744 users online (81 members and 663 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 91 to 104 of 104
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51
    I wanted to add something else to my previous post. Were there ever any abrasions found in the boys mouths? I was just curious about the 5 drops of blood found on the sock and to me would be consistent with someone forcefully putting something in their mouth causing the drops of blood which were found on the sock. It would make sense to me why her DNA was found only, from probably putting her hand inside the sock. There was so much blood everywhere I am trying to figure out how ONLY drops were found on this sock. I am new here so apologize if this has been previously discussed.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by Darshana View Post
    I wanted to add something else to my previous post. Were there ever any abrasions found in the boys mouths?
    No injuries to the boys' mouths, inside or out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darshana View Post
    I was just curious about the 5 drops of blood found on the sock and to me would be consistent with someone forcefully putting something in their mouth causing the drops of blood which were found on the sock. It would make sense to me why her DNA was found only, from probably putting her hand inside the sock. There was so much blood everywhere I am trying to figure out how ONLY drops were found on this sock. I am new here so apologize if this has been previously discussed.
    The most likely conclusion, imo, is that Darlie covered the knife handle with the sock to avoid leaving fingerprints. DNA from her skin cells was in the toe area, and the nickel-sized bloodstain lined up pretty well with the sock contacting the bodies as she stabbed. The boys didn't have spurting wounds, so there wouldn't necessarily have been a lot of blood on the sock.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by Darshana View Post
    Something sick happened that night and I am sorry, with all that blood in the house, if there was really an intruder/s there would have been SOMETHING found outside that house. JMO
    If not outside, then certainly in the garage or around the window that the intruder supposedly exited. There was no blood at all in those areas, nor on the fence gate which the intruder had to go through to get out of the backyard.

    It might be possible if he'd just stabbed the boys & immediately run out of the house, but Darlie's story of being slashed, bleeding, & fighting with an intruder - who doesn't leave a single smear on his way out - defies common sense.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberLaw View Post

    Then the intruder puts a sock in her mouth, and in other stories he does not.
    Ya know what's funny about the sock in the mouth story?

    Darlie never said that, not in any of her statements, and not when she testified.

    The "sock in the mouth" theory was dreamed up by her supporters, years after she was convicted, to explain away her DNA on the sock.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51
    The only issue I have with her covering the knife handle is why she made such a point to the 911 dispatcher that she had picked up the knife leaving her prints on them.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,681
    Why.

    Because at some point she may have or may have thought that she did leave fingerprints on the knife.

    She uses the sock to cover the knife. Then she has to plant the sock away from the house, therefore tying to set up evidence of an "intruder" who ran out of the house. But, the knife is near the boys. She then picks up the knife, again plants it "as in a way" that the intruder would leave. Ah, she leaves her fingerprints on the knife. The only way that she can cover that no "intruder" fingerprints would be on the knife, and not ONLY Darlie's is to say" darn it all, I picked up the knife. Darn it all. We may have been able to get the fingerprints of the "intruder" oh well I guess the only fingerprints that will be found on the knife, is mine because darn it all, I picked it up and moved it from the room with the cut screen. You see the intruder dropped it on the way out. Al, but alas, we all know why Darlie's prints were the only ones on the knife. Because she left them there, not the "phantom" fingerprint intruder.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    667
    I posted my theory regarding this on another thread, but I'll repeat if it's okay. I think, and it's only my opinion, that she covered her hand with the sock, stabbed the boys with a knife, then ran out the back, down the alley and threw that knife in the storm sewer. She didn't notice that she dropped the sock and it didn't go in the sewer. She comes back and finds Damon still alive and crawling toward the door, goes in the kitchen and gets the second knife and comes back to finish the job. In my opinion, that would also answer the questions regarding the "two different knives" theory. I think her original thought was that if she got rid of the knife it would prove her "intruder" theory. No weapon found. Then after she had to return to the crime scene, she needed another story about why her fingerprints would be on the knife...hence, the "I already picked it up" story.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,815
    I have not followed this case as much as others, but my opinion is that she is innocent.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by weasel View Post
    I posted my theory regarding this on another thread, but I'll repeat if it's okay. I think, and it's only my opinion, that she covered her hand with the sock, stabbed the boys with a knife, then ran out the back, down the alley and threw that knife in the storm sewer.
    The police checked the storm sewer, though, and there was nothing in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by weasel View Post
    She comes back and finds Damon still alive and crawling toward the door
    Yes. She thought Damon was dead when she ditched the sock, then returned to find him still alive and crawling across the room. Darlie stabbed him again, probably twice, but without the sock this time. That's why she was so concerned about her fingerprints being on the knife.

    I personally don't think she was trying to implicate an intruder by throwing the sock in the alley. She could have simply thrown it in the back yard, where the police would be sure to find it. Why risk taking it so far from the house?

    I believe she was trying to get rid of the sock, hoping that it wouldn't be found, because it tied her to the murders through DNA or heck, even fingerprints. (Obviously, fingerprints can't be lifted from a sock, but Darlie probably didn't know that). She may have been aiming for the drain or the trash can and missed.

    Just my 2 cents. Guess we'll never know what was actually going through her mind.

    Edited to add: Darlie needn't have worried about fingerprints on the knife, because none were found. The handle was made of a material that didn't pick up fingerprints. The joke is on her, lol!

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51
    I have a question in regards to the sock that was found. If they were able to find Darlie's DNA (no blood) in the sock, could the sock be tested for other DNA? If an intruder used the sock, wouldn't something else have come up besides Darlie's DNA? I understand too a deer hair was found on it.


  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51
    You know, someone posted something in a previous thread about
    Occam's razor - "all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one". I think it is so true. It is so easy to come up with various sinerios but in the end it comes down to the truth and everything that was initially found upon this investigation. No one wants to believe a mother would do this but nothing adds up in this case. You can take any situation and come up with reasons why or why not and it will make sense when you argue it but in the end if you really look at everything, in your heart you just know. Call it intuition or whatever. I think LE did an outstanding job in this case and do not think anything was overlooked. JMO

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Rino View Post
    Sounds like story #2 grew some legs and #3 started running...
    Too funny!

    You know IMO Darlie is/was yet just another child killer and a pathological liar to boot! I honestly do not know how she can keep it all straight. Doh, wait a second she doesn't!!!

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Forest Hills Gardens, NY
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberLaw View Post
    Lets define what hearsay is(again): Hearsay is being told something that you have no direct knowledge of.

    Like Sam told John that Jim stole a candy bar. John can then say Sam told me that Jim stole a candy bar. John has no direct knowledge of the event. But Sam saw Jim pocket the candy bar. John cannot testify, but Sam can.

    So when Darlie gives 16 different version of a story, then she is "directly" giving testimony, reports, etc. with direct knowledge. That is not hearsay, that is Darlie lying again and again to fit her "story" to the evidence.

    When a liar is confronted with "conflicts" with their story, they change their story to fit the way the events "should" have unfolded, when asked questions based on a story, they give another one to suit the questions.

    You may have minor differences, but not entire stories that are different materially. That is a hallmark of a liar.

    Most of us are parents, we ask our kids(teenagers)where they have been all after noon.

    While I was at Sam's house all afternoon. I called Sam, his Mom said you did not show up.

    Oh did I say Sam's house it was John's house. I was there all afternoon.

    What time where you there from?. I was there from 1-4.

    Really, because your Dad saw you hanging out at the mall at 1:15.

    Oh did I say I was at John's house from 1-4, well it was from 2-4.

    Oh so you where at John's house from 2-4. Is that right.

    Yes, Mom that was right. O.K. I am going to call John's Mom right now.

    But Mom.....are you checking up on me.

    Yes, dear, darling child I am. Because you started off by lying to me.

    O.K., Mom I was not at Sam's house, I was not at John's house, I was at the the mall with friends. I know that you do not like me at the mall, that is why I lied.

    Finally the truth.......

    Darlie killed her kids and lied and lied and lied with her evolving stories.

    Logic prevails.
    Ha Ha HA ! I showed this post to my wife and she started laughing. Btw, we both agree with you, even if you are banned. ..............love your posts.

  14. #104

    Darlie's versions

    Quote Originally Posted by Medea View Post
    It's heresay whether or not Darlie ever actually gave the version about waking up and seeing the intruder walk around as far as I can tell, she didn't give that version to police. It looks to me like she's pretty much always said she woke up from hearing the kids crying and the man was on top of her and a struggle ensued.
    Not true,read her June 8 written statement to police.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7


Similar Threads

  1. 16 Different Versions of Darlie's story
    By CW in forum Darlie Routier
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-18-2017, 09:40 AM
  2. Regarding Jane Tanner and her many versions...
    By Isabella in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 11-16-2012, 09:10 PM
  3. How many different versions are there ?
    By JaneInOz in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 09:25 AM