Jeana--here are some more responses. I am sorry it has taken me so long, but I am having to fight to keep up with my work. In any event:
Sharkeyes asked whether I would consider the possibility that Darlie initially wanted the killings to be a "murder/suicide" in which she chickened out. I actually did consider that exact scenario; indeed, I think I have looked at the killings from every angle I could think of. The reason I don't think she specifically intended to kill them is the wounds on the one victim, Damon. Of course, one could make the argument that she specifically intended to kill based on the wounds to Devon, which include two knife wounds to the chest. However, as to Damon, I simply can't conclude that six stab wounds to the back is a good way to kill a person if that is what you have in mind. We don't see any of the obvious "intent-to-kill" wounds on Damon, such as shots to the head (to soften up the victim to be killed) or the relatively large number of wounds that we see in other cases. There are wounds in other cases where there aren't head shots or large number of wounds, but the inference of an intent to kill is fairly unmistakable: Nicole Brown Simpson having her throat cut and Joel Kirkpatrick being killed in Lawrenceville, Illinois in October 1997 by 11-13 stab wounds, two of which were planted right in his aorta. His mother, Julie Harper, was acquitted by a jury in a second trial a few days ago and explained that an intruder broke into her house--she was a single mother--grabbed a knife from a butcher's block and started wailing on 10-year-old Joel for no reason at all. By contrast, stabbing a person six times in the back does not seem to be a good way to kill a person although it was enough to cause Damon's death.
Now, on to what Goody had to say: she says she sees the stabbing as a deliberate, methodical attack meant to kill. I have to respectfully disagree for a few reasons. As I indicated above, the stab wounds to Damon just are not a good way to kill a person. Also, if the assailant meant to kill the boys, why do we see only 10 stab wounds total on the boys and no more than six on either victim? That is about the most limited number of stab wounds on any victims I have ever come across and the assailant likely would not have run out of the physical energy to stab them more times if that is what the assailant had in mind. I think that is the great puzzle in this case: if the assailant was so angry, as is especially indicated by the devastating wounds to Devon, why did the assailant stop stabbing the boys after only 10 stab wounds? The only conclusion I can get to regarding "great anger" and "limited attack" is that the attack was being fueled a less intense rage, a jealous rage, not a more intense rage, a homicidal rage, and the rage dissipated fairly quickly because the rage trigger is centered around Darlie's argument with Darin and not around the two boys. If Darlie meant to kill them, I can't for the life of me figure out why, and explanations that it was for money or because they were interfering with her lifestyle are too general (she was already well aware of these problems) to produce the explosive anger we see in this case.
On another subject, I agree that the DNA testing should be conducted, but this is merely the fourth attempt to manufacture the intruder, the first three being Darlie on the 911 call ("we have to find the person who did this"), the staging to suggest that there was a struggle with the intruder, and the Bob Kee affidavit filed two years after the conviction in which he states that Darin talked to him about a burglary scheme shortly before the killings. Of course, Darlie is not in a position to oppose such testing, but even Darlie is going to have trouble explaining how testing could show the existence of what never existed in the first place.