"The Cult of Darlie"

[Goody]

Was the sock ever tested for saliva? I wonder if Darlie used the sock as a gag for one/ or both of boys to prevent loud screaming as she initially stabbed them? It seems that they were trying to suggest that Darlie may have been gagged with it but maybe she wasn't the one who was gagged.

The sock was tested for dna. It a small amount of the boys blood, each in different spots, and Darlie's dna, which may have been saliva or skin cells. However, the dna was only in trace amounts. I would think more than a trace would show up if she actually had the thing in her mouth for substantial period of time. Also since none of her blood is on the sock, it seems unlikely that she was bleeding near it. That would pretty much rule of your theory. Not entirely since anything is possible but I don't see anything supporting the idea that she had the sock in her mouth. (Supporters think the intruder gagged her with the sock and that she passed out which is why she doesn't remember the murders. That makes one ask....what about the hypnosis session then?)

 

[beesy]

Maybe she used it to "bite" down on while she slashed her own throat.

That's what I was thinking. But her DNA was found inside the sock, so unless it was turned inside out, then that doesn't make sense either. Shucks, and I liked that idea.

 

[beesy]

Go for it! I personally never believed the sock was used for much of anything except a plant, but feel free!

But, what about the trace amount of Darlie's DNA found inside the sock? Maybe she put it on her hand then dipped it into the boys' blood? Maybe she thought she'd have more control of how much got on the sock if she had it on her hand. But why would she care about that? Grrr, another puzzle.

 

[deanws]

But, what about the trace amount of Darlie's DNA found inside the sock? Maybe she put it on her hand then dipped it into the boys' blood? Maybe she thought she'd have more control of how much got on the sock if she had it on her hand. But why would she care about that? Grrr, another puzzle.

See beesy...that is just the kind of stuff that drives me crazy about this case. So many, many different pieces that just don't fit.:doh: By the way, I liked the biting theory myself. Who knows WHY those two did what they did.:banghead:

 

[Goody]

The fiber and little particles on the bread knife is very important evidence, possibly the smoking gun. It should not be taken with a grain of salt. I seriously doubt the defense would have tested it anyway. Haven't you noticed how they steer clear of the very important pieces of evidence? The screen fiber is not mentioned in her appeals(I don't think). It's something thrown around by people like Chris. There are pictures of it in MTJD. The argument she has is that there wasn't enough left to test. Her team should have an expert they hire look at the results, just to see if they came to the same conclusion. No, they can't do their own tests, but looking at the other results would still show something. I suspect they have had others look at the results.

What are the odds that a fingerprint brush would drop a fiber particle on the knife during dusting and that fiber particle would get snagged by the serrated edging???? NONE! The knife would have had to have been cutting something or pressing into something so that one of the serrations could snag a piece of it. No one with any objectivity could discount that evidence after analyzing it closely. It is very, very telling.

 

[Goody]

But, what about the trace amount of Darlie's DNA found inside the sock? Maybe she put it on her hand then dipped it into the boys' blood? Maybe she thought she'd have more control of how much got on the sock if she had it on her hand. But why would she care about that? Grrr, another puzzle.

If she had done that she would have put a lot more blood on it than was found. I don't think the blood got on the sock intentionally. I didn't agree with the FBI profiler for a long time, but eventually I came to the same conclusion he did, at least about some individual points. If the sock has been planted, it would be close to the house, not so far away it might not be found. If the blood on the sock had been planted on it, there would be more blood than was needed, not less. I really do think that the sock was part of a throw away in that sewer and it fell by the wayside accidently. It is the only reasonable conclusion, all things considered. Anyone interested might want to read Brant's testimony.

 

[Dani_T]

What are the odds that a fingerprint brush would drop a fiber particle on the knife during dusting and that fiber particle would get snagged by the serrated edging???? NONE! The knife would have had to have been cutting something or pressing into something so that one of the serrations could snag a piece of it. No one with any objectivity could discount that evidence after analyzing it closely. It is very, very telling.

Not only that Goody but it was two separate distinguishable bits of evidence - the fibreglass rod and the pigmented rubber debris. That means that the brush had to pick up both pieces of evidence separately and then deposit them both on the knife at the same time.... oh and it also requires Hamilton brushed the knife at the house and he goes through every item he brushed in detail and the knife block/knives were not included.

Very, very telling indeed

 

[Goody]

Not only that Goody but it was two separate distinguishable bits of evidence - the fibreglass rod and the pigmented rubber debris. That means that the brush had to pick up both pieces of evidence separately and then deposit them both on the knife at the same time.... oh and it also requires Hamilton brushed the knife at the house and he goes through every item he brushed in detail and the knife block/knives were not included.

Very, very telling indeed

Correct. The closer you look at it, the more improbable it is. I believe there is evidence that the knives were dusted at the lab, not at the scene at all. So there is no way Hamilton could have deposited the both items right into the serrated edges of that knife, let alone do it in such a way that the serrated edges would snag them.

 

[deanws]

Somebody say something!

 

[Goody]

Somebody say something!

Something.

 

[deanws]

Something.

I should have know better than that huh? LOL. I was getting bored.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

But, what about the trace amount of Darlie's DNA found inside the sock? Maybe she put it on her hand then dipped it into the boys' blood? Maybe she thought she'd have more control of how much got on the sock if she had it on her hand. But why would she care about that? Grrr, another puzzle.

She may have been wearing it that night or earlier in the day. It was, IMO, grabbed off a laundry pile, so anything is possible.

 

[Goody]

I should have know better than that huh? LOL. I was getting bored.

LOL! So was I. Posts are getting thin around here.

 

[beesy]

No Dani. I know what Chris used to change Barbara's mind. He got me with it for a while too. He had a photo of the u-room door print, and the Patterson's kid's book in sheet. (supposedly)

And she said she saw photos of the bruises which she had never seen before. I've been wondering if now that she has some distance from Chris. I think she does because in the last documentary I saw, he was called her "source" Anyway, maybe she has sort of come to her senses, realized she was drawn in by him and has changed her mind again. I don't think she could ever say that publically, but maybe she would and blame Chris. Have you spoken with her recently?

Looked real as hell by the way. He gave me the glass, and I identified it as Chad's (supposedly) middle finger top of second inner knuckle. No problem. The only problem was that that he kept the book in card folded over so that I couldn't see the name, but later revealed it as well as Chad's criminal history.

I've heard about this stuff with Patterson's son, but I don't know much about it. Could you explain all of this to me? The wine glass? He faked a print? I'm sure it is hard to talk to Chris and not fall into his trap. You don't even have to talk to him to believe all of his mess in MTJD. By the way, do you know why he cares enough to produce false evidence? Why go to all the trouble? Do you think he's just playing with us and he really thinks she did it? Like faking Big Foot footprints or an alien autopsy.

 

[Goody]

And she said she saw photos of the bruises which she had never seen before. I've been wondering if now that she has some distance from Chris. I think she does because in the last documentary I saw, he was called her "source" Anyway, maybe she has sort of come to her senses, realized she was drawn in by him and has changed her mind again. I don't think she could ever say that publically, but maybe she would and blame Chris. Have you spoken with her recently?

I've heard about this stuff with Patterson's son, but I don't know much about it. Could you explain all of this to me? The wine glass? He faked a print? I'm sure it is hard to talk to Chris and not fall into his trap. You don't even have to talk to him to believe all of his mess in MTJD. By the way, do you know why he cares enough to produce false evidence? Why go to all the trouble? Do you think he's just playing with us and he really thinks she did it? Like faking Big Foot footprints or an alien autopsy. [url="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_1.gif"]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_1.gif[/url]

Well, gee, beesy, he thinks he is a writer and if he can come up with the solution to this case in any area, it is worth one book deal. You gotta think like these amateur sleuths do. Some don't care if the facts are factual, just how much they can manipulate it to LOOK factual, and then how much is it worth $$$-wise to do so. Shoot, if Chris could have convinced people he had the identifying print....."for awhile he'd go in style" on every talk show in the country. LOL!

 

[beesy]

Well, gee, beesy, he thinks he is a writer and if he can come up with the solution to this case in any area, it is worth one book deal. You gotta think like these amateur sleuths do. Some don't care if the facts are factual, just how much they can manipulate it to LOOK factual, and then how much is it worth $$$-wise to do so. Shoot, if Chris could have convinced people he had the identifying print....."for awhile he'd go in style" on every talk show in the country. LOL!

I know he "wrote" it for money. It still would have sold if he wasn't on her side. People buy it because of the pictures. That's not what I asked. Chris went to alot of trouble faking evidence and misleading readers. I asked dasgal if he really cares about Darlie and believes in her or is he playing a prank? It's one thing to mislead because you believe in that person. So did he create all of this fake crap to lure people in to help her or just so he could enjoy a chuckle? Does he make crop circles in his spare time too?

 

[Goody]

I know he "wrote" it for money. It still would have sold if he was on her side. People buy it because of the pictures. That's not what I asked. Chris went to alot of trouble faking evidence and misleading readers. I asked dasgal if he really cares about Darlie and believes in her or is he playing a prank? It's one thing to mislead because you believe in that person. So did he create all of this fake crap to lure people in to help her or just so he could enjoy a chuckle? Does he make crop circles in his spare time too?

I think she said he was a character who liked to play tricks on people who should be able to catch him at it. If you will go back and read her post again, I think you will find your answer.

 

[beesy]

I think she said he was a character who liked to play tricks on people who should be able to catch him at it. If you will go back and read her post again, I think you will find your answer.

I did read it. That is why I asked the question because she said he was a jokester. It doesn't answer if he really cares about Darlie or if he is ONLY playing a joke. That's what my question is.

 

[Goody]

I did read it. That is why I asked the question because she said he was a jokester. It doesn't answer if he really cares about Darlie or if he is ONLY playing a joke. That's what my question is.

I understand he is in tight with Darin's parents, so what does that tell you? I think it would be in CWB's best interests to prove Darlie innocent. That is probably why he tries so hard. Is he because he cares about her? Maybe but I suspect that might be limited to how much supporting her would endanger Darin. That is probably where his real loyalties lie. Just guessing though.

 

[cami]

Include in your experiment wearing a sock on your hand. I'm wondering if it would have slipped too much for her to use as a "glove".

I used to think that....not sure anymore....though. That sock sure is a mystery, isn't it. What was it used for? AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH.

I wonder if Darlie used it to pick up the wine glass and knock the lamp shade down, obscuring her fingerprints on both items. But why would she get rid of it? If it was a plant, wouldn't she make sure her blood was on it as well?