Should Darlie have a new trial?

[Crow_Ascending]

I don't know where the information that Discovery is not a right of the defense came from, but it is in error. Here is a link to the statute, below. In the reverse case, the defense does not have to inform the prosecution of its plans. http://www.angelinacounty.net/pdf/discovery07.pdf

 

[texaslb218]

I don't know where the information that Discovery is not a right of the defense came from, but it is in error. Here is a link to the statute, below. In the reverse case, the defense does not have to inform the prosecution of its plans. http://www.angelinacounty.net/pdf/discovery07.pdf

CROW!!

That's my little ol' home county from which you are linking papers. Do you live there?

 

[Crow_Ascending]

I live next door to Texas, but I'm a Texan at heart! I've travelled over every inch of Texas and love it. Even the oilfields. Texas has everything California has, but the people in Texas are REAL!

 

[texaslb218]

I live next door to Texas, but I'm a Texan at heart! I've travelled over every inch of Texas and love it. Even the oilfields. Texas has everything California has, but the people in Texas are REAL!

Woohoo! I was born in Beaumont and raised in Lufkin. Loved the small town. Thought it was the universe! Nice to meetcha.

 

[cami]

So I take it you don't think there is a possibility that she is innocent ?
And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion should do a lot more research ?
Its my opinion as I stated. Why don't you state your opinion instead of telling me to do more research ?

No, not for me, there's no possibility she is innocent. I think you also need to do more research because some of the things you have stated as fact are not at all true facts just your opinion of the facts.

 

[cami]

Yes I have seen the crime photos , the ones without the sheets over the boys.
I can only imagine what the actual scene looked like to the people that attended.

The first person there wasnt even able to help.

There is so much Wrong about this case, so very much, and I think being that it was so horrific, that it is easier to put the blame on the mother and have *their man* so to speak because IT WAS SO Horrific.
Imagine Not being able to charge anyone ?

I think there was some things that didnt add up, but lets face it the crime scene was a bloody mess and Darlie was in complete shock

I'd like to ask anyone if that had happened to their child/children and to you whether you would be talking any kind of sense ?

I just want her to have a new trial, and to be allowed to have all the evidence re tested with fresh eyes.
I mean look at that killer (in another thread) that killed his ex PREGNANT Ex and injured (terribly) her boyfriend..he's getting a new trial for a DP case because one of the potential jurors was hispanic and let go inappropriately they feel and that the prosectuion used emotional ploys on the jury

There is NO doubt he did it - there was a eye witness

But he gets a new trial

There is a cloud over Darlies case , trial, evidence but yet she I don't see her getting a new trial ?

It will be too late when she is dead.

But don't you get it? The appeals court overturned the verdict for a reason in that DP case and if he's guilty he'll be convicted again. The appeals courts in Darlie's convictions have found no reasons to overturn her verdict. It doesn't matter what you or I think..it's what is legal.

 

[cami]

And then of course there is the statements that she was possibly sexually interfered with (no panties) but where was the rape kit ?

Oh woops they FORGOT TO DO ONE !

Oh woops you're incorrect. That's what you base your facts on.....incorrect information. When you only read Darlie's side of it. It's right in the transcripts that a partial rape kit was done on Darlie before she was released from the hospital.

Darlie could have thrown her panties in the dirty wash. come on use some common sense. She who wakes at her baby rolling in it's crib doesn't feel someone removing her panties and entering her? Gimme a break.

Sorry don't mean to sound sarcastic but Jane you keep posting so much misinformation that most of us have been through before. And on it's face,non of it matters, we're in the appeals process, Darlie has to prove she's innocent before she can ever get a new trial.

 

[MomofBoys]

I don't know if I posted this comment before at one point, as all my days blur into one right now.

Darlie had a [relatively] tremendous amount of blood down the front of her shirt. Stands to reason that while running around (near death, of course ) some of that blood would have ended up on or in her underwear, and that those underwear would need disposing of. Cold, wet panties wouldn't have been pleasant, and then there would be the bonus effect of having appeared to have been violated.

Are there any good resource sites out there regarding this case (outside of the damning transcripts) that isn't maintained by the Darlie camp? It seems like most of the Darlie supporters cite Darlie's own sources. It's odd to me.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Reading the 1st and 2nd state appeals and the judges reasons for denying them are very good sources outside of the transcripts. The federal appeal citing some evidence retesting is also informative. One reason for this is that you cannot (or better not under perjury rules) put misinformation in an appeal, such as most of what appears on the pro-Darlie sites. I would like to say now that I find only one thing unfair or prejudicial about Darlie's trial. When Mulder became her attorney the judge denied his request to move the trial back to Dallas. I feel that when she got a new attorney, the clock should have been set back to zero and Mulder allowed to have the trial in Dallas. Parks made a big mistake in requesting a relocation and Mulder should not have had to work Park's error.

 

[CyberLaw]

http://www.dallasnews.comwww.dallasnews.com

Critics alleged that the trial was moved to the conservative Texas Hill Country to ensure a guilty verdict or that the judge was looking for ranch property, Mrs. Tolle said.

"It was put down in Kerrville because it was the only county in Texas that had an opening in its court docket for a trial of that magnitude," Mrs. Tolle said.

Volume 7 transcripts -

24 We now have the motion for change of
25 venue, the Court has reviewed this motion in it's
entirety.

Does either side have anything further with
2 regards to that motion?
3 MR. GREG DAVIS: The State has nothing
4 further.
5 MR. DOUGLAS PARKS: No, your Honor.
6 THE COURT: The Court having reviewed
7 the motion, grants the motion and the -- will it be
8 acceptable, if the -- as regards to where the case will be
9 moved, neither side will require it to be moved -- or
10 neither side will object if it's moved to a district
11 beyond the adjoining districts; is that correct?
12 MR. GREG DAVIS: That's correct, your
13 Honor.
14 MR. DOUGLAS PARKS: That's correct,
15 your Honor.
16 THE COURT: The districts adjoining
17 Dallas County. In other words, any county in Texas will
18 be acceptable to the State; is that right?
19 MR. GREG DAVIS: Yes, sir, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: And the defense?
21 MR. DOUGLAS PARKS: Yes, your Honor.

It may be a different lawyer, but the same judge and the same case. Nothing starts at zero, unfortunately when a new lawyer takes over the case he just starts off(with boxes and boxes of paper)where the other lawyer left off. So one lawyer drafts a motion that Darlie cannot get a fair trial in Dallas/Dallas County because of the media attention, the person on trial, and the victims. It would be prejudicial to the defense case of a fair trial.

Then Mulder wants to change the venue back to Dallas and you wonder why that was denied. Because the same reasons apply to the change of venue and the reversal of the change of venue.

I don't know when Mulder came aboard, but I can put money on the fact that the State "was not in favor of the trial being moved back to Dallas."

 

[accordn2me]

IMO, it wouldn't have mattered where the trial was held. Mulder didn't offer any experts to refute the state's evidence.

The gravest error was Darlie switching from PDs to Mulder.

 

[txanmom]

chicana,where did u listen to that 911 call? i have tried the fordarlie website and i cannot get it to play!

janeinoz, just wanted to thank you for always reading my posts and responding, you are such a doll!

i have tried to read all of the transcripts, not finished yet, and i have read 1 book and researched on the net and i DO think she deserves another trial. even if it proves her guilty again. i just think that Mulder had conflicts and some of the evidence seems shallow to me IMOO!!!! I personally do not feel the silly string episode is enough to say guilty, i don't think Cron is enough to say guilty. I question the blood evidence, because she **might** have been in a frenzy of panic and rinsed or wet the towels that caused the luminol positives. if she was life with parole i **might** be willing to say let her stay, but we are talking about DEATH here, she needs another trial.

 

[cami]

IMO, it wouldn't have mattered where the trial was held. Mulder didn't offer any experts to refute the state's evidence.

The gravest error was Darlie switching from PDs to Mulder.

Why do you think the PDs would have been any more effective than Mulder? I've always wondered that. They had no money to pay defense experts IMO. Would the PDs have? Couldn't Mulder have asked for public money to perform some of the tests and pay the experts?

Why would the appeals court not rule in DArlie's favour is Mulder was so ineffective?

 

[cami]

chicana,where did u listen to that 911 call? i have tried the fordarlie website and i cannot get it to play!

janeinoz, just wanted to thank you for always reading my posts and responding, you are such a doll!

i have tried to read all of the transcripts, not finished yet, and i have read 1 book and researched on the net and i DO think she deserves another trial. even if it proves her guilty again. i just think that Mulder had conflicts and some of the evidence seems shallow to me IMOO!!!! I personally do not feel the silly string episode is enough to say guilty, i don't think Cron is enough to say guilty. I question the blood evidence, because she **might** have been in a frenzy of panic and rinsed or wet the towels that caused the luminol positives. if she was life with parole i **might** be willing to say let her stay, but we are talking about DEATH here, she needs another trial.

You can probably hear it here www.justicefordarlie.net

 

[accordn2me]

Why do you think the PDs would have been any more effective than Mulder? I've always wondered that. They had no money to pay defense experts IMO. Would the PDs have? Couldn't Mulder have asked for public money to perform some of the tests and pay the experts?

Why would the appeals court not rule in DArlie's favour is Mulder was so ineffective?

The PDs hired Laber and Epstein. Mulder fired them as soon as he was hired. And worse than that, he hired no other experts! :loser:

..."the theory underlying the prosecution's case against petitioner is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as that of any death penalty case to come before this Court." Royal Furgeson, Judge

IMO, anyone would have been more effective than Mulder who was at his career worst, at that time.

 

[cami]

The PDs hired Laber and Epstein. Mulder fired them as soon as he was hired. And worse than that, he hired no other experts! :loser:

..."the theory underlying the prosecution's case against petitioner is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as that of any death penalty case to come before this Court." Royal Furgeson, Judge

IMO, anyone would have been more effective than Mulder who was at his career worst, at that time.

Oh that. Why did he fire them do you think? No money to continue the testing? But this is all just spilt milk now, the trial is long over and she didn't win any appeals on ineffectiveness of counsel. I mean we can think it but the court disagrees.

Laber has an excellent reputation I believe. His work in the MacDonald case was impressive. However, his findings in this case have never been offered so I can't judge him on this case. But I see your point that they could have raised some RD with the jury. Expert against expert. But I think Mulder could have too if he could have kept Darlie off the stand, but as I once said, I think she's the worst kind of client because she wouldn't shut her mouth.

I don't agree with Judge Ferguson's statement and I don't think he should have offered this opinion of his..the prosecution is under no obligation or burden to even offer a motive to the jury. They don't know why Darlie killed her kids.

 

[mrshuie]

I am a bit confussed about if she has actually been granted a new trial. Has she, I hope not.

 

[JaneInOz]

I am a bit confussed about if she has actually been granted a new trial. Has she, I hope not.

Not at this stage but I sure hope she will be !

 

[PattyCake]

Not at this stage but I sure hope she will be !

Myself as well. Try as I might to find this woman completely 100% guilty there are far too many truly unanswered questions. I've said it before... at the VERY LEAST, she should not be on death row with this type of evidence!

 

[cami]

I am a bit confussed about if she has actually been granted a new trial. Has she, I hope not.

I hope not too but I feel condident if she is tried again for some reason, she'll be found guilty again.