Darlie's "Hypnosis"

[Jeana (DP)]

Hmm that must be a new claim. She has always claimed she said "I woke up I was frightening" You can clearly here an "in" sound and not an "ed" sound.

She says on the 911 tape she "woke up, I was fighting him" but with her Texas accent she cuts off the g in fighting and the h in him so it sounds like "fightin im" Just as she says "yes m" to the operator several times.

You can't be misquoted in a 911 tape. Its a live recording of what's happening at that very moment. She only now says it was a "misquote" because she realizes it makes her sound incredibly stupid and NO ONE would say that. I've heard every kind of Texas accent there is and this is another one of Darlie's :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: .

 

[cami]

You can't be misquoted in a 911 tape. Its a live recording of what's happening at that very moment. She only now says it was a "misquote" because she realizes it makes her sound incredibly stupid and NO ONE would say that. I've heard every kind of Texas accent there is and this is another one of Darlie's :liar: :liar: :liar: :liar: .

And just what would she be frightened of anyway if she just woke up. LOL A bad dream?

 

[Dani_T]

. But since he was crooked and used it, it came back to haunt DARLIE. One thing I'm certain of, Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial.

He wasn't crooked. It was common practice and still is.

And how can you be certain that Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial? Are you saying that Mulder never ran through her testimony with her? Never acted out what she might be subjected to on cross examinatino with her? It's incredibly naieve to think that she didn't have a run through of her own testimony or that she and Darin never spoke with each other about their testimonies.

He didn't do a damn thing to properly represent that girl.

Yeah. Obviously he was happy to take on the biggest case of his life thus far and not be overly concerned about losing it.

 

[Rachael]

I still believe Darlie is as guilty as can be but I also think know that if I were in a situation where my family was being attacked (IMO Darlie was the "attacker") that I would not remember every detail. I would probably be in shock and forget half of what happened. I forget what I wore yesterday.

 

[Goody]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the discrepancy in the variations that much. People can't always use the same exact wording every time in a statement, especially after a traumatic event like that one. For instance, from Damon touching her on the shoulder, or running into her shoulder, how would she know the exact way, if she was just waking up. And then, from the man lying on top of her, to feeling the pressure on her legs, how is that different? She admits that she was not fully awake, isn't sure about the exact timing of each step, so what can law enforcement expect?

I don't know whether Darlie is guilty or not. All I am saying is that I read through all 16 versions on the other thread, and they don't vary all that much. The point is that due to the stress, the trauma of losing her sons, and having to repeat about 100 times, she could not be expected to get it exact every time!

It isn't how much they vary, It is the particular changes made. Some things are typically ingrained in victim's minds. They don't forget where the attacker was when they first saw or heard him. Darlie has several varying explanations, including one with him on top of her trying to stab her. Innocent victims don't move the attacker around .....from standing over them, to standing at their feet, to sitting on them, to moving off in the distance. Why would she change the attackers position? Well, if he were standing over her, she couldn't have Damon in the same placement trying to wake her. That would prove the attacker knew Damon was still alive and Darlie, too, not to mention create problems with how believable it would be for a little boy to not fear the man who had just stabbed him and was attacking his mother. That is just one example. If you look very closely, you can see that these changes were made in direct response to evidence that did not match her previous account. She had to correct it in order to appear guiltless, at least she thought she did, and that was part of her downfall. If she had corrected things that had no significance in her guilt or innocence, the changes would be more believable. But there were all specifically to explain inconsistencies, errors in her previous story.

 

[Goody]

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. .

How can you believe that when her account in the so called hypnosis has her fighting not one attacker but two? She obviously said fighting because, according to her now, she was fighting.

 

[accordn2me]

He wasn't crooked. It was common practice and still is.

That doesn't mean it's right. If there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor getting all his witnesses together with a pretend judge, walking everyone through their stories, refining the contradictory statments, so they all tell basically the same story, why have witnesses sit outside the courtroom during trial? They've all heard it several times, so why do they have to leave?

And how can you be certain that Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial?

I don't know for certain, but I'd nearly bet the farm that the jail where she was staying wouldn't allow such a production.

Are you saying that Mulder never ran through her testimony with her? Never acted out what she might be subjected to on cross examinatino with her?

I would be very surprised to learn that Mulder called Darlie and all the defense witnesses together, appointed a mock judge and prosecutor and gave them a trial run. Frankly, that would shock me, especially considering Darlie's confinement. At most, he probably did a little one-on-one devil's advocate banter to see if he could keep her off the stand. Seeing how he couldn't, or wouldn't, even phrase his questions properly before the judge, I'm doubtful Mulder could rattle a snake!

It's incredibly naieve to think that she didn't have a run through of her own testimony or that she and Darin never spoke with each other about their testimonies. Yeah. Obviously he was happy to take on the biggest case of his life thus far and not be overly concerned about losing it.

I don't doubt that she and Darin, and unfortunately Mulder, had a discussion about what their testimony would be. It is my personal belief that it was marvelous Mulder that talked Darlie into saying, "I said frightening."

You are right about Mulder not being overly concerned about losing this case. That was evident throughout his dismal representation of his client. He let the state chew Darin and Darlie up - no objections to all that ridiculous heresay testimony, no rebuttal with experts to challenge the state's Barney Fife crime scene procedures - and he should be ashamed to show his face!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

He wasn't crooked. It was common practice and still is.

And how can you be certain that Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial? Are you saying that Mulder never ran through her testimony with her? Never acted out what she might be subjected to on cross examinatino with her? It's incredibly naieve to think that she didn't have a run through of her own testimony or that she and Darin never spoke with each other about their testimonies.

Yeah. Obviously he was happy to take on the biggest case of his life thus far and not be overly concerned about losing it.

You can believe that EVERYONE who Mulder put on the stand was prepped by him - and some more than a few times.

 

[IrishMist]

I guess I see Mulder along the lines of Geragos -- you may be better off trying to argue reasonable doubt, than to really push the issue on the evidence.

Especially if you know where the evidence is going to lead...

You can be an excellent attorney, but if your client is guilty, I think there is only so much that can be done.

 

[Goody]

I guess I see Mulder along the lines of Geragos -- you may be better off trying to argue reasonable doubt, than to really push the issue on the evidence.

Especially if you know where the evidence is going to lead...

You can be an excellent attorney, but if your client is guilty, I think there is only so much that can be done.

How right you are, Irish. People need to remember that Mulder was a Dallas prosecutor, and a very successful one for a number of years before going into his own defense practice. He knew very well all the state's tricks (many of them he invented!) and he knew that Darlie did not pass the innocent client test. I am sure he like all former prosecutors and investigators have a private little point system that tells them exactly where their client falls between guilt and innocence, and he then patterns his defense strategies around that.

I think he was handicapped in many respects, first by Darlie and her family, and then by the time limits placed on him, which I believe were unexpected. Like all high profile cases, one side or the other is plagued with bumps in the road and road blocks. Attys learn to work around them and I think Mulder did the best he could under the circumstances. In hindsight, would he change anything? Probably but you can only call them as you see them at the time. Nothing he did though rises to incompetence, and that is the bottom line. He may not have been perfect in the eyes of all of us second guessers, but he was also not incompetent and Darlie received a much better defense representation that many defendants.

 

[Goody]

That doesn't mean it's right. If there is nothing wrong with the prosecutor getting all his witnesses together with a pretend judge, walking everyone through their stories, refining the contradictory statments, so they all tell basically the same story, why have witnesses sit outside the courtroom during trial? They've all heard it several times, so why do they have to leave?!

It is one of those oxymorons in legal circles. The way I understand it the court order restricting witnesses from discussing their testimonies with each other before testifying does not apply to the practice of mock trial.

Interestingly enough, it was Mulder himself who initiated the practice in Dallas when he was a prosecutor, so his shock and dismay over it was a complete and total act. LOL!

I agree though that it should not be allowed. I don't like it at all, but I don't imagine it will be changed anytime soon. They've been doing it in Texas for over 20 years! One positive thing about it though is that it is not like Darlie was singled out and being abused by it. They do it on most all major trials in the state. It is an accepted policy, so how can anyone argue that it wasn't fair to her unless they are willing to challenge it legally for everyone? It was as fair for her as all the other defendants, some of them acquitted, who experienced in the course of their trials.

I would be very surprised to learn that Mulder called Darlie and all the defense witnesses together, appointed a mock judge and prosecutor and gave them a trial run. Frankly, that would shock me, especially considering Darlie's confinement. At most, he probably did a little one-on-one devil's advocate banter to see if he could keep her off the stand. Seeing how he couldn't, or wouldn't, even phrase his questions properly before the judge, I'm doubtful Mulder could rattle a snake!!

Well, you are basing your opinion on a written document, not a live presentation. I don't think he was as prepared as he could have been, but again he was handicapped by many things beyond his control, including Darlie herself. But I think that most of his "style" is misunderstood simply because we did not get to see him in action. Written word can sometimes mislead in transcripts. We don't get a complete picture.

I don't doubt that she and Darin, and unfortunately Mulder, had a discussion about what their testimony would be. It is my personal belief that it was marvelous Mulder that talked Darlie into saying, "I said frightening."!!

Well they had to do something with that blunder. Her story at the trial was that there was no fight, that Waddell was lying when he said she told him she fought with the attacker in the kitchen. They couldn't let her admit that she had been fighting because that would show that she remembered what happened and didn't have amnesia at all.

Don't you find it the least bit strange that two years later she remembers fighting with him on the couch thru hypnosis? That is just too coincidental to be anything but manipulation on her part. I am sure no lawyer was involved in that brainstorm, but I can't help but wonder what Einstein in her camp came up with it. Surely not Darlie herself. I don't think she even wanted to do the hypnotic session at all. Sure would be interesting to know though.

You are right about Mulder not being overly concerned about losing this case. That was evident throughout his dismal representation of his client. He let the state chew Darin and Darlie up - no objections to all that ridiculous heresay testimony, no rebuttal with experts to challenge the state's Barney Fife crime scene procedures - and he should be ashamed to show his face!

That is an over reaction, I think, but some truth in your criticisms about the objections. Only Mulder could tell us why he didn't move on that.

But you should be ashamed of yourself for villifying the police the way you do. They did a pretty good job. They didn't do everything that every person here thinks they should have but no crime scene is perfect. Mistakes are always made,and I am sure every investigator wishes his CSI had gone a step or two further. There are always going to be things critics can say they should have done, but again they have to call it as they see it at the time.

And Tom Bevel, the blood spatter expert, is widely respected all over the country for his expertise. He uses the Routier crime scene video to teach crime scene investigations to his students. I have seen in testify in several trials since Darlie's. The man knows his stuff.

I think part of learning sleuthing is learning who is who in the crime scene world and how to view evidence. When we are greenhorns, everything appears to be suspect. We think that if all the evidence is collected correctly, we will see a CSI (as in TV show) moment that will exonerate or prove positively without any doubt who the real killer is. Real crimes just don't pan out that way. It is very, very rare to have enough forensic evidence at one crime scene they way they do on TV to connect all those perfectly placed dots. That is what is so misleading about fictional forensic shows. I imagine that most investigators will say that they are lucky to find one or two that can actually be linked and used at trial. It is not unusal at all not to find a fingerprint at a crime scene, and when they do find prints, they are often not complete enough to actually identify who they belong to. That is what is wrong with the prints in Darlie's case. Not enough points to identify. That doesn't mean she is innocent, or that CSI did a sloppy job, only that those prints can't be used as evidence, one way or the other.

 

[Goody]

I don't know for certain, but I'd nearly bet the farm that the jail where she was staying wouldn't allow such a production.

Remember Scott Peterson? His attys had an outside atty come in and question him as the atty were the prosecutor and Scottie boy failed the test, so he didn't testify. Probably nothing so elaborate in Darlie's case, but I am sure they had some mock cross examinations to help prepare her (and her attys) for her testimony.

Remember when Darin skidded around questions about when he saw Darlie's panties missing? He didn't seem to want to admit that he noticed them gone. Mulder finally lost patience with him and barked, "Well, do you remember seeing them or not?" He would not have done that if it was not understood that Darin would testify to it.

So I don't think there is anyway one can think realistically that these folks did not experience some pre-trial preparation.

 

[Goody]

I guess I see Mulder along the lines of Geragos -- you may be better off trying to argue reasonable doubt, than to really push the issue on the evidence.

Especially if you know where the evidence is going to lead...

You can be an excellent attorney, but if your client is guilty, I think there is only so much that can be done.

And don't you know that is why Mulder halted the testing of the blood evidence when he took over. The decision came after lengthy discussions with the experts doing the tests. Mulder obviously didn't want anything on the record that could come back and bite her in the butt. Wouldn't you love to be a little fly on the wall during that meeting?

 

[accordn2me]

:laugh: When we are greenhorns,

I've never heard that before. So that's what I am. I'm easy too - believe what anyone says. Definitely not a good sleuther. My first reaction to the silly string video was: I don't care if she did it or not, she got what she deserved - to be acting like that on those children's graves! Pretty horrible, huh.

I do want to apologize for the Barney Fife comment about the police. :silenced: I thought about it after I logged off. I should not have said that. It contradicts the respect I feel for most law enforcement officers and crime scene investigators.

In Darlie's case, two things are appalling to me. First, Cron (and I seem to have confused him with Linch so please correct me if I do it again) said that it took him 20-30 minutes to decide Darlie did it! The second thing is the picture of the kitchen sink with cleaning supplies right next to it, along with the allegation Darlie cleaned the sink. That right there is enough to make me, greenhorn, believe the police are making the evidence fit their theory.

I am impressed with you and the others here at websleuths - the details you know about the case. I hope I don't antagonize anyone with my humble opinions and questions.

 

[Mary456]

"First, Cron (and I seem to have confused him with Linch so please correct me if I do it again) said that it took him 20-30 minutes to decide Darlie did it!"

No. Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene, and that there was no evidence of an intruder. This man had 30 years of experience investigating crime scenes; that's why the police called him in immediately. If he was so positive that Darlie had killed her sons, why wait two weeks to arrest her?

"The second thing is the picture of the kitchen sink with cleaning supplies right next to it, along with the allegation Darlie cleaned the sink."

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information? When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

"That right there is enough to make me, greenhorn, believe the police are making the evidence fit their theory."

Yep, those corrupt cops are always out to let the real killer go free (to murder again!) so they can send an innocent mother to death row. Makes perfect sense. :bang:

 

[accordn2me]

Goody, I'm going to go back and address some points you made, but without using the quote feature. Takes me too long.

About the mock trial: I wish I didn't come across as saying it was "unfair" to Darlie that they used it. Being the law and order conservative that I am, I think prosecutors sometimes need to do things like this because it seems the justice system is so heavily weighted in favor of the criminals. However, given the rules about witnesses in the courtroom during trial, I'm stunned that it's legal. Given that it is legal, it takes a degree of credibility away from the state's witnesses, because unlike the defendant, they have had the advantage of rehearsing and refining so they come across as perfectly consistent.

Darlie was in jail so I doubt that "her side" was allowed to all sit together and go over the scenario until each one told the same tale. And I don't believe that they should have been allowed to. To take it even further, I believe Mulder's rehearsing of Darlie was very detrimental to her case. No doubt it was ultimately her fault for changing her story so many times, but hell, I understand it. My memory is so bad! I can talk to someone face-to-face for two minutes in broad daylight and not be able to describe them accurately five minutes later. But I won't give someone 16 different descriptions, either. I just stick to the truth: I DON'T REMEMBER!

I stand by my convictions of Mulder. And I stated them as nicely as possible.

 

[accordn2me]

"Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene,"

WOW! He analyzed all that evidence on the spot, and inside of a half hour. He must be a real smart man.

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information?

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I don't know exactly what the police said during the trial. Here is what I meant: "Someone" said Darlie cleaned the sink. Then, there was this picture of the sink with cleaning supplies next to it. How silly of me to think that Darlie used Ajax to try and hide her crime.

When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

REALLY? Do you know why they thought blood would be in the cabinet?

 

[IrishMist]

"Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene,"

WOW! He analyzed all that evidence on the spot, and inside of a half hour. He must be a real smart man.

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information?

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I don't know exactly what the police said during the trial. Here is what I meant: "Someone" said Darlie cleaned the sink. Then, there was this picture of the sink with cleaning supplies next to it. How silly of me to think that Darlie used Ajax to try and hide her crime.

When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

REALLY? Do you know why they thought blood would be in the cabinet?

Chiming in, here. (Some might even call it "butting in", but I would never pay any attention to that kind of person. )

When the evidence doesn't fit the story, it doesn't fit. And a seasoned investigator (30 years?) sees a crime scene staged by amatuers, I don't find it unreasonable that he saw the inconsistancies right away. I've only been an appraiser for 8 years, and can spot a bad appraisal in 5 minutes. Think about it. 30 years is a long time to be in one field.

I'm not sure if you were being serious when you said that you don't know what the police said at trial. But if you were, then I highly suggest you read the transcripts. I thought there was a good chance she was innocent until I read those. Now, I'm not saying you'll think she's guilty after reading them! But I do think that to truly understand this case, a reading of the transcripts is a must.

They probably wondered if there was blood in the cabinet due to the blood that was running down the front of the cabinet...

 

[Jeana (DP)]

"Cron said it took him 20-30 minutes to conclude that Darlie's story didn't fit the evidence at the crime scene,"

WOW! He analyzed all that evidence on the spot, and inside of a half hour. He must be a real smart man.

There was no allegation during the trial that Darlie used cleaning supplies to clean the sink. Where did you get this information?

OK, I admit it. You caught me. I don't know exactly what the police said during the trial. Here is what I meant: "Someone" said Darlie cleaned the sink. Then, there was this picture of the sink with cleaning supplies next to it. How silly of me to think that Darlie used Ajax to try and hide her crime.

When police investigate a crime scene, they have to move things to look under them, behind them, etc. There's nothing sinister about it. The cleaning supplies, I'm sure, were moved so they could look for blood in the cabinet.

REALLY? Do you know why they thought blood would be in the cabinet?

1. Cron is a trained professional. If someone is telling him a crime happened in a certain manner and all of the evidence staring him in the face says something else, how long SHOULD it take for his "hinky" meter to go up? That's all that his statement involved. Things were not adding up from the first minutes of the investigation. No one said anything about "analysis" being done on the spot, etc., so let's not start saying things that never happened. And, finally, yes, he's indeed very intelligent.

2. They said blood had been washed down the drain. If you're in your kitchen and cut your hand peeling potatos and cut yourself, its entirely possible that some of the blood will be washed down the drain. Does that imply that you INTENTIONALLY "washed" that blood down the drain? Of course no. No one ever said that Darlie used any cleaning supplies at all. All they said that was that there was blood "washed" down the sink (i.e., the water on was and some of the blood accompanied the water into the drain).

3. When Darlie did whatever it was in the sink, whether it be cut herself and washed some blood down the drain; or whether it was wet towels to throw to Darin to apply to the boys' wounds, blood seeped between the cabinet door and was found there.

I'm sure that the police, in their very thorough investigation, DID INDEED move items under that sink in an effort to ascertain whether some sort of cleaning supply had been used by Darlie and whether drops of her blood could be found there. What would you be saying about them had they NOT done that? You'd be saying they didn't do their jobs, right? So, they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't.

 

[accordn2me]

Hi IrishMist,

The idea that one is "butting in" would never occur to me. I want to hear everyone's beliefs about this case, even Mary's. :truce:

I have read bits and pieces of the transcript, several years ago. It made me sick how "unprepared" (Goody's too nice!) Mulder was. :banghead: He didn't put up a fight at all. Now I'm wondering if he didn't owe the prosecutor's office a favor. I know, the greenhorn is showing in full force.

Knowing that the state's witnesses had mock trials, or a mock trial, took some of their credibility away.

Can you point me to specific parts in the transcript? I'll never have the time to read through the entire thing.