Case Against Darin?

[Goody]

That was a compliment? It came across as I need to stay with the simple things and try not delve into such difficult topics such as reading from a moron's book. No matter the meaning, it hurt my feelings alot, especially after reading HER post.

I think Mary was talking about crime detection when she said getting back to basics. It is a good thing to do when trying to solve a mystery.

 

[Goody]

Come on guys - give me a break. I don't want to have to start editing/deleting.

Yes, this is the be-nice-at-all-times forum, not like GAC where anything goes. Easy to forget sometimes.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yes, this is the be-nice-at-all-times forum, not like GAC where anything goes. Easy to forget sometimes.

Hey, I just work here. Speaking of anything goes, have you been to Starkman's forum lately? LOL

 

[Goody]

qualifications: You had at least as many as I did when I mentioned that "someone" mentioned it.?

Well, you did add that maybe it was not part of the crime scene. I don't think anyone has said that before.

:truce:

OK, DT, you really know a lot about that screen. Since this important question was overlooked, I'll direct it directly to you rather than everyone:

What do y'all think about Cron's initial position (or was it Linch's idea) that the screen had been cut from the inside? I know in Linch's testimony he said something to the effect of, "there was one indication that the cutting was done from the outside." Wasn't it Brantly who argued the cut was done from outside and then the investigator changed his position?

I have never heard this either.

 

[Goody]

And it is possible for forensics to make an educated guess about the order of stab or bullet wounds. I'm not saying Chris did that, but it is possible to estimate, through blood spatter patterns, cast off blood, footprints, Luminol, etc!! Not in this case, but in many others they can if they have the body at the crime scene

The only way to tell the sequence of wounds, and this is very limited, is based on how much blood flowed from the wound. No blood indicates the wound was created after the heart stopped beating. Less blood indicates it was not the first wound unless the blood letting was internal. There is no way that I have ever heard of that can tell the actual sequence of wounds.

There are some ballistics tests in gun shot wounds that maybe a little more helpful, but I don't follow many gunshot cases. It seems so impersonal. I like the cases that involve emotion between killer and victim with a little mystery thrown in. It ups mental challenges.

 

[Goody]

But then again the state didn't call her either (as a hostile witness)- why not?

They would have to know for sure she knew something to do that. They can't call someone, even as a hostile witness, just because they suspect she knows something she isn't telling. I think they would need at least another witness' claims that she knew something.

 

[Goody]

I know we used speculation about Dana, that's what we all do here and were careful talking about cetain things. I have never seen that part of the Leeza show. Goody seemed to think she stormed off.

As I recall, Dana ran off the stage in tears. Haven't seen it for a long time though. Mary probably remembers it better than I do.

 

[accordn2me]

There is absolutely no evidence, not even a self serving statement from the Routiers to support your theory here. The screen was cut that night and was definitely part of the crime. The only question is who cut it.

How do you know that?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

How do you know that?

I'm thinking that she came to that opinion after reading all the evidence and trial testimony.

It does make me wonder though. . . can anyone think of any other reason someone would cut their own screen and put the knife containing the fibers back in the butcher's block during the same time period that their two boys were murdered if it DIDN'T have anything to do with the crime???

 

[beesy]

I'm thinking that she came to that opinion after reading all the evidence and trial testimony.

It does make me wonder though. . . can anyone think of any other reason someone would cut their own screen and put the knife containing the fibers back in the butcher's block during the same time period that their two boys were murdered if it DIDN'T have anything to do with the crime???

She forgot her sunscreen? Locked herself out of the house? Oh yeah, but she would have told us that, wouldn't she? Unless it was while he/she was dumping the sock.
Aren't the Darlies contesting the fact that the fiber was from the screen or that there was even a fiber at all?

 

[beesy]

Come on guys - give me a break. I don't want to have to start editing/deleting.

Warning the following is incredibly immature:

accordn2me.....she started it she started it :razz: and she's got cooties too! LOL

 

[Jeana (DP)]

She forgot her sunscreen?

I must be having a blonde moment. . . i don't get it. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Warning the following is incredibly immature:

accordn2me.....she started it she started it :razz: and she's got cooties too! LOL

LOL
I can deal with it.

 

[beesy]

I must be having a blonde moment. . . i don't get it. :waitasec: :waitasec: :waitasec:

I was just being silly...I've added more now..

 

[beesy]

I think Mary was talking about crime detection when she said getting back to basics. It is a good thing to do when trying to solve a mystery.

Well, I know that now. Maybe I should go back and learn ABC's though so I can interpret messages better?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

She forgot her sunscreen? Locked herself out of the house? Oh yeah, but she would have told us that, wouldn't she? Unless it was while he/she was dumping the sock.
Aren't the Darlies contesting the fact that the fiber was from the screen or that there was even a fiber at all?

The Darlies are contesting a lot of stuff . . . including stuff that came directly out of Darlie's own mouth. Don't make any dif if you ask me.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Well, I know that now. Maybe I should go back and learn ABC's though so I can interpret messages better?

Just don't forgert your secret decoder ring next time!!!!! :slap:

 

[beesy]

The only way to tell the sequence of wounds, and this is very limited, is based on how much blood flowed from the wound. No blood indicates the wound was created after the heart stopped beating. Less blood indicates it was not the first wound unless the blood letting was internal. There is no way that I have ever heard of that can tell the actual sequence of wounds.

Ok, I cry uncle

There are some ballistics tests in gun shot wounds that maybe a little more helpful, but I don't follow many gunshot cases. It seems so impersonal. I like the cases that involve emotion between killer and victim with a little mystery thrown in. It ups mental challenges

Stabbings are definitely more personal. Surprisingly, many gun shot deaths can be personal too if the killer knows the victim. It's hard to hide rage

 

[accordn2me]

I'm thinking that she came to that opinion after reading all the evidence and trial testimony.

I don't know. Most witnesses who testified about the screen did so from the assumption that it was a poor attempt to stage an inside crime. Even as I know how well Goody knows this case, I have to challenge her on her statement. Because of my position - just because it is or is not in the transcript, does not mean it did or did not happen - I can't ask her to "prove" it. I will state that being able to tell when the screen was cut is even more impossible (if that's possible ) than being able to tell the order of these victim's wounds.

The fact that Darin went back to their old house on Bond Street specifically to see if any screens were cut there makes me wonder if the boys didn't have a history of cutting screens. I wonder how high off the ground those windows on Bond Street were?

I know Darlie and Darin were not the smartest people in Texas, but cutting the screen to stage the crime doesn't make a lick of sense. I could see the kids thinking cutting a hole in the screen was a better idea than just removing the whole screen. Once cut, you would have a completely handsfree entry to the popcicles.

Just an idea.

 

[Goody]

How do you know that?

Well, now this is silly. You can't use evidence that is not known to exist to support a theory that has no factual basis.

If you can produce some kind of proof that a statement exists, then produce it. But don't try to argue that anything goes just because there might be some remote possibility that it could exist. Shoot, aliens could exist but you wouldn't want to hear an argument suggesting that Darlie was an alien (and more prone to violent acts) just because you can't prove that she isn't, would you?