Bill (William) Parker

[TellTheTruth]

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!

 

[Madeleine74]

... 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.

 

[TellTheTruth]

... 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.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

 

[TellTheTruth]

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.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

 

[TellTheTruth]

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.

"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.

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.

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.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

 

[TellTheTruth]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

 

[TellTheTruth]

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.

 

[Steel86]

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/WritAffidavits/samford.html

 

[TellTheTruth]

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/WritAffidavits/samford.html

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

Go to 14mins 47 seconds.

 

[Steel86]

Darlie Routier - Waiting For A Miracle - YouTube

Go to 14mins 47 seconds.

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.

 

[Cherry]

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.

 

[TellTheTruth]

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.

That [female] Juror in question had access to the photos whilst she appeared on the Leeza show and she was asked to comment on them so it's not clear which pictures were shown to the Jury at the time.

Nevertheless, we have one Jury member who is stating he didn't see all of them, and that he never saw the film the Dallas PD made prior to the 'silly string' incident.

It's like I said - the Jury acted on emotion. If Charles would have seen all the evidence, he wouldn't have convicted her and we'd all be having a different conversation right now.

Madeleine has stated that we should stand by a Jury verdict. So what happens when a Jury member wants to change his mind?
Should it just be ignored and swept under the carpet?

 

[Steel86]

That [female] Juror in question had access to the photos whilst she appeared on the Leeza show and she was asked to comment on them so it's not clear which pictures were shown to the Jury at the time.

http://darliefacts.com/galleries/

Nevertheless, we have one Jury member who is stating he didn't see all of them, and that he never saw the film the Dallas PD made prior to the 'silly string' incident.

Darlie's defense were not prevented from showing that video:

5 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Well, you know
6 what they didn't see, was the funeral service. The State
7 has illegally intercepted the funeral service where they
8 stand around and pray. The State offers the Silly String
9 part of the day, and they have the prayer there, where
10 the first part of it is the prayer where they illegally
11 intercept a prayer at a grave side. And we can't offer
12 that?
13 THE COURT: Well, I think that has
14 already been offered.
15 MR. GREG DAVIS: You know, your
16 Honor --
17 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: We have a video
18 of it.
19 MR. GREG DAVIS: I don't think there
20 is any problem with Mr. Mosty or Mr. Mulder offering that
21 videotape. I mean, whatever was visually recorded out
22 there, we certainly don't have a problem with them doing
23 that. It's just the circumstances under which that was
24 gathered. You know, if they can show what happened out
25 there, if they want to show that videotape.
1 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: But we can't ask
2 the --
3 MR. GREG DAVIS: So they have that
4 option. And they still get to show what they feel is
5 important for them to show to this jury.
6 THE COURT: Well, anyway, that is
7 fine. If you want to do that, that will be fine, but
8 that is the Court's ruling, and the Court will note your
9 objection.
10 You don't have to object in front of
11 the jury for any purposes. You will have a running
12 objection. And, at 9:00 o'clock we will proceed.

It's like I said - the Jury acted on emotion. If Charles would have seen all the evidence, he wouldn't have convicted her and we'd all be having a different conversation right now.

Again, testimony proves those photos were submitted to the jury.

Madeleine has stated that we should stand by a Jury verdict. So what happens when a Jury member wants to change his mind?
Should it just be ignored and swept under the carpet?

Have the other jurors changed their minds? Do you think a verdict should be overturned when one juror has a change of heart?

 

[TellTheTruth]

http://darliefacts.com/galleries/




Darlie's defense were not prevented from showing that video:

5 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Well, you know
6 what they didn't see, was the funeral service. The State
7 has illegally intercepted the funeral service where they
8 stand around and pray. The State offers the Silly String
9 part of the day, and they have the prayer there, where
10 the first part of it is the prayer where they illegally
11 intercept a prayer at a grave side. And we can't offer
12 that?
13 THE COURT: Well, I think that has
14 already been offered.
15 MR. GREG DAVIS: You know, your
16 Honor --
17 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: We have a video
18 of it.
19 MR. GREG DAVIS: I don't think there
20 is any problem with Mr. Mosty or Mr. Mulder offering that
21 videotape. I mean, whatever was visually recorded out
22 there, we certainly don't have a problem with them doing
23 that. It's just the circumstances under which that was
24 gathered. You know, if they can show what happened out
25 there, if they want to show that videotape.
1 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: But we can't ask
2 the --
3 MR. GREG DAVIS: So they have that
4 option. And they still get to show what they feel is
5 important for them to show to this jury.
6 THE COURT: Well, anyway, that is
7 fine. If you want to do that, that will be fine, but
8 that is the Court's ruling, and the Court will note your
9 objection.
10 You don't have to object in front of
11 the jury for any purposes. You will have a running
12 objection. And, at 9:00 o'clock we will proceed.




Again, testimony proves those photos were submitted to the jury.



Have the other jurors changed their minds? Do you think a verdict should be overturned when one juror has a change of heart?

I'll be the first to contend that Darlie's defence was beyond a joke. Mulder being 'pals' with key state witnesses didn't help.

I'm suggesting that we have one Jury member who says he wasn't shown all the evidence and if he was to have seen the evidence he is now privy to, he would have found Darlie not guilty.

That's all.

 

[Madeleine74]

Madeleine has stated that we should stand by a Jury verdict. So what happens when a Jury member wants to change his mind?
Should it just be ignored and swept under the carpet?

I have? Where did I say that? I sure wish words I didn't say wouldn't be fabricated and assigned to me. But aside from that, even if one didn't "stand by a jury verdict," what does that mean? What would be the actions you would expect a citizen to take as a result of "not standing by a verdict"?

I said the jury made a unanimous decision for guilt and the one juror who later claimed to not see the photo(s) of arm bruises was incorrect. The list of photos that the jury did see are in evidence lists.

The appellate judges declined the motion that contained his story/statement. And no I don't know exactly what was contained in the motion, I only know the appellate judge(s) did not overturn the conviction.

 

[TellTheTruth]

I have? Where did I say that? I sure wish words I didn't say wouldn't be fabricated and assigned to me.

Are you forgetting what you are saying post to 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.
That is our system, like it or not. No one has come up with a better system in 238 years."

I presumed you were saying that as nobody has come up with a better system in 238 years, a trial held by Jury is the best you guys have to offer?

I said the jury made a unanimous decision for guilt and the one juror who later claimed to not see the photo(s) of arm bruises was incorrect. The list of photos that the jury did see are in evidence lists.
The appellate judges declined the motion that contained his story/statement. And no I don't know exactly what was contained in the motion, I only know the appellate judge(s) did not overturn the conviction.

So you're disagreeing with what Charles Samford now believes in? But by your own admission, only the Jury know what was deliberated in private - Charles is on record saying he wishes he had the confidence to have done the right thing at the time, and now he's trying to put things right.

I think you are somewhat blinded by your desire to find Darlie guilty of this crime. I'm a little too long in the tooth to be having these sideline debates with you - you obviously don't care into serious detail the evidence that sent Darlie to Death Row.

I find it difficult to understand the mindset of someone who is hellbent on proving their position (in this case, that you find Darlie to be guilty) rather than discussing evidence with an open mind.

Isn't this a forum to investigate crimes with an open mind?