Silly String Birthday Party

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Hi Jane, Yes Jaidyn Leske was the little boy and the baby girl was Deirdre Kennedy from Ipswich or thereabouts.
You might find them if you google.I don't know how to paste stuff.
Mrs Kennedy has frequently been in the news pleading for someone to do something about the murderer of her baby.And his harrassment of her.
What it proves is that juries get things wrong.People are only people, they are not machines that can't go wrong.
The Lindy Chamberlain case reminds me of the West Memphis 3 with its overtones of black magic.
I remember someone writing in a forum and asking if the WM3 could happen in Australia and I answered that it already had.
Azaria Chamberlain was supposed to have been a sacrifice in the wildness.
In that particular case the weird one was not Lindy, it was her husband Michael the pastor.
It was at his demand that Lindy did not allow herself to grieve for her baby.It was Michael who put the words in Lindy's mouth all the way through.
The Sydney Morning Herald itself in an article on the front page eventually denounced Michael for his strangeness.
I saw Lindy recently on TV and she is grieving now for that baby that she was not allowed to grieve for at the time.

Regards CM

Yeah the whole Azaria thing was horrific. I remember how everyone touted stuff like vigilantes *burn the witch* and so on - and in that case I stood by her being innocent.


The little baby you mentioned was 17mths - but 8 , 12 17 mths whatever even 6 yrs old a baby / child is a baby / child and not for raping and murdering and throwing on a toilet block

I cant read too much of that case :(
It appears NSW overturned the 800 year old archaic double jeopardy law I only QLD follow suit and retry that

How does a man sexually assault (is that rape?) a infant ? (even a child) but specifically a infant ? What pleasure can come from that ? I will NEVER understand how men can do that NEVER EVER NEVER EVER

To be honest I am suprised he is still alive. I am totally shocked no one took a gun and killed him. 30 years ago it wasnt unheard of for that to happen...
 
Hi Jane, I think if Qld overturned the DJ law the murderer of Deirdre Kennedy would not be re-tried as the laws usually don't act retrospectively.Is that what I mean, or retroactively?

No I don't know how some men think a very young child is a sexual being, but they do.
And of course if someone up and shot the murderer they would be exacting revenge or delivering a DP on their say so.
And that is why we call ourselves civilised people.Because we do not blindly react to these things as our nature wants us to.
We manufacture a set of laws and let the law deal with it on the understanding that we all be treated equally.
But as there is no equality with man, neither is there equality in the laws he makes.
Which makes us all the poorer for it.

I guess that's why the 10 Commandments were such a good idea in the first place.
Personally I can a good job on that myself, taking from the doctors' Hippocratic Oath..........
'First do no harm'........and extend it to every single creature.

Regards
CM.
 
Yes I know Cm but I was saying in *those* days it was not unheard of for people to exact revenge like that kwim /

Did you get my pm's
 
Gosh I'm clueless.And not just because people tell me so.
Jane I got your PMs and I think I answered them.Let me know.
Sorry I am not good at this computer stuff.
Regards
CM.
 
Well that's my take on it anyway.

Getting back to Darlie......
I would say that the Silly String episode ( along with loads of blood evidence and her own words) is what convicted Darlie.
And presuming that she is psychotic or deranged to do that sort of thing, does that mean she has the DNA for it, or is it just a bad arrangement of neurons?
I mean, could she have prevented herself from stabbing the boys, or was she programmed to do so by her genetic disposition?
In which case maybe we should feel sorry for her, as that would make her a victim of her DNA.

I wonder if there was a moment in all that horrible drama that occurred that Darlie could have stopped and looked at what she was doing. Or was she driven to do it?

Maybe she saw killing her sons as just another life (or in this case, death) choice.
I think that is the answer.
And I don't necessarily think that makes her mad.
Though it does make her bad.

I imagine that to kill your children you would need to feel that you had the right to take their lives.I suppose she thought that having given them in the first place she had the right to take them.

And I guess we should not forget the meds she was on.....bad stuff for a young mother.
Maybe that could be extenuating circumstances.......if she had only killed one in an outburst and then stopped.
But to kill two.One after the other.And then to return and stab again.Just to make sure.

Let's hope Darin sheds some light on the whole thing as all the appeals are cast aside.

CM
 
Well unless she receives a miracle in the disguise of new evidence because of the new DNA testing she will never get a new trial no matter how much some people think she should. If there is no new evidence out of this I don't think it will be long before she will be sent to the death chamber. She's been on death row long enough and it's time for those boys to have justice served.
 
You are right! Cron "messed up and first missed the blood." :clap:[/COLOR]


<snip>

You've lost me. :confused:

Look at any news coverage or the television programs from June 6th...bright, sunny day...whilst evidence was being collected.

You'd make a good defence attorney..spin everything and throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks.

With the amount of blood in that house..in the utility room, that garage should be covered in blood if an intruder ran through there. One faint transfer stain doesn't cut it.
 
Mulder never offered ANY expert to dispute the evidence.

Laber and Epstein were prepared to do that. Mulder promptly dismissed them.

Laber's findings were never entered into court so how would know this? That's a pretty strong allegation without proof.
 
1 11th, were you primarily looking for blood stains at that
2 time?
3 A. That was the interest at that time,
4 yes, sir.
5 Q. And it sounded to me like most of the
6 focus of that was outside?
7 A. Some of it was outside. I would say
8 it was equal focus outside around the gate and driveway
9 area and in the family room.
10 Q. So, I take it that at least at that
11 time, that you thought it was possible, that Mr. Cron and
12 everybody else had overlooked some blood?
13 A. I wanted to see what they had taken
14 and had not taken.

18 Q. Now, what kind of things can interfere
19 with taking blood outside of -- or observing it or
20 testing for it? Is the weather a factor?
21 A. Oh, yes. It can wash it away. But,
22 in the instance of a big stain, you would still expect
23 there to be some reactive residue.
24 Q. But a small stain might be washed
25 away?
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. As a matter of fact, there was a large
3 thunderstorm on the night of the 7th, wasn't there?

16 Q. Let me show you a document out of Ms.
17 Long's file?
18 A. I recognize it.

22 Q. Does that also refresh -- where she
23 says down there, "Even after last night's rainstorm,
24 let's try to get some samples outside"?
25 A. That is present on this.

1 Q. That is what it says, isn't it?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Do you now recollect that there was a
4 rainstorm on the 7th?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. If Ms. Long's recollection is
7 correct, that could certainly hinder your ability to find
8 blood stains out there on the 11th, couldn't it?
9 A. Yes, it could, outside.
10 Q. Okay. On the 6th, when you were out
11 there and you saw this blood area, would you call it a
12 smudge or what would you call it, on the -- in the
13 garage?
14 A. Are you talking about in the garage?
15 Q. Yes, sir.
16 A. It appeared to be a faint shadow of
17 light, powdery blood material.
18 Q. Could you say consistent with new
19 blood, old blood?
20 A. Didn't look like a primary transfer.
21 It looked like a secondary, tertiary type transfer.

10 Q. Okay. And as you were going out
11 there, who noticed that first? Well, let me go back.
12 When you were there making the -- the first time that you
13 saw, who was with you?
14 A. Kathryn Long, and I can't remember if
15 Mr. Cron was with us or not, but I think it was found in
16 his absence and then I directed his attention to it.
17 Q. So, when you pointed out that stain,
18 did it appear that Cron had not previously been aware of
19 it?
20 A. He had told me earlier that there was
21 no blood in the garage.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. I asked him, what about this.
24 Q. All right. So had Cron told you,
25 there is no blood in the garage. Mr. Linch goes out, he

1 finds blood in the garage, and then you went back to Mr.
2 Cron and said, what about that blood in the garage?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. And Cron had never mentioned that
5 blood in the garage to you?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Did Cron have an instant answer?
8 A. He said he felt like it had probably
9 been tracked out there.
10 Q. Cron told you that the blood that he
11 had not yet seen had probably been tracked in there by a
12 paramedic or somebody; is that right?
13 A. That's right.:eek:


Oh that.....I thought you meant blood, not a transfer stain...is this Cron's recantation you're talking about?

You still don't answer where all the blood went. The utility room has lots of blood dripped around in it. If the intruder had that much blood on him where did it go? One tiny transfer stain on a sign in the garage?
 
May I make a suggestion to JaneinOz and Britlaw and others who think Darlie is innocent?
When I first saw the program here on Darlie and the murders of her sons I found it hard to believe that a woman could do that.
I vacillated between thinking her innocent and thinking her guilty.
I worried about the bruising on her arms and other things I thought pointed to Darlie's innocence.

Then I found Websleuths and began to read the posts from the beginning.I don't know if some have been deleted, I am new to this, but I read everything available and got to know the thinking of the posters at the time.
(Which is why I recommended that people read those old posts).

I desperately wanted to believe that Darlie is innocent.So much so every piece of evidence I saw seemed to point that way.
When I read about the stab wound on her arm 'bleeding in' as opposed to 'out', suddenly things began to make sense to me.That is where the bruising came from.

From that moment I changed my perspective and decided to look at the situation as if Darlie were guilty.
The silly string episode disturbed me immensely and I couldn't work out why.
Weren't people allowed to grieve as they wished?
No, it was more than that.
It was a reaction of someone who was a victor.I decided that Darlie had seen her sons as enemies.(A lot of mothers do this.Listen in the supermarkets sometimes at the way mothers speak to their children and you will believe it)
Darlie was indeed angry with her sons. Of late she had allowed them to roam the streets all day.That very day they had emptied the hot tub of water.
With her mental state,PPD, and the diet tablets it wasn't hard for her to go over the top.Of course you have to couple that with Darlie's own personal desire to be the centre of attention and lack of conscience and a monster is born.

When I began looking at the evidence as if Darlie were guilty everything dropped into place.For the first time things began to make sense.
I don't know if Darin was involved.I feel that he was.I have written here somewhere that I think he was forced by Darlie to contribute to the stabbing.
I really don't know.
But I know that the motive of the killings was not to deprive Darin of herself and the children.
Darlie does not have the type of personality to cause herself harm.
All those lovely pedicures go to waste?
Never!
The motive was to get rid of the boys and have Darin come crawling to her feet for the beautiful Darlie she once was.
The older posters on Websleuths helped me arrive at this conclusion.
I thank them.

CM.

Hey CM, this is a very thought provoking post. I too started with the belief in innocence and when I read everything I started to see as well that the confusion was trying to fit Darlie to the crime scene as an innocent mother.

I told my bf one time that the ss tape to me shows Darlie's source of stress is gone...the children. I believe she had already detached emotionally from those boys and the murders were the result. It shows her narcissism that's for sure. I also think the motive was revenge..as I do in the Casey Anthony case...revenge on Darin. Whatever happened in the house that night, Darin has to know he was the catalyst and I believe he is very guilty for that and that's why he appears guilty to most. I don't think he had a hand in the murders at all.


Ladies in Australia...I'm watching the Aussie Open and they are talking about the unbearable hot weather. Yeah well it's frigging freezing here I can tell you that LOL. Everywhere is just a sheet of ice..you need nails on your boots. I sit back and imagine myself in that hot sunshine.

Fingers crossed no fires break out.
 
Hi WhityWendy, thank you for mentioning Cami and Mary.I knew I would forget someone.

About the DP.You are the perfect example of someone who has to live with the loss of a loved one to a murderer.I am so sorry, and yes you are right on all levels.
Why indeed should this man be free to see his children grow and maybe be a grandfather.
Life is indeed unfair.

I will tell you about 2 cases in Australia which make me weep, one because it is so close to where I live.One night many years ago a young man crept into an 8month baby's bedroom and abducted her.
He raped her and dressed her in women's clothes and killed her.He then threw the poor pathetic body on the roof of a block of toilets.
He was eventually arrested and tried and found not guilty.
The police later found more evidence that proved he had done the crime.
The deplorable part of this (apart from the killing of the baby ) is that he now visits the supermarket where the poor mother works and forces her to serve him, smirking all the while.The woman's marriage broke up and she is alone and has to suffer this.There is no law that says he cannot do this.

The second case is the death of a small boy who was being baby-sat in Victoria.The baby-sitter was tried for his murder and found not guilty but admitted to someone how and why he did the crime.

Due to these travesties of justice Australia is now considering changing the Double Jeopary law.It will be too late to re-try these two murderers and they have got away with it.
I believe NZ has already somewhat changed the DJ law so that in certain cases people can be retried for murder after they have been found not guilty.

WhityWendy, had I ever been in a situation like you have maybe I would be here advocating the DP.But I haven't, and I can only see society clinging to the Dark Ages by using it.
However I agree totally with you that it is appalling to have to watch a convicted murderer go free.
Maybe we people on this forum can think of a way to end this injustice, without reducing ourselves as human beings in the process.

Regards CM

OMG, that's horrific...that dear little baby. What kind of monster could do such a thing. It makes me want to weep too.

We don't have the DP in Canada either and I don't advocate for it..it solves nothing. Althougth once in a while a case comes along that might make me change my mind (Paul Bernardo).

Oh if they legislated overturning DJ here, they could re-try Karla Homolka for murder. I don't see that ever being legislated...I think it's a slippery slope.
 
Hi Cyberlaw,no dear you wouldn't want to be in Oz at present.The heat is unbearable.My big aircon is broken and I am coping with the little one but barely.

In regard to Darlie and the silly string,I believe she was showing contempt for her boys by her actions.
I am not at all interested in how she performed earlier at the service.
I am interested in what she wanted shown to the public about herself and her sons.
And what she wanted shown was that she had survived.They hadn't.
And she was gloating about it.
Her performance was so extraordinary that every person who saw it recoiled in horror.Those small boys were stabbed to death by their own mother in circumstances where they must have had to consciously and physically confront her.
I spent a long time trying to come to terms with her behaviour, thinking that we all grieve differently.
But Darlie did not grieve at all.
And when people write here that their friend's mother's sister celebrated the death of a husband by playing music and toasting the dead, that has nothing whatsoever to do with two little boys asleep in their own home who were maliciously stabbed to death and then had to suffer the indignity of having their mother make a game of the whole thing for TV.

I do believe that some of the posters here who think Darlie is innocent should find and read carefully the posts made years ago by the experts who studied this case for so long.
I am referring to Goody (RIP) Jeana DP,WhiteyWendy, yourself CyberLaw, and Rattlesnake Jane,DasGalt and others whose names I cannot recall.
If newcomers want information they could do no better than to read the wise words of those people.
Sorry for not mentioning all the great posters from long ago, but I am getting on in years now.

CM

Jan 14th was Goody's birthday. I should have posted I didn't think of it then. I toasted her with a drink of scotch...scotch for me, toast for her.

I still think of her often. I talk to her actually, LOL. I feel her still here around me sometimes.
 
Im disheartened by the posts telling the *new* people to read old posts
Seriously do you think that I havent ?
I read about Darlie on here years ago. That was my first intro to WS - just because I didn't join here then doesnt mean I wasnt here.
Just because people have a different view on things doesnt make them wrong - its just different to your view.
Im not wrong to believe she is innocent - It may be that she is guilty but until a second trial comes about that is fair then I will stand by what I believe.

Telling me that I am wrong is not right. :p lol that sounds so funny but you get what i mean I am sure.

Please dont presume what people know and do not know. There are some things that I may have forgotten , there is a lot to remember, But I believed she was innocent years ago and I still do.
 
I really don't think that anyone means any "ill will" towards anyone on this thread.

If someone takes "offense" I am sure it was not intended that way.

A person of course is entitled to their own opinion, but in reality, not their own facts, that is why some people have a "different" factual view of this crime.

Facts are facts, opinions are just opinions. Opinions change, facts and evidence do not.

Looking at all of the facts and evidence in this case, my learned "factual" opinion is that Darlie had a fair trial, she was convicted on evidence and she is where she belongs.

As I said before, where is the evidence that supports Darlie's story. Where is the evidence......

The two innocent victims of this crime, justice has been served in honor of the life they never will have.

So I do hope that no one does not see this as a "friendly" thread, because that is the intent. To have discussions..........
 
The state presented the facts and evidence as they saw them. Cron decided in less than 30 minutes this was an inside job. When told of blood he did not see in the garage, he said it "was probably tracked out there" by someone! :doh: He wasn't interested in the fact that he missed something and possibly made a grave error....and that he could have missed other evidence, that did not support his initial jump to judgement.

Mulder fired forensic experts Laber and Epstein without knowing what they found, or what they thought happened. He didn't hire other experts, or investigators to examine the crime scene or evidence collected by the state. He spent his time coaching Darlie on how to testify, and NO time defending her against the hearsay from witnesses, contradictions between submitted reports, supplemental reports and witness testimony after the mock trial, etc. I could go on and on. Darlie had no representation.
 
The state presented the facts and evidence as they saw them. Cron decided in less than 30 minutes this was an inside job. When told of blood he did not see in the garage, he said it "was probably tracked out there" by someone! :doh: He wasn't interested in the fact that he missed something and possibly made a grave error....and that he could have missed other evidence, that did not support his initial jump to judgement.

Mulder fired forensic experts Laber and Epstein without knowing what they found, or what they thought happened. He didn't hire other experts, or investigators to examine the crime scene or evidence collected by the state. He spent his time coaching Darlie on how to testify, and NO time defending her against the hearsay from witnesses, contradictions between submitted reports, supplemental reports and witness testimony after the mock trial, etc. I could go on and on. Darlie had no representation.

Most of what you wrote has been ruled upon by the appeals courts and found to have no basis. Ranging from "Mulder to hearsay". Everything brought up on appeals were dismissed as having no merit. The courts have ruled many times upon appeals and dismissed same.

Lawyers have "trial" strategy, they plan their cases, their cross, their witnesses etc. How can one person, sit down and find fault with a "powerful" high profile attorney and what his strategy was and what money was available for trial.

For some odd reason, a "trained" and skilled" police investigator can determine "rather" quickly if the scene matches the story of the person left alive at the scene. There were :obvious" signs of staging, that is why in short order Cron determined that the evidence did not come close to the story that Darlie was "relating". That comes from investigation of over 4,000 murder scenes and may years of experience and training.

In the end, it was proven that the crime scene was staged and cleaned up. Then a person has to wonder why, Darlie is in prison, because she committed the crime. Again, there is no evidence that supports "her stories" that someone entered the house and killed the kids. All of the facts and evidence points to Darlie and Darlie alone. That is not going to change. It is funny how this crime "mirrors" the Jeffrey McDonald case and he was convicted too, nothwithstanding that he put forth "the intruder" story also.
 
I really don't think that anyone means any "ill will" towards anyone on this thread.

If someone takes "offense" I am sure it was not intended that way.

A person of course is entitled to their own opinion, but in reality, not their own facts, that is why some people have a "different" factual view of this crime.

Facts are facts, opinions are just opinions. Opinions change, facts and evidence do not.

Looking at all of the facts and evidence in this case, my learned "factual" opinion is that Darlie had a fair trial, she was convicted on evidence and she is where she belongs.

As I said before, where is the evidence that supports Darlie's story. Where is the evidence......


The two innocent victims of this crime, justice has been served in honor of the life they never will have.

So I do hope that no one does not see this as a "friendly" thread, because that is the intent. To have discussions..........


Bold is mine - well there is other evidence that hasnt been processed. There was evidence that was trampled over at the crime scent in the chaoticness of it all.

But you disagree with that

So we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Bold is mine - well there is other evidence that hasnt been processed. There was evidence that was trampled over at the crime scent in the chaoticness of it all.

The thing is, though...when does the evidence that's NOT there outweigh the evidence that is? I went into this case with a relatively open mind, but none of this yet-to-be-processed evidence has ever come to fruition. If there was evidence damaged at the crime scene that would exonerate Darlie, then how do you reconcile that with all the evidence that points toward her?

I'm not LE, but if you present me with a ton of evidence pointing toward someone's guilt, and then point to, let's say, a blanched hair that's origin can't be placed, then give me the rest of the evidence.

You would think there'd be something concrete pointing toward someone else, especially after the relatively good ride Darlie has had in the press.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
350
Total visitors
559

Forum statistics

Threads
609,728
Messages
18,257,398
Members
234,739
Latest member
Shymars1900
Back
Top