Brian Pardo and Darlie's Defense

[accordn2me]

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!

It was funny, though. So I didn't say anything, I knew who you meant, Mosty or whoever.

I know she had a team. Mulder was, or should have been, maestro, so to speak. You can say what a wonderful job he did, or the team did, whatever.

Fact is, they sucked. PERIOD!

That doesn't mean Darlie is innocent. However, it is why I doubt if she is guilty.

Why didn't Mulder keep Laber and Epstein? Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for an answer from me. I couldn't for the life of me ever figure it out. It's certainly not because they think she may be guilty. To the contrary, they don't think she's guilty. At least Laber doesn't. And it's probably deeper than just knowing Mulder was borderline incompetent IN THIS CASE.

You speak of Mulder's stellar record and reputatation. Well, I can't seem to find any such supporting information. The only stuff I've read about him isn't favorable at all.

Nope, won't drop it. Mulder deserves to be slammed over and over on this. The only complement I can give the man is that he fell seriously short of living up to the stereotype of a defense attorney.

FRITZY would have been a better bet for Darlie. At least the jurors would have seen the handwritten medical charts.

 

[Dani_T]

That doesn't mean Darlie is innocent. However, it is why I doubt if she is guilty.

:slap: Look. At. The. Evidence. For. Yourself.

Why didn't Mulder keep Laber and Epstein? Don't hold your breath if you are waiting for an answer from me. I couldn't for the life of me ever figure it out. It's certainly not because they think she may be guilty. To the contrary, they don't think she's guilty. At least Laber doesn't.

And you know this how?

It is my professional opinion that further testing and evaluation of the items referenced above in numbered paragraphs 6-11 would help establish if in fact the crime scene was or was not staged. Such testing is necessary to confirm or refute the State's testimonial evidence presented at Darlie Routier's trial and to establish Darlie Lynn Routier's innocence.

Signing an affidavit for the defense does not mean you think Darlie is innocent. Linch signed one and his testimony certainly showed that he doesn't think she is guilty.

You speak of Mulder's stellar record and reputatation. Well, I can't seem to find any such supporting information. The only stuff I've read about him isn't favorable at all.

It's common knowledge he was the best in town at the time. I don't have time to chase it up now- will look later.

Nope, won't drop it. Mulder deserves to be slammed over and over on this. The only complement I can give the man is that he fell seriously short of living up to the stereotype of a defense attorney.

Well I personally am dropping it because it's just a smoke screen. Until you start looking at the evidence itself and questioning it to show her innocence or reasonable doubt then it's a waste of your, my and everyone else here's time.

Over and Out

 

[accordn2me]

Linch doesn't think Darlie is guilty?

 

[Dani_T]

Linch doesn't think Darlie is guilty?

Sorry- typo due to rush again!

I think it is clear from his testimony that he does think the evidence shows she is guilty.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

It was funny, though. So I didn't say anything, I knew who you meant, Mosty or whoever.

I know she had a team. Mulder was, or should have been, maestro, so to speak. You can say what a wonderful job he did, or the team did, whatever.

Fact is, they sucked. PERIOD!

That doesn't mean Darlie is innocent. However, it is why I doubt if she is guilty.

I think you're entitled to your opinion. However, in order to judge someone in the legal profession as harshly as you've judged Mulder, I think you need to have some knowledge of the profession itself. What qualifies you to judge an attorney? Are you a judge? Are you a lawyer? Are you a law clerk? Are you a law student? Do you study the law as a profession? Are you employed in any capacity in a law firm or court?

 

[Goody]

"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?

It's you in the flesh....well, proverbial flesh anyway. How the heck have you been doing? Nice chating with you again.

But, hey, don't rag on Mary too much. You can see in the photos that there are no cuts on her face. Just scraches from little Devon's fingernails around her chin area. Actually they are under her chin and one or two just at the very bottom. So why do you suppose a little child was scratching Miss Darlie that night if not because she was stabbing him?

 

[Goody]

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?

That nurse was on the defendant's witness list, not the state's. At least that is what I understood. Mercedes Adams was also supposed to testify and didn't. In Patricia Springer's book, I think it was, it was reported that there was a big problem in Kerrville with Mercedes. She is said to have gone to the press with a story that the defense was trying to get her to lie for Darlie and she refused to do it. The attys denied it, of course, and Mercedes was taken off the witness list. When Darlie testified she made a huge effort not to call Mercedes a liar. She said that she had dreamed a story about the intruder that she told Mercedes but that she had forgotten to tell Mercedes that it was dream. Look in Darlie's testimony about Mercedes and how she dances all around in obvious fear of what her friend might tell if she isn't careful. I've heard that the two of them have since kissed and made up, but I sure would like Mercedes to show up here or on TV somewhere. I have a load of questions for her!!

 

[accordn2me]

I think you're entitled to your opinion.

Thank you. I'll share as long as you're nice.:angel:

However, in order to judge someone in the legal profession as harshly as you've judged Mulder, I think you need to have some knowledge of the profession itself.

Using your logic, what would I need to have in order to judge Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson? :waitasec:

What qualifies you to judge an attorney? Are you a judge? Are you a lawyer? Are you a law clerk? Are you a law student? Do you study the law as a profession? Are you employed in any capacity in a law firm or court?

I have the highest qualification possible. I'm a Kindergarten teacher! :slap:

 

[Goody]

Using your logic, what would I need to have in order to judge Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson? :waitasec:


I have the highest qualification possible. I'm a Kindergarten teacher! :slap:

The law works very differently than other occupations. You cannot use strictly logic to reach a fair base for criticism because there are so many rules of the court that defy logic. Attys have to work in and around those rules to the best of their ability on both sides. And a lot of it is judge's disgression which further muddies the waters as far as a clear and direct path goes.

For example, an attorney cannot put a witness on the stand he knows is going to lie. He can't hide expert opinions that are on a report. If the expert makes a verbal condensed assessment,as I understand it, that is not the same. (Jeana can better answer in this area. ) My point is just that you can't over simplify in legal assessments because there are so many rules that don't always make sense from a layman's point of view. Legal interpretations set out in statute do not always compare with what most of us citizens would think.

 

[accordn2me]

The law works very differently than other occupations.

Like what, brain surgery....computer programming....bass pro.... musician....trash collector.... They're all different! The first three, I probably couldn't critique their work. But a trial attorney....it's not difficult, for me at least, to read a transcript, or watch them in the courtroom and know if they are good at their job.

You cannot use strictly logic to reach a fair base for criticism because there are so many rules of the court that defy logic.

No! Don't use logic here!:doh: Use your common sense.

Attys have to work in and around those rules to the best of their ability on both sides.

Ability! That's what we're talking about here. If Mulder has any, he didn't use it in the courtroom. And it's plain as day to see when you read those transcripts.

If you don't believe me, ask an attorney that you know (if you're lucky enough to know one ) to read a couple of sections and give you a critique. Darin's testimony would be a good one. Maybe that would be too easy, pick any prosecution witness, have the attorney read through the cross exam by Mulder, and you'll see.

And a lot of it is judge's disgression which further muddies the waters as far as a clear and direct path goes.

Judicial discretion does set the tone in the courtroom. This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.

For example, an attorney cannot put a witness on the stand he knows is going to lie. He can't hide expert opinions that are on a report.

A good attorney can make someone look like they are lying, even if they are not. A good attorney knows witnesses can be "tripped up" on the stand and seriously damage the case if they are not careful. A good attorney knows how to refute expert testimony. A good attorney knows hearsay is not admissable. A good attorney knows he must object to hearsay so the jury will not hear it. A good attorney knows how to phrase his questions properly. A good attorney knows how to use case law and precedents to effectively argue his points to a judge. A good attorney knows it's futile to get into a whizzin' contest with the judge. Have I made my point?

 

[Dani_T]

And yes folks- we are still avoiding discussion about the actual evidence.

Back to your normal programming...

 

[Goody]

Like what, brain surgery....computer programming....bass pro.... musician....trash collector.... They're all different! The first three, I probably couldn't critique their work. But a trial attorney....it's not difficult, for me at least, to read a transcript, or watch them in the courtroom and know if they are good at their job.

I could say the same about teachers. In fact, you probably would not like my criticisms in that dept. and it is a whole lot easier to criticize a teacher than a lawyer simply because teachers do not have volumes upon volumes of rule books laid out by lawmakers telling them exactly what they can or cannot do every step of the way.

Besides, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume you can weigh the pros and cons of a subject without any idea of what all it takes to fairly represent someone in a court of law. Why don't you go take some law classes first.

No! Don't use logic here!:doh: Use your common sense..

Common sense and logic are only part of the picture.

Ability! That's what we're talking about here. If Mulder has any, he didn't use it in the courtroom. And it's plain as day to see when you read those transcripts.

If you don't believe me, ask an attorney that you know (if you're lucky enough to know one ) to read a couple of sections and give you a critique. Darin's testimony would be a good one. Maybe that would be too easy, pick any prosecution witness, have the attorney read through the cross exam by Mulder, and you'll see..

There are attys right here who can give an opinion on that. Jeana is an atty. Why don't you ask her?

Judicial discretion does set the tone in the courtroom. This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.



A good attorney can make someone look like they are lying, even if they are not. A good attorney knows witnesses can be "tripped up" on the stand and seriously damage the case if they are not careful. A good attorney knows how to refute expert testimony. A good attorney knows hearsay is not admissable. A good attorney knows he must object to hearsay so the jury will not hear it. A good attorney knows how to phrase his questions properly. A good attorney knows how to use case law and precedents to effectively argue his points to a judge. A good attorney knows it's futile to get into a whizzin' contest with the judge. Have I made my point?

You are saying that you don't think Mulder tried hard enough to get a guilty person off. I think I probably agree that he didn't believe in his client's innocence. That combined with many of his efforts being thwarted by the court didn't help, as well as the family not really leveling with him in the beginning. And Darlie herself was prone to shooting herself in the foot. She didn't help him any with those letters and all the other cockamamy explanations for her story of many versions that she laid on the jury. There are only so many messes a defense atty can clean up for a client. On top of that, Darins says a good defense for capital murder runs about $800,000 in Texas. They only had $100,000 to give him, so he was further handicapped that way.

I, for one, am not interested in whether he should have gotten her off, guilty or not. Her actual guilt or innocence outweighs how good his performance was.

Also, not one lawyer on his team would back Darlie's claims on Mulder's incompetence. That would not happen if he had performed as poorly as you think he did.

I don't think Mulder's weak points rise to the level of accusations that he did not give her an active defense. He did. He worked within his limitations which is all any defense atty can do in situations like this.

O, and one more point....Darlie was so ineffective as a witness for herself that he had to tell her to show the jury some tears over the death of her boys. When they came back from that recess, she balled like a baby, witnesses say. She was definitely not an easy client to defend.

 

[Goody]

And yes folks- we are still avoiding discussion about the actual evidence.

Back to your normal programming...

O, Dani, don't you ever get tired on hashing and rehashing the same old stuff?

 

[Mary456]

This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.

Let me see if I have this straight. Mulder had no ability as a defense attorney, Judge Tolle was a jerk, and that makes Darlie innocent :waitasec:

Could you be more specific as to why you think the judge was pro-prosecution? A few rulings from the transcript would help to clarify your accusation that Judge Tolle was a "jerk".

 

[accordn2me]

And yes folks- we are still avoiding discussion about the actual evidence.

Back to your normal programming...

This takes less time, Dani! :truce:

 

[Dani_T]

O, Dani, don't you ever get tired on hashing and rehashing the same old stuff?

Not having a go at you Goody. Just pointing out to accordn2me that she still hasn't bothered to look at the evidence.

 

[accordn2me]

[/color]I could say the same about teachers.

Of course you could. And you'd be right, too. It certainly doesn't take a teacher to know if a teacher is effective.

In fact, you probably would not like my criticisms in that dept. and it is a whole lot easier to criticize a teacher than a lawyer simply because teachers do not have volumes upon volumes of rule books laid out by lawmakers telling them exactly what they can or cannot do every step of the way.

It's easy to criticize anyone. It's harder to say, I could do better, then actually do better. So let's make it easier, at least if you are going to criticize, tell the person how THEY could do better. Anyone who wants to come into my classroom and tell me how I can do better is welcome. Anyone who can come into my classroom and do better, is more welcome! I think all parents should be required to observe classes at least 4 times per year. Legislators and other policy makers should be required to substitute at least 10 times per year. It's the people, who haven't stepped foot into a school in years, criticizing me and my colleagues, that I have a problem with.

Besides, it is more than a bit arrogant to assume you can weigh the pros and cons of a subject without any idea of what all it takes to fairly represent someone in a court of law. Why don't you go take some law classes first.[/color]

I don't deny being a bit arrogant, or more than a bit even. But I'm not weighing the pros and cons of a subject. Just like I don't need to be a meterologist to know if it's raining outside, I don't need to take law classes to know Mulder did a horrible job of representing Darlie Routier.

You are saying that you don't think Mulder tried hard enough to get a guilty person off.

No. I'm saying, due to Mulder NOT ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE I'm not sure Darlie Routier is guilty of murdering Damon and/or Devon.

I, for one, am not interested in whether he should have gotten her off, guilty or not. Her actual guilt or innocence outweighs how good his performance was.

You lost me. I know you believe she is guilty and her attorney was a stellar defense attorney. I don't know if she is actually guilty or innocent because her attorney didn't actually do anything to help the girl. Needless to say, we are not on the same page.

Also, not one lawyer on his team would back Darlie's claims on Mulder's incompetence. That would not happen if he had performed as poorly as you think he did.

Who's team? Darin's?

I don't think Mulder's weak points rise to the level of accusations that he did not give her an active defense. He did. He worked within his limitations which is all any defense atty can do in situations like this.

Mulder's weak points and limitations are why Darlie should have stuck with public defenders. They appeared to be on the right track, at least with Laber.

O, and one more point....Darlie was so ineffective as a witness for herself that he had to tell her to show the jury some tears over the death of her boys. When they came back from that recess, she balled like a baby, witnesses say. She was definitely not an easy client to defend.

I concur. She was a :loser:.

 

[accordn2me]

This was a prosecution judge if I've ever seen one! Yes, I've seen several. I know because I prefer them to more liberal judges that seem to side with criminals on every decision. This judge was a jerk, though.

Let me see if I have this straight. Mulder had no ability as a defense attorney, Judge Tolle was a jerk, and that makes Darlie innocent :waitasec:

Could you be more specific as to why you think the judge was pro-prosecution? A few rulings from the transcript would help to clarify your accusation that Judge Tolle was a "jerk".

See Goody's post #172 about many of Mulder's efforts being thwarted by the court (judge). That's what I'm talking about. Tolle was acerbic to Mulder. And if you ask me, that was Mulder's fault too. He was combative to the equivalent of God. Not a good thing for a client facing death row.

And no, you still don't have it straight. Part one (mulder) straight... part 2 (Tolle) straight.... part 3 (Darlie) not straight!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Thank you. I'll share as long as you're nice.:angel:


Using your logic, what would I need to have in order to judge Michael Jackson, or Scott Peterson? :waitasec:


I have the highest qualification possible. I'm a Kindergarten teacher! :slap:

In the first place, you're not judging a DEFENDANT, you're judging an attorney. You cannot compare Mulder to Jackson or Peterson. Secondly, its pretty obviouso to me without knowing your profession that you're not qualified to do so.

 

[accordn2me]

In the first place, you're not judging a DEFENDANT, you're judging an attorney.

Yes! Just an ATTORNEY, for Pete's sake! We're not talking about an archangel, or the like.

You cannot compare Mulder to Jackson or Peterson. Secondly, its pretty obviouso to me without knowing your profession that you're not qualified to do so.

I was trying to make a point - you don't have to BE an attorney, a pedophile, a killer, a teacher, a duck, to recognize one when you see one. You are right - comparing Mulder to Jackson or Peterson would not serve to support the fact that Mulder was not an effective presence in or out of the courtroom in Darlie's case. Fritzy's Mom did a thorough job of comparing him to other defense attorneys, to no avail. But hey, it's OK if you think Mulder is a superb attorney.