Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Mary456]

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).

This comes from Barbara Davis' book, Precious Angels. Mulder arranged for Darlie to take a private polygraph on October 4th, 1996. When she was escorted back to her cell, Darlie and her mother embraced "and Darlie began to sob."

Darin told the family that the test results couldn't be released, ahahahaaa! Babs said the secret polygraph was accidentally leaked when Doug Parks filed a $1,000 bill for six hours of confidential consultation.

I think it's safe to conclude that Darlie failed the polygraph.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

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.

Where is there proof of this happening? I think you've been hearing campfire stories.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

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.

Do you follow capital murder trials for a living? If not, I find it hard to believe that you could compare Mulder to many other attorneys. MANY defense attorneys take cases where they know for a fact that their client is guilty. Do you think that all those cases where the attorneys ask their client to take a polygraph and then found out that they failed those tests, the attorney would quit the case? Of course not. Every defendant is, by law, entitled to the best possible defense their attorney can provide them. This case was no exception. Moreover, attorneys are not allowed to just quit a case anytime they feel like it. The judge must approve the substitution. If an attorney told a judge that she/he wanted to quit a case simply because they "knew their client was guilty," that judge would have a fit.

 

[Dani_T]

Where is there proof of this happening? I think you've been hearing campfire stories.

Hehehehehe

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

It was no secret that the children were murdered and that it was going to be a high profile case.

Right. And Denise/Gladys Kravitz was going to make sure she was part of it...

Suspicion always falls on the surviving parent.

Well... but that's not really Denise's job to worry about, is it?

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?

Goody, do you know how many victims of violent crime ICU and emergency room nurses who work in large metropolitan hospitals (e.g., Baylor) see? They see tons...

And, do you know how often nurses get lied to? They get lied to ALL THE TIME...A guy with near lethal levels of blood alcohol who has caused a fatality will swear up and down he's only had one drink; a woman who has been beaten senseless by her husband will say she fell down the stairs; shooting victims will come in and say they have no idea who shot them or why, yet they will have pockets full of crack and cash. Patients tell nurses "weird" stories all the time...and, guess what - 99% of the time, the nurses don't care! They know that their job is to treat the patient and to let the police do the detective work.

Do you think for one second that had Darlie been some derelict drug addict who had been stabbed in an alley Denise would have notes at home in her safe about the "weird" story she was telling? Of course not. She saw Darlie, a white, well-to-do, pretty suburban housewife who was suspected of stabbing her children, and she KNEW it was going to be big news. Denise Faulk wanted to make sure she was included in the story...

Whether or not her diary was admitted into evidence is irrelevant...just by testifying she kept one she told the jurors all they need to know about her and the reliability of her testimony.

It did not take a mind reader to see that Darlie was not reacting like most grieving mothers do.

Not when the police have told you that that mother is a suspect...then, of course, everything she does is called into question. If the police had not let on that Darlie was a suspect, Denise would probably have written notes about how pitiful and devastated Darlie was. Her intent here was to make herself important in this case, and nothing more...

Darlie was on trial for her life. Denise's BS, nosy, "I'm going to make this all about me" attitude from the get-go was inexcusable. She swore to God to tell the truth. Mulder should have left her in tears.

Everyone who came around her except her family thought she was probably guilty. Why?

Because that's what the police told them...

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.

That's not the point!!! The point is that nobody at Baylor needed to have this type of in-depth information!!!

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 fact that they didn't let Darlie in on their suspicions means nothing (you know that!)...

...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.

But it did play a part in her conviction. All this kind of stuff adds up...

It's hard to judge just how credible some of this testimony was, though - reading it is certainly not the same as seeing it in person. Like I said (on paper anyway) Mulder just seemed to let too many of these people get off the stand without doing much to explore their motivations and bias.

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.

See, I just didn't see that much testimony that was that devasting to her character...

Aside from the medical testimony (which I almost entirely discount), there was:

1. the story about her teasing/being mean to Barbara Jovell's mother;
2. the suicide drama; and
3. the silly string incident.

The first two are pretty much no big deal - we've all been mean at one time or another in our lives and lots of women do the suicide thing to get attention (to Darlie's credit here, I do think she had some genuine postpartum depression going on). And, since the silly string incident occurred after the stabbings, it really should not have been considered as part of her character that led up to the stabbings (does that make sense?!)....

Yet, the silly string video is what killed her...

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Did you have a serious head injury?

Well, LOL, therein lies the problem for Darlie! Yes, I did have a serious head injury (I STILL have a bald spot!), and she didn't...

However...if someone held a pillow over her head for a long enough period of time, she could have been rendered unconscious and groggy after she woke up. I know that's highly unlikely, but I suppose it could have happened that way.

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Putting aside their "subjective" feelings about Darlie's demeanor, do you think those 7 doctors and nurses gossiped enough to overlooked her bruises?

No.

That's not a subjective issue. There is either redness, swelling, or bruises to the right arm or there is not. All of them testified that they would have seen some sign of blunt trauma in the 2 1/2 days she was in the hospital, but it wasn't there. Even Dr. DiMaio conceded that the bruises photographed on 6/10 "look to be a couple of days old."

Agreed.

This was a critical piece of evidence against Darlie, because it showed that the blunt trauma didn't occur the night of 6/6/96. I believe she caused those bruises herself - perhaps by slamming her arm against a hard surface - after she left the hospital. Why? Because she told too many people that she was "fighting" and "struggling" with an intruder, and she needed a few good bruises to bolster her story.

I think Darlie was arrested on the 15th, right? And, she got out of the hospital on the afternoon of the 8th. By the 15th, the bruises were a couple of days old, which means she had approximately 5 - 5 1/2 days to bruise herself, agreed?

During that time, Darlie was surrounded by family, friends and cops...I just don't see how she could have found the time alone to do it. Plus, she was taking quite a chance of being discovered. How do you explain to your neighbor who's come to check on you why you are throwing yourself into a door?!

If she did it, Darin almost certainly had to have helped...

Don't you think those bruises are way extreme to be self-inflicted? I'm not saying that they're not, but I am shocked by them. If she did it, I don't know how she worked herself up into that kind of a frenzy...

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

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:

I'm not sure what you're saying here...is there something romantic going on between Darlie and this guy?

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

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:

Well, yeah, it's an absolute valid point - she may just be lying her *advertiser censored** off and trying to make her story fit the evidence...she may be (probably is) guilty.

I've never said Darlie is innocent - I just believe that there was reasonable doubt at the end of that trial...what Darlie said during an episode of 48 Hours is irrelevant as far as the trial goes...

Don't be sorry about your sarcasm! I'm the same way!

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

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.

Oooooooh, I don't believe I've read that testimony! Sherry Moses, huh? I'll have to take a look...

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!

Well, I'm not so much concerned with the defense witnesses as I am with the prosecution's...

If the state is going to ask a jury to take someone's life, I believe it has an obligation to conduct itself with the utmost honesty and integrity. That sounds corny, but it's true... If the state feels that it has to "influence" the testimony of its witnesses, then maybe it shouldn't be trying the case...

Happy Friday, FM

Thank you! I had a great relaxing long weekend!

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

I would swear that I see the formation of early bruising on the arm with stitches, and her elbow is definitely all swollen.

Sorry, hon! I think it's your monitor! I looked - really looked - for the beginning of bruising, and I just don't see it. I know that Darin has said repeatedly that the nurses were constantly commenting about Darlie's bruises and I've always thought that Darin comes across as basically an honest guy, so I really can't figure that out. If the bruises were self-inflicted, I believe that Darin played a role in it, so maybe he's just a motivated (good!) liar.

The pictures of Devon are vividly clear - HORRIFYING!

I know it. Sickening.

If not a death penalty offense, none are.

Agreed.

... 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.

If she has images in her head of that little boy running away from her, bleeding all over the place and crying, I don't know how she's holding it together... Those images alone would have broken me a long time ago.

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.

If she's that sadistic, then she's just a total mental case and 100% deserving of death.

I just hope those kids went into shock right away...

 

[accordn2me]

Where is there proof of this happening? I think you've been hearing campfire stories.

PROOF!!?

I can't give you proof, but if testimony is good enough, you can go back and read those two examples I've posted already. The reading will require you to trudge through dismal, embarrassing moments for Mulder. But you just might see why someone who didn't know a thing about the man, before reading this, would think he's a sad excuse for a defense attorney.

 

[accordn2me]

Do you follow capital murder trials for a living?

No, not for a living.

If not, I find it hard to believe that you could compare Mulder to many other attorneys.

I have sat through a few trials, not the least of which was for the man who murdered my mother. That wasn't a capital murder, though. When I have time in the summers, and we are having high profile murder trials, I will go sit and watch. I have my favorite prosecutors. The defense attorneys are almost always different. Some much better than others. It's fairly easy to spot the unprepared ones - prosecutors and defense.

MANY defense attorneys take cases where they know for a fact that their client is guilty.

MANY have to do it, as in they are appointed by a judge. Appointed attorneys are not allowed to jump ship for trivial reasons, or even if they know their client is guilty. If they could, some defendants wouldn't have a defense attorney to represent them.

Do you think that all those cases where the attorneys ask their client to take a polygraph and then found out that they failed those tests, the attorney would quit the case? Of course not.

I agree. As of this date, polygraph results are not allowed in trials.

Every defendant is, by law, entitled to the best possible defense their attorney can provide them. This case was no exception.

This is why I couldn't be a defense attorney. If I knew my client was guilty, I could not provide them a vigorous defense. Knowing that about myself, I simply wouldn't take a job with the Office of Public Defender. If I were a private attorney, I most definitely would not seek out and convince a client I knew to be guilty to let me defend them.

 

[cami]

Well, yeah, it's an absolute valid point - she may just be lying her *advertiser censored** off and trying to make her story fit the evidence...she may be (probably is) guilty.

I've never said Darlie is innocent - I just believe that there was reasonable doubt at the end of that trial...what Darlie said during an episode of 48 Hours is irrelevant as far as the trial goes...

Don't be sorry about your sarcasm! I'm the same way!

Of course it's irrelevant. Here's the point. Please allow Darlie to accept the consequences and take responsibility for her actions. I can't accept that she was influenced by someone to write those letters she did from prison or influenced by someone to now say she saw the profile of some man leaving her livingroom. That's a load of bull if you ask me. It's her consciousness of guilt. That's why she keeps changing her intruder.

You may see reasonable doubt from reading the trial transcripts but obviously the jury didn't. Darlie testified in her own defense. The jury got to access her creditibility for themselves.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

PROOF!!?

I can't give you proof, but if testimony is good enough, you can go back and read those two examples I've posted already. The reading will require you to trudge through dismal, embarrassing moments for Mulder. But you just might see why someone who didn't know a thing about the man, before reading this, would think he's a sad excuse for a defense attorney.

THERE WAS NO MOCK TRIAL. :slap: :slap: :slap: :doh:

 

[accordn2me]

THERE WAS NO MOCK TRIAL. :slap: :slap: :slap: :doh:

not with guys in white powdered wigs and tailcoats....but there was REHEARSING testimony and witnesses. one person may call it "mock trial" one may name it "dress rehearsal" or the newest for me "pep rally"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

 

[accordn2me]

THERE WAS NO MOCK TRIAL. :slap: :slap: :slap: :doh:

Whatever this was then....

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.



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.

 

[Mary456]

not with guys in white powdered wigs and tailcoats....but there was REHEARSING testimony and witnesses. one person may call it "mock trial" one may name it "dress rehearsal" or the newest for me "pep rally"

A rose by any other name is still a rose.

And a weed by any other name is still a weed. Mulder threw out "dress rehearsal" and "mock trial" simply to create reasonable doubt. It was nothing more than semantics; a cheap tactic that didn't work.

Did you notice in the transcript how Mulder made fun of James Cron's eyesight? He implied to the jury that Cron couldn't see well enough to be a CSI. Absurd, yes, but that's what defense lawyers do. When they can't attack the evidence, they attack the people who collected the evidence. Mulder was a master at that.

 

[accordn2me]

Mulder was a master at that.

No. He wasn't - not in this trial.

Listen and I'll admit...for the most part, I hate defense attorneys. However, I don't have a problem giving them credit where credit is due - when they come up with good arguements and/or strategies. Some defense attorneys, when they stay away from the race card and legal technicalities, can be very impressive in the courtroom. It makes no difference if their defendant is found guilty or not. Indeed, thank goodness jurors are able to see past the smoke and mirrors to reach the right verdict most of the time.

I know you believe that is the case where Darlie is concerned. I have doubts, but so what! Unfortunately for her, I make no difference whatsoever. I do enjoy debating them with y'all here on websleuths as long as it's not aggravating people. :croc:


I won't argue the semantics of "dress rehearsal" vs. "mock trial" vs. "pep rally." I think a better name for those several meetings would be - Memory Altering Exercises. I'm sure there would have been an objection, but Mulder certainly would have better made his point about them had he called them that.

Darlie's real supporters would probably argue with me, but I don't believe the police, investigators, doctors, or nurses lied. I do think their memories, like everyone else's including the neighbors' and Darin's and Darlie's, were altered by discussions with each other. The constant replaying of one's mental tapes, along with comparasions of one's own tapes to those of others', and discussions to reconcile them all, for both sides, does cause people to confuse the truth.

Was Darin wearing pants and/or glasses when he first came down stairs?

What really woke him, a glass breaking or Darlie screaming? (go figure!)

Was Darin inside or in the yard when the officer arrived?

Was the front door locked or unlocked?

There are hundreds of questions like those for which the answers may never be known. Darlie and Darin gave hasty, handwritten statements after several hours of questioning, as their family and friends were waiting for them for viewing of the bodies, only two days after this mind-blowing tragedy. To be asked a mere 10 days later if they wanted to change their statements.....why would anyone assume the fog and confusion from blood loss, surgery, drugs, let alone such a tragedy, would be gone. How could anyone expect to get an exact accounting of the events from someone who had experienced such?

I don't expect it, so when I read different "versions" I don't automatically think, AHA - you're a liar! This goes for police, nurses/doctors, and other witnesses, as well as Darlie and Darin. I have to decide which of two, or more, different versions should get more weight, and why. Is the very first thing that comes out of a witness' mouth the truth....not necessarily. Is the 16th version more accurate than the first ones, probably not. By the time you have gone through it by yourself, with each and everyone else - especially a defense attorney - and sat in jail long enough for any normal person to have gone insane, I think it's safe to assume that these accountings are not to be given much weight at all.

The same goes for witnesses who have sat through numerous Memory-Altering Exercises with prosecutors.

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Was he regarded by his peers as a top notch attorney? YES.

So was Geragos. An excellent reputation doesn't necessarily guarantee an excellent defense, though.

Mulder may indeed be a fine attorney, but this case certainly was not one of his strongest performances.

Hell, Leslie Abramson and Jill Lansing were able to get a hung jury for Erik and Lyle Menendez, and there was no question whatsoever that those two were guilty (they confessed for God's sake!). That's a strong performance.

Johnnie Cochran got O.J. Simpson off in light of overwhelming evidence, including DNA that put him on the scene. That's a strong performance.

Robert Blake's attorney got him off despite the fact that Blake only asked about one bizillion people to kill his wife for him prior to the murder. That's a strong performance.

Mulder couldn't even keep Darlie, a white, pretty, well-to-do, somewhat sympathetic woman off death row. That's not a strong performance...

Was he the attorney who pioneered these 'pep rallys' (as you can all them) in the area.

Actually, to be fair to Accordin2me, I am the one who used the term "pep rally." Accordin' has been pretty consistent that what occurred was, in fact, a mock trial, and she has supplied testimonial evidence (twice now) of same...

Personally, I have no problem with the prosecution or the defense preparing witnesses for trial - whether it be accomplished through a "meeting" or "mock trial" or whatever... I just question the gathering of witnesses together at the hotel on the eve of trial to further "prepare" them. At that point, I'm not sure how much actual "preparation" could take place - not the right place, not enough time. It seems to me, the purpose of that get together was not so much actual preparation as it was psychological encouragement...

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.

Do you think Darlie knew enough about forensic science to know that doctors could determine that the slash on her throat was made by someone using their left hand?

Why, if Darlie butchered her sons, were there only 4 spots of blood on her nightshirt?

What motive was there for Darlie to murder her children?

What about the black car that several witnesses saw?

What is the exact timeline for the murder of the children, placement of the sock, the self-infliction of wounds and the staging of the crime scene?

Did you know that there were similar break-ins in the Dallas area prior to this one? Break-ins where an intruder took a sock from the home and placed it in the victim's mouth...

Why didn't Mulder do a better job of investigating some of the prosecution star witnesses? Why is it that we've come to learn that the fiber expert (the one who testified he found screen fibers on one of the knives) is actually a mentally unstable alcoholic whose work was unreliable, to say the least...

I could go on, but I think I've made my point... There were lots of areas ripe for exploitation by Mulder (see the Menendez trial) - areas that could have amounted to reasonable doubt if properly presented. Mulder didn't, IMO, do it - not effectively anyway.