Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Goody]

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

Geez, this is starting to sound like Jeffisms. One of his fans maybe?

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

And the context is:

how to prepare for and conduct mock trials in the classroom

and

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

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

TYPES OF MOCK TRIALS

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

HMMMM.......:waitasec:

to dramatic reenactments.... :clap:

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

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

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

 

[accordn2me]

Thank you~!!!!


For our friends (from the link):

Participants:

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


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

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

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

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

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

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

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

Did :loser: Mulder even look?

 

[accordn2me]

Not exactly a "master," I'd say...Instead of worrying about Cron's eyesight, he should have been focusing on the unstable mental health and alcoholism of Mr. fiber expert...

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

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

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

 

[Dani_T]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mary456]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dani_T]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

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

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

The jury never heard from forensic experts Terry Laber and Barton Epstein, who were retained by Petitioner’s appointed counsel – both of whom were identified by name in the State’s closing arguments as witnesses the defense never called to rebut Linch and Bevel’s testimony. Laber and Epstein had reached conclusions contrary to the State’s experts before trial that could have been presented to the jury in Petitioner’s defense. Substitute defense counsel, who was conflicted because of an agreement not to implicate Darin Routier (see Routier Aff. ¶ 7) , decided not to use the exculpatory evidence or to conduct further scientific tests – at a time when he was not familiar with the facts of the case. At the time they were instructed to stop working on the case, Laber and Epstein had conducted a number of scientific tests on the physical evidence about which Linch and Bevel had testified at trial and had recommended additional testing on other physical evidence. Laber and Epstein’s conclusions in October 1996 were that the physical evidence did not suggest a staged crime scene, which directly contradicted the testimony of Linch and Bevel. See generally Terry L. Laber Affidavit (“Laber Aff.”).

Fiber on Knife No. 4/Garage Window Screen:

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

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

 

[Dani_T]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What strike number are we up to now?

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

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


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

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

If defense counsel had presented evidence demonstrating that the knives had been contaminated by the fingerprint dusting that was done before Linch received the knives for testing, counsel could have eliminated the significance attached to that otherwise dramatic piece of scientific eviden

No they couldn't have. There were two pieces of evidence on the knife which had at one time been in combination. The fingerprint powder would not and could not account for this.

The piece of evidence is as dramatic as ever.

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Taken from A State of Denial: Texas Justice and the Death Penalty by the Texas Defender Service, Ch. 3 - "A Danger to Society: Fooling the Jury with Phony Experts"

Mark Wrolstad "Hair-matching flawed as a forensic science: DNA testing reveals dozens of wrongful verdicts nationwide," The Dallas Morning News, March 31, 2002
​

Frank Green "HAIR ANALYSIS USE FAULTED ; CRITICS SAY IT'S BAD WAY TO MAKE IDENTIFICATIONS ," Richmond Times-Dispatch , October 19, 2002
​

​

​

​

 

[Dani_T]

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

LOL- OK.

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

What was found on the knife (designated knife 4)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm presuming that your previous quote about them being mentioned by name was directly from a defense writ? I only ask because it makes my point- as pedantic as it may seem: the defense documentation continually asserts things which are just false. I've seen it over and over again (Jantz's fingerprint analysis, the blood on the jeans etc) and I long ago got to the point where I check everything they say against the transcripts- but I can't trust what they claim.

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. Gotta run. Dinners on

 

[cami]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dani_T]

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

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

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

 

[accordn2me]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mary456]

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

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

OMG, you mean Chadwick did it?

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

 

[Dani_T]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cami]

OMG, you mean Chadwick did it?

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

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

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

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

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

Okay. LOL - I was starting to think you were a real b****! But, I know, it's hard to know exactly how to take someone from their words only...

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

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

DANI!!!!!! Now you're frustrating me!!!! THERE WAS NO COLLUSION!

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

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

Absolutley. I have no problem with preparing witnesses for trial - at the appropriate time, in the appropriate place. I just wonder how much effective preparation can take place at a hotel on the eve of trial...

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

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

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

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