Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Fritzy's Mom]

Thanks Goody. Maybe my THREE posts pointing this out and your two will help. :doh: :doh: :doh:

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

I think the fact checkers went out with Bell Bottomed pants, FM. If they didn't, they must be snoozing because reporters everywhere are getting looser and looser with the truth. I hate to have to follow a trial depending on them to interpret it for me. Even the best of them reach some strange conclusions. (you see,there, Mary, I'm even nudging over to your side on this one. LOL!)

Well, after reading Mary's post, I am definitely more skeptical... but I would still like to know if there was contradictory testimony on some of these points.

Where did this guy come up with 10 inches long and 3/4 inch deep? Is there any testimony supporting this? I've been too lazy to look it up myself - Mary?

Was there differing testimony re: the knife hitting her bone? I saw what Dr. Dillawn said...did anyone else say differently? Mary?

He was absolutely wrong about the 1 1/2 day hospital stay - it was 2 1/2 days.

As for the cut on Darlie's face...this is debatable. I looked at the pictures on Darlie's website. There is one entitled "Swollen Lips and Marks on Chin and Face." Frankly, I didn't see either, but somebody else may disagree...

I would like to see the medical charts re: Darlie's mouth pain and bruises...it would not surprise me at all if the written records differed from testimony on these points (I don't trust Mulder enough to assume he would have caught discrepencies).

As a side note, I also saw the picture of Devon's stab wounds - it stopped me in my tracks. I've never seen a fatal stab wound up close and personal like that, and I've never really thought about what one would look like. I guess I just assumed it would look like what would happen if you stuck a butcher knife into a grapefruit - a long, narrow slit. That poor little boy has gaping holes in his back. He must have been squirming and struggling all over the place for those cuts to be torn that wide.

I cut myself once when I was slicing a bagel. As the blade pulled across my finger, it sent a shock through my entire body - my finger felt like it was on fire. Devon was asleep (hopefully) when he was first stabbed, but shock doesn't set in immediately. I wonder how much of the attack he actually felt? And I wonder how long he was aware of what was happening. If Darlie did this, he must have been so confused and so frightened...

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Sorry, Mary, I disagree this time. Darlie made her first change within minutes while still at the crime scene. She told Waddell that she struggled with the intruder in the kitchen area. Waddell even remembered her pointing out the area where they struggled, near where she was on the phone at. Then after the cops put her and Darin in the family room by the glass sliding doors, they search the house, let paramedics in, etc., she tells Walling on the front porch that she was attacked on the sofa. (When did she go back to the kitchen?)

I think something tipped her off that the story about the struggle in the kitchen was not going to work. It wasn't until she was interviewed at the hospital that she comes up with the Damon/Mommie,Mommie, Mommie story. Also, a couple of things were changed when she was at the house for her first visit. One, Frosch (not in the transcripts) heard her ask Darin if he remembered her throwing the towels to him in one big stack from the kitchen. We didn't get to hear that because Frosch didn't testify because of the cemetery dibacle.

People say she added the wet towel story after she saw the sink and plumbing gone on that visit, but I don't think it was until later that she realized how important that was. Probably not until her atty asked her about it. I don't remember exactly when the wet towel story was first brought up. Do you? Was it at the trial? Well, anyway Darlie was constantly working on her story, polishing it and editing it. Everyone she talked to had a different version and they could only do that if she was telling everyone a different story. I think she was constantly trying to plug holes and up the drama.

Pretty hard to argue with most of that...

Geez...I can't believe how well some of you know this case!

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

I disagree. It was no secret that the children were murdered and that it was going to be a high profile case. Suspicion always falls on the surviving parent. Denise was no stranger to working with police and I am sure she knew how important her observations might be one day if it turned out that Darlie was guilty. So she kept a diary. Good for her. I don't even think her diary was admitted into evidence, was it?


Yes. Denise acted on her own instincts. It did not take a mind reader to see that Darlie was not reacting like most grieving mothers do. There would be a reason for that. Everyone who came around her except her family thought she was probably guilty. Why? Because we know that thugs do not go into someone's house at random just to kill two sleeping kids and just take a slash at the sleeping Mother. The whole intruder/burglar/rapist story was ridiculous unless you are willing to believe Beevis and Butthead were involved.

And even if LE did imply they thought Darlie guilty (although even Darlie says they never let on to her that they thought she did it), the worst the nurse testimony did (except for what they said she said) was not strong enough to convict her on. Maybe it colored some jurors minds, but I doubt that they would have influenced all 12. There was a lot of character type testimony that did not flatter Darlie, but if we can see through it, why do you believe a jury couldn't? They were just as adult as we are.

]

I DEFINITELY want to comment on some of this, but I'm too tired right now! I'll be back...

 

[Jeana (DP)]

If Darlie killed those two little boys and then cut herself up, she remembers it. There's a BIG difference between being the victim of a traumatic event and being the one who intentionally caused it.


She blamed it on reports that she was getting from defense investigators...and yeah, that testimony sounded pretty shaky. IF Darlie was telling the truth, then she was pretty feeble minded at that point - she was having a difficult time differentiating between dreams, false memories, investigator reports and reality.

Of course she remembers it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't know anything about Brian Pardo except what I read in that article, so I really have no opinion of him one way or the other...you probably have to be from Texas...

I do wonder, though, if he asked Darlie to take a polygraph. Since he insisted that Darin take one, I would think he would do the same for her. And, since he blabbed the results of Darin's all over the place, why didn't he do the same for Darlie?

Because she failed them. He's trying to get her out of prison and put Darin in. Why would he let results slip that would guaranty her the needle? :waitasec: :waitasec:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

First it was a mock trial, now its a pep rally? What do you call what the defense did?

 

[Dani_T]

If Darlie killed those two little boys and then cut herself up, she remembers it. There's a BIG difference between being the victim of a traumatic event and being the one who intentionally caused it.


She blamed it on reports that she was getting from defense investigators...and yeah, that testimony sounded pretty shaky. IF Darlie was telling the truth, then she was pretty feeble minded at that point - she was having a difficult time differentiating between dreams, false memories, investigator reports and reality.

Aren't you contradicting yourself there? If she was having trouble separating fiction and reality how can you be so sure that she was speaking and thinking with any clarity on anything?

It's a pretty well proven fact that if you have someone lying long enough about something then eventually they begin to believe it. People have passed polygraph tests on this basis. Whilst I doubt that she was completely deluded in the immediate period after the murders (ie. that she was covering up rather than deluding herself that she hadn't done it) I think she has probably convinced herself on a conscious level at this stage that she didn't do it. Say a lie enough times over, keep defending yourself against accusations, climb up onto your pedestal and eventually you start believing the lie.

 

[Dani_T]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

Just like the defense pep rally wasn't fair to the prosecution?

 

[cami]

If, on the other hand, you want to try to presume her innocent, then the changes in her story can be ascribed to any number of things - false testimony by the medical personnel, trauma, possible loss of consciousness during the attack, medication, honest mistakes, etc.

Aren't you setting yourself up for a fall there though? If you believe that the doctors would get up on the stand and lie about her condition or about their observations. As well as the nurses, they are professionals after all with reputations at stake not to mention the legalities of committing perjury.

As a matter of fact she was still changing her story for the 48 hours program in 2000 or 2001. Then she saw the man's "profile" as he moved away from the couch. Who influenced that I wonder, her appellate attorneys?

Sorry have to add my touch of sarcasm or I just wouldn't be me. :blushing:

 

[Dani_T]

I do wonder, though, if he asked Darlie to take a polygraph. Since he insisted that Darin take one, I would think he would do the same for her. And, since he blabbed the results of Darin's all over the place, why didn't he do the same for Darlie?

I believe that there is a report that Darlie did indeed take a polygraph and that the results were not released but she walked out of the room and hugged her mum (I think) and they both cried. Can't remember where the info came from (Mary? Goody? DP?) but the implication was that the results weren't good (not the least because you would expect her defense and/or supporters to be waving it from the rooftops if they were).

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I believe that there is a report that Darlie did indeed take a polygraph and that the results were not released but she walked out of the room and hugged her mum (I think) and they both cried. Can't remember where the info came from (Mary? Goody? DP?) but the implication was that the results weren't good (not the least because you would expect her defense and/or supporters to be waving it from the rooftops if they were).

Its been too long for me to remember where I heard/read it, but that's exactly what I heard.

To even begin to think that she didn't take a polygraph test is silly.
To think that had she passed one, the defense wouldn't have been yelling their collective heads off over it is madness. She took one (at LEAST ONE) and failed it or it would be written about all over the place.

 

[accordn2me]

Just like the defense pep rally wasn't fair to the prosecution?

From what I've read, I can't see where Mulder planned, prepared or practiced any type of defense strategy at all.

 

[Mary456]

I don't have a problem with the prosecution preparing its witnesses, I just don't think the hotel pep rally was fair to Darlie.

Darlie's aunt Sandy was taking notes in the courtroom each day, and shared the testimony with her sister, Sherry Moses. That's a no-no. Sherry was on the witness list, and was instructed not to discuss trial proceedings with anyone. But she did, and even admitted it. When Sherry took the stand, it was obvious that she altered her testimony in Darlie's favor.

Sherry testified that she saw "bruising on her (Darlie's) arm, that was just covering her arm" when she visited her in the hospital. That was clearly a lie, unless we believe that seven doctors and nurses missed seeing those same bruises.

So it goes both ways. Potential witnesses aren't kept in solitary confinement until they testify. They go on with their lives, their jobs, and yes, they gossip. In the end, jurors consider the source and ya know what else? I think they really do use those scales!

Happy Friday, FM

 

[accordn2me]

Well, after reading Mary's post, I am definitely more skeptical... but I would still like to know if there was contradictory testimony on some of these points.

Where did this guy come up with 10 inches long and 3/4 inch deep? Is there any testimony supporting this? I've been too lazy to look it up myself - Mary?

Was there differing testimony re: the knife hitting her bone? I saw what Dr. Dillawn said...did anyone else say differently? Mary?

He was absolutely wrong about the 1 1/2 day hospital stay - it was 2 1/2 days.

As for the cut on Darlie's face...this is debatable. I looked at the pictures on Darlie's website. There is one entitled "Swollen Lips and Marks on Chin and Face." Frankly, I didn't see either, but somebody else may disagree...

I would like to see the medical charts re: Darlie's mouth pain and bruises...it would not surprise me at all if the written records differed from testimony on these points (I don't trust Mulder enough to assume he would have caught discrepencies).

As a side note, I also saw the picture of Devon's stab wounds - it stopped me in my tracks. I've never seen a fatal stab wound up close and personal like that, and I've never really thought about what one would look like. I guess I just assumed it would look like what would happen if you stuck a butcher knife into a grapefruit - a long, narrow slit. That poor little boy has gaping holes in his back. He must have been squirming and struggling all over the place for those cuts to be torn that wide.

I cut myself once when I was slicing a bagel. As the blade pulled across my finger, it sent a shock through my entire body - my finger felt like it was on fire. Devon was asleep (hopefully) when he was first stabbed, but shock doesn't set in immediately. I wonder how much of the attack he actually felt? And I wonder how long he was aware of what was happening. If Darlie did this, he must have been so confused and so frightened...

On my monitor, something is wrong with some of those pictures of Darlie in the hospital on the 'justicefordarlie' site - they look all red-tinted. It even looks like Darlie is wearing heavy pink eyeshadow. I would swear that I see the formation of early bruising on the arm with stitches, and her elbow is definitely all swollen.

The pictures of Devon are vividly clear - HORRIFYING! If not a death penalty offense, none are. I have never seen any stab wound, so I wouldn't know what to expect either. However, during self-defense classes, I remember our instuctor explaining how muscle and skin react to stab wounds. He described pretty much what Devon's look like. I have heard that one or more of Devon's stabs were so violent that it penetrated carpet. Since Darlie was not prosecuted for his murder, it didn't get addressed in the trial. I don't claim to know a thing about crime scene analysis, but if I had to look at his picture and make an inference about his position when stabbed, I would say he was standing because of all the blood on his underwear.

I can't guess about Damon since there are no crime scene pictures of him. One of the haunting things about Damon's picture - those four small (circled in red) punctures in his back. Compared to those fatal deep gashes, it makes me wonder if he were not prodded along by the knife. DEATH PENALTY... :sick:

 

[Dani_T]

From what I've read, I can't see where Mulder planned, prepared or practiced any type of defense strategy at all.

Ok. Forgive me for being so forthwright on this but I'm at the stage where I am so completely over this discussion about Mulder. It's not only you of course- I've just heard so many people making excuses for Darlie and the evidence which was presented and unanswered by the defense by pointing the finger at Mulder.

Is he immortal? Infalliable? Invincible? NO.

Was he a high profile defense attorney taking on probably the most high profile case of his career to date? Was he regarded by his peers as a top notch attorney? YES.

Was he the attorney who pioneered these 'pep rallys' (as you can all them) in the area. YES. Are you seriously suggesting here that with everything we know about him he just didn't borther preparing his witness for trial? Come on.

The facts are that Darlie had damn good counsel in Mulder. His track record shows it. Did he/Does he make mistakes like the rest of us mere mortals? Of course he does/did. But he was not inept and incompetement and I'm just so tired of hearing Darlie supporters claim that he couldn't be bothered putting on a good defense for her.

How in the hell is it easier to believe that Mulder just completely dropped the ball on this case in a way which is completely inconsistent with his track record, reputation and the context of this very high profile case than it is to understand that were were reasons why he didn't present certain evidence at trial, reasons why he some of the things he did or didn't do don't make complete sense to us.... incriminating reasons.

 

[accordn2me]

Ok. Forgive me for being so forthwright on this but I'm at the stage where I am so completely over this discussion about Mulder. It's not only you of course- I've just heard so many people making excuses for Darlie and the evidence which was presented and unanswered by the defense by pointing the finger at Mulder.

Is he immortal? Infalliable? Invincible? NO.

Was he a high profile defense attorney taking on probably the most high profile case of his career to date? Was he regarded by his peers as a top notch attorney? YES.

Was he the attorney who pioneered these 'pep rallys' (as you can all them) in the area. YES. Are you seriously suggesting here that with everything we know about him he just didn't borther preparing his witness for trial? Come on.

The facts are that Darlie had damn good counsel in Mulder. His track record shows it. Did he/Does he make mistakes like the rest of us mere mortals? Of course he does/did. But he was not inept and incompetement and I'm just so tired of hearing Darlie supporters claim that he couldn't be bothered putting on a good defense for her.

How in the hell is it easier to believe that Mulder just completely dropped the ball on this case in a way which is completely inconsistent with his track record, reputation and the context of this very high profile case than it is to understand that were were reasons why he didn't present certain evidence at trial, reasons why he some of the things he did or didn't do don't make complete sense to us.... incriminating reasons.

Personally, I don't call myself a Darlie supporter. I don't know her, write her, send her stuff or claim she is innocent. I don't believe she was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe she deserves a new trial because she may be factually innocent - not because of a mock trial, dress rehearsal, pep rally, or any legal technicality. The particular words you decide to name it makes no difference to me. I don't particularly say it was "unfair" to Darlie that the prosecution got the cops, and doctors/nurses together, pretended to be questioning them as he was going to in the actual trial, and let them hear and refine their answers, and practice doing it until they all answered the same and supported the others' testimony.

Did Mulder do that for the defense witnesses? I would bet absolutely NO. At times, Mulder couldn't even ask a question that could make it past objection. He would lose his train of thought, or not follow a point to the end. I mean, come on, he may have been a good attorney for other cases, but if you think he did a good job in this case, it makes me seriously doubt if you read the parts of the transcripts where it's Mulder's turn.

This was the most lame, pitiful, unprofessional attempt to defend anyone that I have ever seen! If Mulder thought Darlie was guilty, he should not have taken their money and defended her. Maybe that's just my own standard, were I an attorney, I would not defend someone I believed to be guilty because I could not do my best for them - especially where a death penalty crime like this one is the case.

 

[Dani_T]

I don't particularly say it was "unfair" to Darlie that the prosecution got the cops, and doctors/nurses together, pretended to be questioning them as he was going to in the actual trial, and let them hear and refine their answers, and practice doing it until they all answered the same and supported the others' testimony.

In that very one sentence you have annihilated all integrity of around a dozen individuals who you don't even know- individuals whose job it was to serve and protect and to care and heal and who have no reason to as a group decide to colluide and lie to make their testimonies sound the same. You've also cast grave aspersions of the integrity of Greg Davis and the other DA team. You have obviously made up your mind that it was a big giant conspiracy to put an innocent woman in jail. So be it. But maybe your theory might benefit from actually looking and explaining the evidence which doesn't look so good for Darlie.

Did Mulder do that for the defense witnesses? I would bet absolutely NO. At times, Mulder couldn't even ask a question that could make it past objection. He would lose his train of thought, or not follow a point to the end. I mean, come on, he may have been a good attorney for other cases, but if you think he did a good job in this case, it makes me seriously doubt if you read the parts of the transcripts where it's Mulder's turn.

Doubt away all you want. It doesn't change the evidence.

This was the most lame, pitiful, unprofessional attempt to defend anyone that I have ever seen! If Mulder thought Darlie was guilty, he should not have taken their money and defended her. Maybe that's just my own standard, were I an attorney, I would not defend someone I believed to be guilty because I could not do my best for them - especially where a death penalty crime like this one is the case.

Jumping the gun a bit here aren't you?

 

[accordn2me]

In that very one sentence you have annihilated all integrity of around a dozen individuals who you don't even know- individuals whose job it was to serve and protect and to care and heal and who have no reason to as a group decide to colluide and lie to make their testimonies sound the same. You've also cast grave aspersions of the integrity of Greg Davis and the other DA team. You have obviously made up your mind that it was a big giant conspiracy to put an innocent woman in jail. So be it. But maybe your theory might benefit from actually looking and explaining the evidence which doesn't look so good for Darlie.

Actually, I'm not that powerful. Obviously, I'm not too effective at expressing my beliefs with my words, either. The conspiracy theory would be ridiculous. We agree on that. Everyone didn't sit around and say, the real killer is long gone in that dark car...we have to convict someone so there is not mass exodus from the town of Rowlett...this is our chance to get rid of Darlie!

It's accepted practice in Texas to get all your witnesses together and rehearse testimony. Greg Davis did a very thorough job for the State. He was overly prepared and came across as the professional, veteran prosecutor that he is. He, his assistants, and the State's experts probably really believe Darlie is guilty.

It was obvious that the State's witnesses had collaborated on their testimony. I believe doing so can change one's memory of the events. That may not be true, but I believe that it is. Because of my firm belief, it reduces, for me, the credibility of those witnesses part of the testimony after they have had the "meetings." I place more weight on their initial written notes and reports. I'm hoping I'm making sense to you now.

Doubt away all you want. It doesn't change the evidence.

The evidence never changes. A murder happens, the evidence is what it is. Whether it is all found, or explained accurately, is another story.

Jumping the gun a bit here aren't you?

About Mulder? NOPE

About being a defense attorney? YES!

About this being a death penalty crime? Absolutely not.

 

[Mary456]

Where did this guy come up with 10 inches long and 3/4 inch deep? Is there any testimony supporting this? I've been too lazy to look it up myself - Mary?

Dr. Dillawn testified that Darlie's neck wound was about 10 cm long, so maybe Pardo confused centimeters with inches. Btw, I was wrong...Darlie's neck wound was only about 4" long, not 8. Despite what some people say, I don't have the transcript memorized, lol! Where he came up with 3/4" deep is anyone's guess. In his dreams, maybe?

Was there differing testimony re: the knife hitting her bone? I saw what Dr. Dillawn said...did anyone else say differently? Mary?

No one contradicted Dillawn's and Santos' testimony that the knife did not penetrate Darlie's bone. And remember, this bone is very, very close to the surface in that part of the arm. Mulder wasn't a fool. He wasn't about to refute that testimony, because x-rays would have proven him wrong.

I would like to see the medical charts re: Darlie's mouth pain and bruises...it would not surprise me at all if the written records differed from testimony on these points (I don't trust Mulder enough to assume he would have caught discrepencies)

There's no focus notes or testimony about Darlie's mouth pain or bruises, because she didn't complain of mouth pain and there were no bruises while she was in the hospital. Sorry to hear you're so distrustful of Mulder, one of the best defense attorneys in Texas. Perhaps Darlie should have gone out of state & hired Geragos.