Video figures into appeal of convicted murderer Darlene Gentry

Apr 27, 2008 Read more: Waco Tribune-Herald 123

“That is the only thing that convicted her”

An appellate lawyer for convicted murderer Darlene Gentry argued Friday that she should receive a new trial because an incriminating video of her was captured in violation of her rights. via Waco Tribune-Herald

Read more
Harvey

Saint John's, Antigua and Barbuda

#102 Jul 24, 2013
jerryl South africa wrote:
There's a lot of woman like darlene that got away with murder out there enjoying the fine style of living and insurance..well she closed the case herself by going too find the murder weapon! Hope someday she will confess and let the truth out and find peace with God.
But the gun recovered from the lade was NOT matched as the murder weapon.(TV is for entertainment, the viewer is 'encouraged' to make this wrong assumption.)
Harvey

Saint John's, Antigua and Barbuda

#103 Jul 24, 2013
Darlene Gentry may be guilty of this murder. Non of us on this blog site know for sure. But what we all do know for absolute sure, those who dondemn her - are also the people who condemn:
Gordon Steidi
Laurence Adams
Alan Gell
Dan Bright
Ryan Matthews
Ernest Willis
Derek Jamison
Harold Wilson
John Ballard
Glen Chapman
and more than 73 others.
All sentenced to death row. And all later proven innocent and released by the Federeal Courts.
How do we fel now ?
Karma

Louisville, KY

#104 Jul 30, 2013
She is guilty and on top of that a spoiled brat who thought money was more important than the father of her childrens life . Ask her in laws. And the evidene.....
JonnyDeath

Geneva, OH

#105 Sep 18, 2013
If she didn't do it, she for damn sure knows who did yet says nothing?

She's guilty and that's all that matters. Too many bizarre acts by this woman. Her husband is dying and she mentions this after describing the crime scene.
She goes fishing for a gun that wasn't matched NOR EXCLUDED as the murder weapon.

Do you retards not get this?
THE GUN WAS NOT EXCLUDED AS THE WEAPON WHICH FIRED THE BULLET.
What's your next theory, it was suicide and she was afraid of being blamed for murder?

She covered her tracks just poorly.
Circumstantial evidence is BAD evidence but, it is still EVIDENCE.
They had enough to convict her and why not take a plea bargain?
Because people beat these convictions based on circumstantial evidence ALL THE TIME on appeal.
Harvey

Saint John's, Antigua and Barbuda

#106 Sep 19, 2013
JonnyDeath wrote:
If she didn't do it, she for damn sure knows who did yet says nothing?
She's guilty and that's all that matters. Too many bizarre acts by this woman. Her husband is dying and she mentions this after describing the crime scene.
She goes fishing for a gun that wasn't matched NOR EXCLUDED as the murder weapon.
Do you retards not get this?
THE GUN WAS NOT EXCLUDED AS THE WEAPON WHICH FIRED THE BULLET.
What's your next theory, it was suicide and she was afraid of being blamed for murder?
She covered her tracks just poorly.
Circumstantial evidence is BAD evidence but, it is still EVIDENCE.
They had enough to convict her and why not take a plea bargain?
Because people beat these convictions based on circumstantial evidence ALL THE TIME on appeal.
May I ask, what are your qualifications (or experience) of Appeal matters, which allows you to make these wild allegations ?
Harvey

Saint John's, Antigua and Barbuda

#107 Sep 20, 2013
It was BAD evidence which convicted those innocent persons listed at 24 July. None of them got off on any technicality. Each of those cases were able to prove beyond all possible doubt that they did not commit the crimes (and in some cases prove just who actually did).
Now let us be honest with ourselves. If this happend to YOU - would you be concerned ?
NCS

Salt Lake City, UT

#108 Jan 10, 2014
Here is the thing, everyone here is ASSUMING you KNOW what happened because you watch the shows, read the press, see what THEY want you to see and hear, agreed, we should see ALL of the evidence. Not just what a few people decide. To claim she is GUILTY because she was not freaking out on the 911 call, or because she is a nurse and could not help him- so here is one for the books, I am a surgeon, i deal with blood and guts all the time, when it is someone I don't know, I am just fine, however, my husband sliced his finger open, i passed out, when i came to, he had to help me into the car, wrap his own hand, i could not even deal with it. Second example, my sister had a baby that died, i found him dead, her husband who called 911 he was not freaking out, he was not screaming, he was calm, but calm from shock, the "oh god, what has happened in awe" kind of calm, you cant judge people because they don't react the way you would or how you think they should, we are all made of different make-up. My opinion is this- how can anyone point and say "guilty" unless you "SAW IT HAPPEN" or there was a picture of it happening, or something. The lake thing- i would have done the same thing- if I thought the gun was there- dam skippy i would have looked, i would want to find the person- and who cares if the gun was there- it wasn't the one that killed him- where is that one?
Gerry

Havant, UK

#110 Jan 20, 2014
Such a stunning looking girl... I would let her out just for that reason
Harvey

Saint John's, Antigua and Barbuda

#111 Jan 20, 2014
‘Proof’ is only a concept

Different people generally take different views on almost everything. Since the first sighting of an unidentified object in the sky (flying saucer ?) there have been those who quite accept that evidence as sufficient to believe it means we are being visited by intelligent aliens from another planet. Other persons claim they will only accept the evidence of flying saucers when one lands on the White House lawn and they can walk up to it and kick the tires. Neither persons ‘know’– but each will come to believe – and therefore believe they ‘know’, when they have each received those different levels of evidence which has reached their level of satisfaction. That level where thy have become persuaded. Most of us might currently not have received that level of satisfaction of evidence which persuades us about flying saucers – one way or the other. So we wait, hopefully with open minds.

In a court of law a jury is tasked to begin with an open mind. This is in itself a limited concept, but it is the best beginning we currently use. On hearing evidence in a trial each member of the jury will not only have their own unavoidable pre-conceptions (they could never have elected to vote without them) but each will have their own level of feeling that an issue is proven. Evidence which persuades one may not persuade another but when weight of evidence reaches that point for the individual where the balance of belief is persuaded, then that juror comes to believe an issue is ‘proven’ because that juror believes they come to ‘know’ what has happened. As natural and logical as this process is, it is also frequently wrong in determining the truth about events. No person, no matter what level of evidence has come to persuade them, can ever fully ‘know’ the truth unless that person was present at the event.
steve

High Springs, FL

#112 Feb 11, 2014
I just want her to give me head
Harvey

Saint John's, Antigua and Barbuda

#113 Feb 11, 2014
That's only because you need one
just me

Hattiesburg, MS

#114 Feb 26, 2014
i believe she is innocent and was set up. I will take her in to my home and not sleep with one eye open, of course I wasn't at the trail or question her my self. I seen the show even though it was years ago, I have a gut feeling there is more to it. I cant believe she killed him her self. I say let her go
The Saint

Houston, TX

#115 Mar 1, 2014
Pretty looks come with mental problems.(narcissism)
They think they are smarter than everyone, until they are not getting their way then WATCHOUT! They will kill your ass, and sleep like a baby the same night. Jodi Arias, Susan wright, Darlee Routier, Darlene are all the same, they will either target kids, or people when the are vulnerable.(most of the time sleeping) Another term for these monsters is psychopath, but they can hide it behind charm, and sickening (ass kissing) sweetness UNTIL they see you in a good spot to attack.
Watch your ass boys, and girls these types are everywhere!
Good luck.....

Since: Apr 14

Franklin, TN

#116 Apr 23, 2014
I'm thinking that the rubber glove with the 22 caliber shell casing wrapped inside should not have been allowed as evidence, as it was obtained illegally . While Gentry was at the police station being questioned, police were searching her home. At the advice of her attorney, she terminated the interview and the search of her home. While police were still searching her home, they were told to stop the search. It was then and only then that they removed the glove from the garbage can and took it from the house. There were never any photos took of the glove in the can. This should never been presented to the jury as evidence .
Ddubbs

Oklahoma City, OK

#117 Apr 23, 2014
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read the gun found in the lake could not be matched exactly to the murder weapon, but could not be excluded. I am not a ballistics expert (although I am very knowledgeable regarding firearms), but couldn't the fact that it was at the bottom of a pond change the hammer markings on the casing. Corrosion could do that. Is that why it couldn't be matched exactly? Also, regarding how it got in the pond, an accomplice could have ditched the gun or she could have hidden it very well before the police got there and ditched it herself later. The police search was interupted. I think a few of the inconsistincies look more like an accomplice helped her instead of her being innocent. Going back to the pond makes her look very guilty. I think justice was served to Darlene, but I would be happy to look at additional evidence if it exists.
Harvey

London, UK

#118 Apr 23, 2014
The casing was not in the gun found in the pond.
Police prompt attendance at the scene preculuded Darlene from making the 40+miles round trip journey to dispose of the gun in the pond.
The gun in the pond was not matched as the murder weapon.
The further evidence which Ddubbs says (quite reightly, in my opinion) ought to be reviewed has not been released by the DA's office.
We are right to ask - why not? What have they got to hide?
What are they afraid of?
Harvey

London, UK

#119 Apr 23, 2014
The casing was not in the gun found in the pond.
Prompt Police attendance at the scene precluded Darlene making the 40+ miles round trip to dispose of the gun in the pond.
As trained professionals in the evidence search business the number of Police & Detectives at the scene would have found the murder weapon - had it been there. They certified it was not.
Another person could have removed the murder weapon.
The gun in the pond was not matched as the murder weapon.
As Ddubbs points out,(and quite rightly, in my opinion), we should be allowed to look at the additional evidence which has not been released by the DA's office. Why not?
What have thy got to hide?
Ddubbs

Ruston, LA

#120 Apr 23, 2014
Harvey,
I know the casing was allegedly found in the house. I meant corrosion to the hammer due to being immersed. And once again, I'm pretty sure that I read it could not be matched exactly , but could not be excluded. I would think corrosion of the hammer and gun overall could change the way a hammer strikes a casing when a gun is fired. Seems like it would be more true in the case of a rimfire cartridge (.22 caliber). Would like to see a forensic ballistic expert's opinion on the matter. Anyway, seems that she has some ammunition to fire in her appeal. I guess we'll see how everything plays out.
Ddubbs

Ruston, LA

#121 Apr 23, 2014
One more thing. It sounds like they tried to match the casing. Was there any attempt to match the bullet to rifling in the gun? The bullet may have been destroyed. I know .22s can fragment which may have made the bullet and rifling impossible to compare. Seems like there is a lot of information missing here. Would love to know more. Anyone know a good source for evidence review in this case?
North Texas

Sherman, TX

#122 Apr 29, 2014
TEX wrote:
Darlene Gentry is a cute Texas woman railroaded by the town of Robinson,TX,and the Texas Rangers.They violated this womans guaranteed constitutional rights and she didn't recieve a fair trial.TEX
I AGREE! NOW, that I KNOW the JUSTICE system is SNAKY !! and will do sneaky and illegal acts to satisfy their own careers, I agree! How do we go about getting this innocent girl a fair trial?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Baytown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Houston Cops Shoot "Aspiring Rapper". 29 min Whatsamattayou 53
Murder in South Carolina 53 min Elaine 47
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) 2 hr Thomas 0 Caldwell 788
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) 2 hr Thomas 0 Caldwell 631
accident on fairmont 17 hr Heavy Fed 6
My crazy Facebook friend Fri Heavy Fed 1
Hate Fri Whatsamattayou 22

Flood Warning for Harris County was issued at April 18 at 11:33AM CDT

More from around the web

Baytown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]