Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Jeana (DP)]

Here's another article from the Dallas Observer:

Defending Darlie
Wealthy Waco businessman Brian Pardo spends his time and money helping death-row inmates he believes are innocent. His efforts on behalf of Darlie Routier have raised suspicions about her husband--and about Pardo's motives.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1998-08-06/news/feature.html

 

[CW]

Jeana that was some very interesting reading thank you for posting it. I wonder if Brian Pardo is still helping with Darlie's defense..

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I believe that he's still paying the defense costs.

 

[dasgal]

Chris always thought that Pardo wanted to "Do her". I think Chris was jelous. LOL.

 

[Mary456]

I believe that he's still paying the defense costs.

I think Pardo's been out of the picture for quite some time, DP. Darin's family washed their hands of him when Darin failed the polygraph.

As far as I'm concerned, Brian Pardo is an eccentric fruitcake. If you asked him what evidence convicted Darlie, he'd probably say, "Darlie who?" I'd bet he doesn't have a clue about this case, other than the media attention he so dearly sought.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Mary, "Darin's" family doesn' have squat to say about Darlie's defense. Its Darlie Kee whose running the show and she'll not only throw Darin under the bus, but if she thought it could get Darlie out of prison, Sharilda would be under there too.

 

[Mary456]

"Mary, "Darin's" family doesn' have squat to say about Darlie's defense."

That may well be true. I was simply saying that I haven't heard a word about Brian Pardo being involved in Darlie's case for several years.

Sooo, he's still funding her defense? Media hound that he is, I thought we would have heard something from the little sheister in the last three years!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

What is there left to say? She's lost every appeal she's had. They keep claiming that they've got all this new evidence, but they're hanging on to it in hopes of getting a second trial that will never happen. It seems to me that the only way the higher courts are going to hear anything new is in the media. If her attorneys have a get out of jail free card in the way of solid concrete evidence, they should be shouting it from the rooftops instead of waiting until the day she's executed and then say well . . . no one would listen to us.

 

[Texana]

Exactly, Jeana.

Darlie's family seems to focus their claims for a new trial on a) mysterious evidence never introduced and b) mistakes by the court reporter. With the mistakes shown to be not worthy of a new trial, and the evidence still mysteriously hidden--I think that new trial is about as likely to happen as a blue norther in August.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the judges at the appellate level seem to reserve their verdict overturning/new trial orders for those defendants burdened by poverty, inept defense, and obvious evidence discrepancies (such as those from the Harris County crime lab problems) NOT for defendants such as Darlie...whose defense seemed to my cynical mind to imply that because she was a white surburban mother, she couldn't possibly have killed her children.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The appellate court in Texas is going to see that Darlie was defended by one of the best criminal defense attorneys in the State of Texas. Its going to read the other decisions from the lower courts to see what was considered in rendering their opinion. Its too late for new evidence. The defense will need to try and prove that the trial was some how unfair or that her rights were violated in some way. Frankly, I don't see how she could possibly stand a chance.

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Here's another article from the Dallas Observer:

Defending Darlie
Wealthy Waco businessman Brian Pardo spends his time and money helping death-row inmates he believes are innocent. His efforts on behalf of Darlie Routier have raised suspicions about her husband--and about Pardo's motives.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues/1998-08-06/news/feature.html

I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

I've never known quite what to think about Darlie re: guilt or innocence, but I have always believed that there is no way her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt...as this article indicates, there are lots of doubts, lots of unanswered questions...

 

[accordn2me]

I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

I've never known quite what to think about Darlie re: guilt or innocence, but I have always believed that there is no way her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt...as this article indicates, there are lots of doubts, lots of unanswered questions...

You are absolutely right about Mulder! This has to be one of the all-time worst efforts by an attorney to defend a client. Fritzy could have done better for Darlie!

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Fritzy could have done better for Darlie!

LOL...He thinks so too!

 

[Mary456]

I just read this article...frankly, this journalist did a better job defending Darlie than her own lawyer did...

It's unfortunate that some people think so little of our judicial system that they'd base their opinion of guilt or innocence on a magazine article or a talk show.

There is only one way to approach this case: read the trial transcript (and I mean, really, really read it) and then watch the media spin on Darlie's website.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

It's unfortunate that some people think so little of our judicial system that they'd base their opinion of guilt or innocence on a magazine article or a talk show.

Actually, if you read my post, I said that I have not been able to form an opinion about Darlie's guilt or innocence. I have read many of the trial transcripts, though, and, IMO, there is reasonable doubt. The fact that there are so many people still asking so many questions seems to supprt my opinion.

There is only one way to approach this case: read the trial transcript (and I mean, really, really read it) and then watch the media spin on Darlie's website.

Thank you. I have read many of the trial transcripts - not all of them - but enought to form an intelligent opinion about the article referenced above.

Have you read it? The article is well-written, thoughtful and factual. The author does a good job of persuading readers to look at the evidence from a defense standpoint; his arguments are clear and strong. During much of the trial, I believe, Mr. Mulder allowed prosecution witnesses to leave the stand without doing much to counter their testimony. Also, his closing argument was, IMO, weak. Of course, the prosecution could put their spin on much of what is argued in this article - that's their job - but, as I said, this author did a better job of putting forth a defense than Mr. Mulder did.

 

[dasgal]

It's unfortunate that some people think so little of our judicial system that they'd base their opinion of guilt or innocence on a magazine article or a talk show.

There is only one way to approach this case: read the trial transcript (and I mean, really, really read it) and then watch the media spin on Darlie's website.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Dead on Girl! Whatever happened to hearing both sides completely before coming to a decision. I guess it our Jerry Springer Society. Sheesh!

 

[Mary456]

Have you read it? The article is well-written, thoughtful and factual.

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.

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

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?

 

[accordn2me]

To the veteran sleuthers on this case: I know virtually all of you have spent countless hours reading transcripts, articles, watching reports, discussing facts and allegations with each other - some even attempting to reinact certain parts of the crime! Personally, I'm impressed with the knowledge and expertise most of you bring to the discussion.

My questions and differences of opinion are in no way meant as disrespect of your beliefs about what happened in Rowlett on 6/6/96.

With that said, I want to say how much I enjoy reading the questions from the "fresh eyes" like RSJ and Fritzy's Mom. If nothing else, it does validate my position that there is reasonable doubt (even though I highly disagree with a Darin-did-it-so-free-Darlie defense!).

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!

 

[Dani_T]

To the veteran sleuthers on this case: I know virtually all of you have spent countless hours reading transcripts, articles, watching reports, discussing facts and allegations with each other - some even attempting to reinact certain parts of the crime! Personally, I'm impressed with the knowledge and expertise most of you bring to the discussion.

My questions and differences of opinion are in no way meant as disrespect of your beliefs about what happened in Rowlett on 6/6/96.

I don't think of any us feel you are trying to disrespect us at all- in fact we all get kind of excited when new people come to the case or discussion is re-opened because it does get boring when it is just us

With that said, I want to say how much I enjoy reading the questions from the "fresh eyes" like RSJ and Fritzy's Mom. If nothing else, it does validate my position that there is reasonable doubt (even though I highly disagree with a Darin-did-it-so-free-Darlie defense!).

I also love it when 'fresh eyes' come to the case.

However, I do have to say that just because new people come doesn't automatically mean there is reasonable doubt. To be frank, most of the new people I have seen come to the case over the years believe there is reasonable doubt because they haven't read a lot of the source documents... and that is of course to be expected... because we all have to start somewhere and I cringe at what I didn't know when I first came to the case and how patient people like Mary and Goody were with me.

So whilst having fresh discussions raises lots of interesting things- I don't think it necessarily follows that it proves there is reasonable doubt (eg. Mary's response to that article... which I am glad she did because I was going to feel compelled to do it )

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!

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.