Red Alert

[SnootyVixen]

You're wrong Snooty. This show is not the only place which says there was no blood in the garage or on the sofa, key here, WHERE DARLIE WAS LAYING! If you had finished my post, you would have seen that the show presented Darlie's side and in fact spent more time on that then on the state's case.
QUOTE]

My post beesy was concerning what the television program said. Not what you said. And I was correct and the program was incorrect. If this show is not the only place which says no blood in garage or on sofa they that place is also incorrect. Why? Because there was blood in garage and there was blood on sofa. Fact.
Why make issue of no blood where Darlie was laying? Do you mean where her head was? If so just look to the pillow and you will see why no blood on the sofa. And I know you know there was blood other places on the sofa.

Did you know that prosecution did choose not to keep this sofa that she was laying on as evidence? I see that as so strange. That defense lawyer never did get to see it? Only had to use pictures because police gave sofa back to family right away for them to wash the blood off and sell. Me I don know if this is true or not but people who know family say they say blood all over sofa. I cannot judge people I don even know as to call them liars and won do that. But I just try to keep open mind.

I do find it srange that they did cut up peices big ones of walls and big peices of carpeting and take sinks and plumbing but not the sofa that she was lying on. And I think that surely I am wrong about this, surely I am, but I think that they did keep the sofa that she was not lying on as evidence. If they did so there must be a good reason. I'm thinking about it.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Snooty, I am interested to know why you believe in Darlie? And don't simply say "the evidence is wrong", give me facts. If you think the evidence presented in court is a lie, tell me what you think the truth is and give me your sources.

You make many demands of me for a person who seems not to like me very much. I am surprised.
First you must tell me why you think I believe in Darlie. If it is because I said you were incorrect about no blood in garage and no blood on sofa then I can say to you that what I say have nothing to do with Darlie. It have to do with what is truth and what is not truth. Simply that. There was blood in garage and there was blood on sofa. Does not mean I "believe in Darlie".

 

[SnootyVixen]

You make many demands of me for a person who seems not to like me very much. I am surprised.
First you must tell me why you think I believe in Darlie. If it is because I said you were incorrect about no blood in garage and no blood on sofa then I can say to you that what I say have nothing to do with Darlie. It have to do with what is truth and what is not truth. Simply that. There was blood in garage and there was blood on sofa. Does not mean I "believe in Darlie".

I do not like to do so much a passi falsi as answer my self but I just want to say that to try to say and commit with what is only the truth is a good thing and can only make discussion more better. Truth does not mean believer in Darlie so much as believer in trial maybe?

 

[beesy]

My post beesy was concerning what the television program said. Not what you said. And I was correct and the program was incorrect. If this show is not the only place which says no blood in garage or on sofa they that place is also incorrect. Why? Because there was blood in garage and there was blood on sofa. Fact

Oh, I thought you were referring to what I wrote about the program since you quoted me and said you didn't read any further. There was no blood in the garage which pointed to an intruder. The little smidge certainly doesn't indicate that. That was not all the way in the garage anyway. It was right at the door. No blood drips or trails, no smears at the window. You need to back up your answers. When you say something is a FACT you must prove it. How do you know more about this case than Darlie, the Darlies, the transcripts, photos and LE? Have you read Chris' book?

Why make issue of no blood where Darlie was laying? Do you mean where her head was? If so just look to the pillow and you will see why no blood on the sofa. And I know you know there was blood other places on the sofa

Of course where her head was. Her throat is there as well so..Why make a big deal about that? First of all, the program used those words and since I was talking about the program in my post, I did also. It or I never said there was no blood at all on the sofa. You mis-quoted both of us so that's why I made a big deal out of it. And 3rdly, if her throat was cut on the sofa, there would have been lots of blood. The only blood on any pillow I've ever seen was in a picture in MTJD. It showed the pillow without it's case and what appeared to be blood was visible. Most people know Chris is an oaf, including her people. His name was never said in this program even though for many years it was. I am not sure I believe him that there was any blood at all on that pillow. Besides that, it was a small amount and with none on the sofa, there would have been more on the pillow.
Hence, blood on the sofa where Darlie said her head was, becomes an important issue here.

Did you know that prosecution did choose not to keep this sofa that she was laying on as evidence? I see that as so strange. That defense lawyer never did get to see it? Only had to use pictures because police gave sofa back to family right away for them to wash the blood off and sell. Me I don know if this is true or not but people who know family say they say blood all over sofa. I cannot judge people I don even know as to call them liars and won do that. But I just try to keep open mind

If LE gave the sofa back to the family, why didn't the family preserve it, have it tested and use whatever results came back in her case? You make it sound like a conspiracy, as if the sofa was hidden away somewhere. By your own words, the family had it. Why didn't Mulder do anything with it?

I do find it srange that they did cut up peices big ones of walls and big peices of carpeting and take sinks and plumbing but not the sofa that she was lying on. And I think that surely I am wrong about this, surely I am, but I think that they did keep the sofa that she was not lying on as evidence. If they did so there must be a good reason. I'm thinking about it

The carpeting was saturated with blood. They didn't take that to "frame" Darlie. They took it because they had to test it. Nearly impossible to do with the carpet still in place. The sink was very important because it showed washed away blood. The sofa was not important to the states' case once it was tested. If the sofa showed any sign of Darlie being attacked on it, then it was important to HER case, not LE's. And as you said, the family had the sofa.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Because you are seem to have the most difficulty with the blood in garage I will spell out for you. It is to be found in the trial transcript. All of it is in trial transcript. Forst James Cron testify no blood in garage. Later Linch testify he found blood in garage when he and woman criminologist went in there to collect evidence and he say that james Cron was in there with them then and he point the blood out to cron. Linch collected blood sample for evidence. Blood was from Darlie. Then Cron testify later that well yes there was this blood in the garage and that it had to have come from a policeman. BECAUSE it eas not there when he first went through there. Why you ask? Because he, James Cron, do not make mistakes. But it is to be noted that he was again in the garage with the criminologists and he still did not see the blood until they said for him to look here. Then when confronted on trial stand he said must be from policeman shoe. But there is nothing here to make me believe that I must believe Cron here. Not being taking Darlie side, just reading all the testimony and saying to myself that Cron is not really too believable in this one thing. He say he could not miss it but he did miss it until criminologist said look at this. And this blood was not just outside the garage door. It was into the room. I cannot explain it unless whoever has the blood on their shoe had it only on one area and that one area did make contact only the one time or may be there were other small bits of blood that they missed.
But I would appreciate if everyone would please take a notice that I am not going around saying that there was blood on only part of shoe or more blood that was missed. I don do that. Others do that a lot. They decide what something mean. I don do that. I just stick with what was found. Blood was found in garage FACT.

If every post of mine seems to you to supp[ort Darlie it is because my posts are mostly correcting untruths here. Just to try to keep conversation in facts and not in make believe. There is way too much make believe here and not too many facts. We should be discuss how did the blood get there and why is there no more but instead you all have decide that a police did it and somehow only did it in the one area out in the room with no more spots. And it is all settle and no more need to discuss. So fine for you. But it is not selttle for me.

Did she do it or not? I don know. But I think maybe no

Oh and I think you mention something about pillow. If you look at the shirt Darlie was wearing you will see that the throat blood went around her neck to the back and that is what formed the circle of blood on the pillow. Pretty large circle indicats rapid bleeding. Pillow very absorpent and will hold a lot of blood. Again, not for Darlie. Just the fact.

 

[beesy]

And you thought venomous beesy was a sweet name? My name is just my name. None other has found it offensive. You don't like that I know more of this case than you, and that is ok. I don't know why you feel this way but it is ok.

That's why I changed my name. If you'll notice. I don't know why you think I'm upset that you know this case more than I. Everybody here enjoys learning from others. Did you not notice that both cami and Goody said the same thing as I did?

Because you are seem to have the most difficulty with the blood in garage I will spell out for you. It is to be found in the trial transcript. All of it is in trial transcript. Forst James Cron testify no blood in garage. Later Linch testify he found blood in garage when he and woman criminologist went in there to collect evidence and he say that james Cron was in there with them then and he point the blood out to cron. Linch collected blood sample for evidence. Blood was from Darlie.

Cron only said there was no blood to indicate a fleeing intruder.That is true. You just said Linch said it was Darlie's. How does that make it blood from an intruder? I realize there is a communication problem here. The most important thing and what was said in program and by others, is that there was no blood to indicate someone used the garage to escape. They did not say there was no blood at all in there.

Then Cron testify later that well yes there was this blood in the garage and that it had to have come from a policeman. BECAUSE it eas not there when he first went through there. Why you ask? Because he, James Cron, do not make mistakes. But it is to be noted that he was again in the garage with the criminologists and he still did not see the blood until they said for him to look here. Then when confronted on trial stand he said must be from policeman shoe. But there is nothing here to make me believe that I must believe Cron here. Not being taking Darlie side, just reading all the testimony and saying to myself that Cron is not really too believable in this one thing. He say he could not miss it but he did miss it until criminologist said look at this.

You say you keep an open mind, yet you are willing to doubt all of Cron's testimony because of a small mistake. He's not a Super Hero

And this blood was not just outside the garage door. It was into the room. I cannot explain it unless whoever has the blood on their shoe had it only on one area and that one area did make contact only the one time or may be there were other small bits of blood that they missed.

I know the blood was in the garage. I said it wasn't "all the way in" meaning it was not on the floor or the windows, places where it should have been if an intruder was escaping through there. And again, you said Linch determined it to be Darlie's so tell me again how that points to an intruder?

But I would appreciate if everyone would please take a notice that I am not going around saying that there was blood on only part of shoe or more blood that was missed. I don do that. Others do that a lot. They decide what something mean. I don do that. I just stick with what was found. Blood was found in garage FACT

Half of the fun, or maybe even all of it is running theories past others. We use IMO or "I think this happened", etc. We are sleuthers. This is a not a trial. This is not a black or white case. I am clearly saying there was no blood in the garage to point to an intruder. I am NOT saying there was no blood in the garage. You are so determined to prove me wrong, you're not even listening to what I am saying.

If every post of mine seems to you to supp[ort Darlie it is because my posts are mostly correcting untruths here. Just to try to keep conversation in facts and not in make believe. There is way too much make believe here and not too many facts. We should be discuss how did the blood get there and why is there no more but instead you all have decide that a police did it and somehow only did it in the one area out in the room with no more spots. And it is all settle and no more need to discuss. So fine for you. But it is not selttle for me.

I do not quite understand this. Are you saying that more was missed? And you call us willing to believe anything. If that is what you are saying, you are automatically going on the assumption that someone, Cron or whoever, didn't do their job because you think they could have missed something. There is no way to disprove or prove that happened or did not. Therefore that's a theory. Not a fact. Going around "correcting" statements that you perceive as wrong is awfully egocentric. I'll say it again, I never said there was no blood in the garage. I said there was none pointing to an escaping intruder. If that is wrong, then correct me. I know there was blood in the garage, but none which points to an intruder. Can you at least agree to that?

Oh and I think you mention something about pillow. If you look at the shirt Darlie was wearing you will see that the throat blood went around her neck to the back and that is what formed the circle of blood on the pillow. Pretty large circle indicats rapid bleeding. Pillow very absorpent and will hold a lot of blood. Again, not for Darlie. Just the fact

Of course there was blood on her nightgown around the neck. Her throat was cut. And there was very rapid bleeding, of course. But what you are saying about the pillow absorbing most of the blood is a theory. You'd be slaughtered on the stand. Unless you conduct a test with the same type of t-shirt, pillow and sofa, you cannot call that a fact. And THAT is a fact!
I do not think you know more than I do about this case. There are areas where a person may know more than the next guy, but most of us here enjoy the brainstorming and learning from the others. Do not take one part of a sentence and correct it. Read the whole thing.
Have you ever thought about the fact that with your communication problems, you are misunderstanding posts? For instance in this case, you are correcting something which I am not even saying. I am not poking fun at you, nor, unlike you, am I doubting your intelligence. Why don't you think on it though. I've seen other places where there is clearly a misunderstanding between you and the poster. So instead of "correcting' maybe you could ask exactly what the poster meant, instead of saying your words are FACT.

 

[Goody]

It is to be found in the trial transcript. All of it is in trial transcript. Forst James Cron testify no blood in garage. Later Linch testify he found blood in garage when he and woman criminologist went in there to collect evidence and he say that james Cron was in there with them then and he point the blood out to cron. Linch collected blood sample for evidence. Blood was from Darlie. Then Cron testify later that well yes there was this blood in the garage and that it had to have come from a policeman. BECAUSE it eas not there when he first went through there. Why you ask? Because he, James Cron, do not make mistakes. But it is to be noted that he was again in the garage with the criminologists and he still did not see the blood until they said for him to look here. Then when confronted on trial stand he said must be from policeman shoe. But there is nothing here to make me believe that I must believe Cron here. Not being taking Darlie side, just reading all the testimony and saying to myself that Cron is not really too believable in this one thing. He say he could not miss it but he did miss it until criminologist said look at this. And this blood was not just outside the garage door. It was into the room. I cannot explain it unless whoever has the blood on their shoe had it only on one area and that one area did make contact only the one time or may be there were other small bits of blood that they missed.
But I would appreciate if everyone would please take a notice that I am not going around saying that there was blood on only part of shoe or more blood that was missed. I don do that. Others do that a lot. They decide what something mean. I don do that. I just stick with what was found. Blood was found in garage FACT.

Let me get this straight. You cannot believe a policeman picked up the blood as he walked through the house and simply transferred a smudge onto the garage floor, but you have no trouble believing that the intruder had a hand bloody enough to leave streaming blood on the utility room door, to drip it all over the utility room floor and drip down the side of the dryer, yet didn't get any of that blood on the sock he carried to the alley and left only a smidgeon of blood on the garage floor about a foot or so into it and nothing at all beyond that point...not on the floor, not on the window, not on the walkway thru the backyard, not on the gate, not on the drive leading to the alley,not down the alley to the where the sock was found???? Now you tell me WHY that is more believable than Cron saying a policeman probably transferred the only smudge of blood found in the garage.

You want to focus on the mistakes the police made rather than the evidence against Darlie. Why? That little bit of blood on the garage floor doesn't change the blood on her shirt. It doesn't change the fiber or the fiber dust from the screen found in the butcher block. It doesn't change the bloody imprint of the murder weapon on the carpet. It doesn't change the blood on the kitchen floor in front of the sink? So so what if Cron did overlook it?

If every post of mine seems to you to supp[ort Darlie it is because my posts are mostly correcting untruths here. Just to try to keep conversation in facts and not in make believe. There is way too much make believe here and not too many facts. We should be discuss how did the blood get there and why is there no more but instead you all have decide that a police did it and somehow only did it in the one area out in the room with no more spots. And it is all settle and no more need to discuss. So fine for you. But it is not selttle for me.

Maybe because it doesn't matter how the blood got there. Whether Darlie stepped out into the garage to take a look at the screen or a policeman transferred it later, it does not prove anything at all, one way or the other. It doesn't prove Darlie guilty; it doesn't prove an intruder existed. If anything it goes against her because the intruder could not be so bloody one second and have no blood on him the next. He couldn't wipe his sooooo bloody hands on a sock he got out of the laundry room and leave only two little spots that don't even overlap each other or are even placed very near each other. He couldn't leave so much blood on the door and only a smudge in the garage and none anywhere else as he fled. So focusing on that little smudge is nothing more than a distraction from what is really important.

Did she do it or not? I don know. But I think maybe no

Oh and I think you mention something about pillow. If you look at the shirt Darlie was wearing you will see that the throat blood went around her neck to the back and that is what formed the circle of blood on the pillow. Pretty large circle indicats rapid bleeding. Pillow very absorpent and will hold a lot of blood. Again, not for Darlie. Just the fact.

I haven't spent much time on this particular evidence, esp lately so let me think on it and get back to you.

 

[beesy]

Let me get this straight. You cannot believe a policeman picked up the blood as he walked through the house and simply transferred a smudge onto the garage floor, but you have no trouble believing that the intruder had a hand bloody enough to leave streaming blood on the utility room door, to drip it all over the utility room floor and drip down the side of the dryer, yet didn't get any of that blood on the sock he carried to the alley and left only a smidgeon of blood on the garage floor about a foot or so into it and nothing at all beyond that point...not on the floor, not on the window, not on the walkway thru the backyard, not on the gate, not on the drive leading to the alley,not down the alley to the where the sock was found???? Now you tell me WHY that is more believable than Cron saying a policeman probably transferred the only smudge of blood found in the garage.
You want to focus on the mistakes the police made rather than the evidence against Darlie. Why? That little bit of blood on the garage floor doesn't change the blood on her shirt. It doesn't change the fiber or the fiber dust from the screen found in the butcher block. It doesn't change the bloody imprint of the murder weapon on the carpet. It doesn't change the blood on the kitchen floor in front of the sink? So so what if Cron did overlook it

That deserves a big hi-five Goody! I was wondering where you were!

Maybe because it doesn't matter how the blood got there. Whether Darlie stepped out into the garage to take a look at the screen or a policeman transferred it later, it does not prove anything at all, one way or the other. It doesn't prove Darlie guilty; it doesn't prove an intruder existed. If anything it goes against her because the intruder could not be so bloody one second and have no blood on him the next. He couldn't wipe his sooooo bloody hands on a sock he got out of the laundry room and leave only two little spots that don't even overlap each other or are even placed very near each other. He couldn't leave so much blood on the door and only a smudge in the garage and none anywhere else as he fled. So focusing on that little smudge is nothing more than a distraction from what is really important.

Darlie supporters love to attack mistakes made by LE. You're right, leaving out one thing doesn't erase all of the other evidence. And the Award for the most popular and lamest defense for convicted "innocents" goes to.....Shoddy Police Work

 

[Goody]

Darlie supporters love to attack mistakes made by LE. You're right, leaving out one thing doesn't erase all of the other evidence. And the Award for the most popular and lamest defense for convicted "innocents" goes to.....Shoddy Police Work [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_1_28.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_1_28.gif[/url] [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_17_1.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_17_1.gif[/url]

It never works but it is used in nearly every trial that comes down the pike. Well, almost never. If you are a celebrity in southern California, it almost always works. Lesson to be learned: If you are going to kill someone, do it in California,,,if you are a celebrity, that is. It doesn't work for regular joes anywhere. :laugh: :razz:

 

[beesy]

It never works but it is used in nearly every trial that comes down the pike. Well, almost never. If you are a celebrity in southern California, it almost always works. Lesson to be learned: If you are going to kill someone, do it in California,,,if you are a celebrity, that is. It doesn't work for regular joes anywhere. :laugh: :razz:

or if a regular joe manages to con some rich eccentric to buy one of them highfalutin lawyers

 

[Goody]

or if a regular joe manages to con some rich eccentric to buy one of them highfalutin lawyers

Darlie's rich dude didn't help her much. All he did was let us know that Darin knows a whole lot more than he is telling. Darlie is still on DR and the rich guy is long gone.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Let me get this straight. You cannot believe a policeman picked up the blood as he walked through the house and simply transferred a smudge onto the garage floor, but you have no trouble believing that the intruder had a hand bloody enough to leave streaming blood on the utility room door, to drip it all over the utility room floor and drip down the side of the dryer, yet didn't get any of that blood on the sock he carried to the alley and left only a smidgeon of blood on the garage floor about a foot or so into it and nothing at all beyond that point...not on the floor, not on the window, not on the walkway thru the backyard, not on the gate, not on the drive leading to the alley,not down the alley to the where the sock was found???? Now you tell me WHY that is more believable than Cron saying a policeman probably transferred the only smudge of blood found in the garageQUOTE]

I am to try to take what you say step by step.
1. I can believe a policeman picked up blood walking through house and put it on the floor of garage. As I can believe an intruder could do the same exact thing.

2. I do not be one of the ones who think intruder did the blood dripping all over the utility room floor and washing machines and all. It appears that someone with bloody finger gripped edge of door and leave a fingerprint in blood and it seems that that person was not Darlie or Darin. That to me is strong evidence that it was someone else. But it have nothing to do with shoes any way. So I don know why you ask about this. But my answer is yes, the person who left the bloody fingerprint on door could be the one who left the blood on floor of garage and no where else. For the same reason that a policeman did not leave blood on other places I think. Not much blood on shue perhaps? Wiped fingers on sock perhaps? I don know Goody.

3. Why is Cron not to be believed by me? Because he did not see the blood even the second time he was in the garage and it was showed to him by criminologist. And he lie about that and say it could not have been there because he did not see it. Goody surely you can see what it is I am trying to say. And also because he did not try to determine if the blood came from a policeman and he had opportunity to do so.
This is why I don't believe Cron. But I find the idea of a policeman tracking some blood believable. I just see no proof one way or another. And then there is the matter of the bloody prints on the door. They have to come from somebody don they??? Then who was it?? Who do you think?

 

[Dani_T]

I do not be one of the ones who think intruder did the blood dripping all over the utility room floor and washing machines and all. It appears that someone with bloody finger gripped edge of door and leave a fingerprint in blood and it seems that that person was not Darlie or Darin. That to me is strong evidence that it was someone else. But it have nothing to do with shoes any way. So I don know why you ask about this. But my answer is yes, the person who left the bloody fingerprint on door could be the one who left the blood on floor of garage and no where else. For the same reason that a policeman did not leave blood on other places I think. Not much blood on shue perhaps? Wiped fingers on sock perhaps? I don know Goody.

Whoever left the blood on the door had enough blood on his hands that it was literally running off his hands and down the side of the door. Who could that have been if it was not Darlie (or even Darin?). The only people who came into enough contact with any blood to have had it running off them was Darlie, perhaps Darin and the paramedics. The paramedics didn't go back into that area of the house. So how did it get there?

 

[SnootyVixen]

Whoever left the blood on the door had enough blood on his hands that it was literally running off his hands and down the side of the door. Who could that have been if it was not Darlie (or even Darin?). The only people who came into enough contact with any blood to have had it running off them was Darlie, perhaps Darin and the paramedics. The paramedics didn't go back into that area of the house. So how did it get there?

Yes Dani, how indeed. But since the print was not Darlie or Darin then it must be someone else. Who I do not know. But some other person. What you say does not include the possibility of an intuder doing this crime. But if one does include that as a possible then the bloody prints on the door mean more. And I thought that it was decide that they were not from Darlie and Darin. If I am wrong please say so. I do thing that most of the blood dripping all over in that room was from Darlie but not the prints. So it is not easy to say that the leaver of the prints would have to be dripping blood all over. Just that he have some blood on hand. Could be blood on hand but not enough to drip to floor. Could be wiped off on clothing. Again I don know. But I do know that no body explain the prints on door and they are a mystery that needs to be fixed at least for my understanding of what happen.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Oh, I thought you were referring to what I wrote about the program since you quoted me and said you didn't read any further. There was no blood in the garage which pointed to an intruder. The little smidge certainly doesn't indicate that. That was not all the way in the garage anyway. It was right at the door. No blood drips or trails, no smears at the window. You need to back up your answers. When you say something is a FACT you must prove it. How do you know more about this case than Darlie, the Darlies, the transcripts, photos and LE? Have you read Chris' book?
Of course where her head was. Her throat is there as well so..Why make a big deal about that? First of all, the program used those words and since I was talking about the program in my post, I did also. It or I never said there was no blood at all on the sofa. You mis-quoted both of us so that's why I made a big deal out of it. And 3rdly, if her throat was cut on the sofa, there would have been lots of blood. The only blood on any pillow I've ever seen was in a picture in MTJD. It showed the pillow without it's case and what appeared to be blood was visible. Most people know Chris is an oaf, including her people. His name was never said in this program even though for many years it was. I am not sure I believe him that there was any blood at all on that pillow. Besides that, it was a small amount and with none on the sofa, there would have been more on the pillow.
Hence, blood on the sofa where Darlie said her head was, becomes an important issue here.
If LE gave the sofa back to the family, why didn't the family preserve it, have it tested and use whatever results came back in her case? You make it sound like a conspiracy, as if the sofa was hidden away somewhere. By your own words, the family had it. Why didn't Mulder do anything with it?
The carpeting was saturated with blood. They didn't take that to "frame" Darlie. They took it because they had to test it. Nearly impossible to do with the carpet still in place. The sink was very important because it showed washed away blood. The sofa was not important to the states' case once it was tested. If the sofa showed any sign of Darlie being attacked on it, then it was important to HER case, not LE's. And as you said, the family had the sofa.

The sofa was apparently so helpful to Darlie's defense team that they sold it at a garage sale.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Because you are seem to have the most difficulty with the blood in garage I will spell out for you. It is to be found in the trial transcript. All of it is in trial transcript. Forst James Cron testify no blood in garage. Later Linch testify he found blood in garage when he and woman criminologist went in there to collect evidence and he say that james Cron was in there with them then and he point the blood out to cron. Linch collected blood sample for evidence. Blood was from Darlie. Then Cron testify later that well yes there was this blood in the garage and that it had to have come from a policeman. BECAUSE it eas not there when he first went through there. Why you ask? Because he, James Cron, do not make mistakes. But it is to be noted that he was again in the garage with the criminologists and he still did not see the blood until they said for him to look here. Then when confronted on trial stand he said must be from policeman shoe. But there is nothing here to make me believe that I must believe Cron here. Not being taking Darlie side, just reading all the testimony and saying to myself that Cron is not really too believable in this one thing. He say he could not miss it but he did miss it until criminologist said look at this. And this blood was not just outside the garage door. It was into the room. I cannot explain it unless whoever has the blood on their shoe had it only on one area and that one area did make contact only the one time or may be there were other small bits of blood that they missed.
But I would appreciate if everyone would please take a notice that I am not going around saying that there was blood on only part of shoe or more blood that was missed. I don do that. Others do that a lot. They decide what something mean. I don do that. I just stick with what was found. Blood was found in garage FACT.

If every post of mine seems to you to supp[ort Darlie it is because my posts are mostly correcting untruths here. Just to try to keep conversation in facts and not in make believe. There is way too much make believe here and not too many facts. We should be discuss how did the blood get there and why is there no more but instead you all have decide that a police did it and somehow only did it in the one area out in the room with no more spots. And it is all settle and no more need to discuss. So fine for you. But it is not selttle for me.

Did she do it or not? I don know. But I think maybe no

Oh and I think you mention something about pillow. If you look at the shirt Darlie was wearing you will see that the throat blood went around her neck to the back and that is what formed the circle of blood on the pillow. Pretty large circle indicats rapid bleeding. Pillow very absorpent and will hold a lot of blood. Again, not for Darlie. Just the fact.

I'm amazed at how good your English is. You seem to go back and forth between not being able to speak English and posts like this. What gives?

 

[Desilu]

So let's just assume there is blood in the garage that the intruder tracked. Why is there no blood outside the house then? None in backyard, none on the fence. His hands should have been covered with it if he left that smudge on the utility room door. His feet would have covered with it if he left that smear on the garage floor. He was dripping blood in the utility room (because Darlie testifed she never ventured into the utility room), so why did he stop dripping? From all this blood he smeared around, why did it stop when he got outside?

 

[beesy]

The sofa was apparently so helpful to Darlie's defense team that they sold it at a garage sale.

Ah! Thank you for the info! Telling item, it must have been.

 

[beesy]

Whoever left the blood on the door had enough blood on his hands that it was literally running off his hands and down the side of the door. Who could that have been if it was not Darlie (or even Darin?). The only people who came into enough contact with any blood to have had it running off them was Darlie, perhaps Darin and the paramedics. The paramedics didn't go back into that area of the house. So how did it get there?

They didn't give a definite answer as to whose fingerprint(on the door) it was NOT, did they? Wasn't it extremely smudged and only a partial? I think SV said they ruled out Darlie. I was under the impression it was too damaged even to run through the data base?

 

[Dani_T]

And I thought that it was decide that they were not from Darlie and Darin. If I am wrong please say so. I do thing that most of the blood dripping all over in that room was from Darlie but not the prints. So it is not easy to say that the leaver of the prints would have to be dripping blood all over. Just that he have some blood on hand. Could be blood on hand but not enough to drip to floor. Could be wiped off on clothing. Again I don know. But I do know that no body explain the prints on door and they are a mystery that needs to be fixed at least for my understanding of what happen.

Without going back to the affidavits (don't have time right at the minute) I think from memory that one defense expert had said it was not Darlie's print and they were working on eliminating Darin but had not done so yet. However, we all know that someone has to be wrong about the other print- the one on the table. The defense experts ruled out Darlie as the donor of that print (gee, what a suprise) and the state expert said she was the only person who could not be ruled out. So I personally wouldn't be ruling Darlie out from leaving the print on the door based on one defense affidavit.

And one of the main reasons I wouldn't is because it is clear whoever held the door had not just blood on their hands but enough blood that it literally ran/dripped off their hand. If you look at the photos there is a run of blood which has congealed on the part of the door which would rest against the frame when it was closed (which raises further questioning about the timing of the blood being left and the door being closed). Whoever held that door had blood running off their hands. The only person in that house who should have had blood running off their hands was Darlie.

With regards to the blood dripped throughout the room being Darlie- well she has consistently denied having stepped into the room. According to her own testimony she did not drip that blood.

Of course we all know there is no other real explanation than Darlie having dripped there unless you want to believe that the intruder stepped through the garage door and was made miraculously clean.