Darlie's "Hypnosis"

[Jeana (DP)]

No. 1:

These are as follows: Darlie reports that she had fallen asleep on the couch in the living room with two boys sleeping on the floor. The lights were off except for the light from the big screen TV in the living room. Darlie reports she awoke and had trouble breathing, as if something was blocking her airflow. She also felt pressure and pain in her legs with the pressure holding her down. She reports that she saw two men, but not anyone she knew. On man who was on and over her was described as big and very black, very dark. The other man she could not see clearly because of the lack of light, but felt that he was probably not white because he seemed darker than a white man. The other man she reports seeing bending over Devon, and holding him down when Devon was trying to come to her. Darlie reports that she was trying to get away. In her struggle, she fell off the couch on to Damon who was asleep on the floor next to the couch. She reports Damon awoke when she fell on him. The man was trying to pull her up. He began stabbing at Damon and Darlie tried to stop him but could not. Darlie was pulled back onto the couch and felt pain in her groin, feeling it might be his knee; and pressure on her chest, feeling it might be his head. She remembers the man making noises, but does not know what, other than that he said “shut up *****.” She reports the man smell of smoke and had lots of small braids. He had a cap on his head with the brim forward. The only other sound Darlie reported during this session that she heard glass breaking she could not be sure where, but felt that it might be in the living room.

[mollymalone]

Thank you for posting that Jeana!

[Jeana (DP)]

One of our members was kind enough to retype this and Casshew was kind enough to host it. The entire thing can be viewed at:

http://www.casshew.com/darliehistory.htm

[mrs4point0]

So, where does it go from here?

[Jeana (DP)]

So, where does it go from here?


I'm sorry - where does what go from here? The case?

[mrs4point0]

I'm sorry - where does what go from here? The case?
Yeah, sorry. I haven't really kept up with this case. I realize she's in prison, but what's the point of hypnosis and all?

[mollymalone]

Yeah, sorry. I haven't really kept up with this case. I realize she's in prison, but what's the point of hypnosis and all?Presumably the hypnosis was to get a better description of the person she claimed did this to her sons and herself. That way her lawyers could investigate and prove she didn't do it and therefore be let out of prison.

[mollymalone]

Darlie starts off in the 911 tape with a "they," a "them," "somebody, "some man" and back to "they."

Darlie's versions go from:
1) Damon pressing on her right shoulder and heard him cry,
2) Damon runs into my right shoulder and says "mommy."
3) Damon hitting my right shoulder, and he said "Mommie", or he said "Mommie, Mommie,"
4) she heard Damon going "Mommie, Mommie". He leaned on her saying,"Mommie, Mommie"
5) she felt Damon touch her on the shoulder and woke her up. He was saying mommie, mommie, mommie
6) Damon woke her up by crying.

IN THE HYPNOSIS: Darlie fell off the couch on to Damon who was asleep on the floor next to the couch. Damon awoke when she fell on him."


Darlie's other versions go from 1) she woke up with the intruder over the to of her 2) she felt pressure on her legs and she woke up, the man sitting on top of her.

Darlie hypnosis: 1) she woke up with trouble breathing and with pressure and pain in her legs.

[TexasLadyBlue]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the discrepancy in the variations that much. People can't always use the same exact wording every time in a statement, especially after a traumatic event like that one. For instance, from Damon touching her on the shoulder, or running into her shoulder, how would she know the exact way, if she was just waking up. And then, from the man lying on top of her, to feeling the pressure on her legs, how is that different? She admits that she was not fully awake, isn't sure about the exact timing of each step, so what can law enforcement expect?

I don't know whether Darlie is guilty or not. All I am saying is that I read through all 16 versions on the other thread, and they don't vary all that much. The point is that due to the stress, the trauma of losing her sons, and having to repeat about 100 times, she could not be expected to get it exact every time!

[IrishMist]

One of our members was kind enough to retype this and Casshew was kind enough to host it. The entire thing can be viewed at:

http://www.casshew.com/darliehistory.htm

Thank you to all involved -- it is MUCH appreciated!

[mrs4point0]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the discrepancy in the variations that much. People can't always use the same exact wording every time in a statement, especially after a traumatic event like that one. For instance, from Damon touching her on the shoulder, or running into her shoulder, how would she know the exact way, if she was just waking up. And then, from the man lying on top of her, to feeling the pressure on her legs, how is that different? She admits that she was not fully awake, isn't sure about the exact timing of each step, so what can law enforcement expect?

I don't know whether Darlie is guilty or not. All I am saying is that I read through all 16 versions on the other thread, and they don't vary all that much. The point is that due to the stress, the trauma of losing her sons, and having to repeat about 100 times, she could not be expected to get it exact every time!

I don't know whether she's guilty or not, either. We can't guage that based on these 'discrepancies.' Remember the discrepancies in John Mason's statements to the media? I sure do. His actions and words did seem as though he had something to hide (to me, anyway). There were variations in his stories, and he was innocent of any wrong-doing.

[Pocono Sleuther]

I don't know whether she's guilty or not, either. We can't guage that based on these 'discrepancies.' Remember the discrepancies in John Mason's statements to the media? I sure do. His actions and words did seem as though he had something to hide (to me, anyway). There were variations in his stories, and he was innocent of any wrong-doing.
I agree mrs4point0. If we were to play judge and jury based upon statement discrepancies...we'd all be in trouble. I realize Darlie has already been tried, but I feel that she wasn't given a fair shake. I just don't believe the entire story and ALL of the pictures were presented properly to the jury. At the very least, she deserves another trial. What is the state of Texas so afraid of? If she's truly guilty and they have enough evidence, why not grant her the new trial? There is something fishy there. Way too often, our 'justice' system is off.

[mollymalone]

The discrepancies are just a part of the whole picture.

However, Darlie's versions of ONE person committing this crime morphs to TWO persons committing this crime, a vague description to yet another description and then another, then claiming it was a neighbor, those are big discrepancies. To go from those descriptions of those perps to now claiming it was Darrin is yet another discrepancy. So which was it Darlie? Was it one, two unknown perps, was it the neighbor as she claimed to some, was it Darrin. She can't make up her mind. From her point of view it's got to be someone other than HER.

Darlie's version of just how she woke up, with Damon pushing her arm or calling to her is a big difference from falling on HIM and waking HIM up versus him waking HER up. She can't have it both ways. It was one way or the other.

Darlie's versions from 1) waking up and seeing the man walking away to 2) waking up fighting 3) waking up with pressure on her are another big discrepancy. Even in retelling the story over and over again, a person is going to remember the majority of the time the main events as they remember them. Smaller details, those can get changed, but overall the main event of what you remember, although maybe with some variation is going to pretty much stay the same.

[Pocono Sleuther]

The discrepancies are just a part of the whole picture.

However, Darlie's versions of ONE person committing this crime morphs to TWO persons committing this crime, a vague description to yet another description and then another, then claiming it was a neighbor, those are big discrepancies. To go from those descriptions of those perps to now claiming it was Darrin is yet another discrepancy. So which was it Darlie? Was it one, two unknown perps, was it the neighbor as she claimed to some, was it Darrin. She can't make up her mind. From her point of view it's got to be someone other than HER.

Darlie's version of just how she woke up, with Damon pushing her arm or calling to her is a big difference from falling on HIM and waking HIM up versus him waking HER up. She can't have it both ways. It was one way or the other.

Darlie's versions from 1) waking up and seeing the man walking away to 2) waking up fighting 3) waking up with pressure on her are another big discrepancy. Even in retelling the story over and over again, a person is going to remember the majority of the time the main events as they remember them. Smaller details, those can get changed, but overall the main event of what you remember, although maybe with some variation is going to pretty much stay the same.

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. She claims she was misquoted on the 911 tape as well. Yes, there are discrepancies in her versions, BUT how many people go through traumatic events and remember everything without discrepancies? Look at soldiers during war...one can tell one version....yet another will tell a completely different point of view...the human mind acts differently under extreme stress. Imagine waking up to blood ALL OVER your living room, your two boys have been stabbed, and you have been slashed to within a millimeter of your life....WOULD YOU remember everything perfectly? There are times when our minds shut out these traumatic details to keep us from going insane. Heck, look at JFK's assassination, you have tons of eyewitnesses...yet there are different versions to that story. Are we to believe those people are all nuts? It DOES happen.
What is the state of Texas so afraid of?? If they had a perfect case...why be afraid to present the full story to a jury in this day? Many legal analysts have said that had Darlie and Darin retained a lawyer asap...instead of offering to come in and speak with police repeatedly...she would NOT be sitting on death row right now. A past juror has said that had he been shown those pictures of Darlie's injuries, he WOULD NOT have voted guilty. Had the jury NOT been from such a conservative area...she WOULD HAVE had a fairer trial. Ok, so why not give her that now? She's been sitting on death row for years now. If she's guilty, they have nothing to lose. If she isn't...ALL HELL would break loose. For me, there are too many questionable issues at hand. Give the woman another trial.

[Dani_T]

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. She claims she was misquoted on the 911 tape as well.
It wasn't frightened... if it was fright'anything' it was frightening. You can clearly hear the 'ing' at the end of that word. In other words she claims she said 'I woke up... I was frightening'.

Yes, there are discrepancies in her versions, BUT how many people go through traumatic events and remember everything without discrepancies? Slight discrepancies- understandable. But Darlie story shifts and changes with the wind. For example, when do we first hear about the fact that she spent so much of the time whilst on 911 running around wetting towels in the sink? Does she tell the police during her interviews? Does she write it in her voluntary report? Nope. First time she mentions it is when she sees they have taken everything including the kitchen sink for forensic testing. I don't think anyone is claiming that Darlie must have a perfect memory of the events... but it is only fair to expect that if she was telling the truth she would not contradict herself as much as she does, or progressively elaborate on her story as new evidence comes up which needs to be answered.

What is the state of Texas so afraid of?? If they had a perfect case...why be afraid to present the full story to a jury in this day?
The State presented the case against Darlie Routier for the murder of Damon. The jury convicted her. I can't see that the State is afraid of anything... except perhaps setting a precedent whereby a convicted murderer can get a new trial just because they feel they don't like the outcome of the first. What exactly do you think the jury missed out on hearing? What more was there to the story that the jury did not hear?

A past juror has said that had he been shown those pictures of Darlie's injuries, he WOULD NOT have voted guilty. Both the prosecution and the defense team have absolutely confirmed (on the record) that all of those photos were entered into evidence. None were hidden from the jury.

With respect to that as well smething that I've thought of in the past (but not sure if it follows the procedure of entering things into evidence in court) is that we have access to the photos in MTJD. CWB who published the photos in MTJD copied them from the evidence files of the court. If they weren't entered into evidence at the trial then how did he get his hands on them to suddenly reveal this 'big secret'? As I said maybe I don't understand the system??

Had the jury NOT been from such a conservative area...she WOULD HAVE had a fairer trial.
Why?? Because conservative folk can't weigh and measure the evidence like their less conservative peers??

She's been sitting on death row for years now. If she's guilty, they have nothing to lose. If she isn't...ALL HELL would break loose. For me, there are too many questionable issues at hand. Give the woman another trial.
On what premise??? The fact that it wasn't proven beyond all doubt? In that case you folks over there in the States are going to be busy for the forseeable future giving everyone who has ever been convicted despite some small doubt a new trial.

It simply doesn't work that way. The evidence was presented to the jury. They convicted her. The burden of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt... so what evidence is there that you think provides reasonable doubt? I don't mean to sound blunt- but the reality is that most people who want Darlie to have a new trial stop there and refuse to go so far as to explain what they think provides reasonable doubt in this case.

[accordn2me]

Like I said before, I'm rusty on this case. I chose my screen name so I don't have to begin or end everything I type with IMO, or whatever people use to remind others not to get offended with what is purely opinion. I should probaby start and end all my posts with: "from what I can remember..." because I have the memory of an advanced Alzheimer's patient. Having said all that, reasonable doubt for me is:

1. an unidentified, bloody, partial, fingerprint on the sofa table in the living room

see story: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/02/a_blow_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/

sorry, I couldn't find the recent story that was in the news...yesterday,maybe?

2. unidentified blood and/or prints on the door from the house to the garage

3. police photographs of a clearly altered crime scene (e.g. see sink with and without cleaning supplies)

4. a police detective that chooses to TAKE THE FIFTH on the stand so that he doesn't incriminate himself

5. police stating that mulch was disturbed under the window with no mulch

6. an unexplained bloody sock 75 yards from crime scene

7. a decision not to search the people and dark car stopped minutes after the crime

Add to this reasonable doubt:

1. a prosecutor that says when he saw the silly string video, he knew Darlie was guilty

2. a juror that admits the jury did not thoroughly examine ALL the evidence, but chose to focus on a small clip of video taken from a long day at the cemetery

3. mock trials - rehearsals of witnesses prior to the trial testimony

4. a defense attorney who clearly botched the defense of this client

I know I'm leaving a lot out. But add it all up and look at the whole picture: Darlie Routier deserves a new trial.

[Pocono Sleuther]

I've been redecorating our bedroom most of the day, so didn't get a chance to respond to your post. Now I see accordn2me did it for me...:clap: . I ditto all she said and will continue to state that I believe Darlie deserves a new trial. I also believe, but this is a whole other can of worms, that this country's justice system needs to make amends for women that do suffer from postpartum depression. I'm not saying this is applicable in this case, just that it is needed. I believe there are alot of updates needed to the justice system. You are speaking your side and I am speaking mine. I've been researching this case alot lately and I can say, imho, she deserves to be heard. :eek: Yes, that's right, she has a right to be heard. I'd love to see some fresh media eyes on this case. I'd love to see newer interviews done as well. I just do not believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State made it's case. And my statement about conservative jurors...you mean to tell me that playing of Gangsta's Paradise wasn't aimed AT them being conservative???! Trials are a game for the most part...one side makes their move...then the other side makes their move...the State counted on the conservative Texas folk disliking this mother regardless of her crime...they KNEW good ole fashioned southern sense would not play well with this showy, breast implanted, bleached blonde, bikini thong wearing, mother of three. I'm not positive she's innocent. Just as you aren't truly 100% positive she's guilty. I do feel that she's innocent though. I really do.

[Dani_T]

Hi,

Only have a couple of minutes so in brief (maybe someone else can pick up on what I skim over here)

1. an unidentified, bloody, partial, fingerprint on the sofa table in the living room
Experts have compared that print to everyone who was at the scene that night and the only person they cannot rule out is Darlie.

Furthermore the defense's own expert has shown that the print most likely belonged to Darlie. Professor Jantz did an anthropological study on the print (you can read the results in his affidavits) and the end result is that the print was twice as likely to belong to a woman than a male.


4. a police detective that chooses to TAKE THE FIFTH on the stand so that he doesn't incriminate himself
What does that have to do with the evidence that implicates Darlie?


5. police stating that mulch was disturbed under the window with no mulchA correction which was brought up at trial in the hearing of the jury

6. an unexplained bloody sock 75 yards from crime sceneWhich is as suggestive of Darlie as the killer as it is of a mysterious and unknown intruder. The sock in now way provides reasonable doubt for Darlie.


7. a decision not to search the people and dark car stopped minutes after the crimeNot true.

11 Q. All right. You got everyone out?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. How was the lighting out there at that
14 location where you had these people out?
15 A. It was pretty good. There was a
16 street light nearby.
17 Q. All right. What did you do -- once
18 you got them out, what did you have them do?
19 A. I had them place their hands on the
20 front of the car, so that I could check them for weapons.
21 I checked them for weapons and I checked the interior of
22 the vehicle for anything relating to this crime. I
23 identified them.
24 Q. Okay. Let me ask you: Did any of
25 these people in this automobile -- let's talk about the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
514
1 three males. That's what you were looking for, a male,
2 correct?
3 A. Yes, sir, white male.
4 Q. Any of the two white males then match
5 the description that you had been given?
6 A. No, sir, both were wearing
7 light-colored shirts.
8 Q. Okay. Wearing light-colored shirts?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Either of them wearing ball caps?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Did you look at the occupants to see
13 whether you could see any blood on any of these
14 occupants?
15 A. Yes, sir, I looked individually at
16 each one, made them show me their hands, front and back.
17 I looked up and down their clothes, checked their shoes
18 by looking at them.
19 Q. What did you see?
20 A. I didn't find anything.
21 Q. How about the outside of the vehicle?
22 A. I examined it and I didn't find
23 anything.
24 Q. All right. Did you look inside the
25 vehicle?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
515

1 A. Yes, sir, I did.
2 Q. Did you see any blood inside the car?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Okay. How about any clothing? Did
5 you find any dark T-shirts, any ball caps, any other
6 clothing inside the car?
7 A. No, sir, I didn't.




1. a prosecutor that says when he saw the silly string video, he knew Darlie was guiltyYes, a prosecutor who right up until that point had been privy to all the evidence piled up against her (not forgetting that significant evidence was held back in the event that they needed to retry her). Her behaviour at the grave side was a clincher in addition to everything he already knew. He didn't look at it in a vaccum.

2. a juror that admits the jury did not thoroughly examine ALL the evidence, but chose to focus on a small clip of video taken from a long day at the cemetery
So says the juror who has been contradicted by the defense themselves. I don't recall him saying they decided to just watch the video over and over and forget all the other evidence. All he said was that he didn't see the photos of her injuries- a fact which has been opposed by everyone else who was in that courtroom (with perhaps the exception of Barbara Davis). Yes, they watched the video a good number of times. But they were in that jury room for far longer than it took to watch it 8 times over.


3. mock trials - rehearsals of witnesses prior to the trial testimonyA practice instituted by Darlies very own defense counsel. Do you really think he didn't do likewise??? People who are about to testify are constantly called in to go over their testimony.[/quote]

4. a defense attorney who clearly botched the defense of this client
He did? He was the best criminal defense attorney in Texas at the time and incredibly highly regarded. Why would a top attorney put a halt to the testing of certain bits of evidence? Not because he thought that the results were going to clear his client obviously. Mulder was not some fresh faced recent law graduate. It never ceases to amaze me that people are so willing to say that such a highly regarded and qualified attorney screwed up majorily in the most basic of fashions instead of stopping to think "Hmmm. Hang on. Wonder why he didn't introduce that as evidence... or why he stopped the testing on that...".

But add it all up and look at the whole picture: Darlie Routier deserves a new trial.
I'm sorry but I still don't see on what basis she deserves a new trial (although in some ways I would like her to have a new one because then maybe some of the questions which have plagued some of us for years would be answered). The evidence was presented to the jury. The jury looked at the evidence and came back with a guilty verdict.

You are speaking your side and I am speaking mine. I've been researching this case alot lately and I can say, imho, she deserves to be heard.She's been heard. Over and over and over again. And suprise suprise, everytime we hear her her story changes.

you mean to tell me that playing of Gangsta's Paradise wasn't aimed AT them being conservative???!
So?? Darlie played it at the graveside! Are you saying it is normal kind of song to play at the graves of your murdered 5 and 6 year old boys?? Conservative or radical it was still a bizzare choice. And in any case I seriously doubt that the song had any direct impact on the verdict. The evidence did that.

I do feel that she's innocent though. I really do.
I can understand that and I respect it. But instead of just looking at the same old things which the supporters trot out again and again despite continued answers from those who believe she is guilty where do you think things like a complete lack of any evidence of an intruder, the screen fibre on the knife, the bloody imprint on the carpet etc fit in?

[accordn2me]

Hey Dani,

WOW! for only having a couple of minutes, you sure got a lot in there. You must be very familiar with this case. Well, it's been a very long and very stressful day at work. I'm no match for you, presently. :truce: Probably not ever! I just don't have the time. So for real, just a couple of things:

It's a pitiful shame if Mulder was the best defense attorney in Texas at the time. Maybe he was on another case, another time, but not this one. You know who's fault it is that juror, and Barbara Davis, didn't see the photographs of Darlies bruises? Mulder's fault. If Mulder were worth the paper his law degree is printed on, those jurors would still be seeing Darlie's bruises in their dreams. They would have seen every photograph in evidence of the bruises - magnified on a huge screen - several times. They would have been taken through a compare and contrast of the nurses testimony which contradicted their written notes. They would have seen photographs of the scene one way - like it was found, then the way it was after police moved things around. But which was which? Look at the record - numbered photographs? NO! Mulder should have hammered every police screw up until the jury had it memorized. Mulder should have pointed out the unidentified prints. They were, after all, right there in evidence. The boys hands were bagged, yet they were not fingerprinted? Did Mulder mention that? Mulder missed a lot.

And you're telling me it was MULDER who started the practice of using mock trials! So, he couldn't scream to high heaven that witnesses are not allowed to hear each other's testimony during the trial, it stands to reason a mock trial would not be allowed either. But since he was crooked and used it, it came back to haunt DARLIE. One thing I'm certain of, Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial.

If Mulder were not riding high on the respect the fine citizens of Texas have for him - what the hell did he do to impress y'all that much - Darlie could get a new trial based on incompetent defense. He didn't do a damn thing to properly represent that girl.

[cami]

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. She claims she was misquoted on the 911 tape as well.

Hmm that must be a new claim. She has always claimed she said "I woke up I was frightening" You can clearly here an "in" sound and not an "ed" sound.

She says on the 911 tape she "woke up, I was fighting him" but with her Texas accent she cuts off the g in fighting and the h in him so it sounds like "fightin im" Just as she says "yes m" to the operator several times.

[Jeana (DP)]

Hmm that must be a new claim. She has always claimed she said "I woke up I was frightening" You can clearly here an "in" sound and not an "ed" sound.

She says on the 911 tape she "woke up, I was fighting him" but with her Texas accent she cuts off the g in fighting and the h in him so it sounds like "fightin im" Just as she says "yes m" to the operator several times.


You can't be misquoted in a 911 tape. Its a live recording of what's happening at that very moment. She only now says it was a "misquote" because she realizes it makes her sound incredibly stupid and NO ONE would say that. I've heard every kind of Texas accent there is and this is another one of Darlie's :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: .

[cami]

You can't be misquoted in a 911 tape. Its a live recording of what's happening at that very moment. She only now says it was a "misquote" because she realizes it makes her sound incredibly stupid and NO ONE would say that. I've heard every kind of Texas accent there is and this is another one of Darlie's :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: .

And just what would she be frightened of anyway if she just woke up. LOL A bad dream?

[Dani_T]

. But since he was crooked and used it, it came back to haunt DARLIE. One thing I'm certain of, Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial.
He wasn't crooked. It was common practice and still is.

And how can you be certain that Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial? Are you saying that Mulder never ran through her testimony with her? Never acted out what she might be subjected to on cross examinatino with her? It's incredibly naieve to think that she didn't have a run through of her own testimony or that she and Darin never spoke with each other about their testimonies.

He didn't do a damn thing to properly represent that girl.Yeah. Obviously he was happy to take on the biggest case of his life thus far and not be overly concerned about losing it.

[Rachael]

I still believe Darlie is as guilty as can be but I also think know that if I were in a situation where my family was being attacked (IMO Darlie was the "attacker") that I would not remember every detail. I would probably be in shock and forget half of what happened. I forget what I wore yesterday.

[Goody]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the discrepancy in the variations that much. People can't always use the same exact wording every time in a statement, especially after a traumatic event like that one. For instance, from Damon touching her on the shoulder, or running into her shoulder, how would she know the exact way, if she was just waking up. And then, from the man lying on top of her, to feeling the pressure on her legs, how is that different? She admits that she was not fully awake, isn't sure about the exact timing of each step, so what can law enforcement expect?

I don't know whether Darlie is guilty or not. All I am saying is that I read through all 16 versions on the other thread, and they don't vary all that much. The point is that due to the stress, the trauma of losing her sons, and having to repeat about 100 times, she could not be expected to get it exact every time!
It isn't how much they vary, It is the particular changes made. Some things are typically ingrained in victim's minds. They don't forget where the attacker was when they first saw or heard him. Darlie has several varying explanations, including one with him on top of her trying to stab her. Innocent victims don't move the attacker around .....from standing over them, to standing at their feet, to sitting on them, to moving off in the distance. Why would she change the attackers position? Well, if he were standing over her, she couldn't have Damon in the same placement trying to wake her. That would prove the attacker knew Damon was still alive and Darlie, too, not to mention create problems with how believable it would be for a little boy to not fear the man who had just stabbed him and was attacking his mother. That is just one example. If you look very closely, you can see that these changes were made in direct response to evidence that did not match her previous account. She had to correct it in order to appear guiltless, at least she thought she did, and that was part of her downfall. If she had corrected things that had no significance in her guilt or innocence, the changes would be more believable. But there were all specifically to explain inconsistencies, errors in her previous story.

[Goody]

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. .
How can you believe that when her account in the so called hypnosis has her fighting not one attacker but two? She obviously said fighting because, according to her now, she was fighting.

[accordn2me]

He wasn't crooked. It was common practice and still is.
That doesn't mean it's right. If there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor getting all his witnesses together with a pretend judge, walking everyone through their stories, refining the contradictory statments, so they all tell basically the same story, why have witnesses sit outside the courtroom during trial? They've all heard it several times, so why do they have to leave?

And how can you be certain that Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial?
I don't know for certain, but I'd nearly bet the farm that the jail where she was staying wouldn't allow such a production.

Are you saying that Mulder never ran through her testimony with her? Never acted out what she might be subjected to on cross examinatino with her?
I would be very surprised to learn that Mulder called Darlie and all the defense witnesses together, appointed a mock judge and prosecutor and gave them a trial run. Frankly, that would shock me, especially considering Darlie's confinement. At most, he probably did a little one-on-one devil's advocate banter to see if he could keep her off the stand. Seeing how he couldn't, or wouldn't, even phrase his questions properly before the judge, I'm doubtful Mulder could rattle a snake!

It's incredibly naieve to think that she didn't have a run through of her own testimony or that she and Darin never spoke with each other about their testimonies. Yeah. Obviously he was happy to take on the biggest case of his life thus far and not be overly concerned about losing it.
I don't doubt that she and Darin, and unfortunately Mulder, had a discussion about what their testimony would be. It is my personal belief that it was marvelous Mulder that talked Darlie into saying, "I said frightening."

You are right about Mulder not being overly concerned about losing this case. That was evident throughout his dismal representation of his client. He let the state chew Darin and Darlie up - no objections to all that ridiculous heresay testimony, no rebuttal with experts to challenge the state's Barney Fife crime scene procedures - and he should be ashamed to show his face!

[Jeana (DP)]

He wasn't crooked. It was common practice and still is.

And how can you be certain that Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial? Are you saying that Mulder never ran through her testimony with her? Never acted out what she might be subjected to on cross examinatino with her? It's incredibly naieve to think that she didn't have a run through of her own testimony or that she and Darin never spoke with each other about their testimonies.

Yeah. Obviously he was happy to take on the biggest case of his life thus far and not be overly concerned about losing it.


You can believe that EVERYONE who Mulder put on the stand was prepped by him - and some more than a few times.

[IrishMist]

I guess I see Mulder along the lines of Geragos -- you may be better off trying to argue reasonable doubt, than to really push the issue on the evidence.

Especially if you know where the evidence is going to lead...

You can be an excellent attorney, but if your client is guilty, I think there is only so much that can be done.

[Goody]

I guess I see Mulder along the lines of Geragos -- you may be better off trying to argue reasonable doubt, than to really push the issue on the evidence.

Especially if you know where the evidence is going to lead...

You can be an excellent attorney, but if your client is guilty, I think there is only so much that can be done.
How right you are, Irish. People need to remember that Mulder was a Dallas prosecutor, and a very successful one for a number of years before going into his own defense practice. He knew very well all the state's tricks (many of them he invented!) and he knew that Darlie did not pass the innocent client test. I am sure he like all former prosecutors and investigators have a private little point system that tells them exactly where their client falls between guilt and innocence, and he then patterns his defense strategies around that.

I think he was handicapped in many respects, first by Darlie and her family, and then by the time limits placed on him, which I believe were unexpected. Like all high profile cases, one side or the other is plagued with bumps in the road and road blocks. Attys learn to work around them and I think Mulder did the best he could under the circumstances. In hindsight, would he change anything? Probably but you can only call them as you see them at the time. Nothing he did though rises to incompetence, and that is the bottom line. He may not have been perfect in the eyes of all of us second guessers, but he was also not incompetent and Darlie received a much better defense representation that many defendants.

[Goody]

That doesn't mean it's right. If there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor getting all his witnesses together with a pretend judge, walking everyone through their stories, refining the contradictory statments, so they all tell basically the same story, why have witnesses sit outside the courtroom during trial? They've all heard it several times, so why do they have to leave?!
It is one of those oxymorons in legal circles. The way I understand it the court order restricting witnesses from discussing their testimonies with each other before testifying does not apply to the practice of mock trial.

Interestingly enough, it was Mulder himself who initiated the practice in Dallas when he was a prosecutor, so his shock and dismay over it was a complete and total act. LOL!

I agree though that it should not be allowed. I don't like it at all, but I don't imagine it will be changed anytime soon. They've been doing it in Texas for over 20 years! One positive thing about it though is that it is not like Darlie was singled out and being abused by it. They do it on most all major trials in the state. It is an accepted policy, so how can anyone argue that it wasn't fair to her unless they are willing to challenge it legally for everyone? It was as fair for her as all the other defendants, some of them acquitted, who experienced in the course of their trials.


I would be very surprised to learn that Mulder called Darlie and all the defense witnesses together, appointed a mock judge and prosecutor and gave them a trial run. Frankly, that would shock me, especially considering Darlie's confinement. At most, he probably did a little one-on-one devil's advocate banter to see if he could keep her off the stand. Seeing how he couldn't, or wouldn't, even phrase his questions properly before the judge, I'm doubtful Mulder could rattle a snake!!
Well, you are basing your opinion on a written document, not a live presentation. I don't think he was as prepared as he could have been, but again he was handicapped by many things beyond his control, including Darlie herself. But I think that most of his "style" is misunderstood simply because we did not get to see him in action. Written word can sometimes mislead in transcripts. We don't get a complete picture.

I don't doubt that she and Darin, and unfortunately Mulder, had a discussion about what their testimony would be. It is my personal belief that it was marvelous Mulder that talked Darlie into saying, "I said frightening."!!
Well they had to do something with that blunder. Her story at the trial was that there was no fight, that Waddell was lying when he said she told him she fought with the attacker in the kitchen. They couldn't let her admit that she had been fighting because that would show that she remembered what happened and didn't have amnesia at all.

Don't you find it the least bit strange that two years later she remembers fighting with him on the couch thru hypnosis? That is just too coincidental to be anything but manipulation on her part. I am sure no lawyer was involved in that brainstorm, but I can't help but wonder what Einstein in her camp came up with it. Surely not Darlie herself. I don't think she even wanted to do the hypnotic session at all. Sure would be interesting to know though.

You are right about Mulder not being overly concerned about losing this case. That was evident throughout his dismal representation of his client. He let the state chew Darin and Darlie up - no objections to all that ridiculous heresay testimony, no rebuttal with experts to challenge the state's Barney Fife crime scene procedures - and he should be ashamed to show his face!
That is an over reaction, I think, but some truth in your criticisms about the objections. Only Mulder could tell us why he didn't move on that.

But you should be ashamed of yourself for villifying the police the way you do. They did a pretty good job. They didn't do everything that every person here thinks they should have but no crime scene is perfect. Mistakes are always made,and I am sure every investigator wishes his CSI had gone a step or two further. There are always going to be things critics can say they should have done, but again they have to call it as they see it at the time.

And Tom Bevel, the blood spatter expert, is widely respected all over the country for his expertise. He uses the Routier crime scene video to teach crime scene investigations to his students. I have seen in testify in several trials since Darlie's. The man knows his stuff.

I think part of learning sleuthing is learning who is who in the crime scene world and how to view evidence. When we are greenhorns, everything appears to be suspect. We think that if all the evidence is collected correctly, we will see a CSI (as in TV show) moment that will exonerate or prove positively without any doubt who the real killer is. Real crimes just don't pan out that way. It is very, very rare to have enough forensic evidence at one crime scene they way they do on TV to connect all those perfectly placed dots. That is what is so misleading about fictional forensic shows. I imagine that most investigators will say that they are lucky to find one or two that can actually be linked and used at trial. It is not unusal at all not to find a fingerprint at a crime scene, and when they do find prints, they are often not complete enough to actually identify who they belong to. That is what is wrong with the prints in Darlie's case. Not enough points to identify. That doesn't mean she is innocent, or that CSI did a sloppy job, only that those prints can't be used as evidence, one way or the other.

[Goody]

I don't know for certain, but I'd nearly bet the farm that the jail where she was staying wouldn't allow such a production.

Remember Scott Peterson? His attys had an outside atty come in and question him as the atty were the prosecutor and Scottie boy failed the test, so he didn't testify. Probably nothing so elaborate in Darlie's case, but I am sure they had some mock cross examinations to help prepare her (and her attys) for her testimony.

Remember when Darin skidded around questions about when he saw Darlie's panties missing? He didn't seem to want to admit that he noticed them gone. Mulder finally lost patience with him and barked, "Well, do you remember seeing them or not?" He would not have done that if it was not understood that Darin would testify to it.

So I don't think there is anyway one can think realistically that these folks did not experience some pre-trial preparation.

[Goody]

I guess I see Mulder along the lines of Geragos -- you may be better off trying to argue reasonable doubt, than to really push the issue on the evidence.

Especially if you know where the evidence is going to lead...

You can be an excellent attorney, but if your client is guilty, I think there is only so much that can be done.
And don't you know that is why Mulder halted the testing of the blood evidence when he took over. The decision came after lengthy discussions with the experts doing the tests. Mulder obviously didn't want anything on the record that could come back and bite her in the butt. Wouldn't you love to be a little fly on the wall during that meeting?

[accordn2me]

:laugh: When we are greenhorns,

I've never heard that before. So that's what I am.:D I'm easy too - believe what anyone says. Definitely not a good sleuther. My first reaction to the silly string video was: I don't care if she did it or not, she got what she deserved - to be acting like that on those children's graves!:eek: Pretty horrible, huh.

I do want to apologize for the Barney Fife comment about the police. :silenced: I thought about it after I logged off. I should not have said that. It contradicts the respect I feel for most law enforcement officers and crime scene investigators.

In Darlie's case, two things are appalling to me. First, Cron (and I seem to have confused him with Linch so please correct me if I do it again) said that it took him 20-30 minutes to decide Darlie did it! The second thing is the picture of the kitchen sink with cleaning supplies right next to it, along with the allegation Darlie cleaned the sink. That right there is enough to make me, greenhorn:D, believe the police are making the evidence fit their theory.

I am impressed with you and the others here at websleuths - the details you know about the case. I hope I don't antagonize anyone with my humble opinions and questions.

[Mary456]

"First, Cron (and I seem to have confused him with Linch so please correct me if I do it again) said that it took him 20-30 minutes to decide Darlie did it!"

No. Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene, and that there was no evidence of an intruder. This man had 30 years of experience investigating crime scenes; that's why the police called him in immediately. If he was so positive that Darlie had killed her sons, why wait two weeks to arrest her?

"The second thing is the picture of the kitchen sink with cleaning supplies right next to it, along with the allegation Darlie cleaned the sink."

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information? When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

"That right there is enough to make me, greenhorn, believe the police are making the evidence fit their theory."

Yep, those corrupt cops are always out to let the real killer go free (to murder again!) so they can send an innocent mother to death row. Makes perfect sense. :bang:

[accordn2me]

Goody, I'm going to go back and address some points you made, but without using the quote feature. Takes me too long.:confused:

About the mock trial: I wish I didn't come across as saying it was "unfair" to Darlie that they used it. Being the law and order conservative that I am, I think prosecutors sometimes need to do things like this because it seems the justice system is so heavily weighted in favor of the criminals. However, given the rules about witnesses in the courtroom during trial, I'm stunned that it's legal. Given that it is legal, it takes a degree of credibility away from the state's witnesses, because unlike the defendant, they have had the advantage of rehearsing and refining so they come across as perfectly consistent.

Darlie was in jail so I doubt that "her side" was allowed to all sit together and go over the scenario until each one told the same tale. And I don't believe that they should have been allowed to. To take it even further, I believe Mulder's rehearsing of Darlie was very detrimental to her case. No doubt it was ultimately her fault for changing her story so many times, but hell, I understand it. My memory is so bad! I can talk to someone face-to-face for two minutes in broad daylight and not be able to describe them accurately five minutes later. But I won't give someone 16 different descriptions, either. I just stick to the truth: I DON'T REMEMBER!

I stand by my convictions of Mulder. And I stated them as nicely as possible.

[accordn2me]

"Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene,"

WOW! He analyzed all that evidence on the spot, and inside of a half hour. He must be a real smart man.

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information?

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I don't know exactly what the police said during the trial. Here is what I meant: "Someone" said Darlie cleaned the sink. Then, there was this picture of the sink with cleaning supplies next to it. How silly of me to think that Darlie used Ajax to try and hide her crime.

When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

REALLY? Do you know why they thought blood would be in the cabinet?

[IrishMist]

"Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene,"

WOW! He analyzed all that evidence on the spot, and inside of a half hour. He must be a real smart man.

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information?

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I don't know exactly what the police said during the trial. Here is what I meant: "Someone" said Darlie cleaned the sink. Then, there was this picture of the sink with cleaning supplies next to it. How silly of me to think that Darlie used Ajax to try and hide her crime.

When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

REALLY? Do you know why they thought blood would be in the cabinet?
Chiming in, here. (Some might even call it "butting in", but I would never pay any attention to that kind of person. :D )

When the evidence doesn't fit the story, it doesn't fit. And a seasoned investigator (30 years?) sees a crime scene staged by amatuers, I don't find it unreasonable that he saw the inconsistancies right away. I've only been an appraiser for 8 years, and can spot a bad appraisal in 5 minutes. Think about it. 30 years is a long time to be in one field.

I'm not sure if you were being serious when you said that you don't know what the police said at trial. But if you were, then I highly suggest you read the transcripts. I thought there was a good chance she was innocent until I read those. Now, I'm not saying you'll think she's guilty after reading them! But I do think that to truly understand this case, a reading of the transcripts is a must.

They probably wondered if there was blood in the cabinet due to the blood that was running down the front of the cabinet...

[Jeana (DP)]

"Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene,"

WOW! He analyzed all that evidence on the spot, and inside of a half hour. He must be a real smart man.

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information?

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I don't know exactly what the police said during the trial. Here is what I meant: "Someone" said Darlie cleaned the sink. Then, there was this picture of the sink with cleaning supplies next to it. How silly of me to think that Darlie used Ajax to try and hide her crime.

When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

REALLY? Do you know why they thought blood would be in the cabinet?


1. Cron is a trained professional. If someone is telling him a crime happened in a certain manner and all of the evidence staring him in the face says something else, how long SHOULD it take for his "hinky" meter to go up? That's all that his statement involved. Things were not adding up from the first minutes of the investigation. No one said anything about "analysis" being done on the spot, etc., so let's not start saying things that never happened. And, finally, yes, he's indeed very intelligent.

2. They said blood had been washed down the drain. If you're in your kitchen and cut your hand peeling potatos and cut yourself, its entirely possible that some of the blood will be washed down the drain. Does that imply that you INTENTIONALLY "washed" that blood down the drain? Of course no. No one ever said that Darlie used any cleaning supplies at all. All they said that was that there was blood "washed" down the sink (i.e., the water on was and some of the blood accompanied the water into the drain).

3. When Darlie did whatever it was in the sink, whether it be cut herself and washed some blood down the drain; or whether it was wet towels to throw to Darin to apply to the boys' wounds, blood seeped between the cabinet door and was found there.

I'm sure that the police, in their very thorough investigation, DID INDEED move items under that sink in an effort to ascertain whether some sort of cleaning supply had been used by Darlie and whether drops of her blood could be found there. What would you be saying about them had they NOT done that? You'd be saying they didn't do their jobs, right? So, they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't.

[accordn2me]

Hi IrishMist,

The idea that one is "butting in" would never occur to me. I want to hear everyone's beliefs about this case, even Mary's. :truce:

I have read bits and pieces of the transcript, several years ago. It made me sick how "unprepared" (Goody's too nice!) Mulder was. :banghead: He didn't put up a fight at all. Now I'm wondering if he didn't owe the prosecutor's office a favor. I know, the greenhorn is showing in full force. :D

Knowing that the state's witnesses had mock trials, or a mock trial, took some of their credibility away.

Can you point me to specific parts in the transcript? I'll never have the time to read through the entire thing.

[Jeana (DP)]

Hi IrishMist,

The idea that one is "butting in" would never occur to me. I want to hear everyone's beliefs about this case, even Mary's. :truce:

I have read bits and pieces of the transcript, several years ago. It made me sick how "unprepared" (Goody's too nice!) Mulder was. :banghead: He didn't put up a fight at all. Now I'm wondering if he didn't owe the prosecutor's office a favor. I know, the greenhorn is showing in full force. :D

Knowing that the state's witnesses had mock trials, or a mock trial, took some of their credibility away.

Can you point me to specific parts in the transcript? I'll never have the time to read through the entire thing.

Sweetie, Mulder's client and her husband told a different story every time he talked to them. How prepared do you think he was able to get?

[accordn2me]

"No one said anything about "analysis" being done on the spot, etc., so let's not start saying things that never happened."

Pardon my choice of words. I thought one would have to analyze things to come to a conclusion. In my life experience, I have found that even professionals make mistakes. Sometimes they make hasty ones.

"All they said that was that there was blood "washed" down the sink (i.e., the water on was and some of the blood accompanied the water into the drain)."

When they show a picture with cleaning supplies right next to the sink, unless they said, "ignore the Ajax, we put that there while looking for blood inside of the cabinet" they are implying Darlie used the supplies to try and clean the place up. Maybe that implication was totally unintentional on their part.

The police did their job. It was Mulder's job to, at the very least, TRY to point out sloppiness, things they missed, etc. Darlie would have faired just as well had Mulder never stepped foot in the courtroom and she had defended herself.

[cami]

Hi IrishMist,

The idea that one is "butting in" would never occur to me. I want to hear everyone's beliefs about this case, even Mary's. :truce:

I have read bits and pieces of the transcript, several years ago. It made me sick how "unprepared" (Goody's too nice!) Mulder was. :banghead: He didn't put up a fight at all. Now I'm wondering if he didn't owe the prosecutor's office a favor. I know, the greenhorn is showing in full force. :D

Knowing that the state's witnesses had mock trials, or a mock trial, took some of their credibility away.

Can you point me to specific parts in the transcript? I'll never have the time to read through the entire thing.

Oh come on, you think he threw the trial because he owed Davis one.

He had a guilty client and nothing to work with. He went for RD, it didn't work. The jury saw what a cold blooded beyotch Darlie is during the trial and they heard her tell lie after lie during her testimony--some by omission "I don't remember" What a crock.

[cami]

"No one said anything about "analysis" being done on the spot, etc., so let's not start saying things that never happened."

Pardon my choice of words. I thought one would have to analyze things to come to a conclusion. In my life experience, I have found that even professionals make mistakes. Sometimes they make hasty ones.

"All they said that was that there was blood "washed" down the sink (i.e., the water on was and some of the blood accompanied the water into the drain)."

When they show a picture with cleaning supplies right next to the sink, unless they said, "ignore the Ajax, we put that there while looking for blood inside of the cabinet" they are implying Darlie used the supplies to try and clean the place up. Maybe that implication was totally unintentional on their part.

The police did their job. It was Mulder's job to, at the very least, TRY to point out sloppiness, things they missed, etc. Darlie would have faired just as well had Mulder never stepped foot in the courtroom and she had defended herself.

they have to move things around and photograph the evidence they find underneath whatever was moved. I.E. once they moved a blanket or pillow not sure which, they discovered Damon's bloody handprint on the carpet in the murder room.

I suspect that forjustice site is trying to influence us towards sloppy police work by posting that photo on that site.

[accordn2me]

Sweetie, Mulder's client and her husband told a different story every time he talked to them. How prepared do you think he was able to get?
I would think he would be able to "formulate our questions properly." I would think he would object to hearsay testimony, like Greg Davis did when Mulder tried to use it. I would think he would want more than a two hour meeting with Laber and Epstein.

[accordn2me]

Oh come on, you think he threw the trial because he owed Davis one.

He had a guilty client and nothing to work with. He went for RD, it didn't work. The jury saw what a cold blooded ***** Darlie is during the trial and they heard her tell lie after lie during her testimony--some by omission "I don't remember" What a crock.
Johnny Cockran had a guilty client too. JC had to deal with a blood trail that led directly to his client's bedroom. It makes me sick that OJ got away with murder. Unlike Mulder, JC did what he was hired to do, and with a lot less than Mulder had.

I don't know why Mulder let himself look like he had never questioned a witness before. I don't know why he didn't retain Laber and Epstein. There is no way I could ever explain it. What he did looks like professional suicide to me. Obviously, it wasn't.

[Jeana (DP)]

Oh come on, you think he threw the trial because he owed Davis one.

He had a guilty client and nothing to work with. He went for RD, it didn't work. The jury saw what a cold blooded b!tch Darlie is during the trial and they heard her tell lie after lie during her testimony--some by omission "I don't remember" What a crock.

Attorneys don't win or lose capital murder trials (or any other trial) because they "owe" the other side anything. If anyone thinks that ANYONE is going to take a chance of losing their hard worked for career over Darlie Routier they've got another thing coming. What a joke!

[Jeana (DP)]

I would think he would be able to "formulate our questions properly." I would think he would object to hearsay testimony, like Greg Davis did when Mulder tried to use it. I would think he would want more than a two hour meeting with Laber and Epstein.


What testimony exactly are you talking about when you say "hearsay"?

Darlie couldn't even get her answers straight on the witness stand from one minute to the next. That's what happens when people lie. They have to tell another lie to try and make the first one work, and on and on and on. Mulder did the best he could with a liar defendant with a liar husband. I find it hysterical that anyone could blame Mulder for Darlie being where she is today.

[accordn2me]

What testimony exactly are you talking about when you say "hearsay"?

Darlie couldn't even get her answers straight on the witness stand from one minute to the next. That's what happens when people lie. They have to tell another lie to try and make the first one work, and on and on and on. Mulder did the best he could with a liar defendant with a liar husband. I find it hysterical that anyone could blame Mulder for Darlie being where she is today.
Hearsay would be: "Didn't you tell Jane Smith, blah, blah, blah." or, "Do you remember telling Susie Doe that Darlie said....." That type of testimony is hearsay. Greg Davis put Darin through a grilling with it, all without one objection from Mulder. OK, maybe one. It seems like the people Darin supposedly told things to were named Corrine something and Jamie ____ .

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with this case, either. I find it hysterical that anyone could say Mulder did a fine job. I wonder if they, not knowing anything about the case, could read the transcript of Darin's testimony and think, what an impressive defense attorney!

Two possibilities, there may be more, either Mulder knew exactly what he was doing and offered no (extremely minimal) defense. Or, he didn't know what he was doing.

[Dani_T]

You can believe that EVERYONE who Mulder put on the stand was prepped by him - and some more than a few times.
Yep- exactly my point.

The defense witnesses would have been no less prepped than the prosecution witnesses.

[Mary456]

Yep- exactly my point.

The defense witnesses would have been no less prepped than the prosecution witnesses.

Of course they were, Dani. Darlie and her defense team (5 top guns), met to discuss the 911 call. They advised her about what she said or didn't say, and that's how they came up with "frightening" instead of "fighting".

Darlie had to deny she said "fighting", because she insisted she couldn't remember anything that happened during the attack...so how could she remember fighting an intruder? Also, the crime scene didn't support an attack by a murderous madman. Candles and knick-knacks still in place on the sofa table and end table.

So, as pathetic as her excuse was (aided by her formidable defense team), she changed the 911 call transcript from "fighting" to "frightening". I was frightening. Not only did Darlie have a poor command of the English language, she was stupid enough to think the jury would fall for it.

[Dani_T]

Edit: after posting I realised some of this had already been addressed- sorry!


In Darlie's case, two things are appalling to me. First, Cron (and I seem to have confused him with Linch so please correct me if I do it again) said that it took him 20-30 minutes to decide Darlie did it!

That's not actually correct. What Cron said was that after 20-30 minutes his initial conclusion was that it was obvious that there was no intruder- not that it was Darlie. We are talking about a super experienced and very well reputed crime scene analyst here who after walking through the house for half an hour (which is actually a fairly extended period of time if you think about the area they are covering) saw that the evidence did not gel with the intruder story.

18 Q. You are telling them, "Guys, this is
19 what I think, there is no -- hey, the die is cast."
20 A. Right. Well, I told them after the
21 walk-through, when I came around the front, I said,
22 "Look, we have no intruder here."
23 Q. Yeah, right.
24 A. That was my verbal comment.
25 Q. That is Lieutenant Cron's analysis
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2365
1 after, what, did the walk-through take 20 minutes?
2 A. 20 or 30, yes, sir.
3 Q. 20, 30 minutes. Okay.
4 A. It was so obvious it didn't take long.

The second thing is the picture of the kitchen sink with cleaning supplies right next to it, along with the allegation Darlie cleaned the sink. That right there is enough to make me, greenhorn:D, believe the police are making the evidence fit their theory.

First of all I can't remember anywhere in the transcripts where the cleaning of the sink was linked with the cleaning products in the photos (I don't have my book with me at the moment so can't check the products but will try and remember to look tomorrow to see what was out). I can't actually remember any cleaning products. There were certainly cleaning products UNDERNEATH the sink and interestingly enough there is a run of blood INSIDE that cupboard which means Darlie opened it and dripped blood inside it. Why did Darlie open up the cleaning cupboard?


However, your theory that the police set up the scene to make it look like she cleaned up jumps the evidence a bit because the whole 'clean up' scenario was developed as a result of testing finding blood patterns washed OFF the sink- patterns not visible to the naked eye. There is no way the police could have known that those patterns existed at the scene when they were taking photos.

[Dani_T]

3. When Darlie did whatever it was in the sink, whether it be cut herself and washed some blood down the drain; or whether it was wet towels to throw to Darin to apply to the boys' wounds, blood seeped between the cabinet door and was found there.Just a quick thing on this- I don't see how blood could have seeped between the cabinet door and the 'frame' of the cabinet. I don't have my picture in front of me but from memory there is a blood run which starts about halfway down the vertical frame underneath the sink... is that right? For that to have gotten in there like that it means a large blood drop managed to free fall between the door and the frame without hitting either and meaning there was a significant gap between when the door is closed and then it hit the vertical frame and formed a run from there.

That seems pretty much impossible to me. I can't see how that blood made it there if the cabinet door was closed. Of course I might have mis-remembered the picture so will look at it tomorrow.

Edit: Just found this from Linch-

22 Q. All right. Was there blood actually
23 visible on the cabinetry?
24 A. Oh, yes, sir.
25 Q. How about on the handles to the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
2799
1 cabinets?
2 A. Yes, sir. There was blood on the
3 knobs to the cabinets below the sink.
4 Q. All right. Now, did you or Miss Long,
5 in your presence, open up the doors to that cabinet?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. All right. And, did you see anything
8 unusual when you opened up the doors to the cabinet?
9 A. There was blood present inside the
10 cabinet, consistent with the door having to have been
11 opened when the blood was shed.
12 Q. All right. So, in your opinion, was
13 the blood on the facing or the outside of the cabinet,
14 that was consistent with having been deposited when the
15 doors were closed?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. Was there also blood
18 inside that was consistent with having been dropped while
19 the doors to the cabinet were actually open?
20 A. Yes.