My wife and I watched a 20/20 documentary on this case last night and it was an incredibly frustrating. Quick rundown of the case, her two sons were stabbed to death, and Darlie herself was attacked (cut to the neck), stab wound on the forearm, cuts on the fingers. Darlie claims someone entered their house and attacked, while the state decided that Darlie was the prime suspect. Fast forward to today and Darlie has been sitting on death row for 22 years.

Is anyone else familiar with the case? If so, what are your thoughts? Given everything I've seen I think she is 100% innocent, not just "not guilty." This small Texas town basically assassinated her character because she had breast implants, wore a lot of jewelry, and was more or less an "outsider" to the community.There was a video of her and her family celebrating her oldest sons birthday at his grave, spraying silly string and smiling, that appears to have been the nail in the coffin for her. Which, still, is such a bullshit reason to convict a woman. People grieve in different ways, and due to some police fuckery, they failed to show illegally acquired video from earlier in the day when the family had a prayer service, and you could hear Darlie audibly crying her eyes out.

Justin, I watched it last night and couldn't believe what I was seeing.  That church-lady jurist was just crazy and how she could ever be allowed to serve on a jury is beyond me.  I think the big-city attorney thought he was going to waltz in there and get an easy win only to find out the local yokels are a lot more concerned about one's perceived character flaws that they are the facts of a case.

posted by Tom

Justin, I watched it last night and couldn't believe what I was seeing.  That church-lady jurist was just crazy and how she could ever be allowed to serve on a jury is beyond me.  I think the big-city attorney thought he was going to waltz in there and get an easy win only to find out the local yokels are a lot more concerned about one's perceived character flaws that they are the facts of a case.

That juror was driving my wife and I crazy. The conclusions she jumped to because Darlie wore a lot of jewelry? It was unreal watching her parts of the interview.

"Well, I would never do that, so obviously she murdered her children." WTF?

I’ll have to check this out when I get a chance.

I saw this too.  I couldn't believe it.

For the record, I think she did it, but there's too much subjectivity in the case against her.  I don't think she should have been convicted.

posted by O-Trap

I saw this too.  I couldn't believe it.

For the record, I think she did it, but there's too much subjectivity in the case against her.  I don't think she should have been convicted.

What lead you to believe she did it? There was certainly enough reasonable doubt that she should not have been convicted, I'm glad to see you come to that conclusion. Though, you're a reasonable person so that's not a big surprise. 

posted by justincredible

What lead you to believe she did it? There was certainly enough reasonable doubt that she should not have been convicted, I'm glad to see you come to that conclusion. Though, you're a reasonable person so that's not a big surprise. 

The big thing was the overall sentiment and demeanor during the 'birthday party'.  That seemed too light-hearted and carefree for a grieving mother so close to the death of her murdered son, but in fairness, that's subjective and circumstantial, so it shouldn't be used against her in court.  Still, because of it, I don't buy that she's that upset that the kids are gone.  The only reason I could think of that she wouldn't be were if she didn't actually want them around as much as she made it appear.

The sock is a pretty strong piece to cast reasonable doubt, but contrary to some of her defenders, if it were planted, I think the location makes sense.  It's far enough from the house to make it seem unlikely that she just chucked it out a back window, but it's close enough that any murder investigation's sweep is going to catch it (assuming competence).

Couple that with the fact that she picked up the knife and worried about her fingerprints on in during the call to 9-1-1 (which seems like a ridiculous thing for which to pause from worrying about your children), if one forensic countermeasure was intentional, it's pretty reasonable to believe that both might have been.

Still, alternative theories about what "could" have happened aren't evidence, and neither is a mother being unusually good-spirited at her son's freshly-buried graveside, so I definitely don't think they meet the burden of proof.

Certainly, if they ever get around to checking the bloody fingerprint, and it's not hers, I'd have to re-evaluate my position.

The fact that they have refused to check the fingerprint is painfully frustrating. I can understand people questioning the video of her at the birthday celebration, but I also understand that people grieve in different ways. Also, every other family member there was also happy and smiling and laughing. I can't imagine every single member of her family wasn't upset the kids were dead. Add in the fact that the prosecution failed to show the earlier video of the family prayer service because they likely acquired it illegally, makes that bit of evidence even more frustrating.

never heard of it or her. Is it on Netflix or what did you stream it on?

having not seen it or know anything about it, it’s most likely her that did it. It’s hard to believe a knife wielding intruder with the intent to kill everyone just came into the house. 

posted by justincredible

The fact that they have refused to check the fingerprint is painfully frustrating. I can understand people questioning the video of her at the birthday celebration, but I also understand that people grieve in different ways. Also, every other family member there was also happy and smiling and laughing. I can't imagine every single member of her family wasn't upset the kids were dead. Add in the fact that the prosecution failed to show the earlier video of the family prayer service because they likely acquired it illegally, makes that bit of evidence even more frustrating.

Yep, which means it shouldn't be a part of trial, but again, that doesn't mean we can't use it in the court of public opinion.

While I agree that the other family members also seemed to be in positive spirits, it's a unique position for her.  Not only is she the mother, which seems to result in a strong bond fairly often, but according to her statement, she was a victim of the attack.  There should have been, I think, more trouble dealing with it than that, particularly when you do see her struggling to cope with it later, mostly when the cameras are on and it seems in her best interest.

Another thing that seemed odd was the change in attack between the kids and her.  Dude stabs the kids with enough force to go through their torsos but only slashes the wife and doesn't even apply enough pressure to her throat to kill her? I mean, it's circumstantial, but that seems awfully odd.

Just as well, what would the motive have been for some rando coming in and killing the kids?  My only thought would be a tweaker looking to grab something to sell, but I doubt that would result in the competence necessary to kill the two kids quietly and get away that cleanly, all while having to fight off a hysterical woman without killing her?

Nah.  The sum total of that with the other stuff, I don't buy it.  Too much circumstance for me.

Again, that's all speculative, so it shouldn't ever be used as part of the proceedings.

ok I streamed it on demand from abc (which sucks you have to watch commercials. I’m used to hbo) and I still think she did it. Too much stuff doesn’t add up. Like why did some random guy come in to just kill everyone? And where was his foot prints? And where is any evidence of someone else being there? I won’t hold the graveyard scene against her. It was odd but we don’t know the circumstance and I don’t like to judge off a 10 second snippet of time. I would have a hard time convicting beyond a reasonable doubt. But I still think it’s likely she did it. Otherwise shes the unluckiest person in the world. 

All reasonable points, Otrap and kizer. Thanks for weighing in.