Fritzy's Mom said:
So was Geragos. An excellent reputation doesn't necessarily guarantee an excellent defense, though.
Yes- but a poor defense doesn't necessarily guarantee a poor lawyer (or one who for some reason just completely dropped the ball). You're assuming that Mulder did a poor job on this case by not following every possible lead because he didn't make a big deal about them in court. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason he didn't make a big deal about them in court is because there was nothing to make a big deal about?
This is all I am saying:
1) he had an excellent track record and very good reputation
2) this was perhaps the biggest case he had to date
3) he had no reason to decide to do a poor job of representing Darlie and in fact he must have known poor representation could only harm his career
4) Darlie supporters claim that he didn't follow up on certain leads/evidence
I just don't understand why you are so quick to ignore 1, 2 and 3 and not factor them into your thinking on this. He had no reason at all to drop the ball on this case. Is it really that hard to believe, or in fact unreasonable to believe that there is
reasons why he didn't do certain things both prior to trial or at trial... because he was looking out for the best interestes of the client.
Mulder couldn't even keep Darlie, a white, pretty, well-to-do, somewhat sympathetic woman off death row. That's not a strong performance...
Mulder couldn't do it because the evidence was piled up against her... not because he didn't turn on the 'Richard Gere in Chicago Razzle Dazzle'. No matter how good a defense attorney you may be- if the evidence is against your client it's against your client.
And I don't think Darlie was sympathetic at all. From all reports no one in the court-room was able to relate to her stoney-faced appearance throughout the entire trial. Very few people were able to relate to the way she behaved in the days and weeks after the murders. I don't think she was a sympathetic witness at all. In fact I think Mulder had his work cut out for him big-time when it came to her.
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...
Pyschological encouragement to what? Lie? Conspire to put an innocent woman in jail? Do you think that Mulder just let his own witnesses turn up on the day without going over their testimony with them either earlier that day or the night before?
And even if the prosectution had an underhanded motive (and I don't see how you can leap to that conclusion) how do you go from that to the testimony of all these people being unreliable?
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?
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here- but yes- I don't think it is rocket science to realise that a cut you would make with your left hand would look quite different to a cut you would make with your right. You've only got to mimic the actions to realise that.
Why, if Darlie butchered her sons, were there only 4 spots of blood on her nightshirt?
Because, as per the testimony, the boys wounds were not spurting blood out. They oozed blood (it was only when Darin did CPR that he claims Devon's wound started spraying blood). Furthermore those blood spots are entirely consistent with someone making overhand stabbing motions with a bloody knife.
And I'm not sure how you can say that Darlie's defense team didn't try to follow up on the state's theory about the blood drops since Bevel is cross examined at least 3 times in his testimony, and at great length each time, about the blood drops and the experiments he did to try and replicate them (and the CPR expirated blood scenario).
What motive was there for Darlie to murder her children?
I think this weakens your argument. The prosecutions weakest point in the case was motive (IMHO) and Mulder certainly pursued that angle- both directly and by discrediting all the motives which the prosecution put forward. The evidence convicted Darlie despite the difficulty with understand motive (which was not necessary to prove). Mulder and his team did everything they could to prove that Darlie didn't have motive. They didn't simply ignore the issue.
What about the black car that several witnesses saw?
The black car which was thoroughly searched on the night or the random black cars driving down the street that suddenly became suspicious? And for the record Mulder
did try to follow the lead of the black/dark cars - Vol 41 and 42 for example.
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?
It was shown in court that Darlie could have quite easily done all of this in the time period she had. Mulder refuted as best he could in cross examination regarding the paramedics, the 911 call etc. Again, he didn't just ignore it. And on the topic- there actually wasn't a lot of staging done at all. There was a fair amount of clean up down in the kitchen sink but staging
after the fact is pretty much limited to knocking over the coffee table and lamp shade (and who knows but that may have happened during the commission of the crime anyway).
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...
More info please. Are you referring to the woman who wrote the affidavit not long ago?
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...
Oh boy. Now you really have hit one of my buttons.
Could you please give us your evidence for saying that Charlies Linch was a
mentally unstable alcoholic whose work (specifically regarding the Routier case) was unreliable to say the least. You know you just accused me of making inflammatory statements but I'm pretty certain that's the most inflammatory one I have heard so far. In fact it probably borders on slander.
There is absolutely no evidence that Charlies Linch was mentally unstable specifically at the time of the Routier trial. Nor is there any evidence that he was abusing alcohol at the time (I wish I could find the article from a few years back about him but from memory his committment for alcoholism was a number of years before- and was brought on during his work at the site of an air disaster). Linch claims that he was definitely not drinking at the time of the Routier trial. And there is absolutely NO evidence to suggest that his work on the Routier trial was unreliable. Period.
If you want to make claims like that about someone you'll need to back it up with some facts.
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.
Well we will have to agree to disagree because in my reading of the transcripts darlie's defense team did follow up and present on all these leads you have mentioned.
