Many People Believe Darlie Needs a New Trial, Discuss it Here.

[Yellowrose]

Jeana claims there are 95% Darlie Supporters in this forum. Where are they? Shouldn't they be discussing why she needs a new trial.

[Jules]

Is there really a point to this thread? :doh:

[Yellowrose]

Is there really a point to this thread? :doh: Read what is says under the Darlie Routier forum. I'm just rocking the boat, a little so Jeana can call the forum Police. Robert got me in trouble because he's one of the 95% that supports Darlie. He thinks Darin did it. But Darlie did it, he just helped her cover it up. That's why she keeps her MOUTH shut! Darin disgusts me, he's sicker than she is.

[Rachael]

I don't believe she deserves a new trial. She wouldn't be spending her life in jail to cover up for something that her husband did (that is if they are saying she has knowledge that he did it). From what I read in a book about that case Darlie seemed like a very selfish person. I don't think anyone else had motive to kill the boys except for Darlie. Just my opinion though.

[Jules]

I did read it - which is why I asked if there was a point to this thread.

I don't see it as "rocking the boat." If you have an issue with Jeana, perhaps sending her a PM would be a better alternative than posting obnoxious posts.

Personally, I enjoy reading her posts on this forum and look forward to the information she shares here.

[RobertStJames]

I don't believe she deserves a new trial. She wouldn't be spending her life in jail to cover up for something that her husband did (that is if they are saying she has knowledge that he did it). From what I read in a book about that case Darlie seemed like a very selfish person. I don't think anyone else had motive to kill the boys except for Darlie. Just my opinion though.
I'd like to see her get a new trial with a lawyer that was free to present an alternate theory of the crime--namely that her husband did it. The public defenders were actually going that direction until Darin found out and suddenly produced 100k from somewhere to hire Mulder.

But as I've said elsewhere, any appeal based on trying to prove the existence of mystery perps is not going anywhere, and any trial based on that most likely has the same result: a guilty verdict.

As for motive: Darin had it. The boys were right there. They were witnesses. Their deaths wouldn't help him much financially. Darlie's certainly would.

RstJ

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana claims there are 95% Darlie Supporters in this forum. Where are they? Shouldn't they be discussing why she needs a new trial.


Where did you get that? I said Robert was more intelligent than 95% of the SUPPORTERS ON THIS FORUM. Sorry if you feel that you fall into the 5%, but I never said that you did.

[Jeana (DP)]

Read what is says under the Darlie Routier forum. I'm just rocking the boat, a little so Jeana can call the forum Police. Robert got me in trouble because he's one of the 95% that supports Darlie. He thinks Darin did it. But Darlie did it, he just helped her cover it up. That's why she keeps her MOUTH shut! Darin disgusts me, he's sicker than she is.


Honey, I AM the forum police on this forum. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

[CinnamonGirl]

I think they both did it

[Jeana (DP)]

I think they both did it


You're certainly not alone. Do you think he actively participated in the killings as well or just the cover up?

[Jules]

I don't think he particpated in the killings, but I definitely think he was in on the cover up.

I think he is the one who gave Darlie her bruises, etc. I just can't imagine her doing that to herself. But, then again, with her being in a homicidal rage as she was, who knows what she'd be capable of doing to herself.

Do you think she meant to kill herself and didn't quite make it that far?

[lucchesicourt]

From Barbara Davis:

During the trial I amassed over 40 steno pads filled with trial testimony and notes. After I reduced the evidence and trial testimony gathered to writing and sent "Precious Angels" to my publisher, I did what I always do when I finish a book, I went on as usual with my life. But my life decided not to go on as usual with me. My world wrapped securely in my beliefs of justice and fairness was shaken to the very core one day shortly after my book was released. Christopher Brown, author of "Media Tried, Justice Denied" called and asked me if I would keep an open mind and let him show me the true facts gathered by him in Darlie's case. I can honestly tell you that I was more than annoyed with him. After all, he hadn't sat in court day after day, week after week, but I sure had. And who did he think he was dragging this thing on while trying to convince me of something I already knew everything about. I told him he was wasting his time because there was no way I'd ever...I repeat, EVER, believe that Darlie was innocent. He assured me he could afford the time and we met. As I examined piece after piece of evidence I found myself convinced beyond any doubt that Darlie Routier was not the one who murdered her children and inflicted her own wounds on June 6, 1996. I found the State's case against her to be immersed in cover-ups, lies, false representations and evidence that was tampered with, tainted and even created to suit particular purposes.The police and prosecutorial tactics and the work they produced is questionable at best and criminal at worst. I cried. I trembled. I became sick at my stomach to the point that when I got home I threw up.


And people who were never present, like yourselves, who think they know the true facts of the case , believe she is guilty, without a doubt, and want her put to death. If Ms. Davis doubts her guilt and she HAS seen firsthand all the evidence and testimony and read all the testimony (you can also read the police officers transcripts where he says no notes were taken during the investigation, and he used his memory to recall facts- after more than 1 year before the trial- Like he could recall this stuff accurately) has doubts about her guilt, just maybe you will see that justice was NOT present in this courtroom during her trial.

That does not mean she is innocent, but it does put to question the fairness of her trial. If anyone reads the police officer's testimony, wouldn't you wonder how you can recall without written notes what actually was seen and heard by him? I sure do!

[Jules]

Hi Lucchesicourt - welcome to WS!

So if not Darlie, who do you think commited these crimes? Are you thinking Darin did them too?

[Rachael]

I am sorry to say it but I don't believe for a split second that someone just walked in off the street and decided to kill those boys. The mother killed them and the father may have helped to cover it up. It seems to me that Darlie was more important to Darin than the boys were. If my husband had any thought that I killed my children he would kill me. If Darin killed the boys and tried to kill Darlie she would have said it immediatly. She isn't spending her life in jail covering for her husband. She's way too selfish for that IMO.

[Rachael]

I don't think he particpated in the killings, but I definitely think he was in on the cover up.

I think he is the one who gave Darlie her bruises, etc. I just can't imagine her doing that to herself. But, then again, with her being in a homicidal rage as she was, who knows what she'd be capable of doing to herself.

Do you think she meant to kill herself and didn't quite make it that far?

I don't think she wanted to kill herself. I just think she was in a homicidal rage like you said. This case reminds me of Jeffrey MacDonalds.

[Jeana (DP)]

I am sorry to say it but I don't believe for a split second that someone just walked in off the street and decided to kill those boys. The mother killed them and the father may have helped to cover it up. It seems to me that Darlie was more important to Darin than the boys were. If my husband had any thought that I killed my children he would kill me. If Darin killed the boys and tried to kill Darlie she would have said it immediatly. She isn't spending her life in jail covering for her husband. She's way too selfish for that IMO.


Darlie's neighborhood wasn't one that someone would just happen by. Either someone in that house did it or it was someone who had a map because it would be VERY easy to get lost in a maze of neighborhood streets where all of the houses looked the same and there are many culdesacs where one would get stuck.

[great_tezi]

Honey, I AM the forum police on this forum. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

PIMP over here Jeana! Please send a new keyboard. UPS delivers!!! :laugh:

[Jules]

Rachael - I agree with both of your posts. The similarities to MacDonald included. I followed that case too - even driving past 544 Castle last fall when on vacation with LesleeGP and creeping her hubby out that I remembered the address.... ;)

So what do you think Darin did to help cover up for Darlie? Did he plant the sock? Do you think Darlie confessed to Darin what happened and he helped cover which is why neither of them is saying anything?

[Rachael]

Rachael - I agree with both of your posts. The similarities to MacDonald included. I followed that case too - even driving past 544 Castle last fall when on vacation with LesleeGP and creeping her hubby out that I remembered the address.... ;)

So what do you think Darin did to help cover up for Darlie? Did he plant the sock? Do you think Darlie confessed to Darin what happened and he helped cover which is why neither of them is saying anything?


I don't know if I actually believe that he helped to cover it up. I just think he figured out she did it after the fact and still stuck by her. Again if Darlie had knowledge of Darin killing those boys she would have said it from day one. IF and it's a big IF Darlie didn't kill the boys she hired someone else to do it. I 100% think she is as guilty as sin. From what I read she seems like a very greedy selfish person and she may not have gotten money from the kids death's but she didn't have to take care of them anymore either.

[Jeana (DP)]

PIMP over here Jeana! Please send a new keyboard. UPS delivers!!! :laugh:


Geez!!! LOL Some people. I think she was a campfire girl who has worn out her welcome. Won't be hearing from her any more. :angel: :angel:

[Jules]

I don't know if I actually believe that he helped to cover it up. I just think he figured out she did it after the fact and still stuck by her. Again if Darlie had knowledge of Darin killing those boys she would have said it from day one. IF and it's a big IF Darlie didn't kill the boys she hired someone else to do it. I 100% think she is as guilty as sin. From what I read she seems like a very greedy selfish person and she may not have gotten money from the kids death's but she didn't have to take care of them anymore either.

Agreed. I fully believe Darlie did it too, but love the discussion on this board. I've been known to be wrong before. :eek: :blushing: However, just not sure where Darin fits in. I know if I were in his place there is NO WAY I could have stuck by the person who murdered my kids. So why does he still support her? Does he think she will get out at some point? Or does he believe her to be innocent?

[Jules]

Geez!!! LOL Some people. I think she was a campfire girl who has worn out her welcome. Won't be hearing from her any more. :angel: :angel:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :angel: :angel:

[cami]

I don't know if I actually believe that he helped to cover it up. I just think he figured out she did it after the fact and still stuck by her. Again if Darlie had knowledge of Darin killing those boys she would have said it from day one. IF and it's a big IF Darlie didn't kill the boys she hired someone else to do it. I 100% think she is as guilty as sin. From what I read she seems like a very greedy selfish person and she may not have gotten money from the kids death's but she didn't have to take care of them anymore either.

I agree with both of you as well. I too think she was overwhelmed with the kids, the house, depression, her high lifestyle ending, etc. There's no doubt in my mind that Darlie is the killer and that she somehow convinced Darin to collude with her. I still can't shake the thought somehow that he came downstairs and caught her at it. Darin was not a big help to her with the boys. His fatherhood appears more ego driven to me.

I don't think that this was done for financial gain. On that I disagree with the prosecution.

[Jules]

I don't think it was done for financial gain either - I think it was done to rid Darlie of the responsibility. I've often wondered if Drake had been down there too, would she have murdered him as well? I get the impression she saw her kids as things that stood in the way of HER happiness. Meaning money was going to support them that could have gone to further her high lifestyle.

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't see a clear motive. I see blind rage. I think it was the entirety of all of their problems piling up, Darin's seemingly inability (or refusal) to cater to her temper tantrums any longer and a slow growing anger/rage that just went out of control. Maybe fueled by the diet pills. Maybe fueled by depression of some sort.

[lucchesicourt]

First Jules, I did not say she was not guilty. I only said she deserves a new trial. Why? First, there is much evidence of errors on the part of the prosecutors and the police that were NOT addressed. First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony). Sure, Darlie had several stories, but that alone does NOT make someone guilty of murder-it makes them a liar, and also a better SUSPECT, but does not make someone a murderer. She may be, but shouldn't the EVIDENCE be accurate and directly prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that no one else was involved before sending someone to DEATH. Could it be Darrin did it? Could there have been an intruder-evidence here points that someone else may have been in the house-but who knows? I do not, because the evidence and DNA analysis of it has been denied by the judge. Let's suppose the DNA of this evidence was that of a felon who was in the area on that particular night and owns a dark sedan-Would this mean that she may be innocent or would you say she is still guilty? If you say she is still guilty than you obviously have no doubt about her guilt. But, if after seeing the results of this evidence they name a felon who had matching DNA and drove a dark colored vehicle (as neighbors saw this vehicle too) would you have doubts? If so, then you would have to say she deserves another trial. But, to refuse testing of this evidence by the state shows NO intent to find the truth, only to punish a person convicted without searching for the truth. THIS IS WRONG!!
I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.

[lucchesicourt]

Rachael, firsy I definitely believe in the DP. But, my best friend's mother (in a nice neighborhoood) was killed by someone who just walked into her house by breaking glass and shot and killed her at 10AM. It happened in 1979 in Vallejo, CA. Her name was Evelyn Fischer. You could probably do a search for her if you like. But, it does happen, and that is a FACT. To say you don't think it would happen there is an assumption that could cost an innocent person her/his life. That is not an assumption I would choose to make. I am a scientist and do not find assumptions useful in finding the truth, unless you test the hypothesis with the attempt of proving it wrong. Once it is proven wrong you cannot use the assumption. Hence, I have proved that is does happen, thus your assumption it would not is WRONG!!

[Jeana (DP)]

First Jules, I did not say she was not guilty. I only said she deserves a new trial. Why? First, there is much evidence of errors on the part of the prosecutors and the police that were NOT addressed. First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony). Sure, Darlie had several stories,

I think its the only case in the history of Rowlett and certainly in this detective's career where two children were butchered in the living room of their home. Somehow I don't think any of the police involved are going to forget.

Secondly, it was 16 (SIXTEEN) "stories" and THEN she lied on the witness stand.

[Jeana (DP)]

Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.


They couldn't be sure how many "minutes" Damon could have lived with the injuries. It was, I believe, stated 3-5 minutes. Some Websleuthers have actually did the run down the alley. It was plenty of time.

[lucchesicourt]

I did not say forget the crime, I said remember ALL the evidence and statements. He was asked what Darlie said at the hospital, and he replied with an answer about what she said, but he had taken NO notes of any sort. Do you think he remembered her words word for word? Wouldn't a prudent officer taken notes? Maybe you think it was unnecessary to take notes, after all you may be able can recall things better than I. I do not posees such a memory.
As for the time factor- sure you can run down the street place a sock, cut the screen, set up a fight scene, clean up the blood on the counter and in the sink, wet towels, etc. in that time span too, right?
Something is NOT right here, even if you say five minutes- I'll give you 10 minutes and I betone person could not set the whole scene up.

[lucchesicourt]

I also know for a FACT-police officers do lie to get a conviction whether its a traffic ticket or something more severe.

[Jeana (DP)]

I did not say forget the crime, I said remember ALL the evidence and statements. He was asked what Darlie said at the hospital, and he replied with an answer about what she said, but he had taken NO notes of any sort. Do you think he remembered her words word for word? Wouldn't a prudent officer taken notes? Maybe you think it was unnecessary to take notes, after all you may be able can recall things better than I. I do not posees such a memory.
As for the time factor- sure you can run down the street place a sock, cut the screen, set up a fight scene, clean up the blood on the counter and in the sink, wet towels, etc. in that time span too, right?
Something is NOT right here, even if you say five minutes- I'll give you 10 minutes and I betone person could not set the whole scene up.


Do you suppose a trained police detective would have a better memory than you do?????????

The timeline fits Darlie murdering the boys and staging the crime. There was no "fight scene" to set up - nothing but a wine glass was broken and a glass table was overturned. How many seconds you think that took? Screen could have been cut anytime during that day, while Darin was taking Dana home, after Darin went to bed.

BUT, while we're on the subject of all of the blood that was "cleaned up on the counter and in the sink," WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE AN INTRUDER WOULD DO THAT???????????

[Jeana (DP)]

I also know for a FACT-police officers do lie to get a conviction whether its a traffic ticket or something more severe.

No one said that it never happens darlin. Just NOT in this case. ;)

[lucchesicourt]

First at no time have I said I am sure she is innocent, but there is enough. What I have said is that there are some problems with the case against her. For instance, a pubic hair that does not belong to anyone who lives in the house. Isn't that strange?Or is this normal Why doesn't the judge want to do DNA analysis on some of the items found at the scene? What I am saying is there are enough discreptancies to warrant a new trial. I think DNA analysis is required to get to the truth.
Also, 3-5 minutes before Damon dies=let's do the numbers on the phone with 911 for 2 minutes, that leaves at the most 3 minutes to cut herself, kill the two boys, run the sock outside,clean the counter and sink, and make the mess you describe. Now, I am NOT saying she was alone, I am saying that someone ELSE would have had to be involved to accomplish all these things. I never mentioned the screen cutting as I already though like you.
Did the dog bark at the police officer when he arrived? I don't know as I never heard the question asked. I only heard people say is the dog barked at strangers. Was the dog drugged in advance? Did Darrin set the whole thing up with another person? Therre are many questions that need answering.

[Jeana (DP)]

First at no time have I said I am sure she is innocent, but there is enough. What I have said is that there are some problems with the case against her. For instance, a pubic hair that does not belong to anyone who lives in the house. Isn't that strange?Or is this normal Why doesn't the judge want to do DNA analysis on some of the items found at the scene? What I am saying is there are enough discreptancies to warrant a new trial. I think DNA analysis is required to get to the truth.
Also, 3-5 minutes before Damon dies=let's do the numbers on the phone with 911 for 2 minutes, that leaves at the most 3 minutes to cut herself, kill the two boys, run the sock outside,clean the counter and sink, and make the mess you describe. Now, I am NOT saying she was alone, I am saying that someone ELSE would have had to be involved to accomplish all these things. I never mentioned the screen cutting as I already though like you.
Did the dog bark at the police officer when he arrived? I don't know as I never heard the question asked. I only heard people say is the dog barked at strangers. Was the dog drugged in advance? Did Darrin set the whole thing up with another person? Therre are many questions that need answering.

Transferrence. I think hair could easily have been brought in on someone's shoe. As for the DNA thing, you're mistaken. Read the Judge's ruling on their motion at Darlie's website. There was many opportunitites for the defense to have any and all evidence tested.

The dog went mental when the police were in the house and had to be removed to a neighbors house.

You're still not answering the question about why an intruder would clean up the sink and the counter.

Moreover, why would an intruder (according to the Routiers) break into a house in order to kill Darlie and then not kill her. They said she was the intended victim and she was attacked first, yet, the intruder(s) left the house with her following close behind???? Why would he/they do that? For that matter, why kill the boys at all?

There may be questions that you have that you don't have the answers to, but its apparent to me that you haven't even read the material available. Why not do that and then we'll talk.

[Rachael]

I don't see a clear motive. I see blind rage. I think it was the entirety of all of their problems piling up, Darin's seemingly inability (or refusal) to cater to her temper tantrums any longer and a slow growing anger/rage that just went out of control. Maybe fueled by the diet pills. Maybe fueled by depression of some sort.


I agree. Regardless of what anyone else says I fully believe that Darlie murdered her sons. It would take a proven confession (not just some crazy guy already in jail who claims he did it) of someone else to prove to me otherwise. I put Darlie in the same catagory as Jeffrey MacDonald, Scott Peterson, Susan Smith and Diane Downes ...a selfish sociopath. I believe all of their motives were for an easier lifestyle not for money. I don't know how anyone under any condition can stab their children to death.

[CyberLaw]

Evidence speaks when the victim cannot.

I have no doubt, that Darlie killed the boys.

The evidence and facts speak for themselves.

Darlie's so called testimony did not help either.

Darlie and Darin conspired to "plant" the bruises on her arm some days after the murders.

They were too fresh to have dated from the murder.

People who have a personality disorder try to "recruit" people to their side. The term is called "evil doer by proxy".

When someone has a Cluster B personality disorder, they usually have additional pathology. That means that they have more than one personality disorder.

"On the fly" I would say that Darlie has NDP and Histronic Personality Disorder. NDP is the pathology for a sociopath.

So if someone believes the "story" Darlie told, great you
are entitled to your own opinion.

But I won't be used and manipulated by stories.

Darlie has lied from day one - second nature to someone with a personality disorder. Breathing and lying are one in the same for people like this.

Can someone please tell my why this "evil" women is still breathing??????

I thought Texas has no qualms about the death penalty, there is zero prospects for a new trial, there is no new evidence.

Maybe Scott and Darlie should become pen pals, they seems to think of the people who love and trust them the same way - Disposable.

Both of them are where they belong.......

Again I have no doubt, that Darlie is 100% guilty and I have yet to see the so called 95% of people on this web site who disagree.

In a previous survey - over 56% of the people on this site voted for guility. This is a fact.

Where did the figure of 95% innocent come from and how was that figure calculated?

Or is it just another story..........without facts and evidence to back it up.

[cami]

I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.

Actually it was 9 minutes and if he was stabbed at two different times which his wounds and his location in the room appear to indicate, the final stabbings were the fatal ones, plenty of time for Darlie to have run the sock down the alley. NO, Darlie's blood and saliva was not found on the sock. The boys blood was found on the sock and Darlie's dna. Nothing to indicate it was saliva, it could have been her skin cells.

[cami]

Evidence speaks when the victim cannot.

I have no doubt, that Darlie killed the boys.

The evidence and facts speak for themselves.

Darlie's so called testimony did not help either.

Darlie and Darin conspired to "plant" the bruises on her arm some days after the murders.

They were too fresh to have dated from the murder.

People who have a personality disorder try to "recruit" people to their side. The term is called "evil doer by proxy".

When someone has a Cluster B personality disorder, they usually have additional pathology. That means that they have more than one personality disorder.

"On the fly" I would say that Darlie has NDP and Histronic Personality Disorder. NDP is the pathology for a sociopath.

So if someone believes the "story" Darlie told, great you
are entitled to your own opinion.

But I won't be used and manipulated by stories.

Darlie has lied from day one - second nature to someone with a personality disorder. Breathing and lying are one in the same for people like this.

Can someone please tell my why this "evil" women is still breathing??????

I thought Texas has no qualms about the death penalty, there is zero prospects for a new trial, there is no new evidence.

Maybe Scott and Darlie should become pen pals, they seems to think of the people who love and trust them the same way - Disposable.

Both of them are where they belong.......

Again I have no doubt, that Darlie is 100% guilty and I have yet to see the so called 95% of people on this web site who disagree.

In a previous survey - over 56% of the people on this site voted for guility. This is a fact.

Where did the figure of 95% innocent come from and how was that figure calculated?

Or is it just another story..........without facts and evidence to back it up.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Dani_T]

First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony).
It was actually only just over 6 months after the crimes that the trial took place (June - January). Are you referring to Officer Waddell or Walling here?

Sure, Darlie had several stories, but that alone does NOT make someone guilty of murder-it makes them a liar, and also a better SUSPECT, but does not make someone a murderer. She may be, but shouldn't the EVIDENCE be accurate and directly prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that no one else was involved before sending someone to DEATH.
Her conflicting stories did not convict her (Darin's were far more conflicting than hers in certain parts). It was not so much the internal inconsistencies in her stories as the external inconsistencies with the evidence (eg. knife, screen fibres on bread knife, absence of any intruder evidence etc). What evidence is it that you think was inaccurate?

Also, I might be wrong since I don't know the US legal system all that well but surely if someone is guilty of murder then the conviction is right and proper regardless of where they acted alone or not? Not talking about the DP here but about her guilt.

Could it be Darrin did it? Could there have been an intruder-evidence here points that someone else may have been in the house-but who knows?
The people who worked that crime scene know. They are the ones who despite extensive work were unable to turn up any evidence of an intruder.

I do not, because the evidence and DNA analysis of it has been denied by the judge.Which evidence and analysis are you referring to?

I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.
Actually the doctors said that Damon could have survived anywhere up to 8 or 9 minutes. The timeline is completely different to what you mentioned above (particularly if Damon was stabbed twice). Oh- just saw Cami already mentioned that :)

[Jeana (DP)]

Can someone please tell my why this "evil" women is still breathing?????? I thought Texas has no qualms about the death penalty, there is zero prospects for a new trial, there is no new evidence.

Darlie's appeals started approx. two years late due to the errors in the transcripts. Appeals are not necessarily the place to bring up "new evidence." The attorneys must prove she didn't get a fair trial, there was prosecutorial misconduct, trial errors, etc. I haven't seen any "new evidence" to TRY and bring to the court's attention, although I've been hearing her supporters say that there is some. Its time for them to put their money where their mouths are and come out with it. Saving it for after she's executed won't help her one bit. :angel: :angel: :angel:

[little1]

First Jules, I did not say she was not guilty. I only said she deserves a new trial. Why? First, there is much evidence of errors on the part of the prosecutors and the police that were NOT addressed. First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony). Sure, Darlie had several stories, but that alone does NOT make someone guilty of murder-it makes them a liar, and also a better SUSPECT, but does not make someone a murderer. She may be, but shouldn't the EVIDENCE be accurate and directly prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that no one else was involved before sending someone to DEATH. Could it be Darrin did it? Could there have been an intruder-evidence here points that someone else may have been in the house-but who knows? I do not, because the evidence and DNA analysis of it has been denied by the judge. Let's suppose the DNA of this evidence was that of a felon who was in the area on that particular night and owns a dark sedan-Would this mean that she may be innocent or would you say she is still guilty? If you say she is still guilty than you obviously have no doubt about her guilt. But, if after seeing the results of this evidence they name a felon who had matching DNA and drove a dark colored vehicle (as neighbors saw this vehicle too) would you have doubts? If so, then you would have to say she deserves another trial. But, to refuse testing of this evidence by the state shows NO intent to find the truth, only to punish a person convicted without searching for the truth. THIS IS WRONG!!
I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.



IMO one of the things that hindered her defense was no fault of the prosecution, the state, or anyone else involved except for Darlie. Taht is the fact that she & her husband had the same lawyer.

[little1]

Also, 3-5 minutes before Damon dies=let's do the numbers on the phone with 911 for 2 minutes, that leaves at the most 3 minutes to cut herself, kill the two boys, run the sock outside,clean the counter and sink, and make the mess you describe. Now, I am NOT saying she was alone, I am saying that someone ELSE would have had to be involved to accomplish all these things. I never mentioned the screen cutting as I already though like you.
.


Have you ever heard of multi tasking? One could cut her own throat, try to clean up the scene & try to make it look as if an intruder came into the
house.

IMO if one was running on adrenaline (which she owuld have been if she had just butchered her two sons) they could easily do what you have described. Furthermore, she did not do a whole lot of staging, which is why most cops can tell when a crime scene is mor elikely staged than not. There were things that should have been missing that were not (ex: jewelry) and things that should not have been missing that were. (ex: blood evidence that was cleaned up)

BTW, just remember the time frame you are speaking of also applies to any intruder that would have committed this crime because Darlie said she saw the guy running out the door and she chased him. When did he have time to clean up the scene? Why would he have tried to evne clean up the scene? WHy butcher 2 small boys---and leave the mother who can identify you running after you? WHy not turn around and butcher her, too?

[little1]

Actually it was 9 minutes and if he was stabbed at two different times which his wounds and his location in the room appear to indicate, the final stabbings were the fatal ones, plenty of time for Darlie to have run the sock down the alley. NO, Darlie's blood and saliva was not found on the sock. The boys blood was found on the sock and Darlie's dna. Nothing to indicate it was saliva, it could have been her skin cells.


Oh! That makes sense! So she stabbed the boys, thought they were dead and started staging the crime scene? Then after coming back fromt he alley, she saw that Damon was not dead and needed to be stabbed again. Then she called the paramedics?

[Jeana (DP)]

Personally, I'd like to see a live demonstration from the supporters.

The house gets broken into (they can't decide WHY), but Darlie is supposedly the intended victim.
They or He (they can't decide how many) then attacks two sleeping boys for absolutely no reason whatsoever and then apparently have a fight with Darlie.
They then STOP to wash blood off of the counter and sink (thoughtful huh???) before they leave.
However, they leave the house BEFORE they're able to do what they came there for (to kill Darlie)
They don't leave the house because Darlie was screaming her head off and they thought that someone would hear her;
not because stuff was being knocked over left and right and loud thunderous noises were being made while Darlie was defending her life and the lives of her children;
not because she was trying to dial 911. . . . WHY did they leave a live adult witness????? And they leave the house (the hard way) instead of just going out the front door.

Then (and this is the part that I personally love the most), the intruder(s) exited the back yard through a broken gate that had to be lifted up off of the ground because it dragged horribly - AND they lifited up AGAIN to CLOSE it before they left. Now that's one (or was it two???) seriously thoughtful intruder(s).

[jubie]

I've wondered if maybe her injuries came from Darin in his shock and horror finding her attacking the boys he lunged at her and she really did need to fight him off.... I mean, he wouldn't come upon what she'd done or was still doing and just say "aw geez Darlie why you go and do that?" I think he'd freak out and very likely lash out at her a few times.


Only they know for sure.


Jubie

[jubie]

Personally, I'd like to see a live demonstration from the supporters.

The house gets broken into (they can't decide WHY), but Darlie is supposedly the intended victim.
They or He (they can't decide how many) then attacks two sleeping boys for absolutely no reason whatsoever and then apparently have a fight with Darlie.
They then STOP to wash blood off of the counter and sink (thoughtful huh???) before they leave.
However, they leave the house BEFORE they're able to do what they came there for (to kill Darlie)
They don't leave the house because Darlie was screaming her head off and they thought that someone would hear her;
not because stuff was being knocked over left and right and loud thunderous noises were being made while Darlie was defending her life and the lives of her children;
not because she was trying to dial 911. . . . WHY did they leave a live adult witness????? And they leave the house (the hard way) instead of just going out the front door.

Then (and this is the part that I personally love the most), the intruder(s) exited the back yard through a broken gate that had to be lifted up off of the ground because it dragged horribly - AND they lifited up AGAIN to CLOSE it before they left. Now that's one (or was it two???) seriously thoughtful intruder(s).


EXACTAMUNDO!!!! :clap:

[dasgal]

Jeana, I think one of the major falicies the supporters have is that they tend to break down the crime and subsequent actions down into segments. I think if they ever did a full out walkthrough it would really throw them for a loop.

[Jeana (DP)]

Dasgal, I completely agree.

[cami]

Oh! That makes sense! So she stabbed the boys, thought they were dead and started staging the crime scene? Then after coming back fromt he alley, she saw that Damon was not dead and needed to be stabbed again. Then she called the paramedics?

LOL, yes but not in that exact manner. It's not that cut and dried.

If you read the testimony you will find that Damon was stabbed at two different times and in two different areas of the room. He was in front of the couch yet when he was found he was over by the wall heading towards the entrance. He got there somehow.

His second set of stab wounds was administered after Darlie's neck cut. (check out the depth of his wounds). That's how his blood got on top of her's. She couldn't have the paramedics showing up when they were cold and into rigour mortis now could she. I believe the 911 call was placed for Darlie not the boys.

[cami]

Have you ever heard of multi tasking? One could cut her own throat, try to clean up the scene & try to make it look as if an intruder came into the
house.

IMO if one was running on adrenaline (which she owuld have been if she had just butchered her two sons) they could easily do what you have described. Furthermore, she did not do a whole lot of staging, which is why most cops can tell when a crime scene is mor elikely staged than not. There were things that should have been missing that were not (ex: jewelry) and things that should not have been missing that were. (ex: blood evidence that was cleaned up)

BTW, just remember the time frame you are speaking of also applies to any intruder that would have committed this crime because Darlie said she saw the guy running out the door and she chased him. When did he have time to clean up the scene? Why would he have tried to evne clean up the scene? WHy butcher 2 small boys---and leave the mother who can identify you running after you? WHy not turn around and butcher her, too?

Oh and the bread knife. Why break in, take the bread knife, and then go back outside and cut the screen and come in through the window and then put the knife back in the block?

[CyberLaw]

Well in the legal field, lying is construed as "consciousness of guilt".

if you lie once, you wil lie again and again, it is in your nature.

Didn't Scott P lie his head off also, blame the homeless, robbers, etc.

It does not matter if you break the "crime" down into "segments", that is what you do to solve a case, or other problems.

That is why when you take all of the parts of a problem or case, you break it down.

You look at all of the evidence of a crime, not just the whole crime.

[mollymalone]

Darlie's neighborhood wasn't one that someone would just happen by. Either someone in that house did it or it was someone who had a map because it would be VERY easy to get lost in a maze of neighborhood streets where all of the houses looked the same and there are many culdesacs where one would get stuck.That's a very good point! Someone would have had to know the layout of the house and that the boys and Darlie were sleeping downstairs, or stumbled onto them by accident while trying to rob the house (which wasn't robbed).

[mollymalone]

LOL, yes but not in that exact manner. It's not that cut and dried.

If you read the testimony you will find that Damon was stabbed at two different times and in two different areas of the room. He was in front of the couch yet when he was found he was over by the wall heading towards the entrance. He got there somehow.

His second set of stab wounds was administered after Darlie's neck cut. (check out the depth of his wounds). That's how his blood got on top of her's. She couldn't have the paramedics showing up when they were cold and into rigour mortis now could she. I believe the 911 call was placed for Darlie not the boys.Yes, I think you are right! Darlie wanted to make sure she got help for herself.

[mollymalone]

Personally, I'd like to see a live demonstration from the supporters.

The house gets broken into (they can't decide WHY), but Darlie is supposedly the intended victim.
They or He (they can't decide how many) then attacks two sleeping boys for absolutely no reason whatsoever and then apparently have a fight with Darlie.
They then STOP to wash blood off of the counter and sink (thoughtful huh???) before they leave.
However, they leave the house BEFORE they're able to do what they came there for (to kill Darlie)
They don't leave the house because Darlie was screaming her head off and they thought that someone would hear her;
not because stuff was being knocked over left and right and loud thunderous noises were being made while Darlie was defending her life and the lives of her children;
not because she was trying to dial 911. . . . WHY did they leave a live adult witness????? And they leave the house (the hard way) instead of just going out the front door.

Then (and this is the part that I personally love the most), the intruder(s) exited the back yard through a broken gate that had to be lifted up off of the ground because it dragged horribly - AND they lifited up AGAIN to CLOSE it before they left. Now that's one (or was it two???) seriously thoughtful intruder(s).I have a friend who thinks Darlie didn't do it. I pointed out what you did, and the response about the blood on the counter and sink.. "it got washed off because she was wetting the towels to put on the child's back." :rolleyes: She compartmentalizes and picks each peice that she wants to support Darlie with and doesn't want to look at the whole pix.

[Mary456]

I have a friend who thinks Darlie didn't do it. I pointed out what you did, and the response about the blood on the counter and sink.. "it got washed off because she was wetting the towels to put on the child's back." :rolleyes: She compartmentalizes and picks each peice that she wants to support Darlie with and doesn't want to look at the whole pix.

Molly, ask your friend why Darlie & Darin never mentioned wet towels until after LE removed the kitchen sink. Better yet, ask her why there wasn't a shred of testimony about any blood being diluted by water...no wet spots on the floor, the carpet, Darlie's t-shirt, Damon's shirt, etc.

Any blood diluted by water would have been detected by the forensic people in an instant & Mulder would have had them testify. It didn't happen. (Not preaching to you, this subject just riles me up :)

[Jeana (DP)]

I have a friend who thinks Darlie didn't do it. I pointed out what you did, and the response about the blood on the counter and sink.. "it got washed off because she was wetting the towels to put on the child's back." :rolleyes: She compartmentalizes and picks each peice that she wants to support Darlie with and doesn't want to look at the whole pix.


They all do. They have to because if you take it as a whole, its impossible to come to the conclusion that there was anyone else in that house.

[cami]

Molly, ask your friend why Darlie & Darin never mentioned wet towels until after LE removed the kitchen sink. Better yet, ask her why there wasn't a shred of testimony about any blood being diluted by water...no wet spots on the floor, the carpet, Darlie's t-shirt, Damon's shirt, etc.

Any blood diluted by water would have been detected by the forensic people in an instant & Mulder would have had them testify. It didn't happen. (Not preaching to you, this subject just riles me up :)

Further to Mary's post, look at the crime scene photos in Gallery 1 on www.justicefordarlie.net or get your friend to look I mean. Doesn't look as if any of that blood is diluted by water to me. Blood running down the front of the cupboards and the kitchen floor.

Of course if they don't want to see it they won't.

[Daisy]

I don't think it was done for financial gain either - I think it was done to rid Darlie of the responsibility. I've often wondered if Drake had been down there too, would she have murdered him as well? I get the impression she saw her kids as things that stood in the way of HER happiness. Meaning money was going to support them that could have gone to further her high lifestyle.I think you hit the nail on the head, Jules.

I'd still like to know where Darin fits in on all this. I don't believe he's totally innocent. I don't think he's the killer but he's involved somehow. I just can't put my finger on it. However, this is going to be another case where all we can do is speculate and still never know the answers. D&D will take the answers with them to their graves. At this point, if either one did come out and really tell the truth, would we believe them? I've wondered if the two of them had ever discussed how much simpler their life would be without the boys and maybe even went so far as to discuss possible scenarios in which the boys would die but neither D&D would be held responsible. I'm wondering if Darlie may have taken it upon herself to go through with this and this is why the silence from and the support that they have for each other. Just a wacky theory...but this is one wacky case.

I think things are gonna get a little more sticky for Darin since, as I said, Darlie's clock is tick-tick-ticking away now. I think she's gonna do some talking and, if she is telling the truth, she'd be wise to request a polygraph to back up her statements. I know polys don't always work on everyone but they work on her since she failed one during the investigation (if I remember correctly - if not, just give me a :slap: ).

[cami]

I think you hit the nail on the head, Jules.

I'd still like to know where Darin fits in on all this. I don't believe he's totally innocent. I don't think he's the killer but he's involved somehow. I just can't put my finger on it. However, this is going to be another case where all we can do is speculate and still never know the answers. D&D will take the answers with them to their graves. At this point, if either one did come out and really tell the truth, would we believe them? I've wondered if the two of them had ever discussed how much simpler their life would be without the boys and maybe even went so far as to discuss possible scenarios in which the boys would die but neither D&D would be held responsible. I'm wondering if Darlie may have taken it upon herself to go through with this and this is why the silence from and the support that they have for each other. Just a wacky theory...but this is one wacky case.

I think things are gonna get a little more sticky for Darin since, as I said, Darlie's clock is tick-tick-ticking away now. I think she's gonna do some talking and, if she is telling the truth, she'd be wise to request a polygraph to back up her statements. I know polys don't always work on everyone but they work on her since she failed one during the investigation (if I remember correctly - if not, just give me a :slap: ).

Me too! I wish she would talk. None of us think Darin is an innocent party in all this. Nothing will save Darlie. If she does talk it will be just to get Darin.

[jessie harris]

I don't believe Darin had anything to do with it, she would have pointed the finger along time ago, as nobody will believe her now if she suddenly starts saying it was him, the time to do that was before she was sentenced to death,


I have only recently become aware of this case and have read extensively all the info I can find, I am not sure if I think she is innocent or guilty yet, a few problems with how she acted make me a little suspiscious

the 911 call, where she feels the need amongst all this mayhem with two dying/dead children to repeat I touched the knife, oops maybe there will be no killers fingerprints, this jarred a little with me, the knife, fingerprints etc should have been of no concern at that time,

how she ever slept through being attacked is beyond me, one stab and you would be wide awake screaming holy hell,

why she instantly did not scream at the fleeing intruder, did not start yelling for her husband that a man was in the house, she only yells when she sees blood

the need to wet the towels, staunching the blood may have been as effective with dry towels

the ability to switch from hysterical "oh my gods" to rationally stating info on 911 call,
there are other things that appear to make her look guilty

But I have problems with extent of her injuries, horrible to self inflict, and not making sure both boys were dead before she starts screaming,

I will continue to investigate, I went to the website that is campaigning for her innocence and stumbled upon crime scene photos of one of the boys, there should be a warning about the graphic nature as it was something I never wish to see.

[mollymalone]

Personally, I'd like to see a live demonstration from the supporters.
The house gets broken into (they can't decide WHY), but Darlie is supposedly the intended victim.
SNIP.
However, they leave the house BEFORE they're able to do what they came there for (to kill Darlie) That's the biggie. If the target was Darlie, she'd have been dead. Why kill two small boys first? You know they aren't capable of keeping you from killing their mother. You then leave the house NOT having killed the intended target. Doesn't jive with common sense.

[cami]

I will continue to investigate, I went to the website that is campaigning for her innocence and stumbled upon crime scene photos of one of the boys, there should be a warning about the graphic nature as it was something I never wish to see.

That's very true however for me I had to look. I had to try and understand why a stranger would inflict such damage on two tiny boys. What motive would a stranger have to murder those boys.

I too agree with you on the 911 call. At first it really shook me, but after a few listens, I got it, now I hear guilt all over that call.

[RobertStJames]

That's the biggie. If the target was Darlie, she'd have been dead..

Why do people keep repeating this as if it's some kind of law of physics? Every year, every *day* there are people who are attacked by someone trying to kill them, but manage to survive. What's so strange about a target surviving? It happens all the time.

And they usually have exactly the same kind of forearm/hand wounds that Darlie Routier showed.


RstJ

[Mary456]

Why do people keep repeating this as if it's some kind of law of physics? Every year, every *day* there are people who are attacked by someone trying to kill them, but manage to survive. What's so strange about a target surviving? It happens all the time.

And they usually have exactly the same kind of forearm/hand wounds that Darlie Routier showed.


RstJ

Are you referring to the tiny "paper cuts" that were already scabbed over when she entered the hospital? I wish Camilla were still around...she posted photos of actual defensive wounds on the hands of someone attacked by a knife. Ripped to shreds, not a pretty sight.

[Goody]

I don't see a clear motive. I see blind rage. I think it was the entirety of all of their problems piling up, Darin's seemingly inability (or refusal) to cater to her temper tantrums any longer and a slow growing anger/rage that just went out of control. Maybe fueled by the diet pills. Maybe fueled by depression of some sort.
I think the lack of a clear motive is the key here. I don't see a blind rage. I think if that was the case, the kids would have been stabbed many, many more times. 4 or 5 wounds is not a lot if rage was in the mix.

[dasgal]

And they usually have exactly the same kind of forearm/hand wounds that Darlie Routier showed.


RstJ
Absolutely WRONG. (And I have seen a number of defensive wounds in persons who have lived, as have who have died).
I think a little research into what defense knife wounds like would do you a LOT of good.

[Jeana (DP)]

Absolutely WRONG. (And I have seen a number of defensive wounds in persons who have lived, as have who have died).
I think a little research into what defense knife wounds like would do you a LOT of good.


I gave the link of the wounds Colette McDonald received trying to save her life and the lives of her two children (which is EXACTLY what they say Darlie did), and it didn't seem to sink in.

[Rachael]

If someone was trying to kill my children I think I would lay my body over theirs. If someone was trying to stab me I think I would probably put my palms/hands up to try to keep the knife from hitting my body.

[dasgal]

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/FORHTML/FOR026.html (WARNING-GRAPHIC)

Please explain to me Robert how Darlie has anything in common with ACTUAL Knife Attack Defense Wounds.

[Jeana (DP)]

If someone was trying to kill my children I think I would lay my body over theirs. If someone was trying to stab me I think I would probably put my palms/hands up to try to keep the knife from hitting my body.


EXACTLY! Or, you would grab for the knife. Darlie's so-called defense wounds on her hand looked less deadly than a paper cut that my daughter got in art class last week. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[mollymalone]

I think the lack of a clear motive is the key here. I don't see a blind rage. I think if that was the case, the kids would have been stabbed many, many more times. 4 or 5 wounds is not a lot if rage was in the mix.The depth of the wounds and the intensity in which they were inflicted is where the rage may have come in to it. But I don't see it as "blind" rage, just rage of some sort.

[mollymalone]

Why do people keep repeating this as if it's some kind of law of physics? Every year, every *day* there are people who are attacked by someone trying to kill them, but manage to survive. What's so strange about a target surviving? It happens all the time.

And they usually have exactly the same kind of forearm/hand wounds that Darlie Routier showed.


RstJI say it simply because the children were killed, and the depth of several wounds on them were enough to do the killing. IF the perp was going to kill Darlie, had targeted Darlie, her wounds would not have been the kind she received. If that person was intent on inflicting killing wounds on her, she'd have been stabbed a lot deeper than she was and quite possibly more than she was. If she'd been the target, the perp may have stuck around to make sure of the job, not kill the kids first, if at all. IMO

Yes, there are those who survive, with deep wounds. Darlie's weren't.

[Goody]

Why do people keep repeating this as if it's some kind of law of physics? Every year, every *day* there are people who are attacked by someone trying to kill them, but manage to survive. What's so strange about a target surviving? It happens all the time.

And they usually have exactly the same kind of forearm/hand wounds that Darlie Routier showed.


RstJ
The FBI says that when they investigate a crime scene, they can determine who the target of the attack was by the number and depth of injuries. In this case, that is the boys. Their wounds are more numerous than Darlie's and their wounds are much deeper, better placed strategically. So there is no doubt that the boys were the target. Darlie was secondary at best.

You are right that people do survive attacks. I am always amazed when some woman appears on Oprah after being stabbed 17 times and left for dead. If Darlie's wounds had been similar to the boys and she survived, she probably would not be in prison right now.

And that is another thing unique in Darlie's case....the attacker changed the direction and style of attack, using deep plunging wounds on the boys and more superficial slashing type wounds on Darlie. Experienced investigators agree that killers do not do this. They typically use one type or the other, but rarely ever both, esp in the same crime scene.

[Goody]

And they usually have exactly the same kind of forearm/hand wounds that Darlie Routier showed.


RstJ
I saw an expose on a woman who was stabbed to death in a rest area restroom and her hands had knife wounds that went all the way through them as she tried to block the stabbings. Into the palm and out the back of her hand and vice versa.

A couple of little cuts that barely even bled (as Darlie had) are more in line with a hand slipping off the handle and onto the blade as they are doing the stabbing. As I recall, the little cuts were lined right up with the joints in the fingers. No evidence at all of typical defense wounds.

[Goody]

The depth of the wounds and the intensity in which they were inflicted is where the rage may have come in to it. But I don't see it as "blind" rage, just rage of some sort.
I don't know. I see the attack on the boys as being more methodical and well targeted than I do rage-like.

[speedlimitmama]

I am sorry to say it but I don't believe for a split second that someone just walked in off the street and decided to kill those boys. The mother killed them and the father may have helped to cover it up. It seems to me that Darlie was more important to Darin than the boys were. If my husband had any thought that I killed my children he would kill me. If Darin killed the boys and tried to kill Darlie she would have said it immediatly. She isn't spending her life in jail covering for her husband. She's way too selfish for that IMO.

Just some thought here. What if husband had it done or did it, and darlie did not know nor would she ever think he was behind it. They were a sleep. darlie throat was cut and she had terrible bruises, I would imagine she went into shock, of course later darin had to stand up for darlie for fear it might turn into his direction. Maybe darlie might have doubts now but what if darlie really does not know who it was??? thoughts anyone??? :doh:

[Goody]

Just some thought here. What if husband had it done or did it, and darlie did not know nor would she ever think he was behind it. They were a sleep. darlie throat was cut and she had terrible bruises, I would imagine she went into shock, of course later darin had to stand up for darlie for fear it might turn into his direction. Maybe darlie might have doubts now but what if darlie really does not know who it was??? thoughts anyone??? :doh:
Not possible. If Darin did it and Darlie is telling the truth, she would have seen him walking away. I think it is unlikely that she wouldn't have recognized him. But even if you are willing to give her that benefit, how did he get back upstairs to come down zipping up his pants when she screamed for him? He isn't spiderman and all of the entrances to the house were right there at the family room.

[cami]

I gave the link of the wounds Colette McDonald received trying to save her life and the lives of her two children (which is EXACTLY what they say Darlie did), and it didn't seem to sink in.

the baby's fingers were cut badly one of them sliced wide open as she tried to fend off that knife her father was attacking her with.

[beesy]

I will continue to investigate, I went to the website that is campaigning for her innocence and stumbled upon crime scene photos of one of the boys, there should be a warning about the graphic nature as it was something I never wish to see.[/QUOTE] there is a graphic warning if you are refering to the pix on the justicefordarlie site.

[beesy]

First Jules, I did not say she was not guilty. I only said she deserves a new trial. Why? First, there is much evidence of errors on the part of the prosecutors and the police that were NOT addressed. First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony). Sure, Darlie had several stories, but that alone does NOT make someone guilty of murder-it makes them a liar, and also a better SUSPECT, but does not make someone a murderer. She may be, but shouldn't the EVIDENCE be accurate and directly prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that no one else was involved before sending someone to DEATH. Could it be Darrin did it? Could there have been an intruder-evidence here points that someone else may have been in the house-but who knows? I do not, because the evidence and DNA analysis of it has been denied by the judge. Let's suppose the DNA of this evidence was that of a felon who was in the area on that particular night and owns a dark sedan-Would this mean that she may be innocent or would you say she is still guilty? If you say she is still guilty than you obviously have no doubt about her guilt. But, if after seeing the results of this evidence they name a felon who had matching DNA and drove a dark colored vehicle (as neighbors saw this vehicle too) would you have doubts? If so, then you would have to say she deserves another trial. But, to refuse testing of this evidence by the state shows NO intent to find the truth, only to punish a person convicted without searching for the truth. THIS IS WRONG!!
I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that. You have so many facts wrong it is nearly impossible to even debate this with you. Nobody, besides her camp, has ever used the timeline you have here. LE has never said she cut herself and staged the scene, all while Damon was still alive, before she made that 911 call. That timeline won't work. So even though LE has never suggested that's what she did, her supporters latch onto that timeline as a sign of her innocence, which is, and I quote Mary456 here, bullpoopy! It is most likely that she stabbed the boys, believed Damon to be dead, went about her business, called 911 because her neck bled more than she thought it would, at some point while on the phone, over 5 mins. by the way, realized Damon was alive and delivered the fatal blow. It was stated that Damon could have lived AFTER the final fatal wound for up to 8 mins. Therefore, the timeline doesn't even begin until a little bit into her 911 call. When LE arrived, Damon was still alive and she was still on the damn phone, not helping him. Also the blood seen thru the use of Luminol on the counter was in a swirl pattern, indicative of wiping up the blood, not spilling.

[beesy]

For instance, a pubic hair that does not belong to anyone who lives in the house. Isn't that strange?Or is this normal First of all a pubic hair was not found! Darlie had no semen on her mouth or privates. There were skin cells found in the sock of hers, not saliva. Secondly, IF an unidentified pubic hair had been found, why does that relate to the crime? The only way it would relate is if it had been on Darlie. Even if found on the sofa, it proves nothing. They would not have tested everybody who had been in that house which is the only reason it wouldn't be indentified. Since there is proof she wasn't raped, there would be no reason for an intruder to shed a pubic hair! And another thing: I've read that a deer hair was on the sock and somewhere else that it was limb hair! Neither is true.
[QUOTE]Why Also, 3-5 minutes before Damon dies=let's do the numbers on the phone with 911 for 2 minutes, that leaves at the most 3 minutes to cut herself, kill the two boys, run the sock outside,clean the counter and sink, and make the mess you describe. Your facts are wrong and your timeline is screwed. Read my other post about the timeline. She was on the phone for over 5 mins! Why would she kill the boys and cut herself after she called 911 anyway? She had no reason to call them at that point before she killed them. There was no mess! A table was turned over and a lamp shade crooked, that takes about a second to do.
Now, I am NOT saying she was alone I am saying that someone ELSE would have had to be involved to accomplish all these things That is ridiculous, once again because your facts are wrong and your timeline is screwed.

I never mentioned the screen cutting as I already though like you.
LE said the screen had to be held in place in order to cut it. Remember the small paper cut type cuts on Darlie's fingers? Well, there ya go! Also there was a fiber that matched the screen found on the bread knife. How would an intruder have been able to get into the house? How did he cut the screen without going into the house first to get the bread knife? Why put it back and get the butcher knife? Why not keep the bread knife with you? It doesn't fit! Talk it to death, you can't make it fit.
Did the dog bark at the police officer when he arrived? I don't know as I never heard the question asked. I only heard people say is the dog barked at strangers. Was the dog drugged in advance? Did Darrin set the whole thing up with another person? Therre are many questions that need answering.[/ QUOTE]
the dog was upstairs while all of this was going on. He went berserk when the cops went upstairs. Why the hell would anybody drug the dog?
Yes, you need to look at your own questions and if you use your brain, the answers are right there!

[beesy]

A couple of little cuts that barely even bled (as Darlie had) are more in line with a hand slipping off the handle and onto the blade as they are doing the stabbing. As I recall, the little cuts were lined right up with the joints in the fingers. No evidence at all of typical defense wounds. When your hand slips down the knife, which is common, it cuts the palm. Remember OJ..ahem...crushing the glass when he heard about Nicole?
I think Darlie got those cuts from holding the screen in place while she cut it

[Mary456]

When your hand slips down the knife, which is common, it cuts the palm. Remember OJ..ahem...crushing the glass when he heard about Nicole?
I think Darlie got those cuts from holding the screen in place while she cut it

OMG, you've done it again. I've never heard anyone suggest that, but it makes so much sense. Regardless of which cut was made first (horizontal or vertical), she would have had to steady the cut edge of the screen with her left hand at some point.

That could easily explain the slight scratches on the inside of her left hand.

[Mary456]

A couple of little cuts that barely even bled (as Darlie had) are more in line with a hand slipping off the handle and onto the blade as they are doing the stabbing. As I recall, the little cuts were lined right up with the joints in the fingers. No evidence at all of typical defense wounds.

On this we disagree, for three reasons:

1. Darlie was right handed, so she would have been stabbing with her right hand. The little cuts were on the joints of her left hand.

2. Even if she stabbed with her left hand (very unlikely) and it slipped down onto the blade, the only finger that might have come in contact with the sharp edge would be her thumb, and it would probably have been deeply cut. Her middle and ring finger, where the little cuts were, would have slid along the dull side of the knife.

3. When I envision someone's hand (right or left) accidentally slipping onto the blade of a knife, I see deep cuts to the palm of the hand & possibly the thumb. Not little scratches to the joints, which is why I think Beesy is right. Those cuts were probaby the result of Darlie grabbing the cut edges of the screen with her left hand when she cut it.

But we certainly agree on one thing, Goody. No way, no how were they defensive wounds.

[beesy]

OMG, you've done it again. I've never heard anyone suggest that, but it makes so much sense. Regardless of which cut was made first (horizontal or vertical), she would have had to steady the cut edge of the screen with her left hand at some point.

That could easily explain the slight scratches on the inside of her left hand. Thank you! The theory was mentioned briefly in one of my books, but I've never heard anybody else talk about it. It makes sense to me though, Miss Mary.

[Dani_T]

OMG, you've done it again. I've never heard anyone suggest that, but it makes so much sense. Regardless of which cut was made first (horizontal or vertical), she would have had to steady the cut edge of the screen with her left hand at some point.

That could easily explain the slight scratches on the inside of her left hand.

Hmm... are you suggesting the knife cut her hand or the screen cut her hand?

I don't see how the screen could cut (or even scratch) her hand really. They aren't tough at all.

[beesy]

Hmm... are you suggesting the knife cut her hand or the screen cut her hand?

I don't see how the screen could cut (or even scratch) her hand really. They aren't tough at all. The screen. No, they aren't hard, but it would have been ragged. Seemed like a good thought
What's with all the cat/dog cages?

[Cowgirl]

When your hand slips down the knife, which is common, it cuts the palm. Remember OJ..ahem...crushing the glass when he heard about Nicole?
I think Darlie got those cuts from holding the screen in place while she cut itPerhaps, but the screens on the newer homes are just plastic screening material, not metal. They usually "roll" up or away when they are cut too, and don't require much manipulation to open them.

On the subject of a new trial: one does not get a new trial because of the way a cop recalled details. One gets a new trial when a judge decides there was a procedural error in the first one. So far, no dice.

[Mary456]

Hmm... are you suggesting the knife cut her hand or the screen cut her hand?

I don't see how the screen could cut (or even scratch) her hand really. They aren't tough at all.

Hey, Dani! I've never believed that the butcher knife caused those teeny tiny scratches on her left hand, which left me with a couple of options:

1. The scratches were actually paper cuts & weren't connected to the crime at all, which is certainly possible.

2. The scratches resulted from Darlie grabbing the ragged edge of the screen. Linch said the horizontal slice in the screen was made first, and then it would have to be restabilized, with her left hand, in order to make the vertical slice. Depending on how tightly she grabbed the exposed fiberglass or maybe her hand slid along the edge, I think it's possible that the screen caused the scratches.

[beesy]

Hey, Dani! I've never believed that the butcher knife caused those teeny tiny scratches on her left hand, which left me with a couple of options:

1. The scratches were actually paper cuts & weren't connected to the crime at all, which is certainly possible.

2. The scratches resulted from Darlie grabbing the ragged edge of the screen. Linch said the horizontal slice in the screen was made first, and then it would have to be restabilized, with her left hand, in order to make the vertical slice. Depending on how tightly she grabbed the exposed fiberglass or maybe her hand slid along the edge, I think it's possible that the screen caused the scratches.
yeah, he(was it Linch) said the screen had to be held taunt in order to cut it. So in doing that, there might have been enough exposed edge to mark her fingers. Do you think she'd tell anybody if they were just paper cuts or just let us wonder...

[Dani_T]

Hey, Dani! I've never believed that the butcher knife caused those teeny tiny scratches on her left hand, which left me with a couple of options:

1. The scratches were actually paper cuts & weren't connected to the crime at all, which is certainly possible.

2. The scratches resulted from Darlie grabbing the ragged edge of the screen. Linch said the horizontal slice in the screen was made first, and then it would have to be restabilized, with her left hand, in order to make the vertical slice. Depending on how tightly she grabbed the exposed fiberglass or maybe her hand slid along the edge, I think it's possible that the screen caused the scratches.


Dont have time to look right now myself so where are the cuts on her hands? On the palms or near/on the fingers?

[accordn2me]

Dont have time to look right now myself so where are the cuts on her hands? On the palms or near/on the fingers?
http://justicefordarlie.net/galleries/galleries.php

gallery 8 picture 2

starting at the fingertips, there are very light cuts in the crease of the first knuckle of her middle finger, ring finger, and thumb. I believe Dr. Dillawn was asked something about it in his testimony.

See, I have been doing my homework. :cool:

[Dani_T]

http://justicefordarlie.net/galleries/galleries.php

gallery 8 picture 2

starting at the fingertips, there are very light cuts in the crease of the first knuckle of her middle finger, ring finger, and thumb. I believe Dr. Dillawn was asked something about it in his testimony.

See, I have been doing my homework. :cool:

Just checked in MTJD and I honestly still don't see how she could have gotten those small cuts from holding the screen. Not even because I doubt the screen could have made them (which I still do) but also because of the location of them. To have gotten them from the screen she would have had to have her fingers hooked over the horizontal cut edge of the screen with only the first knuckle only... and then her thumb could not have been on the same angle to have had gotten a cut in the knuckle crease as well. Her thumb would have been on an akward angle at the side.

Next question is- when was that photo taken? Looks to me as if it was taken at the police station rather than the hospital (?). If so then I don't see how the 'cuts' could have come from the crime. Who get's paper cuts which are red like that 4 days later?

[Jeana (DP)]

Just checked in MTJD and I honestly still don't see how she could have gotten those small cuts from holding the screen. Not even because I doubt the screen could have made them (which I still do) but also because of the location of them. To have gotten them from the screen she would have had to have her fingers hooked over the horizontal cut edge of the screen with only the first knuckle only... and then her thumb could not have been on the same angle to have had gotten a cut in the knuckle crease as well. Her thumb would have been on an akward angle at the side.

Next question is- when was that photo taken? Looks to me as if it was taken at the police station rather than the hospital (?). If so then I don't see how the 'cuts' could have come from the crime. Who get's paper cuts which are red like that 4 days later?


They're cuts in the same way that she sliced her neck. Looks to me like she held a knife in her hand and slowly closed it around the knife just enough to make some marks. No big deal.

[Mary456]

Dani: "Just checked in MTJD and I honestly still don't see how she could have gotten those small cuts from holding the screen. . To have gotten them from the screen she would have had to have her fingers hooked over the horizontal cut edge of the screen with only the first knuckle only... and then her thumb could not have been on the same angle to have had gotten a cut in the knuckle crease as well. Her thumb would have been on an akward angle at the side"

I see your point, especially about the thumb. Well, we know for sure that Darlie had the scratches in the hospital, because both Wielgosz and Campbell testified about them. Campbell described them as looking like paper cuts & said they were already scabbed over on the evening of 6/6...no redness, no oozing.

Dani: "Next question is- when was that photo taken? Looks to me as if it was taken at the police station rather than the hospital (?). If so then I don't see how the 'cuts' could have come from the crime. Who get's paper cuts which are red like that 4 days later?"

I'm pretty sure it was taken at the police station on 6/10. If they were already scabbed over on 6/6, as Campbell said, perhaps they were totally unrelated to the crime. Who knows? Maybe Darlie got in a fight with that ferocious cat they kept in the family room. You know, the one who didn't make a sound while the intruder was killing the boys :waitasec:

[beesy]

I'm pretty sure it was taken at the police station on 6/10. If they were already scabbed over on 6/6, as Campbell said, perhaps they were totally unrelated to the crime. Who knows? Maybe Darlie got in a fight with that ferocious cat they kept in the family room. You know, the one who didn't make a sound while the intruder was killing the boys :waitasec:
Do you think it'd have scabbed anyway? I'm still going with my screen theory. Was it Cowgirl who said new screens roll, which is why the person would have had to hold it taunt in order to cut it. Somebody experiment with it. Go to Lowe's and cut a screen tee hee....
Yes, the cat! It scared the whoo-hoo out of Waddell, yet Darlie never mentions hearing it wail while she and her kids were being attacked. Of course, there was no intruder so nobody to scream at til it saw Waddell. It was in a cage behind the sofa? They had tons of cat and dog cages in the garage. Why? Nothing to do with the crimes, but how many cages to you need? More excess.

[Goody]

On this we disagree, for three reasons:

1. Darlie was right handed, so she would have been stabbing with her right hand. The little cuts were on the joints of her left hand.

2. Even if she stabbed with her left hand (very unlikely) and it slipped down onto the blade, the only finger that might have come in contact with the sharp edge would be her thumb, and it would probably have been deeply cut. Her middle and ring finger, where the little cuts were, would have slid along the dull side of the knife.

3. When I envision someone's hand (right or left) accidentally slipping onto the blade of a knife, I see deep cuts to the palm of the hand & possibly the thumb. Not little scratches to the joints, which is why I think Beesy is right. Those cuts were probaby the result of Darlie grabbing the cut edges of the screen with her left hand when she cut it.

But we certainly agree on one thing, Goody. No way, no how were they defensive wounds.
They were definitely not defensive wounds. Maybe they were just paper cuts. The kind you get when someone snatches a paper out of your hands. It could have happened when she and Darin were arguing. Wonder what document might cause that kind of reaction from him? Since her hands have the cuts, he is the obvious one who would have been doing the snatching, hmm....

[Goody]

Next question is- when was that photo taken? Looks to me as if it was taken at the police station rather than the hospital (?). If so then I don't see how the 'cuts' could have come from the crime. Who get's paper cuts which are red like that 4 days later?
Excellent point, Dani. Agreed. So maybe Darin snatched a document out of Darlie's hand after she got home from the hospital. Why would he do that? And what could the document have been?

[Goody]

They're cuts in the same way that she sliced her neck. Looks to me like she held a knife in her hand and slowly closed it around the knife just enough to make some marks. No big deal.
O, I disagree, Jeana. Those cuts are more incriminating to Darlie than helpful. I think she didn't want us to know how they got there and used them later to the best of her ability to support her story...or weaved them into her story to explain them away. But I don't think she made those cuts deliberately. Besides, as Dani pointed out, the photos were taken at the police station. If the cuts had occurred on the 6th, they would not be red anylonger on the 10th. Whatever caused them must have happened after her release from the hospital.

[Goody]

They're cuts in the same way that she sliced her neck. Looks to me like she held a knife in her hand and slowly closed it around the knife just enough to make some marks. No big deal.
Another interesting thing about Darlie, she never offers an explanation for any injury by saying it occurred after the murders. Not a single bruise or scratch. She weaves all of them into her story.

[Goody]

Dani: "Just checked in MTJD and I honestly still don't see how she could have gotten those small cuts from holding the screen. . To have gotten them from the screen she would have had to have her fingers hooked over the horizontal cut edge of the screen with only the first knuckle only... and then her thumb could not have been on the same angle to have had gotten a cut in the knuckle crease as well. Her thumb would have been on an akward angle at the side"

I see your point, especially about the thumb. Well, we know for sure that Darlie had the scratches in the hospital, because both Wielgosz and Campbell testified about them. Campbell described them as looking like paper cuts & said they were already scabbed over on the evening of 6/6...no redness, no oozing.

Dani: "Next question is- when was that photo taken? Looks to me as if it was taken at the police station rather than the hospital (?). If so then I don't see how the 'cuts' could have come from the crime. Who get's paper cuts which are red like that 4 days later?"

I'm pretty sure it was taken at the police station on 6/10. If they were already scabbed over on 6/6, as Campbell said, perhaps they were totally unrelated to the crime. Who knows? Maybe Darlie got in a fight with that ferocious cat they kept in the family room. You know, the one who didn't make a sound while the intruder was killing the boys :waitasec:
Well, now this changes things. If the nurses noticed them and they are still red on the 10th, they must have been deeper than we were assuming. That might mean that they were caused by a knife blade. I am going back to the drawing board on this one.

[Goody]

:waitasec:
Do you think it'd have scabbed anyway? I'm still going with my screen theory. Was it Cowgirl who said new screens roll, which is why the person would have had to hold it taunt in order to cut it. Somebody experiment with it. Go to Lowe's and cut a screen tee hee....

The screens are a nylon mesh, aren't they? I think they are quite soft and not likely to scratch someone/


Yes, the cat! It scared the whoo-hoo out of Waddell, yet Darlie never mentions hearing it wail while she and her kids were being attacked. Of course, there was no intruder so nobody to scream at til it saw Waddell. It was in a cage behind the sofa?

Yes, that was a wild cat. I am surprised they didn't make more of it at the trial. Big red flag for me. The wild cat just seemed to get lost in the shuffle but it was an important detail and really pointed to Darlie's guilt and Darin's too if one believes he could not have slept thru all the screeching, which should have had the dog barking, too. That is a lot of noise not to hear...kids screaming, cat screeching, and dog barking.


They had tons of cat and dog cages in the garage. Why? Nothing to do with the crimes, but how many cages to you need? More excess.
They were going to be dog and cat breeders. Another sideline business. Like the boat, they bought it to do tours on the lake, but that bombed. They were left with no business and a boat that needed repair. They were always the entreapeneurs. Always thinking of new ways to make money.

[Dani_T]

Excellent point, Dani. Agreed. So maybe Darin snatched a document out of Darlie's hand after she got home from the hospital. Why would he do that? And what could the document have been?

Goodness knows.

I still maintain though to get cuts on those two finger creases AND on the thumb crease at one time would entail a very strange hand formation.

[beesy]

Goodness knows.

I still maintain though to get cuts on those two finger creases AND on the thumb crease at one time would entail a very strange hand formation. She's a strange woman, maybe she has strange hand formations...tee hee...I don't know about those little cuts either, although a snatching of paper work sounds good too...Darlie, Darlie, Darlie....

[beesy]

Goody Yes, that was a wild cat. I am surprised they didn't make more of it at the trial. Big red flag for me. The wild cat just seemed to get lost in the shuffle but it was an important detail and really pointed to Darlie's guilt and Darin's too if one believes he could not have slept thru all the screeching, which should have had the dog barking, too. That is a lot of noise not to hear...kids screaming, cat screeching, and dog barking. [/color]
BIG RED FLAG!!

[QUOTE]
They were going to be dog and cat breeders. Another sideline business. Like the boat, they bought it to do tours on the lake, but that bombed. They were left with no business and a boat that needed repair. They were always the entreapeneurs. Always thinking of new ways to make money.
Forever trying to make a buck or scam a buck! Thanks

[Goody]

[/color]
BIG RED FLAG!!

Forever trying to make a buck or scam a buck! Thanks
I don't think they were true scam artists. That was just Darin's answer when he got his back up against a wall. The same with him padding bills at the computer business, as Basia claimed. It was easier for him to cheat than to cut back or hound his clients for payment. Just like always looking for another business to start, it was easier to do that than cut back. They were very definitely materialistic and if there is a motive that makes sense in this case, I would not be surprised to learn that it had to do with that part of their makeup.

[Goody]

Goodness knows.

I still maintain though to get cuts on those two finger creases AND on the thumb crease at one time would entail a very strange hand formation.
Well, maybe not if we could figure out what she was holding when it happened. It was her right hand, wasn't it? The cuts were on her first knuckle, palm side of the middle finger, ring finger, and thumb. So think, Dani....the little finger might have not been in the exact position and just got missed, but how do we explain that first finger not being cut? You are a smart girl. I am counting on you.

[Dani_T]

Well, maybe not if we could figure out what she was holding when it happened. It was her right hand, wasn't it? The cuts were on her first knuckle, palm side of the middle finger, ring finger, and thumb. So think, Dani....the little finger might have not been in the exact position and just got missed, but how do we explain that first finger not being cut? You are a smart girl. I am counting on you.
The pressure!

Only thing I can think of is if she was holding the corner of something or she was holding a CD or something like that.

But I honestly am not sure it means a lot anyway. Small papercuts can happen in innumerable ways and if the photo was taken on the 10th June then I don't see that it can be tied to the crime scene or more correctly cover up of it anyway (without admitting it is absolutely pure speculation).

We know some major trauma happened to her arms because of the photos in the station vs the photos and testimony of the nurses so it is not out of the realm of possibility that the cuts were done deliberately as well.

But it is all speculation and I really doubt it holds a big clue to the case.

[kelizabeth]

I am a newbie but I thought I would put my 2 cents in, lol. I think Darin is in this lock stock and barrel! I think he and Darlie were being drowned in debt, they didnt want to give up their lifestyles and the kids were bogging them down. Certainley Darlie had to have the best of the best, best house, best hubby and the best and most jewelry (just look at whats on the counter in the pics! I believe Darin cut Darlie because she is too much a coward to do it herself. Both were involved with the stabbing and staging. For some inexplicable reason, they decided Darlie would take the fall (insurance?) but something went wrong. Darlie has stuff on Darin, but Darin has more on Darlie, hence no negativity towards Darin. JMO:confused:

[Goody]

I am a newbie but I thought I would put my 2 cents in, lol. I think Darin is in this lock stock and barrel! I think he and Darlie were being drowned in debt, they didnt want to give up their lifestyles and the kids were bogging them down. Certainley Darlie had to have the best of the best, best house, best hubby and the best and most jewelry (just look at whats on the counter in the pics! I believe Darin cut Darlie because she is too much a coward to do it herself. Both were involved with the stabbing and staging. For some inexplicable reason, they decided Darlie would take the fall (insurance?) but something went wrong. Darlie has stuff on Darin, but Darin has more on Darlie, hence no negativity towards Darin. JMO:confused:
You make some interesting theories. Do you think that they thought a story painting themselves as victims of tragic loss could be cultivated into big bucks via book/film deals?

[Goody]

We know some major trauma happened to her arms because of the photos in the station vs the photos and testimony of the nurses so it is not out of the realm of possibility that the cuts were done deliberately as well.

But it is all speculation and I really doubt it holds a big clue to the case.
:confused: I don't know how big the clue might be, but until we know what caused the cuts, it is impossible to really judge their importance. I doubt though that it would contribute anything more than just another piece to the puzzle, but Goody wants to know anyway.

I really can't imagine why she barely cut herself in such an odd place on only three fingers. That sounds like too much detail for Darlie. Actually, I tend to think that the ONLY cut she deliberately made to herself was the neck wound. I think everything else occurred in the attack on the kids or possibly in a struggle with Darin if he did not play a role in the actual planning/stabbings. That is all debatable, however. Goody's views could most definitely change with new insights or evidence.

[beesy]

:confused: I don't know how big the clue might be, but until we know what caused the cuts, it is impossible to really judge their importance. I doubt though that it would contribute anything more than just another piece to the puzzle, but Goody wants to know anyway.

I really can't imagine why she barely cut herself in such an odd place on only three fingers. That sounds like too much detail for Darlie. Actually, I tend to think that the ONLY cut she deliberately made to herself was the neck wound. I think everything else occurred in the attack on the kids or possibly in a struggle with Darin if he did not play a role in the actual planning/stabbings. That is all debatable, however. Goody's views could most definitely change with new insights or evidence. Maybe she was cut with the fingernail file when she was getting her nails all purdy for the camera :D All jokes aside Goody, I think it's important too. Every little thing is...those are the things overlooked sometimes which end up proving a theory. I still like my screen theory although I know the rest of you don't....

[Goody]

Maybe she was cut with the fingernail file when she was getting her nails all purdy for the camera :D All jokes aside Goody, I think it's important too. Every little thing is...those are the things overlooked sometimes which end up proving a theory. I still like my screen theory although I know the rest of you don't....I am just not sure the new screens can cut the way you envision to create the cuts we have to account for. I guess it is possible. I am just not sure.

Another thing about screens, a couple of oddities about Darin. He walked thru the house to the garage to see the cut screen after Darlie left in the ambulance and before he went to the hospital. Then approx 6 months later, he showed up at his old house on Bond Street just a few days before the trial was to start, supposedly to look at the screens. He said more than a few things to incriminate Darlie in a conversation with the new resident and never satisfactorily explained why he thought the screens at the old house might be cut, too. So I am wondering if he didn't cut the screen and take a trip back to the old house to see if any of his handiwork might have been left on the screens there. That T-cut was distinctive. Or maybe he really is innocent and went to see if any of Darlie's handiwork had been left behind, maybe from a day she'd been locked out. Whatever his motives, I believe he was looking for anything that might incriminate them or trip him up with perjurious statements. These two things he did stick in my mind and nip at me every once in awhile.

[Jeana (DP)]

O, I disagree, Jeana. Those cuts are more incriminating to Darlie than helpful. I think she didn't want us to know how they got there and used them later to the best of her ability to support her story...or weaved them into her story to explain them away. But I don't think she made those cuts deliberately. Besides, as Dani pointed out, the photos were taken at the police station. If the cuts had occurred on the 6th, they would not be red anylonger on the 10th. Whatever caused them must have happened after her release from the hospital.


You're right, but she could have done it that way afterward. They just look too deliberate.

[Goody]

You're right, but she could have done it that way afterward. They just look too deliberate.
How do they look deliberate? What makes you think they were done deliberately, other than we can't find an explanation for them?

[Jeana (DP)]

How do they look deliberate? What makes you think they were done deliberately, other than we can't find an explanation for them?


I remember comparing them with photos of other "defensive wounds" where we knew the defendant didn't self inflict and they just don't compare. If she was grabbing the blade of a knife in order to ward off a blow, her fingers would have been much more damaged IMO.

[beesy]

I remember comparing them with photos of other "defensive wounds" where we knew the defendant didn't self inflict and they just don't compare. If she was grabbing the blade of a knife in order to ward off a blow, her fingers would have been much more damaged IMO. Nobody is saying they are defense wounds, none of us here at least, I think they are accidental cuts which have to do with the crime somehow

[beesy]

I am just not sure the new screens can cut the way you envision to create the cuts we have to account for. I guess it is possible. I am just not sure.

Another thing about screens, a couple of oddities about Darin. He walked thru the house to the garage to see the cut screen after Darlie left in the ambulance and before he went to the hospital. Then approx 6 months later, he showed up at his old house on Bond Street just a few days before the trial was to start, supposedly to look at the screens. He said more than a few things to incriminate Darlie in a conversation with the new resident and never satisfactorily explained why he thought the screens at the old house might be cut, too. So I am wondering if he didn't cut the screen and take a trip back to the old house to see if any of his handiwork might have been left on the screens there. That T-cut was distinctive. Or maybe he really is innocent and went to see if any of Darlie's handiwork had been left behind, maybe from a day she'd been locked out. Whatever his motives, I believe he was looking for anything that might incriminate them or trip him up with perjurious statements. These two things he did stick in my mind and nip at me every once in awhile. Ooooh good tidbit Goody, very creepy