Hi,
Only have a couple of minutes so in brief (maybe someone else can pick up on what I skim over here)
accordn2me said:
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 mulch
A correction which was brought up at trial in the hearing of the jury
6. an unexplained bloody sock 75 yards from crime scene
Which 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 crime
Not 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 guilty
Yes, 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 testimony
A 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?