Darren Mack Caught

[paperbackreader]

Originally posted by Tonja
If this is true about Weller and Charla, then I can see Mack getting convicted of a much lesser charge. Hopefully, this is not true and only a rumor going around.

Why would you think this? Murder by passion?

[magpie1]

Although no one seems to know for sure what Darren Mack did in the immediate aftermath of the murder/shooting, it is known that he did travel into California, and did end up first in Baja and then on the Mexico mainland.

The authorities and reporters speculate that Mack drove from Reno, through California, and to the Mexico border at San Diego. No one knows if he drove that Ford Explorer over the border or left it somewhere in the San Diego area. He evidently took a bus from Ensenada to Baja.

The one thing I find very curious is the preview article of the RGJ stated that among the items Darren Mack had in his possession when captured, was a key to the Explorer!

The fact that Darren Mack had the key to the Explorer indicates that he didn't just park it somewhere hoping it would be stolen - if he did, he would have made it easy by leaving the key in the car.

I'm wondering if his original idea was to go to Mexico for a week or so, and then return, pick up the car and go elsewhere?

I'm inclined to think the Ford Explorer is in a parking structure somewhere in San Diego.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by magpie1
Although no one seems to know for sure what Darren Mack did in the immediate aftermath of the murder/shooting, it is known that he did travel into California, and did end up first in Baja and then on the Mexico mainland.

The authorities and reporters speculate that Mack drove from Reno, through California, and to the Mexico border at San Diego. No one knows if he drove that Ford Explorer over the border or left it somewhere in the San Diego area. He evidently took a bus from Ensenada to Baja.

The one thing I find very curious is the preview article of the RGJ stated that among the items Darren Mack had in his possession when captured, was a key to the Explorer!

The fact that Darren Mack had the key to the Explorer indicates that he didn't just park it somewhere hoping it would be stolen - if he did, he would have made it easy by leaving the key in the car.

I'm wondering if his original idea was to go to Mexico for a week or so, and then return, pick up the car and go elsewhere?

I'm inclined to think the Ford Explorer is in a parking structure somewhere in San Diego.
Since he still had the key to the Explorer in his possession, I'll agree it's possible he intended to return to the vehicle at some point. However, the more time that passed, the less likely it would be that he would be able to, or if it were parked in a public parking lot it could be noticed and reported to LE.

As far as walking across the border, it doesn't seem likely as he had a green designer "Andiamo" suitcase with him at his surrender and how many tourists who walk into Mexico are carrying such luggage?

The most logical assumption would be that he switched license plates somewhere in California and drove the Explorer into Mexico. It could be hidden in someone's private garage or another location where he believed it wouldn't be found. What we don't know is why he went in and out of the parking garage in Sacramento. Did someone leave license plates there for him that belonged to another silver Explorer?

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by kimberly325



NRS 200.040 “Manslaughter” defined.

1. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being, without malice express or implied, and without any mixture of deliberation.

2. Manslaughter must be voluntary, upon a sudden heat of passion, caused by a provocation apparently sufficient to make the passion irresistible, or involuntary, in the commission of an unlawful act, or a lawful act without due caution or circumspection.

Kimberly:)
There are three factors that would definitely have to be explained before even considering the manslaughter option: 1) why did he rent the Ford Explorer? 2) why did he need Osborne to take Erika over to Joan Mack's house? 3) was the knife used in killing Charla normally kept in the garage in plain view? In addition, the killing of Charla is less than two hours prior to the premeditated attempted assassination of Judge Weller.

[paperbackreader]

Well, reading the links provided here, there's a lot of holes right now that nobody's filling in. More at the trial, eh?

The notion that she was sleeping with the judge sounds like folklore to me. I see he was involved in the men's movement for equal rights in divorce law, so it's more logical to assume that he shot the judge for the obvious reasons...because he was angry at the bill due.

So far, it's looking to me like he was sort of setting her up, sort of not. Anyone have a link about the murder weapon he used on her? Who walks around with a handy knife just in case? :confused:

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by paperbackreader


Anyone have a link about the murder weapon he used on her? Who walks around with a handy knife just in case? :confused:
There was a sheath for a knife found on the floor of Darren's closet.

Complete coverage of the case:
Reno Gazette-Journal - Flight of a Fugitive (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/60714008)

[TobyTiger]

Part II of 'Flight of a Fugitive' story -

A change in climate and course (http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060717/NEWS10/607170318/0/NEWS)

Included with the article is a picture of the Mexican jail cell where Mack spent one night sleeping on a concrete floor...

:read:

[magpie1]

I read both Part I and Part II, and was very surprised with the finding of clothing in Mack's suitcase that had "red stains" on them, and a pair of shoes with red stains!

I remember reading that when Darren Mack met Dan Osborne for coffee, after the murder of Charla and before the shooting of Judge Weller, Dan Osborne stated that Mack had changed his clothes.

Police found some clothing in the master bedroom of Darren Mack's condo with "red stains" on them.

It sounds like Mack scooped up some of the clothing he was wearing at the time of the murder and put them in his suitcase to dispose of elsewhere. But, he failed to dispose of it.

If the "red stains" turn out to be blood, and specifically, Charla's blood, that's some pretty incriminating evidence!

Edited to add the relevent portion from the RGJ article "Flight Of a Fugitive."

Also found in the suitcase were a pair of jeans and tan Rockport shoes, both with red stains. He also had a black belt and a black T-shirt, both with dark stains, the search warrant inventory said.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by magpie1
I read both Part I and Part II, and was very surprised with the finding of clothing in Mack's suitcase that had "red stains" on them, and a pair of shoes with red stains!

I remember reading that when Darren Mack met Dan Osborne for coffee, after the murder of Charla and before the shooting of Judge Weller, Dan Osborne stated that Mack had changed his clothes.

Police found some clothing in the master bedroom of Darren Mack's condo with "red stains" on them.

It sounds like Mack scooped up some of the clothing he was wearing at the time of the murder and put them in his suitcase to dispose of elsewhere. But, he failed to dispose of it.

If the "red stains" turn out to be blood, and specifically, Charla's blood, that's some pretty incriminating evidence!

Edited to add the relevent portion from the RGJ article "Flight Of a Fugitive."

Also found in the suitcase were a pair of jeans and tan Rockport shoes, both with red stains. He also had a black belt and a black T-shirt, both with dark stains, the search warrant inventory said.
The items with 'red stain' found in Mack's condo were: One green/yellow right shoe, one tan/green bath towel, one blue towel, one white t-shirt (hanging in walk-in closet), one pair blue denim Guess jeans. (Per Affidavits by RPD)

The murder weapon is described as a Gerber knife/dagger.

Ten days passed between the time of the murder and Mack's apprehension. When taken into custody by LE, he would have been subjected to a body search. However, there haven't been any injuries to his body mentioned in the media, or by anyone at the Mexican resort where he was staying and working out in the gym.

Yet, it seems possible that Mack cut himself with the knife/dagger. The items found in his suitcase with 'red stain' could be his own blood. His right hand was wrapped in a towel when he re-entered the condo. I can't imagine why he would leave behind (in the condo) items with Charla's blood on them and take others with him, packed with his own clothing.

[magpie1]

TobyTiger,
Those "red stained" articles of clothing and shoes are really bothering me. If Darren Mack had injured himself to the extent that there was blood on several items of clothing and on shoes, it would seem likely that he'd have some visible scars/injuries at the time of his arrest. But there's been no mention of any injuries.

In addition, there's those items you listed that the police found in Mack's condo with "red stains".

It just seems strange that he would pack some of the "red stained" pieces of clothing and leave other items behind at the condo?

[TuscanDreams]

Originally posted by magpie1
TobyTiger,
Those "red stained" articles of clothing and shoes are really bothering me. If Darren Mack had injured himself to the extent that there was blood on several items of clothing and on shoes, it would seem likely that he'd have some visible scars/injuries at the time of his arrest. But there's been no mention of any injuries.

In addition, there's those items you listed that the police found in Mack's condo with "red stains".

It just seems strange that he would pack some of the "red stained" pieces of clothing and leave other items behind at the condo?

Maybe he is colorblind and didn't notice the red clothing that he packed. Seriously, one of my assault cases ended with the perp being caught because he was colorblind and didn't see the red blood on his jeans.

He's in the big house now, with Billy bob, joe bob, bubba and the guys.

FYI, this case I'm referring to- the victim survived.

JMO of course.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by magpie1
TobyTiger,
Those "red stained" articles of clothing and shoes are really bothering me. If Darren Mack had injured himself to the extent that there was blood on several items of clothing and on shoes, it would seem likely that he'd have some visible scars/injuries at the time of his arrest. But there's been no mention of any injuries.

In addition, there's those items you listed that the police found in Mack's condo with "red stains".

It just seems strange that he would pack some of the "red stained" pieces of clothing and leave other items behind at the condo?
I know, it doesn't make sense! Yes, he most likely would have signs of injury on his body which would have been noticed. And if the 'red stain' is indeed blood (whether his or Charla's) why have these items in his luggage in Mexico? There would have been plenty of opportunity to dispose of them. And where is the other shoe like the one found in the condo with 'red stain' - was it there and didn't have anything on it so it wasn't noted in the Affidavit? It is possible he is color-blind and it is also possible this 'red stain' is not blood either. :shrug:

[TN_Profiler]

It is possible that the stains could be small and not easily visible. LE are trained to look for evidence that normal people just wouldn't see unless it was pointed out.

Is there anyone who thinks DM has absolutely nothing to do with this murder / attempted murder? I'm thinking it is just a matter of tying out some physical evidence to layer on the tons of circumstantial evidence. I really can't see him being able to avoid prosecution.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by TN_Profiler
It is possible that the stains could be small and not easily visible. LE are trained to look for evidence that normal people just wouldn't see unless it was pointed out.

Is there anyone who thinks DM has absolutely nothing to do with this murder / attempted murder? I'm thinking it is just a matter of tying out some physical evidence to layer on the tons of circumstantial evidence. I really can't see him being able to avoid prosecution.
As far as the 'red stain' it could be similar to a 'dark stain' found in the vehicle that Natalee Holloway was last seen in...it turned out to be 'chocolate'.

There already is too much circumstantial evidence linking him to the attempted murder of Judge Weller and as for who killed Charla, there is no question there. A dog can't stab someone multiple times with a knife.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by Tonja
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/NEWS10/607270360/1002

Today in the Reno Gazette Journal you will find the most recent survey on Washoe County judges. Chuck Weller, did poorly.

Do you think this recent development could be helpful to Darren's defense?
Not really. The judge has probably infuriated many people who have been in his courtroom, yet it was Darren Mack who chose to take matters into his own hands. I perceive that he felt the judge and Charla were infringing on the lifestyle he desired and he wanted to be free of both and whatever was in his way. However, he didn't give much thought as to how he'd be able to live that "desired lifestyle". He didn't have identification or a passport under another name, didn't alter his appearance and returned to resorts he'd previously been to, and was quickly identified. The aftermath didn't turn out as he'd planned.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by Tonja
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/60614002/1002&template=theme&theme=SNIPER

In today's Reno Gazette Journal, Darrin Mack's preliminary hearing has been post-poned until Aug. 30.
Thanks for keeping up on the case Tonja! Wonder when he's going to be transferred to the jail in Clark County, or are the judge and prosecutors going to be travelling to Reno?

[jerzyscott10]

I would think they would transfer him, because Reno is a very close city, this guy was well known throughout the community and, after all this, the people of Washoe County may not be able to give Darren Mack a fair trial, because some might say fry him, and others may just wanna let him go for the hell of it. It is truley horrible, the fact that this man through his great life away, now his daughter is gonna grow up without a mother or father.

and if he goes to prison, boy, prison won't be kind to him! he lived a lavish lifestyle his whole life, hemay not adjust easily

[TobyTiger]

Thanks Tonja! There are several options as you stated, and nothing has been mentioned as to which one was in play. :)

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by kimberly325


I ASSUME he's being allowed to have personal visitors now, yes?

Kimberly
I'd assume so...why are you asking? :D

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by kimberly325


Don't worry Toby! LOL Even if he were NOT in jail, he definitely would never have been my type, even on a bad day!I was just thinking of his "wanna be girlfriend, Marcy" over on MY SPACE.

K
Ohhhh yes, Marcy. He might even be desperate enough now to allow her on his visitation list! :D

[TobyTiger]

Thanks, Tonja...but we all knew that was coming! :D

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by Tonja
Darren Mack's case will be setting new laws if our upcoming legislation passes it.

The divorce case of of Mack underscores the need for a new state law designed to ensure the fairness of alimony awards.
Senator Washington from Sparks, NV is drafting a new bill that would require any alimony order over $5,000.00 to go before a peer review panel of three judges.

Washington said, ' We want to make sure that the award is not fraught with emotion, so we don't have another situation like Judge Weller."
Good work! Is this information in a news article, or somewhere I could copy it? TIA!
:)

[TobyTiger]

Thank you very much Tonja for posting that article. It is a very good idea and hope it is successful.
:)

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by Tonja
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060811/NEWS10/608110411/1016/NEWS

Mack seeks pension money.
This is an interesting problem. The money is in Darren's retirement account, so how is it Charla's? Whose earnings went into that account? Wasn't Darren the only one who was employed and contributed to the retirement account?

The other "problem" is the judge's relationship with the law firm representing the parties going after Mack's assets in a civil suit.

:confused:

[magpie1]

Originally posted by TobyTiger

This is an interesting problem. The money is in Darren's retirement account, so how is it Charla's? Whose earnings went into that account? Wasn't Darren the only one who was employed and contributed to the retirement account?

The other "problem" is the judge's relationship with the law firm representing the parties going after Mack's assets in a civil suit.

:confused:

Is Nevada a community property state? If so, I believe all funds, no matter what type of account they were in, would be subject to equal division.

[WinnL63]

Originally posted by magpie1
What sort of time frame are we looking at for the trial? I'm thinking it will be sometime next spring.

Shawn Shelton is being looked at in Louisiana for Murder of a 19 yr old boy! Over dosed!

[WinnL63]

Check out Huffs Crime Blog and put in Shawn Shelton.
The Vegas Child is not the only kid that this man has hurt!
This time killed!

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by Tonja
Mack team expands bid to oust judges.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060821/NEWS10/608210333/1002
Thanks Tonja! It appears it still may be a while before the preliminary hearing...but this is good. There definitely is a conflict with the Washoe County judges having any part in the criminal case.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by Tonja
You're welcome!


Another story appeared in the Nevada Appeal newspaper. I wasn't able to pull it up, but, it said New Details emerge in Mack case. This was an Associated Press story.

Here is just a portion of the story that I find to be interesting.

"He stabbed her body repeatedly, striking her with a knife or sharp object on her leg, forearm, wrist and throat," Clark County District Attorney Chreistopher Lalli said papers filed on Monday.
"He also inflicted injuries that resulted in blunt force trauma to large portions of her body."

Scott Freeman, said, " We are very pleased that the Las Vegas district attorney agreed with our position that at least we should have the matter heard by an independent judge from another district."
I posted that article about her injuries on the "Charla Mack" thread yesterday. It also indicated her throat was slashed.
This was the link I used:
New Details in Charla Mack's Death (http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5311780)


:hat:

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by pussycat
The story is in the RGJ. Tuesday I think.

LE seems to change their story a lot. The June 13 affidavit of Det. Chalmers (one of the detectives who found the body) states simply: “...had suffered sever incised injuries to her upper torso/neck area”.

When LE requested the search warrant on the 12th (after they’d already searched the house during the “quick protective sweep”) there was no mention of anything of particular interest in the garage other than the body and the vehicles. However, the next day, the Return for the warrant indicates “Four empty boxes, Federal .223 caliber, from garage floor”.

Also, when Det. Jenkins and DA Sattler requested the search warrant late afternoon on the 12th there was no mention of anyone having noticed anything of particular interest in plain view in the house (other than blood stained towels, etc.) during the “protective sweep” other than the rental car agreement and the so-called non specified bomb making materials. But then on June 14 Det. Jenkins filed an affidavit that said on the 12th “your affiant observed several boxes of firearm ammunition, including .223 caliber and .243 caliber rifle ammunition which was strewn about a floor in one of the bedrooms”, and “an empty rifle case”. Jenkins didn’t state in which bedroom. And I wonder why there was no mention of them on the 12th?

The Warrant Return on the 15th (which contains about 66 items, most of which state where the item was found), contains about 13 ammunition related items, NONE of which state where the item was found.

I find it fascinating ... and creepy, quite frankly ... that you seem utterly unmoved by the loss of life. You seem to aim any "emotion" you might feel in the direction of the law enforcement officials investigating the crime(s).

I have no objection to LE being monitored and otherwise held accountable for their actions. However, your "oversight" of them is not credible, IMO, due to your obvious bias (against or in favor of what, I can't be sure) and complete lack of horror regarding the manner in which Charla Mack died.

I would suggest you re-read your words: " ... there was no mention of anything of particular interest in the garage other than the body." Other than the body??!!! Or how about: " ... there was no mention of anyone having noticed anything of particular interest in plain view in the house (other than blood stained towels, etc.)." Other than blood stained-towels?!

Clearly, the BODY and the blood stained towels are of little interest to you, as is the ending of a woman's life. Your attempts to plant seeds of doubt about the investigation of the crime(s) and/or Reno LE in general would be better served if you could generate just the tiniest bit of human emotion regarding the BRUTAL DEATH of someone's mother, daughter, sister, friend, sweetheart.

:shrug:

[mphillips]

PUSSYCAT; You are completely entitled to your opinion of all of the circumstances leading up to Charlas death. I absolutely respect your opinion.

However, I slept next to Charla almost every night. Charla Mack never played the poor poor me card. she was a stay at home mother ( at darrens request) for most of her 8 year old daughters life. she volunteered on an almost constant basis at her daughters school.

All I can say is I truly hope someone you love is never brutally murdered before you have any chance to protect them or say goodbye. In my opinion your views would change dramatically...In my opinion.

[mphillips]

The restraining order that you spoke of was "temporary" and was filed in feb. of 2005 and soon after expired.

[mphillips]

Your right you dont just wake up one day and your a course supervisor. I know a lot about Landmark, you have to put in years of volunteer work before you ever get paid and most people are happy with that. As far as I know she was still in the volunteer stage with Landmark. She was a great singer, but again you dont just wake up and have a career singing. I do not know if she was going to persue that after the divorce or not.

The agreement on the money Darren had to pay Charla was for 5 years maximum..no matter what. There was no stipulation about Charla getting re-married.

Darren could have just written her a check and been done with it ,forever.

Again the support was only for 5 years!

[TobyTiger]

Unfortunately, we will never know what Charla may or may not have done after her divorce, because her estranged husband Darren Mack ended her life.

It doesn't matter whether or not she was paid by Landmark or any other entity. She had a right to live and that is why Darren Mack is being charged with her murder.

From what I have read, she was a beautiful person.
:)

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Pussycat,

I'm not sure what proof exists that Charla was looking for a free ride in the form of Darren's financial support for the rest of her life. If there's documentation you can share in that regard, I'd be interested to read it. Further, it's my understanding that all rulings in the Mack divorce case were temporary pending the final settlement. I also take issue with whether or not she violated the restraining order to stay in her vehicle ... do we know for a fact that she got out of her SUV in Darren's garage ... or was she perhaps pulled out of it?

Isn't it a fact that in most contentious divorces, especially when child custody issues and large sums of money are involved, both parties ... and their lawyers ... are essentially expected to *spin* their situations to their own advantage? I don't know whether or not Charla and her attorney are guilty of telling lies per some of the accusations I've read on these threads, however, can't the same be said of Darren's bankruptcy filing?

My point is that the Mack divorce case seemed to be unfolding much like the majority of similar cases do, and I'm at a loss to understand how Charla's defense of her position in the case was less honest than Darren's maneuverings in his own defense.

In any event, there's no way anything Charla said or didn't say, did or didn't do, thought or didn't think ... is justification for what happened to her. She may not be a particularly sympathetic victim in your view, but to gloss over Darren's alleged involvement in her death in favor of a laser-like focus on the possible missteps of LE's investigation of the crime(s) isn't productive, and indicates bias.

IMO, of course.

GGW

[FitnessMom]

Excellent post, GGW. You (nor I) could not have said it better.

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by FitnessMom
Excellent post, GGW. You (nor I) could not have said it better.

Thanks for the kind words, Fitness.

I now live in Northern Nevada after spending the last 15 years in Las Vegas, and there are many folks here and down there who believe wholesale changes in NV state government and law enforcement are long overdue. I don't necessarily disagree.

However, the Mack case is a shaky platorm to stand on for those who are looking to reform Nevada (or the family court system in general, or law enforcement in general). Darren was clearly provoked by the actions of Judge Weller and those of his estranged wife, however, his alleged response was inexcusable and indefensible.

Many who would like to make an example of this case are doing so by blaming the victim(s), thereby excusing the behavior of the alleged perpetrator. It's absurd (to say nothing of cold and callous) reasoning that dilutes some very good arguments for the necessity for changes to our systems of law and justice.

[Talamoth]

Originally posted by pussycat
Hello GollyGeeWhiz,
To me those two things make her death less tragic.

WOW. All I can say to that is. . . .WOW. Unreal. What a response. . . And I thought ice was cold. . .

[FitnessMom]

Originally posted by kimberly325


Oh my, M! You changed your posting "thingy" below your name to the left of your posts. That is quite a plug for the team! Let me guess, I bet you were one of the head cheerleaders! ;p

Kimberly :biggrin:

O/T

I didn't have anybody that I knew on the team. BUT - they're from here. I love to see kids, especially local kids do well.

Go Columbus Little League!!!

[Kelly.C]

Originally posted by Talamoth


WOW. All I can say to that is. . . .WOW. Unreal. What a response. . . And I thought ice was cold. . .



Yes.

Makes you wonder if (a) Charla was never actually paid by Landmark but instead worked as a volunteer, and (b) had some compelling reason to exit her vehicle that didn't involve violating a restraining order, "pussycat" would have reason to find her death a little more tragic.


Kelly

[Talamoth]

Originally posted by Kelly.C




Yes.

Makes you wonder if (a) Charla was never actually paid by Landmark but instead worked as a volunteer, and (b) had some compelling reason to exit her vehicle that didn't involve violating a restraining order, "pussycat" would have reason to find her death a little more tragic.


Kelly

From what I have ready of "pussycats" posts, I somehow doubt it. Reptilian comes to mind. . .

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by pussycat


Toby, on July 6 you voted that Darren should be sentenced to life without parole, so you're hardly an unbiased contributor. I suspect that no matter what the defense shows, and no matter how unlawfully evidence may have been gathered you probably would not change your vote. Maybe you should move to Reno and volunteer to be part of Lalli's Lynch Mob.
Do you honestly believe that Darren Mack did not murder Charla? If so, who in your opinion, is responsible for her death? Or is it your belief that it should be "not guilty by reason of insanity"?

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by kimberly325


Toby,
Did I need to break into my "defense attorney" mode? LOL I know you've heard it a few times now! Now, I'm not speaking for pussycat. I'm speaking for myself. Whether I think or feel that DM did this or not is totally irrelevant at this point. The FACTS are what matter, not media reports or hearsay. Unfortunately, that's ALL we have at this time to substantiate any of the alleged actions of this crime. Sure a few court documents and police reports do exist, but there is still a large part of this picture that is missing (has NOT been released to the public by a credible source). I will NOT judge without all of the FACTS. It is HIS constitutional right to receive a fair trial. Again, I don't necessarily like many of our laws, BUT they are what they are.
(snipped for space)

Kimberly :shrug:
The irony is that the "Poll" that was referenced in that post addressed to me, was actually set up by our moderator and asked "what punishment do you believe Darren Mack should receive?". Based upon that, I cast a vote and commented. And obviously, due to the question itself, I am not alone in believing he is guilty. I believe he has a right to a fair trial, as all defendants do. In some cases, it's just more obvious than others as to who the perpetrator is.
;)

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Pussycat,

I don't have any personal interest in the case. I don't know any of the parties involved. I live near Reno. The case is being closely followed here.

You could spend all of tomorrow offering up evidence that Charla was not an ideal marital partner for Darren. You could spend all of the day after offering up evidence of Reno LE investigative missteps. You could spend all of Friday offering up evidence that the Reno family court system is corrupt. You'd be wasting your time where I'm concerned.

My opinion is that in a great many marriages and divorces, partners behave immaturely and irresponsibly.

My opinion is that Darren Mack was quite determined not to take responsibility for his own contribution to the destruction of his marriage to Charla. If HE wasn't responsible, then others must be ... or so went his convoluted thinking, is my guess.

It is my opinion that Darren quite likely murdered Charla and attempted to murder Judge Weller. My opinion is that Darren Mack's alleged actions, regardless of provocation, were and are inexcusable and indefensible.

GGW

Oh ... and one more thing. It is my opinion that you're quite likely male, Pussycat. Odd nickname for a guy ... in my opinion. ;)

[Talamoth]

Originally posted by pussycat
Hey GGW, I see my popularity is growing by leaps and bounds. I feel honored to have been called “reptilian” by someone of such ill repute as Talamoth, and what was the other thing....”And I thought ice was cold.” Cool!


First of all, "pussycat", let me just clarify that my references to "cold as ice" and "reptilian" were directed specifically toward a comment you made in a post and not you personally - although I can well understand how you might have taken it as a personal attack. I don't make a habit out of insulting others but I do freely comment on the content of other's communications - as I am sure we all do. So, in that regard, I apologize.

Your comment about me as being a person of ill repute. What exactly do you mean by that, "pussycat"? What on earth are you reffering to? And that, by the way, is a direct and insulting comment specifically made about me personally. I won't report you, though, as two wrongs don't make a right. I am, however, very interested in knowing what you are referring to.

"Ill repute"? In what way? Please explain your comments and why, exactly, you think I am "someone of such ill repute".

[Kelly.C]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pussycat


...For a person to spend as much time and effort cultivating whatever skills it took to become a Course Supervisor at Landmark, an international for profit corporation, and then claim in court she’s not “capable of employment and earning money” takes the cake. And besides that she still even apparently worked there whenever she felt like it.


Two things, pc;

First, if you knew anything about Landmark, you might not make this assertion. Landmark is a cult or cult-like organization that used to be Werner Erhard's "est." Despite what they claim publically, they often destroy people's ability to communicate "effectively." The "communication course" Darren Mack taught was a direct lift from Scientology. So you don't really know whether or not Charla was paid by these people. They are notorious for using their members as slave (unpaid) labor. Using Landmark involvement as evidence of employability doesn't necessarily add up for the same reasons an involvement with the Moonies or Keith Raniere's Nexivm might be seen to actually destroy or handicap one's employability.


Second, you seem to claim some kind of clairvoyance in your assertion about a violation of a restraining order. Do you actually know why or how she came to be in the garage? I can imagine any number of possibilities or extenuating circumstances that might have gotten her out of her vehicle that may have had nothing to do with her desire to provoke him. If he had already planned to kill her, surely he could have come up with many ploys to get her into a place where he could do it without being seen.


You are making the same sort of assumptions you are criticizing others for.


Kelly

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Pussycat,

Yep, I'm female. Thanks for showing your hand by FIRST referring to me as unintelligent, close-minded and irrational, BEFORE guessing my gender. LOL!

In my opinion, you appear to have more than a few biases of your own, Pussycat. Might as well own them vs. trying to appear as though you're only interested in the facts of the case.

A few of us are onto you. ;)

GGW

[Kelly.C]

Oh and pussycat,

I think you gave it away in an earlier post you where you assert:

And, like at least a couple other bloggers I’ve seen, I believe this entire case was bred from a petri dish culture of dishonesty and corruption, and at every turn there just seems to be more of the same. If Charla Mack and her attorney had come to court and honestly stated her employment history, job skills and capabilities, and Charla hadn’t tried to hop on board the “poor poor me” Family Court Entitlement Program there’s not a doubt in my mind she’d be alive today, and the case against Darren would not exist.

...As though the courts and Charla Mack so manipulated the atmosphere and the situation that turned Darren Mack into a stark raving lunatic. Poor poor Darren; you make it out as though he had no choice and had his autonomy and his mind stolen from him by these nefarious characters.

I’m certainly not “unmoved by the loss of life” as you say. But, Charla set the wheels in motion that led to her death.

Whoa....did Charla purchase guns and knives? Did Charla train herself in their use? Did Charla practice killing on animals? Did Charla figure out how to kill someone with a knife? You say that she set the wheels in motion? Again, poor poor Darren; manipulated into a frenzy in which he has no control by this woman.


Not having known her, and based on the facts I’ve heard it just doesn’t garner much sympathy from me (as I’ll explain more).

You might want to watch out for that "no sympathy" stuff. That's one of the tenets at Landmark, by the way. They say with contempt that "sympathy is for life's victims." (It's also one of the defining characteristics of a sociopath.)


Kelly

[Talamoth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pussycat

What I see is a person who claimed to be a traditional “stay at home mom” (at least upon filing for divorce), but seemed to have plenty of time to do whatever it was she did at Landmark, whenever she felt like it. And in 23 months after the separation, she appears to have made no effort to have even applied for any sort of “employment”. Without access to the court file, however it’s just a hunch.


The last I knew, trying to milk your husband for all he's worth, and even collaborating with lawyers in order to do it, is not grounds for murder. Whether or not she coulda, shoulda, woulda got a job is really a moot point now because she is DEAD and the failure to get a job to support her and the child is also not grounds for murder.

IMO, if we are going to be critical of this case, in regard to alimony, etc., we need to look at and address the entire system. Perhaps a radical reform of laws to entitlement with regard to divorce need to be looked at. IMO, Charla was following the example of what many millions of women before her have done in the face of divorce - especially with regard to being married to a man that has money. Do I think it is right? No. My husband and I divorced and I wanted none of that "entitlement" stuff because I don't agree with it.

Who knows what really was going on but Charla doesn't deserve to be dead because of it.



I see a strong willed person with a lot of spunk who wouldn’t hesitate to get out of the car to talk with Darren for whatever reason (his request, or her desire to give him a piece of her mind, etc.) and to hell with the court order. I think she felt a sense of entitlement to violate the restraining order if and when she chose. Whatever the reason she hung around we’ll probably never know, but IMO she had the opportunity to drive off and did not.

Again, whether she violated a restraining order or not she doesn't deserve to be dead because of it. If, as a result of violating a restraining order and hanging around instead of staying in her car, an incident escalated between the two of them such that it got out of control and he killed her, then she STILL doesn't deserve to be dead. It might affect what degree of murder he would be charged with, depending on the circumstances, and, in hindsight, she should have been more careful or whatever, but she still deserved to be able to take her next breath.

I understand that you are pointing to various circumstances that might have exacerbated ill will between them and, from what I have read, neither are angels. But I don't understand why sympathy isn't in order. She will never live another day. She will never be a mother again. Her life is over. IMO, nothing she did was so heinous as to warrant non sympathy - as if she were nothing more than an insect. Of course, other things will probably come out that we have not yet heard of. At this point, however, I have heard nothing that would justify her being brutally murdered.

As to why someone would kill in their own garage? Someone who "lost it" and then fled to Mexico?

BTW, I am still waiting for a reply as to why I am "someone of such ill repute".




:patriot:

[Kelly.C]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pussycat Kelly. I appreciate your input on Landmark. I’m no authority on Landmark, although I did actually participate in an “encounter group” long ago for a few sessions. It was interesting and beneficial.

Big difference between an "encounter group" and something like Landmark, which is more like a cross between a cult and a pyramid scheme. Werner Erhard tried to capitalize on the association but there really wasn't one.


I guess I did originally assume that she was being paid if she had become a Course Supervisor, and was dispatched to the Philippines for 8 days or whatever. Whether the job skills or whatever it takes to do that carry over as marketable in some other field I don’t know. But it seems like they would.

Even paid positions at Landmark are of a very lowly nature. Because they are in the business of mind (psychological) manipulation, they have been able to persuade people to work for very little and nothing - certainly it would be exceedingly difficult to survive and raise a child on what they do pay. In a previous post, her friend states she was still in "volunteer" status.


I have a hard time believing that the average employer who saw Landmark on a resume would view it as something negative.

Unless, of course, you are aware of what type of organization Landmark is and are familiar with cults and mind control.



Until the evidence plays out I have a hard time believing that he actually planned to kill her in his own garage. That might even help an insanity plea. Who in their right mind would plan to kill someone in their own garage, and leave the body there?! If he was such a good shot why wouldn’t he just sniper her somewhere? I think the mostly likely scenario is that they probably had one of their many dramatic flair ups and this time all the built up anger erupted.

Funnily enough, the insanity plea might hold some water in the cult-watching community. Landmark, and similar "self-awareness" or "personal development"-type programs often foster and enhance impulsivity. They preach the primacy of the self (as in self-interest, selfishness, and self-centeredness). To a die-hard "believer," other people are merely extensions of one's own ego and can be dispensed with any time they become undesireable or inconvenient. (This idea is one of the things that came from Scientology.)

There's more - lots more. One can only hope that people who knew Charla and Darren at Landmark will be willing to come forward.


Kelly

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Talamoth: fabulous post. You said everything I wanted to say, and so eloquently.

:beer:

Kelly & Pussycat: I appreciate the civility and give-and-take of your posts.

:)

I suspect the train wreck that became the Mack marriage was one part Darren and one part Charla. Beyond just the everyday difficulties that marriage presents, the Macks seem to have employed and enjoyed a lifestyle that is not the norm ... from their career choices (pawn shop ownership, acting, singing) to their material wealth to their involvement with Landmark and "swinging" groups. It's safe to say they might both have been a little spoiled.

All that said ... and let's even throw in the fact that Weller's reputation as a family court judge could use a boost ... there's still no reason on God's green earth to excuse what Darren allegedly did.

He was a man of wealth and position, in good health, with 3 beautiful children, a mother and brother who love him, another potentially great 45 years ahead of him ... he had it all.

To imagine him as desperate on any level is ludicrous.

To imagine that he was pushed beyond his limits by Charla's and/or Weller's actions is equally ridiculous.

To imagine that Reno LE and/or the Reno judicial system and/or some other shadowy figure set him up is borderline lunacy.

Darren had choices. He could've chosen to pay the temporary spousal and child support as ordered and legally fought any final rulings he felt were unfair. He could've chosen to act like a mature and responsible adult, get on with his life, raise his kids, run his business, party like a rock star and do whatever else he desired.

It appears he chose another way. And is always the case in these situations, the children will suffer the most and the longest.

[Talamoth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pussycat
I may need to go to Landmark for the weekend to pump up my ego. Maybe I should morph from pussycat into CoolCat.


I like CoolCat. :cool:



I fear being accused of being Ann Coulter’s evil twin, or worse.

:lol:


I’m not unsympathetic for her. I am just not AS sympathetic in light of all the circumstances as I otherwise would be. (I guess I have come across as being MUCH LESS SYMPATHETIC). I tried to explain that in the bank robbery analogy. If the daughter had been killed I would be extremely sympathetic.

And I don’t think she “deserved” to die, and never intended to imply that in any of my posts. But IMO her own actions did contribute (for lack of a better word) to her death. Obviously you are going to remain more sympathetic than me.

I find the overall situation to be most tragic, ironic, and troublesome. We now have a child with one dead parent, and one live parent (and another 2 children with one parent in prison). The live parent (with the exception of an hour and a half out of their 45 years of life) by all reports has proven them self time and again to be a very good parent and an asset to the community. But some people now want to lock him up for a long time or kill him, and thus produce a child with two dead parents (or one dead and one in prison). If that’s not the tragedy of tragedies, irony at it’s cruelest, and a macabre reflection on society I don’t know what is.


Thanks for the thoughtful and humorous reply, CoolCat. I understand your take on the whole sympathy thing. Yes, the situation is tragic, especially when there is a child involved.

On the other hand, you say: "some people now want to lock him up for a long time or kill him, and thus produce a child with two dead parents (or one dead and one in prison). If that’s not the tragedy of tragedies, irony at it’s cruelest, and a macabre reflection on society I don’t know what is."

Are you saying that if he murdered his wife he should not be held accountable for his actions? By referencing the macabre reflection on society in relationship to Darren doing time, etc., are you saying because he has a child he should walk instead of going to prison for his crime? Do you think someone else killed her and there is a rush to judgement?

I certainly would fall into the "some people now want to lock him up for a long time. . ." category but I would feel this way about anyone who murdered someone. Of course, the amount of time served would be commensurate with the circumstances surrounding the murder. If the crime was a "crime of passion", totally not planned and happened as a result of a heated exchange between two hot heads that got out of hand, I assume a jury would find him guilty of a lesser degree of murder but he would still do time - and should IMO.

Do you think someone else shot the attorney after killing Charla and that Darren is a victim of a frame job? What are your thoughts on this?

[mphillips]

O.k first of all one thing Charla told me when she stated to me that Darren will kill her one day is..he will do it with his own hands, not a gun or a hired hit. that is what a crime of passion is, he wanted the satisfaction of doing it himself, Charla was sure of that.

As for why she went into his house ..that will haunt me until the day I die. I know Charla very well and she would never had gone into the house let alone the garage. My belief is because Dan was there she felt he would not do anything while anyone else was there. She also felt he would have never done anything in front of Erika. I believe Darren used Dan as a buffer to put Charlas mind at ease and baited her with the promise of money. ( LE found checks or copies of checks written to Charla from Darren).

I dont know if this forum is a good idea for me..there are a lot of misconceptions I can clear up but it is info only I know and I may be called as a witness at the trial.

[FitnessMom]

Originally posted by mphillips
O.k first of all one thing Charla told me when she stated to me that Darren will kill her one day is..he will do it with his own hands, not a gun or a hired hit. that is what a crime of passion is, he wanted the satisfaction of doing it himself, Charla was sure of that.

As for why she went into his house ..that will haunt me until the day I die. I know Charla very well and she would never had gone into the house let alone the garage. My belief is because Dan was there she felt he would not do anything while anyone else was there. She also felt he would have never done anything in front of Erika. I believe Darren used Dan as a buffer to put Charlas mind at ease and baited her with the promise of money. ( LE found checks or copies of checks written to Charla from Darren).

I dont know if this forum is a good idea for me..there are a lot of misconceptions I can clear up but it is info only I know and I may be called as a witness at the trial.

I was wondering if you would be a witness. Kinda thought you might.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by mphillips

(snipped for space)

I dont know if this forum is a good idea for me..there are a lot of misconceptions I can clear up but it is info only I know and I may be called as a witness at the trial.
I would also assume you may be called as a witness during the trial. If you do leave here, again thank you for what you contributed.
:)

[NevadaMom]

Originally posted by TobyTiger

I would also assume you may be called as a witness during the trial. If you do leave here, again thank you for what you contributed.
:)

I have been catching up on lots of posts here. I agree that MP probably shouldn't be here as he might be called to testify. I appreciate all he's contributed and send my heartfelt sympathy to him for his loss. I hope little Erika is doing well. I've seen her a few times as our children do some things together and she just seems like a sweet little girl....

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by NevadaMom


I have been catching up on lots of posts here. I agree that MP probably shouldn't be here as he might be called to testify. I appreciate all he's contributed and send my heartfelt sympathy to him for his loss. I hope little Erika is doing well. I've seen her a few times as our children do some things together and she just seems like a sweet little girl....
:seeya:
Was wondering where you were!
Started a new thread for the Preliminary Hearing which was held yesterday...seems the case is moving along now. Take a look at the RGJ article I posted over there today...

I also hope Erika is doing as well as can be expected. Glad to hear that your kids know her!
:)

[Talamoth]

Originally posted by pussycat
Like Kimberly has been saying, it just depends on the evidence, the credibility of the evidence and witnesses, and whether the trial is reasonably fair. I haven’t ruled out the possibility of finding him guilty of something if the facts, etc. indicate. However, as many others do (some more vocal than others), I think there’s a huge amount of corruption in Reno and Nevada, which puts an especially odd twist on the case. (And the corruption in this case is already apparent). The LA Times wrote about it. Tonja here on this blog knows all about it first hand and has written a book about it.

IMO all the so-called evidence from the house and garage is tainted by what Sattler and Dannan agreed to at 5:56 p.m. on the 12th. And I believe that much of the evidence should be declared inadmissible under the 4th Amendment and Supreme Court precedent.

Basically I think there is a likelihood that he killed Charla. At the present time, however, I think it was either a heat of the moment incident, or he was likely legally insane at the time.



I am not familiar with Nevada and what the level of corruption is there so I am reading and forming impressions as I go along here. I also know that it seems to be corrupt everywhere I look and not just Nevada.

In any case, I have an open mind and am certainly not opposed to believing that there is something stinky going on here. It will be interesting to see everything that comes out.

Do you think Mack was framed for Charla's murder? I am asking because of the circumstances under which the murder took place.

This excerpt makes me wonder who did this, if it wasn't Mack.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060831/NEWS10/608310362/1016/NEWS

Dan Osborne, Mack's friend who was staying with him, testified Charla Mack had arrived at the condo in her Lexus sport utility vehicle with the couple's daughter on June 12. After Mack, Osborne and the girl went inside, Mack said he wanted to talk to the girl's mother and grabbed a paper bag.

About 15 to 20 minutes later, Osborne testified, he heard his dog yelping. Mack, he said, then came into the home and had a towel wrapped around his hand. Osborne's dog, Rusty, had blood all over him, and Mack had a "weird" look on his face, like he was scared, he said.

While Mack went upstairs to his bedroom, Osborne took the girl and left. Soon, Mack called and asked to meet at a south Reno Starbucks. After the meeting, Osborne took the girl to Mack's mother's home and called police, stating he was worried something happened to Charla.

Detective Dave Jenkins found drops of blood by Mack's garage. He opened it and found Charla Mack, dead, face down in a pool of blood. Her Lexus had been driven from the street into the garage with her dog still in the back seat. Bloodied drag marks were found,

Forensic pathologist Katherine Raven testified Charla Mack had seven stab wounds and several from defending herself. Police said they had found a sheath for a dagger in Mack's closet.


So, Dan Osborn was home when all this happened and, although he didn't witness the murder, his testimony certainly "points" to the fact that something happened while Mack was talking to his wife.

IMO, if Mack wasn't the killer, he would have had to have been framed. Was someone lying in wait, hiding around the house or in the garage? Why did Mack come back inside with a towel wrapped around his arm? Was it a defensive wound from trying to fight someone off? If he wasn't the murderer then he certainly knows who it was, I would assume. Why did he take flight instead of call the police?

I have this gut feeling he did it but am certainly open to having that change. I just haven't seen anything point to anyone else yet. Who do you think killed her? You say you think there is a liklihood he killed her but that he was insane or it was in the heat of the moment. Perhaps - but I sure do wonder what was in the paper bag.

Interesting case.

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Pussycat,

I don't have any personal interest in the case. I don't know any of the parties involved. I live near Reno. The case is being closely followed here.

You could spend all of tomorrow offering up evidence that Charla was not an ideal marital partner for Darren. You could spend all of the day after offering up evidence of Reno LE investigative missteps. You could spend all of Friday offering up evidence that the Reno family court system is corrupt. You'd be wasting your time where I'm concerned.

My opinion is that in a great many marriages and divorces, partners behave immaturely and irresponsibly.

My opinion is that Darren Mack was quite determined not to take responsibility for his own contribution to the destruction of his marriage to Charla. If HE wasn't responsible, then others must be ... or so went his convoluted thinking, is my guess.

It is my opinion that Darren quite likely murdered Charla and attempted to murder Judge Weller. My opinion is that Darren Mack's alleged actions, regardless of provocation, were and are inexcusable and indefensible.

GGW

Oh ... and one more thing. It is my opinion that you're quite likely male, Pussycat. Odd nickname for a guy ... in my opinion. ;)


It really is sad they couldn't act more adult. I believe you should always put the kids first, and Mack had a very good income. In Nevada there's a cap on child support, and why the judge ordered the rest deemed as alimony, which really was child support and in the best interest of the child. It was very fair because of the income that Mack was bringing in. Why Nevada needs to be like most states, and simply take a percentage of the income to calculate the support payment.

Its sad to see what Mack did, there are actually men out there that buy homes for their ex's that have custody of the children. They co-parent and put the children first. Sadly this probably isn't the norm, but would have been a much better alternative for Darren, imo. I'm afraid he felt that he could keep getting married and having kids and move on with little consequence. Those kinds of people find out its costly financially and emotionally. Once you have children with someone, its lifelong.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by cruisemamma



It really is sad they couldn't act more adult. I believe you should always put the kids first, and Mack had a very good income. In Nevada there's a cap on child support, and why the judge ordered the rest deemed as alimony, which really was child support and in the best interest of the child. It was very fair because of the income that Mack was bringing in. Why Nevada needs to be like most states, and simply take a percentage of the income to calculate the support payment.

Its sad to see what Mack did, there are actually men out there that buy homes for their ex's that have custody of the children. They co-parent and put the children first. Sadly this probably isn't the norm, but would have been a much better alternative for Darren, imo. I'm afraid he felt that he could keep getting married and having kids and move on with little consequence. Those kinds of people find out its costly financially and emotionally. Once you have children with someone, its lifelong.
This was the second marriage for him, and it failed as the first one did. Both unions resulted in children for which he was responsible until they reached adulthood. Yes, there are men out there who do love their families even though the marriage has ended, and realize their responsiblity in caring for those children. It doesn't appear that Darren Mack was one of them. This was more than just the end of a marriage, it was about the lifestyle which he wanted to lead, either while married or in place of the marriage. And that lifestyle costs money.

[TobyTiger]

pussycat -
I read your post in response to what I stated. The information you've provided does put a different light on the situation. Could you please clarify what may be erroneous information printed in the media: What payments did he make to Charla, after being ordered to pay $10,000./mo. by Judge Weller? Is it true or false that the utilities in her home were turned off? Was she living there with their daughter at the time?

Finally, who do you believe killed Charla?

[mphillips]

Yes the utilities were turned off twice at the Franktown home in the middle of winter while Charla had Erika, they were off for over a week and a half before Charla borrowed money to have them turned back on. Darren was ordered by the court to repay Charla. I know I was there building fires and lighting candles. Darren was under court order to continue paying the utilities.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by mphillips
Yes the utilities were turned off twice at the Franktown home in the middle of winter while Charla had Erika, they were off for over a week and a half before Charla borrowed money to have them turned back on. Darren was ordered by the court to repay Charla. I know I was there building fires and lighting candles. Darren was under court order to continue paying the utilities.
thank you!
:beer:

[mphillips]

Please, please tell me where you came to the conclusion that I was "freeloading " off Darren. Please cite specific factual examples in your reply.

Did you get that?....FACTUAL EXAMPLES ONLY PLEASE. I dont, nor does anyone else want to read about your opinion while attacking someones integrity.

[mphillips]

No freeloading here cat

Now please answer my question

[mphillips]

I have another question for you out of my, and probably other's curiosity;

I have been very forthcoming with who I am and my relationship to this case from my first post, so my question to you is;

1.Who are you?
2.What realtionship if any do you have to this case?.
3.Are you a member of either family?
4.Are you currently paying spousal support?
5. Are you a friend of either party or family?

Please fill in all the blanks for us so we have a better idea who we are talking to.

[magpie1]

mphillips,
You have a private message.................

[NevadaMom]

Originally posted by mphillips
I have another question for you out of my, and probably other's curiosity;

I have been very forthcoming with who I am and my relationship to this case from my first post, so my question to you is;

1.Who are you?
2.What realtionship if any do you have to this case?.
3.Are you a member of either family?
4.Are you currently paying spousal support?
5. Are you a friend of either party or family?

Please fill in all the blanks for us so we have a better idea who we are talking to.

MP - don't lower yourself to their level. Seriously, it doesn't matter...

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by pussycat


<snipped>

FYI
1.Who are you? pussycat

2.What realtionship if any do you have to this case?. As far as I'm aware I don't know anyone involved in the case, including family members, LE, prosecution, defense, you, or anyone else involved. I personally have nothing to gain or loose from any decision rendered, either in the criminal case or any civil related one, and don't know any one who does.

3.Are you a member of either family? No

4.Are you currently paying spousal support? No

5. Are you a friend of either party or family? No



Hmm.

I may have to re-evaluate my suspicion that you are male, Mr. Cat.

I'm now wondering whether you might indeed be female as your nic sorta indicates, and perhaps either the president of the Darren Mack Fan Club ... or just another groupie.

Hmm.

:seeya:

[magpie1]

Originally posted by kimberly325


OMG, Marcy from myspace, is that you? LOL

That's what I'm been thinking too! :)

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by NevadaMom


MP - don't lower yourself to their level. Seriously, it doesn't matter...
Seriously! Last time I checked the TOS, 'poster bashing' was not allowed...
;)

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by magpie1


That's what I'm been thinking too! :)

And GollyGee makes 3! :lol:

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by pussycat


OH MY GOD, GGW. I thought I was having a heart attack. I felt the earth move!! I don't know how to thank you. I thought you'd never say it to me. "RE-EVALUATE". No matter what happpens between us I'll always cherish this moment. Thank you so much!!!!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxo

Slooooow down there Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Cat.

I was only RE-EVALUATing my suspicions about your probable gender. I discarded outright your Vast Reno Law Enforcement Conspiracy Theory.

:biggrin:

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


And GollyGee makes 3! :lol:
Ditto from the Tiger...FORE!!! (oops, I mean 4!)
(Maybe someone has been making many, lengthy collect calls?)
:D

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by pussycat



I have a question for you and Toby. Could you bring me up to speed (just the name of the cases or URLs would be fine) on the cases in which you have participated in which the victim was either a black woman or a lesbian? Thanks in advance.
I don't know what relevance your question has to the case of Darren Mack. I personally have first-hand knowledge in the case of CA v. Marcus Wesson. Nine murder victims, all African-American. I didn't discuss it here on the boards...I worked on prosecuting it.


:shrug:

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by pussycat

(snipped for space)

The case is over and I presently have no real interst in it. But I can't help but wonder, how can "four of the female victims" have been "wives of Marcus" if their ages were 24, 17, 8 and 7 ????



I will make this brief, since it is "off topic" to Darren Mack's case, and our Moderator prefers we stay "on topic"...
I don't know which article you have, but the eldest daughter, 24 year old Sebhrenah was his "wife" and also the mother of the one year old boy. He also had others, but not among the murder victims. Vietnam wasn't addressed as a defense.


:)

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by pussycat


<snipped>

I bear no ill will against Mark. However, in explaining the entirely of Darren's circumstances it was impossible to avoid mentioning Mark.

Mark has had plenty of time to explain his living situation and how it was inextricably intertwined in the Mack's finances, but has chosen not to. He's had plenty of time to explain "why didn't they just go the Mark's place for awhile" when the utilities got shut off but has chosen not to.



Cat,

You be talking out both sides of your mouth, friend. Here's an excerpt from one of your 9/1 posts:

"I already stated in an earlier post that I know no one in the case ..."

"I know virtually nothing about most others here ..."

"FYI
1.Who are you? pussycat

2.What realtionship if any do you have to this case?. As far as I'm aware I don't know anyone involved in the case, including family members, LE, prosecution, defense, you, or anyone else involved. I personally have nothing to gain or loose from any decision rendered, either in the criminal case or any civil related one, and don't know any one who does.

3.Are you a member of either family? No

4.Are you currently paying spousal support? No

5. Are you a friend of either party or family? No

I never even heard of Darren or Charla Mack until after June 12. I have an interest in family matters, including legal, and gender related issues and politics. That's what attracted my interest. It's about the most interesting case I've ever seen."

IF you can explain Darren's circumstances in their entirety, have knowledge of Mark's financial situation, and also know why Charla and Erika didn't move in with him temporarily ... THEN your 9/1 post would have to be, shall we say ... a falsehood.

So which is it, Cat? You can't have it both ways. :no:

GGW

[mphillips]

I wanted to say thank you to everyone who welcomed me with open arms and the kind, private thoughts you have shared with me.

I found this forum and was looking forward to enlightening some with what I may know or dont know due to my close relationship to the case. It was fun for about a day.

Pussycat uses this forum for entertainment rather than information.

I will no longer be participating in this forum. To the people who have been very responsive to me (you know who you are) feel free to p.m and I will give you my email and we can keep in touch.

Thank you

Mark

[NevadaMom]

Originally posted by mphillips
I wanted to say thank you to everyone who welcomed me with open arms and the kind, private thoughts you have shared with me.

I found this forum and was looking forward to enlightening some with what I may know or dont know due to my close relationship to the case. It was fun for about a day.

Pussycat uses this forum for entertainment rather than information.

I will no longer be participating in this forum. To the people who have been very responsive to me (you know who you are) feel free to p.m and I will give you my email and we can keep in touch.

Thank you

Mark

I'm sorry to see you go, Mark. Since one poster was using your information (and pain) as fodder, I think you've made the right choice. It was good of you to come here and share some with us as we truly are interested in the case.

Thanks again for stopping by and know that most of us are sending good thoughts your way.

[TobyTiger]

Mark -

It's sad...

Please check your "pm's"!
;)

[magpie1]

Mark,
I too am sad to see you go........all my best to you. You have a PM.

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Mark,

I've sincerely appreciated your input here and I've learned a lot from your posts. However, I think you've made the right decision. This forum is likely not a positive influence in your life right now, with or without posters like Pussycat.

Most of us here have no personal connection to the case. And though we mourn the loss of Charla and our hearts go out to you, Erika, and all of her family and friends ... unfortunately, it is likely that in the course of our discussions about the case, we have and will post information or thoughts or suspicions that cause you pain.

I completely understand your desire and need to reach out to others and share your experience. I cannot imagine how difficult this is for you. Not only have you lost your sweetheart, but the circumstances surrounding your loss are almost beyond comprehension.

You have some great support on this forum and I encourage you to continue to reach out privately. I, too, will PM you with my e-address. Please feel free to contact me anytime.

God bless,

GGW

[GollyGeeWhiz]

Originally posted by pussycat


A little charm and a few $$ go a long way sometimes. Especially in low cut. meowwww :seeya:

Good. Grief. :rolleyes:

Weren't you remarking recently that Nevada appears to be built on a foundation of SCUM?

Looks to me like you need to tend your own litterbox, Cat.

In any event, I'm done with ya. You haven't made a lot of sense thus far, and your credibility just went into the crapper.

I hereafter dub thee CourtTV Message Board Jester. :biggrin:

[NevadaMom]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Good. Grief. :rolleyes:

Weren't you remarking recently that Nevada appears to be built on a foundation of SCUM?

Looks to me like you need to tend your own litterbox, Cat.

In any event, I'm done with ya. You haven't made a lot of sense thus far, and your credibility just went into the crapper.

I hereafter dub thee CourtTV Message Board Jester. :biggrin:

Cat's postings are like DM's murder method: Overkill. In other words, personal. Cat is not simply a person following the case, but is intimately involved.

[Roxanne1932]

...And last but not least (and the reason that none of the biased news media, such as Martha Bellisle at RGJ [who has actually turned around lately to some degree], Shelby Sheehan at KRNV, Nancy Grace, Rita Cosby, etc. will never ever even mention Charla’s father is because they would do anything to keep their readers and viewers from knowing the truth) here’s what Charla’s own father had to say (really really sorry to post this Mr. Sampsel, but the minandry and BS has been getting so deep I just felt like I had to);

From Roxanne: “Mark, are you sure Jan is Charla’s father? I am just stunned.....He told me in a very soft spoken voice that Charla was a horrible person and that Darren was the best person he has ever known. I was baffled..... He told me that he doesn’t condone what Darren has done, but he understands it. UNDERSTANDS IT?” June 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Pussycat, I do not appreciate anyone taking what I've written completely out of context as you did to slant your own view.


This is what was actually written:
http://huffcrimeblog.com/?p=627#comment-13641

Roxanne Says:

June 18th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
"Mark, are you sure Jan is Charla’s father? I am just stunned. I just now visited this blog. Out of curiousity last night, I called the “877” number of the website store. I never asked for the name of the person I was speaking with. He told me in a very soft spoken voice that Charla was a horrible person and that Darren was the best person he has ever known. I was baffled over anyone saying this and illogical at best considering how things played out. I went on to talk about abuse in general, control, winning at all costs and how people don’t understand the dynamics unless you’ve lived through it and how everything changes once they get you under their roof. He told me that he doesn’t condone what Darren has done, but he understands it. UNDERSTANDS IT?

I’m feeling so confused right now. Obviously Darren had a pattern of control over his children from his first marriage.

It had to have been Jan because I asked what his relationship was to Darren. He stated that he was his website partner. I pray he is not Charla’s father as well.

I feel strongly that Darren is a full blown narcissist and a sociopath. They can fool the best of us."



Everyone, I can't verify that I spoke with Jan. The man did not volunteer his name. I was just in shock when I read that Jan was Charla's father and that it could have been him. One thing I do know for sure, anyone saying they can understand this is one very disturbed, sick puppy! If it happened to be Jan, I will know his voice whenever I hear it again. I don't believe he will get around of having to take the stand.

Pussycat, I pay little attention to all the "wonderful, nice guy, terrific father" comments others say about people. John Wayne Gacy was thought to be the perfect neighbor, remember? A lot of times the overly thoughtful people to the outside world are the most cruel to those closest to them. Abusive people know all the tricks. I also had an abusive ex whose entire circle would protect him at all costs. It's disgusting no matter where the loyalty issues lie.

Yes, I do wonder why no one has seen Jan anywhere? Perhaps he's just a sell-out because he knows what side his bread is buttered. We also don't know what type of father he was to Charla. There are many variables.

Pussycat, I am so upset with you. I was just shaking when I just now noticed your post. I don't know how I missed it.

I've noticed how you've been interacting with other posters here and you've exposed your true colors to me. Well, now there's more proof to others of your character.

I have nothing more to say to you.

no:

[Roxanne1932]

Originally posted by pussycat
Roxanne. Nothing was quoted out of context. I indicated that I left some out by the ..... It was done for brevity. You tried to indoctrinate Mr. Sampsel with your absurd political BS, and brainwash him with things he knows are not true. He didn't buy into it and it sounds like you rudely persisted and he essentially hung up on you. Good for him. Hopefully more people will hang up on you.

Brevity? Now that's not even a stretch. It's quite obvious why you left out what you did. OBTW, that's what taking something out of context means, silly.

Pussycat, just tell me what you consider political BS in the first place? Do you have sand up your nose from digging your head so deep?

I also said that I could not verify that it was indeed Jan. Whatever the case, since he didn't even attend his own daughter's funeral, he doesn't deserve to be addressed as Mr. Sampsel. The guy appears to be on the make for his meal ticket to retirement. How dare Charla to screw that up for him? Dead or not.

You sound like a flake or you are Jan himself trying very poorly at his own damage control. Make sure to take your medication tomorrow.

What's with your screen name anyway because you're anything but. Cyber-bully would be more accurate.

Now be gone beast!

[Roxanne1932]

Originally posted by pussycat


Many established authors have written about you and your buddies. Here's just a couple.

Dr. Camille Paglia:
“No conservative presently in or out of government has the power of intimidation wielded by these ruthless forces. The silencing of minority opinion has been systematic.... While lecturing at major American universities this year, I have come into direct conflict with the politically correct establishment. At Harvard and elsewhere I was boycotted by feminist faculty, and at several colleges leaflets were distributed, inaccurately denouncing me as a voice of the far right. Following my lecture at Brown, I was screamed at by soft, inexperienced, but seething neurotic middle-class white girls, whose feminist party-line views on rape I rejected in my writings. Rational discourse is not possible in an atmosphere of such mob derangement.”

Tammy Bruce:
“When analyzed, what may appear to be random activities of the Thought Police actually come together in a very methodical, organized fashion.....in the course of my research I was surprised to find direct correlation between cultic methods of mind control and the strategies employed by the left. After all, if thought reform is your goal, it should be not surprising that the method you adopt is the one that has the strongest record of success, ranging from North Korean brainwashing of American soldiers...to the Reverend Jim Jones leading followers into death.....to the Moonies.”

She goes on to talk about their “frenzy to control what people think and say”.

You just couldn't control what Mr. Sampsel thinks, no matter how hard you tried to BEAT it into him, eh? Smart guy. You're the one who just doesn't get it.

LOL, now wait a minute. Isn't this called projection? Isn't this what you are currently trying to do to me by brainwashing the other members into thinking this is what my intent was in calling the website 877 number that evening?

Unfortunately for you, the other members have a pretty good handle of your intentions. You've already spent time abusing others, tweaking information, etc.

Narcissists have a problem with accountability. You seem to fit that bill very well. How many other traits do you hold?

This is going to be one helluva court case with all of Mack's cronies to rally for him. That's how these freaks operate. Lying under oath doesn't mean squat to them.

Anyone with half a brain will know what is truly going on with you.

[Roxanne1932]

Originally posted by pussycat


Well Roxanne, it only took you about a minute to expose the veracity of what you say. It usually takes your buddies at least 2 or 3. Kudos.

What can I say, I didn't know you would be so amusing. At least I can be held accountable for my actions and explain them in a sane manner.

Listen, you were obviously wrong and hold no accountability. Cyber-bully, face it, you're not playing with a full deck.

I can't wait to see you in court! You will show up for that, right?

Smooches...

[Roxanne1932]

Originally posted by kimberly325


Welcome, Roxanne!

Looks like you may have chased off the "DEVIL"......................

KIMBERLY :lol:

PS "IT's" probably off somewhere licking its wounds, thinking of more GARBAGE to spew.

Thank you, Kimberly. Unfortunately, we all know too well this thing will come back under some other identity. Tonja seems to have been excused at the same time. Twilight Zone music playing now.

I came back here last night looking for new developments. I saw the drama and recognized it for what it was. When I backed up to see when it started, imagine my disbelief when noticing my quote so out of context. I must have been here since that post so I don't know how I missed it originally.

The other funny thing was how that poster referred to my buddies. Hello? Obviously I've been a lurker. My membership date is June but yet my first post was last night. Sometimes it's so hard not to swear, LOL.

Thanks again. I hope to talk to you in the future, this case is going to be something else. I pray no one messes up on this one.

[cruisemamma]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Pussycat,

I'm not sure what proof exists that Charla was looking for a free ride in the form of Darren's financial support for the rest of her life. If there's documentation you can share in that regard, I'd be interested to read it. Further, it's my understanding that all rulings in the Mack divorce case were temporary pending the final settlement. I also take issue with whether or not she violated the restraining order to stay in her vehicle ... do we know for a fact that she got out of her SUV in Darren's garage ... or was she perhaps pulled out of it?

Isn't it a fact that in most contentious divorces, especially when child custody issues and large sums of money are involved, both parties ... and their lawyers ... are essentially expected to *spin* their situations to their own advantage? I don't know whether or not Charla and her attorney are guilty of telling lies per some of the accusations I've read on these threads, however, can't the same be said of Darren's bankruptcy filing?

My point is that the Mack divorce case seemed to be unfolding much like the majority of similar cases do, and I'm at a loss to understand how Charla's defense of her position in the case was less honest than Darren's maneuverings in his own defense.

In any event, there's no way anything Charla said or didn't say, did or didn't do, thought or didn't think ... is justification for what happened to her. She may not be a particularly sympathetic victim in your view, but to gloss over Darren's alleged involvement in her death in favor of a laser-like focus on the possible missteps of LE's investigation of the crime(s) isn't productive, and indicates bias.

IMO, of course.

GGW


I don't see that she did anything except protect her interests and her child's. Thats what you hire an attorney to do. No one forced Mack to get married and have a child with her.

Nevada has a child support cap which is somewhat low, so the judge had to account for Macks income and awarded alimony to make it fair.

imo too many people marry, have kids, and don't understand it is a lifelong relationship with that other person. Or like Mack fail to understand the legalese, or who simply has so much hatred that they also penalize the child. Perhaps if Macks attitude was this is my family for life, and strived for a good relationship with mother and child - he would be free and Charla would be alive. Looking back it was all very simple, but hatred and obsession took over.

[NevadaMom]

Well said, Cruise!

[cruisemamma]

Also, he got joint custody which I thought was very fair in light of his lifestyle. I don't remember if Charla was opposed to this or not, but child support and joint custody can be modified anytime down the line. So people forget those divorce/custody agreements can easily be changed. Had she of lived one does wonder, if they would have continued going to court over the years. Sadly I suspect they would have. We know a couple (aquaintances) that for 10 or 11 years were in constant court battles. No one faired well, the kids ended up with problems and both couples lost a lot of money to lawyers. All for what?

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by cruisemamma



I don't see that she did anything except protect her interests and her child's. Thats what you hire an attorney to do. No one forced Mack to get married and have a child with her.

Nevada has a child support cap which is somewhat low, so the judge had to account for Macks income and awarded alimony to make it fair.

imo too many people marry, have kids, and don't understand it is a lifelong relationship with that other person. Or like Mack fail to understand the legalese, or who simply has so much hatred that they also penalize the child. Perhaps if Macks attitude was this is my family for life, and strived for a good relationship with mother and child - he would be free and Charla would be alive. Looking back it was all very simple, but hatred and obsession took over.
The ironic thing here is that he'd been married before, and had two children from that marriage. He had gone through a contentious divorce when that marriage ended. Perhaps if he and Charla had never gotten involved with Landmark and "empowerment" they could've settled this more amicably and Charla would still be alive. Instead he chose to try to eliminate anything that was in his way of "being in control" of the situation.

[magpie1]

Originally posted by cruisemamma
Also, he got joint custody which I thought was very fair in light of his lifestyle. I don't remember if Charla was opposed to this or not, but child support and joint custody can be modified anytime down the line. So people forget those divorce/custody agreements can easily be changed. Had she of lived one does wonder, if they would have continued going to court over the years. Sadly I suspect they would have. We know a couple (aquaintances) that for 10 or 11 years were in constant court battles. No one faired well, the kids ended up with problems and both couples lost a lot of money to lawyers. All for what?

Actually, the joint custody was more than fair. The Mack custody arrangement was for each parent to have a week with their daughter every other week.

So often judges award physical custody to one parent, usually the mother, and the non-custodial parent has every other weekend visitation and one day during the week, after school.

It would appear that Darren really didn't want a fair settlement. He simply wanted it all, no sharing, and no equality.

[TobyTiger]

Originally posted by magpie1


Actually, the joint custody was more than fair. The Mack custody arrangement was for each parent to have a week with their daughter every other week.

So often judges award physical custody to one parent, usually the mother, and the non-custodial parent has every other weekend visitation and one day during the week, after school.

It would appear that Darren really didn't want a fair settlement. He simply wanted it all, no sharing, and no equality.
Yes, the custody arrangement seemed very fair to both parties. He just didn't want to spend what he perceived to be his money on Charla or their home. It had to be on "his terms" or else...
:mad:

[cruisemamma]

I was surprised about the joint custody. He lucked out because most judges will award visitation for the father. They've found out going back and fourth, and especially once a child is in school just doesn't work.

True, this guy wasn't going to be happy no matter what.