Luminol Evidence

[beesy]

You are losing me again. Who is challenging your opinion or even suggesting that your quotes are or are not your opinion? Let's just stick to the issues of the case, and not get off on these sidelines.

Besides, I wasn't even responding to your post. I was responding to Dani's suggestion that I might know the answer regarding the latent you were discussing and I explained why I probably don't.

I felt you were thinking that I supported Cron's findings because you said "just because the court says he's right doesn't mean he is" or something along those lines. So that's an opinion and my post was about the report, not my thoughts. I know you were answering Dani, but Dani's post was to me therefore you were responding to my original post. I can tell we're gearing up to have another big fight and I don't want that. You're ill and I'm ill and neither one of us should be getting upset. If my posts sound pissy to you, I don't mean for them to. I just wanted ya'll to read the portion of the report that I posted so we were all the same page and I felt like you hadn't.

 

[beesy]

[/color]

Thought I was responding to your post to me. Think you said as much to me, too.

[/color]

Judge Francis is a state court judge. He isn't God. His ruling is just another opinion. I was talking about what JANTZ wrote in JANTZ's report. Not what the judge ruled.




And Francis is qualified to make that determination? It might be the good judge's opinion, but that hardly makes him right. Jantz is a well respected anthropologist. I don't mind the judge not wanting to accept the opinion to grant a new trial and he can certainly word his reasons anyway he wants to, but I don't agree that Jantz's technique was invalid. I think he did more to hurt Darlie than help. The defense can spin that report anyway they want and so can the state, but bottomline I thought Jantz was pretty darned honest in his approach and conclusions. Esp since he was not hired to ID the donor of the print but to only determine the age of the donor as adult verses child.



You are preaching to the choir.


As I said before Judge Francis' opinion is no more "right" as you say than anyone else's, esp since there is a whole federal court system that can overrule him whenever they see fit. Cron was wrong about the fingerprint belonging to one of the kids. They were exhumed and fingerprinted and ruled out as I recall. I still remember the outrage at Darlie for allowing that. It was Jantz who said that Devon also had the whorl pattern (not Damon) but other blood evidence shows that he never moved from the spot where he was killed, so it is not possible that it is his print. I would have to read the Jantz report again to refresh my memory on what he said about the small framed male/female as a possible source, but I do remember distinctly him pointing out that Darlie had the whorl pattern on her ring finger. Although he didn't come right out and say he could or couldn't rule her out, it is obvious that he wanted all his findings known. He was not hired to identify the donor of the print so I was impressed that he made sure his findings would not be misused.

I know that's his opinion. I posted what the report said, not who was right or wrong. I posted what Judge Francis decided, that's all I did. I was not referring to Jantz's report, but Francis' report. Cron and Wertheim said Jantz's methods were invalid, the judge just agreed with them. I never said that I think Cron is right. I posted what the court decided. I said as far as the law goes, Francis' findings stand until someone else either throws them out or agrees with him. If Darlie did not file anymore appeals(yeah right) after his decision then legally his would be the final word on her guilt or innocence.

 

[beesy]

Officer Wyman? I don't remember hearing his name before. Did I miss something else?
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorio.../routier/6.html

 

[BrenTex]

There were over 900 photos at the trial. Don't now if there were all submitted into evidence or not, but they definitely are not all in MTJD.

Goody, one thing that I remember from the trial was that the defense was angry when they found out that the FBI agent had been given a much larger number of crime scene photos than they had been given. So apparantly there were some photos that were kept from the defense either on purpose or not. This is in the trial transcripts. A sidebar I believe.

 

[BrenTex]

Darlile has tried to explain the washed away blood on the kitchen counter and in the sink as her preparing chicken for supper that night. So even they don't dispute that some cleaned up blood was found. They just don't want people to know how MUCH there was.
As for the bloody hand print and "butt print" of Damon's on the sofa, Luminol destroys visible blood. LE did not realize it was there because it was under a blanket or pillow, and the room was dark. So when they sprayed the Luminol, the prints were only visible for a short time, then they dripped away.

Even with my limited memory anymore, I am 100% totally positive that Darlie never said any such thing about any chicken blood explaining any washed away blood on the kitchen counter and in the sink. Just did not happen. She's been accused of telling many stories but I can promise you that this is not one she told.
And I am so surprised at the people who are here and are supposed to know a lot about this case and they never said a single word about this. This is not a good thing when a newbie to the case is requesting factual information. That is when the person with the facts should respond and give real truthful information.
And as to the luminol story about the handprint all there is, I believe, is a true crime author's story. There was no trial testimony about this at all. Not a good source for factual information. Better to look at the trial transcripts which are more readily available to everyone than the true crime books, if a little longer and harder to read.

 

[AutumnBorn]

Household bleach, found in nearly all kitchen cleansers for it's disinfecting qualities, reacts with luminol. How many here use commercial cleansers to clean?

 

[beesy]

[

QUOTE=BrenTex]Even with my limited memory anymore, I am 100% totally positive that Darlie never said any such thing about any chicken blood explaining any washed away blood on the kitchen counter and in the sink. Just did not happen. She's been accused of telling many stories but I can promise you that this is not one she told.
And I am so surprised at the people who are here and are supposed to know a lot about this case and they never said a single word about this. This is not a good thing when a newbie to the case is requesting factual information. That is when the person with the facts should respond and give real truthful information

.
Her followers have said it many times. So many times that most of us assumed it was true. I haven't watched the Leeza shows in several months, but I think her people mention it there. Of course, Darin also agrees with Leeza that the knife went all the through Devon and nicked the floor which is not true. Mary recently told us that although they say she cut up a chicken and made soup, it is untrue. Smoke and mirrors.

And as to the luminol story about the handprint all there is, I believe, is a true crime author's story. There was no trial testimony about this at all. Not a good source for factual information. Better to look at the trial transcripts which are more readily available to everyone than the true crime books, if a little longer and harder to read

I'm well aware of the transcripts and that they are available to read. I've read a goodly sum of them, have you? Before I decide if the Luminol story is not in the transcripts, I'll look myself. I am not just using Springer's book. If you'll look at my posts on here alone, I've said it's better to get information from the trancripts. And it's not Springer's story, it's LE's story. Darlie is a convicted baby killer. Her word means nothing. Darlie has Damon at the couch in all of her many stories, so it's believable that the handprint and the smears were there. I also said that. It is fine to share information as long as you site the source or say IMO. They can look it up and decide for themselves.
I have a funny feeling about who you are....

 

[beesy]

Household bleach, found in nearly all kitchen cleansers for it's disinfecting qualities, reacts with luminol. How many here use commercial cleansers to clean?

I don't and I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Just taking a survey?

 

[BrenTex]

[ .
Her followers have said it many times. So many times that most of us assumed it was true. I haven't watched the Leeza shows in several months, but I think her people mention it there. Of course, Darin also agrees with Leeza that the knife went all the through Devon and nicked the floor which is not true. Mary recently told us that although they say she cut up a chicken and made soup, it is untrue. Smoke and mirrors.

You are wrong about her "followers" having said it many times. I don't know where you get your information but it's very faulty and I, at least, think you should check it out better before saying it on here. And it wasn't her "followers" you were saying said it. You said Darlie said it and her followers said it, both of which are wrong.
Darlie's family had homemade chicken soup for dinner that night. But never ever did Darlie ever claim that any chicken blood was what was found in the sink. She never said one word about cutting up chickens or discussed her recipe for chicken soup at all. Just said they had chicken soup and she made a pan of biscuits. No details about how she made the biscuits either.

That story is totally wrong and should not be told on here like it was the truth. I don't think the words CHICKEN BLOOD ever crossed her lips. That is all I am saying. Could it be at all possible that this is the kind of thing that has gotten her the reputation of having told so many "different" stories??? Since it's NOT the truth. And since there ARE people who KNOW it's not the truth but let it go? Do you think that's right? I'm not speaking of Mary, if she said that Darlie did not have chicken soup for dinner then she is the one also who is wrong.

I'm well aware of the transcripts and that they are available to read. I've read a goodly sum of them, have you?

Yes, I have. I've read them all.

Before I decide if the Luminol story is not in the transcripts, I'll look myself. I am not just using Springer's book.


Then would you mind telling me what you were using? Hush Little Babies?

If you'll look at my posts on here alone, I've said it's better to get information from the trancripts. And it's not Springer's story, it's LE's story.

Law Enforcement testified about their use of luminol and the results. If you will read about it in the trial transcript you will see that there is nothing about a handprint and butt print that disappeared.

Darlie is a convicted baby killer. Her word means nothing.

Why are you telling me this? To imply that it's okay to make up all the stories you want as to what she said and what happened at the crime scene, none of which you can document?


Darlie has Damon at the couch in all of her many stories, so it's believable that the handprint and the smears were there.

And, since you think this makes it believable, you just jump right into believing and then to spreading it on the internet?

I also said that. It is fine to share information as long as you site the source or say IMO.

Saying IMO is not "sharing information". It's throwing out opinions. Sharing information is telling people with questions the truthful answers and being able to back it up with trial testimony, crime scene evidence or something other than your opinion.

They can look it up and decide for themselves.

My whole point in even writing about this is that they are not going to do that when someone throws something like the chicken blood story out there with the assurance you did. They're just going to believe it because you expressed no doubt whatsoever.

I have a funny feeling about who you are....

Maybe it's just indigestion.:chicken:

 

[BrenTex]

[ .
Of course, Darin also agrees with Leeza that the knife went all the through Devon and nicked the floor which is not true.

You do know that this story of the knife going through Devon, the carpet and the carpet padding to nick the concrete slab was origionally told by a policeman aren't you?

That's where the true crime author got the story.

Bet that's where Darin origionally got the story too. He knows different now.

This story was also included in the affidavit for the Judge to issue the arrest warrant for Darlie. Did you know that? And in this same document he assured the Judge that he had read the autopsy reports. But it's very strange because the autopsy results said that no knife blade exited the little boy's back. And yet in another sentence this same person told the same story about nicking the concrete.

Puzzling.

But again, NOT TRUE. True Crime authors don't always tell the truth. Sometimes they just write down what people tell them and claim it to be the truth. Much like any other media type.

BTW, this is the same way the story got born about Devon's heels being "bruised" from kicking his killer. Darlie presumably, although she did not have the corresponding bruiises. The true crime author heard it from either a paramedic or a policeman who was at the crime scene and didn't know about lividity. I can't remember which one told her that.

 

[BrenTex]

Household bleach, found in nearly all kitchen cleansers for it's disinfecting qualities, reacts with luminol. How many here use commercial cleansers to clean?

I do and I didn't know about this until I saw it on a CSI program. Somebody carried a bloody body in a bag and cleaned it with something with bleach in it and the whole thing showed the presence of luminol and made the test useless. I don't think they should have showed that on tv though, as interesting as it might be. No point educating the criminals I always say.

 

[Goody]

Goody, one thing that I remember from the trial was that the defense was angry when they found out that the FBI agent had been given a much larger number of crime scene photos than they had been given. So apparantly there were some photos that were kept from the defense either on purpose or not. This is in the trial transcripts. A sidebar I believe.

Yes. I remember. They were sent to the wrong office because of the change in attys, I think. But the judge did give rhe defense time to look thru them.

 

[beesy]

You do know that this story of the knife going through Devon, the carpet and the carpet padding to nick the concrete slab was origionally told by a policeman aren't you?
That's where the true crime author got the story.

Bet that's where Darin origionally got the story too. He knows different now.

Yes, I know that. Where else would Darin have even heard it? There was a nick there and it did appear to be from the stabbing. It is obvious from the photos of Devon and the autopsy report that the knife did not go all way through his back. The Leeza show was taped after she was convicted. Darin agreed with Leeza then. That's the first thing she says...."the stabbing was so hard it went though to the floor, right?" paraphrased..Darin said "yes" How long did it take Darin to find out that it wasn't true? Years? I got the story straight from the horse's mouth.

This story was also included in the affidavit for the Judge to issue the arrest warrant for Darlie. Did you know that? And in this same document he assured the Judge that he had read the autopsy reports. But it's very strange because the autopsy results said that no knife blade exited the little boy's back. And yet in another sentence this same person told the same story about nicking the concrete.

Do you have a link for this? I usually provide links and it's very helpful. The arrest warrant also mentioned that a bleached blond hair was found in the screen before the tests results on it came back. So he rushed the warrant, big deal. All of this was covered in the trial. The arrest warrant did not convict her.

But again, NOT TRUE. True Crime authors don't always tell the truth. Sometimes they just write down what people tell them and claim it to be the truth. Much like any other media type

Yes, they do. I take it all with a grain of salt. Even A&E and Court TV programs misstate the facts. On one Discovery docu, they actually said that Darlie and her 2 sons were rushed to the hospital. The books and programs are good to read for a start, to get your bearings, but that's all.

BTW, this is the same way the story got born about Devon's heels being "bruised" from kicking his killer. Darlie presumably, although she did not have the corresponding bruiises. The true crime author heard it from either a paramedic or a policeman who was at the crime scene and didn't know about lividity. I can't remember which one told her that

Yes, I heard that several years ago when I first started reading about this case. And watch the clip of the Leeza show, again Darlie's family agrees that they are bruises. Again, horse's mouth. I know they aren't. Why didn't her family? In fact there was quite a hoopla about it because a jury member was there and they agrued. You should watch the shows. I have known for over a year that there were no bruises on Devon's feet. The autopsy report doesn't even say there was lividity on the bottoms of his feet.
Until really the past year, I wasn't interested enough in the case to do anything more than read the books and watch the docus. I just read them because I like to read. All 4 books came out in '99 and I snatched them right up. When I started posting in June of '05 is when I began reading the transcripts. etc. The Leeza show clips are great because her family is right there on stage. I enjoy watching them and then researching what they said.

 

[beesy]

I do and I didn't know about this until I saw it on a CSI program. Somebody carried a bloody b ody in a bag and cleaned it with something with bleach in it and the whole thing showed the presence of luminol and made the test useless. I don't think they should have showed that on tv though, as interesting as it might be. No point educating the criminals I always say.

Oh that's what she was saying. You learned that from a CSI program? Doesn't that involve entertainment media of some sort?
I read a book eons ago about a man accused of killing his family. Luminol glowed in the shower as if someone had washed off. Further testing showed that it was soap or shampoo. Bleach is not the only thing which reacts. As I said, soaps and detergents do as well. But, they glow a different shade of green, old blood glows differently also. Here is the link to Linch's testimony from my previos post. In it he describes the different shades:


18 Q. All right. And when you looked at the
19 kitchen sink, what was its appearance?
20 A. It was unusual. It -- the sink
21 portion had been cleaned of blood, and the blood stains
22 on the front of the cabinet, were such that when that
23 blood was being shed, it would also need to be shed into
24 the sinks, which were now clean. So, it was my opinion
25 that the sinks had probably been cleaned of blood.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2797
1 Q. All right. Did you do any testing,
2 presumptive testing to determine if there was actually
3 blood in the sink or around the sink?
4 A. Miss Long did.
5 Q. All right. And what were the results?
6 A. The faucets were -- showed no blood
7 present, but with our chemicals we got a reaction.
8 Q. All right.
9 A. The -- there were some stains that
10 appeared to be watered down, that had run into the

11 stainless steel areas, that were positive for blood.
12 Kathryn took samples of those. The
13 water faucet, where the water actually comes out, that
14 appeared clean and stainless steel, but that was also
15 reactive for the presence of blood.
16 Q. All right. Now, when you get a
17 reaction for blood, does it range -- is there a certain

18 range of reaction? I mean, does all blood react equally,
19 or do you have a variance there?
20 A. Well, with time you appreciate a
21 difference. With the chemicals we use, if blood is
22 present, or the presumptive presence of blood, it will
23 pop up a green color, kind of a blue-green.
24 If the blood is fresh, it will react
25 very quickly and a very bright blue-green. If the blood
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2798

1 is old, you will get kind of a dull, light-green color to
2 the reaction.
3 And some of the false/positive
4 materials will give the dull, slower, green reaction.
5 Q. What kind of reaction did you get for
6 the samples actually inside the bowl of the sink?
7 A. Those were quickly and darkly
8 reactive.
9 Q. All right. Did you sample anything
10 from the faucet area that appeared to be clean?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. What kind of reaction did you get up
13 there?
14 A. That was quickly and darkly reactive.
15 Q. Which told you what?
16 A. That there was recent contact with
17 that faucet with blood
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...es/vol-37.php#1

 

[beesy]

You are wrong about her "followers" having said it many times. I don't know where you get your information but it's very faulty and I, at least, think you should check it out better before saying it on here. And it wasn't her "followers" you were saying said it. You said Darlie said it and her followers said it, both of which are wrong.
Darlie's family had homemade chicken soup for dinner that night. But never ever did Darlie ever claim that any chicken blood was what was found in the sink. She never said one word about cutting up chickens or discussed her recipe for chicken soup at all. Just said they had chicken soup and she made a pan of biscuits. No details about how she made the biscuits either

.
I have already said I know that is a rumor, several times. The fact that they had homemade chicken soup for dinner is also a rumor. It's not in the transcripts. And as you say, don't put rumors forth as facts

Then would you mind telling me what you were using? Hush Little Babies?

Of course I don't mind. I said it was Springer's book. I assumed you'd know which book she wrote. How much of this thread did you read? I posted this is my post #11:

Here is writer Patricia Springer's account of the hand print on the sofa:
Quote:
Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying its arm and down the front. In moments, Nabors gasped..............as a single, small hand print appeared on the sofa arm. As the remainder of the Luminol developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch.
"Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his butt print right there. He may have gotten up......but he slid back down the front of the sofa......"
Because of the slick surface of the sofa and the liquid properties of the Luminol............the officers watched as the tiny hand print faded into nonexistence.



</FONT></I></B>Patricia Springer, Flesh and Blood, page 104

To imply that it's okay to make up all the stories you want as to what she said and what happened at the crime scene, none of which you can document

I didn't make it up. I quoted it from a book, which I sited. That is documenting it, whether it's true or not, I documented it..

And, since you think this makes it believable, you just jump right into believing and then to spreading it on the internet?

I didn't write the book, I quoted it. More people have read Springer's book than my post, which means the story has been available to the public since '99

Saying IMO is not "sharing information". It's throwing out opinions. Sharing information is telling people with questions the truthful answers and being able to back it up with trial testimony, crime scene evidence or something other than your opinion.

Right, that's what IMO means. I provided the link to Linch's testimony, I researched Luminol and posted a link to an article. I posted Francis' decision re: the fingerprints just on this thread. You will have to speak to Jeana or Tricia if you do not want people to post their opinions about any of this.

Law Enforcement testified about their use of luminol and the results. If you will read about it in the trial transcript you will see that there is nothing about a handprint and butt print that disappeared

Yes, I posted a link to Linch's testimony in my post #10

 

[BrenTex]

.
I have already said I know that is a rumor, several times. The fact that they had homemade chicken soup for dinner is also a rumor. It's not in the transcripts. And as you say, don't put rumors forth as facts

Of course I don't mind. I said it was Springer's book. I assumed you'd know which book she wrote. How much of this thread did you read? I posted this is my post #11:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I read it all. And you never said it was a rumor. Why are you trying to say you said it was rumor now? Here is exactly what you said....
"
Darlile has tried to explain the washed away blood on the kitchen counter and in the sink as her preparing chicken for supper that night. So even they don't dispute that some cleaned up blood was found. They just don't want people to know how MUCH there was

Beesy, that is just not saying it was a rumor. Now is it?

 

[BrenTex]

.
I have already said I know that is a rumor, several times. The fact that they had homemade chicken soup for dinner is also a rumor. It's not in the transcripts. And as you say, don't put rumors forth as facts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I couldn't agree with you more about putting rumors forth as facts. However something does not have to be in the trial transcript to qualify as an official document.
I think it's fine to talk about rumors among people privately, just not to put them forth as fact in a public forum where new people come for truthful information. That's really been my whole point.

 

[BrenTex]

.


Of course I don't mind. I said it was Springer's book. I assumed you'd know which book she wrote. How much of this thread did you read? I posted this is my post #11:

Here is writer Patricia Springer's account of the hand print on the sofa:
Quote:
Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying its arm and down the front. In moments, Nabors gasped..............as a single, small hand print appeared on the sofa arm. As the remainder of the Luminol developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch.
"Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his butt print right there. He may have gotten up......but he slid back down the front of the sofa......"
Because of the slick surface of the sofa and the liquid properties of the Luminol............the officers watched as the tiny hand print faded into nonexistence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is what you said that I was responding to.....
Your words in green
I'm well aware of the transcripts and that they are available to read. I've read a goodly sum of them, have you? Before I decide if the Luminol story is not in the transcripts, I'll look myself. I am not just using Springer's book.

You said you were not just using Springer's book. And I already know you were not using the trial transcripts and all I did was ask you what else you were using and threw out the name of another book you may have read. But you still havn't answered the question and I don't think you are planning to. Because I think you were using Springer's book solely. IMO

And if you want to use Springer's book for all your information, rather than just the bits you like, then I don't care. You didn't find the bit about chicken blood in any book or any transcript or any group of supporters rumors. That was the point of my posting to you.

 

[beesy]

I read it all. And you never said it was a rumor. Why are you trying to say you said it was rumor now? Here is exactly what you said

[/b]
You read this entire thread before you began posting to me? But you missed that I posted Linch's testimony, Luminol links, etc,

Beesy, that is just not saying it was a rumor. Now is it?

I don't owe you any explanation, especially when you are attacking me like this. You are not the mod. You do not have any right to say what can be posted. Jeana is the mod and if you have a problem with my posting style, then speak with her about it.

 

[beesy]

You said you were not just using Springer's book. And I already know you were not using the trial transcripts and all I did was ask you what else you were using and threw out the name of another book you may have read. But you still havn't answered the question and I don't think you are planning to. Because I think you were using Springer's book solely. IMO

And if you want to use Springer's book for all your information, rather than just the bits you like, then I don't care. You didn't find the bit about chicken blood in any book or any transcript or any group of supporters rumors. That was the point of my posting to you

The Luminol evidence has been extensively covered on here many times. I read about the sofa in Springer's book and have discussed it with all of the reggies. All of my information? What? How can you say that when I posted links on this thread and every single other thread I've posted on. In order to posts links or quote sources, you have to research. In nearly 2,000 posts, you actually think all I've used is Springer's book and other posters? I wouldn't have survived a month on here if I did that. If you are going to continue this assault, you need to at least check out all of my posts.