Some wild speculation about Darlie's wounds.

[JimPence]

Hi all,

I just thought of something the other day, and was wondering if anyone else has suggested this possibility.

One of the Darlie innocent arguments is that there's not enough time for Darlie to have self-inflicted the knife wounds, stabbed the boys, cleaned the kitchen, yada, yada, yada, given that a maximum of 8 minutes could have passed from the boys' injuries to their death. We know that Damon was still alive when the first police officer arrived, so it's a tight window of opportunity.

Anyway, here's my wild and crazy speculation. Has anyone suggested the possibility that Darlie inflicted her own wounds first? With the boys asleep, she would have had all the time she wanted or needed. She would also have had time to clean the blood from the sink. Then, after she had taken care of making herself look like a victim, she turned her attention to the boys.

I'm probably totally out to lunch on this, but the thought just struck me and I wanted to see what y'all thought.

Feel free to shoot me down! (But be nice about it) :)

Jim

[Dani_T]

Hi all,

I just thought of something the other day, and was wondering if anyone else has suggested this possibility.

One of the Darlie innocent arguments is that there's not enough time for Darlie to have self-inflicted the knife wounds, stabbed the boys, cleaned the kitchen, yada, yada, yada, given that a maximum of 8 minutes could have passed from the boys' injuries to their death. We know that Damon was still alive when the first police officer arrived, so it's a tight window of opportunity.

Hi Jim :)

In terms of the 8 minutes for Damon- that is for the fatal wound. If one believes that Darlie inflicted the fatal wound at the same time as the other wounds on Damon then yes, it narrows the time line down. However, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that Damon may have been attacked twice, with the fatal wounds being delivered the second time at or near the location where he was found. That opens up the timeline signficantly.

The other thing to consider is that Devon and Damon may not have necessarily been attacked right after each other. Devon was already dead when Darin found him (and his description of how he looks indicates that perhaps he had been dead for a little while... just speculation). It could be that Devon was attacked and killed any time before Damon (say an hour or so?). It is possible that some/all staging may have been done between attacks on the two boys.


Anyway, here's my wild and crazy speculation. Has anyone suggested the possibility that Darlie inflicted her own wounds first? With the boys asleep, she would have had all the time she wanted or needed. She would also have had time to clean the blood from the sink. Then, after she had taken care of making herself look like a victim, she turned her attention to the boys.
I think the blood patterns would tell us this. Just one example , if she cut herself first before the boys then how did she get the boys blood onto the sock and manage to get it outside without leaving any blood trail?

Also, she was bleeding pretty profusely (although not life threatening). I can't see Darlie doing herself first and bleeding that much that early without freaking out.


I'm probably totally out to lunch on this, but the thought just struck me and I wanted to see what y'all thought.

Worth asking :) Others might like the idea more :) At the moment it stands pretty much opposed to my theory that she didn't intend to cut herself until she was accidentally wounded and so had to carry through at the last minute.

[JimPence]

You're right. She would have definitely left some kind of blood trail when depositing the sock down the alley. I'd forgotten about that.

Jim

[Jeana (DP)]

It was good thinking though Jim!!! Fresh eyes - that's what we need!!!!

I also tend to believe the "two-attack" theory.

[IrishMist]

I really lean towards Darlie's guilt, but herein lies the rub...
Why did she call for help with Damon still alive? Two attack theory or not, he was still alive when she called, and when they arrived.

She had no idea of knowing if the child would die before the EMT's arrived-
for all she knew, they could have saved him and he could identify her.

This point sticks with me, can't seem to resolve it in my mind.

[Jeana (DP)]

I really lean towards Darlie's guilt, but herein lies the rub...
Why did she call for help with Damon still alive? Two attack theory or not, he was still alive when she called, and when they arrived.

She had no idea of knowing if the child would die before the EMT's arrived-
for all she knew, they could have saved him and he could identify her.

This point sticks with me, can't seem to resolve it in my mind.

We don't know for sure if she even knew he was alive. She never got close enough to get blood on her (well except when she stabbed them). If you've read the autopsy reports and viewed the autopsy photographs and the crime scene photographs, I think its a miracle that he survived for as long as he did.

[cami]

I really lean towards Darlie's guilt, but herein lies the rub...
Why did she call for help with Damon still alive? Two attack theory or not, he was still alive when she called, and when they arrived.

She had no idea of knowing if the child would die before the EMT's arrived-
for all she knew, they could have saved him and he could identify her.

This point sticks with me, can't seem to resolve it in my mind.

I think she called for help when she did because she was bleeding like a stuck pig and wanted to save herself.

MOO

[JerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Dani_T: The other thing to consider is that Devon and Damon may not have necessarily been attacked right after each other. Devon was already dead when Darin found him (and his description of how he looks indicates that perhaps he had been dead for a little while... just speculation). It could be that Devon was attacked and killed any time before Damon (say an hour or so?). It is possible that some/all staging may have been done between attacks on the two boys.

But wouldn't something like this be obvious by blood stains, stages of rigor mortis, coagulation of blood, etc.? I think they would be able to tell if one victim was dead for an hour or more than the other one. Was this possibility ever mentioned in any of the documentation in the case?

I also have a real problem with the idea that someone could commit such an extremely violent, rage-filled attack, (especially on their own children), then stop to do some staging, then get back into the frenzy at will and do it all over again. I could see if this was a Ted Bundy or someone else with a history of violence, psychosis, or just a sick penchant for inflicting pain on people but we've never seen that from either of these parents. Where would this controllable rage come from in someone with no history of violence or mental illness? Without a history, it seems to me that once that murderous frenzy is over, it's over and the sanity switch comes on saying, "what in the h*ll did I just do????" If these children were taken by suffocation, I would have an easier time believing this idea. But to perform such a grisly, disgusting act not once, but twice ... it doesn't seem plausible. I think that if one of the parents did this, it was a crime of passion. In that case, in my opinion, it was in some sort of insane moment, either post-partum depression on her part, or on his part a panicked moment of desperation when he thought his wife was going to leave him and he wanted to get back at her. A crime of passion happens before the perpetrator even realizes what he/she is doing, is usually out of character for the individual, and is an isolated incident, (not something that can be turned on and off).

[Dani_T]

But wouldn't something like this be obvious by blood stains, stages of rigor mortis, coagulation of blood, etc.? I think they would be able to tell if one victim was dead for an hour or more than the other one. Was this possibility ever mentioned in any of the documentation in the case?

Devon's time of death was left blank on his autopsy whereas Damon (who was transported to the hospital) was pronounced at 3.26am. Devon's autopsy was done at 1pm that day and Damons at around 9am. Whilst they would have been able to tell he didn't die hours earlier I'm not sure they would have been able to say he didn't die 30mins- 1 hour before his brother (especially if they weren't looking for it).

Not sure if anyone ever mentioned anything about it. I don't think it is likely- but it is a possibility.

[JerseyGirl]

Whilst they would have been able to tell he didn't die hours earlier I'm not sure they would have been able to say he didn't die 30mins- 1 hour before his brother (especially if they weren't looking for it).

I'm absolutely positive that they were looking for anything & everything that they could possibly determine. It's not every day that a 4 year-old and a 6 year-old show up on your autopsy table from a brutal murder. I would think that in the case of children so young they would be especially careful to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's, (especially considering that in their state there is an automatic death penalty for the murder of a child under age 5, correct)?

Does anyone know for sure about the blood evidence & time frame? An hour seems like an awful long time between times of death to not be noticed. It also seems like it would be Forensics 101 that teaches you about varying stages of drying blood ... pretty basic stuff for forensics people it seems. But I have no forensics background so I don't know. I only know what I learned from Forensics Files on Court TV so I defer. ;)

Odd that Devon's time of death was left blank. Why is that?

[IrishMist]

Whilst they would have been able to tell he didn't die hours earlier I'm not sure they would have been able to say he didn't die 30mins- 1 hour before his brother (especially if they weren't looking for it).

I'm absolutely positive that they were looking for anything & everything that they could possibly determine. It's not every day that a 4 year-old and a 6 year-old show up on your autopsy table from a brutal murder. I would think that in the case of children so young they would be especially careful to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's, (especially considering that in their state there is an automatic death penalty for the murder of a child under age 5, correct)?

Does anyone know for sure about the blood evidence & time frame? An hour seems like an awful long time between times of death to not be noticed. It also seems like it would be Forensics 101 that teaches you about varying stages of drying blood ... pretty basic stuff for forensics people it seems. But I have no forensics background so I don't know. I only know what I learned from Forensics Files on Court TV so I defer. ;)

Odd that Devon's time of death was left blank. Why is that?
It would be left blank, because they don't know. And as far as I know, they can't narrow down the time of death that closely. On tv, yes. In real life, no.
That's my understanding, anyway.

[Dani_T]

I'm absolutely positive that they were looking for anything & everything that they could possibly determine. It's not every day that a 4 year-old and a 6 year-old show up on your autopsy table from a brutal murder. I would think that in the case of children so young they would be especially careful to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's, (especially considering that in their state there is an automatic death penalty for the murder of a child under age 5, correct)?

Well all I can say is that Devon wasn't given a time of death on the official autopsy. I'm not a medical examiner so have no idea about how specific they can be beyond general knowledge from CSI (maybe they only get an official time if they are pronounced at the hospital). However, you also need to remember that Damon was rushed from the scene and was pronounced dead at the hospital. On the other hand Devon's body was left on the scene long enough to photos to be taken and evidence to be collected which would have been at least a couple of hours. So in terms of drying blood it wouldn't be able to give a timeline considering that it would have been dried by the time Devon's body was examined and removed.

As I said I personally don't consider it likely that Devon was killed a significant amount of time before Damon. However, the point is that the timeline is far more flexible than Darlie's camp would have us believe. They like to narrow it down to Darlie attacking Damon and then staging the entire scene in something like 3 mins. The evidence allows far more flexibility than that from the possibility of staging being done between the killing of the boys (IMHO unlikely) to Damon being attacked once, moving to where he was found and then attacked again (IMHO highly likely).

[JerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Dani_T: As I said I personally don't consider it likely that Devon was killed a significant amount of time before Damon. However, the point is that the timeline is far more flexible than Darlie's camp would have us believe. They like to narrow it down to Darlie attacking Damon and then staging the entire scene in something like 3 mins. The evidence allows far more flexibility than that ...

Agreed.

[IrishMist]

I think she called for help when she did because she was bleeding like a stuck pig and wanted to save herself.

MOO
Yup, this makes sense.
It's all about Darlie, all the time.

[JerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Irish Mist: It would be left blank, because they don't know. And as far as I know, they can't narrow down the time of death that closely. On tv, yes. In real life, no.

I don't use television dramas as a way to educate myself on the reality of crime scene investigation, (in fact, I don't even watch those shows). That's why I was asking someone who might know a lot more than me on the subject.

Even though I question Darlie's guilt, I find all of the theories pointing to her guilt to be very intriguing and well considered.

[IrishMist]

Originally posted by Irish Mist: It would be left blank, because they don't know. And as far as I know, they can't narrow down the time of death that closely. On tv, yes. In real life, no.

I don't use television dramas as a way to educate myself on the reality of crime scene investigation, (in fact, I don't even watch those shows). That's why I was asking someone who might know a lot more than me on the subject.

Even though I question Darlie's guilt, I find all of the theories pointing to her guilt to be very intriguing and well considered.
Oh, goodness, I meant no offense at all, Jersey!! You strike me as giving this case serious consideration, questioning the evidence, with well thought out posts.

I lean towards her guilt, but am trying to see the other side, because there ARE questions, and there ARE holes-- in both theories.

Again, I meant nothing against you at all.

[JerseyGirl]

No harm, Irish Mist ... I tend to be on the sarcastic side so I hope you'll forgive me if it seemed harsh. I appreciate the attention you give to your posts, and enjoy debating these issues with all of you. :)

[IrishMist]

No harm, Irish Mist ... I tend to be on the sarcastic side so I hope you'll forgive me if it seemed harsh. I appreciate the attention you give to your posts, and enjoy debating these issues with all of you. :)
K. I feel better now. That would have bothered me all day! :blowkiss:

That is the best part about this forum, as opposed to others- you can put different ideas out there without getting slammed.

[JerseyGirl]

I'm exactly the same way, IrishMist. I'm happy that I could put your mind at ease. I really enjoy this forum and most of the people here as well. Very bright and insightful.

[cami]

[. A crime of passion happens before the perpetrator even realizes what he/she is doing, is usually out of character for the individual, and is an isolated incident, (not something that can be turned on and off).

Yes, I agree but I think it's Darlie who held the knife and did the stabbing not Darin.

Darlie adamantly denied that Darin was the intruder and now that her times is coming up short, she's pointing the finger at him. Darin could not have done this unless Darlie knew about it. She's the one who says she followed the intruder through the kitchen to the utility room. Surely she would recognize her own husband if it were Darin.

The print of the knife on the carpet in the murder room indicates that someone bleeding from the arm fed blood to that knife. The blood was quite heavy at the tip, indicating someone bleeding from the arm was holding the knife. Darlie is the one with the injuries to her forearms, not Darin.

The lack of damage to the breakables in that room indicates great attachment to the material things there. I doubt that Darin was all that attached to knick knacks. MOO

[JerseyGirl]

Could the blood being fed to the knife have occured while she was picking the knife up, (although I imagine that that's unlikely).

You've made very good points but I disagree with the last one. You stated on another thread that you think Darlie just snapped. (If Darlie did this, I agree.) However, if someone just snaps to the point of brutally murdering their children, are they really worried about knocking over knick-knacks? If you snap then you are not consciously thinking about not breaking your things. In my opinion, either she snapped or she didn't. If she was making a conscious effort to avoid breaking her treasured items, I'd hardly consider that "snapping".

I know people speak of her being shallow and materialistic but do you think that she was more attached to the knick-knacks than her children? I don't know if she was or wasn't ... I just don't think that part adds up.

[cami]

Could the blood being fed to the knife have occured while she was picking the knife up, (although I imagine that that's unlikely).

You've made very good points but I disagree with the last one. You stated on another thread that you think Darlie just snapped. (If Darlie did this, I agree.) However, if someone just snaps to the point of brutally murdering their children, are they really worried about knocking over knick-knacks? If you snap then you are not consciously thinking about not breaking your things. In my opinion, either she snapped or she didn't. If she was making a conscious effort to avoid breaking her treasured items, I'd hardly consider that "snapping".

I know people speak of her being shallow and materialistic but do you think that she was more attached to the knick-knacks than her children? I don't know if she was or wasn't ... I just don't think that part adds up.

No, the blood evidence does not support the knife being just picked up. The blood evidence I am talking about is in the murder room, on the pristine white carpets. How did the knife get in the murder room for her to pick it up if her story is true. She said the intruder threw it down as he left through the garage. We know the intruder wasn't bleeding from the arms. Camilla is the blood lady, she can explain it better than anyone else, but you can see the blood drops from the knife on the carpet.

What I meant was, there is evidence of staging. The glass toped table was over on it's side and the lamp shade was down however the lamp was not moved from it's position. If she was fighting with a stranger in that room, as she says she was, I would expect some of her delicate things to be broken or knocked over. All that's out of place though is the table and the lamp. She describes the intruder as fleeing right past that table with the beautiful knickknacks on yet he knocks a wine glass to the floor right in her path as she follows him. If Darin did this and he staged the crime scene, I don't think he would be too attached to the delicate knickknacks and would most likely have thrown them down table and all.

I think she had to objectify her children and dissassociate from them in order to murder them, but I don't know whether or not she placed less value on them than her material possessions. If comments she made to one of her friends after the murders are true, than yes, she did place more value on her possessions than her children.

[JerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Cami: I think she had to objectify her children and dissassociate from them in order to murder them, but I don't know whether or not she placed less value on them than her material possessions. If comments she made to one of her friends after the murders are true, than yes, she did place more value on her possessions than her children.

I'd have to agree. I was literally nauseated when I read what her friend relayed upon Darlie's first visit to the house following its realease. If that is, indeed, true, she has either really lost her mind from all of this or she deserves what's coming to her and a whole lot more.

I was also deeply troubled by remarks from a nurse that Darlie was wheeled past the room where one of her boys was lying on the table, and she looked, turned away, and still no emotion. It's unimaginable for a parent to react that way.

Like I said in another post, the more I read the more I agree with what you are all saying about her guilt. No final decision yet ... trying to keep an open mind but the evidence and testimony are absolutely shocking.

[little1]

I think she had to objectify her children and dissassociate from them in order to murder them, but I don't know whether or not she placed less value on them than her material possessions. If comments she made to one of her friends after the murders are true, than yes, she did place more value on her possessions than her children.


I agree, but I think it may go a little further than that. I believe that she may have viewed her boys as material objects that were hers to do what she pleases with.


Not only were they objects, they were also an extension of her.

Does that make sense?

[JerseyGirl]

Originally posted by little1: I agree, but I think it may go a little further than that. I believe that she may have viewed her boys as material objects that were hers to do what she pleases with.

Not only were they objects, they were also an extension of her.

Does that make sense?

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that it is entirely possible that she felt she could do what she pleased with the boys, (although I still think this was unplanned if Darlie did do it).

I don't necessarily agree, though, that she viewed them as an extension of herself. If she is truly a narcissist, as many have suggested, would she have done this to children she viewed as an extension of herself? Would she even have viewed them that way in the first place?

[cami]

Originally posted by little1: I agree, but I think it may go a little further than that. I believe that she may have viewed her boys as material objects that were hers to do what she pleases with.

Not only were they objects, they were also an extension of her.

Does that make sense?

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that it is entirely possible that she felt she could do what she pleased with the boys, (although I still think this was unplanned if Darlie did do it).

I don't necessarily agree, though, that she viewed them as an extension of herself. If she is truly a narcissist, as many have suggested, would she have done this to children she viewed as an extension of herself? Would she even have viewed them that way in the first place?

I don't think any of us will ever understand it. We can throw about narcissism, histrionic p.d., psychopath etc. but can we really ever understand why a mother kills her children. Certainly not me.

I used to lie in bed at night wondering, trying to analyze it, what happened in that home that night, why did she do this. Gosh, you drive yourself nuts doing that, LOL. Why did Susan Smith do it. Or Diane Downs or Debbie Milke or Julia Rhea. Why, Why, Why.

[Goody]

I used to lie in bed at night wondering, trying to analyze it, what happened in that home that night, why did she do this. Gosh, you drive yourself nuts doing that, LOL. Why did Susan Smith do it. Or Diane Downs or Debbie Milke or Julia Rhea. Why, Why, Why.
Hmm.....Let's see. Susan, Diane, Debbie, and Julie would all be free if their children were gone. Free to marry, free to start over, free from responsibility of having to care for and financially support another human being, free to pursue an education and career. So what did Darlie have to gain?

[jaeger]

[b]I also have a real problem with the idea that someone could commit such an extremely violent, rage-filled attack, (especially on their own children), then stop to do some staging, then get back into the frenzy at will and do it all over again.
True, but I could see where someone could commit the initial attack in a rage, and then, after calming down, realize that they have to finish the job. This was the theory in the MacDonald case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he convicted of second degree murder in the killings of his wife and older daughter (because it was believed to have been done in during a psychotic rage), but first degree in the younger daughter's death (because it was done with a clear head, in order to support his story). So she could have stabbed him again without flying into that frenzy. Completely cold heartedly.

Another thing that reminds me very strongly of the MacDonald case (gee, lots of similarities here) is the staging of the scene. In both cases, a table was found on its side, with a plant/flower arrangement that seemed to be carefully placed on the floor rather than knocked off in a fight. And other items around the room that *should* have been knocked off in a fight remained in place.

[Jeana (DP)]

True, but I could see where someone could commit the initial attack in a rage, and then, after calming down, realize that they have to finish the job. This was the theory in the MacDonald case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he convicted of second degree murder in the killings of his wife and older daughter (because it was believed to have been done in during a psychotic rage), but first degree in the younger daughter's death (because it was done with a clear head, in order to support his story). So she could have stabbed him again without flying into that frenzy. Completely cold heartedly.

Another thing that reminds me very strongly of the MacDonald case (gee, lots of similarities here) is the staging of the scene. In both cases, a table was found on its side, with a plant/flower arrangement that seemed to be carefully placed on the floor rather than knocked off in a fight. And other items around the room that *should* have been knocked off in a fight remained in place.


A lot of us believe Damon was attacked twice since he appeared to try and get away. Self-preservation would indeed allow this to occur.

As for the contents of the rooms involved, you're completely right Jaeger. There should have been any number of items knocked over, broken or missing. The only things damaged in that house were her boys. Its obvious to me what she cared most for.

[DebC]

... So what did Darlie have to gain? Attention, sympathy, everyone falling over themselves to helpt her. That sort of thing. You have all brought up really good points here. Thanks you so much. I have long been of the opinion that the motive behind the attack was a re-enactment of her earlier "cry rape" episode at a party with Darin. Only things went completely wrong. I will re-read your posts before I post again