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