Blood on the Wall

[beesy]

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

There was a butt print or smears whatever you want to call it on the front of the sofa, right near the handprint on the sofa. I quoted Springer because she describes it the best. It's in other places too. Anyway, but no they really aren't important except that they show Damon moved. Of course other things show that too, but LE was able to sort of "map" his movements. I don't think he stood all the way up. It does appear that he tried to grab the sofa, as if for support

 

[beesy]

[/b][/color]

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.



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.

Hey Goody.....psst..

That they showed up with the Luminol, which then made them disappear due to the pleather couch.

I am surprised at you Goody! Reminding me not to believe everything I read. That's insulting. I don't get enough of that crap from Snooty, I have to hear it from you too? I quoted a paragraph from a book. If it is also mentioned other places, including other posters, then I believe it. That's all we have Goody. The legal docs, books, pix, interviews and each other. Springer is not the only one to refer to the prints and smears on the sofa.

 

[Goody]

Arggh! Are you driving to drive me crazy!? Would you please answer my questions about what Snooty and I were talking about!!! Don't make me come over there, girl I do not need to know anything about the butt prints or handprints, etc except if Snooty is lying that she never mentioned them! ARGH
There was a butt print or smears whatever you want to call it on the front of the sofa, right near the handprint on the sofa. I quoted Springer because she describes it the best. It's in other places too. Anyway, but no they really aren't important except that they show Damon moved. Of course other things show that too, but LE was able to sort of "map" his movements. I don't think he stood all the way. It does appear that he tried to grab the sofa, as if for support

That is true. You see, get away from the transcripts for awhile and you start forgetting.

 

[Goody]

Hey Goody.....psst..
I am surprised at you Goody! Reminding me not to believe everything I read. That's insulting. I don't get enough of that crap from Snooty, I have to hear it from you too? I quoted a paragraph from a book. If it is also mentioned other places, including other posters, then I believe it. That's all we have Goody. The legal docs, books, pix, interviews and each other. Springer is not the only one to refer to the prints and smears on the sofa. Whether they were visible to the naked eye or not, they were there.

I didn't SAY you took it as gospel. I just merely stated that no one should take it as gospel (since you quoted the book.) What the experts at the trial say is given under oath and therefore more dependable.

 

[beesy]

I didn't SAY you took it as gospel. I just merely stated that no one should take it as gospel (since you quoted the book.) What the experts at the trial say is given under oath and therefore more dependable.

Not always, people lie, confuse facts, even experts. Not saying that anybody did in Darlie's case, but you know it happens. I quoted the book because to me it is easier to understand than the transcripts and because Snooty said she'd never heard it at all before.
The disappearing hand and butt print were brought up in Closing Arguments as per cami's post #16 so technically they were mentioned

 

[Goody]

Yes, that's great
I was not asking you to respond to my posts with Snooty. I was asking you to answer my question to everyone if you can understand what Snooty was saying in post #45
Sigh...fine that's ok, just forget it I don't need my hair [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_204v.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_2_204v.gif[/url]

hahahahahahahahh. Well, you gotta give me time to walk back there and look. Sheesh! Post 35.....looks to be a clarification statement by Snooty that the buttprint was on the carpet. Not clear if that is specifically what she had addressed previously. Post #45 .....is your post to Snooty. You quote her as follows: "]

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. "

I can't say that she specifically says she didn't say anything about the butt print on the floor, but again I am not following your posts that closely. If you focus too much on this instead of the topic material, Jeana will get after you. Maybe Snooty should keep her forum so the the two of you will have a place to scramble. Otherwise, you two might have to meet at GAC to deal with stuff like this.

 

[beesy]

hahahahahahahahh. Well, you gotta give me time to walk back there and look. Sheesh! Post 35.....looks to be a clarification statement by Snooty that the buttprint was on the carpet. Not clear if that is specifically what she had addressed previously. Post #45 .....is your post to Snooty. You quote her as follows: "]

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. "

I can't say that she specifically says she didn't say anything about the butt print on the floor, but again I am not following your posts that closely. If you focus too much on this instead of the topic material, Jeana will get after you. Maybe Snooty should keep her forum so the the two of you will have a place to scramble. Otherwise, you two might have to meet at GAC to deal with stuff like this.

I asked a simple question. I do feel it's on the topic. I need to know if I am misunderstanding her post. It has nothing to do with sparring. Otherwise how can I or anyone else post in reference to it? Therefore it is topic material:razz:

 

[beesy]

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.
I just figured something out! I was getting confused because Springer said "appeared" as if it could not be seen with the naked eye. Lightbulb! It was dark in the room because they were spraying the Luminol, so they couldn't see it. But the Luminol made it glow and then, like you said, made it drip away. The pleather and the Luminol worked together.
Ok, there...that was annoying me. I hope that's right so I don't have to hang myself