View Single Post
Old 03-10-2012, 03:50 PM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 31, 2007
Location: Suffolk, England
Posts: 2,143

I think a lot of people, especially the cops, automatically look at darlie first because she lived through the attack and at first glance she had only superficial wounds. when you first look at it, it looks too good to be true. so in a sense she is the only possible suspect so they go after her with complete confidence that she is guilty no matter what the evidence says. the problem is there are so many questions after you investigate. there is so much circumstancial evidence and then combine the trial and investigative errors you have people who can legitmately question whether or not darlie did this.

In a sense this kind of reminds me a little of the charles holden/dorothy donovan case. when you first look at the case there's no way in hell that you would think that it happened the way he said. I thought on the forensic files episode they did a better job of UM in showing that the cops actually believe close to 100% that charles holden killed dorothy and were trying like hell to gain a confession out of him.... for attackers or intruders sometimes there is simply no explainable motive other than to asault people for there own personal gain and the motive can only be found within their own twisted thoughts. even psychologists that devote countless years of studies can't wrap their finger around these people's thoughts.

I'm stuck in the middle on this one because i feel like the court never proved her guilt. the sock is a good question??? what the hell is the deal with the sock? I've never heard about that.

Last edited by DALLASTEXAN!!; 03-10-2012 at 04:18 PM.
DALLASTEXAN!! is offline   Reply With Quote