Silly String Birthday Party

[accordn2me]

<snip>

You know and I know that the storm happened long after the evidence was collected so stop trying to make it appear anything else.

<snip>

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.

 

[CyberLaw]

We tested the powdered, red material
9 on the sign, approximately in front of the freezer and
10 that was positive for the presumptive presence of blood.
11 Q. Okay. And, did you then have samples
12 of that blood actually taken from the garage?
13 A. Yes, sir. Ms. Long took those. 14 Q. All right. Why did you do that?
15 A. In speaking with Jim Cron, he was
16 aiding us in the walk-through, and he said there was no
17 blood found in the garage. And when we noticed this
18 material, he said, "Well, that wasn't there earlier.

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(Third)type transfer.
. Was it on the garage floor or on a sign?
2 A. My memory of it is that it was 3 actually on the white plastic sign in front of the
4 freezer.
5 Q. And how was the sign? Was the sign
6 up?
7 A. No, it was lying flat on the floor.
8 Q. The sign was on the floor?
9 A. Right.
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
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.
14 Q. Did he use the word paramedic?
15 A. No, police or whoever was, you know,
16 something like that.
17 Q. Just somebody, some other person?
18 A. Right, one of the first people
19 responding.




So it is not rocket science, when Cron went to the garage, the blood transfer(third generation) had not been tracked in by the first responders, Cron may have "messed" up and first missed the blood.



Then Linch came by, noticed the "third" generation of blood transfer and collected it. Cron's answer, that it may have been tracked in by one of the first responders. This blood is not primary, but secondary possibly third generation, therefore it does make sense that a 'very slight" and faint "powered" blood on a sign laying down could have been "stepped" upon by some one at the scene therefore making the third generation transfer of blood possible.


Now if there is evidence that somehow evidence proving that the storm washed away evidence, please let every know, because I have found nothing to support a claim that evidence was washed away that could prove Darlie .



I found it interesting in the testimony of Linch where he testifies that not only did he find blood washed up in the sink, but to the door handles of the cupboard under the sink and blood on the cabinets. Who cleaned up the blood in the sink, who opened the cabinets and deposited blood on the handles, who deposited blood on the cabinets.


I know, I know, ask me, ask me (hand going up straight up in the air) The person who committed the crime.



Yes and the intruder did not take a chapter out of the "Martha Stewert' s" "How to clean up a crime scene when you murdered your two sleeping children." Darlie had no idea that "blood" that had been cleaned up, can be detected with Luminol.



So one investigator did a very through job at the crime scene. Another missed blood that was tracked in after he saw the garage and third, but not least, a storm happened well after the murders and there is no evidence that even "suggests" that blood was washed away.


Especially when on the sixth in bright daylight, tech and cops were looking outside and examining outside, well before the storm and found no blood.


But who clean up the blood from the sink, maybe someone from the "Darlie is innocent, Darlie was framed, Darlie was railroad, Darlie deserves a new trial "camp" can try to explain that to me.

 

[accordn2me]

<snip>

So it is not rocket science, when Cron went to the garage, the blood transfer(third generation) had not been tracked in by the first responders, Cron may have "messed" up and first missed the blood.

You are right! Cron "messed up and first missed the blood." :clap:


<snip>

Now if there is evidence that somehow evidence proving that the storm washed away evidence,... <snip>

You've lost me.

 

[CyberLaw]

O.K., a factual admission

Cron checked the garage before the blood was transferred by some person who attended teh crime scene. Then much later in the day on the 6th, Linch shows up, noticed a secondary or even "third" generation blood which is powered and dried upon a sign laying flat on the ground.

So yes, he looked into the garage and saw no blood, before the transfer.

Still does not prove Darlie innocent and is moot.

Some people keep on maing a mention fo a storm on the 7th, but to what end and means. Unless someone has proof that evidence was washed away, then again that point is moot.

Nothing to date has been offered into evidence that proves Darlie is innocent. As far as I am concerned Darlie would need a preponderence of evidence that does not exist.

I went over her first appeal and boy what was not in there, but again the appeal was dismissed.

 

[accordn2me]

Mulder never offered ANY expert to dispute the evidence.

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

 

[crystalmama]

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

 

[crystalmama]

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.

 

[crystalmama]

Hi it's me again.I guess I have to get all this out because it has been brewing up in me for a while.

I believe that Damon, little quiet, sweet, sensitive Damon, could see something in his mother that others could not see.That was her ability to one day snap.
He did not sleep in his parent's room at night where you would expect a small boy to retreat to if he was scared.He slept with his big brother whom he thought would save him from something he could only feel but not see.

I also believe that those two boys, from the moment they were born, were destined to be targets of their mother.Damon could see that and that dreadful night was the culmination of all his nightmares.
Had she remained free, then the day would come when Drake would also grow up and take the attention away from her and he would also be a target.
Babies are attention getters, but always connected to the mother.
'Isn't he lovely! Doesn't his mother do a wonderful job?'
etc.
But little rowdy boys of an age where they are too old to be easily controlled by placing in a crib,and too young to be mother's handsome helpers,are a problem.

Another strange thing, to me, is how Darlie immediately began to call the boys her babies, once the killing was done.
This was to place herself again in the centre of attention.
This was to make sure that everyone knew that this young mother had lost her babies.
I will bet 100 to 1 that prior to the deaths of her children Darlie did not call them her babies.
Because I think that everything was contrived by Darlie, I also think that as she screamed down the line to emergencey services, she deliberately said 'babies' instead of sons.
Because when the tape was replayed again and again people would hear her crying for her lost babies.
There is nothing so pitiful as a mother crying for a lost baby.
I know I occasionally call my middle-aged children my babies,more as a joke than anything else, but I did not call them babies at that age.

Yes I agree with a new trial if only because the prosecutor asked Darlie if she regularly took her children to church.
And yes I have campaigned against the DP for 50 years, loudly,actively, through AI and every other way I could.
We teach people that revenge is wrong, and the DP is only revenge.
It has no saving grace.It does not cure, it does not reform.It only takes away a life.
I have absolutely no doubt that Darlie would be reconvicted in another trial but I would hope the sentence would be LWOP.
She should never be free.

CM

 

[accordn2me]

The very first thing I heard/saw about this case was the silly string video and Greg Davis articulating how he came to the conclusion that Darlie was guilty. I wholeheartedly agreed.

Then, I read the transcripts. And there I saw that Doug Mulder did not offer any defense to the state's masterminded, textbook, flawless prosecution of a defendant. That's when I concluded Darlie deserves a new trial.

note screen name for qualification

 

[accordn2me]

<snip>

Yes I agree with a new trial

:clap: <snip>

And yes I have campaigned against the DP for 50 years, loudly,actively, through AI and every other way I could.
We teach people that revenge is wrong, and the DP is only revenge.
It has no saving grace.It does not cure, it does not reform.It only takes away a life.
I have absolutely no doubt that Darlie would be reconvicted in another trial but I would hope the sentence would be LWOP.
She should never be free.

CM

Hey crystalmama

Here's where u & I diverge. IF Darlie is guilty (imo, Darin is too) and they both deserve the DP. If they don't deserve it, NO ONE does! IF they are guilty of this heinous crime, that is. Iirc, in a previous post, you stated with virtual certainty that had Darlie gotten away with murdering her eldest sons, Drake would have been her victim as well. Am I correct?

Let me assure you, the death penalty, carried out, is a deterrent. Think about it.

IM(lowly)O, LWOP is more vengeful than the DP.

 

[crystalmama]

Hey Accordin2me,I can see your point that the DP is a serious deterrent and certainly I can also see that for many people LWOP is a fate worse than death.
And maybe that's appropriate too.
But as I think JaneinOz pointed out, once a person is dead then they are dead, and if by the slightest chance they could be proved innocent one day then it is too late.

Not that I think that could ever happen to Darlie.Yes I agree that Darin knows more than he is saying.I also think that Darlie roped him into the murders in some way.
And I don't know why LE does not explore this possibility in some direct way.

Regards CM

 

[JaneInOz]

Crystal Mama

Thank you

I do not necessairily agree with some things but one thing we agree on is the DP

I only want for Darlie to have a new trial, and if she has a new trial and the result is the same then I want for her to be given LWOP

I do not believe in the DP

Look at all the MURDERS and KILLINGS in America and yet HOW MANY people are on death row ? how many people have been given the DP ?

No it doesnt deter people, they re gonna do it any way and you know what ? sometimes I think people think Hell I have nothing to lose so Im going to kill the so and so and then I will get death too...BUT imagine if there was no death and they were going to spend ETERNITY in Jail

That is the REAL deterrent - why don't people see that ?

We do not have the DP.

And thank god.

I believe in Justice, and maybe god forbid if anyone did anything to someone I loved I would believe in revenge too, I hope that i would be strong enough to stay with my convictions that I have now but i can not promise that because I am not in that position.


But I do not believe the DP is a deterrent

And I DO strongly believe Darlie should have a new trial

 

[crystalmama]

Oh dear JaneinOz you have that so right! We can only work from a perspective that we have and so far I am so thankful I have not lost a loved one to a murderer.
Maybe then I might see the DP in a different light, I don't know.
But for now, it has been proven to NOT be a deterrent to murder.In fact some people have actually killed again, thinking to themselves that having killed once they might as well kill again as they will get the DP anyway.

In Oz recently there was a big debate on the ABC website about the DP because of the death sentence carried out on the Bali bombers.
I was dismayed at the number of people here who think that the DP is the answer to crime.

There were anomalies in Darlie's trial and I believe she should have a new one , because after all,they are going to kill her for this crime.
They only have one chance to get it right.

Regards,CM

 

[whitywendy]

CM - thank you for your kind words. I too learned so much for those old posts. SO MUCH!! Cami and Mary were right in there too, so I wanted to throw a kudo's out there to them. Your posts are very thought provocative and I enjoy reading your "take".

On to the DP. Okay I for one believe in it. I had a friend murdered when she was 32 years old by her significant other, leaving behind her 2 year old daughter and 5 year old son. She can't be replaced, watch her babies grow up, etc. The so-called man who killed her however is already out from behind bars, living and watching his kids grow and most likely will get to be grandfather one day. I do not believe it is fair. I know, I know life isn't fair, however, if we actually went through with executing some of these killers, maybe, just maybe, the violence will slow. Why should we pay to board, feed, clothe and educate these evil killers. I don't know. I am old school, I truly believe an eye for an eye.... I hope I did not offend anyone.

 

[whitywendy]

Crystal Mama

Thank you

I do not necessairily agree with some things but one thing we agree on is the DP

I only want for Darlie to have a new trial, and if she has a new trial and the result is the same then I want for her to be given LWOP

I do not believe in the DP

Look at all the MURDERS and KILLINGS in America and yet HOW MANY people are on death row ? how many people have been given the DP ?

No it doesnt deter people, they re gonna do it any way and you know what ? sometimes I think people think Hell I have nothing to lose so Im going to kill the so and so and then I will get death too...BUT imagine if there was no death and they were going to spend ETERNITY in Jail

That is the REAL deterrent - why don't people see that ?

We do not have the DP.

And thank god.

I believe in Justice, and maybe god forbid if anyone did anything to someone I loved I would believe in revenge too, I hope that i would be strong enough to stay with my convictions that I have now but i can not promise that because I am not in that position.


But I do not believe the DP is a deterrent

And I DO strongly believe Darlie should have a new trial

I disagree with your statement about it being more cruel to live behind bars for the rest of your life than be put to death. IMO impending death is much more cruel to the mind than hanging with a bunch of people who have similar lifestyles etc. Yes there are fights and structure but it seems to me that allot of these criminals that are put back in the world, commit crimes almost immediately because they want to go back to prison. So what does that tell you? They can get their drugs, drink home made hooch and what ever else they can get their hands on and not have to pay any bills or be responsible to a family whatsoever.

Of course I am not talking about everyone who is prison because there is innocent people there too.... Darlie just isn't one of them.


Of course JMO

 

[crystalmama]

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

 

[crystalmama]

Recently when I was posting in the debate on the ABC forum about the DP, quite a few posters referred to the Lindy Chamberlain case.
Now this is a case that cuts me to the quick.
When it first happened I listened to the media without forming an opinion.Then my neighbour whose husband was a policeman told me that Lindy was the sister of a murderer here in Queensland and other untrue stories so that I believed she was guilty.
Later my daughter and I were visiting my mother and my daughter explained to us what was going on.That there was no way on earth Lindy could have killed that baby and disposed of her in the short time available.
From then on I followed the case but did not listen to the horrible gossip as I had done before.
If Australia had had the DP then Lindy would have been dead.No doubt about it.
The NT government wanted her dead as her story of a dingo taking the baby would keep tourists away.

Although Lindy and her husband of the time Michael were later exonerated and paid damages, I am appalled that there are still some supposedly educated people who still say to you in hushed tones,'But there was something funny about that case'.
There sure was.....it was the police and government who did a big coverup to convict an innocent woman.
One University lecturer and her husband honestly told me that it was well known that Lindy killed her baby and ate her.Because they needed meat as they belonged to a religion that forbad the eating of meat.
Yes seriously.
How do you tell people who hold 3 or 4 Masters degrees that they are talking through the wrong orifice?

In the US over the last 20 years there have been nearly 200 innocent people released from DR because DNA evidence has been brought forward for new testing and re-trials have seen them found not guilty.

The FIrst Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill'.It does not say 'Thou shalt not kill unless you think you should, or Thou shalt not kill good people but it's OK to kill bad people'.
It says quite clearly...........
'Thou shalt not kill'.

No I am not religious but the commandments make sense to me.

CM

 

[JaneInOz]

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

OMFG I did not know about the 8mth old baby one that is so sad I cant even begin to comprehend that in my brain. And frankly I do not want to. Surely raping a baby would kill the baby anyway ugh i want to throw up

I know the other one you are talking about. Jayden right ?

 

[JaneInOz]

Recently when I was posting in the debate on the ABC forum about the DP, quite a few posters referred to the Lindy Chamberlain case.
Now this is a case that cuts me to the quick.
When it first happened I listened to the media without forming an opinion.Then my neighbour whose husband was a policeman told me that Lindy was the sister of a murderer here in Queensland and other untrue stories so that I believed she was guilty.
Later my daughter and I were visiting my mother and my daughter explained to us what was going on.That there was no way on earth Lindy could have killed that baby and disposed of her in the short time available.
From then on I followed the case but did not listen to the horrible gossip as I had done before.
If Australia had had the DP then Lindy would have been dead.No doubt about it.
The NT government wanted her dead as her story of a dingo taking the baby would keep tourists away.

Although Lindy and her husband of the time Michael were later exonerated and paid damages, I am appalled that there are still some supposedly educated people who still say to you in hushed tones,'But there was something funny about that case'.
There sure was.....it was the police and government who did a big coverup to convict an innocent woman.
One University lecturer and her husband honestly told me that it was well known that Lindy killed her baby and ate her.Because they needed meat as they belonged to a religion that forbad the eating of meat.
Yes seriously.
How do you tell people who hold 3 or 4 Masters degrees that they are talking through the wrong orifice?

In the US over the last 20 years there have been nearly 200 innocent people released from DR because DNA evidence has been brought forward for new testing and re-trials have seen them found not guilty.

The FIrst Commandment says 'Thou shalt not kill'.It does not say 'Thou shalt not kill unless you think you should, or Thou shalt not kill good people but it's OK to kill bad people'.
It says quite clearly...........
'Thou shalt not kill'.

No I am not religious but the commandments make sense to me.

CM

Yep is all I gotta say to that !

And my husbands family knows a man who was convicted and sent away for the murder of a woman, (many years ago) He spent a LONG time in Jail whilst people fought to prove his innocence and prove it they did and he was released and his conviction overturned . squashed . rescinded whatever they do with it.
No amount of money makes up for the time spent in jail and the things done to people in jail.

 

[crystalmama]

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