Blood on the Wall

[beesy]

The butt print is on the carpet.

"Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying it's arm and down the front. ...............(edited for brevity)..... in the darked room as a single, small handprint appeared on the sofa arm. ................(edited)....As the remainder of the Luminol was developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch........(edited).......Nabors.......(edited).... told Patterson, "Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his buttprint right there. He may have gotten up........(edited).......but he slid down the front of the sofa."

Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, page 104. If you think this is incorrect, please correct it, but I'd like to know where you found the information so I can write Springer and tell her Snooty thinks she's a big dummy.

 

[beesy]

The second area is a sink and surrounding area where there is much evidence towels were used. There was blood visable in the sink. It was not all washed away. There was blood on the surrounding areas it was not all cleaned away. I do not see where this story of a cleanup as if Darlie was trying to wash away all evidence of blood ever happened. To me it is just silly. All the towels in the crime scene and all the blood drips into the towel drawer can certainly indicate to me that maybe blood got smeared around due to the handling of the towels.

But MORE blood was detected with Luminol. Nobody said ALL of the blood was cleaned up. She didn't have hours to clean up. There should not have been ANY invisible blood. There was LOTS of it.

Whether or not you wish to believe that she was wetting towels in the sink, there is clear evidence that she was doing something with a very large number of towels

Yes, cleaning

They should be glad I am not on that jury because I would be thinking real hard and have some questions about these funny stories.
To this day I still do not know if I think she is innocent or guilty. I just do not know. But I do know silly story when I read them

I happen to know that none of these posters you have been debating with want Darlie to be guilty. Yes, we've discussed this. I'm sure both sides are elated you weren't on the jury.

 

[SnootyVixen]

"Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying it's arm and down the front. ...............(edited for brevity)..... in the darked room as a single, small handprint appeared on the sofa arm. ................(edited)....As the remainder of the Luminol was developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch........(edited).......Nabors.......(edited).... told Patterson, "Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his buttprint right there. He may have gotten up........(edited).......but he slid down the front of the sofa."

Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, page 104. If you think this is incorrect, please correct it, but I'd like to know where you found the information so I can write Springer and tell her Snooty thinks she's a big dummy.

I'll be happy to tell you where I got the information. By looking at the crime scene photos. You can see his "butt print" on the carpet. It is not a print of his posterior in blood, rather it is a large blood spot on the carpet that abruptly stops in the shape of his bottom.
You can write to all of the writers and tell them that I think they got their information wrong. Please do. They all tell of a different story and so they all can not be correct. I do not believe I have ever called anyone a big dummy though. I would be more likely to call a big dummy the one who believes every word read in these books, but have never done so.

 

[SnootyVixen]

It's not the same smear. Which page in MTJD or gallery on justicefordarlie? I do not believe everything I read in a book. What Springer wrote is true. No picture was taken of it or of the handprint on the sofa arm because they dissolved due to the pleather-like nature of the couch. I bet if I said the prints were only on the carpet, you'd tell me they were on the couch. You just spout this crap so you can keep up a debate. You do not even take the time to think about any of the things posted, or to look anything up to confirm it.

Umm Hmm....you just do not read the posts do you before getting so busy to write back. In my post I said that there was a handprint in blood on the carpet. I did not make this up from the thin air. It's a fact and if you want it proven then YOU look it up. I already know it's truth. I am conceding that the police are telling the truth about a handprint on the couch. I do this because it makes sense to me that there would be. But there is no EVIDENCE that it was there. Got that? Only that they say it was and then dripped away.

Lastly, what we are doing here is not a debate. Not at all. So many untruths have been told for so many times that it has become the truth to those who post here. Particularly those like you who do not even know what really happen in this case and are taking what they read here as the truth. To have a debate you would need some posters on both sides of the argument who are able to discuss without insulting their differing ideas. There are no posters here who are on the side of innocence so how can there be debate. I only post when something I read is incorrect and then just to correct it. I don't debate this case here.

I close my new forum on delphi because no one sign up althought they come there. I think maybe all the darlie debate is over. Rather that all in the know about the darlie case choose not to debate any more. Too bad. This we are doing here is not too much interesting.

 

[beesy]

]

Umm Hmm....you just do not read the posts do you before getting so busy to write back. In my post I said that there was a handprint in blood on the carpet. I did not make this up from the thin air. It's a fact and if you want it proven then YOU look it up. I already know it's truth. I am conceding that the police are telling the truth about a handprint on the couch. I do this because it makes sense to me that there would be. But there is no EVIDENCE that it was there. Got that? Only that they say it was and then dripped away.

Wait what? You didn't say anything about the butt print? I know there is a handprint in the carpet. There are many pictures of it. I was not talking about the handprint on the carpet. I was talking about the sofa. As for the handprint and butt print on the sofa, the evidence is LE's word. Ok, so you did not say anything about the butt print being on the carpet? Then you're right, I misunderstood. Here is the post I was responding to:

#35

Yesterday, 10:06 PM
SnootyVixen

vbmenu_register("postmenu_910199", true);
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 123

The butt print is on the carpet

So I did read your post. It was just one sentence. Maybe you thought I was responding to another post?

I close my new forum on delphi because no one sign up althought they come there. I think maybe all the darlie debate is over. Rather that all in the know about the darlie case choose not to debate any more. Too bad. This we are doing here is not too much interesting.

Awww, you did? You should have given people more time.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Beesy and Snooty, if you're having prolem put the othe on ignore.
I've had enough of the b.s.

 

[deanws]

Beesy and Snooty, if you're having prolem put the othe on ignore.
I've had enough of the b.s.

What does b.s. stand for?:innocent: J/K

 

[beesy]

Beesy and Snooty, if you're having prolem put the othe on ignore.
I've had enough of the b.s.

Yes ma'am

 

[beesy]

What does b.s. stand for?:innocent: J/K

Always looking for trouble, aren't ya?

 

[cami]

Just what is it that you are trying to prove with this? They are not speaking of the couch here. Clearly they are speaking only of the carpet handprint. They did not cut anything from the couch, only the carpet. I do see that the transcript say couch but surely you can see that the talk is only of the carpet?

Snooty you have alleged that the two attack theory was made up on internet boards. I brought that part of closing arguments to you to show the state talked about Damon moving after he was stabbed the first time. Nothing to do with the couch. I like your sidestep.

 

[cami]

But I bet you know this Cami. That the closing arguments do not mean anything? They can tell lies if they want to. It is not testimony and they have very very large latitude with what they can say and not have to prove. It is more like an actor giving a performance. For the defense too. Both sides always do this. So go on what the testimony was concerning these luminol testings and not what they say in closing arguments.

Of course I know it Snooty. Read my other post, nothing to do with the luminol or the couch. Once again my reference to the CA had to do with the two attack theory on Damon which you allege was made up on internet message boards.

 

[cami]

The butt print is on the carpet.

Obviously you don't know the evidence. The butt print was on the sofa. Maybe that's why you are so confused, you need to learn the evidence.

 

[cami]

Yes there is. The cast off blood got on her when the knife was raised. It did not absolutely have to be her hand that held the knife. Just someone with a bloody knife slinging the blood around.

No,Snooty, there is only one way the cast-off blood got on the back of the shirt. Darlie held the bloody knife in her hand and as she raised it up and down the blood flew off over her shoulder and landed on the back of her nightshirt. The tails of the cast-off blood point towards the source of the blood--the knife. The blood did not get there by someone flinging the knife around near Darlie. There's only way, the blood expert demonstrated it and proved it. The defense was unable to prove reasonable doubt.

That is right. And that is why they did not invent a second stabbing. The forums invented that not the investigators.

Wrong again, that's why I pulled the CA up for you. I see your method Snooty. You can clearly read in the CA that the state mentioned two attacks on Damon but you used what I posted to throw luminol and handprints around.

I do not understand what you say either. Of course the handprint is on the carpet because he try to rise. Where did I say different? If I did it was an error because I never believe it. Darlie was accused of cleaning the handprint from the couch. It was not a visable handprint that they spray with the luminol. No need for luminol with a visable handprint. I am not going to say anything definate about luminol "taking" blood evidence and making it disappear but I will only say that it is not the usual way of luminol and not why luminol is used. It is supposed to show up and let them preserve this hidden blood evidence with photos.
Let me ask a question. What does the handprint on the couch say that means Darlie is guilty? Nothing that I can see. All it say to me is that Damon try to rise which is equally said by the other handprint on the carpet. I still do not understand why it was so much an issue.

HUh? You didn't say different. Why would Damon try to rise? Was he moving perhaps trying to get away from the person stabbing him in the back?

Darlie did not wipe up blood from the couch. The luminol when sprayed ran and took the handprint with it. They probably didn't even see the handprint as the couch is dark green fake leather, probably didn't show a lot of blood. The handprint on the couch does not say Darlie is guilty. The totality of the evidence says she is. The blood was wiped from the kitchen counters. There's no doubt there was a clean up. Disregard it all you want the jury didn't.

 

[beesy]

Obviously you don't know the evidence. The butt print was on the sofa. Maybe that's why you are so confused, you need to learn the evidence.

I am not going to address her directly anymore. Please look at post #35 again and then at her post #44 where she describes what she says is a butt print on the carpet which she says can be seen in the crime scene photos. Then at her post #45 where she appears to claim she was only talking about the handprint on the carpet. Am I misunderstanding her post #45?

 

[deanws]

Always looking for trouble, aren't ya? http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/68.gif

I try to do my best!

 

[Goody]

........
Darlie did not wipe up blood from the couch. The luminol when sprayed ran and took the handprint with it. They probably didn't even see the handprint as the couch is dark green fake leather, probably didn't show a lot of blood. The handprint on the couch does not say Darlie is guilty. The totality of the evidence says she is. The blood was wiped from the kitchen counters. There's no doubt there was a clean up. Disregard it all you want the jury didn't.

Patricia Springer, I think, wrote about a clean up detected on the couch. It did not include the handprint.

Also is Snotty getting the handprint on the couch mixed up with the one on the carpet. There were two, but only one brought up at trial....as I recall.

 

[deanws]

I'll be happy to tell you where I got the information. By looking at the crime scene photos. You can see his "butt print" on the carpet. It is not a print of his posterior in blood, rather it is a large blood spot on the carpet that abruptly stops in the shape of his bottom.
You can write to all of the writers and tell them that I think they got their information wrong. Please do. They all tell of a different story and so they all can not be correct. I do not believe I have ever called anyone a big dummy though. I would be more likely to call a big dummy the one who believes every word read in these books, but have never done so.

Well honey, I do not believe YOU have enough forensic experience to tell much of ANYTHING by looking at photos of blood evidence.

 

[beesy]

Patricia Springer, I think, wrote about a clean up detected on the couch. It did not include the handprint.

Also is Snotty getting the handprint on the couch mixed up with the one on the carpet. There were two, but only one brought up at trial....as I recall.

First of all, can ya'll see my posts? Maybe I'm not here. Goody, this is the a quote from Springer's book. The handprint on the sofa is included. The way it reads is that the handprint and butt print were not visible to the naked eye. That they showed up with the Luminol, which then made them disappear due to the pleather couch. But cami said they were visible to the naked eye. They are referred to in the trial.

"Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying it's arm and down the front. ...............(edited for brevity)..... in the darked room as a single, small handprint appeared on the sofa arm. ................(edited)....As the remainder of the Luminol was developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch........(edited).......Nabors.......(edited).... told Patterson, "Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his buttprint right there. He may have gotten up........(edited).......but he slid down the front of the sofa."

Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, page 104. If you think this is incorrect, please correct it, but I'd like to know where you found the information so I can write Springer and tell her Snooty thinks she's a big dummy.

See where it says "appeared" on the arm and the part about the Luminol continuing to develop?

 

[Goody]

I feel like in the Twilight Zone here. Were Snooty and I talking about the buttprint in the posts I named? Then look at #45 where she says she was talking only about the handprint on the carpet? In post #35 she is clearly referring to the butt print. She has it on the carpet instead of on the sofa where it was though. But still she says she that I didn't read the post correctly and that she was only talking about the carpet.
*quietly beesy worries about herselfhttp://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/17.gif

I don't know anything about a butt print on the sofa, although I have some faint recollection of Jeff (an old supporter from GAC) claiming he could see one on the side of the sofa (I believe), supposedly where the boy leaned up against it.

The butt prints aren't important though because it is difficult to know for sure if they even are butt prints. I think the boy was sleeping when he was attacked. When his attacker was distracted, he crawled away and stopped near the entrance to the kitchen, where he was attacked again. I don't think he ever stood up, but I suppose if one is desperately trying to prove Darlie innocent, they might want to prove Damon did stand up just to back up her story. What some poster claims to see in a photo is hardly evidence though, even if he does pride himself on being smarter than the average bear.

 

[Goody]

First of all, can ya'll see my posts? Maybe I'm not here.

Yes, I see them, but I haven't been responding to everything you and Snooty were saying. You have to remember that I have argued all this stuff so much, I tend to pick and choose my topics these days according to my mood. Nothing personal.

Goody, this is the a quote from Springer's book. The handprint on the sofa is included. The way it reads is that the handprint and butt print were not visible to the naked eye. That they showed up with the Luminol, which then made them disappear due to the pleather couch. But cami said they were visible to the naked eye. They are referred to in the trial.

"Nabors moved to the opposite end of the sofa, spraying it's arm and down the front. ...............(edited for brevity)..... in the darked room as a single, small handprint appeared on the sofa arm. ................(edited)....As the remainder of the Luminol was developed, blood smears could be detected on the front of the couch........(edited).......Nabors.......(edited).... told Patterson, "Looks like the little boy fell against the sofa. You can see his buttprint right there. He may have gotten up........(edited).......but he slid down the front of the sofa."

Flesh and Blood by Patricia Springer, page 104. If you think this is incorrect, please correct it, but I'd like to know where you found the information so I can write Springer and tell her Snooty thinks she's a big dummy.

See where it says "appeared" on the arm and the part about the Luminol continuing to develop?

Yes, but they also say it disappeared right before their eyes, didn't they? That suggests it was on top of the vinyl and not seeped into the fabric. Luminol shows where blood WAS before it was wiped away. If it is still on the surface, luminol will destroy itm, and I believe that is what happened in the case, which is probably why this evidence was not used at trial.

It is okay to consider what is in the books, but never take their quotes as gospel with some supporting evidence to back up the claims or good common sense at the very least. In this case, I believe Springer's information was accurate because of her rumored close relationship with one of the police detectives. That doesn't mean every word is gospel, but I suspect she had access to more inside info than the average writer at the time, assuming, of course, that the rumors are true.