Death photos

[Cowgirl]

I am not one who doesn't want to think she did this because I have believed she did it from the very beginning. My first memories of her are of her in her short-shorts, chomping gum like a teenager, and shooting that silly string around. Had that just happened afew days earlier to my kids, I don't think you could find me in anything but a straight jacket. She is disgusting and scary.

But the idea that she was the main target -- that someone was trying to kill her and only sliced her throat with a surface wound after plunging the knife over and over into the bodies of the kids -- is clearly not based in logic.

Just look at her injuries! How can it be said that she clearly didn't do them? There is not one cut that could not have been done by her. All she did was press that knife against her throat to cause that wound and then scratched her forearm with the knife. A madman who had just cut gaping holes in the bodies of her children would be doing the same to her. And bruises? Anyone can bruise themselves. Her injuries convict her rather than exonerate her. She would have been better off having no injuries than those self-inflicted ones. :laugh: Or maybe the "real killer" was obsessed with her big too and didn't want to deflate them?

I am not convinced about her husband. Maybe because I cannot believe there are two people that evil. Time will tell, I guess. I just cannot believe two people sat down and planned to kill their kids together.

 

[beesy]

I am not one who doesn't want to think she did this because I have believed she did it from the very beginning. My first memories of her are of her in her short-shorts, chomping gum like a teenager, and shooting that silly string around. Had that just happened afew days earlier to my kids, I don't think you could find me in anything but a straight jacket. She is disgusting and scary.

I didn't mean because she's Darlie. I meant because she's a mother and it's supposed to be instinct for a mother to protect her child. Obviously, alot of mothers don't seem to have that instinct. Knowing that still doesn't keep me from wanting her to be innocent because to come to that conclusion, I have to admit that a mother killed her children.

But the idea that she was the main target -- that someone was trying to kill her and only sliced her throat with a surface wound after plunging the knife over and over into the bodies of the kids -- is clearly not based in logic.

not based on logic at all. Clearly bullpoopy

Just look at her injuries! How can it be said that she clearly didn't do them? There is not one cut that could not have been done by her. All she did was press that knife against her throat to cause that wound and then scratched her forearm with the knife. A madman who had just cut gaping holes in the bodies of her children would be doing the same to her. And bruises? Anyone can bruise themselves. Her injuries convict her rather than exonerate her. She would have been better off having no injuries than those self-inflicted ones. :laugh: Or maybe the "real killer" was obsessed with her big too and didn't want to deflate them?

Some people think she accidently cut her arm while killing Devon and was forced to put herself into the attack. The cut on her arm is a pretty deep cut, but could have been done by her or accidently done. Devon must have fought. He had a cut on his buttocks and bruises on his feet. He could have caused her to cut herself and then she had to become a "victim" too. She might have planned to kill the kids, but I don't think she planned to be a victim. If she did, she didn't plan it very well. The scene is set very sloppily, indicative of panic. I think we are all obsessed with her :laugh:

I am not convinced about her husband. Maybe because I cannot believe there are two people that evil. Time will tell, I guess. I just cannot believe two people sat down and planned to kill their kids together

. No I don't think he was even involved in the actual murders, much less planning them. He knows she did it though.

 

[speedlimitmama]

Darin was involved somehow, but I think we've pretty much decided he didn't hire anyone to break in to kill or steal things. It's more likely he's helped with the coverup, knows Darlie did it, which makes him a monster as far as I'm concerned. Darlie had been sleeping downstairs about 5 days, not weeks. The problem with the idea of Darin hiring the killer is that there was no intruder, therefore nobody to hire. Darlie is his Trophy Wife. He's never said 1 little teeny negative thing about her publically. He's blinded by her.
As much as we all want to think Darlie didn't do this, the evidence says she did.

Hi Beesy, Thank you and thee others for responding to my questions. I know Darlie had surgery, so why the surgery if she was not cut bad. Her neck looked bad to me and the brusing was terrible. she was cut clear to the bone on one cut. Yes she could of gotten all of it except the cut on the neck from killing the kids since they fought. But was it ever looked into as far as the husband might of hired someone to kill her? What about the hand print that did not belong to anyone in the house, the foot print.?? The police talk of the intruder entered through the basement window. Darin was the only one not tonched except for the little one upstairs. Yet it was a blood bath down stairs. If he did not hire someone to do it, why on earth would he stand behind her if she really did kill those babies? How could anyone love someone so much to annore what happened to those babies. I figuared he hoped to have her killed and things went wrong and she was still alive.What else could he do except play the loving husband if he feared his but might be in the sling.Could Darlie really not bring herself to question that she was the target and hubby behind it. If it is true Darlie did this, then she should die and sooner the better. I understand that some think darin was involved in some way, so why not question if Darlie was set up???I am so confused in all this. I seen the pic of those poor babies at the crime sceane and morgue, That was so heart breaking. This allowing the boys to be dug up and there hands cut off is so terrible. These people are so cold. Those babies went through so much and then do that. : When is Darlie suppose to be executed???

 

[Jeana (DP)]

There are no basements in Texas homes. The screen that was cut to fake the break in was in the garage, but there's no way an intruder came in or went out that way. Moreover, Darlie's "surgery" was not what you think it was. It was mostly to clean the wound. Her doctors said her life was never in danger and he would have released her from the hospital that very day had the circumstances been different. The doctor was concerned about how she would react emotionally due to the deaths of the boys and about the media attention. The cut "to the bone" you're talking about is on her forearm and since that's one of the least fleshy areas of the body, it didn't take much to penetrate the fraction of skin there.

I think you'll find that most people believe Darin knows way more than he's saying. Whether that means he was involved in the murder or the cover up or is concerned that other misdeeds will come to light is anyone's guess.

The bottom line for Darlie is that nothing she says now will help her in the least.

She doesn't have an execution date set yet.

 

[sue1017]

In reference to the 911 call... Does anyone else hear slapping or hitting in the background? Like maybe she is trying to bruise herself intentional. Or maybe she is smacking the backs of the boys trying to rouse them to stay alive. I dunno.

Another thing why did they only try her for the death of one son and not the other? Also, they keep stating that in forums I have read about only one son was dead. I don't get it. What am I missing?

Thanks,

Sue

 

[Cowgirl]

In reference to the 911 call... Does anyone else hear slapping or hitting in the background? Like maybe she is trying to bruise herself intentional. Or maybe she is smacking the backs of the boys trying to rouse them to stay alive. I dunno.

Another thing why did they only try her for the death of one son and not the other? Also, they keep stating that in forums I have read about only one son was dead. I don't get it. What am I missing?

Thanks,

Sue

By trying the murders separately, if she ever manages to get a reversal or acquittal on this first conviction then they can always go ahead and file a murder charge on her for the other child. There is no statute of limitation on murder.

 

[beesy]

In reference to the 911 call... Does anyone else hear slapping or hitting in the background? Like maybe she is trying to bruise herself intentional. Or maybe she is smacking the backs of the boys trying to rouse them to stay alive. I dunno.

I don't think anyone has ever mentioned hearing slapping or hitting on the tape. Take a listen for yourself. Most people think those bruises were caused after she was released from the hospital.

Another thing why did they only try her for the death of one son and not the other? Also, they keep stating that in forums I have read about only one son was dead. I don't get it. What am I missing?

Devon died at the scene, most likely dead before she called 911. Damon was still alive when the paramedics arrived. Darlie was still on the phone, feet away from Damon, watching him choke on his own blood. He was declared DOA
In TX it is an automatic capital murder case for a child under 6. And as Cowgirl said, they held a charge back so they could try her again if need be. Very smart, other DA's should do it. Trying OJ separately for the murders might have landed him in prison.

 

[beesy]

[Yes she could of gotten all of it except the cut on the neck from killing the kids since they fought. But was it ever looked into as far as the husband might of hired someone to kill her? What about the hand print that did not belong to anyone in the house, the foot print.?? The police talk of the intruder entered through the basement

You have a flawed idea there. Darlie wasn't killed, 2 little boys were. Why would a hired killer murder children? Darlie says she ran after the guy. That means he knew she was still alive right? He was scared of an unarmed 135 lb woman? Hope Darin didn't pay the guys cause they mucked up!
What handprint? What footprint? Sounds like you've been reading Chris Brown's book. It is packed with lies and not very good ones at that. Look at transcripts, the ' statements, paramedics' statements, Darlie and Darin's statements. Chris Brown nearly fooled me too. I finally came to the conclusion that someone who can't spell or properly edit or credit his pix is a fraud. There were 2 handprints found. One on the carpet which was obviously Damon's. Even the Pro-Darlies say that. One picked up with Luminol which was Damon's. It was found on the sofa, and Darlie says Damon was over there.The only footprints were Darlie's barefeet running around from the sink to the family room and back.

I know Darlie had surgery, so why the surgery if she was not cut bad. Her neck looked bad to me and the brusing was terrible. she was cut clear to the bone on one cut.

The Dr. was concerned about the neck wound and wanted to make sure it wasn't worse than it looked and wanted to clean it as Jeana said. It wasn't even bleeding much when she got to the ER. Once in the operating room, he saw that all of her wounds could have been stitched in the ER, no biggie. Read some of the other posts about the bruises. Dani T has a good thread.

If he did not hire someone to do it, why on earth would he stand behind her if she really did kill those babies? How could anyone love someone so much to annore what happened to those babies. I figuared he hoped to have her killed and things went wrong and she was still alive.What else could he do except play the loving husband if he feared his but might be in the sling.Could Darlie really not bring herself to question that she was the target and hubby behind

Nobody knows why Darin is putting Darlie before his boys, but he is. I really don't think he was involved in the actual murders. How could he not know she did it? He knows. Is he involved in a coverup? Most likely. And Darlie not questioning him about hiring someone is probably your answer right there. Why would she be worried that he'd hired somebody when she murdered the boys?

 

[beesy]

hey everybody, hang on to your copies of MTJD. Saw it on Amazon.com for $72.00! Funny, the people who liked the book felt she was innocent. People who thought it was stupid thought she was guilty

 

[sue1017]

This probably isn't the right thread for this questions but thought since it is currently a very active one then it might get an answer.

Does anyone know the website that shows the diagrams of the boys autopsy reports? I recently clicked on a link but cannot for the life of me find it now. Any help would be appreciated.

S

 

[sue1017]

I think I answered my own question.

The website is www.fordarlieroutier.org currently tho the site seems to be down that would explain why I can't find what I am looking for.:banghead:

S

 

[accordn2me]

[/color]What handprint? What footprint? There were 2 handprints found. The only footprints were Darlie's barefeet running around from the sink to the family room and back.

http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-35.php#1

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY GREG DAVIS:
4 Q. Now, did you ever observe anything in
5 the kitchen that you believed to be a bloody shoe print?
6 A. There was a partial one. I did see
7 one.
8 Q. Okay. Mr. Cron, first of all, what do
9 we see here in State's Exhibit 43-G?
10 A. It's a partial footprint on the
11 kitchen floor in what appears to be blood. A heel print
12 of a shoe or a boot.
13 Q. Do you recall what part of the kitchen
14 that this was found?
15 A. Yes. Exact measurements I don't have,
16 but it's about halfway between the end of the counter to
17 the island counter and the utility room door, heading in
18 the direction of the utility room door.
19 Q. Okay. Did you see any other bloody
20 shoe prints there in the kitchen, besides the one
21 depicted in State's Exhibit 43-G?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you ever do anything with 43-G,
24 the shoe print, shown in State's Exhibit 43-G in an
25 effort to identify who might have left that track?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What did you do?
3 A. Well, through the Rowlett PD, the
4 negatives, I had them submitted to the photo lab, Dallas
5 County Sheriff's Department photo lab for 1 to 1. That
6 is actual size blowups made.
7 And then I had Rowlett PD take foot
8 wear impressions of everybody that was at the scene,
9 including my own. I took my shoes there that I was
10 wearing that night. So I got --
11 Q. Let me ask you: What is a 1 to 1
12 photograph?
13 A. 1 to 1 is true size, actual size.
14 That is the purpose for placing rulers in crime scene
15 pictures. If a ruler is in a photograph, the photo lab
16 personnel can -- using the negative, can enlarge the
17 image from the negative, to where the ruler becomes its
18 actual size on the photographic paper. And when the
19 ruler is its true size, when they print it everything in
20 the picture will be its true size. That is why rulers
21 are used in crime scene pictures.
22 Q. Well, once you got the 1 to 1
23 photograph of this shoe print, did you compare it against
24 something?
25 A. To all of the footprints of everybody
1 that was present there that morning.


2 Q. Okay. And were you able to determine
3 through your comparisons who actually left this shoe
4 print shown in State's Exhibit No. 43-G?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who was it?
7 A. It was Sergeant Matt Walling. I may
8 be mispronouncing his name, Walling.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. It was consistent with being his and
11 no other's at the scene

5 Q. Were you ever able to determine who
6 left the shoe prints or the impressions back there on
7 that section of the carpet behind the couch?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And how did you do that?
10 A. I had not only the carpet, but
11 photographs taken of the prints on the carpet. I had
12 then enlarged to their actual size, true size. Using
13 them, I compared them with the foot wear impressions of
14 everybody at the scene that morning.
15 Q. Okay. And what was the result?
16 A. The results: Three of them are
17 consistent, or the three patterns are consistent with
18 being the boot pattern of the paramedic. And I probably
19 have some trouble pronouncing his name, but I know his
20 nickname.
21 Q. What is his nickname?
22 A. Toad.
2 Q. Mr. Cron, looking at State's Exhibit
3 35-C, do you recognize what is shown there, sir?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What is that?
6 A. It's a -- you mean each specific item?
7 Q. No. What part of the room is this?
8 A. Oh, it's near the couch and the glass
9 coffee table.
10 Q. Okay. Now, look at State's Exhibit
11 35-E. Do you see what I am pointing at here, sir?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. What is that?
14 A. Looks like a small palm print in blood
15 on the carpet.
16 Q. Could you -- when you first went into
17 the family room, could you see the palm print here shown
18 in State's Exhibit 35-E?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. What did you have to do in
21 order to see that?
22 A. Well, we had to move the objects after
23 the initial photographs were taken, conducting a crime
24 scene investigation during the moving of things that was
25 discovered.
1 Q. Okay. Do you see what I am pointing
2 at here in 35-C?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. What is that?
5 A. A blanket.
6 Q. Did you have to move that?
7 A. Yes, sir.


23 A. Oh, "G". Exhibits 85-G and 85-F are
24 the latent prints handed me from the Rowlett PD. They
25 are from the inside of the entry door between the garage
1 and the wash room, and they appear to be in blood.
2 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with that
3 location?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. Is that going to be the door
6 leading from the utility room to the garage?
7 A. Yes. The wash room, what we're
8 calling the utility room.
9 Q. Okay. Are there latents on the back
10 of those cards?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. What were you able to do with
13 those two latents?
14 A. Well, I compared them but I wasn't
15 able to make any identification.
16 Q. Okay. Why not?
17 A. They are in liquid. They are partial.
18 I can see ridges, I mean, they are obviously palm or
19 finger, probably finger. But there's not enough points
20 of comparison to identify anyone.
21 Q. Okay. So even if you had a known
22 fingerprint that you are looking at, would you be able to
23 make a comparison and an identification based on what you
24 have got in front of you there?
25 A. No, I couldn't identify the correct
1 print if it was in front of me and I was making a


2 comparison with these.
3 Q. Okay. Mr. Cron, looking at State's
4 Exhibit No. 85-H, do you recognize that?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Okay. Is that also a latent that was
7 given to you by Rowlett?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Where did that latent come from?
10 A. This is from the sliding glass door
11 leading from the family room out to the back patio.
12 Q. Okay. And, what were you able to do
13 with the latent on 85-H?
14 A. Nothing. It was too partial, there
15 was some friction ridges there, but I couldn't make any
16 identification.
17 Q. Okay. If you had a perfect print in
18 front of you that belonged to that individual, could you
19 make a comparison and tell us if that individual left
20 that latent on 85-H?
21 A. I could not.
22 Q. If you would, please look at State's
23 Exhibits 85-I and 85-J. Do you recognize those also?
24 A. I do.
25 Q. Okay. Are those two of the latents
1 given to you by Rowlett?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where did they come from?
4 A. Off of the glass table top in the
5 family room. And one of them, well, both of them, that's
6 right, both of them are off the glass-topped table.
7 Q. Okay. What were you able to determine
8 by looking at those two latents?
9 A. That there is ridge detail, a few
10 points of comparison, but I can't -- couldn't make any
11 identification.
12 Q. Okay. Same thing as you had with the
13 other sets that I have just shown you?
14 A. Yes. These are better prints but
15 still lacked sufficient points of identification.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Actually, they're the same. Let's
18 see, that is -- oh, yes, that is, they're double lifts of
19 the same print.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. He attempted -- the man that lifted it
22 tried to get it clear, make it clear by the second lift
23 and it didn't work.
24 Q. Okay. How would you classify the size
25 of these two latents?
1 A. Small.
2 Q. Okay. What do you mean by small?
3 What would that be consistent with?
4 A. A juvenile, it could be. It fits the
5 criteria to be a younger person's prints.
6 Q. Okay. What are those criteria?
7 A. Small ridges.
8 Q. Let me just ask you: The two prints
9 here, 85-I and J, would they be consistent with having
10 been left by a five or six year old child?
11 A. It's possible, yes, sir.


12 Q. Okay. Mr. Cron, let me show you
13 what's been marked as State's Exhibit 85 -- 88-A, B, C,
14 D, E and F. Do you recognize those also, sir?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Okay. Were they also latents given to
17 you by the Rowlett Police Department?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do the cards indicate when those
20 latents were lifted?
21 A. November 26th, 1996.
14 Q. Looking at the latents there in front
15 of you, can you tell how many different latents that you
16 have? And I guess what I am asking is, do you feel like
17 we have any duplicates in the five latents that you have
18 in front of you?
19 A. Yes, there are duplicates.
17 Q. Can you tell me what conclusions, if
18 any, that you drew from looking at the latents shown, on
19 State's Exhibit 85-A, B and D?
20 A. They don't belong -- as I stated, they
21 don't belong to anyone that was there at the scene that
22 morning. They -- the C and D ones are palms, prints on,
23 which are all the same. But the print on A, B and D
24 are -- have a tendency to be palms, although part if it
25 could be a finger, it looked like an overlap.

 

[Mary456]

I think I answered my own question.

The website is www.fordarlieroutier.org currently tho the site seems to be down that would explain why I can't find what I am looking for.:banghead:

S

I think that website has been down for awhile. Try http://www.justicefordarlie.net/

Click on "Evidence" and then you'll see the autopsy links on the right side. Hope this helps.

 

[accordn2me]

1 CROSS EXAMINATION
3 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
4 Q. Did you determine who had tracked that
5 blood out there?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. What sort of blood did you find there
8 in the garage?
9 A. Later on in the day?
10 Q. Yes, sir.
11 A. It was a -- what would be called a
12 smear from a -- apparently a shoe, since it was on the
13 garage floor. It was very visible.
14 Q. It was very visible, was it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you just found one?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Whereabouts in the garage was it?
19 A. Coming out of the door leading into
20 the utility room, it was several feet into the garage.
25 Q. Okay. To make that transfer stain,
1 the blood, at least someplace, would still have had to
2 have been wet?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That makes sense, doesn't it?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. Now, I would also, and this was
7 several steps into the garage, was it?
8 A. Yes. I didn't measure it because it
9 wasn't there earlier, but it was about two feet, maybe,
10 in that area, three, three at the most.
11 Q. Do you have any explanation for why we
12 didn't see it before, if it's three or four feet into the
13 garage?
14 A. It wasn't there.
15 Q. I mean are you suggesting that someone
16 hopped on one foot and then put the other foot down?
17 A. No. I have no idea how it got there,
18 outside of, it was not there for hours, and then it was
19 there later when we walked out.
20 Q. It doesn't make sense that they hopped
21 in there and then put their foot down, does it?
22 A. Not at all. No. I don't think they
23 were acting that way.
24 Q. But you didn't see the first footprint
25 and then the second one, did you?
1 A. No, I did not.
2 Q. Okay. And it would seem to me, if, in
3 fact, they had stepped on a blood stain or spot that was
4 still wet in the utility room, you could walk back to the
5 utility room and it would be apparent?
6 A. Well, you mean a smeared drop?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. Well, unless they picked up a small
9 drop on one shoe and then they stepped out on the
10 non-bloody shoe and the next step was the bloody spot and
11 that might have left it several feet out.
12 Q. No, but what I'm saying is, I would
13 think that it would be apparent in the utility room, that
14 someone had stepped down and smashed one of those blood
15 drops?
16 A. Oh, yes, yes. It should be apparent.
17 Q. Well, did you do back and look?
18 A. Oh, no.
19 Q. I mean, well, why not?
20 A. Because, the blood was placed there
21 long after our arrival and inspection. We were through
22 doing the blood inspection at the garage at the time the
23 drop was found out there.
24 Q. Well, how did you know you just hadn't
25 overlooked it?


1 A. Because I don't overlook things that
2 are so obvious. This was a --
3 Q. I do.
4 A. I don't.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. That's my job.
7 Q. You said there was a print in the shoe


8 print or a partial shoe print in the middle of the
9 kitchen floor; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And where exactly was that?
12 A. Here again, I don't know the exact
13 measurements, it was heading towards the utility room,
14 approximately half way past the island, the counter that
15 set out in the middle of the kitchen and the utility room
16 door, somewhere in that area.
17 Q. Would you suspect then that that would
18 be a result of contamination?
19 A. It might be a matter of semantics, but
20 it was --
21 Q. I mean, somebody stepped in the blood?
22 A. In that case, yes, an officer had to
23 step in some of the blood, from where, I do not know if
24 it was the living room or kitchen, but an officer stepped
25 in the blood at the scene and transferred that to the
1 kitchen floor.


2 Q. All right. And you say that was
3 around the island; is that right?
4 A. A little past the island heading to
5 the utility room.

8 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
9 Q. I think when we quit, Lieutenant, we
10 were talking about a shoe impression that was in the
11 kitchen in blood?
12 A. Yes, that's correct.
13 Q. Is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And it was just a lone impression
16 there; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. And you subsequently identified
19 that as Sergeant Walling's print?
20 A. Yes, as being consistent with his heel
21 print. I don't remember if it was left or right, but it
22 was his footprint.
23 Q. Okay. Did you see that that morning
24 or afternoon?
25 A. Through -- during the initial
1 walk-through.
2 Q. Oh, you saw it during the initial
3 walk-through?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And is that when you looked on the
6 bottom of his foot to see if his sole configuration
7 corresponded with that?
8 A. No, that came later when I had
9 everybody there, shoe print inked and impressions made of
10 everybody at the scene.
11 Q. Okay. Did you see the -- are you
12 telling the jury that that, in your judgment, resulted
13 from a -- blood drops that he stepped in?
14 A. Oh, no. How he got it, I don't know.
15 It was either off of the hallway or the carpet in the
16 living room.
17 Q. I understand. But it's from me to you
18 into the room?
19 A. Oh, yes.
20 Q. So unless he took one big leap, he had
21 to walk several times and you only found the one -- if
22 you were walking from the carpeted area in the den, he
23 walked up to where you were before you saw that one heel
24 print; is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Okay. Well, my question to you is
2 this, sir: Why did you not see other heel prints as he
3 walked off leading up to that?
4 A. I have no idea. There was just that
5 one isolated heel print.
6 Q. You aren't suggesting to the jury that
7 he hopscotched on one foot up to that deal and finally
8 put his heel down, are you?
9 A. No, no, I wouldn't say that.
10 Q. That doesn't make sense, does it?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Are you saying that there just is no
13 explanation?
14 A. That I know of there isn't, unless
15 just didn't deposit, maybe he didn't step hard enough. I
16 don't know why. But it was one bloody print there that
17 was his shoe, but how -- why there wasn't another trail,
18 I don't know.
19 Q. Well, sometimes, I guess, there is
20 more than one explanation for a bloody print? Is that
21 right?
22 A. Yes. I was waiting. I thought you
23 were going to say more. Yes, there is.
24 Q. Yes. Sometimes there is more than one
25 explanation, sometimes there is no explanation?
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And when you say it's consistent, all
3 you mean is that that is a possibility?
4 A. Yes. On the comparison, or how he got
5 the print there? On the -- consistent in the context
6 that I am saying it was consistent with being his shoe,
7 I'm not saying it is a -- is that what you are getting
8 at?
9 Q. You're saying it's his shoe. It's
10 consistent with his shoe. Could be his shoe. Could be
11 another shoe that's similar to that shoe.
12 A. Oh, as the same brand, style and all,
13 yes, yes.
14 Q. But you are just saying that it is
15 consistent with that. That means you cannot rule that
16 one out?
17 A. That's correct.

 

[beesy]

I didn't realize she was talking about footprints which matched the cops and paramedics. I assumed she was referring to the fake boot prints which Chris Brown talks about. No need to post all of that accordin2me...actually I don't think you're supposed to post that much of a transcript. I thought she meant things which happened during the crime. Thanks though

 

[accordn2me]

:blushing:

I've been reading a lot, thanks to Dani_T! :slap: Now, I have too many notes. This is one of the things I had just finished reading so I posted. I was wondering about the length. Is there a rule, or preference? Since I'm not a very good writer, I tend to rely a lot on my cut-n-paste feature. Also, if you don't post enough of the transcript, things are taken out of context. I've seen plenty of that.

I was going to post about your theory about the screen cutting her fingers...not sure if this is the thread. Anyway, the tests for presumptive blood showed no trace of human or animal blood on the screen. It's somewhere in my notes...

I'm waiting for my MTJD book to come in. It's on its way as we type. Thanks again to Dani_T who found it on ebay for me for just over $20 including shipping. :woohoo:

 

[Dani_T]

I was wondering about the length. Is there a rule, or preference? Since I'm not a very good writer, I tend to rely a lot on my cut-n-paste feature. Also, if you don't post enough of the transcript, things are taken out of context. I've seen plenty of that.

Generally I think it is best to just post snippets from the transcripts rather than long excerpts. I personally didn't read your last few posts because I didn't have time to read all the transcript there. Most of us are fairly familar with the transcripts and so should normally be able to read it in context anyway- or else you can always refer us to the particular volume and section number if you think we are taking it out of context.

Anyway, the tests for presumptive blood showed no trace of human or animal blood on the screen. It's somewhere in my notes...

I'm not sure I buy the theory myself yet... but even if it is true she wouldn't have drawn blood from those scratches/paper cuts.

I'm waiting for my MTJD book to come in. It's on its way as we type. Thanks again to Dani_T who found it on ebay for me for just over $20 including shipping. :woohoo:

Great You got a bargain. When it arrives check the first page to see if it is signed by Darlie Kee I ended up buying mine directly from her although it took me 3 emails before she finally responded (she knew that I was an anti!).

Just promise me that you will keep referring back to the transcripts when you look at the photos and not take all the captions underneath them as gospel truth. There are some absolutely infuriating mistakes that CWB made in labelling some of the photos. And it goes without saying that you should just basically rip out all the pages except for the photos since all the text is useless.

 

[sue1017]

I think that website has been down for awhile. Try http://www.justicefordarlie.net/

Click on "Evidence" and then you'll see the autopsy links on the right side. Hope this helps.

Mary,

Do you know anywhere online or in books that might show the actual autopsy diagram of the boys? Usually when they do a report they also show a pictorial diagram of the location of the wounds.

Thanks again,

Sue

 

[beesy]

:blushing:

I've been reading a lot, thanks to Dani_T! :slap: Now, I have too many notes. This is one of the things I had just finished reading so I posted. I was wondering about the length. Is there a rule, or preference? Since I'm not a very good writer, I tend to rely a lot on my cut-n-paste feature. Also, if you don't post enough of the transcript, things are taken out of context. I've seen plenty of that.

I was going to post about your theory about the screen cutting her fingers...not sure if this is the thread. Anyway, the tests for presumptive blood showed no trace of human or animal blood on the screen. It's somewhere in my notes.

Well I think it's alot for us to read all at once and I think there may be some concern about copyright laws. Its in the Terms of Service somewhere.
I'm still hanging onto my theory about the little cuts. Sometimes there is such a minute amount of blood it won't show up in the results. Placement is correct too. They certainly aren't defense wounds

I'm waiting for my MTJD book to come in. It's on its way as we type. Thanks again to Dani_T who found it on ebay for me for just over $20 including shipping. :woohoo:

I'm glad you found the book. Hang on to it. The price will go up. Remember some of the things I've already mentioned here like the handprint and footprint. He thinks he sees bootprints in the carpet. They aren't there. I thought you were referring to his book when I answered your questions before. I wasn't even thinking about LE's footprints and/or others who were there after the crime. Sorry. Don't be expecting a "good read" though, ok? It'll do one of 2 things, make you a Darlie or a Darlie hater. Hopefully with our help, you'll see how crazy he is. The pix are good for research though

 

[beesy]

Mary,

Do you know anywhere online or in books that might show the actual autopsy diagram of the boys? Usually when they do a report they also show a pictorial diagram of the location of the wounds.

Thanks again,

Sue

Hi
I don't know of any, but keep checking There are color pix. It's pretty easy to see the wounds.