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