Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Jeana (DP)]

Here's another article from the Dallas Observer:

Defending Darlie
Wealthy Waco businessman Brian Pardo spends his time and money helping death-row inmates he believes are innocent. His efforts on behalf of Darlie Routier have raised suspicions about her husband--and about Pardo's motives.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1998-08-06/news/feature.html

[WindChime]

Jeana that was some very interesting reading thank you for posting it. I wonder if Brian Pardo is still helping with Darlie's defense..

[Jeana (DP)]

I believe that he's still paying the defense costs.

[dasgal]

Chris always thought that Pardo wanted to "Do her". I think Chris was jelous. LOL.

[Mary456]

I believe that he's still paying the defense costs.

I think Pardo's been out of the picture for quite some time, DP. Darin's family washed their hands of him when Darin failed the polygraph.

As far as I'm concerned, Brian Pardo is an eccentric fruitcake. If you asked him what evidence convicted Darlie, he'd probably say, "Darlie who?" I'd bet he doesn't have a clue about this case, other than the media attention he so dearly sought.

[Jeana (DP)]

Mary, "Darin's" family doesn' have squat to say about Darlie's defense. Its Darlie Kee whose running the show and she'll not only throw Darin under the bus, but if she thought it could get Darlie out of prison, Sharilda would be under there too.

[Mary456]

"Mary, "Darin's" family doesn' have squat to say about Darlie's defense."

That may well be true. I was simply saying that I haven't heard a word about Brian Pardo being involved in Darlie's case for several years.

Sooo, he's still funding her defense? Media hound that he is, I thought we would have heard something from the little sheister in the last three years!

[Jeana (DP)]

What is there left to say? She's lost every appeal she's had. They keep claiming that they've got all this new evidence, but they're hanging on to it in hopes of getting a second trial that will never happen. It seems to me that the only way the higher courts are going to hear anything new is in the media. If her attorneys have a get out of jail free card in the way of solid concrete evidence, they should be shouting it from the rooftops instead of waiting until the day she's executed and then say well . . . no one would listen to us.

[Texana]

Exactly, Jeana.

Darlie's family seems to focus their claims for a new trial on a) mysterious evidence never introduced and b) mistakes by the court reporter. With the mistakes shown to be not worthy of a new trial, and the evidence still mysteriously hidden--I think that new trial is about as likely to happen as a blue norther in August.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the judges at the appellate level seem to reserve their verdict overturning/new trial orders for those defendants burdened by poverty, inept defense, and obvious evidence discrepancies (such as those from the Harris County crime lab problems) NOT for defendants such as Darlie...whose defense seemed to my cynical mind to imply that because she was a white surburban mother, she couldn't possibly have killed her children.

[Jeana (DP)]

The appellate court in Texas is going to see that Darlie was defended by one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the State of Texas. Its going to read the other decisions from the lower courts to see what was considered in rendering their opinion. Its too late for new evidence. The defense will need to try and prove that the trial was some how unfair or that her rights were violated in some way. Frankly, I don't see how she could possibly stand a chance.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Here's another article from the Dallas Observer:

Defending Darlie
Wealthy Waco businessman Brian Pardo spends his time and money helping death-row inmates he believes are innocent. His efforts on behalf of Darlie Routier have raised suspicions about her husband--and about Pardo's motives.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1998-08-06/news/feature.html
I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

I've never known quite what to think about Darlie re: guilt or innocence, but I have always believed that there is no way her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt...as this article indicates, there are lots of doubts, lots of unanswered questions...

[accordn2me]

I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

I've never known quite what to think about Darlie re: guilt or innocence, but I have always believed that there is no way her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt...as this article indicates, there are lots of doubts, lots of unanswered questions...

You are absolutely right about Mulder! This has to be one of the all-time worst efforts by an attorney to defend a client. Fritzy could have done better for Darlie!

[Fritzy's Mom]

Fritzy could have done better for Darlie!
LOL...He thinks so too!

[Mary456]

I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

It's unfortunate that some people think so little of our judicial system that they'd base their opinion of guilt or innocence on a magazine article or a talk show.

There is only one way to approach this case: read the trial transcript (and I mean, really, really read it) and then watch the media spin on Darlie's website.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Fritzy's Mom]

It's unfortunate that some people think so little of our judicial system that they'd base their opinion of guilt or innocence on a magazine article or a talk show.Actually, if you read my post, I said that I have not been able to form an opinion about Darlie's guilt or innocence. I have read many of the trial transcripts, though, and, IMO, there is reasonable doubt. The fact that there are so many people still asking so many questions seems to supprt my opinion.

There is only one way to approach this case: read the trial transcript (and I mean, really, really read it) and then watch the media spin on Darlie's website.Thank you. I have read many of the trial transcripts - not all of them - but enought to form an intelligent opinion about the article referenced above.

Have you read it? The article is well-written, thoughtful and factual. The author does a good job of persuading readers to look at the evidence from a defense standpoint; his arguments are clear and strong. During much of the trial, I believe, Mr. Mulder allowed prosecution witnesses to leave the stand without doing much to counter their testimony. Also, his closing argument was, IMO, weak. Of course, the prosecution could put their spin on much of what is argued in this article - that's their job - but, as I said, this author did a better job of putting forth a defense than Mr. Mulder did.

[dasgal]

It's unfortunate that some people think so little of our judicial system that they'd base their opinion of guilt or innocence on a magazine article or a talk show.

There is only one way to approach this case: read the trial transcript (and I mean, really, really read it) and then watch the media spin on Darlie's website.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Dead on Girl! Whatever happened to hearing both sides completely before coming to a decision. I guess it our Jerry Springer Society. Sheesh!

[Mary456]

Have you read it? The article is well-written, thoughtful and factual.

It's well written, Fritzy's Mom, but it's not factual. I'm paraphrasing for brevity, but here are some examples:

"A slash 10" long and 3/4 inches deep across Darlie's neck." That's a huge exaggeration. Her neck wound was only about 8" long and only about 1/4 inches deep.

"She suffered a small cut on her face." None of the nurses or doctors saw a cut on her face. They were very specific about her injuries, and would not have overlooked something so obvious.

"Her mouth was raw and throbbing." If it was, Darlie never said a word about it in the hospital. As far as the medical personnel knew, Darlie had been attacked by an intruder. If she had told them her mouth was raw and throbbing, I doubt they would have ignored such a complaint.

"She had a deep cut on the outside of her right forearm that penetrated the bone." Not true. The cut was approximately 1" deep and did not penetrate the bone.

"None of the Baylor nurses claimed to have seen any bruises on Darlie during her day-and-a-half stay." Darlie was in the hospital for 2 1/2 days, not 1 1/2 days, and not a single nurse or doctor saw bruising on her right arm. And that arm was checked every day, not only by the nurses, but by Dr. Dillawn.

I can understand reasonable doubt when it's based on facts, but this article has a ton of holes in it. Mulder couldn't argue that a knife penetrated the bone, because there were x-rays to prove that it didn't. He couldn't argue that the neck wound was 3/4" deep, because if it was, it probably would have damaged her larynx or windpipe. He couldn't argue that the bruises might not have emerged in 1 1/2 days, because hospital records would prove that Darlie was there for 2 1/2 days with no swelling, redness or bruising from blunt trauma.

Sorry if I came across as blunt in my previous post; people tell me I do that all the time, lol! Anyway, I don't think Mulder did a poor job; he just didn't have much to work with.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Mary:

Wow! That's an excellent rebuttal!

When I read your first post, I thought you were being snotty - so many people get very angry when someone asks questions or tries to look at the evidence from a defense perspective - so, I do appreciate an intelligent, informed response...

Are you taking your information directly from trial testimony?

[accordn2me]

To the veteran sleuthers on this case: I know virtually all of you have spent countless hours reading transcripts, articles, watching reports, discussing facts and allegations with each other - some even attempting to reinact certain parts of the crime! Personally, I'm impressed with the knowledge and expertise most of you bring to the discussion.

My questions and differences of opinion are in no way meant as disrespect of your beliefs about what happened in Rowlett on 6/6/96.

With that said, I want to say how much I enjoy reading the questions from the "fresh eyes" like RSJ and Fritzy's Mom. If nothing else, it does validate my position that there is reasonable doubt (even though I highly disagree with a Darin-did-it-so-free-Darlie defense!).

To Fritzy's Mom: Does knowing that the prosecution called all of their witnesses together for a mock trial, affect the weight you give to the credibility of their testimony? It really diminishes their believability for me - not that I think any one of them would intentionally lie to convict an innocent mother. I do believe memory is affected by discussions with others or just from the brain trying to compensate for missing accounts. I also think that witnesses would "tweak" their testimony if they believed a mother was guilty and was about to walk after butchering her two oldest sons. Who could blame them!

[Dani_T]

To the veteran sleuthers on this case: I know virtually all of you have spent countless hours reading transcripts, articles, watching reports, discussing facts and allegations with each other - some even attempting to reinact certain parts of the crime! Personally, I'm impressed with the knowledge and expertise most of you bring to the discussion.

My questions and differences of opinion are in no way meant as disrespect of your beliefs about what happened in Rowlett on 6/6/96.

I don't think of any us feel you are trying to disrespect us at all- in fact we all get kind of excited when new people come to the case or discussion is re-opened because it does get boring when it is just us ;)


With that said, I want to say how much I enjoy reading the questions from the "fresh eyes" like RSJ and Fritzy's Mom. If nothing else, it does validate my position that there is reasonable doubt (even though I highly disagree with a Darin-did-it-so-free-Darlie defense!).

I also love it when 'fresh eyes' come to the case.

However, I do have to say that just because new people come doesn't automatically mean there is reasonable doubt. To be frank, most of the new people I have seen come to the case over the years believe there is reasonable doubt because they haven't read a lot of the source documents... and that is of course to be expected... because we all have to start somewhere and I cringe at what I didn't know when I first came to the case and how patient people like Mary and Goody were with me.

So whilst having fresh discussions raises lots of interesting things- I don't think it necessarily follows that it proves there is reasonable doubt (eg. Mary's response to that article... which I am glad she did because I was going to feel compelled to do it ;) )


To Fritzy's Mom: Does knowing that the prosecution called all of their witnesses together for a mock trial, affect the weight you give to the credibility of their testimony? It really diminishes their believability for me - not that I think any one of them would intentionally lie to convict an innocent mother. I do believe memory is affected by discussions with others or just from the brain trying to compensate for missing accounts. I also think that witnesses would "tweak" their testimony if they believed a mother was guilty and was about to walk after butchering her two oldest sons. Who could blame them!

Just a quick question - where is the info coming from that they did a mock trial? I'm not doubting that they did but it just occurred to me it is something I got told ages ago and perhaps I haven't read the original source. If there is one thing I have learnt in this case it is to read the original source rather than the second hand source because almost always the truth is either deliberately or accidentally distorted.

[accordn2me]

Just a quick question - where is the info coming from that they did a mock trial? I'm not doubting that they did but it just occurred to me it is something I got told ages ago and perhaps I haven't read the original source. If there is one thing I have learnt in this case it is to read the original source rather than the second hand source because almost always the truth is either deliberately or accidentally distorted.
Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.

[Jeana (DP)]

Mary:

Wow! That's an excellent rebuttal!

When I read your first post, I thought you were being snotty - so many people get very angry when someone asks questions or tries to look at the evidence from a defense perspective - so, I do appreciate an intelligent, informed response...

Are you taking your information directly from trial testimony?



I think Mary has those transcripts memorized!! Isn't she awesome???

[Jeana (DP)]

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.


I've never really had a bad feeling about those nurses and the notes. Darlie had nothing else in the world to do and she came up with 16 different versions. So, if the nurses, who were busy trying to do their jobs, didn't write down very single possible thing that they witnessed, what's the big deal if when asked a question by one of the attorneys, something that they didn't write down before comes out or after they had time to think about what happened AFTER they wrote something down, they got a different feeling??? I think its odd that some posters don't think squat about Darlie's 16 different versions, but a nurse can't have two?

[Fritzy's Mom]

To Fritzy's Mom: Does knowing that the prosecution called all of their witnesses together for a mock trial, affect the weight you give to the credibility of their testimony? It really diminishes their believability for me - not that I think any one of them would intentionally lie to convict an innocent mother. I do believe memory is affected by discussions with others or just from the brain trying to compensate for missing accounts. I also think that witnesses would "tweak" their testimony if they believed a mother was guilty and was about to walk after butchering her two oldest sons. Who could blame them!
Are you talking about when everybody met up at the hotel prior to trial to discuss their testimony? If so, then ABSOLUTELY! It became a matter of "group think," of everybody being on the same team, working for the same purpose - Darlie's conviction.

In addition to their little powwow, I discounted much of the testimony from medical personnel because:

1. My mother is a nurse; she does alcohol/drug detox and emergency psychiatry. She is regularly in contact with LE - DUI accidents, psychotics who have been arrested, overdoses, whatever - and she will be the first to tell you that cops and nurses LOVE to gossip! There is not one doubt in my mind that hospital staff was made aware of LE's suspisions about Darlie - absolutley by the time she was discharged, EVERYBODY who treated her knew she was a suspect.

My guess would be that the first inklings of something being wrong was when LE started questioning the presence of glass in Darlie's feet. From that point on, everybody at the hospital was looking at Darlie in a different light...

2. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why LE allowed medical personnel to be present when they were interviewing Darlie. Take the male ICU nurse, for example...he testified that Darlie was not his typical patient (i.e., not serious enough to be on his unit) and he downplayed the seriousness of her injuries. Why then did he feel compelled to be at her bedside when she was talking with the police? Why was he even allowed to be there? Often times, police will want to withhold certain evidence about a suspect from the public...what if Darlie had told them something that they did not want released? What was to stop the nurse from running to the press with it?

Even the nurse seemed to know that his presence in the room was inappropriate; I recall him saying at one point that he didn't quite remember everything that was said because he was doing his charts or something. Well, frankly, that's BS - he had his hot little ears tuned in to every word that was spoken in that room...

All nurses should have been required to stand outside the door when Darlie was talking with police...

And, again, Mulder did not drive this point home!

3. So much of the medical testimony sounded the same - "flat affect," "she would just tear up (or "her eyes would well up"), she wouldn't cry," "she was calm, didn't seem too upset" - it sounded like people had been comparing notes...Darlie is supposedly a drama queen - wouldn't the hospital have been the perfect place to put on a performance? I mean, how can the prosecution make her out to be a narcissistic, histrionic borderline personality type and then claim she was so stoic at the hospital? I guess she's only nuts when it fits their story...

I agree with you that I don't think anybody told out and out bold faced lies...but I do think much of the testimony was made with the belief that Darlie was guilty - no harm no foul if they were embellishing. I think I would be much more comfortable making my assessment of her condition at the hospital based on notes, charts, medical records, etc...(BTW, are these exhibits available anywhere?)

[Fritzy's Mom]

It's well written, Fritzy's Mom, but it's not factual. I'm paraphrasing for brevity, but here are some examples:

"A slash 10" long and 3/4 inches deep across Darlie's neck." That's a huge exaggeration. Her neck wound was only about 8" long and only about 1/4 inches deep.

"She suffered a small cut on her face." None of the nurses or doctors saw a cut on her face. They were very specific about her injuries, and would not have overlooked something so obvious.

"Her mouth was raw and throbbing." If it was, Darlie never said a word about it in the hospital. As far as the medical personnel knew, Darlie had been attacked by an intruder. If she had told them her mouth was raw and throbbing, I doubt they would have ignored such a complaint.

"She had a deep cut on the outside of her right forearm that penetrated the bone." Not true. The cut was approximately 1" deep and did not penetrate the bone.

"None of the Baylor nurses claimed to have seen any bruises on Darlie during her day-and-a-half stay." Darlie was in the hospital for 2 1/2 days, not 1 1/2 days, and not a single nurse or doctor saw bruising on her right arm. And that arm was checked every day, not only by the nurses, but by Dr. Dillawn.

I can understand reasonable doubt when it's based on facts, but this article has a ton of holes in it. Mulder couldn't argue that a knife penetrated the bone, because there were x-rays to prove that it didn't. He couldn't argue that the neck wound was 3/4" deep, because if it was, it probably would have damaged her larynx or windpipe. He couldn't argue that the bruises might not have emerged in 1 1/2 days, because hospital records would prove that Darlie was there for 2 1/2 days with no swelling, redness or bruising from blunt trauma.

Sorry if I came across as blunt in my previous post; people tell me I do that all the time, lol! Anyway, I don't think Mulder did a poor job; he just didn't have much to work with.Well, I haven't had time to check all your facts, but I have checked a couple...I did see testimony that the knife did not penetrate the bone in her arm (Dr. Dillawn) and that she stayed in the hospital from the early morning hours of 6/6 to the afternoon of 6/8 (2 1/2 days)...I want to look at some of the pictures to see if I can see a cut on her face and read through some more testimony when I get a chance.

Usually, a publication will have "fact checkers" who do nothing but verify what is claimed in a story before it is published. No reputable paper wants to be called on its shoddy reporting. So, I'm wondering if there is contradictory testimony...where did this reporter come up with his facts? You seem to know the transcripts quite well...

[accordn2me]

I've never really had a bad feeling about those nurses and the notes. Darlie had nothing else in the world to do and she came up with 16 different versions. So, if the nurses, who were busy trying to do their jobs, didn't write down very single possible thing that they witnessed, what's the big deal if when asked a question by one of the attorneys, something that they didn't write down before comes out or after they had time to think about what happened AFTER they wrote something down, they got a different feeling??? I think its odd that some posters don't think squat about Darlie's 16 different versions, but a nurse can't have two?
This is the way I think about it: The nurses and doctors were probably making nonjudgemental observations in Darlie's medical record during those days when she was in the hospital. Hopefully, the police were doing that in their initial LE reports. Later, much later relatively, the police made "supplemental reports" to change their initial reports after much discussion amongst themselves where they came to believe Darlie was guilty. Likewise, the medical personnel gave contradictory testimony to the written reports after they held a mock trial. The contradictory testimony after the mock trial is why I place more weight on what the medical personnel wrote, rather than what they testified to. The same is true for the weight I give to the initial LE reports versus their supplemental reports.

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night. They told her it was impossible that she didn't remember. She must remember something! After she was "what if'd" and "but if that then it must have been this way...." to death, she changed her story to try to make sense of an unspeakable nightmare. Like the medical and LE supplements, I tend to give the initial account more weight.

Some people say Darlie started changing her story after she realized the LE allegations against her. That may be true. I would also venture to say it's true that LE and medical personnel changed their accounts after they realized the allegations against Darlie and came to believe her guilty.

[Mary456]

Mary:

Wow! That's an excellent rebuttal!

When I read your first post, I thought you were being snotty - so many people get very angry when someone asks questions or tries to look at the evidence from a defense perspective - so, I do appreciate an intelligent, informed response...

Are you taking your information directly from trial testimony?

Yes, everything I said comes from the trial testimony of the nurses (Denise Faulk, Jody Cotner, Dianne Hollon, Paige Campbell, and Chris Wielgosz, as well as two doctors, Santos and Dillawn).

There are many explanations as to why the nurses' testimony didn't exactly match their notes. For one thing, nurses can't chart their opinions in a medical record. Denise Faulk was so disturbed by Darlie's unusual behavior in the hospital that she wrote it down when she returned to her apartment that night. Chris Wielgosz (ICU nurse) never met with the other nurses, yet his testimony was very similar.

Mulder did a good job trying to raise reasonable doubt about the nurses' testimony, but it begs a few questions:

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know? The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.

Fritzy's Mom, I'm going to shut up now, but I enjoy discussing this case with you, too. You've brought up some good points, but I'm confident I'll whip you into line very soon ;)

[Mary456]

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night.

Oh my, I disagree wholeheartedly. Darlie wrote her statement on 6/8/96. When Bill Parker questioned her on 6/18, he gave her the original statement and asked if she'd like to change, add, or clarify anything. Darlie read it again and said she didn't want to change a thing. Her words were, "That's exactly what happened."

Darlie didn't have a lawyer at that time, so it wasn't until later that she became aware of the evidence against her. That's when she started changing her story, stories, and more stories to fit the evidence :liar:

[Mary456]

I think Mary has those transcripts memorized!! Isn't she awesome???

Awww, I'm not awesome, I'm :blushing:

[Dani_T]

So does anybody have a source for the 'mock trials'?

[Fritzy's Mom]

Denise Faulk was so disturbed by Darlie's unusual behavior in the hospital that she wrote it down when she returned to her apartment that night.Oh, I'm glad you mentioned her, because I forgot to...

Denise Faulk is proof positive that LE leaked their suspicions to the nursing staff...

Denise went home and wrote down her impressions of Darlie because she thought some of what Darlie had told her was "weird." And, she just happened to store those notes away in her safe until LE contacted her. RIGHT! Denise Faulk wrote down her story for one reason and one reason only - to aid LE...Denise Faulk KNEW that Darlie was a suspect and she KNEW that one day she might be called to testify...

As a health care provider, Denise Faulk's job is to provide any and all pertinent information/observations about her patient in her notes/patient's chart; her personal bias cannot be expressed there, so she took it home and recorded it. Do you think for one minute she would have done this had she not been told Darlie was a suspect? If LE had acted like Darlie was a victim, do you think she'd have notes at home saying that her story was "weird?" No way...

Mulder should have RIPPED HER APART...

Chris Wielgosz (ICU nurse) never met with the other nurses, yet his testimony was very similar.Chris Wielgosz worked in the same hospital with the other nurses every day for months after the stabbings...they talked - alot.

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)All these people worked together on a daily basis for months after the stabbing. With all the stories about Darlie in the press, this hospital was a HOTBED of gossip. Nobody was actively "conspiring," it was just a matter of participating in and being influenced by the day to day Darlie bashing which was, no doubt, going on...

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know?Because by the time of trial, all these people were convinced she was guilty. So was the general public. I'm sure they viewed her as an evil woman and were eager to help see her go down...

Their licenses and jobs were never at risk (see below) - but their reputations were...Can you imagine being the one person to take the stand and give testimony favorable to Darlie when all your colleagues were saying otherwise? Not an easy thing to do, I'm sure...

The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.Nahhhhh, the testimony the medical personnel gave was almost exclusively subjective - their notes, their interpretations of their notes, their impressions of Darlie, their observations of Darlie, their opinions, etc. This type of testimony is virtually impossible to prove as being false.

Fritzy's Mom, I'm going to shut up now, but I enjoy discussing this case with you, too. You've brought up some good points, but I'm confident I'll whip you into line very soon ;)No - Don't shut up! There are tons of things I want to chat about...the 911 call, Brian Pardo, Darin's polygraph, Darlie's mom, the bruises...I could go on and on. This forum is pretty slow - maybe we can liven it up!

[Fritzy's Mom]

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night. They told her it was impossible that she didn't remember. She must remember something! After she was "what if'd" and "but if that then it must have been this way...." to death, she changed her story to try to make sense of an unspeakable nightmare. Like the medical and LE supplements, I tend to give the initial account more weight.
I was involved in a serious car accident two years ago May 1st (his fault, not mine) and I STILL don't know everything that happened. When you go through something as traumatic as that, your memory comes back in "flashes" - it truly does. There is no way I could give you the minutia of the events - how fast I was going before the accident, what was playing on the radio, what time it was, where my hands were, etc. - even though I was asked repeatedly about it. And, yes, LE does "feed" you information - "Did you ever see a green car coming from the north?" "Did you at any time smell alcohol?" "Are you sure the man got out and ran to the northwest corner?"

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it.

[cami]

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.

I think the nurses are bound by law and patient confidentiality on the chart notes aren't they? I don't think they are allowed to add their personal observations to the charts but I am not too sure about that. On the stand during the trial wouldn't they then have more latitude to express a personal opinion on Darlie's behaviour or demeanour while in their care?

[cami]

I was involved in a serious car accident two years ago May 1st (his fault, not mine) and I STILL don't know everything that happened. When you go through something as traumatic as that, your memory comes back in "flashes" - it truly does. There is no way I could give you the minutia of the events - how fast I was going before the accident, what was playing on the radio, what time it was, where my hands were, etc. - even though I was asked repeatedly about it. And, yes, LE does "feed" you information - "Did you ever see a green car coming from the north?" "Did you at any time smell alcohol?" "Are you sure the man got out and ran to the northwest corner?"

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it.

Quite possibly she does have some form of TA or is it motivated forgetting? It's sometimes rooted in guilt. If I stabbed my kids, I wouldn't want to remember it either.

What about all those letters she wrote from jail telling her friends and family she knew who it was, she saw him? What was that all about? She later blamed that on someone else, saying they gave her false memories or something stupid I can't remember.

[Jeana (DP)]

This is the way I think about it: The nurses and doctors were probably making nonjudgemental observations in Darlie's medical record during those days when she was in the hospital. Hopefully, the police were doing that in their initial LE reports. Later, much later relatively, the police made "supplemental reports" to change their initial reports after much discussion amongst themselves where they came to believe Darlie was guilty. Likewise, the medical personnel gave contradictory testimony to the written reports after they held a mock trial. The contradictory testimony after the mock trial is why I place more weight on what the medical personnel wrote, rather than what they testified to. The same is true for the weight I give to the initial LE reports versus their supplemental reports.

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night. They told her it was impossible that she didn't remember. She must remember something! After she was "what if'd" and "but if that then it must have been this way...." to death, she changed her story to try to make sense of an unspeakable nightmare. Like the medical and LE supplements, I tend to give the initial account more weight.

Some people say Darlie started changing her story after she realized the LE allegations against her. That may be true. I would also venture to say it's true that LE and medical personnel changed their accounts after they realized the allegations against Darlie and came to believe her guilty.


Do you know what a "mock trial" is? That's not what happened with the prosecution in this case. I'm not even 100% sure what we've heard is true, but there's no way they did a "mock trial." They may have shown some witnesses the courtroom and asked some questions to get them used to being on the stand. That's not unusual.

[accordn2me]

15 CROSS EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
18 Q. Officer Waddell, just a thing or two.
19 I believe you said that prior to this occasion, you had
20 participated in one homicide; is that right?
21 A. Yes, sir.
...
4 Q. Okay. You -- just so that you and I
5 are on the same wave length here, you have testified
6 under oath, in a hearing prior to today, have you not?
7 A. Yes, sir.
....
5 Q. Okay. You have listened to the 911
6 tape in preparation for your testimony, have you not?
7 A. I have.
8 Q. Okay. And have you listened to it
9 more than once?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Just listened to it one time?
12 A. I believe just one time.
13 Q. Okay. And you've talked to the
14 prosecutors -- nothing wrong with that, but you've talked
15 to the prosecutors on a number of occasions, have you
16 not?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. Do you have any estimate as to how
19 many times you've gone over your testimony with them?
20 A. Maybe two.
21 Q. Maybe two times?
22 A. Two or three.
23 Q. Did you ever participate in a mock
24 trial with them?
25 A. We had a meeting, yes.


1 Q. Okay. You call that a meeting?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Where you got up on the witness stand
4 and everybody told their story?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. You did that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How long ago was that?
9 A. Maybe three weeks ago, I'm not really
10 for sure.
11 Q. Okay. Did they critique you after
12 that? I mean, tell you how you did, and tell you where
13 you can improve, and things of that nature?
14 A. They told me I did all right.
15 Q. Okay. Nothing wrong with that.
16 At that time did you hear the 911
17 tape?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Did you hear other officers
20 testify?
21 A. I heard some, yes.
22 Q. Okay. So, you did your part in it,
23 and you did it in a -- did you do it in a courtroom or
24 up in the DA's office, or where did you do it?
25 A. It was up in the courtroom.


1 Q. In a courtroom?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. It wasn't in the District
4 Attorney's office?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. But you got on the witness
7 stand just like you are there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And went through the same thing that
10 you've gone through for the folks here?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Kind of a dress rehearsal, I guess?
13 A. Yes.
24 Q. When did you go over these photographs
25 with the prosecutor?


1 A. The last time I met with him, which I
2 don't remember what time that was, but it was within the
3 last week.
...
11 Q. Okay. You walk in, and you --
12 incidentally, on the 911 tape, do you hear your voice?
13 A. I didn't hear it.
14 Q. Did you see where your -- did you see
15 a transcript of the 911 tape?
16 A. I saw portions of one, yes.
17 Q. Why is it you just saw portions?
18 A. I just saw portions of it.
19 Q. Any reason that you just saw a part of
20 it, as opposed to the whole thing?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Was the whole 911 tape available to
23 you?
24 A. I don't know how long the 911 tape is.
25 I listened to portions of it. I don't know if there was


1 more to it or not.
2 Q. What were -- where were you when you
3 listened to portions of it?
4 A. In here.
5 Q. In where?
6 A. In this room.
7 Q. In this room?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. When was that?
10 A. Sunday.
11 Q. Okay. So you had a dress rehearsal up
12 in Dallas and another one down here?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. But you came in here and listened to
15 the 911 tape?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. Was -- who else was present at
18 that time?
19 A. Myself and Sergeant Walling and a
20 couple more police officers, and people with the Dallas
21 County DA's office.
22 Q. Okay. Who were the other police
23 officers who were there?
24 A. Sergeant Ward, Sergeant Walling, Steve
25 Ferrie, Steve Wade, and there's probably a couple more I


1 don't remember.
2 Q. Everybody that you were sworn in with
3 the other day, were they all here?
4 A. I believe so, yeah.
5 Q. Okay. And did you discuss your
6 testimony at that time?
7 A. We went over it, yes.
8 Q. Well, I mean, that's the whole purpose
9 in getting together, to kind of go over everybody's
10 testimony.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So you understood what Walling was
13 going to say, and Walling understood what you were going
14 to say, and Ward understood what Walling and Waddell were
15 going to say, and everybody just --
16 A. No, sir, that was not the reason.
17 Q. But that was all done in -- you were
18 present when --
19 A. I was in the same room, yes.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. The reason for me to do it, was to go
22 over my testimony.
23 Q. You -- all right. Now, just so I'm
24 clear, you had gone over with it a number of times up in
25 Dallas, had you not?


1 A. A couple.
2 Q. Well, and you had a hearing where you
3 were under oath just like you are now. You appreciate
4 that, don't you?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. And then you had the dress
7 rehearsal up in Dallas. Right?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And then you met down here. And did
10 you go over the entire 911 tape?
11 A. I don't know if I went over the whole
12 tape or not. We went over part of it. I don't know --
13 Q. Do you know about how long it was on?
14 A. No, sir.
2 THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and
3 gentlemen. Be seated, please. Let the record reflect
4 that all parties of the trial are present and the jury is
5 seated.


19 CROSS EXAMINATION (Resumed)

21 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
22 Q. Do you understand, Officer Waddell,
23 that you're still under oath?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Incidentally, have you talked with the


1 prosecutors since we recessed?
2 A. I talked to them, yes.
3 Q. You talked to them?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Did you talk to them about the case?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You just talked to them?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Did you talk to any of their
10 investigators?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Okay. You just kind of passed the
13 time of day with them?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. All right. About how long did that
16 take?
17 A. A minute or so.
18 Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said when
19 you and -- I mean, was there any reason for you to talk
20 to them after you testified here?
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. Did they critique your performance or
23 anything?
24 A. They told me I did good.
25 Q. I thought you didn't talk about case.


1 A. Well, that wasn't about the case, they
2 just told me -- made a comment.

13 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
14 Q. Did -- when you were here the other
15 day, Sunday, and listened to the tape and discussed your
16 testimony, did you hear the entire 911 tape?
17 A. I don't know if we heard the whole
18 thing or not.

[accordn2me]

15 Q. Lieutenant Walling, you understand, of
16 course, that you're still under oath?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And, you were, I believe way back on
19 Monday placed under the Rule of Evidence?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. You've heard that when the prosecutor
22 asked that all the witnesses be placed under the Rule of
23 Evidence?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Of course, you haven't, I take it
1 then, talked with the other witnesses about your
2 testimony and no witness has discussed his testimony with
3 you?
4 A. No, sir.
5 Q. That's the purpose of the Rule, isn't
6 it?
7 A. Yes, sir, it is.
8 Q. So the witnesses don't get together
9 and all cook up a story. Correct?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And, of course y'all didn't need to do
12 that, because you have had a, -- you kind of had a dress
13 rehearsal, didn't you? Weren't you involved in the dress
14 rehearsal?
15 A. With the district attorneys?
16 Q. Yes, sir.
17 A. Yes, sir. We had gotten together
18 before.
19 Q. You got together in the courtroom?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And everybody kind of sat around and
22 listened to the other witnesses as they went through
23 their part of the testimony?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Okay. It's looks better, I guess, for

1 the conductor, if everybody's on the same sheet of music,
2 doesn't it?
3 A. Yes, sir, I guess it does.
4 Q. But, I mean, it helps you if you're
5 able to, for example -- and I'm not suggesting that you
6 would change your testimony, but, I mean, it helps to
7 refresh your memory and it looks better if everybody's
8 consistent, doesn't it? It makes sense.
9 A. Well, it does refresh your memory,
10 yes, sir.
11 Q. And, of course, it looks better if
12 everybody's consistent, doesn't it?
13 A. Well, sir --
14 Q. Don't you think?
15 A. Well --
16 Q. You don't know?
17 A. Well, I'm talking -- as long as you
18 tell the truth it doesn't really matter. That's not what
19 we're here for is to make things look better.
20 Q. Well, let's talk about -- and when you
21 say "as long as you tell the truth" of course you mean
22 the whole truth, don't you?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. And nothing but the truth?
25 A. Yes, sir.

1 Q. And you've been under oath before in
2 this matter and testified, have you not?
3 A. Yes, sir, I have.
4 Q. And at that time you took an oath to
5 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
6 truth, didn't you?
7 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Okay. And you heard in the -- matter
19 of fact, you were down here Sunday, were you not? In
20 this very courtroom?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And you listened to the 911 tape, and
23 you realized from that that your patrolman, Officer
24 Waddell, had been at the residence during the 911 call;
25 is that right?

1 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. You had gone in through the kitchen
11 past the wine rack and on this side of the island; is
12 that right?
13 A. Yes, sir, it is.
14 Q. And I think you told the jury
15 yesterday at that time you didn't see an overturned
16 vacuum cleaner in this area?
17 A. I don't recall seeing it at that time.
18 Q. And we can take that as a definite
19 then that you did not see an overturned vacuum cleaner in
20 this area at that time?
21 A. I don't recall seeing it at that time.
22 I remember seeing one there, but I don't remember whether
23 or not if I noticed it the first time through or when I
24 went through later with the crime scene.
25 Q. Okay. Would you quarrel with me -- 1 you've been over your testimony, have you not? Your
2 previous testimony?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. Okay. You know that you testified
5 back then that you did not see it when you initially went
6 through the kitchen. Is there anything that's going to
7 change that?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Okay. Fair enough for me to write on
10 here that Lieutenant Walling, or Sergeant Walling, at the
11 time, Walling did not see vacuum cleaner when first went
12 through kitchen. Is that fair?
13 A. Sir, I don't recall seeing it at that
14 time.
15 Q. All right. Walling does not recall
16 seeing vacuum cleaner when first went through kitchen.
17 Fair enough?
18 A. Yes, sir. I don't remember if I
19 actually saw it at that time or when I was in the house
20 later. I don't remember when I first saw it.
21 Q. Well, just so that we don't -- your
22 memory would have been better in August than it is today,
23 would it not? If it was that much closer?
24 A. Well, on some things.
25 Q. Okay. Well, I mean, we can go back

1 and I can, if you prefer -- let me hand you what has been
2 marked for identification record purposes as Defendant's
3 Exhibit No. 15. And I'll ask you to just page through
4 that briefly in the privacy of the witness box and tell
5 me whether or not that is your --
6 A. Yes, sir, it is.
7 Q. -- prior sworn testimony?
8 A. Yes, sir, it is.
9 Q. All right. Were you asked -- if you
10 would turn to page 179, line 10. Were you asked: Was
11 the vacuum cleaner there in the kitchen when you went
12 through that first time, and did you answer, "No, sir, I
13 don't remember at that going-through"?
14 A. Yes, sir, I don't recall. That's what
15 I'm telling you now that I don't recall.
16 Q. You don't remember it when you went
17 through it at that time. Is that fair to say?
18 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. You saw Darin Routier that night, he
9 had blood on his hands, didn't he?
10 A. No, sir, he didn't -- well, when I
11 checked his hands at that time he didn't have blood on
12 his hands.
13 Q. Did he have blood on his hands later
14 on?
15 A. No, sir, I never saw him with blood on
16 his hands.
17 Q. You never did? Are you sure about
18 that?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I know he had blood on his shirt.
22 Let's see, give me just a second.
23 Q. I'm going to give you your report and
24 let you refresh your memory.
25 A. Okay.

1 Q. Did you refresh your memory before you
2 came in here yesterday?
3 A. With my reports, no, sir.
4 Q. Well, again, I don't know, but I would
5 think that the purpose of making a report is so that
6 later on you can look at your report and refresh your
7 memory from that report so that your testimony is as
8 accurate as it can be.
9 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
10 Q. As you sit here right now, you're
11 telling the jury, I don't know whether it's important or
12 not, but you're telling the jury that Darin Routier did
13 not have blood on his hands and palms when you looked at
14 them?
15 A. Well, I'm not sure.
16 Q. Well, now you're saying you're not
17 sure.
18 A. Well, I need to refer to my report.

12 Q. Let me hand you what's been marked for
13 identification and record purposes as Defendant's Exhibit
14 No. 16. I'll direct your attention to this.
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Did he have blood on his hands?
17 A. Yes, sir, and on his shirt.
18 Q. Okay. I don't know that that's even
19 important, but, I mean, nobody has a perfect memory, do
20 they?
21 A. Well, I don't.
22 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to write
23 down here so we don't forget it again that Darin Routier
24 had blood on his hands and palms?
25 A. Yes, sir. And on his shirt.

[Jeana (DP)]

That's NOT a mock trial. That's simply ONE SIDED trial preparation.

[cami]

That's NOT a mock trial. That's simply ONE SIDED trial preparation.

I don't understand all this todo about a mock trial. Was her trial unfair because of it? Why do people think she was convicted on her character and not the evidence? The two jurors who were on the Leeza show years ago appeared to be articulate and intelligent to me and quite capable of understanding the forensics and deliberating on it.

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't understand all this todo about a mock trial. Was her trial unfair because of it? Why do people think she was convicted on her character and not the evidence? The two jurors who were on the Leeza show years ago appeared to be articulate and intelligent to me and quite capable of understanding the forensics and deliberating on it.

That's just it, it wasn't a mock trial. A mock trial is just that. An entire trial, complete with prosecution, defense, judge, witnesses. This was merely the prosecution preparing its witnesses. There's nothing wrong with preparing witnesses. I'm sure the defense did the same.

[Goody]

I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

I've never known quite what to think about Darlie re: guilt or innocence, but I have always believed that there is no way her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt...as this article indicates, there are lots of doubts, lots of unanswered questions...
I think this about sums it up for Pardo. Taken from your article there.
No one questions Brian Pardo's good intentions and generosity. He is funding part of Routier's appeal and is underwriting an investigation into the case. But Pardo has a dangerous tendency toward recklessness, stating suppositions and spinning Hollywood-flavored murder scenarios as if they were fact. Pardo's detractors wonder whether he seriously seeks the truth, or is simply engaged in a midlife Walter Mitty fantasy wherein he gets to play amateur sleuth and would-be savior.

[Goody]

To Fritzy's Mom: Does knowing that the prosecution called all of their witnesses together for a mock trial, affect the weight you give to the credibility of their testimony? It really diminishes their believability for me - not that I think any one of them would intentionally lie to convict an innocent mother. I do believe memory is affected by discussions with others or just from the brain trying to compensate for missing accounts. I also think that witnesses would "tweak" their testimony if they believed a mother was guilty and was about to walk after butchering her two oldest sons. Who could blame them!
Does knowing that the prosecution has been doing business that way...mock trials beforehand....for over twenty years and that the DA who started the policy was none other than Mulder himself make you feel any differently about it? It would mean something if, and this is a big IF, it was not business as usual, but the truth is Darlie was not treated any differently than any other defendant in that jurisdiction. Mulder acted like he had never heard of anything so underhanded before, and he's the one who came up the idea for it years and years before Darlie's case. It is standard policy. I don't see how we can object to that.

[Goody]

Just a quick question - where is the info coming from that they did a mock trial? I'm not doubting that they did but it just occurred to me it is something I got told ages ago and perhaps I haven't read the original source. If there is one thing I have learnt in this case it is to read the original source rather than the second hand source because almost always the truth is either deliberately or accidentally distorted.
It wasn't really a mock trial, Dani. It was referred to in the transcript as the "dress rehearsals". The state grouped witnesses and took some of them to an empty courtroom before the trial where they got up one by one and testified. The group that did that was the police and paramedics. The nurses and doctors were another group, but they did not go to an empty courtroom. They got together at the hotel and went over testimonies. I don't think they actually practiced their testimonies like the first group but they all look at the photos, particularly of the bruises and discuss what they remembered.

[Goody]

I agree with you that I don't think anybody told out and out bold faced lies...but I do think much of the testimony was made with the belief that Darlie was guilty - no harm no foul if they were embellishing. I think I would be much more comfortable making my assessment of her condition at the hospital based on notes, charts, medical records, etc...(BTW, are these exhibits available anywhere?)
Check the back of MTJD. There are photocopies of them in that book.

I discounted a lot of the nurses testimonies, too, for the same reasons. I think a lot of their observations were questionable, probably colored by their belief that she was guilty. And it bothered me that none of them went back and read their professional notes before testifying. However, I couldn't discount the things they said she said. For one, I believe a person is more likely to remember that more factually than they are their observations of another's emotions, esp if they are feeling intense dislike for the person, and a lot of what they said she said was supported by other witnesses who were not nurses and medical personnel. That had a tendancy to validate their statements. The truly critical things Darlie said to people,she said to more than one person in very similar wordings. Whether she was crying or not, whether she was flat or hysterical, whether she wanted to hold Drake or not, is not terribly important. What she said about the intruder, the knife, etc is important. I don't think you can discount everything the nurses said because of that.

[Jeana (DP)]

It wasn't really a mock trial, Dani. It was referred to in the transcript as the "dress rehearsals". The state grouped witnesses and took some of them to an empty courtroom before the trial where they got up one by one and testified. The group that did that was the police and paramedics. The nurses and doctors were another group, but they did not go to an empty courtroom. They got together at the hotel and went over testimonies. I don't think they actually practiced their testimonies like the first group but they all look at the photos, particularly of the bruises and discuss what they remembered.


Thanks Goody. Maybe my THREE posts pointing this out and your two will help. :doh: :doh: :doh:

[Goody]

I think Mary has those transcripts memorized!! Isn't she awesome???
Mary is sharp as a tack. And she is hardly ever wrong. About what is documented, that is. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_22_24.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSzeb005YYUS)

[Goody]

Usually, a publication will have "fact checkers" who do nothing but verify what is claimed in a story before it is published. No reputable paper wants to be called on its shoddy reporting. So, I'm wondering if there is contradictory testimony...where did this reporter come up with his facts? You seem to know the transcripts quite well...
I think the fact checkers went out with Bell Bottomed pants, FM. If they didn't, they must be snoozing because reporters everywhere are getting looser and looser with the truth. I hate to have to follow a trial depending on them to interpret it for me. Even the best of them reach some strange conclusions. (you see,there, Mary, I'm even nudging over to your side on this one. LOL!)

[Goody]

Some people say Darlie started changing her story after she realized the LE allegations against her. That may be true. I would also venture to say it's true that LE and medical personnel changed their accounts after they realized the allegations against Darlie and came to believe her guilty.
It is not supposed to be a contest between good and evil, i.e. if the state tells two lies, then defense should get two. On top of that, Darlie was the mother of these children. She should remember where the intruder was when she first saw him. But she has 4 or 5 versions of that, depending on who she was talking to and how much she wanted to embellish at any given moment.

I can give strangers a little more leeway to make mistakes in what they remember than I can a family member who knows the crime scene like the back of their hand and is emotionally involved in what happened. There is just no way that Darlie should have needed to change her story about where the intruder was when she first saw him, when she realized she was cut, when she realized her children were cut, etc. She might not remember how many towels she took to them, but she should remember if she wet them or not, if she delivered them or threw a stack of them into the next room, etc.

Yes, Darlie did start changing her story after LE started challenging her statements. In fact, it is probably safe to say that she started changing her story whenever she saw a hole in it. That is what guilty people do. They believe that they can convince the police they are not guilty and that if they do, the police will not dig too deeply to prove otherwise. That never happens, of course, but they keep trying anyway and walla, the multiple versions we end up with.

[Jeana (DP)]

Mary is sharp as a tack. And she is hardly ever wrong. About what is documented, that is. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_22_24.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSzeb005YYUS)


LOVE your pink cowgirl smiley!!!!

[Goody]

Oh my, I disagree wholeheartedly. Darlie wrote her statement on 6/8/96. When Bill Parker questioned her on 6/18, he gave her the original statement and asked if she'd like to change, add, or clarify anything. Darlie read it again and said she didn't want to change a thing. Her words were, "That's exactly what happened."

Darlie didn't have a lawyer at that time, so it wasn't until later that she became aware of the evidence against her. That's when she started changing her story, stories, and more stories to fit the evidence :liar:
Sorry, Mary, I disagree this time. Darlie made her first change within minutes while still at the crime scene. She told Waddell that she struggled with the intruder in the kitchen area. Waddell even remembered her pointing out the area where they struggled, near where she was on the phone at. Then after the cops put her and Darin in the family room by the glass sliding doors, they search the house, let paramedics in, etc., she tells Walling on the front porch that she was attacked on the sofa. (When did she go back to the kitchen?)

I think something tipped her off that the story about the struggle in the kitchen was not going to work. It wasn't until she was interviewed at the hospital that she comes up with the Damon/Mommie,Mommie, Mommie story. Also, a couple of things were changed when she was at the house for her first visit. One, Frosch (not in the transcripts) heard her ask Darin if he remembered her throwing the towels to him in one big stack from the kitchen. We didn't get to hear that because Frosch didn't testify because of the cemetery dibacle.

People say she added the wet towel story after she saw the sink and plumbing gone on that visit, but I don't think it was until later that she realized how important that was. Probably not until her atty asked her about it. I don't remember exactly when the wet towel story was first brought up. Do you? Was it at the trial? Well, anyway Darlie was constantly working on her story, polishing it and editing it. Everyone she talked to had a different version and they could only do that if she was telling everyone a different story. I think she was constantly trying to plug holes and up the drama.

[Goody]

Denise Faulk is proof positive that LE leaked their suspicions to the nursing staff...

Denise went home and wrote down her impressions of Darlie because she thought some of what Darlie had told her was "weird." And, she just happened to store those notes away in her safe until LE contacted her. RIGHT! Denise Faulk wrote down her story for one reason and one reason only - to aid LE...Denise Faulk KNEW that Darlie was a suspect and she KNEW that one day she might be called to testify...
!
I disagree. It was no secret that the children were murdered and that it was going to be a high profile case. Suspicion always falls on the surviving parent. Denise was no stranger to working with police and I am sure she knew how important her observations might be one day if it turned out that Darlie was guilty. So she kept a diary. Good for her. I don't even think her diary was admitted into evidence, was it?

As a health care provider, Denise Faulk's job is to provide any and all pertinent information/observations about her patient in her notes/patient's chart; her personal bias cannot be expressed there, so she took it home and recorded it. Do you think for one minute she would have done this had she not been told Darlie was a suspect? If LE had acted like Darlie was a victim, do you think she'd have notes at home saying that her story was "weird?" No way...!
Yes. Denise acted on her own instincts. It did not take a mind reader to see that Darlie was not reacting like most grieving mothers do. There would be a reason for that. Everyone who came around her except her family thought she was probably guilty. Why? Because we know that thugs do not go into someone's house at random just to kill two sleeping kids and just take a slash at the sleeping Mother. The whole intruder/burglar/rapist story was ridiculous unless you are willing to believe Beevis and Butthead were involved.

And even if LE did imply they thought Darlie guilty (although even Darlie says they never let on to her that they thought she did it), the worst the nurse testimony did (except for what they said she said) was not strong enough to convict her on. Maybe it colored some jurors minds, but I doubt that they would have influenced all 12. There was a lot of character type testimony that did not flatter Darlie, but if we can see through it, why do you believe a jury couldn't? They were just as adult as we are.

]

[Goody]

I was involved in a serious car accident two years ago May 1st (his fault, not mine) and I STILL don't know everything that happened. When you go through something as traumatic as that, your memory comes back in "flashes" - it truly does. There is no way I could give you the minutia of the events - how fast I was going before the accident, what was playing on the radio, what time it was, where my hands were, etc. - even though I was asked repeatedly about it. And, yes, LE does "feed" you information - "Did you ever see a green car coming from the north?" "Did you at any time smell alcohol?" "Are you sure the man got out and ran to the northwest corner?"

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it.
Did you have a serious head injury?

[Goody]

LOVE your pink cowgirl smiley!!!!
Thanks. I was disappointed that it would only post a link though.

[Goody]

That's just it, it wasn't a mock trial. A mock trial is just that. An entire trial, complete with prosecution, defense, judge, witnesses. This was merely the prosecution preparing its witnesses. There's nothing wrong with preparing witnesses. I'm sure the defense did the same.
I wonder who started that mock trial thing. El Jeffe maybe. LOL! Mulder referred to it as a dress rehearsal.

[Mary456]

[color=blue]And she is hardly ever wrong. About what is documented, that is.

To borrow the most overused line from the big screen: "And what is that supposed to mean?" LOL!

I think I know what you're referring to. You believe Darin might have been involved in the attack and/or helped Darlie stage the crime scene. I've tried and tried, but just don't see it as a likely scenario. As weird as Darin is, his story of coming down the stairs & thinking Devon had been cut by the overturned coffee table rings true to me.

[Mary456]

Sorry, Mary, I disagree this time. Darlie made her first change within minutes while still at the crime scene. She told Waddell that she struggled with the intruder in the kitchen area. Waddell even remembered her pointing out the area where they struggled, near where she was on the phone at. Then after the cops put her and Darin in the family room by the glass sliding doors, they search the house, let paramedics in, etc., she tells Walling on the front porch that she was attacked on the sofa. (When did she go back to the kitchen?)

I think something tipped her off that the story about the struggle in the kitchen was not going to work. It wasn't until she was interviewed at the hospital that she comes up with the Damon/Mommie,Mommie, Mommie story. Also, a couple of things were changed when she was at the house for her first visit. One, Frosch (not in the transcripts) heard her ask Darin if he remembered her throwing the towels to him in one big stack from the kitchen. We didn't get to hear that because Frosch didn't testify because of the cemetery dibacle.

People say she added the wet towel story after she saw the sink and plumbing gone on that visit, but I don't think it was until later that she realized how important that was. Probably not until her atty asked her about it. I don't remember exactly when the wet towel story was first brought up. Do you? Was it at the trial? Well, anyway Darlie was constantly working on her story, polishing it and editing it. Everyone she talked to had a different version and they could only do that if she was telling everyone a different story. I think she was constantly trying to plug holes and up the drama.

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. I was referring to her written statement. One of the accusations made by supporters is that Darlie wasn't given the same opportunity as the police to write a supplemental report. I just wanted to point out that she had that opportunity on 6/18 and decided to stick with her original statement.

I agree with you that she changed her oral stories many times, beginning with Waddell and Walling and continuing on with anyone who would listen.

As far as the wet towels go, the first I remembering her mentioning that was in her meeting with Dr. Clayton, which was shortly before the trial began.

[Mary456]

"Nahhhhh, the testimony the medical personnel gave was almost exclusively subjective - their notes, their interpretations of their notes, their impressions of Darlie, their observations of Darlie, their opinions, etc. This type of testimony is virtually impossible to prove as being false."

Putting aside their "subjective" feelings about Darlie's demeanor, do you think those 7 doctors and nurses gossiped enough to overlooked her bruises? That's not a subjective issue. There is either redness, swelling, or bruises to the right arm or there is not. All of them testified that they would have seen some sign of blunt trauma in the 2 1/2 days she was in the hospital, but it wasn't there. Even Dr. DiMaio conceded that the bruises photographed on 6/10 "look to be a couple of days old."

This was a critical piece of evidence against Darlie, because it showed that the blunt trauma didn't occur the night of 6/6/96. I believe she caused those bruises herself - perhaps by slamming her arm against a hard surface - after she left the hospital. Why? Because she told too many people that she was "fighting" and "struggling" with an intruder, and she needed a few good bruises to bolster her story.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Quite possibly she does have some form of TA or is it motivated forgetting? It's sometimes rooted in guilt. If I stabbed my kids, I wouldn't want to remember it either.If Darlie killed those two little boys and then cut herself up, she remembers it. There's a BIG difference between being the victim of a traumatic event and being the one who intentionally caused it.

What about all those letters she wrote from jail telling her friends and family she knew who it was, she saw him? What was that all about? She later blamed that on someone else, saying they gave her false memories or something stupid I can't remember.
She blamed it on reports that she was getting from defense investigators...and yeah, that testimony sounded pretty shaky. IF Darlie was telling the truth, then she was pretty feeble minded at that point - she was having a difficult time differentiating between dreams, false memories, investigator reports and reality.

[Fritzy's Mom]

I think this about sums it up for Pardo. Taken from your article there.
No one questions Brian Pardo's good intentions and generosity. He is funding part of Routier's appeal and is underwriting an investigation into the case. But Pardo has a dangerous tendency toward recklessness, stating suppositions and spinning Hollywood-flavored murder scenarios as if they were fact. Pardo's detractors wonder whether he seriously seeks the truth, or is simply engaged in a midlife Walter Mitty fantasy wherein he gets to play amateur sleuth and would-be savior.
I don't know anything about Brian Pardo except what I read in that article, so I really have no opinion of him one way or the other...you probably have to be from Texas...

I do wonder, though, if he asked Darlie to take a polygraph. Since he insisted that Darin take one, I would think he would do the same for her. And, since he blabbed the results of Darin's all over the place, why didn't he do the same for Darlie?

[Fritzy's Mom]

Check the back of MTJD. There are photocopies of them in that book.

Nowhere on the internet, though, huh?
I think a lot of their observations were questionable, probably colored by their belief that she was guilty.

Absolutely.

However, I couldn't discount the things they said she said. For one, I believe a person is more likely to remember that more factually than they are their observations of another's emotions, esp if they are feeling intense dislike for the person, and a lot of what they said she said was supported by other witnesses who were not nurses and medical personnel. That had a tendancy to validate their statements. The truly critical things Darlie said to people,she said to more than one person in very similar wordings. Whether she was crying or not, whether she was flat or hysterical, whether she wanted to hold Drake or not, is not terribly important. What she said about the intruder, the knife, etc is important. I don't think you can discount everything the nurses said because of that. Well, it depends on whether or not you want to give her the benefit of a doubt...

If you want to believe Darlie is guilty, then, yes, the medical testimony is very damning...

If, on the other hand, you want to try to presume her innocent, then the changes in her story can be ascribed to any number of things - false testimony by the medical personnel, trauma, possible loss of consciousness during the attack, medication, honest mistakes, etc.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Thanks Goody. Maybe my THREE posts pointing this out and your two will help. :doh: :doh: :doh:
I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

[Fritzy's Mom]

I think the fact checkers went out with Bell Bottomed pants, FM. If they didn't, they must be snoozing because reporters everywhere are getting looser and looser with the truth. I hate to have to follow a trial depending on them to interpret it for me. Even the best of them reach some strange conclusions. (you see,there, Mary, I'm even nudging over to your side on this one. LOL!)
Well, after reading Mary's post, I am definitely more skeptical... but I would still like to know if there was contradictory testimony on some of these points.

Where did this guy come up with 10 inches long and 3/4 inch deep? Is there any testimony supporting this? I've been too lazy to look it up myself - Mary?

Was there differing testimony re: the knife hitting her bone? I saw what Dr. Dillawn said...did anyone else say differently? Mary?

He was absolutely wrong about the 1 1/2 day hospital stay - it was 2 1/2 days.

As for the cut on Darlie's face...this is debatable. I looked at the pictures on Darlie's website. There is one entitled "Swollen Lips and Marks on Chin and Face." Frankly, I didn't see either, but somebody else may disagree...

I would like to see the medical charts re: Darlie's mouth pain and bruises...it would not surprise me at all if the written records differed from testimony on these points (I don't trust Mulder enough to assume he would have caught discrepencies).

As a side note, I also saw the picture of Devon's stab wounds - it stopped me in my tracks. I've never seen a fatal stab wound up close and personal like that, and I've never really thought about what one would look like. I guess I just assumed it would look like what would happen if you stuck a butcher knife into a grapefruit - a long, narrow slit. That poor little boy has gaping holes in his back. He must have been squirming and struggling all over the place for those cuts to be torn that wide.

I cut myself once when I was slicing a bagel. As the blade pulled across my finger, it sent a shock through my entire body - my finger felt like it was on fire. Devon was asleep (hopefully) when he was first stabbed, but shock doesn't set in immediately. I wonder how much of the attack he actually felt? And I wonder how long he was aware of what was happening. If Darlie did this, he must have been so confused and so frightened...

[Fritzy's Mom]

Sorry, Mary, I disagree this time. Darlie made her first change within minutes while still at the crime scene. She told Waddell that she struggled with the intruder in the kitchen area. Waddell even remembered her pointing out the area where they struggled, near where she was on the phone at. Then after the cops put her and Darin in the family room by the glass sliding doors, they search the house, let paramedics in, etc., she tells Walling on the front porch that she was attacked on the sofa. (When did she go back to the kitchen?)

I think something tipped her off that the story about the struggle in the kitchen was not going to work. It wasn't until she was interviewed at the hospital that she comes up with the Damon/Mommie,Mommie, Mommie story. Also, a couple of things were changed when she was at the house for her first visit. One, Frosch (not in the transcripts) heard her ask Darin if he remembered her throwing the towels to him in one big stack from the kitchen. We didn't get to hear that because Frosch didn't testify because of the cemetery dibacle.

People say she added the wet towel story after she saw the sink and plumbing gone on that visit, but I don't think it was until later that she realized how important that was. Probably not until her atty asked her about it. I don't remember exactly when the wet towel story was first brought up. Do you? Was it at the trial? Well, anyway Darlie was constantly working on her story, polishing it and editing it. Everyone she talked to had a different version and they could only do that if she was telling everyone a different story. I think she was constantly trying to plug holes and up the drama.
Pretty hard to argue with most of that...

Geez...I can't believe how well some of you know this case!

[Fritzy's Mom]

I disagree. It was no secret that the children were murdered and that it was going to be a high profile case. Suspicion always falls on the surviving parent. Denise was no stranger to working with police and I am sure she knew how important her observations might be one day if it turned out that Darlie was guilty. So she kept a diary. Good for her. I don't even think her diary was admitted into evidence, was it?


Yes. Denise acted on her own instincts. It did not take a mind reader to see that Darlie was not reacting like most grieving mothers do. There would be a reason for that. Everyone who came around her except her family thought she was probably guilty. Why? Because we know that thugs do not go into someone's house at random just to kill two sleeping kids and just take a slash at the sleeping Mother. The whole intruder/burglar/rapist story was ridiculous unless you are willing to believe Beevis and Butthead were involved.

And even if LE did imply they thought Darlie guilty (although even Darlie says they never let on to her that they thought she did it), the worst the nurse testimony did (except for what they said she said) was not strong enough to convict her on. Maybe it colored some jurors minds, but I doubt that they would have influenced all 12. There was a lot of character type testimony that did not flatter Darlie, but if we can see through it, why do you believe a jury couldn't? They were just as adult as we are.

]
I DEFINITELY want to comment on some of this, but I'm too tired right now! I'll be back...

[Jeana (DP)]

If Darlie killed those two little boys and then cut herself up, she remembers it. There's a BIG difference between being the victim of a traumatic event and being the one who intentionally caused it.


She blamed it on reports that she was getting from defense investigators...and yeah, that testimony sounded pretty shaky. IF Darlie was telling the truth, then she was pretty feeble minded at that point - she was having a difficult time differentiating between dreams, false memories, investigator reports and reality.


Of course she remembers it.

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't know anything about Brian Pardo except what I read in that article, so I really have no opinion of him one way or the other...you probably have to be from Texas...

I do wonder, though, if he asked Darlie to take a polygraph. Since he insisted that Darin take one, I would think he would do the same for her. And, since he blabbed the results of Darin's all over the place, why didn't he do the same for Darlie?


Because she failed them. He's trying to get her out of prison and put Darin in. Why would he let results slip that would guaranty her the needle? :waitasec: :waitasec:

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.


First it was a mock trial, now its a pep rally? What do you call what the defense did?

[Dani_T]

If Darlie killed those two little boys and then cut herself up, she remembers it. There's a BIG difference between being the victim of a traumatic event and being the one who intentionally caused it.


She blamed it on reports that she was getting from defense investigators...and yeah, that testimony sounded pretty shaky. IF Darlie was telling the truth, then she was pretty feeble minded at that point - she was having a difficult time differentiating between dreams, false memories, investigator reports and reality.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? If she was having trouble separating fiction and reality how can you be so sure that she was speaking and thinking with any clarity on anything?

It's a pretty well proven fact that if you have someone lying long enough about something then eventually they begin to believe it. People have passed polygraph tests on this basis. Whilst I doubt that she was completely deluded in the immediate period after the murders (ie. that she was covering up rather than deluding herself that she hadn't done it) I think she has probably convinced herself on a conscious level at this stage that she didn't do it. Say a lie enough times over, keep defending yourself against accusations, climb up onto your pedestal and eventually you start believing the lie.

[Dani_T]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

Just like the defense pep rally wasn't fair to the prosecution?

[cami]

If, on the other hand, you want to try to presume her innocent, then the changes in her story can be ascribed to any number of things - false testimony by the medical personnel, trauma, possible loss of consciousness during the attack, medication, honest mistakes, etc.

Aren't you setting yourself up for a fall there though? If you believe that the doctors would get up on the stand and lie about her condition or about their observations. As well as the nurses, they are professionals after all with reputations at stake not to mention the legalities of committing perjury.

As a matter of fact she was still changing her story for the 48 hours program in 2000 or 2001. Then she saw the man's "profile" as he moved away from the couch. Who influenced that I wonder, her appellate attorneys?

Sorry have to add my touch of sarcasm or I just wouldn't be me. :blushing:

[Dani_T]

I do wonder, though, if he asked Darlie to take a polygraph. Since he insisted that Darin take one, I would think he would do the same for her. And, since he blabbed the results of Darin's all over the place, why didn't he do the same for Darlie?

I believe that there is a report that Darlie did indeed take a polygraph and that the results were not released but she walked out of the room and hugged her mum (I think) and they both cried. Can't remember where the info came from (Mary? Goody? DP?) but the implication was that the results weren't good (not the least because you would expect her defense and/or supporters to be waving it from the rooftops if they were).

[Jeana (DP)]

I believe that there is a report that Darlie did indeed take a polygraph and that the results were not released but she walked out of the room and hugged her mum (I think) and they both cried. Can't remember where the info came from (Mary? Goody? DP?) but the implication was that the results weren't good (not the least because you would expect her defense and/or supporters to be waving it from the rooftops if they were).

Its been too long for me to remember where I heard/read it, but that's exactly what I heard.

To even begin to think that she didn't take a polygraph test is silly.
To think that had she passed one, the defense wouldn't have been yelling their collective heads off over it is madness. She took one (at LEAST ONE) and failed it or it would be written about all over the place.

[accordn2me]

Just like the defense pep rally wasn't fair to the prosecution?
From what I've read, I can't see where Mulder planned, prepared or practiced any type of defense strategy at all.

[Mary456]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

Darlie's aunt Sandy was taking notes in the courtroom each day, and shared the testimony with her sister, Sherry Moses. That's a no-no. Sherry was on the witness list, and was instructed not to discuss trial proceedings with anyone. But she did, and even admitted it. When Sherry took the stand, it was obvious that she altered her testimony in Darlie's favor.

Sherry testified that she saw "bruising on her (Darlie's) arm, that was just covering her arm" when she visited her in the hospital. That was clearly a lie, unless we believe that seven doctors and nurses missed seeing those same bruises.

So it goes both ways. Potential witnesses aren't kept in solitary confinement until they testify. They go on with their lives, their jobs, and yes, they gossip. In the end, jurors consider the source and ya know what else? I think they really do use those scales!

Happy Friday, FM :)

[accordn2me]

Well, after reading Mary's post, I am definitely more skeptical... but I would still like to know if there was contradictory testimony on some of these points.

Where did this guy come up with 10 inches long and 3/4 inch deep? Is there any testimony supporting this? I've been too lazy to look it up myself - Mary?

Was there differing testimony re: the knife hitting her bone? I saw what Dr. Dillawn said...did anyone else say differently? Mary?

He was absolutely wrong about the 1 1/2 day hospital stay - it was 2 1/2 days.

As for the cut on Darlie's face...this is debatable. I looked at the pictures on Darlie's website. There is one entitled "Swollen Lips and Marks on Chin and Face." Frankly, I didn't see either, but somebody else may disagree...

I would like to see the medical charts re: Darlie's mouth pain and bruises...it would not surprise me at all if the written records differed from testimony on these points (I don't trust Mulder enough to assume he would have caught discrepencies).

As a side note, I also saw the picture of Devon's stab wounds - it stopped me in my tracks. I've never seen a fatal stab wound up close and personal like that, and I've never really thought about what one would look like. I guess I just assumed it would look like what would happen if you stuck a butcher knife into a grapefruit - a long, narrow slit. That poor little boy has gaping holes in his back. He must have been squirming and struggling all over the place for those cuts to be torn that wide.

I cut myself once when I was slicing a bagel. As the blade pulled across my finger, it sent a shock through my entire body - my finger felt like it was on fire. Devon was asleep (hopefully) when he was first stabbed, but shock doesn't set in immediately. I wonder how much of the attack he actually felt? And I wonder how long he was aware of what was happening. If Darlie did this, he must have been so confused and so frightened...

On my monitor, something is wrong with some of those pictures of Darlie in the hospital on the 'justicefordarlie' site - they look all red-tinted. It even looks like Darlie is wearing heavy pink eyeshadow. I would swear that I see the formation of early bruising on the arm with stitches, and her elbow is definitely all swollen.

The pictures of Devon are vividly clear - HORRIFYING! If not a death penalty offense, none are. I have never seen any stab wound, so I wouldn't know what to expect either. However, during self-defense classes, I remember our instuctor explaining how muscle and skin react to stab wounds. He described pretty much what Devon's look like. I have heard that one or more of Devon's stabs were so violent that it penetrated carpet. Since Darlie was not prosecuted for his murder, it didn't get addressed in the trial. I don't claim to know a thing about crime scene analysis, but if I had to look at his picture and make an inference about his position when stabbed, I would say he was standing because of all the blood on his underwear.

I can't guess about Damon since there are no crime scene pictures of him. One of the haunting things about Damon's picture - those four small (circled in red) punctures in his back. Compared to those fatal deep gashes, it makes me wonder if he were not prodded along by the knife. DEATH PENALTY... :sick:

[Dani_T]

From what I've read, I can't see where Mulder planned, prepared or practiced any type of defense strategy at all.

Ok. Forgive me for being so forthwright on this but I'm at the stage where I am so completely over this discussion about Mulder. It's not only you of course- I've just heard so many people making excuses for Darlie and the evidence which was presented and unanswered by the defense by pointing the finger at Mulder.

Is he immortal? Infalliable? Invincible? NO.

Was he a high profile defense attorney taking on probably the most high profile case of his career to date? Was he regarded by his peers as a top notch attorney? YES.

Was he the attorney who pioneered these 'pep rallys' (as you can all them) in the area. YES. Are you seriously suggesting here that with everything we know about him he just didn't borther preparing his witness for trial? Come on.

The facts are that Darlie had damn good counsel in Mulder. His track record shows it. Did he/Does he make mistakes like the rest of us mere mortals? Of course he does/did. But he was not inept and incompetement and I'm just so tired of hearing Darlie supporters claim that he couldn't be bothered putting on a good defense for her.

How in the hell is it easier to believe that Mulder just completely dropped the ball on this case in a way which is completely inconsistent with his track record, reputation and the context of this very high profile case than it is to understand that were were reasons why he didn't present certain evidence at trial, reasons why he some of the things he did or didn't do don't make complete sense to us.... incriminating reasons.

[accordn2me]

Ok. Forgive me for being so forthwright on this but I'm at the stage where I am so completely over this discussion about Mulder. It's not only you of course- I've just heard so many people making excuses for Darlie and the evidence which was presented and unanswered by the defense by pointing the finger at Mulder.

Is he immortal? Infalliable? Invincible? NO.

Was he a high profile defense attorney taking on probably the most high profile case of his career to date? Was he regarded by his peers as a top notch attorney? YES.

Was he the attorney who pioneered these 'pep rallys' (as you can all them) in the area. YES. Are you seriously suggesting here that with everything we know about him he just didn't borther preparing his witness for trial? Come on.

The facts are that Darlie had damn good counsel in Mulder. His track record shows it. Did he/Does he make mistakes like the rest of us mere mortals? Of course he does/did. But he was not inept and incompetement and I'm just so tired of hearing Darlie supporters claim that he couldn't be bothered putting on a good defense for her.

How in the hell is it easier to believe that Mulder just completely dropped the ball on this case in a way which is completely inconsistent with his track record, reputation and the context of this very high profile case than it is to understand that were were reasons why he didn't present certain evidence at trial, reasons why he some of the things he did or didn't do don't make complete sense to us.... incriminating reasons.
Personally, I don't call myself a Darlie supporter. I don't know her, write her, send her stuff or claim she is innocent. I don't believe she was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe she deserves a new trial because she may be factually innocent - not because of a mock trial, dress rehearsal, pep rally, or any legal technicality. The particular words you decide to name it makes no difference to me. I don't particularly say it was "unfair" to Darlie that the prosecution got the cops, and doctors/nurses together, pretended to be questioning them as he was going to in the actual trial, and let them hear and refine their answers, and practice doing it until they all answered the same and supported the others' testimony.

Did Mulder do that for the defense witnesses? I would bet absolutely NO. At times, Mulder couldn't even ask a question that could make it past objection. He would lose his train of thought, or not follow a point to the end. I mean, come on, he may have been a good attorney for other cases, but if you think he did a good job in this case, it makes me seriously doubt if you read the parts of the transcripts where it's Mulder's turn.

This was the most lame, pitiful, unprofessional attempt to defend anyone that I have ever seen! If Mulder thought Darlie was guilty, he should not have taken their money and defended her. Maybe that's just my own standard, were I an attorney, I would not defend someone I believed to be guilty because I could not do my best for them - especially where a death penalty crime like this one is the case.

[Dani_T]

I don't particularly say it was "unfair" to Darlie that the prosecution got the cops, and doctors/nurses together, pretended to be questioning them as he was going to in the actual trial, and let them hear and refine their answers, and practice doing it until they all answered the same and supported the others' testimony.

In that very one sentence you have annihilated all integrity of around a dozen individuals who you don't even know- individuals whose job it was to serve and protect and to care and heal and who have no reason to as a group decide to colluide and lie to make their testimonies sound the same. You've also cast grave aspersions of the integrity of Greg Davis and the other DA team. You have obviously made up your mind that it was a big giant conspiracy to put an innocent woman in jail. So be it. But maybe your theory might benefit from actually looking and explaining the evidence which doesn't look so good for Darlie.

Did Mulder do that for the defense witnesses? I would bet absolutely NO. At times, Mulder couldn't even ask a question that could make it past objection. He would lose his train of thought, or not follow a point to the end. I mean, come on, he may have been a good attorney for other cases, but if you think he did a good job in this case, it makes me seriously doubt if you read the parts of the transcripts where it's Mulder's turn.

Doubt away all you want. It doesn't change the evidence.

This was the most lame, pitiful, unprofessional attempt to defend anyone that I have ever seen! If Mulder thought Darlie was guilty, he should not have taken their money and defended her. Maybe that's just my own standard, were I an attorney, I would not defend someone I believed to be guilty because I could not do my best for them - especially where a death penalty crime like this one is the case.

Jumping the gun a bit here aren't you?

[accordn2me]

In that very one sentence you have annihilated all integrity of around a dozen individuals who you don't even know- individuals whose job it was to serve and protect and to care and heal and who have no reason to as a group decide to colluide and lie to make their testimonies sound the same. You've also cast grave aspersions of the integrity of Greg Davis and the other DA team. You have obviously made up your mind that it was a big giant conspiracy to put an innocent woman in jail. So be it. But maybe your theory might benefit from actually looking and explaining the evidence which doesn't look so good for Darlie.
Actually, I'm not that powerful. Obviously, I'm not too effective at expressing my beliefs with my words, either. The conspiracy theory would be ridiculous. We agree on that. Everyone didn't sit around and say, the real killer is long gone in that dark car...we have to convict someone so there is not mass exodus from the town of Rowlett...this is our chance to get rid of Darlie!

It's accepted practice in Texas to get all your witnesses together and rehearse testimony. Greg Davis did a very thorough job for the State. He was overly prepared and came across as the professional, veteran prosecutor that he is. He, his assistants, and the State's experts probably really believe Darlie is guilty.

It was obvious that the State's witnesses had collaborated on their testimony. I believe doing so can change one's memory of the events. That may not be true, but I believe that it is. Because of my firm belief, it reduces, for me, the credibility of those witnesses part of the testimony after they have had the "meetings." I place more weight on their initial written notes and reports. I'm hoping I'm making sense to you now.


Doubt away all you want. It doesn't change the evidence.
The evidence never changes. A murder happens, the evidence is what it is. Whether it is all found, or explained accurately, is another story.


Jumping the gun a bit here aren't you?
About Mulder? NOPE

About being a defense attorney? YES!

About this being a death penalty crime? Absolutely not.

[Mary456]

Where did this guy come up with 10 inches long and 3/4 inch deep? Is there any testimony supporting this? I've been too lazy to look it up myself - Mary?

Dr. Dillawn testified that Darlie's neck wound was about 10 cm long, so maybe Pardo confused centimeters with inches. Btw, I was wrong...Darlie's neck wound was only about 4" long, not 8. Despite what some people say, I don't have the transcript memorized, lol! Where he came up with 3/4" deep is anyone's guess. In his dreams, maybe?

Was there differing testimony re: the knife hitting her bone? I saw what Dr. Dillawn said...did anyone else say differently? Mary?

No one contradicted Dillawn's and Santos' testimony that the knife did not penetrate Darlie's bone. And remember, this bone is very, very close to the surface in that part of the arm. Mulder wasn't a fool. He wasn't about to refute that testimony, because x-rays would have proven him wrong.

I would like to see the medical charts re: Darlie's mouth pain and bruises...it would not surprise me at all if the written records differed from testimony on these points (I don't trust Mulder enough to assume he would have caught discrepencies)

There's no focus notes or testimony about Darlie's mouth pain or bruises, because she didn't complain of mouth pain and there were no bruises while she was in the hospital. Sorry to hear you're so distrustful of Mulder, one of the best defense attorneys in Texas. Perhaps Darlie should have gone out of state & hired Geragos.

[Mary456]

I believe that there is a report that Darlie did indeed take a polygraph and that the results were not released but she walked out of the room and hugged her mum (I think) and they both cried. Can't remember where the info came from (Mary? Goody? DP?) but the implication was that the results weren't good (not the least because you would expect her defense and/or supporters to be waving it from the rooftops if they were).

This comes from Barbara Davis' book, Precious Angels. Mulder arranged for Darlie to take a private polygraph on October 4th, 1996. When she was escorted back to her cell, Darlie and her mother embraced "and Darlie began to sob."

Darin told the family that the test results couldn't be released, ahahahaaa! Babs said the secret polygraph was accidentally leaked when Doug Parks filed a $1,000 bill for six hours of confidential consultation.

I think it's safe to conclude that Darlie failed the polygraph.

[Jeana (DP)]

Personally, I don't call myself a Darlie supporter. I don't know her, write her, send her stuff or claim she is innocent. I don't believe she was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe she deserves a new trial because she may be factually innocent - not because of a mock trial, dress rehearsal, pep rally, or any legal technicality. The particular words you decide to name it makes no difference to me. I don't particularly say it was "unfair" to Darlie that the prosecution got the cops, and doctors/nurses together, pretended to be questioning them as he was going to in the actual trial, and let them hear and refine their answers, and practice doing it until they all answered the same and supported the others' testimony.


Where is there proof of this happening? I think you've been hearing campfire stories.

[Jeana (DP)]

This was the most lame, pitiful, unprofessional attempt to defend anyone that I have ever seen! If Mulder thought Darlie was guilty, he should not have taken their money and defended her. Maybe that's just my own standard, were I an attorney, I would not defend someone I believed to be guilty because I could not do my best for them - especially where a death penalty crime like this one is the case.


Do you follow capital murder trials for a living? If not, I find it hard to believe that you could compare Mulder to many other attorneys. MANY defense attorneys take cases where they know for a fact that their client is guilty. Do you think that all those cases where the attorneys ask their client to take a polygraph and then found out that they failed those tests, the attorney would quit the case? Of course not. Every defendant is, by law, entitled to the best possible defense their attorney can provide them. This case was no exception. Moreover, attorneys are not allowed to just quit a case anytime they feel like it. The judge must approve the substitution. If an attorney told a judge that she/he wanted to quit a case simply because they "knew their client was guilty," that judge would have a fit.

[Dani_T]

Where is there proof of this happening? I think you've been hearing campfire stories.

Hehehehehe ;)

[Fritzy's Mom]

It was no secret that the children were murdered and that it was going to be a high profile case.

Right. And Denise/Gladys Kravitz was going to make sure she was part of it...

Suspicion always falls on the surviving parent.

Well... but that's not really Denise's job to worry about, is it?

Denise was no stranger to working with police and I am sure she knew how important her observations might be one day if it turned out that Darlie was guilty. So she kept a diary. Good for her. I don't even think her diary was admitted into evidence, was it?

Goody, do you know how many victims of violent crime ICU and emergency room nurses who work in large metropolitan hospitals (e.g., Baylor) see? They see tons...

And, do you know how often nurses get lied to? They get lied to ALL THE TIME...A guy with near lethal levels of blood alcohol who has caused a fatality will swear up and down he's only had one drink; a woman who has been beaten senseless by her husband will say she fell down the stairs; shooting victims will come in and say they have no idea who shot them or why, yet they will have pockets full of crack and cash. Patients tell nurses "weird" stories all the time...and, guess what - 99% of the time, the nurses don't care! They know that their job is to treat the patient and to let the police do the detective work.

Do you think for one second that had Darlie been some derelict drug addict who had been stabbed in an alley Denise would have notes at home in her safe about the "weird" story she was telling? Of course not. She saw Darlie, a white, well-to-do, pretty suburban housewife who was suspected of stabbing her children, and she KNEW it was going to be big news. Denise Faulk wanted to make sure she was included in the story...

Whether or not her diary was admitted into evidence is irrelevant...just by testifying she kept one she told the jurors all they need to know about her and the reliability of her testimony.

It did not take a mind reader to see that Darlie was not reacting like most grieving mothers do.

Not when the police have told you that that mother is a suspect...then, of course, everything she does is called into question. If the police had not let on that Darlie was a suspect, Denise would probably have written notes about how pitiful and devastated Darlie was. Her intent here was to make herself important in this case, and nothing more...

Darlie was on trial for her life. Denise's BS, nosy, "I'm going to make this all about me" attitude from the get-go was inexcusable. She swore to God to tell the truth. Mulder should have left her in tears.

Everyone who came around her except her family thought she was probably guilty. Why?

Because that's what the police told them...

Because we know that thugs do not go into someone's house at random just to kill two sleeping kids and just take a slash at the sleeping Mother. The whole intruder/burglar/rapist story was ridiculous unless you are willing to believe Beevis and Butthead were involved.

That's not the point!!! The point is that nobody at Baylor needed to have this type of in-depth information!!!

And even if LE did imply they thought Darlie guilty (although even Darlie says they never let on to her that they thought she did it)...

The fact that they didn't let Darlie in on their suspicions means nothing (you know that!)...

...the worst the nurse testimony did (except for what they said she said) was not strong enough to convict her on. Maybe it colored some jurors minds, but I doubt that they would have influenced all 12.

But it did play a part in her conviction. All this kind of stuff adds up...

It's hard to judge just how credible some of this testimony was, though - reading it is certainly not the same as seeing it in person. Like I said (on paper anyway) Mulder just seemed to let too many of these people get off the stand without doing much to explore their motivations and bias.

There was a lot of character type testimony that did not flatter Darlie, but if we can see through it, why do you believe a jury couldn't? They were just as adult as we are.See, I just didn't see that much testimony that was that devasting to her character...

Aside from the medical testimony (which I almost entirely discount), there was:

1. the story about her teasing/being mean to Barbara Jovell's mother;
2. the suicide drama; and
3. the silly string incident.

The first two are pretty much no big deal - we've all been mean at one time or another in our lives and lots of women do the suicide thing to get attention (to Darlie's credit here, I do think she had some genuine postpartum depression going on). And, since the silly string incident occurred after the stabbings, it really should not have been considered as part of her character that led up to the stabbings (does that make sense?!)....

Yet, the silly string video is what killed her...

[Fritzy's Mom]

Did you have a serious head injury?
Well, LOL, therein lies the problem for Darlie! Yes, I did have a serious head injury (I STILL have a bald spot!), and she didn't...

However...if someone held a pillow over her head for a long enough period of time, she could have been rendered unconscious and groggy after she woke up. I know that's highly unlikely, but I suppose it could have happened that way.

[Fritzy's Mom]

Putting aside their "subjective" feelings about Darlie's demeanor, do you think those 7 doctors and nurses gossiped enough to overlooked her bruises?

No.

That's not a subjective issue. There is either redness, swelling, or bruises to the right arm or there is not. All of them testified that they would have seen some sign of blunt trauma in the 2 1/2 days she was in the hospital, but it wasn't there. Even Dr. DiMaio conceded that the bruises photographed on 6/10 "look to be a couple of days old."

Agreed.

This was a critical piece of evidence against Darlie, because it showed that the blunt trauma didn't occur the night of 6/6/96. I believe she caused those bruises herself - perhaps by slamming her arm against a hard surface - after she left the hospital. Why? Because she told too many people that she was "fighting" and "struggling" with an intruder, and she needed a few good bruises to bolster her story.
I think Darlie was arrested on the 15th, right? And, she got out of the hospital on the afternoon of the 8th. By the 15th, the bruises were a couple of days old, which means she had approximately 5 - 5 1/2 days to bruise herself, agreed?

During that time, Darlie was surrounded by family, friends and cops...I just don't see how she could have found the time alone to do it. Plus, she was taking quite a chance of being discovered. How do you explain to your neighbor who's come to check on you why you are throwing yourself into a door?!

If she did it, Darin almost certainly had to have helped...

Don't you think those bruises are way extreme to be self-inflicted? I'm not saying that they're not, but I am shocked by them. If she did it, I don't know how she worked herself up into that kind of a frenzy...

[Fritzy's Mom]

Because she failed them. He's trying to get her out of prison and put Darin in. Why would he let results slip that would guaranty her the needle? :waitasec: :waitasec:
I'm not sure what you're saying here...is there something romantic going on between Darlie and this guy?

[Fritzy's Mom]

As a matter of fact she was still changing her story for the 48 hours program in 2000 or 2001. Then she saw the man's "profile" as he moved away from the couch. Who influenced that I wonder, her appellate attorneys?

Sorry have to add my touch of sarcasm or I just wouldn't be me. :blushing:
Well, yeah, it's an absolute valid point - she may just be lying her a** off and trying to make her story fit the evidence...she may be (probably is) guilty.

I've never said Darlie is innocent - I just believe that there was reasonable doubt at the end of that trial...what Darlie said during an episode of 48 Hours is irrelevant as far as the trial goes...

Don't be sorry about your sarcasm! I'm the same way!

[Fritzy's Mom]

Darlie's aunt Sandy was taking notes in the courtroom each day, and shared the testimony with her sister, Sherry Moses. That's a no-no. Sherry was on the witness list, and was instructed not to discuss trial proceedings with anyone. But she did, and even admitted it. When Sherry took the stand, it was obvious that she altered her testimony in Darlie's favor.

Sherry testified that she saw "bruising on her (Darlie's) arm, that was just covering her arm" when she visited her in the hospital. That was clearly a lie, unless we believe that seven doctors and nurses missed seeing those same bruises.
Oooooooh, I don't believe I've read that testimony! Sherry Moses, huh? I'll have to take a look...

So it goes both ways. Potential witnesses aren't kept in solitary confinement until they testify. They go on with their lives, their jobs, and yes, they gossip. In the end, jurors consider the source and ya know what else? I think they really do use those scales!
Well, I'm not so much concerned with the defense witnesses as I am with the prosecution's...

If the state is going to ask a jury to take someone's life, I believe it has an obligation to conduct itself with the utmost honesty and integrity. That sounds corny, but it's true... If the state feels that it has to "influence" the testimony of its witnesses, then maybe it shouldn't be trying the case...

Happy Friday, FM :)
Thank you! I had a great relaxing long weekend!

[Fritzy's Mom]

I would swear that I see the formation of early bruising on the arm with stitches, and her elbow is definitely all swollen.
Sorry, hon! I think it's your monitor! I looked - really looked - for the beginning of bruising, and I just don't see it. :( I know that Darin has said repeatedly that the nurses were constantly commenting about Darlie's bruises and I've always thought that Darin comes across as basically an honest guy, so I really can't figure that out. If the bruises were self-inflicted, I believe that Darin played a role in it, so maybe he's just a motivated (good!) liar.

The pictures of Devon are vividly clear - HORRIFYING!
I know it. Sickening.

If not a death penalty offense, none are.
Agreed.

... but if I had to look at his picture and make an inference about his position when stabbed, I would say he was standing because of all the blood on his underwear.
If she has images in her head of that little boy running away from her, bleeding all over the place and crying, I don't know how she's holding it together... Those images alone would have broken me a long time ago.

One of the haunting things about Damon's picture - those four small (circled in red) punctures in his back. Compared to those fatal deep gashes, it makes me wonder if he were not prodded along by the knife.
If she's that sadistic, then she's just a total mental case and 100% deserving of death.

I just hope those kids went into shock right away...

[accordn2me]

Where is there proof of this happening? I think you've been hearing campfire stories.
PROOF!!?

I can't give you proof, but if testimony is good enough, you can go back and read those two examples I've posted already. The reading will require you to trudge through dismal, embarrassing moments for Mulder. But you just might see why someone who didn't know a thing about the man, before reading this, would think he's a sad excuse for a defense attorney.

[accordn2me]

Do you follow capital murder trials for a living?
No, not for a living.

If not, I find it hard to believe that you could compare Mulder to many other attorneys.
I have sat through a few trials, not the least of which was for the man who murdered my mother. That wasn't a capital murder, though. When I have time in the summers, and we are having high profile murder trials, I will go sit and watch. I have my favorite prosecutors. The defense attorneys are almost always different. Some much better than others. It's fairly easy to spot the unprepared ones - prosecutors and defense.


MANY defense attorneys take cases where they know for a fact that their client is guilty.
MANY have to do it, as in they are appointed by a judge. Appointed attorneys are not allowed to jump ship for trivial reasons, or even if they know their client is guilty. If they could, some defendants wouldn't have a defense attorney to represent them.


Do you think that all those cases where the attorneys ask their client to take a polygraph and then found out that they failed those tests, the attorney would quit the case? Of course not.
I agree. As of this date, polygraph results are not allowed in trials.

Every defendant is, by law, entitled to the best possible defense their attorney can provide them. This case was no exception.
This is why I couldn't be a defense attorney. If I knew my client was guilty, I could not provide them a vigorous defense. Knowing that about myself, I simply wouldn't take a job with the Office of Public Defender. If I were a private attorney, I most definitely would not seek out and convince a client I knew to be guilty to let me defend them.

[cami]

Well, yeah, it's an absolute valid point - she may just be lying her a** off and trying to make her story fit the evidence...she may be (probably is) guilty.

I've never said Darlie is innocent - I just believe that there was reasonable doubt at the end of that trial...what Darlie said during an episode of 48 Hours is irrelevant as far as the trial goes...

Don't be sorry about your sarcasm! I'm the same way!

Of course it's irrelevant. Here's the point. Please allow Darlie to accept the consequences and take responsibility for her actions. I can't accept that she was influenced by someone to write those letters she did from prison or influenced by someone to now say she saw the profile of some man leaving her livingroom. That's a load of bull if you ask me. It's her consciousness of guilt. That's why she keeps changing her intruder.

You may see reasonable doubt from reading the trial transcripts but obviously the jury didn't. Darlie testified in her own defense. The jury got to access her creditibility for themselves.

[Jeana (DP)]

PROOF!!?

I can't give you proof, but if testimony is good enough, you can go back and read those two examples I've posted already. The reading will require you to trudge through dismal, embarrassing moments for Mulder. But you just might see why someone who didn't know a thing about the man, before reading this, would think he's a sad excuse for a defense attorney.


THERE WAS NO MOCK TRIAL. :slap: :slap: :slap: :doh:

[accordn2me]

THERE WAS NO MOCK TRIAL. :slap: :slap: :slap: :doh: not with guys in white powdered wigs and tailcoats....but there was REHEARSING testimony and witnesses. one person may call it "mock trial" one may name it "dress rehearsal" or the newest for me "pep rally"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

[accordn2me]

THERE WAS NO MOCK TRIAL. :slap: :slap: :slap: :doh:
Whatever this was then....

23 Q. Did you ever participate in a mock
24 trial with them?
25 A. We had a meeting, yes.


1 Q. Okay. You call that a meeting?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Where you got up on the witness stand
4 and everybody told their story?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. You did that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How long ago was that?
9 A. Maybe three weeks ago, I'm not really
10 for sure.
11 Q. Okay. Did they critique you after
12 that? I mean, tell you how you did, and tell you where
13 you can improve, and things of that nature?
14 A. They told me I did all right.
15 Q. Okay. Nothing wrong with that.
16 At that time did you hear the 911
17 tape?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Did you hear other officers
20 testify?
21 A. I heard some, yes.
22 Q. Okay. So, you did your part in it,
23 and you did it in a -- did you do it in a courtroom or
24 up in the DA's office, or where did you do it?
25 A. It was up in the courtroom.


1 Q. In a courtroom?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. It wasn't in the District
4 Attorney's office?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. But you got on the witness
7 stand just like you are there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And went through the same thing that
10 you've gone through for the folks here?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Kind of a dress rehearsal, I guess?
13 A. Yes.



11 Q. Okay. So you had a dress rehearsal up
12 in Dallas and another one down here?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. But you came in here and listened to
15 the 911 tape?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. Was -- who else was present at
18 that time?
19 A. Myself and Sergeant Walling and a
20 couple more police officers, and people with the Dallas
21 County DA's office.
22 Q. Okay. Who were the other police
23 officers who were there?
24 A. Sergeant Ward, Sergeant Walling, Steve
25 Ferrie, Steve Wade, and there's probably a couple more I


1 don't remember.
2 Q. Everybody that you were sworn in with
3 the other day, were they all here?
4 A. I believe so, yeah.
5 Q. Okay. And did you discuss your
6 testimony at that time?
7 A. We went over it, yes.
8 Q. Well, I mean, that's the whole purpose
9 in getting together, to kind of go over everybody's
10 testimony.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So you understood what Walling was
13 going to say, and Walling understood what you were going
14 to say, and Ward understood what Walling and Waddell were
15 going to say, and everybody just --
16 A. No, sir, that was not the reason.
17 Q. But that was all done in -- you were
18 present when --
19 A. I was in the same room, yes.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. The reason for me to do it, was to go
22 over my testimony.
23 Q. You -- all right. Now, just so I'm
24 clear, you had gone over with it a number of times up in
25 Dallas, had you not?


1 A. A couple.
2 Q. Well, and you had a hearing where you
3 were under oath just like you are now. You appreciate
4 that, don't you?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. And then you had the dress
7 rehearsal up in Dallas. Right?
8 A. Yes, sir.

[Mary456]

not with guys in white powdered wigs and tailcoats....but there was REHEARSING testimony and witnesses. one person may call it "mock trial" one may name it "dress rehearsal" or the newest for me "pep rally"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

And a weed by any other name is still a weed. Mulder threw out "dress rehearsal" and "mock trial" simply to create reasonable doubt. It was nothing more than semantics; a cheap tactic that didn't work.

Did you notice in the transcript how Mulder made fun of James Cron's eyesight? He implied to the jury that Cron couldn't see well enough to be a CSI. Absurd, yes, but that's what defense lawyers do. When they can't attack the evidence, they attack the people who collected the evidence. Mulder was a master at that.

[accordn2me]

Mulder was a master at that.
No. He wasn't - not in this trial.

Listen and I'll admit...for the most part, I hate defense attorneys. However, I don't have a problem giving them credit where credit is due - when they come up with good arguements and/or strategies. Some defense attorneys, when they stay away from the race card and legal technicalities, can be very impressive in the courtroom. It makes no difference if their defendant is found guilty or not. Indeed, thank goodness jurors are able to see past the smoke and mirrors to reach the right verdict most of the time.

I know you believe that is the case where Darlie is concerned. I have doubts, but so what! Unfortunately for her, I make no difference whatsoever. I do enjoy debating them with y'all here on websleuths as long as it's not aggravating people. :croc:


I won't argue the semantics of "dress rehearsal" vs. "mock trial" vs. "pep rally." I think a better name for those several meetings would be - Memory Altering Exercises. I'm sure there would have been an objection, but Mulder certainly would have better made his point about them had he called them that.

Darlie's real supporters would probably argue with me, but I don't believe the police, investigators, doctors, or nurses lied. I do think their memories, like everyone else's including the neighbors' and Darin's and Darlie's, were altered by discussions with each other. The constant replaying of one's mental tapes, along with comparasions of one's own tapes to those of others', and discussions to reconcile them all, for both sides, does cause people to confuse the truth.

Was Darin wearing pants and/or glasses when he first came down stairs?

What really woke him, a glass breaking or Darlie screaming? (go figure!)

Was Darin inside or in the yard when the officer arrived?

Was the front door locked or unlocked?

There are hundreds of questions like those for which the answers may never be known. Darlie and Darin gave hasty, handwritten statements after several hours of questioning, as their family and friends were waiting for them for viewing of the bodies, only two days after this mind-blowing tragedy. To be asked a mere 10 days later if they wanted to change their statements.....why would anyone assume the fog and confusion from blood loss, surgery, drugs, let alone such a tragedy, would be gone. How could anyone expect to get an exact accounting of the events from someone who had experienced such?

I don't expect it, so when I read different "versions" I don't automatically think, AHA - you're a liar! This goes for police, nurses/doctors, and other witnesses, as well as Darlie and Darin. I have to decide which of two, or more, different versions should get more weight, and why. Is the very first thing that comes out of a witness' mouth the truth....not necessarily. Is the 16th version more accurate than the first ones, probably not. By the time you have gone through it by yourself, with each and everyone else - especially a defense attorney - and sat in jail long enough for any normal person to have gone insane, I think it's safe to assume that these accountings are not to be given much weight at all.

The same goes for witnesses who have sat through numerous Memory-Altering Exercises with prosecutors. ;)

[Fritzy's Mom]

Was he regarded by his peers as a top notch attorney? YES.So was Geragos. An excellent reputation doesn't necessarily guarantee an excellent defense, though.

Mulder may indeed be a fine attorney, but this case certainly was not one of his strongest performances.

Hell, Leslie Abramson and Jill Lansing were able to get a hung jury for Erik and Lyle Menendez, and there was no question whatsoever that those two were guilty (they confessed for God's sake!). That's a strong performance.

Johnnie Cochran got O.J. Simpson off in light of overwhelming evidence, including DNA that put him on the scene. That's a strong performance.

Robert Blake's attorney got him off despite the fact that Blake only asked about one bizillion people to kill his wife for him prior to the murder. That's a strong performance.

Mulder couldn't even keep Darlie, a white, pretty, well-to-do, somewhat sympathetic woman off death row. That's not a strong performance...

Was he the attorney who pioneered these 'pep rallys' (as you can all them) in the area.Actually, to be fair to Accordin2me, I am the one who used the term "pep rally." Accordin' has been pretty consistent that what occurred was, in fact, a mock trial, and she has supplied testimonial evidence (twice now) of same...

Personally, I have no problem with the prosecution or the defense preparing witnesses for trial - whether it be accomplished through a "meeting" or "mock trial" or whatever... I just question the gathering of witnesses together at the hotel on the eve of trial to further "prepare" them. At that point, I'm not sure how much actual "preparation" could take place - not the right place, not enough time. It seems to me, the purpose of that get together was not so much actual preparation as it was psychological encouragement...

How in the hell is it easier to believe that Mulder just completely dropped the ball on this case in a way which is completely inconsistent with his track record, reputation and the context of this very high profile case than it is to understand that were were reasons why he didn't present certain evidence at trial, reasons why he some of the things he did or didn't do don't make complete sense to us.... incriminating reasons.Do you think Darlie knew enough about forensic science to know that doctors could determine that the slash on her throat was made by someone using their left hand?

Why, if Darlie butchered her sons, were there only 4 spots of blood on her nightshirt?

What motive was there for Darlie to murder her children?

What about the black car that several witnesses saw?

What is the exact timeline for the murder of the children, placement of the sock, the self-infliction of wounds and the staging of the crime scene?

Did you know that there were similar break-ins in the Dallas area prior to this one? Break-ins where an intruder took a sock from the home and placed it in the victim's mouth...

Why didn't Mulder do a better job of investigating some of the prosecution star witnesses? Why is it that we've come to learn that the fiber expert (the one who testified he found screen fibers on one of the knives) is actually a mentally unstable alcoholic whose work was unreliable, to say the least...

I could go on, but I think I've made my point... There were lots of areas ripe for exploitation by Mulder (see the Menendez trial) - areas that could have amounted to reasonable doubt if properly presented. Mulder didn't, IMO, do it - not effectively anyway.

[Fritzy's Mom]

In that very one sentence you have annihilated all integrity of around a dozen individuals who you don't even know- individuals whose job it was to serve and protect and to care and heal and who have no reason to as a group decide to colluide and lie to make their testimonies sound the same. You've also cast grave aspersions of the integrity of Greg Davis and the other DA team. You have obviously made up your mind that it was a big giant conspiracy to put an innocent woman in jail.
Nobody has "annihilated the integrity" of witnesses (except Denise Faulk, who, I believe, does lack integrity - and I've stated my reason why) and no one has suggested a "conspiracy" exists. Where has anyone "cast grave aspesions on the integrity" of Greg Davis or Toby Shook?!

Why are you making such inflammatory statements? Why are you so angered by people who disagree with you? No offense, but reading some of your stuff makes me think you're a little too emotional to rationally consider what other people have to say...

[Fritzy's Mom]

Dr. Dillawn testified that Darlie's neck wound was about 10 cm long, so maybe Pardo confused centimeters with inches. Btw, I was wrong...Darlie's neck wound was only about 4" long, not 8. Despite what some people say, I don't have the transcript memorized, lol! Where he came up with 3/4" deep is anyone's guess. In his dreams, maybe?



No one contradicted Dillawn's and Santos' testimony that the knife did not penetrate Darlie's bone. And remember, this bone is very, very close to the surface in that part of the arm. Mulder wasn't a fool. He wasn't about to refute that testimony, because x-rays would have proven him wrong.



There's no focus notes or testimony about Darlie's mouth pain or bruises, because she didn't complain of mouth pain and there were no bruises while she was in the hospital. Sorry to hear you're so distrustful of Mulder, one of the best defense attorneys in Texas. Perhaps Darlie should have gone out of state & hired Geragos.
Thanks for that info...I guess I would have to give our little journalist an A for effort and enthusiasm and an F for factuality!

As for hiring another attorney, there are a few I can think of who probably would have done a better job than Mulder - the facts of this case just aren't, IMO, overwhelming enough to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt... She should have hired Rae Carruth's attorney - that guy was impressive!

[Fritzy's Mom]

I have sat through a few trials, not the least of which was for the man who murdered my mother.
OMG! I'm very sorry for you.

[Fritzy's Mom]

You may see reasonable doubt from reading the trial transcripts but obviously the jury didn't. Darlie testified in her own defense. The jury got to access her creditibility for themselves.Well, Mulder should not have allowed this to happen...Most defendants want to take the stand and proclaim their innocence. Good defense attorneys convince them not to when it will be detrimental...No matter how insistent Darlie was, Mulder should have been more so!

[Fritzy's Mom]

When they can't attack the evidence, they attack the people who collected the evidence. Mulder was a master at that.
Not exactly a "master," I'd say...Instead of worrying about Cron's eyesight, he should have been focusing on the unstable mental health and alcoholism of Mr. fiber expert...

[Fritzy's Mom]

I do enjoy debating them with y'all here on websleuths as long as it's not aggravating people. :croc:
Me too! I can't understand why people get so upset - it's just a chat board, for God's sake!

I won't argue the semantics of "dress rehearsal" vs. "mock trial" vs. "pep rally." I think a better name for those several meetings would be - Memory Altering Exercises. I'm sure there would have been an objection, but Mulder certainly would have better made his point about them had he called them that.
Yep!

Darlie's real supporters would probably argue with me, but I don't believe the police, investigators, doctors, or nurses lied. I do think their memories, like everyone else's including the neighbors' and Darin's and Darlie's, were altered by discussions with each other. The constant replaying of one's mental tapes, along with comparasions of one's own tapes to those of others', and discussions to reconcile them all, for both sides, does cause people to confuse the truth.
Yep again!

Was Darin wearing pants and/or glasses when he first came down stairs?

What really woke him, a glass breaking or Darlie screaming? (go figure!)

Was Darin inside or in the yard when the officer arrived?

Was the front door locked or unlocked?

There are hundreds of questions like those for which the answers may never be known. Darlie and Darin gave hasty, handwritten statements after several hours of questioning, as their family and friends were waiting for them for viewing of the bodies, only two days after this mind-blowing tragedy. To be asked a mere 10 days later if they wanted to change their statements.....why would anyone assume the fog and confusion from blood loss, surgery, drugs, let alone such a tragedy, would be gone. How could anyone expect to get an exact accounting of the events from someone who had experienced such?

I don't expect it, so when I read different "versions" I don't automatically think, AHA - you're a liar! This goes for police, nurses/doctors, and other witnesses, as well as Darlie and Darin. I have to decide which of two, or more, different versions should get more weight, and why. Is the very first thing that comes out of a witness' mouth the truth....not necessarily. Is the 16th version more accurate than the first ones, probably not. By the time you have gone through it by yourself, with each and everyone else - especially a defense attorney - and sat in jail long enough for any normal person to have gone insane, I think it's safe to assume that these accountings are not to be given much weight at all.

The same goes for witnesses who have sat through numerous Memory-Altering Exercises with prosecutors. ;)
Excellent!

[Jeana (DP)]

not with guys in white powdered wigs and tailcoats....but there was REHEARSING testimony and witnesses. one person may call it "mock trial" one may name it "dress rehearsal" or the newest for me "pep rally"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.


NO, they do NOT call it a "mock trial." Its called preparing one's witness.

[Jeana (DP)]

Whatever this was then....

23 Q. Did you ever participate in a mock
24 trial with them?
25 A. We had a meeting, yes.


1 Q. Okay. You call that a meeting?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Where you got up on the witness stand
4 and everybody told their story?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. You did that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How long ago was that?
9 A. Maybe three weeks ago, I'm not really
10 for sure.
11 Q. Okay. Did they critique you after
12 that? I mean, tell you how you did, and tell you where
13 you can improve, and things of that nature?
14 A. They told me I did all right.
15 Q. Okay. Nothing wrong with that.
16 At that time did you hear the 911
17 tape?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Did you hear other officers
20 testify?
21 A. I heard some, yes.
22 Q. Okay. So, you did your part in it,
23 and you did it in a -- did you do it in a courtroom or
24 up in the DA's office, or where did you do it?
25 A. It was up in the courtroom.


1 Q. In a courtroom?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. It wasn't in the District
4 Attorney's office?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. But you got on the witness
7 stand just like you are there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And went through the same thing that
10 you've gone through for the folks here?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Kind of a dress rehearsal, I guess?
13 A. Yes.



11 Q. Okay. So you had a dress rehearsal up
12 in Dallas and another one down here?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. But you came in here and listened to
15 the 911 tape?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. Was -- who else was present at
18 that time?
19 A. Myself and Sergeant Walling and a
20 couple more police officers, and people with the Dallas
21 County DA's office.
22 Q. Okay. Who were the other police
23 officers who were there?
24 A. Sergeant Ward, Sergeant Walling, Steve
25 Ferrie, Steve Wade, and there's probably a couple more I


1 don't remember.
2 Q. Everybody that you were sworn in with
3 the other day, were they all here?
4 A. I believe so, yeah.
5 Q. Okay. And did you discuss your
6 testimony at that time?
7 A. We went over it, yes.
8 Q. Well, I mean, that's the whole purpose
9 in getting together, to kind of go over everybody's
10 testimony.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So you understood what Walling was
13 going to say, and Walling understood what you were going
14 to say, and Ward understood what Walling and Waddell were
15 going to say, and everybody just --
16 A. No, sir, that was not the reason.
17 Q. But that was all done in -- you were
18 present when --
19 A. I was in the same room, yes.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. The reason for me to do it, was to go
22 over my testimony.
23 Q. You -- all right. Now, just so I'm
24 clear, you had gone over with it a number of times up in
25 Dallas, had you not?


1 A. A couple.
2 Q. Well, and you had a hearing where you
3 were under oath just like you are now. You appreciate
4 that, don't you?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. And then you had the dress
7 rehearsal up in Dallas. Right?
8 A. Yes, sir.



SINCE YOU POSTED THIS, THEN YOU KNOW IT WAS NOT A MOCK TRIAL.

[Dani_T]

Why are you making such inflammatory statements? Why are you so angered by people who disagree with you? No offense, but reading some of your stuff makes me think you're a little too emotional to rationally consider what other people have to say...

LOL

That's OK- you don't know me and words on a screen are easy to miscontrue.

Trust me, I've argued this case long enough with people who disagree with me to not get emotional about it or to be angered by people who disagree. The discussion on this board is nothing in those stakes compared to what some of us have been involved in in the past.

In terms of discussing it rationally- I think I am more that capable of doing that and have done nothing but that on this thread. Frustration doesn't equal irrationality.

I'm sorry if you read my statements as inflammatory- but I'm only responding to claims such as the one that all the doctors, cops and nurses (along with the prosecutors) got together to collude on their answers, to refine their answers and practice at doing it until their own original testimonies were altered to match each others.

I find that offensive and I do believe that it basically says that none of those individuals (who have dedicated their vocations to helping me) have any integrity.

You only have do to a quick google search on terms like 'rehearse testimony prosecution laywer' to read that it is not only common practice and allowable by the American Justice system but is even outright encouraged by some.

As we've said already on this thread- Mulder was the individual who started the practice of these 'mock trials' or pep rally's or whatever it is you want to call them. Do you honestly think he didn't get his own witnesses together??? And why then can we not doubt all their testimony as being conspired in the same way you are doubting that of the nuses, doctors and cops?

[Jeana (DP)]

Here's a website explaining how a "mock trial" is conducted:

http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/bkshelf/resource/mt_conduct.htm

[Dani_T]

So was Geragos. An excellent reputation doesn't necessarily guarantee an excellent defense, though.

Yes- but a poor defense doesn't necessarily guarantee a poor lawyer (or one who for some reason just completely dropped the ball). You're assuming that Mulder did a poor job on this case by not following every possible lead because he didn't make a big deal about them in court. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason he didn't make a big deal about them in court is because there was nothing to make a big deal about?

This is all I am saying:
1) he had an excellent track record and very good reputation
2) this was perhaps the biggest case he had to date
3) he had no reason to decide to do a poor job of representing Darlie and in fact he must have known poor representation could only harm his career
4) Darlie supporters claim that he didn't follow up on certain leads/evidence

I just don't understand why you are so quick to ignore 1, 2 and 3 and not factor them into your thinking on this. He had no reason at all to drop the ball on this case. Is it really that hard to believe, or in fact unreasonable to believe that there is reasons why he didn't do certain things both prior to trial or at trial... because he was looking out for the best interestes of the client.

Mulder couldn't even keep Darlie, a white, pretty, well-to-do, somewhat sympathetic woman off death row. That's not a strong performance...
Mulder couldn't do it because the evidence was piled up against her... not because he didn't turn on the 'Richard Gere in Chicago Razzle Dazzle'. No matter how good a defense attorney you may be- if the evidence is against your client it's against your client.

And I don't think Darlie was sympathetic at all. From all reports no one in the court-room was able to relate to her stoney-faced appearance throughout the entire trial. Very few people were able to relate to the way she behaved in the days and weeks after the murders. I don't think she was a sympathetic witness at all. In fact I think Mulder had his work cut out for him big-time when it came to her.

Personally, I have no problem with the prosecution or the defense preparing witnesses for trial - whether it be accomplished through a "meeting" or "mock trial" or whatever... I just question the gathering of witnesses together at the hotel on the eve of trial to further "prepare" them. At that point, I'm not sure how much actual "preparation" could take place - not the right place, not enough time. It seems to me, the purpose of that get together was not so much actual preparation as it was psychological encouragement...
Pyschological encouragement to what? Lie? Conspire to put an innocent woman in jail? Do you think that Mulder just let his own witnesses turn up on the day without going over their testimony with them either earlier that day or the night before?

And even if the prosectution had an underhanded motive (and I don't see how you can leap to that conclusion) how do you go from that to the testimony of all these people being unreliable?

Do you think Darlie knew enough about forensic science to know that doctors could determine that the slash on her throat was made by someone using their left hand?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here- but yes- I don't think it is rocket science to realise that a cut you would make with your left hand would look quite different to a cut you would make with your right. You've only got to mimic the actions to realise that.

Why, if Darlie butchered her sons, were there only 4 spots of blood on her nightshirt?

Because, as per the testimony, the boys wounds were not spurting blood out. They oozed blood (it was only when Darin did CPR that he claims Devon's wound started spraying blood). Furthermore those blood spots are entirely consistent with someone making overhand stabbing motions with a bloody knife.

And I'm not sure how you can say that Darlie's defense team didn't try to follow up on the state's theory about the blood drops since Bevel is cross examined at least 3 times in his testimony, and at great length each time, about the blood drops and the experiments he did to try and replicate them (and the CPR expirated blood scenario).

What motive was there for Darlie to murder her children?

I think this weakens your argument. The prosecutions weakest point in the case was motive (IMHO) and Mulder certainly pursued that angle- both directly and by discrediting all the motives which the prosecution put forward. The evidence convicted Darlie despite the difficulty with understand motive (which was not necessary to prove). Mulder and his team did everything they could to prove that Darlie didn't have motive. They didn't simply ignore the issue.

What about the black car that several witnesses saw?
The black car which was thoroughly searched on the night or the random black cars driving down the street that suddenly became suspicious? And for the record Mulder did try to follow the lead of the black/dark cars - Vol 41 and 42 for example.

What is the exact timeline for the murder of the children, placement of the sock, the self-infliction of wounds and the staging of the crime scene?

It was shown in court that Darlie could have quite easily done all of this in the time period she had. Mulder refuted as best he could in cross examination regarding the paramedics, the 911 call etc. Again, he didn't just ignore it. And on the topic- there actually wasn't a lot of staging done at all. There was a fair amount of clean up down in the kitchen sink but staging after the fact is pretty much limited to knocking over the coffee table and lamp shade (and who knows but that may have happened during the commission of the crime anyway).

Did you know that there were similar break-ins in the Dallas area prior to this one? Break-ins where an intruder took a sock from the home and placed it in the victim's mouth...
More info please. Are you referring to the woman who wrote the affidavit not long ago?


Why didn't Mulder do a better job of investigating some of the prosecution star witnesses? Why is it that we've come to learn that the fiber expert (the one who testified he found screen fibers on one of the knives) is actually a mentally unstable alcoholic whose work was unreliable, to say the least...

Oh boy. Now you really have hit one of my buttons.

Could you please give us your evidence for saying that Charlies Linch was a mentally unstable alcoholic whose work (specifically regarding the Routier case) was unreliable to say the least. You know you just accused me of making inflammatory statements but I'm pretty certain that's the most inflammatory one I have heard so far. In fact it probably borders on slander.

There is absolutely no evidence that Charlies Linch was mentally unstable specifically at the time of the Routier trial. Nor is there any evidence that he was abusing alcohol at the time (I wish I could find the article from a few years back about him but from memory his committment for alcoholism was a number of years before- and was brought on during his work at the site of an air disaster). Linch claims that he was definitely not drinking at the time of the Routier trial. And there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that his work on the Routier trial was unreliable. Period.

If you want to make claims like that about someone you'll need to back it up with some facts.


I could go on, but I think I've made my point... There were lots of areas ripe for exploitation by Mulder (see the Menendez trial) - areas that could have amounted to reasonable doubt if properly presented. Mulder didn't, IMO, do it - not effectively anyway.

Well we will have to agree to disagree because in my reading of the transcripts darlie's defense team did follow up and present on all these leads you have mentioned.

[accordn2me]

As for hiring another attorney, there are a few I can think of who probably would have done a better job than Mulder - the facts of this case just aren't, IMO, overwhelming enough to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt... She should have hired Rae Carruth's attorney - that guy was impressive!
She should have stuck with her public defenders.

Even elementary school students who haven't had the experience of Mock Trials

couldn't have done any worse than her $100,000+ defense.

[Jeana (DP)]

She should have stuck with her public defenders.

Even elementary school students who haven't had the experience of Mock Trials

couldn't have done any worse than her $100,000+ defense.



That's ridiculous. An attorney can only do so much. Remember the Westerfield trial?????? David, as Darlie did before him, was his OWN WORST enemy.

How about if we quit blaming the EMS team, the cops, the nurses, the doctor, the friends, the neighbors, the experts, the FBI, the attorneys, the jury, the media (who did I leave out?) . . . and START putting the blame where it belongs - directly on the shoulders of Darlie Routier.

[Dani_T]

That's ridiculous. An attorney can only do so much. Remember the Westerfield trial?????? David, as Darlie did before him, was his OWN WORST enemy.

How about if we quit blaming the EMS team, the cops, the nurses, the doctor, the friends, the neighbors, the experts, the FBI, the attorneys, the jury, the media (who did I leave out?) . . . and START putting the blame where it belongs - directly on the shoulders of Darlie Routier.

And they all said Amen.

[Jeana (DP)]

And they all said Amen.


Thank you~!!!!


For our friends (from the link):

Participants:

Judge (could be a visitor to class with legal experience), prosecutor(s) or plaintiff's attorney(s) in a civil case defense attorney(s), Witnesses for the prosecution, witnesses for the defense, bailiff (swears in witnesses and marks evidence), Jury composed of twelve persons, one of whom should be named jury foreman; alternates may also be designated.


IF ONLY PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE THERE; OR
IF ONLY DEFENSE WITNESSES ARE THERE,
its called
WITNESS PREPARATION

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Mary456]

[QUOTE=Jeana (DP) How about if we quit blaming the EMS team, the cops, the nurses, the doctor, the friends, the neighbors, the experts, the FBI, the attorneys, the jury, the media (who did I leave out?) . . . QUOTE]

The 911 operator. Geez, DP, how could you overlook her incompetence? That woman was telephonically challenged :rolleyes:

[Goody]

[/color]

Do you think for one second that had Darlie been some derelict drug addict who had been stabbed in an alley Denise would have notes at home in her safe about the "weird" story she was telling? Of course not. She saw Darlie, a white, well-to-do, pretty suburban housewife who was suspected of stabbing her children, and she KNEW it was going to be big news. Denise Faulk wanted to make sure she was included in the story......
What difference does that make if she wrote only her observations down without intending to railroad Darlie? Isn't the issue whether the nurse's notes were factual or not, not whether she had a right to write them down or not?

[/color]



Not when the police have told you that that mother is a suspect...then, of course, everything she does is called into question. If the police had not let on that Darlie was a suspect, Denise would probably have written notes about how pitiful and devastated Darlie was. Her intent here was to make herself important in this case, and nothing more.........

How do you know that the police told her that Darlie was a suspect? I don't think Denise was even on duty when Darlie was first questioned by police, and I don't recall any testimony about the police telling any of the nurses that Darlie was a suspect. So on what are you basing your position on this on?

[/color]

Darlie was on trial for her life. Denise's BS, nosy, "I'm going to make this all about me" attitude from the get-go was inexcusable. She swore to God to tell the truth. Mulder should have left her in tears.



Because that's what the police told them...



That's not the point!!! The point is that nobody at Baylor needed to have this type of in-depth information!!!



The fact that they didn't let Darlie in on their suspicions means nothing (you know that!)... ......
It seems to me that your argument is one that promotes covering up what a witness might see and hear unless he or she is a cop and it IS her job to investigate. I don't get your complaint about Denise unless you are arguing for the defense, who would have an interest in none of the nurses being allowed to testify about anything they saw that was not favorable to the defendant. I hope that is not your position.




But it did play a part in her conviction. All this kind of stuff adds up... ......
It is supposed to. I don't get your concern about it. I am sure not all the jurors viewed it in the same way. I, for one, did not put much emphasis on most of what the nurses had to say about Darlie's emotions. Mostly because it didn't matter. She could have been in hysterics and it wouldn't prove whether she killed them or not. Susan Smith gave the best tearful performance I have ever seen and she confessed to killing her children. I thought the importance of the nurses' testimonies was their quotes about what Darlie said, their observations of family members and her interactions with them, and how those things compared to what other witnesses said who had no connection to the nurses. Some of what they said was supported that way.

[/color]So the fact that a nurse might have wanted to gain her ten minutes of fame on the heels of a local high profile murder case didn't really matter to me. That is a side issue that can't determine guilt or innocence.

[/color]
It's hard to judge just how credible some of this testimony was, though - reading it is certainly not the same as seeing it in person. Like I said (on paper anyway) Mulder just seemed to let too many of these people get off the stand without doing much to explore their motivations and bias. ......
It is okay for a witness to believe someone guilty or innocent. Attys cannot control that. What matters is the truthfulness of their testimony. We don't always get that, but most people do a pretty good job seeing thru the smoke screens some witnesses throw up. I doubt very seriously that any witness could sway all 12 jurors with gossipy slantings or biased observations. I expect that some of the jurors threw out some of the nurses' statements just like I did.

See, I just didn't see that much testimony that was that devasting to her character...

Aside from the medical testimony (which I almost entirely discount), there was:

1. the story about her teasing/being mean to Barbara Jovell's mother;
2. the suicide drama; and
3. the silly string incident.

The first two are pretty much no big deal - we've all been mean at one time or another in our lives and lots of women do the suicide thing to get attention (to Darlie's credit here, I do think she had some genuine postpartum depression going on). And, since the silly string incident occurred after the stabbings, it really should not have been considered as part of her character that led up to the stabbings (does that make sense?!)..........[/QUOTE]
Yes.


Yet, the silly string video is what killed her...
Did it? The jury did look at it several times, so they were looking for something. My guess is they were looking for some sign of grief. Maybe a flicker of pain in her eyes, and they didn't find it. What was far more telling to me was the TV interview made right after the silly string party. No flickers there either.

But all that aside, the bottom line in murder cases is always the forensics. What did you do with the blood evidence against her? The screen fiber in the knife block?

[Goody]

Well, Mulder should not have allowed this to happen...Most defendants want to take the stand and proclaim their innocence. Good defense attorneys convince them not to when it will be detrimental...No matter how insistent Darlie was, Mulder should have been more so!
It is the client's choice, not the attys. The atty can only advise, but if his client insists he has no choice but to accept it.

[Goody]

Not exactly a "master," I'd say...Instead of worrying about Cron's eyesight, he should have been focusing on the unstable mental health and alcoholism of Mr. fiber expert...
Let me see if I get this right? You don't need any evidence that he got anything wrong, but just by virtue that he suffered in his lifetime from alcoholism, the court should throw all of his evidence out?

[Dani_T]

[QUOTE=Jeana (DP) How about if we quit blaming the EMS team, the cops, the nurses, the doctor, the friends, the neighbors, the experts, the FBI, the attorneys, the jury, the media (who did I leave out?) . . . QUOTE]

The 911 operator. Geez, DP, how could you overlook her incompetence? That woman was telephonically challenged :rolleyes:

Barry Dickey <--- just a glorified DJ
James Cron <--- 'he made up in mind in 2 minutes. No make that 20 seconds'
Charles Linch <--- mentally unstable alcoholic who couldn't do his job
Tom Bevel <--- Tom who? I ignored his whole testimony

[Goody]

Barry Dickey <--- just a glorified DJ
James Cron <--- 'he made up in mind in 2 minutes. No make that 20 seconds'
Charles Linch <--- mentally unstable alcoholic who couldn't do his job
Tom Bevel <--- Tom who? I ignored his whole testimony
Geez, this is starting to sound like Jeffisms. One of his fans maybe?

[accordn2me]

Here's a website explaining how a "mock trial" is conducted:

http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/bkshelf/resource/mt_conduct.htm
And the context is:

how to prepare for and conduct mock trials in the classroom

and

how to conduct mock trial competitions with other classes and schools.

The mock trial has proven to be an effective learning tool for elementary and secondary school students.

TYPES OF MOCK TRIALS

...formats range from free-wheeling activities where rules are created by the student participants (sometimes on the spot).....

HMMMM.......:waitasec:

to dramatic reenactments.... :clap:

Student attorneys should develop questions to ask their own witnesses and rehearse their direct examination with these witnesses. Witnesses should become thoroughly familiar with their witness statements so that their testimony will not be inconsistent with their witness statements. (These statements which may be considered to be sworn to pretrial depositions or affidavits, can be used by the other side to impeach a witness who testifies inconsistently with the statement.)

During cross-examination the attorneys for the defendant might try to suggest that the testimony of the State's witnesses is inconsistent.

But that might be kinda hard to do when the witnesses have rehearsed with each other enough times. Another approach for the defense attorney would be to point out that so many witnesses, all saying exactly the same thing, should be viewed MORE critically than witnesses who have minor inconsistencies with each other.

[accordn2me]

Thank you~!!!!


For our friends (from the link):

Participants:

Judge (could be a visitor to class with legal experience), prosecutor(s) or plaintiff's attorney(s) in a civil case defense attorney(s), Witnesses for the prosecution, witnesses for the defense, bailiff (swears in witnesses and marks evidence), Jury composed of twelve persons, one of whom should be named jury foreman; alternates may also be designated.


IF ONLY PROSECUTION WITNESSES ARE THERE; OR
IF ONLY DEFENSE WITNESSES ARE THERE,
its called
WITNESS PREPARATION

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
JEANA! Stop banging your head right now, missy! :slap:

If you would have just explained that Greg Davis conducted mock trials to help "students develop useful knowledge about the law, questioning techniques, critical thinking, and oral advocacy skills," and told us you wanted us to call it WITNESS PREPARATION so people wouldn't confuse the two, we would have done that for you, honey. :blowkiss:

Here, have a couple asprin...they're on me. :crazy:

[accordn2me]

Sorry, hon! I think it's your monitor! I looked - really looked - for the beginning of bruising, and I just don't see it. :( I know that Darin has said repeatedly that the nurses were constantly commenting about Darlie's bruises and I've always thought that Darin comes across as basically an honest guy, so I really can't figure that out. If the bruises were self-inflicted, I believe that Darin played a role in it, so maybe he's just a motivated (good!) liar.
Fritzy's MOM! Look one more time.... gallary07 at the justicefordarlie site. The very first picture of Darlie in ICU, you can see what appears to be a large scratch or something on her face. I just noticed that! The picture where they put the large red arrows, she's lying in the hospital bed...look at the arm that was stabbed. It could be my monitor, or shadows, but when you look at those later pictures - after she was discharged, probably in the police station - you definitely see bruising in that very spot. So, that's why I think it's just starting to bruise in the hospital bed.

NONE of the nurses' or doctors' handwritten notes from the hospital stay mentioned any bruises at all?

Did :loser: Mulder even look?

[accordn2me]

Not exactly a "master," I'd say...Instead of worrying about Cron's eyesight, he should have been focusing on the unstable mental health and alcoholism of Mr. fiber expert...
Or Mulder could have focused on the print BRUSH which was used to dust the (ultimately undetermined) prints on or around the window where the screen had been cut, AND the knives from the block.

Could a person reasonably doubt that a single fiber could have been transferred?

Could a person reasonably doubt that a single blonde hair found in that particular screen would not belong to the blonde woman who happened to live in the house because of police contamination?

[Dani_T]

Or Mulder could have focused on the print BRUSH which was used to dust the (ultimately undetermined) prints on or around the window where the screen had been cut, AND the knives from the block.

Could a person reasonably doubt that a single fiber could have been transferred?
Are you suggesting that the officer brushed the screen picking up a fibre then and then proceeded to brush everything else between it and the knife block (which would have taken hours) and then a single screen fibre just happened to drop onto the knife block?

Even if we were to suspend all disbelief and imagine that was even remotely reasonable and that the micrscopic fibreglass rod was identical to the fibres from the fingerprint brush (of which there is no evidence) then it still doesn't explain the seperate microscopic rubber debris on the knife which exactly matched the rubber coating on the screen.

To explain that you have to say that the brush ALSO picked up the rubber debris fom the screen and deposited at exactly the same time hours later on the exact same knife as the fibreglass rod was deposited.

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about running with those combined theories.

[Mary456]

"Barry Dickey <--- just a glorified DJ"

Yep, what a loser. Just another wannabe who couldn't make it to American Bandstand. Is it any wonder that he took his bitterness out on Darlie?

"James Cron <--- 'he made up his in mind in 2 minutes. No make that 20 seconds"

Make that 10 seconds. As soon as he got out of bed and looked in the mirror, he knew it was going to be a bad hair day. Bad hair days make people mean and more likely than usual to send an innocent mother to death row.

"Charles Linch <--- mentally unstable alcoholic who couldn't do his job."

The defense waited six years to bring this out, because they didn't want to hurt his feelings during the trial. They feared a relapse.

"Tom Bevel <--- Tom who? I ignored his whole testimony"

I think he's quite well known as a forensic expert, but let's face it, we all have our shortcomings:

James Cron's beard went haywire, Dickey suffered from a hearing loss, Linch had a two-year old hangover, and Tom doesn't know if he's Dick or Harry.


:rolleyes:

[Dani_T]

"Barry Dickey <--- just a glorified DJ"

Yep, what a loser. Just another wannabe who couldn't make it to American Bandstand. Is it any wonder that he took his bitterness out on Darlie?

"James Cron <--- 'he made up his in mind in 2 minutes. No make that 20 seconds"

Make that 10 seconds. As soon as he got out of bed and looked in the mirror, he knew it was going to be a bad hair day. Bad hair days make people mean and more likely than usual to send an innocent mother to death row.

"Charles Linch <--- mentally unstable alcoholic who couldn't do his job."

The defense waited six years to bring this out, because they didn't want to hurt his feelings during the trial. They feared a relapse.

"Tom Bevel <--- Tom who? I ignored his whole testimony"

I think he's quite well known as a forensic expert, but let's face it, we all have our shortcomings:

James Cron's beard went haywire, Dickey suffered from a hearing loss, Linch had a two-year old hangover, and Tom doesn't know if he's Dick or Harry.


:rolleyes:
:laugh: :laugh:

[accordn2me]

Are you suggesting that the officer brushed the screen picking up a fibre then and then proceeded to brush everything else between it and the knife block (which would have taken hours) and then a single screen fibre just happened to drop onto the knife block?

Even if we were to suspend all disbelief and imagine that was even remotely reasonable and that the micrscopic fibreglass rod was identical to the fibres from the fingerprint brush (of which there is no evidence) then it still doesn't explain the seperate microscopic rubber debris on the knife which exactly matched the rubber coating on the screen.

To explain that you have to say that the brush ALSO picked up the rubber debris fom the screen and deposited at exactly the same time hours later on the exact same knife as the fibreglass rod was deposited.

There is absolutely nothing reasonable about running with those combined theories.
The jury never heard from forensic experts Terry Laber and Barton Epstein, who were retained by Petitioner’s appointed counsel – both of whom were identified by name in the State’s closing arguments as witnesses the defense never called to rebut Linch and Bevel’s testimony. Laber and Epstein had reached conclusions contrary to the State’s experts before trial that could have been presented to the jury in Petitioner’s defense. Substitute defense counsel, who was conflicted because of an agreement not to implicate Darin Routier (see Routier Aff. ¶ 7) , decided not to use the exculpatory evidence or to conduct further scientific tests – at a time when he was not familiar with the facts of the case. At the time they were instructed to stop working on the case, Laber and Epstein had conducted a number of scientific tests on the physical evidence about which Linch and Bevel had testified at trial and had recommended additional testing on other physical evidence. Laber and Epstein’s conclusions in October 1996 were that the physical evidence did not suggest a staged crime scene, which directly contradicted the testimony of Linch and Bevel. See generally Terry L. Laber Affidavit (“Laber Aff.”).

Fiber on Knife No. 4/Garage Window Screen:

The jury never learned that before Linch tested Knife Number 4, the kitchen knives recovered from 5801 Eagle Drive already had been dusted for fingerprints using a fiberglass brush composed of the same material as the fiber removed from that knife. No definitive tests were conducted to determine the source of the fiber. Linch could testify only that the fiber was “consistent” with the garage screen window (See C.R.R. Vol. 37, pp. 144:17-145:6); he had reached a similar conclusion about a hair found in the same garage window screen that he opined was “consistent” with Petitioner’s hair. See C.R.R. Vol. 37 p. 184:8-13. In fact, DNA testing determined that he was wrong (See C.R.R. Vol. 37, pp. 183:22-184:2). Laber and Epstein recommended that definitive testing be conducted on the fiber in October 1996. See Laber Aff. ¶ 6. Conflicted defense counsel, however, ignored that advice, and the jury never heard evidence from such testing.

Likewise, the jury was given no evidence regarding a possible alternative source of the fiber Charles Linch said he recovered from Knife Number 4. Linch testified that the fiber was “consistent” with the material from the garage window screen. This testimony invited the jury to infer erroneously that Petitioner had cut the screen herself to create the false exit of the alleged intruder. It was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen. See Palenik Aff. ¶ 4; Second Linch Aff. ¶ 7 (admitting that Knife Number 4 was dusted with fingerprint powder before he tested it). Defense counsel never pursued available scientific analysis to test Linch’s microscopic examination of the origin of the fiber. Undersigned counsel attempted to have the fiber tested to determine its source and composition in time for this filing, but the State refused counsel access to the sample, and the Court last week held that it lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s motion seeking access to that evidence. See Order of July 5, 2002 (“After having reviewed applicant Petitioner’s expedited motion for access to State’s evidence, the State’s response, and applicant’s renewed request for access, as well as having considered the argument of counsel, the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction to consider applicant’s request at this time.”). If defense counsel had presented evidence demonstrating that the knives had been contaminated by the fingerprint dusting that was done before Linch received the knives for testing, counsel could have eliminated the significance attached to that otherwise dramatic piece of scientific evidence. Defense counsel certainly was aware that more precise testing might deflate Linch’s testimony that the knife fiber was “consistent” with the garage window screen. Linch had given similar testimony with respect to a hair that was found in the torn garage window screen which he testified was “microscopically identical” to Petitioner’s hair, further inviting the inference that Petitioner had cut the screen to stage the crime scene. DNA testing, however, determined that the hair found in the screen belonged to Police Officer Sarah Jones. See Charles Linch Testimony, C.R.R. Vol. 37, pp. 183:22-184:2 (“Q. And so, what that shows is, that your microscopic evaluation, although done with the highest technology and with the greatest expertise, later proved, or it was later proved that that head hair was not in fact Darlie Routier’s? A. That’s right.”). In light of Linch’s erroneous conclusion as to the source of the hair recovered from the screen, reasonable defense counsel would have conducted more reliable testing on the knife fiber. Petitioner’s defense counsel did not.

[Dani_T]

The jury never heard from forensic experts Terry Laber and Barton Epstein, who were retained by Petitioner’s appointed counsel – both of whom were identified by name in the State’s closing arguments as witnesses the defense never called to rebut Linch and Bevel’s testimony.

That's interesting because I just did a word search on the closing arguments for the State using 'Laber' and 'Epstein' and there was nothing found. furthermore I don't see how Laber and Epstein could have been called to rebut Linch and Bevel since if you actually read all of Labers affidavit everything he says is pretty much brought up at trial anyway (eg. the wine glass shards, the whole saga of the vaccum cleaner, how the boys blood got on her shirt etc). There is nothing whatsoever earth-shattering in his affidavit (except perhaps everything he has managed to achieve by the age of 21... looks like he is a pretty smart cookie that one!)

The jury never learned that before Linch tested Knife Number 4, the kitchen knives recovered from 5801 Eagle Drive already had been dusted for fingerprints using a fiberglass brush composed of the same material as the fiber removed from that knife.

Strike #89382492384732 for the Darlie Routier appeals team. I gotta tell you I really am getting sick of the misinformation they have published in their writs etc.

2 Q. Let me ask you about one other source
3 of fiberglass. Fingerprint brushes, are they also made
4 of fiberglass?
5 A. Yes, they are. Some of the most
6 common fingerprint brushes used by the police are made of
7 fiberglass.
8 Q. Okay. Over this past weekend, did you
9 meet with Officer Charles Hamilton of the Rowlett Police
10 Department?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Okay. Did you obtain a fingerprint
13 brush from Rowlett?
14 A. Officer Hamilton left his fingerprint
15 brush at my laboratory over Saturday.
16 Q. All right. Did you compare the
17 fiberglass that made up his fingerprint brush with
18 fiberglass that you found on the knife blade and the
19 screen also?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. All right. What were your findings
22 when you looked at his fingerprint brush and fiberglass
23 that made it up?
24 A. The fiberglass rods that make up these
25 fingerprint brushes are almost twice as thick as the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
3038
1 fiberglass in the screen. So they are very, very
2 different. The fingerprint brush rods are much larger.

No definitive tests were conducted to determine the source of the fiber. Linch could testify only that the fiber was “consistent” with the garage screen window... he had reached a similar conclusion about a hair found in the same garage window screen that he opined was “consistent” with Petitioner’s hair

And the question that needs to be asked from here is- was he wrong? On either count? No. The hairs were microscopically identical and he himself testified that he would issue the exact same report today. DNA testing showed it was not her hair but under the microscope they have the same microscopic charactertistics. Are you suggesting that perhaps he should have reported that they were NOT microscopically identical when they in fact were? No matter what he does Linch just can't please anyone can he?

As for testifying that the fibreglass rod - the hair is a strawman article. Whether it belong to Darlie or not it was still a hair. The fibreglass rod and the rubber debris were microscopiclaly identical to exactly what was produced when you cut that screen with that bread knife. There was absolutely no difference between the fibres and debris. They were two separate pieces of evidence which he testified came from the same source. He went through the house and was unable to find anything else that could have remotely produced that evidence in combination. He compared Hamilton's brush and it was clearly inconsistent.

ikewise, the jury was given no evidence regarding a possible alternative source of the fiber Charles Linch said he recovered from Knife Number 4.

What strike number are we up to now?

Linch testified that the fiber was “consistent” with the material from the garage window screen. This testimony invited the jury to infer erroneously that Petitioner had cut the screen herself to create the false exit of the alleged intruder

Well gee whiz. We've got a bread knife with two independent pieces of evidence which were at one time joined which are microscopically identical to what is produced when you cut the screen with the same knife (right down to the diameter of the rods and the coloured pigment in the rubber. We've got no other possible sources in the house to produce this combination of evidence. We've had the fingerprint brush excluded. What other reasonable inference is there?


PALENICK: It is my opinion that if Knife Number 4 was dusted using a brush and fingerprint powder, and if the knives in the same block were also dusted using a brush and fingerprint powder, then it is possible that the fibers in Knife Number 4 came from the brush used to dust the knives found in the kitchen, rather than from the garage window screen.

It was already ruled out during trial that the fingerprint brush was the source of the fibre.

If defense counsel had presented evidence demonstrating that the knives had been contaminated by the fingerprint dusting that was done before Linch received the knives for testing, counsel could have eliminated the significance attached to that otherwise dramatic piece of scientific eviden
No they couldn't have. There were two pieces of evidence on the knife which had at one time been in combination. The fingerprint powder would not and could not account for this.

The piece of evidence is as dramatic as ever.

[accordn2me]

Get ready....maybe I have wrongly intrepreted this....I said MAYBE, I did. :razz: You may not declare victory, yet. I'll letcha know when I say UNCLE. :D

When I first read Laber's report, I took it that the fiberglass brush was used to dust the window, then to dust the knives from the block. I believe I read somewhere, sometime ago that the block itself was never dusted. Thinking that it was the same brush, I figured that a screen rod was picked up by the brush, then deposited on the knife.

After more reading, and maybe more DIFFERENT intrepretations :razz:, it appears that the rubber-like material is consitent with fingerprint dust. So, now I need to see if I can find out if it was the same brush, a different brush, and if two different brushes, were they kept totally away from each other.

I don't think you would find Laber and Epstein mentioned by name in the State's closing arguements. They just said "their experts are not here!" Implying that was because they too thought Darlie guilty, which is not the case at all.

Here's some things about Linch. I have no idea if they are credible or not. I do not know the context, either. I was looking to see what I could find about his "illness."

(Austin American Statesman)
According to a copyright story in Wednesday's editions of The Dallas Morning News, a series of memos attached to a job grievance filed last year against the Southwestern Institute for Forensic Sciences shows that Charles Linch questioned his qualifications in hair and fiber analysis and blood-spatter interpretation.


FORENSIC MISADVENTURES
This is an archive of cases involving demonstrable forensic misadventure. That is, it is an archive of cases where forensic and police experts have provided unintentionally false / erroneous testimony or false / erroneous findings with serious consequences. In some cases, this will have resulted in apologies, disciplinary action or termination. This archive is maintained solely for educational and informational purposes. No confidential case material has been or will be archived in this section.


http://www.corpus-delicti.com/forensic_mis.html
Charles Linch
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences;
Senior Forensic Scientist, Virginia Division of Forensic Science

Used the term match in court regarding forensic hair analysis without sufficient qualification to prevent the prosecution from presenting it as conclusive in the case against Michael Blair. Though Mr. Blair was convicted and sentenced to death, mitochondrial DNA tests later revealed that none of the hairs actually belonged to him.

In the case against Kenneth McDuff, Mr. Linch testified that he had examined the hair and found it to have the same microscopic characteristics as that of the missing victim. However, the State failed to reveal that at the time of his testimony, Mr. Linch was under committal to a Dallas mental hospital for psychiatric problems. According to Mr. Linch, one of his prescriptions caused a lack of recall of events. On the day of Mr. McDuff s trial, however, Mr. Linch was permitted to fly to San Antonio, rent a car, and drive to the courthouse to testify as a forensic expert. After giving his testimony, Mr. Linch returned to the mental hospital.

Taken from A State of Denial: Texas Justice and the Death Penalty (http://www.texasdefender.org/publications.htm) by the Texas Defender Service, Ch. 3 - "A Danger to Society: Fooling the Jury with Phony Experts"

Mark Wrolstad "Hair-matching flawed as a forensic science: DNA testing reveals dozens of wrongful verdicts nationwide (http://www.law-forensic.com/cfr_hair_3.htm)," The Dallas Morning News, March 31, 2002

Frank Green "HAIR ANALYSIS USE FAULTED ; CRITICS SAY IT'S BAD WAY TO MAKE IDENTIFICATIONS (http://www.law-forensic.com/cfr_hair_10.htm) ," Richmond Times-Dispatch , October 19, 2002

[Dani_T]

Get ready....maybe I have wrongly intrepreted this....I said MAYBE, I did. :razz: You may not declare victory, yet. I'll letcha know when I say UNCLE. :D

LOL- OK.

Let me lay it all out flat for you and then you can come back at me. This is one of the areas of the case which I have spent a lot of time researching and discussing - because I think it is absolutely instrumental to showing there was no intruder (just as I think that the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row). I'm taking this from the transcripts so feel free to look it up yourself. Vol 37 & 34

What was found on the knife (designated knife 4)

A fibreglass rod about 10 microns in diameter
Some black/gray pigmented rubber debris
Some glass 'dust' embedded in the debris

Something also to note here- Linch attempted to do further testing on these but he was unable to do so because it was too small. He couldn't transfer them to the appropriate medium. It wasn't that he or the state couldn't be bothered- they were unable to do so.

What happened when Linch used the bread knife to cut the identical screen

- Fibreglass rods- the diameters of which were identical to the diameter of the onee originally found. Furthermore the rods were in every way identical underneath the micrscope. There was no visible difference except for the length which was just because they broke off at different places.
Pigmented rubber debris
- Rubber debris which was pigmented exactly the same as the one originally found on the knife and with glass debris embedded in the debris. Again there was no difference under the microscope between this and what had been found on the knife.


Other Sources
Linch testified that he searched the house for other sources and was unable to find anything which would produce the same results.

Fingerprinting etc
Officer Hamilton was the one who did the dusting at the scene. It took him no less than five hours to do it all.

The first thing he dusted was the window and the screen. After that he did:
Chairs outside the window
Trash can in garage
Cat carrier/cage
Refridgerator/Freezer
The other window (frame, trim, glass)
The U-room/Garage door on both sides
Washer
Dryer
Counter tops in the kitchen
Island in kitchen
Refridgerator in Kitchen
Drawers
Wine glass

So, for the Defense's theory to work you have to have the fingerprint brush picking up both a microscopic fibreglass rod and the rubber debris with the glass embedded in it whilst he was fingerprinting the window/screen. And then he has to brush everything else I have just listed with his brush being in constant motion (swinging back and forth as they do) for that entire time. And then hours later the fingerprint brush just happens to deposit not only the fibreglass rod but also the rubber debris right near each other on the one knife.

Any reasonable person would have to agree that that proposition is just untenable.

But wait... there is more
Officer Hamilton gives no testimony or evidence that he brushed the knife block. He goes into great detail explaning everything he fingerprinted but never says he brushed the knife block or the knives inside it. So- not only is the scenario to incredible to believe but there is no evidence that the same brush used on the screen/window was used on the knife block.

So if the knife was fingerprinted (which Linch in one of his affidavits says it was) there is absolutely no evidence that Charles Hamilton was the one who printed it- let alone with the same brush he used at the scene. He meticiulously describes everything he printed at the scene but never mentions the knife block of the knives.

So the theory that the brush picked up the fibres and then deposited them on the knife hours later is ludicrious and completely unreasonable.

Alternatively the defense claims that the fibreglass rod came the fingerprint brush and the rubber debris was fingerprint powder. However Linch in his testimony showed that the bristles on the brush were much large than the one of the knife. Furthermore the fingerprint powder used was carbon powder (like the stuff used in copier toner catridges). Now I'm no scientist, let along chemical guru... but the debris on the knife was pigment synthetic rubber/polymer with embedded glass. That does not sound at all consistent to me with carbon powder (which I would think is organic anyway?). How on earth did the carbon powder get glass dust embedded in it??

And even if it WERE possible that the rod came from the brush and the debris from the powder then how is it that these two separate pieces of evidence which were exactly replicated in Linch's experiments both ended up right next to each other on the same knife??

I don't think you would find Laber and Epstein mentioned by name in the State's closing arguements. They just said "their experts are not here!" Implying that was because they too thought Darlie guilty, which is not the case at all.
I'm presuming that your previous quote about them being mentioned by name was directly from a defense writ? I only ask because it makes my point- as pedantic as it may seem: the defense documentation continually asserts things which are just false. I've seen it over and over again (Jantz's fingerprint analysis, the blood on the jeans etc) and I long ago got to the point where I check everything they say against the transcripts- but I can't trust what they claim.

Here's some things about Linch. I have no idea if they are credible or not. I do not know the context, either. I was looking to see what I could find about his "illness."

I don't have much time to respond now (dinner is almost ready!) but the long and short of it is that Linch was hospitalised for approx 2 weeks for alcoholism (and depression though I don't know if he was diagnosed at the time). SWIFS (his employer) pulled him out of the hospital to go and testify at cases during the middle of his treatment (I think from memory he protested at the time but was compelled to do it). There was something about him not having taken a hair/fibre test or something (will have to look it up again) when he was meant to but he took it not long after and passed with flying colours without having any further training. He claims that he had not been drinking from after his hospitalisation until after the Routier trial.

Now it is clear that they man had some major stuff going on in his life (I also think from memory it began after he had to work the scene of an airline disaster which disturbed him greatly)... but that was in 1994. He testified in the Routier trial over 2 years later. There is absolutely no evidence that his judgement or work was in anyway impaired at that time. Whether it was earlier is another question- and whether all that media hype was because of him personally or because of a large issue is also another story. However, my point is that there is nothing to hold against him regarding his work on the Routier case. It seems a complete double standard to me for Darlie supporters to say regarding Darlie's suicide note "Oh it was just a passing thing- she got over it really quickly and was perfectly mentally healthy" but then to absolutely denigrate a man who was suffering from depression over 2 years previously and claim that he couldn't have been in his right mind

Furthermore I think we need to be very careful how we talk about people who have gone through alcoholism and clinical depression. Clincal depression is a medical condition and one which the patient has no control over (beyond taking medication). If Linch was clinically depressed in 1994 (which it seems he was) I think we should feel very sorry for him rather than berating him as I have seen countless people on these boards doing.

But again, it all comes back to the fact that there is no reason to doubt his work on the Routier case. It's a strawman argument that defense puts up because they don't have anything else and are willing to try anything. Fair enough- let them have a go at it... but there is nothing that refutes all that evidence I have listed above.

Ok. Gotta run. Dinners on :)

[cami]

"Barry Dickey <--- just a glorified DJ"

Yep, what a loser. Just another wannabe who couldn't make it to American Bandstand. Is it any wonder that he took his bitterness out on Darlie?

"James Cron <--- 'he made up his in mind in 2 minutes. No make that 20 seconds"

Make that 10 seconds. As soon as he got out of bed and looked in the mirror, he knew it was going to be a bad hair day. Bad hair days make people mean and more likely than usual to send an innocent mother to death row.

"Charles Linch <--- mentally unstable alcoholic who couldn't do his job."

The defense waited six years to bring this out, because they didn't want to hurt his feelings during the trial. They feared a relapse.

"Tom Bevel <--- Tom who? I ignored his whole testimony"

I think he's quite well known as a forensic expert, but let's face it, we all have our shortcomings:

James Cron's beard went haywire, Dickey suffered from a hearing loss, Linch had a two-year old hangover, and Tom doesn't know if he's Dick or Harry.


:rolleyes:

Jeez you forgot Patterson. After all it took him an hour to get to the crime scene though he lived a few blocks away. He made sure in that hour that Darlie was going to take the fall for his son Chad.

Darn sorry I missed all this posting. I was away for a few days last week and look what happens, LOL.

[accordn2me]

Dani_T - I just quickly scannned Davis part of closing, not Wallace's or Shook's. Davis did call Laber and Epstein by name. Not that it really matters in the end, this only refutes your allegation that this part of the information in the Writ was inaccurate.

I know Laber would have loved the chance to finish his work on the case if Mulder would not have dismissed him. I'm betting the same is true for Epstein. Here are Davis' words (and one of Mulder's biggest mistakes):

6 You know, we know as they criticized
17 Charlie Linch, we know that back in August of last year,
18 that there was an expert by the name of Bart Epstein, a
19 trace evidence analyst there at SWIFS on behalf of the
20 defendant. And we know that back there in August that
21 Charlie Linch said, "Here, I will show you everything
22 that I am doing out here." He let him look at the
23 slides, let him examine the evidence.
24 Basically, he looked over Charlie
25 Linch's shoulder and graded his work out there at SWIFS.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
5338 1 And don't you know, don't you know, that if Bart Epstein
2 had any disagreement whatsoever with the findings of
3 Charles Linch, that you would have seen him up here on
4 this witness stand? Because we know that this defense
5 team here, when they need a witness like Richard Coons,
6 hey, you can place a phone call at 9:00 P.M. and they
7 will get him here the next morning.
8 So where is Bart Epstein? You know
9 why he is not here, because there is nothing wrong with
10 Charles Linch's work in this case.
11 As we look to Tom Bevel, as they
12 criticized Tom Bevel on his opinions. That videotape,
13 and you have got the T-shirts back here, as you look at
14 that videotape with that motion demonstrated by Tom Bevel
15 and you will find that they weren't long on the back.
16 Those blood stains. They are the same size and
17 consistent with the size of Devon Routier's blood that
18 was deposited on the back of this defendant's shirt.
19 That is what the videotape and the T-shirt will show you.
20 Mr. Mosty demonstrated about picking
21 up this vacuum cleaner. Listen, it's not that hard, and
22 you can try it yourself. You don't have to hold it down
23 here by the neck. If you hold it right up here and you
24 roll it around, as this defendant did that day, what do
25 you get? You look at my hand and you will see, you get
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
5339

1 the blood smear right on the right side of this handle,
2 exactly like she did that day.
3 You know, here is the bottom line on
4 Tom Bevel. You know out there at SWIFS there is another
5 expert, Terry Labor. He is the DNA blood spatter expert
6 who went out there on behalf of the defendant also, along
7 with Bart Epstein. And if they want to quarrel with Tom
8 Bevel and tell you that he is wrong, and that he is a
9 witch doctor of some sort, where is Terry Labor then?
10 Where is their blood spatter expert?
11 Don't you know that if he had any
12 criticism of the opinions rendered by Tom Bevel, that
13 just like Bart Epstein, you would see them right up here,
14 and he would be detailing for you what those criticisms
15 are. But he is not here either, is he? And for a very
16 good reason.
17 There is one other thing that we need
18 to ask also. Where are the samples from the T-shirt
19 taken by Terry Labor? Where are they? You remember
20 those first dibs samples that Terry Labor took from the
21 defendant's T-shirt back in August? Before Tom Bevel
22 even had a chance to look at the T-shirt. Terry Labor,
23 the defendant's expert, went to Dallas and was given an
24 opportunity to take several samples from that T-shirt.
25 Did you see those samples in this
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
5340

1 courtroom at any point in this trial? No, you didn't.
2 Don't you wonder why? You really
3 don't have to wonder long about that question. It's
4 obvious to you. Why those best samples taken by the
5 defense, why you never saw them, and why you never heard
6 a test result or a DNA result on any of the samples.
7 It speaks volumes to you sometimes
8 what you don't see and hear. And it speaks volumes in
9 this case with regards that T-shirt.

[Dani_T]

Thanks for that- the search field at Just Darlie must be faulty then! Doesn't change all the other inaccuracies through the writs of course :D

I've said this until I am blue in the face and so I don't know why I bother saying it again- but I will ;)

Did you ever stop to think that there was a reason why Mulder
a) did not pursue the testing?
b) did pursue the testing but never brought the results to trial?

[accordn2me]

Thanks for that- the search field at Just Darlie must be faulty then! Doesn't change all the other inaccuracies through the writs of course :D
What other inaccuracies? Feel free to start a new thread (like I have the authority to invite you to):angel:.

I've said this until I am blue in the face and so I don't know why I bother saying it again- but I will ;)

Did you ever stop to think that there was a reason why Mulder
a) did not pursue the testing?
b) did pursue the testing but never brought the results to trial?
Given Mulder's performance in this trial, I'm pretty sure I know the reason why, but beating a dead horse is no fun. I'm curious, though. Which one do you think it was: a or b?

[Mary456]

Jeez you forgot Patterson. After all it took him an hour to get to the crime scene though he lived a few blocks away. He made sure in that hour that Darlie was going to take the fall for his son Chad.

Darn sorry I missed all this posting. I was away for a few days last week and look what happens, LOL.

OMG, you mean Chadwick did it?

Hey, Cami, don't get on my case. I notice you didn't mention the paramedic who hurled the vacuum cleaner over the kitchen counter because it was in his way (a Jeffism, lol!)

[Dani_T]

What other inaccuracies? Feel free to start a new thread (like I have the authority to invite you to):angel:.

Maybe later- don't have the time or inclination at the moment! Suffice to say that the stuff about Jantz is really dodgy when you actually look at his results. There have been other smaller thing- one of which came up by RstJ when he quoted the defense quoting an affidavit about there being blood spatter on the jeans when the affidavit simply DID not say it. The good thing is that the appeals court continues to pick them up on every thing like that which they try to slip through.


Given Mulder's performance in this trial, I'm pretty sure I know the reason why, but beating a dead horse is no fun. I'm curious, though. Which one do you think it was: a or b?

See it's a circular argument. You claim Mulder did a poor job of defending Darlie because he didn't follow up on some of this evidence (despite he fact that he was thoroughly briefed on it by Laber and co.) but then say that he didn't bother to follow up on the evidence because he couldn't be bothered defending her properly.

I wrote this before and I think it went unanswered but I'll say it again.

We're all into reasonable doubt right? Well what is reasonable about a top notch attorney on the biggest case of his career to date just completely dropping the ball - and the rest of the defense team with him- in a way entirely unlike him?? Why in the heck would he risk his career and reputation in that way by putting on such a poor defense which even you claim is out of character for him?

One of the chief complaints against him is that he didn't follow up on the evidence and thus he did a poor job. But WHY did he not follow up on it especially when he had two people who already knew it quite well??? It is completely unreasonable to think that he looked at the evidence, knew what the state would come at him with and then just shrugged his shoulders and said "Oh well. I can't be bothered". It makes no sense at all. I just dont get why you find it more reasonable to believe that he did this
a) for no reason
b) to the detriment of his career
c) in a way completely out of character

instead of stopping to think... "Wait a sec. Why didn't he show up at court with all the evidence in tow implicating someone other than Darlie".

It seems to be the reasonable answer is "Because there was none" or 'Because what he could bring to court could only hurt her more than help her".

I'm not familar with discovery and disclosure laws (DP- any help here?) but is it mandatory for the defense to disclose the results of evidence testing to the prosecution?

The reason I ask is that if it is the case then I can see very good reason for Mulder not to get further testing on evidence which already looked very grim for Darlie. If the prosecution were going to get their hands on any results then it might have been the final nail in the coffin.

My hunch is that Mulder reviewed the evidence with Laber and Epstein and very possibly a third party we don't know about and decided not to get further testing because it would only further implicate her. Instead he tried very hard to pull down the results from the state (for eg. he must have taken a crash course in polymers the way Linch was cross examined). The defense went into great detail trying to poke holes in the state's experts testimony (to varying degrees of success).

[cami]

OMG, you mean Chadwick did it?

Hey, Cami, don't get on my case. I notice you didn't mention the paramedic who hurled the vacuum cleaner over the kitchen counter because it was in his way (a Jeffism, lol!)

loL, yeah was that right next to the chicken that was cut up for dinner hence the blood in the sink or was it the mother board that was hacked up with the bread knife.

Oh those jeffisms. I still like the one he invented for "threw the knife down". What was it, roo the loo or something wasn't it. LOL

[Fritzy's Mom]

LOL...That's OK- you don't know me and words on a screen are easy to miscontrue...Frustration doesn't equal irrationality.
Okay. LOL - I was starting to think you were a real b****! But, I know, it's hard to know exactly how to take someone from their words only...

I'm sorry if you read my statements as inflammatory- but I'm only responding to claims such as the one that all the doctors, cops and nurses (along with the prosecutors) got together to collude on their answers, to refine their answers and practice at doing it until their own original testimonies were altered to match each others.

I find that offensive and I do believe that it basically says that none of those individuals (who have dedicated their vocations to helping me) have any integrity.
DANI!!!!!! Now you're frustrating me!!!! THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!

The seed was planted early on (for God's sake - the cops let one of the nurses stay in the room when they interviewed Darlie!) - Darlie was guilty - and all opinions formed thereafter were influenced by that belief, plain and simple. No one made a conscious decision to "get Darlie" and no one out and out lied. Integrity doesn't even come into play - I, as would most people, would be subject to the same forces were I in a similar situation. It's just a simple matter of people's perceptions being colored by their understanding of the situation...

You only have do to a quick google search on terms like 'rehearse testimony prosecution laywer' to read that it is not only common practice and allowable by the American Justice system but is even outright encouraged by some.
Absolutley. I have no problem with preparing witnesses for trial - at the appropriate time, in the appropriate place. I just wonder how much effective preparation can take place at a hotel on the eve of trial...

Really, this isn't a big deal to me - I think the prosecution witnesses already knew what was expected of them and I think they were more than happy to comply. I just think it was unprofessional (and unfair) for the prosecutors to arrange a little get together for last minute encouragement and bonding.

As we've said already on this thread- Mulder was the individual who started the practice of these 'mock trials' or pep rally's or whatever it is you want to call them. Do you honestly think he didn't get his own witnesses together??? And why then can we not doubt all their testimony as being conspired in the same way you are doubting that of the nuses, doctors and cops?
Of course he did - which further goes to demonstrate his misjudgment in this case. Had Mulder done an effective cross-examination of Darlie, it should have been easy to convince her not to take the stand.

As far as defense witnesses comparing testimony...I'm sure it happens and I'm sure it happened in this case. BUT...the defense it not the side with the burden of proof here; the defense is not asking that someone's life and liberty be taken away. The prosecution MUST be held to a higher standard of conduct. Just because the defense may do it doesn't mean the state should be able to get away with it too...

[Fritzy's Mom]

Yes- but a poor defense doesn't necessarily guarantee a poor lawyer (or one who for some reason just completely dropped the ball). You're assuming that Mulder did a poor job on this case by not following every possible lead because he didn't make a big deal about them in court. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason he didn't make a big deal about them in court is because there was nothing to make a big deal about?

This is all I am saying:
1) he had an excellent track record and very good reputation
2) this was perhaps the biggest case he had to date
3) he had no reason to decide to do a poor job of representing Darlie and in fact he must have known poor representation could only harm his career
4) Darlie supporters claim that he didn't follow up on certain leads/evidence

I just don't understand why you are so quick to ignore 1, 2 and 3 and not factor them into your thinking on this. He had no reason at all to drop the ball on this case. Is it really that hard to believe, or in fact unreasonable to believe that there is reasons why he didn't do certain things both prior to trial or at trial... because he was looking out for the best interestes of the client.
I have nothing against Mulder...I'm sure he has a brilliant legal mind and a commanding presence in the courtroom...you don't get a reputation like his by being a nitwit. And, of course, he had reasons for not addressing certain points; I believe he knew the case well and I believe he had definite ideas of how to try it. I just think that he misjudged how to handle certain crucial points of Darlie's defense... On this case, Mulder's legal instincts let him down.

Examples:

One of the strongest pieces of evidence Mulder had going for Darlie was her bruises. No matter what you think about Darlie, it is hard to imagine a woman beating herself to that extent...Pictures of Darlie's bruises were shown to the jury, yet there is now a male juror coming out saying that he never saw them and, if he had, he would have voted "not guilty." HOW CAN THIS BE?! Mulder should have been shoving those pictures down the throats of every one of those jurors!!! He should have had massive blow-ups of them all over the courtroom. He should have introduced those pictures to the jury at every opportunity. Those jurors should have gone home every night with those images plastered into their heads... Now, I know, hindsight is 20-20; but we're not talking about some obscure piece of evidence that the jury could easily and understandably overlook. Those pictures were the best thing Mulder had going for him - how can he now have a juror saying he never saw them?!

I saw Mulder on some show - Forsensic Files, American Justice (one of those). Anyway, he said that he did not expect the jury to make such a big deal of the silly string video and that he was surprised by how much attention they paid to it. WHAT?!!!!! The media had played that video ad nauseum and the public reaction had been extreme anger and outrage. Why would he not expect the jury to react the same way? Mulder should have been on a massive de-sensitizing mission during that trial - showing the video repeatedly, talking about it, explaining it and, just basically, minimizing its impact. And again, this was not some obscure piece of evidence - this was a HUGE part of the prosecution's case.

Mulder couldn't do it because the evidence was piled up against her... not because he didn't turn on the 'Richard Gere in Chicago Razzle Dazzle'. No matter how good a defense attorney you may be- if the evidence is against your client it's against your client.
Look at the evidence in the O.J. trial. Overwhelming.

Mulder had no burden of proof to meet here...all he had to do was convince ONE juror that Darlie MAY not have committed this crime. We know that one juror existed - Mulder just failed to get to him.

And I don't think Darlie was sympathetic at all. From all reports no one in the court-room was able to relate to her stoney-faced appearance throughout the entire trial. Very few people were able to relate to the way she behaved in the days and weeks after the murders. I don't think she was a sympathetic witness at all. In fact I think Mulder had his work cut out for him big-time when it came to her.
Well, here's where that witness preparation Mulder's so famous for comes into play...

Did you see the Menendez brothers at their arraignment? They looked like a couple of slick pimps...thousand dollar suits, perfectly coiffed hair, smug smirks on their faces... As soon as Leslie Abramson got her hands on them, they looked like a couple of prep schoolers...

Darlie IS a very sympathetic character - I've seen her interviewed. Whether it's an act or not is irrelevant - she can be quite convincing when she wants to be. Mulder should have seen to it that she came into court every day looking like a bereaved mother on the brink of mental collapse - not "stony-faced."

Pyschological encouragement to what? Lie? Conspire to put an innocent woman in jail?
No. The meeting was, IMO, just a way of saying "we're all on the same team, here," a way of building loyalty to the prosecution. Inappropriate. If the prosecutors believed that these witnesses were going to take their oath to God seriously and that the stories they were about to tell were the truth, why the need to take affirmative steps to alleviate any discomfort the witnesses might be feeling? Why would the prosecution even suspect that some of the witnesses might be experiencing discomfort with the situation?

And even if the prosectution had an underhanded motive (and I don't see how you can leap to that conclusion) how do you go from that to the testimony of all these people being unreliable?
I know this is getting redundant and we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree, but, the testimony was unreliable because the perceptions of these people were tainted almost from the get-go.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here- but yes- I don't think it is rocket science to realise that a cut you would make with your left hand would look quite different to a cut you would make with your right. You've only got to mimic the actions to realise that.
Well, I still think you could make a good argument that Darlie was not sophisticated enough to realize that this determination could be made, and she would not, therefore, think to switch hands during such a chaotic and traumatic event.

Furthermore those blood spots are entirely consistent with someone making overhand stabbing motions with a bloody knife.
Yeah, but only FOUR?! Even you've got to admit it seems like there should be alot more considering the number of stab wounds she was alleged to have made...

I think this weakens your argument. The prosecutions weakest point in the case was motive (IMHO) and Mulder certainly pursued that angle- both directly and by discrediting all the motives which the prosecution put forward. The evidence convicted Darlie despite the difficulty with understand motive (which was not necessary to prove). Mulder and his team did everything they could to prove that Darlie didn't have motive. They didn't simply ignore the issue.
Yeah, well, again, he just didn't do a good enough job of discrediting motive. At the very least, the complete lack of a proof of motive should have kept Darlie off death row. Mulder should have driven this point home, again and again, in his closing. His closing was, IMO, weak.

The black car which was thoroughly searched on the night or the random black cars driving down the street that suddenly became suspicious? And for the record Mulder did try to follow the lead of the black/dark cars - Vol 41 and 42 for example.
Okay. But it's still an element of reasonable doubt...

It was shown in court that Darlie could have quite easily done all of this in the time period she had. Mulder refuted as best he could in cross examination regarding the paramedics, the 911 call etc. Again, he didn't just ignore it. And on the topic- there actually wasn't a lot of staging done at all. There was a fair amount of clean up down in the kitchen sink but staging after the fact is pretty much limited to knocking over the coffee table and lamp shade (and who knows but that may have happened during the commission of the crime anyway).
No, no, no... there's lots of room for guessing here - Damon only had like nine minutes to live from the time of his last stab wound. Darlie was on the 911 call for like five of those minutes. When did she cut the screen? When did she plant the sock? When did she break the glass? When did she knock over the vacuum cleaner? How long after the last stab wound did she wait before cutting herself? How long after cutting herself did she wait to call Darin? There's lots of room for speculation here - Mulder did not do a good enough job of exploiting the unknown.

And remember...I AM NOT SAYING DARLIE IS INNOCENT! I'm just saying that Mulder should have been able to confuse at least one juror with all this timeline uncertainty...

More info please. Are you referring to the woman who wrote the affidavit not long ago?
Honestly, I can't give you any more info. I don't know alot about this, I just remember seeing what I think was a local news broadcast of a couple talking about a break-in at their home. They said that the intruder took a sock from their laundry basket and, I believe, the newscaster made reference to another similar break-in in that area. What affidavit are you talking about? I would like to read it...



Oh boy. Now you really have hit one of my buttons.

Could you please give us your evidence for saying that Charlies Linch was a mentally unstable alcoholic whose work (specifically regarding the Routier case) was unreliable to say the least. You know you just accused me of making inflammatory statements but I'm pretty certain that's the most inflammatory one I have heard so far. In fact it probably borders on slander.

There is absolutely no evidence that Charlies Linch was mentally unstable specifically at the time of the Routier trial. Nor is there any evidence that he was abusing alcohol at the time (I wish I could find the article from a few years back about him but from memory his committment for alcoholism was a number of years before- and was brought on during his work at the site of an air disaster). Linch claims that he was definitely not drinking at the time of the Routier trial. And there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that his work on the Routier trial was unreliable. Period.

If you want to make claims like that about someone you'll need to back it up with some facts.
Oh, you're absolutely right - calling Mr. Linch a mentally unstable alcoholic most certainly is an inflammatory statement! But that's what a good defense attorney would have done! Yes, it's mean-spirited and yes, it may be completley untrue - but, when you're trying to keep your client from death row, you don't worry about making friends.

Mental illness and alcoholism don't usually spring up over night - many people struggle with such disorders for long periods of time before ever seeking help. And, many people hide these disorders very well, never letting on to employers, family and friends that something's wrong. The fact that Mr. Linch insists his illnesses never impacted his work on the Routier case means nothing - what's he going to say?!

Now, in fairness, it may have been impossible for Mr. Mulder to ascertain this information at the time of Darlie's trial. Possibly, no one who worked with Mr. Linch knew anything about his problems. But, we'll never know now, will we? Maybe if Mulder had done some digging, he could have exposed his problems and gottten some extremely damaging evidence thrown out...

[Fritzy's Mom]

Dani and Accordn2me:

Whoa! You guys are excellent on the topic of this fiberglass stuff! I've read both of your posts twice and I'M CONFUSED AS HELL!!!! Had Mulder done his job, the jury would have been too - and we all know what that means -

Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt! :p

[Fritzy's Mom]

Fritzy's MOM! Look one more time.... gallary07 at the justicefordarlie site. The very first picture of Darlie in ICU, you can see what appears to be a large scratch or something on her face. I just noticed that! The picture where they put the large red arrows, she's lying in the hospital bed...look at the arm that was stabbed. It could be my monitor, or shadows, but when you look at those later pictures - after she was discharged, probably in the police station - you definitely see bruising in that very spot. So, that's why I think it's just starting to bruise in the hospital bed.

Well, okay - yeah - the outer part of her upper arm in that first picture does appear dark. I cannot tell, though, whether it's bruising or just a shadow...
And, yes there does appear to be a scratch on her chin. IF that is a bruise forming on her arm, I just don't see how it could not be documented somewhere...

NONE of the nurses' or doctors' handwritten notes from the hospital stay mentioned any bruises at all?I guess the medical notes, charts, etc. are not available online - just in one of the books. Mary said that no mention is made of bruising in any of the medical documentation and, from what I gather, she's pretty knowledgable...

Did :loser: Mulder even look?
LOL...Doubt it! Fritzy would've, though!

[Dani_T]

Sorry about all the grammar and spelling mistakes. I typed in a rush and did not proof read!
I have nothing against Mulder...I'm sure he has a brilliant legal mind and a commanding presence in the courtroom...you don't get a reputation like his by being a nitwit. And, of course, he had reasons for not addressing certain points; I believe he knew the case well and I believe he had definite ideas of how to try it. I just think that he misjudged how to handle certain crucial points of Darlie's defense... On this case, Mulder's legal instincts let him down.

Ok- we have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying he did a faultless job for Darlie- I'm just sick and tired of Darlie apologists ignoring the evidence because they get blinded by the screams from the Darlie camp which are just strawman arguments.

For example the black car which her supporters keep shouting from the rooftops. Yes a black car passed that night. Is that unusual? No I don't think so at all. Black cars are common, it was a group of young adults and it was summer time. Not at all uncommon for those kids to be out late in the middle of summer. The car was searched. The occupants were searched. There was nothing there at all. And then out of the woodworks come these stories "Hmmm now that I think about it I did see a black car driving around in days before hand" as if this is big breaking news. Of course the neighbours are going to see black cars driving around- there are zillions of them out on the road. As for driving slowly around the Routiers place- well first of all they had that whopping big fountain in he middle of the garden which no doubt drew a fair bit of attention but more importantly the house was on the curve of the street. If a car doesn't slow down there he's going to take that corner wide.

Or the notion that there was someone sitting in a black car looking at the Routier house in the middle of the afternoon and they sped off when the neighbour arrived home and then moved towards them. Certainly that couldn't have been someone visiting someone in the street and leaving at the same time someone else in the street arrived home. Oh no. That's just plain suspicious that.

Like your claims that the prosecution witnesses were subconsciously predjudiced this black car has now taken on a life of it's own. Every black car which ever drove down Eagle Drive is now reasonable doubt. And that's ludicrious. There is nothing tying the car to the scene or to the Routiers and it is just another one of those things that the Darlie camp throws up to try and deflect from the evidence... evidence which most of them refuse to discuss.

Mulder had no burden of proof to meet here...all he had to do was convince ONE juror that Darlie MAY not have committed this crime. We know that one juror existed - Mulder just failed to get to him.

No - we don't know that one juror exists. What we have now is Charlie Samford coming out and saying if he had seen those bruises then he would never have voted guilty. Well he DID see those bruises and he didn't vote innocent on them... and that was for a damn good reason.

I'm not sure if you have MTJD but by far the best photos showing her bruises are 52 A, B, C, E (having said that it is very clear when you compare the photos that our friend Chris Brown has manipulated the colours and contrast on a number of them to make it look worse). They are all state exhibits. If you read the testimony (vol 31 has lots on it) you will quickly see why Mulder did not harp on and on about the bruises- because the testimomy unanimously said that it was recent bruising and no way could it have been done 4 days previously. The nurses unanimously said they would have noticed the beginnings of such massive bruising (similar to what you would find in a car accident). One of them says it would have been charted over and over again. One said she would be in a lot of pain. They all said it was severe brusing and certainly not something they would overlook.

Here is one of the exerpts

20 Q. 52-G, is that a photograph that we can
21 see of Ms. Routier's right arm?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And if you could just watch
24 your shoulder here, if you can keep it down, because we
25 have jurors -- in fact, I'll just get you to go along the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
871

1 jury rail in a moment. But the blood we see here, is
2 that from an injury, abrasions that were on the arm?
3 A. No, that looks like dried blood. Just
4 blood dries and it is hard to wash off. She does not
5 look like she's been cleaned.
6 Q. Okay. And holding 52-F also, is that
7 another photograph of the arm?
8 A. Yes. This is the same arm, different
9 aspect.
10 Q. Okay. If you had seen evidence of
11 this blunt -- if she had had blunt trauma on the 6th of
12 June, would you have seen it somewhere here in the ICU on
13 her arm?
14 A. From what I saw in the photograph, I
15 think we would be able to see it on this part of the arm
16 right here.
17 Q. Okay. If you could just start at that
18 end of the jury and show them.
19 A. Did they see this other bruise?
20 Q. We'll go over that in a minute, after
21 you finish that.
22 A. All this on here is dried blood from
23 either her neck wound or the wound here.
24 Q. And if you could show 32-A.
25 A. Okay.

Note that 32-A is actually 52-A (32-A is a statement of the defendant and not in evidence and in the context of the bruising it is clear that what was shown was 52-A which is the clearest photo of the arm with the bruising from wrist to up near her underarm

The State got the witness to show the jury at the jury rail those photos. They saw them. Right in front of them. The defense on the other hand submitted a couple of photos which don't show the brusing at all clearly and they didn't cross exam extensively about the bruises at all.

Now you'll say they didn't do that because they sucked and did a poor job of defending Darlie. But the reality is that if they did make a big deal about the photographs they would be hammer the nails into the coffin because every one of those medical experts said that brusing like that had to be recent and that there were no signs of that kind of bruising when she was in hospital. Now even if you want to argue that they were subconciously biased and blocked that bruising from their minds (which I think is a fairly ludicrous statement really as regardless of whether or not they thought she was guilty there would have been charts with the bruising noted and it would be impossible for every single one of them to just 'forgot' that bruising) the fact that those bruises are recent and not 4 days old could and would be attested to by any doctor or nurse of medicial practioner you put in the stand who had absolutely nothing to do with Darlie. It is an objective statement. They were new bruises. Not 4 days old.

That's why the defense didn't scream it from the rafters - and for good old Charlie to come out a couple of years later saying he would never have convicted on the basis of those bruises is flat out wrong too- because he saw them right up close and he heard all the testimony that it couldn't be bruising that was done on June 6th.

If Mulder had blown up those photos and rambled to the jury about them for hours he would have signed Darlie's guilty verdict.

Darlie IS a very sympathetic character - I've seen her interviewed. Whether it's an act or not is irrelevant - she can be quite convincing when she wants to be. Mulder should have seen to it that she came into court every day looking like a bereaved mother on the brink of mental collapse - not "stony-faced."

Darlie is sympathetic when she wants to be. She puts on the little girl voice looks forlonly into the camera and sobs. But when she was on trial for her life and she had lost her two little boys all she could do is sit there and glare (at least from what I have heard). You honestly think Mulder didn't pull her aside day after day and tell her to start being more sympathetic?? He can't make her do it- just as he can't make her not take the stand as strongly as he advised against it. This is all the result of Darlie- she couldn't believe she was on trial, she couldn't believe she was being caught. She was mad and angry and belligerent and she thought she could get up on the stand, put on the little voice, look forlonly into the jurors eyes and made everything allright. She ended up sobbing and an absolute mess because the State made mincemeat of her. Mulder could not pull her strings like a puppet.

No. The meeting was, IMO, just a way of saying "we're all on the same team, here," a way of building loyalty to the prosecution. Inappropriate. If the prosecutors believed that these witnesses were going to take their oath to God seriously and that the stories they were about to tell were the truth, why the need to take affirmative steps to alleviate any discomfort the witnesses might be feeling? Why would the prosecution even suspect that some of the witnesses might be experiencing discomfort with the situation?

Seriously?? Geesh if I had to get up on the stand in a trial like that with the nations attention on it and sit in front of Darlie Routier and testify I'd be freaking out of my mind. I'd be worried that the defense was going to come at me like rabid dogs. I'd be worried about having to sit across from Darlie Routier and look her in the eye. I'd be worried about what her family was going to say to me outside the courthouse. I'd be worried that I would turn into an emotional wreck. Testifying at a trial like that is not something these people just casually do every second day. It's a big bloody deal (as we would say here in Oz).


I know this is getting redundant and we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree, but, the testimony was unreliable because the perceptions of these people were tainted almost from the get-go.

In which case so is the perception of every friend and family member who testified for Darlie. Their percpection was tainted from the get go to and we can discard their testimony too as unreliable.

Like it or not everyone comes to a case with a perception. It;s the way it is. We have to trust that that perception is not going to infrige on the truthfulness of their testimony and in this case we have no reason to doubt the nurses and doctors and police officers... especially when they all agree with each other on these issues (for example 5 or so nurses all saying the same thing about the bruises).


Yeah, but only FOUR?! Even you've got to admit it seems like there should be alot more considering the number of stab wounds she was alleged to have made...

Not necessarily. Depends on the force with which she pulled the knife back, how quickly she did it, the angle etc. And don't forget she wasn't necessarily in the same kneeling position when she stabbed Damon the 2nd time (if that's what she did of course). Also, it could be that there were more drops of the boys blood on her shirt which weren't found. From memory these ones were only found by going over it a 2nd time.

Yeah, well, again, he just didn't do a good enough job of discrediting motive. At the very least, the complete lack of a proof of motive should have kept Darlie off death row.

Why??? If she didn't have a clear motive and the evidence pointed towards her anyway she obviously snapped in pure rage or something. She wasn't insane or pyschotic. If she did it but there isn't a clear premeditated motive then it's all the more reason to convict her. Because don't forget it was either Death or Life with the possibility of parole. There was no option for LWOP. BTW- I'm not saying I agree with the DP or anything here. Just that the evidence was enough to convict her and if there was no clear motive it would have only made her seem more of a danger to society.

[Dani_T]

No, no, no... there's lots of room for guessing here - Damon only had like nine minutes to live from the time of his last stab wound. Darlie was on the 911 call for like five of those minutes. When did she cut the screen? When did she plant the sock? When did she break the glass? When did she knock over the vacuum cleaner? How long after the last stab wound did she wait before cutting herself? How long after cutting herself did she wait to call Darin? There's lots of room for speculation here - Mulder did not do a good enough job of exploiting the unknown.

Well there is no blood trail outside so I think the screen and sock happened before she herself was seriously wounded but obviously the sock had some of the boys blood on it so it happened after the attack on Devon and what was probably the first attack on Damon (BTW- she knew enough to cut the screen from the outside so yes, I think she would have known enough to use her left hand). . The glass (all 5 seconds of it) could have quite easily happened anywhere but two things to consider 1) no blood on the wine rack but 2) glass on top of blood on the floor. The vacuum cleaner again would have taken seconds (though no one is clear what went on with it). If she stabbed Damon a second time (which I think is the most obvious theory considering where he was found and the fact that she has him actually moving from the couch to the entry way) we start the nine minutes from there. There was plenty of time and opportunity and whilst we might never know a strict timeline it all comfortably fits in there. There was not a lot of time consuming staging in the house at all.

For what it is worth here is one of the theories I'm working on. I don't think she ever intended to place herself in the middle of the crime scene. I think she wanted to distance herself from it and so she planned to kill the two boys and then go upstairs and get into bed with Darin (hopefully not waking him up so he couldn't put a time stamp on it). Then in the morning she comes downstairs (or he does) and finds there has been an intruder come in, startled by the two boys and kills them without going upstairs. However, I theorise that in the attacks she actually found herself accidentally wounded (perhaps with the small wound on her arm) and at this point knew she was tied to the scene and so had to act impromtuly and then decided to cut her neck to make it look convincing. I agree with a lot of people that for Darlie who was very vain, cutting her neck wouldn't have been an easy option and so think she was forced into the situation that she needed to do so. It's just a theory but I think it makes sense of a few bits and pieces.


Honestly, I can't give you any more info. I don't know alot about this, I just remember seeing what I think was a local news broadcast of a couple talking about a break-in at their home. They said that the intruder took a sock from their laundry basket and, I believe, the newscaster made reference to another similar break-in in that area. What affidavit are you talking about? I would like to read it...

Haven't heard anything about this break-in stuff and I would have though the Darlie camp would have exploited it for all it was worth.

The affidavit I am talking about is http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-14.php . Nothing about a break in but apart two random men who were walking along a nearby road on 6 June.

Mental illness and alcoholism don't usually spring up over night - many people struggle with such disorders for long periods of time before ever seeking help. And, many people hide these disorders very well, never letting on to employers, family and friends that something's wrong. The fact that Mr. Linch insists his illnesses never impacted his work on the Routier case means nothing - what's he going to say?!

The point here is that Linch had been treated for it already (over 2 years prior to the trial) and there is absolutely no evidence that he was in anyway unstable at the time of his work on the case. I'm sure if you delved into the history of all of the people who took the stand (both defense and state) you could find any number of people whose past history or background could be used to make them look unfit and unreliable. But the point of fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that his work here was unreliable. There are even photos of the micrscopic evidence compared with each other which backs up his story.

I'd really like to see you move away from what Mulder could have should have would have done differently and account for the evidence which DID come up at trial against Darlie. Ultimately it is the evidence (eg the screen fibers, the knife impression/imprint/outline on the carpet, lack of trail of intruder, missing blood on U-room floor where knife was meant to have dropped etc) which shuts down any rumors of black cars and so on.

[Dani_T]

Dani and Accordn2me:

Whoa! You guys are excellent on the topic of this fiberglass stuff! I've read both of your posts twice and I'M CONFUSED AS HELL!!!! Had Mulder done his job, the jury would have been too - and we all know what that means -

Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt! :p


:doh: Come on. Seriously. Can we please let go of this Mulder thing. There was nothign Mulder could have done to confuse the jury on this issue- though he tried with his talk of polymers and drapes and packing tape and computer motherboards. Linch laid it out nice and clear for the jury. It was identical. No difference. No other sources. The evidence on the knife was from the screen. Mulder couldn't and still can't change what the evidence said.

[Dani_T]

I guess the medical notes, charts, etc. are not available online - just in one of the books. Mary said that no mention is made of bruising in any of the medical documentation and, from what I gather, she's pretty knowledgable...

None of the nurses who testified saw the bruising on her arms. All of them said they would have noticed it. She would have been in a lot of pain and it would have been charted. All of them said that bruising that is shown in the photos taken at the police statement on June 10th was recent- absolutely no more than 48 hours old and probably closer to 24 hours.

[accordn2me]

:doh: Come on. Seriously. Can we please let go of this Mulder thing. There was nothign Mulder could have done to confuse the jury on this issue- though he tried with his talk of polymers and drapes and packing tape and computer motherboards. Linch laid it out nice and clear for the jury. It was identical. No difference. No other sources. The evidence on the knife was from the screen. Mulder couldn't and still can't change what the evidence said. Absolutely not! Mulder could have done much more than he did. Why didn't he...hell if I know! (Collusion, maybe :razz:) I do know that I can hardly read the transcripts without screaming at him. I'd love to be seated next to him somewhere he couldn't get away and grill him about this. He needs to be taken to task for not defending his client.

You said in one of your Mulder-defending posts, that he had been thoroughly debriefed by Terry Laber. No, he was not. Laber says so in his affidavit. TWO HOURS they talked. Then, never again. That's nothing! Laber was totally perplexed about not being consulted again. If Mulder played expert and intrepreted evidence, he's way over the line.

Just for fun, I'm going to post an example of an attorney countering expert testimony, (note the use of a different expert):

Fogleman: Call Lisa Sakevicius.
(Mumbling)
Fogleman: You’re the same Lisa Sakevicius who has previously testified, for the record?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Fogleman: All right. Lisa, at my request, did you run some additional graphs on known fibers?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: In other words, fibers that came from the robe, which is exhibit 88?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: All right. You did run some additional graphs from known fibers from exhibit 88, the robe?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: All right. Now, first of all let me show you State’s Exhibit 93 if you would. And exhibit State’s Exhibit 93. And is that the graph that you previously testified about? Where you indicated that the, uh, was part of the basis of your opinion that the fibers were microscopically similar?
Sakevicius: Yes, this is it.
Fogleman: All right. Think it was yesterday, Uh, Charles Linch testified that in his opinion that was, that that showed that they were dissimilar.
Sakevicius: I disagree.

Fogleman: And, at my request, did you take another two fibers from State’s Exhibit 88, the robe, and do an additional graph on those two fibers?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: All right. Now, if you noticed on Mr. Linch’s graph, which he shows that those two fibers come from a different source. He’s got Xs marked where couple of intersecting points are near the top, do you notice that?
Sakevicius: Yes, I see that.

Fogleman: In running this particular graph what, if anything, did you do to the fibers to try to duplicate the known fiber and the questioned fiber?
Sakevicius: I left one fiber in its original state. The other fiber, I took and I flattened it.

Fogleman: All right, now, Ms. Sakevicius, if you could show this graph, State’s Exhibit 127, I’m gonna show part of State’s Exhibit 125 which is the graph from Mr. Linch, where he said that they were dissimilar. Now the fibers on State’s Exhibit 127, those are from the same, they’re from that robe, both of them, right?
Sakevicius: Yes, they are.
Fogleman: All right. And Mr. Linch ran the known fiber and the questioned fiber.
Sakavicius: That’s correct

Ford: Ok. Let me make sure something again. That questioned fiber, is that the whole thing you found?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Ford: That’s the whole thing?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Ford: And you flattened part of it?
Sakevicius: I--it may all be flattened.
Ford: Well did you look at it? Under the microscope after you flattened it?
Sakevicius: Yes, I took a photograph of it after I flattened it.
Ford: Is it all flat? Or partially flat?
Sakevicius: I believe it’s nearly all flat, yes

Ford: Ok. How did you flatten it?
Sakevicius: I used a scalpel.
Ford: And you just – what was the fiber laying on?
Sakevicius: The glass slide.
Ford: And you pressed with a scalpel, that’s more like, that’s a knife really. Sort of like a precision knife blade.
Sakevicius: Yes, like a surgeon would use.
Ford: Ok. And you just press on part of that fiber, on the glass slide. And then you seal it with some, with a – top, that little liquid that sets up, right?
Sakevicius: Right.
Ford: Ok. And did you push very hard?
Sakevicius: I don’t remember how hard I pushed.
Ford: Or did you just sort of barely push on it?
Sakevicius: I don’t remember how hard I pushed.
Ford: How did you flatten these fibers yesterday?
Sakevicius: The same way.
Ford: The same way. So, you’re able to take fibers off this robe and just press on them with a scalpel and flatten them, and Charles Linch can’t get them to flatten with a hammer. Is that what you’re saying?
Sakevicius: I don’t know what his problem was.
Ford: Ok. If he testified, if he testified that he couldn’t get it to flatten with a hammer, he couldn’t get it to flatten with a scalpel, he couldn’t get it to flatten by pressing two glass slides, that he was only able to flatten it with putting two thousand pounds of pressure on it. What you’re saying is, he’s not as good as you are?
Sakevicius: Yes.
(Laughter)
Ford: Ok. You’re saying you’re better than he is?
Sakevicius: I was able to flatten the fibers with a scalpel and I found it a very simple procedure.
Ford: Ok. And, so Charlie is incompetent, is that what you’re tell this jury?
Sakevicius: I’m not going to say that.
Ford: Are you saying he’s incompetent and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sakevicius: I’ve never met the man.
Ford: Do you have any reason to tell this jury that he’s incompetent and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sakevicius: I would, uh, suspect somebody who couldn’t flatten a fiber with a scalpel.
Ford: Ok, so you think he’s incompetent?
Sakevicius: I’m not gonna go that far and say that.
Ford: But you’re suggesting that since he can’t flatten the fiber he must not be as qualified as you are, is that what you’re saying?
Sakevicius: I’m not gonna say that either.

http://p210.ezboard.com/fwestmemphisthreediscussionfrm31.showMessage?topic ID=49.topic

[cami]

Of course he did - which further goes to demonstrate his misjudgment in this case. Had Mulder done an effective cross-examination of Darlie, it should have been easy to convince her not to take the stand.

Hmmm I wonder FM. I don't think anything would have convinced her not to take the stand. I think she was compelled to get up there and let the jury hear her explain.

[SnootyVixen]

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.


I did read the transcripts and the books that I found since I did write before. Now I know that the pretend trial was talk about in the transcript. Also the nurse and doctor true words were in the book by C. Brown. Copied direct.

I am sorry I am so far behind.

[SnootyVixen]

"She suffered a small cut on her face." None of the nurses or doctors saw a cut on her face. They were very specific about her injuries, and would not have overlooked something so obvious.


HA HA!! I think this is what they term conjecture and not admissable. Saying Mary don't know what they would not have overlooked, no?

[SnootyVixen]

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night.

Me, I think that this is incorrect. The reason why is becaise I did read this 16 reports and I did find that Darlie only did make the three of them. All the rest were someone say Darlie told me. Is this reasonable to say that because they say this we must believe Darlie say this? I say I can not be sure. Can you be sure. I did not find Darlie a story changer in the three I read from herself. What say you?

[SnootyVixen]

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know? The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.


You know whaty I did read at the other place and I checked it in the transcript and it was true. Sometimes the doctores say something and then later they say something else. Talking about same thing. What does this mean?

I have question about this risking jobs. Why would this happen? They are on the side of the law.

[SnootyVixen]

Their licenses and jobs were never at risk (see below) - but their reputations were...Can you imagine being the one person to take the stand and give testimony favorable to Darlie when all your colleagues were saying otherwise? Not an easy thing to do, I'm sure...


I have been told by someone a time ago that there was one nurse who was made to come to the place of the trial but would not say the things that the others did say and was sent on a plane home and not kept there to testify. True?

[cami]

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know? The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.


You know whaty I did read at the other place and I checked it in the transcript and it was true. Sometimes the doctores say something and then later they say something else. Talking about same thing. What does this mean?

I have question about this risking jobs. Why would this happen? They are on the side of the law.

Hey Snooty, Haven't seen you around in a while. How are you?

It's me Fugi from over yonder. Perhaps you could reference the transcripts here for me so I can understand what you are saying. When did the doctors say something and then later say something else?

[SnootyVixen]

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it


What I think is that I have read much about this. And also on the groups. I think that the ones who did not have the experience of it do not believe. Ones that did do believe.

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it


What I think is that I have read much about this. And also on the groups. I think that the ones who did not have the experience of it do not believe. Ones that did do believe.


I have no problem believing that its a genuine syndrome. I just don't believe Darlie had it.

[Dani_T]

Absolutely not! Mulder could have done much more than he did.

First of all I just checked and it wasn't Mulder who cross examined Linch. Darlie had a defense team remember? Pity they were all such a lot of dead beats huh?

Secondly could you please go back and read Linch's testimony and his cross and shows us what else the defense could have done in cross examining him?

And finally could you please stop using Darlie's defense as a smoke screen and address the evidence itself. The screen fibre evidence is there regardless of who gave the evidence at trial and who cross examined him.

Edited because sometimes I wonder if I even speak English! Reading some of my posts sounds like English is my 2nd language- sorry guys I just type in such a hurry!

[cami]

Maybe if Mulder had done some digging, he could have exposed his problems and gottten some extremely damaging evidence thrown out...

Would a judge allow that type of cross examination in a trial? Wouldn't Mulder have to provide some proof that Linch's addictions directly impacted his work on Darlie's case or is the suggestion enough to get the evidence thrown out? I'm just curious about this of course as I don't know what is legal or not legal that can come into a trial?

[cami]

Well, okay - yeah - the outer part of her upper arm in that first picture does appear dark. I cannot tell, though, whether it's bruising or just a shadow...

I believe it's shadow as well. Look at the towel that is abutting her arm, I see definite shadow there.

[accordn2me]

First of all I just checked and it wasn't Mulder who cross examined Linch. Darlie had a defense team remember? Pity they were all such a lot of dead beats huh?

Secondly could you please go back and read Linch's testimony and his cross and shows us what else the defense could have done in cross examining him?

And finally could you please stop using Darlie's defense as a smoke screen and address the evidence itself. The screen fibre evidence is there regardless of who gave the evidence at trial and who cross examined him.

Edited because sometimes I wonder if I even speak English! Reading some of my posts sounds like English is my 2nd language- sorry guys I just type in such a hurry!
It was funny, though. So I didn't say anything, I knew who you meant, Mosty or whoever.

I know she had a team. Mulder was, or should have been, maestro, so to speak. You can say what a wonderful job he did, or the team did, whatever.

Fact is, they sucked. PERIOD!

That doesn't mean Darlie is innocent. However, it is why I doubt if she is guilty.

Why didn't Mulder keep Laber and Epstein? Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for an answer from me. I couldn't for the life of me ever figure it out. It's certainly not because they think she may be guilty. To the contrary, they don't think she's guilty. At least Laber doesn't. And it's probably deeper than just knowing Mulder was borderline incompetent IN THIS CASE.

You speak of Mulder's stellar record and reputatation. Well, I can't seem to find any such supporting information. The only stuff I've read about him isn't favorable at all.

Nope, won't drop it. Mulder deserves to be slammed over and over on this. The only complement I can give the man is that he fell seriously short of living up to the stereotype of a defense attorney.

FRITZY would have been a better bet for Darlie. At least the jurors would have seen the handwritten medical charts.

[Dani_T]

That doesn't mean Darlie is innocent. However, it is why I doubt if she is guilty.

:slap: Look. At. The. Evidence. For. Yourself.

Why didn't Mulder keep Laber and Epstein? Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for an answer from me. I couldn't for the life of me ever figure it out. It's certainly not because they think she may be guilty. To the contrary, they don't think she's guilty. At least Laber doesn't.

And you know this how?

It is my professional opinion that further testing and evaluation of the items referenced above in numbered paragraphs 6-11 would help establish if in fact the crime scene was or was not staged. Such testing is necessary to confirm or refute the State's testimonial evidence presented at Darlie Routier's trial and to establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence.

Signing an affidavit for the defense does not mean you think Darlie is innocent. Linch signed one and his testimony certainly showed that he doesn't think she is guilty.

You speak of Mulder's stellar record and reputatation. Well, I can't seem to find any such supporting information. The only stuff I've read about him isn't favorable at all.
It's common knowledge he was the best in town at the time. I don't have time to chase it up now- will look later.

Nope, won't drop it. Mulder deserves to be slammed over and over on this. The only complement I can give the man is that he fell seriously short of living up to the stereotype of a defense attorney.

Well I personally am dropping it because it's just a smoke screen. Until you start looking at the evidence itself and questioning it to show her innocence or reasonable doubt then it's a waste of your, my and everyone else here's time.

Over and Out :)

[accordn2me]

Linch doesn't think Darlie is guilty?

[Dani_T]

Linch doesn't think Darlie is guilty?

Sorry- typo due to rush again!

I think it is clear from his testimony that he does think the evidence shows she is guilty.

[Jeana (DP)]

It was funny, though. So I didn't say anything, I knew who you meant, Mosty or whoever.

I know she had a team. Mulder was, or should have been, maestro, so to speak. You can say what a wonderful job he did, or the team did, whatever.

Fact is, they sucked. PERIOD!

That doesn't mean Darlie is innocent. However, it is why I doubt if she is guilty.



I think you're entitled to your opinion. However, in order to judge someone in the legal profession as harshly as you've judged Mulder, I think you need to have some knowledge of the profession itself. What qualifies you to judge an attorney? Are you a judge? Are you a lawyer? Are you a law clerk? Are you a law student? Do you study the law as a profession? Are you employed in any capacity in a law firm or court?

[Goody]

"She suffered a small cut on her face." None of the nurses or doctors saw a cut on her face. They were very specific about her injuries, and would not have overlooked something so obvious.


HA HA!! I think this is what they term conjecture and not admissable. Saying Mary don't know what they would not have overlooked, no?
It's you in the flesh....well, proverbial flesh anyway. How the heck have you been doing? Nice chating with you again.

But, hey, don't rag on Mary too much. You can see in the photos that there are no cuts on her face. Just scraches from little Devon's fingernails around her chin area. Actually they are under her chin and one or two just at the very bottom. So why do you suppose a little child was scratching Miss Darlie that night if not because she was stabbing him?

[Goody]

Their licenses and jobs were never at risk (see below) - but their reputations were...Can you imagine being the one person to take the stand and give testimony favorable to Darlie when all your colleagues were saying otherwise? Not an easy thing to do, I'm sure...


I have been told by someone a time ago that there was one nurse who was made to come to the place of the trial but would not say the things that the others did say and was sent on a plane home and not kept there to testify. True?
That nurse was on the defendant's witness list, not the state's. At least that is what I understood. Mercedes Adams was also supposed to testify and didn't. In Patricia Springer's book, I think it was, it was reported that there was a big problem in Kerrville with Mercedes. She is said to have gone to the press with a story that the defense was trying to get her to lie for Darlie and she refused to do it. The attys denied it, of course, and Mercedes was taken off the witness list. When Darlie testified she made a huge effort not to call Mercedes a liar. She said that she had dreamed a story about the intruder that she told Mercedes but that she had forgotten to tell Mercedes that it was dream. Look in Darlie's testimony about Mercedes and how she dances all around in obvious fear of what her friend might tell if she isn't careful. I've heard that the two of them have since kissed and made up, but I sure would like Mercedes to show up here or on TV somewhere. I have a load of questions for her!!

[accordn2me]

I think you're entitled to your opinion.
Thank you. I'll share as long as you're nice.:angel:

However, in order to judge someone in the legal profession as harshly as you've judged Mulder, I think you need to have some knowledge of the profession itself.
Using your logic, what would I need to have in order to judge Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson? :waitasec:

What qualifies you to judge an attorney? Are you a judge? Are you a lawyer? Are you a law clerk? Are you a law student? Do you study the law as a profession? Are you employed in any capacity in a law firm or court?
I have the highest qualification possible. I'm a Kindergarten teacher! :slap:

[Goody]

Using your logic, what would I need to have in order to judge Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson? :waitasec:


I have the highest qualification possible. I'm a Kindergarten teacher! :slap:
The law works very differently than other occupations. You cannot use strictly logic to reach a fair base for criticism because there are so many rules of the court that defy logic. Attys have to work in and around those rules to the best of their ability on both sides. And a lot of it is judge's disgression which further muddies the waters as far as a clear and direct path goes.

For example, an attorney cannot put a witness on the stand he knows is going to lie. He can't hide expert opinions that are on a report. If the expert makes a verbal condensed assessment,as I understand it, that is not the same. (Jeana can better answer in this area. ) My point is just that you can't over simplify in legal assessments because there are so many rules that don't always make sense from a layman's point of view. Legal interpretations set out in statute do not always compare with what most of us citizens would think.

[accordn2me]

The law works very differently than other occupations.

:confused: Like what, brain surgery....computer programming....bass pro.... musician....trash collector.... They're all different! The first three, I probably couldn't critique their work. But a trial attorney....it's not difficult, for me at least, to read a transcript, or watch them in the courtroom and know if they are good at their job.

You cannot use strictly logic to reach a fair base for criticism because there are so many rules of the court that defy logic.
No! Don't use logic here!:doh: Use your common sense.

Attys have to work in and around those rules to the best of their ability on both sides.
Ability! That's what we're talking about here. If Mulder has any, he didn't use it in the courtroom. And it's plain as day to see when you read those transcripts.

If you don't believe me, ask an attorney that you know (if you're lucky enough to know one :p ) to read a couple of sections and give you a critique. Darin's testimony would be a good one. Maybe that would be too easy, pick any prosecution witness, have the attorney read through the cross exam by Mulder, and you'll see.

And a lot of it is judge's disgression which further muddies the waters as far as a clear and direct path goes.

Judicial discretion does set the tone in the courtroom. This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.

For example, an attorney cannot put a witness on the stand he knows is going to lie. He can't hide expert opinions that are on a report.

A good attorney can make someone look like they are lying, even if they are not. A good attorney knows witnesses can be "tripped up" on the stand and seriously damage the case if they are not careful. A good attorney knows how to refute expert testimony. A good attorney knows hearsay is not admissable. A good attorney knows he must object to hearsay so the jury will not hear it. A good attorney knows how to phrase his questions properly. A good attorney knows how to use case law and precedents to effectively argue his points to a judge. A good attorney knows it's futile to get into a whizzin' contest with the judge. Have I made my point?

[Dani_T]

And yes folks- we are still avoiding discussion about the actual evidence.

Back to your normal programming...

[Goody]

:confused: Like what, brain surgery....computer programming....bass pro.... musician....trash collector.... They're all different! The first three, I probably couldn't critique their work. But a trial attorney....it's not difficult, for me at least, to read a transcript, or watch them in the courtroom and know if they are good at their job.

I could say the same about teachers. In fact, you probably would not like my criticisms in that dept. and it is a whole lot easier to criticize a teacher than a lawyer simply because teachers do not have volumes upon volumes of rule books laid out by lawmakers telling them exactly what they can or cannot do every step of the way.

Besides, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume you can weigh the pros and cons of a subject without any idea of what all it takes to fairly represent someone in a court of law. Why don't you go take some law classes first.



No! Don't use logic here!:doh: Use your common sense..

Common sense and logic are only part of the picture.



Ability! That's what we're talking about here. If Mulder has any, he didn't use it in the courtroom. And it's plain as day to see when you read those transcripts.

If you don't believe me, ask an attorney that you know (if you're lucky enough to know one :p ) to read a couple of sections and give you a critique. Darin's testimony would be a good one. Maybe that would be too easy, pick any prosecution witness, have the attorney read through the cross exam by Mulder, and you'll see..
There are attys right here who can give an opinion on that. Jeana is an atty. Why don't you ask her?




Judicial discretion does set the tone in the courtroom. This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.



A good attorney can make someone look like they are lying, even if they are not. A good attorney knows witnesses can be "tripped up" on the stand and seriously damage the case if they are not careful. A good attorney knows how to refute expert testimony. A good attorney knows hearsay is not admissable. A good attorney knows he must object to hearsay so the jury will not hear it. A good attorney knows how to phrase his questions properly. A good attorney knows how to use case law and precedents to effectively argue his points to a judge. A good attorney knows it's futile to get into a whizzin' contest with the judge. Have I made my point?
You are saying that you don't think Mulder tried hard enough to get a guilty person off. I think I probably agree that he didn't believe in his client's innocence. That combined with many of his efforts being thwarted by the court didn't help, as well as the family not really leveling with him in the beginning. And Darlie herself was prone to shooting herself in the foot. She didn't help him any with those letters and all the other cockamamy explanations for her story of many versions that she laid on the jury. There are only so many messes a defense atty can clean up for a client. On top of that, Darins says a good defense for capital murder runs about $800,000 in Texas. They only had $100,000 to give him, so he was further handicapped that way.

I, for one, am not interested in whether he should have gotten her off, guilty or not. Her actual guilt or innocence outweighs how good his performance was.

Also, not one lawyer on his team would back Darlie's claims on Mulder's incompetence. That would not happen if he had performed as poorly as you think he did.

I don't think Mulder's weak points rise to the level of accusations that he did not give her an active defense. He did. He worked within his limitations which is all any defense atty can do in situations like this.

O, and one more point....Darlie was so ineffective as a witness for herself that he had to tell her to show the jury some tears over the death of her boys. When they came back from that recess, she balled like a baby, witnesses say. She was definitely not an easy client to defend.

[Goody]

And yes folks- we are still avoiding discussion about the actual evidence.

Back to your normal programming...
O, Dani, don't you ever get tired on hashing and rehashing the same old stuff?

[Mary456]

[QUOTE=accordn2me][color=blue] This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.

Let me see if I have this straight. Mulder had no ability as a defense attorney, Judge Tolle was a jerk, and that makes Darlie innocent :waitasec:

Could you be more specific as to why you think the judge was pro-prosecution? A few rulings from the transcript would help to clarify your accusation that Judge Tolle was a "jerk".

[accordn2me]

And yes folks- we are still avoiding discussion about the actual evidence.

Back to your normal programming...

This takes less time, Dani! :truce:

[Dani_T]

O, Dani, don't you ever get tired on hashing and rehashing the same old stuff?

Not having a go at you Goody. Just pointing out to accordn2me that she still hasn't bothered to look at the evidence.

[accordn2me]

[/color]I could say the same about teachers.
Of course you could. And you'd be right, too. It certainly doesn't take a teacher to know if a teacher is effective.

In fact, you probably would not like my criticisms in that dept. and it is a whole lot easier to criticize a teacher than a lawyer simply because teachers do not have volumes upon volumes of rule books laid out by lawmakers telling them exactly what they can or cannot do every step of the way.
It's easy to criticize anyone. It's harder to say, I could do better, then actually do better. So let's make it easier, at least if you are going to criticize, tell the person how THEY could do better. Anyone who wants to come into my classroom and tell me how I can do better is welcome. Anyone who can come into my classroom and do better, is more welcome! I think all parents should be required to observe classes at least 4 times per year. Legislators and other policy makers should be required to substitute at least 10 times per year. It's the people, who haven't stepped foot into a school in years, criticizing me and my colleagues, that I have a problem with.

Besides, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume you can weigh the pros and cons of a subject without any idea of what all it takes to fairly represent someone in a court of law. Why don't you go take some law classes first.[/color]
I don't deny being a bit arrogant, or more than a bit even. But I'm not weighing the pros and cons of a subject. Just like I don't need to be a meterologist to know if it's raining outside, I don't need to take law classes to know Mulder did a horrible job of representing Darlie Routier.

You are saying that you don't think Mulder tried hard enough to get a guilty person off.

No. I'm saying, due to Mulder NOT ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE I'm not sure Darlie Routier is guilty of murdering Damon and/or Devon.

I, for one, am not interested in whether he should have gotten her off, guilty or not. Her actual guilt or innocence outweighs how good his performance was.
You lost me. I know you believe she is guilty and her attorney was a stellar defense attorney. I don't know if she is actually guilty or innocent because her attorney didn't actually do anything to help the girl. Needless to say, we are not on the same page.

Also, not one lawyer on his team would back Darlie's claims on Mulder's incompetence. That would not happen if he had performed as poorly as you think he did.
Who's team? Darin's? :confused:

I don't think Mulder's weak points rise to the level of accusations that he did not give her an active defense. He did. He worked within his limitations which is all any defense atty can do in situations like this.
Mulder's weak points and limitations are why Darlie should have stuck with public defenders. They appeared to be on the right track, at least with Laber.

O, and one more point....Darlie was so ineffective as a witness for herself that he had to tell her to show the jury some tears over the death of her boys. When they came back from that recess, she balled like a baby, witnesses say. She was definitely not an easy client to defend.


I concur. She was a :loser:.

[accordn2me]

[QUOTE=accordn2me][color=blue] This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.

Let me see if I have this straight. Mulder had no ability as a defense attorney, Judge Tolle was a jerk, and that makes Darlie innocent :waitasec:

Could you be more specific as to why you think the judge was pro-prosecution? A few rulings from the transcript would help to clarify your accusation that Judge Tolle was a "jerk".
See Goody's post #172 about many of Mulder's efforts being thwarted by the court (judge). That's what I'm talking about. Tolle was acerbic to Mulder. And if you ask me, that was Mulder's fault too. He was combative to the equivalent of God. Not a good thing for a client facing death row.

And no, you still don't have it straight. Part one (mulder) straight... part 2 (Tolle) straight.... part 3 (Darlie) not straight!

[Jeana (DP)]

Thank you. I'll share as long as you're nice.:angel:


Using your logic, what would I need to have in order to judge Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson? :waitasec:


I have the highest qualification possible. I'm a Kindergarten teacher! :slap:


In the first place, you're not judging a DEFENDANT, you're judging an attorney. You cannot compare Mulder to Jackson or Peterson. Secondly, its pretty obviouso to me without knowing your profession that you're not qualified to do so.

[accordn2me]

In the first place, you're not judging a DEFENDANT, you're judging an attorney.
Yes! Just an ATTORNEY, for Pete's sake! We're not talking about an archangel, or the like.


You cannot compare Mulder to Jackson or Peterson. Secondly, its pretty obviouso to me without knowing your profession that you're not qualified to do so.
I was trying to make a point - you don't have to BE an attorney, a pedophile, a killer, a teacher, a duck, to recognize one when you see one. You are right - comparing Mulder to Jackson or Peterson would not serve to support the fact that Mulder was not an effective presence in or out of the courtroom in Darlie's case. Fritzy's Mom did a thorough job of comparing him to other defense attorneys, to no avail. But hey, it's OK if you think Mulder is a superb attorney.

[Jeana (DP)]

Yes! Just an ATTORNEY, for Pete's sake! We're not talking about an archangel, or the like.



I was trying to make a point - you don't have to BE an attorney, a pedophile, a killer, a teacher, a duck, to recognize one when you see one. You are right - comparing Mulder to Jackson or Peterson would not serve to support the fact that Mulder was not an effective presence in or out of the courtroom in Darlie's case. Fritzy's Mom did a thorough job of comparing him to other defense attorneys, to no avail. But hey, it's OK if you think Mulder is a superb attorney.

Not just me darlin. Plenty of people, who know what they're talking about by the way, think the same.

[Mary456]

See Goody's post #172 about many of Mulder's efforts being thwarted by the court (judge). That's what I'm talking about. Tolle was acerbic to Mulder.

That's not what I asked you, though. I think if you're going to call a judge a "jerk", you should back it up with references from the transcript. Personally, one thing I noted about Judge Tolle was that when he admonished the lawyers, he rarely singled out one. He included both attorneys in his admonishments, even when Mulder was clearly the one crossing the legal line.

So...how about some rulings that prove Judge Tolle was pro-prosecution and a jerk? I'd really like to hear them.

[accordn2me]

10 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
13 Q. Ms. Van Winkle, did you do any DNA
14 testing with respect to the pubic hair that was recovered
15 out there at the Routier residence?
16 A. No, I did not.
17 Q. That was sent over to Gene Screen; is
18 that right?
19 A. I don't have any direct knowledge of
20 that, no.
21 Q. Have you reviewed Gene Screen's
22 findings?
23 A. No, I have not.
24 Q. Who would know about that evidence?
25 Whatever went to Gene Screen came through y'all, didn't
1 it?
2 A. Through the laboratory, not through
3 me.
4 Q. Yes, ma'am. But either, as I recall
5 what Ms. Floyd testified to, she said she either got the
6 evidence from Ms. Van Winkle, that would be you?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Or Ms. Floyd, would be your partner, I
9 mean, that was Ms. Floyd or Mr. Linch?
10 A. Normally, he does the trace analysis,
11 the hair-type evidence. I deal with the blood and the
12 body fluid evidence.
13 Q. Okay. So you don't have any idea why
14 pubic hair was not given to you first, I guess, and was
15 sent over to Gene Screen?
16 A. I don't have any direct knowledge of
17 that, no.
18 Q. But that is Mr. Linch's area of
19 expertise, is it not?
20 A. As far as which part of it? As far as
21 microscopically identifying it?
22 Q. Yes, hair analysis.
23 A. That part of the hair analysis, yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, as I understand your
25 testimony, you are telling this jury that you did your
1 various analysis on the knife, butcher knife. You only
2 had one knife, didn't you?
3 A. That had blood on it, yes.
4 Q. Yes, ma'am. And you are telling this
5 jury that you did your analysis on that knife, on the tip
6 of the knife, several places on the blade of the knife
7 and on the handle of the knife; is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And you are telling the jury
10 that you have no evidence that Devon's blood was ever on
11 that knife. Is that fair to say?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. No question about that, is
14 there?
15 A. From the samples I tested?
16 Q. Yes, ma'am.
17 A. Which were limited and was not all of
18 the blood on the knife.
19 Q. Well --
20 A. There was no evidence of Devon's
21 blood.
22 Q. Okay. Well, you had access to all of
23 these exhibits and were able to take samples from
24 wherever you desired, were you not?
25 A. Are you referring to the knife?
1 Q. No, I'm referring to all of the
2 exhibits.
3 A. Basically, yes. That would be a fair
4 statement.
5 Q. Okay. And, for example, do your
6 records reflect how many dish towels, wash cloths, dish
7 rags, whatever you want to call them, came into your
8 laboratory?
9 A. They do perhaps, but I have not sat
10 down and counted them.
11 Q. Would you do that please?

13 THE COURT: Mr. Mulder, I think Ms.
14 Van Winkle --

16 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
17 Q. Ms. Van Winkle, how many towels do you
18 find?
19 A. Towels and rags, approximately 21, if
20 I counted correctly.
21 Q. Approximately 21?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. How many of those were tested by you?
24 A. By myself as far as DNA analysis?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. Only the ones we spoke of earlier.
2 Q. All right. Now, I believe you said
3 you did some green plaid towels?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Would these be the plaid towels?
6 A. They would be item No. 28.
7 Q. Okay. And, these tests you have are
8 very sensitive, aren't they?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. Matter of fact, I think it's
11 been said here in Court that you could actually analyze
12 the --
14 THE COURT: Would you mind standing,
15 please, Mr. Mulder?
16 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: I don't mind a
17 bit, Judge. I have got to bend over to pick this stuff
18 up, unless you would like to have somebody --
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: What's your
21 pleasure? I want to make you happy.
22 THE COURT: Well, I would rather have
23 you stand, if you would. I mean, there are several
24 people who can pick it up for you.
25 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: All right. I
1 don't mind. If one of y'all will get this for me, but


2 don't bend down when you get it.
3 THE COURT: The sidebar comments are
4 unnecessary.
5 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: All right.
6 THE COURT: So please stand.
7 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: All right.
8 THE COURT: Thank you.
24 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
25 Q. You will notice that, Ms. Van Winkle,
1 in Defendant's Exhibit No. 48, Defendant's Exhibit No.
2 49, and Defendant's Exhibit No. 47, there are three white
3 towels. Do you see those?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Okay. Do you know which one you
6 analyzed?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Right off I do not.
10 Q. Okay. Is there some reason that you
11 didn't analyze -- I know you did 100 analyses, and I
12 realize you have got to draw the line someplace.
13 A. Right.
14 Q. But any reason you didn't analyze the
15 other towels?
16 A. It wasn't specifically requested and
17 it wasn't initially analyzed.
18 Q. Okay. Who makes that determination as
19 to what is to be analyzed and what is not to be analyzed?
20 A. It's usually a joint effort, based on
21 experience and different requests.
22 Q. Between you and the district
23 attorney's office?
24 A. Or the investigators or the medical
25 examiners.
1 Q. So, you, working in conjunction with
2 the police agencies, decide what is to be analyzed and
3 what isn't to be analyzed, basically, is that it?
4 A. Well, that is always part of the
5 decision-making process, yes.
6 Q. Could I see a copy of your notes, the
7 report that you generated?
8 A. The whole file?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. This is just a copy of that.
11 Q. I don't know what I'm going to do with
12 the whole file.
13 A. This is just a copy of the report that
14 you have.
15 Q. Let me just see the whole file.
16 A. All right.
17 Q. I think we have this. Let me look at
18 it. Yeah, let me make sure we have it.
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. If we get to a point where you can't
21 answer and you need your notes, just let me know and I
22 will get them for you.
23 As I recall, you said the blue blanket
24 was analyzed and on the blue blanket you found Darlie's
25 blood; is that right?
1 A. I would like my notes to refer to,
2 please.
3 Q. All right. Can you do it with this?
4 A. Sure.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. Okay. And, the white towel that you
8 analyzed, what number was that?
9 A. It was item No. 30.
10 Q. Okay. That would appear to be a very
11 bloody item. This is 30, is it not?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Okay. And, more consistent perhaps
14 with the exhibit -- it's not consistent with what is
15 portrayed in Defendant Exhibit No. 49, is it?
16 A. Well, perhaps if I could -- well, let
17 me look at my file here, and see if it has any clue about
18 where it was from.
19 Q. Okay.
21 THE COURT: We will now take a 10
22 minute break. During the break, please get everything
23 out you need to cross examine this witness.
25 (Whereupon, a short1 Recess was taken,2 After which time,
3 The proceedings were4 Resumed on the record,5 In the presence and
6 Hearing of the defendant7 And the jury, as follows:)
9 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Judge, I don't
10 know who the witnesses are, so I can't prepare in
11 advance.
12 THE COURT: I said this witness.
13 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: I understand.
14 Well, if I knew who the witnesses were.


15 THE COURT: All right. Well, you know
16 that.
4 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
5 Q. The rug that you were telling us about
6 that you analyzed, do you know where that was?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Where was that?
9 A. It's reflected in the bottom picture
10 there under the sink.
11 Q. Is that the --
13 THE COURT: When you turn them that
14 way they break, kindly stop that. That's the second one
15 that's happened to.
16 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Well, this is the
17 first one for me, Judge.
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: I beg the Court's
20 pardon.
21 THE COURT: Thank you.
22 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Would you be so
23 kind as to assist me, Mr. Mosty? We will pick this up
24 together.
25 MR. RICHARD MOSTY: Yes.
1 THE COURT: All right. Be careful.
2 All right.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-38.php

[Jeana (DP)]

Add a link to the transcript, or I'll need to delete your entry due to copyright infringement. Thanks.

[cami]

That's your proof that he was more prosecution minded than defense?

I don't know what to think, I thought you might offer the judge ruling on objections. Seems to me that's where favouritism would come in. But I must admit that I am a babe in the woods when it comes to a trial.

[accordn2me]

That's your proof that he was more prosecution minded than defense?

I don't know what to think, I thought you might offer the judge ruling on objections. Seems to me that's where favouritism would come in. But I must admit that I am a babe in the woods when it comes to a trial. I can't PROVE that the judge was "more prosecution minded." I attempted to show an example of Tolle's disdain for Mulder. I randomly selected one of the volumes (38) and cut and pasted a relative fraction of testimony to show, not prove, that Tolle doesn't seem to like or respect Mulder. It seems to me that Tolle gets very riled by Mulder. Seemingly minor and routine things Mulder says and does seem to set him off. When I said, "this judge was a jerk," I should have qualified that by adding, "to Mulder." Like I said before, I blame Mulder for that. Instead of trying to diffuse the judge, Mulder only escalated the confrontations. Bad attorney!:slap:

I haven't read nearly as much of the transcripts as most posters who post on this topic. I have no idea when the judge's contempt for Mulder started. Was it as apparent at the beginning as it was later? I don't know. However, to those that may want to claim that judge Tolle was equally nice to Mulder as he was to other attorneys, here's a challenge: Post some examples that show Tolle's respect of, and professional courtesy to, Mulder.

[cami]

I can't PROVE that the judge was "more prosecution minded." I attempted to show an example of Tolle's disdain for Mulder. I randomly selected one of the volumes (38) and cut and pasted a relative fraction of testimony to show, not prove, that Tolle doesn't seem to like or respect Mulder. It seems to me that Tolle gets very riled by Mulder. Seemingly minor and routine things Mulder says and does seem to set him off. When I said, "this judge was a jerk," I should have qualified that by adding, "to Mulder." Like I said before, I blame Mulder for that. Instead of trying to diffuse the judge, Mulder only escalated the confrontations. Bad attorney!:slap:

I haven't read nearly as much of the transcripts as most posters who post on this topic. I have no idea when the judge's contempt for Mulder started. Was it as apparent at the beginning as it was later? I don't know. However, to those that may want to claim that judge Tolle was equally nice to Mulder as he was to other attorneys, here's a challenge: Post some examples that show Tolle's respect of, and professional courtesy to, Mulder.

Okay I get you, not proof, just showing. I did notice though that Mulder had a few sarcastic replies for the judge to add fuel to the fire. It's been so long since I read those transcripts but I didn't notice whether or not he was disdainful to the defense. I probably skipped those parts where there were bench conferences and utterances from the judge to I could get to the meat of the testimony.

Okay the challenge is on. Only I am going to try and find evidence that he was just as disrespectful to Davis while I am at it.

[Goody]

10 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
10 Q. Okay. Matter of fact, I think it's
11 been said here in Court that you could actually analyze
12 the --
14 THE COURT: Would you mind standing,
15 please, Mr. Mulder?
16 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: I don't mind a
17 bit, Judge. I have got to bend over to pick this stuff
18 up, unless you would like to have somebody --
19 THE COURT: All right.
20 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: What's your
21 pleasure? I want to make you happy.
22 THE COURT: Well, I would rather have
23 you stand, if you would. I mean, there are several
24 people who can pick it up for you.
25 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: All right. I
1 don't mind. If one of y'all will get this for me, but


2 don't bend down when you get it.
3 THE COURT: The sidebar comments are
4 unnecessary.
5 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: All right.
6 THE COURT: So please stand.
7 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: All right.
8 THE COURT: Thank you.
21 THE COURT: We will now take a 10
22 minute break. During the break, please get everything
23 out you need to cross examine this witness.
25 (Whereupon, a short1 Recess was taken,2 After which time,
3 The proceedings were4 Resumed on the record,5 In the presence and
6 Hearing of the defendant7 And the jury, as follows:)
9 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Judge, I don't
10 know who the witnesses are, so I can't prepare in
11 advance.
12 THE COURT: I said this witness.
13 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: I understand.
14 Well, if I knew who the witnesses were.


15 THE COURT: All right. Well, you know
16 that.
4 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
5 Q. The rug that you were telling us about
6 that you analyzed, do you know where that was?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. Where was that?
9 A. It's reflected in the bottom picture
10 there under the sink.
11 Q. Is that the --
13 THE COURT: When you turn them that
14 way they break, kindly stop that. That's the second one
15 that's happened to.
16 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Well, this is the
17 first one for me, Judge.
18 THE COURT: All right.
19 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: I beg the Court's
20 pardon.
21 THE COURT: Thank you.
22 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Would you be so
23 kind as to assist me, Mr. Mosty? We will pick this up
24 together.
25 MR. RICHARD MOSTY: Yes.
1 THE COURT: All right. Be careful.
2 All right.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-38.php

:clap: He did get on the judge's nerves, didn't he? hahahaha!

[Goody]

Not having a go at you Goody. Just pointing out to accordn2me that she still hasn't bothered to look at the evidence.
Gotcha.

[Goody]

It's easy to criticize anyone. It's harder to say, I could do better, then actually do better. So let's make it easier, at least if you are going to criticize, tell the person how THEY could do better. Anyone who wants to come into my classroom and tell me how I can do better is welcome. Anyone who can come into my classroom and do better, is more welcome! I think all parents should be required to observe classes at least 4 times per year. Legislators and other policy makers should be required to substitute at least 10 times per year. It's the people, who haven't stepped foot into a school in years, criticizing me and my colleagues, that I have a problem with..
Exactly. So when was the last time you stepped into a court room and defended a murderer?



I don't deny being a bit arrogant, or more than a bit even. But I'm not weighing the pros and cons of a subject. Just like I don't need to be a meterologist to know if it's raining outside, I don't need to take law classes to know Mulder did a horrible job of representing Darlie Routier. .
You need to learn about your subject though before you start declaring yourself an expert on it. There are many things that figure into defense strategy. Appellate issues have a whole lot to do with judge's disgression on many issues. Defense attys know this.

Also, think about what you are criticizing Mulder for. He didn't attack the blood evidence. I wonder why. Can you think of any reason he didn't continue the testing with Laber and Epstein?




You lost me. I know you believe she is guilty and her attorney was a stellar defense attorney. I don't know if she is actually guilty or innocent because her attorney didn't actually do anything to help the girl. Needless to say, we are not on the same page..
I don't know much about Mulder except what I have read. He has a rep for being a great defense atty. He had a successful career as a prosecutor as well. I accept that. You have to remember that Darlie herself did not want Mulder to go after Darin as an alternative suspect, so Mulder was doing what his client wanted. All three of them, Darlie Kee, Darin, and Darlie, asked him not to pursue that type of defense. What else could Mulder do? His hands were tied by Darlie herself.



Who's team? Darin's? :confused:.
Mulder's co-counsel were not hired by Darin. They were hired by Mulder and paid out of the $100,000 Darin paid Mulder for her defense. Mulder said that was only half what he usually charged. Darin now claims that a defense for capital murder runs about $800,000. So there was not much of a budget for Mulder to work with. Add that to the fact that if Darlie was guilty further testing could have hurt her more than it helped.

A defendant can not go into a court and argue any defense claim they want. That is what I meant when I said you should take a few law classes. Defense arguments can be limited by the judge, based on laws, appellate issues, constitutional rights, etc. Mulder was using a reasonable doubt argument, hence, the state did not meet its burden. They claimed they were sucker punched by a couple of things, but a lot of that was defense drama and confusion between the two defense atty offices (PD's and Mulder). I've noticed that defense attys often argue anything they can get away with when the evidence starts stacking against them. Mulder tried but Tolle ran a tight ship.



Mulder's weak points and limitations are why Darlie should have stuck with public defenders. They appeared to be on the right track, at least with Laber..
I agree, but they obviously scared Darin into raising the money for a seasoned atty team. However, they still couldn't refute the blood evidence against her. The only thing Laber and Epstein could have done to help her was come up with a believable way that blood on her shirt got there. So Unless the lab could find real solid evidence supporting the existence of an intruder or an alternative explanation for the blood evidence against her, I don't think it mattered that much who represented her.

And you have to remember that Mulder's investigator said he was lead to believe that Bevel was going to testify that the blood drops landed on top of each other. The possibility of that happening more than once would have been pretty slim. I think Bevel denied misleading the investigator, so who knows who made the mistake. But to this day no one, not even her supporters, have been able to come up with any explanation that can actually show the blood travelling like Bevel's tests did. Without that, Bevel's tests are impressive and convincing. I don't think just blaming Darin would have overcome that.




I concur. She was a :loser:.
I don't think she was a loser. Something happened to push across the line though. Maybe she is just a narcisstic sociopath, but I can't really grasp that yet.

[Goody]

I can't PROVE that the judge was "more prosecution minded." I attempted to show an example of Tolle's disdain for Mulder.
I haven't read nearly as much of the transcripts as most posters who post on this topic. I have no idea when the judge's contempt for Mulder started. Was it as apparent at the beginning as it was later? I don't know. However, to those that may want to claim that judge Tolle was equally nice to Mulder as he was to other attorneys, here's a challenge: Post some examples that show Tolle's respect of, and professional courtesy to, Mulder.
He did give the defense some things as I recall, but that isn't really the point. You have to weigh each issue separately.

Don Davis, author of Hush, Little Babies, wrote that Judge Tolle delayed his retirement to sit on this trial. They looked around for a court room after the change of venue was granted in Dallas, and settled on Kerrville because they had a court room available for the month of January. I think there was a push on them to finish the trial within that time frame because I have never heard the information refuted.

Also, the court house was repairing its central heat system. That court room did not have heat and it was very cold that month. That is why they took so many breaks, so the jury could warm up in another room.

Things like this come up in cases. They aren't serious enough to warrant a new trial. No trial is probably trouble free. But it gives you a little background info.

[Goody]

See Goody's post #172 about many of Mulder's efforts being thwarted by the court (judge). That's what I'm talking about. Tolle was acerbic to Mulder. And if you ask me, that was Mulder's fault too. He was combative to the equivalent of God. Not a good thing for a client facing death row.

!
They were all from Dallas...the prosecutors, Mulder, and the judge. )One defense atty was from Kerrville and I don't know where the other came from.) They probably all knew each other very well and were used to batting back and forth a bit. I wouldn't read too much into it. They were probably out sharing drinks the week after the trial, but there was a lot of pressure during the trial...always is. Makes for ill tempers at times.

[cami]

[color=purple][b]Things like this come up in cases. They aren't serious enough to warrant a new trial. No trial is probably trouble free. But it gives you a little background info.

I think that's one of the problems for supporters Goody. Darlie's trial was fair, not 100% perfect. No trial is.

[accordn2me]

Exactly. So when was the last time you stepped into a court room and defended a murderer? I'm going to be a Prosecutor when I grow up!:D
Seriously, I'm not declaring myself an expert on anything. I've admitted I could not defend people I thought were guilty. I would never make a good defense attorney. That said, even untrained, uneducated (lawschool) me can see where Mulder fell down on the job. Call me arrogant, naive is actually more appropriate :blushing:, but I feel that had I been in the courtroom - and that MEAN judge would have allowed :razz:- I could have easily given Mulder advice on how to make a better case for Darlie. There are so many times he dropped the ball while questioning witnesses, or didn't make objections when he should have. The pyschic...if he wanted to get her opinion in so badly, why didn't he call her! As well as you know this case, aren't there things you wish he would have brought out just so our questions could be answered? At times, it looked like he was going to, and then POOF! on to something else. I didn't realize the courtroom had no heat! Hell, I can't think when I'm cold either. Maybe that was it.

[accordn2me]

Also, think about what you are criticizing Mulder for. He didn't attack the blood evidence.
That's not all he didn't attack! Here's what Linch says he could have attacked:

7. During the course of our August 23, 1996 meeting, Bart Epstein and Terry Laber performed a detailed analysis of the evidence I provided. Bart Epstein conducted a microscopic comparison of all the microscope slides I had prepared. Terry Laber collected samples from some of the larger pieces of evidence, such as Darlie Routier's nightshirt, and took detailed notes regarding the evidence examined. 8. I was not informed of Bart Epstein and Terry Labers' conclusion based on their analysis of the Routier evidence. However, the evidence tested by Bart Epstein and Terry Laber may have enabled them to form conclusions that contradicted, or called into question, the State's theory of the case.

9. I was not contacted by either Bart Epstein or Terry Laber following our August 23, 1996 meeting at SWIFS. I do not know if they conducted further tests on the evidence they collected from me. Bart Epstein and Terry Laber's absence from Darlie Routier's trial team coincided with the appointment of Douglas Mulder and Richard Mosty, who assumed the representation of Darlie Routier from Douglas Parks and Wayne Huff. Following my August 23, 1996 meeting with Bart Epstein and Terry Laber, I was not contacted by any other trace evidence experts for the defense in the Routier case.

10. As a trace evidence analyst, it is my professional opinion that further forensic testing on this evidence would have been appropriate in order to adequately investigate the factual bases of the prosecution's theories. Specifically, it is my professional opinion that if Bart Epstein and Terry Laber were released from their retention as expert witnesses for Darlie Routier's defense, such release constituted a grave error on the part of Darlie Routier's defense counsel.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-08.php



#2. by Charles Linch


6. On or about June 8, 1996, I received several pieces of evidence from Detective Jim Patterson. This evidence included a butcher block with eight knives. The butcher block and knives were identical to the butcher block and knives I observed on the kitchen counter at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas, on June 6, 1996.

7. At the time I received this butcher block and knives at the SWIFS Laboratory, both the butcher block itself and all the knives in it had been dusted for fingerprints. This included a serrated bread knife which I later designated as "Knife #4." This knife was located on the left end of the bottom row of knives in the butcher block.

8. The serration grooves in Knife #4 contained debris consisting of microscopic rubber dust particles and a microscopic fiberglass rod fragment. Based on my forensic microscopic comparison, this material was microscopically consistent with debris obtained from the garage window screen at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. However, while I was asked only to perform microscopic tests on these samples, microscopic comparison is not the most discriminating method available to determine the source of this debris. If the rubber dust particles and fiberglass rod fragment can be located and removed from the mounting media for testing, more discriminating chemical testing came be performed on this evidence to determine if the debris found in Knife #4 is in fact consistent with the debris from the window screen material. For example, a Fouier Transform Infrared Microscopy (FTIR) test can be used to create a "chemical fingerprint" of the microscopic rubber particles. As a trace evidence analyst, I would recommend such testing be conducted if possible.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-09.php

Here's what Samuel Palenick says Mulder could have attacked:

5. I have reviewed testimony from State of Texas v. Darlie Lynn Routier, Trial Court No. F96-39973-J, related to the fiber that was recovered from Knife Number 4, the bread knife from the knife block found in the kitchen of 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. I have also reviewed slides that purport to compare this removed fiber with material from the garage screen window, photographs of the garage window screen, and a sample of window screen similar to the torn screen at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. I have not been able to view the actual fiber itself. I understand that the fiber is in the State's custody and that defense counsel has been refused access to it.

6. Based on my review of the testimony, photographs, slides, and sample window screen, it is my opinion that the origin of the fiber removed from Knife Number 7 can be determined more definitively than has been done previously by a study of the microscopic morphology alone. The optical properties, in particular the refractive index and the elemental composition of the fiber can be established with certainty using polarized light and/or interference microscopy for the latter and x-ray spectroscopy in the scanning electron microscope for the latter. The composition of what appears to be the elastomeric binder can be established in infrafred microspectophotometry. To do this, it will be necessary to isolate the materials from the microscope slide, wash them off, and subject them to the appropriate tests.

7. I also have reviewed Charles Linch's testimony in State of Texas v. Darlie Lynn Routier, Trial Court No. F96-39973-J, related to four defects in the right shoulder area of the Victoria Secret's nightshirt that Darlie Lynn Routier was wearing on the night of the events at 3801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. I have not been able to examine that actual nightshirt because I understand that it too is in the State's custody and that defense counsel has been refused access to it.

8. Based on the information I have about the nightshirt, it is my opinion that it may be possible to determine, by microscopical examination, if the four defects were created by the same instrument as the nightshirt defects that corresponded to Darlie Lynn Routier's injuries.

9. To conduct the above-described testing, I would need access to Knife Number 7, the fiber removed from Knife Number 4, a sample of the actual torn garage window screen at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas, Knife Number 2 (the murder weapon), and the Victoria Secret's nightshirt. None of the testing that I propose to do on Knife Number 4 fiber and the Victoria Secret's nightshirt would destroy the physical sample.

10. It is my understanding that Charles Linch testified for the State at trial that the fiber recovered from Knife Number 4 was "consistent" with the material from the garage window screen. It is my opinion that if Knife Number 4 was dusted using a brush and fingerprint powder, and if the knives in the same block were also dusted using a brush and fingerprint powder, then it is possible that the fibers in Knife Number 4 came from the brush used to dust the knives found in the kitchen, rather than from the garage window screen.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-10.php

[accordn2me]

Also, think about what you are criticizing Mulder for. He didn't attack the blood evidence. I wonder why. Can you think of any reason he didn't continue the testing with Laber and Epstein?
I wonder why, too! Until you explained the money issue, I couldn't think of any reason at all. Now, I'd say greed is the reason. Let's read to see what Laber says:
8. In late October or November 1996, I met with Douglas Mulder and his investigator, Lloyd Harrell, to discuss the testing that Barton Epstein and I had conducted to date. Barton Epstein did not attend that meeting.

9. During the meeting, I provided Mr. Mulder and Mr. Harrel with a general overview of the work done to date by Mr. Epstein and I. It was my impression that neither Mr. Mulder nor Mr. Harrell seemed particularly interested in that work. Both men asked me only a few questions. The meeting lasted about two hours.

10. Following the meeting, I expected that Douglas Mulder or one of his colleagues would follow up with me because the time in the introductory meeting was not sufficient time to explain in necessary depth the forensic significance of the analysis Barton Epstein and I had performed or had recommended be performed. Mr. Mulder did not retain either Barton Epstein or me to perform any of the testing we recommended, and so we discontinued all work on the case. I had no further involvement in the trial of Darlie Lynn Routier after November 1996.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-07.php


Mulder didn't even bother to meet with Barton Epstein!


Here's what Laber says Mulder could have attacked:


6. Barton Epstein and I recommended to Mr. Parks and Mr. Huff that certain samples of physical evidence that we reviewed be analyzed to test the State's theory that the crime scene at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas had been stated. For example:

a. Fiber and Opaque Material Said to Have Been Removed from Bread Knife: We recommended that microscopic and/or elemental comparison tests be conducted on the fiberglass and opaque materials removed from a bread knife to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage of 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.

b. Other Fibers Said To Have Been Removed from Knife on Counter: We recommended that the apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter be microscopically examined to determine their source.

c. Darlie Routier's Nightshirt: Based on defects (i.e. cuts) observed on the left side of the nightshirt, we determined that additional testing was required to identify the source of the defects. In addition, we recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of the nightshirt.

d. Hoover Vacuum Cleaner: Based on our visual examination of the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner, we determined that genetic testing was required to determine the source of the blood.

e. Carpet: We recommended DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on the carpet from 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.

f. Darin Routier's Blue Jeans: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans.

g. Pillow and furniture: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas on the living room furniture, pillow and on the wine rack.


Laber continued:

11. Based on the analysis I performed in this case, it was my professional opinion in November 1996, and is my professional opinion today, that there were numerous pieces of physical evidence we reviewed that were not consistent with a staged crime scene. For example:

a. Review of the blood spatter on and near the vacuum cleaner indicated that the vacuum cleaner had not been pushed around by someone bleeding, but, instead, that most of the bleeding had occurred after the vacuum cleaner had been knocked down.

b. The placement of shards of glass below the location of the wine glasses indicated that the wine glass had broken while still in the rack and was not consistent with a person smashing or throwing the glass onto the floor as part of a staged crime scene.

12. In my professional opinion, scientific testing of the physical evidence would have been critical to Darlie Lynn Routier's defense. Independent testing of that physical evidence was crucial to properly evaluate the State's case. There were numerous potential holes in the State's case that required testing to conform or refute the State's presentation of the evidence and to provide evidence that could well have refuted the State's forensics testimony. These and other tests would have been critical to developing the physical evidence to refute the State's use of forensic and physical evidence and establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence.

a. Based on my blood-spatter analysis experience, for the theory that direct hits of Darlie Lynn Routier's blood being spattered from her stab would precisely covered each blood spatter of her tow sons Damon and Devon to have been correct would have required an extremely unlikely sequence of events. My preliminary analysis of the shirt Darlie Lynn Routier was wearing indicated only minimal area of blood spatter and the critical areas of spatter were not subjected to genetic testing. Genetic testing should have been conducted on those blood-stained areas of Darlie Lynn Routier's nightshirt. In addition, a microscopic examination should have been performed to determine the source of cuts observed on the left-side of the neck of the nightshirt.

b. Testing of the fiberglass and opaque material said removed from the bread knife should have been conducted to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage, and the window screen was cut as part of the staged crime scene.

c. The apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter should have been microscopically examined to determine their source.

d, DNA testing should have been performed on the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner to determine the identity of the persons or persons whose blood was on the vacuum cleaner.

e. DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on carpet and flooring should have been pursued to determine the identity of those who bled or left prints.

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.

g. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas on the furniture, pillow and wine rack to reconstruct the location and movement of individuals at the crime scene.

12. It is my professional opinion that further testing and evaluation of the items referenced above in numbered paragraphs 6-11 would help establish if in fact the crime scene was or was not staged. Such testing is necessary to confirm or refute the State's testimonial evidence presented at Darlie Routier's trial and to establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence. For example:

a. DNA testing and/or microscopic examination should be conducted on blood stains left on Darlie Routier's nightshirt, the Hoover vacuum cleaner, furniture items, pillow, wine rack, and all flooring and carpeting samples in the State's custody.

b. Chemical testing of the flooring and carpeting samples should also be explored. In addition, all microscopic slides of fibers and other matter removed from 5801 Eagle Drive should be examined to determine their source and/or to rule out possible sources.

c. Testing of the brush and powder used to dust the knives in the home at 5801 Eagle Drive should be performed and may refute the theory that fiberglass was consistent with the material from the garage window screen.

13. In order to conduct such testing, access to the above-referenced items in the State's custody, as well as samples of the garage window screen and all known blood samples would be required. Although certain testing might use up a portion of the existing sample, none would destroy the sample completely. Thus, there would be remaining sample for the State to conduct confirmatory testing should it desire to do so.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-07.php

[Dani_T]

The defense did attack the bread knife fibre. They did ask if Linch had done any further testing. And Linch replied that he had tried by the evidence was too small to transfer to the medium required. Whether that is not longer an issue in 2005 is a different story. I've already said this two or three times. The defense tried everything they could to discredit the knife fibre. Go read the transcripts about it (it's mind numbing stuff).

[accordn2me]

The defense did attack the bread knife fibre. They did ask if Linch had done any further testing. And Linch replied that he had tried by the evidence was too small to transfer to the medium required. Whether that is not longer an issue in 2005 is a different story. I've already said this two or three times. The defense tried everything they could to discredit the knife fibre. Go read the transcripts about it (it's mind numbing stuff).
OH, NO :hand:, the defense DID NOT try everything they could, or anything they could even, to discredit the knife fiber. I took your suggestion and read a bit. You know what? They wouldn't even let Linch help them out! They shut him up when he tried. I wonder why...

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-37.php

14 Q. So if a person puts too much stock in
15 what is microscopically similar, they might draw the
16 wrong conclusion?
17 A. Oh, yeah.

1 Q. And what you told us was that you
2 found a part of a fiberglass rod?
3 A. That's right.

19 Q. Okay. And there is no way you can
20 definitively connect that fiberglass rod to any kind of
21 dust, is there?
22 A. The rod as it occurs on the microscope
23 slide is separate from the dust residue.
24 Q. Okay. And you can't tell that those
25 two have ever been married together or bonded together?
1 A. I don't know that they started out
2 together, no.
3 Q. And there is no way to know that, is
4 there?
5 A. Not as they occur, no.
6 Q. And, fiberglass, those fiberglass rods
7 are found in a multitude of items in and around houses,
8 aren't they?
9 A. Yes, sir, they are.

20 Q. And then you said that you found some
21 residue that you called -- did you call that rubbery
22 residue?
23 A. I call it rubber dust particles.
24 Q. Rubber dust particles. Okay. And,
25 there was not enough of that, you couldn't run a test
1 like the DNA test you ran on the hair, you couldn't run,
2 there isn't a test to run on that dust?
3 A. There is a test that can be done. I
4 was not able to get these things removed and to the
5 proper surface in order to do the test. I attempted but
6 couldn't do it.
7 Q. So there wasn't even enough to run a
8 scientific test to back up, and to determine whether or
9 not you could draw a conclusion that that was a
10 particular type of rubbery material.

11 A. That's correct. The absolute chemical
12 identification of that rubber dust was not accomplished.

4 Q. Okay. And, you did not ever, these
5 rubber dust particles, you never were able to observe the
6 molecular structure of them, were you?
7 A. Not on the recovered particles from
8 the bread knife, no.

3 Q. But you don't have enough to test and
4 you couldn't see the molecular structure, right?
5 A. With polarized light microscopy, if
6 you can see the particle with the comparison microscope,
7 you can see it with the polarized light microscope. And
8 using different filters to determine what it's wave
9 orientation is -- the material from the bread knife was
10 consistent with polyvinyl chloride.
11 Q. But could it also have consisted of a
12 lot of other things too, didn't it?
13 A. That's right. A lot of other polymers
14 with that same polarized light characteristic.

5 Q. And as it -- just one more thing.
6 There is no way at all to run a test like we ran the DNA
7 test on your hair observation -- there is no way to run
8 any kind of testing on either the rod or this dust to
9 verify?
10 A. There is a way. I was, however,
11 unsuccessful in getting this stuff removed.
12 Q. Let me clarify: In this case?
13 A. With these particles?
14 Q. There is no way to verify those
15 observations that you made?
16 A. Well, another microscopist could look
17 at it and verify that, yeah, that is a glass rod.
18 Q. Well, but another hair sample person
19 could have looked at that hair forever and --
20 A. Sure.
21 Q. -- and would have come to the same
22 conclusions you came to? 23 A. Right.
24 Q. What I'm talking about is a way to
25 scientifically verify, like we did on the hair, your


1 observations. And there is no way, am I understanding
2 that right?
3 A. Well --
4 Q. Based upon the minuteness of these
5 particles?
6 A. Well, you can make certain judgments
7 about it, just from a microscopic view, but the --
8 Q. That wasn't the question. I don't
9 mean to get --
10 A. I --
11 Q. I know that you have talked about your
12 observations. And I'm not quarreling with you about
13 that.

14 What I'm talking about now is, after
15 you have made your observations, whether it be about hair
16 or about these, I'm talking about taking it to that next
17 step. To take it into a lab and running a DNA for
18 fiberglass or whatever it might be called.
19 A. The next possible step was not
20 accomplished.
21 Q. And was impossible to accomplish, I
22 guess?
23 A. By me, it was.


Instead of taking Linch's testimony further on the "next possible step" or "a test that can be done" or just letting Linch finish his sentences, the defense kept going back to the fact that Linch himself couldn't have done more testing. In fact, according to Linch, he did exactly what he was asked to do. Which, it is not insignificant to note, was absolutely nothing by the defense. So why do you think the defense, in their vigorous attack, didn't actually take the next possible step and have "a test that can be done" done?

[Goody]

. The pyschic...if he wanted to get her opinion in so badly, why didn't he call her! .
Psychics aren't usually allowed to testify. Their visions are not considered evidence. LOL! Beisdes, once you get someone on the stand they are sworn in to tell the truth. Would you really want a psychic on the stand to answer questions about her visions? Rumor has it that the visions were not very favorable to Darlie. But if he can slip in a quick answer from Darlie on the subject, it might leave the impression that the visions were just the opposite.

. As well as you know this case, aren't there things you wish he would have brought out just so our questions could be answered? At times, it looked like he was going to, and then POOF! on to something else.
There are plenty of things I wish both sides had brought out. For one thing, I wanted to hear from Darlie Kee and Dana in the guilt phase of the trial. I would have loved to have seen a good cross on Dana esp.

. I didn't realize the courtroom had no heat! Hell, I can't think when I'm cold either. Maybe that was it.
Well, it had some heat. Icesycles (can't remember how to spell...icesicles,,darn) weren't hanging from their hair or anything. ahhhhahahaha!

[Jeana (DP)]

There's appellate argument I've never heard. . . the courtroom was too cold and I couldn't think. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Goody, we DO need a spillchucker on this forum. I think its icicles, but don't hold me to it. :)

[Goody]

There's appellate argument I've never heard. . . the courtroom was too cold and I couldn't think. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Goody, we DO need a spillchucker on this forum. I think its icicles, but don't hold me to it. :)
:laugh: I agree. My spelling memory has taken a hike lately. I can't spell anything. It is tough to get old. The brain cells are the first to go.

I agree on the cold courtroom excuse there, Jeana. It was not the most desirable situation but as the kids say these days....stuff happens. The courts just like the rest of us make do with what we have to work with. Nobody's teeth were chattering. Now that might have been an appellate issue. The juries teeth were chattering so loud they drowned out the testimony. LOL!

[Goody]

I wonder why, too! Until you explained the money issue, I couldn't think of any reason at all. Now, I'd say greed is the reason
How can you say greed????? He had three attorneys and one investigator at the very least to pay, and every attorney had a staff to pay as part of the representation plus outside expenses. The attorneys had to get considerably less than $30,000 and after expenses? You figure the math. Where is the budget for lab work?


. Let's read to see what Laber says:
8. In late October or November 1996, I met with Douglas Mulder and his investigator, Lloyd Harrell, to discuss the testing that Barton Epstein and I had conducted to date. Barton Epstein did not attend that meeting.

9. During the meeting, I provided Mr. Mulder and Mr. Harrel with a general overview of the work done to date by Mr. Epstein and I. It was my impression that neither Mr. Mulder nor Mr. Harrell seemed particularly interested in that work. Both men asked me only a few questions. The meeting lasted about two hours.
They didn't have a budget for it, unlike the PD's who did. The state was paying for their lab work. Surely you don't expect Mulder and team to pay for the testing FOR Darlie, do you?

10. Following the meeting, I expected that Douglas Mulder or one of his colleagues would follow up with me because the time in the introductory meeting was not sufficient time to explain in necessary depth the forensic significance of the analysis Barton Epstein and I had performed or had recommended be performed. Mr. Mulder did not retain either Barton Epstein or me to perform any of the testing we recommended, and so we discontinued all work on the case. I had no further involvement in the trial of Darlie Lynn Routier after November 1996.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-07.php


Mulder didn't even bother to meet with Barton Epstein!
Again, where was the money to pay for all this? That lab work would have cost thousands of dollars.

Here's what Laber says Mulder could have attacked:


6. Barton Epstein and I recommended to Mr. Parks and Mr. Huff that certain samples of physical evidence that we reviewed be analyzed to test the State's theory that the crime scene at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas had been stated. For example:

a. Fiber and Opaque Material Said to Have Been Removed from Bread Knife: We recommended that microscopic and/or elemental comparison tests be conducted on the fiberglass and opaque materials removed from a bread knife to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage of 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.!
Here are some keywords: to substantiate or dispute the State's theory What happens if the tests substantiate the state's theory? Good for the state, bad for Darlie?

b. Other Fibers Said To Have Been Removed from Knife on Counter: We recommended that the apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter be microscopically examined to determine their source.

c. Darlie Routier's Nightshirt: Based on defects (i.e. cuts) observed on the left side of the nightshirt, we determined that additional testing was required to identify the source of the defects. In addition, we recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of the nightshirt.

d. Hoover Vacuum Cleaner: Based on our visual examination of the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner, we determined that genetic testing was required to determine the source of the blood.

e. Carpet: We recommended DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on the carpet from 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas.

f. Darin Routier's Blue Jeans: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans.

g. Pillow and furniture: We recommended that genetic testing be conducted on several blood-stained areas on the living room furniture, pillow and on the wine rack.!
They were fishing. They had no hook to offer Mulder on which he could hang his defense on. Even worse, they were offering the possibility that much of this testing very likely would support the state's theory. Once their findings became a hard copy report, how was Mulder supposed to keep it out of the hands of the state?

I admit that I don't know all of the interworkings between the defense and state in cases like this. I have some law classes under my belt, but am certainly no expert. I am still learning. But it makes sense to me that attys would not want findings that go against their client to become carved in stone in some expert's report when it is so easy to try to create reasonable doubt around the state's reports. If you can get the jury to dance with you, you can bat a homerun without ever hitting the ball.

I think Mulder knew by then that she was guilty and felt his best strategy was to create as much smoke and mirrors as he could. Those old Texas farmers just didn't buy into it like the more liberal Dallas folks might have.


. Laber continued:

11. Based on the analysis I performed in this case, it was my professional opinion in November 1996, and is my professional opinion today, that there were numerous pieces of physical evidence we reviewed that were not consistent with a staged crime scene. .!I don't believe the staging mattered that much. It was supporting evidence, that if they could prove the cast off blood on her shirt was not from the stabbing knife or the fiber on the bread knife was not from the screen, would have been worthy of a real focus. Without refuting these two things though, I am not sure it matters if she staged the scene or not.


. For example:


a. Review of the blood spatter on and near the vacuum cleaner indicated that the vacuum cleaner had not been pushed around by someone bleeding, but, instead, that most of the bleeding had occurred after the vacuum cleaner had been knocked down..!So what? They aren't accounting for the wheel marks THRU the blood or why the wheel marks stop at certain points,then start up again. If the vacuum was tossed into the kitchen by paramedics as some supporters claim, there shouldn't be any wheel marks at all. It is obvious that vacuum was in the kitchen the whole time and that there was some activitiy around it that was never explained, but what they are suggesting doesn't do it either.

. b. The placement of shards of glass below the location of the wine glasses indicated that the wine glass had broken while still in the rack and was not consistent with a person smashing or throwing the glass onto the floor as part of a staged crime scene..!
You never know how important a piece of evidence can be and this one has never been sufficiently explained, though Dani might not agree with me. She, by the way, is very, very good with this evidence. She knows it like the back of her hand. What I find most important about the breaking wine glass is that it proves both Darlie and Darin lied. If it happened while Darlie was still on the couch as the intruder left, Darin could not possibly have heard it where he claimed he did and when he claimed he did. That means he had to be DOWNSTAIRS when it broke, not upstairs as he claimed,and that not only did it not happen when the intruder fled as Darlie claimed but that most of her story is a bold faced lie. Why would she call upstairs for Darin when he was downstairs all along? She said she saw him come down the stairs. That would be a lie, too.


. 12. In my professional opinion, scientific testing of the physical evidence would have been critical to Darlie Lynn Routier's defense. Independent testing of that physical evidence was crucial to properly evaluate the State's case. There were numerous potential holes in the State's case that required testing to conform or refute the State's presentation of the evidence and to provide evidence that could well have refuted the State's forensics testimony. These and other tests would have been critical to developing the physical evidence to refute the State's use of forensic and physical evidence and establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence.



a. Based on my blood-spatter analysis experience, for the theory that direct hits of Darlie Lynn Routier's blood being spattered from her stab would precisely covered each blood spatter of her tow sons Damon and Devon to have been correct would have required an extremely unlikely sequence of events. My preliminary analysis of the shirt Darlie Lynn Routier was wearing indicated only minimal area of blood spatter and the critical areas of spatter were not subjected to genetic testing. Genetic testing should have been conducted on those blood-stained areas of Darlie Lynn Routier's nightshirt. In addition, a microscopic examination should have been performed to determine the source of cuts observed on the left-side of the neck of the nightshirt.


b. Testing of the fiberglass and opaque material said removed from the bread knife should have been conducted to substantiate or dispute the State's theory that the source of these materials was the window screen in the garage, and the window screen was cut as part of the staged crime scene.

c. The apparent wood fragments and blue fibers removed from the knife found on the kitchen counter should have been microscopically examined to determine their source.

d, DNA testing should have been performed on the blood stains found on the Hoover vacuum cleaner to determine the identity of the persons or persons whose blood was on the vacuum cleaner.

e. DNA and possible chemical testing of blood stains and prints left on carpet and flooring should have been pursued to determine the identity of those who bled or left prints.

f. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas of Darin Routier's blue jeans since they might have indicated that he was involved in the murder.

g. Genetic testing should have been conducted on several blood-stained areas on the furniture, pillow and wine rack to reconstruct the location and movement of individuals at the crime scene.


12. It is my professional opinion that further testing and evaluation of the items referenced above in numbered paragraphs 6-11 would help establish if in fact the crime scene was or was not staged. Such testing is necessary to confirm or refute the State's testimonial evidence presented at Darlie Routier's trial and to establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence. For example:


a. DNA testing and/or microscopic examination should be conducted on blood stains left on Darlie Routier's nightshirt, the Hoover vacuum cleaner, furniture items, pillow, wine rack, and all flooring and carpeting samples in the State's custody.

b. Chemical testing of the flooring and carpeting samples should also be explored. In addition, all microscopic slides of fibers and other matter removed from 5801 Eagle Drive should be examined to determine their source and/or to rule out possible sources.

c. Testing of the brush and powder used to dust the knives in the home at 5801 Eagle Drive should be performed and may refute the theory that fiberglass was consistent with the material from the garage window screen.

13. In order to conduct such testing, access to the above-referenced items in the State's custody, as well as samples of the garage window screen and all known blood samples would be required. Although certain testing might use up a portion of the existing sample, none would destroy the sample completely. Thus, there would be remaining sample for the State to conduct confirmatory testing should it desire to do so.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-07.php
The lab gets paid no matter what the findings prove to be, but a defense atty has to be very careful not to set up things that can come back and bite his client in the butt. They aren't saying that they are willing to look for things to refute the state's case. They are saying, let us test all these things and see where it leads us. If it convicts Darlie, oops. Maybe Jeana can weigh in here and tell us what she thinks the proper stragedy should have been. Personally, I would love to know all these answers myself, but not because it would help Darlie. Because it would probably underline her guilt.

[Goody]

Instead of taking Linch's testimony further on the "next possible step" or "a test that can be done" or just letting Linch finish his sentences, the defense kept going back to the fact that Linch himself couldn't have done more testing. In fact, according to Linch, he did exactly what he was asked to do. Which, it is not insignificant to note, was absolutely nothing by the defense. So why do you think the defense, in their vigorous attack, didn't actually take the next possible step and have "a test that can be done" done?
Because that was his trial strategy....he was trying to prove that the state had not sufficiently investigated the case. In this instance, they had not done a thorough testing of the evidence.

What you are not taking into consideration is that that one little fiber would not exist anymore if that test they are talking about was done. At least that is my understanding of the testimony/affidavits,etc.

Mulder believed there were enough holes in the state's theories/case that he could win by creating reasonable doubt in the jury's minds. It just didn't work. In a more liberal jurisdiction, it might have worked just fine if not for the cast off blood analysis he didn't know was coming.

[Dani_T]

Instead of taking Linch's testimony further on the "next possible step" or "a test that can be done" or just letting Linch finish his sentences, the defense kept going back to the fact that Linch himself couldn't have done more testing. In fact, according to Linch, he did exactly what he was asked to do. Which, it is not insignificant to note, was absolutely nothing by the defense. ?

You're grudge against Mulder has been both amusing and infuriating until this point. However, now it is beginning to severely impair your ability to examine this case.

What the defense was trying to hammer home to the jury over and over again was that despire the fact that the glass rod and the rubber debris were identical to what was produced during the tests that there was still room for reasonable doubt (which of course there wasn't as any sane person would see) that it was all just one big giant coincidence. Of course I took the time a week or so ago to post at some length and in great detail about this piece of evidence and you didn't even bother to respond to it so don't expect me to waste my time on it again. Suffice to say the defense kept wanting Linch to admit that there was a test that COULD be done if it were POSSIBLE to get the material onto the media to confirm that the fibres were from the screen... but that the test WASN'T DONE, because it wasn't POSSIBLE for it to be done in this case and hey- that's gotta mean that there is reasonable doubt doesn't it.

You probably don't care in the slightest but I want to alert you to the fact that if you keep avoiding talking about the evidence and continue to allow your examination of the case to be impaired by your prejudice against the defense team, then people around here will get mighty tired of it very soon and will just stop responding. As I said, you probably don't care but just letting you know.

So why do you think the defense, in their vigorous attack, didn't actually [u]take the next possible step and have "a test that can be done" done

:waitasec: Ummmm - because like any sane person would be able to deduce, they knew what the results of that test would be- that the evidence found on the knife was from the screen. At least by not having the test done they had a slim chance of convincing the jury that the knife fibres were just like the hair. That chance is gone now and so we now see the appeal documents saying "It should be tested!!!"

[accordn2me]

You're grudge against Mulder has been both amusing and infuriating until this point. However, now it is beginning to severely impair your ability to examine this case.

What the defense was trying to hammer home to the jury over and over again was that despire the fact that the glass rod and the rubber debris were identical to what was produced during the tests that there was still room for reasonable doubt (which of course there wasn't as any sane person would see) that it was all just one big giant coincidence. Of course I took the time a week or so ago to post at some length and in great detail about this piece of evidence and you didn't even bother to respond to it so don't expect me to waste my time on it again. Suffice to say the defense kept wanting Linch to admit that there was a test that COULD be done if it were POSSIBLE to get the material onto the media to confirm that the fibres were from the screen... but that the test WASN'T DONE, because it wasn't POSSIBLE for it to be done in this case and hey- that's gotta mean that there is reasonable doubt doesn't it.

You probably don't care in the slightest but I want to alert you to the fact that if you keep avoiding talking about the evidence and continue to allow your examination of the case to be impaired by your prejudice against the defense team, then people around here will get mighty tired of it very soon and will just stop responding. As I said, you probably don't care but just letting you know.

:waitasec: Ummmm - because like any sane person would be able to deduce, they knew what the results of that test would be- that the evidence found on the knife was from the screen. At least by not having the test done they had a slim chance of convincing the jury that the knife fibres were just like the hair. That chance is gone now and so we now see the appeal documents saying "It should be tested!!!"
Your effusive adulation for Mulder has blinded you to the fact that much of the State's case was not effectively refuted. I admit I have a major problem swallowing the State's "side of the story" because Mulder and team did nothing to show it could have happened another way. I would like to see the evidence actually addressed using scientific testing and expert intrepretation from other experts than those testifying for the State. I certainly don't claim to be on a level "like any sane person....able to deduce" results from DNA or other scientific tests, which require persons with advanced degrees using high tech labs to conduct. Maybe one day I will get there. It will be especially joyful if I am ever able to do that even before the tests are ever conducted!

I apologize if I hurt your feelings by not quoting you line for line and rudely pointing out your mistakes. My approach in replying to people who have different opinions than I is different than yours. I have read the things you asked me to read - not the entire transcript - but specific areas, and posted relevant material to support my position that Darlie's defense team did not effectively address the State's evidence.

I went back through this thread several times looking for a post of yours which I have not addressed. Where Fritzy's Mom had typed a rebuttal, I may not have added anything. She is a much better writer than I. You are also very good. I can see you have spent a lot of time on and are very knowledgeable about this case. I have learned a lot from you and Goody. If you would please post the number of your post that you believe I ignored, I would love to go back and answer.

[accordn2me]

How can you say greed????? He had three attorneys and one investigator at the very least to pay, and every attorney had a staff to pay as part of the representation plus outside expenses. The attorneys had to get considerably less than $30,000 and after expenses? You figure the math. Where is the budget for lab work?
OK, the math (my worst subject). From October 21, 1996 to February 4, 1997 is 106 days. If I simply divide $95,000 by 106, that = $896.23 per day that Mulder was paid if he worked weekends, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

If we subtract 35 days for the weekends and holidays, we will get 71 days (not taking off the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve day or New Year's Eve day). Divide $95,000 by 71 and that = a daily rate of pay at $1338.03.

If I use your figure of $30,000 divided by 71 it comes out to 3 attorneys paid $422.54 per day with $70.41 left over everyday for expenses or whatever.

They didn't have a budget for it, unlike the PD's who did. The state was paying for their lab work. Surely you don't expect Mulder and team to pay for the testing FOR Darlie, do you?


Again, where was the money to pay for all this? That lab work would have cost thousands of dollars.
According to Laber, he and Epstein were on the case from August until Mulder came on in late October. They had already done some testing and analysis for the PD. I'm guessing that they wouldn't have double charged for that work.

I wonder if Darlie and family were told by Mulder, "if you hire me, there will be no more testing to refute the State's evidence, and no money for the experts who have already done some work to come to court and testify for you."

Do you think Darlie wanted all those tests stopped? Do you think she's asking for them now because she knows she can't have them?


Here are some keywords: to substantiate or dispute the State's theory What happens if the tests substantiate the state's theory? Good for the state, bad for Darlie?
The same thing that happened to the psychiatrist for the State who wasn't asked by them to testify in the trial.

Things couldn't get much worse for Darlie.

I think Mulder knew by then that she was guilty and felt his best strategy was to create as much smoke and mirrors as he could.
OK. Did he tell her that? Was he honest and up front about it, and she agreed? If so, oh well! If not, I think she deserves to have the State's evidence refuted by other experts. She's on death row. Why not let all of those issues listed by Laber and the other experts like Linch and Palenick, why not have all of it tested and put to rest once and for all? And preferably before her sentence is carried out.

[Dani_T]

Your effusive adulation for Mulder has blinded you to the fact that much of the State's case was not effectively refuted. I admit I have a major problem swallowing the State's "side of the story" because Mulder and team did nothing to show it could have happened another way. I would like to see the evidence actually addressed using scientific testing and expert intrepretation from other experts than those testifying for the State. I certainly don't claim to be on a level "like any sane person....able to deduce" results from DNA or other scientific tests, which require persons with advanced degrees using high tech labs to conduct. Maybe one day I will get there. It will be especially joyful if I am ever able to do that even before the tests are ever conducted!

LOL

The evidence was microscopically identical in every way. You can see it in MTJD. I am not going back to waste my time to make this clear again. And just in case you missed it the first time around here it is in all it's detail. http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=670385&postcount=132

I apologize if I hurt your feelings by not quoting you line for line and rudely pointing out your mistakes.

Huh? What are you talking about????

I have read the things you asked me to read - not the entire transcript - but specific areas, and posted relevant material to support my position that Darlie's defense team did not effectively address the State's evidence.

Which is my point. How about you try addressing the evidence? How about you look at what we do know about the evidence and try to explain how it leaves reasonable doubt. The reason I went to such length to explain the knife fibres to you is because to me it is as close to a smoking gun as this case gets (maybe along with one or two other pieces of evidence) and I thought maybe, just maybe way back at your post #131 (http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=669872&postcount=131) that you were beginning to actually understand the evidence for yourself (or at least trying). But apparently not.

I went back through this thread several times looking for a post of yours which I have not addressed. Where Fritzy's Mom had typed a rebuttal, I may not have added anything. She is a much better writer than I. You are also very good. I can see you have spent a lot of time on and are very knowledgeable about this case. I have learned a lot from you and Goody. If you would please post the number of your post that you believe I ignored, I would love to go back and answer.

See above.

[Mary456]

Your effusive adulation for Mulder has blinded you to the fact that much of the State's case was not effectively refuted. I admit I have a major problem swallowing the State's "side of the story" because Mulder and team did nothing to show it could have happened another way.


I think it's appropriate at this time to ask how Mulder should have refuted some of the evidence. For instance, how could he have challenged the fact that Darlie had no cuts on her feet? By her own account, there was glass "all over the kitchen floor". By her own account, she made several trips from the kitchen sink to the family room and back again, directly across the broken glass.

I've heard it all from supporters. First, we had Darlie's "alligator feet" which were tough as nails. She could walk across hot coals unscathed, so glass was not a problem. Then, we had the nasty nurses who lied about Darlie's torn tootsies. Then we had the police who did a happy dance on the glass and kicked it all over the kitchen (which, btw, I don't understand, because that would support Darlie's claim).

You're very critical of Mulder's ability as a defense lawyer, so I would like to know how he should have refuted this evidence.

[accordn2me]

I need to take this a little at a time and respond. You gave me a lot of homework to do! I'm still working on it. I've also been looking at all the bruise testimony. Oh how I wish I could see the pictures that are referred to in the transcripts. :banghead: Does the 'other' Darlie site (not justicefordarlie.net) have the pictures labeled better? If so, could you please provide yet another link to it. thx

LOL- OK.

Let me lay it all out flat for you and then you can come back at me. This is one of the areas of the case which I have spent a lot of time researching and discussing - because I think it is absolutely instrumental to showing there was no intruder (just as I think that the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row). I'm taking this from the transcripts so feel free to look it up yourself. Vol 37 & 34 Please explain how "the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row."

What was found on the knife (designated knife 4)

A fibreglass rod about 10 microns in diameter
Some black/gray pigmented rubber debris
Some glass 'dust' embedded in the debris

Something also to note here- Linch attempted to do further testing on these but he was unable to do so because it was too small. He couldn't transfer them to the appropriate medium. It wasn't that he or the state couldn't be bothered- they were unable to do so. Something else to note - apologies to everyone else for reposting the same thing again - Linch testified that there was another test that could be done, albeit not by him. Nevertheless, the defense for whatever reason didn't have it done. Oh, I've forgotten,:doh: they have that power which eludes me - to deduce what the tests are going to prove before the tests are done.

Here it is, from the horse's mouth (again):

8. The serration grooves in Knife #4 contained debris consisting of microscopic rubber dust particles and a microscopic fiberglass rod fragment. Based on my forensic microscopic comparison, this material was microscopically consistent *(not identical)* with debris obtained from the garage window screen at 5801 Eagle Drive, Rowlett, Texas. However, while I was asked only to perform microscopic tests on these samples, microscopic comparison is not the most discriminating method available to determine the source of this debris. If the rubber dust particles and fiberglass rod fragment can be located and removed from the mounting media for testing, more discriminating chemical testing can be performed on this evidence to determine if the debris found in Knife #4 is in fact consistent with the debris from the window screen material. For example, a Fouier Transform Infrared Microscopy (FTIR) test can be used to create a "chemical fingerprint" of the microscopic rubber particles. As a trace evidence analyst, I would recommend such testing be conducted if possible.
http://justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-09.php

[accordn2me]

I think it's appropriate at this time to ask how Mulder should have refuted some of the evidence. For instance, how could he have challenged the fact that Darlie had no cuts on her feet? By her own account, there was glass "all over the kitchen floor". By her own account, she made several trips from the kitchen sink to the family room and back again, directly across the broken glass.

I've heard it all from supporters. First, we had Darlie's "alligator feet" which were tough as nails. She could walk across hot coals unscathed, so glass was not a problem. Then, we had the nasty nurses who lied about Darlie's torn tootsies. Then we had the police who did a happy dance on the glass and kicked it all over the kitchen (which, btw, I don't understand, because that would support Darlie's claim).

You're very critical of Mulder's ability as a defense lawyer, so I would like to know how he should have refuted this evidence.
What number are you....208...I might be a while getting back to you. I am determined to address Dani's issues first. In the meantime, you could go back and look at my posts on this thread, on or about #195 & 196 are just two of several suggestions of what Mulder could have done. All Mulder did do during the entire trial was make feeble attempts to put out fires. Take a look at the list of defense witnesses, then compare that to the prosecution's witness list. It looks as if Mulder gave up before he ever started.

[Dani_T]

Please explain how "the impression/imprint of the knife on the carpet puts the knife in Darlie's hand and thus her on Death Row."

The testimony (and common sense) tells you that the impression/imprint/outline (whatever we want to call it) was made by someone holding a knife in their hand and actively feeding blood onto that knife so that it was gathering at the tip which is where the blood outline is so heavy. The knife was in the hand of someone who had blood being fed onto the knnife through an open wound.

Something else to note - apologies to everyone else for reposting the same thing again - Linch testified that there was another test that could be done, albeit not by him. Nevertheless, the defense for whatever reason didn't have it done. Oh, I've forgotten,:doh: they have that power which eludes me - to deduce what the tests are going to prove before the tests are done.

Here it is, from the horse's mouth (again):

And here it is from my mouth (again and again)-

Linch was unable to do the test because the evidence was too small to transfer to the necessary media (see the transcripts and also the affidavit you posted). He was fully capable of doing the test and even attempted to do the test but the physical state of the evidence prohibited him from doing so.

The defense didn't have the test done for two reasons
1. Because in 1996 the technology didn't allow them to do so because the evidence was too small to put onto the appropriate media (note that in his 2002 affidavit Linch didn't say anything he had not already said at trial on this matter).

2. But the clincher is because they knew what they would find and end up having in black and white on the page for the world to see- the fibreglass rod and the black pigmented rubber debris with embedded glass particles were from the screen.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the results of the microscopic comparison and know beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence found on the knife was produced when it was used to cut the screen. If you have read through the post I linked to above you will already know that. Had they had that test done prior to her trial they would have had the matching chemical composition in black and white, on a piece of paper, for the state to wave around proving that someone in that house had used the bread knife to cut the screen.

The only chance they had on this particular issue was to not have the testing done and hope and pray they could convince the jury that these two independent pieces of evidence on the bread knife just both happened to be there from some other source, despite the fact that theywere microscopically identical to the elements in the screen. That's why the cross examination of Linch comes back to the screen fibre three of four times and throws in long and boring discussions on polymer substances (which have little or nothing to do with the evidence) and other possible sources and the process of Linchs experimentation etc. They came at him on every angle they could about the screen fibres and it just didn't work. It was clear to anyone with 2 licks of sense that it couldn't all just be coincidence on top of coincidence on top of coincidence (on top of all the other coincidences her case is based on).

[Dani_T]

Oh how I wish I could see the pictures that are referred to in the transcripts. Does the 'other' Darlie site (not justicefordarlie.net) have the pictures labeled better?

I just had a quick look for you at the galleries online. In Gallery 6 the images you want to look at for the bruising have the exhibit numbers on them- did you see that? You should be able to cross-reference the photos with the exhibit numbers in the transcripts when you read about the bruising testimony.

The arm photos they have in Gallery 6 are all state exhibits and are probably the best at showing the bruising. However, remember the ones where she is holding her arm out and not lying in the bed were taken on the 10th June at the police station and not at the hospital.

If you are super keen I just checked and there is a copy of MTJD being sold on ebay at the moment at a fairly good rate (considering it is completely out of print). http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=4545145191&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V

[Mary456]

What number are you....208...I might be a while getting back to you. I am determined to address Dani's issues first. In the meantime, you could go back and look at my posts on this thread, on or about #195 & 196 are just two of several suggestions of what Mulder could have done.

I'm not a number, at least I don't think I am, lol! I'm just a simple person who asked you a very simple question: how should Mulder have refuted the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet after walking through broken glass?

If you can't answer it, fine. But please don't tell me to look up past messages from you that simply accuse Mulder of being an incompetent attorney. Some specific examples of how Mulder could have refuted this evidence (without making a fool out of himself) would be most appreciated.

[accordn2me]

If you are super keen I just checked and there is a copy of MTJD being sold on ebay at the moment at a fairly good rate (considering it is completely out of print). THANKS! Since you were so nice to look it up, I ordered it.

I decided years ago (when someone offered to let me borrow a copy) that it would probably do a number on me to look some of those pictures. However, it's just too much I can't follow along on without having the others.

[accordn2me]

I'm not a number, at least I don't think I am, lol! I'm just a simple person who asked you a very simple question: how should Mulder have refuted the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet after walking through broken glass?

If you can't answer it, fine. But please don't tell me to look up past messages from you that simply accuse Mulder of being an incompetent attorney. Some specific examples of how Mulder could have refuted this evidence (without making a fool out of himself) would be most appreciated.
I called you 208, but that was your post. I see your number is 456.:p

About your question, Mulder should not have refuted "the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet." Is that really evidence? I don't think so. I don't think it's important in the least.

You know what I do think is important. That bloody knife imprint in the carpet. The state implied that the blood was Darlie's. However, of all the things they did tests for, they didn't offer a conclusive test saying it was in fact her blood. I wonder why they didn't. Mulder could have refuted their implication that it was Darlie's blood by at the least saying something to the effect of: "If that were Darlie Routier's blood don't you think the State would be waving the test results all around this courtroom! You know they would be, ladies and gentlemen, but they are not! Now ask yourselves why....." (Jeana, how'd I do? :D )

[Dani_T]

About your question, Mulder should not have refuted "the evidence that Darlie had no cuts on her feet." Is that really evidence? I don't think so. I don't think it's important in the least.

Sorry Mary had to jump in here! Couldn't stand by and hear that it wasn't important ;)


According to Darlie she ran through the area where the broken glass was found at least 5 times (almost certainly more) and the entire time she managed not to get a single cut on her feet from the shattered glass. Two of the times that she did it were in the dark. All the other times occurred as she 'frantically' ran between either the U-room and the living room and the kitchen and the living room.

Yet in all that frantic running around she didn't get so much as a scrape on her foot from the glass. We know the glass is there, we know that she had to take that route if she was moving back forth between the kitchen and yet suprise- not a scratch. What does that tell you?

You know what I do think is important. That bloody knife imprint in the carpet. The state implied that the blood was Darlie's. However, of all the things they did tests for, they didn't offer a conclusive test saying it was in fact her blood. I wonder why they didn't. Mulder could have refuted their implication that it was Darlie's blood by at the least saying something to the effect of: "If that were Darlie Routier's blood don't you think the State would be waving the test results all around this courtroom! You know they would be, ladies and gentlemen, but they are not! Now ask yourselves why....." (Jeana, how'd I do? :D )
Have you got a transcript link to the the discussion about whose blood it was? Whose blood do you think it is?

PS. Glad you bought MTJD. I still hestitate to open it because of the photos of the boys but someone gave me a hint ages ago to stick post-it notes over those particular photos... it made it somewhat more bearable.

[accordn2me]

Yet in all that frantic running around she didn't get so much as a scrape on her foot from the glass. We know the glass is there, we know that she had to take that route if she was moving back forth between the kitchen and yet suprise- not a scratch. What does that tell you?
It tells me she didn't cut her feet. :confused:

What am I supposed to think? She had a four inch slash across her throat, a stabbed shoulder and forearm, and the general consensus seems to be that she did all that to herself. If her feet would have been cut, would you think - now wait a minute, surely she didn't think to cut her feet, she must be innocent...

Have you got a transcript link to the the discussion about whose blood it was? Whose blood do you think it is?
I've not had the time to follow up on your replies today. Unfortunately, I'll be gone most of the day tomorrow. Tuesday & Wednesday will be hectic as well, but I might get to post a little more. It might take me a few days, but I will get back to you!

Here's all I've read today about blood. I didn't copy the link but it's from the same transcript we've been posting from. 37, I think. Mosty is the attorney, Linch on the stand. He asks Linch whose blood was on the pillow, but not on the door or carpet. I don't believe the State follows up either.

I think I don't know whose blood it is. I think if the State wants me (pretend juror here) to think it's Darlie's blood, I think they need to give me a definitive test saying it's hers. Otherwise, she's supposed to get the benefit of the doubt, right?

22 Q. Let's talk about the knife. What you
23 have -- you can't say that that impression in the carpet
24 is a knife, can you?
25 A. Not to the exclusion of all other
1 objects, no.
2 Q. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't?
3 A. It could be.
4 Q. Could be, and the corollary to could
5 be is could not be or maybe not?
6 A. Or there is, find me something better.
7 Q. Well, but you know that is not my job,
8 don't you, Mr. Linch? That is the State's job, isn't it?
9 A. I see.
10 Q. You know that, don't you?
11 A. I have not been to law school, Mr.
12 Mosty.
13 Q. Okay. How about trusting me on that
14 one?
15 A. I'll trust you on that one.
16 Q. That is the State's job to exclude all
17 of those other.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. So, how about if we go with maybe so,
20 maybe no? Is that good enough?
21 A. It -- of all of the objects in the
22 house, it was the one that fits best in that imprint.
23 Q. So, you won't agree with me, maybe so
24 or maybe no, maybe it is or maybe it isn't?
25 A. Of all of the objects in the house, it


1 is the only one that I identified.
2 Q. Okay. But there are also lots of
3 other things that could do that kind of stuff too. It
4 could be a partial.
5 As a matter of fact, reasonable people
6 could differ about the importance of a blood stain,
7 couldn't they?
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. I mean, there are lots of different
10 ways that blood stains could get there. It could be, for
11 instance, the print out on the -- in the garage was not a
12 full print, was it?
13 A. It was a shadow of a smudge.
14 Q. Okay. Would you call it a shoe print?
15 A. I couldn't be that specific, no.
16 Q. The one behind the carpet, would you
17 call that a shoe print?
18 A. That was a faint --
19 Q. Behind the couch, I mean.
20 A. -- that was a faint shoe print.
21 Q. Okay. Now, was this area of carpet
22 cut out?
23 A. Where --
24 Q. Here.
25 A. Not where the imprint is, no.


1 Q. Okay.
2 A. The fibers that make up the imprint
3 were snipped for blood testing.
4 Q. All right. You had apparently been
5 out there two times before and missed this?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. And Cron had been out there and missed
8 this. When did y'all find this?
9 A. This was found after the carpet is
10 removed from the house and has been taken to the Rowlett
11 Police Department.
12 Q. In November, as I recall?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Okay. One thing I remembered was that
15 we came and saw you on November 20th. Did you already
16 have this appointment to go out there on the 21st? Or
17 was it after we talked to you on the 20th, did you call
18 Mr. Davis?
19 A. No. I -- that was one time I did get
20 called. I was called by him to go look.
21 Q. Okay. And y'all went on the 21st, if
22 I remember right.
23 A. Well --
24 Q. It sort of struck me because it was
25 the day after we were there.

1 A. The day after that you visited with
2 me?
3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Is --
5 Q. Well, anyway, it was in November,
6 wasn't it? I don't need to belabor that.
7 A. I think so, yeah.
8 Q. Okay. And so everybody up until that
9 time, nobody had said, "Golly, that could be a knife
10 print in that carpet," to your knowledge?
11 A. That's right.

16 Q. Now, you said that perhaps an intruder
17 might flee with blood on their hands?
18 A. Right.
19 Q. That would be consistent with finding
20 some blood, for instance, on a doorknob, or an exit door?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. It might or might not leave, it would
23 depend on which hand it was on?
24 A. Sure.
25 Q. All right. You saw blood on an exit
1 door, didn't you, on a handle, on the utility room door?
2 A. On the facing area, yes, sir.
3 Q. Now, did you ever see this maroon
4 pillow?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. Did you take that?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. Who collected that?
9 A. That was collected by the Rowlett
10 Police Department.
11 Q. And, it had blood, it had -- this
12 maroon pillow had blood on both sides of it, didn't it?
13 A. Right.
14 Q. But did you collect any of that blood?
15 A. Did I actually remove it from the
16 pillow?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Did Kathryn do that?
20 A. Kathryn did some, yes.
21 Q. Remove that from the maroon pillow?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Did you do any testing on it to
24 determine whose blood was on one side of the pillow and
25 whose blood was on the other side of the pillow?


1 A. I didn't, no.
2 Q. Where was it done? Was it done?
3 A. I think some of it was done down at
4 our laboratory and some was done at Gene Screen.
5 Q. Are you aware of the results of that?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. You know that on that maroon pillow,
8 on one side is the blood of Darlie Routier and on the
9 other side is the blood of Damon Routier?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You know that?
12 A. Right.

[Dani_T]

It tells me she didn't cut her feet.

What am I supposed to think? She had a four inch slash across her throat, a stabbed shoulder and forearm, and the general consensus seems to be that she did all that to herself. If her feet would have been cut, would you think - now wait a minute, surely she didn't think to cut her feet, she must be innocent..

Exactly. She didn't cut her feet.

How did she not manage to cut her feet when she claims she ran through that area where the glass broke and shattered once in the dark following the intruder, back through it to turn the light on, back through it to get to U-room, back through it again to get back to Damon and yell for Darin, back through it to go to the sink and get towels and then at least once more back through it to go out to Damon (where both she and Darin place her at one point) and according to her even more times as she was running back and forth between the boys and the kitchen.

I'm not suggesting at all she should have self-inflicted wounds on her feet! Mary and I are simply asking how her story is true on this count and that she managed not to step on a single glass shard that entire time. Don't you find that just a little... 'coincidental'?

[accordn2me]

Well.......I don't find it that unusual - so my experience has been when I don't, it usually is! :p

I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures. You make it sound like it was a whole lot of glass on the floor. Wasn't it one wine glass? I know wine glasses are relatively thin but do they make that much mess when they hit the floor?

And would a "shard" cut your feet that badly? Again, from my experience with broken drinking glass glass, a tiny piece will stick in your foot - and my feet do seem to find it even after vacuuming and mopping - you can just scrape it out. It's painful, but not bloody.

Also, about Linch and the other "test that can be done," I want you to note who repeatedly says "it's too small to test." Hint: It's not Linch.

If I get back in time, I'll post more today. It might be a day or two...

ttfn :)

[Goody]

And would a "shard" cut your feet that badly? Again, from my experience with broken drinking glass glass, a tiny piece will stick in your foot - and my feet do seem to find it even after vacuuming and mopping - you can just scrape it out. It's painful, but not bloody.


ttfn :)
My feet find sharp objects, too. It could be the only tack in the house that several other feet walk past many times without finding until I come along and imbed it in my foot. Geez, a sliver of glass can create grrrrrrrreat pain and some pretty good slices, too. I got one stuck in my finger one time and it got so sore I couldn't touch it. I couldn't figure out what it was, so being a glutton for punishment, I squeezed my painful finger trying to squeeze the pain out of it (I was a dumb kid, what can I say?) and out popped a long sliver of glass. My finger bled like ....well, never mind. It bled.

I don't think the point is that she would have deep cuts on her feet, but that she would have at least little cuts on her feet, esp since Darlie Kee claims (and I don't doubt her) that the police tracked glass into the carpet in the family room. That shows that there was enough on the kitchen floor walkways for the cops to pick up on their thick rubber soles and track to the carpet in the next room. So how did Darlie's barefeet miss it completely unless the glass was broken AFTER everything else was done and just before she called 911.