Should Darlie have a new trial?

[Jeana (DP)]

The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

They can't hear what isn't there.

 

[Mary456]

I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." ... I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.

Well, I guess you can "think" whatever you want. I "think" somebody needs to read the trial transcript

 

[mollymalone]

Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....

I don't think so. After LE determined there was no intruder, they were looking at both of them, trying to determine whether both or one of them were responsible.

I don't believe he did the murders but by Darlie's actions and her protestations that he began to know or even believe she'd done it, but for the sake of Drake, he's standing by her. If there'd been any evidence other than being stupid to stick to Darrin, he'd have been charged and sitting on DR too.

 

[whitywendy]

Well, I guess you can "think" whatever you want. I "think" somebody needs to read the trial transcript

Yes, I think that you in order to make a fair and correct conclusion, you must "weigh" everything accordingly which would imply that ONE must READ THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT. NOT bits and pieces here and there. Try reading a novel/book that way.., now how in the world are you going to know the plot if you don't read it from beginning to end?

 

[cami]

The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

That's because they're isn't any.

 

[cami]

I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....

Darin was bare chested....no the alleged getaway car was seen in front of the routiers house...only one knife presented to the jury, all testimony included that knife. Now you're suggesting there were two intruders, two murder weapons? There's no evidence of one let alone two. And no evidence two knives were used.

There was no blood found outside that house...if there's no blood found immediately around the crime scene, i.e.the point of exit....window ledge, the fence, how can there be "undiscovered blood" somewhere else in the neighbourhood? If you want to continue to accuse the prosecution and the Mulder that's your perrogative....it doesn't make Darlie innocent. There is more than enough evidence, properly gathered, non contaminated that proves she committed this crime. Is Darin complicite too? Find some evidence he is and the state will be happy to prosecute him.

 

[cami]

The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

tsk tsk...Laber is Darlie's expert and he would not have allowed that trial to continue had he found any evidence that implicated Darin...it's right there in his affidavit that there is no blood on the jeans that suggests Darin was present during the stabbings so now you're refuting Darlie's own expert?

 

[cami]

I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." Given the fact that a veteran detective.....possibly the most respected detective on the scene....declared virtually immediately that "this was an inside job" I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.

I don't remember....how was the sock discovered?

You need to get your facts straight According....no one declared immediately it was an inside job...stop listening to the Darlie camp and research on your own.

 

[cami]

Mulder wouldn't have had experts that refuted evidence that also implicated Darin. We don't know what Laber and Epstein were going to say since Mulder dismissed them early on (one of the first things he did). Will we ever know if he sought other experts? I haven't even heard a claim that he did.

Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....

Actually Darin was the first suspect. Homicide detectives don't work that way According, everyone in that house was a suspect. Darlie is not that powerful that she could stop the cops or the prosecution from pursuing Darin.

Why don't you read the transcripts from beginning to end. Read the bond hearing, etc., the appeals. I learned a lot from the appeals that I hadn't known before. Read Judge Francis's final findings.

If Darin was the killer, then Darlie had to know and if she knows why hasn't she opened her mouth? Why is she sitting on DR serving his time?

 

[accordn2me]

Darin was bare chested....no the alleged getaway car was seen in front of the routiers house...only one knife presented to the jury, all testimony included that knife. Now you're suggesting there were two intruders, two murder weapons? There's no evidence of one let alone two. And no evidence two knives were used.

There was no blood found outside that house...if there's no blood found immediately around the crime scene, i.e.the point of exit....window ledge, the fence, how can there be "undiscovered blood" somewhere else in the neighbourhood? If you want to continue to accuse the prosecution and the Mulder that's your perrogative....it doesn't make Darlie innocent. There is more than enough evidence, properly gathered, non contaminated that proves she committed this crime. Is Darin complicite too? Find some evidence he is and the state will be happy to prosecute him.

IIRC, Darin claims to have come downstairs (the first time) wearing only his eyeglasses. Didn't that claim change on the stand? If Darin did stab one or both of the boys...or inflicted Darlie's wounds....smart of him to not be wearing a shirt! No evidence found = no evidence, right?

That brings me to my next juvenile statement: just because someone didn't see a get away car in the alley, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

Only one knife presented to the jury because that's the one that killed Damon, the only murder being prosecuted. Let me say again, I am impressed with the prosecution. They were practically flawless. I don't believe they tried to frame Darlie. I do think they overstepped professional ethical lines (apparently it was legal) when they did the mock trials (or whatever you want to call them) with all the witnesses present to hear what everyone else was going to testify to on the stand.

If only Mulder had been half as prepared or clever, Darlie may have had a fair defense.

 

[accordn2me]

tsk tsk...Laber is Darlie's expert and he would not have allowed that trial to continue had he found any evidence that implicated Darin...it's right there in his affidavit that there is no blood on the jeans that suggests Darin was present during the stabbings so now you're refuting Darlie's own expert?

Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.

I need to read his affidavit. I was under the impression Laber believes that Darlie did not kill her sons.

 

[accordn2me]

You need to get your facts straight According....no one declared immediately it was an inside job...stop listening to the Darlie camp and research on your own.

I saw this detective on TV. HE said he knew it was an inside job within in minutes....OK, maybe within an hour, 60 minutes, of arriving at the house.

 

[accordn2me]

............................
Why don't you read the transcripts from beginning to end. .......................

time.....

If Darin was the killer, then Darlie had to know and if she knows why hasn't she opened her mouth? Why is she sitting on DR serving his time?

IMO, if she knows, she's guilty too.....because she tried to cover it up. Same goes for him.

 

[nicola]

And no evidence two knives were used.

There is evidence that there may have been two knives. If both boys were stabbed by the same knife then blood from both boys wouldve been on the knife. Only one boys blood was found on the knife and it belonged to Damon - Devons blood was not found on the knife. If the same knife was used to kill both boys then why is'nt there at least traces of Devons blood on knife?

 

[Mary456]

Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.

Uhhh, excuse me, but Mulder couldn't fire Laber, because he didn't hire him. See how that works?

 

[accordn2me]

Uhhh, excuse me, but Mulder couldn't fire Laber, because he didn't hire him. See how that works?

Uhhh, he told Laber his services weren't needed. And Mulder didn't hire another expert.

 

[whitywendy]

There is evidence that there may have been two knives. If both boys were stabbed by the same knife then blood from both boys wouldve been on the knife. Only one boys blood was found on the knife and it belonged to Damon - Devons blood was not found on the knife. If the same knife was used to kill both boys then why is'nt there at least traces of Devons blood on knife?

when Darlie was standing

IMO Devon's blood went down the drain. Which is why the sink and pipes had blood in them.

 

[Mary456]

Cami's question to Accordn2me: "Why don't you read the transcripts?"

Accordn2me's response: "...time".

How can you find time to post erroneous information on a message board, but don't have the time to read the facts?

 

[accordn2me]

Cami's question to Accordn2me: "Why don't you read the transcripts?"

Accordn2me's response: "...time".

How can you find time to post erroneous information on a message board, but don't have the time to read the facts?

Much less time is needed for the latter. :croc: And you know it!

Point: the more I did read of the transcripts, the more I realized how sorry of a defense attorney Mulder was.

OJ and Phil Spector are just two juries that come to mind, who had much more evidence with which to return a guilty verdict....yet they returned with an acquittal on the first and hung on the second. When juries side with the attorneys who are most prepared, flamboyant, popular....etc...it's not always the right decision.

 

[fox1950]

:waitasec: I voted yes because I have always thought there was more to the story than what was ever uncovered. I find Darlie's actions at the graveyard beyond strange but I do think also the whole truth about what happened that night never came out. I fully understand why everyone thinks she is guilty so please do not get angry over my post. But if Darlie is guility so is someone else, and they too should have their day in court.

Sometime things are not always as they seem.