Why does Darin defend Darlie?

[k-mac]

no way darlie could have inflicted those bruises to her arms.
I believe darin made those bruises wether in an argument earlier in the evening which triggered her violent outburst or after he discovered she had slaughtered the kids.
which tells me he and her went for it big time fighting that night.
the bruising is chicken or egg scenario to me.

 

[sneakieme]

Remember, Jeffrey MacDonald was on diet pills also.

 

[Moosebegoose]

no way darlie could have inflicted those bruises to her arms.
I believe darin made those bruises wether in an argument earlier in the evening which triggered her violent outburst or after he discovered she had slaughtered the kids.
which tells me he and her went for it big time fighting that night.
the bruising is chicken or egg scenario to me.

I'd say old Darin there caused the bruises but bringing it up would make the situation worse for the pair. He may have done it before the murders, or I personally believe it may have been after, where he may have been violent, freaking out at what she had done to their sons. If she had to admit that, she'd be admitting guilt.

 

[Miss Nicks]

I’ve skimmed through this but I still firmly believe that Darlie was wrongly convicted, at the trial itself the police plead the fifth after surveillance they conducted was illegally obtained. The photos of Darlies injuries were not shown in trial and jurors have admitted had they seen them that they would not have convicted her as they were all defensive wounds. There was a development where it came out that the husband was planning on insurance fraud due to financial difficulties. The evidence that convicted her was almost all circumstantial, and if they had the technology we do today I don’t think the forensics would match her to be the crime.

 

[BethAnn777]

I’ve skimmed through this but I still firmly believe that Darlie was wrongly convicted, at the trial itself the police plead the fifth after surveillance they conducted was illegally obtained. The photos of Darlies injuries were not shown in trial and jurors have admitted had they seen them that they would not have convicted her as they were all defensive wounds. There was a development where it came out that the husband was planning on insurance fraud due to financial difficulties. The evidence that convicted her was almost all circumstantial, and if they had the technology we do today I don’t think the forensics would match her to be the crime.

But items have been retested, more than once, and there still is no evidence of an intruder. If you haven’t already look at some of the crime scene photos, which you can find with a google search. So much blood and destruction. But no evidence of an intruder. That alone tells me there was no intruder.

 

[Miss Nicks]

But items have been retested, more than once, and there still is no evidence of an intruder. If you haven’t already look at some of the crime scene photos, which you can find with a google search. So much blood and destruction. But no evidence of an intruder. That alone tells me there was no intruder.

it could easily have been the husband and if she was going to flip and kill her kids why not the one upstairs? If the husband supposedly caught her it would make more sense for him to have caught her upstairs with that child not severely injured downstairs with only the two, he seems more suspicious than her to me

 

[BethAnn777]

it could easily have been the husband and if she was going to flip and kill her kids why not the one upstairs? If the husband supposedly caught her it would make more sense for him to have caught her upstairs with that child not severely injured downstairs with only the two, he seems more suspicious than her to me

She had blood patterns on her nightgown consistant with stabbing, not him.

You can hear him “seeing” the scene for the first time on the 911 call. Unless you think that was part of the plan. Can’t see how that makes sense either way.

I do agree it doesn’t make sense that she did this, but sadly she did.