For those who believe Darlie innocent - help me understand.

First of all I want to say that I read all the transcripts and about everything there was to read about this case, except for the books. I can understand how people can think she’s guilty, but I do believe that she’s innocent. I’ll try and comment what you wrote, hoping to remember everything I’ve read on the case a few years ago.

I have followed this case, and this forum for years. Up until recently, I was convinced of Darlie's innocence. At this point, I am not sure either way. Lots of questions in my mind.

1. Why not kill all the kids? I think she would’ve killed the baby as well. Because, as you said, he was the most demanding out of the three kids.
2. Why call 911 when one of the victims is still living? This just doesn’t make sense. She would’ve made sure that he was dead before making the call. Unless she was scared for her own life at that point or had a psycho moment that made her do it and that she suddenly realized what she did and panicked. But... if it was a psychotic thing... how could she have followed the whole « plan » (sock, window, etc.)? It doesn’t make sense.
3. There are reports of other crimes in the area that night. I think LE never wanted to really investigate the probability because they immediately thought that it was someone from the inside.
4. The timeline is shoddy. Agreed. There was too much to do in too short a period of time, and especially for a single person.
5. I do believe she could have slept through the murders. I think the same as you. If the kids didn’t have the time to fight or scream, she could’ve slept through it. The three of them were asleep. Starting with one kid, doing it silentely, then moving on to the next who was still asleep or if he woke up, was sleepy... killing him and then moving to the person who would most probably fight and scream. It’s not like he’d killed three adult persons.
6. Darlie is not a smart gal. She could not have planned all that by herself, just like that. I totally agree with you on that. It’s just too much for someone like her.
7. Her neck wound/breast wounds. I don’t know about this. I agree that she could’ve found less noticeable places to stab or cut herself (that is, if she’s the one who did it) but, at the same time, she could’ve just chosen the most logical places where someone would have stabbed her.
8. The necklace- Weird, I know... but I don’t give much importance to the necklace.
9. The couch- stop claiming there was not blood on it. Yes. Blood on the couch.
10. The towels. They towels match what they said they did.
11. Yep, there was blood under the vaccuum. There were a lot of people in the house, two panicked parents, one bleeding mother, and blood everywhere in the next room. So the fact that there was blood under the vacuum doesn’t mean anything. It’s not like they’d found it in the boy’s room. It was right where everyone walked, including Darlie.
12. No glass in her feet. There is a possiblity that she managed to not walk or run over it. It was only one glass and it was not shattered, if I remember it well.
13. No other crimes happen like this? Yes, they do happen. Horrible crimes happen everyday. There are serial killers. There are jealous people. There are angry people. People who can’t deal with their emotions and who end up doing things like this out of despair. But... I think that this is a personal case. Whoever did this (or paid someone to do it, maybe) knew the family very well, and had some personal interest in this.
14. There is the possibility of an intruder. They investigated the scene as if it was Darlie who’d done it. They didn’t look for intruder clues, or at least not really. They focused on the « easy » clues that matched their theory, and that was it.
15. The nurses. They don’t make any sense. They contradict themselves and I think that they were paid, or threatened, or maybe someone put this « new interpretation of Darlie’s emotional state » in their head by bad mouthing her on repeat. Otherwise, why would they write something while at the hospital but say the opposite at trial? It doesn’t work that way.
16. Silly string. Yes, weird idea. But you know... I know people who would do this kind of stuff. People who don’t live by the rules of society and it was one of the boy’s birthday. He missed his birthday and they wished him a happy birthday. Plus, as you said, it was Dana’s idea.
17. Surgery. I can’t remember this part too well so... I’ll pass.
18. Something I noticed- when 911 asks how old the boys are, she tells them 6 and 8. That was just because he was about to turn 8.
19. Before you ask, YES, I have read the transcripts. I find that the error's make me mistrust it, even though it has since been corrected. Yes, Darlie was a hot mess on the stand. Yes she changed her story many times. However, I think in a traumatic event that this is not that unusual. The psychologist who examined her did not feel she was capable of committing the crime and that she has some traumatic amnesia. Again, more common than you think, and something I see at times in my profession.
After a traumatic even, your brain forgets parts of it, then remembers. But if you can’t remember much, and you keep getting suggestions from people that things happened this or that way, what do you do? Start to believe it, and create a memory for it. It would’ve been easy for someone close to her (the murderer, perhaps?) to implant false memories into her head so she would end up being the one looking guilty. I remember that Darin’s version of events was changing too and that Darlie changed parts of her story according to what he’d said happened. To me, that is revealing.
20. The castoff. Ditto.
21. The whole investigation stinks. You are just right on. Again. I don’t have anything to add. She’d need a new trial, and also that they reinvestigate the whole thing beforehand. But it can’t work that way, sadly.
 
I have followed this case, and this forum for years. Up until recently, I was convinced of Darlie's innocence. At this point, I am not sure either way. Lots of questions in my mind.

1. Why not kill all the kids? Who leaves one child alive, if the motive is to rid their life of the burden of motherhood? And why leave the most demanding child (infant) alive. Life insurance is a weak motive, they did not gain financially. Furthermore, even though everyone implies they were broke, they weren't. Broke people cannot come up with the kind of money they did for Darlie's defense. How many of you honestly have 5k in savings today? They did, and had many items that they could have sold off rather than kill their kids.
I think this was a crime of opportunity more than anything. Yes, she did plan it but she was also waiting for a chance to kill her children. Drake was left out for practical reasons - she'd have to go through Darin.
Yes, the insurance money is a weak motive but since motive is not required to prove guilt, it's immaterial to me.
Darlie had court appointed lawyers at first. They went to Mulder and paid him money they had raised through selling possessions and borrowing from family.

2. Why call 911 when one of the victims is still living? Damon was alive when EMS arrived. Darlie had no way of knowing if he would die before they arrived, or tell on her if he was.
We don't know she did know Damon was still alive before she got on the phone.

3. There are reports of other crimes in the area that night. But none were really looked in to. The traffic stop in which the car was allowed to go because of Darlie's 911 call is the one that bothers me the most.
The teens in the car were allowed to go because there was no legal basis to detain them.

4. The timeline is shoddy. You cannot convince me that Darlie was able to pull off everything that needed to occur. The sock, the staging, the blood being wiped up, etc. Damon had up to 9 mins to live, and 6 mins were while D was on the phone with 911. Cutting herself up, knocking over furniture, getting blood on the sock, ripping her clothes, etc would have been LOUD and time consuming. And would she be brave enough to run down an alley full of motion lights in a white shirt and risk being seen?
The evidence clearly shows Damon was stabbed at two different times, two different areas. The timeline only starts after the second stabbing and we don't know how much she accomplished before the second stabbing.

5. I do believe she could have slept through the murders. People with collapsed lungs or lungs full of blood don't make much sound. You need air exchange for sound to occur. Sleeping children could have been silently killed.
Remember Darlie said, and evidence shows, Damon was sleeping right next to the couch. You would have to believe an intruder was able to squeeze in that space and stab a child. Not only that, Darlie also says Damon could speak and he was till alive after the initial attack. Given the small space where the crime had to happen and the vocal ability, the first attack on Damon that occurred inches away from a mother would have woken her up.

6. Darlie is not a smart gal. At best she is of average intelligence. Yet we are expected to believe that she was smart enough to inflict her neck wound using her left hand, she was smart enough to inflict near perfect defensive slices to her finger tips, thrust a knife into her arm bone, and even bite the insides of her own cheeks? She also managed to slice up her night shirt. She apparently is way smarter than she seems.
Intelligence has nothing to do with the strength of your non-dominant hand. We don't even know if she's ambidextrous.
The wounds on her fingers are not consistent with defensive wounds on the hands/fingers of victims of similar crimes. In fact they are an anomaly as a defensive wound. A search of defensive wounds on the hands is recommended.
Arm bone? Bites on the inside of her cheek? Nightshirt? I'm not sure I follow you
7. Her neck wound/breast wounds. This is a superficial woman. They spent a lot of money on her appearance. Would she really hack up her most prized possessions- her DD breasts? Furthermore, why cut her own throat, she would have inflicted her injuries in less obvious places.
As you said...average intelligence at best.
There is talk her breast size was not her choice.
8. The necklace- It was embedded in her neck wound. Common theory is that Darlie slit her throat over the sink. Her necklace would have been hanging down due to gravity, so we are to believe she stuffed the necklace into the wound? The necklace had knife damage on it. Given the fact that it was embedded into the wound, with knife damage on it, it is most likely she WAS lying down when her neck was cut.
I'm not a believer that Darlie's neck was sliced in one motion. I think there are clear hesitation marks and there was at least 2, possibly 3, swipes at her neck.
Scenario: Darlie goes to the sink and presses the knife into her neck and starts cutting. Pain hits her and she jerks back the knife, possibly jerking on the necklace at the same time but since the pain and determination is still in control she doesn't notice the necklace. Her next attempt she starts deep again but instinctively jerks her body back because she knows it's going to hurt. Ditto the third attempt if it happened. You'll notice the cuts went from deep to shallow at least twice, possibly three times.
To recap, she inflicts her neck damage and unwittingly damages her necklace. Later as she was pressing a towel to her neck the necklace worked its way into the wound.
11. Yep, there was blood under the vaccuum. You can't tell me in the chaos, that EMS, police, Darlie, etc didn't move anything. You cannot rely on that fact when it is clear that things were moved all over the place from one photo of the scene to the next.
The purpose of forensics is to determine what is valid evidence and what is not. That's why the observations of all the people at the scene is important for scene integrity. Nothing should be dismissed based on the assumption of things that have not been officially reported
12. No glass in her feet. We all have feet. They are tough, thick skinned, etc. to prevent cuts. Just because one wine glass broke does not automatically imply that her feet had to be cut. I've walked on broken glass and felt it, but not been cut by it. It didn't shatter into a million pieces.
It was a wine glass, typically thin glass or crystal. Yes it would shatter and, being thin, it would most likely penetrate her feet.
I've never seen statements that Darlie's feet were tough or thick skinned. However I do know the skin of the instep is soft and not as calloused.

13. No other crimes happen like this? Yes they do. Apparently people do not read as much as I do. Try looking up the Keddie murders (3 kids slept through that one, with 3 others murdered way more savagely than this case), Jaclyn Dowalaby was taken without anyone awakening, Julie Rea was railroaded in a case similar to Darlies. There are hundreds of cases of people randomly killing others in break ins.
I must say I've never seen anyone say there's never been other cases of children taken or killed in their sleep with the family home. However I don't remember one where the mother was inches from the attack/murder and claims to not only hear nothing but didn't wake up.

14. There is the possibility of an intruder. While it is most likely the fingerprints are Darlie's, they factually remain unidentified, therefore we cannot 100% say they are not an intruders. There is also hair that hasn't been matched. Yes, a pubic hair could arrive at a crime scene a million different ways, but until we can prove the way, the intruder is still possible.
A possibility isn't enough to get Darlie another trial. There has to be clear proof, probably with a name attache, to overturn her sentence. Even if she gets that trial it won't be enough to point to a single print for acquittal, there's way too much evidence against her

15. The nurses. This makes my blood boil. I am an RN. You cannot chart one thing, and testify to another. They clearly indicated in their charting that Darlie was tearful, sad, and grieving appropriately. They did not use words like "fake" or "indifferent". Why were their licenses not called into question? Either the testimony was false, or the charting was false. One is perjury, one is a HIPAA violation.
Cleary because it wasn't a violation that would revoke their licenses.

16. Silly string. Dana's idea, that was made out to be way more than it is. Odd, yes, but not something Darlie had any part in planning. Also, as an RN, let me tell you, people become pretty silly when they are taking Valium, Ativan, etc. She was likely chewing gum because of the cotton mouth side effect of those medications. She was prescribed sedatives/antianxiety meds following the murders.
Dana's idea or not, Darlie participated in a celebration that was questionable. I've seen people on sedatives, painkillers and or anti anxiety meds go to the funerals of their children and are solemn.
Doubling down, the interview clearly showed Darlie's state of mind. The children were gone, they were good kids, Darlie and Darin were great parents because they took their kids to eat foreign food, etc.

17. Surgery. The neck and arm wound were serious. Doctors just don't do surgery for fun. The necklace had to be surgically removed because of its proximity to the carotid. In medical terminology, the word superficial implies that something is "above." Your skin is superficial to your carotid artery. Your platysma muscle is also superficial to your carotid artery. To the general public, superficial means "skin deep." The words should not be confused. Being within the carotid sheath is a BIG deal, that means she was a paper sheet thickness away from a very hasty death.
I'm not clear about your point. Inches from death does not clear her of self inflicting the wound. Like you said..not intelligent.

19. Before you ask, YES, I have read the transcripts. I find that the error's make me mistrust it, even though it has since been corrected. Yes, Darlie was a hot mess on the stand. Yes she changed her story many times. However, I think in a traumatic event that this is not that unusual. The psychologist who examined her did not feel she was capable of committing the crime and that she has some traumatic amnesia. Again, more common than you think, and something I see at times in my profession.
The mistakes are more frequent than would normally be in transcripts but in reality it was only about 3 mistakes per page. Also, it would be impossible to purposefully make those mistakes to influence the outcome of the trial. Remember, only a portion of the entire case was reconstructed from only notes. Everything else had tapes, notes and the transcripts for reference. The only case I can recall where a new trial was given based on transcripts was a trial where there was not actual court recording and the prosecutor and judge "reconstructed them from memory". It really has to be that blatant.
I'm going to call you on the traumatic amnesia stuff. It's well docmented there has never been a case of total amnesia that she claims without there being a physical injury to the head/brain.

20. The castoff. Darin has said many times, that he was attempting CPR on Devon. When you blow air into lungs full of holes, it will spurt out. It is possible that the blood came from this. Also, I challenge you to kneel down, and act out stabbing the floor below you, and realize how far over your head you need to weild that imaginary knife to get cast off down your back. These were small kids, the knife would never have needed to come way back over the head of the killer to re enter the victim, and these were little kids, it would not have needed a ton of force. Also, with all of the wet items being placed into paper bags together, it is hard to know what blood was transfer vs cast off. I have read that the blood is very questionable for cast off to being with.
I doubt Darlie had a dress rehearsal. So I think the possiblity she brought the knife over head that far is likely.
As for the blood, both on the shirt and in the bag, cast off blood and transfer is easily detected even by most laymen and in the event it is questionable I trust the blood expert that was called in this case knew what he was testifying to, especially after giving his testing parameters and methods in court.

21. The whole investigation stinks. Court reporters being removed, cops pleading the fifth, illegal taping, interviewing witnesses under the influence of sedation/anesthesia (should have been thrown out, you can't sign a consent for surgery if you have had Tylenol 3, but you can be interrogated after awakening from propofol?) Texas is known for their love of the death penalty. I don't want to see Darlie end up like Todd Willingham. Even if it means finding out for sure that she did do it, I think a new trial is owed to her.
Court reporters aren't part of the case.
The cops plead the Fifth because they were accused of a felony, in court, by an officer of the court. Not only is it their Right, they were required to do that.
There was no illegal taping. The cops had the permission of the owners of the property.
Actually, witnesses and persons of interest can be interviewed under the influence of everything. People under the influence of alcohol and drugs are interviewed and can legally waive their Rights every day. Now the state of mind can be called into question, but no court will ever allow a person of interest to wait until they're all better and off all meds to be interviewed in a case where they are a suspect.
 
For me it seemed rather simple. If the prosecution is correct and Darlie committed the crimes to basically get rid of her responsibilities, then the psychology is all wrong. If she wanted to be free and this is true, she would have killed the baby (and how simple it would be to smother or drown a child that age and have it be an accident). She would not have killed the older boys and certainly not in the manner in which the crime was committed. For as unlikely as it seems, the intruder theory makes the most sense.
 
It was said that Darlie hated the fact that the 2 older boys were rambunctious, messy, and she wanted her pristine house w/pristine white carpet. A newborn baby isn't creating a mess anywhere. Darlie was also said to suffer from post-partum depression, as well as having a personality disorder. She was also taking drugs (aka 'uppers') to try and get the baby weight off, she wasn't getting along with Darin, money was drying up and her world was not right. I don't think it's only one thing that causes a person to do this, but a series of things combined with stressors and mental issues of some kind.

That's not an excuse, btw, she knew right from wrong, which is the test for 'insanity.' The thing is, trying to make sense of killing children never can make sense because a normal, rational, non personality-disordered parent would not do such a thing. That, as much as anything else, is what creates the uncertainty for those who struggle to understand that D.R. did commit this crime.
 
I've always thought Darin's comment was the most accurate; that she was most likely unconscious after her initial attack, which she wouldn't remember. So she doesn't remember fighting back, because it was before falling into unconsciousness.

I was knocked unconscious in a car accident and didn't know it until later. And not because I remembered being unconscious, but because other people saw me and thought I was dead. But in my head, no time had passed from the impact to when I was trying to get out of my car.
 
It was said that Darlie hated the fact that the 2 older boys were rambunctious, messy, and she wanted her pristine house w/pristine white carpet. A newborn baby isn't creating a mess anywhere. Darlie was also said to suffer from post-partum depression, as well as having a personality disorder. She was also taking drugs (aka 'uppers') to try and get the baby weight off, she wasn't getting along with Darin, money was drying up and her world was not right. I don't think it's only one thing that causes a person to do this, but a series of things combined with stressors and mental issues of some kind.

That's not an excuse, btw, she knew right from wrong, which is the test for 'insanity.' The thing is, trying to make sense of killing children never can make sense because a normal, rational, non personality-disordered parent would not do such a thing. That, as much as anything else, is what creates the uncertainty for those who struggle to understand that D.R. did commit this crime.
I disagree as a mom of 3 kids. I know how rambunctious kids can be! The older kids were Darlie's problem. They were in and out, making messes, draining the water out of the spa, wanting friends over every day, friends that could make a mess and even Darin had stated her cleaning had become obsessive....Older kids school age needs great clothes for school, they get invited to birthday parties where you hope your kids gift is better than others...etc...Meanwhile the baby...no.....he doesn't have friends...he doesn't have to be dressed to impress anyone. He is not destroying the house as kids the boys ages are known to do! The only problem the baby was causing was that he flipped over in his crib...then kept her awake at night. So Darin was sleeping upstairs with the baby. Odd that a baby flipping over kept her awake but she slept right on thru 2 boys being stabbed to death just feet away.
I do agree though...there wasn't just "one" thing that caused this but a volcano of stuff going on.
 
It was said that Darlie hated the fact that the 2 older boys were rambunctious, messy, and she wanted her pristine house w/pristine white carpet. A newborn baby isn't creating a mess anywhere. Darlie was also said to suffer from post-partum depression, as well as having a personality disorder. She was also taking drugs (aka 'uppers') to try and get the baby weight off, she wasn't getting along with Darin, money was drying up and her world was not right. I don't think it's only one thing that causes a person to do this, but a series of things combined with stressors and mental issues of some kind.

That's not an excuse, btw, she knew right from wrong, which is the test for 'insanity.' The thing is, trying to make sense of killing children never can make sense because a normal, rational, non personality-disordered parent would not do such a thing. That, as much as anything else, is what creates the uncertainty for those who struggle to understand that D.R. did commit this crime.

I agree.

I was really into this case many years ago and nothing I've read since persuades me to believe that DR is innocent.

DR having a personality disorder is extremely likely, and the black and white thinking is attributed to this disorder. DR would characterize a person (her child/ren) as all good, or all bad. This leads to scapegoating which is another reason for choosing to kill the 'bad' children and keep the 'good' child alive. This is child like thinking because the disordered person has remained emotionally a stunted child because of x, y, z reasons. JMO
 
I disagree as a mom of 3 kids. I know how rambunctious kids can be! The older kids were Darlie's problem. They were in and out, making messes, draining the water out of the spa, wanting friends over every day, friends that could make a mess and even Darin had stated her cleaning had become obsessive....Older kids school age needs great clothes for school, they get invited to birthday parties where you hope your kids gift is better than others...etc...Meanwhile the baby...no.....he doesn't have friends...he doesn't have to be dressed to impress anyone. He is not destroying the house as kids the boys ages are known to do! The only problem the baby was causing was that he flipped over in his crib...then kept her awake at night. So Darin was sleeping upstairs with the baby. Odd that a baby flipping over kept her awake but she slept right on thru 2 boys being stabbed to death just feet away.
I do agree though...there wasn't just "one" thing that caused this but a volcano of stuff going on.
You disagree with my stating that Darlie was said to be feeling overwhelmed and disliking the mess and rambunctiousness of the 2 older boys, but then detailed in your own post that the older kids were Darlie's responsibility and were rambunctious and Darlie was obsessive about her clean house? You basically disagreed with my post and then repeated what I said.
 
I don't pretend to know what Darlie (or any killer) is thinking, but we know that some mothers can and do kill their own children, so any belief that a mother couldn't do that is out the window.

The evidence is what I found convincing including:

- Her multiple changing stories about what happened
- The crime scene evidence did not match her stories
- No evidence of an intruder
- Multiple pieces of gold jewelry left in plain sight on the kitchen counter
- Fibers consistent with the screen window found on the knife placed back in the knife block
- The blood at the sink
- Blood from the boys found on the back of her Tshirt
- No evidence of bruising on her arms but then severe bruising appearing days after being released from hospital when testimony indicated bruises would start appearing 24 - 48hrs and she was in the hospital for several days.

Just to name a few things...
 
You disagree with my stating that Darlie was said to be feeling overwhelmed and disliking the mess and rambunctiousness of the 2 older boys, but then detailed in your own post that the older kids were Darlie's responsibility and were rambunctious and Darlie was obsessive about her clean house? You basically disagreed with my post and then repeated what I said.
I felt this way too😉

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
For me it seemed rather simple. If the prosecution is correct and Darlie committed the crimes to basically get rid of her responsibilities, then the psychology is all wrong. If she wanted to be free and this is true, she would have killed the baby (and how simple it would be to smother or drown a child that age and have it be an accident). She would not have killed the older boys and certainly not in the manner in which the crime was committed. For as unlikely as it seems, the intruder theory makes the most sense.

There is no evidence, none at all, of an intruder. It has been shown over and over again, how she staged the scene, quite badly to be sure. The motive is less important in this case than the overwhelming physical evidence which is why she was convicted and none of her endless appeals have ever proven the least bit successful.

The baby was with Darrin. It could have been as simple as access. It could be that she is one of those women that loves babies, but little children, not so much. Maybe she thought it would be easier with only one, or maybe no thought went into that at all.

It always amazes me that people try to apply logic and determine a logical motive for women that murder their babies. There isn't one, because the act itself is neither logical or normal. Darlie is a sick, selfish baby killer and it infuriates me that she is still alive after all these years. I thought Texas was a state that actually applied the DP, unlike my home state of CA.
 
All good points, chiban!

It's worth remembering that motive in murder cases never has to be proved by the state. If motive is known or can be determined that's icing on the cake, but it's not an element required to be proved to determine guilt.
 
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.

What "Federal judge" are you referring to here?
 
I would like to address the allegations of the nurses "lying" in their charting. Charting is to be non judgemental. I can't tell you how many times I have erased what I wanted to say in my notes, and instead kept it short and to the point. I worked on a floor with neurosurgery patients for 8 years. I've seen some crazy behavior. I've seen people who I thought were being manipulative, dramatic, etc. but I can't write my feelings or judgement in a medical document. It isn't a journal. It's a patient chart.
And you can bet your *advertiser censored* if there were bruises covering her entire arms there would be documentation of it during her hospital stay.

For the record I think she's guilty as hell. I lived only blocks away at the time of the murders. I don't think the silly string convicted her, I really don't think it says much. The evidence, however, speaks volumes in my opinion.
 
My question, why is she still on death row? Why is she still here? If they have doubts about her sentence why not give her a new trial? Otherwise get it over. Has there ever been a case similar to this carried out this long?
 
That's a good question. I don't know why she is sucking more tax payer money by being on death row for 21 years if they aren't going to pull the trigger, so to speak.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
1,489
Total visitors
1,657

Forum statistics

Threads
590,035
Messages
17,929,218
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top