1163 users online (228 members and 935 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75

    Bill (William) Parker

    For those who haven't read all the transcripts of the trial, I reread the testimony of Bill Parker again over the weekend.

    This is the Private Investigator who interviewed Darlie prior/during her arrest. He was commissioned by the Dallas PD to interview Darlie at this time.

    Interesting move on behalf of the Dallas PD don't you think? Why would they waste a whole lot of money hiring this guy when one of their own officers could have done the same thing?

    Well, based on that question, you have to understand that Bill Parker was paid the princely some of $1 to interview and investigate the case. Yep, $1. At the time of trial, he hadn't invoiced for this or his expenses, so in effect, he was pro bono for the prosecution.

    That's pretty generous don't you think?

    Why would he, and the Dallas PD, so such a thing?

    My reasoning is that they were getting nowhere in terms of a confession or gathering incriminating evidence (as we all know they tried with the cameras and recording equipment at the gravesite) and so they hoped a veteran like Parker would get Darlie to trip up.

    And according to Parker, she did just that! Darlie was asked "a minimum of 10, a maximum of 12 time" a direct question of "did you kill your children". Her response, according to Parker was "If I did, I don't remember doing it". Quite incriminating I think we'll agree.

    But hold on, did Darlie admit to saying this is court? Nope. Never mind, just use the interview tapes and video recording Parker took of the interviews right? Well, that would be a nice idea...... if there were any!

    Yep, believe it or not, pro bono Parker didn't record or tape the interviews. Apparently he asked the Dallas PD if they had a room available for him to conduct a taped interview, but they declined.

    Such a high profile case, the biggest Rowlett has ever know, and the state know they could do with a confession of some kind before the arrest is made, so they pay some guy $1 and fail to record the interviews.

    Now, we could get rather close to the bone here and say that either Darlie or Parker is lying. Either Darlie did suggest "If I killed them, I don't remember doing it" or she didn't. The Jury, faced with a veteran Police officer turned PI, may be swayed into believing him - remember Darlie can't remember much about that night let alone the surrounding interviews.

    I guess it was a shrewd call by the state - maybe they knew Parker would hold some weight in the courtroom, even without a confession?

    But let's just say that it is Parker who in fact lied. Perjury would be a pretty damning thing to happen to such a well respected guy right? Well who could prove Parker wrong? Only the one other person in that interview room at that time - Darlie. And who's going to believe Darlie over a 20 year serving police officer? What a shame you didn't record the interview hey Bill?

    I guess Darlie needed a defence attorney willing to risk calling Parker a liar? That may have helped her case. What a shame Mulder was a very good friend of Parker.

    What a farce!

  2. #2
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,272
    ... or .... you can't determine who is telling the truth so you (as a jury member) disregard that part of the evidence and go with all the other evidence you do have. Juries are the sole 'triers of fact' in the courtroom. They and they alone get to decide the weight to give any evidence presented to them, including witnesses. They can choose to believe all or part or none of a witnesses testimony. Even throwing this out completely and pretending it never happened, there's plenty else for a jury to work with.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    ... or .... you can't determine who is telling the truth so you (as a jury member) disregard that part of the evidence and go with all the other evidence you do have. Juries are the sole 'triers of fact' in the courtroom. They and they alone get to decide the weight to give any evidence presented to them, including witnesses. They can choose to believe all or part or none of a witnesses testimony. Even throwing this out completely and pretending it never happened, there's plenty else for a jury to work with.
    Agreed, but you may be fully aware that the court asked the Jury to leave to their chambers whilst Mulder requested Parker's testimony not to be heard in front of them. After deliberation, the court allowed it. That was possibly as far as Mulder would go in discrediting his 'friend'.

    Also, one of the Jury members is on record suggesting the bruises on Darlie's arms was caused 'by her sons kicking the crap out of her'.
    I think we must agree that is unlikely if Devon, who was stabbed twice in the chest (an almost instant death) and Damon was was stabbed in his back, had an opportunity to do that?

    I'm guessing a little bit of the Texas emotion was flowing in that Jury if truth be told.

  4. #4
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,272
    You're talking about one witness here. Then you changed direction and went off somewhere else.

    The jury are the only triers of fact. They and they alone decide what evidence they find credible or not credible. They and they alone decide if what Bill Parker testified to on the stand has any merit or not.

    It doesn't matter if spectators agree or disagree with the way a case is presented, how aggressive or passive a lawyer is on behalf of his/her client, what motions a lawyer makes or doesn't make, or if the spectators dislike the judge. "Feelings" of fairness by lay spectators have no bearing.

    In the end it's up to the jury to decide. And Darlie's defense team helped select that jury.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    You're talking about one witness here. Then you changed direction and went off somewhere else.

    The jury are the only triers of fact. They and they alone decide what evidence they find credible or not credible. They and they alone decide if what Bill Parker testified to on the stand has any merit or not.

    It doesn't matter if spectators agree or disagree with the way a case is presented, how aggressive or passive a lawyer is on behalf of his/her client, what motions a lawyer makes or doesn't make, or if the spectators dislike the judge. "Feelings" of fairness by lay spectators have no bearing.

    In the end it's up to the jury to decide. And Darlie's defense team helped select that jury.
    I'm not going off any tangent here - like I've said before, I don't know if she is guilty or not. What I do know, is that her defence was appalling and the state had a significant witness who they told to take the 5th.
    That alone should dictate a retrial.

    The fact remains that Parker's testimony was heard and Mulder, along his lines of enquiry with Parker, made him out to be this big man nobody could argue with.
    He even helped him out when Mulder suggested there was Mulch in the ally way.

    Anyone with a non bias mind reading Parker's testimony would surely draw the conclusion that this was two 'mates' having a bit of banter at the expense of Darlie's life.

    She may well be guilty, but let's at least prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

  6. #6
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,272
    The only part that an officer was told to take the 5th was specifically in regards to the recording done at the gravesite. And that was done so that the officer's rights were protected until such time as another court could determine the legality of the voice recording he did at the cemetery. It was deemed legal because there is no expectation of privacy at a public cemetery. The defense was free to question the detective on any other matter except that one thing.

    "Big man nobody could argue with?" Pure hyperbole & an emotional reaction. Parker was under oath. His testimony is either credible or not credible; the jury got to decide. BTW, do you know if they did find him credible and to what extent, if any, they used his testimony in particular?

    Darlie was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not based on just one person's testimony, but based on everything the jury considered. Unless you were in that jury room during deliberations you don't know what ALL was talked about and considered. And neither do I. Snippets, maybe. But only the jury who were in there know the full scope of their deliberations.

    That is our system, like it or not. No one has come up with a better system in 238 years.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    The only part that an officer was told to take the 5th was specifically in regards to the recording done at the gravesite. And that was done so that the officer's rights were protected until such time as another court could determine the legality of the voice recording he did at the cemetery. It was deemed legal because there is no expectation of privacy at a public cemetery. The defense was free to question the detective on any other matter except that one thing.
    I think the fact that the PROSECUTION took the 5th speaks volumes. Let's not forget Darlie gave evidence and statements when required, usually without a lawyer present.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    "Big man nobody could argue with?" Pure hyperbole & an emotional reaction. Parker was under oath. His testimony is either credible or not credible; the jury got to decide. BTW, do you know if they did find him credible and to what extent, if any, they used his testimony in particular?
    Not really. I would suggest without recorded transcripts, his testimony is hearsay. The fact that he is a respected Dallas PO (retired) and a respected PI speaks volumes to an emotional Jury.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Darlie was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not based on just one person's testimony, but based on everything the jury considered. Unless you were in that jury room during deliberations you don't know what ALL was talked about and considered. And neither do I. Snippets, maybe. But only the jury who were in there know the full scope of their deliberations.
    The Jury heard testimony from respected 'civil servants' and they were presented with her testimony late in the trial that consisted mostly of letters she had sent to relatives from behind bars expressing her concerns that the killer is out there (from what she was being told).
    The crimes where so horrific that it would take a pretty level headed member of Jury not to act with emotion in regard to Darlie's poor defence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    That is our system, like it or not. No one has come up with a better system in 238 years.
    Which is why I'm happy not to be part of 'your' system. Hell, we haven't cracked it yet over here.

    All I want to see is justice. And having looked into Darlie's case for the past 7 years, I don't see it.

    If she's guilty, then a better job should have been done to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It's a woman's life we are talking about here.

  8. #8
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,272
    The *prosecution* did not take the 5th. A state's witness (or perhaps 2) took the 5th on just the recording at the gravesite (and later it was determined to be perfectly legal). Please don't try and change the case facts in order to present an argument; that does no one any good, but it is something that Darlie supporters have been often accused of doing.

    Feel free to design a better legal system. I suspect what "feels" unfair is really an emotional response. Cases are, by and large, circumstantial because how many times is there an eyewitness to a murder or a confession to a murder? Everything else is circumstantial by definition. It's probably a rare case that could be deemed "fair" when someone looks at a case from an emotional viewpoint (which many people do). The system is imperfect but at the same time the standard for conviction is high. Some guilty people go free and some innocent people end up convicted; we know that. That happens in an imperfect system.

    Did it happen in this case? I think Darlie did the crime, based on the physical evidence of the scene. Did the jury get it right? I think they did even if I would have put different weight on parts of evidence than they did (for instance I would not have used the silly string video as a determining factor), but I still would have convicted based on the evidence.

    Were the laws followed? Were the judge's decisions correct and legal? Did the jury follow the oath they took? Those are things any appellate court would look at on appeal. Darlie has had a few appeals along the way and her case has never been overturned.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    The *prosecution* did not take the 5th. A state's witness (or perhaps 2) took the 5th on just the recording at the gravesite (and later it was determined to be perfectly legal). Please don't try and change the case facts in order to present an argument; that does no one any good, but it is something that Darlie supporters have been often accused of doing.
    I'm not a Darlie supporter (I think I've mentioned that before?), I'm just stating facts:

    Patillo/Pickell instructed Patterson/Frosch to take the 5th. Plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Feel free to design a better legal system. I suspect what "feels" unfair is really an emotional response. Cases are, by and large, circumstantial because how many times is there an eyewitness to a murder or a confession to a murder? Everything else is circumstantial by definition. It's probably a rare case that could be deemed "fair" when someone looks at a case from an emotional viewpoint (which many people do). The system is imperfect but at the same time the standard for conviction is high. Some guilty people go free and some innocent people end up convicted; we know that. That happens in an imperfect system.
    Why do you presume I am being emotional. I'm not sure if she did it or not. You on the other hand are portraying yourself to be a 'convict and hang her' supporter regardless of the shoddy conviction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Did it happen in this case? I think Darlie did the crime, based on the physical evidence of the scene. Did the jury get it right? I think they did even if I would have put different weight on parts of evidence than they did (for instance I would not have used the silly string video as a determining factor), but I still would have convicted based on the evidence.
    We already have one Juror suggesting he would not find her guilty if he had seen all the evidence (photos of Darlie's bruises). That alone find's her not guilty. Would you have equally stood fast in your opinion that she was 'not guilty'? I doubt it

    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Were the laws followed? Were the judge's decisions correct and legal? Did the jury follow the oath they took? Those are things any appellate court would look at on appeal. Darlie has had a few appeals along the way and her case has never been overturned.
    Agreed but factors still remain unanswered.

    It's a great shame you keep on bringing up the 'Darlie supporters' vein.
    I'm sure you'd like the truth, as much as anyone viewing this case - if she is guilty, then the case needs to be stronger, in my humble opinion.

    There is far too much shoddy evidence that has now been disproven. Moreover, I would not like to see an evil woman set free because of such a bad case against her.

    The prosecution should have done a far better job against such a terrible defence. Which is why her case lingers on for debate 17 years after the events.

    It's not good enough.

  10. #10
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,272
    It's a great shame you keep on bringing up the 'Darlie supporters' vein.
    Huh? I've not mentioned Darlie's supporters before -- you have me confused with someone else.

    You on the other hand are portraying yourself to be a 'convict and hang her' supporter regardless of the shoddy conviction.
    I also don't believe in the DP in this case (so much for your proclamation that I am a 'convict and hang' type). I believe in conviction when the state has met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the jury said the state did exactly that.

    The juror who thought he hadn't seen pictures of Darlie's bruises was incorrect and the exhibits that were shown prove that. He may have not paid attention, but photos of bruises were indeed shown. His claim was rejected by an appellate judge. And he voted guilty at the time it counted.

    What evidence is "shoddy?" What evidence has been "disproven"? What sources are you using for this? I'm using trial transcripts.

    The prosecution should have done a far better job against such a terrible defence.
    Huh? Do you understand the U.S. legal system? The prosecution presents evidence. The defense doesn't have to do anything if they don't want to as the burden is 100% on the prosecution (i.e. the state) at all times. And then it's up to the jury to determine if the prosecution (i.e. the state) met their burden. It is never up to the defense to prove anything, but if they do mount a defense, what they present will be seen and considered by a jury.

    And now that I've had strange allegations, all untrue, leveled against me, I can see attempting a rational discussion will not be possible so I will not attempt what may be impossible. My interest is evidence. As in show me the evidence.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Huh? I've not mentioned Darlie's supporters before -- you have me confused with someone else.

    I also don't believe in the DP in this case (so much for your proclamation that I am a 'convict and hang' type). I believe in conviction when the state has met their burden beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the jury said the state did exactly that.

    The juror who thought he hadn't seen pictures of Darlie's bruises was incorrect and the exhibits that were shown prove that. He may have not paid attention, but photos of bruises were indeed shown. His claim was rejected by an appellate judge. And he voted guilty at the time it counted.

    What evidence is "shoddy?" What evidence has been "disproven"? What sources are you using for this? I'm using trial transcripts.

    Huh? Do you understand the U.S. legal system? The prosecution presents evidence. The defense doesn't have to do anything if they don't want to as the burden is 100% on the prosecution (i.e. the state) at all times. And then it's up to the jury to determine if the prosecution (i.e. the state) met their burden. It is never up to the defense to prove anything, but if they do mount a defense, what they present will be seen and considered by a jury.

    And now that I've had strange allegations, all untrue, leveled against me, I can see attempting a rational discussion will not be possible so I will not attempt what may be impossible. My interest is evidence. As in show me the evidence.
    I think you forget what you have posted here, only three posts ago:

    The *prosecution* did not take the 5th. A state's witness (or perhaps 2) took the 5th on just the recording at the gravesite (and later it was determined to be perfectly legal). Please don't try and change the case facts in order to present an argument; that does no one any good, but it is something that Darlie supporters have been often accused of doing.
    Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    55
    Here is Charles Samford's affidavit dated July 10, 2002. Nothing there about his claims of not seeing the bruise photos to the appellate courts.

    http://fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence...s/samford.html

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Steel86 View Post
    Here is Charles Samford's affidavit dated July 10, 2002. Nothing there about his claims of not seeing the bruise photos to the appellate courts.

    http://fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence...s/samford.html

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8s1ZaYKaPE"]Darlie Routier - Waiting For A Miracle - YouTube[/ame]

    Go to 14mins 47 seconds.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by TellTheTruth View Post

    I didn't review your link, but I know that Mr. Samford made the claim that he didn't see the bruise photos. My point was that he never put anything in his affidavit to the appellate courts. Good guess as to why that was.....it could be proven that the photos were indeed shown to the jury. Darlie's bruises were a major part of her defense. You can see the state and defense exhibits of her injuries on both of her supporter sites.

    In one of your previous posts you mentioned that another juror offered an opinion as to how Darlie received those bruises. Sounds like she saw those photos.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OnEarth
    Posts
    3,311
    just weighing in; if ever a case needed a do over, it's this case. I need more evidence, and have always felt her husband did it.
    I think the silly string incident should never have been shown to a jury and it unduly influenced them.
    Dont Be A Sheep

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Found Deceased MT - William 'Bill' Tebby, 32, Libby, 30 May 2014
    By los2188 in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 06:22 AM
  2. 'Grandparents' bill backed by Michelle Parker's mom passes state Senate committee
    By Reality Orlando in forum News that makes you smile!
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2015, 01:49 PM
  3. Found Deceased PA - William 'Bill' Schwenger, 61, Clifton Heights, 27 Nov 2013
    By los2188 in forum Located Persons Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-07-2014, 11:28 PM
  4. Identified! IL - Cook Co., Gacy Victim #19, Dec'78 - William 'Bill' Bundy
    By Cubby in forum Identified!
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-30-2011, 05:53 PM

Tags for this Thread