Bill (William) Parker

[Madeleine74]

Tell,

Please stop putting words in my mouth and twisting the things I write. There is clearly a disconnect going on and I don't appreciate it.

And yes, that is correct: Darlie was found guilty by a jury of 12 people. They're not *my* jury, they were selected by both sides (defense & prosecution), questioned during voir dire, empaneled, and were given the responsibility to decide this case. And they did decide. I don't know what all factored into their decision (and I suspect neither do you). Juries never are obligated to talk about how they came to a decision, why they came to a decision or what their deliberations were like. That's not an opinion, that's the rule of the court. They may talk, if they choose, but they do not have to (ever). As long as they follow the rules they were given their verdict stands until or unless a higher court reviews the case and finds reversible error. And, as we know, no higher court has overturned the conviction.

If you are unhappy with their verdict, or don't understand the US legal system, or are just trying to stir up something, you'll have to clarify because it's not clear what your issue is or what you want.

 

[Madeleine74]

You want to discuss evidence, then fine. You started this thread to discuss Bill Parker's testimony.

First you find it interesting (do you mean it was wrong) for Parker to (only) be paid $1 for him consulting with Dallas.

Was it legal for him to help and consult?

If yes, then his testimony can proceed.

If no, then his testimony cannot proceed.

He testified.

His testimony is either credible or not credible.

 

[TellTheTruth]

You want to discuss evidence, then fine. You started this thread to discuss Bill Parker's testimony.

First you find it interesting (do you mean it was wrong) for Parker to (only) be paid $1 for him consulting with Dallas.

Was it legal for him to help and consult?

If yes, then his testimony can proceed.

If no, then his testimony cannot proceed.

He testified.

His testimony is either credible or not credible.

Do you not find it strange that Parker's interview with Darlie wasn't taped or recorded in anyway and Darlie and Parker are poles apart on what she stated when being asked about the murders?

 

[Steel86]

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.

Appeal courts don't call in juries who have presided over a case later on (hours, months, years) and take a re-vote. This juror's affidavit does not reflect the voice for all the other jurors in this case. Obviously, none of her appeals have overturned her conviction or granted a new trial.

 

[TellTheTruth]

Appeal courts don't call in juries who have presided over a case later on (hours, months, years) and take a re-vote. This juror's affidavit does not reflect the voice for all the other jurors in this case. Obviously, none of her appeals have overturned her conviction or granted a new trial.

It shows what a poor job Darlie's defence team did.

 

[Val830]

I find Parker's testimony that Darlie said "if I did it, I don't remember" and Darlie's alleged absence of outright denial that she did it to be interesting.

That's it - just interesting.

I've read enough about interrogation practices to know that the purpose of a trained interrogator's questions is to get a confession - regardless if the person did it or not. Read up on the Reid Method and you'll know what I'm talking about.

That said - I don't consider Darlie's alleged statements anything in the realm of a "confession". It's interesting, sure, but it's not a confession.

I do know that a very well-trained investigator can get an innocent person to say something along the lines of what Darlie is alleged to have said.

However, being that the interview was not recorded, I'd imagine that if Parker was lying, he'd just say Darlie confessed. That alone gives me pause as to the claim that he's lying.

Plus, Darlie's been caught in more lies than I can count. So if we're judging which one is trustworthy and which one is not, I'd go with Parker hands down.

And that's probably what the jury did too.

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree, Val830. Good analysis.

If I'm on the jury, I have no specific reason to disbelieve Parker's testimony, but I have no reason to use his testimony either because there isn't a recording of it. It doesn't prove guilt, just like the silly string tape doesn't prove guilt. I could ignore both pieces of evidence altogether and still work with everything else to deliberate to a verdict.

 

[Val830]

I agree, Val830. Good analysis.

If I'm on the jury, I have no specific reason to disbelieve Parker's testimony, but I have no reason to use his testimony either because there isn't a recording of it. It doesn't prove guilt, just like the silly string tape doesn't prove guilt. I could ignore both pieces of evidence altogether and still work with everything else to deliberate to a verdict.

Right. Not all evidence is meant to definitively prove guilt. Not every piece of evidence is strong enough to stand alone.

This case, like the vast majority of cases, depends on the totality of evidence. Every circumstance put together forms a picture - that picture needs to be strong enough that there is no reasonable way for everything to be just so - except that the defendant is guilty.

This interview with Parker shows very little on its own. Like the silly string incident. Put it together with the stronger evidence - the blood evidence, the inconsistent stories, etc - and it makes sense.

 

[TellTheTruth]

I think you've both summed up my point very nicely.