Should Darlie have a new trial?

[cami]

Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.

I need to read his affidavit. I was under the impression Laber believes that Darlie did not kill her sons.

Well no, Mulder couldn't fire Laber..he didn't hire him, the pd's did.

Laber did not release his findings so we don't know what his beliefs are.

 

[cami]

time.....

IMO, if she knows, she's guilty too.....because she tried to cover it up. Same goes for him.

Well if you don't have time to read the only source material, why are you here slamming Mulder and trying to refute evidence that you "think" incriminates Darin and not Darlie. All the issues you have brought up here are straight from the Darlie camp.

What's your analysis of the bloody imprint of the murder weapon on that nice white carpeting?

 

[cami]

There is evidence that there may have been two knives. If both boys were stabbed by the same knife then blood from both boys wouldve been on the knife. Only one boys blood was found on the knife and it belonged to Damon - Devons blood was not found on the knife. If the same knife was used to kill both boys then why is'nt there at least traces of Devons blood on knife?

Go read it in the transcripts Nic. You can't conceive that Darlie wiped the knife with one of those towels she says she used to aid the boys? And I agree with Wendy.....Devon's blood went down the kitchen sink if there was any on it. You have to realize that there was probably very little of Devon's blood on the knife, the wounds were not spurting wounds but seepage wounds. Devon's blood could have been removed when Damon was stabbed and when Darlie used the knife on herself. That rag she was holding to her neck wasn't analyzed was it?

Two knives, two intruders???? Well we've only heard of one and why would he use the Routier's knife on Darlie and Damon and a separate knife on Devon? Doesn't make sense.

The second-knife story has been spread by the family.

 

[cami]

Much less time is needed for the latter. :croc: And you know it!

Point: the more I did read of the transcripts, the more I realized how sorry of a defense attorney Mulder was.

OJ and Phil Spector are just two juries that come to mind, who had much more evidence with which to return a guilty verdict....yet they returned with an acquittal on the first and hung on the second. When juries side with the attorneys who are most prepared, flamboyant, popular....etc...it's not always the right decision.

Oh get real, the OJ jury was inflamed by the tapes, there is no way they were going to find OJ guilty. Judge Ito handed oj that walk when he allowed those tapes to be heard by the jury.

There's more than enough evidence to prove Darlie committed this crime, the jury made the right decision and the appeals courts have confirmed it.

 

[cami]

:waitasec: I voted yes because I have always thought there was more to the story than what was ever uncovered. I find Darlie's actions at the graveyard beyond strange but I do think also the whole truth about what happened that night never came out. I fully understand why everyone thinks she is guilty so please do not get angry over my post. But if Darlie is guility so is someone else, and they too should have their day in court.

Sometime things are not always as they seem.

Oh we wouldn't do that Fox.....but Darlie was convicted on physical evidence...not the graveyard dance.

 

[cami]

IIRC, Darin claims to have come downstairs (the first time) wearing only his eyeglasses. Didn't that claim change on the stand? If Darin did stab one or both of the boys...or inflicted Darlie's wounds....smart of him to not be wearing a shirt! No evidence found = no evidence, right?

Yeah okay, I can see how that is very incriminating. Why would Darin be wearing a shirt to bed? LOL Sorry I don't mean to LOL but this is pretty funny to me. And Darlie's changing her "I was fighting him" to "frightening" on the stand means she also lied under oath while testifying...we've told you again and again that both Darin and Darlie lied their heads off during their testimony.

That brings me to my next juvenile statement: just because someone didn't see a get away car in the alley, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

Oh okay two getaway cars now are there? One in the alley and one out in front of the house. See this is why is so important to read the transcripts.

Only one knife presented to the jury because that's the one that killed Damon, the only murder being prosecuted. Let me say again, I am impressed with the prosecution. They were practically flawless. I don't believe they tried to frame Darlie. I do think they overstepped professional ethical lines (apparently it was legal) when they did the mock trials (or whatever you want to call them) with all the witnesses present to hear what everyone else was going to testify to on the stand.

Well we've already discussed the knife in the other posts. And once again, the transcripts answer the knife question.BTW, did you know the practice of "mock trials" was started by Mulder when he was a prosecutor.

If only Mulder had been half as prepared or clever, Darlie may have had a fair defense.

Really? and if only you would read the complete transcript you see how incorrect you are but Darlie supporters stay right away from the evidence that convicted her. They love to blame Mulder for her conviction. He didn't get her convicted...her own actions did that.

 

[White Rain]

Really? and if only you would read the complete transcript you see how incorrect you are but Darlie supporters stay right away from the evidence that convicted her. They love to blame Mulder for her conviction. He didn't get her convicted...her own actions did that.

:clap: Why is that so hard for people to understand?

 

[rocking]

I see both points here. The evidence in the transcripts that convicted her, may not be all the evidence that was available. I think this forms the complaint about Mulder.

 

[rocking]

There were 54 pages in the transcript that needed to be reconstructed. These were done by a new reporter who was not present at the trial. She used stenographic material and audio tapes. Audio tapes were illegal, but still used.

Do not care about guilt or innocence as due process has not been followed.

 

[JuJuBee]

Primarily Drake's parenting is being taken care of by his grandparents (Do they still have custody?) and his dad. If she was really that concerned about being a good parent, she'd never have killed his two older siblings.

Did you see the jailhouse interview where she cries about missing Devon's first steps, etc? All I could think was what about Devon's prom? Damon's first varsity football game? She never cries about those two, just about Drake. It's really wierd.

And no, I don't think she deserves a new trial. I think the evidence should be retested just to shut her the hell up, but I don't think she deserves a new trial.

 

[JuJuBee]

The state didn't prosecute Darlie for Devon's murder on the chance that she could have been found innocent of Damon's murder...then they would have a second chance to put her where she belongs by prosecuting her for Devon's. EXTREMELY SMART MOVE, imo.

Exactly. That's also why Andrea Yates was only prosecuted for the murder of three of her five children (if memory serves, it was Noah, Mary, and John) -- if she'd been found innocent of those murders they could have tried her for the other two.

Here is something that interests me -- even if Darlie were able to get her conviction for Devon's murder overturned, wouldn't she still be liable to prosecution for Damon's?

One more thing: Why was Darin wearing jeans? Was he sleeping in them? Did he stop to put them on before he came downstairs? If you wake up in the middle of the night and hear screaming from the living room and think someone is murdering your wife and children, do you stop to get dressed, or do you just beat feet for the scene of trouble wearing whatever you had on when you woke up?

 

[rocking]

Exactly. That's also why Andrea Yates was only prosecuted for the murder of three of her five children (if memory serves, it was Noah, Mary, and John) -- if she'd been found innocent of those murders they could have tried her for the other two.

Here is something that interests me -- even if Darlie were able to get her conviction for Devon's murder overturned, wouldn't she still be liable to prosecution for Damon's?

One more thing: Why was Darin wearing jeans? Was he sleeping in them? Did he stop to put them on before he came downstairs? If you wake up in the middle of the night and hear screaming from the living room and think someone is murdering your wife and children, do you stop to get dressed, or do you just beat feet for the scene of trouble wearing whatever you had on when you woke up?

Darlie was prosecuted for Damon's murder because he was under 6 years of age. In Texas, at the time (probably still exists) any murder of a child under the age of 6, was AUTOMATIC death penalty. To think of it as a type of insurance policy is ridiculous. If she wasn't convicted of Damon's murder, then there was no way she could be found guilty of Devons.

 

[White Rain]

Darlie was prosecuted for Damon's murder because he was under 6 years of age. In Texas, at the time (probably still exists) any murder of a child under the age of 6, was AUTOMATIC death penalty. To think of it as a type of insurance policy is ridiculous. If she wasn't convicted of Damon's murder, then there was no way she could be found guilty of Devons.

Of course she COULD have been found guilty of Devon's murder. It doesn't matter if she had gotten away with it once, the second time around could have bit her in the behind.

 

[rocking]

Of course she COULD have been found guilty of Devon's murder. It doesn't matter if she had gotten away with it once, the second time around could have bit her in the behind.

Damon's murder was prosecuted first, because his age made it possible for automatic DP. This made the trial cheaper, and shorter. There was no insurance policy.

If Routier was found not guilty, how could they hold another trial for Devon's murder. The DA's office couldn't afford the expense. Same night, same sequence of events, just a different victim. What's different? It would throw the whole jury system, and justice system into turmoil if she were to be found guilty of Devon's murder at a subsequent trial. Not to mention the appeals process that would ensue. How could the public endorse their system of justice, if opposite verdicts came from the same case?

 

[Squishified]

Hello rocking,

I don't post a lot on the Darlie board, but I do keep up with it. If Darlie had been found not guilty on Damon's murder, I believe the prosecution would go ahead and start another trial for Devon.
I'm sure this has happened in other cases. I can't think of any off hand, but I'm sure other sleuthers can find an example.
And welcome to WS. I love our Australian sleuthers!

 

[rocking]

Hello rocking,

I don't post a lot on the Darlie board, but I do keep up with it. If Darlie had been found not guilty on Damon's murder, I believe the prosecution would go ahead and start another trial for Devon.
I'm sure this has happened in other cases. I can't think of any off hand, but I'm sure other sleuthers can find an example.
And welcome to WS. I love our Australian sleuthers!

Another trial for Devon, which is basically the same crime, is close enough to being double jeopardy. If she killed one child, then she must have killed the other. How can they prosecute if found not guilty of Damon's murder? It's just not logical. It's a moot point anyway.

 

[accordn2me]

Another trial for Devon, which is basically the same crime, is close enough to being double jeopardy. If she killed one child, then she must have killed the other. How can they prosecute if found not guilty of Damon's murder? It's just not logical. It's a moot point anyway.

At this point, it's moot. However, were Darlie acquitted of Damon's murder, my guess is she would have been tried for Devon's. Fact is, she could have killed one, the other, or both. I can't see how Darin wasn't involved if she was. IMO, if one is guilty, they both are. JMOO.

You have to hand it to this prosecution team. They were brilliant from beginning to end. Too bad the defense wasn't half as spectacular.

 

[2sisters]

I voted no, but sure why not. Just for the hell of it and that way anyones doubts can be laid to rest. she will be found guilty again, so why is she even bothering?

 

[rocking]

At this point, it's moot. However, were Darlie acquitted of Damon's murder, my guess is she would have been tried for Devon's. Fact is, she could have killed one, the other, or both. I can't see how Darin wasn't involved if she was. IMO, if one is guilty, they both are. JMOO.

You have to hand it to this prosecution team. They were brilliant from beginning to end. Too bad the defense wasn't half as spectacular.

How could she be convicted of one and not the other? It's ludicrous. To prosecute for Devon's murder, they would need new evidence. Darin or 'the intruder'.

I agree about the defense. Don't think there was one! Look at the time between the crime and the trial, very unusual for a high profile murder. Also consider the time that was involved in the transfer of the trial to Kerryville. That all happened in a short period of time.

 

[Mary456]

I agree about the defense. Don't think there was one!

That's because you haven't read the transcript.

Look at the time between the crime and the trial, very unusual for a high profile murder.

It's not unusual at all. Defendants have the right to a speedy trial.

Also consider the time that was involved in the transfer of the trial to Kerryville. That all happened in a short period of time.

Do you mean Kerrville? Darlie's lawyer requested a change of venue, because he didn't think she could get a fair trial in Dallas. The judge granted his request, and the trial was moved.