Dani_T said:
Sorry if these have been responded to already- been away for a few days and am catching up:
And that's odd because...? If the sock belonged to Darin (which is highly likely) and it had been worn and then put either in the shoe or in the dirty laundry then the fibre on it (if it WAS from the reebok) can be explained without the shoes even being linked to the crime scene in that respect.
Sure. If you want to bend over backwards and exclude the shoe and the sock (both with victim's blood on them).
What we do have though is testimony from at least 6 people who saw him and spoke to him that night and following that night and no one mentions any cuts or wounds to Darin. I think there is at least one photo in MTJD with Darin in it at the hospital but don't have it with me.
Darin should have at least on cut on his knee. Unless he managed to tear his pants there and not touch skin.
Could you provide some transcript or affidavit evidence for this?
Affadavit for what? The absence of any description of Darin's body during a lengthy interview at the hospital? There should be notes from the detectives who talked to him. Where are they?
Blood 'spatter' from a throat is caused when a major artery is cut. Darlie's wasn't. If she was lying down or leaning backwards and someone ran a greta big butcher's knife along her throat in such a way to make a shallow cut (which it was) then I'm not sure where you think this blood 'spatter' (which should actually be 'spray' from a servered artery) would have come from.
I'm quoting the Habeus Corpus. Since I can't find any analysis of Darin's jeans, that's all I have to go by.
Are you saying that you don't have a pair of jeans or trousers or even a shirt lying around home which you lounge around in which aren't ripped or torn somewhere?
Irrelevant. Darin's jeans have a tear in them that he claims to have been the result of working on a fence the previous day. There is no evidence that fence was worked on, in fact, quite the opposite.
Althought I have no problem accepting that Darin would have gotten well and truly bloody if he was trying to breath air back into his son's mouth and chest cavity I'd also expect some of it probably came from the fact that he wouldn't have simply been handling his boys clinically as you seem to expect.
Unless you have something to back up Darin's extremely dubious story of his mouth to mouth/CPR of Devon turning the kid into a blood-spewing fountain, I'm going to continue to regard this story as extremely suspect, and then question why it is that Darin runs across the street for "help" at the exact moment help (in the form of a police officer) arrives.
I guess that slipped her mind when she asked for a separation earlier that night. Or is that another Darin lie? It all get's very confusing...
Darin waited how many years to reveal this little tidbit...?
If you read the transcripts you'll see the wounds to the boys did not spray or spatter blood around. They were weeping wounds. Darlie wouldn't have had liberal amounts of the boys blood on her and in any case who knows how much had been on her hands/arms? Of course the absence of significant amounts of their blood only goes to show that this mother didn't go near the boys during the 911 call, try to comfort them by pulling them into her arms or tending to their wounds.
You're misreading the description. Darin claims that Darlie was *right there on top of Devon* when all the blood was sparying around that got on Darin. How did so much blood only manage to get on one of *two* people who were right there *during the CPR*?
So, again, how is it that no blood is on Darlie, but there's blood all over Darin?
Incorrect. Two of the bleeding victims went right past the shoes. One of those did so twice.
Two bleeding victims went right past those shoes but only Darlie's blood on them. Blood that just happens to get on one of the Reeboks which are, inexplicably by any explanation (except the obvious one) are by the door.
It's like nobody around here has ever seen a pair of sneakers laced up loosely so they can be slipped on. Fits with the whole "Gangsta" thing that Darin was obviously a big fan of, unless you think his two extremely young sons decided to become gangster rap fans on their own.
Darin lived in the house- his hair would have been everywhere.
Darlie and the boys were right there in the murder room, two sleeping on their floor. Where are *their* hairs? Why is it, of all people, Darin's hair that shows up on that knife?
Go look up some studies on the nature of hair and fibre transference.
Go look up cases where the perp's hair gets tangled in the weapon used.
If the knife was placed on the carpet (which we know it was- and might I remind you this is a point you have consistently ignored) it would have picked up any number of fibres and hairs.
Only Darin's was found. So "any number" is just theory, not fact.
The knife was placed on the counter which also would have had any number of fibres/hairs on it. His hair doesn't jump onto the knife. If it was a sterile crime scene and one which should not have contained any of Darin's hair them it is a different story. But it wasn't... and it's not. But instead you want to argue that the knife he was wielding and furiously stabbing and attacking with got caught in his hair as he fought with Darlie on the couch??? And that's presuming that the hair in question was head hair.
And this is an impossible scenario...why? He had long hair. He would have been stabbing overhead. Had to be to inflict such deep wounds. And you think this is somehow impossible?
Wanna know where else hair was found, again Darin's? In that black hat in the utility room.
I've already explained how the sock and the shoes could have logically been linked together with nothing to do with the crime.
I don't accept your logic.
Darlie stood at the front door at least once and yelled for Karen. The shoes are right by the front door. But whoever it was who bled on the shoes was dripping blood themselves (rather than just having it smeared on them) and standing still whilst they did it. No blood on the laces and no smears of blood on the shoe showing someone with bloody hands had tugged them on.
But talking about how many things do we have to come up with an incredulous explanation for perhaps you might now give us your account for how the bloody knife mark came to appear on the carpet and how the bloody knife that was 'thrown down' in the U-room left no spatter if Darin did it?
Given Darlie's early description of fighting with the assailant on the couch, the first part should be obvious. There was never any knife in the utility room, nor did Darlie's first account say where she found the knife. You can misinterpret her statement all you please, but the known facts of the case show the knife was on the floor in the Roman Room, no matter what Darlie later said.
How does it support the idea that she didn't and that Darin did? What are you trying to get at with the shoes?
Only the obvious. Darin was wearing them. Just as he was wearing that sock.
It would be useful to look at Waddell's statement, and anything the neighbors are known to have said, and see if Darin was wearing any shoes when he sprinted past the police and across the street.
RstJ
