Darlie's injuries
- Thread starter CW
- Start date
tezi
Proud member of WS since 2000.
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2003
- Messages
- 5,659
- Reaction score
- 2,280
Good Gawd, I'm not that nutty.Jeana (DP) said:
You know I have been really thinking about those bruises on her arm. This summer, I fell against the waterbed when the new puppy ran and tripped me, so rather than fall on the puppy, I fell on the side of the bed. I had a bruise from my hip to my thigh. It took it weeks to go away. I couldn't even where shorts without someone asking me who beat the crap out of me. As far as how Darlie may have got those bruises, is it possible she repeatedly hit her arm on something to cause it to bruise? Or had Darin hit her with something?
I think Devon may have left some significant marking on Darlie's arm that she feared would be used against her if it was seen, so she banged up that arm to hide it, thinking no one would be able to tell it from the other bruises. Whether LE could have actually used the marking against her or not is not really the point. It has more to do with what she feared they might be able to do.j2mirish said:
Another possibility is that the detectives may have remarked that she didn't have many defensive wounds on her arms, so she decided to give them something to satisfy that. If she were really trying to give herself defensive wounds, surely she would not have been so stupid as to only target her arms. Common sense should tell anyone that defensive wounds/bruises would be in variable places, not just in one area. That makes me think she had a specific reason for creating those bruises and to create them as massively as she did.
The only other possibility would be that she didn't create them at all, that they just appeared and she took advantage of their existence to prove she had been attacked. That is harder to swallow, but maybe not totally impossible.
I think it had to be a hard flat surface because there are no markings to show edges of something hitting her. That could be anything rather large, even a countertop or possibly a door. JG mentioned wall bruising on one of these threads. We'll have to see what she says about that, but maybe she thinks she just threw herself up against a wall.the original tez said:
Yep. Most people think the blows that caused the bruises happened on the night she was released from the hospital or possibly the next day. You can't tell by the pics on their website as they have been blown up and are too distorted.michelle said:
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
dasgal said:
I agree. I've never thought it was possible. Those boys didn't stand a chance. There's no way they put up any sort of a fight.
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
Goody said:
Yes, and I tend to think that they were caused by one or two "applications" of whatever it was that did the bruising and not multiple repeated applications. Whatever it was seems to have been fairly consistent since both arms look pretty similar. Could a "compression" of some sort have caused them?
AlwaysHope
Justice for Laci & Connor
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 152
- Reaction score
- 2
Didn't they take pictures of her while in the hospital and those pics showed the bruises?
Jeana (DP)
Former Member
AlwaysHope said:
No ma'am.
AlwaysHope
Justice for Laci & Connor
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2003
- Messages
- 152
- Reaction score
- 2
My bad... Thanks!
They took photos at the hospital, that first day (june 6th) but they show no bruising. Not even any big red splotches, which surely would have been present if she'd hit or been hit with anything significant that morning.AlwaysHope said:
JimPence
Member
One of the questions (smokescreens?) that is frequently brought up by supporters of Darlie is, "Why weren't the photos of Darlie's bruised arms shown at trial?" The implication, of course, is that had the jury seen these photos, they'd have believed the intruder theory and acquitted Darlie. Therefore, the prosecution must have held back these pictures for fear of losing the case.
And, just as frequently, those who believe in Darlie's guilt (as I do) respond that the pictures were shown at the trial.
Well, I wish I could attribute the following to diligent research on my part. Actually, I just stumbled across it while reading the trial transcripts. However, this should put to rest the question of whether the jury saw the photos of the bruises. The photos were not only seen; they were brought in by the prosecution -- and discussed.
Go to www.justicefordarlie.net and open Volume 32 of the trial transcript. Scroll down to page 1211. Toby Shook is questioning Denise Rene Faulk, a nurse who cared for Darlie when she came into the hospital. He specifically shows her a photo marked State's Exhibit 52-b. He asks if she sees the large bruising down Darlie's right arm (p1212, line4). He also asks if the nurse saw any bruising the night Darlie was brought in. (She did not.)
The "bruised Darlie" photos were taken several days after the murders (I don't remember how many--somebody help me). Toby Shook (IMO) introduced those photos to head off the defense and keep them from arguing what so many want to argue right now--that the bruises are proof that Darlie struggled with an intruder. They aren't.
Jim
And, just as frequently, those who believe in Darlie's guilt (as I do) respond that the pictures were shown at the trial.
Well, I wish I could attribute the following to diligent research on my part. Actually, I just stumbled across it while reading the trial transcripts. However, this should put to rest the question of whether the jury saw the photos of the bruises. The photos were not only seen; they were brought in by the prosecution -- and discussed.
Go to www.justicefordarlie.net and open Volume 32 of the trial transcript. Scroll down to page 1211. Toby Shook is questioning Denise Rene Faulk, a nurse who cared for Darlie when she came into the hospital. He specifically shows her a photo marked State's Exhibit 52-b. He asks if she sees the large bruising down Darlie's right arm (p1212, line4). He also asks if the nurse saw any bruising the night Darlie was brought in. (She did not.)
The "bruised Darlie" photos were taken several days after the murders (I don't remember how many--somebody help me). Toby Shook (IMO) introduced those photos to head off the defense and keep them from arguing what so many want to argue right now--that the bruises are proof that Darlie struggled with an intruder. They aren't.
Jim
They took photos of Darlie on two days. The first was June 6th, the first day she was in the hospital (no bruises, not even red marks), and the second was June 10th, two days after she was released from the hospital (big ugly bruises). The latter was done at the police station.JimPence said:
beesy
myspace.com/beesy_boo
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,814
- Reaction score
- 21
You'd think it would be settled wouldn't you Jim? The Pro-Darlies will just come back saying that not ALL of the photos were shown and that some of them show more bruising than others. That's what Barbara Davis says. They will never be satisfied that Darlie did it unless she tells us.
Yes, Michelle. That's correct.
And there was quite a bit of testimony by the doctors about the time frame that the really bad bruises could occur. 24 to 48 hours. So according to the doctors testimony (may have been nurses also) they had to have occurred after she left the hospital. So to add to what Jim Pense said not only where the bruises brought up but it was discussed about the probably of when those occurred. I haven't read the whole transcripts so I don't know what the defense did concerning the pictures at trial.
The pictures of her standing wearing a light color t-shirt and white shorts are the ones taken later at the police station, including the close ups of her inner arms. And of course the ones where she is bandaged and lying in bed are at the hospital.
The only thing I can think of is that the testimony was done over days so maybe no one understood the importance at the time it was being discussed especially since it was brought up by the prosecutor not the defense. But they are horrible bruises so that doesn't make sense either.
And there was quite a bit of testimony by the doctors about the time frame that the really bad bruises could occur. 24 to 48 hours. So according to the doctors testimony (may have been nurses also) they had to have occurred after she left the hospital. So to add to what Jim Pense said not only where the bruises brought up but it was discussed about the probably of when those occurred. I haven't read the whole transcripts so I don't know what the defense did concerning the pictures at trial.
The pictures of her standing wearing a light color t-shirt and white shorts are the ones taken later at the police station, including the close ups of her inner arms. And of course the ones where she is bandaged and lying in bed are at the hospital.
The only thing I can think of is that the testimony was done over days so maybe no one understood the importance at the time it was being discussed especially since it was brought up by the prosecutor not the defense. But they are horrible bruises so that doesn't make sense either.