For those who believe Darlie innocent - help me understand.

[cami]

Left side of sink...



Right side of sink...



Front of sink...

What part of the sink appears clean? I know that sounds like a snide question. It's not intended to be. The sink does not appear to be cleaned in any way. Two sponges were collected. No blood on either. The cleaners underneath the sink were inspected. Again, no blood. If I am to believe Darlie cut herself at the sink and then cleaned it up, I have to also believe she did it with nothing but water and her hands. The only thing the sink looks like is one that had blood in it as well as water. The presence of nothing more than water doesn't indicate a clean up job to me.

But, I'll take it a step further. If the sink is where she slit her throat, stabbed her shoulder and stabbed her arm twice, where is all the cast-off blood? Aside from the sink there should be at least a few blood drops on the window, curtains, wall, counter, etc. there is absolutely no indication she was cut at the sink or cleaned it out.



There was one (1) spot on the back of Darlie's shirt. Bevel could not tell if this single stain came from up to down or down to up.



Back of shirt... The yellow circle indicates the drop of flood from Devon.



Front of shirt...

Look at the shirt. On the left neck area side of the shirt there is evidence blood pooled in that direction. The cut to her throat was on the right. Gravitationally, the blood would only pool to that side if, at some point, she were laying on her left side. None of the responders ever testified she laid down at the scene. The only logical conclusion is that she was laying on her left side which would expose her back to the attack on Devon who was within feet of where she was laying.

Another thing to remember... The fabric of your shirt isn't going to stay in the same position when you are laying on your side as would if you are in an upright position. I could be laying on my side with my shirt wrinkled and pulling downward so the fabric is actually pulled sideways. A spot hits on one of those wrinkles. When I stand up the shirt is going to shift. The spot will be in the same location on the shirt but now the shirt has moved making the spot appear to be going up to down or down to up.



I'm not sure how her story has changed so many times. Keeping in mind that it's very probable she passed out (was "sleeping") at some point during the attack, her memories of the event could be confusing even to herself. She remembered parts of the attack and put them together as best as she could. On the whole her stories are consistent. She was attacked on the couch, followed him out of the house, gave a description of the guy.

The only person who claims she said there was a struggle or attack in the kitchen is Waddell. First, he testified his only conversations with Darlie were before Walling showed up. Walling was the officer who arrived on the scene at the end of the 911 call. So, to put it bluntly, anything Darlie told him would be recorded on the 911 call. He's first heard on the tape at 3 minutes 45 seconds. Per testimony he stated he could have been on the scene 30 seconds to a minute prior to that.

Waddell's testimony:

4 Q. Okay. Did she give you any other
5 information at that time about this person, or what may
6 have happened?
7 A. She told me what had happened.
8 Q. Okay. Just tell the members of the
9 jury what the defendant told you had happened right
10 there.
11 A. She told me that she had got into a
12 fight with somebody that broke into her house. She
13 fought with the suspect. She told me she fought with him
14 at the end of the bar here, and that he ran across the
15 kitchen.
16 Q. All right. Did she describe what kind
17 of fight had occurred here in this area?
18 A. She just said that she had fought with
19 him.
20 Q. All right. Are you sure it was this
21 area that she was indicating to?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. How was she indicating that area
24 between the family room and the kitchen as being the
25 place of the struggle?

1 A. As she was telling me, she was walking
2 in this direction, and then she pointed right to that
3 area.
4 Q. All right. If you could, Officer,
5 please take the red pen again, just put an "X" at the
6 place where she says the struggle occurred, and just
7 label that as "struggle."
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. All right. Now, if we can, if we can
10 pick this up from the point where she is now giving the
11 description, she has told you what's happened, she's now
12 pointed out the place where this struggle occurred.
13 What's the next thing that you recall happening?
14 A. We both -- we walked back over to this
15 area here, and I could see that this child here was
16 laying on the floor on his stomach, on his left side of
17 his face and he was looking up at both of us making some
18 noises, like he was trying to breathe.

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
320 and 321

So, all this conversation is on tape right? Wrong. And what's more, his testimony indicates Darlie walked right into the kitchen and, no doubt, had to be pointing right to this area of a struggle where a vacuum cleaner was laying. Guess what...

6 Q. Okay. Let me see if I can find out
7 what you said.
8 You were asked if there were any --
9 you've seen the photographs since then, haven't you? In
10 your preparation, you've seen a vacuum cleaner on the
11 floor, haven't you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, were you asked were there any
14 large objects lying on the floor, and did you answer, "I
15 didn't see any --" talking about the kitchen?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you answer that?
18 A. That sounds right, yes.
19 Q. Okay. Nothing you could trip over if
20 you were walking to the sink and you said you didn't see
21 any; is that right?
22 A. Well, I didn't see anything.

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
405

Darlie is walking over there (through glass no less), pointing right at where the vacuum cleaner is and he didn't see it? Okay.



We don't know there was an absence of a fourth parties blood. We only know the items tested didn't have unidentified blood. There's tons of blood throughout that crime scene that wasn't tested.



Well, if you believe Darlie staged the crime scene then this is a list of all the staging you must believe she did...

Take off underwear and hide them...
Stab boys...
Get a sock and smear both boys' blood on it...
Grab a bread knife (but make sure to wash hands first so the boys' blood isn't on it because that would be bad)....
With sock in one hand and knife in the other, being careful not to get blood on the bread knife, open the gate and run 75 yards down the alley to plant the sock...
Return home and shut pesky gate...
Cut screen with bread knife from the outside...
Go back in house any other way than the cut screen...
Return the bread knife to the block...
Grab the butcher knife and cut her throat...
Stab her shoulder...
Stab her arm...
Stab arm again just for good measure...
Cut her face...
Beat the crap out of her arms and hands to leave bruises and abrasions...
Open up the cabinets under the sink but opt not to use any of the cleaners stored under there...
Clean off the knife...
Clean out the sink...
Clean off the faucets, all without using the sponge sitting right there...
Walk half way through the kitchen on the right side of the island...
Turn around and go back to smear blood on the light switch...
Return to the living room and fling blood on coffee table...
Plant a bloody fingerprint on the table...
Put on a pair of boots and walk behind the couch leaving bloody footprints...
Hide those boots...
Roll on the couch and blanket she was using...
Put the pillow on the couch and lay there so the blood has a pattern consistent with someone laying there as blood from a neck wound ran down either side and landed on the pillow...
Put the pillow on the floor...
Knock over the lamp...
Knock over the coffee table...
Push the vacuum cleaner around the kitchen a few times...
Lay the vacuum down in the kitchen once she's done...
Plant blood on the towel drawer she never got towels out of...
Run all over the downstairs depositing a bunch of towels she never got...
Stab Damon a second time when he gets to the entryway of the room...
Smear her blood on the wall where Damon is now laying...
Walk over to the area near the fireplace and leave a knife imprint on the carpet...
Clean off a bloody handprint on the couch...
Make sure she puts the knife on the kitchen floor so there is a knife imprint there as well should anyone look to find one...
Plant a bloody fingerprint on the door...
Put the knife on the counter...
Break a glass just to make it look good...
Pick up pieces of the glass and put them in the ice bucket on top of the wine rack...
Call 911...
Pretend like she cared in front of her husband...
Act completely unconcerned when emergency personnel arrive...

And in approximately two minutes no less.



Many crimes go unsolved because the perpetrator didn't leave any or not enough identifiable evidence behind. Say, for argument's sake, Darlie had died from her injuries and, let's just say Darin wasn't home that night, out of town on business, nowhere near the home so he's completely ruled out as a suspect.

So, the cops search and search all the evidence and find nothing that can point them to a suspect entering the home, aside from that screen cut from the outside and that pesky sock. What are you left with? An unsolved triple homicide. If the cops eventually decided, because they couldn't track down a suspect, Darlie killed the boys and then slit her throat to commit suicide, would you buy it? Hardly.

Take off underwear and put them in the dirty wash

Get bread knife, exit sliding glass door

cut screen

return sliding glass door

get sock and put over hand

get butcher knife

stab boys, Devon kicks out at the knife as evidence by the wound on the back of his upper thigh just below the bum.

don Darin's sneakers and leave by front door--avoiding the security lights in back and no messing with the hard to open gate.

lay sock on the ground in alley

return to house

wash knife

cut arm possibly laying arm on pillow to inflict cut, hesitates leaving a tiny mark and then starts again. Inflicts a vertical cut on forearm, not indicative of a defense wound

cut neck at kitchen sink, flinches, knife jumps and cuts her shoulder

rinse blood down the drain, yes using her hand--since no arteries were cut, no reason for blood to be flinging all over the place.

clean blood from fawcet and taps

open towel drawer and get dish cloth for her own neck

open cupboard where cleaners located but hears Damon move, shuts door and leaves kitchen
realize Damon has moved through where the side glass table is (his blood is on the underside of the arm of the loveseat onto the runner and knocked something off the sofa back table

leaves bloody foot prints leading away from the sink

stab Damon again over by wall (speculation but pretty good considering her blood is all over the bottom of the wall there.

right whatever was knocked down on the sofa back table leaving bloody print

goes over to Devon, lays knife on carpet, checks Devon to see if he's dead.

picks up knife and lays it on counter

cleans up some of her bloody footprints (found by Amido Black) but she's bleeding too much now so she leaves that.

grabs glass and breaks it

goes into utility room. leaving bloody print and blood run on door, bleeds a lot in there

rolls vacuum into the blood and lays it down over her bloody footprints

 

[Evianna13]

There is a cut screen. A bloody sock in the driveway. Darlie saw and fought with the killer. She was seriously injured and could have also died. No one can bruise themselves that badly. Both of her arms were so bruised they were completely black/purple. Do you have any idea of the blunt force trauma needed to cause these bruises? Darlie was convicted on circumstantial evidence. No one piece of evidence pointed to her. There are so many cases in the US of serial killers breaking into homes and murdering the occupants. Complete strangers who chose the victims at random. I believe that is what happened here. As for the blood splatter on Darlie's shirt...she was present when her boys were stabbed. Her shirt was splattered as the blood was being distributed. I never got why the Texas authorities thought the scene was staged. Every crime scene is different. No one can predict what a madman will do while committing a crime, especially if they are on drugs or alcohol or just mentally challenged. I believe a great injustice was delivered to Darlie. Every single blood splatter and item downstairs should have been tested. Who knows what was missed? Quite possibly evidence to exonerate her. It seems that the "silly string incident" convicted Darlie. Did the jury even see the complete memorial service? Darlie was a young mother suffering grief and did what she thought her young son would have wanted on his birthday. Was Darlie being sedated with medications due to her loss? Everyone grieves differently. In many cultures death is celebrated like nearby Mexico or New Orleans. It is ridiculous to even include this event! How could anyone on the jury come to the conclusion they did?? Did they see the pictures of her injuries sustained in a fight for her life?

 

[Madeleine74]

It helps to understand what direct evidence is vs circumstantial evidence. This is often misunderstood with sleuthers claiming, "it's just a circumstantial case."

Direct evidence is:

- confession by the perp or
- an eyewitness to the crime as it's committed or
- video of the crime being committed

Everything else including blood, hair, fibers, DNA, fingerprints, footprints, behaviors, etc is considered circumstantial evidence.

That's the legal definition. Both types of evidence (direct and circumstantial) are treated equally under the law.

Circumstantial evidence cases are vastly more common than direct evidence cases and they are often more powerful because there's usually more than 1 piece of evidence that when taken in totality with other evidence helps the picture emerge.

Darlie claimed there was an intruder, but there's no evidence that confirms an intruder. So far the various DNA testing hasn't helped her in proving her assertion, and her multiple and changing stories don't provide her credibility or believability.

As for the intense bruising along her arms, there is no proof of exactly when those bruises were created or how they were created or even if they were self-created. There is testimony that creates doubt as to those injuries being created on the day of the murders since Darlie was in the hospital for several days and none of the nurses or doctors saw bruises emerge.

 

[JezMyOpinion]

They don't explain the facts. They speculate and name call. DNA results from June 17 2015 prove her guilt again. No intruder at all. https://youcouldbewrong.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dr-06262015103716.pdf
Her request to have them sealed. Why? Because it just proves there is zero evidence of an intruder.
http://justice4ever.com/wp-content/uploads/Darlie-Court-Order-DNA-sealed_edited.jpg

 

[Madeleine74]

Yeah, the request to hide DNA results is curious, isn't it? Why would an 'innocent' person who claims DNA testing will exonerate her then try and hide those testing results? The facts are the facts and that's what people say they want, right?

 

[Red Viewfinder]

Darlie may very well be guilty, and there certainly is evidence that points to that. My issue with the certainty of her guilt, is the little things that just don't fit the crime.

From the beginning, the number 1 puzzle piece that has bothered me is her throat wound. Not the angle it came from, not the millimetre from her artery, but the tiny fact that her necklace was embedded in the wound. That is SO odd to me. It would not be easy to stab yourself in the throat, no matter how much adrenalin was coursing through you. Can you imagine leaving your necklace on and catching it with the blade and driving it into your neck? I can't see that. She would have taken it off. Anyone would.

If the evidence was consistent with a crime of passion, I would understand why she spared Drake. However, the evidence is neither consistent with a crime of passion, or premeditated murder. Neither scenario makes total sense. If she snapped and killed the two boys, then how did she have the presence of mind to cut the screen, plant the sock, stage the crime scene and clean the kitchen. Seriously?? If you have seen footage of Darlie, you can tell that she is no genius. That kind of a crime takes planning, a clear head, and the time to execute each step in the right order.
If it was pre-meditated, why didn't she find a way to kill the baby? Why didn't she wait for a night when Darin wasn't home? Why would she choose to disfigure herself when stab wounds to less visible parts of her body would have worked just as well.

Lastly, much has been made of her behaviour following that night. Darlie was a very young, inexperienced girl. Why wouldn't she get flustered and change her story? Can you imagine how horrifying that night must have been? Should she have recorded it frame by frame into a handheld tape recorder? The nurses commented that she didn't cry enough. About 3 days after my dog died, I had cried SO much that I went into "flat effect". I was drained. I had no emotion left, I was just numb. That was my dog, not 2 butchered children in my family room. No kidding she would shut down.
The silly string party can be blamed on being a hick with very few social graces. It was not classy, but Darlie and family are not classy people. They are trailer park people. All the jewelry and cabin cruisers and blonde hair dye in the world can't erase that fact.

Darlie may have done it. Was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so. I do think some "good old boys" found a quick way to close a very ugly case and likely make it home before supper.

The truth is, whether Darlie is in prison or not, executed or not, there is no justice for this case. Everyone involved has had their lives ruined, most of all Drake. What a nightmare.

Thanks for hearing out all my opinions!

 

[Zzzz]

Darlie may very well be guilty, and there certainly is evidence that points to that. My issue with the certainty of her guilt, is the little things that just don't fit the crime.

From the beginning, the number 1 puzzle piece that has bothered me is her throat wound. Not the angle it came from, not the millimetre from her artery, but the tiny fact that her necklace was embedded in the wound. That is SO odd to me. It would not be easy to stab yourself in the throat, no matter how much adrenalin was coursing through you. Can you imagine leaving your necklace on and catching it with the blade and driving it into your neck? I can't see that. She would have taken it off. Anyone would.

If the evidence was consistent with a crime of passion, I would understand why she spared Drake. However, the evidence is neither consistent with a crime of passion, or premeditated murder. Neither scenario makes total sense. If she snapped and killed the two boys, then how did she have the presence of mind to cut the screen, plant the sock, stage the crime scene and clean the kitchen. Seriously?? If you have seen footage of Darlie, you can tell that she is no genius. That kind of a crime takes planning, a clear head, and the time to execute each step in the right order.
If it was pre-meditated, why didn't she find a way to kill the baby? Why didn't she wait for a night when Darin wasn't home? Why would she choose to disfigure herself when stab wounds to less visible parts of her body would have worked just as well.

Lastly, much has been made of her behaviour following that night. Darlie was a very young, inexperienced girl. Why wouldn't she get flustered and change her story? Can you imagine how horrifying that night must have been? Should she have recorded it frame by frame into a handheld tape recorder? The nurses commented that she didn't cry enough. About 3 days after my dog died, I had cried SO much that I went into "flat effect". I was drained. I had no emotion left, I was just numb. That was my dog, not 2 butchered children in my family room. No kidding she would shut down.
The silly string party can be blamed on being a hick with very few social graces. It was not classy, but Darlie and family are not classy people. They are trailer park people. All the jewelry and cabin cruisers and blonde hair dye in the world can't erase that fact.

Darlie may have done it. Was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so. I do think some "good old boys" found a quick way to close a very ugly case and likely make it home before supper.

The truth is, whether Darlie is in prison or not, executed or not, there is no justice for this case. Everyone involved has had their lives ruined, most of all Drake. What a nightmare.

Thanks for hearing out all my opinions!

Red,

You've raised some thoughtful and reasoned questions. Thanks for your post. It's always refreshing to see an intelligent debate here. Your points are based on real trial evidence rather than rumors and motherhood conjecture.

The "embedded" necklace never was an issue for me. Darlie wore tons of jewelry, as evidenced by the giant stash of rings and bracelets left on the kitchen counter after she took them off to lie down on the sofa for the night. A thin gold chain around her neck would probably not be removed - many women (especially in Texas during that time period) wore thin gold chains all the time without ever taking them off (me included). The fact that it was "embedded" just meant it was stuck in the dried blood and yes, the knife probably hit it and sunk it partially into the wound. If you read the court testimony from the medical personnel, they talk about peeling the chain from the dried blood, and it seems very superficial to me.

Darlie had to realize that superficial wounds (like small slicing cuts to the arms and hands) would not be enough to justify the deep stab wounds to the boys. She had to do something fairly major for her intruder story to be believed. I think she took a wild stab at her throat/upper chest to make it look more real. She clearly avoided organs and breast implants. The boys were stabbed deeply in the torsos. She was not.

Baby Drake was spared because Darlie wasn't trying to kill all of her children. She was just trying to get rid of the bratty problems, the hassles, the expenses, the ones that tracked dirt into the house, the ones that mouthed back. And she was really mad at Darin (they fought that night - which is why she was sleeping on the sofa). And she was on diet pills that make people crazed. And she is a sociopath. Sociopaths are selfish and clever and don't act rationally or in a way we can understand.

Yes, her story changed a lot and one could expect that from a young girl on such a confused night. But her story changed over several weeks (to match the evidence) every time new evidence was revealed. When she saw that the sink and pea trap were removed, her story changed to include wetting bloody towels to cover the boys' wounds. When Damon's blood was revealed on the back of her night shirt, her story changed that Damon followed her into the kitchen and touched her and called to her (even though he was so wounded he couldn't possibly walk or talk), etc.

The silly string video can certainly be attributed to her being a hick, no doubt. But that is not what convicted her. What convicted her is the preponderance of blood evidence that pointed to nobody but her. There was blood all over the carpet around the boys. Subsequently, her bloody footprints were all over the kitchen. Yet, there were no bloody footprints, anywhere, of any intruder. How did he walk though all that and leave no footprints?

Look at the transcript of the 911 call, in which she angrily and defensively explains to Darin what happened after he came downstairs and discovered the carnage. It speaks volumes.

And finally, I can't understand why people think law enforcement "good old boys", all the medical personnel who testified, neighbors who testified, child protective agencies, the judicial system, the various appellate systems that dragged on for years, and so forth, all want to conspire together to convict an innocent person so they can be done with it. That makes zero sense.

 

[ladygator]

If the necklace was something she always wore, then she wouldn't think twice about leaving it on, that night.

She could have very easily forgotten about it till it got in the way of her slicing her neck. A quick, 'opps', and move it aside and she cuts herself. After she's cut and she's bleeding more heavily than she expected, she grabs a towel to stop the bleeding. I think this is when the necklace got 'embedded' into her slice. She was in pain, her adrenaline was going, mass chaos ensued, and she held that towel tightly against the wound and as she did so, helped the blood to dry up around the necklace.

 

[lucchesicourt]

How about the BLOODY print found at the scene that does NOT match ANYONE, EMT, Fire, Police, Coroner and his investigators, and any of the Routiers. Though, it does not have enough points to say who the print actually belongs there are enough points, so all these people can be ruled out as a contributor of this print. So, on top of all the evidence presented by so called experts, who actually could easily be WRONG (as they have been at other trials).

To me, I do not necessarily believe she is innocent, but I can say she is easily not guilty by a preponderance of the EVIDENCE. She was found guilty based on silly string, so called expert opinion, incorrect forensic evidence ( screen material or fingerprint dust, screen cut from inside or outside, Improper evidence collection, items moved, time frame does not meet the evidence as presented by the prosecution, Darlie said to be very vain and yet scarred herself for life, court rehearsal with witnesses present, nurses said one thing and then said another at trial, failure of police officer to take notes- he remembered everything, officers taking the 5th, trial rehearsal by the prosecution to use the word superficial out of context that the average juror would understand, the time frame of all the so called circumstantial evidence present that assumes darlie did the staging does not seem probable, the fact that Linch said he assumed it was an inside job within 15 minutes of being at the scene is not an open mind- he from the beginning had excluded the intruder within 15 minutes without any further investigation of this possibility. Is any of this enough to question the innocence or guilt of anyone?

Even the federal judge said the case as presented by the prosecution is the MOST convoluted theory to EVER come before his court. Even he believes the case presented by the prosecution is ridiculous. He is not saying she is innocent, only that the case presented by the prosecution is quite questionable. I happen to agree with him.

 

[blefuscu]

How about the BLOODY print found at the scene that does NOT match ANYONE, EMT, Fire, Police, Coroner and his investigators, and any of the Routiers. Though, it does not have enough points to say who the print actually belongs there are enough points, so all these people can be ruled out as a contributor of this print. So, on top of all the evidence presented by so called experts, who actually could easily be WRONG (as they have been at other trials).

To me, I do not necessarily believe she is innocent, but I can say she is easily not guilty by a preponderance of the EVIDENCE. She was found guilty based on silly string, so called expert opinion, incorrect forensic evidence ( screen material or fingerprint dust, screen cut from inside or outside, Improper evidence collection, items moved, time frame does not meet the evidence as presented by the prosecution, Darlie said to be very vain and yet scarred herself for life, court rehearsal with witnesses present, nurses said one thing and then said another at trial, failure of police officer to take notes- he remembered everything, officers taking the 5th, trial rehearsal by the prosecution to use the word superficial out of context that the average juror would understand, the time frame of all the so called circumstantial evidence present that assumes darlie did the staging does not seem probable, the fact that Linch said he assumed it was an inside job within 15 minutes of being at the scene is not an open mind- he from the beginning had excluded the intruder within 15 minutes without any further investigation of this possibility. Is any of this enough to question the innocence or guilt of anyone?

Even the federal judge said the case as presented by the prosecution is the MOST convoluted theory to EVER come before his court. Even he believes the case presented by the prosecution is ridiculous. He is not saying she is innocent, only that the case presented by the prosecution is quite questionable. I happen to agree with him.

The smudged fingerprint has been analysed. What the scientists found was the fingerprint contained NO male DNA. Secondly they found that they COULDN'T rule out the fingerprint being Darlie's. There are not enough comparison points available to rule her out. Therefore the smudged fingerprint does absolutely nothing to disprove Darlie being the murderer but it brings further into doubt her story of there being an intruder.

 

[cami]

Darlie may very well be guilty, and there certainly is evidence that points to that. My issue with the certainty of her guilt, is the little things that just don't fit the crime.

From the beginning, the number 1 puzzle piece that has bothered me is her throat wound. Not the angle it came from, not the millimetre from her artery, but the tiny fact that her necklace was embedded in the wound. That is SO odd to me. It would not be easy to stab yourself in the throat, no matter how much adrenalin was coursing through you. Can you imagine leaving your necklace on and catching it with the blade and driving it into your neck? I can't see that. She would have taken it off. Anyone would.

If the evidence was consistent with a crime of passion, I would understand why she spared Drake. However, the evidence is neither consistent with a crime of passion, or premeditated murder. Neither scenario makes total sense. If she snapped and killed the two boys, then how did she have the presence of mind to cut the screen, plant the sock, stage the crime scene and clean the kitchen. Seriously?? If you have seen footage of Darlie, you can tell that she is no genius. That kind of a crime takes planning, a clear head, and the time to execute each step in the right order.
If it was pre-meditated, why didn't she find a way to kill the baby? Why didn't she wait for a night when Darin wasn't home? Why would she choose to disfigure herself when stab wounds to less visible parts of her body would have worked just as well.

Lastly, much has been made of her behaviour following that night. Darlie was a very young, inexperienced girl. Why wouldn't she get flustered and change her story? Can you imagine how horrifying that night must have been? Should she have recorded it frame by frame into a handheld tape recorder? The nurses commented that she didn't cry enough. About 3 days after my dog died, I had cried SO much that I went into "flat effect". I was drained. I had no emotion left, I was just numb. That was my dog, not 2 butchered children in my family room. No kidding she would shut down.
The silly string party can be blamed on being a hick with very few social graces. It was not classy, but Darlie and family are not classy people. They are trailer park people. All the jewelry and cabin cruisers and blonde hair dye in the world can't erase that fact.

Darlie may have done it. Was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't think so. I do think some "good old boys" found a quick way to close a very ugly case and likely make it home before supper.

The truth is, whether Darlie is in prison or not, executed or not, there is no justice for this case. Everyone involved has had their lives ruined, most of all Drake. What a nightmare.

Thanks for hearing out all my opinions!

Her necklace was never embedded in her wound. It fell off in the Emergency Room when the nurse removed the bandage the paramedics had put on her neck. It was stuck to her neck with blood.

Darlie did do it. The blood evidence is convincing enough. No evidence of an intruder. The DNA points to her and only her as the murderer. The latest DNA tests were Y-STR testing, in particular looking for the male gene....none was found, only Darlie, Darin, Devon and Damon. For years now she has claimed that bloody print on the sofa back table belongs to the male intruder but the DNA tests refute that claim.

 

[cami]

How about the BLOODY print found at the scene that does NOT match ANYONE, EMT, Fire, Police, Coroner and his investigators, and any of the Routiers. Though, it does not have enough points to say who the print actually belongs there are enough points, so all these people can be ruled out as a contributor of this print. So, on top of all the evidence presented by so called experts, who actually could easily be WRONG (as they have been at other trials).

To me, I do not necessarily believe she is innocent, but I can say she is easily not guilty by a preponderance of the EVIDENCE. She was found guilty based on silly string, so called expert opinion, incorrect forensic evidence ( screen material or fingerprint dust, screen cut from inside or outside, Improper evidence collection, items moved, time frame does not meet the evidence as presented by the prosecution, Darlie said to be very vain and yet scarred herself for life, court rehearsal with witnesses present, nurses said one thing and then said another at trial, failure of police officer to take notes- he remembered everything, officers taking the 5th, trial rehearsal by the prosecution to use the word superficial out of context that the average juror would understand, the time frame of all the so called circumstantial evidence present that assumes darlie did the staging does not seem probable, the fact that Linch said he assumed it was an inside job within 15 minutes of being at the scene is not an open mind- he from the beginning had excluded the intruder within 15 minutes without any further investigation of this possibility. Is any of this enough to question the innocence or guilt of anyone?

Even the federal judge said the case as presented by the prosecution is the MOST convoluted theory to EVER come before his court. Even he believes the case presented by the prosecution is ridiculous. He is not saying she is innocent, only that the case presented by the prosecution is quite questionable. I happen to agree with him.

Linch did not say it was an inside job within 15 minutes of arriving there. You mean Cron and he didn't say that either. What he said was after his initial walk through of 30 minutes that he didn't think there was an intruder. He spent over 9 hours at the crime scene analyzing everything. He's a veteran, experienced CS analyst doing his job. In fact, Patterson was looking at Darin for this crime, not Darlie. He became suspicious of Darlie when her whole story changed to fit the evidence and when the DNA started coming back. Her story does not match the evidence found. You can't get past this unless you are going to claim everyone at the crime scene, hospital, DNA lab, neighbours etc. all conspired to get Darlie convicted.

Darlie has not been ruled out as the leaver of this print. Pat Weirtham the state expert concluded her right ring finger matches the print. Bob Lohnes the tv detective ruled her out but refuses to give his reasons or what method he used to exclude her, he has not addressed what every other fingerprint person has--the smallness of the ridges. Anyway, the latest DNA tests refute that bloody print belongs to any male intruder.

And frankly I'm appalled Judge Ferguson made such a public statement. He of all people knows the state has no burden to prove a motive in any case.

 

[cami]

Yeah, the request to hide DNA results is curious, isn't it? Why would an 'innocent' person who claims DNA testing will exonerate her then try and hide those testing results? The facts are the facts and that's what people say they want, right?

Because they want your money and don't want us non supporters to be spreading the results all over the internet. They are still fund raising using the lies that DNA will clear her. Just as they claimed for how many years now that patent print on the glass table was left by the male intruder......ooops no it isn't and the DNA has proved it.

 

[Madeleine74]

Cami I sure wish I could get you interested in the Stephen Avery case ("Making a Murderer"). Quite the huge debate on WS and your opinions would be gold.

 

[kdj997]

I have been reading on these threads a lot the past few days and I want to to ask the Darlie supporters their take on what I think are the most telling pieces of evidence. In the spirit of transparency, I do believe Darlie is guilty and I think the evidence shows she is. However, I respect everyone's viewpoint and I am not disparaging or putting down anyone who believes otherwise. I am hoping someone who believes she is innocent will help me understand their thoughts.

What do Darlie supporters say to the following:

1. the blood/cleanup at the sink

2. the cast off blood on the back of Darlie's shirt

3. the changing of her story so many times

4. the absence of blood of a third (fourth?) party

5. the seemingly staged nature of the crime scene

6. besides the cut screen and the sock in the alley, no evidence of an intruder gaining entry or making an exit

Again, I ask these questions with respect and hope everyone will be respectful when answering and reading the thread. I am not here to try to change anyone's mind. I have found recently that a few posters who I think are very smart and I highly respect believe that Darlie is innocent and I really want to understand where they are coming from. We are all friends here!

It's hard to say I'm friends with anyone who think that woman is innocent. I deal with logic and no logical evidence points to ger being innocent. Now the reason most people turned on her isn't the reason I know she's guilty. I'm in the Dallas area and old enough to remember original press coverage even before she was arrested. The memorial service planted guilt in ignorant folks minds however I always thought that was unfair. Dumb bumpkins processed that in their pea brains like she was celebrating the deaths however I took it as a sign of grief and coping. The evidence is why I came to the conclussion she was a cold blooded murderer.

 

[cami]

Cami I sure wish I could get you interested in the Stephen Avery case ("Making a Murderer"). Quite the huge debate on WS and your opinions would be gold.

I believe Avery is guilty as sin Madeline. I haven't made my through the transcripts as yet but I'm getting there. Very damning information in them. Even more in the case file! Thanks for the invite though, I am going to start reading there to get up to speed.

 

[cami]

It's hard to say I'm friends with anyone who think that woman is innocent. I deal with logic and no logical evidence points to ger being innocent. Now the reason most people turned on her isn't the reason I know she's guilty. I'm in the Dallas area and old enough to remember original press coverage even before she was arrested. The memorial service planted guilt in ignorant folks minds however I always thought that was unfair. Dumb bumpkins processed that in their pea brains like she was celebrating the deaths however I took it as a sign of grief and coping. The evidence is why I came to the conclussion she was a cold blooded murderer.

I took it as Darlie playing to the TV cameras in her histrionic way. Only Darin shows grief to me at that taping.

 

[Red Viewfinder]

Usually I am very black and white with my thinking, but there is something about this case that keeps me coming back again and again, wondering...
There are so many parts that are just bizarre. For example, if Darin was an innocent party, and grief stricken at the memorial service, why were there accounts of he and Darlie playing football in their front yard with the memory bears people had left? In what universe does that make sense?
Also, if he was guilty, why has she never rolled on him, and vice versa. No visits in 10 years would make anyone bitter enough to throw a spouse under the bus.
I just can't make sense of it all. There is always a piece that I can't make fit into the puzzle.

 

[Madeleine74]

Darin had to have known or figured out at some point early on that his own wife murdered their boys. Why he didn't turn on her, who knows. Maybe his guilt at being one of the causes of Darlie's rage kept him quiet and supportive. Or, maybe he went into complete denial. In the end, all one can do is follow the evidence instead of getting hung up on things that have no answer.

 

[ladygator]

Usually I am very black and white with my thinking, but there is something about this case that keeps me coming back again and again, wondering...
There are so many parts that are just bizarre. For example, if Darin was an innocent party, and grief stricken at the memorial service, why were there accounts of he and Darlie playing football in their front yard with the memory bears people had left? In what universe does that make sense?
Also, if he was guilty, why has she never rolled on him, and vice versa. No visits in 10 years would make anyone bitter enough to throw a spouse under the bus.
I just can't make sense of it all. There is always a piece that I can't make fit into the puzzle.

There were a few odd things that Darin said and did. Mentioning her big breasts to paramedics, talking about how this is the biggest thing Rowlett has seen, and the teddy bear NFL moment. I did think he looked very uncomfortable at the memorial service when Darlie was shooting silly string on the boys graves.

IMO, no matter what you make of him and his actions, there was, and is, no evidence that he had anything to do with stabbing his children. All that evidence is in Darlie's direction.

If she tried to roll on him, either justly or not, it doesn't make her any less culpable in stabbing those boys. She was right there in the thick of things and the evidence shows that.

Personally, I've always thought Darin was just an odd ball.