Darlie Routier

[Samson]

No, that was not a rhetorical question. It was a question of how well can YOU research. The answer I'm getting is "not very well at all" and Ampulla is right, you're just reading these posts and drawing conclusions from them.

BTW, the answer to the question I asked in the post is: No.

Strength of argument can be usefully discerned from internet debate.
I know little about this case, but plenty about others.
Patterns are how history repeats.
I am never offended, every detail can elucidate, even the confidence combined with detail in the discussion.
I think it is great to learn from collective discussion.
I will get to this case because it is really important, but only as time allows.
There is a great thread on IA which you might add to.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=197&t=1638

 

[desmirelle]

Uh, depends on what you're reading.

Now, at the very first hurdle in the investigation (not the act of the murders themselves), we have a fail from Darlie. Had she chased the guy out (magically missing the glass), the light would still be on when the police arrived. What do your abilities tell you about that?

 

[Samson]

Uh, depends on what you're reading.

Now, at the very first hurdle in the investigation (not the act of the murders themselves), we have a fail from Darlie. Had she chased the guy out (magically missing the glass), the light would still be on when the police arrived. What do your abilities tell you about that?

Those are important details, it's not really my job. This idea that everyone must research from square one misses the huge opportunity of an internet collective. I expect Sinsaint, who is a case specialist has considered this.
Creating a comprehensive list of cases of actual wrongful convictions is helpful in fighting authority arguments where the common citizenry has swallowed the crooked police lines hook line and sinker. There are many to list, and most people only study one case.
The Jeremy Bamber case is a classic, where the local villagers believe the police story, which is a disgraceful concoction of outright lies.
If Darlie Routier is proved to be guilty by internet discussion she misses the cut and that is fine.
I sure have no regard for the police prosecution jury, trial judge and appeal court findings. These are so often a chain of sequential falsities that they must be disregarded.

 

[desmirelle]

Those are important details, it's not really my job. This idea that everyone must research from square one misses the huge opportunity of an internet collective. I expect Sinsaint, who is a case specialist has considered this.
I sure have no regard for the police prosecution jury, trial judge and appeal court findings. These are so often a chain of sequential falsities that they must be disregarded.[/QUOTE

So, facts have nothing to do with your opinion....you just blindly believe Sinsaint - because your opinion is that Sinsaint is a 'case specialist'.......?

Why are you posting then? I'm curious, if you've decided that Sinsaint is the "last word" in this case, why are you bothering ME with questions that, if I answer differently than Sinsaint's holy gospel of Darlie, you're going to disregard?

 

[Samson]

Those are important details, it's not really my job. This idea that everyone must research from square one misses the huge opportunity of an internet collective. I expect Sinsaint, who is a case specialist has considered this.
I sure have no regard for the police prosecution jury, trial judge and appeal court findings. These are so often a chain of sequential falsities that they must be disregarded.[/QUOTE

So, facts have nothing to do with your opinion....you just blindly believe Sinsaint - because your opinion is that Sinsaint is a 'case specialist'.......?

Why are you posting then? I'm curious, if you've decided that Sinsaint is the "last word" in this case, why are you bothering ME with questions that, if I answer differently than Sinsaint's holy gospel of Darlie, you're going to disregard?

I am not disregarding your posts. I am open minded, but Sinsaint appears to answer major points like the screen door effectively, but she may be wrong.

 

[desmirelle]

Yeah, if you don't answer my question, you are disregarding it. And you didn't answer, or, rather, you answered by saying "it's not really my job" which is failing to even acknowledge the issue of Darlie failing the first hurdle (nothing to do with anything that happened before it - the attack on the boys): the motion sensor light SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON. Not enough time had elapsed from the 'chase of the mythical intruder' to the arrival of the police for it to time out.

It's an if-then scenario. IF she chased an intruder out on the route she indicated, THEN the motion sensor light would still be on. IF there was no intruder chased out that night, THEN the motion sensor light is off when the police arrive.

 

[MDDVS]

Yeah, if you don't answer my question, you are disregarding it. And you didn't answer, or, rather, you answered by saying "it's not really my job" which is failing to even acknowledge the issue of Darlie failing the first hurdle (nothing to do with anything that happened before it - the attack on the boys): the motion sensor light SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON. Not enough time had elapsed from the 'chase of the mythical intruder' to the arrival of the police for it to time out.

It's an if-then scenario. IF she chased an intruder out on the route she indicated, THEN the motion sensor light would still be on. IF there was no intruder chased out that night, THEN the motion sensor light is off when the police arrive.

Hello, can you link or quote the relevant testimony on this issue? It's impossible to answer without knowing the details.

 

[desmirelle]

Hello, can you link or quote the relevant testimony on this issue? It's impossible to answer without knowing the details.

Yes, I can. If I go and take the time to find it, cut it from there and then paste it here. Do your own research. It's all on the 'net. You can look it up faster than I can do it.

 

[MDDVS]

Yes, I can. If I go and take the time to find it, cut it from there and then paste it here. Do your own research. It's all on the 'net. You can look it up faster than I can do it.

I found it. From the testimony of Lieutenant Matthew Walling:

6 Q. It didn't set the light off when you
7 came in through the gate, did you?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Okay. Later on some experiments were
10 done. Were you there when those were done?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. And you were able to --or the police
13 officer conducting it, was able to run in this area to
14 the window back and forth and not set off the alarm --
15 set off the lights, was he not?
16 A. The only thing that I did when the
17 light came on, I stayed out of --or at the entrance to
18 the yard. When the lights came on, I timed it to see how
19 long they were on.
20 Q. Okay. Were you there when the
21 experiment was conducted?
22 A. Yes, sir, I was.
23 Q. Okay. Well, you know then that he was
24 able to walk from the window, and run from the window --
25 both run and walk from the window to the gate without

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
558

1 setting off the light?
2 A. I'm not sure what path that he took.
3 Q. Okay. But you were there when that
4 experiment was conducted?
5 A. Yes, sir, I was. I timed it.

Apparently it's not as you said. It is possible to walk in the backyard without setting off the lights.

 

[desmirelle]

Okay, I am NOT being sarcastic, but thank you for posting that. It means you care about the case and are not just taking poster's words for things.

So, she may not have failed at the first hurdle. Wished they'd filmed those 'tests' of the gate and window race, though. Then we'd know if the officers were trying to stay out of the sensors coming and going. I can believe an intruder avoiding them on the way in, but once he's been chased out, I don't see it. (Used to hear a noise next door, occasionally the motion sensor for the neighbors went on, turned out it was the daughter sneaking in/out.)

 

[Samson]

I found it. From the testimony of Lieutenant Matthew Walling:



Apparently it's not as you said. It is possible to walk in the backyard without setting off the lights.

Okay, I am NOT being sarcastic, but thank you for posting that. It means you care about the case and are not just taking poster's words for things.

So, she may not have failed at the first hurdle. Wished they'd filmed those 'tests' of the gate and window race, though. Then we'd know if the officers were trying to stay out of the sensors coming and going. I can believe an intruder avoiding them on the way in, but once he's been chased out, I don't see it. (Used to hear a noise next door, occasionally the motion sensor for the neighbors went on, turned out it was the daughter sneaking in/out.)

I feel a fraud. With no heavy lifting on my part we have teased out a flaw in the hard data alleged to prove Darlie Routier should die.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I feel a fraud. With no heavy lifting on my part we have teased out a flaw in the hard data alleged to prove Darlie Routier should die.

Not quite. There's much more than that. Go research it and then we can debate.

 

[Sinsaint]

Sinsaint's post #87 implies that Darlie did bring Devon a towel because one was in a photograph near his body. That only proves there was a towel, it says nothing about who placed it there. S. then disputes the term "rag" v. "gauze pad" as if has deep meaning. It just means different people use different terminology for the same thing. Another post opines that Darlie was unconscious when Darlie has no head injury that would account for unconsciousness. From what I'm seeing, S. is just re-interpreting all evidence for Darlie rather than against her. She's even using fingerprint dust put on a surface as "proof" the police weren't doing a good job (Linch reported observation, Linch does not indicate whether or not the information that the sill was dusted was given prior to the observation.)

Tsk, tsk... The only people who thought "rag" vs. "gauze pad" had any deep meaning were the people who thought the paramedics showed up at the house and administered aide to the victims with dish rags from said house. It's fairly simple to figure out how that towel got there and who brought it. There were only so many people in the house that could have placed the rags there: Waddell and Walling but both testified they never brought rags to the children. Koschak, Kolbye and Byford but again, all three testified that they did not get household dish rags to treat the children with. Koschak went a step further and testified that Devon was dead when he arrived and no treatment was rendered (ergo none of the paramedics left the towel, rag or gauze pad in the photo behind) and only mentioned touching the rag Darlie had on her neck which he specifically stated he removed from her on the front porch. Karen was there but she testified she only went to the entryway of the living room (Roman room). Darin testified Darlie got rags for the boys. Darlie testified she got the rags for the boys. I get that you hate Darlie and don't believe anything she said but if you don't believe her after all the other occupants have been eliminated then your theory must be a Rag Fairy showed up and threw them all over the living room.

People can pass out with or without a head injury. Blood loss and rapid decrease in blood pressure are also common conditions that can lead to unconsciousness.

Hamilton testified he arrived at the house a little before 9:00 a.m. and after a brief meeting with his supervisor he began processing the scene for prints starting at the window. Linch showed up at 12:30 p.m. He testified he observed a fine layer of dust on the windowsill. Linch doesn't need to call himself a liar in order to figure out he's a liar.

 

[Sinsaint]

I wrote: READ the book, not jump to a wild conclusion as to what Barbara Davis wrote. Hint: You are jumping to the conclusion, after her conviction, that Darlie told the truth about when she cut herself. She wasn't in shock, no one reported that. The book makes sense in its conclusion about the sock.

Actually Barbara Davis is the one, along with you, jumping to the wrong conclusions. See the testimony of Tom Bevel. There was one castoff stain that was a complete mixture of both Devon and Darlie on her shirt which means Darlie was already bleeding when Devon was stabbed. This means she would have been bleeding when she supposedly planted the sock. While Darlie may have had the physical ability to plant the sock she would not have had the ability to do so without leaving a trail of blood in her wake... Nor the time to do so but that's a separate issue.

BTW, Darlie never said she cut herself. Stop making things up.

 

[Sinsaint]

Uh, depends on what you're reading.

Now, at the very first hurdle in the investigation (not the act of the murders themselves), we have a fail from Darlie. Had she chased the guy out (magically missing the glass), the light would still be on when the police arrived. What do your abilities tell you about that?

This is rich! You pulled up a post from me on IA earlier in this thread. Why don't you tell the other posters here that your "motion light" theory was brought up in that very thread AND solidly refuted with testimony?

5 Q. Okay. And, you know from your
6 investigation that you don't have -- that you can walk
7 from that window to the gate, on the paved, exposed
8 aggregate there, and not activate the light. You know
9 that, don't you?
10 A. No, I do not know that.
11 Q. Okay. Let me ask you, while they are
12 looking for Mr. Nabors' report, let me ask you this:
13 There was a viewing of the body, is that right? Of the 14 youngster's body?...

22 Q. Okay. You know, based on your
23 investigation, that you could pass on the paved area,
24 from the window to the gate, and not trip or set off the
25 security lights, don't you?

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4165

1 A. Yes, sir. It says that you can walk
2 on the paved part from the gate to the window without
3 triggering the light.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... rson-1.pdf

You knew damn well people could come and go through that back yard without setting off the lights long before you ever pretended on this thread that it couldn't be done.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12. Please review your Membership Agreement to which you agreed on joining the forum, and refrain from insulting other posters.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Actually Barbara Davis is the one, along with you, jumping to the wrong conclusions. See the testimony of Tom Bevel. There was one castoff stain that was a complete mixture of both Devon and Darlie on her shirt which means Darlie was already bleeding when Devon was stabbed. This means she would have been bleeding when she supposedly planted the sock. While Darlie may have had the physical ability to plant the sock she would not have had the ability to do so without leaving a trail of blood in her wake... Nor the time to do so but that's a separate issue.

BTW, Darlie never said she cut herself. Stop making things up.

I agree with Sinsaint. I think it was ridiculous for some policeman on TV to say Darlie is right where she belongs because her footprints were found at the sink. It was never a complete investigation, The police are apt to jump to conclusions.

 

[Sinsaint]

I agree with Sinsaint. I think it was ridiculous for some policeman on TV to say Darlie is right where she belongs because her footprints were found at the sink. It was never a complete investigation, The police are apt to jump to conclusions.

The blood evidence around the sink/kitchen area and what the prosecution claims it proves is a farce. For starters, Darlie has always claimed she was at the sink wetting down rags from the kitchen to take to her children. Darin also stated the same thing. Further proof of this action can be seen in numerous photographs showing at least four rags in locations where the two boys were located (at least one near Devon and three where Damon was laying). Carolyn Van Winkle testified that testing on at least one of these rags that had visible blood stains on it produced no DNA results because the sample was too diluted. Taken as a whole the evidence confirms Darlie's story providing the explanation for why her blood was at that location.

Testimony was given that luminol was used on the countertop directly to the right of the sink basin, in the sink basin itself and on the kitchen floor area leading to the sink that found blood stains not visible to the naked eye which the prosecution claims is proof that Darlie attempted to clean up the blood. Starting at the countertop to the right of the sink, no other test was done on this area to confirm if blood had caused the reaction to the luminol or some other substance other than blood caused the reaction. Without knowing if there was ever blood there no one can claim the luminol test proves she cleaned up blood from that location.

Moving along to the sink basin itself, prosecutors claim luminol detected blood that was not visible to the naked eye thus indicating Darlie attempted to "clean up" the blood from the sink. The simple act of turning on water and wetting down rags would dilute the blood in the sink. Nothing about the blood being diluted in the sink proves that Darlie intentionally cleaned the sink basin to try to hide the fact that blood had been in it. It should be noted that in the evidence photos blood is still highly visible in the sink basin as well as all over the front lip area of the sink, the cabinet doors below the sink and the rug and floor in front of the sink. It's laughable to think the prosecution asserts that Darlie cleaned up the sink area in an attempt to hide the fact that she bled there given the copious amounts of visible blood all over the place.

The last area of luminol testing in the kitchen was the floor area leading to the sink. Investigators claim luminol testing detected clear footprint outlines that were not visible to the naked eye, thus Darlie must have cleaned those footprints up yet left other visible bloody footprints with no explanation how she was picking and choosing which ones to clean and which one's to leave behind. The fact that these invisible footprints were clearly outlined once luminol was used actually indicates she didn't clean them up. Had she done so the areas of "cleaned up footprints" would have illuminated as a smeared mess not perfectly shaped footprints.

Henry Lee was recently on an ID program (about O.J.) where he describes exactly how bloody footprints not visible to the naked eye happen without any intentional act of clean up those prints. A person steps in a puddle of blood. With each step the person takes they deposit less and less visible blood until they are depositing no visible blood at all. However, after all visible traces of blood have been worn away during the process of walking, invisible hemoglobin from the blood that was on the foot can continue to be deposited. In those instances luminol can be used to detect perfectly outlined footprints.

 

[desmirelle]

BTW, Darlie never said she cut herself. Stop making things up.

I never said Darlie didn't say it. What I say is I do not believe her story. I agree with the jury; she did it. Which means, by logical inference, that she DID cut herself. (And by some miracle managed not to kill herself with that cut at her throat.) So, I'm not making up things, I just do not believe Darlie Routier.

 

[wasapi]

I never said Darlie didn't say it. What I say is I do not believe her story. I agree with the jury; she did it. Which means, by logical inference, that she DID cut herself. (And by some miracle managed not to kill herself with that cut at her throat.) So, I'm not making up things, I just do not believe Darlie Routier.

Desmirelle, well said.

 

[Sinsaint]

I never said Darlie didn't say it. What I say is I do not believe her story. I agree with the jury; she did it. Which means, by logical inference, that she DID cut herself. (And by some miracle managed not to kill herself with that cut at her throat.) So, I'm not making up things, I just do not believe Darlie Routier.

I wrote: READ the book, not jump to a wild conclusion as to what Barbara Davis wrote. Hint: You are jumping to the conclusion, after her conviction, that Darlie told the truth about when she cut herself. She wasn't in shock, no one reported that. The book makes sense in its conclusion about the sock.

Darlie never said she cut herself so any statement that "Darlie told the truth about when she cut herself" is a lie. Pretty it up however you like it... You are lying. Darlie never mentioned even noticing her injuries until after she picked up the knife. Maybe next time you should qualify your statement that it is your opinion when it comes to anything you think Darlie stated since you clearly have no clue what she said.