Oh, I was just teasing you. I'm sorry.
But the people who think the SS party nailed her don't know everything. So right I'm sure they'd think a new trial is a wonderful thing. You're right, Mulder was not at his best, but I do not think that warrents a new trial. But, like I say, bring it on. Did you hear than Andrea Yates is getting a new trial? It starts in March. Should be interesting.
I'm not very familiar with this part. Are you talking about recently? I know they got everything during the trial. If the State was supressing evidence they screwed up because they entered pictures and documents. Fill me in on this. He's not the only one who's looked at her appeals and denied them. So I'm confused.
What are they testing anyway? I can't remember. Test away, I say.
Again, I'm trusting John Douglas on this. Yes, criminals do talk. I don't think you could call what Douglas said a mistake. He's worked on alot of cases. Isn't he the man who coined "serial killer"? So if the intruder did not bring a weapon, what was he doing there? He didn't steal anything. Another thing, the kitchen was dark, except for the glow of the TV. Grantd, it was a huge TV, but still. The butcher block was in an area which would not have been lit up very well by the TV. Chris says something really stupid in MTJD, more than 1, but this is really stupid. He says the kitchen was too dark for the intruder to see Darlie's jewelry, but then we are expected to believe the guy found the butcher block in an unfamiliar house? The light was not on in the garage either. He ran through it blind as he tried to escape.
Why? There was only one knife. Same goes if there was another one though. How did they find the butcher block in the dark? He did they escape through the dark garage? Why did they go into the house, get the bread knife, cut the screen with the bread knife, PUT IT BACK, do their thing, then escape through the dark garage? You can't dismiss everything Darlie says as trauma. She is very clear that she followed one man through the kitchen, then stopped, realized the light was OFF, turned around, went back, turned it on, then picked up the knife. Huh? Does that make sense? . She turned her back on a man she had just sometimes been struggling with, sometimes seen up close, sometimes far away. Either way, this man was a stranger in her home in the middle of the night and she turned her back to him. Do you know why Darlie says she turned around? That part is never left out of her stories, the part about following him, then turning around to hit the light. She says that because she realized she couldn't get up all of her footprints. She saw that they went back and forth. Bingo! So her story is she goes over and comes back and so there, then that's covered. She did not say anything about the sink until she saw the sink had been taken.
I think some of it is flat out lies. Bloody footprints leading away from the garage? Isn't that what you said? Most of it is misleading. They say there should have been cast-off on the ceiling. I don't think anybody even looked at the ceiling. How does that prove her innocence or her guilt? It's the blood on her that matters. We know people were being stabbed. So they don't say all of that. And the fingerprints, they don't say they are too smeared to get a clear look. They don't say that Darlie cannot be ruled out. I've read on one of the sites and they actually say it didn't match her. That's a lie. The expert even said it's indicative of an adult woman or small framed male, leaning more towards the woman. And don't ask me how he knows that.
Then why are you having a hard time believing the cast-off in Damon's blood on Darlie's back shows she stabbed him?