The investigators say sock was “planted” down the alley. That’s crazy – we didn’t even know about the sock until about a month after I was arrested.
Sock planted or discarded?
One of Darin’s tube socks, with a small amount of both boys’ blood on it, was found next to a garbage can in the alley that runs behind the Routier’s home. It was collected and sent for DNA testing. At trial, Alan Brantley said he believed that the sock was part of the staging event – not a surprising conclusion, considering the obvious staging done inside the house. Tom Bevel, though, disagreed.
Davis: Mr. Mosty asked you about throw-down evidence that you want to be found. In regard to the sock, would that be more consistent with the assailant wanting to disassociate that sock from that crime scene?
Bevel: For the reason of the distance, yes, it would.
(Tom Bevel, Sec. 3584)
Greg Davis’s closing argument made it clear where the prosecutors stood on this issue. “I’m not telling you that this defendant went down there in some clever effort to plant this sock. Mr. Shook is not saying that either. What we are saying is that this woman knew very well that this sock came out of her house. She knew the sock had blood on it, and how is she ever going to explain that? Get it out of the house. And it wouldn’t take her very long at all.”
“We didn’t know about the sock until…”
The sock was found far enough away from the house that the police would not have automatically considered it part of the crime, and certainly not part of the crime scene. It was tested presumptively for blood, packaged, and sent to the crime lab. They then had to wait for DNA results before the sock could even be linked to the crime. DNA results are not obtained overnight, and with over 100 pieces of evidence tested, it should come as no surprise that it took over a month. The sock was not mentioned in Darlie’s arrest warrant for the same reason the blonde hair in the screen wasn’t mentioned: neither item had been conclusively linked to the crime at that point.
Once again, Darlie is stating a half-truth. One witness believed it was throw-down evidence to suggest an intruder, while another believed the sock was put there to disassociate it from the home. Differences of opinion are the norm in most trials, particularly when delving into the mind of a murderer. I agree with Bevel and the prosecutors that this was the one piece of evidence that was not staged. If Darlie’s intent was to pin it on an assailant, it would have been easier and much less risky for her to have simply thrown the sock in the backyard, where the police would be sure to find it.
Darlie didn’t know the DNA results on the sock until a month after she was arrested, but then neither did anyone else. I believe she knew that there was a sock in the alley, though, and I believe she knew it several hours before the police did.