Bloodstains on Darin's jeans

[deanws]

I looked at my tree ornament and it's actually Vitameatavegamin. Remember the first spoonful she took she shivered and made this horrible face? A few times later, she was swigging it from the bottle.

E! showed a little blurp of this show today. It was included in the 10 greatest moments in TV history. I think lucy was number 4.

 

[beesy]

This is nigh impossible to understand since you have not distinguished
between Dani's posts, perhaps a post she was responding to and I think your new posts are highlighted but I'm not sure. Could you please edit it?

 

[SnootyVixen]

This is nigh impossible to understand since you have not distinguished
between Dani's posts, perhaps a post she was responding to and I think your new posts are highlighted but I'm not sure. Could you please edit it?

I am sorry but I can not do that. It is a lot of work and I have not the time. Every post I make here now I must edit and edit again and it takes so much time. My answers are in black bold and they are responding to what is said just above them. I hope this will help.

 

[Dani_T]

Two problems-

There is no testimony that the knife block was brushed at the scene or the knives in it. Officer Hamilton testified in great detail about everything he brushed and the knife block was not one of them.

Secondly the windows were the first thing printed. The kitchen was the last thing printed. I have gone over this with people so many times that I am NOT going to type it all out again so please go and read Officer Hamilton's testimony and read everything he dusted and see just how many items were between the window and the kitchen. Then come back and tell us whether, having taken these two things into account, you still think that theory is possible.

And then explain the dust particles with glass debris imbedded.

Perhaps I am wrong and the fiber was larger than I am thinking but I am thinking that Linch say that he look at it with microscope and saw what looked the same to him as when he cut the screen and gather his own fibers. I think he say that they are look alike to him with the microscope. And that is all he ever did say about this. For the reason that he did not recover another fiber or a larger amount of the dust and so could not do the tests that would say whether or not it was really the same and not just look like the same thing.

That's right Snooty but both the fibreglass rod and the rubber dust (which were two seperate pieces of evidence) were ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL to what resulted when you cut the screen with the bread knife. Cut the screen with the knife and you get the exact same size fibreeglass rod and the same pigmented rubber with embedded glass ends on the knife. Linch went through the house to find some other source for the two items and he couldn't.

You're no idiot Snooty. So please tell me you understand the significance of this evidence.

To my thinking this is the exact situation as the blonde hair he found in the screen. He look at the hair he find in the screen with his microscope and he also look at a hair from the head of Darlie with his microscope and he think that they appear to be the same because they look the same when he looks at them with his microscope. But with this hair he is able to do more tests that are more positive than looking in a microscope and he then say that the hair does not come from the head of Darlie and later says who it did come from by using DNA investigations.

And how common are bleached blonde hairs? VERY. How common is a fibreglass rod which is 40 microns wide and black pigmented rubber dust with embedded glass ending up on a BREAD KNIFE with no other sources in the house.

The other thing to note about the hair is that because it was bleached it had been stripped of all it's unique charactertistics. So one bleached hair under the microscope is the same as another but what was found on the bread knife was INCREDIBLY specific and unique and it was an EXACT visual match for the fibres from the screen.

The theory is the same Snooty but the consequences are vastly different.

Linch cuts a similar screen but not THE screen I think and gets a lot of these fiberglass rods and dust and debris upon his knife. He look at both these and the ones from the kitchen of Darlie and he say that they are both identical to him with using his microscope. And there he stops and there you are believing him that because they are identical with the microscope they are a fact of being identical.
You only have to go to your argument above to see that this cannot be a wise thing to be thinking. We all have already seen a case with the hairs where identical with the microscope turn out to be not identical at all with more investigation.

Snooty please go to Linch's testimony and read about just how specific the charactertistics of what was found on the knife were and how exactly they matched the screen fibres.

Say you had two people standing with their backs to you and you looked at their average size build which appeared to be the same (beneath their baggy clothes) and the fact that their hair cut and colour is the same and you might come to the conclusion that they are identical twins. But then they turn around and you note their eye colour, the shape of their face and their nose, their hairline, the colour of their skin and you can see either
a) You were right- they are identical twins
b) You were wrong and they are not twins at all.

That additional visual information helps you to determine whether they are the twins you thought they could be from the very limited and unspecific characteristics you saw from the back.

The hair and the fibres on the knife are the same. The hair was very generic, stripped of all characteristics beyond being a long bleached hair. From the limited information it was possible that it belonged to Darlie. Turns out it didn't - like when the women turned around and you realised they are not twins.

On the other hand the fibres on the knife were both uniquely individual in a number of ways and were very specific. They were not like comparing two women from the back- they were like comparing two women from the front and being able to look and compare their faces, eye colour, skin etc.

When Linch cuts his screen he get a large amount of these fiberglass rods and debris on his knife. Not a tiny amount like on the Darlie knife. I can believe that some of the stuff on the Darlie knife fall off on the way back to the kitchen. But there is no evidence of that.

I'd have to go back and check but I don't believe he did get many. From memory I think he said he got about four. That is far from many. That is also in a testing environment where he carried the knife from the screen to the microscope in a way that was going to preserve whatever evidence was on it. What happened that night on Eagle Drive was certainly not that. Darlie could have walked around with that knife for any amount of time before she put it back. Putting it back in the knife block may have knocked some of the fibres off. She could even have wiped it clean.

Your argument is far from sound and is frankly just another desperate grasp to nullify the bread knife fibres.

Here I think is a lack of complete understanding of what this Palenick is telling. When he say thqt it is possible that the fibers in knife number 4 came from the brush used to dust the knife then he may be saying that it was a transfer of evidence from the windowsill to the knife. Where does he say that he is speaking of the fibers composing the brush hairs?

Please refer to the start of this post and my comments about Hamitlon's brushing process. And if you don't believe me you can read it for yourself in the transcripts

By the way, I've given up trying to simplify my posts because of your supposed deficiency in english since the last few days have seen a remarkable acceleration of your use of english grammar and vocabulary.

 

[beesy]

I'd have to go back and check but I don't believe he did get many. From memory I think he said he got about four. That is far from many. That is also in a testing environment where he carried the knife from the screen to the microscope in a way that was going to preserve whatever evidence was on it. What happened that night on Eagle Drive was certainly not that. Darlie could have walked around with that knife for any amount of time before she put it back. Putting it back in the knife block may have knocked some of the fibres off. She could even have wiped it clean

Thank you Dani for posting this. I'm learning even if others aren't. I doubt your post will do much good for some though. :banghead:
Do you think Darlie could have rinsed the knife off? She was at the sink alot that night. Or as you said, putting the knife back in the block. They go in there pretty hard. Did you say the knife block was not dusted? Wonder why not?

 

[Desilu]

Thank you Dani for posting this. I'm learning even if others aren't. I doubt your post will do much good for some though. :banghead:
Do you think Darlie could have rinsed the knife off? She was at the sink alot that night. Or as you said, putting the knife back in the block. They go in there pretty hard. Did you say the knife block was not dusted? Wonder why not?

My thought has always been that she wiped it off. Possibly rinsed, but I think that may have knocked off everything if she both rinsed and wiped dry.

 

[Dani_T]

Thank you Dani for posting this. I'm learning even if others aren't. I doubt your post will do much good for some though. :banghead:
Do you think Darlie could have rinsed the knife off? She was at the sink alot that night. Or as you said, putting the knife back in the block. They go in there pretty hard. Did you say the knife block was not dusted? Wonder why not?

She may have rinsed the knife- though I doubt she would have thought to have done that. It would be foremost in our minds because we know now what little tiny bits of fibre evidence can mean but I doubt it occurred to her. Though she might have just wiped it as a normal thing to do before you put a knife back in a knife block.

The bread knife WAS dusted- we know that because we can see it in the photos and I think Linch wrote an affidavit saying it was. However, Officer Hamilton went into great detail about everything he dusted at the scene and the knife block was NOT mentioned at all. Perhaps because it was the one tangible thing they knew the intruder must have gone near and touched because he took the butchers knife out of it and because it was portable they took it back to the lab to run all the tests on it there. Who knows. In any case there is absolutely no evidential chain between the brush that was used on the windows and the one used on the knife block.

This piece of evidence really is the smoking gun of the case in my opinion.

 

[Goody]

I looked at my tree ornament and it's actually Vitameatavegamin. Remember the first spoonful she took she shivered and made this horrible face? A few times later, she was swigging it from the bottle.

Just like a bottle of Nyquil. hahahahahahahah. Reminds me of Granny's tonic water. LOL!

 

[Goody]

The bread knife WAS dusted- we know that because we can see it in the photos and I think Linch wrote an affidavit saying it was. However, Officer Hamilton went into great detail about everything he dusted at the scene and the knife block was NOT mentioned at all. Perhaps because it was the one tangible thing they knew the intruder must have gone near and touched because he took the butchers knife out of it and because it was portable they took it back to the lab to run all the tests on it there. Who knows. In any case there is absolutely no evidential chain between the brush that was used on the windows and the one used on the knife block.

This piece of evidence really is the smoking gun of the case in my opinion.

Was the knife and the butcher block dusted for prints at the lab rather than at the house? For some reason, I recall something to that effect but can't pull up enough to be more specific. Or to even be sure it is a righteous memory.

 

[Dani_T]

Was the knife and the butcher block dusted for prints at the lab rather than at the house? For some reason, I recall something to that effect but can't pull up enough to be more specific. Or to even be sure it is a righteous memory.

Well Officer Hamilton who appears to have brushed all the stuff at the scene did a detailed account of EVERYTHING he processed and the knife block and bread knife was not in it.

From memory Linch testified that the bread knife had not been brushed when he received it but I think he has since signed an affidavit to the contrary.

The photos in MTJD show that it has been processed. So it seems most likely that it was processed at the lab or somewhere outside the scene. There is definitely NO testimony or evidence that Hamilton brushed it and if he had brushed it and had forgotten to mention it (despite the fact that he went through every single bit of evidence) then you can bet your life that the defense would have had an affidavit from him quicker than you can say 'Darlie did it'.

I don't think there is anywhere which explicitly says it was dusted at the lab (which would blow the Darlie's transfer theory out of the water... not that it has any chance of swimming anyway!). I think that is just the logical implication

 

[SnootyVixen]

That's right Snooty but both the fibreglass rod and the rubber dust (which were two seperate pieces of evidence) were ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL to what resulted when you cut the screen with the bread knife. Cut the screen with the knife and you get the exact same size fibreeglass rod and the same pigmented rubber with embedded glass ends on the knife. Linch went through the house to find some other source for the two items and he couldn't.

You're no idiot Snooty. So please tell me you understand the significance of this evidence.

Thank you so much for saying I am not an idiot. Some of the time I feel that some peple do think that.
I understand the significance if it truly come from this knife cutting the screen but I am not positive in my mind that is the way the stuff got on the knife.


And how common are bleached blonde hairs? VERY. How common is a fibreglass rod which is 40 microns wide and black pigmented rubber dust with embedded glass ending up on a BREAD KNIFE with no other sources in the house.

The other thing to note about the hair is that because it was bleached it had been stripped of all it's unique charactertistics. So one bleached hair under the microscope is the same as another but what was found on the bread knife was INCREDIBLY specific and unique and it was an EXACT visual match for the fibres from the screen.

The theory is the same Snooty but the consequences are vastly different.



Snooty please go to Linch's testimony and read about just how specific the charactertistics of what was found on the knife were and how exactly they matched the screen fibres.\

I am not in disagreement with you about this. I believe him when he say they are the same. The only question that I consider which you do not is how the fiber and debris got on the knife. I just can imagine other ways than the knife used to cut the screen. For one thing it is hard to imagine that some one would use that knife to cut someting. It is made for cutting bread and not good for much else. With a whole bunch of knifes in the block holder why would anyone at all pick that one? This is something that I do not understand about this case.
Also there were so many there that night roaming all around looking at things. Can you not see a possible condition where the fiber and debris were carried on someoone's fingertip or the cuffs of the shirt they were wearing and then they could have touched or had their hand over the block?
I am just saying that I think absolute faith in this idea of the fiber being from the knife being used to cut the screen I can not fine it within myself to believe. I have many questions about this matter.

Say you had two people standing with their backs to you and you looked at their average size build which appeared to be the same (beneath their baggy clothes) and the fact that their hair cut and colour is the same and you might come to the conclusion that they are identical twins. But then they turn around and you note their eye colour, the shape of their face and their nose, their hairline, the colour of their skin and you can see either
a) You were right- they are identical twins
b) You were wrong and they are not twins at all.

That additional visual information helps you to determine whether they are the twins you thought they could be from the very limited and unspecific characteristics you saw from the back.

The hair and the fibres on the knife are the same. The hair was very generic, stripped of all characteristics beyond being a long bleached hair. From the limited information it was possible that it belonged to Darlie. Turns out it didn't - like when the women turned around and you realised they are not twins.

On the other hand the fibres on the knife were both uniquely individual in a number of ways and were very specific. They were not like comparing two women from the back- they were like comparing two women from the front and being able to look and compare their faces, eye colour, skin etc.

What you say is true. But there is still a question for me at least as to how the stuff got on the knife. And there was a test that could have determined whether it tryly was the same stuff but Linch was not able to perform it as he did the DNA testing on the hair found in the screen. Not blaming Linch. I believe that there was not enough material for the test.


I'd have to go back and check but I don't believe he did get many. From memory I think he said he got about four. That is far from many. That is also in a testing environment where he carried the knife from the screen to the microscope in a way that was going to preserve whatever evidence was on it. What happened that night on Eagle Drive was certainly not that. Darlie could have walked around with that knife for any amount of time before she put it back. Putting it back in the knife block may have knocked some of the fibres off. She could even have wiped it clean.

Your argument is far from sound and is frankly just another desperate grasp to nullify the bread knife fibres.

I am sorry you feel that way. Your argument is a tiny bit naive in my mind. You believe that the fingerprinter said each thing he touched. Yet you believe that he would not dust the knife block where he knew that the murder weapon origionated? That is illogical to me.


Please refer to the start of this post and my comments about Hamitlon's brushing process. And if you don't believe me you can read it for yourself in the transcripts

I believe you that is what he said. I am not sure I believe he did not bother to dust the block that held the murder weapon.

By the way, I've given up trying to simplify my posts because of your supposed deficiency in english since the last few days have seen a remarkable acceleration of your use of english grammar and vocabulary.

There was no reason at all for you to say this to me. I have said over and over and over and over here that I am quite proficient in English. It is much more easy for me to speak and listen than to write but I can write fine if I try hard. To be honest I think that all of my posts have been understandable. Some people seem just to like to pick on someone not American. I think Americans are coming to be like the French. They also will not tolerate some one to speak French and it be not perfect. But just see how bad their own accent is when they speak another language. I have said this before and let it go when it happen again but I say again to all who read here that I willl not explain or defend myself again on this matter. I think every person who has posted about this should feel shame for making me get so upset over and over just because english is a learned language for me. I am sorry to say such a harsh thing but it is how I am feeling.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Well Officer Hamilton who appears to have brushed all the stuff at the scene did a detailed account of EVERYTHING he processed and the knife block and bread knife was not in it.

From memory Linch testified that the bread knife had not been brushed when he received it but I think he has since signed an affidavit to the contrary.

The photos in MTJD show that it has been processed. So it seems most likely that it was processed at the lab or somewhere outside the scene. There is definitely NO testimony or evidence that Hamilton brushed it and if he had brushed it and had forgotten to mention it (despite the fact that he went through every single bit of evidence) then you can bet your life that the defense would have had an affidavit from him quicker than you can say 'Darlie did it'.

I don't think there is anywhere which explicitly says it was dusted at the lab (which would blow the Darlie's transfer theory out of the water... not that it has any chance of swimming anyway!). I think that is just the logical implication

So from what you say here there is no evidence or testimony about where it was dusted at all. Is that correct? To consider the significance of this it would seem to me that it woujld be a thing that people would want to know.

 

[SnootyVixen]

She may have rinsed the knife- though I doubt she would have thought to have done that. It would be foremost in our minds because we know now what little tiny bits of fibre evidence can mean but I doubt it occurred to her. Though she might have just wiped it as a normal thing to do before you put a knife back in a knife block.

The bread knife WAS dusted- we know that because we can see it in the photos and I think Linch wrote an affidavit saying it was. However, Officer Hamilton went into great detail about everything he dusted at the scene and the knife block was NOT mentioned at all. Perhaps because it was the one tangible thing they knew the intruder must have gone near and touched because he took the butchers knife out of it and because it was portable they took it back to the lab to run all the tests on it there. Who knows. In any case there is absolutely no evidential chain between the brush that was used on the windows and the one used on the knife block.

This piece of evidence really is the smoking gun of the case in my opinion.

You seem to be so intelligent and post so well and yet you can say that this is the smoking gun for you. With all the questions that surround it I can not agree with you. I do not see a smoking gun anywhere but maybe the drops on her back.

 

[Mary456]

So from what you say here there is no evidence or testimony about where it was dusted at all. Is that correct? To consider the significance of this it would seem to me that it woujld be a thing that people would want to know.

The bread knife and butcher block were not dusted at the scene, Snooty. They were sent to the crime lab where they were dusted by Roger Smith on 6/11/96.

This is supported by:

1. Hamilton's testimony, in which he detailed everything in the kitchen that he dusted, and the butcher block & bread knife were not among them.

2. Roger Smith's affidavit in the State's response to the Writ (Exhibit 23).

So...Hamilton couldn't have transferred fiberglass or rubber dust from the screen to the knife. Impossible.

 

[Dani_T]

I am not in disagreement with you about this. I believe him when he say they are the same. The only question that I consider which you do not is how the fiber and debris got on the knife.

That's wrong Snooty - I have considered how the fiber and debris got on the knife.

I just can imagine other ways than the knife used to cut the screen. For one thing it is hard to imagine that some one would use that knife to cut someting. It is made for cutting bread and not good for much else. With a whole bunch of knifes in the block holder why would anyone at all pick that one? This is something that I do not understand about this case.
Also there were so many there that night roaming all around looking at things. Can you not see a possible condition where the fiber and debris were carried on someoone's fingertip or the cuffs of the shirt they were wearing and then they could have touched or had their hand over the block?

No I can't. The fibre and debris were not on the block- they were on the bread knife which was in it's slot in the block.

The facts are that what was on the bread knife was absolutely visually identical to what was produced when you used the same knife to cut the screen. There was no visual micrscopic difference and numerous unique charactertistics which were identical.

It is completely unrealistic to believe that the fibre and debris came from the fingerprint brush and powder- this was rebutted at testimony and defies reasonable belief.

It is also completely unrealistic to believe that the fibre and debris were just happened to be deposited on the bread knife during the fingerprinting process (after supposedly being picked up from the window sill). This is only more the case since there is no evidence whatsoever that the knife was processed at the scene by the same officer (let alone the same brush) that was used to process the window. And even if it HAD been, there was hours separating the processing of the window and the knife block where the brush was in constant motion... yet we are supposed to believe it just happened to deposit two separate pieces of evidence on the one and same bread knife?

And now we have a new theory- that somehow someone managed to get two microscopic and separate pieces of evidence transferred to their person somehow and just managed to somehow transfer both the rod and debris to the bread knife (though we have no testimony that anyone at the scene actually touched the bread knife).

And this is just one more remarkable coincidence upon the already mountainous pile of remarkable coincidences which all conspired to put Darlie on death row.

Don't tell me that I haven't considered other options because I have- just like Linch did. And there IS NO other reasonable option.

Yes, this pieces of evidence is as close as this case comes to a smoking gun - or at least to hammering in the final nail in the death of the intruder story.

The American justice system is based on reasonable doubt. There is nothing reasonable about the altnerative options you (and others) have presented about how the rod and debris ended up on the bread knife. You can protest all you want about not being sure whether she is innocent or not but if you were actually trying to look at this case objectively there is no way you could believe it more possible that two separate pieces of evidence which are produced when you cut the screen with the bread knife just somehow both happened to end up on that same knife via any other method than that the bread knife was used to cut the screen.

I am just saying that I think absolute faith in this idea of the fiber being from the knife being used to cut the screen I can not fine it within myself to believe. I have many questions about this matter.

Of course you can't find it within yourself to believe it- because you want her to be innocent. It doesn't matter what I say, you and others who also are committed to her innocence, will always refuse to give this evidence the weight it demands.

I am sorry you feel that way. Your argument is a tiny bit naive in my mind. You believe that the fingerprinter said each thing he touched. Yet you believe that he would not dust the knife block where he knew that the murder weapon origionated? That is illogical to me.

Go back and read Hamilton's testimony. He goes into very detailed accounts about everything... and I mean everything he processed that day. The knife block and knives within it were NOT mentioned. And I did not say that the knife block and knives were not dusted. I said that there is no evidence or testimony that they were dusted at the scene.

The knife block was the only portable item which they were sure the intruder touched or utilised in some way. The murder weapon came from it. It makes perfect sense that they would collect it as evidence and process it away from the scene - just as they collected all the other bits of moveable evidence at the scene. It is clear that the knife was fingerprinted but there is no evidence that it was processed by Hamilton at the scene.

Of course the entire defense transfer theory relies on that and so it comes to no suprise to me that you'll protest it to your dying breath.

I am not sure I believe he did not bother to dust the block that held the murder weapon.

See above.

To be honest I think that all of my posts have been understandable. Some people seem just to like to pick on someone not American. I think Americans are coming to be like the French. They also will not tolerate some one to speak French and it be not perfect. But just see how bad their own accent is when they speak another language. I have said this before and let it go when it happen again but I say again to all who read here that I willl not explain or defend myself again on this matter. I think every person who has posted about this should feel shame for making me get so upset over and over just because english is a learned language for me. I am sorry to say such a harsh thing but it is how I am feeling.

First of all I am not American.

Second of all you'll remember that I was the one who defended your struggle with English not so long ago against some who hassled you about it

Third of all you cannot expect none of us to comment on your sudden and remarkable improvement in the way you communicate on these boards. Your grammar has improved greatly, you are using vocabularly that not all native english speakers would even be aware of and your spelling has dramatically improved. If all of that occured because you are working hard on your english then more power to you- as a language student I'm impressed. On the other hand you can't expect us not to be skeptical at this sudden improvement.

I personally don't care who you are or what your native tongue is, or how well you do or don't speak English. I'm just not going to try and simplify my communication with you like I used to since the last week or so has shown you are more than capable of understanding and writing much more than basic english.

 

[SnootyVixen]

The bread knife and butcher block were not dusted at the scene, Snooty. They were sent to the crime lab where they were dusted by Roger Smith on 6/11/96.

This is supported by:

1. Hamilton's testimony, in which he detailed everything in the kitchen that he dusted, and the butcher block & bread knife were not among them.

2. Roger Smith's affidavit in the State's response to the Writ (Exhibit 23).

So...Hamilton couldn't have transferred fiberglass or rubber dust from the screen to the knife. Impossible.

Okay. Then I think that the fiber and debris could not get on the knife from the fingerprint brush. I either did not know this or did not remember it. I thank you for posting the information.

 

[SnootyVixen]

That's wrong Snooty - I have considered how the fiber and debris got on the knife.



No I can't. The fibre and debris were not on the block- they were on the bread knife which was in it's slot in the block.

The facts are that what was on the bread knife was absolutely visually identical to what was produced when you used the same knife to cut the screen. There was no visual micrscopic difference and numerous unique charactertistics which were identical.

It is completely unrealistic to believe that the fibre and debris came from the fingerprint brush and powder- this was rebutted at testimony and defies reasonable belief.

It is also completely unrealistic to believe that the fibre and debris were just happened to be deposited on the bread knife during the fingerprinting process (after supposedly being picked up from the window sill). This is only more the case since there is no evidence whatsoever that the knife was processed at the scene by the same officer (let alone the same brush) that was used to process the window. And even if it HAD been, there was hours separating the processing of the window and the knife block where the brush was in constant motion... yet we are supposed to believe it just happened to deposit two separate pieces of evidence on the one and same bread knife?

And now we have a new theory- that somehow someone managed to get two microscopic and separate pieces of evidence transferred to their person somehow and just managed to somehow transfer both the rod and debris to the bread knife (though we have no testimony that anyone at the scene actually touched the bread knife).

And this is just one more remarkable coincidence upon the already mountainous pile of remarkable coincidences which all conspired to put Darlie on death row.

Don't tell me that I haven't considered other options because I have- just like Linch did. And there IS NO other reasonable option.

Perhaps you are correct. Mary has posted information that seems to say you are.

Yes, this pieces of evidence is as close as this case comes to a smoking gun - or at least to hammering in the final nail in the death of the intruder story.

The American justice system is based on reasonable doubt. There is nothing reasonable about the altnerative options you (and others) have presented about how the rod and debris ended up on the bread knife. You can protest all you want about not being sure whether she is innocent or not but if you were actually trying to look at this case objectively there is no way you could believe it more possible that two separate pieces of evidence which are produced when you cut the screen with the bread knife just somehow both happened to end up on that same knife via any other method than that the bread knife was used to cut the screen.

I am concerned about what is the truth of the matters here and not in the American justice systems requirements for the guilty verdict.


Of course you can't find it within yourself to believe it- because you want her to be innocent. It doesn't matter what I say, you and others who also are committed to her innocence, will always refuse to give this evidence the weight it demands.



No that is not true. I do not care much from an emotional state whether she is innocent or guilty. I just have questions and want to know the truth. If the truth was that she was innocent then of course I would want her to recieve justice but for now it does not matter.
I have notice many times here that when someone asks questions about this verdict of guilt and the trial that several people, not you alone, decide that they believe her to be innocent. That is not true with me and maybe not with some other people who post some times here also. Having questions about the trial does not equal deciding Darlie is innocent.
I am very aware that she may have done this thing. Or Darin or both or someone else. I don't know.


Go back and read Hamilton's testimony. He goes into very detailed accounts about everything... and I mean everything he processed that day. The knife block and knives within it were NOT mentioned. And I did not say that the knife block and knives were not dusted. I said that there is no evidence or testimony that they were dusted at the scene.



The knife block was the only portable item which they were sure the intruder touched or utilised in some way. The murder weapon came from it. It makes perfect sense that they would collect it as evidence and process it away from the scene - just as they collected all the other bits of moveable evidence at the scene. It is clear that the knife was fingerprinted but there is no evidence that it was processed by Hamilton at the scene.

Of course the entire defense transfer theory relies on that and so it comes to no suprise to me that you'll protest it to your dying breath.

Hmmm....to my dying breath? Do you know me so well?


See above.



First of all I am not American.

Correct. But I suspect you got my meaning just the same.

Second of all you'll remember that I was the one who defended your struggle with English not so long ago against some who hassled you about it


Of course I remember that. I was and am very grateful for that.

Third of all you cannot expect none of us to comment on your sudden and remarkable improvement in the way you communicate on these boards. Your grammar has improved greatly, you are using vocabularly that not all native english speakers would even be aware of and your spelling has dramatically improved. If all of that occured because you are working hard on your english then more power to you- as a language student I'm impressed. On the other hand you can't expect us not to be skeptical at this sudden improvement.


I expect nothing from you. I have learned better than to do that. The improvement in my writing english is because Jeana told me I must do so to continue to post because my writing was the cause of too much disruption here. I can not think what there is in that for you to be made so sceptical. Jeana says do it. She is mod and so I do it. And with great trouble to me I will say.

I personally don't care who you are or what your native tongue is, or how well you do or don't speak English.

Such a relief to me.

I'm just not going to try and simplify my communication with you like I used to since the last week or so has shown you are more than capable of understanding and writing much more than basic english.

I do not know that you are correct about the writing english, but I do understand and read english very well. Such an embarressment that you were trying to simplify your speech for me.

 

[Goody]

You seem to be so intelligent and post so well and yet you can say that this is the smoking gun for you. With all the questions that surround it I can not agree with you. I do not see a smoking gun anywhere but maybe the drops on her back.

The drops on the shirt are critically important, no doubt about that. But from a purely logical point of view, the fiber on the bread knife nails her without a doubt. If it can be proved to be from the screen, only Darlie or Darin could have used it and they would have no reason to cut the screen like that and claim the intruder did it unless one or both of them killed the children. I think they did prove it was from the screen beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe if it is further tested, the testing will confirm that. Then if we learn the dusting for fingerprints happened at the lab and not at the scene, there is no doubt at all who used the knife to cut the screen that night.....a Routier, pure and simple.

 

[deanws]

The drops on the shirt are critically important, no doubt about that. But from a purely logical point of view, the fiber on the bread knife nails her without a doubt. If it can be proved to be from the screen, only Darlie or Darin could have used it and they would have no reason to cut the screen like that and claim the intruder did it unless one or both of them killed the children. I think they did prove it was from the screen beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe if it is further tested, the testing will confirm that. Then if we learn the dusting for fingerprints happened at the lab and not at the scene, there is no doubt at all who used the knife to cut the screen that night.....a Routier, pure and simple.

I know at one time she was claiming that the blood evidence was not accurate because the clothes were thrown in with other objects. That may account for some of the smears, but the cast off blood could not have gotten on the night clothes any other way except by a stabbing motion with the hand and weapon being raised above her shoulder . Which of course, points to her stabbing the boys. How has her attorney danced around this smoking gun? IMO this has to be the most important evidence and the hardest to explain away.

 

[Goody]

I know at one time she was claiming that the blood evidence was not accurate because the clothes were thrown in with other objects. That may account for some of the smears, but the cast off blood could not have gotten on the night clothes any other way except by a stabbing motion with the hand and weapon being raised above her shoulder . Which of course, points to her stabbing the boys. How has her attorney danced around this smoking gun? IMO this has to be the most important evidence and the hardest to explain away.

The claim about her night shirt was that it was put into the paper bag while still wet and as it folded it could have transferred blood that only looked like it was cast off. I don't buy that because transferred blood would not look like it had flown through the air and landed on it with a little tail pointing one way or the other. Surely the blood experts can tell the difference between transfers and actual droplets. That has to be pretty much blood spatter 101, you would think.

Damon's pants and shirt were put into the same bag, separate from Darlie's night shirt. That comes with a lot of criticism too but I don't believe his clothing was used that much in any critical area of the evidence.