What if...

[Mary456]

Look, Mary456, last time we went through this - you accusing me of being a liar to be specific - I looked it up. You know Darlie wet towels. She did. What's the point? Just like last time, there is no point. It is insignificant. Why do you insist on focusing on things that don't matter one bit - like if she cut her feet or not. It's stupid.

Sooo, is it ok if I check back with you on August 15th? That gives you lots of time to look up testimony that supports wet towels, wet clothes, maybe even some water drops on the floor.

After all, it was you who said that Darlie was wetting towels in the sink and "wet towels are an indisputed fact." I'm just asking you to back it up.

Btw, try some calamine lotion for that poison. It will definitely work long enough for you to hit the transcript!

 

[Dani_T]

Here's the rest of it Dani_T:

Thanks for that - but maybe you could explain to me in your own words how any of that testimony shows that Linch was wrong in his examination and conclusions regarding that hair?

Seems to me that you only helped argue my case for me.

 

[Dani_T]

Here's what I have on the knife imprint:

No.

That's what the trial transcript says about the knife imprint. I asked how you think the knife imprint got there if it was an intruder who had it in his hand.

 

[accordn2me]

:laugh:

Seems to me that you only helped argue my case for me.

Accordn2me, Linch said the hair found in the screen was microscopically similar to Darlie's hair. He stated this in a way as to give a strong implication that the hair was Darlie's.

It was not Darlie's hair. It was similar to Darlie's hair.

Linch said the fiber and dust found on the knife were microscopically similiar to the fiber and dust he found when he cut the screen with the bread knife. Do you need me to take this all the way for you.....OK....microscopically similiar does not mean it is whatever. Like the hair...the fiber and the dust were similar (i.e. having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way) to the fiber and dust in the experiment. Similar does not mean exact. Similar hair = Darlie's hair and cop's hair. Similar fiber and dust = screen rod/dust and fingerprint brush/dust.

Linch's bottom line conclusion: The bread knife could have been the knife that cut the screen. Take that a step higher....something else could have cut the screen (it may not have been the bread knife).

 

[accordn2me]

No.

That's what the trial transcript says about the knife imprint. I asked how you think the knife imprint got there if it was an intruder who had it in his hand.

IF it was in fact a knife imprint, he must have dropped it or laid it down.

 

[Mary456]

and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

The RPD should have brought in at least 6 tanker trucks filled with luminol. That way, they could have sprayed the interior and exterior of the house (including the roof), the lawn, driveway, alley, Rowlett, and half of Dallas for invisible blood.

Honestly, they were such boobies.

 

[accordn2me]

Sooo, is it ok if I check back with you on August 15th? That gives you lots of time to look up testimony that supports wet towels, wet clothes, maybe even some water drops on the floor.

After all, it was you who said that Darlie was wetting towels in the sink and "wet towels are an indisputed fact." I'm just asking you to back it up.

Btw, try some calamine lotion for that poison. It will definitely work long enough for you to hit the transcript!

Check away! I'm not looking for this one. If I happen across it and remember you want to see it, I'll post it. You know she wet towels though. Look at the pictures - can't you see wet towels? I don't have pictures so I really don't know the answer to that one. Do you think she cleaned up with dry towels? You do think she tried to clean up that massively bloody scene don't you? You think dry towels were the way to go? Well, wet towels weren't either! :razz:

And calamine ain't touchin' this stuff. Prescribe me something that works!

 

[beesy]

Check away! I'm not looking for this one. If I happen across it and remember you want to see it, I'll post it. You know she wet towels though. Look at the pictures - can't you see wet towels? I don't have pictures so I really don't know the answer to that one. Do you think she cleaned up with dry towels? You do think she tried to clean up that massively bloody scene don't you? You think dry towels were the way to go? Well, wet towels weren't either! :razz:

Yes, she wet towels to wipe up her blood from the sink and counter top. She did not want anybody to know she cut her throat there. There would have been too much of her blood in one location for her to explain. The blood on the counter and in the sink should have been on the sofa if she had been attacked there. You seem to think we are saying Darlie tried to clean up the whole house. She didn't, she only tried to clean where she thought her story wouldn't mesh. Yes, wet towels can be seen in some crime scene photos. Nobody, not even Darin, puts her at the sink, so she must have done all that towel wetting before Waddel got there or before Darin came downstairs, depending on your thoughts of his involvement.

 

[accordn2me]

Interesting, the Darlies are the ones who do what you are saying "oh, that means nothing".

Both sides do it, VB.

How could an intruder leave a pubic hair?

This is a rhetorical question, I hope.

Where was it found?

In the house, downstairs.

What color was it?

I'd venture to guess it was black.

Was every LE tested for it? Was every person who had been in the house tested? Was Dana tested? Was the maid tested? Was Darin tested? Was Darlie tested? Were the paramedics tested?

Remember, it's Mulder's philosophy that it's the state's job to do all of the testing.

According to my source there was no HUMAN blood found in the garage or on the window.

And that source is.....

Who cares if a dog or whatever bled in there? Maybe the dog did it! LOL

Domain? Naw, it was bugs' blood.

You do realize that the defense is entitled to it's own experts, don't you? In other words, they had no rebuttal.

Darlie had no defense! Apparently, she is not entitled to experts testing certain things in evidence at this point. She is SOL, big time!

 

[accordn2me]

The RPD should have brought in at least 6 tanker trucks filled with luminol. That way, they could have sprayed the interior and exterior of the house (including the roof), the lawn, driveway, alley, Rowlett, and half of Dallas for invisible blood.

I hope they hose down every dark car and all the occupants in the entire state of Texas. :woohoo:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Honestly, they were such boobies.

Careful you don't start sounding like Darin, Mary! :clap:

 

[accordn2me]

Yes, she wet towels to wipe up her blood from the sink and counter top. She did not want anybody to know she cut her throat there. There would have been too much of her blood in one location for her to explain. The blood on the counter and in the sink should have been on the sofa if she had been attacked there. You seem to think we are saying Darlie tried to clean up the whole house. She didn't, she only tried to clean where she thought her story wouldn't mesh. Yes, wet towels can be seen in some crime scene photos. Nobody, not even Darin, puts her at the sink, so she must have done all that towel wetting before Waddel got there or before Darin came downstairs, depending on your thoughts of his involvement.

Thank God! Somebody that stipulates wet towels. :bang: Just for that VB, I will stipulate that the gate was tested for blood - but NOT with luminol. They swabbed it.

What if I told you the facial hair was not found on the sock but on a rug - would that make a difference, or mean nothing?

 

[beesy]

This is a rhetorical question, I hope.

Not really, would he have to have the hair on his hands from using the bathroom, or was he unzipped hoping to attack Darlie?

In the house, downstairs.

Where? This is important if you are trying to connect the pubic hair to the attacks.

I'd venture to guess it was black.

Well, natural red heads have red pubic hair. So knowing the color would help

Remember, it's Mulder's philosophy that it's the state's job to do all of the testing.

That's not just Mulder's philosophy, that's how our court system is run. The prosecution must prove guilt, thru testing, etc. The defense doesn't have to prove innocence, but they usually hire their own experts to rebute the state's experts unless, of course, Darlie's experts said the same thing....

Darlie had no defense! Apparently, she is not entitled to experts testing certain things in evidence at this point. She is SOL, big time!

What do you mean Darlie had no defense, as in no excuse, or as in council? She had Mulder, remember? Her case is closed, not all things are approved for appeals. Her defense, which she does have, has to ask for the certain things to be done. It's not just randomly handed out. She's been turned down at all the state levels, you're right, she's SOL, big time!

 

[beesy]

Thank God! Somebody that stipulates wet towels. :bang: Just for that VB, I will stipulate that the gate was tested for blood - but NOT with luminol. They swabbed it.

I didn't say the gate was tested with Luminol. It's very hard to see Luminol outside because in our modern world, there's always a street light. I said there was no blood on the gate.

What if I told you the facial hair was not found on the sock but on a rug - would that make a difference, or mean nothing?

According to Lynch's testimony(thanks mary), there was a deer hair and a limb hair found on the sock. I know nothing about any hair at all being found on a rug. Fill me in.....

 

[Dani_T]

:laugh:
Accordn2me, Linch said the hair found in the screen was microscopically similar to Darlie's hair. He stated this in a way as to give a strong implication that the hair was Darlie's.

It was not Darlie's hair. It was similar to Darlie's hair.

Give it up. Seriously.

Linch was not wrong about the hair. For the complete set here is the bond hearing testimony

12 A. The head hair from the window itself
13 had been forcibly removed, and it had the same microscopic
14 characteristics as Mrs. Routier.
15 Q. Were there any particular
16 characteristics that you looked to, to make that
17 comparison?
18 A. Well, there are a number of internal,
19 structural things that the microscopist looks at, in doing
20 side by side comparison. Her hair is treated or bleached,
21 and has some untreated root end components. So, all of
22 those things are taken into account.
23 Q. Okay. Did you compare the length of
24 her untreated -- the untreated portion of her hair, that
25 she submitted to you with the untreated portion of the
1 hair that you obtained from the window?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. What was the results?
4 A. The amount of untreated shaft on the
5 found hair was within the range of the amount of untreated
6 shaft, at the time of her visit to the Institute.
7 Q. It would be contemporaneous?
8 A. It could be.

Could you please tell me how exactly he was wrong? What did he say that was incorrect? What mistake did he make?

Linch said the fiber and dust found on the knife were microscopically similiar to the fiber and dust he found when he cut the screen with the bread knife. Do you need me to take this all the way for you.....OK....microscopically similiar does not mean it is whatever. Like the hair...the fiber and the dust were similar (i.e. having a likeness or resemblance, especially in a general way) to the fiber and dust in the experiment. Similar does not mean exact. Similar hair = Darlie's hair and cop's hair. Similar fiber and dust = screen rod/dust and fingerprint brush/dust.

Ok. And do you need me to remind you about the nature of the evidence that was found on the knife? The diameter of the microns of the fibreglass rod? The pigmented rubber with glass debris that was found next to it but separate from it? And the fact that you got a microscopically identical result when you used that exact same knife on the screen? Identical in every way and there in pretty coloured pictures for us to see ourselves.

Linch's bottom line conclusion: The bread knife could have been the knife that cut the screen. Take that a step higher....something else could have cut the screen (it may not have been the bread knife).

Oh sure. Something else could have cut the screen. But then you'll need to explain how the microscopically identical fibres got on the bread knife. I'll give you a head start. In the past we have already had Darin hacking away at a computer motherboard with the bread knife and later on that day Darlie using it to open a package. I think we've also had someone suggest she took to trimming the drapes with it as well. Prizes go to the most creative answer. I'm sure you can beat those lame examples.

 

[Dani_T]

IF it was in fact a knife imprint, he must have dropped it or laid it down.

And did he have a blood transfusion bag linked up to his arm to feed the blood running down his arm so it would gather on the tip of the knife as well?

Must have been one of the Routier's blood in that transfusion bag though since there was no foreign blood found at the scene.

 

[Dani_T]

The RPD should have brought in at least 6 tanker trucks filled with luminol. That way, they could have sprayed the interior and exterior of the house (including the roof), the lawn, driveway, alley, Rowlett, and half of Dallas for invisible blood.

Honestly, they were such boobies.

Nah. Too late.

The ramaging, blood covered deer had already bounded (gracefully) out of the area.

 

[Dani_T]

Look at the pictures - can't you see wet towels?

Nope.

You can see towels.

 

[cami]

Motive is the only part that astounds me. I am sure she did it. I think he is a big enough doofus to believe she didn't do it. But who would murder their kids for such a pittance of money? They spent every bit of the insurance on burying them. So she just didn't want them around any more. What a biatch. Could it be post partum? If the crime scene was legit, I would believe her story. It just does not work. The screen, the blood, her cut--all of it. It just doesn't work. Sometimes I wonder if she just flipped out at one of them and then felt she had to kill the other one and pretend the intruder story. It just makes no sense at all.

What if Darlie and Darin didn't know how much a funeral cost? Maybe she thought she could bury them for the insurance policy on one of them and she'd have her $5000 vacation money with the other policy.

Hmm interesting, I think we've bandied that about before. That Devon was intially the one she flipped out on and Damon was a necessity.

 

[Cowgirl]

What if Darlie and Darin didn't know how much a funeral cost? Maybe she thought she could bury them for the insurance policy on one of them and she'd have her $5000 vacation money with the other policy.

Hmm interesting, I think we've bandied that about before. That Devon was intially the one she flipped out on and Damon was a necessity.

Maybe, but even $5 grand without funeral expenses is nothing. I don't see that as a motive at all. Surely if the two of them conspired to murder their children they would at least check to see what it would have cost to bury them. Even those two doofuses would do that. And then they would probably decide to increase the insurance and do it after they could make more money. I just cannot picture two rational adults planning to murder their two boys.

Fortunately (for justice) motive is not something the government needs to prove. People always want to know though. I vacillate from post partum depression to wanting a new life but neither of them is a bingo for me.

 

[accordn2me]

Give it up. Seriously.

NEVER!

Could you please tell me how exactly he was wrong? What did he say that was incorrect? What mistake did he make?

He was wrong to lead someone to believe it was Darlie's hair when it wasn't.

And the fact that you got a microscopically identical result when you used that exact same knife on the screen? Identical in every way and there in pretty coloured pictures for us to see ourselves.

microscopically similar :hand: teasing me about the pictures

I'm sure you can beat those lame examples.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, sweetie. I don't know what's wrong with my creative thinker lately. It must have been broken when I had the idea that maybe one of the boys used the knife to cut the screen earlier in the day. Like Goody said, that may have been the reason Darlie killed them.