PDA

View Full Version : The Motive


Goody
08-18-2005, 02:55 AM
I think I have figured it out, folks. I was answering a post at CTV when suddenly it was clear as a bell. Right there in front of me all along, but I couldn't quite grasp it.

Here's the gist of it:
Darlie had been on diet pills since March, and not just any diet pills. It was FenPhen which is not recommended for people who only have 20 pounds to lose (like Darlie) and not recommended to be taken for over a month at a time (Darlie was on it for approx 3 months). I think it is safe to assume that it was interferring with her sleep which is why the baby's movements in the crib kept waking her up. On the other hand, it should have kept her from going into a deep sleep, which means she should have easily heard the intruder(s) attack the kids, who were sleeping only a couple of feet from her.

In her police statement she admitted to feeling depressed that night and said that she and Darin had words. How that evolves into a wicked argument, I am not sure. I personally have not believed there was any serious talk of separation. I have thought that was just a last ditch rescue effort the defense had talked Darin into for legal purposes. But now I am thinking I was wrong about that.

Darlie's bestfriend, Basia, testified that Darlie told her she was afraid if they did separate, Darin's mother would take her kids away from her, so my guess is that was Darin's threat that he hung over her head when she threatened to leave him. I also suspect that Sarilda probably critcized Darlie's parenting skills over the years, and maybe there was even a time when they had a little spat and the threat became more real. If not, i can't imagine Darlie taking the threat seriously, so something must have happened to put that fear into her. And according to Basia, it was there alright.

That tells me that Darlie probably felt trapped, unable to leave him, and if she were really, really angry with him over his inability to collect from those who owed him so that she could go on her trips, among other things, she might have reared up with an ultimatum or threat to leave that was countered by a reinforcement of the threat to take the kids (and make her pay child support. Talk about an equalizer!)

So now we have a very angry Darlie, nervous and rattled by a dangerous diet drug (it was taken off the market for several years) feeling trapped and rebellious, suffering from depression with her back up against the wall. Darlie and Darin both have big egos which is pretty obvious by their testimonies and the lifestyle they chose. It is easy to see them in a power struggle. Plus all these things coming together at once could have pushed her into an emotional corner and made her come out fighting. "I'll show him. If he thinks he can trap me like this, I will take his power away him. He can't hold the kids over my head if they don't exist anymore."

That is over simplified but you can surely get the feel of the rage that might have been churning around in her. I don't think it was the first time she thought of it. I think she'd thought of it whenever he made her feel he was the one in control and there was nothing she could do about it. I think her thinking about it was part of the PPD she suffered with within the last six months. Her suicide attempt was her last effort at getting Darin's attention, in getting him to understand he really really needed to help her more. But he didn't get it and no sooner did the moment pass than he was back to life as usual, doing his thing and abandoning her (in her mind), leaving all the work at home up to her. (I don't think she appreciated the work he did that paid for all she had. I think she felt he was weak and not aggressive/ambitious enough.)

I think they both saw the kids as a couple of anchors around their necks preventing them from the lifestyle they felt they deserved. But the kids also became weapons that the parents used against each other. Many feuding parents do that but these took it to the extreme, I think.

Anyway, their egos collided that night in a big power struggle and she simply decided to take the power he held over her away from him by erasing the boys. Drake might have been killed too if he had been downstairs with her. And that might also explain why Darin feels so guilty about it. I just don't know though if it explains why he is still tied to her almost ten years later. That is a bit hard to swallow.

Anyway she wouldn't be the first woman to kill her children to prevent someone else from raising them, esp her ex. With Darlie and Darin though I think it was more about power and control than it was prevention. If she hadn't been arrested, she could have walked away but I don't think that is what she really wanted. I think what she really wanted was to control Darin, to take away the control she felt he had over her. Once the kids were gone, she would have the power in the relationship, not Darin. And not his mother.

So what do you think? Is this why she did it?

HeartofTexas
08-18-2005, 10:02 AM
I think this is quite good. It's pretty close to one of the scenarios I've come up with over the years. Several things came together in a horrible way that night... the use of diet pills, lack of solid and restorative sleep, PP depression, money problems, anger, a need for control, possibly a request for separation, etc. Everything was quite exaggerated in Darlie's mind that night, so her reactions were also very exaggerated.

The only thing I don't quite buy is Darlie being stupid enough to think there was any way Sarilda could take her kids away from her. That doesn't make sense to me unless Darin had convinced her that her previous talk of suicide would make her seem unstable before the Court system.

I can also see where, if she had asked for a separation that night, that she felt the kids stood between her and her freedom. IOW, since Darin was having money problems, what kind of lifestyle could she expect for herself if she had to take care of two young boys (in addition to the baby) on the child support payments she would get.

The only other thing I wonder about is how does your scenario explain the obvious rage the murders showed? Does your story make room for such rage against the boys, or at least one of them?

cami
08-18-2005, 10:14 AM
Does your story make room for such rage against the boys, or at least one of them?

It is very very good Goody. I was going to ask the same thing Heart has asked here. You can still hear the anger in Darlie's voice on the 911 call, that's why I ask.

Breehannah6
08-18-2005, 10:19 AM
I think all those diet pills are full of Amphetamines which can make lambs into tigers, I have seen these effects myself!

But without getting into a brawl like I am on another thread !lol Why didnt she kill hubby? He had to be insured for more than the kids, plus he was the seat of her anger not the kids,

I have been left by hubby who was an interstate truck driver to raise 3 babies and yes I used to get depressed (I didnt take diet pills!lol) and angry but mainly at him!:bang: If she could have thought this up I am sure she could have come up with a better scenario if she had of whacked him!

She could have hit him on the head stabbed him then said he tackled an intruder who killed him ! No need to slit her own throat! bruise and slice herself up. If she is as vain as they say on here why make that ugly mark on her own throat? They say when women commit suicide they usually do it in a way as not to disfigure themselves ,young men are the ones that shoot themselves in the head, ect.................
I just wish someone can tell me why the kids and not him!!!

cami
08-18-2005, 10:28 AM
I think all those diet pills are full of Amphetamines which can make lambs into tigers, I have seen these effects myself!

But without getting into a brawl like I am on another thread !lol Why didnt she kill hubby? He had to be insured for more than the kids, plus he was the seat of her anger not the kids,

I have been left by hubby who was an interstate truck driver to raise 3 babies and yes I used to get depressed (I didnt take diet pills!lol) and angry but mainly at him!:bang: If she could have thought this up I am sure she could have come up with a better scenario if she had of whacked him!

She could have hit him on the head stabbed him then said he tackled an intruder who killed him ! No need to slit her own throat! bruise and slice herself up. If she is as vain as they say on here why make that ugly mark on her own throat? They say when women commit suicide they usually do it in a way as not to disfigure themselves ,young men are the ones that shoot themselves in the head, ect.................
I just wish someone can tell me why the kids and not him!!!

You'd have to ask Darlie that question. None of us here know why she murdered her own children. We can speculate till the cows come home but only she knows why this happened.

If Darlie were to kill Darin she would have had to do it while he was asleep that night. He could easily overpower her otherwise. How do you explain that scenario? How did an intruder even know Darin was upstairs? He would have had to have been stalking Darlie for some time to discern that info.

Cassata11
08-18-2005, 04:47 PM
SnipWhy didnt she kill hubby? He had to be insured for more than the kids, plus he was the seat of her anger not the kids
I have always thought it was the attention from her hubby that she killed for. In my opinion she was moody that night, had a fight about Darren not spending time with her. I think normally Damon and Devin spent a lot of the late evening hours playing video games with Dad when he got home. I believe Darlie was jealous of that attention. (Or lack of attention.) I think it also explains why the boys would be outside riding their bikes until late. I think Darlie wanted Darren's attention all to herself.

Wasn't Darlie seen in the front of her home playing catch with Darren only days after the murders? Now she has full attention.

I agree that those diet pills had an effect on Darlie. Jealous rage? She drank wine that night as well??? I bet it was a blur to her. But it wouldn't change her guilt.

Maybe that's also why Darren covers for Darlie. He blames himself, and thinks perhaps it's his fault, for not paying attention to the drama queen.

:confused:
Cassata

beesy
08-18-2005, 05:02 PM
This is good, Goody, hee....I've felt for awhile she was meeting a dare or something like that. The "I'll show him" scenario. This is good...very good...some sort of threat from Darin. Suppose she actually said something along the lines of "I'll kill them before I let you(or Sarilda) take them?" He said "yeah, right go ahead and do it". All the other things you mentioned, the dangerous diet pills, sleep problems, being unable to snag Darin's attention, possibly paranoid that he and Dana are "flirting". Even he said he took longer dropping Dana off than was needed. Did this drive Darlie into believing her suspicion (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=suspicion)s?
I think the "I'll show him" motive is a very good theory and not just because I've believed it for awhile either..lol..whether she actually threatened to "take" the boys from him(kill them) or she didn't, he would feel guilty. He knew he'd stirred her up enough to freak out, which is why he is still hanging on. If either one tells the truth, they both implicate themselves. I think that's why he won't unzip.:silenced: Now they're both trapped.

Goody
08-18-2005, 05:56 PM
The only thing I don't quite buy is Darlie being stupid enough to think there was any way Sarilda could take her kids away from her. That doesn't make sense to me unless Darin had convinced her that her previous talk of suicide would make her seem unstable before the Court system.
Women live with a false sense of security today if they think custody is automatically reserved for the mothers in divorce court. Not so anymore/ In fact, a local social worker told me (a few years ago) that a huge percentage of grandparents are raising grandchildren today. Their kids get divorced and the grandparents end up with the responsibility. Or they go after it and being more stable financially often win. Besides, all Darin would have to do is move back home to prove that he could provide a more stable home for the children. Darlie certainly could not do that. So I think the threat was real. If nothing else, real in Darlie's mind. I don't think she was stupid to fear it.


I can also see where, if she had asked for a separation that night, that she felt the kids stood between her and her freedom. IOW, since Darin was having money problems, what kind of lifestyle could she expect for herself if she had to take care of two young boys (in addition to the baby) on the child support payments she would get.
What kind of lifestyle could she expect for herself period. She had no education and the best she could do was get herself another job in working motherboards for computers. Not a very high paying position at all. She might get alimony for awhile, but the courts would expect her to take advantage of the time to get herself educated. That means full time job eventually. Probably not all that appealing to Darlie.


The only other thing I wonder about is how does your scenario explain the obvious rage the murders showed? Does your story make room for such rage against the boys, or at least one of them?
Darlie was generally p.o'd that night. She was angry with the boys, she was angry with Darin, she was angry about the lack of funds, she was angry about having to give up her trips plus she was nervous and out of sorts due to the PPD and diet meds, lack of sleep, etc. And when she got angry she probably lost sight of the fact that the boys were just children. She felt the sting of their misbehaving very deeply. And I imagine she was not above taking her anger out with Darin on the boys like many parents do. I don't think she was calm as a cucumber. I think she was angry and she came up with her plan rather quickly, although I suspect it had crossed her mind in the past on other occasions when she was livid about something. People don't usually act on a wicked thought the first time it pops up. It is just on that night many things came together that had not before and how it did gave her the push she needed to cross the line.

I don't know whether she killed Devon first and then Damon later or if Darin interrupted it but not in time to save Devon or if he just stumbled into a horror crime scene when she woke him. The clean up on the kitchen floor causes a bit of a problem too, but I am thinking that maybe they didn't use it in the trial because Basia's mother washed it that day in bleach and they couldn't separate her cleaning from the the one they thought Darlie had done. If so, maybe there was no clean up in the kitchen except for the sink itself. If that is true, it at least clears the way for Darin to be innocent of the crime before and during, and that the motive was retaliation rather than elimination of burden or lust for money, etc.

If Darin threatened to take the kids and the house, etc. and use his mother to help him win custody over her (they liked drama he said), he would have the upper hand. Couples who are very competitive of each other never want to allow the other one that kind of power. And they hate losing. So if that was going on, I can see her sitting there after he went upstairs just seething and thinking of ways to get even with him, to take the power he thought he had away from him. And that might give her some bargaining power with him after the fact as well, if she can say, "If you hadn't said what you said, I wouldn't have felt so threatened and reacted the way I did. So you are just as much a part of this, too." it wouldn't work legally, but it might emotionally, depending on how co-denpendant Darin was.

Goody
08-18-2005, 06:01 PM
It is very very good Goody. I was going to ask the same thing Heart has asked here. You can still hear the anger in Darlie's voice on the 911 call, that's why I ask.
Well, as I told Heart in my previous to this post, Darlie was angry at everyone that night....at Darin, at the boys, at the financial situation, because of disappointment, because of stress, because of rattled nerves, etc. etc. I don't think she went off into an uncontrollable rage. If she did the kids would have had a dozen stab wounds and it would be more frenzied rather than so well targeted, but I do think she was definitely P.O.'d and that she might have been striking out at Darin when she stabbed the boys. Kind of like pushing your husband's sports car off a cliff after you catch him with another woman.

Goody
08-18-2005, 06:24 PM
I think all those diet pills are full of Amphetamines which can make lambs into tigers, I have seen these effects myself!

But without getting into a brawl like I am on another thread !lol Why didnt she kill hubby? He had to be insured for more than the kids, plus he was the seat of her anger not the kids,

I have been left by hubby who was an interstate truck driver to raise 3 babies and yes I used to get depressed (I didnt take diet pills!lol) and angry but mainly at him!:bang: If she could have thought this up I am sure she could have come up with a better scenario if she had of whacked him!!!!
She didn't want to kill Darin. She didn't want his life insurance. In fact,she didn't want money in its pure form. In my scenario, she would have felt trapped and would be striking out at the locked door rather than the jailer. You find this kind of thinking in couples who are very competitive with each other, like the movie "The War of the Roses." That couple did not fight over the material things, they just usedt them to strike out at the other one. It was a power struggle in its purest form. People who get caught up in this kind of "dramatic BS" lose sight of logic and even what is truly important to them. They just want to win, to beat their competitor, in this case Darlie wanted to beat Darin at whatever headgame they were playing with each other, which I am guessing might have been him keeping her in a position where she could not fight back. Then he could wave off what he probbably viewed as her silly drama, and that would drive her nuts. She'd turn herself inside out regaining the power in the relationship and wouldn't get his attention back until she did. It was more than just seeking attention, much more, and all about winning the emotional battles in their relationship. It just got all out of control and extremely bizarre. Hope i am making sense here.


She could have hit him on the head stabbed him then said he tackled an intruder who killed him ! No need to slit her own throat! bruise and slice herself up. If she is as vain as they say on here why make that ugly mark on her own throat? They say when women commit suicide they usually do it in a way as not to disfigure themselves ,young men are the ones that shoot themselves in the head, ect.................!!!
That is exactly what she hoped people would think, that a pretty woman would not cut her throat just to get away with murder. But the truth is she didn't do anything to herself that couldn't be fixed. Friends of hers have said that she talked of going to Europe for a long vacation with Darin after the crime and that while there she would have world renown plastic surgeon fix it for her. Unfortunately (or fortunately, however you want to view it) she was arrested before she could do that and the scar is still there.

Also remember that when you say women who commit suicide don't usually shoot themselves in the head/face, etc, you are correct but Darlie wasn't trying to commit suicide. It would have been too easy for her to slice deep and she didn't. That slice on her neck was for show, not for death.

I just wish someone can tell me why the kids and not him!!!
Because the kids were the weapons he used against her. If your husband was always threatening to shoot you with his grandfather's shotgun,at some point you might break that sucker up in a million pieces so he couldn't threaten you with it again. Same thinking processes. Seems far out, I know, because we are talking about kids, but we don't think twice about it when fathers do it. The truth is feuding parents use their kids as pawns in power struggles all the time, and sometimes they go off the deep end and kill them in the process.

Goody
08-18-2005, 06:31 PM
Snip

Wasn't Darlie seen in the front of her home playing catch with Darren only days after the murders? Now she has full attention.
Yes.

Snip
I agree that those diet pills had an effect on Darlie. Jealous rage? She drank wine that night as well??? I bet it was a blur to her. But it wouldn't change her guilt.
Darlie did have diet pills in her system but no wine or any other kind of alcohol or drug.

Snip
Maybe that's also why Darren covers for Darlie. He blames himself, and thinks perhaps it's his fault, for not paying attention to the drama queen.

:confused:
Cassata
I am sure she has milked that pretty much to death by now (if this scenario has any real degree of truth in it.) I don't know what keeps Darin loyal and silent, but I am sure it isn't his conscience. If it is, I have certainly misread him.

Goody
08-18-2005, 06:37 PM
I think the "I'll show him" motive is a very good theory and not just because I've believed it for awhile either..lol..whether she actually threatened to "take" the boys from him(kill them) or she didn't, he would feel guilty. He knew he'd stirred her up enough to freak out, which is why he is still hanging on. If either one tells the truth, they both implicate themselves. I think that's why he won't unzip.:silenced: Now they're both trapped.
Well,it is not against the law to stir Darlie up with threats to take the kids away from her if she tries to leave him. So Darin has nothing to fear from any legal ramifications if she ever did decide to talk about it. From a more personal standpoint, he might have felt guilty for awhile if he thought the mind games he played with her had caused the crime, but I doubt if that would last 10 years and keep him forver tied to her. No, he must have some cupability to be sooooo quiet and loyal for sooooooooo long. Same goes for his mom. Rhe only thing she would have to lose by cutting Darlie loose would her son. The fact that she is still as loyal as she appears is sucpicious. I think he's quiet because he has something to fear from Darlie,and I think Sarilda is loyal to Darlie in order to protect her son because he has something to fear.

beesy
08-18-2005, 07:43 PM
Well,it is not against the law to stir Darlie up with threats to take the kids away from her if she tries to leave him. So Darin has nothing to fear from any legal ramifications if she ever did decide to talk about it. From a more personal standpoint, he might have felt guilty for awhile if he thought the mind games he played with her had caused the crime, but I doubt if that would last 10 years and keep him forver tied to her. No, he must have some cupability to be sooooo quiet and loyal for sooooooooo long. Same goes for his mom. Rhe only thing she would have to lose by cutting Darlie loose would her son. The fact that she is still as loyal as she appears is sucpicious. I think he's quiet because he has something to fear from Darlie,and I think Sarilda is loyal to Darlie in order to protect her son because he has something to fear. No, I didn't mean he's only being quiet because he feels he drove Darlie into killing the boys. I feel very strongly that Darin's part in this whole thing goes waaaaaaaay beyond telling some lies for Darlie. I think he decided to help her because he felt guilty. I'm sure she easily helped him to feel guilty. Remember, he worships or worshiped her. She twisted it around enough that night for him to feel as if he himself had stabbed Devon and I turn it over in my head all the time, wondering if he was the one who "finished" Damon off. Darlie was convicted for killing Damon, but there could be a possibility that Darin was just as guilty. We've talked about the fact that he allowed Damon to lie there while he tended to a very dead Devon. I think that "Damon, Damon, Damon" on the tape that for some reason only cami and I hear is Darlie possibly alerting Darin that Damon is moving. That's why he's stayed quiet. Even if Darin didn't hurt the boys, he did enough to land himself in jail if he ever tells the truth. I wonder if keeping up appearances is so important to both sides of the family that they are willing to go to any lengths to say Darlie is innocent. How horrible for them to have a killer in the family. Much better that your daughter, sister, cousin, daughter-in-law, niece is wrongly accused.

beesy
08-18-2005, 08:09 PM
Darlie was generally p.o'd that night. She was angry with the boys, she was angry with Darin, she was angry about the lack of funds, she was angry about having to give up her trips plus she was nervous and out of sorts due to the PPD and diet meds, lack of sleep, etc. And when she got angry she probably lost sight of the fact that the boys were just children. She felt the sting of their misbehaving very deeply. And I imagine she was not above taking her anger out with Darin on the boys like many parents do. I don't think she was calm as a cucumber. I think she was angry and she came up with her plan rather quickly, although I suspect it had crossed her mind in the past on other occasions when she was livid about something. People don't usually act on a wicked thought the first time it pops up. It is just on that night many things came together that had not before and how it did gave her the push she needed to cross the line.I think Darlie had thought about this before too. Like you said, that night, everything came together and she did it. Just like the sinking of the Titanic. If just one of all those things hadn't happened, the tragedy would not have been what it was.
I think people misuse the phrase "in cold blood". That indicates someone who murders during a robbery or something like that, as in Capote's book. I always hear people say Darlie killed "in cold blood". No it wasn't, it was very passionate, very hot blooded. Now Susan Smith, that sounds like cold blood to me.
Intersting you used the phrase "cross the line". There's a book about Karla Faye Tucker called "Crossed Over". At which point does one go from being a slutty, drug-addicted loser to crossing the line and plunging a pick axe into somebody?
What made Darlie go from a frustrated, selfish, depressed, generally not so nice person to a killer? There are alot of frustrated, selfish, depressed, not so nice people who don't kill. It just all fit that one night. Any other night, it might not have happened.
[QUOTE]
If Darin threatened to take the kids and the house, etc. and use his mother to help him win custody over her (they liked drama he said), he would have the upper hand. Couples who are very competitive of each other never want to allow the other one that kind of power. And they hate losing. So if that was going on, I can see her sitting there after he went upstairs just seething and thinking of ways to get even with him, to take the power he thought he had away from him. And that might give her some bargaining power with him after the fact as well, if she can say, "If you hadn't said what you said, I wouldn't have felt so threatened and reacted the way I did. So you are just as much a part of this, too." it wouldn't work legally, but it might emotionally, depending on how co-denpendant Darin was.
Yep, very co-dependant I think. Remember he's said how he lost his whole family that night? If he hadn't supported Darlie, he wouldn't have lost custody of Drake. Poor Drake, he's a victim too.

HeartofTexas
08-18-2005, 10:34 PM
Goody, one more thing I think we can throw in the pot for things bugging Darlie (that may have contributed to the events of that night) was not having a car. She had become totally dependent on Darin, which I doubt was something she liked very much. She no longer had free-wheeling money privileges, no longer had her own source of transportation, no longer had any real independence. And when you lose your independence (in her irrational way of thinking), then your children become your burden. They are, so to speak, the noose around your neck. I think that could have contributed to her anger at the situation she was in that night, too. Not directly, as in any hurtful words exchanged that night, but indirectly in that she was becoming a powder keg ready to explode.

Goody
08-18-2005, 10:55 PM
Goody, one more thing I think we can throw in the pot for things bugging Darlie (that may have contributed to the events of that night) was not having a car. She had become totally dependent on Darin, which I doubt was something she liked very much. She no longer had free-wheeling money privileges, no longer had her own source of transportation, no longer had any real independence. And when you lose your independence (in her irrational way of thinking), then your children become your burden. They are, so to speak, the noose around your neck. I think that could have contributed to her anger at the situation she was in that night, too. Not directly, as in any hurtful words exchanged that night, but indirectly in that she was becoming a powder keg ready to explode.
Well, she had only been without a car for one or two days. However, it might have been the one thing that could have prevented this crime. If she had been able to get out that day and blow off a little steam, she might have been better able to cope with the stress of the day and put off what ended in the death of the children.

Goody
08-18-2005, 10:58 PM
What made Darlie go from a frustrated, selfish, depressed, generally not so nice person to a killer? There are alot of frustrated, selfish, depressed, not so nice people who don't kill. It just all fit that one night. Any other night, it might not have happened.

Agreed.


[QUOTE=beesy][QUOTE]
Yep, very co-dependant I think. Remember he's said how he lost his whole family that night? If he hadn't supported Darlie, he wouldn't have lost custody of Drake. Poor Drake, he's a victim too.
There are a big long list of victims in this. That's the side of murder we rarely get to talk about.

sue1017
08-18-2005, 11:08 PM
I think among other things she had cabin fever. Probably felt that the children were her reason for having to stay at home. Even tho if they had money or relatives they may have been able to drop them off.

Just throwing my 2 cents in. It's value is only worth 1/8 of the face value!!!

S

cami
08-19-2005, 11:18 AM
[/color]

Agreed.


[b]
[color=blue]There are a big long list of victims in this. That's the side of murder we rarely get to talk about.


these lastest posts are just great. I agree with both Beesy and Goody, any other night and maybe this would not have happened. But something came together that night that turned Darls into a ripper.

the other night I couldn't sleep, lying there wondering why why why did you do this Darlie. What happened that drove you over the edge.

Goody
08-19-2005, 07:25 PM
I think among other things she had cabin fever. Probably felt that the children were her reason for having to stay at home. Even tho if they had money or relatives they may have been able to drop them off.

Just throwing my 2 cents in. It's value is only worth 1/8 of the face value!!!

S
Hi, Sue. She did have family. I think that was a lot of her problem. Every one around her put her up on a pedestal. She and Darin made the most money and they made it so young that they were the family darlings. The ones probably held up to all the aunts and uncles as role models for the other kids, siblings, cousins, etc. You can hear a lot of that in her aunts'
testimonies at the trial. That was a lot of responsibility to live up to, esp if she didn't believe she was liked and loved for herself but for the money and what she could do for others. If she lost the money, she would lose the image and all the perks that went with it, even within her own family. Maybe esp in her own family.

armywife210
08-19-2005, 07:53 PM
[QUOTE=Goody]Yes.


actually it wasn't Darlie that was seen playing catch with Darin just after the murders, it was Darin and Dana, Darlies little sister

armywife210
08-19-2005, 07:56 PM
actually it was Dana who was playing catch with Darin with the stuffed animals left at the house in the memory of the boys, not Darlie

armywife210
08-19-2005, 07:57 PM
sorry I am still getting used to this forum. hehe

Goody
08-19-2005, 08:46 PM
actually it was Dana who was playing catch with Darin with the stuffed animals left at the house in the memory of the boys, not Darlie
That was Darin's claim but the neighbor said it was Darlie she saw. At the very least, there is no evidence that it was not Darlie. No one has ever said where Darlie was that morning if not with Darin.

May I say Hi, Chewy or is that a case of mistaken identity?

armywife210
08-20-2005, 01:36 AM
nope I am not Chewy. I have posted a couple of other times on this site, but not for awhile.

Jeana (DP)
09-06-2005, 11:10 AM
I fail to see how this case can even come close to being compared to the Ramsey case. We don't know who murdered JonBenet.

beesy
09-06-2005, 02:19 PM
I fail to see how this case can even come close to being compared to the Ramsey case. We don't know who murdered JonBenetIt can't and I never said it could. I was referring to the "proximate cause" defense and how Darlie could use it . I just happened to find it in the book on JonBenet. It could have been on the back of a cereal box for all I care. I was simply crediting my source and explaining it the way the author did.

Jeana (DP)
09-06-2005, 02:35 PM
It can't and I never said it could. I was referring to the "proximate cause" defense and how Darlie could use it . I just happened to find it in the book on JonBenet. It could have been on the back of a cereal box for all I care. I was simply crediting my source and explaining it the way the author did.


You picked a bad example. There can be no proximate cause defense for murdering two sleeping children.

beesy
09-06-2005, 02:58 PM
You picked a bad example. There can be no proximate cause defense for murdering two sleeping children. You're missing my point. Many of us have talked about why Darin won't tell on Darlie and why she won't tell on Darin. One of my many theories is that Darin got Darlie so worked up that night, that she freaked. I've explained more on the other page. But anyway, that maybe they were fighting and she threatened him somehow, about killing herself or killing the boys and he said something like "oh yeah right, sure you will". So she met his dare and did it. So if Darlie's attorneys wanted to they could use this story and the proximate cause defense, thereby putting the blame onto Darin, hoping they can get Darlie off of DR. But that means Darlie has to admit she did it. I personally think its a lame defense, and do not believe that Darin made her do anything. I think she made him feel guilty by saying "look what you made me do", whine whine whine...But so many people ask why Darin won't tell on her, this proximate cause could be one of the many reasons. At this point her attorneys would take anything. I believe Darin was involved, therefore he knows she did it. If he opens up that can of worms and tells on her, she and her attorneys will shoot back with anything they can. So again, I was just defining it and siting my source, not comparing or using the Ramsey case as an example. Next time I'll just say I saw it on the back of a Cracker Jack box.

Goody
09-07-2005, 02:54 AM
You're missing my point. Many of us have talked about why Darin won't tell on Darlie and why she won't tell on Darin. One of my many theories is that Darin got Darlie so worked up that night, that she freaked. I've explained more on the other page. But anyway, that maybe they were fighting and she threatened him somehow, about killing herself or killing the boys and he said something like "oh yeah right, sure you will". So she met his dare and did it. So if Darlie's attorneys wanted to they could use this story and the proximate cause defense, thereby putting the blame onto Darin, hoping they can get Darlie off of DR. But that means Darlie has to admit she did it. I personally think its a lame defense, and do not believe that Darin made her do anything. I think she made him feel guilty by saying "look what you made me do", whine whine whine...But so many people ask why Darin won't tell on her, this proximate cause could be one of the many reasons. At this point her attorneys would take anything. I believe Darin was involved, therefore he knows she did it. If he opens up that can of worms and tells on her, she and her attorneys will shoot back with anything they can. So again, I was just defining it and siting my source, not comparing or using the Ramsey case as an example. Next time I'll just say I saw it on the back of a Cracker Jack box.
Proximate cause means the primary cause of the crime, whatever it is. I think what you are talking about is usually held in civil cases. Example: a man is mowing his lawn on a riding lawnmover. He hits a rock that spins out into the street, goes thru a passing motorist's windshield. The motorist swerves by reflex and loses control of his car, plowing thru a neighbor's prized rose garden and plowing into his house. The neighbor sues both the motorist and the man on the mower. Who is the proximate cause of the accident?

Jeana, I hope you are reading about now. We need your input. LOL!

I don't see how this could apply to a murder case. Do you, Jeana?

beesy
09-07-2005, 07:26 AM
Proximate cause means the primary cause of the crime, whatever it is. I think what you are talking about is usually held in civil cases. Example: a man is mowing his lawn on a riding lawnmover. He hits a rock that spins out into the street, goes thru a passing motorist's windshield. The motorist swerves by reflex and loses control of his car, plowing thru a neighbor's prized rose garden and plowing into his house. The neighbor sues both the motorist and the man on the mower. Who is the proximate cause of the accident?

Jeana, I hope you are reading about now. We need your input. LOL!

I don't see how this could apply to a murder case. Do you, Jeana? Well, I deleted my 1st message, but basically I read about proximate cause in a book about the Ramsey case. Not comparing cases here or anything, just letting you know where I stumbled across it. The author's theory(his theory, not mine) is that if, for instance, a father had been molesting his child and the mother caught them and killed the child in a blind rage, then the proximate cause could be used as a defense. Again, author's thoughts, not mine. The author was saying that something like that could have caused a parent to go into such a rage as to commit a crime. So that's all I know about it. I then mentioned that if this is what proximate cause means, that perhaps Darlie's defense could use it if she ever confessed. She could blame Darin and say he threatened to leave her and take the boys..blah blah blah.. I never got my question answered though.

Jeana (DP)
09-07-2005, 09:16 AM
Proximate cause means the primary cause of the crime, whatever it is. I think what you are talking about is usually held in civil cases. Example: a man is mowing his lawn on a riding lawnmover. He hits a rock that spins out into the street, goes thru a passing motorist's windshield. The motorist swerves by reflex and loses control of his car, plowing thru a neighbor's prized rose garden and plowing into his house. The neighbor sues both the motorist and the man on the mower. Who is the proximate cause of the accident?

Jeana, I hope you are reading about now. We need your input. LOL!

I don't see how this could apply to a murder case. Do you, Jeana?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but there is NOTHING that Darin can say now that will help Darlie. He could confess to actually doing it himself, but all of the damage has been done. Too much time has gone by.

Goody
09-08-2005, 02:35 PM
Well, I deleted my 1st message, but basically I read about proximate cause in a book about the Ramsey case. Not comparing cases here or anything, just letting you know where I stumbled across it. The author's theory(his theory, not mine) is that if, for instance, a father had been molesting his child and the mother caught them and killed the child in a blind rage, then the proximate cause could be used as a defense. Again, author's thoughts, not mine. The author was saying that something like that could have caused a parent to go into such a rage as to commit a crime. So that's all I know about it. I then mentioned that if this is what proximate cause means, that perhaps Darlie's defense could use it if she ever confessed. She could blame Darin and say he threatened to leave her and take the boys..blah blah blah.. I never got my question answered though.
I guess I am on my own here. First of all, Bees, it sounds like the author is not an attorney or he would know that they could not use proximate cause in that way. God help us if they ever start.

In the Ramsey case, assuming Mom did kill daughter, it would be a stretch to try to use proximate cause to free Mom, although blaming Dad in the way you described is reasonable for some culpability, I would think. In Darlie's case, there was nothing Darin could have done that was so devastating that would have sent Darlie into an uncontrollable rage that ended in the death of her children, esp since she didn't come forward at the time. Once she took steps to hide the act, premeditation comes into it. I don't think any premeditated act could be used in a proximate cause case. But I am not a lawyer and lawyers do sometimes get a little nuts. They still have to work within the law though, and I can't see them getting a defense like this past a judge.

So I think the author was really just grasping at straws, maybe flexing his intelligence muscles alittle. Regular common sense does not always work well in trying to interpret laws and how they can be used. Not every defense is allowed in a trial just because someone can think it up. Judges allow a lot of flexibility but they aren't going to let someone twist a law beyond recognition. So in my infinite slightly educated in legal matters wisdom, I think it is a big fat "no."

Plus, Darlie has already been convicted. Unless she can come up with something that requires a new trial, nothing about her conviction can be changed, short of a full governor's pardon and I am not sure they have such a thing in Texas. Well, I guess she could get a presidential pardon, but fat chance of that unless she lives long enough to see a democrat in office and that is probably still one of the longest of all long shots., even for a more liberal president The nature of her crime doesn't warm anyone up to her.

beesy
09-08-2005, 04:33 PM
[QUOTE]I guess I am on my own here. First of all, Bees, it sounds like the author is not an attorney or he would know that they could not use proximate cause in that way. God help us if they ever start.

No, he's a shrink! LOL..the book is very odd. He interprets the kidnaper's letter, on the pretext that Patsy killed JonBenet. He claims that in each word, Patsy is confessing. He rambles on about why "bussiness" was misspelled. His theory is that "buss" is feminine because of the "bustle" worn on dresses. There are many other things too, just as weird.

Jeana (DP)
09-08-2005, 06:34 PM
[/color]

No, he's a shrink! LOL..the book is very odd. He interprets the kidnaper's letter, on the pretext that Patsy killed JonBenet. He claims that in each word, Patsy is confessing. He rambles on about why "bussiness" was misspelled. His theory is that "buss" is feminine because of the "bustle" worn on dresses. There are many other things too, just as weird.



Didn't dresses stop having "bustles" back in the 1800s? :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

beesy
09-08-2005, 10:02 PM
Didn't dresses stop having "bustles" back in the 1800s? :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec: Turn of the 20th century, but the author found some photos of Patsy and JonBenet in fancy dresses with bustles from pagents. He says throughout the whole kidnap letter Patsy is dropping hints without realizing it about the whole thing. For instance "business" refers to John, but by misspelling it she turns it feminine, making it her's and JonBenet's, taking away his power. Crazy
The book is called Mother Gone Bad Seems to me he should have called "Father Gone Bad" since he claims Daddy started things.

Goody
09-09-2005, 12:05 AM
Turn of the 20th century, but the author found some photos of Patsy and JonBenet in fancy dresses with bustles from pagents. He says throughout the whole kidnap letter Patsy is dropping hints without realizing it about the whole thing. For instance "business" refers to John, but by misspelling it she turns it feminine, making it her's and JonBenet's, taking away his power. Crazy
The book is called Mother Gone Bad Seems to me he should have called "Father Gone Bad" since he claims Daddy started things.
Sorry but that book sounds like it has zero credibility to me. I am all for psychoanalysis but it sounds like this guy sees some telltale sign in every syllable. That sounds like horse feces to me. Besides, there is absolutely zero evidence that John Ramsey ever molested his daughter.

beesy
09-09-2005, 08:32 AM
Sorry but that book sounds like it has zero credibility to me. I am all for psychoanalysis but it sounds like this guy sees some telltale sign in every syllable. That sounds like horse feces to me. Besides, there is absolutely zero evidence that John Ramsey ever molested his daughter. It's very similar to Chris' book. Basically the author highlights parts of the letter and then decodes them. :loser:

Jeana (DP)
09-09-2005, 09:54 AM
Turn of the 20th century, but the author found some photos of Patsy and JonBenet in fancy dresses with bustles from pagents. He says throughout the whole kidnap letter Patsy is dropping hints without realizing it about the whole thing. For instance "business" refers to John, but by misspelling it she turns it feminine, making it her's and JonBenet's, taking away his power. Crazy
The book is called Mother Gone Bad Seems to me he should have called "Father Gone Bad" since he claims Daddy started things.


The author is an idiot. Just my opinion. ;)

HeartofTexas
09-09-2005, 11:28 AM
Even more of an idiot when you consider that "bustle" only has one "s", just like business has just one "s", but we're supposed to think that the reason there's two "s's" in the ransom note is because of bustle????

Goody
09-10-2005, 12:44 AM
Even more of an idiot when you consider that "bustle" only has one "s", just like business has just one "s", but we're supposed to think that the reason there's two "s's" in the ransom note is because of bustle????
Well, wouldn't it be easy if we could dicipher our personalities and emotional states by some code like he describes. We wouldn't need psychiatrists anymore. Computers could do the job for them. We'd just submit a writing for analyzation and be told who we really are and why we do the things we do. Probably even what pill we should to take to fix it.

HeartofTexas
09-10-2005, 11:49 AM
But but but... what if we spelled all the words correctly?? What would he say then... that we're anal retentive?

beesy
09-10-2005, 06:05 PM
But but but... what if we spelled all the words correctly?? What would he say then... that we're anal retentive? Actually, he did mention that Patsy is usually a perfect speller. He uses this as more proof that the misspellings were a subconscious way to admit her guilt.(giggle). Of course, LE believes the misspellings, if the letter was written by Patsy or John, was to make the person look uneducated. If the Ramseys wrote the writer, that's more likely the reason than a subconscious confession. :bang: If somebody else wrote the letter, they probably just misspelled "business" Hee hee, I had to look up subconscious so I wouldn't misspell it! Wonder if that means anything.

Goody
09-11-2005, 01:50 PM
But but but... what if we spelled all the words correctly?? What would he say then... that we're anal retentive?
God only knows. I wouldn't put much faith in any of it.

Goody
09-11-2005, 01:56 PM
Hee hee, I had to look up subconscious so I wouldn't misspell it! Wonder if that means anything.
I don't know. Maybe you SUB-conscious is WAY out to lunch. I know! I know! You are secretly yearning for a SUBWAY. That's it!! Who needs this guy. We can do it ourselves! :laugh: Now let's see what is in that fear of yours about MISSPELLing.

CyberLaw
09-11-2005, 03:04 PM
Just to weigh in: Promixate cause has to do with civil liability and injury, it HAS nothing to do with criminal acts.

Nothing..........

Goody
09-11-2005, 11:16 PM
Just to weigh in: Promixate cause has to do with civil liability and injury, it HAS nothing to do with criminal acts.

Nothing..........
Thanks, Cyber. I thought I was recalling that correctly from my law classes but was not 100% sure. My example was a civil case. What I didn't know for sure was if a defense lawyer could manipulate the theory a litte in an effort to get it into a criminal trial. A jduge would nip that in the bud, wouldn't he?

beesy
09-12-2005, 12:13 AM
I don't know. Maybe you SUB-conscious is WAY out to lunch. I know! I know! You are secretly yearning for a SUBWAY. That's it!! Who needs this guy. We can do it ourselves! :laugh: Now let's see what is in that fear of yours about MISSPELLing. always the funny girl. Did I misspell misspell? :blushing:
Subway, http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_2.gif

Goody
09-12-2005, 01:29 AM
always the funny girl. Did I misspell misspell? :blushing:
Subway, http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_2.gif
Do I look like a spell check? LOL! I haven't the foggiest. I spelled mine like yours. hahahahahahah!

sue1017
09-19-2005, 06:53 AM
I just finished reading the book 'Flesh and Blood' by Patricia Springer. Got it from the local library. After reading all the books and looking at the pictures of CWB book. This maybe has been done to death between here and CTV. If so forgive my ignorance but I am gonna thro it out anyway.

In the books they all state how Darlie was suicidal on May 3rd of that same year she murdered her children. Then 2 days later she got her monthly cycle. Well my question today is suppose she was just plain ole PMSing on June 6th? It's close to the last monthly within a few days and maybe her cycles weren't regular yet since baby Drake.

I am currently reading 'Are You There Alone' Andrea Yates story. One of the things they mention with her is not just PPD (Post-Partum Depression) but PPP (Post-Partum Pyhscosis). Is it possible that Darlie was going thru the same thing maybe not as pyhcatic level as Andrea. (Good god that woman was whacked, total nut bar.) That fact that she wanted more children.:waitasec: Just joking.

Anyway just wanted to thro another thought. And again I'm sure you guys have talked this one to death but like I stated in another thread, I'm just plum lazy to take a hike thru past posts.

S:)

j2mirish
09-19-2005, 10:57 AM
I just finished reading the book 'Flesh and Blood' by Patricia Springer. Got it from the local library. After reading all the books and looking at the pictures of CWB book. This maybe has been done to death between here and CTV. If so forgive my ignorance but I am gonna thro it out anyway.

In the books they all state how Darlie was suicidal on May 3rd of that same year she murdered her children. Then 2 days later she got her monthly cycle. Well my question today is suppose she was just plain ole PMSing on June 6th? It's close to the last monthly within a few days and maybe her cycles weren't regular yet since baby Drake.

I am currently reading 'Are You There Alone' Andrea Yates story. One of the things they mention with her is not just PPD (Post-Partum Depression) but PPP (Post-Partum Pyhscosis). Is it possible that Darlie was going thru the same thing maybe not as pyhcatic level as Andrea. (Good god that woman was whacked, total nut bar.) That fact that she wanted more children.:waitasec: Just joking.

Anyway just wanted to thro another thought. And again I'm sure you guys have talked this one to death but like I stated in another thread, I'm just plum lazy to take a hike thru past posts.

S:)
ANDREA YATES HUSBAND SHOULD BE BEHHIND BARS RIGHT ALONG WITH HER.. sorry-- i know ot..

cami
09-19-2005, 11:20 AM
Sorry but that book sounds like it has zero credibility to me. I am all for psychoanalysis but it sounds like this guy sees some telltale sign in every syllable. That sounds like horse feces to me. Besides, there is absolutely zero evidence that John Ramsey ever molested his daughter.

It's Dr. Hodges isn't it? He wrote, Who will Speak for JonBenet as well. It's psycholinguistics, it's called. I found it fascinating. I don't know how much I agree with it because I am a layperson but it is fascinating to read.

Oh I meant to ask Beesy and I quoted Goody by mistake.

beesy
09-19-2005, 01:45 PM
It's Dr. Hodges isn't it? He wrote, Who will Speak for JonBenet as well. It's psycholinguistics, it's called. I found it fascinating. I don't know how much I agree with it because I am a layperson but it is fascinating to read.

Oh I meant to ask Beesy and I quoted Goody by mistake.The book I have is by Dr. Hodges as well. It's the first one he did on the subject, A Mother Gone Bad I'm fascinated with it too. I think it's more the idea of it than the reality though. I love reverse speech too. I like to think 'ooh suppose that's really true"? I know there are forensic linguists who analyze a person's speech pattern, but what Dr. Hodges is doing isn't the same thing.

Goody
09-20-2005, 01:10 AM
In the books they all state how Darlie was suicidal on May 3rd of that same year she murdered her children. Then 2 days later she got her monthly cycle. Well my question today is suppose she was just plain ole PMSing on June 6th? It's close to the last monthly within a few days and maybe her cycles weren't regular yet since baby Drake.

I am currently reading 'Are You There Alone' Andrea Yates story. One of the things they mention with her is not just PPD (Post-Partum Depression) but PPP (Post-Partum Pyhscosis). Is it possible that Darlie was going thru the same thing maybe not as pyhcatic level as Andrea. (Good god that woman was whacked, total nut bar.) That fact that she wanted more children.:waitasec: Just joking.
It is true Andrea had PPP. She was really, really sick. But Darlie clearly did not. I do think Darlie suffered from PPD though, and the diet pills could have really irritated that condition. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that she had PMS or hormonal troubles that really rattled her. How it all played into what happened that night, we don't know because she hasn't told us what did happen. Was she anger and lost control of her temper, then had to cover up to avoid prosecution? Or was it something she planned, albeit haphazardly, for reasons unknown? It is hard to say without knowing all the facts.

Anyway just wanted to thro another thought. And again I'm sure you guys have talked this one to death but like I stated in another thread, I'm just plum lazy to take a hike thru past posts.

S:) That's cool. One us is usually lurking about and can answer questions.

cami
09-30-2005, 11:15 AM
I think I have figured it out, folks. I was answering a post at CTV when suddenly it was clear as a bell. Right there in front of me all along, but I couldn't quite grasp it.

Here's the gist of it:
Darlie had been on diet pills since March, and not just any diet pills. It was FenPhen which is not recommended for people who only have 20 pounds to lose (like Darlie) and not recommended to be taken for over a month at a time (Darlie was on it for approx 3 months). I think it is safe to assume that it was interferring with her sleep which is why the baby's movements in the crib kept waking her up. On the other hand, it should have kept her from going into a deep sleep, which means she should have easily heard the intruder(s) attack the kids, who were sleeping only a couple of feet from her.

In her police statement she admitted to feeling depressed that night and said that she and Darin had words. How that evolves into a wicked argument, I am not sure. I personally have not believed there was any serious talk of separation. I have thought that was just a last ditch rescue effort the defense had talked Darin into for legal purposes. But now I am thinking I was wrong about that.

Darlie's bestfriend, Basia, testified that Darlie told her she was afraid if they did separate, Darin's mother would take her kids away from her, so my guess is that was Darin's threat that he hung over her head when she threatened to leave him. I also suspect that Sarilda probably critcized Darlie's parenting skills over the years, and maybe there was even a time when they had a little spat and the threat became more real. If not, i can't imagine Darlie taking the threat seriously, so something must have happened to put that fear into her. And according to Basia, it was there alright.

That tells me that Darlie probably felt trapped, unable to leave him, and if she were really, really angry with him over his inability to collect from those who owed him so that she could go on her trips, among other things, she might have reared up with an ultimatum or threat to leave that was countered by a reinforcement of the threat to take the kids (and make her pay child support. Talk about an equalizer!)

So now we have a very angry Darlie, nervous and rattled by a dangerous diet drug (it was taken off the market for several years) feeling trapped and rebellious, suffering from depression with her back up against the wall. Darlie and Darin both have big egos which is pretty obvious by their testimonies and the lifestyle they chose. It is easy to see them in a power struggle. Plus all these things coming together at once could have pushed her into an emotional corner and made her come out fighting. "I'll show him. If he thinks he can trap me like this, I will take his power away him. He can't hold the kids over my head if they don't exist anymore."

That is over simplified but you can surely get the feel of the rage that might have been churning around in her. I don't think it was the first time she thought of it. I think she'd thought of it whenever he made her feel he was the one in control and there was nothing she could do about it. I think her thinking about it was part of the PPD she suffered with within the last six months. Her suicide attempt was her last effort at getting Darin's attention, in getting him to understand he really really needed to help her more. But he didn't get it and no sooner did the moment pass than he was back to life as usual, doing his thing and abandoning her (in her mind), leaving all the work at home up to her. (I don't think she appreciated the work he did that paid for all she had. I think she felt he was weak and not aggressive/ambitious enough.)

I think they both saw the kids as a couple of anchors around their necks preventing them from the lifestyle they felt they deserved. But the kids also became weapons that the parents used against each other. Many feuding parents do that but these took it to the extreme, I think.

Anyway, their egos collided that night in a big power struggle and she simply decided to take the power he held over her away from him by erasing the boys. Drake might have been killed too if he had been downstairs with her. And that might also explain why Darin feels so guilty about it. I just don't know though if it explains why he is still tied to her almost ten years later. That is a bit hard to swallow.

Anyway she wouldn't be the first woman to kill her children to prevent someone else from raising them, esp her ex. With Darlie and Darin though I think it was more about power and control than it was prevention. If she hadn't been arrested, she could have walked away but I don't think that is what she really wanted. I think what she really wanted was to control Darin, to take away the control she felt he had over her. Once the kids were gone, she would have the power in the relationship, not Darin. And not his mother.

So what do you think? Is this why she did it?


Goody, the more I read this, the more I believe you are spot on with your evaluation.

cami
09-30-2005, 11:26 AM
The book I have is by Dr. Hodges as well. It's the first one he did on the subject, A Mother Gone Bad I'm fascinated with it too. I think it's more the idea of it than the reality though. I love reverse speech too. I like to think 'ooh suppose that's really true"? I know there are forensic linguists who analyze a person's speech pattern, but what Dr. Hodges is doing isn't the same thing.

Oh I know he's not analyzing a speech pattern, he's using the ransom note to try and associate the subconscious thoughts to the written word, freudian slips in print if you will --"thoughtprints" as he calls them. Basically, he's saying that Patsy wrote the note and her subconscience is prompting her to leave clues in the note that she committed the crime and why. I found it very interesting, pretty bizarre though. All those strange associations with sex.

ooops note to self: read the entire thread before posting. ;)

beesy
09-30-2005, 05:16 PM
Oh I know he's not analyzing a speech pattern, he's using the ransom note to try and associate the subconscious thoughts to the written word, freudian slips in print if you will --"thoughtprints" as he calls them. Basically, he's saying that Patsy wrote the note and her subconscience is prompting her to leave clues in the note that she committed the crime and why. I found it very interesting, pretty bizarre though. All those strange associations with sex.

ooops note to self: read the entire thread before posting. ;) Yepper, that sometimes helps. Glad you figured it out so I didn't have to explain all of THAT again.http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/71.gif

deanws
09-30-2005, 07:17 PM
ANDREA YATES HUSBAND SHOULD BE BEHHIND BARS RIGHT ALONG WITH HER.. sorry-- i know ot..I think he does too. That guy is a loser.

Goody
09-30-2005, 07:47 PM
Oh I know he's not analyzing a speech pattern, he's using the ransom note to try and associate the subconscious thoughts to the written word, freudian slips in print if you will --"thoughtprints" as he calls them. Basically, he's saying that Patsy wrote the note and her subconscience is prompting her to leave clues in the note that she committed the crime and why. I found it very interesting, pretty bizarre though. All those strange associations with sex.

ooops note to self: read the entire thread before posting. ;)
I think the freudian slips probably do occur but I am not so sure I buy the way he points them out. From what you guys say, he takes some pretty big leaps. I think an amateur would make little mistakes that stand out to police, but I don't think the writer of that note wanted to be caught, etc. Am I making any sense?

dasgal
09-30-2005, 08:45 PM
There was no motive. It was a tantrum.

j2mirish
10-01-2005, 09:34 AM
There was no motive. It was a tantrum.
oh my dasgal---- what a PERFECT --PERFECT statement- that truly fits.

HeartofTexas
10-01-2005, 10:03 AM
That ransom note is probably one of the most laughable things I've ever read. Some writers described it as the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, due to its extreme length. And I love "the small foreign faction" part... what group refers to itself as a small foreign faction? And what foreign faction considers itself small? And please tell me, if it was a foreign faction, how they planned to divvy up $119,000 between all of the members. Why not ask for a million or so, in order for all of the "faction" to get a reasonable amount of money. There's so much wrong with the ransom note that it boggles the imagination. What ransom note writer would bother to refer to something as an "attache" case... or mention who it liked and who it didn't. And who, for goodness sake, would take the time to sit down in someone else's house to write such a lengthy note? Why not just quickly scribble "give me a million or I'll kill your daughter". And just one last question... why would someone write such an elaborate ransom note ONLY to forget to take the child they're supposedly kidnapping? The whole thing is beyond preposterous.

beesy
10-01-2005, 01:19 PM
I think the freudian slips probably do occur but I am not so sure I buy the way he points them out. From what you guys say, he takes some pretty big leaps. I think an amateur would make little mistakes that stand out to police, but I don't think the writer of that note wanted to be caught, etc. Am I making any sense? I think Patsy made a really big slip-up in an interview. I can't remember which interview it's in, but she said something like "there are only 2 people on this earth who know who did this"....pause...."and that's the killer and someone he might have told". That is a strange statement. Think about it: wouldn't you just say "only the killer knows"? She said "only 2 people", like maybe John and her? She seemed to catch herself, smoothly though, and added "someone he might have told". So why does she only say 2 people? The killer could have told 50 people, why would she think the killer has only told 1 person....that's always troubled mehttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif

beesy
10-01-2005, 01:53 PM
[QUOTE]That ransom note is probably one of the most laughable things I've ever read. Some writers described it as the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, due to its extreme length The most ridiculous ransom letter known to mankind. Wasn't it 4 or 5 pages? Kidnapper surely took a great risk sitting around writing that note on some of Patsy's personal stationary. Hodges even pointed out that the margins are correct, 4 spaces to the left. The punctuation is all correct. And we've talked about misspellings.

. And I love "the small foreign faction" part... what group refers to itself as a small foreign faction? And what foreign faction considers itself small? And please tell me, if it was a foreign faction, how they planned to divvy up $119,000 between all of the members. Why not ask for a million or so, in order for all of the "faction" to get a reasonable amount of money. There's so much wrong with the ransom note that it boggles the imagination. It's crazy. What's interesting to me is why did Patsy choose that amount of money. She knew, of course, that was John's xmas bonus. Was she trying to direct LE to someone he closely worked with?
[QUOTE]What ransom note writer would bother to refer to something as an "attache" case... or mention who it liked and who it didn't. And who, for goodness sake, would take the time to sit down in someone else's house to write such a lengthy note? Why not just quickly scribble "give me a million or I'll kill your daughter"Typically a kidnapper will say something like "we will contact you later to discuss our demands". This kidnapper already mentioned putting the money in an attache case, which is, like you said, in and of itself stupid. I think it's important also that killer points out they like the company, but don't like some of the things John has done. I see this as possibly they were trying not to make a bad mark on the business(bussiness)http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/71.gif, which might cause some problems for the company, i.e. their income.
And just one last question... why would someone write such an elaborate ransom note ONLY to forget to take the child they're supposedly kidnapping? The whole thing is beyond preposterous "Hey Fred, ever get the feeling you've forgotten something, like leaving the coffee pot on, or maybe that little girl we killed"
"Yeah, Buddy, but I double-checked everything, we're cool."

Goody
10-01-2005, 07:33 PM
There was no motive. It was a tantrum.
Are you talking about Darlie? If so, I can't say I am ready to accept that theory, but I do agree that it is certainly a possibility. If it was a tantrum and Darin turned around and supported her thru it anyway, it paints a pretty shallow pic of both of them.

Goody
10-01-2005, 07:36 PM
That ransom note is probably one of the most laughable things I've ever read. Some writers described it as the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, due to its extreme length. And I love "the small foreign faction" part... what group refers to itself as a small foreign faction? And what foreign faction considers itself small? And please tell me, if it was a foreign faction, how they planned to divvy up $119,000 between all of the members. Why not ask for a million or so, in order for all of the "faction" to get a reasonable amount of money. There's so much wrong with the ransom note that it boggles the imagination. What ransom note writer would bother to refer to something as an "attache" case... or mention who it liked and who it didn't. And who, for goodness sake, would take the time to sit down in someone else's house to write such a lengthy note? Why not just quickly scribble "give me a million or I'll kill your daughter". And just one last question... why would someone write such an elaborate ransom note ONLY to forget to take the child they're supposedly kidnapping? The whole thing is beyond preposterous.
You are sooooooo right, Heart. A dead body is better than no victim at all. It makes no sense to spend all that time creating so much drama and then dropping it just because the victim dies before he can get her out of the house. Sounds more like the plot in an old gothic novel.

Goody
10-01-2005, 07:39 PM
I think Patsy made a really big slip-up in an interview. I can't remember which interview it's in, but she said something like "there are only 2 people on this earth who know who did this"....pause...."and that's the killer and someone he might have told". That is a strange statement. Think about it: wouldn't you just say "only the killer knows"? She said "only 2 people", like maybe John and her? She seemed to catch herself, smoothly though, and added "someone he might have told". So why does she only say 2 people? The killer could have told 50 people, why would she think the killer has only told 1 person....that's always troubled mehttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif
Yep, that is a good one, bees, and she did cover it well, took the sting out of it, so to speak. But it still stands out as one of the oddities that go against her.

Goody
10-01-2005, 07:47 PM
. It's crazy. What's interesting to me is why did Patsy choose tht amount of money. She knew, of course, that was John's xmas bonus. Was she trying to direct LE to someone he closely worked with?
[Typically a kidnapper will say something like "we will contact you later to discuss our demands". This kidnapper already mentioned putting the money in an attache case, which is, like you said, in and of itself stupid. I think it's important also that killer points out they like the company, but don't like some of the things John has done. I see this as possibly they were trying not to make a bad mark on the business(bussiness)http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/71.gif, which might cause some problems for the company, i.e. their income.
"Hey Fred, ever get the feeling you've forgotten something, like leaving the coffee pot on, or maybe that little girl we killed"
"Yeah, Buddy, but I double-checked everything, we're cool."
I think they wanted to point the finger at someone from John's work. It would be harder to trace all his business associates, former employees, etc than their personal lives. And they wanted the attention directed away from them. What better way to do that than create an unknown business enemy? Someone close enough to know what his bonus was, someone motivated to play head games with him, etc. But it read like a Tom Clancy novel...isn't he the one who does those foreign intrigue, spy thrillers??

dasgal
10-01-2005, 09:26 PM
Are you talking about Darlie? If so, I can't say I am ready to accept that theory, but I do agree that it is certainly a possibility. If it was a tantrum and Darin turned around and supported her thru it anyway, it paints a pretty shallow pic of both of them.
Hi Goody,
Yes, I was talking about Darlie. After looking at this thing for nearly a decade, and very intensly so for half or more of that, it is the only thing that DOES fit. At least in my opinion.

Goody
10-02-2005, 03:59 PM
Hi Goody,
Yes, I was talking about Darlie. After looking at this thing for nearly a decade, and very intensly so for half or more of that, it is the only thing that DOES fit. At least in my opinion.
I've looked at it a couple of ways. One, that she lost her temper and killed Devon, then was stuck with trying to figure out how to cover it up.

Or, two, it was planned in advance, just not very well. That could encompass your tantrum or it could include both parents, maybe put new meaning in the word entreapeneur.

I am still at the drawing board though. Nothing fits ALL of the evidence and just about anything you can think up seems to fit at least some of it. The only thing I am sure of is that Darlie is guilty of this crime. I don't know where Darin fits in or why (his behavior afterwards is also very suspicious) and I don't know what Dana knows. Nor Mercedes, who I truly wish would speak up truthfully.

dasgal
10-02-2005, 09:58 PM
I'm curious as to why you think she killed Devon in a tantrum.....

Jeana (DP)
10-03-2005, 11:16 AM
The most ridiculous ransom letter known to mankind. Wasn't it 4 or 5 pages? Kidnapper surely took a great risk sitting around writing that note on some of Patsy's personal stationary. Hodges even pointed out that the margins are correct, 4 spaces to the left. The punctuation is all correct. And we've talked about misspellings.



For a minute there I thought I was on the wrong forum. :confused: :confused: :confused:

We've got a whole area devoted to the Ramsey case . . . let's stay somewhat on topic here ladies, please. :innocent: :innocent:

cami
10-03-2005, 01:48 PM
I think the freudian slips probably do occur but I am not so sure I buy the way he points them out. From what you guys say, he takes some pretty big leaps. I think an amateur would make little mistakes that stand out to police, but I don't think the writer of that note wanted to be caught, etc. Am I making any sense?


No not consciously, but subconsciously the writer wanted to be caught. Here's a little info on what we are talking about.

Recognition of Thoughtprint Decoding:

The Wave of the Future

The thoughtprint decoding method has been recognized by forensic authorities including law enforcement, criminologists, attorneys, and forensic psychiatrists/psychologists. Dr. Hodges’ work has been reviewed by peers in professional journals and referenced in criminology journals. He has been credited with a new way of profiling forensic documents and adding a crucial dimension to the field of psycholinguistics.

Endorsements by noted criminologist, authority on serial killers, and former police officer:

“This new technique of thoughtprint decoding will result in criminal offenders "speaking" through their deeper encoded unconscious messages and revealing their motives and true identities when written or spoken messages are decoded. Acceptance and application of this new to written documents and oral communications will greatly contribute to the law enforcement arsenal of criminal investigation in the future.”


Here's a link to the website (http://forensicthoughtprints.com/recognition.html)

cami
10-03-2005, 01:51 PM
That ransom note is probably one of the most laughable things I've ever read. Some writers described it as the "War and Peace" of ransom notes, due to its extreme length. And I love "the small foreign faction" part... what group refers to itself as a small foreign faction? And what foreign faction considers itself small? And please tell me, if it was a foreign faction, how they planned to divvy up $119,000 between all of the members. Why not ask for a million or so, in order for all of the "faction" to get a reasonable amount of money. There's so much wrong with the ransom note that it boggles the imagination. What ransom note writer would bother to refer to something as an "attache" case... or mention who it liked and who it didn't. And who, for goodness sake, would take the time to sit down in someone else's house to write such a lengthy note? Why not just quickly scribble "give me a million or I'll kill your daughter". And just one last question... why would someone write such an elaborate ransom note ONLY to forget to take the child they're supposedly kidnapping? The whole thing is beyond preposterous.

Exactly! You scribble on a note, we have your daughter, give us a billion or we kill her. Oh and you take the child with you, you don't leave her there with the note.

cami
10-03-2005, 02:09 PM
For a minute there I thought I was on the wrong forum. :confused: :confused: :confused:

We've got a whole area devoted to the Ramsey case . . . let's stay somewhat on topic here ladies, please. :innocent: :innocent:

Sorry DP. Too bad we didn't have Darlie's "in her own words" decoded by this Dr. Hodges.

Jeana (DP)
10-03-2005, 05:09 PM
Beesy, no need to take it personally. It was just a random post. If you'd like, you can start an off topic thread here and talk about any other case that interests you. I'm just trying to keep the threads somewhat close to the title, that's all. :) :) :)

beesy
10-03-2005, 06:26 PM
Beesy, no need to take it personally. It was just a random post. If you'd like, you can start an off topic thread here and talk about any other case that interests you. I'm just trying to keep the threads somewhat close to the title, that's all. :) :) :) Ok, I understand. I was just a little taken aback that my post out all of those was chosen. But no worries.
I'm really not that interested in the little details of the Ramsey case, certainly not enough to start a thread about it. Remember I first asked if that whatever cause could be used for Darlie's defense? It can't everybody told me. The author of the Ramsey book mentioned it(which I never bothered to finish). So I brought it up many many many posts ago as it pertained to Darlie. Then we were all laughing at the author's "skills" I love the Darlie case, and from her, I will nothttp://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_1_202.gifstray

HeartofTexas
10-03-2005, 06:59 PM
Beesy, I would imagine it was my long post re the ransom note that enticed Jeanne to make her post... so why not let me take the fall for this one! I got way off topic with my post.

Goody
10-03-2005, 11:16 PM
No not consciously, but subconsciously the writer wanted to be caught. Here's a little info on what we are talking about.

Recognition of Thoughtprint Decoding:

The Wave of the Future

The thoughtprint decoding method has been recognized by forensic authorities including law enforcement, criminologists, attorneys, and forensic psychiatrists/psychologists. Dr. Hodges’ work has been reviewed by peers in professional journals and referenced in criminology journals. He has been credited with a new way of profiling forensic documents and adding a crucial dimension to the field of psycholinguistics.

Endorsements by noted criminologist, authority on serial killers, and former police officer:

“This new technique of thoughtprint decoding will result in criminal offenders "speaking" through their deeper encoded unconscious messages and revealing their motives and true identities when written or spoken messages are decoded. Acceptance and application of this new to written documents and oral communications will greatly contribute to the law enforcement arsenal of criminal investigation in the future.”


Here's a link to the website (http://forensicthoughtprints.com/recognition.html)
I would have to see the details of the cases he got right, and at least be given some idea of how many he got wrong before I could just bite into that one. LOL! If it can actually be done accurately, it could be an interesting tool of the future. I am just a bit skeptical.

Goody
10-03-2005, 11:18 PM
Beesy, I would imagine it was my long post re the ransom note that enticed Jeanne to make her post... so why not let me take the fall for this one! I got way off topic with my post.
I was wondering how long Jeana would let us ramble before she rapped our fingers, Hahahahah,. It is hard to stay on topic all the time. So many of these cases have similarities.

beesy
10-04-2005, 09:50 PM
Beesy, I would imagine it was my long post re the ransom note that enticed Jeanne to make her post... so why not let me take the fall for this one! I got way off topic with my post. That wouldn't work. Beesy must always take the blame

Goody
10-05-2005, 12:15 AM
That wouldn't work. Beesy must always take the blame
Do I hear some guilt issues ringing in the background????