Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[Fritzy's Mom]

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.

I have nothing against Mulder...I'm sure he has a brilliant legal mind and a commanding presence in the courtroom...you don't get a reputation like his by being a nitwit. And, of course, he had reasons for not addressing certain points; I believe he knew the case well and I believe he had definite ideas of how to try it. I just think that he misjudged how to handle certain crucial points of Darlie's defense... On this case, Mulder's legal instincts let him down.

Examples:

One of the strongest pieces of evidence Mulder had going for Darlie was her bruises. No matter what you think about Darlie, it is hard to imagine a woman beating herself to that extent...Pictures of Darlie's bruises were shown to the jury, yet there is now a male juror coming out saying that he never saw them and, if he had, he would have voted "not guilty." HOW CAN THIS BE?! Mulder should have been shoving those pictures down the throats of every one of those jurors!!! He should have had massive blow-ups of them all over the courtroom. He should have introduced those pictures to the jury at every opportunity. Those jurors should have gone home every night with those images plastered into their heads... Now, I know, hindsight is 20-20; but we're not talking about some obscure piece of evidence that the jury could easily and understandably overlook. Those pictures were the best thing Mulder had going for him - how can he now have a juror saying he never saw them?!

I saw Mulder on some show - Forsensic Files, American Justice (one of those). Anyway, he said that he did not expect the jury to make such a big deal of the silly string video and that he was surprised by how much attention they paid to it. WHAT?!!!!! The media had played that video ad nauseum and the public reaction had been extreme anger and outrage. Why would he not expect the jury to react the same way? Mulder should have been on a massive de-sensitizing mission during that trial - showing the video repeatedly, talking about it, explaining it and, just basically, minimizing its impact. And again, this was not some obscure piece of evidence - this was a HUGE part of the prosecution's case.

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.

Look at the evidence in the O.J. trial. Overwhelming.

Mulder had no burden of proof to meet here...all he had to do was convince ONE juror that Darlie MAY not have committed this crime. We know that one juror existed - Mulder just failed to get to him.

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.

Well, here's where that witness preparation Mulder's so famous for comes into play...

Did you see the Menendez brothers at their arraignment? They looked like a couple of slick pimps...thousand dollar suits, perfectly coiffed hair, smug smirks on their faces... As soon as Leslie Abramson got her hands on them, they looked like a couple of prep schoolers...

Darlie IS a very sympathetic character - I've seen her interviewed. Whether it's an act or not is irrelevant - she can be quite convincing when she wants to be. Mulder should have seen to it that she came into court every day looking like a bereaved mother on the brink of mental collapse - not "stony-faced."

Pyschological encouragement to what? Lie? Conspire to put an innocent woman in jail?

No. The meeting was, IMO, just a way of saying "we're all on the same team, here," a way of building loyalty to the prosecution. Inappropriate. If the prosecutors believed that these witnesses were going to take their oath to God seriously and that the stories they were about to tell were the truth, why the need to take affirmative steps to alleviate any discomfort the witnesses might be feeling? Why would the prosecution even suspect that some of the witnesses might be experiencing discomfort with the situation?

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?

I know this is getting redundant and we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree, but, the testimony was unreliable because the perceptions of these people were tainted almost from the get-go.

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.

Well, I still think you could make a good argument that Darlie was not sophisticated enough to realize that this determination could be made, and she would not, therefore, think to switch hands during such a chaotic and traumatic event.

Furthermore those blood spots are entirely consistent with someone making overhand stabbing motions with a bloody knife.

Yeah, but only FOUR?! Even you've got to admit it seems like there should be alot more considering the number of stab wounds she was alleged to have made...

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.

Yeah, well, again, he just didn't do a good enough job of discrediting motive. At the very least, the complete lack of a proof of motive should have kept Darlie off death row. Mulder should have driven this point home, again and again, in his closing. His closing was, IMO, weak.

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.

Okay. But it's still an element of reasonable doubt...

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).

No, no, no... there's lots of room for guessing here - Damon only had like nine minutes to live from the time of his last stab wound. Darlie was on the 911 call for like five of those minutes. When did she cut the screen? When did she plant the sock? When did she break the glass? When did she knock over the vacuum cleaner? How long after the last stab wound did she wait before cutting herself? How long after cutting herself did she wait to call Darin? There's lots of room for speculation here - Mulder did not do a good enough job of exploiting the unknown.

And remember...I AM NOT SAYING DARLIE IS INNOCENT! I'm just saying that Mulder should have been able to confuse at least one juror with all this timeline uncertainty...

More info please. Are you referring to the woman who wrote the affidavit not long ago?

Honestly, I can't give you any more info. I don't know alot about this, I just remember seeing what I think was a local news broadcast of a couple talking about a break-in at their home. They said that the intruder took a sock from their laundry basket and, I believe, the newscaster made reference to another similar break-in in that area. What affidavit are you talking about? I would like to read it...

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.

Oh, you're absolutely right - calling Mr. Linch a mentally unstable alcoholic most certainly is an inflammatory statement! But that's what a good defense attorney would have done! Yes, it's mean-spirited and yes, it may be completley untrue - but, when you're trying to keep your client from death row, you don't worry about making friends.

Mental illness and alcoholism don't usually spring up over night - many people struggle with such disorders for long periods of time before ever seeking help. And, many people hide these disorders very well, never letting on to employers, family and friends that something's wrong. The fact that Mr. Linch insists his illnesses never impacted his work on the Routier case means nothing - what's he going to say?!

Now, in fairness, it may have been impossible for Mr. Mulder to ascertain this information at the time of Darlie's trial. Possibly, no one who worked with Mr. Linch knew anything about his problems. But, we'll never know now, will we? Maybe if Mulder had done some digging, he could have exposed his problems and gottten some extremely damaging evidence thrown out...

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Dani and Accordn2me:

Whoa! You guys are excellent on the topic of this fiberglass stuff! I've read both of your posts twice and I'M CONFUSED AS HELL!!!! Had Mulder done his job, the jury would have been too - and we all know what that means -

Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt!

 

[Fritzy's Mom]

Fritzy's MOM! Look one more time.... gallary07 at the justicefordarlie site. The very first picture of Darlie in ICU, you can see what appears to be a large scratch or something on her face. I just noticed that! The picture where they put the large red arrows, she's lying in the hospital bed...look at the arm that was stabbed. It could be my monitor, or shadows, but when you look at those later pictures - after she was discharged, probably in the police station - you definitely see bruising in that very spot. So, that's why I think it's just starting to bruise in the hospital bed.

Well, okay - yeah - the outer part of her upper arm in that first picture does appear dark. I cannot tell, though, whether it's bruising or just a shadow...
And, yes there does appear to be a scratch on her chin. IF that is a bruise forming on her arm, I just don't see how it could not be documented somewhere...

NONE of the nurses' or doctors' handwritten notes from the hospital stay mentioned any bruises at all?

I guess the medical notes, charts, etc. are not available online - just in one of the books. Mary said that no mention is made of bruising in any of the medical documentation and, from what I gather, she's pretty knowledgable...

Did :loser: Mulder even look?

LOL...Doubt it! Fritzy would've, though!

 

[Dani_T]

Sorry about all the grammar and spelling mistakes. I typed in a rush and did not proof read!

I have nothing against Mulder...I'm sure he has a brilliant legal mind and a commanding presence in the courtroom...you don't get a reputation like his by being a nitwit. And, of course, he had reasons for not addressing certain points; I believe he knew the case well and I believe he had definite ideas of how to try it. I just think that he misjudged how to handle certain crucial points of Darlie's defense... On this case, Mulder's legal instincts let him down.

Ok- we have to agree to disagree. I'm not saying he did a faultless job for Darlie- I'm just sick and tired of Darlie apologists ignoring the evidence because they get blinded by the screams from the Darlie camp which are just strawman arguments.

For example the black car which her supporters keep shouting from the rooftops. Yes a black car passed that night. Is that unusual? No I don't think so at all. Black cars are common, it was a group of young adults and it was summer time. Not at all uncommon for those kids to be out late in the middle of summer. The car was searched. The occupants were searched. There was nothing there at all. And then out of the woodworks come these stories "Hmmm now that I think about it I did see a black car driving around in days before hand" as if this is big breaking news. Of course the neighbours are going to see black cars driving around- there are zillions of them out on the road. As for driving slowly around the Routiers place- well first of all they had that whopping big fountain in he middle of the garden which no doubt drew a fair bit of attention but more importantly the house was on the curve of the street. If a car doesn't slow down there he's going to take that corner wide.

Or the notion that there was someone sitting in a black car looking at the Routier house in the middle of the afternoon and they sped off when the neighbour arrived home and then moved towards them. Certainly that couldn't have been someone visiting someone in the street and leaving at the same time someone else in the street arrived home. Oh no. That's just plain suspicious that.

Like your claims that the prosecution witnesses were subconsciously predjudiced this black car has now taken on a life of it's own. Every black car which ever drove down Eagle Drive is now reasonable doubt. And that's ludicrious. There is nothing tying the car to the scene or to the Routiers and it is just another one of those things that the Darlie camp throws up to try and deflect from the evidence... evidence which most of them refuse to discuss.

Mulder had no burden of proof to meet here...all he had to do was convince ONE juror that Darlie MAY not have committed this crime. We know that one juror existed - Mulder just failed to get to him.

No - we don't know that one juror exists. What we have now is Charlie Samford coming out and saying if he had seen those bruises then he would never have voted guilty. Well he DID see those bruises and he didn't vote innocent on them... and that was for a damn good reason.

I'm not sure if you have MTJD but by far the best photos showing her bruises are 52 A, B, C, E (having said that it is very clear when you compare the photos that our friend Chris Brown has manipulated the colours and contrast on a number of them to make it look worse). They are all state exhibits. If you read the testimony (vol 31 has lots on it) you will quickly see why Mulder did not harp on and on about the bruises- because the testimomy unanimously said that it was recent bruising and no way could it have been done 4 days previously. The nurses unanimously said they would have noticed the beginnings of such massive bruising (similar to what you would find in a car accident). One of them says it would have been charted over and over again. One said she would be in a lot of pain. They all said it was severe brusing and certainly not something they would overlook.

Here is one of the exerpts

20 Q. 52-G, is that a photograph that we can
21 see of Ms. Routier's right arm?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And if you could just watch
24 your shoulder here, if you can keep it down, because we
25 have jurors -- in fact, I'll just get you to go along the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
871

1 jury rail in a moment. But the blood we see here, is
2 that from an injury, abrasions that were on the arm?
3 A. No, that looks like dried blood. Just
4 blood dries and it is hard to wash off. She does not
5 look like she's been cleaned.
6 Q. Okay. And holding 52-F also, is that
7 another photograph of the arm?
8 A. Yes. This is the same arm, different
9 aspect.
10 Q. Okay. If you had seen evidence of
11 this blunt -- if she had had blunt trauma on the 6th of
12 June, would you have seen it somewhere here in the ICU on
13 her arm?
14 A. From what I saw in the photograph, I
15 think we would be able to see it on this part of the arm
16 right here.
17 Q. Okay. If you could just start at that
18 end of the jury and show them.
19 A. Did they see this other bruise?
20 Q. We'll go over that in a minute, after
21 you finish that.
22 A. All this on here is dried blood from
23 either her neck wound or the wound here.
24 Q. And if you could show 32-A.
25 A. Okay.

Note that 32-A is actually 52-A (32-A is a statement of the defendant and not in evidence and in the context of the bruising it is clear that what was shown was 52-A which is the clearest photo of the arm with the bruising from wrist to up near her underarm

The State got the witness to show the jury at the jury rail those photos. They saw them. Right in front of them. The defense on the other hand submitted a couple of photos which don't show the brusing at all clearly and they didn't cross exam extensively about the bruises at all.

Now you'll say they didn't do that because they sucked and did a poor job of defending Darlie. But the reality is that if they did make a big deal about the photographs they would be hammer the nails into the coffin because every one of those medical experts said that brusing like that had to be recent and that there were no signs of that kind of bruising when she was in hospital. Now even if you want to argue that they were subconciously biased and blocked that bruising from their minds (which I think is a fairly ludicrous statement really as regardless of whether or not they thought she was guilty there would have been charts with the bruising noted and it would be impossible for every single one of them to just 'forgot' that bruising) the fact that those bruises are recent and not 4 days old could and would be attested to by any doctor or nurse of medicial practioner you put in the stand who had absolutely nothing to do with Darlie. It is an objective statement. They were new bruises. Not 4 days old.

That's why the defense didn't scream it from the rafters - and for good old Charlie to come out a couple of years later saying he would never have convicted on the basis of those bruises is flat out wrong too- because he saw them right up close and he heard all the testimony that it couldn't be bruising that was done on June 6th.

If Mulder had blown up those photos and rambled to the jury about them for hours he would have signed Darlie's guilty verdict.

Darlie IS a very sympathetic character - I've seen her interviewed. Whether it's an act or not is irrelevant - she can be quite convincing when she wants to be. Mulder should have seen to it that she came into court every day looking like a bereaved mother on the brink of mental collapse - not "stony-faced."

Darlie is sympathetic when she wants to be. She puts on the little girl voice looks forlonly into the camera and sobs. But when she was on trial for her life and she had lost her two little boys all she could do is sit there and glare (at least from what I have heard). You honestly think Mulder didn't pull her aside day after day and tell her to start being more sympathetic?? He can't make her do it- just as he can't make her not take the stand as strongly as he advised against it. This is all the result of Darlie- she couldn't believe she was on trial, she couldn't believe she was being caught. She was mad and angry and belligerent and she thought she could get up on the stand, put on the little voice, look forlonly into the jurors eyes and made everything allright. She ended up sobbing and an absolute mess because the State made mincemeat of her. Mulder could not pull her strings like a puppet.

No. The meeting was, IMO, just a way of saying "we're all on the same team, here," a way of building loyalty to the prosecution. Inappropriate. If the prosecutors believed that these witnesses were going to take their oath to God seriously and that the stories they were about to tell were the truth, why the need to take affirmative steps to alleviate any discomfort the witnesses might be feeling? Why would the prosecution even suspect that some of the witnesses might be experiencing discomfort with the situation?

Seriously?? Geesh if I had to get up on the stand in a trial like that with the nations attention on it and sit in front of Darlie Routier and testify I'd be freaking out of my mind. I'd be worried that the defense was going to come at me like rabid dogs. I'd be worried about having to sit across from Darlie Routier and look her in the eye. I'd be worried about what her family was going to say to me outside the courthouse. I'd be worried that I would turn into an emotional wreck. Testifying at a trial like that is not something these people just casually do every second day. It's a big bloody deal (as we would say here in Oz).

I know this is getting redundant and we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree, but, the testimony was unreliable because the perceptions of these people were tainted almost from the get-go.

In which case so is the perception of every friend and family member who testified for Darlie. Their percpection was tainted from the get go to and we can discard their testimony too as unreliable.

Like it or not everyone comes to a case with a perception. It;s the way it is. We have to trust that that perception is not going to infrige on the truthfulness of their testimony and in this case we have no reason to doubt the nurses and doctors and police officers... especially when they all agree with each other on these issues (for example 5 or so nurses all saying the same thing about the bruises).

Yeah, but only FOUR?! Even you've got to admit it seems like there should be alot more considering the number of stab wounds she was alleged to have made...

Not necessarily. Depends on the force with which she pulled the knife back, how quickly she did it, the angle etc. And don't forget she wasn't necessarily in the same kneeling position when she stabbed Damon the 2nd time (if that's what she did of course). Also, it could be that there were more drops of the boys blood on her shirt which weren't found. From memory these ones were only found by going over it a 2nd time.

Yeah, well, again, he just didn't do a good enough job of discrediting motive. At the very least, the complete lack of a proof of motive should have kept Darlie off death row.

Why??? If she didn't have a clear motive and the evidence pointed towards her anyway she obviously snapped in pure rage or something. She wasn't insane or pyschotic. If she did it but there isn't a clear premeditated motive then it's all the more reason to convict her. Because don't forget it was either Death or Life with the possibility of parole. There was no option for LWOP. BTW- I'm not saying I agree with the DP or anything here. Just that the evidence was enough to convict her and if there was no clear motive it would have only made her seem more of a danger to society.

 

[Dani_T]

No, no, no... there's lots of room for guessing here - Damon only had like nine minutes to live from the time of his last stab wound. Darlie was on the 911 call for like five of those minutes. When did she cut the screen? When did she plant the sock? When did she break the glass? When did she knock over the vacuum cleaner? How long after the last stab wound did she wait before cutting herself? How long after cutting herself did she wait to call Darin? There's lots of room for speculation here - Mulder did not do a good enough job of exploiting the unknown.

Well there is no blood trail outside so I think the screen and sock happened before she herself was seriously wounded but obviously the sock had some of the boys blood on it so it happened after the attack on Devon and what was probably the first attack on Damon (BTW- she knew enough to cut the screen from the outside so yes, I think she would have known enough to use her left hand). . The glass (all 5 seconds of it) could have quite easily happened anywhere but two things to consider 1) no blood on the wine rack but 2) glass on top of blood on the floor. The vacuum cleaner again would have taken seconds (though no one is clear what went on with it). If she stabbed Damon a second time (which I think is the most obvious theory considering where he was found and the fact that she has him actually moving from the couch to the entry way) we start the nine minutes from there. There was plenty of time and opportunity and whilst we might never know a strict timeline it all comfortably fits in there. There was not a lot of time consuming staging in the house at all.

For what it is worth here is one of the theories I'm working on. I don't think she ever intended to place herself in the middle of the crime scene. I think she wanted to distance herself from it and so she planned to kill the two boys and then go upstairs and get into bed with Darin (hopefully not waking him up so he couldn't put a time stamp on it). Then in the morning she comes downstairs (or he does) and finds there has been an intruder come in, startled by the two boys and kills them without going upstairs. However, I theorise that in the attacks she actually found herself accidentally wounded (perhaps with the small wound on her arm) and at this point knew she was tied to the scene and so had to act impromtuly and then decided to cut her neck to make it look convincing. I agree with a lot of people that for Darlie who was very vain, cutting her neck wouldn't have been an easy option and so think she was forced into the situation that she needed to do so. It's just a theory but I think it makes sense of a few bits and pieces.

Honestly, I can't give you any more info. I don't know alot about this, I just remember seeing what I think was a local news broadcast of a couple talking about a break-in at their home. They said that the intruder took a sock from their laundry basket and, I believe, the newscaster made reference to another similar break-in in that area. What affidavit are you talking about? I would like to read it...

Haven't heard anything about this break-in stuff and I would have though the Darlie camp would have exploited it for all it was worth.

The affidavit I am talking about is http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/affidavits/affidavit-14.php . Nothing about a break in but apart two random men who were walking along a nearby road on 6 June.

Mental illness and alcoholism don't usually spring up over night - many people struggle with such disorders for long periods of time before ever seeking help. And, many people hide these disorders very well, never letting on to employers, family and friends that something's wrong. The fact that Mr. Linch insists his illnesses never impacted his work on the Routier case means nothing - what's he going to say?!

The point here is that Linch had been treated for it already (over 2 years prior to the trial) and there is absolutely no evidence that he was in anyway unstable at the time of his work on the case. I'm sure if you delved into the history of all of the people who took the stand (both defense and state) you could find any number of people whose past history or background could be used to make them look unfit and unreliable. But the point of fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that his work here was unreliable. There are even photos of the micrscopic evidence compared with each other which backs up his story.

I'd really like to see you move away from what Mulder could have should have would have done differently and account for the evidence which DID come up at trial against Darlie. Ultimately it is the evidence (eg the screen fibers, the knife impression/imprint/outline on the carpet, lack of trail of intruder, missing blood on U-room floor where knife was meant to have dropped etc) which shuts down any rumors of black cars and so on.

 

[Dani_T]

Dani and Accordn2me:

Whoa! You guys are excellent on the topic of this fiberglass stuff! I've read both of your posts twice and I'M CONFUSED AS HELL!!!! Had Mulder done his job, the jury would have been too - and we all know what that means -

Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt! Reasonable doubt!

:doh: Come on. Seriously. Can we please let go of this Mulder thing. There was nothign Mulder could have done to confuse the jury on this issue- though he tried with his talk of polymers and drapes and packing tape and computer motherboards. Linch laid it out nice and clear for the jury. It was identical. No difference. No other sources. The evidence on the knife was from the screen. Mulder couldn't and still can't change what the evidence said.

 

[Dani_T]

I guess the medical notes, charts, etc. are not available online - just in one of the books. Mary said that no mention is made of bruising in any of the medical documentation and, from what I gather, she's pretty knowledgable...

None of the nurses who testified saw the bruising on her arms. All of them said they would have noticed it. She would have been in a lot of pain and it would have been charted. All of them said that bruising that is shown in the photos taken at the police statement on June 10th was recent- absolutely no more than 48 hours old and probably closer to 24 hours.

 

[accordn2me]

:doh: Come on. Seriously. Can we please let go of this Mulder thing. There was nothign Mulder could have done to confuse the jury on this issue- though he tried with his talk of polymers and drapes and packing tape and computer motherboards. Linch laid it out nice and clear for the jury. It was identical. No difference. No other sources. The evidence on the knife was from the screen. Mulder couldn't and still can't change what the evidence said.

Absolutely not! Mulder could have done much more than he did. Why didn't he...hell if I know! (Collusion, maybe :razz I do know that I can hardly read the transcripts without screaming at him. I'd love to be seated next to him somewhere he couldn't get away and grill him about this. He needs to be taken to task for not defending his client.

You said in one of your Mulder-defending posts, that he had been thoroughly debriefed by Terry Laber. No, he was not. Laber says so in his affidavit. TWO HOURS they talked. Then, never again. That's nothing! Laber was totally perplexed about not being consulted again. If Mulder played expert and intrepreted evidence, he's way over the line.

Just for fun, I'm going to post an example of an attorney countering expert testimony, (note the use of a different expert):

Fogleman: Call Lisa Sakevicius.
(Mumbling)
Fogleman: You’re the same Lisa Sakevicius who has previously testified, for the record?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Fogleman: All right. Lisa, at my request, did you run some additional graphs on known fibers?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: In other words, fibers that came from the robe, which is exhibit 88?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: All right. You did run some additional graphs from known fibers from exhibit 88, the robe?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: All right. Now, first of all let me show you State’s Exhibit 93 if you would. And exhibit State’s Exhibit 93. And is that the graph that you previously testified about? Where you indicated that the, uh, was part of the basis of your opinion that the fibers were microscopically similar?
Sakevicius: Yes, this is it.
Fogleman: All right. Think it was yesterday, Uh, Charles Linch testified that in his opinion that was, that that showed that they were dissimilar.
Sakevicius: I disagree.

Fogleman: And, at my request, did you take another two fibers from State’s Exhibit 88, the robe, and do an additional graph on those two fibers?
Sakevicius: Yes, I did.
Fogleman: All right. Now, if you noticed on Mr. Linch’s graph, which he shows that those two fibers come from a different source. He’s got Xs marked where couple of intersecting points are near the top, do you notice that?
Sakevicius: Yes, I see that.

Fogleman: In running this particular graph what, if anything, did you do to the fibers to try to duplicate the known fiber and the questioned fiber?
Sakevicius: I left one fiber in its original state. The other fiber, I took and I flattened it.

Fogleman: All right, now, Ms. Sakevicius, if you could show this graph, State’s Exhibit 127, I’m gonna show part of State’s Exhibit 125 which is the graph from Mr. Linch, where he said that they were dissimilar. Now the fibers on State’s Exhibit 127, those are from the same, they’re from that robe, both of them, right?
Sakevicius: Yes, they are.
Fogleman: All right. And Mr. Linch ran the known fiber and the questioned fiber.
Sakavicius: That’s correct

Ford: Ok. Let me make sure something again. That questioned fiber, is that the whole thing you found?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Ford: That’s the whole thing?
Sakevicius: Yes.
Ford: And you flattened part of it?
Sakevicius: I--it may all be flattened.
Ford: Well did you look at it? Under the microscope after you flattened it?
Sakevicius: Yes, I took a photograph of it after I flattened it.
Ford: Is it all flat? Or partially flat?
Sakevicius: I believe it’s nearly all flat, yes

Ford: Ok. How did you flatten it?
Sakevicius: I used a scalpel.
Ford: And you just – what was the fiber laying on?
Sakevicius: The glass slide.
Ford: And you pressed with a scalpel, that’s more like, that’s a knife really. Sort of like a precision knife blade.
Sakevicius: Yes, like a surgeon would use.
Ford: Ok. And you just press on part of that fiber, on the glass slide. And then you seal it with some, with a – top, that little liquid that sets up, right?
Sakevicius: Right.
Ford: Ok. And did you push very hard?
Sakevicius: I don’t remember how hard I pushed.
Ford: Or did you just sort of barely push on it?
Sakevicius: I don’t remember how hard I pushed.
Ford: How did you flatten these fibers yesterday?
Sakevicius: The same way.
Ford: The same way. So, you’re able to take fibers off this robe and just press on them with a scalpel and flatten them, and Charles Linch can’t get them to flatten with a hammer. Is that what you’re saying?
Sakevicius: I don’t know what his problem was.
Ford: Ok. If he testified, if he testified that he couldn’t get it to flatten with a hammer, he couldn’t get it to flatten with a scalpel, he couldn’t get it to flatten by pressing two glass slides, that he was only able to flatten it with putting two thousand pounds of pressure on it. What you’re saying is, he’s not as good as you are?
Sakevicius: Yes.
(Laughter)
Ford: Ok. You’re saying you’re better than he is?
Sakevicius: I was able to flatten the fibers with a scalpel and I found it a very simple procedure.
Ford: Ok. And, so Charlie is incompetent, is that what you’re tell this jury?
Sakevicius: I’m not going to say that.
Ford: Are you saying he’s incompetent and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sakevicius: I’ve never met the man.
Ford: Do you have any reason to tell this jury that he’s incompetent and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sakevicius: I would, uh, suspect somebody who couldn’t flatten a fiber with a scalpel.
Ford: Ok, so you think he’s incompetent?
Sakevicius: I’m not gonna go that far and say that.
Ford: But you’re suggesting that since he can’t flatten the fiber he must not be as qualified as you are, is that what you’re saying?
Sakevicius: I’m not gonna say that either.

http://p210.ezboard.com/fwestmemphisthreediscussionfrm31.showMessage?topicID=49.topic

 

[cami]

Of course he did - which further goes to demonstrate his misjudgment in this case. Had Mulder done an effective cross-examination of Darlie, it should have been easy to convince her not to take the stand.

Hmmm I wonder FM. I don't think anything would have convinced her not to take the stand. I think she was compelled to get up there and let the jury hear her explain.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Dani_T,

I don't know! Can you believe that? Seriously, I believe I read it in the transcripts years ago.

What I would love to see is the nurses' and doctor's hand written notes. I read that there is discrepancy between what they wrote in her medical record versus what they testified to. That could be totally false for all I know. I'd be willing to bet on the mock trial thing, but not the notes vs. testimony.

I did read the transcripts and the books that I found since I did write before. Now I know that the pretend trial was talk about in the transcript. Also the nurse and doctor true words were in the book by C. Brown. Copied direct.

I am sorry I am so far behind.

 

[SnootyVixen]

"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.


HA HA!! I think this is what they term conjecture and not admissable. Saying Mary don't know what they would not have overlooked, no?

 

[SnootyVixen]

As far as Darlie's 16 different versions, I think of them as her supplemental reports. She was asked WAAAAAY more times than 16 to give an account of what happened that night.

Me, I think that this is incorrect. The reason why is becaise I did read this 16 reports and I did find that Darlie only did make the three of them. All the rest were someone say Darlie told me. Is this reasonable to say that because they say this we must believe Darlie say this? I say I can not be sure. Can you be sure. I did not find Darlie a story changer in the three I read from herself. What say you?

 

[SnootyVixen]

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know? The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.


You know whaty I did read at the other place and I checked it in the transcript and it was true. Sometimes the doctores say something and then later they say something else. Talking about same thing. What does this mean?

I have question about this risking jobs. Why would this happen? They are on the side of the law.

 

[SnootyVixen]

Their licenses and jobs were never at risk (see below) - but their reputations were...Can you imagine being the one person to take the stand and give testimony favorable to Darlie when all your colleagues were saying otherwise? Not an easy thing to do, I'm sure...


I have been told by someone a time ago that there was one nurse who was made to come to the place of the trial but would not say the things that the others did say and was sent on a plane home and not kept there to testify. True?

 

[cami]

1. What about the doctors? If the nurses conspired to convict Darlie, then it follows that the doctors did, too, because their testimonies corroborated each other on the major points (lack of bruises, extreme concern with fingerprints on the knife, etc.)

2. Why would all those professionals risk their licenses, their reputations, their very jobs, to help convict a woman they don't even know? The only thing in it for them would be some jail time if it was discovered they were lying.


You know whaty I did read at the other place and I checked it in the transcript and it was true. Sometimes the doctores say something and then later they say something else. Talking about same thing. What does this mean?

I have question about this risking jobs. Why would this happen? They are on the side of the law.

Hey Snooty, Haven't seen you around in a while. How are you?

It's me Fugi from over yonder. Perhaps you could reference the transcripts here for me so I can understand what you are saying. When did the doctors say something and then later say something else?

 

[SnootyVixen]

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it


What I think is that I have read much about this. And also on the groups. I think that the ones who did not have the experience of it do not believe. Ones that did do believe.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't believe this traumatic amnesia is the joke some people seem to think it is - I HAVE IT! I also know that you can have differing memories (sometimes incorrect) and that you can confuse the sequence of certain events and forget others altogether...I have no reason to not tell exactly what I experienced and exactly what I did - I just can't, to this day, do it


What I think is that I have read much about this. And also on the groups. I think that the ones who did not have the experience of it do not believe. Ones that did do believe.

I have no problem believing that its a genuine syndrome. I just don't believe Darlie had it.

 

[Dani_T]

Absolutely not! Mulder could have done much more than he did.

First of all I just checked and it wasn't Mulder who cross examined Linch. Darlie had a defense team remember? Pity they were all such a lot of dead beats huh?

Secondly could you please go back and read Linch's testimony and his cross and shows us what else the defense could have done in cross examining him?

And finally could you please stop using Darlie's defense as a smoke screen and address the evidence itself. The screen fibre evidence is there regardless of who gave the evidence at trial and who cross examined him.

Edited because sometimes I wonder if I even speak English! Reading some of my posts sounds like English is my 2nd language- sorry guys I just type in such a hurry!

 

[cami]

Maybe if Mulder had done some digging, he could have exposed his problems and gottten some extremely damaging evidence thrown out...

Would a judge allow that type of cross examination in a trial? Wouldn't Mulder have to provide some proof that Linch's addictions directly impacted his work on Darlie's case or is the suggestion enough to get the evidence thrown out? I'm just curious about this of course as I don't know what is legal or not legal that can come into a trial?

 

[cami]

Well, okay - yeah - the outer part of her upper arm in that first picture does appear dark. I cannot tell, though, whether it's bruising or just a shadow...

I believe it's shadow as well. Look at the towel that is abutting her arm, I see definite shadow there.