Werner Herzog documentary on Darlie - On Death Row

[linlin]

Oh, well - I guess that truth about this moment will not ever be known since Darlie is not to be trusted (or her husband Darin) in this matter as well.
I almost wish the cop was lying and Darlie did at least do something for her dying child to make his final moments in this world a little bit... easier doesn't seem to be the right word here.

 

[Sinsaint]

I just watched it earlier today. Towards the end of the show (last twenty minutes maybe) Herzog asked Waddell about the blood drops on the back of Darlie's shirt. I'm going to paraphrase his response since the video is not on-line to directly quote...

Darlie stabbed the boys with so much force blood got thrown over her shoulder. She stabbed the boys so hard the knife went through the carpet and damaged the concrete foundation....

Whether you believe Darlie is guilty or innocent, that statement is a flat out lie.

 

[Steel86]

Whether you believe Darlie is guilty or innocent, that statement is a flat out lie.

Calling his statement a LIE is a bit much, he was just simply WRONG - that's all. You have taken the statement he made on this particular program, a program that did not include ANYONE from forensics in the case. Why ask the responding officer forensic questions at all? I believe he was only answering a question posed to him that he didn't really know anything about, it wasn't his job to know it. He may have just heard it since this case is talked about so much (an author of one of the books about Darlie states the same thing, and she did once again on another program - she was wrong as well.)

I find it interesting that Darlie's family and supporters will attack this man "for lying", but if he was so involved in the railroading they want so bad for everyone to believe, wouldn't they have made sure EVERYONE was on the same page??

 

[Sinsaint]

Calling his statement a LIE is a bit much, he was just simply WRONG - that's all. You have taken the statement he made on this particular program, a program that did not include ANYONE from forensics in the case. Why ask the responding officer forensic questions at all? I believe he was only answering a question posed to him that he didn't really know anything about, it wasn't his job to know it. He may have just heard it since this case is talked about so much (an author of one of the books about Darlie states the same thing, and she did once again on another program - she was wrong as well.)

I find it interesting that Darlie's family and supporters will attack this man "for lying", but if he was so involved in the railroading they want so bad for everyone to believe, wouldn't they have made sure EVERYONE was on the same page??

It is not a bit much. If he didn't know the answer he should have just said... I'm not a forensics expert. I can't answer that question. Instead, he passed along this erroneous information as factually correct.

 

[Steel86]

It is not a bit much. If he didn't know the answer he should have just said... I'm not a forensics expert. I can't answer that question. Instead, he passed along this erroneous information as factually correct.

Yes, he said it, on a television documentary. His statement, on this TV program, sure doesn't change the fact that there were cast-off blood spots on Darlie's nightshirt though, does it? He didn't testify regarding any forensics, did he? - That is where his mistake would have mattered.

 

[Sinsaint]

Yes, he said it, on a television documentary. His statement, on this TV program, sure doesn't change the fact that there were cast-off blood spots on Darlie's nightshirt though, does it? He didn't testify regarding any forensics, did he? - That is where his mistake would have mattered.

Having cast-off blood on her shirt doesn't mean she wielded the knife. It only means she was in close proximity to the attack. We already know that since she was on the couch.

As for his other statements, it most certainly does matter... They were, at best, factually inaccurate. In the context of a show meant to prove someone deserves the death penalty, the statements do nothing more that sway the public to believe she viciously attacked the children in a manor that was overkill. If she did viciously attack the children that could be shown with truthful information. The information he gave was not truthful.

Nor was his "oh, I told her to help the boys but she just stood there..." story either. The only thing we know, based on actual evidence, is that he told her to sit down. That is the only thing you ever hear him telling her to do. It makes no sense he told her to sit down but also told her to get rags and to help the boys. I err on the side of logic. He could see she was injured. He told her to sit down. His claims of asking her to help the boys are just that... His claims.

 

[Steel86]

In the context of a show meant to prove someone deserves the death penalty, the statements do nothing more that sway the public to believe she viciously attacked the children in a manor that was overkill. If she did viciously attack the children that could be shown with truthful information. The information he gave was not truthful.

She viciously did attack her children, IMO, and obviously in the minds of the jurors. That information was gained in their autopsy reports, not Waddell. The show is a documentary, it can't prove she deserves the death penalty...that was done in court.

Nor was his "oh, I told her to help the boys but she just stood there..." story either. The only thing we know, based on actual evidence, is that he told her to sit down. That is the only thing you ever hear him telling her to do. It makes no sense he told her to sit down but also told her to get rags and to help the boys. I err on the side of logic. He could see she was injured. He told her to sit down. His claims of asking her to help the boys are just that... His claims.

And you must remember that Darlie claimed to have gotten wet towels after he asked her, yet the paramedic testified that there was not a towel on Damon's back when he arrived on scene.....also what we know, based on actual evidence. But only Darlie and Darin claim this. Which way do Darlie supporters want it? Did she listen to Waddell "telling her to sit down" or did she get those towels?

 

[Sinsaint]

She viciously did attack her children, IMO, and obviously in the minds of the jurors. That information was gained in their autopsy reports, not Waddell. The show is a documentary, it can't prove she deserves the death penalty...that was done in court.

And you must remember that Darlie claimed to have gotten wet towels after he asked her, yet the paramedic testified that there was not a towel on Damon's back when he arrived on scene.....also what we know, based on actual evidence. But only Darlie and Darin claim this. Which way do Darlie supporters want it? Did she listen to Waddell "telling her to sit down" or did she get those towels?

Waddell was put on the stand to establish two things... Her demeanor at the scene and to confirm aspects of the scene. But the majority of his testimony was centered around her behavior. First, what we know is factual is that he saw her, realized she was injured and told her to sit down. That can be heard on tape. THAT is evidence.

What is not evidence is him CLAIMING he told her to help. There is almost six minutes of 911 tape. At no point do you hear him telling her to help. You can hear him telling her to sit down, asking about an intruder, at some point an "I'm sorry ma'am..." Not a single word telling her to help anyone. Darin can be heard on the tape yelling for someone to get rags. That's it.

Secondly, he was to establish the scene. He, along with Walling, were both so observant they noticed glass fragments on the floor and took mental note not to walk on them but failed to notice a gigantic vacuum in comparison laying in the kitchen that they would have tripped over. If you see clear, glass shards then you're not going to miss a huge vacuum cleaner.

Third...



Towels...



Towel...



Ummm...



Yea, that's what I thought. See that white thing? It's called a towel. See that blue thing? It's called a towel. I suppose we can call it a rag and then scream... " Look! No towels there..." Facts are Darin didn't get any towels, Waddell didn't get any towels, Walling didn't get any towels, the paramedics didn't get any towels. According to the people who believe Darlie killed her boys she didn't get any towels.

Now, unless my eyes are lying there are towels all over. I guess the towel fairy dropped those off.

 

[LadyL]

how can you recognize those items as towels? they could be articles of clothing but even if they are towels, there's no evidence to suggest that Darlie is the one who retrieved them ...

 

[emma l]

Having cast-off blood on her shirt doesn't mean she wielded the knife. It only means she was in close proximity to the attack. We already know that since she was on the couch.

As for his other statements, it most certainly does matter... They were, at best, factually inaccurate. In the context of a show meant to prove someone deserves the death penalty, the statements do nothing more that sway the public to believe she viciously attacked the children in a manor that was overkill. If she did viciously attack the children that could be shown with truthful information. The information he gave was not truthful.

Nor was his "oh, I told her to help the boys but she just stood there..." story either. The only thing we know, based on actual evidence, is that he told her to sit down. That is the only thing you ever hear him telling her to do. It makes no sense he told her to sit down but also told her to get rags and to help the boys. I err on the side of logic. He could see she was injured. He told her to sit down. His claims of asking her to help the boys are just that... His claims.

Werner Herzog is a fierce opponent of the penalty. He is very clear about that. He has spoken openly about it. He has made many docs on death penalty cases and is always careful to state he does not support it.
The show was not meant to show Darlie deserves the dp.
You have a right to be unhappy with the way Darlie was portrayed if you want, but the dp support thing is unfair.
B

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Having cast-off blood on her shirt doesn't mean she wielded the knife. It only means she was in close proximity to the attack. We already know that since she was on the couch.

The analysis of the blood drops shows that they were deposited from overhead. How did they get on the back of Darlie's nightshirt if she were lying face up on the sofa,AS she claims. . IMO the drops were deposited when Darlie needed more force to get the knife to penetrate the boys bodies. There were shallow stab wounds in addition to the penetrating ones. She was kneeling on the floor and to get more force for a deep stab, had to raise the knife higher. Both boys blood dripped off that knife when she raised the knife to shoulder, or higher, height.

 

[CathyR]

The comments Waddell made about Darin being outside when he arrived is false.
The comments that Darlie did nothing to help her children is false.
The comments about the knife going through the body and nicking the concrete is also false. This officer cannot tell the truth because he doesn't know it. He has been coached so much on the case he can't even recall what he actually did do at the crime scene. This makes me wonder if maybe he got so sick of the police force and DA'S that he left the Rowlett force to join another one in a different city.

The comments made by Davis about the vacuum are untrue.
Davis made some comments about the silly string party that show he made up his mind that she was guilty based on that behavior.
It was Darlie's sister Dana that brought the silly string. The tape of the memorial show Darlie grieving and near collapse. She was told to get it together as her behavior was going to frighten the small children soon to arrive for the party. Darlie was told to act joyful and celebrate the birth of her oldest son.

The legal system is fickle. Mulder her attorney objected to the tape and because he objected it he could not show the parts of the tape to the jurors that show a very distraught mother. The DA ONLY SHOWED THE PORTION THAT PAINTED HER IN A BAD LIGHT. The memorial service was considered private while the party was public. The grave site was bugged and taped yet that tape was not allowed to be seen by the jurors because Mulder objected to the silly string portion. HOW IS THAT FAIR?

THE OATH TAKEN BY WITNESSES IS TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH. The DA DOESN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULE WHEN PRESENTING EVIDENCE. Despite the fact that he viewed the memorial tape and saw with his own 2 eyes a grieving mother. TO ME THAT IS PROOF HE LIED. He knew the truth that Darlie did grieve at the memorial service, he heard others telling her to "buck up" and act happy. HE CHOSE TO USE ONLY THE PORTION OF THE TAPE THAT SUPPORTED HIS CASE. When you tell a jury that this tape shows a callous self absorbed woman but you have seen a tape that disproves what you just said that is a lie, or at the very least a huge lack of integrity.

Mulder did the right thing to object but the judge should have allowed the memorial service portion to be shown as it disproved what the DA was presenting as evidence that she was not unhappy with the death of her sons.

IMO SHE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL where all the evidence can be seen.

DA Davis also commented that every few years something "new" is presented by the family yet none of it is true. That is false as well.

It is very difficult to get an appeal of a conviction. There are only a few ways a lawyer can do so. The lawyers working on Darlie's case have tried the many ways allowed. Almost all have been denied. What gets me is the Judge who is ruling on these motions was the same Judge who presided over her trial. How can the State of Texas consider that to be fair blows my mind. Of course a presiding judge is never going to want a conviction overturned on a trial they sat on. It is a slap in the face of good reason why any presiding judge would be allowed to make those decisions. While emotions run high here there is a better chance of all the evidence being seen on Web sleuths than there is an an actual trial. While I don't agree with the acquittal of Casey Anthony the judge in that trial made sure the defense and the prosecution were allowed to present a full case. He sought after truth and did everything possible to allow the light of truth to be shown in his courtroom. I don't think Judge Francis did the same.

Davis also engaged in inappropriate behavior when he called the family trailer trash.

Those asking the questions about why the DNA tests have not been released is answered in the show, further tests to back up the results of the first ones done and further testing of other evidence has to be done before the results will be released. When DNA results are in Darlie's favor they have to notify the courts and then the courts will have DNA tests done again to see if they come up with the same results. Based on some of the results the courts will allow further testing to be done on additional evidence. Based on some of the results the courts may allow the fingerprints to be submitted to AFIS if some proof of a unknown person comes back from the dual testing done.

I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE... Lets say the carpet pieces held for evidence show blood that does not belong to any known bleeding person at the scene. The appeals lawyers submit that result to the courts and the courts say OK we will retest it too as we don't just take your word for it. The court tests show yes there is unknown donor of blood at the scene and this could mean that a 4th person was bleeding at scene. Did any police personnel or emergency responders have a bleeding wound? Well no.. not that we know of , but we have their DNA profiles on file just in case. It is compared to them and it doesn't match anyone known to be at the crime scene. The court will feel compelled in the face of this new evidence that further testing of items need to be done. They can submit the fingerprints to AFIS and Bingo it comes up with some possible matches of several suspects. They have DNA on file for those people and it matches the DNA FOUND ON THAT CARPET! I don't remember the exact number of points required to make a positive fingerprint match but the print does not have enough to meet that criteria, that is why they may come up with several suspects instead of just 1. The DNA match up along with the few points matching does back up the claim of an intruder. That evidence alone does not mean they could convict the matching person but it may be enough to grant a new trial as proof a 3rd party was in home at time of crime.

Especially because Darlie Kee has been accused of jumping the gun and releasing info that cannot be supported she is following the lawyers advice to hold her tongue and let the process complete before she says anything about it. Darlie does not want to spend the rest of her life in prison so she wants to prove she is innocent and not have her sentence commuted to life in prison.

The stress of doing all she can to save her daughter, take care of a now very ill Drake and all the normal everyday stresses are taking a toll on her and it shows. Instead of an angry, combative mom. We see a very worn out from all the legal wrangling mother who would absolutely lay down and die should the State execute her daughter. She has lost 2 grandsons brutally murdered and to watch her daughter die too would cause such a heart break that she feels she would never recover from it. THIS KIND OF DEVOTION COMES FROM LOVE. Since we all learn how to be parents from our own parents we have to surmise that Darlie was shown love as a child and would show the same kind of love and devotion to her own children. I know of no other case where the convicted woman has held on to the claim of innocence as long as Darlie has - over 15 years. If you want to judge someone on their behavior look at all that has been done by the family to free their daughter, sister, mother, daughter-in-law etc. How could so many people close to her believe her guilty with the evidence that was used to convict her. They don't and haven't waivered because the person they knew was not the person the prosecution made her out to be.

 

[Sinsaint]

how can you recognize those items as towels? they could be articles of clothing but even if they are towels, there's no evidence to suggest that Darlie is the one who retrieved them ...

All clothing was accounted for. And, as I said, Darin testified he didn't get any towels. Waddell testified he didn't get any towels. Walling testified he didn't get any towels. That only leaves Darlie.

 

[Sinsaint]

Having cast-off blood on her shirt doesn't mean she wielded the knife. It only means she was in close proximity to the attack. We already know that since she was on the couch.

The analysis of the blood drops shows that they were deposited from overhead. How did they get on the back of Darlie's nightshirt if she were lying face up on the sofa,AS she claims. . IMO the drops were deposited when Darlie needed more force to get the knife to penetrate the boys bodies. There were shallow stab wounds in addition to the penetrating ones. She was kneeling on the floor and to get more force for a deep stab, had to raise the knife higher. Both boys blood dripped off that knife when she raised the knife to shoulder, or higher, height.

First, there is absolutely no way to know if at some point she wasn't laying on her side. People who are unconscious typically can't recall every position they were in prior to waking up. She woke up on her back. That doesn't mean she was in that position the entire time.

Secondly, that is not what Bevel testified to. There are five stains total. The stain on her back couldn't be directionally determined. It could have come from up to down or down to up. He couldn't make a determination either way. He decided that the stain could be consistent with that spot of blood flying over her shoulder and landing on her back with an up to down trajectory. But the stain could also be consistent with her laying on her side and the drop landing on her back with a down to up trajectory.

The other four stains were all a mixture of her blood with the boys. Three had a down to up trajectory, in his opinion. These three stains Bevel thinks are consistent with spatter, not cast-off, as the heel of her hand impacted blood and spattered up. The deepest wound to either boy was a little over five inches. The knife blade was a little over seven inches. That leaves a two inch gap where the heel of her hand could impact anything.

The fourth had an up to down trajectory, again, his opinion. This particular drop of blood supposedly flew straight up into the air, hit it's highest point then came straight back down. Of course, cast-off typically flies off of a knife tip traveling away from the perpetrator. It normally casts off on to walls, furniture, ceilings, other people who might be in the room, etc. This drop must have boomeranged back on to her.

The four stains on the front are particularly important because each one contains Darlie's blood along with either boy. When Bevel was told this was inconsistent with Darlie stabbing herself last Bevel testified that four drops of blood, from the boys, landed on the shirt. Then, in a separate event, four drops of Darlie's blood landed directly on top of the other four drops. That defies logic on multiple levels unless someone is going to tell me blood drops are magnetic.

 

[MissJ]

Sounds like the Jeff McDonald story to me.

 

[Sinsaint]

Sounds like the Jeff McDonald story to me.

Then, by all means, explain the blood evidence to me in a plausible way that has Darlie's blood mixed with the boys, meaning she was bleeding when the blood drops of both boys got on her and she got all the way down and back through the alley not leaving any blood trail nor any of her blood on the sock?

Please don't include magnetic or magical blood.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

The cut on Darlie's arm? The hesitation marks on her own neck that would have drawn some blood? Darlie lying on her side? Oh, come on.

 

[CathyR]

You are forgetting one very important fact..... the blood of both boys was not found on the knife. Not one iota, not a trace amount even, of blood was found on the knife that belonged to the oldest boy Devon. Only the blood of Damon and Darlie was found on the knife. This and the size of the blade is why the family contends that there was a second knife and that has yet to be found.


This was a key reason that the DA decided to prosecute her for only the death of Damon, that and his age made it a death penalty case. He couldn't prove she killed Devon with the only crime scene weapon recovered and a missing weapon is a major problem when it came to his case. Had he tried her for both boys murders he would have a lot of problems getting a conviction.

 

[CathyR]

All clothing was accounted for. And, as I said, Darin testified he didn't get any towels. Waddell testified he didn't get any towels. Walling testified he didn't get any towels. That only leaves Darlie.

Darlies panties were never found and she went to sleep wearing them so no not all the clothing was accounted for.

 

[Sinsaint]

The cut on Darlie's arm? The hesitation marks on her own neck that would have drawn some blood? Darlie lying on her side? Oh, come on.

To be precise, two stab wounds to the arm, a stab wound to the left shoulder and one incised wound to the neck that penetrated the muscle that was cleanly cut and had no signs of being overlapped with a previous cutting attempt. Or in your terms, minus any hesitation wound.

Dr. Vincent DiMaio testified that the injuries to Darlie's arms were classic defense wounds. Had she died, and he performed her autopsy, he would have listed them as such in his report. He also testified that while her neck wound is considered medically "superficial" that only meant it was superficial to the sheath. The injury itself was serious. So much so that she suffered from anemia from the blood loss.

And yes, she could have been on her side at some point unless you're going to tell me that people can't move once they are unconscious.