No, I NEVER said Darlie was innocent, and that part you are taking out of CONTEXT, was purely speculation, and NOT something I said happened as fact. Please read and comprehend better. Now, new evidence I am talking about is, and it was there during the trial, but NOT accessible because science has improved since then, is the DNA. DNA is much easier to find today because of improved technology, and Texas had refused to let the defense have access to this evidence. Now, they have no choice. It WILL be tested whether Texas likes it or not.
Now, as for her attorney, that is a very big problem with me, again I said and still maintain a conflict of interst on his part, but Darlie and her family should have canned his ass, and found another.
And when I see people stoop to childish things like calling people names and such, implies a very simple mind. Those of you who act childish aren't really worth talking too.

Hi luccesicourt :wave:

You said thats what you BELIEVED. So if you BELIEVE that Darin was responsible, then where does that leave your thoughts on Darlie? You didn't say you believed it was Darin AND Darlie... you said you believed it was Darin.
It's ok if you think Darlie is innocent, lucchesicourt. I just don't understand what you are afraid of by admitting it. Well, in a way I understand, but if I believed in her I wouldn't care what anyone thought of me and I wouldn't skirt around the fact that did I believe in her.

You want us to read and comprehend better? Give us something comprehendable to read. The scenarios you have come up with are completely incomprehensible. And then when someone calls you out on what you say, you skip right to "unfair trial" and "carotid artery". I realize that this time mommy2sets posted some carotid artery information and you (of course) responded. But I'm sure that you would have ended up there anyway, you always do. How about commenting on other questions that have been raised to you? WHY is there no blood trail? WHY was the sink cleaned up? WHY would an intruder come to murder three people and not bring his own weapon? And considering the fact you think Darin was responsible, WHY would an intruder come in to kill three people and not take out the biggest threat AND the person with the biggest insurance pay out first? You haven't "speculated" on any of those points once. And once again dancing around the DNA "evidence". WHAT IS IT??? What specific evidence and/or testing that wasn't available then is available now that would help her? I know that DNA testing has come a long way since 1996, but what is it SPECIFICALLY?

And again, just out of curiosity what do you believe happened that night?

I don't know that anyone has "called names" here, unless you are referring to being called Chris Brown or lucchesiKEE. If you took that as "name calling" and were offened by it, I apologize. But if you don't want to talk, then don't. Seems to me that you are the one being childish.

Pam :wave:

What is the conflict of interest regarding Darlie's attorney? Can you please Lucchesicourt elaborate on that part for me.

I think Lucchesiscourt is in shock at how shallow her neck injury truly was! :p

Yes, I believe Darin was the one responsible, but I did not say Darlie wasn't involved, did I. I said Darin was the one who had the most to gain. I am trying to find a motive.

Now, there is a huge difference between 2mm and 1cm, A centimeter is 10times larger than a mm. So, 1.5 mm is about is about .06 inches, whereas, 1cm is about a third of an inch.
You can try and make it as small as you want, but facts are facts.
Like I said, e-mail a medical school. There are many around and most WILL answer your e-mail. Don't take my word for it. I really don't care, but if you really want the truth and get the facts e-mail the med schools.

I think Lucchesiscourt is in shock at how shallow her neck injury truly was! :p


:lol:

Yes, I believe Darin was the one responsible, but I did not say Darlie wasn't involved, did I. I said Darin was the one who had the most to gain. I am trying to find a motive.

So you think they are in this together? You must have some opinion on what happened that night. I'm very curious to know your theory on what happened. I've asked you that before but you never answered me. You've not commented once on Any questions that are raised to you unless it has something to do with "unfair trial" and "carotid artery" :rolleyes:

And as a matter of fact you DID say that Darin was the only one when you made the statement: "I believe Darin is the one responsible for the entire scheme. Why? Who would benefit the most in the death of the 3 victims?"
Which must mean you think Darlie is innocent.
Who is the third person in "The Darin Scenario" if you don't think it was Darlie? And ireneparalegal also posted a question that you never answered.

Pam

What is the conflict of interest regarding Darlie's attorney? Can you please Lucchesicourt elaborate on that part for me.
I never got a reply regarding this question.

Excuse me Lucchesiscourt, but of course I realize that 1 cm equals 10 mm, and still figured that earlier calculation correctly. No figures were off. I double checked the numbers too, and feel pretty confident that final number isn't off by more than a couple 10ths of an inch. As I said, deduct the depth of the epidermis, plus 2 mm (the distance from the sheath the Doctor testified to), and you have about 2/10 of an inch under the skin as the depth of the cut. The only thing I'm not quite sure about is the precise depth to the sheath, but think it is reasonable to assume 1 cm, since the jugular vein in a female is usually within 2 cm and that vein is located relatively deep within the sheath. Check the numbers yourself, assuming you can do pretty basic algebra. I bought into your twisted logic once before and questioned myself, but upon further research and investigation I realize I was not far off even in my original discussion of this with you. I don't need to contact a medical school to find out an anatomy question since I was able to find the info. about the depth to the internal jugular online, and I sure don't depend on your info. which consistently seems to be incorrect.

Hi Pam, :wave:

Yes, he did say before he didn't believe Darlie was involved. I don't have time to look it up right now, but it's probably about 5-6 pages back. He's just twisting things (or playing games) again by now saying "I didn't say Darlie wasn't involved, did I?" I swear this will make us all crazy if we keep trying to make sense of his line of reasoning because he just doesn't make any sense. :crazy:

Hi Pam, :wave:

Yes, he did say before he didn't believe Darlie was involved. I don't have time to look it up right now, but it's probably about 5-6 pages back. He's just twisting things (or playing games) again by now saying "I didn't say Darlie wasn't involved, did I?" I swear this will make us all crazy if we keep trying to make sense of his line of reasoning because he just doesn't make any sense. :crazy:

Hi mommy2sets :wave:

I know what you mean. I can't believe that someone with a background in advanced science comes up with some of the stories he's come up with. No offense intended, but they just don't make sense. Maybe he will answer some of the questions that ireneparalegal and I asked. And by the way, excellent job on the carotid artery info. Finally something I could really understand. It reafirms what I thought of her wound just looking at her pictures... pretty lame. Very most especially since the boys were so brutally murdered.

Oh, well... lets see if we get some answers...
Have a good night,
Pam:wave:

Yes, I do believe Darin was the one repsonsible for the scheme, in that he was the one who planned the whole thing. Scheme means plan, nothing more. Someone can devise a scheme and leave it for another to carry it out.

Q. Okay. Dr. DiMaio, what is your
17 evaluation as regards to the seriousness of that neck
18 wound?
19 A. About another millimeter or two, and
20 she would have been dead. It would have cut right
21 through the carotid artery.

OH BROTHER!! :crazy: This is called...pure manipulation! Since he can't argue more about the depth of her supposedly 'deep' injury, he's changing topics and throwing out new, and as usual questionable/untrue, info. Now surely Lucchesiscourt must know the following since he was able to find that info:

Dr. DiMaio was not even Darlie's Doctor. He was a pathologist hired by Darlie's defense team. I'm going to have to look up the transcript now from Darlie's actual Doctor who treated the wounds, Dr. Santos, who stated in the hospital notes and also at trial that the cut was only 2 mm from the SHEATH.

Lucchesiscourt has gotta be Chris Brown, Darlie's mom, or some borderline psychotic who has a crush on Darlie or something, because this is crazy. He just refuses to accept reality and is trying his hardest to manipulate others into believing the same. My question is.... why? Sorry, but I just REALLY don't like lies or people who perpetuate them.

Some of the court transcripts from the Doctor that treated Darlie at the hospital --


This is about her neck injury:

7 Q. You say it came across partly on the
8 right side?
9 A. It went from the right to the left. I
10 can't tell you where it started, but it extended from the
11 one side to the other, just passed the midline on the
12 left side.
13 Q. Now, you say that it went to the --
14 what's called the platysma; is that right?
15 A. Platysma, yes.
16 Q. And did you measure how deep the wound
17 was?
18 A. No. We usually don't measure wounds
19 because it doesn't matter, the depth of the injury. What
20 matters is in relationship to the other structures, like
21 the platysma. In the neck, that's kind of a defining
22 boundary. If it goes past the platysma, it's considered
23 a deep wound.
24 In that case, we may have to do
25 further exploration and open up the wound more. If it
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
725
1 goes to the platysma, then is called superficial wound.
2 Q. Okay. So, in laymen's terms, this
3 wound cut through, I guess, the skin and fat; is that
4 right?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And the little veins that are
7 contained in the skin and the fat?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. But didn't penetrate the muscle that's
10 below the skin and fat?
11 A. Correct, did not.
12 Q. And in your terms, you call that a
13 superficial wound; is that right?
14 A. Yes, sir.



Q. And is it true that this wound, at
10 that point, to the carotid sheath came within two
11 millimeters of the carotid sheath (sic)?
12
13 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: The artery?
14 MR. PRESTON DOUGLASS: Sheath. I'm
15 asking about the sheath first.
16 THE WITNESS: You said it's an injury
17 to carotid sheath?
18
19 BY MR. PRESTON DOUGLASS:
20 Q. On the records it says it came to the
21 carotid sheath.
22 A. Right.




Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you this: You
9 wanted her in the ICU because of the facts, what you knew
10 of the facts surrounding her admittance, you were afraid
11 of her mental stability; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. If this had been -- if she had come in
14 with these same injuries let's say due to a household
15 accident, would you have kept her in the ICU?
16 A. No, she would have gone to recovery.
17 Q. Okay. Would she have had a long stay
18 there in Baylor Hospital?
19 A. No, she probably would have gone home
20 later that day.

This following is even quoted on www.fordarlieroutier.org, which I understand is run by Darin Routier.

"For example, the neck wound came within 2mm of the carotid sheath but was superficial to the carotid artery. "

Yes, I do believe Darin was the one repsonsible for the scheme, in that he was the one who planned the whole thing. Scheme means plan, nothing more. Someone can devise a scheme and leave it for another to carry it out.

Q. Okay. Dr. DiMaio, what is your
17 evaluation as regards to the seriousness of that neck
18 wound?
19 A. About another millimeter or two, and
20 she would have been dead. It would have cut right
21 through the carotid artery.

Hi lucchesicourt, :wave:

Again with the carotid artery.......

Do you or do you not have an opinion on what happened that night??? You never answer anyones questions unless it has to do with the carotid artery or the unfair trial. I am asking you again, what do you think happened that night? Do you have a theory? Why was there no blood trail outside? Why was there no blood on the screen or on anything else that was so close to the escape point? Why did the blood trail stop in the utility room? ireneparalegal asked you if you would elaborate on the conflict of interest thing for her, which you still haven't done. Do you have an opinion or not? Call it a scheme or a plan-however you want to lable it-do you have one? Did you ever stop to think that if you came up with something plausible you might actually be able to change someones opinion? Im not trying to be a jerk, it just seems that you are the only one here that believes that Darlie is innocent. And if you believe that, tell us WHY you believe it. This is not a board full of people who want to see this woman executed if she is innocent. Answer some questions. Bring light to things people have doubts on. PLEASE elaborate on something besides the carotid artery and her "unfair" trial. I am truely interested in your opinion.

Thanks,
Pam :wave:

What is the conflict of interest regarding Darlie's attorney? Can you please Lucchesicourt elaborate on that part for me.

hmm, where could he have gone? :lookaroun

:ufo:

hmm, where could he have gone? :lookaroun

:ufo:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

:groucho

What is the conflict of interest regarding Darlie's attorney? Can you please Lucchesicourt elaborate on that part for me.

I know this wasn't addressed to me but I guess I'll answer this question for anyone that wants to know this - since Lucchesiscourt seems to be MIA.

Darin and Darlie both asked her attorney not to "go after" Darin at the trial before they agreed to hire him. He agreed. Also, before the trial started this attorney represented Darin in court for a minor thing (a gag order violation to do w/ this case). Darlie, Darin, and I believe other members of her family as well, agreed to waive the 'conflict of interest' issue at the time. They did this sworn under oath. Now that they have lost, they are saying that there was a conflict of interest w/ the attorney and trying to get her conviction overturned, or a new trial atleast in part based on this. The appeals court has denied this request citing that they knew this info. before they hired him and the fact that they dismissed any conflict of interest issue before the trial, and there was not a big enough conflict anyway that would have changed the verdict (or something to that affect) .

For whatever it's worth, I think they did this on purpose to have a 'loophole' to get either her sentence overturned or a new trial in case they lost. Lately they (the Darlie camp collectively) are even resorting to actually pointing the finger at Darin to really make a big deal out of the conflict her attorney supposedly had, even though he goes to see her regularly and they have renewed their vows, etc. Darin himself has even written affidavits that seem incriminating toward himself to help try to make the 'conflict of interest' an even bigger deal to the courts. This is the only course of action they seem to have at this point since even after all this time and supposed 'new evidence', there is just no evidence that points to any intruder in the house that night.

Thank you for that informative post. I appreciate the time you took to post it. ;)

:welcome:

Wow, my professor must really be working hard since he posted our grades AND I got an e-mail back from him about Darlie (which I had sent to him over a month ago) - all in one night!

It was a short response:


sorry about the delay...........got waaaaaaaaaaaaay behind....She had written the note at some "other" time and it was found in her things....she also discussed it in her diary. It was used to establish her state of mind during that period and get rid of the "intruder" story she had used.

I don't know what "other" time this would be. And I don't know how recent the entries in her diary were relative to the murder. I'll ask him that, but is there anything else??

P.S. Good work Mommy2sets and Pam - looks like you scared off lucchesicourt...

Hi Spark, Thanks for checking and following up on that. My other question was about the depth of the carotid sheath but I think I found that out, or very close to it anyway.

The 'suicide' entry in Darlie's diary that began "please forgive me for what I'm about to do" was 4 weeks before the murders. I don't know about a separate suicide note.

Yeah I guess Lucchesiscourt isn't too happy with facts. :crybaby:

Oh well, I really think he/she was someone with an agenda anyway.

Hope you got a good grade, ... must be nice to have a semester over. :wave:

Hi mommy2sets, spark19 and ireneparalegal! :wave:

Well... looks like lucchesicourt ran out of steam. Or he might be searching and searching for something else to say other than "unfair trial" and "carotid artery"! :crazy:

Thanks for the info, spark. ;)

I was reading the entry for Darlie in Wikipedia last night. I'm sure you guys already read it, but it gave light to alot of the things we've all already posted about. But I thought I'd post it for anyone new here who may not have seen it and might be having doubts.

Have a great day, my partners in posting!!! :wave:
Pam

Her claim for defensive wounds was the bruising on her arms. However, at trial after looking at photos taken four days after the murder, a prosecution expert, her own emergency room doctor, the nurses on staff in the intensive care unit, and the medical examiner stated that the bruising looked to be only a day or two old at most. According to the prosecutors, this indicated that the bruises were self-inflicted days after the murder.


Although the doctors stated that Routier's wounds were 'superficial,' the wound to her neck came within 2 mm of her carotid sheath. (Obviously this is very different from the deep, thrusting stabbing wounds of the victims. Given that Routier had no training in physiology, the laceration could easily have been self-inflicted without Routier comprehending how potentially dangerous this was.)


Routier's necklace was allegedly "embedded" in the laceration on her neck, lending evidence to claims that the wound was unlikely to be self-inflicted. However, according to the medical staff in attendance at the time of her hospitalization, the necklace was not actually embedded in her wound, but merely sticking to the dried blood on her neck, and was easily and painlessly pulled off.

P.S. Good work Mommy2sets and Pam - looks like you scared off lucchesicourt...


Thanks, spark! ;)
Pam

Thank you all so much for all this info. ;)

No, I hadn't read that actually Pam. Interesting. We never even went to the necklace area in our discussions...another thing the Darlie camp loves to talk about ....well their version, which is how the necklace was imbedded so deep in her neck it had to be removed surgically and basically saved her life because it stopped the knife from going deeper or something. :rolleyes2

When the reality is- it was a small delicate chain that was removed before she went to surgery, and did absolutely nothing at all to stop the cut from going any deeper.

Just more smoke and mirrors from the Darlie camp.....

Of course, you know they'll say whoever wrote the Wikipedia article is in on the conspiracy to get poor innocent Darlie. ohno:

Of course, you know they'll say whoever wrote the Wikipedia article is in on the conspiracy to get poor innocent Darlie. ohno:

Well, of course. Isn't everyone? :dizzy:

Pam :wave:

Thank you all so much for all this info. ;)

You're welcome :wave:

I'MMM BAAAAAAACK!
I'll be in and out for a while as I am in places where I have no computer access at times. No, I don't carry a notebook around with me.

Okay, let's accept Dr DiMaio as a forensic ,who knows nothing about biology, and that he is a liar, and just working for the money to help the defense, and that he believes absolutely nothing of what he is saying.
I have been reading what you say, but you guys are missing something that one of the emergency room docors said, and that is:

On Wednesday, Dr. Alex Santos also described the stab wounds to Mrs. Routier's neck, shoulder and forearm as superficial. But he said one wound came within 2 mm of her carotid artery, a potentially fatal injury.
Isn't this a statement that is contradictory in itself? Basically, he is saying the wound was minor, even though it came within .08 inches of killing her.
Dr. Demaio was only using the information providid by the medical doctors about the seriousness of the injuries that they providied to him.

Like I have been saying, and I agree with you about both sides trying to MAKE a case for each side. The defense tries to MAKE a case to get Darlie off, and the prosecution tries to MAKE a case to get her convicted. That is the way our system works. If the prosecution can make the injuries to appear minor, then that HELPS their case. If the defense can make the injuries to appear serious that helps their case.

I for one, do not believe that either side, right or wrong, wants JUSTICE. Both sides want to win. The prosecutions goal in every case is to find someone, make a case against them, and win. The defense counsel tries to do his best to win or minimize the penalty.

I saw a case on forensic files where the police tried to make a case against the son of a woman, for killing her at a local convenience store where she worked. The police said, unfortunately we could not get any evidence to arrest him no matter how much they tried. They even had a photograph of the person from the camera, who shot her (he was black) and her son was white.
The police even tried to make a connection of the shooter to her son, which they have been unable to. They probably are still trying too do that.
They interviewed her son, and he had taken a lie detector test,passed it, and the police still think he was involved.
The actual shooter was arrested, and there is no connection that can be made between the two individuals. Doesn't this sound a little like trying to MAKE a case, so they can get another conviction?

The reason I mention all this, is the police try to make a case against anyone as long as they can get evidence that may lead to a conviction, innocent or not. That is how innocent people end up in jail. The only ones who can prevent such an injustice, is facts-NOT circumstantial evidence- and the jurors who are able to understand what is being said in court. The prosecution likes jurors in trials like Darlie's who are 1)mothers, 2)people who have little education to be able to understand the complexity of the information being presented, and 3)peoplew who are emotional.

Having been on several juries (4, and yes, I have voted for 2 guilty and 2 innocent), I myself have been excused because of my science background on 3 occasions by the prosecution, NEVER by the defense. Makes me wonder.

Do I have an opinion about what happened that night? Not really.
There are too many UNASWERED questions. Could Darlie have done it alone? Yes. could Darin and Darlie did it together,? Yes. Could there possibly have been an intruder(s) who did it? Yes.
I am not really into speculation as much as facts. People believe what they want to believe, until the facts PROVE that they are WRONG. That is why I am not sure if she is innocent or guilty. There are facts pointing both ways, though the majority point towards her guilt. The crime scene was mishandled, things were moved around when they were photographing evidence, etc. The fact this WAS done, points towards MAKING a case by the prosecution.
However, let's make an assumption about the sock. If the sock was placed over the hand that held the weapon to prevent prints or he/she perspired and wiped the sock against his/her skin, there is likely DNA (his/her) present.
Now, if there is DNA in the blood print, that matches the DNA in the sock, and it is NOT Darlie's or Darin's. then I say she is innocent, unless they can tie this person to the Routier's directly, which would mean a conspiracy. And she would still be guilty, But, it would mean there was someone else in the house that night. That you could NOT argue. And that is my point. This evidence has not been allowed to be given to the defense, by Texas, until NOW. Just curious, why?

I'MMM BAAAAAAACK!
I'll be in and out for a while as I am in places where I have no computer access at times. No, I don't carry a notebook around with me.

Okay, let's accept Dr DiMaio as a forensic ,who knows nothing about biology, and that he is a liar, and just working for the money to help the defense, and that he believes absolutely nothing of what he is saying.

Darlie's defense team was the best money could buy, and yes they HIRED people to testify on her behalf. Just ilke the anthropology student they hired to test the fingerprints to testify they did not match Darin and Darlie. Of course later true experts refuted his claims, but I find it interesting the only people they could get in some cases were not even experts in the field. Dr. DiMaio is a pathologist hired by the defense, and did not even see her injury. He is certainly not as credible as an ER Doctor who actually treated Darlie's wounds with testimony that contradicted his statements, and who was not paid to testify at the trial.

I have been reading what you say, but you guys are missing something that one of the emergency room docors said, and that is:

On Wednesday, Dr. Alex Santos also described the stab wounds to Mrs. Routier's neck, shoulder and forearm as superficial. But he said one wound came within 2 mm of her carotid artery, a potentially fatal injury.

So you say. Where is this info. from? Why does this contradict the testimony of her Doctor from court transcripts, that we are able to view where people are sworn under oath and thinking carefully about the accuracy of their answers.

Isn't this a statement that is contradictory in itself? Basically, he is saying the wound was minor, even though it came within .08 inches of killing her.

Darlie's own Doctor stated the wound was superficial because it was. That there is a major artery running relatively close to the surface in that area does not make the wound any deeper than it actually was. Sorry.

Dr. Demaio was only using the information providid by the medical doctors about the seriousness of the injuries that they providied to him.

Like I have been saying, and I agree with you about both sides trying to MAKE a case for each side. The defense tries to MAKE a case to get Darlie off, and the prosecution tries to MAKE a case to get her convicted. That is the way our system works. If the prosecution can make the injuries to appear minor, then that HELPS their case. If the defense can make the injuries to appear serious that helps their case.

I for one, do not believe that either side, right or wrong, wants JUSTICE.

I think you are projecting here. I do believe many of us that care about this case absolutely want Justice. You on the other hand have stated previously that even if there is no real justice (someone getting away with a crime), you are OK with it if it is w/in the technicalities of the law. Do you even realize what justice means in this case? It has to do with those two little boys that you have never mentioned nor seem to care one iota about any justice for them.

Both sides want to win. The prosecutions goal in every case is to find someone, make a case against them, and win. The defense counsel tries to do his best to win or minimize the penalty.

I saw a case on forensic files where the police tried to make a case against the son of a woman, for killing her at a local convenience store where she worked. The police said, unfortunately we could not get any evidence to arrest him no matter how much they tried. They even had a photograph of the person from the camera, who shot her (he was black) and her son was white.
The police even tried to make a connection of the shooter to her son, which they have been unable to. They probably are still trying too do that.
They interviewed her son, and he had taken a lie detector test,passed it, and the police still think he was involved.
The actual shooter was arrested, and there is no connection that can be made between the two individuals. Doesn't this sound a little like trying to MAKE a case, so they can get another conviction?

The reason I mention all this, is the police try to make a case against anyone as long as they can get evidence that may lead to a conviction, innocent or not.

Gee, how about trying this.... evidence usually points to the person who committed the crime, thus why it often helps lead to convictions. You really don't need to add any other twist to that. Thank goodness for evidence.

That is how innocent people end up in jail. The only ones who can prevent such an injustice, is facts-NOT circumstantial evidence- and the jurors who are able to understand what is being said in court. The prosecution likes jurors in trials like Darlie's who are 1)mothers, 2)people who have little education to be able to understand the complexity of the information being presented, and 3)peoplew who are emotional.

Well this is such an offensive and telling statement. What a prejudice, closed minded, and indeed stupid thing to say. This is implying all Mothers are uneducated, unable to understand what's being said or information, and too emotional to make good decisions. Those statements smack of misogyny and ignorance. Wow, well I'm not going to even respond to those statements other than to say you have no idea how educated many/most Mothers are, and that there are many different types of intelligence. (btw, I'm doubting any formal 'education' you supposedly have more and more all the time,.. the most educated people I know certainly would not make comments like that)

Having been on several juries (4, and yes, I have voted for 2 guilty and 2 innocent), I myself have been excused because of my science background on 3 occasions by the prosecution, NEVER by the defense. Makes me wonder.

I came across one of your postings on another site where people were discussing Darlie's 16 versions of events that she constantly changed to try to match the evidence. Out of nowhere you came in and tried to suggest that because she changed her stories should prove she was innocent. It seems every thing you say about this case is twisted or simply devoid of any common sense at all (which by the way is MY definition of low intelligence). Now that seems like way more of a handicap to me in terms of making judgements than someone being emotional about this case...which by the way, the details of this case almost warrant. If you can see the pictures of those boys bodies, see the evidence that their Mother did that to them in their sleep, and not feel indignation or any emotion, perhaps you are lacking in some of the same emotional areas that Darlie is.

[QUOTE=lucchesicourt]Could there possibly have been an intruder(s) who did it? Yes.

Actually no, there is no evidence an intruder could have done it.

I am not really into speculation as much as facts.

Sorry just have to take a little break to LMAO off about that comment. :rofl: Ahem, OK, back to your post.


People believe what they want to believe, until the facts PROVE that they are WRONG. That is why I am not sure if she is innocent or guilty. There are facts pointing both ways, though the majority point towards her guilt. The crime scene was mishandled, things were moved around when they were photographing evidence, etc. The fact this WAS done, points towards MAKING a case by the prosecution.
However, let's make an assumption about the sock. If the sock was placed over the hand that held the weapon to prevent prints or he/she perspired and wiped the sock against his/her skin, there is likely DNA (his/her) present.
Now, if there is DNA in the blood print, that matches the DNA in the sock, and it is NOT Darlie's or Darin's. then I say she is innocent, unless they can tie this person to the Routier's directly, which would mean a conspiracy. And she would still be guilty, But, it would mean there was someone else in the house that night. That you could NOT argue. And that is my point. This evidence has not been allowed to be given to the defense, by Texas, until NOW. Just curious, why?

:nonono: There was some DNA found in the sock, and it could be traced to Darlie's cells. Why do you just skip over facts because you don't want to accept them, and throw out other things that are only hypothetical to think about. You say if they found DNA from 'someone else' in the sock that matched the bloody print, it would prove she's innocent....yet when they actually are able to trace it to Darlie's DNA in the sock (and also not be able to exclude the bloody print as coming from Darlie's ring finger) you won't concede she's guilty. That's a double standard. Do you even see how warped and one-sided you look at everything in this case?

On Wednesday, Dr. Alex Santos also described the stab wounds to Mrs. Routier's neck, shoulder and forearm as superficial. But he said one wound came within 2 mm of her carotid artery, a potentially fatal injury.
Isn't this a statement that is contradictory in itself? Basically, he is saying the wound was minor, even though it came within .08 inches of killing her.
Dr. Demaio was only using the information providid by the medical doctors about the seriousness of the injuries that they providied to him.

Wow! Something new.... MORE carotid artery information :rotflmao:

Like I have been saying, and I agree with you about both sides trying to MAKE a case for each side. The defense tries to MAKE a case to get Darlie off, and the prosecution tries to MAKE a case to get her convicted. That is the way our system works. If the prosecution can make the injuries to appear minor, then that HELPS their case. If the defense can make the injuries to appear serious that helps their case.

Yep! MORE unfair trial info ....

I for one, do not believe that either side, right or wrong, wants JUSTICE. Both sides want to win. The prosecutions goal in every case is to find someone, make a case against them, and win. The defense counsel tries to do his best to win or minimize the penalty.

And MORE...

I saw a case on forensic files where the police tried to make a case against the son of a woman, for killing her at a local convenience store where she worked. The police said, unfortunately we could not get any evidence to arrest him no matter how much they tried. They even had a photograph of the person from the camera, who shot her (he was black) and her son was white.
The police even tried to make a connection of the shooter to her son, which they have been unable to. They probably are still trying too do that.
They interviewed her son, and he had taken a lie detector test,passed it, and the police still think he was involved.
The actual shooter was arrested, and there is no connection that can be made between the two individuals. Doesn't this sound a little like trying to MAKE a case, so they can get another conviction?

The reason I mention all this, is the police try to make a case against anyone as long as they can get evidence that may lead to a conviction, innocent or not. That is how innocent people end up in jail. The only ones who can prevent such an injustice, is facts-NOT circumstantial evidence- and the jurors who are able to understand what is being said in court. The prosecution likes jurors in trials like Darlie's who are 1)mothers, 2)people who have little education to be able to understand the complexity of the information being presented, and 3)peoplew who are emotional.

And yet again... MORE
So you are saying that only women who have children who are dumb, uneducated and emotional qualify for jury duty??? Are you kidding me???????Do you ever read back to yourself what you write????

Having been on several juries (4, and yes, I have voted for 2 guilty and 2 innocent), I myself have been excused because of my science background on 3 occasions by the prosecution, NEVER by the defense. Makes me wonder.


I'm sure. Your credibility is as good as Darlies. And I can fully understand why YOUR "background in science" got you excused.

12 miles of posting and we STILL have NO answers to ANY of the questions that anyone has asked you. That shows me, that once again, you have nothing to add to this except how unfair the carotid artery queens trial was. WE GET YOUR POINT. The same point, the ONLY point you ever make.

Your posts are like darlies claims of innocence... WEAK, to say the
least. ohno:


Pam :wave:

Do I have an opinion about what happened that night? Not really.
There are too many UNASWERED questions. Could Darlie have done it alone? Yes. could Darin and Darlie did it together,? Yes. Could there possibly have been an intruder(s) who did it? Yes.
I am not really into speculation as much as facts. People believe what they want to believe, until the facts PROVE that they are WRONG. That is why I am not sure if she is innocent or guilty. There are facts pointing both ways, though the majority point towards her guilt. The crime scene was mishandled, things were moved around when they were photographing evidence, etc. The fact this WAS done, points towards MAKING a case by the prosecution.
However, let's make an assumption about the sock. If the sock was placed over the hand that held the weapon to prevent prints or he/she perspired and wiped the sock against his/her skin, there is likely DNA (his/her) present.
Now, if there is DNA in the blood print, that matches the DNA in the sock, and it is NOT Darlie's or Darin's. then I say she is innocent, unless they can tie this person to the Routier's directly, which would mean a conspiracy. And she would still be guilty, But, it would mean there was someone else in the house that night. That you could NOT argue. And that is my point. This evidence has not been allowed to be given to the defense, by Texas, until NOW. Just curious, why?

This is too idiotic to respond to Lucchesicourt. I just don't even know where to start.

First of all, we are speaking on fact as well. And the FACTS are what got that murderer convicted. If you would educate yourself on something other than her freaking veins and her unfair trial, you might see it too. Have you not read ANYWHERE that DARLIES DNA (HER skin cells) were found on the INSIDE of that sock? And blood from each boy was on the sock? And here we go again with this EVIDENCE that only you are privy to. Which has to mean, as we all know, that there IS no new evidence and you don't know what your talking about. And please don't tell me the DNA could be there from Darlie WEARING the sock. The sock came from a basket kept in the garage were they kept old, clean socks to wash and wax the cars, etc. You would know that if you'd ever taken the time to read the transcripts, which you very obviously have not done. Please read your last paragraph and tell me this comes from a person with 5 years of advanced sciene, or ADVANCED education of ANY KIND. There is no way to say this without sounding rude, which I honestly don't mean to be, but your writing seems almost juvenile. I'm sorry to say that lucchesicourt, but it's true. It's just hard for me to believe that anyone with a background in science can put stories together like you do. Unless of course you believe that she is innocent, then it makes perfect sense because you sound just like Camp Darliewood.


Pam :wave:

Ya know Pam, for being such 'uneducated, stupid, emotional "Mothers" unable to assimilate information', I do believe we are running logical and intellectual laps around the self-professed highly 'educated' Lucchesiscourt. ;) In fact, it's more like fighting a one-armed man... just too easy.

:rockon:

Ya know Pam, for being such uneducated, stupid, emotional 'Mothers' unable to assimilate information, I do believe we are running logical and intellectual laps around the self-professed highly 'educated' Lucchesiscourt. ;) In fact, it's more like fighting a one-armed man... just too easy.

:rockon:


I know, right??? Couldn't have said it better myself! props:

Pam:wave:

I'MMM BAAAAAAACK!
I'll be in and out for a while as I am in places where I have no computer access at times. No, I don't carry a notebook around with me.

Okay, let's accept Dr DiMaio as a forensic ,who knows nothing about biology, and that he is a liar, and just working for the money to help the defense, and that he believes absolutely nothing of what he is saying.
I have been reading what you say, but you guys are missing something that one of the emergency room docors said, and that is:

On Wednesday, Dr. Alex Santos also described the stab wounds to Mrs. Routier's neck, shoulder and forearm as superficial. But he said one wound came within 2 mm of her carotid artery, a potentially fatal injury.
Isn't this a statement that is contradictory in itself? Basically, he is saying the wound was minor, even though it came within .08 inches of killing her.
Dr. Demaio was only using the information providid by the medical doctors about the seriousness of the injuries that they providied to him.

My niece was stabbed ONCE in her arm by another girl. The wound was and appeared minor. Not a lot of blood coming out, she was not in much pain, she even declined the ambulance that arrived to take her to the hospital. My sister took her to the E.R. expecting two stitches but on closer examination the doctor said it barely missed an artery. Another milimeter and it would have been severed and possibly fatal had they delayed getting her to the E.R.

So, going by that paragraph you posted that makes no sense as far as saying the doctor is contradicting his statement. No, not at all. A person can get a small wound from something so minor, get an infection and die. Doesn't change the fact the wound appears minor. People have died or nearly from what appears to be superficial or minor wounds.

I have read many many criminal cases where the guilty person caused a wound on themselves via a knife, a gun or some other weapon so they can make it look like they are a victim too. People in the heat of committing murder are certainly not going to worry abt causing themselves a stab wound or wounds anywhere on their body if they think they can survive and get away with murder. These are people who have everything to lose if they don't make it look real.

Good point Ireneparalegal. And I think most reasonable people can see that, but camp darlie won't seem to rest until they have twisted it out of proportion. Oh how I wish the Doctors would have actually measured the exact depth of the wound, or that the prosecution pinned the Doctor down more on the depth during his testimony, because although he said 'superficial' if left any little door is left even the slightest bit open to interpretation as in this instance, camp darlie likes to take the ball, run with it, and toss it in the other direction.

I don't know if it will be but I hope this issue is covered along with all the testing of evidence at the appeal level, and if possible the Doctor could specifically give more detail about the depth, and every other thing that could be of doubt. The truth is the cut on her neck was pretty shallow as cuts go. Superficial - but in an area that had major veins and arteries near the surface thus dangerous only in that sense. But camp Darlie will keep hammering this '2mm w/in the carotid", "almost cut her head off" "left for dead" "necklace saved her life" thing, so my hope is it could all be straightened out by more specific testimony. I have no idea if that will happen but it would be nice. I actually think it would be good if every issue was dealt with before the carrying out of her sentence...just for truths sake and for closure, and so they don't just keep twisting and making these issues even bigger so she's not ever made into a martyr or folk hero or something. That would be awful. :( This crime should be seen for what it is, and she should be seen for what she's done, and not able to hide behind anything.

This case can be scrutinized through and through, every stone be left unturned, etc. but there will always be something for the Darlie supporters to hang or cling onto.

It is almost a waste of time to even respond to such non-sense. Someone is making a valiant effort though to try and persuade many of us to try and see it "their way." I have been on the other side of that fence. I believed Darlie and wanted to remain a believer, but the evidence is overwhelming. The preponderance of the evidence tells me she is guilty.

The jury spoke and I agree with them.

Here ya go! I guess you think I am also making this stuff up too.

http://www.justicedenied.org/darlie'sworld.htm
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/010997/doctor.htm

^^^What's your point?

It's as if the cult darlie camp all eat the same hallucinogenic brownies I swear. :alien:

Hey Lucchesiscourt, I hear there's an opening for a Manson groupie since he lost a few to conversion. Everyone KNOWS that man did not get a fair trial..talk about a conspiracy! And there's a 'Free Diane Downs" website too w/ people who use similar logic as you that I'm sure could use your dedication. Huge conspiracy there too! :cuckoo

Hi
May I please ask this sock that was so called planted.May I ask who's sock it was?

suzanne

Good points Ireneparalegal. Yep, preponderance of the evidence is all that's needed in Court and really in almost any judgements we make in life. Things are rarely COMPLETELY black and white.

Hi
May I please ask this sock that was so called planted.May I ask who's sock it was?

suzanne

I think Pam may be better able to answer this since she seems to know more info. about details of the sock, but I believe the sock was from Darlie's house, and know it had Darlie's skin cells inside of it as well as drops of blood from the boys on the outside.

Hi
May I please ask.Were both childrens blood found on Darins pants?What happened to the shirt Darin was wearing that he had taken off?Did they ever find the shirt and test it like they did Darlie's?Did they ever test Darins pants to see who's blood was on it?

suzanne

Darlie was adamant when asked repeatedly if it was Darin or Darin had something to do with it she said "NO" "ABSOLUTELY NOT". When you've got a victim who remembers fighting with an intruder, what he was wearing and partly what he looked like, who she says ran out through the garage and the same victim telling you for sure it was not a certain person they will probably tend to believe it, besides that other things about it being Darin just didn't add up. Darlie's no martyr for her husband. And it makes just no sense that a woman who just had her throat slashed and her 'precious babies' that she supposedly loved so much stabbed to death would be covering for Darin if he really did it. Plus, listen to the 911 call... at one point her voice changes and she angrily tells Darin , who seems to be questioning her, that "THEY CAME IN AND INTENTIONALLY DID THIS DARIN!!". She's trying to convince him.

Hi
Maybe the sock was on the persons foot.Who's sock was it.suzanne

Well if it was on an intruder's foot it's awful weird Darlie's cells were found inside. I don't know who's sock it was (Pam may know), nor do I think it matters.

Hi
I do see where it adds up Darin did this.Was his hair found on the murder weapon?

suzanne

I don't see where it adds up at all Darin did this. Darlie since renewed her marriage vows to him, and would have to be covering for him for 11 years now. And Darlie, believe me, would not cover for ANYONE that could get her out of prison. She's even tried pointing the finger at innocent people. Why would she not tell anyone and 'remarry ' someone she knew slaughtered her "precious' babies that she adored so much? Not to mention, leave poor little Drake with a child-killer to possibly suffer the same fate? I'm a Mom. Uh-uh. Wouldn't happen.

Your prayers have been answered. Darlie's been caught and is in prison awaiting execution.

Just curious... if you've really read everything, why do you come on here posting very innocent sounding questions you presumably already knew? Why come into the whole discussion dishonestly? Why play games? Why is it that it seems like everyone who defends Darlie seems like they have a hard time not only with the truth but also with even being honest.:confused:


Peace! Be the Buddha!
No one is more honest than Suzanne. Your generalizations about people who defend Darlie do an injustice to Suzanne. Chill out!

This thread used to be productive and has now taken an ugly turn. Those of you who think Darlie is guilty do not need to criticize other posters just because they don't agree with you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This thread is getting out of hand and if the arguing continues it will be locked.

That is how innocent people end up in jail. The only ones who can prevent such an injustice, is facts-NOT circumstantial evidence- and the jurors who are able to understand what is being said in court. The prosecution likes jurors in trials like Darlie's who are 1)mothers, 2)people who have little education to be able to understand the complexity of the information being presented, and 3)peoplew who are emotional.

Well this is such an offensive and telling statement. What a prejudice, closed minded, and indeed stupid thing to say. This is implying all Mothers are uneducated, unable to understand what's being said or information, and too emotional to make good decisions. Those statements smack of misogyny and ignorance. Wow, well I'm not going to even respond to those statements other than to say you have no idea how educated many/most Mothers are, and that there are many different types of intelligence. (btw, I'm doubting any formal 'education' you supposedly have more and more all the time,.. the most educated people I know certainly would not make comments like that)


mommy2sets,
I guess you do not understand the word people. People does not pertain to either sex, people pertains to all humans. That would be men and women. Uneducated does not mean stupid. Uneducated means, not trained in a particular field, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with intelligence. If I meant women, I would have specificly said women, which I DID NOT. I am positive women are equally intelligent. The idea that you are trying to twist my words to make me appear like a chauvinistic pig, is offensive to me.
I think I've had enough of your offensive attitude!!!!

:lol: you reported me! Funny!

You came in here asking "may I please ask" w/ all these questions that you already knew the answer to, and waste my time trying to answer them for you because you seem to honestly not know...then you tell me you already knew all the answers and report me for questioning why you did it? :rolleyes2

I'm reporting you for reporting me right now. :lol:

...Can I try replying to myself 10 times and see how many people I can tick off?

Well if it was on an intruder's foot it's awful weird Darlie's cells were found inside. I don't know who's sock it was (Pam may know), nor do I think it matters.

Hi, :wave:

mommy2sets, I know this was not your original post, but i can't find this suzzane girl anywhere.

It wasn't on anyones foot. Not that night anyway. The transcripts state (from Darins testimony) that the sock came from from a basket of old and/or stray, clean socks that were kept there in the garage to wash and or wax their cars with. That's on at least two shows I've watched where her family has been interviewed, too. I'll see if I can find a link for them and post them. But it was in the transcripts, too.

Pam :wave:

Here ya go! I guess you think I am also making this stuff up too.

http://www.justicedenied.org/darlie'sworld.htm
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/010997/doctor.htm

How, exactly, does this help your side? :confused:

Pam :wave:

Hi
May I please ask this sock that was so called planted.May I ask who's sock it was?

suzanne

Hi suzanne, :wave:

The sock, once again, according to testimony and transcripts, was one of Darins old tube socks.

Pam :wave:

Darlie was adamant when asked repeatedly if it was Darin or Darin had something to do with it she said "NO" "ABSOLUTELY NOT". When you've got a victim who remembers fighting with an intruder, what he was wearing and partly what he looked like, who she says ran out through the garage and the same victim telling you for sure it was not a certain person they will probably tend to believe it, besides that other things about it being Darin just didn't add up. Darlie's no martyr for her husband. And it makes just no sense that a woman who just had her throat slashed and her 'precious babies' that she supposedly loved so much stabbed to death would be covering for Darin if he really did it. Plus, listen to the 911 call... at one point her voice changes and she angrily tells Darin , who seems to be questioning her, that "THEY CAME IN AND INTENTIONALLY DID THIS DARIN!!". She's trying to convince him.

Hi Pam, :wave:

Lucchesiscourt, if you took the course 'logic' in college as I did actually....you would realize that the statements in your paragraph below suggest what I said before.

<<The only ones who can prevent such an injustice, is facts-NOT circumstantial evidence- and the jurors who are able to understand what is being said in court. The prosecution likes jurors in trials like Darlie's who are 1)mothers, 2)people who have little education to be able to understand the complexity of the information being presented, and 3)peoplew who are emotional.>>

Okay I was asked to reconsider locking this so I will give it one more chance. Any arguing or criticizing someone for posting their thoughts will be edited and/or the thread will be locked and will stay that way. This is a message board and its all about people voicing their opinions without being belittled or made fun of for it. You've been warned.

Darlie Routier was found guilty by the great state of Texas for slaughtering her children. There is no evidence that points to an intruder, the evidence points to darlie.

Even though I have asked Darlie supporters MANY times to answer questions that I have posed that may possibly help their fight to save her, I have never gotten a direct answer to any of those questions yet. Although I am not a death penalty advocate, this is one that wouldn't bother me in the least.

Good day to all,
Pam:wave:

Hi Pam, :wave:

Youre right, I also noticed no one has answered your questions. Ah well... guess they know there's really no answers to those questions. Darlie's supporters just want us to take leave of our senses and believe a conclusion that is contrary to all evidence and facts of the case.

Darlie is on death row, and like most death row inmates says she is innocent, has been railroaded, etc. This is not surprising, most death row inmates have the same story. The only difference here is her family has continued to be very outspoken (though less than truthful) about this case, keeping it in the news and media. The reason the news and media keep covering it is because people are fascinated with cases where a Mother murders her children and know it will draw viewers -and that's what they are in the business to do. 11 years later Darlie's camp still have no new evidence, and no appeals court has agreed with them on really anything. All they have succeeded in doing is swaying some public opinion and that's only because most aren't familiar with the actual facts of the case, or have even read the court transcripts.

After studying the case I, too, absolutely agree with the Courts decision, and am glad justice is being served for those two boys. I shudder to think of their last moments, alone, knowing it was their own Mother who stabbed them, and what they must have thought as their little souls left the world. It's no wonder Darlie would not even go near them as they lay dead and dying. She wouldn't even put pressure on Damon's wounds, as she was specifically directed to do, in his last moments of life. All I would be doing is holding my child if he was fighting for his life, I think they would have to rip me away....that Darlie refused to put pressure on his wounds, hold, or even touch him in his last moments of life is so psychologically telling. The only wound she applied pressure to, was her OWN. Anyone who would do what she did to those boys is a monster. Plain and simple.

...Can I try replying to myself 10 times and see how many people I can tick off?


What? I,m not sure I know what you mean by that.

Pam :wave:

Hi mommy2ets, :wave:

I'd like to share another thought with you that I found a little odd. Darlie and Darin both said that Darlie kept bringing WET towels for the baby who was still alive to apply pressure to his chest wounds.... don't you find it odd that her little boy was dying from gaping wounds in his chest/lung area and she would bring WET towes to apply pressure to the wounds? Struggling trying to get air into his lungs and she brings water soaked towels??? Is that someting you should do and I just don't know it?

Pam :confused:

Hi Pam, :wave:

It's no wonder Darlie would not even go near them as they lay dead and dying. She wouldn't even put pressure on Damon's wounds, as she was specifically directed to do, in his last moments of life. All I would be doing is holding my child if he was fighting for his life, I think they would have to rip me away....that Darlie refused to put pressure on his wounds, hold, or even touch him in his last moments of life is so psychologically telling. The only wound she applied pressure to, was her OWN. Anyone who would do what she did to those boys is a monster. Plain and simple.

Hi Pam, :wave:

Interesting you mention that. There is no reason to put wet towels on gaping wounds. In fact, wet towels were not even near the bodies the night of the murders and were never mentioned by Darlie when police first questioned her. The whole 'wet towel' story was never mentioned by Darlie until after she came back from the hospital and saw her sink had been removed and discovered that they tested the sink for blood. That's when the 'wet towel' story was invented. Just another changing of her story to try to match the evidence.

Hi mommy2sets

Yeah, didn't sound right to me either. I was watching someting about it on some show one night and I asked my husband, "why in the world would she bring WET towels for an injury concernng the lungs?" It just seemed really odd to me. :crazy:

Pam :wave:



Hi Pam, :wave:

Interesting you mention that. There is no reason to put wet towels on gaping wounds. In fact, wet towels were not even near the bodies the night of the murders and were never mentioned by Darlie when police first questioned her. The whole 'wet towel' story was never mentioned by Darlie until after she came back from the hospital and saw her sink had been removed and discovered that they tested the sink for blood. That's when the 'wet towel' story was invented. Just another changing of her story to try to match the evidence.

Isn't it quite difficult to invent a story after the fact, if wet towels weren't already present? So, either there were wet towels or there weren't. What are the facts? Afterall you can't go back and place wet towels after the police have already been there, right? Just questions I have in response to your argument about the towels.
Considering the wounds, I really doubt wet or dry towels would make little difference as to the outcome. And, I really don't think darlie was trained in how to do emergency care for the injured. I believe Darlie would have been in a panic sort of state, and not really acting rationally in what to do anyway.
That is my opinion.

Now about the carotid since you seem to think the common carotid is just below the surface:

http://www.bartleby.com/107/143.html

At the lower part of the neck the two common carotid arteries are separated from each other by a very narrow interval which contains the trachea; but at the upper part, the thyroid gland, the larynx and pharynx project forward between the two vessels. The common carotid artery is contained in a sheath, which is derived from the deep cervical fascia and encloses also the internal jugular vein and vagus nerve, the vein lying lateral to the artery, and the nerve between the artery and vein, on a plane posterior to both. On opening the sheath, each of these three structures is seen to have a separate fibrous investment. 6

Relations.—At the lower part of the neck the common carotid artery is very deeply seated, being covered by the integument, superficial fascia, Platysma, and deep cervical fascia, the Sternocleidomastoideus, Sternohyoideus, Sternothyreoideus, and Omohyoideus; in the upper part of its course it is more superficial, being covered merely by the integument, the superficial fascia, Platysma, deep cervical fascia, and medial margin of the Sternocleidomastoideus. When the latter muscle is drawn backward, the artery is seen to be contained in a triangular space, the carotid triangle, bounded behind by the Sternocleidomastoideus, above by the Stylohyoideus and posterior belly of the Digastricus, and below by the superior belly of the Omohyoideus

The Great State of Texas found Darlie Routier to be the child killer that she is and I for one cannot wait until the day she dies. IMO :lol:

Isn't it quite difficult to invent a story after the fact, if wet towels weren't already present? So, either there were wet towels or there weren't. What are the facts? Afterall you can't go back and place wet towels after the police have already been there, right? Just questions I have in response to your argument about the towels.
Considering the wounds, I really doubt wet or dry towels would make little difference as to the outcome. And, I really don't think darlie was trained in how to do emergency care for the injured. I believe Darlie would have been in a panic sort of state, and not really acting rationally in what to do anyway.
That is my opinion.

Now about the carotid since you seem to think the common carotid is just below the surface:

http://www.bartleby.com/107/143.html

At the lower part of the neck the two common carotid arteries are separated from each other by a very narrow interval which contains the trachea; but at the upper part, the thyroid gland, the larynx and pharynx project forward between the two vessels. The common carotid artery is contained in a sheath, which is derived from the deep cervical fascia and encloses also the internal jugular vein and vagus nerve, the vein lying lateral to the artery, and the nerve between the artery and vein, on a plane posterior to both. On opening the sheath, each of these three structures is seen to have a separate fibrous investment. 6

Relations.—At the lower part of the neck the common carotid artery is very deeply seated, being covered by the integument, superficial fascia, Platysma, and deep cervical fascia, the Sternocleidomastoideus, Sternohyoideus, Sternothyreoideus, and Omohyoideus; in the upper part of its course it is more superficial, being covered merely by the integument, the superficial fascia, Platysma, deep cervical fascia, and medial margin of the Sternocleidomastoideus. When the latter muscle is drawn backward, the artery is seen to be contained in a triangular space, the carotid triangle, bounded behind by the Sternocleidomastoideus, above by the Stylohyoideus and posterior belly of the Digastricus, and below by the superior belly of the Omohyoideus

Hi Pam, :wave:

Well I see your questions weren't answered again! Lucchesiscourt can't seem to answer direct questions concerning hard cold facts, he's too busy trying to sway us with less relevant MIGHTS and MAYBES of the case because it's just the only way to think to come to a conclusion that Darlie is innocent. Yes, Darlie will die for these crimes. And even though I think she convinces herself of her own lies, I believe deep down she is PETRIFIED of her date with destiny and moment of truth that's coming. Even though I don't believe in the death penalty for society, I do wish for her to feel the same in her last moments of life that she caused her boys to feel in theirs. She is no Karla Faye Tucker- who confessed to her crime, accepted responsibility, and in so doing was able to die in peace....unless she confesses (which I don't believe she ever will), Darlie will not even come close to feeling any peace when she dies.

Lucchesiscourt - I don't care to keep rehashing this, it's already been discussed ad-neuseum. I already posted a medical link stating that the internal jugular (located in the same sheath and right next to the carotid artery) was usually located w/in 2 cms of the outer skin if the head is turned to the side. Again, Darlie's Doctor testified the cut was SUPERFICIAL to the carotid artery, and only came w/iin 2mm of the carotid SHEATH. I explained given the depth of the epidermis and depth of the actual sheath (not the artery) how that would mean the cut was about 2/10 of an inch below the surface of the skin, give or take.
1/5 to 1/3 inch (at the most!) under the surface of the skin.

I encourage anyone that cares to research it themselves.

Thanks for even more information on the carotid artery. :crazy:




Now about the carotid since you seem to think the common carotid is just below the surface:

http://www.bartleby.com/107/143.html

At the lower part of the neck the two common carotid arteries are separated from each other by a very narrow interval which contains the trachea; but at the upper part, the thyroid gland, the larynx and pharynx project forward between the two vessels. The common carotid artery is contained in a sheath, which is derived from the deep cervical fascia and encloses also the internal jugular vein and vagus nerve, the vein lying lateral to the artery, and the nerve between the artery and vein, on a plane posterior to both. On opening the sheath, each of these three structures is seen to have a separate fibrous investment. 6

Relations.—At the lower part of the neck the common carotid artery is very deeply seated, being covered by the integument, superficial fascia, Platysma, and deep cervical fascia, the Sternocleidomastoideus, Sternohyoideus, Sternothyreoideus, and Omohyoideus; in the upper part of its course it is more superficial, being covered merely by the integument, the superficial fascia, Platysma, deep cervical fascia, and medial margin of the Sternocleidomastoideus. When the latter muscle is drawn backward, the artery is seen to be contained in a triangular space, the carotid triangle, bounded behind by the Sternocleidomastoideus, above by the Stylohyoideus and posterior belly of the Digastricus, and below by the superior belly of the Omohyoideus

"Lucchesiscourt - I don't care to keep rehashing this, it's already been discussed ad-neuseum. I already posted a medical link stating that the internal jugular (located in the same sheath and right next to the carotid artery) was usually located w/in 2 cms of the outer skin if the head is turned to the side. Again, Darlie's Doctor testified the cut was SUPERFICIAL to the carotid artery, and only came w/iin 2mm of the carotid SHEATH. I explained given the depth of the epidermis and depth of the actual sheath (not the artery) how that would mean the cut was about 2/10 of an inch below the surface of the skin, give or take.
1/5 to 1/3 inch (at the most!) under the surface of the skin."

Well, which is it? I mean 2 cm is 3/4" and the 1/5" and 1/3" you mention is a much smaller distance. So, which do you want to use? Since there are 2.54cm/inch you divide your 2cm by 2.54 and you get a distance of .78 inches or 3/4 inches. Also, I did not write the info, and I have seen the carotid sheath IN PERSON (cadaver) and it is NOT that close to the surface of the skin. regardless of what the prosecution's witness and you are saying.
I am just questioning facts that have been presented in court as not lies, but non truths in order to get a conviction. And yes, there are ways to turn your neck to bring the sheath closer to the surface of the skin. But, this was NOT shown to be a fact in the courtroom, was it? Because, no one knows how her neck was turned at the time of the incident, right? But, it would never have been as close to the surface as you are saying 1/5 to 1/3 of an inch. Now, that is just FACT, NOT SPECULATION, AND NOT OPINION. It took a while to find a site that had words that a layperson could understand such as
the word deep. Like I have been saying, words were selectively used by the prosecution to imply that it was not a serious wound, which it was. That measurement of 2mm within the carotid sheath was from Dr. Santos at Baylor hospital's emergency room.
It is sort of like the profiler who testified why he thought Darlie was the killer, and his speculative testimony was allowed, but the defense counsel was not allowed to cross examine him on the validity of his speculations. Every objection by the prosecution was sustained and all defense counsel's were overruled. I like what the defense counselor said to the judge, why am I being allowed to cross examine if you are going to overrule every question of this this witness. The witness was allowed to speculate for 2 hours on the stand, but defense counsel was not allowed to ask questions of the validity of his opinions, why is that?

I said 1/5 - 1/3 inch under the skin only because I'm not sure of the EXACT depth of the SHEATH ITSELF, I can only approximate based on the following info about the depth of the internal jugular. This is online by the WFSA (World Federation Society of Aneasthesiologists)...here is the excerpt regarding the depth of the INTERNAL JUGULAR (located within the sheath, right next to the carotid)

<<Stand at the head of the patient. Locate the cricoid cartilage and palpate the carotid artery lateral to it at this level. Keeping a finger gently over the artery, insert the needle at an angle of 30-40o to the skin and advance it downward towards the nipple on the same side (in a woman guess where the nipple would be if she were a man). Always direct the needle away from the artery under your finger. The vein is usually within 2-3cm of the skin. (this is shallower in a female than male, weight would make a difference too-the heavier the person the more fat under the skin- and Darlie was not fat) Based on all that info. it's fair to say Darlie's internal jugular and carotid artery would be within 2 cm of the outer surface of the skin. The sheath is even closer to the skin than the jugular since both jugular and carotid artery are located buried within the sheath. Then you must then subtract the depth of the epidermis itself to figure how far a cut went under the skin. And by the way, Darlie's Doctor testified the rest of the neck cut did not even cut the platysma (muscle) under the skin. It was so shallow it only went through skin and fat. Only ONE little part of the cut went deeper, and I'm sure this scared the begeebeez out of her because of the bleeding, even though it was relatively shallow. After all, she continually applied pressure to her OWN neck rather than her boys stab wounds as they lay dying.

I got the info about the depth of the jugular from the WFSA, but I guess it's possible the entire WFSA may be in on the conspiracy against poor Darlie too! :crazy:

Hi lucchesicourt,

Is this the only point you have to make? Do you have any other opinions about ANYTHING? Is there anything else that makes you believe that Darlie is innocent? Anything? I have asked you so many questions. Others on the board have asked things that you have also not bothered to answer. Is that because you don't have a leg to stand on except for the carotid artery? I'm going to post this again, and then it will be the last time I respond to anything you write concerning her carotid artery. I have a standard answer I will use for you everytime.
Pam:wave:

"Although the doctors stated that Routier's wounds were 'superficial,' the wound to her neck came within 2 mm of her carotid sheath. (Obviously this is very different from the deep, thrusting stabbing wounds of the victims. Given that Routier had no training in physiology, the laceration could easily have been self-inflicted without Routier comprehending how potentially dangerous this was.)"

The following will be my statement to you every single time you bring up the ONLY leg you have to stand on where this murderer is concerned:

The Great State of Texas found Darlie Routier to be the child killer that she is and I, for one, cannot wait until the day she dies. :lol:



I said 1/5 - 1/3 inch under the skin only because I'm not sure of the EXACT depth of the SHEATH ITSELF, I can only approximate based on the following info about the depth of the internal jugular. This is online by the WFSA (World Federation Society of Aneasthesiologists)...here is the excerpt regarding the depth of the INTERNAL JUGULAR (located within the sheath, right next to the carotid)

<<Stand at the head of the patient. Locate the cricoid cartilage and palpate the carotid artery lateral to it at this level. Keeping a finger gently over the artery, insert the needle at an angle of 30-40o to the skin and advance it downward towards the nipple on the same side (in a woman guess where the nipple would be if she were a man). Always direct the needle away from the artery under your finger. The vein is usually within 2-3cm of the skin. (this is shallower in a female than male, weight would make a difference too-the heavier the person the more fat under the skin- and Darlie was not fat) Based on all that info. it's fair to say Darlie's internal jugular and carotid artery would be within 2 cm of the outer surface of the skin. The sheath is even closer to the skin than the jugular since both jugular and carotid artery are located buried within the sheath. Then you must then subtract the depth of the epidermis itself to figure how far a cut went under the skin. And by the way, Darlie's Doctor testified the rest of the neck cut did not even cut the platysma (muscle) under the skin. It was so shallow it only went through skin and fat. Only ONE little part of the cut went deeper, and I'm sure this scared the begeebeez out of her because of the bleeding, even though it was relatively shallow. After all, she continually applied pressure to her OWN neck rather than her boys stab wounds as they lay dying.

I got the info about the depth of the jugular from the WFSA, but I guess it's possible the entire WFSA may be in on the conspiracy against poor Darlie too! :crazy:

Hi lucchesicourt,

Is this the only point you have to make? Do you have any other opinions about ANYTHING? Is there anything else that makes you believe that Darlie is innocent? Anything? I have asked you so many questions. Others on the board have asked things that you have also not bothered to answer. Is that because you don't have a leg to stand on except for the carotid artery? I'm going to post this again, and then it will be the last time I respond to anything you write concerning her carotid artery. I have a standard answer I will use for you everytime.
Pam:wave:

"Although the doctors stated that Routier's wounds were 'superficial,' the wound to her neck came within 2 mm of her carotid sheath. Obviously this is very different from the deep, thrusting stabbing wounds of the victims. Given that Routier had no training in physiology, the laceration could easily have been self-inflicted without Routier comprehending how potentially dangerous this was.)"

The following will be my statement to you every single time you bring up the ONLY leg you have to stand on where this murderer is concerned:

The Great State of Texas found Darlie Routier to be the child killer that she is and I, for one, cannot wait until the day she dies. :lol:

I got the info about the depth of the jugular from the WFSA, but I guess it's possible the entire WFSA may be in on the conspiracy against poor Darlie too! :crazy:

Hi mommy2sets, :wave:

Yep! The WFSA is in on it too. :crazy: But like I said before, isn't EVERYONE?

It wouldn't matter where you got your information, because lucchesicourt has absolutely no other point to make except for the carotid artery. You can ask him question after question (as many posters on this board have, besides us) and the ONLY thing he is willing to argue is the carotid artery. He has nothing else to offer. And I feel certain he never will.

Pam :wave:

1)WHY is there no blood trail? WE Know for a FACT that Darlie too was cut and covered with blood (either hers or the childrens or both), and if she left the sock, why is there no blood trail? There would have been a trail even if Darlie did it since she too was covered with blood.
2)WHY was the sink cleaned up? Sink was cleaned up? Let's see, she had about 1 minute and 16 seconds to cut herself, run up the allley and plant the sock, and clean the kitchen. Could not have done all this without help.
3)WHY would an intruder come to murder three people and not bring his own weapon? There is a weapon ,POSSIBLY MISSING (no proof, but you are talking speculation) as no blood from one of the children was found the knife the police did find. So he may have brought his own knife too.
4)And considering the fact you think Darin was responsible, WHY would an intruder come in to kill three people and not take out the biggest threat AND the person with the biggest insurance pay out first? Maybe because he wanted to have sex with her first, I don't know, but neither does anyone else.
6)You haven't "speculated" on any of those points once. ANSWER: I do NOY speculate. I look at facts. If you want to speculate you can come up with an answer to any of the above questions

7) And once again dancing around the DNA "evidence". WHAT IS IT??? What specific evidence and/or testing that wasn't available then is available now that would help her? Since 1996, they have been able to take minute traces of DNA (such as what may have been in a sock or in a fingerprint, and get it replicated many times so there is enough DNA to test. Back then if they did not have a large sample of DNA (such as a good amouunt of semen, blood, skin, etc.), they could not sequence the base pairs, which is pretty much 99.9+% accurate. And I know you say that theonly DNA present was Darlie's in the sock, it is now possible to find the smallest amount of DNA to compare with darlie's. Sample size of the DNA use to be EXTREMELY important. Now, it does not matter how small the sample is-you can sequence it if you can find it, and it is much easier to find because you can replicate the DNA in a lab so you will have enough to test. In 1996, I seriously doubt they could find such minute amounts of DNA. But today, if it is there, it WILL be found if the sock and fingerprint are allowed to be tested.. I know that DNA testing has come a long way since 1996, but what is it SPECIFICALLY? That is IT SPECIFICALLY.

1)WHY is there no blood trail? WE Know for a FACT that Darlie too was cut and covered with blood (either hers or the childrens or both), and if she left the sock, why is there no blood trail? There would have been a trail even if Darlie did it since she too was covered with blood planting the sock.
That is your timeline. The evidence suggests that she planted the sock before cutting her own throat and stabbing Damon again...which would explain why she did not leave a blood trail.
2)WHY was the sink cleaned up? Sink was cleaned up? Let's see, she had about 1 minute and 16 seconds to cut herself, run up the allley and plant the sock, and clean the kitchen. Could not have done all this without help.
Sure she could have... if as I said above she planted the sock before going back and cleaning the knife beore cutting her own throat. This would explain all the evidence and timelines that could be problematic, ..even how long Damon could have survived with his wounds. If she came back and had to stab him again because he was still alive and dragging himself to the door (which the evidence showed), that would also explain why only her and Damon's blood was found on the knife. SHe had already rinsed Devon's off.
3)WHY would an intruder come to murder three people and not bring his own weapon? There is a weapon ,POSSIBLY MISSING (no proof, but you are talking speculation) as no blood from one of the children was found the knife the police did find. So he may have brought his own knife too.
There is no weapon missing! Devon's blood was simply washed off the knife at the sink, which clearly showed by luminal that she had washed blood off at.
4)And considering the fact you think Darin was responsible, WHY would an intruder come in to kill three people and not take out the biggest threat AND the person with the biggest insurance pay out first? Maybe because he wanted to have sex with her first, I don't know, but neither does anyone else.
This reminds me of Darlie's faked 'rape attempt' on her years earlier she tried to convince Darin of but wasn't true. Darlie wants us all to believe every man in the world wants to rape her and every woman is insanely jealous of her. That's her own histrionic narcissistic world she livees in. How often do rapists savagely stab innocent children and then leave the rape victim alive to testify against him for murder after struggling with him face to face? Surely there were more rape attacks or child killings in the area since he was never found and they arrested the wrong person right? Of course not.
6)You haven't "speculated" on any of those points once. ANSWER: I do NOY speculate. I look at facts. If you want to speculate you can come up with an answer to any of the above questions
7) And once again dancing around the DNA "evidence". WHAT IS IT??? What specific evidence and/or testing that wasn't available then is available now that would help her? Since 1996, they have been able to take minute traces of DNA (such as what may have been in a sock or in a fingerprint, and get it replicated many times so there is enough DNA to test. Back then if they did not have a large sample of DNA (such as a good amouunt of semen, blood, skin, etc.), they could not sequence the base pairs, which is pretty much 99.9+% accurate. And I know you say that theonly DNA present was Darlie's in the sock, it is now possible to find the smallest amount of DNA to compare with darlie's. Sample size of the DNA use to be EXTREMELY important. Now, it does not matter how small the sample is-you can sequence it if you can find it, and it is much easier to find because you can replicate the DNA in a lab so you will have enough to test. In 1996, I seriously doubt they could find such minute amounts of DNA. But today, if it is there, it WILL be found if the sock and fingerprint are allowed to be tested.. I know that DNA testing has come a long way since 1996, but what is it SPECIFICALLY? That is IT SPECIFICALLY.
Oh please let this DNA testing get over with already so it implicates Darlie even worse. Hope they saved all that skin and hair under her fingernails as she was fighting for her life with that intruder.. oh wait, they didn't because there was NONE.

1)WHY is there no blood trail? WE Know for a FACT that Darlie too was cut and covered with blood (either hers or the childrens or both), and if she left the sock, why is there no blood trail? There would have been a trail even if Darlie did it since she too was covered with blood.

This is obviously impossible for you to comprehend. And you have once again validated a previous point I made... SOMEONE made it down that alley without leaving a bloodtrail... Yes, we do know FOR A FACT that Darlie was covered in blood. But what we do NOT know for a fact is WHEN she cut herself. Darlie had to do everything she could BEFORE she cut herself, and that is what she did. Are you suggesting that this super-slick intruder butchered the children, cut Darlie, sqeezed through that screen and left No trail? What is your explanation for an intruder coming in, cutting everyone up, and either going over the back fence OR throught the gate that was so hard to open and close and not leave a DROP of blood anywhere? And on top of that, be sweet enough to close the gate behind him if he went out the gate?

2)WHY was the sink cleaned up? Sink was cleaned up? Let's see, she had about 1 minute and 16 seconds to cut herself, run up the allley and plant the sock, and clean the kitchen. Could not have done all this without help.

Once again, what makes you so sure that she didn't do everything she could do to stage this crime scene BEFORE she cut herself? And what exactly makes you so sure of the timeline you present? SPECULATION?


3)WHY would an intruder come to murder three people and not bring his own weapon? There is a weapon ,POSSIBLY MISSING (no proof, but you are talking speculation) as no blood from one of the children was found the knife the police did find. So he may have brought his own knife too.

My question exactly. Murderers do not come to a potential crime scene and not bring a weapon when they intend to kill someone and just hope they can find one. And I'll do a little speculating here and say there was NO other knife. Why would an intruder bring his own knife and say, "oh, here are some other knives.... I'll use one of them too!" I would bet money that she tried to clean that knife and then had to stab the other child again who was crawling towards the door.

4)And considering the fact you think Darin was responsible, WHY would an intruder come in to kill three people and not take out the biggest threat AND the person with the biggest insurance pay out first? Maybe because he wanted to have sex with her first, I don't know, but neither does anyone else.

:lol: :rotflmao: :rofl:

Oh, yes. I'm sure that was the reasoning. She was just so astoundingly beautiful that this intruder came in and butchered her kids so he could have sex with Darlie... You're right, you DON'T know, and neither does anyone else. But I've heard a lot more plausible excuses than that load of garbage.


6)You haven't "speculated" on any of those points once. ANSWER: I do NOY speculate. I look at facts. If you want to speculate you can come up with an answer to any of the above questions

If you are going to quote me, do just that. QUOTE ME. I Never said that you had never speculated on any of those points once. I SAID you have not once answered ANY questions that anyone has asked you and that the only thing you comment on is her freaking veins and unfair trial. And I've got news for you, we are ALL speculating here. To the best of my knowledge, NONE of us were there and we are speculating with the known facts. And that includes YOU, unless, of course, YOU are the intruder and you know exactly what happened.


7) And once again dancing around the DNA "evidence". WHAT IS IT??? What specific evidence and/or testing that wasn't available then is available now that would help her? Since 1996, they have been able to take minute traces of DNA (such as what may have been in a sock or in a fingerprint, and get it replicated many times so there is enough DNA to test. Back then if they did not have a large sample of DNA (such as a good amouunt of semen, blood, skin, etc.), they could not sequence the base pairs, which is pretty much 99.9+% accurate. And I know you say that theonly DNA present was Darlie's in the sock, it is now possible to find the smallest amount of DNA to compare with darlie's. Sample size of the DNA use to be EXTREMELY important. Now, it does not matter how small the sample is-you can sequence it if you can find it, and it is much easier to find because you can replicate the DNA in a lab so you will have enough to test. In 1996, I seriously doubt they could find such minute amounts of DNA. But today, if it is there, it WILL be found if the sock and fingerprint are allowed to be tested.. I know that DNA testing has come a long way since 1996, but what is it SPECIFICALLY? That is IT SPECIFICALLY.

I'll leave this response to the experts, which is NOT you:

"Critics have stated that these claims are not credible, and merely suggest that the investigation and subsequent trial were imperfect. Despite the failure of Darlie's appeals, and continued judicial review of her claims, her supporters continue to contend that there is enough reasonable doubt in the case to continue efforts to release her, and that DNA testing may eventually exonerate her. DNA testing has been performed on several occasions since her conviction and defense attorneys have claimed it should be considered sufficient evidence for her to be granted a new trial. However, at this time, Routier has not been awarded a new trial or any additional appeals based on the new evidence that has been revealed."
Good day to all, and...

The Great State of Texas found Darlie Routier to be the child killer that she is and I, for one, cannot wait until the day she dies. :lol: party:

Pam:wave:

hi Pam! :wave:

Not only did the 'intruder' have to find a weapon at the house, but according to Darlie all the lights were off remember, so he would have had to find the knife in the dark. Also, her garage was all cluttered and with boxes everywhere ...and was also dark since there was no light on... this intruder somehow managed to get in and then run out in a hurry in the pitch black w/out disrupting a single thing in the garage right in his path, then open the broken fence gate, shut it again, and manage not to to trip the security light too! Amazing!

And regarding the guy wanting to have sex with Darlie....Darlie wants us to believe that. That she is so beautiful and desirable that someone is willing to stab innocent children repeatedly just to have sex with her. Wow what desire there must be for her, for someone to do that just to have sex with her. What an ego trip for her to actually have anyone believe that. Have you noticed Pam that in almost every interview with Darin he mentions her DDD breast size and states things like that everyone , men and women, would just stare at her wherever she went. ? I even heard him say once everywhere she went men and women both 'wanted' her. Here his children were murdered and he just keeps bringing up her looks and the size of her breasts? Weird. Darlie really had this poor guy convinced everywhere she went men and women both were all over her wanting her. I have a beauty queen sister, truly...absolutely naturally stunning, natural platinum blonde, no boob job, and she never talks like this about everyone oogling over her all the time, nor does her husband although she is truly 100 times more naturally beautiful than Darlie. It's been my experience that women that talk like that are just hystrionics personalities trying to control others w/ that stuff. Nothing about Darlie was even real, from her bleached hair to her DDD implants...she was phony from head to toe, and for me personally when I see someone like that if I do look it's to just make a mental note that the person looks phony and unnatural. Of course I'm sure had I ever even glanced at Darlie she would have convinced herself, and probably also told Darin, how I was just another woman insanely jealous of her or wanting her. I mean all this stuff just smacks of pathological narcissism which fits the profile of someone possibly willing to murder to keep her delusions intact...that could do something like this and also lie about it to the bitter end.

So, you are implying that the bloody sock was placed before anyone was cut. Well, it had blood on it so someone was cut before it was placed in the alley.
Now, speculation has NO place in the courtroom. There are facts and non facts. And you speculate that I am NOT an expert in DNA and sequencing DNA is way off base. I have done all of that. So, again YOUR opinion about what an expert is and isn't is quite incorrect. Like I said my degree is in genetics, which is the study of DNA or heredity. You see that is the problem with speculation. You CAN be WRONG, just like you are in my case.

Anyone up for a game of silly string at Darlie's grave? ;)

Now you know that's not what we said, and I'm quite sure you've heard this before so really please quit trying to twist things to try to confuse people. What I said was that the evidence suggests Darlie stabbed both boys, then cleaned off the knife and planted the sock (or vice versa), and THEN cut her own throat and had to restab Damon since he was still alive and pulling himself to the front door. This is the only speculation that MATCHES THE EVIDENCE 100 PERCENT. Your theory not only is hard to believe but absolutely does not fit the evidence, so we can definitely conclude is not a correct one. No need to even speculate on them since they don't match the evidence. You underestimate the GREAT importance of simple common sense, and what is reasonable to accept and what isn't. It plays a part in every decision we make, and also in the courtroom. Common sense certainly has a place in the courtroom. You ask us to take complete leave of any of it to believe your theories that not only make no sense but do not match the evidence!

And since I know you'll ask or bring it up next, I'll answer in advance that the boys stabs were were not the kind that would have squirted out blood, ..they were seeping wounds. Which would explain why she had no blood trail to the planted sock, and only had little drops of blood on the BACK OF HER SHIRT from the boys, in a way that suggested they were flung by the knife as she swung the knife back over her head between stabs. And I'm sure you already know this, but they did pretty advanced testing on all the blood present, from the direction of the blood, to types of splatters, etc and it all pointed to Darlie stabbing her boys, then cutting her own neck at the sink area. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Anyone up for a game of silly string at Darlie's grave? ;)

Right!?! And I'm, for one, wearing cut-off shorts! And popping gum, loudly! And laughing! And I think I'll call the media so it's on national tv too! You know this is almost funny but it's hard to laugh because of what those boys went through. But you KNOW she would be turning over in her grave if anyone did that at HER precious grave. To Darlie, it's always all about Darlie.

Right!?! And I'm, for one, wearing cut-off shorts! And popping gum, loudly! And laughing! And I think I'll call the media so it's on national tv too! You know this is almost funny but it's hard to laugh because of what those boys went through. But you KNOW she would be turning over in her grave if anyone did that at HER precious grave. To Darlie, it's always all about Darlie.
:lol: True, so very true. Darlie and O.J. Simpson...poor innocent people. Yeah right. :rolleyes: :mad:

So, you are implying that the bloody sock was placed before anyone was cut. Well, it had blood on it so someone was cut before it was placed in the alley.

This is what makes me believe that you don't completely read what people write and I don't think you ever look over your posts before you send them.

The blood belonged to both boys. That is why I keep saying that everything that could be done ahead of time, was done ahead of time. And she she did everything she could get done before she cut herself... notice none of Darling Darlies blood was on the sock... but her skin cells were.


Now, speculation has NO place in the courtroom. There are facts and non facts. And you speculate that I am NOT an expert in DNA and sequencing DNA is way off base. I have done all of that. So, again YOUR opinion about what an expert is and isn't is quite incorrect. Like I said my degree is in genetics, which is the study of DNA or heredity. You see that is the problem with speculation. You CAN be WRONG, just like you are in my case.

And when, exactly, did I speculate that you were not an expert in DNA and sequencing DNA??? BELIEVE ME that would be the LAST thing I would EVER think of you. Have you EVER mentioned that in ANY of your extensive posts??? NO. Or that you have a degree in genetics??? NO. The only thing you've said continually is your five years of advanced science. And even THAT is hard to believe.


Pam :wave:

Anyone up for a game of silly string at Darlie's grave? ;)



Hey :wave: that is a very good idea! and totally appropriate, I'm sure.:lol:

You know, we say that as a joke. But how much you want to bet that people will actually go out and do that?

Pam :wave:

Hey :wave: that is a very good idea! and totally appropriate, I'm sure.:lol:

You know, we say that as a joke. But how much you want to bet that people will actually go out and do that?

Pam :wave:
I hope they do!!!!!

:lol:

I hope they do!!!!!

:lol:

If anyone gives us a hard time about it we'll just say it was all PAM'S idea to bring the silly string! :p

I was reading a little about some of the things Darlies mom has said to try to get Darlie out of prison. Some of her claims have been suggesting things like one of the detective's own son may be the child-killing intruder (because of things like he cut his hair soon after the murders and she claims this was becuse his hair matched the description Darlie gave and he didn't want to be 'found out'), that the Doctor who treated Darlie's wounds and testified against her only did so because he was threatened by the prosecution and was afraid of losing his medical license, and the Doctor who performed the autopsy on the boys was not even a real licensed Doctor. These are just a few of the more outrageous claims she has claimed to try to get people riled up about the supposed injustice and conspiracy against 'poor' Darlie. Like little Darlie, she changes her stories often. I've heard from people that know or have corresponded with her that deep down Mama Darlie even knows Darlie did this. ohno:

Desperate people do and say desperate things. I am a mother and the thought of me hurting my children NEVER comes into my mind. As a mother, if my child committed a crime, I can only support them and let them know I love them. If they committed a crime must accept whatever comes at them. If there was overwhelming evidence and they were denying it, I would look them in the eye and tell them to be truthful, there is no running away from having committed a wrong.

Yep!!! And I'll bring fire crackers lots and lots of ballons,too! But silly string will be at the top of my list!!!! party:

And by the way, not sure if I mentioned it to you or not, mommy2sets (you have probably noticed it too ireneparalegal) Darin IS ALWAYS yacking about her fake boobs and how everyone just stares at her everywhere they went because she was soooo bueautiful. :lol: Did he ever stop to think that she was so garish and gaudy that people couldn't help but stare??? Kind of like a car wreck.... you know you shouldn't look but....

And please, PLEASE tell me what you think of lucchesicourts even more in-depth experience in the field of DNA? Now he's not just a 5 year ADVANCED science pro, he is also a DNA and a DNA sequencing EXPERT! How can anyone who has had this kind of formal training come up with these ridiculous scenarios ??? :lol:

Gotta run girls, see you soon,
Pam:wave:


If anyone gives us a hard time about it we'll just say it was all PAM'S idea to bring the silly string! :p

Hurtful as it would be.... very very true.:(

Desperate people do and say desperate things. I am a mother and the thought of me hurting my children NEVER comes into my mind. As a mother, if my child committed a crime, I can only support them and let them know I love them. If they committed a crime must accept whatever comes at them. If there was overwhelming evidence and they were denying it, I would look them in the eye and tell them to be truthful, there is no running away from having committed a wrong.

Hi mommy2sets! :wave:

I wonder if this woman knows that the more she talks the more guilty Darlie sounds. She'd do well to hire a publisist and keep her mouth shut. I've read what you're talking about and it's just pathetic. Grabbing every legal straw she can get. :crazy:

Pam :wave:


I was reading a little about some of the things Darlies mom has said to try to get Darlie out of prison. Some of her claims have been suggesting things like one of the detective's own son may be the child-killing intruder (because of things like he cut his hair soon after the murders and she claims this was becuse his hair matched the description Darlie gave and he didn't want to be 'found out'), that the Doctor who treated Darlie's wounds and testified against her only did so because he was threatened by the prosecution and was afraid of losing his medical license, and the Doctor who performed the autopsy on the boys was not even a real licensed Doctor. These are just a few of the more outrageous claims she has claimed to try to get people riled up about the supposed injustice and conspiracy against 'poor' Darlie. Like little Darlie, she changes her stories often. I've heard from people that know or have corresponded with her that deep down Mama Darlie even knows Darlie did this. ohno:

user,
yes, I did say I have a degree in genetics in a previous post and it is from the University of California, Davis a top public university. So, I did tell everyone that it was my area of experise.

As a mother, if my child committed a crime, I can only support them and let them know I love them. If they committed a crime must accept whatever comes at them. If there was overwhelming evidence and they were denying it, I would look them in the eye and tell them to be truthful, there is no running away from having committed a wrong.

Oh I agree Ireneparalegal. I would not stand by my child's delusions at the expense of the truth, and most especially if it also involved my grandchildren being murdered. I would support and love them but try to get them to face the truth and confess. Among other reasons, it's for one the only thing that could help them find any peace. If they quit enabling her maybe she could get to that point some day. Doubt it, but you never know. The people that claim to love Darlie should put their efforts into getting her to confess, then maybe they could work on getting her off death row and put in a looney bin. Who knows. They may even have a better shot at getting her off death row that way than the direction they're going.

Yep!!! And I'll bring fire crackers lots and lots of ballons,too! But silly string will be at the top of my list!!!! party:

And by the way, not sure if I mentioned it to you or not, mommy2sets (you have probably noticed it too ireneparalegal) Darin IS ALWAYS yacking about her fake boobs and how everyone just stares at her everywhere they went because she was soooo bueautiful. :lol: Did he ever stop to think that she was so garish and gaudy that people couldn't help but stare??? Kind of like a car wreck.... you know you shouldn't look but....

Gotta run girls, see you soon,
Pam:wave:

aww Pam, but the more I think about it this could look bad for you so why don't we just get Ireneparalegal to bring them and say the whole thing was her idea? :lol:

Yes, about her looks. I really think she's talked about it so much to Darin he really thinks she lives in a world like she told him....of men and women alike oogling over her constantly and every woman jealous of her. We've all known these type of women... and never are they really the most attractive ones that need to convince others of this. It's like people with money.. the ones that really have it don't need to talk about it all the time... the ones that don't are sometimes the ones that are always flaunting and talking about how much they have... Darin for whatever reason just never figured all that out about Darlie. I think he's been being manipulated by her for a very lonnnnnggg time.

Thanks Pam. Ya know, us moms are made of strong stuff. And we've got good 'mommy instincts' to when it comes to children. I know I trust mine when it is clear. And every instinct I have, for so many different reasons, tell me Darlie did this also.


boy that just convinces me even more.......lol. my instincts tell me that this case is not the classic open and shut one. the death penalty is tough too in these situations. I can't tell you for sure that darlie is innocent or guilty. detectives/cops act off instincts. lawyers and jurors are supposed to act on proof and fact. there is some proof that links her. but is it enough? I don't know that it is.

I just want to add one thing so there's no confusion on it, since lucchesiscourt brought this up as a reason he believes the police framed her, or she didn't get a fair trial, or whatever.

The silly string video shown in court wasn't videotaped by police. Before she was arrested Darlie, basking in all the attention and spotlight, invited the local tv stations to the gravesite to cover it for the news. So the video of her shown on the news, with her daisy-dukes popping gum smiling and celebrating, was the one used in court to show the jury. It was at Darlie's invitation that video was even made. About the police video, Darlie was the prime suspect in a double homocide. Yes they were using surveillance on her, which i think is pretty standard. Police will tap phones, and do all sorts of things to find out more info if someone is under investigation for murder. People lose their privacy rights if they're considered a prime suspect in a felony. Right or wrong, it happens all the time. Perhaps they were videotaping that day so they could listen to the video more carefully later, so as not to miss anything that just being there in real time could have been missed. I'm not sure of their reasons but that sounds plausible. Anyway, because they didn't have 'permission' to videotape that day their tape wasn't allowed to be used in court. What this has to do w/ her guilt or innocence I have no idea, but just wanted to clear this up so it's not another thing blown out of proportion. The police did not shoot the damning 'silly string' video that was used in court. But while we're on the subject, Darlie's camp likes to keep repeating it was Darlie's sister's idea to bring silly string, but Darlie's sister can be heard when she first arrives in the tape saying "I brought the silly string and snaps" to Darlie...which sounds like Darlie had asked her to bring them. Darlie's own story (in her words) goes something like this... Devon loved silly string and wanted to spray some at Darlie and Darin's upcoming nuptial renewal ceremony instead of rice, but 'I had told him "it's not appropriate" to spray it at the ceremony.' Fine. However miss manners apparently does feel it's 'appropriate ' to spray it on her son's grave, and also feels it's 'appropriate' to wear daisy-duke cut off shorts, and pop gum like a waitress at her recently murdered son's grave. For G-d's sake, isn't it 'appropriate' to atleast wear black to your child's funeral. :(

I'm not going to debate about the 'supposed' intruder or what he may have been thinking because it's a waste of time to argue about a ghost, which is what he must have been to be in the house that night.

If Darlie gets a new trial, it will go something like this. After she's convicted again camp Darlie will dredge new technicalities to cry foul on....a juror's distant relative's son's friend's neighbor knew one of the police, or the judge had a conflict, or any little thing to try to say the trial wasn't fair. It will never end on their part. And I really think Darlie wil never fess up to this crime. The truth is there's never been a good reason to give her a new trial... how many appeals and things have they lost now? It's been 11 years and people on death row have much more chances at appeals than anyone else. If there really is anything substantial worth anything to go on, they'll give her a new trial. But all these years later, all the Courts have ruled they still haven't presented anything that amounts to anything substantial that could have changed this verdict.
this is the exact problem I have with the video being used in court. because people let their emotions cloud their judgement. the video has no bearing on the case and does not belong in a court room. a current affair, CNN, fine, but not a court room. the very next post after yours above is even worse. something like, "the tape doesn't prove anything but it is icing on the cake"? ok....I leave it there.

and breaking the law is breaking the law. if it's not ok for someone to murder....then it shouldn't be justifiable for police to illegally follow and record a suspect. If I were a defense attorney and had that information...maybe I would of tried to ask the P.D. why they were performing these illegal actions? it could have been legally relevant to the case unlike the silly string video. you certainly have an opinion of the case. and you have the right to feel she is guilty as she is the prime suspect and very well have commited the murders. However, I feel it is appropriate for others to feel differently based on the unanswered questions or the discrepancies of the actual trial in terms of legal fairness.

Lucchesiscourt, every single thing you say is so hypocritical and just plain backasswards to me I really can hardly respond to it because it's so dysphoric. You state on one post you hated it how someone got off on a tecnicality, yet you basically fight for Darlie getting off on a technicality even though you admit these things you are passionate about may have nothing to do w/ her guilt or innocence. One minute you're suggesting all cops are out to get people and crooked, the next they're all good but just have flaws. You go from consipiracy theories to just plain wrong information you throw out boldly like you're making some kind of big point, but the facts of your point are not even true.

Are you Chris Brown?
is it necessary to cut into someone personally because they raise some legit questions about this case? is it necessary to call them a hypocrit because aren't we all in some aspects? I'd say I have no problem with anyone who wants to have a clean debate on this topic because it is debatable. but is name calling going to make anyone look right or wrong here? and I didn't read every post so if L. Court called you names or cut you down that would be wrong too....so I apologize if that was the case. there aren't only facts being thrown around here. a lot of this is opinion and debate of circumstcial evidence. I agree that some of it is damning evidence as well. but none of us have only facts here....some of it is opinions or insticts as you said before.

boy that just convinces me even more.......lol. my instincts tell me that this case is not the classic open and shut one. the death penalty is tough too in these situations. I can't tell you for sure that darlie is innocent or guilty. detectives/cops act off instincts. lawyers and jurors are supposed to act on proof and fact. there is some proof that links her. but is it enough? I don't know that it is.


Gosh you went back a long way! There's so much evidence, more than enough. That remark I made was a personal one,aside from the evidence.

No trial is fair to a person claiming they are innocent. Do a web search for Pamela Smart, Carolyn Warmus, Diane Downs, Jeff McDonald (and so many more). The all claim they are innocent and didn't get a fair trial- and most of them have honestly better cases for saying that than this case. In Pamela Smart's case, for instance, the Judge admitted taped phone conversations that were made without her knowledge that were used against her. Truly damning evidence, not even questionable like Darlie's silly string party where she invited the media. I just saw another case on true tv where a wife was suspected of killing her husband and the police hid a video camera where they found the murder weapon, and sure enough the wife went there seemingly looking for the weapon. This was admiitted in court and was the biggest pieces of evidence against her because the case was almost all circumstancial. It was actually the last thing played for the jury before they went to deliberate. She was found guilty and now serving 60 years now. Eileen Warnus (sp?) comes to mind too, they got her after they wired her girlfriend and taped phone calls setting her up. Right or wrong, it happens all the time.

Darlie had a defense most criminals can only dream of. The trial was good enough. Not perfect, but what trial is. There was more than enough evidence to convict her and if she ever did go to trial again, would be more than enough to convict her again.

is it necessary to cut into someone personally because they raise some legit questions about this case? is it necessary to call them a hypocrit because aren't we all in some aspects? I'd say I have no problem with anyone who wants to have a clean debate on this topic because it is debatable. but is name calling going to make anyone look right or wrong here?

Who called names? I said what he posted was hypocritical because what he was stating in his posts was exactly that. That is honestly how I feel after reading his posts. Just so illogical I can't hardly read or respond to them. That is how I feel and my right to express, just as he expresses that he thinks we're 'closed-minded' or suggests 'Mothers' can't understand information or make good judgements.

Right!?! And I'm, for one, wearing cut-off shorts! And popping gum, loudly! And laughing! And I think I'll call the media so it's on national tv too! You know this is almost funny but it's hard to laugh because of what those boys went through. But you KNOW she would be turning over in her grave if anyone did that at HER precious grave. To Darlie, it's always all about Darlie.
be careful. If she is buried in rowlett, texas and you do that....they may sentence you to death....despite the fact that there is some possibility that she was executed by someone else. or they may follow you and give you a parking ticket at some point.

Who called names? I said what he posted was hypocritical because what he was stating in his posts was exactly that. That is honestly how I feel after reading his posts. Just so illogical I can't hardly read or respond to them. That is how I feel and my right to express, just as he expresses that he thinks we're 'closed-minded' or suggests 'Mothers' can't understand information or make good judgements.
you seem like you don't have much of a problem reading or responding to L. Court's posts as you say. 24 pages later......

Gosh you went back a long way! There's so much evidence, more than enough. That remark I made was a personal one,aside from the evidence.

No trial is fair to a person claiming they are innocent. Do a web search for Pamela Smart, Carolyn Warmus, Diane Downs, Jeff McDonald (and so many more). The all claim they are innocent and didn't get a fair trial- and most of them have honestly better cases for saying that than this case. In Pamela Smart's case, for instance, the Judge admitted taped phone conversations that were made without her knowledge that were used against her. Truly damning evidence, not even questionable like Darlie's silly string party where she invited the media. I just saw another case on true tv where a wife was suspected of killing her husband and the police hid a video camera where they found the murder weapon, and sure enough the wife went there seemingly looking for the weapon. This was admiitted in court and was the biggest pieces of evidence against her because the case was almost all circumstancial. It was actually the last thing played for the jury before they went to deliberate. She was found guilty and now serving 60 years now. Eileen Warnus (sp?) comes to mind too, they got her after they wired her girlfriend and taped phone calls setting her up. Right or wrong, it happens all the time.

Darlie had a defense most criminals can only dream of. The trial was good enough. Not perfect, but what trial is. There was more than enough evidence to convict her and if she ever did go to trial again, would be more than enough to convict her again.
right is right....wrong is wrong. those cases don't apply to this one. but any good attorney(or one that has some integrity) would honor the law in all situations. not just when it is convenient.

you seem like you don't have much of a problem reading or responding to L. Court's posts as you say. 24 pages later......

I respond to his posts only to try to clarify wrong information he states, usually.

right is right....wrong is wrong. those cases don't apply to this one. but any good attorney(or one that has some integrity) would honor the law in all situations. not just when it is convenient.

It's the Judge that makes those decisions.

or they may follow you and give you a parking ticket at some point.

:lol:

It's the Judge that makes those decisions.
thanks for clearing that up.....but they go to law school as well last time I checked. so do most elected officials. but some of them have little problem pooping on what they stand for. some of them have no integrity or values. either that or they forget what they are supposed to represent. not saying all of them, but some. I understand that tough decisions have to be made. but they are supposed to be based on what the law actually says. sometimes judges overstep their boundaries. it happens as you say....but it doesn't mean it's ok. at least the way I see it. I said attorney, but many people perform functions that require law school (or even police have to know the law and their boundaries). I used attorney as a broad statement because any official in a court room should have knowledge of the law and use it the way it is meant to be used. but of course when humans are involved mistakes and neglection happens. they are all attorneys/lawyers, but an elected judge should be one that stands out above the others he/she presides over. and integrity is key IMO. especially in states like texas where people get put to death more often than they should. I'm not saying this relates to the darlie case. I'm just throwing out some of my general opinions of our current standing....with lawyers/elected officials, ect. it's a massive problem in our country where people lack integrity and have trouble admiting to their mistakes that affect/effect others.

I think it can be considered sort of a 'gray' area sometimes. For example, the serial killer Eilieen Wernus (spe?)...the taping basically got a confession out of her that they needed to convict her -and no one batted an eye at it as far as I know. I know in Pamela Smart's case the Attorney General ruled the secret taping was 'legal and ethical'. Judges are allowed to give permission for these sorts of things beforehand making it legal, but sometimes they don't get the permission making it illegal -but only on a technicality.

I don't know that I would say that something that helps being about true "justice" (meaning here -convicting the right person for a crime) would be considered "wrong".

In Darlie's case since she herself invited the media to tape it, it should be allowed, IMO. Darlie herself has no problem with the party and still defends it.

user,
yes, I did say I have a degree in genetics in a previous post and it is from the University of California, Davis a top public university. So, I did tell everyone that it was my area of experise.

lucche,
When exactly did you state that you had a degree in genetics? I've looked through all of your previous posts. I saw post #105 where you said "... as a scientist..." . Then on post #136 you said, "I guess my 5 years of advanced science all went for naught as it is obvious you know more than I." and then on post #168 you say, "As you doubt my education in science, I can only tell you I am a graduate of the University of California at Davis, located in Davis, CA. One of the top public institutions in the US, especially in the life sciences. I graduated in the school of Letters and Science, though I could also have graduated from the College of Agriculture as my major was available from either school."

???????
Pam

Dallastexan,
I have to say... you shattered my image of you. I'm sure you don't care, but you did.
Pam
in what way?

I think it can be considered sort of a 'gray' area sometimes. For example, the serial killer Eilieen Wernus (spe?)...the taping basically got a confession out of her that they needed to convict her -and no one batted an eye at it as far as I know. I know in Pamela Smart's case the Attorney General ruled the secret taping was 'legal and ethical'. Judges are allowed to give permission for these sorts of things beforehand making it legal, but sometimes they don't get the permission making it illegal -but only on a technicality.

I don't know that I would say that something that helps being about true "justice" (meaning here -convicting the right person for a crime) would be considered "wrong".

In Darlie's case since she herself invited the media to tape it, it should be allowed, IMO. Darlie herself has no problem with the party and still defends it.
no it should not be allowed. darlie did not invite the media to make a confession or give details from her case. she invited them for another reason. what reason that was? I don't know. but she wasn't on trial for the way she grieved her children. she was on trial for their murder. since that tape has no factual evidence that links her to the murder of the children it should not have been used against her. If anything the prosecution made an error because the tape had been shown already. they didn't even need to show it. but they did and they crossed the line when they did. and it only goes to show that they wern't doing things by the book and opens more questions in other aspects of the case. like the other photos ect.

Well, we've all made catty and somewhat immature remarks. I guess I just looked at you as more of an intellectual. No big deal. It's not like we even know each other. It just seemed above you.

Pam:wave:
above what? clever jabs? I was being sarcastic. and I understand that two little boys lost their life here. I also understand that many believe darlie is guilty. I don't know either way for sure. but I am tired of people who are supposed to uphold the law......getting away with straying from it. there are places in texas and other states where they(state officials/lawyers ect) put innocent people to death despite practicing unlawfully......hence my extreme sarcasm. and the same can be said vice versa for defense teams that practice unethically to their advantage. I apologize if I offended anyone. but in this case....I wasn't trying to call out any of you in a wrongful manner. I'm trying to call out professionals who take an oath to serve. and some of them get away with straying from that oath. even if justice played out and darlie is the killer. fine....but it doesn't make it ok that they were wrong as well. We all have an opinion. My opinion isn't negative against any of you....or even against darlie. the lady is on death row so it is what it is i guess. I also understand there is a chance she IS guilty. But my negative attitude in this case is mostly because of the unethical practices of the court system. that IMO can be proven. and speaking of image wern't you all sarcastically joking about the silly string to begin with? I was trying to play too. despite that I may not agree with you all in every aspect.

I apologize that I am so against people who abuse their power. Maybe something can be done about this in the future. there are far too many cases of them. we see many of them on unsolved mysteries.

Since, the specualtive evidence points 100% that Darlie is guilty, then why proceed with a DNA test of the bloody sock, finger print, and pubic hair. Even if the results were to come back that there IS DNA present from an unknown person, I guess would be completely irrelavent anyway. You see 100% leaves absolutely no roon for error. Which would mean that any new DNA evidence found after the trial would have no effect on your opinion of whether she is guilty or not guilty. Am I to understand, that even if they get a DNA match to a former felon, who was in the area at the time of the event, and had no other connection to the Routiers, would not be considered evidence enough to overturn the conviction, in your opinion? Since we are speculating.

User, my apology. I said science instead of genetics. Well, it was in the department of genetics. I guess that is why I think DNA evidence is so important in this case. It can either uphold the conviction or it can overturn the conviction. The DNA evidence is the ONLY thing that could prove whether or not there was an intruder. Otherwise, all we have is circumstantial evidence which DOES point to her guilt, but it does not point to her guilt beyond reasonable doubt until the DNA evidence is investigated. And the state of Texas has consistantly refused to allow the defense access to this evidence to do such testing. My question to Texas is why? Now, thanks to the Fed it will be tested and the results will be known. If no DNA evidence to point to an intruder, I would uphold guilty. But, if they get a match to someone other than someone who should have been in the house, then I would vote innocent. That is why I keep saying, I have no opinion about innocense or guilt until ALL the evidence has been investigated to the fullest, and Texas does not want that done! Why? IMO, they are afraid that the new evidence could possibly show a mistake was made.

User, my apology. I said science instead of genetics. Well, it was in the department of genetics. I guess that is why I think DNA evidence is so important in this case. It can either uphold the conviction or it can overturn the conviction. The DNA evidence is the ONLY thing that could prove whether or not there was an intruder. Otherwise, all we have is circumstantial evidence which DOES point to her guilt, but it does not point to her guilt beyond reasonable doubt until the DNA evidence is investigated. And the state of Texas has consistantly refused to allow the defense access to this evidence to do such testing. My question to Texas is why? Now, thanks to the Fed it will be tested and the results will be known. If no DNA evidence to point to an intruder, I would uphold guilty. But, if they get a match to someone other than someone who should have been in the house, then I would vote innocent. That is why I keep saying, I have no opinion about innocense or guilt until ALL the evidence has been investigated to the fullest, and Texas does not want that done! Why? IMO, they are afraid that the new evidence could possibly show a mistake was made.

Lucchesiscourt, You keep acting like this case is some sort of big conspiracy and highly unusual. Look at the Carolyn Warmus website...she , too, claims to be waiting on new DNA testing to prove her innocence, and she's been in prison a lot longer than Darlie. Pam Smart, lost all her appeals with similar arguments, and this list is LONG. This has nothing to do w/ conspiracy, or the state of Texas at all. Because Darlie is on death row and they will issue stays for almost any reason hers will be done, and before many others...which makes her fortunate. It certainly does not mean that any court agrees with her in any way though, (in fact they continually state they do not), it's just part of the process. I personally look forward to every bit of new testing being completed.

but I am tired of people who are supposed to uphold the law......getting away with straying from it. I'm trying to call out professionals who take an oath to serve. and some of them get away with straying from that oath. even if justice played out and darlie is the killer. fine....but it doesn't make it ok that they were wrong as well.

my negative attitude in this case is mostly because of the unethical practices of the court system.

I apologize that I am so against people who abuse their power. Maybe something can be done about this in the future. there are far too many cases of them. we see many of them on unsolved mysteries.

I truly don't see how anyone who seeks justice could complain about technicalities like, for example, if they got permmission to use a statement by a serial killer on hidden tape so they could get a conviction as in Eileen Wernos (sp?) case. Isn't getting the person responsible the whole reason for the justice system? Take out all the rules and technicalities...that's the point of justice! I don't think it's always ethically 'wrong' , "neglectful' , or 'abuse of power', ...and as I said if the police simply go through proper procedure and obtain a Judge's order before doing it , it is perfectly within the laws of jurisprudence anyway. I think this really doesn't apply in Darlie's case anyway since she invited the media to cover that party. It's fair game then. And the jury had a right to consider her behavior especially since she feels (and still feels) there was nothing wrong with it, and also to consider other things about the tape like how her injuries looked 8 days later, if her eyes were swollen as if she had been upset earlier as she claimed, etc. It reminds me a little of Robert Chambers tape where he was at a party laughing and pretending to strangle the girl (can't think of her name) with a doll that he was accused of raping and strangling. Or Scott Peterson telling his mistress all his lies....does it ALONE mean they are guilty? No, but do they have a right to be considered by the jury? Well they usually are, and I don't know that I would consider that 'unethical' or 'wrong'. The jury has a right to consider all aspects about the case and the person accused of committing the crime. Jurors are not complete idiots, they're able to discern, and decide for themselves what is important, credible, not credible, etc. They have to consider many things and look at all aspects.

above what? clever jabs? I was being sarcastic. and I understand that two little boys lost their life here. I also understand that many believe darlie is guilty. I don't know either way for sure. but I am tired of people who are supposed to uphold the law......getting away with straying from it. there are places in texas and other states where they(state officials/lawyers ect) put innocent people to death despite practicing unlawfully......hence my extreme sarcasm. and the same can be said vice versa for defense teams that practice unethically to their advantage. I apologize if I offended anyone. but in this case....I wasn't trying to call out any of you in a wrongful manner. I'm trying to call out professionals who take an oath to serve. and some of them get away with straying from that oath. even if justice played out and darlie is the killer. fine....but it doesn't make it ok that they were wrong as well. We all have an opinion. My opinion isn't negative against any of you....or even against darlie. the lady is on death row so it is what it is i guess. I also understand there is a chance she IS guilty. But my negative attitude in this case is mostly because of the unethical practices of the court system. that IMO can be proven. and speaking of image wern't you all sarcastically joking about the silly string to begin with? I was trying to play too. despite that I may not agree with you all in every aspect.

I apologize that I am so against people who abuse their power. Maybe something can be done about this in the future. there are far too many cases of them. we see many of them on unsolved mysteries.

My apologies. You're right. We were all being sarcastic and you have the same right. Pam

I truly don't see how anyone who seeks justice could complain about technicalities like, for example, if they got permmission to use a statement by a serial killer on hidden tape so they could get a conviction as in Eileen Wernos (sp?) case. Isn't getting the person responsible the whole reason for the justice system? Take out all the rules and technicalities...that's the point of justice! I don't think it's always ethically 'wrong' , "neglectful' , or 'abuse of power', ...and as I said if the police simply go through proper procedure and obtain a Judge's order before doing it , it is perfectly within the laws of jurisprudence anyway. I think this really doesn't apply in Darlie's case anyway since she invited the media to cover that party. It's fair game then. And the jury had a right to consider her behavior especially since she feels (and still feels) there was nothing wrong with it, and also to consider other things about the tape like how her injuries looked 8 days later, if her eyes were swollen as if she had been upset earlier as she claimed, etc. It reminds me a little of Robert Chambers tape where he was at a party laughing and pretending to strangle the girl (can't think of her name) with a doll that he was accused of raping and strangling. Or Scott Peterson telling his mistress all his lies....does it ALONE mean they are guilty? No, but do they have a right to be considered by the jury? Well they usually are, and I don't know that I would consider that 'unethical' or 'wrong'. The jury has a right to consider all aspects about the case and the person accused of committing the crime. Jurors are not complete idiots, they're able to discern, and decide for themselves what is important, credible, not credible, etc. They have to consider many things and look at all aspects.
I never said jurors were idiots and that they can't use info that is presented to them. they will indeed use anything and everything that is presented to them as they should. in this case they should of used the video because it was presented. The jurors just sit back and watch what they get. It's not up to them to discern what's appropriate to be examined in the court room. Which leads us right back to square one. technicality or not. If the tape should not have been shown in court....it's simple. they didn't need the tape for a conviction because it shows nothing factual about the case other than in some people's eyes she had a questionable way to grieve her boys deaths. that's all it shows. again if I were her lawyer I would of been appauled by anyone who thinks that it's ok to show that in a court room. and if they did use the video and a judge ever looks back and thinks that it was wrong.....it may give reason to re-try the case. but again it is one aspect of this trial. Is that video the reason she got convicted or will it be the difference? there is no way to ever know. It couldn't of helped her any that's for sure. My guess is that she needs much more than the video to get a new trial. I also never meant to imply that the tape was a secret or wrongfully obtained or anything like that. just that it doesn't need to be shown in court. If I were a lawyer I would argue that all parents grieve differently. In a case where a mother is on trial for her life and her children, is it appropriate to show a jury a tape of that grieving nature? now if she was talking about the murder or about the attack in some form that would of been totally different. but that was never the case. video evidence is always key because people relate better to what they can see rather than what they listen to or subjects that are described with words. In this case they see a mother grieving in her own way and a lawyer is claiming a normal innocent mother would be wearing black and crying. but somehow her grieving actions relate to the murder? that's not justice in my book....but i'm not you so we can disagree. even if she is guilty. because there are far to many cases where something like this happens and an innocent person is put away.

Any evidence presented in a criminal trial is first decided upon in an evidentiary hearing whether it can be entered into trial or not. It is not like in the movies where you have a "surprise witness" or some gun is presented out of nowhere and everyone is surprised or shocked.

In the real world that is what the evidentiary hearing is for. That is where tangible evidence is discussed, reviewed and either allowed to be shown during the trial or thrown out. Testimonial evidence, communicative evidence as distinguished from from demonstrative or physical evidence is also discussed. And the relevancy of all the evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence.

Bottom line, that videotape was allowed to be entered as evidence and both sides made their arguments for or against it being allowed as evidence. The judge made his decision TO ALLOW IT to be entered. Every judge follows the rules and codes of evidence (yes there is an actual book of codes for this) and determines by those rules and codes whether something can be presented as evidence. Unless it can be shown the judge made some error by not following the rules of evidence, the whole videotape evidence discussion is moot.

Well that's your opinion and your right. I never said you said jurors were idiots, I was just making the statements about jurors to try to make my point. I just don't agree on this issue...I think the video shows her character, her injuries that jurors were asked to believe by the defense were so terrible and life-threatening, and also helps them to determine her credibility regarding grieving right before this party as she claimed. I've watched the video many times, and what I'm always looking for is some sign, ANY, that was really crying and grieving just before this. Messed up make-up, puffy eyes, swollen face, ANYTHING that would show me that were true. There's no sign of that at all in her actions or on her face. I find I'm also looking for her injuries. Besides her lack of grieving there's other things in that tape for jurors to consider when making a decision in this case, IMO. It wasn't completely irrelevant to the case, these were the victim's gravesites slaughtered just 8 days before. Still, as I've said lots of time, I absolutely think she would have been convicted without it just based on the blood and other evidence at the scene. It could be argued that Robert Chambers video of him laughing and twisting and popping the head off a doll at a party and saying it was Jennifer isn't relevant to the murder either, but I personally think info. like that has a right to be weighed in trying to determine if someone committed a murder because it lends insight into someone's true character and not just what they are presenting in court, and of course along with all the other evidence.

Any evidence presented in a criminal trial is first decided upon in an evidentiary hearing whether it can be entered into trial or not. It is not like in the movies where you have a "surprise witness" or some gun is presented out of nowhere and everyone is surprised or shocked.

In the real world that is what the evidentiary hearing is for. That is where tangible evidence is discussed, reviewed and either allowed to be shown during the trial or thrown out. Testimonial evidence, communicative evidence as distinguished from from demonstrative or physical evidence is also discussed. And the relevancy of all the evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence.

Bottom line, that videotape was allowed to be entered as evidence and both sides made their arguments for or against it being allowed as evidence. The judge made his decision TO ALLOW IT to be entered. Every judge follows the rules and codes of evidence (yes there is an actual book of codes for this) and determines by those rules and codes whether something can be presented as evidence. Unless it can be shown the judge made some error by not following the rules of evidence, the whole videotape evidence discussion is moot.

Well said as usual Ireneparalegal.

Well said as usual Ireneparalegal.
Thanx sweetie. ;)

:welcome:

Question: Is all the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing? I have seen many times where counsel, on both sides, say they that they are seeing documents being presented for the first time in court (or that they had not seen before). Does this mean that the evidence was overlooked by the counsel or that it may not have been presented at the hearing?

Neither Smart or Warmus are on death row with limited time. That is the difference. Also, could you post a link to show where either state denied testing of DNA evidence in their case?

From what I read about their trials, it seems their appeals are not based on possible NEW evidence, but on procedural actions. IMO there exists a POSSIBILITY that ACTUAL evidence may exist that could exonerate Darlie, and it needs to be tested. These others do NOT have ANY FACTUAL evidence, that could be used to exonerate them (that I have read). That is why I am requesting a link that would show where either state is denying the testing of evidence that exists in their cases too.

Do a search for death row inmates -there's a page with all of them listed (from all over the Country) and the majority say they are innocent and that there is new evidence or testing that could free them. It has nothing to do with Texas and any conspiracy against Darlie. Here's a few links with names most of us know, though not all are on death row. There's many more if you care to look them up yourself. In Pam Smart's case there's other reasons she thinks she should be pardonned, so I'm not going to list her link.


Carolyn Warmus Justice fund -
http://carolynwarmusjusticefund.org/carolynwarmusorg/id9.html

Jeffrey McDonald -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/48hours/main1002954.shtml
www.fataljustice.com

Diane Downs-
http://www.dianedowns.com/

Scott Peterson-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-15-peterson_x.htm

From what I read about their trials, it seems their appeals are not based on possible NEW evidence, but on procedural actions. IMO there exists a POSSIBILITY that ACTUAL evidence may exist that could exonerate Darlie, and it needs to be tested. These others do NOT have ANY FACTUAL evidence, that could be used to exonerate them (that I have read). That is why I am requesting a link that would show where either state is denying the testing of evidence that exists in their cases too.

Lucchesiscourt, You know as well as I do there is no NEW evidence in Darlie's case. You guys have been saying and hinting at that for what 10 years now, but in all your appeals and filings there's no new actual evidence. If there is and I'm wrong, tell us please (and Pam has asked you this too), exactly what is this new evidence?

I mean besides that the Texas billionaire her family begged to take on the case and prove her innocence did a big independent investigation and found absolutely no evidence of an intruder, and Darlie failing lie detector tests, and Darlie's big "regression therapy" that cost $6000 per session that her family raised money for that ended up gleaning nothing other than Darlie changing her story yet again to say it's two intruders (only because it could explain some things and seem to match the evidence better), and testing showing Darlie's ring ringer could not be ruled out as the person respnsible for the 'unidentified' bloody print.... what else, pray tell, is there?

Any evidence presented in a criminal trial is first decided upon in an evidentiary hearing whether it can be entered into trial or not. It is not like in the movies where you have a "surprise witness" or some gun is presented out of nowhere and everyone is surprised or shocked.

In the real world that is what the evidentiary hearing is for. That is where tangible evidence is discussed, reviewed and either allowed to be shown during the trial or thrown out. Testimonial evidence, communicative evidence as distinguished from from demonstrative or physical evidence is also discussed. And the relevancy of all the evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without evidence.

Bottom line, that videotape was allowed to be entered as evidence and both sides made their arguments for or against it being allowed as evidence. The judge made his decision TO ALLOW IT to be entered. Every judge follows the rules and codes of evidence (yes there is an actual book of codes for this) and determines by those rules and codes whether something can be presented as evidence. Unless it can be shown the judge made some error by not following the rules of evidence, the whole videotape evidence discussion is moot.
I understand that. I don't watch many movies so I don't know too much in that regard. I do only watch reality court cases(or documentary based shows like UM) where errors of judgements are made by professionals all the time. now who am I you may ask? that's fine and I understand your opinions and values in that regard. but it's my personal opinion that the video and the contents thereof do not show any evidence of innocence or guilt. In fact her actions in the tape are irrelevant, but they only hurt her reputation and hinder her ability to be defended fairly. that's my opinion and it won't change regardless of what any other person says. and I'm not alone either on this front. some professionals who have analyzed this case agree.

I understand that. I don't watch many movies so I don't know too much in that regard. I do only watch reality court cases(or documentary based shows like UM) where errors of judgements are made by professionals all the time. now who am I you may ask? that's fine and I understand your opinions and values in that regard. but it's my personal opinion that the video and the contents thereof do not show any evidence of innocence or guilt. In fact her actions in the tape are irrelevant, but they only hurt her reputation and hinder her ability to be defended fairly. that's my opinion and it won't change regardless of what any other person says. and I'm not alone either on this front. some professionals who have analyzed this case agree.
I never stated I agree or disagree with the videotape being presented in court. I believe the case still had enough evidence for a conviction, with or without the tape. My point was to comment regarding the comment, how could the tape be brought into court as evidence. I pointed that out. I cannot remember the arguments that were made for OR against the tape being shown during the trial. Does anyone know the details???
Regardless, there are many cases where there are things brought into evidence that seem unfathomable, but they obviously serve some purpose, whether it is to prove for or against something.

[QUOTE=DALLASTEXAN!!] darlie did not invite the media to make a confession or give details from her case. she invited them for another reason. what reason that was? I don't know. QUOTE]



She invited the media because she is an attention craving murderer. She was STUPID enought to think that she could get away with what she did and they caught her. BRAVO. NO ONE has explained YET why there is NO BLOOD OUTSIDE THAT HOUSE, ON THAT GATE, ON THAT FENCE, OR ON THAT SCREEN. NO ONE. The only thing that the Darlie lovers even care to discuss is what an unfair trial poor, pathetic, murdering Darlie got. And, "Oh my gosh! She was left for dead with that horrible scratch on her throat!!" What a load of garbage. Personally, it astounds me that such seemingly educated people could look at the evidence and not put this thing together. Bloody footprints all over the floor - but only Darlies. Broken glass all over the floor - but not one cut on Darlies feet - even though she said herself that the intruder bumped the wine rack on the way out and broke a glass on the kitchen floor as she was bravely chasing him out of her house. Yet not ONE cut on either of her feet.... nothing short of amazing. Also pretty amazing was that on this wine rack there were delicate crystal wine glasses on it, only one glass falls off. And then add that to the fact that her bloody prints were UNDER the glass... magical. Then her first instinct is to go over and pick up the knife after the intruder "drops it" ...my 4 year old beagle knows better than to do that. IT IS EVIDENCE DO NOT TOUCH IT. Poor thing, she has no less than 16 versions of what happened. To name only a few... she must have slept through all three attacks... she woke up with the man over her... she woke up and saw a glimpse of a man walking away... she woke up and there was a man holding her feet... she woke up and they were fighting face to face... fighting face to face but cant recall ANY facial features. But her memory becomes pretty darn clear when she makes a point of letting everyone know right away that she had already touched the knife. And the only reason her bloody prints were on the vacuum cleaner was because she had used it to hold herself up. No blood on that "sliced" screen, and nothing pushed or shoved out of the way so this brutal killer could escape without a trace through this fairly small area. Not one TRACE. Amazing. Let me tell you something, you can use all the new DNA testing in all the universe and you will NEVER find any evidence of an intruder in that house. Because there was never an intruder there.

How FAIR was OJs trial? How FAIR was it to the two people he slaughtered that the DA was STUPID enough not to insist on having a NEW pair of gloves brought in for him to try on in front of that jury? Same brand, same size.The defense had no problem at all with him trying on those blood soaked, shrunken gloves because they KNEW they wouldn't fit. BIG mistake on the DAs part. BIG score for the defense. So I guess "fair" all depends on your angle.

:yeahthat

mommy2sets,
what do you mean there is no new evidence?I guess you know exactly what evidence the police department possesses? I sure don't. I only see what has been submitted into evidence, and that is all.
Let's say an intruder opens an unlocked door and shoots Jane Doe with a .38. The husband, John Doe takes two shots at an intruder with his own .38. Police arrest John as he is in possession of a .38 that was fired. Police find one bullet in Jane and one in the wall. The other bullet, who knows where it went, but there is no evidence of a third bullet. Now, let's say police interview 3 people. One says 3 shots were fired, andother says two were fired, and a third says 2 or 3 shots were fired. The police are going to try and get the guy who says two or three to think back and convince him it was two. Then the defense is going to call only the two witnesses who said two shots were fired. The guy who says three will not even be called by the prosecution, because it will not support their case. And if the police do not run a ballistics test on the bullet and gun, then it will look like an easy conviction. Joe shot and killed his wife. Why? Because evidence points that way, and police always look at family memebers first. Well, failing to run a ballistics test is a lot like not running a DNA profile test, which is also a much more accurate test than a ballistic test. DNA profile test is about 99.9999 percent accurate. Two people having the same DNA profile would be like two people having the same fingerprint.

The fact is that Texas has not run a DNA analysis on the print, the sock, the rape test,and/ or the so called pubic hair, if these irems do exist. If these items do not exist, then there is no new evidence. But, the fact that DNA profile tests haven't been run, is like having the weapon and not doing a ballistic test to see if is the actual murder weapon. Would you convict someone for murder because they have possession of a weapon without doing a ballistics test. like my sample above? I would hope not.
The technology to do the DNA profile testing was available in 1992-1993, but wasn't yet used by criminal justice systems until a later time (which I am unsure as to when they started actually using it). It was used in university research regularly around 1994-1995 and has been sinced then.
If you think any of the above items actually exist, then it is time to run the ballistics test (DNA profile test) on them. It should have been done a LONG time again. And, it should be done in all criminal cases where there is a possibility of doubt.

Now, let's say police interview 3 people. One says 3 shots were fired, andother says two were fired, and a third says 2 or 3 shots were fired. The police are going to try and get the guy who says two or three to think back and convince him it was two. Then the defense is going to call only the two witnesses who said two shots were fired. The guy who says three will not even be called by the prosecution, because it will not support their case.
With videotaping now the norm in police interrogation rooms and interviewing witnesses are now videotaped and/or recorded, your comment makes no sense abt any detective (not a cop) trying to "convince" any witness to change their story. You are making a generalized statement abt detectives by saying they would try and make anyone change their story.

Also, your comment abt a prosecutor not wanting to call any witness because it would not corroborate their case, does not keep the defense from calling the same witness to poke holes in the prosecution's theory. ;) It works both ways.

I don't know abt Texas and if this is possible, but if the Darlie camp is so damn definite abt the whole DNA testing (as you seem to be) why don't they FORK OVER THE MONEY TO HAVE THOSE ITEMS TESTED? If my daughter's line were on the line, I would have no problem borrowing or raising the money, selling whatever I own to have the $$$ to get those items tested privately. ;)

Actually Lucchesiscourt as I'm sure you know there were mitochondrial DNA experts that testified at Darlie's trial about all kinds of evidence against Darlie. The print was tested by a fingerprint expert and Darlie couldn't be ruled out..that may be good enough for the Courts because as you said yourself DNA is only as conclusive as , say, a fingerprint. There is no rape kit that can be found by the hospital. Either they were going to order one but never actually did it, or some other kind of error because there simply isn't one. Darlie knows this, which is probably why she keeps saying she wants the result of the rape kit. I bet one was never done on her. And please don't tell us the whole hospital is in on the cover-up too to conceal evidence too. As far as the pubic hair - test it. Although with all the chaos at the scene that night, and from my understanding about stray pubic hairs at crime scenes, it could have been left by just about anyone. Remember there were two boys laying dead or dying, yes the crime scene wasn't preserved as good as it should have been...but human life comes first to anything, and there was a lot of chaos and disruption just because many people were just trying to save those boys and not thinking as clearly as they could have been about the crime scene, in light of that. With all the people in the house that night, I don't think a single pubic hair means anything. But test it, if you think it does. There's so much more overwhelming evidence against Darlie though I wouldn't get your hopes up that it would change anything. There are non-profit groups that take on cases for free where someone is convicted of a crime and DNA testing could prove the person innocent. They, of course, use criterion in deciding which cases to take on... among things they look at is if the convicted person has a solid story that has never changed (Darlie doesn't), if testing could have changed the verdict becaues it strongly outweighs other evidence in the case, and other criterion that Darlie's conviction doesn't meet- so I highly doubt they would take her case on.

I was wrong about the rape kit. Sorry. Seems there was a partial rape kit done at Baylor, but they weren't set up to do full rape kits. The result was negative according to a Nurse and detective.

Lucche....
On one post after another you talk about this new testing, new evidence. Like there is something going on that only you and who ever sent you here know about. Then you come on with this post and say...

"what do you mean there is no new evidence?I guess you know exactly what evidence the police department possesses? I sure don't. I only see what has been submitted into evidence, and that is all."

Thats right, you DON'T know. So why do you keep arguing a point that you have no base of reference for? You have continually argued over and over about this NEW evidence, NEW DNA... then you turn around in this post and say "I guess you know exactly what evidence the police department possesses? I sure don't." NO you don't... you don't know anymore than the rest of us so why do you keep talking like you do??? Come on!!! WTF???

Pam:confused:




mommy2sets,
what do you mean there is no new evidence?I guess you know exactly what evidence the police department possesses? I sure don't. I only see what has been submitted into evidence, and that is all.
.

Well said. Glad you commented on that. I read that and I too was like, "WTF?" But I wasn't in the mood to post a response to that.

.

The fact is that Texas has not run a DNA analysis on the print, the sock, the rape test,and/ or the so called pubic hair .



Please, please PLEASE tell me how you know that? Do you expect me or anyone else to believe that there has been NO DNA testing done on those items??????? I would LOVE to know who told you that.

Well said. Glad you commented on that. I read that and I too was like, "WTF?" But I wasn't in the mood to post a response to that.

:cheers:

[QUOTE=DALLASTEXAN!!] darlie did not invite the media to make a confession or give details from her case. she invited them for another reason. what reason that was? I don't know. QUOTE]



She invited the media because she is an attention craving murderer. She was STUPID enought to think that she could get away with what she did and they caught her. BRAVO. NO ONE has explained YET why there is NO BLOOD OUTSIDE THAT HOUSE, ON THAT GATE, ON THAT FENCE, OR ON THAT SCREEN. NO ONE. The only thing that the Darlie lovers even care to discuss is what an unfair trial poor, pathetic, murdering Darlie got. And, "Oh my gosh! She was left for dead with that horrible scratch on her throat!!" What a load of garbage. Personally, it astounds me that such seemingly educated people could look at the evidence and not put this thing together. Bloody footprints all over the floor - but only Darlies. Broken glass all over the floor - but not one cut on Darlies feet - even though she said herself that the intruder bumped the wine rack on the way out and broke a glass on the kitchen floor as she was bravely chasing him out of her house. Yet not ONE cut on either of her feet.... nothing short of amazing. Also pretty amazing was that on this wine rack there were delicate crystal wine glasses on it, only one glass falls off. And then add that to the fact that her bloody prints were UNDER the glass... magical. Then her first instinct is to go over and pick up the knife after the intruder "drops it" ...my 4 year old beagle knows better than to do that. IT IS EVIDENCE DO NOT TOUCH IT. Poor thing, she has no less than 16 versions of what happened. To name only a few... she must have slept through all three attacks... she woke up with the man over her... she woke up and saw a glimpse of a man walking away... she woke up and there was a man holding her feet... she woke up and they were fighting face to face... fighting face to face but cant recall ANY facial features. But her memory becomes pretty darn clear when she makes a point of letting everyone know right away that she had already touched the knife. And the only reason her bloody prints were on the vacuum cleaner was because she had used it to hold herself up. No blood on that "sliced" screen, and nothing pushed or shoved out of the way so this brutal killer could escape without a trace through this fairly small area. Not one TRACE. Amazing. Let me tell you something, you can use all the new DNA testing in all the universe and you will NEVER find any evidence of an intruder in that house. Because there was never an intruder there.

How FAIR was OJs trial? How FAIR was it to the two people he slaughtered that the DA was STUPID enough not to insist on having a NEW pair of gloves brought in for him to try on in front of that jury? Same brand, same size.The defense had no problem at all with him trying on those blood soaked, shrunken gloves because they KNEW they wouldn't fit. BIG mistake on the DAs part. BIG score for the defense. So I guess "fair" all depends on your angle.
you know I have agreed that the evidence points to her. I have also noted that the only other possible killer is the husband and that this case is extremely unusual based on her injuries. she is a prime suspect and I'm not saying she's innocent. That doesn't excuse inadequate performance by professionals in the court room. that's all I'm saying. when those professionals fail to do their job two extremes happen. innocent people get sentenced and guilty ones go free.....period. that's my biggest problem in these type of cases. I understand that you guys/gals are very emotional and passionate about this case as well. I am to an extent, but not so much that I'll turn a complete blind eye to what's right in all aspects.

dallastexan, the biggest thing I recall from your posts is the ever popular "Unfair Trial" saga. I really don't recall much else you've said because that is the biggest thing on your mind. It surrounds, consumes, devours any other point you ever may have tried to make.

Darin didn't do it. There was no intruder. Darlie did it. I believe that because of the blood and other evidence. A jury found her guilty in a court of law. As Ireneparalegal stated several posts back, "The Constitution promises us a FAIR trial, not a PERFECT trial." AND YES, WE ALL KNOW... you don't think her trial was fair. There are going to be rights and wrongs in every trial. The facts are there is no new evidence, there is nothing new, period. Darlie is going to have to pay for what she did.



[QUOTE=user296686@aol.c]
you know I have agreed that the evidence points to her. I have also noted that the only other possible killer is the husband and that this case is extremely unusual based on her injuries. she is a prime suspect and I'm not saying she's innocent. That doesn't excuse inadequate performance by professionals in the court room. that's all I'm saying. when those professionals fail to do their job two extremes happen. innocent people get sentenced and guilty ones go free.....period. that's my biggest problem in these type of cases. I understand that you guys/gals are very emotional and passionate about this case as well. I am to an extent, but not so much that I'll turn a complete blind eye to what's right in all aspects.

[QUOTE=user296686@aol.c]
she is a prime suspect and I'm not saying she's innocent.

No, she's not a prime suspect. She was found guilty. She is a convicted criminal on death row. Far from just a suspect.

dallastexan, the biggest thing I recall from your posts is the ever popular "Unfair Trial" saga. I really don't recall much else you've said because that is the biggest thing on your mind. It surrounds, consumes, devours any other point you ever may have tried to make.

Darin didn't do it. There was no intruder. Darlie did it. I believe that because of the blood and other evidence. A jury found her guilty in a court of law. As Ireneparalegal stated several posts back, "The Constitution promises us a FAIR trial, not a PERFECT trial." AND YES, WE ALL KNOW... you don't think her trial was fair. There are going to be rights and wrongs in every trial. The facts are there is no new evidence, there is nothing new, period. Darlie is going to have to pay for what she did.



[QUOTE=DALLASTEXAN!!]
we are all entitled to our opinion. BTW i was not implying that an outside intruder did it. maybe I have a while back, but the more I think about it....that doesn't appear to be the case. darin is another story he was in the house, therefore he is/was a suspect. My intention has never been to change your opinion or anyone else for that matter. most of the things you all are saying aren't shocking points or change my opinion of anyone respectively. I think you all know what you are talking about and have reason to believe the way you do.

On that same token it is the same for me. darlie WAS(sorry M2S') the prime suspect and for that I understand why she is in jail. My whole take(from an unbiased point of view) is that she does have a right to a fair trial like everyone else. This case had some solid evidence and some circumstancial evidence as well. In those situations when it isn't open and shut....IMO you have to be careful of things like that tape. As you all believe....the tape wasn't even needed anyway. But in reality if that was true, they would not have felt the need to show it. If I were the judge I wouldn't of allowed it. But I'm not a judge. I'm just a person who believes in his right to an opinion. we all have one. and I respect both of yours. and you are right. ireneparalegal hit the nail on the head about the judge. judge's do their job.....often they are right.

[QUOTE=DALLASTEXAN!!]

No, she's not a prime suspect. She was found guilty. She is a convicted criminal on death row. Far from just a suspect.
you know I understand your emotions on this case. I obviously don't feel the way you do emotionally. On the same note the most important thing is to remember the two boys that lost their life. darlie being killed....or getting a new trial(fair or not) will never change that. I understand we all want justice here....that's the one thing we all share. just because we disagree about certain aspects doesn't mean we don't want that. and as you say....my biggest problem is the tape.....they didn't need the tape anyway. so if she got a new trial would anything change? no...the appellate courts need more than just that tape. they aren't going to waste money and time on something that has little chance of changing. so I understand that. the tape is still wrong IMO though....that's always been my main problem. that doesn't mean I'm 100% right either. we all make mistakes and falsely accuse at times. so I'm not going to be too hypocritical here.

I'm excited to find that people are still discussing this case since my own opinions continue to waver. Once again, I'm in the process of re-reading portions of the trial transcript as well as a few of the books written about the murders. Now, I haven't had time to read all the posts on this topic, so please bear with me if I seem exceptionally ignorant of your past discussions. These are my current questions:

Did Darin meet Officer Waddell outside the residence upon his arrival at the scene?

Was blood found on a comforter in the bedroom upstairs that contained the boy's bunk bed?

Is it true that just after their marriage, Darlie discovered that Darin had had an affair, and if so, with whom?

Was Darin ever linked romantically with any of the women in Darlie's family?

Is it true that Darin and Darlie have divorced?

Where is Darin now, and does he retain custody of Drake?

What is the status of Brian Pardo's involvement in the case?

Has any other information arisen concerning the allegations against Darin of insurance fraud prior to the murders?

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I wade through the transcripts, so if anyone here has answers to any of the questions above - or questions of their own that have yet to be considered - please post a response. As we near the 12th anniversary of the murders, I'm hoping that someone, somewhere comes up with some solid answers.

Hi srf, :wave:

Welcome. Understand that this is a pretty heated thread and we just had someone come on being very polite, asking questions like they really didn't know anything about the case. My good online-friend answered all of her questions and then... lets just say it took an ugly turn and we almost had our thread shut down. We are all willing to discuss the case, but lots of things you are asking are easy to find. Several of us have been participating in this thread pretty deeply now and I don't think that any of us want it to be locked. So I will answer what I know and you will probably get answers from a lot of others, from BOTH sides, who are aware of things I may not know and we are all more than willing to discuss our points.
Here we go...


I'm excited to find that people are still discussing this case since my own opinions continue to waver. Once again, I'm in the process of re-reading portions of the trial transcript as well as a few of the books written about the murders. Now, I haven't had time to read all the posts on this topic, so please bear with me if I seem exceptionally ignorant of your past discussions. These are my current questions:

Did Darin meet Officer Waddell outside the residence upon his arrival at the scene? This question requires debate.

Was blood found on a comforter in the bedroom upstairs that contained the boy's bunk bed? I don't recall anything like that being mentioned.

Is it true that just after their marriage, Darlie discovered that Darin had had an affair, and if so, with whom? I, personally, have never heard anything in reference to this.
Was Darin ever linked romantically with any of the women in Darlie's family?
There has been casual talk on this thread concerning this matter, but nothing official that I know of.
Is it true that Darin and Darlie have divorced?
To the best of my knowledge, they have not.

Where is Darin now, and does he retain custody of Drake?
Don't know for sure now where Darin lives but he does have custody of Drake.
What is the status of Brian Pardo's involvement in the case?http://www.dallasobserver.com/1998-08-06/news/defending-darlie/

Has any other information arisen concerning the allegations against Darin of insurance fraud prior to the murders? Not To MY knowledge.

I'm sure I'll have more questions as I wade through the transcripts, so if anyone here has answers to any of the questions above - or questions of their own that have yet to be considered - please post a response. As we near the 12th anniversary of the murders, I'm hoping that someone, somewhere comes up with some solid answers.
No problem. You will find plenty of people here to answer and/or discuss anything concerning this case on both sides. Have a good day, Pam :wave:

Hi srf53005- Welcome to the boards.

I haven't heard anything definitive about an affair just after the marriage. I have heard more recently Darin had a girlfriend, but apparently he's still going to stay married to Darlie and go the distance w/ whatever time she has left. There is a lot of speculation about Darlie's sister Dana and Darin because for one thing the night of the murders Dana was at the house and Darin then drove Dana home (right before the supposed big fight). Some think its because he was late in returning and Darlie's jealousy that the whole (supposed) fight broke out. Darlie herself had some reference to Dana and Darin on her website at one point where she's describing events of that night and with a distinctive change of tone when talking about Darin and Dana, but she has since removed it -adding to speculation. Weird developments have gone on with Darin in the past few years, as you may know...about him submitting an affidavit stating he and Darlie had a big fight the night of the murders where divorce was mentioned. What's interesting to me about this, is that is completely different than he (and Darlie too) had told police upon intense questioning at the time of the murders and also kept saying for many years after to everyone who interview him - that he and Darlie did NOT have a fight that night. So either they were in cohoots from the beginning to withhold information from the police and stick to their story, or he's just pulling out all the stops now trying to get Darlie off death row even if it means saying things to implicate himself just to raise SOME doubt about Darlie doing it. I imagine he thinks or has been advised that if the police don't have enough evidence to try him for murder or they would have charged him by now...since they police have had so long to build a case at this point. Darin also states that he had previously talked of hiring someone to break in the house for insurance fraud in the affidavit. As I said, I personally think this is pretty much just a roose, a desperate attempt to get the courts to reconsider Darlie's appeals. I believe Darin has been conned by Darlie for so long he actually believes deep down she blacked out and doesn't remember doing it, or that he somehow feels responsible, or something like that. I personally think he's always knew deep down Darlie did it, and that's why he fails the lie detector tests over and over. Why he's willing to sell out his boys and fight for the person who slaughtered them I have no idea, but that's exactly what I think he's done. A few years ago I saw an interview with Darin who was then living with Drake who was 9 and he said they go see Darlie about once a week, and more currently I heard has a wedding photgraphy business and he has it advertised on the web and I've actually seen it so believe that's true. The latest I heard on Brian Pardo was that he was trying to get Darlie freed, just like Darin is...but that Mr. Pardo can only conclude that Darin was controlling and abusive to his wife and committed the crime, and Darlie was his innocent victim. That's because with all his independent investigating he was not able to find any evidence of an intruder. Darin of course denied this vehemently when Mr. Pardo first suggested it, but apparently reconsidered this angle as a means to get Darlie out of prison, and afterward wrote the affidavit for the courts stating they had been fighting that night, he had planned to have the house burglarized, etc. Darlie continues to say Darin had nothing to do with it, and in fact last I heard had changed her story again to saying it was two intruders. They all (camp darlie) just seem desperate and grabbing at straws at this point. Unless Darlie fesses up and starts talking I don't think we'll ever have solid answers to many things about this case. And truthfully even if she did talk, we still would not feel we have solid answers because what she did is so twisted and evil it will never make any sense to most of us. I don't know about Darin meeting Waddell outside, nor do I think it matters. I don't know anything about the comforter either. Feel free to post comments as you are reading through the transcripts!

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she killed those boys. However I would like to know what role her husband played in this. There is no way he simply slept through the whole incident.

Hi Mike, If it's simply being able to sleep through the incident that's a problem for you, I can personally attest to the fact that one of the houses I grew up in was very big, and my bedroom was upstairs, ...and I can tell you that I slept through just about anything going on downstairs. Parties, fights, you name it I slept right through it. Another poster mentioned how their Mother had to scream at the top of her lungs up the stairs to wake them up in the morning and I had to laugh because that was the exact case with me too. If she wasn't standing right at the bottom of the staircase and yelling up (and banging the wall), it wouldn't even wake me up. Also, Darlie knew Darin had taken a sleeping pill. To me, it seems very reasonable that he could have slept through it since he was upstairs and down the hall and the house was quite large. The most convincing thing though (to me) that tells me he didn't know about it was the 911 call. Darlie gets very angry at one point to his voice in the background asking her questions and says very loud and angrily in a whole different voice than she was using before "THEY CAME IN AND INTENTIONALLLY DID THIS DARRIN!!"...it sounds very much to me like she's trying to convince him.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that she killed those boys. However I would like to know what role her husband played in this. There is no way he simply slept through the whole incident.
didn't he fail a lie detector test. I know that doesn't prove anything...but it might hold merit on here if darlie did. did she take one?

Thanks for the welcome. I really didn't intend to give the impression that I know nothing about the case; actually, I know a great deal about it, but I've not had time to read the past discussions on this board. I've read the Don Davis' book (which I consider the most objective), Patricia Springer's book (the only place I read about the blood on the comforter upstairs), Barbara Davis' book (and the reversal in thought she outlines on her website), Christopher Wayne Brown's book (or as much as I could stand of it since apparently a second grader was his editor), and all of the info on the websites www.justicefordarlie.net and www.fordarlieroutier.org (including the entire posted transcript, although it's been nearly three years since I waded through all those pages with entirely too much time on my hands). I believe I've seen all the television interviews and documentaries as well as a huge number of newspaper articles. I even drove over to the house on Eagle Drive during a trip through Dallas a couple of years (?) ago when the house was for sale. I went so far as to call the realtor posing as a possible buyer so that I could explore the premises. I ended up cancelling the appointment, ostensibly because I had run across the story of the murders. As you can imagine, the realtors don't start out their conversation with a potential buyer with a statement like, "And by the way, two young children were murdered by their mother in the living room of this spacious, two-story steal of a deal." The poor lady was so excited to have someone actually call to see the place that I just couldn't bring myself to put her out for the sake of what was fast becoming my morbid curiosity.

So . . . now that everyone here knows my OCD issues, we can talk. My interest in the case began about 10 years ago after an acquaintance of mine was convicted of murdering his parents and grandmother during a drug binge. And he seemed like such a nice guy. (I don't know why none of my single friends will let me fix them up with anybody.) Anyway, I decided I wanted to write a book about women on death row and so began to research some cases. Darlie's fascinates me particularly because I just can't figure it out.

I live in Lubbock and have for nearly 20 years, so I've tried to keep an eye out for info., but the Routiers keep a low profile. Last I heard, they had custody of Drake. But Mommy2sets, you say Darin has him now? Is his photography business in Lubbock? If so, he keeps his name out any advertisement. Even though I had heard that he was into photography now, I've not seen a business listed here in his name.

You also referenced information Darlie posted on "her" website. Is it one of the sites I listed above, or have I missed one? I had never heard that Darin took a sleeping pill that night, but I've often wondered how Darlie could have fallen so heavily asleep while taking prescription amphetamines. According to Springer's book (I've been reading it again, too) as well as Darlie's own trial testimony, she was taking Pondamin (sp?) and Fastin, both of which have a high potential for abuse even though she says in court that she specifically chose those drugs for the lack of side effects. I'm not sure why she would need two prescriptions, either. That reminds me that Springer writes in her book that the police found a mirror with white residue on it in the Routier home during their search of the master bedroom. Makes me wonder.

I, too, noticed the change in her voice on that 911 tape when she addresses Darin. Suspicious. Still, the more I learn about this case, the less I feel I know. For example, if Darlie slashed her own throat, why does the wound begin high on the right side of her neck and angle down to the left? I'm assuming she's right-handed, making it much easier to place the knife high on the left side of neck and slash down diagonally to the right. Also, the stab wound on her right arm (just below the elbow on the underside) is in a very awkward place no matter which hand is dominant, and it was not a mere scratch but required five stitches. The bruises on her arms are troublesome as well. I don't see how she could have done that to herself. The only option (besides the intruder, obviously) is that Darin "helped her out" by beating the snot out of her between the time she left the hospital and the time the pics were taken at the Rowlett police station.

I'm intrigued by the idea of a conspiracy between Darlie and Darin, but not so much when I consider the fact that, 12 years after the murder, she still sits - alone - on death row. Surely to God she would have given him up by now. In fact, one of her appeal briefs requests DNA tests be conducted on Darin's jeans since the blood there might indicate his involvement in the stabbings.

The question of whether Darin ran out of the house before Walling entered is interesting because the story varies according to the source. In some places, Darlie reportedly opens the door while Darin is administering CPR to one of the boys. So which is it? If Darin was inside, who was outside?

The motion detecting light in the backyard is problem, too. According to the first officers on the scene, the light came on as they walked across the yard in back and remained on for a significant time, at least in relation to such a tight timeline. Any intruder would have tripped the light, and if things happened the way Darlie claims, it would still have been on when Walling arrived. Furthermore, there was never any blood found on the fence or the gate, in spite of the fact that the gate was dragging on the cement and would have required some effort and time to open. I find it highly coincidental, too, that the very night of the murders, Darin finally finds time to try to repair that gate. (I say "try" because the gate was still dragging when officers went through it that morning.)

I admit that I've always suspected Darin's involvement. His infidelity and propensity for fraud indicate, if nothing more, a rather stunted conscience. I do wonder about his relationship with Dana, who also (again, according to Darlie's testimony) worked with Darin at the time of the murders. It's interesting to me that he was last person to have been in the garage. He had opportunity to grab a knife from the butcher block on the way out through the kitchen or even earlier when (according to Darlie's statement) he was putting away leftovers after dinner. He could have grabbed a sock from the utility room, especially considering that another sock was later found there that appeared to be the mate to one in the alley. He could have opened the window on the way out (it's summer; why would Dana even wonder?), cut the screen from outside on the way back in, even returned the knife to the butcher block on his way back into the house through the kitchen. With both boys lying on the floor and Darlie lying on the couch with Drake on her stomach, no one would see what he did as he came back in.

And what about those panties?

Well, that should be enough to get us going. Thanks for talking with me.

Wow, well you know a lot about the case. I would have visited the house if I were that close to seeing it. ;) When I said Darlie's website I didn't state that properly, it was on the fordarlieroutier website you mentioned - which I heard is run by Darin. I don't remember where I read that Darin took a sleeping pill, maybe the transcripts? An interview? I can't remember but am sure I read it. I would have to try to look that up. I personally think Darlie was alone in committing the murders. I think some of your questions regarding her doing it can be answered if you view her as a true psycopath (that I feel she is). Regarding Darin fixing the gate that same day for example......if Darin fixed the gate that day Darlie would realize this would be a perfect time to do this and be able to invent an intruder theory. She may have even asked him to do it that day for that reason. In fact it makes more sense to think of it this way, since Darlie THOUGHT he fixed the gate but Darin himself knew he didn't actually fix it so he would know the gate would be problematic to an intruder theory whereas Darlie wouldn't. So I think the gate fixing points to Darlie more. About the cut on her neck, again I think it's more staging and planning from a sociopath.....she used the wrong hand on purpose to throw people off. The fact that the cut goes from high to very low right down toward the arm is very indicative of self-inflicted I think more than I care about which hand she used. About the 'supposed' panties, who knows. There's no evidence of panties, only Darlie's word which is as good as nothing. I've heard a theory though that perhaps Darlie was on her way to dspose of the sock and her still unaccounted for panties when she dropped the sock by accident. I think her story of panties missing is again from the mind of a narcissistic psycopath who wants people to think an intruder killer her boys to have sex with her. I think it's some sort of twisted ego boost to her to have people believe that.

Darin's wedding photography business is in Lubbox, i do believe... I want to say the name is "Diamond". He probably doesn't advertise it under his full name, not that I can blame him there.

I don't see the big deal with wondering if Darin was outside, only because I think everyone that has looked at this case can rule out an intruder (which is why I don't think it's relevant). Besides, if it really WERE an intruder why on earth would he be just standing around in the front yard as the police came right after murdering the boys? It makes absolutely no sense. It would have to have been Darin if anybody. If Darin was outside when Waddell or not makes no difference since the murders were already committed. Yes there seems to be a discrepency if he was or not but I think it's an error on the part of a witness. There was a lot of chaos at the scene that night and I simply think someone must have been mistaken, or notes were taken wrong, or something much simpler than a strange person in the yard.

I also believe it's reasonable to assume that Darlie could have received bruses and the cut on her arm while stabbing the boys. If they thrashed at all (and there is every reason to believe they did) and she was holding a knife, it seems reasonable to me she could have been cut in the arm with the knife by accident. She probably also added additional bruising later herself. I do think Darin is involved only to the extent that he sold out his boys to try to cover for their killer (which is still awful!)... but I don't think it's anything more than that.

Those are just some of my thoughts...glad you posted!

Hi srf, :wave:



Thanks for the welcome. I really didn't intend to give the impression that I know nothing about the case; actually, I know a great deal about it, but I've not had time to read the past discussions on this board. I've read the Don Davis' book (which I consider the most objective), Patricia Springer's book (the only place I read about the blood on the comforter upstairs), Barbara Davis' book (and the reversal in thought she outlines on her website), Christopher Wayne Brown's book (or as much as I could stand of it since apparently a second grader was his editor), and all of the info on the websites www.justicefordarlie.net and www.fordarlieroutier.org (including the entire posted transcript, although it's been nearly three years since I waded through all those pages with entirely too much time on my hands). I believe I've seen all the television interviews and documentaries as well as a huge number of newspaper articles. I even drove over to the house on Eagle Drive during a trip through Dallas a couple of years (?) ago when the house was for sale. I went so far as to call the realtor posing as a possible buyer so that I could explore the premises. I ended up cancelling the appointment, ostensibly because I had run across the story of the murders. As you can imagine, the realtors don't start out their conversation with a potential buyer with a statement like, "And by the way, two young children were murdered by their mother in the living room of this spacious, two-story steal of a deal." The poor lady was so excited to have someone actually call to see the place that I just couldn't bring myself to put her out for the sake of what was fast becoming my morbid curiosity. How cool you went by the house! Tell me, was the fountain still out front? I went to their address on Google Earth and it looks like it's gone. Just curious if you noticed.

So . . . now that everyone here knows my OCD issues, we can talk. My interest in the case began about 10 years ago after an acquaintance of mine was convicted of murdering his parents and grandmother during a drug binge. And he seemed like such a nice guy. (I don't know why none of my single friends will let me fix them up with anybody.) Anyway, I decided I wanted to write a book about women on death row and so began to research some cases. Darlie's fascinates me particularly because I just can't figure it out. I feel the same way... something about it just keeps me digging. :crazy:

I live in Lubbock and have for nearly 20 years, so I've tried to keep an eye out for info., but the Routiers keep a low profile. Last I heard, they had custody of Drake. But Mommy2sets, you say Darin has him now? Is his photography business in Lubbock? If so, he keeps his name out any advertisement. Even though I had heard that he was into photography now, I've not seen a business listed here in his name.

You also referenced information Darlie posted on "her" website. Is it one of the sites I listed above, or have I missed one? No, the one you mentioned is the one we're talking about when we say "her" website. Which is so goofy because it holds alot of incriminating things, if you ask me. Have you had the chance to watch the shows listed on her website? If not and you haven't had the chance to watch them... DO!I had never heard that Darin took a sleeping pill that night, but I've often wondered how Darlie could have fallen so heavily asleep while taking prescription amphetamines. That's a part of what is so strange... she supposedly slept downstairs that night because she was such a light sleeper and the baby moving around in his crib the night before kept wakinh her up. Strange you can be such a light sleeper and sleep through your kids getting slaughtered, huh? According to Springer's book (I've been reading it again, too) as well as Darlie's own trial testimony, she was taking Pondamin (sp?) and Fastin, both of which have a high potential for abuse even though she says in court that she specifically chose those drugs for the lack of side effects. I'm not sure why she would need two prescriptions, either. That reminds me that Springer writes in her book that the police found a mirror with white residue on it in the Routier home during their search of the master bedroom. Makes me wonder. I haven't read the Springer book but I will look for it to read myself.:)

I, too, noticed the change in her voice on that 911 tape when she addresses Darin. Suspicious. Still, the more I learn about this case, the less I feel I know. For example, if Darlie slashed her own throat, why does the wound begin high on the right side of her neck and angle down to the left? I'm assuming she's right-handed, making it much easier to place the knife high on the left side of neck and slash down diagonally to the right. My assumption was that she purposely switched hands, and to me, the first time I saw the neck wound, I thought it looked like she did it herself. Just because it does start high and then goes down. If you hold your hand up to that starting point on your own neck and pull as if cutting yourself, it takes that direction naturally. Also, the stab wound on her right arm (just below the elbow on the underside) is in a very awkward place no matter which hand is dominant, and it was not a mere scratch but required five stitches. The bruises on her arms are troublesome as well. I don't see how she could have done that to herself. The only option (besides the intruder, obviously) is that Darin "helped her out" by beating the snot out of her between the time she left the hospital and the time the pics were taken at the Rowlett police station.

I'm intrigued by the idea of a conspiracy between Darlie and Darin, but not so much when I consider the fact that, 12 years after the murder, she still sits - alone - on death row. Surely to God she would have given him up by now. Yeah, I can't see her time just ticking away and her not implicating Darin at all after all this time. On one of those shows I was telling you about on her website (I will find the link and post it for you) the interviewer asks Darlie if she still believed that Darin had nothing to do with the murders and she very deliberatly pauses and says no. The interviewer asks her again, and again, a very deliberate pause and she looks up in the air and finally says no. I found that quite odd as she had stated so firmly before that Darin was NOT involved. In fact, one of her appeal briefs requests DNA tests be conducted on Darin's jeans since the blood there might indicate his involvement in the stabbings.

The question of whether Darin ran out of the house before Walling entered is interesting because the story varies according to the source. In some places, Darlie reportedly opens the door while Darin is administering CPR to one of the boys. So which is it? If Darin was inside, who was outside? I have heard the story of the strange man outside in the front yard as the police officer came on the scene. Someone said they thought it was Darin but Darin was inside giving CPR. I don't know if there was anyone in the yard or not. But it seems to me that it would be stupid of the murderer to just hang out in the front yard as the police are arriving. If he was in the front yard, that would have to mean he went out the back gate or over the fence since, according to Darlie, the intruder went out through the garage. Which brings us to no blood on the gate or fence at all.

The motion detecting light in the backyard is problem, too. According to the first officers on the scene, the light came on as they walked across the yard in back and remained on for a significant time, at least in relation to such a tight timeline. Any intruder would have tripped the light, and if things happened the way Darlie claims, it would still have been on when Walling arrived. Furthermore, there was never any blood found on the fence or the gate, in spite of the fact that the gate was dragging on the cement and would have required some effort and time to open. I find it highly coincidental, too, that the very night of the murders, Darin finally finds time to try to repair that gate. (I say "try" because the gate was still dragging when officers went through it that morning.) Yes, I read that Darin had happened to work on the gate that day too. And the motion detector light situation is very telliing to me also.

I admit that I've always suspected Darin's involvement. His infidelity and propensity for fraud indicate, if nothing more, a rather stunted conscience. I do wonder about his relationship with Dana, who also (again, according to Darlie's testimony) worked with Darin at the time of the murders. It's interesting to me that he was last person to have been in the garage. In one of the shows on Darlies website (this one I know was on the Leeza Show) Darlies sister says that she was the one who left the window in the garage open. She said she went out to the garage to smoke a cigarette, as Darin and Darlie were not smokers and smoking wasn't allowed inside the house. She claims not to have closed the window after finishing. Also interesting to watch in that episode is that Leeza asks the sister what Darlies state of mind was that night and she broke down crying, unable to answer. As you watch, you will see momma darlie watching carefully how the sister will answer, and when she breaks down, Darlies mom swoops in to speak for her. they go to commercial and when the show comes back on, baby sister had left the stage, unable to go on... odd. He had opportunity to grab a knife from the butcher block on the way out through the kitchen or even earlier when (according to Darlie's statement) he was putting away leftovers after dinner. He could have grabbed a sock from the utility room, especially considering that another sock was later found there that appeared to be the mate to one in the alley. He could have opened the window on the way out (it's summer; why would Dana even wonder?), cut the screen from outside on the way back in, even returned the knife to the butcher block on his way back into the house through the kitchen. With both boys lying on the floor and Darlie lying on the couch with Drake on her stomach, no one would see what he did as he came back in. Interseting ideas. For some reason I just never felt like Darin was involved. But, who knows.
And what about those panties? I don't get the panty thing either. I just took it as another part of the staging. But again, who knows...
Well, that should be enough to get us going. Thanks for talking with me. Sure, no problem ;) I've got to take off and find the book you were talking about and i will post those links for you. Pam :wave:

didn't he fail a lie detector test. I know that doesn't prove anything...but it might hold merit on here if darlie did. did she take one?
:wave:

I heard that Darin failed not one but TWO lie detector tests. I also read that Darlie refused to take one until they had a private test conducted and that Darlie and her mom were seen leaving the facility where she took the test , both crying. "Inconsolable" was the word they used. To the best of my knowledge, darlie never took another test.

Pam :wave:

Hi Pam:wave:

I think it's interesting that Darin's lie detector tests have been discussed publically to the point we know which answers he fails on...and that he fails on questions like "do you know who murdered your boys". I think that's why he fails...deep down he knows it's Darlie. Camp Darlie won't even discuss what questions Darlie failed on.. but I imagine just about everything!

Hi srf, :wave:

Go to www.guiltybydefault.com and you will find the the television shows with interviews, lots of them where Darlie is also interviewed. On the left side of the page you will see a tab for "media". Click on that and then listed on the right side of that page you will see the different shows listed. As you click on each show, scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see a description of the show and then a tab that says "watch program segment".
Click on that tab to watch the segments.

Pam :wave:

You're right about that slanting wound. Seems like a no-brainer now. Guess that's why I can't get work as an investigator.:cool:

As for the fountain in front, it is gone. When I looked at it (again, only from outside), there were fliers from the realty company in the mailbox with some thumbnails of the interior and a general description. The house sits at the top of an incline so that you literally walk up the brick walkway. From the front windows, I could see the staircase, the front living area (or cherry wood room, as Darlie called it), and the formal dining room, although I can't remember whether the new owners used the rooms the same way. I could see down a short entryway to the glass door leading out back, and I could make out the bar where Darlie placed her jewelry. The hot tub is gone now, too, along with the gazebo that held it.

I'm trying to remember the garage situation because it seems like I remember a carport instead of a garage. Maybe Darlie's amnesia is contagious.:rolleyes:

Well, what fun this is! I'm off to look for those interviews - I don't want to miss anything. Continued thanks for the discussion, and Pam, let me know what you think of the Springer book.

Hi mommy2sets, :wave:

WOw... that makes perfect sense... I never even thought of that...
:eek2:


Hi Pam:wave:

I think it's interesting that Darin's lie detector tests have been discussed publically to the point we know which answers he fails on...and that he fails on questions like "do you know who murdered your boys". I think that's why he fails...deep down he knows it's Darlie. Camp Darlie won't even discuss what questions Darlie failed on.. but I imagine just about everything!

Hi srf :wave:

You're right about that slanting wound. Seems like a no-brainer now. Guess that's why I can't get work as an investigator.:cool:
Yeah, me either. ;) But it does seem to be the natural path it would take.

As for the fountain in front, it is gone. I thought so. Have you ever used Google Earth? Its so cool. You can enter any address and it wil take you there.( I guess it's satelite imagery (sp)?) Darlies address was one of the first ones I looked up when I downloaded Google Earth, and I could plainly see the fountain. But when I looked up the address the other day, it looked like the fountain was gone. New imagery I guess. How cool though. I would go by there too if I lived close enough... gosh we're weird! :crazy: When I looked at it (again, only from outside), there were fliers from the realty company in the mailbox with some thumbnails of the interior and a general description. The house sits at the top of an incline so that you literally walk up the brick walkway. From the front windows, I could see the staircase, the front living area (or cherry wood room, as Darlie called it), and the formal dining room, although I can't remember whether the new owners used the rooms the same way. I could see down a short entryway to the glass door leading out back, and I could make out the bar where Darlie placed her jewelry. The hot tub is gone now, too, along with the gazebo that held it.

I'm trying to remember the garage situation because it seems like I remember a carport instead of a garage. Maybe Darlie's amnesia is contagious.:rolleyes: :lol: Yeah, they probably tore that bad boy down. Do you have any idea what the asking or selling price of the house was?

Well, what fun this is! It is fun! OK... :crazy: We're weird! I did the same thing when I found the shows, (thanks to mommy2sets) I sat for hours and watched them. You're welcome for the discussion. It's always nice to talk to someone new. And NOT just because you happen to agree with us ;) I'm off to look for those interviews - I don't want to miss anything. Continued thanks for the discussion, and Pam, let me know what you think of the Springer book. I just ordered the book and should have it by June 2nd. Can't wait! Pam :wave:

OK I looked it up - in the court transcripts Darin was asked about blood on the comforter and he said it was from a previous incident where Damon flung a toy or something from the top bunk and hit Devon in the head. I don't know... but this seems like it could very well be true. The comforters often don't get washed as much as the sheets and boys that age can have things like that happen and minor bleeding isn't uncommon. I haven't read the Springer book either, Pam tell me if you think I should! I briefly tried to look up where I read Darin took a sleeping pill but can't find it. I'll keep looking as I have more time. I can't imagine that big house with a carport! How goofy would that look! But maybe someone did take down the garage....although I'd personally be less freaked out by the garage than the living room where the murders happened. I'm curious what the asking price was too.

Hi mommy2sets :wave:

Now see... that makes me want to go to the transcripts again because when srf brought that up about the comforter upstairs, that was the first I remembered hearing that. But I will go back over them today or tonight when I get the chance.

I'm like you about the carport... with that huge house that just wouldn't seem to fit...... Burning down that living -or should I say DEATH room - would be a good start. I'll let you know about that book. Just when I thought I'd seen everything.... I've never even heard of that author or the book. But I ordered it last night and it says it will be here by June 2nd, so I'll for sure let you know how it is. Had you heard of that author before?

Bye! :wave:
Pam



In court transcripts Darin was asked about blood on the comforter and he said it was from a previous incident where Damon flung a toy or something from the top bunk and hit Devon in the head. This seems like it could very well be true. The comforters often don't get washed as much as the sheets and boys that age can have things like that happen and minor bleeding isn't uncommon. I haven't read the Springer book either, Pam tell me if you think I should! I briefly tried to look up where I read Darin took a sleeping pill but can't find it. I'll keep looking as I have more time. I can't imagine that big house with a carport! How goofy would that look! But maybe someone did take down the garage....although I'd personally be less freaked out by the garage than the living room where the murders happened. I'm curious what the asking price was too.

Hi Pam :wave: Here's the part of the transcripts from this link http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Transcript/Simmons/Vol-42.htm

Q. There was blood on one of the boy's
12 comforters upstairs?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Do you know how that got there?
15 A. I know exactly how it got there.
16 Q. Tell the jury.
17 A. Well, those are bunk beds, and the
18 bottom had a full size, and the top had a twin, and
19 there's a little rail that goes across the top of the
20 railing, so that the top person doesn't fall off.
21 Well, Damon always slept on the top,
22 and Devon slept on the bottom. And, one night we heard
23 this screech, and we ran in there, and Damon had kicked
24 off that little guard, and it landed and hit Devon right
25 here in the forehead.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4333

1 And when it did, of course he bled,
2 and we tried to clean that up, and we tried to get him
3 comforted, and got him a little -- got him some
4 band-aids, and that was probably two years ago, and that
5 comforter had been cleaned a couple of times since then.

_____________________________________

That whole page of transcripts with Darin's testimony is interesting. He also talks about fixing the gate, how the garage was 'jam packed' because they were getting ready for a garage sale, and how the cat cage in the garage was only an inch from the screen......

Hi mommy2sets,

Thanks for the transcript on that... what volume does Darlies testimony start on... do you remember?

No smiley faces on "Quick Reply", so know that I'm smilin' and wavin'!
Pam

Volume 42...about 3/4 down on the page. It's that link I gave in my previous post, that should be the right volume. Waving backatcha! :)

Sorry! I just noticed you said DARLIE, not Darin. Duh! :roller:

I just tried to look it up real quick with no luck, but it was after Darin's near the end somewhere.....if you can't find it I'll try again tomorrow to find it for you.

Sorry! I just noticed you said DARLIE, not Darin. Duh! :roller:

I just tried to look it up real quick with no luck, but it was after Darin's near the end somewhere.....if you can't find it I'll try again tomorrow to find it for you.

Thank you, mommy2sets. :wave:

I'm going to try to look for them too. Thanks for all your research,
mommy2sets. You are always on the ball! :thanx:

Pam :wave:

Anytime Pam :tiphat:

Hi, guys. Darlie's testimony is in Vol. 44, I think. I just read it again.

Don't you think it's a little strange that Darin would remember so specifically how that blood got on the comforter upstairs? And if it were a two-year-old stain that had been laundered, why would detectives be interested in it anyway?

I've wondered - if Darlie - or Darin, either, for that matter, planted that sock prior to the boys' being stabbed, where did that nickel-sized drop of blood come from?

The asking price on the house was right around $100,000 - it had been on the market for some time, and the owners had reduced the price. You know, Darin had two mortgages on it that totalled (sp?) around $130,000, and that was about ten years earlier. Amazing how a murder can affect the value of your home, huh?:joke: Sorry, that was probably in very bad taste.

Anyway, you can bet that the next time I go through Dallas, I'm going by there to check on that garage situation.:D

Hi srf, Thanks for providing the volume for Darlie's testimony and the price of the house. Did someone eventually buy the house? I don't know how interested the detectives were in the blood on the comforter, couldn't have been too much since we didn't hear much about it. I have no idea why they even asked him about it on the stand. I personally believe Darlie stabbed both boys and then planted the sock, came back and washed off the knife, cut her own neck, then had to go back and stab Damon again since he was still alive and pulling himself toward the door. This theory matches all the evidence, and also explains how Darlie would have had the time to plant the sock with Damon only able to survive with his wounds for only a certain amount of time.

I guess someone did buy the house because it isn't on the market right now. Your theory makes sense, but OMG, how horrific! This is my problem with this. How can a woman who has behaved normally throughout her entire life suddenly become a psychopath? I'm not buying the post-partum depression defense simply because Darlie has - from the very beginning - appeared to be all too sane. Andrea Yates, for example - now that's crazy!

What's 'sane'? To Darlie the silly string party is 'sane' and we're all screwed up to view it any differently. I don't think Darlie is normal at all. I just saw parts of a show last night (I missed a lot of it because I was doing other things)...but it was interviews from prison with the BTK killer. For many years (while he was committing the murders) this man worked solidly, was very active in his church, married with kids, longtime friends, etc.........he conned everyone for years. Even in his prison interview he was saying how he read the Bible in prison, and has always thought it was true and a 'good way to view and live life' or something like that. Evil can be a very devious thing....it doesn't always show it's true colors, it can be disguised and hidden even among the most charming of hosts. I just looked at Darlie's transcripts again.........there are so many telltale signs just in her testimony. Holy cow! Just really read what she says in those transcripts, from insisting she said "I was frightening" instead of "I was fighting" in the 911 tape (and keeps repeating 'you can hear it), to all the people she wrote from prison naming all different people as the person she knew really did it, to the poor neighbor she tried to finger as the murderer way down the street she said watched her in the hottub from his balcony when in fact his balcony couldn't even see her house. Lie after lie, just one after another - even when she's caught in them.....it's almost head-spinning. She's completely false. Yes I absolutely believe she's a psycopath, albeit a slick and charming one.

Even though the Silly String tape is bizarre, I don't believe it's an indication - necessarily - of sociopathic tendencies. I hesitate to judge any person's guilt or innocence in the immediate aftermath of something like this since such a traumatic experience could cause anyone to behave wierdly. Neither do I think the examples you list - excluding the "frightening" thing which is ludricrous - can be categorically determined to be lies. Such statements could be viewed as desperate attempts to explain the inexplicable.

This is why I keep digging and digging and digging. One day I'm sure she's guilty. The next, I'm wondering - if we were - hypothetically - to discover that she is indeed innocent, could we look back at these examples of her behavior and reconcile them to the new facts? I think I could.

John Grisham wrote a book (his only non-fiction book) titled The Innocent Man about a case in Ada, OK, where a man named Ron Williamson was accused, tried, and convicted to death for the murder/rape of young woman. After being on death row for more than 20 years and having had his execution scheduled to take place on at least one occasion that I recall, this man was found to be completely innocent. The facts of the murder seemed to yield an airtight case for the prosecution (much more so than the Routier case IMO), but ultimately, the man was exonerated.

I've seen the BTK interviews from prison, and I agree that that guy is the personification of evil. And your point about Darlie's being slick and charming is well taken also. In fact, charm is one determinate attribute of the sociopath, as is evident in the personalities of people like Ted Bundy and even John Wayne Gacy (although he seemed so creepy, I can't imagine anyone being charmed by him EVER).

I don't know. I just think that when the death penalty is involved, the State should have to meet a higher standard to prove someone guilty. In the Routier case, I see the possibility of guilt by default: if she didn't do it, who did? But that should never come into question in a court of law. The State must prove SHE DID IT, not just she must have because no one else has turned up. I'm not saying she should be released. I'm not even saying she shouldn't have been convicted. But I think in a case like this where there are obvious questions - such as the ones we're discussing right here - life w/out the possibility of parole should be the limit. Of course, if I remember correctly, that wasn't an option at the time Darlie was tried.

http://lubbockonline.com/news/120696/routier.htm
Here's an article where Darlie is discussing the case (pre-trial)...and says "I want people to know I did not murder my children. I know what happened in that house that night.'' Her selective amnesia apparently goes in and out. She was writing different people from jail telling almost each one a different person she "knew who did it". She was blown away on the stand when they brought all her letters to court and asked about each of them. She stated she thought it was illegal to read her mail...and when she was told it wasn't she did not know what to say and just basically proceeded to bury herself in her own lies. Why would an innocent person point the finger at so many different innocent people? Its as if she was trying to keep all her bases covered in case one person had an alibi or could be ruled out for any reason, she could just move on to another one. Darlie is a MASTER manipulater.

I think the blood, fiber, and other evidence at the scene is more than enough to prove she did it. I was a little surprised to discover the majority of women on death row were convicted of killing their spouse or their children. Probably most of them would not otherwise be considered a danger to society...but perhaps society just is showing they do not tolerate killing your children. To kill your children is so inheritently evil in itself that perhaps some feel that is enough reason to deem to person who would do it not fit to ever be in society again and worthy of death. I don't know...but there are 11 women on death row for killing their own children. It will probably be a long time before Darlie is executed....from the time Jeffrey MacDonald got perimission for new DNA testing I want to say it was like 8 years (maybe more?) before it was completed. You can bet 'camp darlie' will use every means available to draw out her execution date as long as possible.

I just wanted to add... I disagree with her statement of "I was frightening" simply being trying to explain the inexplicable , as you state. It was in response to the prosecutor making the points, logically, that if she had been fighting with the intruder she would have been awake and remembered more and possibly also been able to fight for her children. She has consistently tried to change her story to match what is 'reasonable' to believe and to try to match the evidence. Her lies aren't haphazard, they are consistent with that goal at all times. If it were me, I wouldn't try to change the truth to fit anything because what could be stronger than the truth? I would have to believe it would stand in the end. As Darlie's 'truth ' gets blown away by facts she simply creates new stories, and I do think that is a sign of a sociopath. Darlie's 'truth' about what happened has been, and is still, all over the map....constantly changing.

http://lubbockonline.com/news/120696/routier.htm
Here's an article where Darlie is discussing the case (pre-trial)...and says "I want people to know I did not murder my children. I know what happened in that house that night.'' Her selective amnesia apparently goes in and out. She was writing different people from jail telling almost each one a different person she "knew who did it". She was blown away on the stand when they brought all her letters to court and asked about each of them. She stated she thought it was illegal to read her mail...and when she was told it wasn't she did not know what to say and just basically proceeded to bury herself in her own lies. Why would an innocent person point the finger at so many different innocent people? Its as if she was trying to keep all her bases covered in case one person had an alibi or could be ruled out for any reason, she could just move on to another one. Darlie is a MASTER manipulater.
:thumbsup: Very well said. I couldn't agree more. I have seen many many many documentary criminal cases, read many books on true crimes and it seems those folks who are 100 PERCENT INNOCENT of a crime but are in prison for a crime they never committed, almost never point the finger at any other people who MIGHT BE THE ACTUAL KILLER(S).

I agree that her testimony about saying "frightening" instead of "fighting" was a ridiculously obvious lie. I can also see how her ever-changing story is the most consistent thing about this case.

Tell me, though, Mommy2sets, what keeps you interested in Darlie? You seem absolutely certain of her guilt, and your arguments are very persuasive, but at some point, you must have had doubts. Was there one thing that ultimately convinced you of her guilt, or is the totality of testimony, evidence, post-trial media coverage, etc.?

Hi srf, I didn't believe she was guilty at first, or I should say I didn't want to believe she was guilty. That's what got me delving into the case. No, the media could not convince me of someone's guilt or innocence. The constant lying was of course a big red flag but I'd have to say it is the evidence mostly that convinced me, and also the totality of everything. I've also known a psycopath in real life, unfortunately, so perhaps my psycopath antennae is a bit more honed than some.

Hi srf, I didn't believe she was guilty at first, or I should say I didn't want to believe she was guilty. That's what got me delving into the case. No, the media could not convince me of someone's guilt or innocence. The constant lying was of course a big red flag but I'd have to say it is the evidence mostly that convinced me, and also the totality of everything. I've also known a psycopath in real life, unfortunately, so perhaps my psycopath antennae is a bit more honed than some.
I hear ya. I was on the side of innocence regarding Darlie. After reading more and hearing more of the case, I swayed til I believed she was not the innocent person she thinks she can convince others of.

Having dealt with two major manipulators myself, it is soooooo easy to get people to believe your lies and exaggerations. People who are sociopaths, manipulators, etc. learn to lie with such ease. Remember how know one wanted to believe Ted Bundy could possibly be a killer? Ann Rule, one of the country's most well-known crime writers knew Ted Bundy. And she too was blind-sided by him. Hundreds were. No one wants to believe that "normal" people can be killers. How many predators out there look normal? Too many. It is not the monster we all were led to believe as children. The normal person is sometimes the most dangerous.

Hello! Okay I have some questions or more I guess asking you guys very well read up on the case a few things. I do think that Darlie could have done it albeit I don't really see how the rage comes in as these were clearly acts of pure rage. Thats the only thing thats tough to swallow. I guess I'm curious why you guys are so convinced that Darlie did it and not Darrin? I think Darrin has more motive than Darlie actually. First off he admits to almost having his house burglarized to get some money from insurance. That says how desperate he was in the months before the crime for money. I believe I read that Darlie asked for a divorce the night of the murders (correct me if I'm wrong on that). If that is the case Darrin could have been fearful he would be losing his family, his big house and everything if Darlie were to get a divorce. If he had came down into the dark living room and intended to kill the boys and Darlie in his mind he wouldn't have had to go through a messy divorce and would have loads of insurance money as I do know Darlie's life was heavily insured. So why do you guys think that Darlie is more like to have done it than Darrin? Just curious. :)

Ireneparalegal - good analogy with Ted bundy. He was a 'humanitarian' that volunteered at a suicde hotline phone call center! He had everyone fooled. Yes they can be very at ease and become so confident in their ability to manipulate people they can be extremely convincing. I do think they are the most dangerous.

CD - Among many other reasons the biggest is only Darlie's footprints were the ones all over the kitchen near the murder weapon, the sink where luminol showed blood had been cleaned up, and the butcher block in the kitchen- not Darin's. About the insurance fraud and 'fight'- at the time that was written Darin had been desperately trying to get Darlie off death row for many years with no luck. Darin's affidavit many years after the fact with those statements should be viewed in that light. What he says in it directly contradicts everything he and Darlie said before, and could be viewed as just another desperate attempt to get her off death row. If it is true it makes everything he said before for years a lie so it's not like he's very credible. It was meant to raise suspicion which it has done obviously with some (though not with the courts). But we don't know if it's even true, or which parts are true...and it certainly doesn't change the evidence. About the rage - statistically kilings that are overkill like this one are usually done by someone close to the victim. An intruder would most likely not have had that much rage toward sleeping children to kill them in that way.

CD- and if Darin was trying to kill Darlie for insurance money why would he overkill the boys and barely cut Darlie's neck and then run out through the garage leaving her alive after she stood up and saw him? Why wouldn't he have gone for her first?

CD- and if Darin was trying to kill Darlie for insurance money why would he overkill the boys and barely cut Darlie's neck and then run out through the garage leaving her alive after she stood up and saw him? Why wouldn't he have gone for her first?

As far as why Darlie wasn't injured as severely as the boys, was it really dark in there? I don't know I guess I was envisioning him going down into the very dark downstairs and started slashing not knowing necessarily who was who but maybe it was more lit than I'm thinking. Another thing, do you really think Darin thinks or knows that Darlie did it? I can't imagine him standing up for her all these years if she murdered his two sons, death penalty or not. I don't necessarily think Darin is guilty, I just think he had some motive there and thought I'd throw that possiblity out there and see what you guys thought. Thanks for commenting. :)

Sure. Darin testified at trial, and Darlie has said before too, that Darin and Darlie talked before he went upstairs to bed. He testified he went up and got her a pillow even for the sofa, and saw the boys sleeping on the floor before he went upstairs. The lights were out later but it doesn't seem likely he would have accidentally missed the whole couch and accidentally slashed figures laying on the floor thinking it was Darlie on the couch. That's a big miss!

:wave: Hi guys,

I'm with you, Mommy2sets, about not wanting to believe Darlie had committed that crime - in fact, I am still unable to conceive how anyone could do such a thing. There's a special place in hell . . .

As for Darin, I've just always felt he was credible, at least in terms of whether or not he committed the murders. I don't think he can be trusted to tell the truth about Darlie, but I don't really think he killed those kids. I watched some of the family's appearance on the Leeza show after Pam gave me that link, and I was struck by a comment made by the woman on stage who had been "a court observer." In one exchange with Mama Darlie, the woman said that she believed the family lives in a beautiful world of total denial. Yeah. I think she's right.

As for Darlie's injuries being explained by the darkness, that's a no go. She and the kids fell asleep while watching TV, so the light, though not bright, was certainly bright enough for a killer who has just entered the house from the outside darkness - or come down from upstairs - to see what he was doing. The room they were in wasn't that big. The house is between 3000 and 3500 sq. ft., including the garage. Keeping in mind that it's two story, you have the front entry, the two front rooms, the Roman room where the murders occurred, at least one downstairs bathroom, the kitchen, and the utility room all on the first floor, so the actual crime scene is really not that large.

Hey, have you guys read the most recent legal posting on the justicefordarlie website? Here's the link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/pdf/orderrestatusreport.pdf

If there was an intruder, wouldn't they have left behind some shoe prints in the blood in the kitchen? From my recollection of what the investigators said (on one of those A&E or Discovery Channel shows on this case that showed all of the physical evidence) was that there was blood all across the kitchen floor, yet Darlie was the only one that left foot tracks in it. Wasn't it pretty much impossible for there not to be some kind of bloody footprint other than Darlie's if there was an intruder like she suggests? And wouldn't you think they would have left some sort of blood trail in their escape route, even outside the house? I mean whoever killed the kids would have had to have been very close to them as they stabbed them and would have had blood dripping all over and off of them as they fled afterwards. Add the staging of the kitchen ransacking to that as well as the massive amount of blood that was cleaned up near the kitchen sink where Darlie cut her neck and you've got all of the major physical evidence pointing right to the person that is and should be on death row for this. I really don't know what the whole debate is on this case still. The physical evidence always speaks the truth, even at a staged crime scene (like this one).

Hi Synthisislab,

An intruder would not necessarily have left behind prints in the kitchen; he would be moving through there before Darlie came in and bled everywhere, so there would be no blood to track. In Christopher Brown's book, there is a picture of one print on the carpet beside one of the kids - or at least a picture of something that Brown insists is a print that doesn't match any of the emergency personnel, police, or known occupants. In the interview on the Leeza show, author Barbara Davis (who at that time was fully convinced of Darlie's guilt but later did a 180) points out that none of victims had "spurting" wounds. Both boys were stabbed through the lungs and Darlie's throat was cut, but none of them had severed arteries that would have showered blood. The exception to this was when Darin gave one of the boys CPR only to have the air he pushed into the lungs come rushing out of the chest wounds, covering him with the boy's blood.

It's really not as cut and dry (no pun intended) as you might think.

Hi srf :wave:

'Beautiful world of total denial'. Exactly. I actually find it hard to listen to Darlie's family, ...between them stating things that go against all my common sense or insult my intelligence, to twisting and just outright lying about things, I really find them difficult to watch. I saw that episode too. Notice how the story of how they were getting along that night is so blatantly different than Darin's most recent affidavit. I found this online written after Darin wrote his affidavit about the supposed insurance fraud and big fight the night of the murders....... it says at the end "Mr Routier said he is not troubled that the appeal is focusing on him". .........."It's not up to me", he said. "The strategy has already been put in place." (for some reason it won't allow me to copy and paste from that page but the address is http://justicefordarlie.net/articles/ar-009.php)

That's exactly how I think they view this whole thing. Like a big game, trying to outmatch the evidence with all different moves and plays. If they had truth on their side they wouldn't have to do that....they could just stick to one story. Of course I don't blame them as much as Darlie..I think she is the real controller and has manipulated people to the point of brainwashing almost. Psycopaths have an uncanny way of doing that. And I really dislike Darin for selling out his poor boys to that killer, even if I do feel a little sorry for him.

Hey Synthesislab, To be clear though the boys didn't receive the types of wounds that would splatter blood they were seeping type wounds. Still, you'd think after that big struggle with Darlie leaving her so beat up while holding a knife he'd surely have atleast some blood on him! And certainly would have had footprints! Or dirt, grass, something, anything, left on his shoes from coming in from outside. Not to mention how he ran out of the packed garage in the dark without disrupting a thing, leaving a trace on the screen or sill below, and managed to either scale the fence or open and then shut a broken gate behind him w/out leaving a trace or even tripping the motion light! Yes, it's just almost ridiculous for anyone to believe. There's just no evidence of an intruder when there should be a lot if it happened the way Darlie said.

Hi Synthisislab,

In Christopher Brown's book, there is a picture of one print on the carpet beside one of the kids - or at least a picture of something that Brown insists is a print

'a picture of something that Chris Brown insists is a print', that's about it. I liked it when Chris Brown is asked directly if he's ever had that print verified by any kind of expert, and he answers with everything but an answer to that question because the answer is no. It's never been verified by any expert, nor does it make sense how there could be one bloody footprint of an intruder on the carpet but none in the kitchen or anywhere else on his way out of the house. Chris Brown seems so gaga for Darie he can't see straight.

Oh and srf, I almost forgot to thank you for posting that link! I hadn't seen that.

Hello! Okay I have some questions or more I guess asking you guys very well read up on the case a few things. I do think that Darlie could have done it albeit I don't really see how the rage comes in as these were clearly acts of pure rage. Thats the only thing thats tough to swallow.

Hi crystaldawn
That's my point exactly. Rage... pure rage. My first thought was that this was the act of someone very angry. What intruder would have such anger against two little boys??? No, I KNEW that that murder was PERSONAL.

Pam:wave:

Hi crystaldawn
That's my point exactly. Rage... pure rage. My first thought was that this was the act of someone very angry. What intruder would have such anger against two little boys??? No, I KNEW that that murder was PERSONAL.

Pam:wave:
Exactly!

No intruder/stranger would see to it that two children were killed and leave an adult alive. I think it is safe to say that it is common knowledge that even if you slashed someone's throat, the chances that you killed them are slim and you wouldn't want an adult to live and identify you. You would do an overkill on them to ensure they are dead.

Again, desperate people do desperate things and if they are capable of overkill on two of their beloved children, then a slash across their own neck is nothing. Anyone recall Charles Stuart who shot and killed his pregnant wife (for monetary gain) and had to shoot himself so as to make the crime look like someone else committed the crime? I recall many cases of where someone caused harm to themselves (stabbing, shooting, cutting) simply to deflect the guilt off of them.

Hi srf :wave:

'Beautiful world of total denial'. Exactly. I actually find it hard to listen to Darlie's family, ...between them stating things that go against all my common sense or insult my intelligence, to twisting and just outright lying about things, I really find them difficult to watch. I saw that episode too. Notice how the story of how they were getting along that night is so blatantly different than Darin's most recent affidavit. I found this online written after Darin wrote his affidavit about the supposed insurance fraud and big fight the night of the murders....... it says at the end "Mr Routier said he is not troubled that the appeal is focusing on him". .........."It's not up to me", he said. "The strategy has already been put in place." (for some reason it won't allow me to copy and paste from that page but the address is http://justicefordarlie.net/articles/ar-009.php)

That's exactly how I think they view this whole thing. Like a big game, trying to outmatch the evidence with all different moves and plays. If they had truth on their side they wouldn't have to do that....they could just stick to one story. Of course I don't blame them as much as Darlie..I think she is the real controller and has manipulated people to the point of brainwashing almost. Psycopaths have an uncanny way of doing that. And I really dislike Darin for selling out his poor boys to that killer, even if I do feel a little sorry for him.

Hey Synthesislab, To be clear though the boys didn't receive the types of wounds that would splatter blood they were seeping type wounds. Still, you'd think after that big struggle with Darlie leaving her so beat up while holding a knife he'd surely have atleast some blood on him! And certainly would have had footprints! Or dirt, grass, something, anything, left on his shoes from coming in from outside. Not to mention how he ran out of the packed garage in the dark without disrupting a thing, leaving a trace on the screen or sill below, and managed to either scale the fence or open and then shut a broken gate behind him w/out leaving a trace or even tripping the motion light! Yes, it's just almost ridiculous for anyone to believe. There's just no evidence of an intruder when there should be a lot if it happened the way Darlie said.
Yeah, the supposed perp left no trace on the screen, windowsill, or any footprints outside the window. The only evidence that there even was an intruder was the sock that had a small amount of blood on it, which could have been planted before or after the murders, since it was only 75 yards from the house (it could take someone Darlie's size about a minute to run that far and back). The other piece of evidence that suggested an intruder was the tear in the screen, which also could have been staged before the murders by Darlie. They found bits of the screen on a knife that was inside the house that matched a set of the kitchen knives and was in the butcher's block when police found it. If the perp was inside the house and found the knife, then why would he use it to cut out the screen? It makes no logical sense at all. She also handles the murder weapon even after the 911 operator tells her not to, removing any fingerprints that the supposed perp could have left. Then you have Darlie's blood on the inside of the cabinet edges under the sink area that suggests that was where she cut her own neck. Then you have the turned over vacuum cleaner on the other side of the table from where the intruder supposedly escaped and the broken vase with no cuts on Darlie's feet where there should have been from running through the kitchen through broken glass. Also, next to the murder weapon on the kitchen island where Darlie dropped it was Darlie's purse and jewelry which weren't even touched. Then you have their little doggie that should have alerted the house occupants of an intruder. This case has so many pieces of physical and circumstanicial evidence against Darlie and only a couple that suggest an intruder did it and the few pieces that suggest an intruder did it could have easily been staged by Darlie. The supposed bloody palm and fingerprint was too smeared to be of use to investigators and could have been from Darlie.

One question I do have is was the murder weapon a knife from the kitchen set like the knife with the screen debris on it?

Hello! Okay I have some questions or more I guess asking you guys very well read up on the case a few things. I do think that Darlie could have done it albeit I don't really see how the rage comes in as these were clearly acts of pure rage. Thats the only thing thats tough to swallow. I guess I'm curious why you guys are so convinced that Darlie did it and not Darrin? I think Darrin has more motive than Darlie actually. First off he admits to almost having his house burglarized to get some money from insurance. That says how desperate he was in the months before the crime for money. I believe I read that Darlie asked for a divorce the night of the murders (correct me if I'm wrong on that). If that is the case Darrin could have been fearful he would be losing his family, his big house and everything if Darlie were to get a divorce. If he had came down into the dark living room and intended to kill the boys and Darlie in his mind he wouldn't have had to go through a messy divorce and would have loads of insurance money as I do know Darlie's life was heavily insured. So why do you guys think that Darlie is more like to have done it than Darrin? Just curious. :)

Hi crystaldawn :wave:

If it was Darin, how is it that he could attack Darlie and her not recognize him? I mean, what did he do? Come down stairs, kill the boys, attack Darlie, run back upstairs and then wait for Darlie to call him and then go running back downstairs? Darlie claims that the intruder ran out through the garage. Why would she stay on death row, or even get arrested for that matter and not turn Darin in? If it was for money, why wouldn't he just slaughter Darlie instead of his boys? That theory just doesn't work in my mind, can't wrap my brain around it.

Take care :wave:
Pam

Hi crystaldawn :wave:

If it was Darin, how is it that he could attack Darlie and her not recognize him? I mean, what did he do? Come down stairs, kill the boys, attack Darlie, run back upstairs and then wait for Darlie to call him and then go running back downstairs? Darlie claims that the intruder ran out through the garage. Why would she stay on death row, or even get arrested for that matter and not turn Darin in? If it was for money, why wouldn't he just slaughter Darlie instead of his boys? That theory just doesn't work in my mind, can't wrap my brain around it.

Take care :wave:
Pam

Well at first I was envisioning a very dark room but apparently that wasn't the case. You would think that Darlie, in an attempt to dissuade attention from herself, would have come up with some sort of description of the "attacker". Even a bogus composite sketch. Maybe she did, but I've never heard of any type of composite. As far as the rage goes, there have been many psychopathic killers out there who have committed rage killings not knowing their victims but I see what you're saying. On one hand, I don't really see a rage killing (like this clearly was) something that was premeditated. If you agree with that than it seems like there was some sort of unknown trigger that night to set her off. But on the other hand I still don't know if I buy she just happened to be sleeping in the living room with the two boys that night as a coincidence. I think it could have been something she planned. Thoughts?

One question I do have is was the murder weapon a knife from the kitchen set like the knife with the screen debris on it?

Yes, from the very same butcher block.

If there was an intruder, wouldn't they have left behind some shoe prints in the blood in the kitchen? From my recollection of what the investigators said (on one of those A&E or Discovery Channel shows on this case that showed all of the physical evidence) was that there was blood all across the kitchen floor, yet Darlie was the only one that left foot tracks in it. Wasn't it pretty much impossible for there not to be some kind of bloody footprint other than Darlie's if there was an intruder like she suggests? And wouldn't you think they would have left some sort of blood trail in their escape route, even outside the house? I mean whoever killed the kids would have had to have been very close to them as they stabbed them and would have had blood dripping all over and off of them as they fled afterwards. Add the staging of the kitchen ransacking to that as well as the massive amount of blood that was cleaned up near the kitchen sink where Darlie cut her neck and you've got all of the major physical evidence pointing right to the person that is and should be on death row for this. I really don't know what the whole debate is on this case still. The physical evidence always speaks the truth, even at a staged crime scene (like this one).

:thumbsup:
Could not agree withn you more.

Pam:wave:

Hey, have you guys read the most recent legal posting on the justicefordarlie website? Here's the link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/pdf/orderrestatusreport.pdf


oooooh... thanks for that post,srf!

Pam :wave:

Yes, from the very same butcher block.
So then the murder weapon and the knife that was used to cut the screen were both supplied from the home? This means there was no intruder. The killer (Darlie) was the one with access to the tools used to commit this crime. What sort of home invasion killer do you know that would not supply their own weapon in case they get surprised by the home owners that have access to guns and knifes? And how would an intruder go through the window screen when the knife used to cut it came from inside the house?

Well at first I was envisioning a very dark room but apparently that wasn't the case. You would think that Darlie, in an attempt to dissuade attention from herself, would have come up with some sort of description of the "attacker". Even a bogus composite sketch. Maybe she did, but I've never heard of any type of composite. As far as the rage goes, there have been many psychopathic killers out there who have committed rage killings not knowing their victims but I see what you're saying. On one hand, I don't really see a rage killing (like this clearly was) something that was premeditated. If you agree with that than it seems like there was some sort of unknown trigger that night to set her off. But on the other hand I still don't know if I buy she just happened to be sleeping in the living room with the two boys that night as a coincidence. I think it could have been something she planned. Thoughts?
Regarding your comment abt serial killers, psychopathic killers, etc. It is true, the majority of the time they do an overkill on their victims. You think, if the victim doesn't know the killer, why such an overkill? A majority of the times those serial killers are killing people because (1) it excites them, it is a thrill. Repeatedly stabbing their victim or bludgeoning them is what they desire; (2) they are taking out their agression, anger, etc. on their victim for some past abuse they themself experienced. I can't recall the name of the killer but there was a male serial killer who murdered prostitutes but before killing them he tortured them and did an overkill on them. His reason was because he hated his mother and was taking out his anger on females.

As for your point abt Darlie being on the couch with her two kids downstairs as well. Hmmmm....it certainly seems like more than a coincidence. Don't you think? An intruder just happens to pick the same night to kill two children that are downstairs rather than in their beds. :rolleyes:

As for your point abt Darlie being on the couch with her two kids downstairs as well. Hmmmm....it certainly seems like more than a coincidence. Don't you think? An intruder just happens to pick the same night to kill two children that are downstairs rather than in their beds. :rolleyes:

Exactly...which is why I'm surprised that hasn't been brought up much on here. Not that I've read anyway and admittedly I haven't read every single post. So how did Darlie explain away that coincidence?

Well at first I was envisioning a very dark room but apparently that wasn't the case. You would think that Darlie, in an attempt to dissuade attention from herself, would have come up with some sort of description of the "attacker". Even a bogus composite sketch. Maybe she did, but I've never heard of any type of composite. As far as the rage goes, there have been many psychopathic killers out there who have committed rage killings not knowing their victims but I see what you're saying. On one hand, I don't really see a rage killing (like this clearly was) something that was premeditated. If you agree with that than it seems like there was some sort of unknown trigger that night to set her off. But on the other hand I still don't know if I buy she just happened to be sleeping in the living room with the two boys that night as a coincidence. I think it could have been something she planned. Thoughts?

Hi crystaldawn :wave:

I know, no real physical description, just how he was dressed... The only thing she is positively sure of was things that are easily changed... like clothes. She could say that the person had piercing blue eyes or something to that affect but then that greatly reduces the number of people she could falsely accuse.

It does seem a bit odd that they just so happened to be downstairs that night.

Pam :wave:

So then the murder weapon and the knife that was used to cut the screen were both supplied from the home? This means there was no intruder. The killer (Darlie) was the one with access to the tools used to commit this crime. What sort of home invasion killer do you know that would not supply their own weapon in case they get surprised by the home owners that have access to guns and knifes? And how would an intruder go through the window screen when the knife used to cut it came from inside the house?

Hi synthisislab :wave:

BINGO! :clap

Pam

Right on Synthesislab.

CD, actually there was a composite sketch made of the supposed 'intruder'. But first her story was he was a black man, then a longer haired guy (straight hair to shoulders) with dark hair, dark aviator style sunglasses, baseball cap, etc. It was interesting how it went from black man who would have had a totally different type of hair, to a sketch of a straight haired guy w/ hair to his shoulders... As far as Darlie sleeping downstairs w/ her boys, huge coincidence I think too. I remember Darin once saying in an interview that she had slept downstairs like "a few times" since they'd been married. Pretty amazing that on one of the "few times" in years she sleeps downstairs a child-killer happened to be running the streets of Rowlett in their neighborhood......never to be seen or heard from again.

haha Pam.. 'piercing blue eyes'. I don't remember that one! Odd how she could have seen that in the dark from a black man in black aviator type black sunglasses! Oh wait, he had dark shoulder-length hair with dark glasses, oh wait..no, it was 'piercing blue eyes'.... or no maybe it was just a 'blur' of a man running (her first version)... yeah yeah yeah. As usual, trying to cover all her bases. :rolleyes2 Come to think of it, if the guy had on such dark lensed sunglasses it's even MORE amazing he could maneuver through dark house then the pitch black garage running on his way out and not disrupt or knock over a single thing in the 'jam packed' garage! Or leave any footprints or signs he was there. Or even lose his glasses in the big struggle! This guy must have starred in 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon'! Amazing!

Hey CD, I want to respond to a few points you brought up. Darin testified on the stand that the night of the murders Darlie had been complaining about not being able to handle the boys, or something to that affect. It's also very likely she was jealous of her pretty sister Dana, who had recently begun working with Darin and was at the Routier home that evening, and mad about Darin taking so long to take Dana home late the night of the murders. Darlie does not like to be put second to anything. Darin by all accounts adored his boys. What a better way to punish him and get all the attention back on her? A few weeks before the murders she made the desperate entry in her diary that she was at her wit's end, called Darin at work while writing it and he came home immediately to be with her. She liked to be in control. She also has a history of making up things to get attention. Another thing, there was blood found on an open photo album with pictures of the boys in another room. It's been speculated she was perhaps looking at photos of the boys after and perhaps before stabbing them. She may have been so caught up in a haze of self pity and jealousy (and other things) that she did decide to do this that night either after Darin came home from dropping Dana off, or even before.

...or knock over a single thing in the 'jam packed' garage! Or leave any footprints or signs he was there. Or even lose his glasses in the big struggle! This guy must have starred in 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon'! Amazing!

:lol:

omg: That's IT! Thats why she said she brought WET towels... she never mentions wetting the towels in her 10 page, information filled statement. You know when she started saying that? When she found out the police had her sink... it was always so strange to me that she would bring WET towels to cover gaping CHEST wounds. You are trying to help your children breathe and you are bringing water soaked towels? Water and lungs don't mix. No. She was trying to give a reason why that sink was washed out.

Cross-exam by Toby Shook...

12 Q. I mean, didn't you think it was pretty
13 important if a detective on the case is asking you to
14 write down what happened that night?
15 A. Sir, at that time, all I was concerned
16 with was getting to the viewing to see my boys.
17 Q. Well, you wrote 10 pages?
18 A. Yes, sir, I did.
19 Q. Okay.
20 A. And that is not -- if you look at that
21 and you compare that to my normal handwriting, you can
22 tell that is pretty sloppy.
23 Q. Okay. We know, that in this voluntary
24 statement, that you never mentioned going to the kitchen
25 sink, do you?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4952

1 A. No, sir, there's a lot of things in
2 there that are not mentioned, I believe.
3 Q. All right. Well, we will get to some
4 of those. But as far as going to the kitchen sink,
5 wetting towels, that is never mentioned in here?
6 A. I believe there is mention about
7 getting towels.
8 Q. But wetting towels?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. That's not mentioned in there, is it?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Okay. Going to the sink?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. The sink is not mentioned anywhere in
15 here, is it?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Of course at that time, you didn't
18 know that the police had taken your kitchen sink, had
19 you?
20 A. No, sir.

Yep. Once the house was released back to her and she knew that sink was gone, she knew she'd hit a snag. That's it... That's why she came up with bringing WET towels. To explain away her clean up. I KNEW someting wasn't right about that. :eek:

Pam :wave:

Excellent Pam! :nod: Yep, the first thing Darin did after he came running downstairs was blow into Devon's mouth and the gaping holes in Devon's chest and lungs just spurted the blood right back at him. And he testified Darlie was right there and saw it. So after that, and knowing full well then Devon had huge gashes in his lungs she would get WET towels to lay on them? What???? They tried to explain it away by saying "she wasn't trained in emergency medicine", but you don't have to be trained in anything to know you don't put wet anything on open gaping lung wounds! Forget training, your Mommy instincts alone would tell you that. That she only mentioned this later after she discovered they tested the sink for blood and was just tying to explain away why there was blood washed down the sink by saying she was running back and forth getting "wet towels" makes much more sense doesn't it? Not only that, but there was absolutely no sign of any blood mixed with water on the floor near the sink or on her shirt, which would most likely occur if you were really running back and forth with wet towels as she claims.

So then the murder weapon and the knife that was used to cut the screen were both supplied from the home? This means there was no intruder. The killer (Darlie) was the one with access to the tools used to commit this crime. What sort of home invasion killer do you know that would not supply their own weapon in case they get surprised by the home owners that have access to guns and knifes? And how would an intruder go through the window screen when the knife used to cut it came from inside the house?
:typing: Hi, guys. Here's the deal with the knives. One of the items the Darlie camp wants tested is the supposed knife used to cut the screen that was found in the butcher because there is some question as to whether the material found on the knife came from the screen or from the brush and powder used on the knife to dust for prints.

:horse: I know I keep coming up with stuff, but . . .

what about this, people. In the photos on one of the websites you can see some apparent bruising beginning on the underside of Darlie's arm. By the time she's photographed at the police station, there are obvious bruises circling her wrists. Now how could a flailing child inflict bruises like that? Someone had to be holding her wrists.

Right on Synthesislab.

CD, actually there was a composite sketch made of the supposed 'intruder'. But first her story was he was a black man, then a longer haired guy (straight hair to shoulders) with dark hair, dark aviator style sunglasses, baseball cap, etc. It was interesting how it went from black man who would have had a totally different type of hair, to a sketch of a straight haired guy w/ hair to his shoulders... As far as Darlie sleeping downstairs w/ her boys, huge coincidence I think too. I remember Darin once saying in an interview that she had slept downstairs like "a few times" since they'd been married. Pretty amazing that on one of the "few times" in years she sleeps downstairs a child-killer happened to be running the streets of Rowlett in their neighborhood......never to be seen or heard from again.


Hmm. I never heard about the composite, and my understanding was that her very first statement was that she couldn't tell if the guy were black or white, but his hair, which was collar-length, led her to believe that he was white. I can't remember in which book I read that, but I remember thinking that it would be better to say it was white man just because so recently, Susan Smith had pointed the finger at an imaginary black car-jacker, thereby complicating her lies all the more with the race issue. I haven't heard about the blood in the photo album, either. That's veeeerrrry interesting, Watson!

I also read - I'm thinking in more than one place, although I can't remember if it was actually in the court transcript - that Darlie had been sleeping downstairs off and on since Drake was born. Darin explains the boy's being downstairs by saying it was the beginning of summer, they were watching TV, etc.

And y'all are welcome for the link, and now I need to go read that latest affidavit of Darin's - :seeya:

:schmack: What is wrong with you? :joke: hehe..these little pictures are fun.

Srf, Oh yeah you've gotta see the composite. Tell me if you can't find it, I'll try to look it up. It's amazing, he looks a lot like the bushy hair stranger that met up with Diane Downs. ;) Seriously it's so general it's almost laughable...regular shaped face hidden behind large aviator mirrored lens huge sunglasses, ballcap, dark hair under the cap to the shoulders. It's so vague, ya know I even kinda look like that w/ a cap and sunglasses! Yes I'm quite sure in her first statements to police she said the man was black...then of course, it changed.

Don't you think if the darlie camp were very confident in the 'new testing' of the evidence they'd be moving a lot more quickly on actually testing it? That new link you posted suggests they are just dragging their feet actually getting anything done. The Judge has now ordered them to respond within 30 days since he's heard nothing back from them since 2006! It seems they were more interested in getting a 'stay' than actually doing any testing (not surprisingly). I think the knife would test conclusively to be from the screen. I think the expert that already testified made it pretty clear it was the same fibers as the screen. I think their arguent about it possibly being from the dusting thing is just a red herring, but guess we'll see after the testing (if they ever do indeed do new testing!).

There was testimony at trial Darlie's bruising appeared to be from a different time than would have corresponded to the murders. This suggests that she bruised herself before getting to the police station. If you're the facing death penalty, I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to think of a number of ways to do that. I do think some came from the boys as they fought for their life, but that's just my opinion. It's also possible she did it all herself afterward. Banging her arms on sides of the metal hospital bed, for example. Notice there were no bruises on her face, no skin or hair under her nails, and no other evidence of a fight of the nature that her bruised 'arms' would have us think happened.

Darin stated that Darlie had slept downstairs a "few times" in one of those media clips on the justicefordalie site. He was asked specifically about it and that was his answer. Dunno about anything else.....other than I'm quite sure Darlie would alter any story to try to make it fit what is 'reasonable' for us to believe.

Yes, go read Darin's "strategy" as he calls it of trying to tell the courts he and Darlie had a big fight the night of the murders and how he wanted to have the house robbed. So far the courts haven't even batted an eye at it. Seems they are smarter than the darlie camp give them credit for........

Don't you think if the darlie camp were very confident in the 'new testing' of the evidence they'd be moving a lot more quickly on actually testing it?.

There was testimony at trial Darlie's bruising appeared to be from a different time than would have corresponded to the murders. This suggests that she bruised herself before getting to the police station. If you're the facing death penalty, I wouldn't think it would be all that hard to think of a number of ways to do that. I do think some came from the boys as they fought for their life, but that's just my opinion. It's also possible she did it all herself afterward. Banging her arms on sides of the metal hospital bed, for example. Notice there were no bruises on her face, no skin or hair under her nails, and no other evidence of a fight of the nature that her bruised 'arms' would have us think happened.
Regarding your first paragraph, I said the same thing a few pages back. If my child's life depended on it, I would be raising money to get the "new testing" done ASAP. I wouldn't wait around for someone else to do it. I would find a way to get the money myself (get a loan, borrow the money, etc.) and have it independently tested.

As for the bruising, I can easily cause a bruise to appear on my body. I am sure Darlie did too. A bruise is a simple injury to the blood vessels beneath the skin that doesn't break the skin. How many times have we ever received a large, dark bruise from a simple hit? Whether it was hitting your arm on something or having hit the corner of a dresser, etc. I have had bruises appear and not even have a clue as to how it occurred. I am sure Darlie did her best to hit herself on her arms with some object or hit her arms against something. It is fairly easy to do, nothing spectacular.

:typing: Hi, guys. Here's the deal with the knives. One of the items the Darlie camp wants tested is the supposed knife used to cut the screen that was found in the butcher because there is some question as to whether the material found on the knife came from the screen or from the brush and powder used on the knife to dust for prints.

:horse: I know I keep coming up with stuff, but . . .

what about this, people. In the photos on one of the websites you can see some apparent bruising beginning on the underside of Darlie's arm. By the time she's photographed at the police station, there are obvious bruises circling her wrists. Now how could a flailing child inflict bruises like that? Someone had to be holding her wrists.

Oh srf... :lol:

Its called Photoshop, Hun! :rolleyes:

Nah... :joke: I know. The bruising is extensive. But Just like a few of us have previously stated, imagine doing something KNOWING that if you get caught, you WILL be killed. . .

Self-preservation
I'd imagine she would do ANYTHING that she could to make her injuries look as bad as possible. The wrists wouldn't be hard to bruise like that. Just use one hand on the other.


Pam :wave:

I can't seem to find the composite sketch of the 'intruder' anywhere. Someone correct me if I'm wrong or verify if they've seen this sketch somewhere. I think it was on a television show that I saw it. I can picture it clearly just can't find the darn thing online anywhere. Has anyone else seen this sketch?

I tried in vain last night to find a sketch/composite but no luck.

:wave: Hi, y'all! I'm pretty beat-up that you all aren't taking my arguments seriously, though.:caveman:

So . . . yesterday, I'm trying to get back to this website to protect myself, and for some reason, I couldn't connect. PANIC! I just knew you guys would get out of line.

Last night, I watched yet another Darlie doc on ID (Investigation Discovery) called Against the Law. Sadly, nothing new. They did talk to all the principles on the prosecution side, and they have NO doubts, NO regrets.

After I posted the knife thing, I'm laying in bed reading some transcript thinking, "For Pete's sake. Why in the world would investigators test the knife and then return it to the knife block?" Sometimes, I don't think things through.:wallbang

Let me know if someone finds that sketch. The bushy-haired stranger . . .:brent Now THAT was a story! Wonder what ol' Diane is up to these days?

Toodles!

Thanks for looking for the sketch Ireneparalegal. Welll I had someone else confirm they saw it too, but I still can't find it. I was a little worried I was thinking of a different case....

Srf, :lol: I thought the same thing when I couldn't get on the thread yesterday.

:wasntme:

Somehow I figured it must have been PAM's fault! :p

Why do you feel like we're giving you a hard time? :smash:

Excellent point about the knife with the fibers being in the butcher block! Diane Downs, like Darlie, has her own groupie supporters who say she didn't get a fair trial and is innocent, there's new evidence, blabla.

The fire that caused this site going down was the fault of...


DARLIE!!!!!! AND THE DARLIE CAMP!!!! They were tired of reading our posts and how much we know she is guilty. They didn't want us to enlighten any more members so they had to resort to desperate measures. Hmmmmm, just like Darlie, desperate measures. ;)

:lol:






Thanks for looking for the sketch Ireneparalegal. Welll I had someone else confirm they saw it too, but I still can't find it. I was a little worried I was thinking of a different case....

Srf, :lol: I thought the same thing when I couldn't get on the thread yesterday.

:wasntme:

Somehow I figured it must have been PAM's fault! :p

Why do you feel like we're giving you a hard time? :smash:

Excellent point about the knife with the fibers being in the butcher block! Diane Downs, like Darlie, has her own groupie supporters who say she didn't get a fair trial and is innocent, there's new evidence, blabla.

...Don't think it didn't cross my mind! :happyface





The fire that caused this site going down was the fault of...


DARLIE!!!!!! AND THE DARLIE CAMP!!!! They were tired of reading our posts and how much we know she is guilty. They didn't want us to enlighten any more members so they had to resort to desperate measures. Hmmmmm, just like Darlie, desperate measures. ;)

Ok I'd like to throw a few things out for discussion starting with this:

I just watched the 20/20 segment again. i watched Darlie's interview a few times just now, stopping it, pausing, watching it muted, zooming in, etc. What was really bothering me about it is that (something i've noticed about darlie before too)...when talking about the boys her face contorts in a way like it does naturally when you are really crying, only she's not crying. There are no tears that i can see. Everything else about her seeming so upset seems fairly convincing, her face contorts, the voice goes up, she slowly shakes her head back and forth, even seems to jerk back saliva while she's talking,.......but her eyes are not all welled up with water and there are no actual tears falling. As a mom I notice this in my kids too when they're little... if they're truly hurt or upset the tears come and the face squishes up...but when they are just trying to manipulate me or faking it the face squishes, other things the same, but they'll be no tears. Anyone else notice anything like this about Darlie interviews?

Anyone else notice anything like this about Darlie interviews?

Interesting observation. I will say while watching the UM interview Darlie certainly had a narcisstic attitude about the murders. She would talk about how much she's missed out on not getting to see Devin and Damon growing up and how much has been taken from her not getting to see her third son grow up. No mention of how her boys wouldn't get to experience life, just the view that she wouldn't get to see them or her third son grow up.

Hi mommy2sets and to all :wave:

Yes, You are right, mommy2sets. I have always noticed that about Darlie. The only time you'll see real tears from her is when it's her rear on the line. She is very fake, such a phoney. If I've said it once I've said it a thousand times... I wish that trial had been televised. They say that she was she was very cold and cocky in court. But she was sure sobbing during the punishment phase.

I'm telling you... I'm going to go to that webside to get a link for you guys... Even if you don't finish the whole thing, watch it up until the silly string coverage. You'll see the same coverage of it we've all seen... plus the part where she is being interviewed and telling the reporter, "If you knew Devon and Damon, you'd know they were having the biggest party up in Heaven..." blah, blah, blah... watch just past that when the interview goes to her and Darin. I'm goint to get the link, you guys watch it and tell me what you think.

Pam :wave:



Ok I'd like to throw a few things out for discussion starting with this:

I just watched the 20/20 segment again. i watched Darlie's interview a few times just now, stopping it, pausing, watching it muted, zooming in, etc. What was really bothering me about it is that (something i've noticed about darlie before too)...when talking about the boys her face contorts in a way like it does naturally when you are really crying, only she's not crying. There are no tears that i can see. Everything else about her seeming so upset seems fairly convincing, her face contorts, the voice goes up, she slowly shakes her head back and forth, even seems to jerk back saliva while she's talking,.......but her eyes are not all welled up with water and there are no actual tears falling. As a mom I notice this in my kids too when they're little... if they're truly hurt or upset the tears come and the face squishes up...but when they are just trying to manipulate me or faking it the face squishes, other things the same, but they'll be no tears. Anyone else notice anything like this about Darlie interviews?

Hi crystaldawn :wave:

You're right, it's all about her. And the more you watch and listen to her, the more you can see it.

Pam :wave:

Interesting observation. I will say while watching the UM interview Darlie certainly had a narcisstic attitude about the murders. She would talk about how much she's missed out on not getting to see Devin and Damon growing up and how much has been taken from her not getting to see her third son grow up. No mention of how her boys wouldn't get to experience life, just the view that she wouldn't get to see them or her third son grow up.

:wave:

OK guys... here's that link:
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media/ajmodr.php

Now remember... watch it till you get to the silly string coverage (it's about halfway through the segment) Like I said, you'll see the same stuff we've all seen a thousand times. But watch for the news interview with Darlie AND Darin.

Tell me what you think. ;)



Pam :wave:

Thanks for posting that Pam! Yes it's almost like once you realize she's guilty everything she says and about her just makes much more sense. I just watched that whole thing. Here's a few big flags that came to mind while watching it....

1) When Darlie invites the media to the silly string party, ....I'm thinking 'why isn't she afraid of that 'killer' that 'left her for dead' and who she had a face to face struggle with so in his mind WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY HIM and put him on death row.' This makes no sense to me. A killer comes in and slaughters her children, leaves her for dead, but she's not the least bit fearful after surviving the attack, and in fact calls the media out to put her on tv SHOWING the attacker she's in fact OK and for all he knows able to testify against him. Also she mentions NOTHING about finding the killer or being worried or wanting justice for the boys in her interview...she just talks about how hard it has been for her, and how they have to live with what happened. And again, at one point, the face squishing, the high voice, but no tears. Fake crying. Her eyes are clear and bright through that whole video, no signs at all that I can see of having even cried earlier.

2 We keep hearing about this 'other' tape where they really grieved before the silly string party... we know camp darlie has it because we see little 2 second snippets from it here and there in her defense...why haven't we been able to see that whole thing if it really helps prove Darlie was sincerely grieving and would change our mind about the silly string party as they claim ? You KNOW if it could help Darlie at all the darlie camp would have it plastered all over her websites and on all the television shows but though we keep hearing how it would have explained the silly string party and shown Darlie in a different light, we've all never been able to see the whole thing. And I don't believe for a second it's out of any respect for Damon and Devon's service.....Darlie called the media out to the party at the grave, and this is the same Mom who allowed graphic pictures of her slaughtered boys with their little bodies cut to shreds to be used in a book to try to prove her innocence, and posted on public websites, etc. So why won't they show us this whole SUPPOSED 'grieving' tape that they claim would change our mind about the party?

3) Huge thing to me that I can't get past no matter how I try to look at it. WHY on earth would a mother be on the phone for FIVE WHOLE MINUTES explaining to a 911 operator the details of what happened, and saying things like "we have to catch who did this".. "if I wouldn't have picked up the knife maybe we could have gotten prints'... 'i don't know why they did this'... 'we have to find them', etc.. while their CHILD IS LAYING THERE DYING AND STARING AT YOU TAKING HIS LAST BREATH. I can NOT wrap my head around this, at all. Why didn't she pick him up? Hold him? Touch him? Comfort him? If you're a parent, really think about this one aspect. One of the detectives said Damon had his eyes glued on Darlie the whole time from the time he got there but she wouldn't even hold him? She was more worried about talking to an operator? I used to think it was solely because she had murdered them that she coudn't go near the boys...but now I'm also thinking it may be because Damon could have identified her as the killer in some way with his eyes or a gesture and maybe that's why she didn't go near him, even when instructed to. She was probably afraid he would live actually. But when her neck was bleeding so bad she was scared and called 911 then because she was afraid for herself. She says to the operator "I think I'm dying".

4) In this interview I was struck by Darlie saying near the end that what she wants more than "anything" is for the public to believe she's innocent. Not her boys back, not finding the real killer, but that people believe she's innocent. This almost gave me a chill, because she's in fact been able to conn so many people and has so many supporters. In that sense there's really no justice for those boys or proper punishment for her until society lets her know they know she's a cold blooded killer and she's not fooling anybody.

There's lots more to discuss about her behavior but these are a few things that I thought about while watching that segment.

:wave: Hi, people! I was afraid this thread would die if we couldn't come up with some wisp of a possibility that she's innocent. Sadly, I'm finally convinced. It's funny that y'all are talking about her behavior in interviews because it occurred to me last night that if I stop trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, I could discover the answers to all of my questions just by looking at the facts as we know them as if her guilt were beyond question. Does that make sense?

Over and over, I read that people who know her, who saw her just after the murders, who watched the trial (Pam, I'm with you - I'd give my next free pass to the movies to have seen that trial) all call her "whiney" and "fake". I'm thinking, "Duh." Anyone who has ever heard her speak knows that, but does that mean she's guilty of murder?

Well, um, yeah.

I'm going to watch that clip again as well as all the others to see what I can see. That scrunched face business . . . :barf: . . . nauseating. And so true. Mommy2sets, as horrible as it is, I bet you're right about Darlie's staying away from that baby so that he couldn't give an indication that she had just stabbed him. You know, in the prosecution's final arguments, one of the ADAs alluded to that very thing when he told the jury that Damon's eyes were open; he had seen his mother stabbing him, and she had probably had to go back a second time to finish him off. Can you imagine his reaction had she come toward him a third time?

You know, if she's guilty - and I now believe she is - she has joined the ranks of the most abominable humans ever to exist by not only killing those little ones, but by allowing her family, friends, and every other supporter to put their lives on hold in order to get her nasty butt off the hook.

Before she was arrested (like at the silly string party) I noticed she has the look of the chessire cat....truly like someone who has gotten away with murder. It's certainly not just that though, it really is the totality of everything. And yes once you look at everything from the point of view that she is guilty, suddenly there's no more mystique or puzzling questions...it all just makes sense. We've got one twisted narcissist psycopath who butchered her own children for the most vain and selfish reasons imaginable, and will go to her grave never admitting it. And who is still getting a ton of gratification manipulating everyone around her, and is in fact thriving on it and seems more interested in that than even getting out of prison. I wish I could get a picture of her dead body after execution and plaster it all over the internet for the public to see and remember her by, just like she did with those pictures of the boys stabbed and cut to shreds (which i will never be able to get out of my mind). :angryfire And then have the media televise everyone laughing at her grave. That would be a fitting ending for this monster.

Hi everybody :wave:

Yep... I thought that "interview" of the both of them was pretty telling as well. You see when it's just her talking, she talks about those kids as calmly as drinking a glass of water. But when Darin is standing there beside her, the scrunched face appears, the whiney, FAKE voice and FAKE tears. And constantly looking up at Darin when she speaks as if she is trying to check Darins reaction with what she says. Like she's trying to make sure she's saying the right thing. Just like James Cron said, it's not one thing that proves her guilt, it's the totality of everything together that points the finger at her.

And the "prayer service"... you're right. I don't know WHY they don't show us the whole thing. They're so upset about the silly string tape being shown, but we never see the entire prayer service. Must not be as "heartwarming" as they claim. And what I have seen of it is darlie standing out there in that FAKE squeeky voice..."We love you Damon and Devon" puke:

And I'll be totally honest here, like I said before, I started out believing Darlie a long time ago. Then I had a friend who was also interested in the case prompt me to read the transcripts and to check out the programs that we've all watched on the Justice For darlie website. I was then, and continue to be, convinced beyond any doubt of her guilt. I've read and dug and kept on looking and searching be cause my heart really, really wants to believe that a mother could not do this. But they do, and we all know it.

You see it didn't take too long for us to run everyone off who believes in her. I wish we'd have another believer come along. :mad: My guess is, they are pretty hard to come by. :rolleyes:

OK... I gotta get going but I'll be back. Any darlie believers out there, JUMP IN. We're ready for you. ;)

Pam :wave:

[QUOTE=srf53005]:wave: Hi, people! I was afraid this thread would die if we couldn't come up with some wisp of a possibility that she's innocent. Sadly, I'm finally convinced. It's funny that y'all are talking about her behavior in interviews because it occurred to me last night that if I stop trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, I could discover the answers to all of my questions just by looking at the facts as we know them as if her guilt were beyond question. Does that make sense?

QUOTE]
Hi srf :wave:

Yes, that makes total sense. You are in the same boat mommy2sets and I were in. We both believed her at first. But then putting emotion aside and looking at the facts, it's easy to see. None of us want to believe that a mother could do this. Any supporter she has will say that no matter what, we just want her killed and that is just not true. We want the truth. So you are not alone, sweety. We've been there too. ;)

Pam :wave:

I wish I could get a picture of her dead body after execution and plaster it all over the internet for the public to see and remember her by, just like she did with those pictures of the boys stabbed and cut to shreds (which i will never be able to get out of my mind). :angryfire And then have the media televise everyone laughing at her grave. That would be a fitting ending for this monster.

Right on, mommy2sets! :clap

They should do that. And DON'T FORGET THE SILLY STRING!!! party:

Pam :wave:

Hi Pam, :wave: In this case I think I might even bring the silly string myself.

Hey have you guys seen the most recent letter from Darlie to her supporters on the fordarlieroutier.org website? Dated Dec. 2007 she says when talking about her boys..."At times they are my salvation and other times my undoing. Yet even when the pain is the greatest I force myself to feel it. It reminds me of what this is all about."

That struck me as odd. One would think her undoing was the intruder that murdered her children , not the boys and their memories. I thought this was all about a child-killing intruder robbing her of her precious boys and ruining her life. The whole letter can be found here ....http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/DarliesWords/071209.pdf Disclosure: letter may cause nausea :barf:

Ugggh, her undoing?????? Children are never at fault for whatever happens to their parents. Children don't ask to be brought into this world, and when they are brought into this world, they deserve to live their lives to the fullest and never be sentenced to death by their own mother (parent)! I bet Darlie wishes she could go back in time and undo her own undoing. :rolleyes:

Yes exactly....I think the letter is telling, though she doesn't mean for it to be. I don't know if she even admits to herself she killed them...she's so caught up in her own lies at this point and has so much "support" from people enabling her. Who knows. But little glimpses like this into her psyche are interesting..........

People who are liars, eventually show their true colors in other ways, without directly coming out and saying, I DID IT. If you ever see interviews of people (like Darlie) who are either suspected of murder or foung guilty of murder but deny it, tend to let things slip out or they say things that don't make sense for an innocent person to say. They also tend to be almost emotionless or seem to be too happy considering the topic.

There was a rapist/murderer (can't think of his name at the moment) who denied being a murderer. He was sent to death row. He was adamant abt his innocence. There was even a group set up to help his defense, his appeals, the whole nine yards. He wrote letters appealing for help, blah blah blah. He was eventually executed stating he was innocent. I believe he even made it to TIME magazine's cover with a headline stating something abt an innocent man on deathrow with a question mark. Well, lo and behold a few years after his death, DNA came into play and guess what? HE WAS THE KILLER. The dna left behind on his victim's underwear had been preserved. DNA came abt after his execution and this group who so badly wanted to prove that an innocent man had been put to death, ended up eating their own words when the DNA test came back showing he was a LIAR. All those letters he wrote, his proclamations of innocence, all the interviews he gave, were all an act. This man didn't even have the balls at the end to admit he was a killer.

Yep. That man's name was Roger Keith Coleman. His last words were "you're executing an innocent man". He had so many people duped. He and his Attorneys pointed the finger at an innocent man and his Attorneys eventually had to settle a defamation suit because of it. Everyone continued working to prove his innocence even after he was executed, only to have DNA tests later confirm HE indeed committed the rape and brutal murder. His Priest and wife were the last to admit they'd been conned.

Yep. That man's name was Roger Keith Coleman. His last words were "you're executing an innocent man". He had so many people duped. He and his Attorneys pointed the finger at an innocent man and his Attorneys eventually had to settle a defamation suit because of it. Everyone continued working to prove his innocence even after he was executed, only to have DNA tests later confirm HE indeed committed the rape and brutal murder. His Priest and wife were the last to admit they'd been conned.
Thank you. Yes, that is who I was posting abt. ;) And take note everyone, he was another one who was pointing fingers at SOMEONE ELSE. That was a red flag right there. Hmmmm, seems Darlie should note, when you point one finger at someone else, four fingers are pointing back at you.

Hi, guys. Just FYI: from the letter . . .
"I have so many memories each more precious than the next.

At times they (the memories) are my salvation and other times my undoing. . . ."

Another of Darlie's shortcomings is that she has some difficulty expressing herself clearly. Unfortunate. Maybe she should start gathering examples of such "Darlie-isms" for appeal?

Hi all :wave:

I just read the letter you posted from darlie, mommy2sets. (Thanks for posting that, by the way! ;) )
Wow. Everytime I feel like darlie can't shock me any further... she manages to. She should be saying, "My memories of the boys are all that keeps me going..."
NOPE. Not Donkey, I mean darlie. She just continues to bury herself. Well, according to the lastest court documents posted earlier by srf, there should be some kind of movement on this case soon. Speaking of that post srf, thanks again for posting the link for it and how did you find that court document?

I had someone from this site PM me when I first started posting here asking me if I thought darlie was guilty, what was my opinion on why she had not confessed. I thought it was kind of an odd question, but I just answered saying I didn't expect anything less since she was in the apellate process.
But thinking further on it, if she had done it, (as we all know she did) if she had confessed, just said she was out of her mind or something, blah, blah, blah... she more than likely would have escaped the death penalty. (Although, that's not for absolutely sure, because Greg Davis despised her, he may have fought for the death penalty anyway). But it was more important to her to continue lying hoping everyone would believe the lie that I think she believes herself.

I remember the case you guys are talking about. That guy had so many people convinced and so many people fighting for him, only to have DNA prove his guilt. I mean, peolple BELIEVED this man... had so many people fooled until the very last moment when the DNA proved him a liar. Thats why I wonder... where is all this DNA testing that is supposed to set darlie free??? Bet they all wish they knew too! :lol:

Talk to you guys soon. Lets try to keep this thread going. COME ON Donkey supporters... ARE THERE ANY OF YOU OUT THERE???

Pam :wave:

Hello, peeps!:wave:

I probably just stumbled across that document, Pam. I began to explore it again after y'all sent me there for something. Interesting, the judge gave both parties 30 days to come up with some compelling reason to stay the case, and we're nearly at that deadline. I haven't seen anything new, but I just googled "Darlie Lynn Routier v." and came up with a bunch of stuff. I've found a good many court documents that way. Remember Francis Newton, who was on TX death row for the murder of her husband and two children? I began studying that case when she was scheduled for execution, and I found all her appeals documents right down to final denial of stay just before she was executed.

Newton was convicted on the basis of motive (insurance policies) and ballistics. There were some interesting factors, though, like the fact that her lawyer was Ron Moss, a notoriously inept lawyer who, at one time, had more clients on death row than any other attorney in history! The ballistics tests were always suspicious, and even more so when word broke that Houston's crime lab was found to be riddled with all sorts of problems.

As for Darlie . . . y'all, I'm still bothered by those photos. Now someone needs to come up with a way the bruises around her wrists could have been inflicted either by Darlie herself or by the boys.

Let's do a little experiment. Let's see if any of us are able to inflict bruises like that on ourselves. Who's game?

Hi again, you guys. Here's an interesting item in our local paper. This 24-yr-old man was convicted yesterday in an aggravated assault case: "After stabbing Walden [his girlfriend] numerous times during last year's attack, Mills slashed his own neck using the same knife he used to cut Walden." Of course, he didn't really do it :wasntme:; it was his "alter ego" (and that's a literal quote).

Now, people, I need to see that wound. I wonder how much it resembles Darlie's wound? Also, wasn't Darlie about 26 when she pulled this? I've noticed that the 20s seem to be the prime time for losing one's - uh - self control.:explode:

Hello, peeps!:wave:

As for Darlie . . . y'all, I'm still bothered by those photos. Now someone needs to come up with a way the bruises around her wrists could have been inflicted either by Darlie herself or by the boys.

Let's do a little experiment. Let's see if any of us are able to inflict bruises like that on ourselves. Who's game?

If Doctors and nurses testified they didn't see bruises at the hospital and also that the timing of how old those bruises were in the pictures was inconsistent with the time of the murders, what does it matter? Unless the Doc and nurses are all lying and/or in on a big conspiracy to send an innocent woman to death row this really is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. That said i'm quite sure I could bruise my wrists by hitting them continually with my other hand hard enough. Try it using an open C of the other hand and striking against your other wrist. I think it would leave simiilar bruising if done long or hard enough. Maybe Darin helped her too we don't know, but what we do know is that according to experts most of that bruising didn't happen the night of the murders. Another thing..when I had IVs and tubes hooked up to me in the hospital my arm was pretty bruised too..some of that bruising looks to me like it could have been from IVs or iodine even. I don't know if that's common or not but it happened to me. Also have you noticed some bruises appear in some pictures, and are mysteriously absent in others? And we've all seen the silly string video a mere 8 days after the murders where no bruising visible that I could see. That's pretty fast healing for such 'deep' bruising.........

Now, people, I need to see that wound. I wonder how much it resembles Darlie's wound? Also, wasn't Darlie about 26 when she pulled this? I've noticed that the 20s seem to be the prime time for losing one's - uh - self control.:explode:

Interesting....if you find a picture of the cut to his neck I'd like to see it too.

I was doing a net search trying to find a picture of this man's self-inflicted neck injury and with the keywords I put in I was surprised how many people came up on the search that have actually cut their own throats. Some are suicides.. but some in effort to cover up for a crime. One man cut his throat after killing his wife, another after trying to kill her daughter a Mother cut her own throat so bad she severed her own windpipe, damaged vocal cord nerves and cut the thyroid. (a lot deeper than Darlie's). THe link for that story is here... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E3D81439F932A15751C1A963958260

Another story was from the old Victorian days of a Mother who killed her children and then cut her own throat. (sound familiar?) They tried to claim legally she was sleepwalking. It's documented in a book entitled "Unconscious Crime: Mental Absence and Criminal Responsibility in Victorian London" by Joel Eigen.

Who says someone can't cut their own throat? It's a fact many people have.

Also, look closely at this photo. http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A4295/42955/300_42955.jpg
Copy it in your photoshop or whatever you use. Blow it up, take a good look at it. Do you see any bruising on her hand there like in the other picture taken later of her hands side by side with such extensive bruising? I see NONE on her hand like in the later picture.

Did Salieri really survive a self-inflicted cut to the throat or was that just made up for the historically inaccurate Amadeus movie?

Darlie is guilty, because whoever stabbed the boys went viciously for their chests. A killer wouldn't attack two people, especially the two who'd make the least valuable witnesses, one way, and the other, who'd make the more valuable witness, another. Well, you might say, Darlie was bigger and older than the boys and put up a fight. Well, then, uh...why weren't there signs of a struggle? :whatever:

I was doing a net search trying to find a picture of this man's self-inflicted neck injury and with the keywords I put in I was surprised how many people came up on the search that have actually cut their own throats. Some are suicides.. but some in effort to cover up for a crime. One man cut his throat after killing his wife, another after trying to kill her daughter a Mother cut her own throat so bad she severed her own windpipe, damaged vocal cord nerves and cut the thyroid. (a lot deeper than Darlie's). THe link for that story is here... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E3D81439F932A15751C1A963958260

Another story was from the old Victorian days of a Mother who killed her children and then cut her own throat. (sound familiar?) They tried to claim legally she was sleepwalking. It's documented in a book entitled "Unconscious Crime: Mental Absence and Criminal Responsibility in Victorian London" by Joel Eigen.

Who says someone can't cut their own throat? It's a fact many people have.

Also, look closely at this photo. http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com/image/A4295/42955/300_42955.jpg
Copy it in your photoshop or whatever you use. Blow it up, take a good look at it. Do you see any bruising on her hand there like in the other picture taken later of her hands side by side with such extensive bruising? I see NONE on her hand like in the later picture.
You are so right!! Thank you for taking the time to research and post that info here. I am sure we can list HUNDREDS of cases where someone cut their own throat after committing a murder, whether it was to attempt suicide or to cover up their crime. Darlie is NOT the first and won't be the last.

As for the poster above mentioning bruises on the arms. I have in fact caused bruises on my wrists. I had received some bad news regarding my nephew who was in an accident and out of anger, I slammed my two arms down at the kitchen table. My wrists hit the edge of that table and within 15 minutes I had redness and bruises appearing. The next day the bruises were large and even darker. It looked like someone had grabbed me by my wrists. So, it is not hard at all to hit your arms or any part of your body against something and cause bruising to appear immediately.