Darlie's injuries

[JimPence]

You're right. She would have definitely left some kind of blood trail when depositing the sock down the alley. I'd forgotten about that.

Jim

 

[Jeana (DP)]

It was good thinking though Jim!!! Fresh eyes - that's what we need!!!!

I also tend to believe the "two-attack" theory.

 

[jayla]

I'm sure I'm not the only person who posts on here that works in the medical profession.Most healthcare workers are taught to chart, chart, chart...If for no other reason than to avoid lawsuits for medical malpractice. So, I'm thinking you could possibly have one or two staff members carelessly neglecting to adress those massive arm bruises...but certainly not everyone who observed her. That is what convinces me the bruising (for the most part) came after her discharge.

 

[IrishMist]

I really lean towards Darlie's guilt, but herein lies the rub...
Why did she call for help with Damon still alive? Two attack theory or not, he was still alive when she called, and when they arrived.

She had no idea of knowing if the child would die before the EMT's arrived-
for all she knew, they could have saved him and he could identify her.

This point sticks with me, can't seem to resolve it in my mind.

 

[IrishMist]

I'm sure I'm not the only person who posts on here that works in the medical profession.Most healthcare workers are taught to chart, chart, chart...If for no other reason than to avoid lawsuits for medical malpractice. So, I'm thinking you could possibly have one or two staff members carelessly neglecting to adress those massive arm bruises...but certainly not everyone who observed her. That is what convinces me the bruising (for the most part) came after her discharge.

I wonder about that, too. Plus, the bruising seemed SO massive, almost overkill, ya know?

But on the other hand, when you look at the pictures, you can see scratches and abrasions that weren't charted or testified to...

Then it takes me to the next question... if these injuries didn't happen that night, when and how DID they happen?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Well I'm not a medical professional, so I can't say if they were all caused at the same time or not. There was a horrible, nasty fight that night and Darlie and Darin argued very badly. Badly enough that she asked for a separation. I don't know for sure, but maybe some of was caused in the hours before the murder and the bruising after that day?? Is that possible?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I really lean towards Darlie's guilt, but herein lies the rub...
Why did she call for help with Damon still alive? Two attack theory or not, he was still alive when she called, and when they arrived.

She had no idea of knowing if the child would die before the EMT's arrived-
for all she knew, they could have saved him and he could identify her.

This point sticks with me, can't seem to resolve it in my mind.

We don't know for sure if she even knew he was alive. She never got close enough to get blood on her (well except when she stabbed them). If you've read the autopsy reports and viewed the autopsy photographs and the crime scene photographs, I think its a miracle that he survived for as long as he did.

 

[cami]

I really lean towards Darlie's guilt, but herein lies the rub...
Why did she call for help with Damon still alive? Two attack theory or not, he was still alive when she called, and when they arrived.

She had no idea of knowing if the child would die before the EMT's arrived-
for all she knew, they could have saved him and he could identify her.

This point sticks with me, can't seem to resolve it in my mind.

I think she called for help when she did because she was bleeding like a stuck pig and wanted to save herself.

MOO

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Dani_T: The other thing to consider is that Devon and Damon may not have necessarily been attacked right after each other. Devon was already dead when Darin found him (and his description of how he looks indicates that perhaps he had been dead for a little while... just speculation). It could be that Devon was attacked and killed any time before Damon (say an hour or so?). It is possible that some/all staging may have been done between attacks on the two boys.

But wouldn't something like this be obvious by blood stains, stages of rigor mortis, coagulation of blood, etc.? I think they would be able to tell if one victim was dead for an hour or more than the other one. Was this possibility ever mentioned in any of the documentation in the case?

I also have a real problem with the idea that someone could commit such an extremely violent, rage-filled attack, (especially on their own children), then stop to do some staging, then get back into the frenzy at will and do it all over again. I could see if this was a Ted Bundy or someone else with a history of violence, psychosis, or just a sick penchant for inflicting pain on people but we've never seen that from either of these parents. Where would this controllable rage come from in someone with no history of violence or mental illness? Without a history, it seems to me that once that murderous frenzy is over, it's over and the sanity switch comes on saying, "what in the h*ll did I just do????" If these children were taken by suffocation, I would have an easier time believing this idea. But to perform such a grisly, disgusting act not once, but twice ... it doesn't seem plausible. I think that if one of the parents did this, it was a crime of passion. In that case, in my opinion, it was in some sort of insane moment, either post-partum depression on her part, or on his part a panicked moment of desperation when he thought his wife was going to leave him and he wanted to get back at her. A crime of passion happens before the perpetrator even realizes what he/she is doing, is usually out of character for the individual, and is an isolated incident, (not something that can be turned on and off).

 

[Dani_T]

But wouldn't something like this be obvious by blood stains, stages of rigor mortis, coagulation of blood, etc.? I think they would be able to tell if one victim was dead for an hour or more than the other one. Was this possibility ever mentioned in any of the documentation in the case?

Devon's time of death was left blank on his autopsy whereas Damon (who was transported to the hospital) was pronounced at 3.26am. Devon's autopsy was done at 1pm that day and Damons at around 9am. Whilst they would have been able to tell he didn't die hours earlier I'm not sure they would have been able to say he didn't die 30mins- 1 hour before his brother (especially if they weren't looking for it).

Not sure if anyone ever mentioned anything about it. I don't think it is likely- but it is a possibility.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Whilst they would have been able to tell he didn't die hours earlier I'm not sure they would have been able to say he didn't die 30mins- 1 hour before his brother (especially if they weren't looking for it).

I'm absolutely positive that they were looking for anything & everything that they could possibly determine. It's not every day that a 4 year-old and a 6 year-old show up on your autopsy table from a brutal murder. I would think that in the case of children so young they would be especially careful to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's, (especially considering that in their state there is an automatic death penalty for the murder of a child under age 5, correct)?

Does anyone know for sure about the blood evidence & time frame? An hour seems like an awful long time between times of death to not be noticed. It also seems like it would be Forensics 101 that teaches you about varying stages of drying blood ... pretty basic stuff for forensics people it seems. But I have no forensics background so I don't know. I only know what I learned from Forensics Files on Court TV so I defer.

Odd that Devon's time of death was left blank. Why is that?

 

[IrishMist]

Whilst they would have been able to tell he didn't die hours earlier I'm not sure they would have been able to say he didn't die 30mins- 1 hour before his brother (especially if they weren't looking for it).

I'm absolutely positive that they were looking for anything & everything that they could possibly determine. It's not every day that a 4 year-old and a 6 year-old show up on your autopsy table from a brutal murder. I would think that in the case of children so young they would be especially careful to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's, (especially considering that in their state there is an automatic death penalty for the murder of a child under age 5, correct)?

Does anyone know for sure about the blood evidence & time frame? An hour seems like an awful long time between times of death to not be noticed. It also seems like it would be Forensics 101 that teaches you about varying stages of drying blood ... pretty basic stuff for forensics people it seems. But I have no forensics background so I don't know. I only know what I learned from Forensics Files on Court TV so I defer.

Odd that Devon's time of death was left blank. Why is that?

It would be left blank, because they don't know. And as far as I know, they can't narrow down the time of death that closely. On tv, yes. In real life, no.
That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[Dani_T]

I'm absolutely positive that they were looking for anything & everything that they could possibly determine. It's not every day that a 4 year-old and a 6 year-old show up on your autopsy table from a brutal murder. I would think that in the case of children so young they would be especially careful to dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's, (especially considering that in their state there is an automatic death penalty for the murder of a child under age 5, correct)?

Well all I can say is that Devon wasn't given a time of death on the official autopsy. I'm not a medical examiner so have no idea about how specific they can be beyond general knowledge from CSI (maybe they only get an official time if they are pronounced at the hospital). However, you also need to remember that Damon was rushed from the scene and was pronounced dead at the hospital. On the other hand Devon's body was left on the scene long enough to photos to be taken and evidence to be collected which would have been at least a couple of hours. So in terms of drying blood it wouldn't be able to give a timeline considering that it would have been dried by the time Devon's body was examined and removed.

As I said I personally don't consider it likely that Devon was killed a significant amount of time before Damon. However, the point is that the timeline is far more flexible than Darlie's camp would have us believe. They like to narrow it down to Darlie attacking Damon and then staging the entire scene in something like 3 mins. The evidence allows far more flexibility than that from the possibility of staging being done between the killing of the boys (IMHO unlikely) to Damon being attacked once, moving to where he was found and then attacked again (IMHO highly likely).

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Dani_T: As I said I personally don't consider it likely that Devon was killed a significant amount of time before Damon. However, the point is that the timeline is far more flexible than Darlie's camp would have us believe. They like to narrow it down to Darlie attacking Damon and then staging the entire scene in something like 3 mins. The evidence allows far more flexibility than that ...

Agreed.

 

[IrishMist]

I think she called for help when she did because she was bleeding like a stuck pig and wanted to save herself.

MOO

Yup, this makes sense.
It's all about Darlie, all the time.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Irish Mist: It would be left blank, because they don't know. And as far as I know, they can't narrow down the time of death that closely. On tv, yes. In real life, no.

I don't use television dramas as a way to educate myself on the reality of crime scene investigation, (in fact, I don't even watch those shows). That's why I was asking someone who might know a lot more than me on the subject.

Even though I question Darlie's guilt, I find all of the theories pointing to her guilt to be very intriguing and well considered.

 

[IrishMist]

Originally posted by Irish Mist: It would be left blank, because they don't know. And as far as I know, they can't narrow down the time of death that closely. On tv, yes. In real life, no.

I don't use television dramas as a way to educate myself on the reality of crime scene investigation, (in fact, I don't even watch those shows). That's why I was asking someone who might know a lot more than me on the subject.

Even though I question Darlie's guilt, I find all of the theories pointing to her guilt to be very intriguing and well considered.

Oh, goodness, I meant no offense at all, Jersey!! You strike me as giving this case serious consideration, questioning the evidence, with well thought out posts.

I lean towards her guilt, but am trying to see the other side, because there ARE questions, and there ARE holes-- in both theories.

Again, I meant nothing against you at all.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

No harm, Irish Mist ... I tend to be on the sarcastic side so I hope you'll forgive me if it seemed harsh. I appreciate the attention you give to your posts, and enjoy debating these issues with all of you.

 

[IrishMist]

No harm, Irish Mist ... I tend to be on the sarcastic side so I hope you'll forgive me if it seemed harsh. I appreciate the attention you give to your posts, and enjoy debating these issues with all of you.

K. I feel better now. That would have bothered me all day! :blowkiss:

That is the best part about this forum, as opposed to others- you can put different ideas out there without getting slammed.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

I'm exactly the same way, IrishMist. I'm happy that I could put your mind at ease. I really enjoy this forum and most of the people here as well. Very bright and insightful.