The Nightshirt

[beesy]

Why are there cuts on the front of Darlie's nightshirt which do not correspond with any of her wounds?

 

[Bobbisangel]

Why are there cuts on the front of Darlie's nightshirt which do not correspond with any of her wounds?

I don't know a lot about Darlie's wounds or about her trial. I've watched some programs about the murders of the boys, etc, but after watching a program called "Women On Death Row" tonight I'm wondering. A lot of the evidence that should have been brought into the trial wasn't. This is what a woman who was writing a book about Darlie...the murders...the trial...said. Right up to the guilty verdict this author believed that Darlie was guilty. She attended the trial every day. After the verdict the author received pictures of all of the evidence. She said that a lot of the evidence wasn't brought out at the trial. Pictures of Darlie's wounds that weren't shown...which would have cast doubt weren't shown to the jurors. When Prosecutors hold evidence back from the jury it makes me really uncomfortable. It isn't right and I wonder why they didn't show the jury everything. The author didn't have anything to gain or lose by saying what she did. She was writing a book regardless of which way the verdict went. She was sure Darlie was guilty until she saw the rest of the evidence. She also said that LE threw bloody clothing into bags together which caused cross contamination. I don't like the sounds of the things the author said and it really makes me wonder. I don't know if Darlie is guilty or not but any jury deserves to see all of the evidence so that they can make an informed decision. Some may not care for Darlie as a person but she did deserve for all of the evidence to be shown at her trial.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Once again, you're misinformed. Don't believe the hype. Darlie's own attorneys said the photos WERE shown to the jury. :doh: :doh: :doh:

 

[Goody]

I don't know a lot about Darlie's wounds or about her trial. I've watched some programs about the murders of the boys, etc, but after watching a program called "Women On Death Row" tonight I'm wondering. A lot of the evidence that should have been brought into the trial wasn't. This is what a woman who was writing a book about Darlie...the murders...the trial...said. Right up to the guilty verdict this author believed that Darlie was guilty. She attended the trial every day. After the verdict the author received pictures of all of the evidence. She said that a lot of the evidence wasn't brought out at the trial. Pictures of Darlie's wounds that weren't shown...which would have cast doubt weren't shown to the jurors. When Prosecutors hold evidence back from the jury it makes me really uncomfortable. It isn't right and I wonder why they didn't show the jury everything. The author didn't have anything to gain or lose by saying what she did. She was writing a book regardless of which way the verdict went. She was sure Darlie was guilty until she saw the rest of the evidence. She also said that LE threw bloody clothing into bags together which caused cross contamination. I don't like the sounds of the things the author said and it really makes me wonder. I don't know if Darlie is guilty or not but any jury deserves to see all of the evidence so that they can make an informed decision. Some may not care for Darlie as a person but she did deserve for all of the evidence to be shown at her trial.

Proof that the photos were shown to the jury is in the book published by her own supporters. In Media Tried Justice Denied, there are a series of trial exhibits that clearly show her bruises in full living color. It is not possible that the jury didn't see them. They were shown in the courtroom and provided to the jury during deliberations. Even her own attys say they don't where these people are getting this idea from because the pictures WERE THERE!

I don't know why Barbara Davis did that turn around, but it could not have been because of photos.

 

[beesy]

I don't know a lot about Darlie's wounds or about her trial. I've watched some programs about the murders of the boys, etc, but after watching a program called "Women On Death Row" tonight I'm wondering. A lot of the evidence that should have been brought into the trial wasn't. This is what a woman who was writing a book about Darlie...the murders...the trial...said. Right up to the guilty verdict this author believed that Darlie was guilty. She attended the trial every day. After the verdict the author received pictures of all of the evidence. She said that a lot of the evidence wasn't brought out at the trial. Pictures of Darlie's wounds that weren't shown...which would have cast doubt weren't shown to the jurors. When Prosecutors hold evidence back from the jury it makes me really uncomfortable. It isn't right and I wonder why they didn't show the jury everything. The author didn't have anything to gain or lose by saying what she did. She was writing a book regardless of which way the verdict went. She was sure Darlie was guilty until she saw the rest of the evidence. She also said that LE threw bloody clothing into bags together which caused cross contamination. I don't like the sounds of the things the author said and it really makes me wonder. I don't know if Darlie is guilty or not but any jury deserves to see all of the evidence so that they can make an informed decision. Some may not care for Darlie as a person but she did deserve for all of the evidence to be shown at her trial.

Wrong....next post please..
All of the photos were presented as evidence at the trial. Mulder had it all and could do whatever he wanted with it. Darlie's wounds in no way exonerate her. They do not cancel out all of the blood evidence. As far as the clothes being bagged together, that cannot create spatter or cast-off patterns. It would just create transfer blood. What got Darlie was she had obvious cast-off blood on her back which can only come from one thing. Raising an instrument of some kind up over one's head and plunging into it a bleeding source, more than one time..i.e. knife into her children's bodies.

 

[cami]

I don't know a lot about Darlie's wounds or about her trial. I've watched some programs about the murders of the boys, etc, but after watching a program called "Women On Death Row" tonight I'm wondering. A lot of the evidence that should have been brought into the trial wasn't. This is what a woman who was writing a book about Darlie...the murders...the trial...said. Right up to the guilty verdict this author believed that Darlie was guilty. She attended the trial every day. After the verdict the author received pictures of all of the evidence. She said that a lot of the evidence wasn't brought out at the trial. Pictures of Darlie's wounds that weren't shown...which would have cast doubt weren't shown to the jurors. When Prosecutors hold evidence back from the jury it makes me really uncomfortable. It isn't right and I wonder why they didn't show the jury everything. The author didn't have anything to gain or lose by saying what she did. She was writing a book regardless of which way the verdict went. She was sure Darlie was guilty until she saw the rest of the evidence. She also said that LE threw bloody clothing into bags together which caused cross contamination. I don't like the sounds of the things the author said and it really makes me wonder. I don't know if Darlie is guilty or not but any jury deserves to see all of the evidence so that they can make an informed decision. Some may not care for Darlie as a person but she did deserve for all of the evidence to be shown at her trial.

they did not throw bloody clothing in bags and caused cross contamination. The author is incorrect. For one thing, Darlie and Damon were transported to hospital still wearing their clothes and Devon was left at the house wearing only a pair of undershorts. You cannot transfer cast-off blood that way. There's only one way both boy's blood got on the back of Darlie's nightshirt. You need to read the trial transcripts and not depend on Babs. The photos have state's exhibit numbers on them, that means they were entered into evidence. If you read the trial transcripts you will read the prosecutor questioning the medical staff as to the bruises--using photos.

Prosecutors use about 6o-75% percent of the evidence before the jury. It shouldn't disturb once you learn the case. Once you learn the case, you will realize that Babs was wrong and the jury saw all the evidence that was put before them enough to reach a decision.

 

[Goody]

Girls, girls..so busy putting Bobbi in her place you zoomed right past my question. First of all, there are cuts in her shirt, right?

The state theorizes that Darlie put the cuts in her shirt. I can't remember why. Something about testing the waters, I think.

I agree with them that she did, but I think she was trying to create evidence that she would have been stabbed more times than she was if she hadn't been pulling away from the attacker. Pretty lame, I know, but it probably made sense to her at the time.

What I find most interesting about Darlie is how she hangs back from making theories herself and lets others come up with them because of the clues she leaves for them. Something must have made a big impression on her at some time about the guilty always trying to provide solutions to the cops. Maybe she was a big Columbo fan.

 

[Goody]

The clothing was not bagged together. Only Damon's pants and shirt were in the same bag. Otherwise everything else was bagged separately.

The defense tries to argue that because the clothing was put into the bags while still wet, blood from one part of it could have transfered to the other, causing experts to incorrectly identify transfers as cast off. I find that highly unlikely. Any crime lab in Dallas, Texas is going to be higly experienced. They didn't just take up forensics and hang a shingle on their front porch. The thing about the cast off spots that most people don't discuss is that they had little tails pointing in the direction those droplets flew before they landed on the shirt. I don't see how any transfer could duplicate that so precisely that it was done on several spots. Those droplets were cast offs pure and simple. Don't let the defense's smoke and mirror tricks fool you.

 

[ineedtoknow]

Hi this is my first post. I am still trying to wade through the info on this case, but it is hard going. Ive heard mention of cast off blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt, but I have been unable to find any photos of it. Do they exist, as I would really like to see this, as I would think that is pretty damning evidence IMO.

Thanks in advance.

 

[cami]

Hi this is my first post. I am still trying to wade through the info on this case, but it is hard going. Ive heard mention of cast off blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt, but I have been unable to find any photos of it. Do they exist, as I would really like to see this, as I would think that is pretty damning evidence IMO.

Thanks in advance.

Oh gee, I don't know. There may be something at the www.justicefordarlie.net in the Galleries section. There are CS photos there but maybe not the blood, they tend to stay away from anything that incriminates her. However, there are a lot of media spots on that site, the ususal primetime crime scene shows, 20/20, 48 hours, american justice, etc.

The CS photos are graphic so be warned, graphic photos of the two dead boys.

 

[Wrangler]

Hi this is my first post. I am still trying to wade through the info on this case, but it is hard going. Ive heard mention of cast off blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt, but I have been unable to find any photos of it. Do they exist, as I would really like to see this, as I would think that is pretty damning evidence IMO.

Thanks in advance.

I gave my book to another member years ago and can't remember who it was. The book has the crime scene photos in it and I remember a nightgown being in the photos. :waitasec: I think the book was called media tried and justice denied, maybe that's the name? I remember the book being written poorly but it had good information

 

[ineedtoknow]

Thanks for your replies.

I have seen CS photos on one of Darlie's sites, and there is a photo of the nightshirt, but it looks to me as if it is the front of it, there is a large amount of blood on it, as if it came from her neck injury. I will go back and have another look though. I agree, it looks to me like they may keep some stuff off these sites if it doesn't jive with her innocence claim. There are like a gazillion pictures of Darlies cut neck and arm, and her lying in her hospital bed, compared with the actual scene of the crime, and half the time I don't even know what I am supposed to be looking at it as there is no description under the photo!!! Hmmmmm......

 

[Tuffy]

Thanks for your replies.

I have seen CS photos on one of Darlie's sites, and there is a photo of the nightshirt, but it looks to me as if it is the front of it, there is a large amount of blood on it, as if it came from her neck injury. I will go back and have another look though. I agree, it looks to me like they may keep some stuff off these sites if it doesn't jive with her innocence claim. There are like a gazillion pictures of Darlies cut neck and arm, and her lying in her hospital bed, compared with the actual scene of the crime, and half the time I don't even know what I am supposed to be looking at it as there is no description under the photo!!! Hmmmmm......

I went looking as well. You're exactly right. The pictures from Darlie's site are not labeled, and way too many of her arm and neck compared to the crime scene.

I'm sure the reason is that they don't want the incriminating ones on her site, and include mostly the ones that show her injuries.

If anyone knows where there might be better crime scene photos, please let me know. I would like to see more of the actual crime scene itself, such as where items were found.

 

[cami]

Thanks for your replies.

I have seen CS photos on one of Darlie's sites, and there is a photo of the nightshirt, but it looks to me as if it is the front of it, there is a large amount of blood on it, as if it came from her neck injury. I will go back and have another look though. I agree, it looks to me like they may keep some stuff off these sites if it doesn't jive with her innocence claim. There are like a gazillion pictures of Darlies cut neck and arm, and her lying in her hospital bed, compared with the actual scene of the crime, and half the time I don't even know what I am supposed to be looking at it as there is no description under the photo!!! Hmmmmm......

Yes, that's the front of the nightshirt that has all the blood down it, Darlie's blood. The cast-off is on the back and it's very tiny stains.

The justice site will not put anything on it that is incriminating to Darlie hence the Forensics Files, Invisible Intruder is not there and never has been. It's the prosecution's view of the case, including the evidence that is so incriminating to Darlie.

I don't think there are CS photos anywhere on the net. They are in the book MTJD with the author's sarcasm and terrible grammar and CS analysis. Take note, he's not a cop, not a detective, not a CSI nor is he any kind of crime scene analyst but he waxes on about these photos and how the cops are contaminating the CS and throwing things around so Darlie looks guilty.

Many supporters turned to antis after viewing that book.

 

[whitywendy]

I gave my book to another member years ago and can't remember who it was. The book has the crime scene photos in it and I remember a nightgown being in the photos. :waitasec: I think the book was called media tried and justice denied, maybe that's the name? I remember the book being written poorly but it had good information

U know what is so "funny" about this book. It was put out to prove Darlie's innocence and all it did for me was SEAL IT EVEN MORE. This person showed you the blood trail and so much more that we haven't seen on TV. Yep that book was a blessing in disguise for many of fence sitters.:sick:

 

[cami]

U know what is so "funny" about this book. It was put out to prove Darlie's innocence and all it did for me was SEAL IT EVEN MORE. This person showed you the blood trail and so much more that we haven't seen on TV. Yep that book was a blessing in disguise for many of fence sitters.:sick:

Yes, it is isn't it? You cannot make blood evidence be anything but what it is. I wonder if he's learned that yet?

 

[whitywendy]

Yes, it is isn't it? You cannot make blood evidence be anything but what it is. I wonder if he's learned that yet?

Cami - why do you think Darlie went into the laundry room? I can't remember if her blood was found in there or the boys or both. What was she doing?

 

[cami]

Cami - why do you think Darlie went into the laundry room? I can't remember if her blood was found in there or the boys or both. What was she doing?

I think she went in there to get the vacuum cleaner. Yes, her blood is dripped on the floor and on the appliances in that room.

 

[whitywendy]

I think she went in there to get the vacuum cleaner. Yes, her blood is dripped on the floor and on the appliances in that room.

Why the vacuum cleaner? IMO, she went in there to get rid of her panties (remember they were missing) and to "drop" the black hat in the middle of floor to show the direction the intruder in the dark hat went. Even though it was determined that it was Devon's hat later, I think at this point in time her mind was racing and really flipping back and forth as to what she did and what she needed to do right at that moment.

I think the vacuum cleaner was already in the kitchen area. I believe it was used that day and never put away and Darlie just happened to use it as a prop to hold her up as she was loosing blood.

What else would it do? She was smart enough and too vain to ruin her carpet by trying to vacuum up blood, which unless you have a wet-vac I don't think it is possible. JMHO

 

[cami]

Why the vacuum cleaner? IMO, she went in there to get rid of her panties (remember they were missing) and to "drop" the black hat in the middle of floor to show the direction the intruder in the dark hat went. Even though it was determined that it was Devon's hat later, I think at this point in time her mind was racing and really flipping back and forth as to what she did and what she needed to do right at that moment.

I think the vacuum cleaner was already in the kitchen area. I believe it was used that day and never put away and Darlie just happened to use it as a prop to hold her up as she was loosing blood.

What else would it do? She was smart enough and too vain to ruin her carpet by trying to vacuum up blood, which unless you have a wet-vac I don't think it is possible. JMHO

I never thought she wanted to vacuum up blood with it, I guess I don't know what I thought, LOL. Maybe she wanted to show there was a fight by rolling it in the blood and then laying it down to look as if it was knocked over.

I just think LE would have checked the dirty laundry for the panties. Do you think they had blood on them?

I always thought Darlie, immaculate housekeeper, would not leave her vacuum out but now I remember she did use it earlier when the boys came in all wet. So now I have to change my thinking.Time to read some transcripts again.!!!

I never thought much about the hat but I see your point.

I never really paid much attention to the vacuum cleaner either, except that she used it for something...