they called him immediately.
They actually did an outstanding job.
Well, her defense to that is cross contamination. Her attorneys tried to say the bread knife was contaminated by the fingerprint brush they were dusting with. Yeah, right. I totally agree with you.
I'm fairly new to this case, but have been reading up. Thank You goes out to all of you looking closely at the facts.
JMO, so far, the cut in the screen and the knife being back in the block is hard to dispute, contamination unlikely. Add the fact that the screen doesn't show any signs of the stranger forcing himself through the screen, and no dust was disturbed around the screen seems to point back to someone in the house doing the crime.
Very impressed by the investigators finding this evidence.
If theres a smoking gun in this case, its the bread knife in the butcher block located on the kitchen counter. This bread knife had material in its' serrations that in every way was microscopically identical to the cut screen.
This deals a death blow to the intruder theory. It requires the intruder to get in the house somehow, grab the bread knife, go back outside, cut the screen, climb through the window, and replace the knife in the butcher block.
Any thoughts?
If there’s a “smoking gun” in this case, it’s the bread knife in the butcher block located on the kitchen counter. This bread knife had material in its' serrations that in every way was microscopically identical to the cut screen.
This deals a death blow to the intruder theory. It requires the intruder to get in the house somehow, grab the bread knife, go back outside, cut the screen, climb through the window, and replace the knife in the butcher block.
Any thoughts?
It was proven in court to be cut from the outside.
Thank you, weasel! I was hoping someone might answer this for me. The more I tried to search, the more conflicting information I got.
I think the "cut from the inside" rumor got around in the media, and it keeps getting reported.