Why? What was the motive?

[accordn2me]

<snipped> SO if anything like a tape of Darlie crying before the gravesite events were able to be presented, it's likely they'd have presented it before now, <snipped>

There is a tape...a police tape. I believe it was obtained illegally. IIRC, that's why those detectives pleaded the 5th.

 

[mollymalone]

There is a tape...a police tape. I believe it was obtained illegally. IIRC, that's why those detectives pleaded the 5th.

I recall seeing on one of the documentaries I've seen about the case, which showed the few minutes before, during and after the silly string incident. In the beginning portion, some family members were hugging, and I believe some had tears, but there was no Darlie bawling her eyes out. After they hugged, they gathered around the grave and at that point the string incident occurred.

Regardless of whether it was made by LE or other media, if it was a crucial part of her appeal it would have been presented, and possibly has. However, it's clear that in all the appeals up to now, the tape isn't as crucial as some would like to think towards Darlie's innocence.

Any tape of her crying over the gravesite or elsewhere has no real bearing on the case IMO. It's the blood evidence, it's the 16 different stories Darlie made up and told LE, on the stand, and even after incarcerated. That's why the appeals were/are focused on testing of evidence, not video tapes.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

One would think a "top-notch defense attorney" like Mulder supposedly was would have shown the other tape in its entirety. One would think "one of the best defense attorneys" money could buy would have made a big deal out of the fact that two of the lead detectives had to plead the Fifth amendment to keep from incriminating themselves on the stand concerning this tape that wasn't shown. But Mulder didn't do either one. Go figure. :loser:is what comes to my mind when I think of Mulder.

Excuse me, but the cops were being sued. That's why they took the 5th. If the family wanted everything to come out in court, they could have waited to file their suit against the cops. But they didn't. Wonder why? Its so this issue COULD NOT come up. The cops prevailed in that suit by the way.

 

[accordn2me]

:laugh:

Excuse me, but the cops were being sued. That's why they took the 5th. If the family wanted everything to come out in court, they could have waited to file their suit against the cops. But they didn't. Wonder why? Its so this issue COULD NOT come up. The cops prevailed in that suit by the way.

You're excused. :innocent:

Let's see.....family suing cops....that's civil isn't it? Why plead the 5th (remain silent as not to incriminate oneself....) in Darlie's trial?

Was LE's taping of the private graveside service legal? Do you know why there was no tap (sound) as well as video?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

:laugh:You're excused. :innocent:

Let's see.....family suing cops....that's civil isn't it? Why plead the 5th (remain silent as not to incriminate oneself....) in Darlie's trial?

Was LE's taping of the private graveside service legal? Do you know why there was no tap (sound) as well as video?

You don't know much about civil litigation, do you? :doh: :doh: The family lost, so I guess that pretty much answers your last question, no?

 

[accordn2me]

You don't know much about civil litigation, do you? :doh: :doh: The family lost, so I guess that pretty much answers your last question, no?

No.

I'm not a lawyer, if you can believe that! I don't know the answers to the questions I ask. :blowkiss:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

No.

I'm not a lawyer, if you can believe that! I don't know the answers to the questions I ask. :blowkiss:

You should be more careful about those questions!!! LOL

The attorneys were being sued civally by the Routiers. Anything they said about the bugging of the grave during the criminal trial could have been used against them in the civil trial. Since there was nothing that was on the tape that the state needed to use against the Routiers at the criminal trial, there was no need for the officers to even speak about it. So, why on God's green earth would they answer questions that were unnecessary? You already know that if there was anything on that tape that could have helped Darlie, it would have been shown at every opportunity during the trial and at every media event and interview after the trial.

Do you honestly think that bringing the fact that the police officers took the fifth in this instance into the conversation now only to be shown the truth helps Darlie at this point or hurts her further? You may think that you can help her by trying to throw these little tidbits out there, but when you can't come up with anything substantitive after you throw them out, you honestly remind me of Darlie on the witness stand when Toby was questioning her and she had to break down because she had no answers to the hard questions.

 

[DebC]

However, it's clear that in all the appeals up to now, the tape isn't as crucial as some would like to think towards Darlie's innocence.

Any tape of her crying over the gravesite or elsewhere has no real bearing on the case IMO. It's the blood evidence, it's the 16 different stories Darlie made up and told LE, on the stand, and even after incarcerated. That's why the appeals were/are focused on testing of evidence, not video tapes.

I agree. The blood evidence and her 16 versions of the night's events. That's what made the jury convict her.

 

[whitywendy]

You should be more careful about those questions!!! LOL

The attorneys were being sued civally by the Routiers. Anything they said about the bugging of the grave during the criminal trial could have been used against them in the civil trial. Since there was nothing that was on the tape that the state needed to use against the Routiers at the criminal trial, there was no need for the officers to even speak about it. So, why on God's green earth would they answer questions that were unnecessary? You already know that if there was anything on that tape that could have helped Darlie, it would have been shown at every opportunity during the trial and at every media event and interview after the trial.

Do you honestly think that bringing the fact that the police officers took the fifth in this instance into the conversation now only to be shown the truth helps Darlie at this point or hurts her further? You may think that you can help her by trying to throw these little tidbits out there, but when you can't come up with anything substantitive after you throw them out, you honestly remind me of Darlie on the witness stand when Toby was questioning her and she had to break down because she had no answers to the hard questions.

Jeana - :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:....enough said...:silenced:

 

[CyberLaw]

Fact: Darlie "invited" the media to the portion of the tape that "had the silly" string event recorded. That means it was "anticipated" consent to, expected to be made public.

Fact: LE DID not have "legal permission to "bug" the grave site. This would and is illegal. Therefore when the police "pleaded" the 5th, they were not going to implicate themselves in illegal and criminal conduct that would result in criminal charges. Hence "incriminate" yourself. No one is required to give testimony that would "provide" evidence against them.

That is why the "silly" string video was played for the jury and made public but the "alleged" graveside "mourning" was not. One is legal, the other is not. Sorry to disagree, but Mulder could not use "illegally" obtained evidence in defence of his client.

I feel it is "odd" that Darlie wanted the "party" made public, but not the mourning. But again, that is the weird and warped mind of Darlie in play. You would think that she would want to play up the "grieving" mother who was "victimized" and her two boys brutally murdered just feet from her, a horiffic crime, and her "mouring" the death of her two boys. But no, she wanted the whole world to "know" that she was throwing a "death" birthday party for the boys, dressed in cut off shorts chomping on gum.

A week after the boys deaths, she came across to the jury as a mother who was not "bothered" in the least that her two boys were stabbed to death and are buried. No she seemed happy............at the death of her two boys and that is what the jury saw.

 

[Ashley]

That is what most of us saw and still remember til this day. Everything she did at the silly string party was an affront, with no decency in rememberance of the boys. Chomping on that gum was one of the worst, not to mention the spraying of the silly string. When she said "IF you knew Devon and Damon you would know they are up in heaven having the biggest old birthday party" was an insult to the boys and everyone who heard it. Yet how can one counter such a statement? She opens her mouth and anything and everything tumbles out. She is her own worst enemy. And I, for one, am happy about that. ashley

 

[mollymalone]

That is what most of us saw and still remember til this day. Everything she did at the silly string party was an affront, with no decency in rememberance of the boys. Chomping on that gum was one of the worst, not to mention the spraying of the silly string. When she said "IF you knew Devon and Damon you would know they are up in heaven having the biggest old birthday party" was an insult to the boys and everyone who heard it. Yet how can one counter such a statement? She opens her mouth and anything and everything tumbles out. She is her own worst enemy. And I, for one, am happy about that. ashley

I thought that was an abominable and appalling thing to say, especially in light of their being murdered, and saying this just days after their murders.

 

[accordn2me]

You should be more careful about those questions!!! LOL

The attorneys were being sued civally by the Routiers. Anything they said about the bugging of the grave during the criminal trial could have been used against them in the civil trial. Since there was nothing that was on the tape that the state needed to use against the Routiers at the criminal trial, there was no need for the officers to even speak about it. So, why on God's green earth would they answer questions that were unnecessary? You already know that if there was anything on that tape that could have helped Darlie, it would have been shown at every opportunity during the trial and at every media event and interview after the trial.

Do you honestly think that bringing the fact that the police officers took the fifth in this instance into the conversation now only to be shown the truth helps Darlie at this point or hurts her further? You may think that you can help her by trying to throw these little tidbits out there, but when you can't come up with anything substantitive after you throw them out, you honestly remind me of Darlie on the witness stand when Toby was questioning her and she had to break down because she had no answers to the hard questions.

(my bold) Honestly, I don't understand the question!

Honestly, I'm not "trying to help Darlie." I'm trying to understand what happened here. The entire thing baffles me. The thing that disturbs me, almost more than Mulder's sorry no-defense, is that her court-appointed public defenders were going with the defense of "Darin did it." Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned, if one of them did it, the other one is guilty and they should both be on death row.

You can blame it on ignorance, I'm blonde, I'm slow, whatever, but at this point, I'm still at the place where I believe there could have been an outside intruder. Given the latest (years ago) revelation that Darin sought out someone to "hit" the house so he could collect insurance money....if that were true, he'd still be guilty in my book. However, like much in this case, that is still pure speculation as far as I can see.

Mulder didn't do a damn thing to help Darlie in her trial. So I definitely disagree with your statement that I highlighted in red. Given the fact that Mulder presented no defense, I think Darlie should have a new trial.

 

[cami]

I thought that was an abominable and appalling thing to say, especially in light of their being murdered, and saying this just days after their murders.

I couldn't agree more with both you and Ashley. Darlie opens mouth and inserts both feet. I thought is was a despicable thing for her to say, my mouth fell open when I heard it...LOL. it's always open anyway I'm told...

 

[cami]

(my bold) Honestly, I don't understand the question!

Honestly, I'm not "trying to help Darlie." I'm trying to understand what happened here. The entire thing baffles me. The thing that disturbs me, almost more than Mulder's sorry no-defense, is that her court-appointed public defenders were going with the defense of "Darin did it." Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned, if one of them did it, the other one is guilty and they should both be on death row.

You can blame it on ignorance, I'm blonde, I'm slow, whatever, but at this point, I'm still at the place where I believe there could have been an outside intruder. Given the latest (years ago) revelation that Darin sought out someone to "hit" the house so he could collect insurance money....if that were true, he'd still be guilty in my book. However, like much in this case, that is still pure speculation as far as I can see.

Mulder didn't do a damn thing to help Darlie in her trial. So I definitely disagree with your statement that I highlighted in red. Given the fact that Mulder presented no defense, I think Darlie should have a new trial.

Mulder had a guilty client who wouldn't keep her mouth shut...a nightmare for an attorney. He had little to no defense to present.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

(my bold) Honestly, I don't understand the question!

Honestly, I'm not "trying to help Darlie." I'm trying to understand what happened here. The entire thing baffles me. The thing that disturbs me, almost more than Mulder's sorry no-defense, is that her court-appointed public defenders were going with the defense of "Darin did it." Like I said before, as far as I'm concerned, if one of them did it, the other one is guilty and they should both be on death row.

Okay. Let's begin with the bolded part of your post, ok? What does this tell us? It tells us that even her defense attorneys KNOW that there's pretty good evidence (okay, damn good evidence) that there was NO ONE ELSE in the house that night. What I believe, and what most people believe, is that they're not actually trying to say that Darin did it. What they trying to do is show that there's a chance, albeit a slim chance, that Darlie didn't do it and Darin did. All this will is supposed to do is get the idea of reasonable doubt into one juror's mind. If they can do that, then she's not guilty. However, in order to do that, they have to go one step further and show some evidence that Darin did it. In my opinion, they cannot do so. So, what they're left with is (a) someone in that house killed those boys; and (b) it wasn't Darin. While I tend to agree with you that Darin knows more than he's ever said in public, the police cannot prove that he had anything to do with it. All they've got are the same ideas that we've got that he's involved. There is, however, plenty of evidence to prove that Darlie had something to do with it and that's why she's where she is today.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

You can blame it on ignorance, I'm blonde, I'm slow, whatever, but at this point, I'm still at the place where I believe there could have been an outside intruder. Given the latest (years ago) revelation that Darin sought out someone to "hit" the house so he could collect insurance money....if that were true, he'd still be guilty in my book. However, like much in this case, that is still pure speculation as far as I can see.

Mulder didn't do a damn thing to help Darlie in her trial. So I definitely disagree with your statement that I highlighted in red. Given the fact that Mulder presented no defense, I think Darlie should have a new trial.

If Darin hired someone to come in and kill Darlie, why isn't she dead? There was still plenty of time to kill her after the boys died. And, while I don't think there is any harm in you speculating that Darin did hire someone, there needs to be proof of it and there is none.

I don't believe ineffective counsel is mentioned in the appellate briefs, but I may be wrong. I think they'll have a damn hard time proving ineffective counsel, considering they see what the rest of the death row population has had to deal with in terms of defense attorneys, but you're entitled to your opinion on this. I still am trying to get you to understand that a defense attorney is only as good as his client will allow him to be and all of that pretty much went out the window when Darlie and Darin decided to get on the witness stand. By the time they were done testifying, the dam had broken and there was no getting the floodgates of lies closed after that.

 

[CyberLaw]

The choice that the jury had was a)did an intruder "murder" the boys and what is the evidence that supports that and b)did Darlie murder the boys and what evidence is there to support that.

If you have no evidence that an intruder entered the house and murdered the boys, then you have no choice but to outright reject that "defense". If you find that there is ample evidence that Darlie murdered the boys then she is conivcted.

How could Mulder "provide" evidence of an intruder when there is none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. But the DA had ample evidence shown at trial that Darlie did murder the two boys. So you can present a "defence" but if you have nothing to convince the jury, then they have nothing to go on.

Some Lawyers can come up "with creative" defenses because it their obligation to "defend" their client, that does not mean that the defense will be believed or the defence is credible, but it is after all a a defence.

So to say that "Mulder" offered no defense is just not accurate, he tried to refute the evidence against Darlie, he tried the "intruder" card, he tried and tried, but again no evidence to support his defence "theory" of an intruder.

Many, many "convicted" people are in prison because they testified on the stand. They somehow "think" that they are smarter and "more" convincing then they are given credit for. But they fail to see how they "come off" when testifying, they are subject to cross, questions they could not prepare for, stories that are not credible, with "I can't remember" I don't know. A lawyers "worst nightmare" is having a client testify. It is as if, all the hard work a lawyer has done is "undone" by his client wanting to "give evidence" on the stand.

All a person can do is sit back and "cringe". But if the client against advice gives evidence, then the lawyer cannot prevent them from doing so. After all they are the "client" and the person with the law degree and experience is "just the lawyer". The client "directs" the lawyer and the lawyer "advises" the client, if the client heeds the advice of the lawyer is a whole different story.

 

[mollymalone]

The choice that the jury had was a)did an intruder "murder" the boys and what is the evidence that supports that and b)did Darlie murder the boys and what evidence is there to support that.

If you have no evidence that an intruder entered the house and murdered the boys, then you have no choice but to outright reject that "defense". If you find that there is ample evidence that Darlie murdered the boys then she is conivcted.

How could Mulder "provide" evidence of an intruder when there is none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. But the DA had ample evidence shown at trial that Darlie did murder the two boys. So you can present a "defence" but if you have nothing to convince the jury, then they have nothing to go on.

Some Lawyers can come up "with creative" defenses because it their obligation to "defend" their client, that does not mean that the defense will be believed or the defence is credible, but it is after all a a defence.

So to say that "Mulder" offered no defense is just not accurate, he tried to refute the evidence against Darlie, he tried the "intruder" card, he tried and tried, but again no evidence to support his defence "theory" of an intruder.

Many, many "convicted" people are in prison because they testified on the stand. They somehow "think" that they are smarter and "more" convincing then they are given credit for. But they fail to see how they "come off" when testifying, they are subject to cross, questions they could not prepare for, stories that are not credible, with "I can't remember" I don't know. A lawyers "worst nightmare" is having a client testify. It is as if, all the hard work a lawyer has done is "undone" by his client wanting to "give evidence" on the stand.

All a person can do is sit back and "cringe". But if the client against advice gives evidence, then the lawyer cannot prevent them from doing so. After all they are the "client" and the person with the law degree and experience is "just the lawyer". The client "directs" the lawyer and the lawyer "advises" the client, if the client heeds the advice of the lawyer is a whole different story.

Absolutely. Also, didn't Mulder want to bring up the "Darin could have done it" defense at first in order to show that Darlie wasn't the only one who could have done it, and Darlie refused?

 

[mollymalone]

I couldn't agree more with both you and Ashley. Darlie opens mouth and inserts both feet. I thought is was a despicable thing for her to say, my mouth fell open when I heard it...LOL. it's always open anyway I'm told...

:angel: Whoever said that is exaggerating!

It was an unusual thing to say at the least, but then, so were the 16 different stories of what occurred too.