Why does Darin defend Darlie?

[Sherloch]

Hi all,

I'm sure this has been addressed else where but I couldn't find it. So obviously my question is why would Darin defend Darlie? I understand that it could be 1. Because he believes she is innocent, or 2. He in some way was involved in the murders. However, if he were involved in murdering the boys, why wouldn't Darlie rat him out?

Thanks for your input.

 

[missy_g]

I think if he turns against her, she will throw him under the bus.

 

[chlban]

I think if he turns against her, she will throw him under the bus.

There were two young boys killed. The Baby was not hurt

 

[missy_g]

I know that....
If Darin turns against Darlie, she will say he was in on it too.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Darlie has never admitted her guilt. If she tries to implicate Darin it would be an admission of her own guilt, too.

 

[U2forever]

One word....Perjury. :liar:

Anyway, that's what I have always thought. JMO

 

[cami]

Hi all,

I'm sure this has been addressed else where but I couldn't find it. So obviously my question is why would Darin defend Darlie? I understand that it could be 1. Because he believes she is innocent, or 2. He in some way was involved in the murders. However, if he were involved in murdering the boys, why wouldn't Darlie rat him out?

Thanks for your input.

I believe it's for his son Drake's sake. I think Darin knew right away as soon as he came downstairs she was involved judging by statements on the 911 call. I don't think he was involved in the murders but chose to help her. Just my opinion though.

 

[Leischa]

After reading for weeks about this case, I think that Darin kept defending Darlie because he's the murderer. I think that Darlie couldn't believe that he'd done it so he supported the intruder theory, hoping that the police would leave them alone, and also hoping that Darlie wouldn't realize that he was in fact the one who did it. I could be wrong because this case is complicated but this is the most logical explanation that I could find. But I mean, let's say that he is indeed the one who did all this, and that he'd put the blame on her while she knew she was innocent, and just didn't support her, what do you think would've happened? She could've started having doubts. The man she saw definitely looked like her husband and she knew it (at least, the general descritpion that she was able to give).

 

[Zzzz]

After reading for weeks about this case, I think that Darin kept defending Darlie because he's the murderer. I think that Darlie couldn't believe that he'd done it so he supported the intruder theory, hoping that the police would leave them alone, and also hoping that Darlie wouldn't realize that he was in fact the one who did it. I could be wrong because this case is complicated but this is the most logical explanation that I could find. But I mean, let's say that he is indeed the one who did all this, and that he'd put the blame on her while she knew she was innocent, and just didn't support her, what do you think would've happened? She could've started having doubts. The man she saw definitely looked like her husband and she knew it (at least, the general descritpion that she was able to give).

Many of the other Darlie blogs on the Internet are full of inaccuracies and misinformation, so reading them needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If you read the real trial transcripts, it is pretty obvious from all of the evidence that Darlie is guilty and that is why the jury convicted her. Darin was a jerk, but the police did not believe he was involved and that is why they did not arrest him.

1. Darin's story was consistent with the evidence and did not change - Darlie's stories were not consistent with the evidence and changed every time a new piece of evidence was revealed.
2. Darin came downstairs and arrived on the scene during the 911 tape and Darlie can be heard defensively explaining to him what happened and denying that she did it. His frenzied questions and her responses couldn't have been staged. He was not aware of the scene until he arrived during that call. You can see a transcript of the call online.
3. For Darin to have been the "intruder", he would have had to have left the scene through the utility room and garage (per Darlie's story) and then circled back around, come in the front door and gone upstairs, all without Darlie seeing him. Darlie's stories of the event (and where she was) leave no room for that scenario.
4. The bloody footprints in the kitchen, leading to the utility room, belong only to Darlie or later investigators.

Why Darin supported her is open to speculation, and certainly does make him look guilty. But he probably supported her because he lived with her family in the days afterward and was dependent on them for housing and money. Rocking that extremely vocal boat would have been detrimental to him and to Drake. His own mother supported Darlie too. Or maybe it was just simply because he was a loser and liked the publicity. He stopped visiting her in the early 2000's.

 

[Leischa]

I know that many blogs and forum boards about this case are spreading inaccuracies. I didn't know it at the beginning but I've started to notice it after doing some research on my own.

I did read the trial transcripts and the written statements and, while you're saying that Darin's story did not change, I think the exact opposite. Think about his pants. Did he have his pants on or not when he got downstairs? Then there is him hearing glass break (supposably, that was what got him awake, even before he heard Darlie scream), but at the trial he didn't say a word about that noise he wrote about in his written statement. At Darlie's trial, Davis kept telling Darin that his answers often didn't match other statements he'd previously made (at least about money and his car).

There are also other things that he said that led people to think that Darlie was guilty (all I can think of right now is what he said to that CPS worker about how Darlie could've sprinted to plant the sock down the alley in something like 27 seconds, and how she'd said her attacker was a 300 pound man...)

Anyway, I realize that I still have a lot to learn about this case. I don't take people's comments on forum boards as cash. I read them to see what people think about this or that but I like to make my own idea about things.

So, in my opinion (at this moment), if Darlie isn't guilty (she could be...), the next person to look at is her husband. No doubt about that in my mind.

Many of the other Darlie blogs on the Internet are full of inaccuracies and misinformation, so reading them needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If you read the real trial transcripts, it is pretty obvious from all of the evidence that Darlie is guilty and that is why the jury convicted her. Darin was a jerk, but the police did not believe he was involved and that is why they did not arrest him.

1. Darin's story was consistent with the evidence and did not change - Darlie's stories were not consistent with the evidence and changed every time a new piece of evidence was revealed.
2. Darin came downstairs and arrived on the scene during the 911 tape and Darlie can be heard defensively explaining to him what happened and denying that she did it. His frenzied questions and her responses couldn't have been staged. He was not aware of the scene until he arrived during that call. You can see a transcript of the call online.
3. For Darin to have been the "intruder", he would have had to have left the scene through the utility room and garage (per Darlie's story) and then circled back around, come in the front door and gone upstairs, all without Darlie seeing him. Darlie's stories of the event (and where she was) leave no room for that scenario.
4. The bloody footprints in the kitchen, leading to the utility room, belong only to Darlie or later investigators.

Why Darin supported her is open to speculation, and certainly does make him look guilty. But he probably supported her because he lived with her family in the days afterward and was dependent on them for housing and money. Rocking that extremely vocal boat would have been detrimental to him and to Drake. His own mother supported Darlie too. Or maybe it was just simply because he was a loser and liked the publicity. He stopped visiting her in the early 2000's.

 

[chlban]

I know that many blogs and forum boards about this case are spreading inaccuracies. I didn't know it at the beginning but I've started to notice it after doing some research on my own.

I did read the trial transcripts and the written statements and, while you're saying that Darin's story did not change, I think the exact opposite. Think about his pants. Did he have his pants on or not when he got downstairs? Then there is him hearing glass break (supposably, that was what got him awake, even before he heard Darlie scream), but at the trial he didn't say a word about that noise he wrote about in his written statement. At Darlie's trial, Davis kept telling Darin that his answers often didn't match other statements he'd previously made (at least about money and his car).

There are also other things that he said that led people to think that Darlie was guilty (all I can think of right now is what he said to that CPS worker about how Darlie could've sprinted to plant the sock down the alley in something like 27 seconds, and how she'd said her attacker was a 300 pound man...)

Anyway, I realize that I still have a lot to learn about this case. I don't take people's comments on forum boards as cash. I read them to see what people think about this or that but I like to make my own idea about things.

So, in my opinion (at this moment), if Darlie isn't guilty (she could be...), the next person to look at is her husband. No doubt about that in my mind.

Darlie is guilty. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. The evidence, both forensic and circumstantial, is overwhelming.

I don't doubt that Darin lied. He lied because he was trying to protect Darlie, which makes him despicable, but certainly not as despicable as the murderer herself.

 

[cami]

After reading for weeks about this case, I think that Darin kept defending Darlie because he's the murderer. I think that Darlie couldn't believe that he'd done it so he supported the intruder theory, hoping that the police would leave them alone, and also hoping that Darlie wouldn't realize that he was in fact the one who did it. I could be wrong because this case is complicated but this is the most logical explanation that I could find. But I mean, let's say that he is indeed the one who did all this, and that he'd put the blame on her while she knew she was innocent, and just didn't support her, what do you think would've happened? She could've started having doubts. The man she saw definitely looked like her husband and she knew it (at least, the general descritpion that she was able to give).[/QUOTE

Darlie has stated again and again Darin was not the so called intruder she claims to have seen. She was adamant it was not Darin. Darlie is the killer not Darin. There is no physical evidence to tie Darin to the killings unlike Darlie.

 

[Mystymiss]

Some times it is hard to believe that someone you love is capable of murder. Maybe it is as simple as that! IMO I think Darren is/was at this point.

 

[chlban]

After reading for weeks about this case, I think that Darin kept defending Darlie because he's the murderer. I think that Darlie couldn't believe that he'd done it so he supported the intruder theory, hoping that the police would leave them alone, and also hoping that Darlie wouldn't realize that he was in fact the one who did it. I could be wrong because this case is complicated but this is the most logical explanation that I could find. But I mean, let's say that he is indeed the one who did all this, and that he'd put the blame on her while she knew she was innocent, and just didn't support her, what do you think would've happened? She could've started having doubts. The man she saw definitely looked like her husband and she knew it (at least, the general descritpion that she was able to give).[/QUOTE

Darlie has stated again and again Darin was not the so called intruder she claims to have seen. She was adamant it was not Darin. Darlie is the killer not Darin. There is no physical evidence to tie Darin to the killings unlike Darlie.

There is no way on earth that Darlie would have taken the blame for Darin. If he was the one she would have said that as soon as she was arrested. As big a liar as she is, I'm a bit suprised she hasn't tried to blame him.

I don't believe Darin was involved in the murders, but I do believe he figured it out pretty quickly. Whether or not he was in true denial, or just didn't want to lose his trophy wife, I am not certain of. But I think that on some level, he knew.

 

[Leischa]

To me, Darin covering for Darlie doesn't make any more sense than Darlie covering for Darin. Why would he want her out of prison (especially in the early years) if he knew she'd killed two sons and that she could go back to her family life with Devon and him? Wouldn't he fear for his son's life, and for his own?

Also, what I previously said is not that Darlie was intentely covering for Darin, but rather that she didn't think it was him so she said ''no'' when they asked her repeatedly if her husband was the murderer. Tell me, if the police and prosecution didn't think that he could've been the killer, then why did they ask her this question over and over again?

Right now I'd qualify myself as a fence sitter. But I don't believe in the intruder theory... or at least not without the involvement of at least one of the two parents.

And, about the fact that Darin would've had to go through the utility room, garage, back yard, through the gate before coming back inside... I think he had other options:

1- He planted the knife at the entrance of the utility room and, while she was turning back to turn the lights on, ran past the nook and upstairs. There is a wall there and, if the timing was right for him, he could've done that without her noticing him. Darlie saw the man head towards the utility room. She turned around, hit the lights, then got to the utility room and found the knife there, which made her think the killer was hidden in the garage or had escaped through it.

2- Again, let's pretend Darin was the killer. He left the knife at the door of the utility room, went to the garage, closed the door (was it closed? I can't remember for sure), then out the window into the yard. He waited a few moments outside (he could probably see her move through the house with the kitchen light on, and also hear her screaming). The moment he saw her leave the room, he came back inside through the sliding glass doors in the Roman room. There was a partial print (in blood, if I'm not wrong...) found there so someone had to have used that door at some point. Also, in the pictures, we can see that the blinds were higher on the side of the entrance than on the other side. So anyways, let's say he gets back in the room through those doors, and Darlie is now at the bottom of the stairs screaming her lungs out for him to come down. The rest of this kind of puzzles me and this is why I prefer scenario number 1 over this one. She would have seen him downstairs and not getting down the stairs...

 

[Louie14]

After reading for weeks about this case, I think that Darin kept defending Darlie because he's the murderer. I think that Darlie couldn't believe that he'd done it so he supported the intruder theory, hoping that the police would leave them alone, and also hoping that Darlie wouldn't realize that he was in fact the one who did it. I could be wrong because this case is complicated but this is the most logical explanation that I could find. But I mean, let's say that he is indeed the one who did all this, and that he'd put the blame on her while she knew she was innocent, and just didn't support her, what do you think would've happened? She could've started having doubts. The man she saw definitely looked like her husband and she knew it (at least, the general descritpion that she was able to give).

I do not believe that for one second . Also , I do not think this case is complicated . The "supporters" are trying hard to make it complicated .

 

[Tulessa]

I know that many blogs and forum boards about this case are spreading inaccuracies. I didn't know it at the beginning but I've started to notice it after doing some research on my own.

I did read the trial transcripts and the written statements and, while you're saying that Darin's story did not change, I think the exact opposite. Think about his pants. Did he have his pants on or not when he got downstairs? Then there is him hearing glass break (supposably, that was what got him awake, even before he heard Darlie scream), but at the trial he didn't say a word about that noise he wrote about in his written statement. At Darlie's trial, Davis kept telling Darin that his answers often didn't match other statements he'd previously made (at least about money and his car).

There are also other things that he said that led people to think that Darlie was guilty (all I can think of right now is what he said to that CPS worker about how Darlie could've sprinted to plant the sock down the alley in something like 27 seconds, and how she'd said her attacker was a 300 pound man...)

Anyway, I realize that I still have a lot to learn about this case. I don't take people's comments on forum boards as cash. I read them to see what people think about this or that but I like to make my own idea about things.

So, in my opinion (at this moment), if Darlie isn't guilty (she could be...), the next person to look at is her husband. No doubt about that in my mind.

Did you notice that everything here@WS is accurate? We can ONLY publish MSN links and only 10%, because we can't violate copyright infringements.

 

[chlban]

I do not believe that for one second . Also , I do not think this case is complicated . The "supporters" are trying hard to make it complicated .

ITA. There is nothing at all complicated about this. Darlie killed her boys, the evidence, both forensic and circumstantial was overwhelming, and the jury got it right.

As you said, the suporters want to try to make it look complicated because if you just look at the facts there is only one conclusion. She is guilty. Period.

 

[Leischa]

Okay, I see that most people here are certain that she's the killer. I've been trying to make an idea for myself and, honestly, after reading the whole trial transcripts, I still can't see how people can say that she's guilty without a doubt. What is the forensic evidence that makes her the killer, apart from a couple of blood drops on the back of her night shirt? Perhaps I'm just slow to understand things, but from my point of view, the whole theory was worked backwards. They assumed she was the killer (after finding that there probably was no intruder) and made the evidence fit their theory.

The doctors and medical experts who talked about her wounds didn't say that they were self-inflicted. They said that they could've been, but also that they could've been made by someone else.

 

[Leischa]

Did you notice that everything here@WS is accurate? We can ONLY publish MSN links and only 10%, because we can't violate copyright infringements.

I did notice that things on here are accurate and that people have been taking this case seriously. Some members have dedicated a lot of time to research and theory and I appreciate that very much. This is actually the reason why I decided to become a member here.

Since I'm new to this, I have to ask you a question. What does MSN mean?