Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[accordn2me]

Just a quick question - where is the info coming from that they did a mock trial? I'm not doubting that they did but it just occurred to me it is something I got told ages ago and perhaps I haven't read the original source. If there is one thing I have learnt in this case it is to read the original source rather than the second hand source because almost always the truth is either deliberately or accidentally distorted.

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Mary:

Wow! That's an excellent rebuttal!

When I read your first post, I thought you were being snotty - so many people get very angry when someone asks questions or tries to look at the evidence from a defense perspective - so, I do appreciate an intelligent, informed response...

Are you taking your information directly from trial testimony?

I think Mary has those transcripts memorized!! Isn't she awesome???

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.

I've never really had a bad feeling about those nurses and the notes. Darlie had nothing else in the world to do and she came up with 16 different versions. So, if the nurses, who were busy trying to do their jobs, didn't write down very single possible thing that they witnessed, what's the big deal if when asked a question by one of the attorneys, something that they didn't write down before comes out or after they had time to think about what happened AFTER they wrote something down, they got a different feeling??? I think its odd that some posters don't think squat about Darlie's 16 different versions, but a nurse can't have two?

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

To Fritzy's Mom: Does knowing that the prosecution called all of their witnesses together for a mock trial, affect the weight you give to the credibility of their testimony? It really diminishes their believability for me - not that I think any one of them would intentionally lie to convict an innocent mother. I do believe memory is affected by discussions with others or just from the brain trying to compensate for missing accounts. I also think that witnesses would "tweak" their testimony if they believed a mother was guilty and was about to walk after butchering her two oldest sons. Who could blame them!

Are you talking about when everybody met up at the hotel prior to trial to discuss their testimony? If so, then ABSOLUTELY! It became a matter of "group think," of everybody being on the same team, working for the same purpose - Darlie's conviction.

In addition to their little powwow, I discounted much of the testimony from medical personnel because:

1. My mother is a nurse; she does alcohol/drug detox and emergency psychiatry. She is regularly in contact with LE - DUI accidents, psychotics who have been arrested, overdoses, whatever - and she will be the first to tell you that cops and nurses LOVE to gossip! There is not one doubt in my mind that hospital staff was made aware of LE's suspisions about Darlie - absolutley by the time she was discharged, EVERYBODY who treated her knew she was a suspect.

My guess would be that the first inklings of something being wrong was when LE started questioning the presence of glass in Darlie's feet. From that point on, everybody at the hospital was looking at Darlie in a different light...

2. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why LE allowed medical personnel to be present when they were interviewing Darlie. Take the male ICU nurse, for example...he testified that Darlie was not his typical patient (i.e., not serious enough to be on his unit) and he downplayed the seriousness of her injuries. Why then did he feel compelled to be at her bedside when she was talking with the police? Why was he even allowed to be there? Often times, police will want to withhold certain evidence about a suspect from the public...what if Darlie had told them something that they did not want released? What was to stop the nurse from running to the press with it?

Even the nurse seemed to know that his presence in the room was inappropriate; I recall him saying at one point that he didn't quite remember everything that was said because he was doing his charts or something. Well, frankly, that's BS - he had his hot little ears tuned in to every word that was spoken in that room...

All nurses should have been required to stand outside the door when Darlie was talking with police...

And, again, Mulder did not drive this point home!

3. So much of the medical testimony sounded the same - "flat affect," "she would just tear up (or "her eyes would well up"), she wouldn't cry," "she was calm, didn't seem too upset" - it sounded like people had been comparing notes...Darlie is supposedly a drama queen - wouldn't the hospital have been the perfect place to put on a performance? I mean, how can the prosecution make her out to be a narcissistic, histrionic borderline personality type and then claim she was so stoic at the hospital? I guess she's only nuts when it fits their story...

I agree with you that I don't think anybody told out and out bold faced lies...but I do think much of the testimony was made with the belief that Darlie was guilty - no harm no foul if they were embellishing. I think I would be much more comfortable making my assessment of her condition at the hospital based on notes, charts, medical records, etc...(BTW, are these exhibits available anywhere?)

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

It's well written, Fritzy's Mom, but it's not factual. I'm paraphrasing for brevity, but here are some examples:

"A slash 10" long and 3/4 inches deep across Darlie's neck." That's a huge exaggeration. Her neck wound was only about 8" long and only about 1/4 inches deep.

"She suffered a small cut on her face." None of the nurses or doctors saw a cut on her face. They were very specific about her injuries, and would not have overlooked something so obvious.

"Her mouth was raw and throbbing." If it was, Darlie never said a word about it in the hospital. As far as the medical personnel knew, Darlie had been attacked by an intruder. If she had told them her mouth was raw and throbbing, I doubt they would have ignored such a complaint.

"She had a deep cut on the outside of her right forearm that penetrated the bone." Not true. The cut was approximately 1" deep and did not penetrate the bone.

"None of the Baylor nurses claimed to have seen any bruises on Darlie during her day-and-a-half stay." Darlie was in the hospital for 2 1/2 days, not 1 1/2 days, and not a single nurse or doctor saw bruising on her right arm. And that arm was checked every day, not only by the nurses, but by Dr. Dillawn.

I can understand reasonable doubt when it's based on facts, but this article has a ton of holes in it. Mulder couldn't argue that a knife penetrated the bone, because there were x-rays to prove that it didn't. He couldn't argue that the neck wound was 3/4" deep, because if it was, it probably would have damaged her larynx or windpipe. He couldn't argue that the bruises might not have emerged in 1 1/2 days, because hospital records would prove that Darlie was there for 2 1/2 days with no swelling, redness or bruising from blunt trauma.

Sorry if I came across as blunt in my previous post; people tell me I do that all the time, lol! Anyway, I don't think Mulder did a poor job; he just didn't have much to work with.

Well, I haven't had time to check all your facts, but I have checked a couple...I did see testimony that the knife did not penetrate the bone in her arm (Dr. Dillawn) and that she stayed in the hospital from the early morning hours of 6/6 to the afternoon of 6/8 (2 1/2 days)...I want to look at some of the pictures to see if I can see a cut on her face and read through some more testimony when I get a chance.

Usually, a publication will have "fact checkers" who do nothing but verify what is claimed in a story before it is published. No reputable paper wants to be called on its shoddy reporting. So, I'm wondering if there is contradictory testimony...where did this reporter come up with his facts? You seem to know the transcripts quite well...

 

[accordn2me]

I've never really had a bad feeling about those nurses and the notes. Darlie had nothing else in the world to do and she came up with 16 different versions. So, if the nurses, who were busy trying to do their jobs, didn't write down very single possible thing that they witnessed, what's the big deal if when asked a question by one of the attorneys, something that they didn't write down before comes out or after they had time to think about what happened AFTER they wrote something down, they got a different feeling??? I think its odd that some posters don't think squat about Darlie's 16 different versions, but a nurse can't have two?

This is the way I think about it: The nurses and doctors were probably making nonjudgemental observations in Darlie's medical record during those days when she was in the hospital. Hopefully, the police were doing that in their initial LE reports. Later, much later relatively, the police made "supplemental reports" to change their initial reports after much discussion amongst themselves where they came to believe Darlie was guilty. Likewise, the medical personnel gave contradictory testimony to the written reports after they held a mock trial. The contradictory testimony after the mock trial is why I place more weight on what the medical personnel wrote, rather than what they testified to. The same is true for the weight I give to the initial LE reports versus their supplemental reports.

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night. They told her it was impossible that she didn't remember. She must remember something! After she was "what if'd" and "but if that then it must have been this way...." to death, she changed her story to try to make sense of an unspeakable nightmare. Like the medical and LE supplements, I tend to give the initial account more weight.

Some people say Darlie started changing her story after she realized the LE allegations against her. That may be true. I would also venture to say it's true that LE and medical personnel changed their accounts after they realized the allegations against Darlie and came to believe her guilty.

 

[Mary456]

Mary:

Wow! That's an excellent rebuttal!

When I read your first post, I thought you were being snotty - so many people get very angry when someone asks questions or tries to look at the evidence from a defense perspective - so, I do appreciate an intelligent, informed response...

Are you taking your information directly from trial testimony?

Yes, everything I said comes from the trial testimony of the nurses (Denise Faulk, Jody Cotner, Dianne Hollon, Paige Campbell, and Chris Wielgosz, as well as two doctors, Santos and Dillawn).

There are many explanations as to why the nurses' testimony didn't exactly match their notes. For one thing, nurses can't chart their opinions in a medical record. Denise Faulk was so disturbed by Darlie's unusual behavior in the hospital that she wrote it down when she returned to her apartment that night. Chris Wielgosz (ICU nurse) never met with the other nurses, yet his testimony was very similar.

Mulder did a good job trying to raise reasonable doubt about the nurses' testimony, but it begs a few questions:

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know? The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.

Fritzy's Mom, I'm going to shut up now, but I enjoy discussing this case with you, too. You've brought up some good points, but I'm confident I'll whip you into line very soon

 

[Mary456]

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night.

Oh my, I disagree wholeheartedly. Darlie wrote her statement on 6/8/96. When Bill Parker questioned her on 6/18, he gave her the original statement and asked if she'd like to change, add, or clarify anything. Darlie read it again and said she didn't want to change a thing. Her words were, "That's exactly what happened."

Darlie didn't have a lawyer at that time, so it wasn't until later that she became aware of the evidence against her. That's when she started changing her story, stories, and more stories to fit the evidence :liar:

 

[Mary456]

I think Mary has those transcripts memorized!! Isn't she awesome???

Awww, I'm not awesome, I'm :blushing:

 

[Dani_T]

So does anybody have a source for the 'mock trials'?

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Denise Faulk was so disturbed by Darlie's unusual behavior in the hospital that she wrote it down when she returned to her apartment that night.

Oh, I'm glad you mentioned her, because I forgot to...

Denise Faulk is proof positive that LE leaked their suspicions to the nursing staff...

Denise went home and wrote down her impressions of Darlie because she thought some of what Darlie had told her was "weird." And, she just happened to store those notes away in her safe until LE contacted her. RIGHT! Denise Faulk wrote down her story for one reason and one reason only - to aid LE...Denise Faulk KNEW that Darlie was a suspect and she KNEW that one day she might be called to testify...

As a health care provider, Denise Faulk's job is to provide any and all pertinent information/observations about her patient in her notes/patient's chart; her personal bias cannot be expressed there, so she took it home and recorded it. Do you think for one minute she would have done this had she not been told Darlie was a suspect? If LE had acted like Darlie was a victim, do you think she'd have notes at home saying that her story was "weird?" No way...

Mulder should have RIPPED HER APART...

Chris Wielgosz (ICU nurse) never met with the other nurses, yet his testimony was very similar.

Chris Wielgosz worked in the same hospital with the other nurses every day for months after the stabbings...they talked - alot.

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

All these people worked together on a daily basis for months after the stabbing. With all the stories about Darlie in the press, this hospital was a HOTBED of gossip. Nobody was actively "conspiring," it was just a matter of participating in and being influenced by the day to day Darlie bashing which was, no doubt, going on...

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know?

Because by the time of trial, all these people were convinced she was guilty. So was the general public. I'm sure they viewed her as an evil woman and were eager to help see her go down...

Their licenses and jobs were never at risk (see below) - but their reputations were...Can you imagine being the one person to take the stand and give testimony favorable to Darlie when all your colleagues were saying otherwise? Not an easy thing to do, I'm sure...

The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.

Nahhhhh, the testimony the medical personnel gave was almost exclusively subjective - their notes, their interpretations of their notes, their impressions of Darlie, their observations of Darlie, their opinions, etc. This type of testimony is virtually impossible to prove as being false.

Fritzy's Mom, I'm going to shut up now, but I enjoy discussing this case with you, too. You've brought up some good points, but I'm confident I'll whip you into line very soon

No - Don't shut up! There are tons of things I want to chat about...the 911 call, Brian Pardo, Darin's polygraph, Darlie's mom, the bruises...I could go on and on. This forum is pretty slow - maybe we can liven it up!

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night. They told her it was impossible that she didn't remember. She must remember something! After she was "what if'd" and "but if that then it must have been this way...." to death, she changed her story to try to make sense of an unspeakable nightmare. Like the medical and LE supplements, I tend to give the initial account more weight.

I was involved in a serious car accident two years ago May 1st (his fault, not mine) and I STILL don't know everything that happened. When you go through something as traumatic as that, your memory comes back in "flashes" - it truly does. There is no way I could give you the minutia of the events - how fast I was going before the accident, what was playing on the radio, what time it was, where my hands were, etc. - even though I was asked repeatedly about it. And, yes, LE does "feed" you information - "Did you ever see a green car coming from the north?" "Did you at any time smell alcohol?" "Are you sure the man got out and ran to the northwest corner?"

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it.

 

[cami]

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.

I think the nurses are bound by law and patient confidentiality on the chart notes aren't they? I don't think they are allowed to add their personal observations to the charts but I am not too sure about that. On the stand during the trial wouldn't they then have more latitude to express a personal opinion on Darlie's behaviour or demeanour while in their care?

 

[cami]

I was involved in a serious car accident two years ago May 1st (his fault, not mine) and I STILL don't know everything that happened. When you go through something as traumatic as that, your memory comes back in "flashes" - it truly does. There is no way I could give you the minutia of the events - how fast I was going before the accident, what was playing on the radio, what time it was, where my hands were, etc. - even though I was asked repeatedly about it. And, yes, LE does "feed" you information - "Did you ever see a green car coming from the north?" "Did you at any time smell alcohol?" "Are you sure the man got out and ran to the northwest corner?"

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it.

Quite possibly she does have some form of TA or is it motivated forgetting? It's sometimes rooted in guilt. If I stabbed my kids, I wouldn't want to remember it either.

What about all those letters she wrote from jail telling her friends and family she knew who it was, she saw him? What was that all about? She later blamed that on someone else, saying they gave her false memories or something stupid I can't remember.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

This is the way I think about it: The nurses and doctors were probably making nonjudgemental observations in Darlie's medical record during those days when she was in the hospital. Hopefully, the police were doing that in their initial LE reports. Later, much later relatively, the police made "supplemental reports" to change their initial reports after much discussion amongst themselves where they came to believe Darlie was guilty. Likewise, the medical personnel gave contradictory testimony to the written reports after they held a mock trial. The contradictory testimony after the mock trial is why I place more weight on what the medical personnel wrote, rather than what they testified to. The same is true for the weight I give to the initial LE reports versus their supplemental reports.

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night. They told her it was impossible that she didn't remember. She must remember something! After she was "what if'd" and "but if that then it must have been this way...." to death, she changed her story to try to make sense of an unspeakable nightmare. Like the medical and LE supplements, I tend to give the initial account more weight.

Some people say Darlie started changing her story after she realized the LE allegations against her. That may be true. I would also venture to say it's true that LE and medical personnel changed their accounts after they realized the allegations against Darlie and came to believe her guilty.

Do you know what a "mock trial" is? That's not what happened with the prosecution in this case. I'm not even 100% sure what we've heard is true, but there's no way they did a "mock trial." They may have shown some witnesses the courtroom and asked some questions to get them used to being on the stand. That's not unusual.

 

[accordn2me]

15 CROSS EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
18 Q. Officer Waddell, just a thing or two.
19 I believe you said that prior to this occasion, you had
20 participated in one homicide; is that right?
21 A. Yes, sir.
...
4 Q. Okay. You -- just so that you and I
5 are on the same wave length here, you have testified
6 under oath, in a hearing prior to today, have you not?
7 A. Yes, sir.
....
5 Q. Okay. You have listened to the 911
6 tape in preparation for your testimony, have you not?
7 A. I have.
8 Q. Okay. And have you listened to it
9 more than once?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Just listened to it one time?
12 A. I believe just one time.
13 Q. Okay. And you've talked to the
14 prosecutors -- nothing wrong with that, but you've talked
15 to the prosecutors on a number of occasions, have you
16 not?
17 A. Yes, I have.
18 Q. Do you have any estimate as to how
19 many times you've gone over your testimony with them?
20 A. Maybe two.
21 Q. Maybe two times?
22 A. Two or three.
23 Q. Did you ever participate in a mock
24 trial with them?
25 A. We had a meeting, yes.


1 Q. Okay. You call that a meeting?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Where you got up on the witness stand
4 and everybody told their story?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. You did that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How long ago was that?
9 A. Maybe three weeks ago, I'm not really
10 for sure.
11 Q. Okay. Did they critique you after
12 that? I mean, tell you how you did, and tell you where
13 you can improve, and things of that nature?
14 A. They told me I did all right.
15 Q. Okay. Nothing wrong with that.
16 At that time did you hear the 911
17 tape?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. Did you hear other officers
20 testify?
21 A. I heard some, yes.
22 Q. Okay. So, you did your part in it,
23 and you did it in a -- did you do it in a courtroom or
24 up in the DA's office, or where did you do it?
25 A. It was up in the courtroom.


1 Q. In a courtroom?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. It wasn't in the District
4 Attorney's office?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. But you got on the witness
7 stand just like you are there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And went through the same thing that
10 you've gone through for the folks here?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Kind of a dress rehearsal, I guess?
13 A. Yes.
24 Q. When did you go over these photographs
25 with the prosecutor?


1 A. The last time I met with him, which I
2 don't remember what time that was, but it was within the
3 last week.
...
11 Q. Okay. You walk in, and you --
12 incidentally, on the 911 tape, do you hear your voice?
13 A. I didn't hear it.
14 Q. Did you see where your -- did you see
15 a transcript of the 911 tape?
16 A. I saw portions of one, yes.
17 Q. Why is it you just saw portions?
18 A. I just saw portions of it.
19 Q. Any reason that you just saw a part of
20 it, as opposed to the whole thing?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Was the whole 911 tape available to
23 you?
24 A. I don't know how long the 911 tape is.
25 I listened to portions of it. I don't know if there was


1 more to it or not.
2 Q. What were -- where were you when you
3 listened to portions of it?
4 A. In here.
5 Q. In where?
6 A. In this room.
7 Q. In this room?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. When was that?
10 A. Sunday.
11 Q. Okay. So you had a dress rehearsal up
12 in Dallas and another one down here?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. But you came in here and listened to
15 the 911 tape?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. Was -- who else was present at
18 that time?
19 A. Myself and Sergeant Walling and a
20 couple more police officers, and people with the Dallas
21 County DA's office.
22 Q. Okay. Who were the other police
23 officers who were there?
24 A. Sergeant Ward, Sergeant Walling, Steve
25 Ferrie, Steve Wade, and there's probably a couple more I


1 don't remember.
2 Q. Everybody that you were sworn in with
3 the other day, were they all here?
4 A. I believe so, yeah.
5 Q. Okay. And did you discuss your
6 testimony at that time?
7 A. We went over it, yes.
8 Q. Well, I mean, that's the whole purpose
9 in getting together, to kind of go over everybody's
10 testimony.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So you understood what Walling was
13 going to say, and Walling understood what you were going
14 to say, and Ward understood what Walling and Waddell were
15 going to say, and everybody just --
16 A. No, sir, that was not the reason.
17 Q. But that was all done in -- you were
18 present when --
19 A. I was in the same room, yes.
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. The reason for me to do it, was to go
22 over my testimony.
23 Q. You -- all right. Now, just so I'm
24 clear, you had gone over with it a number of times up in
25 Dallas, had you not?


1 A. A couple.
2 Q. Well, and you had a hearing where you
3 were under oath just like you are now. You appreciate
4 that, don't you?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Okay. And then you had the dress
7 rehearsal up in Dallas. Right?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And then you met down here. And did
10 you go over the entire 911 tape?
11 A. I don't know if I went over the whole
12 tape or not. We went over part of it. I don't know --
13 Q. Do you know about how long it was on?
14 A. No, sir.
2 THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and
3 gentlemen. Be seated, please. Let the record reflect
4 that all parties of the trial are present and the jury is
5 seated.


19 CROSS EXAMINATION (Resumed)

21 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
22 Q. Do you understand, Officer Waddell,
23 that you're still under oath?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Incidentally, have you talked with the


1 prosecutors since we recessed?
2 A. I talked to them, yes.
3 Q. You talked to them?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Did you talk to them about the case?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You just talked to them?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Did you talk to any of their
10 investigators?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Okay. You just kind of passed the
13 time of day with them?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. All right. About how long did that
16 take?
17 A. A minute or so.
18 Q. Okay. Now, I believe you said when
19 you and -- I mean, was there any reason for you to talk
20 to them after you testified here?
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. Did they critique your performance or
23 anything?
24 A. They told me I did good.
25 Q. I thought you didn't talk about case.


1 A. Well, that wasn't about the case, they
2 just told me -- made a comment.

13 BY MR. DOUGLAS MULDER:
14 Q. Did -- when you were here the other
15 day, Sunday, and listened to the tape and discussed your
16 testimony, did you hear the entire 911 tape?
17 A. I don't know if we heard the whole
18 thing or not.

 

[accordn2me]

15 Q. Lieutenant Walling, you understand, of
16 course, that you're still under oath?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And, you were, I believe way back on
19 Monday placed under the Rule of Evidence?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. You've heard that when the prosecutor
22 asked that all the witnesses be placed under the Rule of
23 Evidence?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Of course, you haven't, I take it
1 then, talked with the other witnesses about your
2 testimony and no witness has discussed his testimony with
3 you?
4 A. No, sir.
5 Q. That's the purpose of the Rule, isn't
6 it?
7 A. Yes, sir, it is.
8 Q. So the witnesses don't get together
9 and all cook up a story. Correct?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. And, of course y'all didn't need to do
12 that, because you have had a, -- you kind of had a dress
13 rehearsal, didn't you? Weren't you involved in the dress
14 rehearsal?
15 A. With the district attorneys?
16 Q. Yes, sir.
17 A. Yes, sir. We had gotten together
18 before.
19 Q. You got together in the courtroom?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And everybody kind of sat around and
22 listened to the other witnesses as they went through
23 their part of the testimony?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Okay. It's looks better, I guess, for

1 the conductor, if everybody's on the same sheet of music,
2 doesn't it?
3 A. Yes, sir, I guess it does.
4 Q. But, I mean, it helps you if you're
5 able to, for example -- and I'm not suggesting that you
6 would change your testimony, but, I mean, it helps to
7 refresh your memory and it looks better if everybody's
8 consistent, doesn't it? It makes sense.
9 A. Well, it does refresh your memory,
10 yes, sir.
11 Q. And, of course, it looks better if
12 everybody's consistent, doesn't it?
13 A. Well, sir --
14 Q. Don't you think?
15 A. Well --
16 Q. You don't know?
17 A. Well, I'm talking -- as long as you
18 tell the truth it doesn't really matter. That's not what
19 we're here for is to make things look better.
20 Q. Well, let's talk about -- and when you
21 say "as long as you tell the truth" of course you mean
22 the whole truth, don't you?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. And nothing but the truth?
25 A. Yes, sir.

1 Q. And you've been under oath before in
2 this matter and testified, have you not?
3 A. Yes, sir, I have.
4 Q. And at that time you took an oath to
5 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
6 truth, didn't you?
7 A. Yes, sir.

18 Q. Okay. And you heard in the -- matter
19 of fact, you were down here Sunday, were you not? In
20 this very courtroom?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And you listened to the 911 tape, and
23 you realized from that that your patrolman, Officer
24 Waddell, had been at the residence during the 911 call;
25 is that right?

1 A. Yes, sir.

10 Q. You had gone in through the kitchen
11 past the wine rack and on this side of the island; is
12 that right?
13 A. Yes, sir, it is.
14 Q. And I think you told the jury
15 yesterday at that time you didn't see an overturned
16 vacuum cleaner in this area?
17 A. I don't recall seeing it at that time.
18 Q. And we can take that as a definite
19 then that you did not see an overturned vacuum cleaner in
20 this area at that time?
21 A. I don't recall seeing it at that time.
22 I remember seeing one there, but I don't remember whether
23 or not if I noticed it the first time through or when I
24 went through later with the crime scene.
25 Q. Okay. Would you quarrel with me -- 1 you've been over your testimony, have you not? Your
2 previous testimony?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. Okay. You know that you testified
5 back then that you did not see it when you initially went
6 through the kitchen. Is there anything that's going to
7 change that?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Okay. Fair enough for me to write on
10 here that Lieutenant Walling, or Sergeant Walling, at the
11 time, Walling did not see vacuum cleaner when first went
12 through kitchen. Is that fair?
13 A. Sir, I don't recall seeing it at that
14 time.
15 Q. All right. Walling does not recall
16 seeing vacuum cleaner when first went through kitchen.
17 Fair enough?
18 A. Yes, sir. I don't remember if I
19 actually saw it at that time or when I was in the house
20 later. I don't remember when I first saw it.
21 Q. Well, just so that we don't -- your
22 memory would have been better in August than it is today,
23 would it not? If it was that much closer?
24 A. Well, on some things.
25 Q. Okay. Well, I mean, we can go back

1 and I can, if you prefer -- let me hand you what has been
2 marked for identification record purposes as Defendant's
3 Exhibit No. 15. And I'll ask you to just page through
4 that briefly in the privacy of the witness box and tell
5 me whether or not that is your --
6 A. Yes, sir, it is.
7 Q. -- prior sworn testimony?
8 A. Yes, sir, it is.
9 Q. All right. Were you asked -- if you
10 would turn to page 179, line 10. Were you asked: Was
11 the vacuum cleaner there in the kitchen when you went
12 through that first time, and did you answer, "No, sir, I
13 don't remember at that going-through"?
14 A. Yes, sir, I don't recall. That's what
15 I'm telling you now that I don't recall.
16 Q. You don't remember it when you went
17 through it at that time. Is that fair to say?
18 A. Yes, sir.

8 Q. You saw Darin Routier that night, he
9 had blood on his hands, didn't he?
10 A. No, sir, he didn't -- well, when I
11 checked his hands at that time he didn't have blood on
12 his hands.
13 Q. Did he have blood on his hands later
14 on?
15 A. No, sir, I never saw him with blood on
16 his hands.
17 Q. You never did? Are you sure about
18 that?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. I know he had blood on his shirt.
22 Let's see, give me just a second.
23 Q. I'm going to give you your report and
24 let you refresh your memory.
25 A. Okay.

1 Q. Did you refresh your memory before you
2 came in here yesterday?
3 A. With my reports, no, sir.
4 Q. Well, again, I don't know, but I would
5 think that the purpose of making a report is so that
6 later on you can look at your report and refresh your
7 memory from that report so that your testimony is as
8 accurate as it can be.
9 A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
10 Q. As you sit here right now, you're
11 telling the jury, I don't know whether it's important or
12 not, but you're telling the jury that Darin Routier did
13 not have blood on his hands and palms when you looked at
14 them?
15 A. Well, I'm not sure.
16 Q. Well, now you're saying you're not
17 sure.
18 A. Well, I need to refer to my report.

12 Q. Let me hand you what's been marked for
13 identification and record purposes as Defendant's Exhibit
14 No. 16. I'll direct your attention to this.
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Did he have blood on his hands?
17 A. Yes, sir, and on his shirt.
18 Q. Okay. I don't know that that's even
19 important, but, I mean, nobody has a perfect memory, do
20 they?
21 A. Well, I don't.
22 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to write
23 down here so we don't forget it again that Darin Routier
24 had blood on his hands and palms?
25 A. Yes, sir. And on his shirt.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

That's NOT a mock trial. That's simply ONE SIDED trial preparation.

 

[cami]

That's NOT a mock trial. That's simply ONE SIDED trial preparation.

I don't understand all this todo about a mock trial. Was her trial unfair because of it? Why do people think she was convicted on her character and not the evidence? The two jurors who were on the Leeza show years ago appeared to be articulate and intelligent to me and quite capable of understanding the forensics and deliberating on it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't understand all this todo about a mock trial. Was her trial unfair because of it? Why do people think she was convicted on her character and not the evidence? The two jurors who were on the Leeza show years ago appeared to be articulate and intelligent to me and quite capable of understanding the forensics and deliberating on it.

That's just it, it wasn't a mock trial. A mock trial is just that. An entire trial, complete with prosecution, defense, judge, witnesses. This was merely the prosecution preparing its witnesses. There's nothing wrong with preparing witnesses. I'm sure the defense did the same.