The Bread Knife

[Hangmanj]

Just a thought but if it was not the bread knife in the butcher block would that not mean that the "intruder" would have cut it with something he brought with him. If so would he really have needed to get a knife from Darlie's butcher block to stab her children with. I mean if he thought of that would he have not brought his own weapon?

 

[cami]

What is the Bump for Cami???????

Just bringing that thread back up so you could read the conclusions on the bread knife. You posted on another thread that the bread knife was contaminated by the dusting brush.

 

[cami]

Just a thought but if it was not the bread knife in the butcher block would that not mean that the "intruder" would have cut it with something he brought with him. If so would he really have needed to get a knife from Darlie's butcher block to stab her children with. I mean if he thought of that would he have not brought his own weapon?

Exactly what the jurors thought Hang. According to Rina Way, one of the jurors, If the bread knife wasn't used, that means the intruder brought his own knife with him. Why then did he need to use the knife from the Routier's kitchen to kill the children?

 

[raynjuls]

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.

I have always found this to be one of the most compelling indicators of guilt. According to her statement the intruder was a 6' 200 lb male. I'm a 6'1" 250 lb male and it would be impossible for me to get through that window and leave it in near pristine condition. Add to it that the knife was inside and then put back. These two are not the brightest couple in the world but what an idiotic job of staging.

 

[dizzychick]

the back of the house was illuminated with a motion sensor on the flood light, it stayed on for 15 minutes ,they tested it, when the cops initially showed up the light was off which they found odd since it had not been 15 minutes since the 911 call came in. If the intruder had really ran out the back door the light would have been on when the cops showed up. Oops

 

[mubblefubbles]

the back of the house was illuminated with a motion sensor on the flood light, it stayed on for 15 minutes ,they tested it, when the cops initially showed up the light was off which they found odd since it had not been 15 minutes since the 911 call came in. If the intruder had really ran out the back door the light would have been on when the cops showed up. Oops

THIS right here is amongst the strongest evidence against Darlie, but it doesn't get talked about too much.
The Bread knife itself is a borderline smoking gun, but when combined with this motion sensor evidence (which is a borderline smoking gun) - you have 2 borderline smoking guns. Either Darlie is guilty or she is the unluckiest person to ever walk the face of the earth.

 

[Paysee]

It was proven in court to be cut from the outside.

In whose testimony? I would like to read that part.

 

[cami]

In whose testimony? I would like to read that part.

Charles Linch Paysee. I don't think they absolutely proved it was cut from the outside. But I have to laugh at those who think the experiment conducted in the court room had anything to do with the murders. A lot different conducting a controlled experiment in a lit courtroom than a killer who just murdered two babies running from the scene when he had just armed one of his victims. That screen would have been on the ground, IMO

 

[Paysee]

Was there ever any debate on whether the screen from inside or outside? Linch says outright in his direct testimony that it cut from outside.

10 Q. Okay. Did you ever form an opinion as
11 to whether or not you thought this cut had been made from
12 the outside looking in or from the inside of the garage
13 looking out?
14 A. There is one microscopic finding that
15 is more suggestive of it being punched from the outside.
16 The scanning electron micrograph in the top right of this
17 exhibit is a view of the back side, that would be the
18 view from inside the garage of the screen cross strands.
19 Now, the first cut occurs on that strand coming down,
20 right where you are indicating.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Now, the strand to the right of that,
23 indicates a stress puncture. If the knife goes in and
24 that is the first strand that is cut, the strand next to
25 it is experiencing the force, in my opinion, going inward
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2904
1 to the garage.
2 Q. So more suggestive of from the
3 outside?
4 A. Yes, sir.

But like cami and Hangmanj have said in this thread, if the intruder had his own knife, why did he use one from the Routier kitchen to kill? Its not as though he dropped or lost his knife inside the house.

If it was this knife used to cut the screen and from outside, how could it have been an intruder?

How can people still have doubts about Darlie's guilt?

 

[Madeleine74]

When asked this very simple and pointed question (as Paysee did above) the response back from the pro-Darlies will not be an actual answer but will instead be some version of "hey, it's happened in other cases where an intruder killed the house occupants using a knife from the victim's own home" (as if some other case is evidence that will exonerate Darlie.) Yet you'll notice they never address the main issue: how did an intruder get into the Routier home by using a knife from the Routier kitchen? (Because they know there is no way an intruder could have done that).

So instead, because they know there is damning evidence on that bread knife that was put back in the knife block, they'll point to an evidence transfer theory where they imagine the CSI fingerprint guy at the scene somehow magically lifted screen particles and dust from the window area and brought them directly over to the knife block where said CSI agent then removed the bread knife and deposited this evidence onto the bread knife blade. This is the only way they can explain this highly inculpatory evidence. Never mind there is no actual proof that any such thing occurred--it is merely enough to suggest that it could have/must have happened that way.

Bottomline, they know the score: if the window screen fibers found on that knife aren't from some kind of transfer (mistake or conspiracy, take yer pick) at the scene, then it's game over and they would have to concede the truth--that the murder was perpetrated by an adult who was in the home that night (either Darlie or Darin), and not by an intruder. And that thought is so abhorrent that imagination springs to action once again to try and conjure a scenario to explain away something both simple and damning.

 

[cami]

When asked this very simple and pointed question (as Paysee did above) the response back from the pro-Darlies will not be an actual answer but will instead be some version of "hey, it's happened in other cases where an intruder killed the house occupants using a knife from the victim's own home" (as if some other case is evidence that will exonerate Darlie.) Yet you'll notice they never address the main issue: how did an intruder get into the Routier home by using a knife from the Routier kitchen? (Because they know there is no way an intruder could have done that).

So instead, because they know there is damning evidence on that bread knife that was put back in the knife block, they'll point to an evidence transfer theory where they imagine the CSI fingerprint guy at the scene somehow magically lifted screen particles and dust from the window area and brought them directly over to the knife block where said CSI agent then removed the bread knife and deposited this evidence onto the bread knife blade. This is the only way they can explain this highly inculpatory evidence. Never mind there is no actual proof that any such thing occurred--it is merely enough to suggest that it could have/must have happened that way.

Bottomline, they know the score: if the window screen fibers found on that knife aren't from some kind of transfer (mistake or conspiracy, take yer pick) at the scene, then it's game over and they would have to concede the truth--that the murder was perpetrated by an adult who was in the home that night (either Darlie or Darin), and not by an intruder. And that thought is so abhorrent that imagination springs to action once again to try and conjure a scenario to explain away something both simple and damning.

Or better yet, we don't know when that screen was cut so how do we know it was done the night of the murders. As if immaculate housekeeper Darlie would leave a dirty knife around or a cut screen on her window.

Or Darin used the bread knife to repair his mainframes.

The supporter theory I like best is Darlie used that knife to cut the bread tie from a bread bag as they had rolls for dinner that night and that's how the debris got on it. And then there's the Linch was a drunk excuse.

 

[cami]

When asked this very simple and pointed question (as Paysee did above) the response back from the pro-Darlies will not be an actual answer but will instead be some version of "hey, it's happened in other cases where an intruder killed the house occupants using a knife from the victim's own home" (as if some other case is evidence that will exonerate Darlie.) Yet you'll notice they never address the main issue: how did an intruder get into the Routier home by using a knife from the Routier kitchen? (Because they know there is no way an intruder could have done that).

So instead, because they know there is damning evidence on that bread knife that was put back in the knife block, they'll point to an evidence transfer theory where they imagine the CSI fingerprint guy at the scene somehow magically lifted screen particles and dust from the window area and brought them directly over to the knife block where said CSI agent then removed the bread knife and deposited this evidence onto the bread knife blade. This is the only way they can explain this highly inculpatory evidence. Never mind there is no actual proof that any such thing occurred--it is merely enough to suggest that it could have/must have happened that way.

Bottomline, they know the score: if the window screen fibers found on that knife aren't from some kind of transfer (mistake or conspiracy, take yer pick) at the scene, then it's game over and they would have to concede the truth--that the murder was perpetrated by an adult who was in the home that night (either Darlie or Darin), and not by an intruder. And that thought is so abhorrent that imagination springs to action once again to try and conjure a scenario to explain away something both simple and damning.

Or better yet, we don't know when that screen was cut so how do we know it was done the night of the murders. As if immaculate housekeeper Darlie would leave a dirty knife around or a cut screen on her window.

Or Darin used the bread knife to repair his mainframes.

The supporter theory I like best is Darlie used that knife to cut the bread tie from a bread bag as they had rolls for dinner that night and that's how the debris got on it. And then there's the Linch was a drunk excuse. I just twist the tie open and then twist it to close it again, I guess I'm doing something wrong and should use my serrated bread knife.

 

[cami]

Or better yet, we don't know when that screen was cut so how do we know it was done the night of the murders. As if immaculate housekeeper Darlie would leave a dirty knife around or a cut screen on her window.

Or Darin used the bread knife to repair his mainframes.

The supporter theory I like best is Darlie used that knife to cut the bread tie from a bread bag as they had rolls for dinner that night and that's how the debris got on it. And then there's the Linch was a drunk excuse. I just twist the tie open and then twist it to close it again, I guess I'm doing something wrong and should use my serrated bread knife.

oooops sorry I didn't know it posted twice.

 

[chlban]

How can people still have doubts about Darlie's guilt?

Must be the very effective BS campaign of the Darlie lovers. Or just the lack of research. In a lot of cases it is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that convicts. Here you have plenty of that but the forensic evidence the die hards are always clamoring for is also massive here. Yet they continue to cling to the family's lies.

I just wish the State of Texas would hurry up and dispatch her to hell.

:seeyaarlie

 

[2 percent]

Must be the very effective BS campaign of the Darlie lovers. Or just the lack of research. In a lot of cases it is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that convicts. Here you have plenty of that but the forensic evidence the die hards are always clamoring for is also massive here. Yet they continue to cling to the family's lies.

I just wish the State of Texas would hurry up and dispatch her to hell.

:seeyaarlie

It's been my experience that most people who argue against pretty tight cases like this one are mostly anti death penalty. Not that they don't care about Darlie, but most say things like a case with the dp should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which is wrong, or that circumstantial cases aren't as strong as direct evidence cases, which is also wrong.

 

[Louie14]

the back of the house was illuminated with a motion sensor on the flood light, it stayed on for 15 minutes ,they tested it, when the cops initially showed up the light was off which they found odd since it had not been 15 minutes since the 911 call came in. If the intruder had really ran out the back door the light would have been on when the cops showed up. Oops

Did the prosecutor talk about this during the trial and if he did what was the defence response ?

 

[blefuscu]

Also the screen was easily removable. Why would an intruder cut the screen (with a knife from inside the house) rather than just remove the screen?

 

[cami]

Did the prosecutor talk about this during the trial and if he did what was the defence response ?

11 Q. All right. When you first came into
12 the backyard, Lieutenant, were any lights on in the
13 backyard?
14 A. No, sir, there weren't.
15 Q. At anytime that you were in the
16 backyard, did a light come on?
17 A. Yes, sir. About the time I was
18 walking in front of the spa, a motion-sensor light that
19 was mounted on the spa came on.
20 Q. Okay. Now I put my pointer on a
21 wooden object here. Is that the wooden spa that you're
22 talking about here?
23 A. Yes, sir, it is.
24 Q. Okay. And, do I understand you to say
25 that as you walked past that the light came on?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
485
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. How long did you stay in the backyard
3 before exiting the backyard?
4 A. Approximately one to two minutes.
5 Q. Did the light -- did this
6 motion-sensor light, did it go off before you had
7 actually left the backyard?
8 A. No, sir, it didn't.
9 Q. It was still on?
10 A. Yes, sir.
1

 

[cami]

Did the prosecutor talk about this during the trial and if he did what was the defence response ?

11 Q. All right. When you first came into
12 the backyard, Lieutenant, were any lights on in the
13 backyard?
14 A. No, sir, there weren't.
15 Q. At anytime that you were in the
16 backyard, did a light come on?
17 A. Yes, sir. About the time I was
18 walking in front of the spa, a motion-sensor light that
19 was mounted on the spa came on.
20 Q. Okay. Now I put my pointer on a
21 wooden object here. Is that the wooden spa that you're
22 talking about here?
23 A. Yes, sir, it is.
24 Q. Okay. And, do I understand you to say
25 that as you walked past that the light came on?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
485
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. How long did you stay in the backyard
3 before exiting the backyard?
4 A. Approximately one to two minutes.
5 Q. Did the light -- did this
6 motion-sensor light, did it go off before you had
7 actually left the backyard?
8 A. No, sir, it didn't.
9 Q. It was still on?
10 A. Yes, sir.
1