"The Cult of Darlie"

[Goody]

I'm not hiding anything, I came her to look at the evidence objectively, it lies in the blood and being able to completely understand it means I can explain it to someone else too.
I am not responsible for anyone's redemption but my own. I cannot control Darlie's choices in life, or her death.
Without needing to use anything else the blood should tell.

I quoted the Bible so take it as you see it, what ever sin is committed against children is committed against Jesus too. For however we treat the least so shall we be treated. Darlie has yet to confess only add details to her story or change versions as you say.
I don't want to imagine what the boys went thru only that certainly Jesus knew they were coming and lifted the pain and burden from them long before they died, he was there to give comfort as well as everlasting life.

I can only tell Mama Darlie how I feel about Darlie's innocence or guilt but I'm sure even she has had to have her doubts too. It is not that I don't see Darlie as being capable of snapping, or having some kind of reaction to the drugs, or any of the other pat answers that have been proposed but that's the whole problem here.

How did Darlie plant the sock without getting any of her blood on it.

She didn't. She or Darin dropped it there accidentally as they attempted to hide evidence, probably in the sewer as it certainly was not the nearby trash can which was searched by police. As fate would have it, police only retrieved the sock. There is no reason for a stranger to dump evidence as he fled. If he had, the knife would have been with it or never found because it was the most important evidence against the murderer and it was left in the house. If Darlie or Darin purposely planted it to mislead authorities, they would not have dumped it so far away. The best place to leave a bloody clue would be somewhere near the back gate to substantiate Darlie's story. Conclusion: the sock has to be a mistake, a mistake made by one of the parents since only someone from the house would have a motive to hide evidence.

Bevel testifies that the spots that are cast off t-B or t-10 are mixtures of Darlie/Devon and Darlie/Damon----- ok this is real important for me to get right cause I think I can control the blood reenactment to include Darlie stabbing the boys while bleeding herself. But I can't seem to find all the pieces together. What is put forth as the most likely order she did things in?

That is why I asked for you opinions about how to reconstruct this correctly- as you see it.

Hubby also said he would volunteer his laser light instead of a plumb bob. It would also be great for setting up the proper angles.

I'm not trying to blow smoke screens as you think. I too watch a great deal of real crime TV and I saw a cold case solved by the tool marks on the knife and a bone of the victim. When they took the knife apart they found the victims blood.

That is one of the reasons I put a great deal of validity on Poole's testimony about the serrations he found on the wound. If he can't match it to the knife positively then is still doesn't mean it isn't the correct weapon. I was under the impression that these tool marks were very unique in most cases, but I guess not this one.
That's why I have been so stubborn about my 2 knife theory, If I'm wrong I'm wrong. I am a big girl and it wouldn't be the first time and I doubt the last. I'll give up the 2 knife theory unless some other expert can say positively one way or the other. That's the problem with these experts they are harder to get a straight answer out of than a politician.

I would not poopoo the two knife theory if I could find a logical reason for two knifes to exist. It doesn't make sense for someone to bring a knife and not use it, or for more than one intruder to be in a house and not kill everyone in it, including those on the second floor. Additionally I cannot justify two people all over the family room and kitchen without breaking up a lot of stuff, without leaving their dna in the house somewhere, without getting blood on themselves and on other things as they fled, without leaving at least one good print somewhere, esp if they are leaving partials in blood. Plus if you have two guys, you have at least two girlfriends somewhere who likely know about it, and even they aren't talking. How lucky do these guys get?????

I do not believe an intruder would kill even one child let alone two unless he planned on killing everyone in the house, and whether they knew Darin was there or not, they would have checked the rest of the house, and once everyone was down, they would have taken what they wanted. Burglars are not usually violent as it has been pointed out previously unless they are threatened. These children posed no threat that night, esp not Damon as he was obviously sound asleep when attacked, and even Devon could not have been much of a problem as he was stabbed right where he lay. He didn't even get up. There is just no reasonable argument for any intruder theory, no matter how we try to manipulate it to fit the evidence.

Then there is the fiberglas DUST AND SHAFT that just happens to look exactly like the screen's FIBERGLAS DUST AND SHAFT. Come on...that can only mean one thing no matter how many tests are done. The bread knife was used to cut the screen. You know, they had homemade bread that night. It is likely that knife was used then and washed before this crime even happened. If so, there is only one place it could have picked up the screen fiber....from the screen. Since we know the intruder did not knock on the door and ask to borrow a knife, then use it to cut the screen, and put it back in the butcher block as he crept through the house, taking the butcher knife with him instead to kill two sleeping pre-schoolers (or darned close), I think it is safe to say that the bread knife was used by someone living in the house and used intentionally to mislead police.

I don't blame you for wanting to analyze the blood evidence and your experiment could be very interesting. I am anxious to hear all about it, but just bear in mind that the fiber is standing in line right behind the evidence on that shirt. LOL!

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

I have to take the fiber evidence with a grain of salt since there is a possiblity of it being from the brush itself. The further complete testing should have been done and should be included in that list of stuff that requires further looks.

This would be some very conclusive evidence, that an expert could say yes this screen or a screen just like it.

I hope it is done.

 

[cami]

I have to take the fiber evidence with a grain of salt since there is a possiblity of it being from the brush itself. The further complete testing should have been done and should be included in that list of stuff that requires further looks.

This would be some very conclusive evidence, that an expert could say yes this screen or a screen just like it.

I hope it is done.

Just another defence smokescreen. The screen was the first thing dusted. The technician worked his way back through the garage, utility room, into the kitchen. Not logical for me to believe that brush picked up dust and a fibre from the screen, dusted the garage, utility room and kitchen AND THEN fell on the bread knife in the butcher block? Boy that Darlie sure has the worst of luck doesn't she?

The knife wasn't even dusted at the house. There were two separate pieces of evidence on that bread knife, the fibre and dust from the screen.

 

[CyberLaw]

I just can't forget about the dog or that there was zero evidence of an intruder. No blood trail, not a drop outside the home as the "intruder" was running away.

Fortunately, most people don't know how to "stage" a successful crime scene to "blame another unknown person". But the people who are trained, have very good knowledge of what should be there at the scene and what is not.

If an unknown person stabs two kids and their mother, you can bet that he has blood on him and his shoes. But again, not a drop of blood anywhere else but the house.

What about the broken glasses under the vacuum. There was no cuts on Darlie and blood was under the broken glass. But that of course is impossible as Darlie claimed that she was cut and bleeding, ran after the "intruder" and the glass broke in front of her. So again, why was her blood under the glass.

Also Darlie "claims" that she had to step on the glass to "chase" the intruder, but again, no cuts on her feet. It was also brought forward that Darlie did not run through the kitchen, but walked. So now she walked after the "intruder".

Not to mention the kitchen clean up...........so as for the "Cult of Darlie" some people are "taken" in by others and "convinced" that an innocent person is in Prison. They seems to be naive to me.............

I look at facts, not stories.......evidence, not futher "self serving" stories.

Please.

 

[Crimson Sky]

The part I don't get is that the sock was found in the alley. No matter what, someone involved in this crime took it there. So even if Darlie staged it, why is there no blood trail?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The part I don't get is that the sock was found in the alley. No matter what, someone involved in this crime took it there. So even if Darlie staged it, why is there no blood trail?

She wasn't bleeding yet.

 

[Goody]

I have to take the fiber evidence with a grain of salt since there is a possiblity of it being from the brush itself. The further complete testing should have been done and should be included in that list of stuff that requires further looks.

This would be some very conclusive evidence, that an expert could say yes this screen or a screen just like it.

I hope it is done.

They showed the microscopic picture on one of these forensic shows of what Linch viewed when he looked at the fiber. It was a perfect match.

The hair on the fingerprint brush is nothing like the fiber from the screen. From everythng I have read about the two, it could probably be ruled out in a microscopic test. Not the same size even. I agree with Cami that this is just defense blowing smoke. Esp since you have two things to match here...the actual fiber and the fiberglas dust. There is no fiberglas dust in the fingerprint brush even if the actual fiber proved to be comparable physically to the screen fiber, which I really do not think it is.

 

[Goody]

Also Darlie "claims" that she had to step on the glass to "chase" the intruder, but again, no cuts on her feet. It was also brought forward that Darlie did not run through the kitchen, but walked. So now she walked after the "intruder".

Hi, CyberLaw! Glad you stopped by.

I have been reading the bond hearing testimony and it was testified to by first responders and Detective Patterson that there were "thousands" of pieces of glass. An exaggeration, admittedly by the one testifying, but point being that there were many, many tiny little slivers of glass to pierce a running or walking foot going through there. No way to avoid stepping on the glass. You could see the big pieces, but no way someone could see all those tiny slivers to avoid them. You could hear them crunch though if you had shoes on.

I have to lean with the glass being broken after everything else was done and then she contained her position to the area near the family room entry until police arrived. She avoided the glass by avoiding the whole darned area after it was broken. That means the intruder could not have broken the glass.

Other proof is in the family's claims that LE tracked glass into the family room. They said that the carpet was full of little pieces of glass. I don't doubt it for one minute. All those boots going back and forth through the crime scene to do their jobs were bound to pick it up if there were "thousands" of little slivers everywhere. How can they say that Darlie could run back and forth through there several times and not get even one cut or one tiny sliver up into her foot (hurts like the devil by the way) yet LE tracked bunches of it into the family room? Can't have it both ways.

 

[deanws]

I just can't forget about the dog or that there was zero evidence of an intruder. No blood trail, not a drop outside the home as the "intruder" was running away.

Fortunately, most people don't know how to "stage" a successful crime scene to "blame another unknown person". But the people who are trained, have very good knowledge of what should be there at the scene and what is not.

If an unknown person stabs two kids and their mother, you can bet that he has blood on him and his shoes. But again, not a drop of blood anywhere else but the house.

What about the broken glasses under the vacuum. There was no cuts on Darlie and blood was under the broken glass. But that of course is impossible as Darlie claimed that she was cut and bleeding, ran after the "intruder" and the glass broke in front of her. So again, why was her blood under the glass.

Also Darlie "claims" that she had to step on the glass to "chase" the intruder, but again, no cuts on her feet. It was also brought forward that Darlie did not run through the kitchen, but walked. So now she walked after the "intruder".

Not to mention the kitchen clean up...........so as for the "Cult of Darlie" some people are "taken" in by others and "convinced" that an innocent person is in Prison. They seems to be naive to me.............

I look at facts, not stories.......evidence, not futher "self serving" stories.

Please.

Good post Cyber. :blowkiss:

 

[deanws]

Hi, CyberLaw! Glad you stopped by.

I have been reading the bond hearing testimony and it was testified to by first responders and Detective Patterson that there were "thousands" of pieces of glass. An exaggeration, admittedly by the one testifying, but point being that there were many, many tiny little slivers of glass to pierce a running or walking foot going through there. No way to avoid stepping on the glass. You could see the big pieces, but no way someone could see all those tiny slivers to avoid them. You could hear them crunch though if you had shoes on.

I have to lean with the glass being broken after everything else was done and then she contained her position to the area near the family room entry until police arrived. She avoided the glass by avoiding the whole darned area after it was broken. That means the intruder could not have broken the glass.

Other proof is in the family's claims that LE tracked glass into the family room. They said that the carpet was full of little pieces of glass. I don't doubt it for one minute. All those boots going back and forth through the crime scene to do their jobs were bound to pick it up if there were "thousands" of little slivers everywhere. How can they say that Darlie could run back and forth through there several times and not get even one cut or one tiny sliver up into her foot (hurts like the devil by the way) yet LE tracked bunches of it into the family room? Can't have it both ways.

You can if you are a member of the Darlie Cult. :laugh: Also, the excuse of her feet being tough from going barefoot all the time is a laugh. I go barefoot most of the time when I am at home myself. My feet are almost as thick as soles on the bottom too! However, when I step on a thorn outside, or a sharp pebble or shard of glass, my feet cut and bleed like everyone's feet. I couldn't believe when I read their excuse for her feet not being injured.:laugh:

 

[Dani_T]

I have to take the fiber evidence with a grain of salt since there is a possiblity of it being from the brush itself. The further complete testing should have been done and should be included in that list of stuff that requires further looks.

This would be some very conclusive evidence, that an expert could say yes this screen or a screen just like it.

I hope it is done.

If you look at the screen fibre evidence carefully and completely you will see that the the possibility that what was found on the knife was from the brush (whether part of the brush itself or supposedly picked up from dusting of the screen) is not valid.

 

[beesy]

I have to take the fiber evidence with a grain of salt since there is a possiblity of it being from the brush itself. The further complete testing should have been done and should be included in that list of stuff that requires further looks. This would be some very conclusive evidence, that an expert could say yes this screen or a screen just like it.I hope it is done.

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.

 

[beesy]

I

would not poopoo the two knife theory if I could find a logical reason for two knifes to exist. It doesn't make sense for someone to bring a knife and not use it, or for more than one intruder to be in a house and not kill everyone in it, including those on the second floor. Additionally I cannot justify two people all over the family room and kitchen without breaking up a lot of stuff, without leaving their dna in the house somewhere, without getting blood on themselves and on other things as they fled, without leaving at least one good print somewhere, esp if they are leaving partials in blood. Plus if you have two guys, you have at least two girlfriends somewhere who likely know about it, and even they aren't talking. How lucky do these guys get?????

Most likely they would have split up, as has happened in other crimes when everyone in the house is murdered. Like you said, rounded everybody up, probably would have had a gun as well. That room was packed with furniture, then you have 2 boys on the floor, yet they didn't knock any of Darlie's pretty things over. Darlie did not want any of her things broken. Just think, she could only make herself break one wineglass, but she was able to wipe out TWO young lives!
And Jane even said before that criminals talk. They do talk! They get high or drunk and spill the beans, possibly even bragging about it. I mean, what hot shots, got away with murder and someone else is dying for them! Also by now, these creeps probably would have been arrested(or someone they told) for something else and could have used the Routier murders as leverage.

The bread knife was used to cut the screen. You know, they had homemade bread that night. It is likely that knife was used then and washed before this crime even happened. If so, there is only one place it could have picked up the screen fiber....from the screen

I didn't know it had been used that evening. It might have even been sitting out, or in the sink. Maybe that's why it was grabbed instead of a sharper knife.

 

[beesy]

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".

 

[Goody]

You can if you are a member of the Darlie Cult. :laugh: Also, the excuse of her feet being tough from going barefoot all the time is a laugh. I go barefoot most of the time when I am at home myself. My feet are almost as thick as soles on the bottom too! However, when I step on a thorn outside, or a sharp pebble or shard of glass, my feet cut and bleed like everyone's feet. I couldn't believe when I read their excuse for her feet not being injured.:laugh:

Maybe reading comprehension is not their strong suit. <sigh> O, well, nobody is perfect.

 

[G.I.RattlesnakeJane]

I always wondered about the sock too. The amount of blood on it however leads me to conclude that - a right handed person would get more blood on the sock if worn on the right hand while stabbing. Could this be worn on the left hand?

What are your conclusions since I'm not considered intelligent enough to come to any on my own. :blowkiss:
Would you folks like me to include socks as the possible "glove" during a reinactment.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I always wondered about the sock too. The amount of blood on it however leads me to conclude that - a right handed person would get more blood on the sock if worn on the right hand while stabbing. Could this be worn on the left hand?

What are your conclusions since I'm not considered intelligent enough to come to any on my own. :blowkiss:
Would you folks like me to include socks as the possible "glove" during a reinactment.

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

 

[txsvicki]

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".

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.

 

[KatiesMom]

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

 

[Goody]

I always wondered about the sock too. The amount of blood on it however leads me to conclude that - a right handed person would get more blood on the sock if worn on the right hand while stabbing. Could this be worn on the left hand?

What are your conclusions since I'm not considered intelligent enough to come to any on my own. :blowkiss:
Would you folks like me to include socks as the possible "glove" during a reinactment.

The reading comprehension remark was not directed at you but at some of the old hardcore supporters who ignore any evidence that points to guilt. You are at least willing to toss it around.

Personally I don't think the sock was used to avoid fingerprints or blood. If it was worn, I think it was on the feet. There should not have been much blood on the floor until after the most of the staging was done, working under the assumption that one thing happened after another in a short period. I am not sure how you would include it in your reenactments but feel free if you want to. You might be able to rule out ways it could have been used.