Darlie's injuries

[cami]

[. 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).

Yes, I agree but I think it's Darlie who held the knife and did the stabbing not Darin.

Darlie adamantly denied that Darin was the intruder and now that her times is coming up short, she's pointing the finger at him. Darin could not have done this unless Darlie knew about it. She's the one who says she followed the intruder through the kitchen to the utility room. Surely she would recognize her own husband if it were Darin.

The print of the knife on the carpet in the murder room indicates that someone bleeding from the arm fed blood to that knife. The blood was quite heavy at the tip, indicating someone bleeding from the arm was holding the knife. Darlie is the one with the injuries to her forearms, not Darin.

The lack of damage to the breakables in that room indicates great attachment to the material things there. I doubt that Darin was all that attached to knick knacks. MOO

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Could the blood being fed to the knife have occured while she was picking the knife up, (although I imagine that that's unlikely).

You've made very good points but I disagree with the last one. You stated on another thread that you think Darlie just snapped. (If Darlie did this, I agree.) However, if someone just snaps to the point of brutally murdering their children, are they really worried about knocking over knick-knacks? If you snap then you are not consciously thinking about not breaking your things. In my opinion, either she snapped or she didn't. If she was making a conscious effort to avoid breaking her treasured items, I'd hardly consider that "snapping".

I know people speak of her being shallow and materialistic but do you think that she was more attached to the knick-knacks than her children? I don't know if she was or wasn't ... I just don't think that part adds up.

 

[cami]

Could the blood being fed to the knife have occured while she was picking the knife up, (although I imagine that that's unlikely).

You've made very good points but I disagree with the last one. You stated on another thread that you think Darlie just snapped. (If Darlie did this, I agree.) However, if someone just snaps to the point of brutally murdering their children, are they really worried about knocking over knick-knacks? If you snap then you are not consciously thinking about not breaking your things. In my opinion, either she snapped or she didn't. If she was making a conscious effort to avoid breaking her treasured items, I'd hardly consider that "snapping".

I know people speak of her being shallow and materialistic but do you think that she was more attached to the knick-knacks than her children? I don't know if she was or wasn't ... I just don't think that part adds up.

No, the blood evidence does not support the knife being just picked up. The blood evidence I am talking about is in the murder room, on the pristine white carpets. How did the knife get in the murder room for her to pick it up if her story is true. She said the intruder threw it down as he left through the garage. We know the intruder wasn't bleeding from the arms. Camilla is the blood lady, she can explain it better than anyone else, but you can see the blood drops from the knife on the carpet.

What I meant was, there is evidence of staging. The glass toped table was over on it's side and the lamp shade was down however the lamp was not moved from it's position. If she was fighting with a stranger in that room, as she says she was, I would expect some of her delicate things to be broken or knocked over. All that's out of place though is the table and the lamp. She describes the intruder as fleeing right past that table with the beautiful knickknacks on yet he knocks a wine glass to the floor right in her path as she follows him. If Darin did this and he staged the crime scene, I don't think he would be too attached to the delicate knickknacks and would most likely have thrown them down table and all.

I think she had to objectify her children and dissassociate from them in order to murder them, but I don't know whether or not she placed less value on them than her material possessions. If comments she made to one of her friends after the murders are true, than yes, she did place more value on her possessions than her children.

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Originally posted by Cami: I think she had to objectify her children and dissassociate from them in order to murder them, but I don't know whether or not she placed less value on them than her material possessions. If comments she made to one of her friends after the murders are true, than yes, she did place more value on her possessions than her children.

I'd have to agree. I was literally nauseated when I read what her friend relayed upon Darlie's first visit to the house following its realease. If that is, indeed, true, she has either really lost her mind from all of this or she deserves what's coming to her and a whole lot more.

I was also deeply troubled by remarks from a nurse that Darlie was wheeled past the room where one of her boys was lying on the table, and she looked, turned away, and still no emotion. It's unimaginable for a parent to react that way.

Like I said in another post, the more I read the more I agree with what you are all saying about her guilt. No final decision yet ... trying to keep an open mind but the evidence and testimony are absolutely shocking.

 

[little1]

I think she had to objectify her children and dissassociate from them in order to murder them, but I don't know whether or not she placed less value on them than her material possessions. If comments she made to one of her friends after the murders are true, than yes, she did place more value on her possessions than her children.

I agree, but I think it may go a little further than that. I believe that she may have viewed her boys as material objects that were hers to do what she pleases with.


Not only were they objects, they were also an extension of her.

Does that make sense?

 

[OriginalJerseyGirl]

Originally posted by little1: I agree, but I think it may go a little further than that. I believe that she may have viewed her boys as material objects that were hers to do what she pleases with.

Not only were they objects, they were also an extension of her.

Does that make sense?

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that it is entirely possible that she felt she could do what she pleased with the boys, (although I still think this was unplanned if Darlie did do it).

I don't necessarily agree, though, that she viewed them as an extension of herself. If she is truly a narcissist, as many have suggested, would she have done this to children she viewed as an extension of herself? Would she even have viewed them that way in the first place?

 

[cami]

Originally posted by little1: I agree, but I think it may go a little further than that. I believe that she may have viewed her boys as material objects that were hers to do what she pleases with.

Not only were they objects, they were also an extension of her.

Does that make sense?

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree that it is entirely possible that she felt she could do what she pleased with the boys, (although I still think this was unplanned if Darlie did do it).

I don't necessarily agree, though, that she viewed them as an extension of herself. If she is truly a narcissist, as many have suggested, would she have done this to children she viewed as an extension of herself? Would she even have viewed them that way in the first place?

I don't think any of us will ever understand it. We can throw about narcissism, histrionic p.d., psychopath etc. but can we really ever understand why a mother kills her children. Certainly not me.

I used to lie in bed at night wondering, trying to analyze it, what happened in that home that night, why did she do this. Gosh, you drive yourself nuts doing that, LOL. Why did Susan Smith do it. Or Diane Downs or Debbie Milke or Julia Rhea. Why, Why, Why.

 

[Goody]

I used to lie in bed at night wondering, trying to analyze it, what happened in that home that night, why did she do this. Gosh, you drive yourself nuts doing that, LOL. Why did Susan Smith do it. Or Diane Downs or Debbie Milke or Julia Rhea. Why, Why, Why.

Hmm.....Let's see. Susan, Diane, Debbie, and Julie would all be free if their children were gone. Free to marry, free to start over, free from responsibility of having to care for and financially support another human being, free to pursue an education and career. So what did Darlie have to gain?

 

[jaeger]

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.

True, but I could see where someone could commit the initial attack in a rage, and then, after calming down, realize that they have to finish the job. This was the theory in the MacDonald case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he convicted of second degree murder in the killings of his wife and older daughter (because it was believed to have been done in during a psychotic rage), but first degree in the younger daughter's death (because it was done with a clear head, in order to support his story). So she could have stabbed him again without flying into that frenzy. Completely cold heartedly.

Another thing that reminds me very strongly of the MacDonald case (gee, lots of similarities here) is the staging of the scene. In both cases, a table was found on its side, with a plant/flower arrangement that seemed to be carefully placed on the floor rather than knocked off in a fight. And other items around the room that *should* have been knocked off in a fight remained in place.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

True, but I could see where someone could commit the initial attack in a rage, and then, after calming down, realize that they have to finish the job. This was the theory in the MacDonald case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he convicted of second degree murder in the killings of his wife and older daughter (because it was believed to have been done in during a psychotic rage), but first degree in the younger daughter's death (because it was done with a clear head, in order to support his story). So she could have stabbed him again without flying into that frenzy. Completely cold heartedly.

Another thing that reminds me very strongly of the MacDonald case (gee, lots of similarities here) is the staging of the scene. In both cases, a table was found on its side, with a plant/flower arrangement that seemed to be carefully placed on the floor rather than knocked off in a fight. And other items around the room that *should* have been knocked off in a fight remained in place.

A lot of us believe Damon was attacked twice since he appeared to try and get away. Self-preservation would indeed allow this to occur.

As for the contents of the rooms involved, you're completely right Jaeger. There should have been any number of items knocked over, broken or missing. The only things damaged in that house were her boys. Its obvious to me what she cared most for.

 

[DebC]

... So what did Darlie have to gain?

Attention, sympathy, everyone falling over themselves to helpt her. That sort of thing. You have all brought up really good points here. Thanks you so much. I have long been of the opinion that the motive behind the attack was a re-enactment of her earlier "cry rape" episode at a party with Darin. Only things went completely wrong. I will re-read your posts before I post again

 

[beesy]

We are having a good discussion on another board about the bruises. Yes, I know we've talked about on them here too, but we have some new people so let's start it again....
So what do you think caused the bruises? Darlie did it? If so, how and when? Darin did it? How and when? Devon or Damon did it? Frightening with a blur? If you think it was done during a struggle with her intruder, what did he hit her with?

 

[CyberLaw]

The bruises were fabricated.........Darlie "apparently" slammed her arm or had the door slammed on her arm to "fabricate" the bruises.

IF, the bruises were from the intruder it would have had to have been a type of solid "planK, hitting her like a bat.

IF she "grappled" with the intruder, the bruises would have been more like finger and hand prints.

The bruises were dated to after the murders.

 

[beesy]

The bruises were fabricated.........Darlie "apparently" slammed her arm or had the door slammed on her arm to "fabricate" the bruises

I believe she did it too. I can't figure out how though. Would slamming your arm in a doorway cause bruising nearly to your armpits. Probably took several times, I guess. Why didn't she seem to be in pain in the photos though? She had to lift her arms up and turn them around. Even creating the bruises herself, doesn't mean they would be pain free.

 

[Goody]

I believe she did it too. I can't figure out how though. Would slamming your arm in a doorway cause bruising nearly to your armpits. Probably took several times, I guess. Why didn't she seem to be in pain in the photos though? She had to lift her arms up and turn them around. Even creating the bruises herself, doesn't mean they would be pain free.

I don't think we can tell if she was in pain in the photos. Ever heard of grin and bear it? Looking at those bruises in the pics on the 10th, what do you think those bruises would look like on the 18th? Then go back and look at that silly string video again.

 

[justice2]

OK, may be way out there, but those bruises appear to be from Darlie wrapping herself around something. A person maybe. Do know what "thing" it could be. The slamming her arm in a door just doesn't make sense to me. The bruises look like they were made at one time. If she did the door thing they would look inconsistent from top to bottom. The bruises kinda "flow" from top to bottom so that is why I think they were made at one time. Wrapping around somebody while they are fighting or moving and holding on. Anybody else see this.

No wat what point they were made I don't know. I bruise weird and I can see the bruises showing up days later. I've never "timed" any of my bruises but I sure have ones that show up later.

 

[Goody]

OK, may be way out there, but those bruises appear to be from Darlie wrapping herself around something. A person maybe. Do know what "thing" it could be. The slamming her arm in a door just doesn't make sense to me. The bruises look like they were made at one time. If she did the door thing they would look inconsistent from top to bottom. The bruises kinda "flow" from top to bottom so that is why I think they were made at one time. Wrapping around somebody while they are fighting or moving and holding on. Anybody else see this..

I don't think you could get severe bruising from wrapping around someone. Blunt force trauma is caused from a hard flat surface. The human body is pretty soft and definitely not flat. I don't know why you think a door wouldn't work. Stick you arm in one and close the door on it (softly so you don't bruise) and you can get the injury pretty high up. Bruises spread out a little so you wouldn't have to get it all the way up to get the desired effect.

Another way it might have happened was if Darin caught her with the knife and beat her arm against a countertop trying to disarm her. The only problem with that is there is no blood spatter to support it, so maybe it happened before the murders, like maybe she was threatening to hurt herself as she had done only a month previous (with pills that time).

No wat what point they were made I don't know. I bruise weird and I can see the bruises showing up days later. I've never "timed" any of my bruises but I sure have ones that show up later.

Severe bruises like this should show up pink or rosy the first day, but it might take a couple of days or more for them to go real blue.

I get bruises that show up a couple of days later too, but it is usually from something I walk into. A real hard hit starts showing up right away. It just doesn't get dark for a couple of days.

 

[beesy]

I don't think you could get severe bruising from wrapping around someone. Blunt force trauma is caused from a hard flat surface. The human body is pretty soft and definitely not flat. I don't know why you think a door wouldn't work. Stick you arm in one and close the door on it (softly so you don't bruise) and you can get the injury pretty high up. Bruises spread out a little so you wouldn't have to get it all the way up to get the desired effect.

No, I don't think wrapping yourself around somebody could give blunt force trauma either...unless it's Twiggy..heh heh. I stuck my arm in the doorway last night. Started with the pit and worked down. I was amazed how well it would work. As you pull your arm up and continue slamming the door, by the time you hit your wrist, the backs of your hands get bruised too. Sound familiar?

Another way it might have happened was if Darin caught her with the knife and beat her arm against a countertop trying to disarm her. The only problem with that is there is no blood spatter to support it, so maybe it happened before the murders, like maybe she was threatening to hurt herself as she had done only a month previous (with pills that time)

Well remember there was some evidence that blood had been wiped up from that area so..maybe

 

[HeartofTexas]

I think Darin probably gave Darlie the bruises, in one of their many concocted stories and cover-ups, following the actual murders. He possibly administered them while she was still in the hospital (towards the end of her stay). I'm not sure how he would have done them, other than with his hands, but I can't imagine anyone else in the family, other than Darin, having done them and her still having the family support she has.

 

[justice2]

Do Darlie and/or Darin either one give an long or elaborate reason how they think she got the bruises. They seems to stay away from the subject. Most stuff I've heard was from the supporters after the trial was over.