Case Against Darin?

[accordn2me]

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

I resemble that remark! :crazy:

 

[accordn2me]

:laugh:

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?

Could you translate this please? I'm in full-blown blonde mode at the moment.:crazy:

 

[accordn2me]

Warning the following is incredibly immature:

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

DID NOT!!! :innocent:

Dani_T started it!

 

[Goody]

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.

Well, she must have been carrying that bread knife around with her because the screen fibers were in the butcher block with it.

Aren't the Darlies contesting the fact that the fiber was from the screen or that there was even a fiber at all?

That is cute, the Darlies. Reminds me of the Darlins on the Andy Griffith Show. LOL!

But to answer your question, the Darlies want the fibers to be a bristle from the fingerprint brush. That didn't gain any traction since the two are not even the same size, so they then decided the mode of transportation the fibers took from the screen to the butcher block had to be the fingerprint brush. That way it could be screen fibers and still not prove she cut the screen. Of course, those screen fibers would have had to ride the bristles from the screen, which was the first thing they dusted, thru the garage, a couple of points in the utility room, and several points in the kitchen before the man even got to the butcher block. What are the chances that the fibers would not have fallen out sooner? What are the chances that the brush would not have carted more than one screen fiber around and dropped it along the way? Why were no other screen fibers found anywhere but in the butcher block? <sigh> You can't blame them for trying.

 

[beesy]

:laugh:
Could you translate this please? I'm in full-blown blonde mode at the moment.:crazy:

If it ain't there, then it can't be

 

[Goody]

:laugh:
Could you translate this please? I'm in full-blown blonde mode at the moment.:crazy:

I think it was regarding your statement that Cron, I think, first said he believed the screen was cut from the inside. At least that is where we started. If you need more info than that, backtrack and see what you find.

 

[Goody]

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

No, but it sounds like I should check in. But I don't have the link anymore. I had to restore my hard drive a while back and haven't gotten those old links. Can you share?

 

[Goody]

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

No, you are doing fine. You will learn like we did, as you go. Probably the only way unless you become a cop or lawyer anyway, LOL Shoot, I learn something new everyday.

 

[Goody]

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. .

I disagree with that. There are tests that can be conducted to show how the screen material reacts to the penetration and cutting motion of a knife. There are no tests to show which bullet was fired first or in what succession, no tests to show the order in which a knife penetrates the body. No, it is not an exact science but it can be proved circumstantially, i.e. what is consistent with and what is not...the screen cuts, that is.

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?.

How old were the boys when they lived on Bond street? Devon was about 18 months old and Damon was just born, wasn't he? I am pretty sure they were just babies and not capable of cutting anything, let alone a screen on a window no matter how high or low it was.

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..

Maybe not, but it happens quite often.

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.

The screens popped right off. Even the boys knew that. I suspect that Darlie knew it, too, because the corner was bent a bit where the boys had been popping it off. The cut on the screen was definitely for show, not for access.

Another interesting thing about the screen cut is that the bottom of the upside down T shape that was made comes just to the point where the window was raised. Meaning that the open window was probably a guide used by the cutter. That means the window was up pretty high that night, raised from the inside. As I recall, there were no nicks or scratches on the plexiglas window either, another indication that the window was up. when the cut was made. That pretty much puts down any theory that the intruder found a partially opened window, cut the screen and reached in and pushed the window the rest of the way up. Whoever cut the screen raised the window up first, then went around to the other side and cut the screen. Either that or more than one person lied about the status of that window from day one. :liar:

 

[Mary456]

What the hell does that mean? I should get back to basics like A,B,Cs and 1,2,3s????? They can estimate order of wounds by blood spatter, and other forensics. I'm not saying on Darlie's case, but in general they can. Ever watch CourtTV or A&E!!! Back to basics? How demeaning!!!

In rereading my post, I can understand why you interpreted it the way you did. When I said, "Beesy, you get back to basics", I wasn't telling you to get back to basics. I just meant that it seems like you approach the evidence with common-sense basics.

Which is refreshing in a case like this, where the Darlies come up with some of the most ridiculous explanations imaginable. I don't think you had the pleasure of discussing this case with Jeff, but he actually suggested that the fiberglass on the bread knife got there from Darin either cutting strapping tape or digging around in his circuit boards. I mean, it was absurd, and yet he'd argue with you until you were ready to slit your own throat, lol!

Anyway, there's certainly no hard feelings on my part, beesy. One of the hazards of a message board is that people can say something well-meaning, and it comes out the wrong way or gets interpreted the wrong way. Nature of the beast.

 

[Mary456]

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

I think in most cases the State tries to avoid calling hostile witnesses, because if they're really hostile they can end up doing more damage than good.

Did you watch the O.J. Simpson trial? The State called Kato Kaelin & he was deliberately not telling what he knew. Marcia Clark finally had him declared a hostile witness, but not before she almost had a nervous breakdown.

The State had so much evidence against Darlie that they probably figured it wasn't worth the aggravation to call Dana if she was going to fudge the truth, which I'm sure she would have done.

 

[accordn2me]

I think it was regarding your statement that Cron, I think, first said he believed the screen was cut from the inside. At least that is where we started. If you need more info than that, backtrack and see what you find.

OH, that, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have a speck of proof who said this - one of the initial investigators thought the screen was cut from the inside. It could be my memory playing tricks but I'm pretty sure there was heavy debate about it on another forum long ago. It may have been before you appeared on the scene.

I have no idea if it's true, just more speculation, propaganda, or outright lies. I wish one of the old timers could spread some light on this for us.

If I didn't know Mary would saw it off, I would go out on a limb and guess the story and players. I hate it when the limb falls in a pool of sharks so :snooty:

 

[accordn2me]

If it ain't there, then it can't be

YES, IT, CAN!!! :slap:

 

[beesy]

YES, IT, CAN!!! :slap:

No need to get your knickers all in a knot, it was said in jest, although most of the time it's true ....and you said you were gonna behave. sheese

 

[Goody]

OH, that, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have a speck of proof who said this - one of the initial investigators thought the screen was cut from the inside. It could be my memory playing tricks but I'm pretty sure there was heavy debate about it on another forum long ago. It may have been before you appeared on the scene.

I have no idea if it's true, just more speculation, propaganda, or outright lies. I wish one of the old timers could spread some light on this for us.

If I didn't know Mary would saw it off, I would go out on a limb and guess the story and players. I hate it when the limb falls in a pool of sharks so :snooty:

Aww, Mary is a sweeheart.

I think I know what might have initiated your discussion at the other board though. When the screen was cut, the top of the T ran along the bottom and the middle line ran down the center of the screen and stopped at the lower cut. That caused one side of the cut screen to fold over. It flopped on the inside rather than the outside, and authorities thought it proved the direction of the entrance/exit. Since the flap was on the inside, they said it indicated only an entrance had been made, not an exit. That meant Darlie lied about the intruder leaving through the garage, back yard, back gate, etc. But one has to remember that those garage windows were low to the ground. They might even be considered oversized as it seems to me there was a lot of glass. Most importantly, one could step from the patio into the garage through the window very easily. No climbing would be necessary because the windows were just inches from the patio surface. So there never was a view that the screen was cut from the inside, only that the screen folded into the inside, thereby causing authorities to say the last movement through it was an entrance, not an exit. I hope this isn't too confusing.

 

[accordn2me]

I disagree with that. There are tests that can be conducted to show how the screen material reacts to the penetration and cutting motion of a knife.

How would that tell you when the screen was cut?

How old were the boys when they lived on Bond street? Devon was about 18 months old and Damon was just born, wasn't he?

Is this a test? I have no clue. They may not have even been born then for all I know! :blushing:

Maybe not, but it happens quite often.

How often? Was it as often as the intruder who stuffed socks in the victim's mouths?

The screens popped right off. Even the boys knew that. I suspect that Darlie knew it, too, because the corner was bent a bit where the boys had been popping it off. The cut on the screen was definitely for show, not for access.

How do you know it was cut for show? Yes, the screen could be taken off. It wasn't so easy that it could be done without damaging the screen though. If you needed to gain access to the garage to get a popcicle, it would be a pain in the hiney to wrestle the screen off, get a popcicle, crawl out and get the screen back on without the popcicle melting in the Texas heat. That's waaaay more trouble than a nice slice in the screen. Plus, you wouldn't be disobeying anyone by taking the screen off if you had been in trouble previously for bending it.

Either that or more than one person lied about the status of that window from day one. :liar:

Well that certainly wouldn't be a first in this case!

 

[accordn2me]

Aww, Mary is a sweeheart.

Mary wears many hats.

I think I know what might have initiated your discussion at the other board though. When the screen was cut, the top of the T ran along the bottom and the middle line ran down the center of the screen and stopped at the lower cut. That caused one side of the cut screen to fold over. It flopped on the inside rather than the outside, and authorities thought it proved the direction of the entrance/exit. Since the flap was on the inside, they said it indicated only an entrance had been made, not an exit. That meant Darlie lied about the intruder leaving through the garage, back yard, back gate, etc. But one has to remember that those garage windows were low to the ground. They might even be considered oversized as it seems to me there was a lot of glass. Most importantly, one could step from the patio into the garage through the window very easily. No climbing would be necessary because the windows were just inches from the patio surface. So there never was a view that the screen was cut from the inside, only that the screen folded into the inside, thereby causing authorities to say the last movement through it was an entrance, not an exit. I hope this isn't too confusing.

No, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.

It's interesting 2me because when I started thinking maybe there was an intruder, my hunch was that he/they came through an unlocked door - either the front or sliding glass. I always though it odd that Darlie's blood was not on the front door even though we know she yelled for Karen. Certainly she opened the door first....

Yet, there is blood on the utility/garage door...do you think that was the door she yelled for Karen from?

 

[beesy]

How do you know it was cut for show? Yes, the screen could be taken off. It wasn't so easy that it could be done without damaging the screen though. If you needed to gain access to the garage to get a popcicle, it would be a pain in the hiney to wrestle the screen off, get a popcicle, crawl out and get the screen back on without the popcicle melting in the Texas heat. That's waaaay more trouble than a nice slice in the screen. Plus, you wouldn't be disobeying anyone by taking the screen off if you had been in trouble previously for bending it.

I'm sorry, but that makes little to no sense. Cutting the screen to get popcicles might be easier, but don't you think they would have been in trouble for it? You said they wouldn't be disobeying by cutting the screen instead of popping it off. Ruining the screen wouldn't have pissed Ma and Pa off? Just a thought...

 

[beesy]

It's interesting 2me because when I started thinking maybe there was an intruder, my hunch was that he/they came through an unlocked door - either the front or sliding glass. I always though it odd that Darlie's blood was not on the front door even though we know she yelled for Karen. Certainly she opened the door first....

Yet, there is blood on the utility/garage door...do you think that was the door she yelled for Karen from?

Darlie has never said anything about who opened the front door first. Her story is she followed the intruder thru the kitchen and he ran out thru the garage. Therefore she herself tells us why there is none of her blood on the front door. The "intruder" went out thru the garage, remember? That's why there's blood on that door. She told us that. Even if an intruder had exited by the front door, wouldn't he have left some sort of blood on the door? I don't quite understand what you're insinuating anyway. An intruder entered the front door, but Darlie forgot to tell everybody she found the door open as she chased the man thru the kitchen?
It is a good question though: who opened the front door first? Doesn't have anything to do with her guilt or innocence, it's just a curiosity.

 

[beesy]

[/size][/size]

But to answer your question, the Darlies want the fibers to be a bristle from the fingerprint brush. That didn't gain any traction since the two are not even the same size, so they then decided the mode of transportation the fibers took from the screen to the butcher block had to be the fingerprint brush. That way it could be screen fibers and still not prove she cut the screen. Of course, those screen fibers would have had to ride the bristles from the screen, which was the first thing they dusted, thru the garage, a couple of points in the utility room, and several points in the kitchen before the man even got to the butcher block. What are the chances that the fibers would not have fallen out sooner? What are the chances that the brush would not have carted more than one screen fiber around and dropped it along the way? Why were no other screen fibers found anywhere but in the butcher block? <sigh> You can't blame them for trying.

Yep a great big E for Effort, but that's all they're getting