Darlie's injuries

Discussion in 'Darlie Routier' started by CW, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. Steel86

    Steel86 Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    And those that we only have Darlie's word to go on - missing panties, Damon walking and talking, no memory, varying stories but could be dreams.
     
  2. Steel86

    Steel86 Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    IMO, that does not look like a "cut", whether Patterson said so or not. Darlie herself says "marks". I doubt Darlie was doing any downplaying on any of her injuries. Not buying this as a knife wound.
     
  3. Sinsaint

    Sinsaint Member

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The blood on her shirt is cast-off. It would have been attributed to her being in the same room. Nothing more than that. Her DNA on the sock, nothing but it being in her mouth as a gag. The sock would have pointed to Darin if anything. Same with the bread knife... Darin done it.

    The knife imprint wouldn't implicate Darlie. Her blood was simply on it whenever it touched the carpet. Well, she's dead so her blood probably would be on it. That's evidence of nothing. And you have no idea if she cut herself at the sink. That is your theory. Just as it's also your theory she started dropping blood in the kitchen.

    Her blood is all over both rooms. You don't know when she started to bleed. If she did cut herself at the sink, why is her blood on her blanket and pillow?
     
    KatherineGA likes this.
  4. Sinsaint

    Sinsaint Member

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Then what do you think it is?
     
  5. Steel86

    Steel86 Member

    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Looks like a mark, doesn't look like a cut that bled (from this picture). If the "intruder" could have made a "cut" there, I would expect to see many more injuries to her face, you know, when she was "passed out".
     
  6. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're making the claim that if Darlie's wound had gone 2 cm further and she died as a result that Darin would be sitting in prison instead. That's a huge assumption based on imagination. Darlie didn't die, and she was the one determined to be the cause of D&D's deaths. There is no evidence that has pointed to someone outside the family and it's not like people haven't been looking for clues since 1996.
     
  7. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're using old evidence that has been spouted since the event. It's not even good enough to be considered 'decent' circumstantial evidence as so many alternative causes have been proven to be possible.

    Let's be clear. I'm not sure is Darlie did this or not. However, what I am not prepared to do is to use crap evidence in a defence of either party.

    You need to do a little better Madeline.
     
  8. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2mm wasn't it? And yes, Darin would certainly have been the focus of prosecution. I'm sure the fact of him asking for someone to burglarise his house would have been made evident a little sooner than it was with Darlie being the centre of attention in terms of implication.
     
  9. Sinsaint

    Sinsaint Member

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It's 2 millimeters. And it's not a huge assumption. A mother and her two children are viciously stabbed to death by some sneaky intruder as he slept upstairs? Not a single person in their right mind would buy a murder/suicide theory of that type of violence and, as you said, no one found evidence of an intruder. Don't really need to when you've decided twenty minutes into it that it was someone in the house.

    Darin would have been the only one left. The scene with him could have played out the exact same way. He comes down at 2:30 a.m. because heard the glass break and finds his wife and children stabbed. After walking through the scene in his bare feet and touching his wife and kids, he runs to the kitchen for the phone and sees a knife on the floor. He stupidly picks it up thinking the guy might still be in the house. He calls 911, gets towels, wets them in the sink and starts putting them on his children. He attempts CPR but blood just sprays out of the children getting on his clothing.

    His bloody footprints are all over the kitchen now and the sink is wet with traces of blood that looked washed out. At some point after all the responders got there someone moved the vacuum cleaner to the kitchen so it was out of the way. Later, broken pieces of glass (that not even Bevel believes didn't get kicked around) are found on top of his bloody footprints.

    Darin would have been accused of planting the sock. The solitary fiberglass rod on the bread knife would have been attributed to him cutting the screen to stage an intruder scenario. The cast-off blood on Darlie's shirt would have been attributed only to her being in the room and the bloody knife print in her blood wouldn't have meant anything, as it shouldn't now, because she was attacked and clearly her blood would have been on the knife.

    I also have little doubt, that in the course of telling his story, there would have been minor variations in his tale that everyone would pounce all over. And lord only knows what he might have sounded like on the 911 tape. I'm sure everyone would hear whatever suits them. "He sounded whiny, argumentative... I think he was trying to sound upset but he sounded angry at points like he was tired of having to use that tone of voice..."

    Darlie was sleeping on the couch and, no doubt, it would have been suggested this was because they had been arguing. All the financial stuff would have been used against Darin to prove he wanted his wife dead so he could collect on her life insurance police. The boys were just collateral damage because they woke up and saw him killing Darlie. So, all that evidence against Darlie? That would have been used to convict Darin.
     
    KatherineGA likes this.
  10. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Guess we'll never know how it would have or could have played out since Darlie didn't die, Darin wasn't downstairs during the attack (that we know of), and all the other evidence is what it is.
     
  11. Sinsaint

    Sinsaint Member

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Guess we'll never know because the only investigating done centered on Darlie.
     
  12. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Centered on Darlie and Darin.

    What other forensic evidence could point investigators elsewhere, outside someone in the home? Fingerprints? Footprints? Fibers? DNA? Blood? Items left behind by killer? Weapon?

    What items were stolen? Money? Credit cards? Jewelry? Computers? oops, nothing.

    What about eyewitnesses or other direct evidence? People in black car nearby were pulled over and questioned. No one saw someone hanging around the house.

    What evidence would lead an investigator away from someone inside the home? Darlie's different and morphing stories? Darin's polygraph? Darlie's polygraph? Blood on the back of Darlie's Tshirt showing castoff from one or both boys? A scene that looks staged and doesn't match Darlie's statements? Luminol testing results? Darin's tube sock with Darlie's epithelial/skin cells and blood from both boys, but no DNA from anyone else found in a closed alley?

    How could anyone else be tied to the crime scene if there is no physical evidence of anyone else there? Who would you investigate and based on what?
     
  13. TellTheTruth

    TellTheTruth New Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From reading a few of your posts Madeleine, you seem steadfast that she is guilty. Do you think she will admit her guilt if the time comes she is asked for her last words? With her commitment to her religion, do you think she will finally ask for redemption?
     
  14. Sinsaint

    Sinsaint Member

    Messages:
    499
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You should really read Cron's testimony again. He said Darlie's version of events didn't fit the crime scene. It's was her wounds and her feet Parchman was sent to look at 4 p.m. that afternoon.
     
  15. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,539
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Nope and nope.
     
  16. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Knower of Things

    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    19,539
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No, I don't need to read Cron's testimony and I'm not going on a goose chase. I asked you what evidence would lead investigators elsewhere and to someone not inside the home since you made the assertion that investigators didn't look at anyone but Darlie.
     
  17. Paysee

    Paysee Member

    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I have been trying to think - in what position could Darlie have been sleeping, that her arms were beaten and bruised in this manner? Without her face or chest being similarly beaten?
     
  18. Zzzz

    Zzzz Active Member

    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The whole problem with the bruises is that they are completely inconsistent with (one of) her stories:
    1. Her son woke her up and before that she didn't even know she'd been slashed (in her sleep). She repeated that in the 2013 Herzog documentary. So how could these be defensive bruises? She was asleep.
    2. Assuming she was warding off the blows (in her sleep) there would be slash and puncture wounds on her forearms, not bruises.
     
  19. Zzzz

    Zzzz Active Member

    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    43
    To me, the whole deal about the arm bruises is that they don't match a knife attack. She should have cuts on her arms and the palms of her hands if she's warding off a knife attack, not bruises. And in one of her many versions of events she says she slept through the attack then woke up and followed the intruder into the kitchen. So she wasn't warding off any blows anyway. I don't think any of her testimony supports a cause for arm bruising. So it just doesn't match up.

    Can anyone talk about the court testimony in regards to the bruises? Many of the supporter websites are using the bruise pics to sway sentiment in her favor. Again, it just doesn't jibe.

    You can get a long bruise from IV blood drainage.
     
  20. Sundance

    Sundance Genuine Registered User

    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Testimony of Dr. Janis Townsend-Parchman, Medical Examiner for Dallas County:
    17 Q. Okay. Doctor, will you share with the
    18 jury some of your knowledge with respect to bruising, how
    19 it occurs. And, you know, when I bump myself, it really
    20 doesn't look all that bad that day or the next day, but
    21 it's on down the line. What happens? What causes that?
    22 A. What bruising or contusions are, is a
    23 breakage of very small blood vessels, usually capillaries
    24 in your skin, or the subcutaneous tissue, or let's talk
    25 about the extremities to make things easy.
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    161
    1
    2 THE COURT: Could you speak up just a
    3 little bit louder.
    4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me try to
    5 repeat.
    6 We're talking about the breakage of
    7 very small blood vessels, or capillaries in the skin or
    8 the subcutaneous tissues or the muscle, or sometimes all
    9 of those.
    10 If they break in the skin, usually you
    11 will see the bruise within 24 hours. If you bruise or
    12 break the blood vessels in deeper structures, then it
    13 takes a while, a variable length of time, for the blood
    14 that comes out of the broken blood vessels to work its way
    15 up into your skin, so that you can actually see a bruise.

    16 And I expect most of you have had that experience.
    17 We, of course, have bumped into things
    18 and by the next day have seen a bruise. But I expect most
    19 of us have bumped into something, or gotten clobbered by
    20 something pretty hard, and you didn't see anything for a
    21 day or two, or maybe three or four, but eventually the
    22 bruise, as we say, comes to the surface and you do see it
    .
    23
    24 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Mark these too,
    25 please.
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    162
     
    KatherineGA likes this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice