Luminol Evidence

[beesy]

I couldn't agree with you more about putting rumors forth as facts. However something does not have to be in the trial transcript to qualify as an official document

I realize that. If I have overlooked mention of the chicken soup for dinner in any official document, please let me know. It is not mentioned in Darlie's official hand-written statement even though she talked about eating dinner and putting things away. It can be found here:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/index.html

 

[beesy]

You are one slippery woman Beesy. What we were talking about had absolutely nothing to do with Linch, luminol or luminol links.

No, I was asking how you could have read the entire thread and missed my posts. Remember I asked you how much of this thread had you read and you said "all of it"? The part you quoted was about reading this thread. In one post you told me I need to read Linch's testimony. I obviously did if I posted the link to it. That's why I asked how much of the thread had you read. When you said all of it, I was surprised because you didn't notice what I had posted. And the title of this thread is Luminol Evidence, which is why I keep referring to it! You are hijacking it. I read it all

there was blood in the sink from chickens she cut up. She did not say that. Period. There's just no way to weasel here. I'm going to post your statement and mine one more time so maybe you can see what you said and then I am THROUGH with this thread. It's gotten just ridiculous.

Yes, it has, you have insulted my intelligence by posting a statement of mine at least 2x. Yet, you have ignored my other posts concerning what you said were rumors and I proved that Darin and family were spreading the rumors after she was convicted. You haven't even responded to those posts. You have reduced this thread to an argument about something that really makes no difference in the long run. There was washed away blood in the sink, which is indicative of a clean up. So, how does Darlie answer that? Does she say LE is lying or their tests were wrong or does she make up an excuse? Which one has she done in all of these years? I am not trying to weasel out of anything. The cleaned up blood is the important matter, not what they had for dinner or what they said they had or whatever. Again look at the title of the threadAs far as documenting what has been said about the chicken unless you are Darlie and remember everything you have ever said, then you cannot document that she has never said that. You said 100% positive, the end. You can't be positive and you certainly can't be positive about what any of her supporters have said. You would need to read every post on here, every article ever written, every TV show, every book, speak to everyone who has spoken with Darlie since the murders. All you can truthfully say is that you do not believe anyone has said it. Saying she or nobody from her camp has for sure, positive, cannot be documented.

 

[Goody]

.......There was washed away blood in the sink, which is indicative of a clean up. So, how does Darlie answer that? Does she say LE is lying or their tests were wrong or does she make up an excuse? Which one has she done in all of these years?.......

Hate to interrupt such a good debate here, but.....

She says she wet towels at the sink and running water washed the blood down the sink as she did so. Until the sink was removed from the house, there is no record of Darlie ever addressing the issue. That is not to say that she didn't make statements that we don't know about. All of the truth never enters the court room, you know.

By the way, the chicken blood theory was from another poster who posed it years ago. We shouldn't get posters who support her mixed up with "her camp." They don't have authority to speak for her. Sometimes it seems like they are all one unit, but we should try to remember that they aren't anymore than those of us who believe she is guilty are one unit with the prosecution. We can't speak for the state either.

 

[StellaTravers]

It was during the walk-through with the psychic(Fran) and her son who wore a rope for a belt. Darin, Darlie, Dana, Forsch and Patterson were there as well. Darlie froze and stared at the hole which used to be the kitchen sink. Then she said she suddenly remembered wetting towels for the boys. Darin looked blankly at her, then agreed. As you said, as far we know, this was the first time Darlie mentioned to someone official she had wet towels. Neither Walling or Waddell back her on this. This was the time that Darlie whined about the blood on her UR door, saying it might be her blood, but she didn't put it there. And when they first entered the Roman Room, she said something about the mess LE had left.

I had always wondered who was around when the psychic was there. Weren't there supposedly two of them? Anyhow, back to the sink. I think her reaction and timing of her "wetting towels recollection" speaks volumes. I don't see how or why she would have omitted telling about wetting the towels in her previous versions, had she actually done so. That isn't something that a person would forget doing. The fact that she felt she had to explain away the sink makes me think there was something she wanted to hide. She has too many episodes of convenient amnesia.

 

[IrishMist]

Beesy, I gotta tell ya... I read this forum every time I'm on this board. Don't post much, but always read. And you never come across as an idiot in any way, shape or form.

You made an error, and once you realized that, you admitted it. An idiot is one that keeps arguing their statement without admitting they were wrong!!

So until the mods make the rule that you must be perfectly right and accurate in every statement you put on here, and must never admit fault, then you are fine.

So ease up on yourself, and keep on posting. I'm one member here that loves to read what you write, and admires your knowledge of this case.

 

[Mary456]

Goody, one thing that I remember from the trial was that the defense was angry when they found out that the FBI agent had been given a much larger number of crime scene photos than they had been given.

The photos Agent Brantley studied in order to render his opinion about staging have nothing whatsoever to do with the exhibits - including photographs - admitted into evidence and shown to the jury. Apples and oranges, Brenda.

The defense gathers information, the prosecution gathers information. No limits are imposed. They present that information (photos, witnesses, expert opinions, forensics, etc.) to a judge and he/she decides what is appropriate and relevant to be admitted into evidence. The defense doesn't determine that. The prosecution doesn't determine that. The judge does.

It's not about investigations before the trial. It's about what evidence is allowed into the trial, based on law.

 

[BrenTex]

Beesy, nothing I said in this thread was meant to be attacking to you at all and I'm very sorry you took it that way. I was only trying to make one single point and that's all. I have nothing against you at all and certainly don't think you are looking like a fool. I can't imagine that anyone else does either. To me you look like someone who is very interested in this case and interested in finding out the truth. I tried to help with that and if you noticed anything at all that sounded a little miffed, it wasn't at you. It was at people that I know could have told you the truth about that and just didn't do it. I don't think that's right, and especially for someone who is trying to find the truth as hard as you are.

I don't know everything or have all the answers and I won't be posting unless I'm awfully sure of what I'm saying. But I am going to continue to work under the assumption that everyone here is still trying to find out just what happened that night.

 

[cami]

No, it's my fault. I had surgery yesterday and I was cranky and nervous and HUNGRY when I posted. I didn't think Lohnes was hired by the defense. I'm confused about the hearings then. The prosecution can enter new evidence?

Lohnes and Langenburg are the defence experts Beesy. Lohnes matches Darin's latent print to the latent on the utility room door, Langenburg doesn't so even the defence experts are not on the same page.

Link to the Langenburg/Lohnes

 

[cami]

Even with my limited memory anymore, I am 100% totally positive that Darlie never said any such thing about any chicken blood explaining any washed away blood on the kitchen counter and in the sink. Just did not happen. She's been accused of telling many stories but I can promise you that this is not one she told.
And I am so surprised at the people who are here and are supposed to know a lot about this case and they never said a single word about this. This is not a good thing when a newbie to the case is requesting factual information. That is when the person with the facts should respond and give real truthful information.
And as to the luminol story about the handprint all there is, I believe, is a true crime author's story. There was no trial testimony about this at all. Not a good source for factual information. Better to look at the trial transcripts which are more readily available to everyone than the true crime books, if a little longer and harder to read.

The chicken blood story was made up by the fordarlieroutier forum members a few years ago. Jeffrey and Rachel in particular...they also have Darin repairing his main frame computers with the serrated bread knife, hence the fibreglass rod and rubber dust adhering to the knife when it was processed. The chicken blood story has been made fun of so many times by the anti's that I believe some newbies just picked it up as true and didn't realize it was folklore. What's the big deal? Are we being chastised now for allowing someone to believe it was Darlie who said it. If she could have she would have. She just allows her supporters to put words in her mouth. Where's the proof by document that she had even made soup that night as opposed to opening a can of Campbells?

 

[cami]

You do know that this story of the knife going through Devon, the carpet and the carpet padding to nick the concrete slab was origionally told by a policeman aren't you?

That's where the true crime author got the story.

Bet that's where Darin origionally got the story too. He knows different now.

This story was also included in the affidavit for the Judge to issue the arrest warrant for Darlie. Did you know that? And in this same document he assured the Judge that he had read the autopsy reports. But it's very strange because the autopsy results said that no knife blade exited the little boy's back. And yet in another sentence this same person told the same story about nicking the concrete.

Puzzling.

But again, NOT TRUE. True Crime authors don't always tell the truth. Sometimes they just write down what people tell them and claim it to be the truth. Much like any other media type.

BTW, this is the same way the story got born about Devon's heels being "bruised" from kicking his killer. Darlie presumably, although she did not have the corresponding bruiises. The true crime author heard it from either a paramedic or a policeman who was at the crime scene and didn't know about lividity. I can't remember which one told her that.

Brenda we try to stick to the evidence and not this. This has never ever been discussed on a Darlie forum to my knowledge and I've been around most of them for years. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that a true crime author may not have all his/her facts verified. You mentioned Hush Little Babies by Don Davis. He has Darlie up and fighting with the intruder in the kitchen and we know Darlie has never claimed she was fighting face to face with an intruder in her kitchen....

 

[cami]

I don't and I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Just taking a survey?

Autumn is trying to tell you that Darlie cleaned her sink with javex that night and that's what the luminol reacted to...not blood. I might believe it IF there were no blood on the kitchen floor and smeared down the door, under the ledge and inside the cupboard.

 

[beesy]

Autumn is trying to tell you that Darlie cleaned her sink with javex that night and that's what the luminol reacted to...not blood. I might believe it IF there were no blood on the kitchen floor and smeared down the door, under the ledge and inside the cupboard.

Yeah, I figured it out...Thank you, I answered her, it's hard to find it in all of these posts, so here it is again. Linch addresses this in his testimony
I read a book eons ago about a man accused of killing his family. Luminol glowed in the shower as if someone had washed off. Further testing showed that it was soap or shampoo. Bleach is not the only thing which reacts. As I said, soaps and detergents do as well. But, they glow a different shade of green, old blood glows differently also. Here is the link to Linch's testimony from my previous post. In it he describes the different shades:


18 Q. All right. And when you looked at the
19 kitchen sink, what was its appearance?
20 A. It was unusual. It -- the sink
21 portion had been cleaned of blood, and the blood stains
22 on the front of the cabinet, were such that when that
23 blood was being shed, it would also need to be shed into
24 the sinks, which were now clean. So, it was my opinion
25 that the sinks had probably been cleaned of blood.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2797
1 Q. All right. Did you do any testing,
2 presumptive testing to determine if there was actually
3 blood in the sink or around the sink?
4 A. Miss Long did.
5 Q. All right. And what were the results?
6 A. The faucets were -- showed no blood
7 present, but with our chemicals we got a reaction.
8 Q. All right.
9 A. The -- there were some stains that
10 appeared to be watered down, that had run into the

11 stainless steel areas, that were positive for blood.
12 Kathryn took samples of those. The
13 water faucet, where the water actually comes out, that
14 appeared clean and stainless steel, but that was also
15 reactive for the presence of blood.
16 Q. All right. Now, when you get a
17 reaction for blood, does it range -- is there a certain

18 range of reaction? I mean, does all blood react equally,
19 or do you have a variance there?
20 A. Well, with time you appreciate a
21 difference. With the chemicals we use, if blood is
22 present, or the presumptive presence of blood, it will
23 pop up a green color, kind of a blue-green.
24 If the blood is fresh, it will react
25 very quickly and a very bright blue-green. If the blood
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2798

1 is old, you will get kind of a dull, light-green color to
2 the reaction.
3 And some of the false/positive
4 materials will give the dull, slower, green reaction.
5 Q. What kind of reaction did you get for
6 the samples actually inside the bowl of the sink?
7 A. Those were quickly and darkly
8 reactive.
9 Q. All right. Did you sample anything
10 from the faucet area that appeared to be clean?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. What kind of reaction did you get up
13 there?
14 A. That was quickly and darkly reactive.
15 Q. Which told you what?
16 A. That there was recent contact with
17 that faucet with blood
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/tra...es/vol-37.php#1

 

[beesy]

Beesy, I gotta tell ya... I read this forum every time I'm on this board. Don't post much, but always read. And you never come across as an idiot in any way, shape or form.

You made an error, and once you realized that, you admitted it. An idiot is one that keeps arguing their statement without admitting they were wrong!!

So until the mods make the rule that you must be perfectly right and accurate in every statement you put on here, and must never admit fault, then you are fine.

So ease up on yourself, and keep on posting. I'm one member here that loves to read what you write, and admires your knowledge of this case.

:blowkiss: Thank you very much. I didn't even want to look at this thread anymore, but I peeked and saw your nice note.

 

[beesy]

The chicken blood story was made up by the fordarlieroutier forum members a few years ago. Jeffrey and Rachel in particular...they also have Darin repairing his main frame computers with the serrated bread knife, hence the fibreglass rod and rubber dust adhering to the knife when it was processed. The chicken blood story has been made fun of so many times by the anti's that I believe some newbies just picked it up as true and didn't realize it was folklore. What's the big deal? Are we being chastised now for allowing someone to believe it was Darlie who said it. If she could have she would have. She just allows her supporters to put words in her mouth. Where's the proof by document that she had even made soup that night as opposed to opening a can of Campbells?

That's what I thought. I said it was a rumor, then I got why did you say it? I just didn't have you the other day. I have heard jokes about it and the bread knife, because, darn it, it's funny. I know it isn't official, but no matter what I said, we ended back on that one sentence. I know what the excuse on record is, always have.
I think the whole thing about it is that it shows Darlie went out of her way for dinner that night. That she didn't simply open a can of Campbell's or a frozen dinner. Damon had carrots in his tummy. I think for carrots to still be in his tummy that much later, he had to eat more than just the ones that came in chicken soup. That might be the only reason we even care about what they ate.

 

[beesy]

Lohnes and Langenburg are the defence experts Beesy. Lohnes matches Darin's latent print to the latent on the utility room door, Langenburg doesn't so even the defence experts are not on the same page.

Link to the Langenburg/Lohnes

Ok, thank you. I was only reporting Francis' decision which was that it didn't matter if Darin's latent was on his own door. No matter who found it, ID'd it, whatever. Francis said it didn't matter because Darin lived there. It would matter if it had been the bloody one, but who cares if Darin's latent is or is not on his own door?
I'm going to buy some secret decoder rings now

 

[Goody]

Brenda we try to stick to the evidence and not this. This has never ever been discussed on a Darlie forum to my knowledge and I've been around most of them for years. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that a true crime author may not have all his/her facts verified. You mentioned Hush Little Babies by Don Davis. He has Darlie up and fighting with the intruder in the kitchen and we know Darlie has never claimed she was fighting face to face with an intruder in her kitchen....

Not according to Waddell. He has said since day one that she first told him she struggled with the intruder in the kitchen, then later told Walling she was on the couch. Waddell is the only one she supposedly said it to though so you have to wonder if he was mistaken.

 

[beesy]

Not according to Waddell. He has said since day one that she first told him she struggled with the intruder in the kitchen, then later told Walling she was on the couch. Waddell is the only one she supposedly said it to though so yve to wonder if he was mistaken.

When and where does he say this? Is this another Darlie edit? Sounded good at the time, but after thinking on it, dropped the struggle?

 

[Goody]

When and where does he say this? Is this another Darlie edit? Sounded good at the time, but after thinking on it, [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_6.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_6.gif[/url] dropped the struggle?

Read the transcripts.

 

[Desilu]

Well I think I've answered my own question about the luminol. Just watched WE program on Darlie and they have the video shot of the sink area with the glowing luminol. Extremely telling, especially the portions on the front of the cabinets.

 

[StellaTravers]

What is the WE show? I would like to see it. I don't recall seeing one with the luminol results.