What if...

[Cowgirl]

Nah. Too late.

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

There are no deer in that part of Rowlett, ramaging (?) or otherwise!

 

[cami]

I disagree. Mulder did not address the state's interpretation of the evidence. The state put on an aggressive, impressive, well-planned case that Mulder did nothing to counter.

If Darlie were in a fight for her life and/or defending her sons from a knife-wielding assailant, what would you say the probability of her getting cast off blood somewhere on her would be?

My question for Darin is: Did he catch her doing it, nearly kill her, then decide to cover for her?

I say slim to none. She would have the knife in front of her, in the intruder's hand, the blood would most likely fling back to him and out to the sides. She probably would get some cast-off on the front of her shirt but not the back. She has no defense wounds anyway so she wasn't fighting someone with a knife.

 

[accordn2me]

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.

Someone must have edited your post---->: Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).
See that last part, I thought that was you...talking about the gate in the back yard. Oh well.

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.....

Judith Floyd:
17 Q. You were asked to test some facial
18 hair as well, were you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know where that facial hair
21 came from, where it was located at the scene?
22 A. The best of my knowledge, I believe it
23 was from a rug, but I am not sure where the rug itself
24 was located.
25 Q. Okay. And, the results of your DNA
1 testing of that head hair showed you what? I'm sorry.
2 Was it a head hair or do you know?
3 A. Facial hair.

4 Q. Facial hair?
5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Okay. The results of that was what?
7 A. The result of that particular facial
8 hair was that it did not match any of the three
9 individuals in this case.
10 Q. Okay. And, also did not match Darin
11 Routier either, did it?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. So that is an unknown facial
14 hair? Unidentified is maybe a better word?
15 A. Yes.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12
13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Ms. Floyd, just two questions.
15 Besides the facial hair, were there any other
16 unidentified samples which you tested?
17 A. There was a pubic hair which I tested,
18 and no result was obtained from that hair.
19 Q. I guess I'm talking about samples
20 where you actually got a result that you could report out
21 any other unidentified samples?
22 A. No other samples.

7 RECROSS EXAMINATION
8
9 BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. Right. And were you able to see --
21 were you able to have enough of the pubic hair to run a
22 DS180 test on that pubic hair?
23 A. From the unknown specimen that I
24 received?
25 Q. Right.
1 A. There was a root, and therefore, that
2 is the portion that contains the DNA and it may have
3 issued a result, it may not. Hair gives a success rate
4 of about 60 percent.
5 Q. And yours was no result?

6 A. On that pubic hair, yes.
7 Q. So from that pubic hair, it, at least
8 for now, remains unidentified?
9 A. Correct

I haven't read where they found the pubic hair. I'll let you know if I come across it. I would think your sources would have it too...OH, but that could support that there might have been an intruder so maybe they wouldn't print that part.

 

[cami]

It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?


Well, there must not be one then!:doh:

There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts) and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

the hair could have come from anywhere A2m. If it were found on the victims, i.e. Devon and Damon, in one of their hands, etc, that might be a different case but there has to also be some other evidence to go with it to rule out Darlie as the killer. One public hair and one bloody fingerprint ain't going to do it, especially when they can't rule Darlie out as the leaver of the print. We all shed hair daily, we all track hair into our homes from other sources daily. Unless Darlie's carpet was sanitized prior to the murders, that one pubic hair could have come in on someone's shoe/clothing from an innocent source. The kids could have tracked that hair in. Damon was still in his outdoor clothes when he died.

 

[cami]

Could you give me a link to Darlie claiming this? I can't find anything she says about it...or anything the prosecution or defense says about it for that matter. :banghead:

Read her voluntary statement. She says she went to the utility room door, bent down to pick up the knife and back to the counter to place the knife on it. Never does she say she went into the utility room.

 

[accordn2me]

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?

This is what happened: When Darlie was frightening with him, she pushed the knife out of his left hand with her bloody right hand. He picked it up, ran toward the garage, threw the knife down, she picked it up and now they can't get the prints. Ta da!

 

[accordn2me]

the hair could have come from anywhere A2m.

I know, like an intruder for instance.

If it were found on the victims, i.e. Devon and Damon, in one of their hands, etc, that might be a different case but there has to also be some other evidence to go with it to rule out Darlie as the killer. One public hair and one bloody fingerprint ain't going to do it, especially when they can't rule Darlie out as the leaver of the print. We all shed hair daily, we all track hair into our homes from other sources daily. Unless Darlie's carpet was sanitized prior to the murders, that one pubic hair could have come in on someone's shoe/clothing from an innocent source. The kids could have tracked that hair in. Damon was still in his outdoor clothes when he died.

So, unless attackers happen to cooperate and leave hair directly on the victims, or leave more than one (two in this case) bloody fingerprint, it means nothing?

 

[Cowgirl]

This is what happened: When Darlie was frightening with him, she pushed the knife out of his left hand with her bloody right hand. He picked it up, ran toward the garage, threw the knife down, she picked it up and now they can't get the prints. Ta da!

What is "frightening with him"? Is this board in code or something?

 

[cami]

It does mean something. When people say an intruder would have left something, a hair, a fingerprint...something. And then you find out, there were hairs, and fingerprints, it's "oh, those mean nothing." What do you want a video?


Well, there must not be one then!:doh:

There was blood in the garage, and on the window (not human according to state expert since there were no defense experts) and who knows about the gate since luminol WAS NOT USED ON THE GATE!

What purpose would anyone have for luminoling the gate? Do you think this tidy killer cleaned the gate after he went over or through it? Or do you think it should have been done just as a process of elimination?

 

[accordn2me]

Read her voluntary statement. She says she went to the utility room door, bent down to pick up the knife and back to the counter to place the knife on it. Never does she say she went into the utility room.

In her voluntary statement, she doesn't say she wet towels either.

Just because she doesn't say it, doesn't mean she didn't do it.

 

[accordn2me]

What is "frightening with him"? Is this board in code or something?

Go to the transcripts and read Darlie's testimony. If she didn't do it literally, she cut her throat on the stand when she tried to tell Toby Shook she didn't say "fighting" on the 911 call. She said the word was "frightening." :doh:

 

[accordn2me]

What purpose would anyone have for luminoling the gate? Do you think this tidy killer cleaned the gate after he went over or through it? Or do you think it should have been done just as a process of elimination?

Luminol is to detect the presence of blood that can't be seen. They couldn't see any blood on the gate but luminol might have illuminated it better.

Did they dust the gate for fingerprints?

 

[cami]

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.

Oh I agree with you. I don't think this was planned for the insurance money either. Just throwing things out to consider. It's obvious to me that the two boys were the targets of the attack and no one else. I don't get bogged down with motive. It is unfathomable to me why anyone would kill their own children but they have, they do and they will continue to do so. Darlie did this no doubt.

 

[cami]

Someone must have edited your post---->: Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).
See that last part, I thought that was you...talking about the gate in the back yard. Oh well.
Judith Floyd:
17 Q. You were asked to test some facial
18 hair as well, were you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know where that facial hair
21 came from, where it was located at the scene?
22 A. The best of my knowledge, I believe it
23 was from a rug, but I am not sure where the rug itself
24 was located.
25 Q. Okay. And, the results of your DNA
1 testing of that head hair showed you what? I'm sorry.
2 Was it a head hair or do you know?
3 A. Facial hair.

4 Q. Facial hair?
5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Okay. The results of that was what?
7 A. The result of that particular facial
8 hair was that it did not match any of the three
9 individuals in this case.
10 Q. Okay. And, also did not match Darin
11 Routier either, did it?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. So that is an unknown facial
14 hair? Unidentified is maybe a better word?
15 A. Yes.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12
13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Ms. Floyd, just two questions.
15 Besides the facial hair, were there any other
16 unidentified samples which you tested?
17 A. There was a pubic hair which I tested,
18 and no result was obtained from that hair.
19 Q. I guess I'm talking about samples
20 where you actually got a result that you could report out
21 any other unidentified samples?
22 A. No other samples.

7 RECROSS EXAMINATION
8
9 BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. Right. And were you able to see --
21 were you able to have enough of the pubic hair to run a
22 DS180 test on that pubic hair?
23 A. From the unknown specimen that I
24 received?
25 Q. Right.
1 A. There was a root, and therefore, that
2 is the portion that contains the DNA and it may have
3 issued a result, it may not. Hair gives a success rate
4 of about 60 percent.
5 Q. And yours was no result?

6 A. On that pubic hair, yes.
7 Q. So from that pubic hair, it, at least
8 for now, remains unidentified?
9 A. Correct

I haven't read where they found the pubic hair. I'll let you know if I come across it. I would think your sources would have it too...OH, but that could support that there might have been an intruder so maybe they wouldn't print that part.

How were Darin and Darlie eliminated from this pubic hair then? She says she received no result from dna testing the root. Or am I not reading this correctly?

 

[cami]

Luminol is to detect the presence of blood that can't be seen. They couldn't see any blood on the gate but luminol might have illuminated it better.

Did they dust the gate for fingerprints?

I know Hamilton didn't dust it for prints and he did the inside of the house. I don't recall if there was another print man/woman that did. You'll just have to try and embarass me with testimony.

Yes, I realize that's what luminol is for. I think they use something else in Canada but not too sure--malachite green, don't have to wait until dark or darken the area as with luminol. I was thinking why bother if you've luminoled the inside of the house and found incriminating evidence so I didn't form my question correctly. You know no one went over or through that gate bleeding or otherwise.

Yep mistakes were made, no one gets a perfect investigation or a perfect trial.

 

[cami]

I know, like an intruder for instance.

Absolutely.

So, unless attackers happen to cooperate and leave hair directly on the victims, or leave more than one (two in this case) bloody fingerprint, it means nothing?

That's not what I said. That's your interpretation. Stop trying to twist my words. A couple of hairs does not an intruder make. You know it, I know it. The hair means nothing in this case because the overwhelming blood evidence, forensics evidence points to Darlie as the killer. Ignore it all you want, the jury didn't.

 

[beesy]

Someone must have edited your post---->: Of course Luminol is sprayed on blood you can see. It's done to look for any signs of MORE blood which cannot be seen. Then it's sprayed where blood cannot be seen, but based on the crime scene, it might be. It's usually sprayed near sinks, showers and the like also. Luminol WAS used in the garage(no blood), window(no blood) and the gate (no blood).
See that last part, I thought that was you...talking about the gate in the back yard. Oh well

That was supposed to be WAS NOT, typo! sorry, that's why I edited it

Judith Floyd:
17 Q. You were asked to test some facial
18 hair as well, were you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know where that facial hair
21 came from, where it was located at the scene?
22 A. The best of my knowledge, I believe it
23 was from a rug, but I am not sure where the rug itself
24 was located.
25 Q. Okay. And, the results of your DNA
1 testing of that head hair showed you what? I'm sorry.
2 Was it a head hair or do you know?
3 A. Facial hair.

4 Q. Facial hair?
5 A. That's right.

6 Q. Okay. The results of that was what?
7 A. The result of that particular facial
8 hair was that it did not match any of the three
9 individuals in this case.
10 Q. Okay. And, also did not match Darin
11 Routier either, did it?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. So that is an unknown facial
14 hair? Unidentified is maybe a better word?
15 A. Yes.

11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12
13 BY MR. GREG DAVIS:
14 Q. Ms. Floyd, just two questions.
15 Besides the facial hair, were there any other
16 unidentified samples which you tested?
17 A. There was a pubic hair which I tested,
18 and no result was obtained from that hair.
19 Q. I guess I'm talking about samples
20 where you actually got a result that you could report out
21 any other unidentified samples?
22 A. No other samples.

7 RECROSS EXAMINATION
8
9 BY MR. RICHARD MOSTY:
20 Q. Right. And were you able to see --
21 were you able to have enough of the pubic hair to run a
22 DS180 test on that pubic hair?
23 A. From the unknown specimen that I
24 received?
25 Q. Right.
1 A. There was a root, and therefore, that
2 is the portion that contains the DNA and it may have
3 issued a result, it may not. Hair gives a success rate
4 of about 60 percent.
5 Q. And yours was no result?

6 A. On that pubic hair, yes.
7 Q. So from that pubic hair, it, at least
8 for now, remains unidentified?
9 A. Correct

I haven't read where they found the pubic hair. I'll let you know if I come across it. I would think your sources would have it too...OH, but that could support that there might have been an intruder so maybe they wouldn't print that part

I don't know much more about the pubic hair than you obviously do. It wasn't found on any of the victims or on the sofa, I do know that. THAT's when it would mean something. That was a big house, random hairs which are found even downstairs do not prove an intruder, facial or pubic. And its becoming rather gross talking about a dang pubic hair, but like cami said, hair of all types can be brought in on anything or by anybody. These few little things do not cancel out all of the blood evidence against Darlie.

 

[beesy]

Nope.

You can see towels.

I do believe she wet towels, but not for the boys, especially since nobody saw her wetting any towels. I'm not saying she drenched the towels. More like dampened them to wipe up her blood from the counter, etc. I'm thinking she figured she wouldn't have to bring up wet/dry towels at all until she noticed the kitchen sink had been removed. And you're right, there are towels in the pix. You can't tell if they are wet or dry.

 

[Dani_T]

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

:banghead:

No. A person who arrived at the conclusion that a single bleached blonde hair (which had been stripped of all characteristic because of the bleach) was definitely Darlie's was wrong. Linch never said it was Darlie's. His microscope did not lie to him - the hairs were microscopically identical (yes, identical- look up the transcripts).

microscopically similar

21 A. I couldn't tell the difference between
22 this debris and the debris found on the knife and,
23 therefore, this knife could have been used to cause the
24 cut, defect.
25 Q. Okay. It's certainly -- are you
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2926
1 saying that the material that you found on this knife
2 blade is consistent with the material that makes up this
3 screen right here?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. You couldn't see any difference?
6 A. That's right.

Last time I checked when someone looks at two objects under a microscope and sees that there is no difference between them it means that they are 'microscopically identical'.

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.

Oh wait. Now you are saying the bread knife did cut the screen?

 

[Dani_T]

There are no deer in that part of Rowlett, ramaging (?) or otherwise!

It was a joke.

Nevermind