Alright, so tonight I was sitting in my weekly Crime Scene Investigation class (I'm a business major - so yay for electives!) and my professor starts talking about investigator characteristics and when investigating a scene they have to understand that the scene they investigate may be set up to look one way even though things may have really happened another way etc. particularly the example of murders set up to look like suicides and suicides looking like murders (so that families can collect the insurance money) and this is when he mentioned the Darlie Routier case.

My professor used to be on the Dallas police force and is good friends with one of the detectives who has worked on the case, and this investigator had told my professor that he was almost certain that Darlie Routier would not receive the death penalty for the simple reason that they believed that this was a suicide attempt. I haven't seen the airing of this case for for quite sometime, and haven't seen this mentioned on the boards anywhere, but the investigator said that not only had she come within a millimeter of completely slitting her throat, therefore killing herself as well, but she had prepared and taken out the insurance papers/policies for the boys and herself - she simply chickened out when it was her turn.

I know that her case was presented as a final appeal and there was uncertainty as to her guilt, but I know that most of you believe she's guilty. So this is the newest theory - yes she is guilty as hell but she really did attempt to kill herself too, not just doctor the scene. At least, that is the opinion of the investigator.

If this has been posted already, my apologies and I'll delete this! I just thought it was interesting and since it happened tonight I thought I'd post it and see what everyone else thought!

Well, now that is a theory I had never heard before, interesting. I suppose that would and could make sense. While a person slitting their own throat like that to kill themselves is an odd way to kill themselves, I have also believed some people have killed themselves via poisoning over the years to make their spouse look guilty, so I guess anything is possible.

It is just strange, I would say that if Darlie did do this, that as you said, her killing two out of her three boys and then staging a break in wouldnt make sense. Her doing this and then killing herself would make more sense than the staged break in theory. But I had never heard any of the cops in the UM segment even allege that Darlie tried to kill herself, but that does present a different spin on it.

I guess something I do not get though is, if she wanted to kill herself, why not just do it? Why take two out of three of the boys with her and not all three? I just dont get it. I dont know, I still do not think based on the evidence presented there was enough there to convict at trial, the prosecution mostly went with innuendo and it worked with the rural jury whereas if this trial had been held in Dallas County, Darlie would have been acquitted probably or if she had been convicted she would have got life. But the trial was moved to a rural county where if you are accused of killing a kid, you are going down, evidence or not.

Well kadrmas, while my professor didn't delve too deep into the matter (I wish he had, and I probably should have asked), he seemed to imply that money had something to do with it considering that he mentioned it immediately after saying that many people commit suicide but stage it as a murder so that the family can collect. Maybe the little that she did do to make it look like a break-in would reinforce that theory.

Of course, with that theory it is odd that she would think the money would be more important than her sons' lives. Then again, she did silly string their graves so, ya know...

Also, I don't know why this was never mentioned before, and I guess the insurance policies weren't mentioned? I remember reading about this case on the crimelibrary website and didn't recall any mention of it.

Personally, I think she is guilty, so I'm glad she wasn't tried in Dallas county because she would have been acquitted.

Someone else mentioned this on the Darlie Routier Final Appeal thread I started a while ago. It seems to be a good theory, but as with most theories in this case, it is not without problems. I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example.

Also I wanted to point out again that it is not unheard of for people committing suicide to have second thoughts and call 911 in an attempt to save themselves after inflicting damage. I knew someone once who swallowed a bottle of pain killers and then freaked out and called 911. Her life was saved but her liver is shot.

Someone else mentioned this on the Darlie Routier Final Appeal thread I started a while ago. It seems to be a good theory, but as with most theories in this case, it is not without problems. I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example.

Hmm I'm sorry I missed that part of the thread! (I ran a search just now, and I know I responded to it haha)

If you look this case up on wikipedia, they state that the family was living well beyond their means, and offer up a motive that she killed her sons to relieve herself of having to provide financially for them. They state that the family owed $10,000 in back taxes, $12,000 in credit card bills, were two months behind on their mortgage payments, and were just denied a $5,000 loan from their bank. The site also claims that a $5,000 life insurance policy was taken out on each of her sons. This to me provides all the motive we need. As sad as it is, we all know from watching too much UM that some cold-hearted parents are willing to kill their own children for financial gain.

This was addressed in the segment I believe. I'm pretty sure the burial costs exceeded any insurance proceeds they would have received.

Yes I agree with Justin, if Darlie did this, I do not feel insurance money or any money for that matter was the motive. Yes they were in debt, lots of people are, does that make them all murderers too? This is part of this character assassination crap that DA's and pro prosecution people like to do that bugs me. They take situations and things lots of people have been involved in and try to turn them into murderers. Lots of people have been in debt, lots of people have had affairs, lots of people have lived well beyond their means, does that make them all murderers? No.

Spark, I must say I am sort of disappointed, if you want to think Darlie is guilty that is fine, I'm not sure I agree, but you have every right to think she is guilty. What bothered me though was your reasoning behind it, I mean you think the silly string makes her guilty? Why in the hell would anyone if they were guilty, I dont care how arrogant you are, why would you spray silly string on the grave if you actually did it? That silly string does not prove Darlie is a murderer and anyone that would say it does should be ashamed of themselves.

Yes I agree with Justin, if Darlie did this, I do not feel insurance money or any money for that matter was the motive. Yes they were in debt, lots of people are, does that make them all murderers too? This is part of this character assassination crap that DA's and pro prosecution people like to do that bugs me. They take situations and things lots of people have been involved in and try to turn them into murderers. Lots of people have been in debt, lots of people have had affairs, lots of people have lived well beyond their means, does that make them all murderers? No.

Spark, I must say I am sort of disappointed, if you want to think Darlie is guilty that is fine, I'm not sure I agree, but you have every right to think she is guilty. What bothered me though was your reasoning behind it, I mean you think the silly string makes her guilty? Why in the hell would anyone if they were guilty, I dont care how arrogant you are, why would you spray silly string on the grave if you actually did it? That silly string does not prove Darlie is a murderer and anyone that would say it does should be ashamed of themselves.

Well I wasn't implying at all people in debt are murderers (that is kind of an odd statement to make), but it is still a plausible motive for murder.

And I didn't say that silly stringing her kids' graves is the reason I believe she is a murderer, but I think it implies something about her mentally. Sorry, I don't know of any other cases where this happened, so I cannot see it as "normal" behavior. I just find the "evidence" for a break-in to be weak, and the inconsistencies in her story (i.e. running through her kitchen barefoot to call the police which was covered with broken glass, yet she had no cuts on her feet) and that as I previously stated think something is off with her mentally.

Just because the funerals ended up costing just as much as the payout doesn't mean anything. A lot of young women in Australia get pregnant for the money as you get like $3000 when you have a baby from the government. Even though the medical bills and stuff for the baby would outweigh those costs.

Darlie probably didn't consider the cost of the funeral as she probably wasn't mentally stable enough to do so.

-Ben

I said anyone that alleges that someone is guilty of first degree murder because they sprayed silly string at a grave should be ashamed of themselves. If you want to prove someone guilty that is one thing, but do it the right way, circumstancial evidence or in the case of the silly string, something that was inappropriate and not in good taste but certainly did not prove murder.

It was inappropriate for the video of the silly string to be brought in at trial, I know what the prosecutors were trying to show in their attempt at conviction via character assassination of Darlie Routier but they went overboard. I was merely pointing that out, I do get emotionally charged about cases where someone was potentially wrongfully convicted, I take that seriously.

It was inappropriate for the video of the silly string to be brought in at trial.

I definitely agree with this, and more generally I agree that she should not have been convicted on the evidence as it stood. As to whether or not she did it, I'm not so sure...

The problem is most of the evidence in this case can be read two ways. The blood evidence (the small spatters from the two boys on Darlie's back) is suggestive, but hardly conclusive. I'm sure I can dream up a few ways in which blood from the two boys might have ended up on their mother's back. The palm print is certainly problematic for the prosecution's sake, especially since they evidently made no effort to address it. Had I been the prosecutor in the case, I might have bitten the bullet and had all officers present at the scene give PALM prints for comparison against what was found (I know cops have to have FINGER prints on file when they are hired, but I don't think they are required to give their PALM prints). It seems to me that there is a good chance that some incompetent policeman or EMT simply put his hand on the wall after helping out with Darlie or the two boys, resulting in the "unidentified" print. I wonder how much due diligence was done here. If the print truly doesn't match after close analysis is FULLY completed, then it almost certainly exonerates Darlie; if it does, her story gets weaker. The blond hair that was found could be evidence of a police cover-up (since it evidently belonged to a female officer who wasn't on the scene), but more probably is evidence of police incompetence (her hair got on to another, probably male, officer during physical contact the two shared --- either legitimate or illicit --- and was then transferred to the crime scene by the male officer).

And then there's this point, which justin5256 reminded us of:

I would be very curious to know where the bruises on her arms came from, for example.

Her two boys, while not teenagers, were certainly old enough to put up a struggle, especially one for their lives. It would surprise me if the boys inflicted those brusies on her arms, in attempting to defend themselves. Then again, a murderer could just as easily have inflicted the bruises on her, while attempting to gain control of her so he could kill her.

And then there's the matter of the sock. I still find the prosecution's theory - that she found the time to plant it and then return to the house and THEN call 911 - suspect. But perhaps it's possible.

Still, nothing here that would have led me to vote to convict, despite my suspiscions. I think the murder-attempted suicide theory is a damn good one.

And then there's the matter of the sock. I still find the prosecution's theory - that she found the time to plant it and then return to the house and THEN call 911 - suspect. But perhaps it's possible.

good point. she came within a milliimeter of dying, as someone else pointed out, and was on her way to the hospital herself, yet the prosecution has her going down several houses to bury a sock. Pretty superhuman ala the Larry Race case. And wouldn't there have been a blood trail had she done that?

Heck, I'm surprised the cops in this case who seem more and more like the Keystone cops, didnt try to plant blood. It just seems to me like this is way too much of a railroad job to me, clearly the cops and prosecutors didnt have the strong case they claimed to have, hence why they did the character assassination and hid evidence, planted evidence, destroyed evidence, they did it all.

If Darlie did do this, I will tell you, Darren in my opinion would have had to be involved. It is kind of all or nothing, either they are both innocent or they are both involved, I just have a hard time believing Darlie could have pulled this whole thing off by herself. It is possible, but unlikely in my opinion, that if she did this, that she pulled it off by herself.

There had been other burglaries in the area, the police had Darlie in their sights almost from the start and just were unwilling to consider anyone but Darlie Routier could have done this. I believe the police investigated Darren too but they really had no more evidence against him than they did Darlie and Darren was never charged.

Honestly, I just dont see it here, it was weird to me how in case of Routier how you didnt have the prosecutor gloating on there which they usually love to do, but they must not have wanted to answer any tough questions or look like an A$$ like the prosecutor in the Tommy Ziegler case did or the Larry Race case did or the Stuart Heaton case did or the Glen Consagra case did.

You had the cop who was a jerk or came off as one, again no real evidence, basically saying Darlie was/is guilty because she wasnt "grieving" the way he felt she should be. Also how the cops basically lured Darlie to be arrested before she was indicted I found strange. That is very unusual in a murder case for a person to be arrested before they are indicted if they do not admit to doing the crime and were not arrested right when the murder happened.

good point. she came within a milliimeter of dying, as someone else pointed out, and was on her way to the hospital herself, yet the prosecution has her going down several houses to bury a sock. Pretty superhuman ala the Larry Race case. And wouldn't there have been a blood trail had she done that?

Ok again, my memory is fuzzy on the details, but couldn't it have been possible to plant the sock before all of this started? Or in between murdering the boys and trying to slit her throat?

Well, the time frame on her allegedly murdering the boys, running down to plant this sock and then running back to her own house, slitting her throat and then calling 911 doesnt add up. Wouldnt people have seen her planting this sock? Or thought it odd of her walking around? I dont know, I think the odds are she didnt plant the sock.

Again, sure it is possible she planted the sock, but I would say the odds are she didnt plant the sock. I know you want her to be guilty, but the fact of the matter is the evidence in this case is VERY weak at best. It just simply should have never resulted in conviction, even in Texas it shouldnt have resulted in conviction. Also, just because a cop says there is all this strong evidence supposedly and that a person is guilty does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Ok again, my memory is fuzzy on the details, but couldn't it have been possible to plant the sock before all of this started? Or in between murdering the boys and trying to slit her throat?

According to the story, her youngest son was still barely alive. He died with the paramedics. They said he wouldn't have lived more than 9 minutes after the attack, she was on the phone with 911 for over 5 minutes, and it took the cops 2 minutes to secure the scene, thus giving her about a minute and a half to plant the sock. Not likely.

This is one of those "funny" cases (funny strange, not "ha-ha") that I can't make up my mind on. Everytime one side has a piece of evidence, the other side has an answer. I'm right down the middle here.

What bothers me is the whole scene, though. Two kids are brutally murdered and the mom is attacked within 1/16" of her life, yet the dad and baby sleep through it. Nothing is stolen. She wasn't sexually assaulted.

Now that does NOT mean I think she did it, but what did happen? I don't think the husband is involved, but something else. Was this a rage killing from someone who had it out for them?

The only other thought is that she was so whacked from post-partum that maybe she had a touch of Von Muchausen's (sp?) and then realized what she did so she attacked herself. Maybe it was a cry for help?

Definitely not a case with strong evidence for either side, IMO. (I think I need to add this to the "Most Controversial Cases" thread...)

According to the story, her youngest son was still barely alive. He died with the paramedics. They said he wouldn't have lived more than 9 minutes after the attack, she was on the phone with 911 for over 5 minutes, and it took the cops 2 minutes to secure the scene, thus giving her about a minute and a half to plant the sock. Not likely.

This is one of those "funny" cases (funny strange, not "ha-ha") that I can't make up my mind on. Everytime one side has a piece of evidence, the other side has an answer. I'm right down the middle here.

What bothers me is the whole scene, though. Two kids are brutally murdered and the mom is attacked within 1/16" of her life, yet the dad and baby sleep through it. Nothing is stolen. She wasn't sexually assaulted.

Now that does NOT mean I think she did it, but what did happen? I don't think the husband is involved, but something else. Was this a rage killing from someone who had it out for them?

The only other thought is that she was so whacked from post-partum that maybe she had a touch of Von Muchausen's (sp?) and then realized what she did so she attacked herself. Maybe it was a cry for help?

Definitely not a case with strong evidence for either side, IMO. (I think I need to add this to the "Most Controversial Cases" thread...)

I agree, Todd about this being a strange case. There is a lot to suggest that it was an "inside" job, but I'm still not completely convinced of her guilt. I lean towards the husband moreso, as I find it very hard to believe he slept through it (regardless of whatever pills he may have taken) and was very alert when paramedics arrived. He was even asking EMT's what they thought of his wife's newly acquired breasts. One statement, I know, that could have been taken out of context, but still, my opinion was he was involved.

Okay, so I just got out of class and my professor brought this case up again while we were discussing physical evidence, and evidenciary value. So, I again I have not seen this case aired in a while and am therefore fuzzy on the details. He mentioned a few points of interest, based on what he knows from talking to investigators of the case and what was said in court and whatnot.

But first I have to ask, is everyone sure that there was a sock OUTSIDE of the house? Because the only sock he mentioned tonight was used to clean off the knife, and I believe he stated it was found in the kitchen.

So first point he mentioned when he described the crime scene was that the supposed burglar entered the house, saw the children and mother asleep in front of the tv, and attacked the two children first, aged 5 and 6. Then stabbed Darlie, and escaped through the garage door.


So, the first thing wrong with this scenario that my professor brought up is WHY would a burglar attack 2 sleeping children before the mother who can get up and sound the alarm or call the police? Of course, I'm sure everyone here will have an argument for that, but logically it doesn't make sense.

The next point he mentioned is that Darlie claimed that when the supposed burglar attacked her, she was laying on her back on the couch, and he stabbed her down her front, across her throat etc. Yet, one piece of evidence they found was a drop of one of the children's blood on the BACK of the nightgown she was wearing.

So how did that drop get there? Well, the knife that was used to stabbed the children...one of the boys had been stabbed so hard that the knife went completely through him, through the carpet, almost down completely through to the cement, if not completely since the tip of the knife was broken off. So you move the knife in and out of the body, swinging it upwards behind your head, a drop of blood can come flying off.

Then this knife was found in the kitchen, and a sock which had come from the dirty clothes hamper and belonged to the husband (they know this because they found fibers of the husband's shoe on the sock) and the sock had been used to clean off the knife, and the knife had a bloody fingerprint on it from Darlie.

Oh, and this knife had been taken from the kitchen butcher block, as had the knife which cut the screen (they found evidence from the screen on the knife). And the way the screen had been pushed out was that it was pushed out from the inside, not from the outside like someone was entering the house.

There were blood stains from Darlie on the kitchen floor, glass over it and a vacuum cleaner knocked over on top of it like somebody - supposedly the burglar - had tried to clean it up. Darlie claimed she had run through the kitchen to try and call for help after the burglar was gone, but then the glass would have had to have been there, and therefore no blood UNDERNEATH the glass and Darlie would have had glass in or at least cuts from the glass on her feet (and I know this last point has been discussed before). Nope.

Oh and the vacuum cleaner had a bloody fingerprint from Darlie on it, as well.

So this burglar is able to enter the house, find a knife from the butcher block and a sock from the dirty clothes hamper, attack the children and Darlie, try to clean up the knife and the glass, and then run out the garage door WITHOUT leaving ANY physical evidence behind?? The police didn't find any evidence that ties anyone to the crime scene except for Darlie and the children. Not even her husband (so he wasn't there, but that doesn't mean he didn't know something).

And, when the cops arrived they found evidence indicating that Darlie had stood over the sink for at least several minutes, based on the amount of blood that was found in that area (her throat was slashed and therefore was losing blood), but that someone had tried to clean that up as well.

And one of her boys was still alive, yet she was busy cleaning up glass and blood at the sink? The investigators said she wasn't doing anything to try and help her son who was still alive, which apparently is not normal.

Oh, I also did ask about money being a motive, because he was pointing out they had had money problems and life insurance policies had recently been taken out on the 2 children. But $5000. So I asked how they could think that was a plausible motive when that would barely cover the funeral costs? He doesn't seem to believe that that was necessarily the reason, but he confirmed that they found a suicide note from Darlie and that there was evidence (as well as witnesses) stating that she had had SEVERE post-partum depression. There was also jewelry found in plain view on the countertop, so why would a burglar come in but not actually steal anything, even though he could easily have grabbed those items??


Sorry, hopefully that follows some logical order as he went through it kind of fast and it was towards the end of class. I know that the case is going to come up again because he has photos (crime scene photos I believe) and video (of her silly stringing their graves) to bring in. Yea so...definitely still leaning towards guilty here.

Well, Spark, I'm not going to argue anymore, it is pointless. You believe Routier is guilty and through hell and high water you will not change your mind. I am convinced of her innocence. However in "law and order" Texas also the home to the most wrongful convictions in the country, mistakes happen. Prosecutors and cops screw up.

Kamy, trust me, people can sleep through stuff you wouldnt believe. For some reason you choose not to believe this which is fine. But I am telling you it is POSSIBLE that Darren Routier did sleep through this. I am not saying he did, I am just staying it is possible.

Trust me, I know people where you could scream and hollar and they would sleep through all of it and these are people that do not even take sleeping pills. They just can sleep through anything. However trying to tell folks in Texas this kind of stuff, it is fruitless. Prosecutors and cops are always right and people are guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

Now I dont have a personal issue with either you Kamy or Spark I am sure you are both fine human beings. Kamy you seem open minded on this subject for the most part except the sleeping pill issue. Trust me those things are more potent than what you may realize. Different people react to the pills differently.

Spark, you need to realize your professor is biased. If he worked on the Routier crime scene or had friends that did naturally he will think she is guilty! Maybe he really thinks that? In fact he probably does really think that, I would hope he did, the alternative would be he knows an innocent woman is in prison and is letting it go on.

However these cops never admit fault! Ever! They do screw up, they are human beings! It happens! The problem is, prosecutors and cops arent willing to admit this. So as a result people tend to view them as being "super-human" when they are not. I am sure a majority of cops and prosecutors are good people but they are human and do make mistakes from time to time. Again just my two cents, nothing personal.

sleeping pills can have POWERFUL effects. I believe it was Jack Nicholson that said he almost crashed his car off the side of a cliff while on Ambien. I use one you can buy in stores, Sominex (not addicted to it, but I sleep weird hours and take it every once in a while) and even that was powerful enough to keep me asleep while a furnace was being repaired in my house (as I reported earlier, it was described as being louder than drums being played).

Spark, you need to realize your professor is biased. If he worked on the Routier crime scene or had friends that did naturally he will think she is guilty!

Kadrmas, just because someone works on a crime scene doesn't mean they are "biased" or will automatically think someone is guilty. Unless you know that this cop or this department has been proven to be negligant, it is not fair of you to say they can't be objective.

Are there crooked cops? Yes.

Are there crooked [insert name of profession here]? Yes.

This is nothing personal against you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But be careful about judging people's motives who you do not know. I would hope that professionals who were there and/or saw a whole lot more than you and me can make an educated decision. If the cops said she was innocent, would you still think they are crooked? Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong.

You are making a huge, unfair assumption about professional investigators. They investigate and conclude based on what the evidence tells them. If you really believe that just because someone investigated a crime scene doesn't mean they can't be fair, then our country is in a sad state.

As far as Darlie Router, this is a very controversial case. Many people agree with both sides. She was found guilty so there must be some evidence against her. We all have our own opinion and that is good. But let's stick to the facts and not make false assumptions that we can't prove.

Not starting a war, just wanted to clear the air on that. Peace to all... ;)

I didnt say it automatically did TM. I said in this particular case the professor clearly is biased. I only have what Spark says to go on. Thanks for the advice TM but it is not necessary. I am a big boy and will decide when and how I will talk to people.

Also, you sort of either intentionally or unintentionally took what I said out of context, as usual. I didnt say literally every person that ever worked on the Routier crime scene or any other crime scene is crooked. I said the cops in this particular case, certainly the lead investigators for sure were crooked. Even if Routier is guilty the cops are still crooked because of how they handled this case. It just stunk to high heaven.

I said a majority of cops and prosecutors are good people. I have said it before, I will say it again, most cops and prosecutors are good people. That said, they are human beings, they do make mistakes. It happens. Most of the time these are just mistakes. The problem is, the cops and prosecutors most of the time arent willing to admit they make these mistakes and try to cover up their mistakes by building a case around a suspect rather than letting the evidence lead them to a suspect.

Again, the fact of the matter is whether Darlie Routier is guilty or innocent the case was mishandled. There is just no doubt about that. If the Rowlett, Texas police would just have been willing to admit they botched the case pretty much from the get-go than there wouldnt be any problem. But they were not able to do that and went the cover up route. I was merely pointing that out.

Also, you called my assumptions false. How do you know they are false? Do you know something that I dont? I guess I will have to put (in my opinion) after everything. So here it goes the cops on this case, especially the lead investigators were crooked and mishandled the case from the start (in my opinion).

But you are right TM we do have a right to our opinions. So in my opinion it was your opinion that my assumptions were false. But yet you contradicted your own argument by telling me not to make baseless arguments I couldnt prove yet you yourself called my arguments false when you have zero evidence to prove they are in fact false.

They might be false in your opinion but you dont know for sure they are false. Maybe my arguments are wrong? I have been wrong before and could be wrong again I am a human being and I do make mistakes. But I also respect your right to have your opinion regardless of how much I disagree.

Where did it say the cops botched the investigation? (I'm honestly not arguing this point... I just don't remember hearing that.)

You are correct that sometimes our opinions and false assumptions are shades of gray based on our own bias. A person's view of opinion vs. perceived fact may depend on their own bias.

I don't routinely take things you say out of context. I just think you have strong opinions and they often times come off as sounding like more than just an opinion. By saying the police "botched the investigation" sounds to me like fact, when it is probably an opinion.

Like I said, no harm intended. I realize you don't hate all cops or think they are all crooked. But neither you nor me were there so to make absolutes out of limited facts is strictly our own opinion. If you have evidence that the cops botched the investigation or are clearly biased against Darlie, I'd love to hear it.

I still don't think that the professor is biased automatically just because he was part of the investigation. But that is just MY OPINION. :D

Hey TM, sorry for getting a little heated. But I said what I needed to say. Again, I'm sure you are a fine human being and that you meant well but I just happen to disagree with your opinions. But from now on I will say (in my opinion) after everything I say that is opinion just so there isnt any confusion.

Clearly some people just choose to nit pick and be politically correct about everything so that is necessary. So like when I said the police botched the investigation, in my opinion, the police botched the investigation. Or the professor, in my opinion, is biased because he was part of the investigation team and of course things Routier is guilty. That is his suspect!

In my opinion he cant say he was wrong even if he thought he was wrong because the case would unravel and Routier would go free, get a big pay day from the state of Texas and the prosecutors and cops would look bad. Not only that but pretty much every other case these cops worked would have to be re-looked at too to see if they had botched it this bad before. But again that is just all my opinion. I could be and probably am wrong.

Kadrmas, just because someone works on a crime scene doesn't mean they are "biased" or will automatically think someone is guilty. Unless you know that this cop or this department has been proven to be negligant, it is not fair of you to say they can't be objective.

Are there crooked cops? Yes.

Are there crooked [insert name of profession here]? Yes.

This is nothing personal against you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But be careful about judging people's motives who you do not know. I would hope that professionals who were there and/or saw a whole lot more than you and me can make an educated decision. If the cops said she was innocent, would you still think they are crooked? Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong.

You are making a huge, unfair assumption about professional investigators. They investigate and conclude based on what the evidence tells them. If you really believe that just because someone investigated a crime scene doesn't mean they can't be fair, then our country is in a sad state.

As far as Darlie Router, this is a very controversial case. Many people agree with both sides. She was found guilty so there must be some evidence against her. We all have our own opinion and that is good. But let's stick to the facts and not make false assumptions that we can't prove.

Not starting a war, just wanted to clear the air on that. Peace to all... ;)


Well said...in my opinion :D
You are correct in the assumption that I'm a fine human being, kadrmas, and I stand corrected on the sleeping pill issue. This is a highly debatable case and everyone is entitled to their opinion; I do like to think of myself as open-minded, and in this case, I'm still on the fence about Darlie's guilt/innocence.
:wave:

Well kadrmas, I think it is really rude of you to assume that just because I live and am from Texas that I live and breathe the death penalty and think that all people of suspected at looking at someone the wrong way should be hanged. (And as a note, I was raised by French parents. And if you know anything - they don't believe in the death penalty in France)

It is in my opinion that Darlie is guilty based on what I've seen, and read in various articles and on what my professor says, which regardless if he is biased THEY ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE! He did not officially work on the case, but is friends with those who did. He has been sharing these details in class because they are interesting, and will continue to share these in class since it is well, a crime scene investigation class.

Furthermore, I think it is incredibly condescending and ignorant of you to assume THAT I HAVE NO IDEA that police and lawyers and judges and juries make mistakes. And that my professor doesn't understand this. Before the semester even started he sent us at least 20 articles, and had us read books and watch documentaries about convicts who are wrongfully convicted because that is his biggest thing: he thinks that wrongfully convicting and sending an innocent person to jail is the worst thing that society can do. So please take a minute to THINK before you climb up on your high horse again and make such accusations.

And he's right.

And I still think Darlie Routier is guilty.

Well, I wasnt on a high horse, I had no way of knowing your parents were French. I have nothing to apologize for but I was impressed with your response. I guess I stand corrected at least somewhat. Well, I wasnt being serious about that DP stuff. I was just having a little fun ripping on Texas. Afterall, it isnt just people in Texas that are ignorant and believe what the biased media tells them to believe.... Most people across the country already do that!

Well, I guess I dont see the case the same way you do. You act like this is so overwhelming all this evidence, the guilt, it is all there according to you. If only it were that simple. Basically I just feel like you arent looking at the big picture. But since we disagree it is pointless to argue.

Okay, you think she is guilty because of the "blonde hair" found in the screen. Okay, you think she is guilty because the screen supposedly was pushed out in a way that it would only be if pushed out from the inside rather than the outside. Okay, you think she is guilty because the murder weapon came from within her own house. Okay, you think she is guilty because her injuries apperantly were not as severe as you felt they should be. Okay, you think she is guilty because of the bloody footprints and other stuff of that sort. Okay, you think she is guilty because nothing else from the house was apperantly taken so therefore she must be guilty.

I mean, I get why you think she is guilty. It really isnt even the fact that you think she is guilty, it is your reasoning behind it. Basically, you think she is guilty because your professor tells you she is. You can say that it is because of your interpretation of the evidence but in the end I am pretty sure it is because your professor says she is guilty. If your professor said she was innocent would you think that?

I am looking at the same evidence as you, yet I am coming to a different conclusion. Now is it POSSIBLE that Darlie murdered her two boys for whatever reason and either attempted to kill herself or attempted to make it look like someone had tried to kill her in order to evade punishment for killing her sons? OF COURSE it is possible! I never said it wasnt possible!

However, the cops and people such as yourself act like this is such an overwhelming bunch of evidence when it simply isnt that way! I just feel in Texas especially, people just dont take this stuff very seriously. They just assume anyone charged is guilty. I'm sorry but I really dont appreciate being lectured by a Texan about being rude. I think it is a little rude to throw people on death row left and right so casually.

Basically, you think she is guilty because your professor tells you she is. You can say that it is because of your interpretation of the evidence but in the end I am pretty sure it is because your professor says she is guilty. If your professor said she was innocent would you think that?

Um, okay. Except that I've been saying I think she's guilty for a long period of time now (you may recall that we've had this argument before because I think she is guilty), and only have been in this class since January. And we've only met oh, 4 times...so yea - my ENTIRE basis of thinking for her being guilty is COMPLETELY based on what this one professor says. Even before I met the guy or knew he existed - he was directly influencing my opinions.

However, the cops and people such as yourself act like this is such an overwhelming bunch of evidence when it simply isnt that way! I just feel in Texas especially, people just dont take this stuff very seriously. They just assume anyone charged is guilty. I'm sorry but I really dont appreciate being lectured by a Texan about being rude. I think it is a little rude to throw people on death row left and right so casually.

So the fact that the only physical evidence ever found was from Darlie Routier, and that there was absolutely ZERO evidence from anyone else considering this supposed burglar's behavior and actions (using a knife from the inside to cut the screen, murder the children and stab Darlie, and dig through the dirty laundrey for a sock) is completely meaningless to you?

AGAIN - you are targeting all Texans as rude and evil because people are sentenced to the death penalty here, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! What gives you the right to judge what kind of person someone is (or better yet what kind of people 24 million people are) based on that fact alone? Most people I've met from out of state, or my father has had dealings with from out of state or even out of the country have nothing but nice things to say about Texans (at least as far as how kind they are), and I think its really crappy of you to make such accusations.

Spark, I am not stupid so please dont talk to me like I am. Yes I know France doesnt support the death penalty. I dont question you are smart, I disagree with your opinions but there is no doubt you are smart. Hence why it disappoints me you are so guilliable. However for you to imply that I somehow is not smart is rude. Yet it is your opinion, regardless of how wrong it is you are entitled to it.

Forgive me, I wrote the part about my parents being French after I'd finished typing up my rant, and was on *my* high horses at the time, so I shouldn't have said that. I didn't mean to imply that you aren't intelligent, because based on your arguments you aren't, but certainly ignorant based on the fact that you think all Texans are a bunch of worthless hicks who enjoy sentencing every criminal to the death penalty.

And I'm not gullible, as I previously mentioned I've had these sentiments for quite some time. Also - an opinion isn't WRONG (especially since it is backed up by the investigators, the jury, and most of the general population). It is opinion, and frankly, statements like that do make me question your level of intelligence.

in any event, there is so much evidence to this case, that I think we may never know the real answer.

Wow Spark, lots of unfounded and exaggerated allegations there. I never said I thought literally all Texans are worthless and uneducated hicks. A lot of them are but there are a lot of uneducated hicks in veery state. Granted not every Texan supports the death penalty and not every Texan that does support the death penalty is a worthless, uneducated hick. But a lot of them are.

Well, I might not be privy to everything in the world but I do know that just because an investigator and a jury and the media say something is a certain way does not necessarily mean they are right. Yes they may be right a majority of the time but not all the time. Jury's get it wrong. There has been over 210 exonorations due to DNA testing, most if not all those people were wrongfully convicted by juries. Plus the bunch of other people that have been exonorated through other methods that were also wrongfully convicted by juries. Jurors are human and make mistakes like cops and prosecutors do sometimes. It happens.

Well, I am not accusing you of lying on the screen, I have no doubt your professor told you about that. However I question whether the professors version is correct. Even if it is correct it hardly proves within itself that Darlie Routier is guilty. Again, I am not saying that Darlie Routier isnt guilty, I am saying that the evidence you presented is hardly overwhelming proof when taken by itself. I just think if you are going to put someone on death row for something you should be totally sure you have the right person that is all. What is so horrible about that?

I dont think you are a bad person Spark. I dont question your intelligence. Whether or not you are ignorant I dont know. I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs. I just dont think you are looking at the whole big picture. Did you ever consider the possibility that Darlie Routier might be innocent?

I have considered that she is guilty. Did she have a motive? Sure! She and Darren had debt that was rather massive. She was overwhelmed with 3 small children, she had emotional problems. She decided to bump off two of her kids because she just couldnt handle it anymore. Then she staged the scene and even slit her own throat to make it look like some mysterious intruder came in. That is entirely possible! I never said it wasnt!

But, the fact of the matter is regardless of what Darlie Routier is, whether she is guilty or innocent, the silly string video, a piece of blonde hair in a screen, the screen and the way it was cut, it all leaves an underwhelming feeling to me. I mean, how can anyone say with a straight face that the fact Darlie sprayed silly string on a grave makes her automatically guilty of first degree murder? Like I said, if you are going to charge someone with that, come up with something better than that.

If you want to convict Darlie Routier, that is fine. But do it with the physical evidence, not the screen, but stuff as in putting the knife in her hand for instance. Testing her clothing. Wasnt there one drop of blood on her shirt or something that was suspect? But like I said, there is no doubt the police rushed to judgement.

You are right Spark, I am intelligent. You questioning my intelligence because you dont like my opinions is laughable. Like I said, I might be a little ignorant, I will admit I am not privy to literally everything in the world. However I am also a human being, I dont know everything and I do make mistakes, I can admit that and not feel bad about it.

If you look this case up on wikipedia, they state that the family was living well beyond their means, and offer up a motive that she killed her sons to relieve herself of having to provide financially for them. They state that the family owed $10,000 in back taxes, $12,000 in credit card bills, were two months behind on their mortgage payments, and were just denied a $5,000 loan from their bank. The site also claims that a $5,000 life insurance policy was taken out on each of her sons. This to me provides all the motive we need. As sad as it is, we all know from watching too much UM that some cold-hearted parents are willing to kill their own children for financial gain.

Good morning Soften,

I have been doing alot of research into this case and this is what I've read about the life insurance:

I read that the insurance on the boys was only 5,000 each and the policy is what is known as a family policy rider. Not sure of your age or circumstance, I'm new to this website and not complete on how to navigate for profile so I may be telling you something that you already know, but a rider policy is pretty basic when a family takes out life insurance and they have children. I also read that the funeral was in the neighborhood of 14,000, so for the motive to be the insurance money doesn't make much sense. Which troubles me because I believe she did it. Maybe she didn't have sense enough to realize that all a funeral would do is cause an additional financial burden. I wouldn't take all the money in the world for my children. So I don't know what was in her mind but I really believe that she did it.

Have a good day,
Pam

It is so hard for me to imagine how a mother could do this. But it is also hard for me to imagine that a man could come into her home and brutally stab her children when she was laying just a very few feet away from them and not be awakened by that. Even if they never made a peep.Then we are supposed to believe that she was attacked, but not awakened. All of this when she says herself (and Darin says) that she slept downstairs alot of the time because the baby "rooting around" in his bed at night would wake her up because she was such a light sleeper. I do hope that any new DNA testing will be done (not sure if they are doing any now. Does anyone know?) in the slight possible chance that she might be innocent. And the only thing that makes me really have the slightest doubt it is that it is so hard for me to imagine a mother could do this.

For anyone who has the time, go to the REDICULOUS website: www.fordarlieroutier.org and read the transcripts of the trial. Alot of it is court proceedure, etc. but there are the testomonies of all of the witnsses, which includes Darin and that ding-bat Darlie. I have not read her testimony yet, I am still reading Darins. Saving the most rediculous for last. But it is very informative. It will clear up the doubts of most. Darins testimony starts at volume 42. Very interesting reading. You will see that the defense will question Darin and paint such a rosey picture that it makes you think you might be wrong (for those of us who believe that she is guilty) and then the prosecution comes in and blows them out of the water and gets you back on track.

By the way... her website as of this morning (when I went to it) 357,674 hits. Out of 357,674 only a little more that 8,000 have signed her petition. You do the math...

Yes I agree with Justin, if Darlie did this, I do not feel insurance money or any money for that matter was the motive. Yes they were in debt, lots of people are, does that make them all murderers too? This is part of this character assassination crap that DA's and pro prosecution people like to do that bugs me. They take situations and things lots of people have been involved in and try to turn them into murderers. Lots of people have been in debt, lots of people have had affairs, lots of people have lived well beyond their means, does that make them all murderers? No.

Spark, I must say I am sort of disappointed, if you want to think Darlie is guilty that is fine, I'm not sure I agree, but you have every right to think she is guilty. What bothered me though was your reasoning behind it, I mean you think the silly string makes her guilty? Why in the hell would anyone if they were guilty, I dont care how arrogant you are, why would you spray silly string on the grave if you actually did it? That silly string does not prove Darlie is a murderer and anyone that would say it does should be ashamed of themselves.

That's true. Lots of people do have affairs, get into debt, live beyond their means. But lots of people don't have two dead children brutally stabbed in their living room floor. Unfortunately, more times than not, when there is a murder of a child it comes from within the home by a family member or someone close to the family. Crimes like these are rarely random. This is why the family was looked at first. That is in any state.

I said anyone that alleges that someone is guilty of first degree murder because they sprayed silly string at a grave should be ashamed of themselves. If you want to prove someone guilty that is one thing, but do it the right way, circumstancial evidence or in the case of the silly string, something that was inappropriate and not in good taste but certainly did not prove murder.

It was inappropriate for the video of the silly string to be brought in at trial, I know what the prosecutors were trying to show in their attempt at conviction via character assassination of Darlie Routier but they went overboard. I was merely pointing that out, I do get emotionally charged about cases where someone was potentially wrongfully convicted, I take that seriously.

Good morning kad,
Ding-bat Darlie invited the media to the graves to veiw the silly string party. People all over the country saw that video before she was ever arrested. I get what you are saying about someone being wrongly convicted and she should get any new DNA testing available. And if the test results warrent it, a new trial. Does the silly string thing make her guilty? Of course not. But it sheds alot of light on her mental stability. That happened 3 DAYS after her children were brutally murdered. Being a mother myself, I cannot fathom that.

Sorry about that, I believe it was 8 days after

good point. she came within a milliimeter of dying, as someone else pointed out, and was on her way to the hospital herself, yet the prosecution has her going down several houses to bury a sock. Pretty superhuman ala the Larry Race case. And wouldn't there have been a blood trail had she done that?


SOMEBODY did it without leaving a blood trail...

Well, the time frame on her allegedly murdering the boys, running down to plant this sock and then running back to her own house, slitting her throat and then calling 911 doesnt add up. Wouldnt people have seen her planting this sock? Or thought it odd of her walking around? I dont know, I think the odds are she didnt plant the sock.

Again, sure it is possible she planted the sock, but I would say the odds are she didnt plant the sock. I know you want her to be guilty, but the fact of the matter is the evidence in this case is VERY weak at best. It just simply should have never resulted in conviction, even in Texas it shouldnt have resulted in conviction. Also, just because a cop says there is all this strong evidence supposedly and that a person is guilty does not necessarily mean that it is true.

She called 911 at 2:30 am. I think she could have gotten down the alley without being spotted. JMO

Kadrmas, just because someone works on a crime scene doesn't mean they are "biased" or will automatically think someone is guilty. Unless you know that this cop or this department has been proven to be negligant, it is not fair of you to say they can't be objective.

Are there crooked cops? Yes.

Are there crooked [insert name of profession here]? Yes.

This is nothing personal against you. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But be careful about judging people's motives who you do not know. I would hope that professionals who were there and/or saw a whole lot more than you and me can make an educated decision. If the cops said she was innocent, would you still think they are crooked? Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong.

You are making a huge, unfair assumption about professional investigators. They investigate and conclude based on what the evidence tells them. If you really believe that just because someone investigated a crime scene doesn't mean they can't be fair, then our country is in a sad state.

As far as Darlie Router, this is a very controversial case. Many people agree with both sides. She was found guilty so there must be some evidence against her. We all have our own opinion and that is good. But let's stick to the facts and not make false assumptions that we can't prove.

Not starting a war, just wanted to clear the air on that. Peace to all... ;)

I could not agree more.

Well kadrmas, I think it is really rude of you to assume that just because I live and am from Texas that I live and breathe the death penalty and think that all people of suspected at looking at someone the wrong way should be hanged. (And as a note, I was raised by French parents. And if you know anything - they don't believe in the death penalty in France)

It is in my opinion that Darlie is guilty based on what I've seen, and read in various articles and on what my professor says, which regardless if he is biased THEY ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE! He did not officially work on the case, but is friends with those who did. He has been sharing these details in class because they are interesting, and will continue to share these in class since it is well, a crime scene investigation class.

Furthermore, I think it is incredibly condescending and ignorant of you to assume THAT I HAVE NO IDEA that police and lawyers and judges and juries make mistakes. And that my professor doesn't understand this. Before the semester even started he sent us at least 20 articles, and had us read books and watch documentaries about convicts who are wrongfully convicted because that is his biggest thing: he thinks that wrongfully convicting and sending an innocent person to jail is the worst thing that society can do. So please take a minute to THINK before you climb up on your high horse again and make such accusations.

And he's right.

And I still think Darlie Routier is guilty.


VERY well said!

Wow Spark, lots of unfounded and exaggerated allegations there. I never said I thought literally all Texans are worthless and uneducated hicks. A lot of them are but there are a lot of uneducated hicks in veery state. Granted not every Texan supports the death penalty and not every Texan that does support the death penalty is a worthless, uneducated hick. But a lot of them are.

Well, I might not be privy to everything in the world but I do know that just because an investigator and a jury and the media say something is a certain way does not necessarily mean they are right. Yes they may be right a majority of the time but not all the time. Jury's get it wrong. There has been over 210 exonorations due to DNA testing, most if not all those people were wrongfully convicted by juries. Plus the bunch of other people that have been exonorated through other methods that were also wrongfully convicted by juries. Jurors are human and make mistakes like cops and prosecutors do sometimes. It happens.

Well, I am not accusing you of lying on the screen, I have no doubt your professor told you about that. However I question whether the professors version is correct. Even if it is correct it hardly proves within itself that Darlie Routier is guilty. Again, I am not saying that Darlie Routier isnt guilty, I am saying that the evidence you presented is hardly overwhelming proof when taken by itself. I just think if you are going to put someone on death row for something you should be totally sure you have the right person that is all. What is so horrible about that?

I dont think you are a bad person Spark. I dont question your intelligence. Whether or not you are ignorant I dont know. I believe that you are sincere in your beliefs. I just dont think you are looking at the whole big picture. Did you ever consider the possibility that Darlie Routier might be innocent?

I have considered that she is guilty. Did she have a motive? Sure! She and Darren had debt that was rather massive. She was overwhelmed with 3 small children, she had emotional problems. She decided to bump off two of her kids because she just couldnt handle it anymore. Then she staged the scene and even slit her own throat to make it look like some mysterious intruder came in. That is entirely possible! I never said it wasnt!

But, the fact of the matter is regardless of what Darlie Routier is, whether she is guilty or innocent, the silly string video, a piece of blonde hair in a screen, the screen and the way it was cut, it all leaves an underwhelming feeling to me. I mean, how can anyone say with a straight face that the fact Darlie sprayed silly string on a grave makes her automatically guilty of first degree murder? Like I said, if you are going to charge someone with that, come up with something better than that.

If you want to convict Darlie Routier, that is fine. But do it with the physical evidence, not the screen, but stuff as in putting the knife in her hand for instance. Testing her clothing. Wasnt there one drop of blood on her shirt or something that was suspect? But like I said, there is no doubt the police rushed to judgement.

You are right Spark, I am intelligent. You questioning my intelligence because you dont like my opinions is laughable. Like I said, I might be a little ignorant, I will admit I am not privy to literally everything in the world. However I am also a human being, I dont know everything and I do make mistakes, I can admit that and not feel bad about it.

Hi kad,

I was going to try to stay out of this. Looks like you guys have been at it for a while now. But just so you know, the knife WAS placed in Darlie's hands. Hers were the only fingerprints on the knife. Thats why she made a point of saying she already touched and picked up the knife on the 911 tape. She had to immediately cover up for the fact that her fingerprints were the only prints there. Although I don't understand why she didn't clean the knife of her prints which would have made more sense. A gloved "intruder" wouldn't leave any prints, anywhere. So it would have looked better on her if there were no prints at all. Either way, it's wacked. Also, the blood on Darlie's shirt WAS tested. It's only part of the reason that she was arrested for and eventually convicted of murder. There was cast -off blood spatter pattern on the BACK of her shirt. The same way there would be if someone plunged a knife in, pulled it out, raised it up over their head and plunged it back in, repeat. Not trying to make you mad, I just I wanted share some things as I knew them. I got my info from the trial transcripts on Darlie's website www.fordarlieroutier.org. So I am going by what was testified to in court. I get what you are saying about not wanting someone convicted of a crime who is innocent. And on that I agree a million percent with you. But I think she's guilty. The biggest thing to me is the lack of a blood trail outside. Someone covered in blood would have to leave some kind of blood, somewhere outside. Whether it was Darlie or an intruder. According to Darlie the intruder left through the garage window which would have left him no way out but the back gate or going over the fence. Where is the blood? Whoever left that house would've had blood all over them when they went over the fence or out the back gate. But there is no blood. And I believe that no one went out that gate or fence after the murders. Not anyone covered in blood anyway. Maybe Darin did help her. I don't know. But while the silly string thing did repulse me, the biggest thing to me is the lack of blood outside. Most people who know about this case think she is guilty. This morning I went online to her website again to read more of the transcripts and there had been 357,696 visitors and only 8,490 people had signed her petition. I think that is fairly indicitive of what public opinion is in this matter.

Thanks for listening,
Pam

Get into the transcripts if you have time. Good reading.

Another question... what purpose was there in this "intruder" carrying a sock out the window with him? He sees Darlie and drops his only means of defense should someone confront him there in the kitchen, but caries a bloody sock with him down the alley. No one wants to believe that she could do this, but tell me honestly, what else makes sense? THERE IS NO BLOOD TRAIL EXCEPT FOR THIS SOCK.

I agree, Todd about this being a strange case. There is a lot to suggest that it was an "inside" job, but I'm still not completely convinced of her guilt. I lean towards the husband moreso, as I find it very hard to believe he slept through it (regardless of whatever pills he may have taken) and was very alert when paramedics arrived. He was even asking EMT's what they thought of his wife's newly acquired breasts. One statement, I know, that could have been taken out of context, but still, my opinion was he was involved.


Curious... why is it that you find it hard to believe that Darin slept through this? He was upstairs in this very large house asleep with the baby. Yet Darlie was in the same room with the boys and slept through their attack AND HER OWN? You can believe that SHE slept through the attack, but not Darin? This makes no sense.

Good morning kad,
Ding-bat Darlie invited the media to the graves to veiw the silly string party. People all over the country saw that video before she was ever arrested. I get what you are saying about someone being wrongly convicted and she should get any new DNA testing available. And if the test results warrent it, a new trial. Does the silly string thing make her guilty? Of course not. But it sheds alot of light on her mental stability. That happened 3 DAYS after her children were brutally murdered. Being a mother myself, I cannot fathom that.
I have three young children. I cannot fathom losing one of them. I don't know what I would do. I don't think one can judge her based on that tape...because no one knows for sure what her intentions were. She claims to have been celebrating for a B-day...which looks weird....but honestly many people lose loved ones and do weird things to include go on living as nothing happened and that significant one is still there. Everyone is different and unless one has lost a child I don't belieive it's easy to relate to.

That tape was the most damning piece of evidence it seems that the state used against her in court to convince a jury. That tape should not have even been used in the trial IMO....because it doesn't lead to anything other than speculation. there is no factual evidence presented by watching that tape. When I've seen shows that re-visited her case I was appauled at the amount of evidence that got her convicted and sent to death row. I understand that she was a prime suspect and could possibily be guilty of the crimes themselves. But there is not proof... leaving the possibility that she could be innocent. She should not be on death row under these circumstances and attorneys who put people away in these types of cases need to be held accountable. it makes me sick. because there are many others like her who were put away under similiar circumstances and were proven innocent after losing years sometimes decades of their lives.

I don't think one can judge her based on that tape...because no one knows for sure what her intentions were. She claims to have been celebrating for a B-day...which looks weird....but honestly many people lose loved ones and do weird things to include go on living as nothing happened and that significant one is still there. Everyone is different and unless one has lost a child I don't belieive it's easy to relate to.


I agree on the video tape.

Her behavior is weird and what most of us would agree is not normal. BUT... having two kids killed in cold blood would make anyone a little loopy. Perhaps she was just in a huge state of denial. Pretending they weren't dead as it was too painful to deal with.

In this case, though, I think there is a lot more damning evidence than the video. But I agree it probably wasn't fair to show in court as being happy shouldn't be the basis for sending someone to death row or not.

I agree on the video tape.

Her behavior is weird and what most of us would agree is not normal. BUT... having two kids killed in cold blood would make anyone a little loopy. Perhaps she was just in a huge state of denial. Pretending they weren't dead as it was too painful to deal with.

In this case, though, I think there is a lot more damning evidence than the video. But I agree it probably wasn't fair to show in court as being happy shouldn't be the basis for sending someone to death row or not.
I don't doubt that there were other things that were presented that didn't go in her favor.....and were presented legitimately. What I have heard from neutral experts about the case was that the video really hurt her and should not have been presented in trial. that is what I meant. So in that regard it was the biggest blow that was dealt to her in the court of public opinion which shouldn't affect the actual outcome of a case....but of course it often does when the courts get it wrong.

I don't doubt that there were other things that were presented that didn't go in her favor.....and were presented legitimately. What I have heard from neutral experts about the case was that the video really hurt her and should not have been presented in trial. that is what I meant. So in that regard it was the biggest blow that was dealt to her in the court of public opinion which shouldn't affect the actual outcome of a case....but of course it often does when the courts get it wrong.


Yep... I totally agree with what you said on that. ;)

Well, that video was the most the state had. I question if the state's case was really as strong as some people think, than why play the tape in court? The tape simply should have not been played at trial.

User, you seem to have an ax to grind here. You can think Darlie is guilty all you want but you arent convincing me. You say just because a majority of the public thinks she is guilty that means she is? Are you serious? I mean, you were seriously trying to argue that because her site had 300 thousand something hits and only 8 thousand something signed the petition that must mean she is for sure guilty? Please. Of course some people that visited the site think she is guilty. Others just didnt want to take the time to sign the petition.

User, you seem to have an ax to grind here. You can think Darlie is guilty all you want but you arent convincing me.

I totally diasagree with that statement. I appreciated her input. I am still on the fence about this case. As a mother I can't fathom how she could have done that to her children but there are some things that point directly to her.

User a question for you since you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the case. It always struck me as kind of odd that Darlier and the two older sons were sleeping in the living room while the husband and baby were upstairs in the bedroom. Do you know if this was typical of Darlie and her sons to sleep down there or was this the first time? If it was the first time it would seem a little suspicious to me.

User a question for you since you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the case. It always struck me as kind of odd that Darlier and the two older sons were sleeping in the living room while the husband and baby were upstairs in the bedroom. Do you know if this was typical of Darlie and her sons to sleep down there or was this the first time? If it was the first time it would seem a little suspicious to me.

I can't remember the official version, but I seem to recall the three of them fell asleep downstairs watching TV.

Then again, I'm not positive about that...

Kadrmas: I agree that the tape should not have been allowed. However, it has nothing to do with how strong the state's case was or wasn't. If they thought it would help, they will do it. Even with a strong case, ANY little advantage will be used to help win. I'm sure the state wanted it to help the case all they could and the judge allowed it. Again, I don't personally think it was relavent but in court you go for all you can and that's what the state did (fair or not).

Well, I'm not sure that it iwas so unusual that Darlie slept downstairs with the two sons while her husband and the youngest son were asleep upstairs. I mean, it isnt unusual to fall asleep late at night while watching television. The youngest son was an infant at that time if I remember correctly, so it wouldnt have been unusual for him to be asleep upstairs in a crib.

TM, I couldnt agree more, the state was out to win at all costs. This has long b een my theory on all cases. It has little to nothing to do with "justice" and everything to do with chalking up another victory in the win column for the prosecution.

But I disagree that this is acceptable. From what I have seen, sometimes these prosecutors think some of these defendants are innocent from time to time and still fight to convict them. It is one thing to fight to convict someone I guess. But to go the character assassination route is rather pathetic and sadly prosecutors more often than not resort to this crap when they dont have any real evidence to go on.

This story was just on a show on WE about women on death row. A reporter that was at the trial thought Darlie was guilty until after she saw all of the crime scene photos. She mentioned that there was alot more crime scene photos that was not brought into evidence for the jury to look at. She also mentioned that close to where the sock was found there was a knife that was buried in the ground with the handle sticking up. The police didnt think this was important & left it but then later down the road took it.

I have always thought she was guilty but not so sure now after I keep finding out more things about this case. I do not think she should be on death row. For me anyway I don't believe in the death penalty. It seems to me the police made up there minds right away that Darlie was guilty. I think they screwed up with this case & I think Darlie should get a new trial. I think all the evidence that was taken at the crime scene should have been entered. Every photo they took should have been given to the jury to examine.

If Darlie gets a new trial I will be surprised. IMO she is pretty much screwed.

I really can't decide, I think she is guilty. What I am having trouble with is, if she had help.

Sleeping through the event I can see, as he was upstairs and had taken a sleeping pill. However I cannot see the baby sleeping through the event, he would have woken up and started crying, I could not picture myself as a parent sleeping through my child crying. I just think he has more to do with it.



This story was just on a show on WE about women on death row. A reporter that was at the trial thought Darlie was guilty until after she saw all of the crime scene photos. She mentioned that there was alot more crime scene photos that was not brought into evidence for the jury to look at. She also mentioned that close to where the sock was found there was a knife that was buried in the ground with the handle sticking up. The police didnt think this was important & left it but then later down the road took it.

If I had time to look through court transcripts ( and that is, if this was even testified to in court ) just so I could read it myself, since this is the first time I have heard of that.

Well, that video was the most the state had. I question if the state's case was really as strong as some people think, than why play the tape in court? The tape simply should have not been played at trial.

User, you seem to have an ax to grind here. You can think Darlie is guilty all you want but you arent convincing me. You say just because a majority of the public thinks she is guilty that means she is? Are you serious? I mean, you were seriously trying to argue that because her site had 300 thousand something hits and only 8 thousand something signed the petition that must mean she is for sure guilty? Please. Of course some people that visited the site think she is guilty. Others just didnt want to take the time to sign the petition.

Nope... no axe to grind. But YOU seem quite upset. (wow) Just stating my opinion. And in my opinion she is guilty. I'm not here to convince YOU or anyone else of anything. Just posting on a message board.

And just so you know, I went into this case BELIEVING Darlie, giving her the benefit of the doubt. But like it or not, her story does not make sense. There is no blood outside that house. Can you explain that? Neither can Darlie. The only thing that makes sense is that the person who commited the murders never left the house.

No, I don't think that website counts or the number of people who have or have not signed a petition makes ANYONE for sure guilty. That is insane. I think that everyone will draw their own conclusions from what ever they have seen, heard and read. That is what I did. I have read books, watched interviews, visited websites, read the trial transcripts. I have accessed everything available to me and I've drawn my own conclusions. I believe she killed those kids. But it's ok, kad. You can still believe that she's innocent... IT'S OK... You believe what you chose to believe and I will do the same.

And by the way... how LONG exactly does it take to sign a petition?
Are YOU serious????

I totally diasagree with that statement. I appreciated her input. I am still on the fence about this case. As a mother I can't fathom how she could have done that to her children but there are some things that point directly to her.

User a question for you since you seem to have a lot of knowledge about the case. It always struck me as kind of odd that Darlier and the two older sons were sleeping in the living room while the husband and baby were upstairs in the bedroom. Do you know if this was typical of Darlie and her sons to sleep down there or was this the first time? If it was the first time it would seem a little suspicious to me.

Thanks, crystaldawn. I appreciate you veiwing my comments as just that... comments.

From what I read in the transcripts, Darin said that Darlie frequently slept downstairs because the baby "rooting around" (Darin's words) in his crib at night would wake Darlie up because she was a light sleeper.

Peace,
Pam

From what I read in the transcripts, Darin said that Darlie frequently slept downstairs because the baby "rooting around" (Darin's words) in his crib at night would wake Darlie up because she was a light sleeper.

Peace,
Pam


Pam: That is very interesting. Was that from the transcripts?

IIRC, did Darlie sleep through the attack and only realized later that she had been cut? She could have been drugged, but something doesn't make sense here. She is a "light sleeper" yet she didn't know she had been cut all to hell until later when she "woke up."

WTF? Doesn't seem to add up.

What do you guys think? :confused:

Pam: That is very interesting. Was that from the transcripts?

IIRC, did Darlie sleep through the attack and only realized later that she had been cut? She could have been drugged, but something doesn't make sense here. She is a "light sleeper" yet she didn't know she had been cut all to hell until later when she "woke up."

WTF? Doesn't seem to add up.

What do you guys think? :confused:

Yes, TM, I read that in the transcripts and I thought the same as you... it just doesn't make sense. That's why I just don't believe her. NOTHING makes sense. How can you be such a light sleeper and then sleep through the attacks? It just doesn't add up.

Peace, Pam

Pam: That is very interesting. Was that from the transcripts?

IIRC, did Darlie sleep through the attack and only realized later that she had been cut? She could have been drugged, but something doesn't make sense here. She is a "light sleeper" yet she didn't know she had been cut all to hell until later when she "woke up."

WTF? Doesn't seem to add up.

What do you guys think? :confused:

Thats a good point TM about her being a light sleeper. Like I said I still don't know what to believe in this case but in the UM segment Darrin said he doesn't think she slept through it but that she was rendered unconscious (possibly by a hand over her mouth until she passed out) and then woke up to find the attack going on. I thought it sounded at least plausible, what does anyone else think?

As far as the boys being asleep downstairs, it just seemed weird to me. Maybe I'm a stricter mother than Darlie was but my kids sleep in their beds every night, no exceptions.

Thats a good point TM about her being a light sleeper. Like I said I still don't know what to believe in this case but in the UM segment Darrin said he doesn't think she slept through it but that she was rendered unconscious (possibly by a hand over her mouth until she passed out) and then woke up to find the attack going on. I thought it sounded at least plausible, what does anyone else think?

As far as the boys being asleep downstairs, it just seemed weird to me. Maybe I'm a stricter mother than Darlie was but my kids sleep in their beds every night, no exceptions.

Hi crystaldawn,

My parents were also super strict about us being in our beds at night. We were never allowed to sleep anywhere but our beds. We were not even allowed to spend the night with friends because our parents wanted us home in our beds at night. So I see what you are saying. But I was a little less strict. I have fallen asleep in front of the tv with my kids many nights during summer vacation. So I personally didn't find them being downstairs as too odd. Lots of other oddities though!

Thats a good point TM about her being a light sleeper. Like I said I still don't know what to believe in this case but in the UM segment Darrin said he doesn't think she slept through it but that she was rendered unconscious (possibly by a hand over her mouth until she passed out) and then woke up to find the attack going on. I thought it sounded at least plausible, what does anyone else think?

As far as the boys being asleep downstairs, it just seemed weird to me. Maybe I'm a stricter mother than Darlie was but my kids sleep in their beds every night, no exceptions.


Well I am not TM, but I am a TM ( Brown was my married name ) but I shall answer as well.

If she was drugged the person would need to slip something in her food or drink, which would have been difficult thing to do with children up running around. Also from the crime scene photos that I have seen, there was no cups or plates in the family room, I really could not tell about the kitchen, but it looked cleaned. OR the person would had to force her to take something, if that was the case, one would think she would fight it.

I can picture the boys sleeping downstairs, I do believe they were watching TV, so it would be easy for all three to fall asleep, however later on she might have woken up and moved them to their beds if the attack did not happen.

Also, The silly string incident at the gravesites I overlook. I work in a funeral home and the grieving process is different for everyone, she was celebrating one of her dead son's birthday. As tacky as the silly string event was, I can honestly see a family doing that to celebrate a life, not to mourn a death on his birthday ( or near to it.) . That is my opinion on it.


TB24

Thats a good point TM about her being a light sleeper. Like I said I still don't know what to believe in this case but in the UM segment Darrin said he doesn't think she slept through it but that she was rendered unconscious (possibly by a hand over her mouth until she passed out) and then woke up to find the attack going on. I thought it sounded at least plausible, what does anyone else think?


I think that's what bothers me. If we are to believe Darlie, we have to choose between:

a) She is drugged and is not conscious while she is attacked.

b) She is choked and is not conscious while she is attacked.

c) She slept through the attack.


But if she was drugged, why did the attacker not sexually assault her or kill her? Seems funny to go through the trouble of drugging her to attack her within a 1/16 inch of her life but that's all.

If she is choked and is a "light sleeper," how do you not wake up during the initial attack? I highly doubt any one of us could "sleep through" someone trying to choke us.

Or she just slept through the whole attack on her, only to wake up later and find herself covered in blood.

That doesn't add up. It was a violent attack. She says she was comatose as was her husband. Why weren't all the victims actually killed and not left clinging to life?

I don't definitely think she is guilty, but there are some major holes in the intruder theory that I just can't wrap my head around.

Has anyone suggested that she had a manic rage episode or multiple personality sydrome? Almost sounds like it could have been a tragic case of Von Munchausen's syndrome.

In either case, the evidence just doesn't add up.

To Pam aka user296686 -

You seem to have a great knowledge of this case, and certainly know more than I, but I was curious about something. Is it true that Darrin failed one or multiple polygraph tests? I think this was a point raised in one of the documentaries. I can't remember if it was "Forensic Files" or "The Investigators", but do you have any knowledge of this? Has Darlie ever taken a polygraph?

To Pam aka user296686 -

You seem to have a great knowledge of this case, and certainly know more than I, but I was curious about something. Is it true that Darrin failed one or multiple polygraph tests? I think this was a point raised in one of the documentaries. I can't remember if it was "Forensic Files" or "The Investigators", but do you have any knowledge of this? Has Darlie ever taken a polygraph?

I heard the same thing (about Darin's LD test results. I heard he failed two tests) on two different shows. ALSO... I heard on the same two shows that Darlie declined to take a lie detector test until she had a private test conducted. After the private test, she and her mother were seen leaving the facility in tears (they were "inconsolable" is the word they used) and, so far as I have found, she has never taken another one.. Like I said, that is what I saw on TV and all I know on this issue. Do you get lie detector results right away? Does anyone know? Anyway, Justin, that's all I know for sure about that issue.

Pam

Do you get lie detector results right away? Does anyone know?


Depends. Usually the person administering the test can tell right away based on your biological reactions.

If it is a private test, you should know right away.

Since they aren't admissable in court, it's up to the cops if/when they want to tell you if they are the ones administering it. I'm not sure if states have laws about that or not. There usually isn't a whole lot to analyze though.

I'm not sure where I stand on polygraphs. I think they are usually accurate enough but there have been cases of guilty people passing them and vice versa. I know many people here have stories about them not being accurate.

I'm surprised if they did fail tests that it was not mentioned in the UM story. At least I think it wasn't.

Depends. Usually the person administering the test can tell right away based on your biological reactions.

If it is a private test, you should know right away.

Since they aren't admissable in court, it's up to the cops if/when they want to tell you if they are the ones administering it. I'm not sure if states have laws about that or not. There usually isn't a whole lot to analyze though.

I'm not sure where I stand on polygraphs. I think they are usually accurate enough but there have been cases of guilty people passing them and vice versa. I know many people here have stories about them not being accurate.

I'm surprised if they did fail tests that it was not mentioned in the UM story. At least I think it wasn't.

Not sure about that, Todd. I didn't see the UM story on Darlie. Which catagory is she in on the videos offered above? I see there is Ghosts, Miracles, etc. Do you know? I like to watch everything I can about this case. I am open to anything or anyone who can prove her not guilty as I hate to think that a mothet could do this... but it happens all the time. Look at Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates. Scary... sickening.

I'm not totally sure of polygraphs myself for the same reasons as you. But I always find it interesting to see how they turn out, even if they can't be used in court.

Peace, Pam

Not sure about that, Todd. I didn't see the UM story on Darlie. Which catagory is she in on the videos offered above? I see there is Ghosts, Miracles, etc. Do you know? I like to watch everything I can about this case. I am open to anything or anyone who can prove her not guilty as I hate to think that a mothet could do this... but it happens all the time. Look at Diane Downs, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates. Scary... sickening.

I'm not totally sure of polygraphs myself for the same reasons as you. But I always find it interesting to see how they turn out, even if they can't be used in court.

Peace, Pam

Pam -

If you want to PM me, I can send you the Darlie Routier story from UM. I have it on bootleg DVD, but I don't think it's on any of the DVDs that have been released commercially.

It is pretty one sided though.

Pam -

If you want to PM me, I can send you the Darlie Routier story from UM. I have it on bootleg DVD, but I don't think it's on any of the DVDs that have been released commercially.

It is pretty one sided though.

OK Justin. That would be great!
One question... what do you mean by PM? Sorry! I'm new to the site and still learning the lingo. Thanks so much.

Peace, Pam

OK Justin. That would be great!
One question... what do you mean by PM? Sorry! I'm new to the site and still learning the lingo. Thanks so much.

Peace, Pam

"PM" means send a "private message." Just click on Justin's name on his post and then click on "Send a private message."

You can also go to "Private Messages" by clicking on it under your name on th upper right part of the page. Right where it says "Welcome, user296686@aol.c." That will show when you have new PM's too.

:D

"PM" means send a "private message." Just click on Justin's name on his post and then click on "Send a private message."

You can also go to "Private Messages" by clicking on it under your name on th upper right part of the page. Right where it says "Welcome, user296686@aol.c." That will show when you have new PM's too.

:D


Thank you, Todd. Very kind!

Peace, Pam

Then this knife was found in the kitchen, and a sock which had come from the dirty clothes hamper and belonged to the husband (they know this because they found fibers of the husband's shoe on the sock) and the sock had been used to clean off the knife, and the knife had a bloody fingerprint on it from Darlie.

The fiber evidence, assuming this is accurate, is a little detail that UM "forgot" to mention.

There were blood stains from Darlie on the kitchen floor, glass over it and a vacuum cleaner knocked over on top of it like somebody - supposedly the burglar - had tried to clean it up. Darlie claimed she had run through the kitchen to try and call for help after the burglar was gone, but then the glass would have had to have been there, and therefore no blood UNDERNEATH the glass and Darlie would have had glass in or at least cuts from the glass on her feet (and I know this last point has been discussed before). Nope.

Oh and the vacuum cleaner had a bloody fingerprint from Darlie on it, as well.

Another detail that UM completely "forgot" to mention, assuming it's true.

Oh, I also did ask about money being a motive, because he was pointing out they had had money problems and life insurance policies had recently been taken out on the 2 children. But $5000. So I asked how they could think that was a plausible motive when that would barely cover the funeral costs? He doesn't seem to believe that that was necessarily the reason, but he confirmed that they found a suicide note from Darlie and that there was evidence (as well as witnesses) stating that she had had SEVERE post-partum depression. There was also jewelry found in plain view on the countertop, so why would a burglar come in but not actually steal anything, even though he could easily have grabbed those items??

This, too, was a little piece of evidence that UM "forgot" to mention, and I can't believe it hasn't garnered more attention from the posters on this board. Was that note written to be found along with Darlie's dead body that night? Or was it a note that she had written earlier when contemplating a suicide attempt that she ultimately did not pursue? If it refers to the incident on the night in question, all question of her guilt is settled!

When I originally viewed the segment, I was convinced of her guilt, until it was mentioned that there was a rapist in the area who had used socks to cover his hands while assaulting his victims, which he did with a knife. Since there was a sock found outside the house (a detail that is still a little troubling), and an unidentified palm print inside the house, I thought there was enough reasonable doubt that i would not have voted to convict. But why would someone planning on doing all this come into the house WITHOUT his own knife and at least one sock short? And what is the deal with Darlie's suicide note? I've always thought it was more likely than not that she did it, but now I'm inching ever closer to the beyond a "reasonable doubt" threshold.

This, too, was a little piece of evidence that UM "forgot" to mention, and I can't believe it hasn't garnered more attention from the posters on this board. Was that note written to be found along with Darlie's dead body that night? Or was it a note that she had written earlier when contemplating a suicide attempt that she ultimately did not pursue? If it refers to the incident on the night in question, all question of her guilt is settled!

When I originally viewed the segment, I was convinced of her guilt, until it was mentioned that there was a rapist in the area who had used socks to cover his hands while assaulting his victims, which he did with a knife. Since there was a sock found outside the house (a detail that is still a little troubling), and an unidentified palm print inside the house, I thought there was enough reasonable doubt that i would not have voted to convict. But why would someone planning on doing all this come into the house WITHOUT his own knife and at least one sock short? And what is the deal with Darlie's suicide note? I've always thought it was more likely than not that she did it, but now I'm inching ever closer to the beyond a "reasonable doubt" threshold.

Mozart, I will ask my professor about this next Monday night after class. The way he mentioned the suicide note was that they found it in her possessions, and maybe it hadn't been for a specific occasion, but she had been depressed. But I'm not sure, so I will ask. There was an unidentified palm print? I'll need to view this segment again, since iirc, my professor said there was absolutely no physical evidence in that house that didn't belong to a family member.

Does anyone have the segment to send me? Or is it on that "forbidden site"??

I have followed this case for a while, and I truly believe Darlie murdered her children. It seems the biggest thing people are fixated on (that believe in her innocence) are the pictures of her bruises. As soon as I saw those pictures I thought it looked probably exactly as it would if she murdered her boys. Her boys were slashed with a knife, over and over, and did not die quickly...they were still alive when the police arrived. Now do you really think they'd just lay there while they were being slaughtered? THe will to live is VERY STRONG...even capable of super-human strength in situations where you are literally fighting for your life....I would think they would have kicked, hit, thrashed, etc, with such a force it could EASILY have left those bruises on her. In fact, seeling those pictures of her bruises and that superficial cut on her neck from the hospital was one of the biggest confirmations of her guilt to me. The artery isn't far from the surface of the neck anyway, and cutting at all in the neck would get very close to it. The picture of the neck cut looked very superficial, and there's no way I believe a crazy man who just used a knife with such force to slash all the way through her boys bodies repeatedly, suddenly just held back and barely cut her. And only once. Come on! The whole thing makes no sense, except that this sociopath monster Darlie murdered her poor children. I am really sick of people defending this monster. Think about her actions during the 911 call. I can not even fathom worrying about telling the 911 operator (more than once) how you may have your fingerprints on a knife while your kids are laying there dying....or tending to your own bleeding while your kids are laying there literally on their last breath and not tending to them. I don't care how much shock you are in you would be tending to your children or atleast not worried about your stupid fingerprints at that moment in time. I could go on and on but that this is still being debated and people are still defending her innocence after all this time really is disturbing to me on many levels. THat people are conned by this murderer is truly disturbing.

Mommy2sets, I agree with what you said. It's a good point you made, that the bruises (which a lot of Darlie's supporters use as "evidence" she is innocent) are something that could have come from the kids. I also found it a little odd, that in the UM segment, she claimed that she didn't realize she was attacked until she picked up the knife and found blood all over her throat. Think about this...she is 1/16 of an inch away from dead, yet, from the way the segment made it seem, she claims she did not know she was attacked until she was "chasing away the intruder." Doesn't make sense to me. That isn't a big piece of evidence, I know, just a little point I thought was strange.

I have followed this case for a while, and I truly believe Darlie murdered her children. It seems the biggest thing people are fixated on (that believe in her innocence) are the pictures of her bruises. As soon as I saw those pictures I thought it looked probably exactly as it would if she murdered her boys. Her boys were slashed with a knife, over and over, and did not die quickly...they were still alive when the police arrived. Now do you really think they'd just lay there while they were being slaughtered? THe will to live is VERY STRONG...even capable of super-human strength in situations where you are literally fighting for your life....I would think they would have kicked, hit, thrashed, etc, with such a force it could EASILY have left those bruises on her. In fact, seeling those pictures of her bruises and that superficial cut on her neck from the hospital was one of the biggest confirmations of her guilt to me. The artery isn't far from the surface of the neck anyway, and cutting at all in the neck would get very close to it. The picture of the neck cut looked very superficial, and there's no way I believe a crazy man who just used a knife with such force to slash all the way through her boys bodies repeatedly, suddenly just held back and barely cut her. And only once. Come on! The whole thing makes no sense, except that this sociopath monster Darlie murdered her poor children. I am really sick of people defending this monster. Think about her actions during the 911 call. I can not even fathom worrying about telling the 911 operator (more than once) how you may have your fingerprints on a knife while your kids are laying there dying....or tending to your own bleeding while your kids are laying there literally on their last breath and not tending to them. I don't care how much shock you are in you would be tending to your children or atleast not worried about your stupid fingerprints at that moment in time. I could go on and on but that this is still being debated and people are still defending her innocence after all this time really is disturbing to me on many levels. THat people are conned by this murderer is truly disturbing.

Welcome to the board Mommy2sets. As I have stated before I'm not really 100% convinced of Darlie's innocence or guilt. Since you are very up on the case I have a few questions maybe you know the answer to. Does Darlie has a history of very violent behavior? Since you believe she is guilty, do you think it was premeditated? The thing that is hard to swallow if Darlie was the attacker was the extremely violent way the boys were killed. You would think if she wanted the insurance money or was suffering post partum depression there wouldn't be so much rage involved. Any thoughts on that point?

Titan, The Doctor's report stated the cut was 'within 2mm of the cartoid sheath but superficial to the cartoroid artery'. That description doesn't mean a very deep wound. The pictures sure don't look very deep either, especially considering the cuts her boys received. If not self-inflicted I think it's very possible that if indeed she was weiding the knife herself that the cuts on Darlie may very well have come from a struggle with the boys during the attack. If she was holding the knife and there was a lot of struggling, kicking, etc, it's very possible she would get hit with the knife herself. Yes I agree it's just way too odd she would have no memory at all of an attack that was long enough to stab her boys over and over, and just wake up as she was struggling with the intruder and then he would run away. LIke I said..makes no sense. She's a Mother after all, dear God, we are hypersensitive to our children in distress laying near us even.. I know myself I can be in a dead sleep laying with one of my babies I will have some awareness even turning over not to roll on them. I just can't believe that a Mother would not have heard her children getting slaughtered and not even roused from sleep... unless she was heavily drugged. Hi CrystalDawn, thanks for the welcome. Regarding your question of prior history of violence, I have not heard of any. However there was history of extremely manipulative and egotistical/narcissistic self-serving behavior that could hint that although she was a very good actress, she could also be an underlying sociopath. I believe this is the type of person she is. I think her children were in the way of something she wanted (whether it be a lifestyle, attention, etc) and were dispensable. Perhaps this was done so violently because she wanted them to make sure they died and die fast rather than suffer after she started? I don't know. But one can't really make sense of a psychopath's reasoning, or evil, it just is. Haven't you ever known of anyone who seems like the sweetest person in the world that you know has a heart of steel and is just a total phony? Look at that sweet southern belle lady (I can't think of her name) who kept marrying men and murdering them in the most torturous ways by feeding them poisoning in her home-cooked food. Everyone that knew her just loved her. She doted on her dying suffering husbands claiming to care about them while still giving them deadly doses of poisoning causing them enormous physical suffering. Her own daughter only became suspicious and afraid of her near the end. These are the most dangerous type of personalities in my opinion. Unlike an Andrea Yates who did such a horrible thing but fessed up to it, these people are such incredible liars and phonys, and also such good actors, that they are often very hard to detect.

I think tHe only other possibility (but not near as plausible in my opinion) is that her husband did indeed hire people to burglarize the house to collect insurance money since they were deeply in debt and had just been turned down for loans (he later confessed to planning this but claims he didn't do it), and the intruder then killed the children but not his wife for some illogical and unknown reason. But I really think she did it over this version, and more evidence points to her doing it also.

Look at that sweet southern belle lady (I can't think of her name) who kept marrying men and murdering them in the most torturous ways by feeding them poisoning in her home-cooked food. Everyone that knew her just loved her. She doted on her dying suffering husbands claiming to care about them while still giving them deadly doses of poisoning causing them enormous physical suffering. Her own daughter only became suspicious and afraid of her near the end

I believe you might be talking about Marie Hilley? Not sure though

I'm not sure, I don't even know that much about the case except for a brief summary in a real life crime book , and a movie made about it ..my point was though there are some very evil twisted psychos out there that are extremely good actors... and most would never know. Look at BTK even... his family, neighbors, coworkers, etc had no idea. I don't know a lot about that case but as far as I do know he had no prior history of violence, and there was really no motive for his torturing and murdering people other than twisted self-gratification. Another is Dianne Downs - the postal worker who shot her own children, and there are many many many more. I think Darlie falls in this category of psychopath. And why it's so disturbing to me that she's still able to conn people.

The fiber evidence, assuming this is accurate, is a little detail that UM "forgot" to mention.



Another detail that UM completely "forgot" to mention, assuming it's true.



This, too, was a little piece of evidence that UM "forgot" to mention, and I can't believe it hasn't garnered more attention from the posters on this board. Was that note written to be found along with Darlie's dead body that night? Or was it a note that she had written earlier when contemplating a suicide attempt that she ultimately did not pursue? If it refers to the incident on the night in question, all question of her guilt is settled!

When I originally viewed the segment, I was convinced of her guilt, until it was mentioned that there was a rapist in the area who had used socks to cover his hands while assaulting his victims, which he did with a knife. Since there was a sock found outside the house (a detail that is still a little troubling), and an unidentified palm print inside the house, I thought there was enough reasonable doubt that i would not have voted to convict. But why would someone planning on doing all this come into the house WITHOUT his own knife and at least one sock short? And what is the deal with Darlie's suicide note? I've always thought it was more likely than not that she did it, but now I'm inching ever closer to the beyond a "reasonable doubt" threshold.

The only problem with the sock theory is, there were only a couple of drops of blood on the sock. If it had been used to hold the knife while using it, wouldn't it be covered in blood?

Peace, Pam

Mommy2sets, I agree with what you said. It's a good point you made, that the bruises (which a lot of Darlie's supporters use as "evidence" she is innocent) are something that could have come from the kids. I also found it a little odd, that in the UM segment, she claimed that she didn't realize she was attacked until she picked up the knife and found blood all over her throat. Think about this...she is 1/16 of an inch away from dead, yet, from the way the segment made it seem, she claims she did not know she was attacked until she was "chasing away the intruder." Doesn't make sense to me. That isn't a big piece of evidence, I know, just a little point I thought was strange.

Hi Titan,

I could not agree with you more. There was another show on last night about the case. It was dated 2005 But I had never seen it before. You know how we've all heard her say in other interviews that she didn't realize that she was cut until after the "intruder" was gone and she reached down to pick up the knife and blood shot out of her neck? Well last night in the interview, she said that she saw a glimpse of a man and followed him. when she went into the kitchen to "follow him", she realized the kitchen light wasn't on, so she turned it on and noticed that there was blood on her shirt. This is another thing that convinces me of her guilt. Her story has changed so many times. It amazes me that Darin doesn't question her guilt. The other thing that REALLY convinces me of her guilt is the blood evidence. I just can't get past it. If you watch a program that shows the window that was exited from, you see a big cage of some sort (maybe a one of those real tall parrot cages) and went out through that screen THERE IS NO BLOOD ON ANYTHING. Not the screen, not the cage, nothing. She is a murderer.

Peace, Pam

OK now that I saw this thread and this whole ugly thing got in my head again I did a little net searching and found this site that covers a fair amount of the details..both pros and conns of her guilt are discussed.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/1.html

As a Mother myself, some of the highlights that stuck out in my mind from this piece are:

Darlie winced when the IV was put in her arm after the attack and about her superficial neckwounds but on the entire drive to the hospital did not ask about her children ONCE.

The nurses noted that Darlie showed no emotion about her children being murdered. When her Mother and sister arrived they were hysterical, she was calm. When passing by an open door that had her son inside the room, naked, covered in blood, tubes hooked up everwhere, bags covering his hands, etc, (a disturbing site to everyone) she looked inside then just looked away and showed no emotion.

When she went back to her house after the murders with her friends, the friends were worried about her reaction to the place her children were killed, but she walked right in and said 'look at this mess , now we're going to have to clean up all thie sh-t!' (a friend later testified)

When she went to the funeral and someone commented that on top of their financial harships it must be hard to have the funeral expenses, Darlie said 'oh it's OK we're getting 5,000 a piece for them from insurance'.

The silly string birthday incident a few days after the murder.

And I still can't get over that in the midsts of her children dying. literally taking their last breath Darlie had the presense of mind to keep mentioning that she probably covered fingerprints by picking up the knife. At the hopsital she was said to have been telling everyone that too, as if trying to convince them. Dear God, her children had just been slaughtered. Why wouldn't she think fingerprints would be anywhere else? What Mother of murdered children would be thinking about that then?


Good point about the screen. Also pretty much everyone that saw the screen said only an idiot would cut it to get in since it would have been so much easier and simpler to
pull down and remove. And as someone said there was no blood or any disturbance of the windown sill (that was stil covered in dust), under the window, or anywhere else. The supposed perpetrator must not have gotten any blood on him!? Only Darlie,.. and she was covered in it.

The Luminol on the sink showed it had been covered in blood and cleaned up. Other areas showed the blood had been cleaned or wiped up. WHy on earth would she be cleaning up blood while her children are dying??

Very good point earlierby the person who said ..why would a stronger start by klling the boys, leaving an adult who could fight them if she woke up or could run and trip an alarm, etc asleep right next to them? Why start with small children, and then end with the adult who could identify him? And on top of it then run away after just superfically cutting her and leave so she COULD identify him? And how on earth did he have no blood on him or leave any sort of trail?

Her defenders say that the crime scene was contaminated and people left a mess and knocked over things, etc so isn't it then very likely that the ONE unidentified bloody fingerprint (supposedly) came from either a paramedic, policeman or someone else there that night that had blood on their hands and accidentally touched the counter?

She's potrayed now as some sort of wise, martyrd saint. She recently wrote a letter to her many 'fans' telling them they were the 'wind beneath her wings'. (Supposedly she gets over 200 pieces of mail a week). Like I said... DISTURBING.

OK now that I saw this thread and this whole ugly thing got in my head again I did a little net searching and found this site that covers a fair amount of the details..both pros and conns of her guilt are discussed.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/1.html

As a Mother myself, some of the highlights that stuck out in my mind from this piece are:

Darlie winced when the IV was put in her arm after the attack and about her superficial neckwounds but on the entire drive to the hospital did not ask about her children ONCE.

The nurses noted that Darlie showed no emotion about her children being murdered. When her Mother and sister arrived they were hysterical, she was calm. When passing by an open door that had her son inside the room, naked, covered in blood, tubes hooked up everwhere, bags covering his hands, etc, (a disturbing site to everyone) she looked inside then just looked away and showed no emotion.

When she went back to her house after the murders with her friends, the friends were worried about her reaction to the place her children were killed, but she walked right in and said 'look at this mess , now we're going to have to clean up all thie sh-t!' (a friend later testified)

When she went to the funeral and someone commented that on top of their financial harships it must be hard to have the funeral expenses, Darlie said 'oh it's OK we're getting 5,000 a piece for them from insurance'.

The silly string birthday incident a few days after the murder.

And I still can't get over that in the midsts of her children dying. literally taking their last breath Darlie had the presense of mind to keep mentioning that she probably covered fingerprints by picking up the knife. At the hopsital she was said to have been telling everyone that too, as if trying to convince them. Dear God, her children had just been slaughtered. Why wouldn't she think fingerprints would be anywhere else? What Mother of murdered children would be thinking about that then?


Good point about the screen. Also pretty much everyone that saw the screen said only an idiot would cut it to get in since it would have been so much easier and simpler to
pull down and remove. And as someone said there was no blood or any disturbance of the windown sill (that was stil covered in dust), under the window, or anywhere else. The supposed perpetrator must not have gotten any blood on him!? Only Darlie,.. and she was covered in it.

The Luminol on the sink showed it had been covered in blood and cleaned up. Other areas showed the blood had been cleaned or wiped up. WHy on earth would she be cleaning up blood while her children are dying??

Very good point earlierby the person who said ..why would a stronger start by klling the boys, leaving an adult who could fight them if she woke up or could run and trip an alarm, etc asleep right next to them? Why start with small children, and then end with the adult who could identify him? And on top of it then run away after just superfically cutting her and leave so she COULD identify him? And how on earth did he have no blood on him or leave any sort of trail?

Her defenders say that the crime scene was contaminated and people left a mess and knocked over things, etc so isn't it then very likely that the ONE unidentified bloody fingerprint (supposedly) came from either a paramedic, policeman or someone else there that night that had blood on their hands and accidentally touched the counter?

She's potrayed now as some sort of wise, martyrd saint. She recently wrote a letter to her many 'fans' telling them they were the 'wind beneath her wings'. (Supposedly she gets over 200 pieces of mail a week). Like I said... DISTURBING.
IMO the prosecution did not uphold their end of it in a proper manner. Did they get the conviction? yes......but the means that came about is the whole reason why darlie has such a fighting case now. and it is the reason why this case is still being debated.

The first thing I will talk about is the tape of the funeral. That tape has no legal relevance to the case and should not have been used in court. I said this before. another problem I have is that the police dept. was following her and secretly video taped her and the family at the gravesight. Is that relevant to innocence or guilt.....no......but it does prove that they narrowed their suspect list down to one from the start. that's something that never got out before. There were a lot of circumstancial points used against her as well. The other problem I have is that her husband....who very well could have committed this crime....seems to be off the hook completely. If you want to look at the fact that she could have been drugged he would of had the means. It is also convenient that he slept through this all upstairs with the other baby. too convenient if you ask me.

Her wounds were not superficial IMO. They were very unlike most people who I have seen in these types of cases were ADULTS were murdered. There were many pictures of her wounds that were not used in court.....based on the last discovery times show that I watched. Legal experts who thought she was truly guilty previously....actually changed their outlook after viewing these photos that were not presented in court. Also many people don't elect to cut their own neck in this type of situation...(a cover up). If you ask my opinion...I think it is possible that she did it. but I think it is very possible that she is innocent and was really attacked. Both lawyer teams were unprofessional in this case....and why isn't her husband who IMO looks even more guilty in many aspects than darlie does.....under more investigation? too many legit unanswered questions.....that's why I have a problem with her conviction.

I totally agree with what you said DT. Interesting point too on the husband and the baby sleeping upstairs. If in fact the husband had taken sleeping pills as he claimed than it would be possible that he could sleep through even a noisy attack like that. However was he ever tested to see if he had sleeping pills in his system? There are certainly more questions than answers in this case that is for sure.

Hi DT, Well I think we can rule out that Darlie was drugged because of the 911 tape just minutes later, where she was wide awake, her speech wasn't sluirred or anything that would indicate she was drugged so heavily that she could not hear the stabbings of her sons just a few feets from her. She testified that one son was only about a foot away from her. Also he was stabbed with such a force that the knife went through his body and dented the tip on the ground, so there would have to be some noise. Also, the autopsy stated there were defensive wounds and bruises on the boys indicating a struggle which is where I believe Darlie got a lot -if not all -of her bruises. Doesn't it seem odd that an intruder would switch from blowing up and down forceful stabs to a slit of the throat when it came to Darlie? Or also that he would leave before she was even fully awake, leaving her alive and to testify against him? If he really wanted to kill her he'd have given her a few of the same blows he gave her sons, but by comparison hers were basically nothing. Did you see her silly string segment? That was only EIGHT days after the attack. Notice there was no neckbrace to keep her neck from moving.. not even bandages, she was perfectly fine and moving her neck all around. Pretty amazing for such a 'severe' neck wound isn't it? I remember reading that the Doctors were in fact going to release her from the hospital the first night, but because of the situation and media they thought she needed rest and to be left alone so stayed at the hospital. There are full transcripts of the case at fordarlieroutier.com. I don't see how anyone who reads those transcripts could still think she's innocent. She's a pathological liar.. I think she gave 16 different versions of what happened that night. She's been changing them as she goes to try to fit wht the evidence is. I also really really did not want to believe she did this but I know in my gut now she did. Especially after reviewing all the evidence. This is a woman used to getting her way, and who faked a rape attack just to get her husband to pay more attention to her at a party and get what she wanted. Camp Darlie has been claiming all this new evidence for years, but they continually fail to show really anything. The bruises could have very well been self-inflicted at the hospital too. If she's a clever psychopath like I really think she is, she would have thought to try to do that (or make bruises she had worse) to continue to coverup. There weren't bruises on her body either, just her arms (that was from the court transcripts). Like another psychopath Jeff McDonald, she could have easily thought to use the wrong hand to inflict her injuries to throw off the police as he did. She's not dumb, ..she did plant a blooody sock and almost get away with all this after all. Everyone knows they think of which hand a weapon is held with when determining who was a perpetrator (even I iknew that), and do you really think she couldn't have thought of that before she cut her throat? THe sink showed there was a great deal of blood that was cleaned up before police arrived indicating she did it at the sink. Also, have you read that book 'media tried justice denied'? It's from the Darlie camp and has graphi9c photos of her sons slaughtered in it to try to prove her innocence and raise money for her defense. Now what kind of mother would encourage or even allow graphic pictures of her boys laying dead covered in blood with gaping knife wounds to be published in a book? Dear God. Never. Never in a million years for this one. THere's an ex-investigator that worked this case who wrote a timeline of what probably happened... down to the minute and really is on the money I think. I'll try to find a link for that. Really, I just don't see how anyone can think she's innocent. I can empathize with those that do.. that really want to believe no one would do this to their babies...but the facts and evidence are there and you have to take leave of any common sense to think otherwise IMO. Darlie slaughtered her sons.

It's www.fordalieroutier.org that hs the transcripts. Even tho it's a pro-Darlie site it's got most of the info regarding this case and if you read the whole thing it's actually damning to her, because the truth is damning. I can't find the other link about the timeline.. but basically it covers everything, how the blood got where, when she planted the sock, everything down to the minute. Here's a thread w/ some of Darlie's versions from transcripts, about half way down the page....http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-10994.html

On the fordalieroutier website there's a media link to different talk shows and crime shows. In the Leeza show, a juror was on the stage with Darlie's family, and when asked about how Darlie got those bruises and injuries she looked straight at Darin furious and said "because I think Devon kicked the hell out of her!" and then said that there was an injury under his buttocks indicating he had kicked fiercely. Her family lied so bad on that show... Leeza specifically asked about how they were getting along that night (Darin and Darlie) and Darlie's Mom said that everything was fine and normal. Darlie's sister broke down crying at the question before her Mom jumped in to answer (probably because she knew the truth because she had been at their house earlier that night).. way later after that show Darin actually signed a sworn affidavit stating that the night of the murders he and Darlie had a very big fight and divorce was talked about. They also said on the show Darlie had not been depressed, even though there was the entry in her diary a month before she said she was going to commit suicidee and was very sorry for what she was about to do. Which is another thing.....for anyone who has suffered through depression.... even if I had never been depressed before in my life the slaughter of my children would drive me there. No doubt. And Had I been depressed before the slaughter of my children would push me over the edge. I'd probably be catatonic. Now did that silly string segment seem like someone who was so depressed they wrote in their diary just a few weeks before they didn't even want to live anymore? You can't fake it if you're truly depressed there is just no way you could be smiling and popping gum playfully at your recently murdered children's gravesite! Funny her hopelessness and depression seemed cured after her kids were dead. She almost seemed downright relieved and happy about it! There's just way way wayyyyyy too much that does not add up regarding Darlie routier. Read the transcripts, look at this 'supposed' new evidence (that no one can ever seem to pinpoint), and use your common sense and see what your heart tells you. The transcripts are long, but they're worth reading if you really are searching for the truth. Darlie will never get out of jail. Her family's been saying that for years but the Court has never seen anything significant to warrant a new trial and I'd bet money they never will.

Interesting theory, but cant say as I agree with most if any of what you said. If you want to get into a debate, shoot me an e-mail and we can debate. Dr. MacDonald is another story that I also disagree with you on and I wont get into that here, except to say, read more than just "Fatal Vision". I have read Fatal Vision and I am about to start reading a book called "Fatal Justice" that is a re-buttal of "Fatal Vision".

I will bet money that Routier will get a new trial. The trial transcript had over 30 thousand errors. The silly string video, no matter how damning was improperly played at the trial and shouldnt have been allowed in. Did Routier actually murder her children? Your guess is as good as mine. If her kids were giving her that much of a problem though and she wanted them gone, why not murder all of them? How do you know whether or not she planted the sock? How do you know if her family lied on the "Leeza" show? Now, her neck wasnt broke and she didnt have whiplash, it wasn ever claimed she had that, so why would her neck be in a brace? She had been slashed on her neck and whether an unknown intruder did or whether she did it to herself the slash wound was serious. According to the ER doctor the wound was close to a major artery.

The jury convicted her because of the video and only because of the video from what I can tell. It simply wasnt a proper verdict for the evidence presented. What would be the harm in a new trial? If the case is as strong as many claim it is than I would expect to see Darlie Routier convicted again and once again sentenced to death.

Now, this isnt to say your theory of events isnt possible. It certainly is possible. It could very well have happened exactly the way you said. However, to call Darlie a "psychopath" ? That seems a bit of a stretch. Just like calling Dr. MacDonald a psychopath is a bit of a stretch. I know the author of "Fatal Vision" Joe McGuiness for his own selfish reasons called MacDonald a "psychopath". However a lot of people have the mistaken belief that anyone that kills is a psychopath when that is not true. I am not saying you have that belief but it was implied in what you said.

One thing also you didnt take into account. In the silly string video, if Darlie had actually murdered her children, I dont care how arrogant or "psychopathic" a person is, they wouldnt act that way. They just wouldnt act that way. Darlie was under the influence of multiple prescription drugs.

Honestly, it has always bothered me when someone presumes someone guilty of a crime because they feel the suspect isnt acting the way they should be. If Darlie had been balling her eyes out would it have made you believe that she was innocent? I am not trying to be rough on you, you have done your homework on the case and I respect that. However I ask the tough questions but I am curious of your opinions on some of the points I brought up. Since you have done your homework I would love to hear your further opinions on the subject.

Well let's not even go thre re: Jeffrey McDonald since that's a different topic anyway. :)

As to some points you made about Darlie's case. I know her family has lied because they've been caught in a ton of them. On that Leeza show specifically I know it was a lie that Darin and her were not fighting that night because Darin has since signed a sworn afidavit stating that they had a huge fight that night where divorce was mentioned. He has also admitted she did hystrionic things to get his attention if he wasn't paying enough attention to her. As to her neck injury...comon. THe 'intruder' would have had to actually hold back to leave that superficial wound after what he just did to those boys. Darlie's Doctor stated it was 'superficial to the cartoid artery,' but near the cartoid sheath (which is close to the surface). Darlie's Doctor's reports about her neck helped convict her. Sheesh they were originally going to release her from the hospital the same night! That's not very serious. You've been fed bs from Darlie's camp and you're buying into it. Think. Someone with enough rage to stab through those boys bodies would have had to actually seriously hold back not to cut her head nearly off. If it was a serious injury to her neck, she would have been hospitalized a longer time and not been able to move the neck for a while afterward. When I had a C-section I wasn't bending over and all around a week later without pain and worrying about the incision. If it were a serious injury she would have had her neck stationary or bandaged at the very least I would think to keep the incisions from opining up. She was absolutely FINE in the video, looked completely healed just a week later. Look at the pictures on the site of her neck injury. That's so obviously a self inflicted wound to me. Look at her neck, then look at the graphic pictures of her boys laying dead. It makes no damn sense. ANd it's not just one thing it's EVERYTHING. I believe she's a psychopath because of a host of things, not just one piece of the puzzle. The jury didn't convict her because of the video, read the transcripts, the evidence convicted her. You know you can try your hardest to defend things like that video, but NOT ONE person reading this in their right mind would act like that at their son's grave just 8 days after they were slaughtered. It's beyond tasteless, it's telling. Should that alone convict her? No, but it's just another piece to the puzzle. I just lost my Father recently and tried very hard to think of the good times and that he was free now, and celebrate his life and smile, but it was all I could do to even smile. Prescription medications for grief, if anything, dull your senses even more to make you so 'bla' you wouldn't hardly be able to function. They certainly won't make you giddy and playful at your loved ones gravesite. Do you really buy that explanation that she was on medication so that explained her behavior? Really? As to Darlie bawling her eyes out... oh yes she did do that. One juror later said that during the trial she was watching Darlie carfully while pictures of her boys slaughtered were put up in Court. Everyone was horrified and heartbroken by them in the courtroom. The juror watched Darlie and said Darlie just looked at the pictures, and showed no emotion. However later in the trial when the prosection caught her in lie after lie, and then presented her own handwritten letters from jail dusputing something she had just said, Darlie did start to bawl. She cried her eyes out. She was found out, nothing to hide behind, nowhere to hide, worried about herself. Again, does this convict her in itself? No, but it's another piece of the puzzle. Seriously, read the transcripts. I really think it will help you with your questions. Even w/ errors, there's sentence after sentence so if a word here and there is wrong you still get the gist... and most of the questions are repeated. It's VERY long, so in context to how long it is errors here and there I don't think change anything. They'd have to change all the evidence to really change anything. How much you wanna bet she won't get a new trial? They've had years and years to present this new 'evidence', and it's all been nothing significant as to raise real doubt because there is just too much evidence. Have you read about where she tries to say she said 'frightening' in the 911 tape instead of fighting? lol. That's because it was reasonably demonstrated that had she been fighting she would have screamed and been able to call for Darin sooner and would have been awake to fight the intruder off of her sons. So then after that she later said she stated in the call "I was FRIGHTENING, then he ran out" LOL. Sorry to laugh at such a sober topic but that truly is laughable. The woman is guilty as sin. SHe would have been convicted even without that tape. JMO, but I'm right. ;)

Hmm, well interesting theories. Again, I cant say as I agree with them. Well, I can tell you, that you can get pretty hopped up on pills. I mean, clearly regardless of her guilt or innocence, no one in their right mind would spray silly string on graves. So clearly something was not right with her regardless.

But different people react to grief differently. However I can tell you, like when my great-grandparents passed away, it wasnt an occasion where I would have been running around spraying silly string on their graves. It was a very sad time. I cant imagine what it would be like if it was your kids. I actually am not convinced of Darlie's innocence. Rather, I think she was wrongfully convicted based on the evidence or lack of it presented. I am talking real evidence, not speculation and innuendo and circumstancial evidence.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that Darlie did it. You dont really have a motive, regardless if she had an argument with Darin (I find that very curious years after the fact he suddenly signs a sworn affadavit claiming that Darlie and him had a large argument the night of the murders). Let's just say though that Darin was telling the truth. How does that suddenly make Darlie more likely to kill two of her little boys? The insurance money wasnt substantial on the boys. They were never able to prove a conclusive motive. Were her clothes tested for blood spatter? Afterall, if she did the stabbings there should have been the boys blood on her, if not visible than it would be on her clothing.

There have been times where I have been convinced beyond all doubt that a person was innocent but I am NOT convinced that Darlie is innocent. In fact, I say it is even more likely she did it than not. But I have a problem with her being convicted off of evidence that at least to me was not particularly impressive nor convincing.

Ironically enough, Darlie's case was actually hurt by her case being moved. I think had this trial been in Dallas County, she might have been acquitted. But moving it to a rural county where if you are accused of killing a kid especially, you are going down, evidence or not. However I am impressed with your research. Clearly you arent just pulling this stuff out of your rear but you know the facts even if you interpret them differently than I do. However I will read the transcripts and then get back to you.

[QUOTE=kadrmas15]Hmm, You dont really have a motive, regardless if she had an argument with Darin (I find that very curious years after the fact he suddenly signs a sworn affadavit claiming that Darlie and him had a large argument the night of the murders). Let's just say though that Darin was telling the truth. How does that suddenly make Darlie more likely to kill two of her little boys? The insurance money wasnt substantial on the boys. They were never able to prove a conclusive motive. Were her clothes tested for blood spatter? Afterall, if she did the stabbings there should have been the boys blood on her, if not visible than it would be on her clothing.

I believe atleast in part Darlie kiled her boys in anger at Darin. To get his attention, to take away something he loved...to get attention herself. She has a history of lying and pulling stunts to get attention from or 'punish' Darin, according to her friends, the faked attempted rape incident to get Darin's attention at a party, etc, and Darin himself in one of the things I read he stated that he put a gun to his head once just to 'get her attention, the way she's done to me a million times' He signed the afidavit way after the fact because it's one of the things they're now using to try to get her a new trial, they are trying to say that Darlie's attorney had a conflict of interest representing her since he also was protecting Darin too. (this kind of stuff is the best they've got). The point is, before this they kept saying they did not have a fight. Camp Darlie says whatever sounds best at the time. Yes her clothes were tested and helped convict her. For one thing, if she were stabbed in the neck lying on the sofa as she claimed the blood would have flowed down the sides of her neck toward the sofa. The evidence showed the blood flow direction on her shirt was only downwards, none sideways s if she had been laying, and there also was no blood found on the sofa where she said she was laying. THere was a lot of her blood on her shirt, and had been a lot of blood in the sink (before it was cleaned up by someone in the house before police arrived), and all around the sink and on the floor in the kitchen indicating she cut herself at the sink. Her son's wounds were not wounds that would have spurted, they were the kind of wounds that would have seeped because of where and how they were stabbed. (There was undisputed testimony to that in court). However there was a little of the boys blood on the BACK of Darlie's nightshirt indicating that some blood may have come off the knife when she raised it up between the forceful stabs to her sons. The bloody socked contained only a little of the boys blood, but the inside of the sock tested positive for Darlie's skin cells suggesting that she had covered her hands with the glove prior to stabbing the boys. Also, a separate knife found in the house was the knife used to cut the screen,.. it was found to have the screen fibers on it.

Hmm, well interesting theories. Again, I cant say as I agree with them. Well, I can tell you, that you can get pretty hopped up on pills. I mean, clearly regardless of her guilt or innocence, no one in their right mind would spray silly string on graves. So clearly something was not right with her regardless.

But different people react to grief differently. However I can tell you, like when my great-grandparents passed away, it wasnt an occasion where I would have been running around spraying silly string on their graves. It was a very sad time. I cant imagine what it would be like if it was your kids. I actually am not convinced of Darlie's innocence. Rather, I think she was wrongfully convicted based on the evidence or lack of it presented. I am talking real evidence, not speculation and innuendo and circumstancial evidence.

Lets just say for the sake of argument that Darlie did it. You dont really have a motive, regardless if she had an argument with Darin (I find that very curious years after the fact he suddenly signs a sworn affadavit claiming that Darlie and him had a large argument the night of the murders). Let's just say though that Darin was telling the truth. How does that suddenly make Darlie more likely to kill two of her little boys? The insurance money wasnt substantial on the boys. They were never able to prove a conclusive motive. Were her clothes tested for blood spatter? Afterall, if she did the stabbings there should have been the boys blood on her, if not visible than it would be on her clothing.

There have been times where I have been convinced beyond all doubt that a person was innocent but I am NOT convinced that Darlie is innocent. In fact, I say it is even more likely she did it than not. But I have a problem with her being convicted off of evidence that at least to me was not particularly impressive nor convincing.

Ironically enough, Darlie's case was actually hurt by her case being moved. I think had this trial been in Dallas County, she might have been acquitted. But moving it to a rural county where if you are accused of killing a kid especially, you are going down, evidence or not. However I am impressed with your research. Clearly you arent just pulling this stuff out of your rear but you know the facts even if you interpret them differently than I do. However I will read the transcripts and then get back to you.
I agree with you totally. I understand the emotions....of this case because of the boys. and of course darlie is a prime suspect. but based on the evidence presented in the original trial....I'm not convinced beyond doubt that she is guilty. and I for one as well am tired of these lawyers who think they can indict someone or try to put them away because someone didn't react to a death of a loved one in the proper manner. this is not the way to conduct business in the court of law. It may be a way that a detective uses a hunch to gather more damning evidence....but not the way you present evidence in a high profile trial like that one. I'm sick of our justice system screwing innocent people out of their lives....sending them away with circumstancial evidence. again not saying darlie is innocent. but we've all seen cases where people had damning circumastancial evidence presented against them in court, sent to prison, only to be released years later because they were actually innocent. that's the issue here. because that tape...more than anything had to have the most affect on the jury.

Mommy2sets...I totally understand where you are coming from. you certainly know a lot of details. and many of them point to darlie...and darin as well. but I do think she deserves another trial....because the courts failed the first time around. It's not like she's on the outside. she's locked up. so if she is indeed guilty beyond any doubt......she's going to stay locked up. I just think the first trial was garbage. One thing to remember about these types of cases. Most of these types of segments...featured on UM...especially have holes in them and are clouded with speculation. that's the whole point of this forum and the show. but this case in paticular has been featured on countless shows and analyzed by countless so called experts who are on both sides.

It's clear to me you haven't read the actual trial transcripts but just regurgitating things put out by camp darlie. Everything I stated in my last post was from the actual court transcripts (Darlie's 16 versions of what happened (from her own statements, recordings, and handwritten letters in prison -as well as first hand witnesses she spoke to), ...the blood evidence found on her shirt, in the sink, the fact that her cells were found inside the glove, the fact that a knife from her kitchen had fibers from the garage screen that had been cut, etc). And there's much more evidence too. Cases have been won on much less physical evidence than this one had. TV shows air things like this because this case is fascinating to the public (childen murdered) and because controversy means ratings. But in the end it's 11 years after the murders, and she's still rotting in jail (where she belongs), she's lost all appeals because they've just never had good enough reason to raise reasonable doubt and give her a new trial. I as much as anyone hate to think of any innocent person being railroaded or convicted and actually tend to give any possibility of innocence the benefit of the doubt, and as I said I did not want to think she was guilty but this case has too much actual evidence pointing to Darlie that says she's guilty.

It's clear to me you haven't read the actual trial transcripts but just regurgitating things put out by camp darlie. Everything I stated in my last post was from the actual court transcripts (Darlie's 16 versions of what happened (from her own statements, recordings, and handwritten letters in prison -as well as first hand witnesses she spoke to), ...the blood evidence found on her shirt, in the sink, the fact that her cells were found inside the glove, the fact that a knife from her kitchen had fibers from the garage screen that had been cut, etc). And there's much more evidence too. Cases have been won on much less physical evidence than this one had. TV shows air things like this because this case is fascinating to the public (childen murdered) and because controversy means ratings. But in the end it's 11 years after the murders, and she's still rotting in jail (where she belongs), she's lost all appeals because they've just never had good enough reason to raise reasonable doubt and give her a new trial. I as much as anyone hate to think of any innocent person being railroaded or convicted and actually tend to give any possibility of innocence the benefit of the doubt, and as I said I did not want to think she was guilty but this case has too much actual evidence pointing to Darlie that says she's guilty.
I still have some issues with the case. I think there are many questions left unanswered.....like the husband. it is also possible that the killer(if it wasn't darlie) could have cut the screen or the husband if he was the killer..... possible.....not impossible. the fingerprints on the knife definitely hurt her. Something is not adding up with the husband and darlie's relationship. neither are pointing the finger at each other directly.....yet one would think that if darlie was the lone guilty party that the husband would put the blame on her. same in return from darlie. that just adds more mystique to this case. It's just seems weird that he went up to sleep with the baby....took a sleeping pill.....darlie stayed down with the boys to stay up and killed them? and the husband never woke up?

I still have a major problem with the prosecution showing that tape in the trial as well....and with the person who allowed that to happen in a court room. it's not right.......that type of justice can railroad an innocent person.

I can see how stabbings could take place downstairs in a 5000 sq ft house and someone sound asleep upstairs not hear it. That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. The boys were stabbed right in the chest area, so they woudn't have been able to scream (which I think also points to Darlie doing it). The only sounds would have been some struggle, kicking , etc, and the sound of the knife hitting the floor when it went through Devon's body. It seems entirely possible to me someone upstairs in such a large house could have slept through that at 2 AM. Darin later said on a television show that Darlie had slept downstairs separate from him a 'few' times since they had been married. What a coincidence on one of the 'few' times she's downstairs alone with the boys they get slaughtered by a raging child killer in the upscale quiet safe community of Rowlett. Darlie said she was downstairs sleeping because the baby had kept her up the night before by rolling over in the night and causing the crib to squeak. She said she was a light sleeper. That is way more troubling to me... how a Mother, especially a light sleeper, could have slept within a foot of her boys being stabbed and not wake up. I think it's very pssible Darin being upstairs could have slept through it, but Darlie? Comon..that's just very hard to believe. ..and that's what she says. As far as the video, again I think she would have been convicted without it but I really don't know why everyone is so upset about that being introduced into evidence honestly. It shows, as I noticed, that for one if her injury was so bad as she claimed it was completely healed 8 days later. That she didn't seem to be in any pain, had no bandages on her neck, or even any redness or really anything that would indicate such a 'serious' injury 8 days before as she claimed. Remember the Doctor's reports stated her cut was 'superficial to the cartoid artery' yet she was claiming she was 'left for dead' and nearly died, and all that. Also, her credibility and frame of mind is relevant to the case, (I think), and the video was telling since her boys had just been murdered and she was acting that way. If someone collects insurance for an injury and is seen at Disney world a week later seemingly fine and dancing, that can be introduced in court. It's only fair to use info. that shows duplicity if someone is on trial. I know that's not really the same, but the point is it shows that her story about being so seriously injured was not really the case, so just shows more deception. By the way, Darlie still stands by the silly string party at the gravesite, long after the fact (and without any influence of medication!), and has said she would do it again and that she doesn't understand how anyone could be upset by it. :crazy:

I can see how stabbings could take place downstairs in a 5000 sq ft house and someone sound asleep upstairs not hear it. That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. The boys were stabbed right in the chest area, so they woudn't have been able to scream (which I think also points to Darlie doing it). The only sounds would have been some struggle, kicking , etc, and the sound of the knife hitting the floor when it went through Devon's body. It seems entirely possible to me someone upstairs in such a large house could have slept through that at 2 AM. Darin later said on a television show that Darlie had slept downstairs separate from him a 'few' times since they had been married. What a coincidence on one of the 'few' times she's downstairs alone with the boys they get slaughtered by a raging child killer in the upscale quiet safe community of Rowlett. Darlie said she was downstairs sleeping because the baby had kept her up the night before by rolling over in the night and causing the crib to squeak. She said she was a light sleeper. That is way more troubling to me... how a Mother, especially a light sleeper, could have slept within a foot of her boys being stabbed and not wake up. I think it's very pssible Darin being upstairs could have slept through it, but Darlie? Comon..that's just very hard to believe. ..and that's what she says. As far as the video, again I think she would have been convicted without it but I really don't know why everyone is so upset about that being introduced into evidence honestly. It shows, as I noticed, that for one if her injury was so bad as she claimed it was completely healed 8 days later. That she didn't seem to be in any pain, had no bandages on her neck, or even any redness or really anything that would indicate such a 'serious' injury 8 days before as she claimed. Remember the Doctor's reports stated her cut was 'superficial to the cartoid artery' yet she was claiming she was 'left for dead' and nearly died, and all that. Also, her credibility and frame of mind is relevant to the case, (I think), and the video was telling since her boys had just been murdered and she was acting that way. If someone collects insurance for an injury and is seen at Disney world a week later seemingly fine and dancing, that can be introduced in court. It's only fair to use info. that shows duplicity if someone is on trial. I know that's not really the same, but the point is it shows that her story about being so seriously injured was not really the case, so just shows more deception. By the way, Darlie still stands by the silly string party at the gravesite, long after the fact (and without any influence of medication!), and has said she would do it again and that she doesn't understand how anyone could be upset by it. :crazy:
no way....the video was wrong. you don't do that in a court room. that is the biggest issue that I have with the case. a person's reaction or behavior after the death of a loved one has no bearing on a case(as far as legit factual evidence is concerned that is to be presented in trial). like I said before a detective might use a hunch based on someone's emotions....and it enables him-her to gather other legit evidence against someone....policeman do it all of the time. but you can't use this type of evidence in the court....to establish innocence or guilt. I want to meet the judge who allowed this. the video obviously had an impact on you and others.....and it shouldn't hold any bearing on the case period....other than public opinion. and that is why the video was the most damning evidence and why I feel her hearing was tainted. if they wanted to show her neck movement after the incedent.... they should of taped her in an interragation room moving her neck around for the camera. not showing her neck movement at her child's gravesite.

and something else contradicts....you say she stabbed the kids directly in the chest so they wouldn't of made a lot of noise......yet you said before it appears that the kids must of fought back vigorously to inflict all of those wounds and bruises on darlie. you would think those kids would of been screaming or making enough noise to wake up darlie(as she claims she was sleeping) and her husband. something just doesn't add up in this case. it is all too weird...and the prosecution didn't shut the door completely IMO like they are supposed to. they really made an error with the video.

Well you have very strong opinions on the video and that's your right. I still say it did not convict her, the evidence did.

As far as Darlie's bruises, the boys had some wounds indicating a struggle, and Devon had one under his buttocks (he was on his back when attacked) suggesting he kicked hard. Darlie could have gotten bruises there. As far as the screaming, both boys had stabs that penetrated the lungs, so it would have been vey hard for the lungs to get air to scream. It's also possible Darlie held her hand or something else over their mouth to help ensure this, which would account for the bruises on Darlie's hands. There's also some other theories as to her bruises.. !) she banged her forearms repeatedly on the hospital bed (remeber there were no bruises on her body, just lower arms and back of hands). 2) During the 'fight' they had earlier that night Darin bruised Darlie, OR Darin bruised Darlie trying to get the knife away from her after he came downstairs after the murder. "Crimesleuths' did an analysis of the 911 tape with high tech audio devices and said that Darin could be heard saying "put the knife down!" at some point in the tape. It's possible she was attempting to cut herself more (or even Damon again- he did not die quickly) while on the phone with 911, and Darin had to struggle with her and eventually sit on top of her to get the knife (remember her one story of 'pressure on her legs' while she was being attacked). Why Darin hasn't told more if he does know more...who knows. He's a pretty shady guy himself and perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for driving her to it if indeed they did have a big fight where he threatened divorce. ... or maybe he just knows that nothing will bring the boys back but he still has Darlie, and poor Drake to think of who has to be explained to what happened to their brothers (who he adored) and his Mother at some point. He also seems to always believe Darlie no matter how bad she lies and manipulates him (there's a history of this), and maybe really believes she blacked out and doesn't even remember doing it. After the murders she in fact told a couple close friends when they asked her directly "did you do this" ... she replied "I don't know", and "if I did, I don't remember it". (that is from the court transcripts). I'm not exactly sure of his reasons...but he is likely covering for her atleast to some degree. Darin may be shady, and easily (idiotly) manipulated by his conniving wife, but Darlie is the actual psycopath. I'm going to post a link that has a lot more info. to read, and mostly you should read the actual court transcripts as I said. I really don't think you would doubt her innocence if you actually read them. Camp darlie has said, and has paid all kinds of people to say, all kinds of things...but nothing explains the fact that there was no intruder evidence at ALL, that her cells were in the sock, the blood evidence and much more evidence that only point to Darlie. If they had any actual evidence it was Darin they would have charged him too but there was none. It all points straight to Darlie.

All the theories I posted may or not be what actually happened, but there are atleast within the realm of possibility. Her story (all of the many different stories I should say) of the intruder murdering her children, though, is NOT within the realm of possiblity based on the evidence at the house...or even any common sense and logic. Really think about her story, from sleeping through the forceful stabbings of her son a foot away, to not remembering, to her inconsistent injuries compared to the boys' injuries, to not holding her childen as they took their last breath, to worrying about her own fingerprints, to the party and giddyness at the grave of recently slaughtered children, to exploiting her children with pictures of them stabbed and dead, etc, (I could go on and on), does any of that ring true to any parent out there? Really? The real 'mystique' of this case to me is that people continue to believe her. It's amazing the influence some psychopaths can have on people, and the ability to make otherwise normal people take complete leave of their senses and believe, often illogical and completely absurd, lies. Look at the stuff Hitler had so many people believing at one point in time. That is indeed mysterious, and quite scary. Darlie's a killer and though she'll never admit it she should face it for there to be any justice for Devon and Damon. They are the real victims here people seem almost to forget about. IMO the people supporting Darlie are contributing to the injustice of those boys.

I really hate to get involved in this thread. My opinion won't change any firmly set minds, yet I may get lured into a never-ending argument with complete strangers. However, I feel compelled to react to these two sentences, as I feel they sum up the current argument quite well:

>Well you have very strong opinions on the video and that's your right. I still say it did not convict her, the evidence did.

I agree. Remove the video and they still convict.

And though this will alienate me from 50% of the crowd here, I must state that I am a Liberal and despise overzealous prosecutors that put away innocent people. It happens far too often. This is the kind of case that intrigues (and often infuriates) me, after some careful study of the facts. In this case, I am certain they got it right. Regardless, it is a very sad case.

John

This is just my opinion.

Darren set this up. The murder of his wife. The children just happened to be there.

Motive? Darlie's life insurance policy cashed out at $200,000 to $250,000.

She was meant to die. Her throat was slashed and suppose to kill her. (which explains the slash missing by just inches, if they didn't miss, she would be dead) It didn't (bruises left show the struggle) which rattled everything, she fought for her life and the intruder(s) left.

Once those Rednecks in Texas (POLICE) thought she did it, it was settled.

Follow Darren's track record, company calls, cell phone, etc and I believe you will find the evidence that ties him to this murder. (ex employee, friend who has a criminal record, something is there)

From what I can determine (evidence, transcripts, etc) their marriage was rocky, he probably did make her feel like S**T routinely (over money problems and other personal problems) and probably read that journal entry a month before (manipulators are psycho's) saw a window of opportunity to set this up and did it. (look at his track record with the jaguar and the future "burglary" of his house with a uhaul).

The fact that Darlie is a dingbat and superficial doesn't help her cause.

No way she butchered her children.

You cannot tell me that she planted that sock and did everything else in the time suggested. Not plausible.

And her sister is a jackass as well, bringing silly string is something you just don't do. Common Sense tells you that. That really made her sister look like bad. And again, with that jury in that simple town, the silly string video stuck with them.

It's sad, but that jury are very influenced by media and it's so easily to manipulate that. That silly string did HUGE damage and caused the jury to not look too much further. That jury was thinking with their hearts, not their heads.

Just watch Leeza and that video of the juror. She was so mad and upset, man, I would not want someone like that on my jury.

Just a thought, great thread.

This is just my opinion.

Darren set this up. The murder of his wife. The children just happened to be there.

Motive? Darlie's life insurance policy cashed out at $200,000 to $250,000.

She was meant to die. Her throat was slashed and suppose to kill her. (which explains the slash missing by just inches, if they didn't miss, she would be dead) It didn't (bruises left show the struggle) which rattled everything, she fought for her life and the intruder(s) left.

Once those Rednecks in Texas (POLICE) thought she did it, it was settled.

Follow Darren's track record, company calls, cell phone, etc and I believe you will find the evidence that ties him to this murder. (ex employee, friend who has a criminal record, something is there)

From what I can determine (evidence, transcripts, etc) their marriage was rocky, he probably did make her feel like S**T routinely (over money problems and other personal problems) and probably read that journal entry a month before (manipulators are psycho's) saw a window of opportunity to set this up and did it. (look at his track record with the jaguar and the future "burglary" of his house with a uhaul).

The fact that Darlie is a dingbat and superficial doesn't help her cause.

No way she butchered her children.

You cannot tell me that she planted that sock and did everything else in the time suggested. Not plausible.

And her sister is a jackass as well, bringing silly string is something you just don't do. Common Sense tells you that. That really made her sister look like bad. And again, with that jury in that simple town, the silly string video stuck with them.

It's sad, but that jury are very influenced by media and it's so easily to manipulate that. That silly string did HUGE damage and caused the jury to not look too much further. That jury was thinking with their hearts, not their heads.

Just watch Leeza and that video of the juror. She was so mad and upset, man, I would not want someone like that on my jury.

Just a thought, great thread.

Welcome..:) Very interesting theory. I haven't researched this case much but it sounds plausible. If true I would think Darren wanted the boys killed as well if he had hired a hitman and knew he was coming that night and left the boys downstairs with Darlie. Its possible. Such a confusing case...:crazy:

Samson, your theory does sound plausible. Still some holes in it though. Not nearly as much evidence pointing towards him as there is evidence pointing towards Darlie.

I agree with you totally. I understand the emotions....of this case because of the boys. and of course darlie is a prime suspect. but based on the evidence presented in the original trial....I'm not convinced beyond doubt that she is guilty. and I for one as well am tired of these lawyers who think they can indict someone or try to put them away because someone didn't react to a death of a loved one in the proper manner. this is not the way to conduct business in the court of law. It may be a way that a detective uses a hunch to gather more damning evidence....but not the way you present evidence in a high profile trial like that one. I'm sick of our justice system screwing innocent people out of their lives....sending them away with circumstancial evidence. again not saying darlie is innocent. but we've all seen cases where people had damning circumastancial evidence presented against them in court, sent to prison, only to be released years later because they were actually innocent. that's the issue here. because that tape...more than anything had to have the most affect on the jury.

Mommy2sets...I totally understand where you are coming from. you certainly know a lot of details. and many of them point to darlie...and darin as well. but I do think she deserves another trial....because the courts failed the first time around. It's not like she's on the outside. she's locked up. so if she is indeed guilty beyond any doubt......she's going to stay locked up. I just think the first trial was garbage. One thing to remember about these types of cases. Most of these types of segments...featured on UM...especially have holes in them and are clouded with speculation. that's the whole point of this forum and the show. but this case in paticular has been featured on countless shows and analyzed by countless so called experts who are on both sides.

I believe that you could try her a thousand times, in any county you choose, with the silly string, without the silly string.... anything you choose and she would still be found guilty. I got interested in this case again after seeing a show that started with a clip saying that if you knew about the case and believed Darlie Routier killed her children, watch what this juror had to say and the shocking new evidence that could set her free... I waited anxiously for this to come back on after the commercials. And the juror who changed his mind said that he hadn't seen the pictures of her bruised arms and the shocking new evidence was the pictures of her bruised arms. This was not "the shocking new evidence" I was hoping for. Whatever you think of the silly string tape, of how she acted, of wheter it was right or wrong to show the tape in court, none of that, and I mean NONE of that is as damning as the blood evidence. It is the one and only thing that really convinces me of her guilt. WHY was there NO blood found on the screen that this "intruder" SQUEEZED through? OR on the gate that was difficult to open? OR on the 6ft privacy fence the killer would have had to have gone over if he didn't use the gate? (The window the "intruder" escaped from led into their back yard which was surrounded by a 6ft privacy fence with no way out except out the gate or over the fence.) All this blood from her and her children that was EVERYWHERE inside that house and the blood didn't go past the utility room or into the garage. Read the transcripts, examine the blood evidence.That will tell you all you need to know. THAT is why she was convicted and THAT is why she will never get a new trial. For whatever the reasons, IMO, she killed those boys. :(

Peace, Pam

Here's a big problem for me about all the people saying that the scene was staged. If the scene was staged, wouldn't Darlie have already made plans rather than demonstrate a spare of the moment action? Also, if the sock down the alley was placed there by her I am sure then that the scenario was entirely preplanned. Hence, here is a big problem for me. If it was planned why would Darlie admit to handling the knife? Wouldn't it have been easier to wipe the knife clean rather than tellling the 911 operator you picked it up?
As for the drops of blood on her back, did any of the wet towels have blood on them from the children, if so a moving wet towel will also swing blood in exactly the same manner as a knife with blood on it.
Also, the way evidence was collected was very shabby as bloody evidence was placed in bags together, so transfer of blood was possible between items.
Also, there were as I understand it 1,000 photos taken and the defense only got to see 400 photos. Why? As some DA's do, I am not saying it occurred here, but it is a possibility, and that is you only use the photos that help you make a case against someone, and not show others that may vindicate the suspect. This has been done and has been proven in some cases. Some photos demonstrate that items were moved from one point to another at the crime.
Also, the first police officer to arrive said he saw Darin in the front yard wearing similar clothing to that suspect that Darlie described, yet this was not Darin. Who was it. Ane could he have been the prime suspect? I don't know, but it does leave some doubt.
Is it possible Darin hired someone to do this, as he obvioulsy demonstrated he is not beyong it?
Was Darlie sexually assaulted? We really don't know, because the results of the rape kit have never been released. The police say one was not done, the hospital says one was. Who's right?
The prosecution set up rehearsal trial, so all could get their stories right. Is this right? The lead detective took very good notes in his head, but no actual written notes. The police violated Darlie's rights by rigging the grave site with listening devices without giving her notice. A fedaeral violation. The they take the 5th so the police officers are never cross examined after this.
The bottom line is as I see it is this, and that is Darlie may be guilty, but as Kard mentions that there is so much screw up on the police and DA's parts that there is really not enough evidence to say beyond REASONABLE doubt. And to put someone on death row on such a screwed up case is hard for me to fathom. Even one jurror said if he had scene some of the other photos of Darlie he would NEVER had voted her guilty.

Another thing about our legal system is that it does not really try to find justice on either side DA or defense. The fact is, it is the DA's job to prove guilt whether a person is innocent or guilty and it is the defenases job to make sure his client is found innocent. It is not about anything, but winning and losing. The more you win the bigger the paycheck for the attorney, ask Gerry Spence.
There is a gentleman in prison for muder andhas been for the past 26 years and he is innocent. How do we know, two attorneys have a client who admitted to the murder, but because of attorney/client realationship they could not say anything. They made an affidavit in 1981 that stipulated that there client admitted to the murder and place it in a secure place. When their client recently passed away, they opened the bex and presented the affidavit to the state's legal system. The result so far is, the state is not sure they can do anything about getting the innocent man released. My question is why? I can only come up with one answer, they don't want to admit they made a mistake.

Why was there no blood found on the screen? The intruder entered that way before the incident (no blood present yet,right?) and as Darlie said left through the garage. So. why would there be blood on the screen?

The police say the screen was cut from the inside, but there is evidence that that is NOT the case. The screen material and the material used to show fingerprints are prety much the same. So, the material on the knife could be fingerprint dust and not screen material. Just another reason for doubt. Again, I am not saying she is innocent, but trying to prove the police were SET on convicting her from the beginning. They went through the whole case trying to prove her guilty rather than trying to prove what actually happened. The police did a poor job on procedures and follow up. Who was the guy in the fron tard when the poice arrived? Or is it it doesn't matter becuase he wasn't the one who committed the murders, as the police proved that withpuit ever questioning him (Darin is who the police though it was, but they are obviously wrong).

mommy2sets, Darlie's injury to her neck was severe. though the prosecution kept saying the word SUPERFICIAL. The fact is the doctors said it was an injury that was superficial to the carotid atery. That does not mean it was a superficial wound. As a scientist, the word superficial means not extending to the carotid atery, but short of touching it. The wound was 2mm short of the carotid artery. To put that in perspecting, an inch is 254 millimeters, and the wound was 2mm short of the carotid. How canone say such an injury is superficial, unless they are ignorant of the biology and distance?

Why was there no blood found on the screen? The intruder entered that way before the incident (no blood present yet,right?) and as Darlie said left through the garage. So. why would there be blood on the screen?


Please read the transcripts. The only apparent way the "intruder" went out was throught the cut screen, the same way he supposedly entered. Darlie SAYS that he went out that way.The garage doors were closed because, as the transcripts read (Darrins testimony), the garage was "cram-packed full" because they were putting things together for a garage sale, so the cars were parked outside and the garage doors were closed. The garage doors were still closed, so the "intruder" did not leave through them, unless he was kind enough to close them as he left. Since they were automatic doors, this would pose a problem. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible as well as improbable. And as I said, killers aren't usually thoughtful enough to close doors or windows behind themselves, especially one who is being "chased". And, according to the transcripts and the layout of the house (shown on www.fordarlieroutier.org) there was no other door from the garage leading to the outside and no other window open except the one that the cut screen was in. (Darlies sister claims to have left the window open that night herself after smoking a cigarette in the garage, as Darrin and Darlie were not smokers and there was no smoking allowed in the house). So unless the "intruder" entered through one window, left it opened, but then escaped through another window and was kind enough to close it behind himself AND to replace the screen in it, that also does not seem possible. Does that really make any sense? The whole thing is senseless, no doubt. But READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. They are long, but worth reading. I have been following this case for years. I came into this a long time ago believing in Darlies innocence because I could not imagine a parent doing what she did. I continued to believe her until I was prompted by someone also following the case to read the transcripts, which I did. I suggest to anyone that has the time and any doubts, to READ THE TRANSCRIPTS. The blood evidence tells the story. That is why she was convicted, that is why she won't get a new trial, and that is why she would be found guilty again if there were to be a new trial.

Peace, Pam

Well you have very strong opinions on the video and that's your right. I still say it did not convict her, the evidence did.

As far as Darlie's bruises, the boys had some wounds indicating a struggle, and Devon had one under his buttocks (he was on his back when attacked) suggesting he kicked hard. Darlie could have gotten bruises there. As far as the screaming, both boys had stabs that penetrated the lungs, so it would have been vey hard for the lungs to get air to scream. It's also possible Darlie held her hand or something else over their mouth to help ensure this, which would account for the bruises on Darlie's hands. There's also some other theories as to her bruises.. !) she banged her forearms repeatedly on the hospital bed (remeber there were no bruises on her body, just lower arms and back of hands). 2) During the 'fight' they had earlier that night Darin bruised Darlie, OR Darin bruised Darlie trying to get the knife away from her after he came downstairs after the murder. "Crimesleuths' did an analysis of the 911 tape with high tech audio devices and said that Darin could be heard saying "put the knife down!" at some point in the tape. It's possible she was attempting to cut herself more (or even Damon again- he did not die quickly) while on the phone with 911, and Darin had to struggle with her and eventually sit on top of her to get the knife (remember her one story of 'pressure on her legs' while she was being attacked). Why Darin hasn't told more if he does know more...who knows. He's a pretty shady guy himself and perhaps he feels somewhat responsible for driving her to it if indeed they did have a big fight where he threatened divorce. ... or maybe he just knows that nothing will bring the boys back but he still has Darlie, and poor Drake to think of who has to be explained to what happened to their brothers (who he adored) and his Mother at some point. He also seems to always believe Darlie no matter how bad she lies and manipulates him (there's a history of this), and maybe really believes she blacked out and doesn't even remember doing it. After the murders she in fact told a couple close friends when they asked her directly "did you do this" ... she replied "I don't know", and "if I did, I don't remember it". (that is from the court transcripts). I'm not exactly sure of his reasons...but he is likely covering for her atleast to some degree. Darin may be shady, and easily (idiotly) manipulated by his conniving wife, but Darlie is the actual psycopath. I'm going to post a link that has a lot more info. to read, and mostly you should read the actual court transcripts as I said. I really don't think you would doubt her innocence if you actually read them. Camp darlie has said, and has paid all kinds of people to say, all kinds of things...but nothing explains the fact that there was no intruder evidence at ALL, that her cells were in the sock, the blood evidence and much more evidence that only point to Darlie. If they had any actual evidence it was Darin they would have charged him too but there was none. It all points straight to Darlie.

All the theories I posted may or not be what actually happened, but there are atleast within the realm of possibility. Her story (all of the many different stories I should say) of the intruder murdering her children, though, is NOT within the realm of possiblity based on the evidence at the house...or even any common sense and logic. Really think about her story, from sleeping through the forceful stabbings of her son a foot away, to not remembering, to her inconsistent injuries compared to the boys' injuries, to not holding her childen as they took their last breath, to worrying about her own fingerprints, to the party and giddyness at the grave of recently slaughtered children, to exploiting her children with pictures of them stabbed and dead, etc, (I could go on and on), does any of that ring true to any parent out there? Really? The real 'mystique' of this case to me is that people continue to believe her. It's amazing the influence some psychopaths can have on people, and the ability to make otherwise normal people take complete leave of their senses and believe, often illogical and completely absurd, lies. Look at the stuff Hitler had so many people believing at one point in time. That is indeed mysterious, and quite scary. Darlie's a killer and though she'll never admit it she should face it for there to be any justice for Devon and Damon. They are the real victims here people seem almost to forget about. IMO the people supporting Darlie are contributing to the injustice of those boys.
well the evidence points to darlie because she was with the boys.......obviously. I just find it very strange that he slept through all of this. I live in a two story house and can hear my kids watching television downstairs from my room when I'm sleeping. I'd like to think that I could hear them screaming if they were in some sort of dangerous terrifying situation. it doesn't make much sense that she would stay downstairs.... leaving the baby with him because she stayed up with the baby the night prior.....and he would then take sleeping pills? How is he supposed to care for the baby if the baby awakes? again these are things that I've heard about the husband and why he was upstairs with the baby.

anyway I understand the emotions of the case. I also understand that she is the prime suspect. but I support justice. I'm not contributing to the injustice of the boys because I feel that the court failed darlie by playing the birthday tape to the jury. I feel that was wrong and it quite frankly disappoints me greatly...despite all of the other physical evidence that was at the scene. I'm not taking issue with any of that. darlie is in jail and if she stays in jail that's fine. I'm not the one that has to make that decision. But it doesn't change how I feel about that tape. and because of mistakes like that....she has people listening and objecting to her trial.

I believe that you could try her a thousand times, in any county you choose, with the silly string, without the silly string.... anything you choose and she would still be found guilty. I got interested in this case again after seeing a show that started with a clip saying that if you knew about the case and believed Darlie Routier killed her children, watch what this juror had to say and the shocking new evidence that could set her free... I waited anxiously for this to come back on after the commercials. And the juror who changed his mind said that he hadn't seen the pictures of her bruised arms and the shocking new evidence was the pictures of her bruised arms. This was not "the shocking new evidence" I was hoping for. Whatever you think of the silly string tape, of how she acted, of wheter it was right or wrong to show the tape in court, none of that, and I mean NONE of that is as damning as the blood evidence. It is the one and only thing that really convinces me of her guilt. WHY was there NO blood found on the screen that this "intruder" SQUEEZED through? OR on the gate that was difficult to open? OR on the 6ft privacy fence the killer would have had to have gone over if he didn't use the gate? (The window the "intruder" escaped from led into their back yard which was surrounded by a 6ft privacy fence with no way out except out the gate or over the fence.) All this blood from her and her children that was EVERYWHERE inside that house and the blood didn't go past the utility room or into the garage. Read the transcripts, examine the blood evidence.That will tell you all you need to know. THAT is why she was convicted and THAT is why she will never get a new trial. For whatever the reasons, IMO, she killed those boys. :(

Peace, Pam
I see your point. If she gets another trial she'll surely be convicted again then. but let's give her a fair trial without a tape that is irrelevant to the case and she will still be found innocent......then we could surely prove that the tape had no affect of the jury. but it's too late for that. see what i'm trying to say. it's easy to say that the tape had no affect on the outcome. but can you prove that? If the tape wasn't important to the prosecution then why was it shown in court? I understand the evidence....which helped the conviction so you don't have to explain it again. the main problem I have with the whole case is the tape....then combine that with a lot of mystery and possible scenarios that actually may have taken place.

well the evidence points to darlie because she was with the boys.......obviously. I just find it very strange that he slept through all of this. I live in a two story house and can hear my kids watching television downstairs from my room when I'm sleeping. I'd like to think that I could hear them screaming if they were in some sort of dangerous terrifying situation. it doesn't make much sense that she would stay downstairs.... leaving the baby with him because she stayed up with the baby the night prior.....and he would then take sleeping pills? How is he supposed to care for the baby if the baby awakes? again these are things that I've heard about the husband and why he was upstairs with the baby.

Well I still haven't heard back from my professor after e-mailing him on the topic (but I need to call him about my grade, so I'll try to remember to ask him about the case), but I do have to say that I also live in a 2 story house, and my mom has to yell at the top of her lungs for 5 minutes to get my attention, when I'm in my room. And I have fairly good hearing. This wasn't the case in our previous houses, so I have to say that this point is strongly dependent on the layout of the house. Now that I really think about it, if the house IS large enough and laid out in a different way it would be possible to sleep through such an attack. And this is a fairly feasible possibility considering that we know that Darlie and her husband were living well above their means.


...
Oh and someone did mention that the police had set up something to record audio and video at the funeral - this is most definitely true. They were apparently hoping for a graveside confession. But, when questioning the legality...can't one obtain a warrant for such a situation???

Well I still haven't heard back from my professor after e-mailing him on the topic (but I need to call him about my grade, so I'll try to remember to ask him about the case), but I do have to say that I also live in a 2 story house, and my mom has to yell at the top of her lungs for 5 minutes to get my attention, when I'm in my room. And I have fairly good hearing. This wasn't the case in our previous houses, so I have to say that this point is strongly dependent on the layout of the house. Now that I really think about it, if the house IS large enough and laid out in a different way it would be possible to sleep through such an attack. And this is a fairly feasible possibility considering that we know that Darlie and her husband were living well above their means.


...
Oh and someone did mention that the police had set up something to record audio and video at the funeral - this is most definitely true. They were apparently hoping for a graveside confession. But, when questioning the legality...can't one obtain a warrant for such a situation???

I all ready posted this, but you know how some posts get lost. Since your professor has interest throw this at him, please.

This is just my opinion.

Darren set this up. The murder of his wife. The children just happened to be there.

Motive? Darlie's life insurance policy cashed out at $200,000 to $250,000.

She was meant to die. Her throat was slashed and suppose to kill her. (which explains the slash missing by just inches, if they didn't miss, she would be dead) It didn't (bruises left show the struggle) which rattled everything, she fought for her life and the intruder(s) left.

Once those Rednecks in Texas (POLICE) thought she did it, it was settled.

Follow Darren's track record, company calls, cell phone, etc and I believe you will find the evidence that ties him to this murder. (ex employee, friend who has a criminal record, something is there)

From what I can determine (evidence, transcripts, etc) their marriage was rocky, he probably did make her feel like S**T routinely (over money problems and other personal problems) and probably read that journal entry a month before (manipulators are psycho's) saw a window of opportunity to set this up and did it. (look at his track record with the jaguar and the future "burglary" of his house with a uhaul).

The fact that Darlie is a dingbat and superficial doesn't help her cause.

No way she butchered her children.

You cannot tell me that she planted that sock and did everything else in the time suggested. Not plausible.

And her sister is a jackass as well, bringing silly string is something you just don't do. Common Sense tells you that. That really made her sister look like bad. And again, with that jury in that simple town, the silly string video stuck with them.

It's sad, but that jury are very influenced by media and it's so easily to manipulate that. That silly string did HUGE damage and caused the jury to not look too much further. That jury was thinking with their hearts, not their heads.

Just watch Leeza and that video of the juror. She was so mad and upset, man, I would not want someone like that on my jury.

Just a thought, great thread.

:wave:

I see your point. If she gets another trial she'll surely be convicted again then. but let's give her a fair trial without a tape that is irrelevant to the case and she will still be found innocent......then we could surely prove that the tape had no affect of the jury. but it's too late for that. see what i'm trying to say. it's easy to say that the tape had no affect on the outcome. but can you prove that? If the tape wasn't important to the prosecution then why was it shown in court? I understand the evidence....which helped the conviction so you don't have to explain it again. the main problem I have with the whole case is the tape....then combine that with a lot of mystery and possible scenarios that actually may have taken place.

I see your point as well, DALLASTEXAN!! It is impossible to say at this point what kind of difference a trial without the tape would be now. And there is no doubt in my mind that people were impacted by the tape. I can't deny that the tape had an impact on me, but speaking only for myself, it did NOT convince me of her guilt. To me the blood not being in certain places was the biggest thing. I have a sister-in-law that I could see doing something just as tacky as the silly string tape, but i don't think she would kill her kids. I agree to a new trial as well, especially if there is new DNA testing available. There is a person sitting in prison on death row, and so I believe that any person in that position, or even a person that is just incarcerated, should be given every single opportunity to prove their innocence. I am also NOT a fan of the death penalty. I don't believe it is ANY other humans right to take another life, whatever the reason. That opinion might change if someone in my family were BRUTALLY murdered. I hope I never find out. I CAN say that my brother was shot and killed in Tampa, FL in 1988 and I actually felt compassion in my heart for the man who shot him, as he was a young man himself at the time and his family was there... I will never forget the way he looked back at his mother after he was convicted of my brothers murder. I actually felt pity for both of them. Had it been one of my children he had killed, I may have felt differently. Again, I hope I never find out. I know that neither one of my parents felt an ounce of compassion for him. But I honestly did. He was sentenced to a three year minimum-mandatory sentence for the second degree murder of my brother and served the full three years between his county jail time and prison time. And a further update... the man was later convicted on drug charges and received a 20 year sentence... odd, but true. He is in a Florida prison to this day: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveInmates/detail.asp?Bookmark=1&From=list&SessionID=595668253 ANYWAY... sorry for rambling on but just really wanted to thank you for your to-the-point, attack-free response to my post and to let you know I absolutely see your point about the tape as well. Just one more thing though, that tape wasn't just seen in court... Darlie called the local news team to cover the silly string thing. So many, many people ACROSS THE COUNTRY saw that tape before she was ever charged. So it is very possible that she tainted any possible jury herself. But as you said, we will never have any way of knowing for sure. The whole thing is just sickening.

Have a good day and of course...
Peace,
Pam

PS... I just checked the link I gave you and it says it's an outdated link, but you can click on the offender search part of the page and then enter his name, Kevin Burkes. Presuming, that is, that you are even interested in looking. Just wanted to make sure the link was current in that event.

This is just my opinion.

Darren set this up. The murder of his wife. The children just happened to be there.

Motive? Darlie's life insurance policy cashed out at $200,000 to $250,000.

She was meant to die. Her throat was slashed and suppose to kill her. (which explains the slash missing by just inches, if they didn't miss, she would be dead) It didn't (bruises left show the struggle) which rattled everything, she fought for her life and the intruder(s) left.

Once those Rednecks in Texas (POLICE) thought she did it, it was settled.

Follow Darren's track record, company calls, cell phone, etc and I believe you will find the evidence that ties him to this murder. (ex employee, friend who has a criminal record, something is there)

From what I can determine (evidence, transcripts, etc) their marriage was rocky, he probably did make her feel like S**T routinely (over money problems and other personal problems) and probably read that journal entry a month before (manipulators are psycho's) saw a window of opportunity to set this up and did it. (look at his track record with the jaguar and the future "burglary" of his house with a uhaul).

The fact that Darlie is a dingbat and superficial doesn't help her cause.

No way she butchered her children.

You cannot tell me that she planted that sock and did everything else in the time suggested. Not plausible.

And her sister is a jackass as well, bringing silly string is something you just don't do. Common Sense tells you that. That really made her sister look like bad. And again, with that jury in that simple town, the silly string video stuck with them.

It's sad, but that jury are very influenced by media and it's so easily to manipulate that. That silly string did HUGE damage and caused the jury to not look too much further. That jury was thinking with their hearts, not their heads.

Just watch Leeza and that video of the juror. She was so mad and upset, man, I would not want someone like that on my jury.

Just a thought, great thread.

OK... I am up for checking every single angle of this case. But IMO, the one thing I can't get past in your post is where you say that Darrin was the culprit and the motive was the insurance money. Not that it's not within the realm of possibility that Darrin did it (I personally don't believe he had anything to do with it), but that he did it for insurance money and then left Darlie alive... that doesn't make sense to me. All the more reason to kill Darlie and make sure she was dead. Those children would probably have slept through it if a killer came in and rammed that knife into Darlie the way that it was rammed into the children because she wouldn't have put up much of a struggle if she were attacked in the same way in her sleep. Most children can be picked up and carried to their beds and never wake up at that age. I know all three of mine could be picked up and moved out of the car or living room and put into bed and never wake up at those ages. Why would the children be attacked first if Darlie was the target? Darlie was the biggest threat. And why would they be so brutally murdered when their policies were only 5,000 dollar rider policies and leave Darlie "chasing after you" when her policy was worth so much more? The boys funeral expenses were more than their policies paid. It makes no sense, IMO, that the one person who's policy had the huge pay out was left alive. You don't BRUTALLY murder two little boys for 10,000 and leave the person alive that had a 200,000 policy. And please don't bring up the whole carotid artery thing and she was "left for dead" when that knife was so forcefully, brutally, angrily rammed through those children and she gets the cuts she got? I believe that Darlie didn't give her carotid artery a second thought, or a first thought for that matter. She was just trying to cover her crime and knew her wounds would have to be bad. And I believe she made them as bad as she could stand to make them. Also, awfully clean cuts on her arm, etc to have gotten them through this horrific fight for her life, IMO. Anyway, it only makes sense to me that if the motive was insurance money that at the very least, the killer would make damn sure that Darlie was dead, not left running around chasing people out of the house.

Also, to those who make a big deal about there being insurance policies taken out on the boys...
It is what is called a rider policy. It is a policy to cover funeral expenses should something happen to your child and is standard for families that have life insurance policies. I am a stay at home mom. With our life insurance, we have 200,000 on my husband, 50,000 on me and the 5,000 rider for our daughter. Reason being, my husband is the "bread winner" in our family. I have no income of my own. I would suddenly be left with zero income should something happen to my husband and he wanted us to be able to stay on our feet if something were to happen to him. But mine is only 50,000 because I would want my husband to be able to miss as much work as he needed to (within reason, of course) in the event something happened to me. But since he makes all the money, there is no sense in paying for the larger policy for me. The 5,000 rider for our daughter is basic. Although you can have the amount for just about as much as you want it to be I guess. It's kind of taboo to have a large policy on your children because they contribute nothing to the income. Most want just enough to cover funeral expenses should something happen, God forbid. I just wanted to explain that because I have heard so many people make a big deal about the fact that there were life insurance policies on the boys. It is standard practice with any family that takes out a life insurance policy.

Peace, Pam

Pam is using her G-d given instincts and sense here. Absolutely that theory of either an intruder or Darin murdering Darlie for insurance money makes no sense at all. Besides the fact that it was overkill on the boys and Darlie was left alive, if it were an intruder hired to kill Darlie for the insurance money why on earth would a hired killer go to the house first of all without a weapon, why would he superfically (and sideways) slice Darlie's neck after so violently stabbing those boys through their bodies and then leave as she's getting up so she could see him, why would he take the sock with him but drop the murder weapon on the kitchen floor before he left? Not to mention either scale the privacy fence after leaving or shut the gate behind him? Oh, and although he's a hired hitman soley motivated by money not touch any of Darlie's expensive jewelry laid out on the counter? And if it was Darin, then Darlie is covering for him to the point of being on death row for 11 years w/out ever telling anyone it was him because she's such a loving and devoted wife to someone who murdered her precious babies? Does Darlie (the bleach blonde, DD boob job'd, materialistic, etc) seem like a martyr to you? And think about her 911 tape, would she have been trying to exlain to Darin how 'they' came in and stabbed them? Did she talk to him during the tape at all like he himself had just done it? Darin was ruled out as a suspect and it seems to me the police really wanted him...so there was just no evidence pointing to him or he would have been charged.

I've heard that most of the wrongly convicted on death row were almost always represented in court by public defenders who didn't represent them well, often didn't care, even slept through court, etc. Darlie had the most expensive attorneys in town. Lots of time and effort went into her defense.

Camp Darlie's team went to a Texas millionaire, told him she was innocent and asked him to finance her defense after the conviction. He did take the case on, and w/ all his money and people hired to relook at the case and the evidence the best he could do to try to prove Darlie's innocence was to point at Darin doing it. No intruder like she claimed. There's never been any evidence of an intruder. They're trying to make Darin seem like an abuser and Darlie his innocent victim. Now I don't like Darin, but I think he's been more 'abused' (contolled, manipulated) by Darlie than the other way around. He's even writing afidavits now almost implying he was the murderer trying to help Darlie (stating they had a big fight with her the night before, that he had once considered a plan to have someone rob the house to get insurance money, etc). I really almost feel sorry for Darin, truly.

Maybe they should give he a new trial, just so all this 'new' evidence and these theories from her supporters can be looked at and presented in court and then put to rest when she's convicted again by the evidence.

And the term 'supeficial' wasn't originally used by me, it was by her Doctor when he testified in Court. How many inches is the atery under the neck? It's not that deep. Deep is a cut going through the body to the floor, like Devon's body. An inch deep is relatively "superficial". I still say an intruder that would have just slashed through her boys bodies would actually have to hold back to only cut that deep. A sideways cut as long as hers could have easily had more force than that. Not to mention how he held her arms and hands down with enough force to leave all those bruises all while with a knife in his hand w/out cuting her more or himself enough to leave any of his own blood anywhere.

Sorry I dropped the ball on posting these links before.

Here's the timeline link that can explain all the evidence.

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39605

Here's a link to the transcripts..scroll down the page a bit for links to them all.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts.php

Samson, my professor is a former Dallas police officer whom is well acquainted with the case and the officers who investigated it. I really don't agree with your theory, because of one really simple flaw. If Darlie was the true target, why was she not attacked first? Why were the boys stabbed first, allowed to make noise struggling, leaving the possibility for Darlie to wake up and call the police?

The boys were of a very young age, and far less of a threat of going to get help than Darlie was. Hell, they were even less of a threat for IDENTIFYING the intruder than Darlie was. Whether it was someone who was hired by Darrin or an intruder, the chance of identification by two young children is much slimmer than Darlie being able to identify him.

And as Mommy2sets mentioned, I think the different methods of stabbing further suggests that Darlie wasn't meant to die. Why would you stab the children with such rigor and force, yet slash Darlie's throat? Andsuperficially at that? Regardless of the argument of what "superficial" means in this case, the knife was driven with such force so far into the boys that the tip broke off (or at the very least BENT). You're telling me that the true target of a murder (staged or not) isn't going to be attacked in the same manner that would ensure her death??

I see your point. If she gets another trial she'll surely be convicted again then. but let's give her a fair trial without a tape that is irrelevant to the case and she will still be found innocent......then we could surely prove that the tape had no affect of the jury. but it's too late for that. see what i'm trying to say. it's easy to say that the tape had no affect on the outcome. but can you prove that? If the tape wasn't important to the prosecution then why was it shown in court? I understand the evidence....which helped the conviction so you don't have to explain it again. the main problem I have with the whole case is the tape....then combine that with a lot of mystery and possible scenarios that actually may have taken place.
I meant to type guilty there sorry. meaning if she was found guilty without the tape...

this is just a case that has too many questions left unanswered........and theories galore. I hate that darlie had these so called big shot lawyers as mommy2sets pointed out........yet they weren't tough or smart enough to have that tape thrown out? something failed there.

I meant to type guilty there sorry. meaning if she was found guilty without the tape...

this is just a case that has too many questions left unanswered........and theories galore. I hate that darlie had these so called big shot lawyers as mommy2sets pointed out........yet they weren't tough or smart enough to have that tape thrown out? something failed there.

Good morning all,

I feel that Darlies representation was just fine. Darlies mom and her in-laws mortgaged their homes to hire the best attorneys that money could buy. They just didn't have anything to work with. That is why I keep saying, read the transcripts and look at the blood evidence. IMO, it is very telling.

Pam is using her G-d given instincts and sense here. Absolutely that theory of either an intruder or Darin murdering Darlie for insurance money makes no sense at all. Besides the fact that it was overkill on the boys and Darlie was left alive, if it were an intruder hired to kill Darlie for the insurance money why on earth would a hired killer go to the house first of all without a weapon, why would he superfically (and sideways) slice Darlie's neck after so violently stabbing those boys through their bodies and then leave as she's getting up so she could see him, why would he take the sock with him but drop the murder weapon on the kitchen floor before he left? Not to mention either scale the privacy fence after leaving or shut the gate behind him? Oh, and although he's a hired hitman soley motivated by money not touch any of Darlie's expensive jewelry laid out on the counter? And if it was Darin, then Darlie is covering for him to the point of being on death row for 11 years w/out ever telling anyone it was him because she's such a loving and devoted wife to someone who murdered her precious babies? Does Darlie (the bleach blonde, DD boob job'd, materialistic, etc) seem like a martyr to you? And think about her 911 tape, would she have been trying to exlain to Darin how 'they' came in and stabbed them? Did she talk to him during the tape at all like he himself had just done it? Darin was ruled out as a suspect and it seems to me the police really wanted him...so there was just no evidence pointing to him or he would have been charged.

I've heard that most of the wrongly convicted on death row were almost always represented in court by public defenders who didn't represent them well, often didn't care, even slept through court, etc. Darlie had the most expensive attorneys in town. Lots of time and effort went into her defense.

Camp Darlie's team went to a Texas millionaire, told him she was innocent and asked him to finance her defense after the conviction. He did take the case on, and w/ all his money and people hired to relook at the case and the evidence the best he could do to try to prove Darlie's innocence was to point at Darin doing it. No intruder like she claimed. There's never been any evidence of an intruder. They're trying to make Darin seem like an abuser and Darlie his innocent victim. Now I don't like Darin, but I think he's been more 'abused' (contolled, manipulated) by Darlie than the other way around. He's even writing afidavits now almost implying he was the murderer trying to help Darlie (stating they had a big fight with her the night before, that he had once considered a plan to have someone rob the house to get insurance money, etc). I really almost feel sorry for Darin, truly.

Maybe they should give he a new trial, just so all this 'new' evidence and these theories from her supporters can be looked at and presented in court and then put to rest when she's convicted again by the evidence.

And the term 'supeficial' wasn't originally used by me, it was by her Doctor when he testified in Court. How many inches is the atery under the neck? It's not that deep. Deep is a cut going through the body to the floor, like Devon's body. An inch deep is relatively "superficial". I still say an intruder that would have just slashed through her boys bodies would actually have to hold back to only cut that deep. A sideways cut as long as hers could have easily had more force than that. Not to mention how he held her arms and hands down with enough force to leave all those bruises all while with a knife in his hand w/out cuting her more or himself enough to leave any of his own blood anywhere.

Good morning mommy2sets,

Thanks for the back up. I am just looking at the facts and what I feel makes sense and what doesn't. I am going strictly on evidence because, as I stated before, I came into this years ago believing Darlie was innocent based on my emotions... not understanding how a parent could do something like this. My opinion of her guilt after all this time comes from doing much reading and research over a very long period of time and by going by what makes sense. My God-given instincts, as you said. You also raise some valid points about Darrin. I never thought he had anything to do with it right off the bat after listening to the 911 tape. Although I have to admit, how he has stood so steadfastly beside her has puzzled me. I am assuming he still does... I haven't heard anything about him in a long time. Also, in a 20/20 interview, Darlie hesitates when asked about believing in Darrin. I will try to find that and post the link. I found it interesting that she hesitated the way she did because they had backed each other up so completely in the beginning. I also read something that struck a cord with me the moment I read it in the transcripts and the point was also raised by the poster in one of the links you gave (thanks for those, by the way) and that was the thing about Darrin giving the sister a ride home that night. The moment I read that from the transcripts, it struck something in me, maybe not factual, but instinct. I thought, "uh-oh, trouble.:rolleyes: " even though not much was made of it in the transcripts or by anyone else that I know of. That doesn't mean that anything ever DID go on between them. It just struck something within me when I read it. That is why I don't bring it up when I post because I try to stay within the facts of the case while posting. But I thought it was interesting that someone else got the same vibe that I did. I admit I do sometimes go with my gut on this thing... and the combination of both my gut and the evidence makes me believe with all of my heart that she murdered those children. The poster from your link also gave some excellent reasoning about why Darlie would do this. It really rang true with me. I am going to go back to those posts and try to copy and paste them here. Not sure if it will work, because the thread has been disabled for comments, but I will try. Thanks again, Mommy2sets. ;)

Pam

Who said the wound to Darlie's throat was a superficial wound? I am sure it was not a doctor. I believe a doctor may have said it was superficial to the carotid sheath, but not a superficial wound. There is a BIG difference. Superficial in the biological sense does not mean it wasn't a serious wound. In 2mm or about another .008 inches, she may have been killed too.

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media/leezashow.php

When you click on this link, scroll to the bottom of the page where you will see the tabs to watch the episodes that covered this. It shows part 1 and 2 When Leeza was pregnant and then jumps to part 4 where Leeza is not pregnant. I don't know whatever happened to part three and the end of pat 2 is cut off, but I am going to try to find the whole episodes. Watch them all. Pretty powerful... and not in a good way, IMO.

Pam


Back again...

I just finished watching part 4 and it leaves me with alot of unanswered questions. For one, Leeza talks about discussing Darlies lie detector test, but it doesn't show anything about it. The couch being released and us being told there was no blood on it when this show says there was blood all over it... many questions unanswered. Not enough to change my mind- so far, anyway. But would really like more info.

Pam

Who said the wound to Darlie's throat was a superficial wound? I am sure it was not a doctor. I believe a doctor may have said it was superficial to the carotid sheath, but not a superficial wound. There is a BIG difference. Superficial in the biological sense does not mean it wasn't a serious wound. In 2mm or about another .008 inches, she may have been killed too.

It most certainly was a doctor that described the wound as superficial.

Back again...
Hi lucchesicourt,

I believe that you were right when you say it was superficial to the carotid sheath. But I am going to check to make sure. I just reacted to the word "superficial" when I glanced over your post. Sorry. I'll be back.

I believe so did the jury. The word "superficial" I believe was a term that the prosecution used because it would make the injurysound less severe, when in fact it was much more severe than the jury was lead to believe.

I believe so did the jury. The word "superficial" I believe was a term that the prosecution used because it would make the injurysound less severe, when in fact it was much more severe than the jury was lead to believe.
another good point....this is the kind of stuff that needs to be payed attention to closely. I did see a segment on the discovery channel that highlighted the seriousness of her wound and how close it came to her artery. I didn't even realize that prior because of the superficial statements being thrown out there.

before when I said her lawyers didn't do her well.....I was talking about the tape. I'm not a lawyer and probably make much less than the ones that represented her. but I would of had a tough time going on if I had to stand by and watch a judge allow the prosecution play that tape in a court room. I would have been furious........

another good point....this is the kind of stuff that needs to be payed attention to closely. I did see a segment on the discovery channel that highlighted the seriousness of her wound and how close it came to her artery. I didn't even realize that prior because of the superficial statements being thrown out there.

before when I said her lawyers didn't do her well.....I was talking about the tape. I'm not a lawyer and probably make much less than the ones that represented her. but I would of had a tough time going on if I had to stand by and watch a judge allow the prosecution play that tape in a court room. I would have been furious........

I must agree with you DALLASTEXAN. This is part of the reason why I do not believe in the death penalty.

Hi Pam, You know I felt that same way reading about Darin driving Darlie's sister home. I'm sorry to hear about your loss, by the way. That must have been, and continue to be, very difficult.

Pam, I haven't watched the Leeza show in a while, but I do remember Darlie's camp lying... like when Leeza asked them if Dalie and Darin had a fight that night. I also remember Darlie's Mom responding to someone saying that Darlie got the bruises from the boys struggling and kicking by saying in almost shocked disbelief "from a 40 lb baby!?!?". I remember that because I have a 35+ lb baby who has left a bruise on me by ACCIDENT. So to try to imply that a 5 and 7 year old could not have left bruises on someone when their adrenaline is pumping and they are fighting literally for their life because they are just a '40 lb baby ' rang completely false to me also. I'll have to watch it again to try to answer more of your questions if I can. I also do know that Darlie's family actually sold that couch you are referring to, to raise money for her defense.. so it couldn't have been 'covered in blood' or it would not have been sellable. I wouldn't put much stock in anything Darlie's family has to say. They can't seem to ever keep their stories straight.

About this cartoid artery - it WAS Darlie's Doctor that testified the cut was superficial. To Spark, perhaps you know or can find this info. quicker than I can... but the little I just pulled up on the net, it looks like the cartoid sheath is right below the suface of the skin. I saw a diagram. So any cut at all to the neck area where Darlie's wound was it looks like would come close to it or hit it. That is the sheath that the cut was within 2mm of, the Doctor testified . The carotid ARTERY is the dangerous thing, located within the cartoid sheath, and the Doctor testified her cut was superficial to the artery. One of the reasons I know how shallow these things are is because one of my children was hospitalized with rotavirus and received an IV in the jugular vein (also located within the cartoid sheath). It was not far in really at all. You could visibly see the vein through the skin when the baby cried - the neck was turned and held and the needle was just pricked right through the skin into the vein. Also as I said before, if her wound was so serious why were the Doctors originally going to release her the same night? And how, if it was so serious, is it that 8 days later (as everyone saw on the silly string video) was she so completely recovered there were no bandages, barely even any redness and she had full mobility of her neck? The cut was supeficial.. that it was near the cartoid sheath simply means it went right beneath the skin. I hope someone with medical experience can give more detailed input here as to exactly how far it is beneath the skin at that angle of the neck... but I bet the distance between the cartoid sheath and the skin is not far even in mms. I think I read that an insertion of something for anesthesia was 10 mm below the surface (I may be wrong about that, I briefly read through it and don't have time right now to check it out further).

Hi Pam, You know I felt that same way reading about Darin driving Darlie's sister home. I'm sorry to hear about your loss, by the way. That must have been, and continue to be, very difficult.

Pam, I haven't watched the Leeza show in a while, but I do remember Darlie's camp lying... like when Leeza asked them if Dalie and Darin had a fight that night. I also remember Darlie's Mom responding to someone saying that Darlie got the bruises from the boys struggling and kicking by saying in almost shocked disbelief "from a 40 lb baby!?!?". I remember that because I have a 35+ lb baby who has left a bruise on me by ACCIDENT. So to try to imply that a 5 and 7 year old could not have left bruises on someone when their adrenaline is pumping and they are fighting literally for their life because they are just a '40 lb baby ' rang completely false to me also. I'll have to watch it again to try to answer more of your questions if I can. I also do know that Darlie's family actually sold that couch you are referring to, to raise money for her defense.. so it couldn't have been 'covered in blood' or it would not have been sellable. I wouldn't put much stock in anything Darlie's family has to say. They can't seem to ever keep their stories straight.

About this cartoid artery - it WAS Darlie's Doctor that testified the cut was superficial. To Spark, perhaps you know or can find this info. quicker than I can... but the little I just pulled up on the net, it looks like the cartoid sheath is right below the suface of the skin. I saw a diagram. So any cut at all to the neck area where Darlie's wound was it looks like would come close to it or hit it. That is the sheath that the cut was within 2mm of, the Doctor testified . The carotid ARTERY is the dangerous thing, located within the cartoid sheath, and the Doctor testified her cut was superficial to the artery. One of the reasons I know how shallow these things are is because one of my children was hospitalized with rotavirus and received an IV in the jugular vein (also located within the cartoid sheath). It was not far in really at all. You could visibly see the vein through the skin when the baby cried - the neck was turned and held and the needle was just pricked right through the skin into the vein. Also as I said before, if her wound was so serious why were the Doctors originally going to release her the same night? And how, if it was so serious, is it that 8 days later (as everyone saw on the silly string video) was she so completely recovered there were no bandages, barely even any redness and she had full mobility of her neck? The cut was supeficial.. that it was near the cartoid sheath simply means it went right beneath the skin. I hope someone with medical experience can give more detailed input here as to exactly how far it is beneath the skin at that angle of the neck... but I bet the distance between the cartoid sheath and the skin is not far even in mms. I think I read that an insertion of something for anesthesia was 10 mm below the surface (I may be wrong about that, I briefly read through it and don't have time right now to check it out further).

Hi Mommy2sets,

First of all, thanks so much for your words of sympathy. I do appreciate it.
I really didn't intend to go on and on about my brother. I guess my main reasoning for that was to show people here that I am not a cold-hearted person where things of this nature are concerned. And to show that if I could feel pity for someone who was KNOWN to have killed my own brother (the man never denied doing it) that I could certainly feel pity for Darlie. And I offered the link to his murderer only in the event that someone being interested in looking it up, as I would be if I read something like that here from any of the posters we have all been talking with, they would be able to.

Secondly, thanks for the questions you were able to answer for me. It just didn't look to me like the cut on her neck was that bad in comparison to the boys injuries. Major overkill. But the comments by Dallastexan and lucchesicourt had me concerned about whether or not I could be wrong about the term "superficial" where Darlies neck wound was concerned. And your experience with your child confirms my original belief that Darlies neck wound was not as bad as supporters would like for people to believe. Don't get me wrong, I am not on some kind of witch hunt. If Darlie is innocent, I would LOVE for someone, ANYONE to prove me wrong because if Darlie is innocent, I WANT her to receive a new trial and be freed. I DO believe that if there is testing available that wasn't available at the time of her trial, it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED. I don't believe that ANYONE wants to see any innocent person be executed just because they were fixed on a verdict and didn't want to go back on what they said they believed. If I am ever proven wrong about my opinion of Darlie's guilt, I will be the first one to stand up and say, "Thank God I was wrong" because I have a hard time believing that parents, especially mothers, can commit these acts. But as sad as it is, it does happen. Look at the horrific crime that Susan Smith committed... I believed her, too.

Your comment on the couch makes me feel better as well. I just dont want to believe something if it is not true.

The thing with Darlie's sister... weird we both got the same feeling, as I am finding out now that lots of others have had too. Before people flip out on me, I am not saying that anything DID happen between Darlie's sister and Darrin. But it makes more sense as to why Darlie may have snapped. Maybe he was gone longer than Darlie thought he should be and that started a big fight when Darrin got home. Maybe that is why she decided to stay downstairs that night. Maybe that is why with the depression that was going on with Darlie FOR SO LONG, according to her own words in the suicide thoughts in her diary, that she just cracked. And maybe it was out of pure anger that she killed the boys, to hurt Darrin as badly as she could. Maybe she planned to kill herself after but couldn't and then had to cover things up. I don't know... I struggle with this. I just keep looking for a why in the event that she did kill these boys. I just honestly believe she did. Because of the crime scene. No blood on the screen or outside the house. That sock indicates nothing but staging to me. Why would it only have a couple of drops of blood on it and not be covered with blood? Did a killer run out of the house with this sock and decide to just throw it down while running away? I don't think so.

Before I forget it, here is the link I was talking about earlier of Darlies interview where she is asked if she still believes in Darrin the way she originally did. She clearly hesitates twice, as if to leave a doubt in peoples minds about Darrins innocence.
http://www.justicefordarlie.net/media/2020downtown.php

A few things I found concern with from the Leeza show concerning camp Darlies credibility...
(gosh... they are going to call us The Ramblers :talk: )

When momma Darlie is asked why she or Darrin didn't have custody of Drake she says that CPS told them that they were not fit to have him because they believed Darlie. WHAT? :eek: Don't Darrins parents have the exact same faith in Darlie? Yet THEY are fit. :crazy:

Jurors were said to pay close attention to Darlie when the crime scene photos of the boys were shown in court. Darlie was said to be emotionless. That bothers me. I base my thoughts on my brothers murder. During his killers trial, my brothers blood soaked shirt was shown to the jury and it felt like the air was sucked out of me. I immediately broke down into tears. It was agony. I cannot IMAGINE it being one of my children. You would think that it would have at least been UPSETTING to Darlie. Especially if she was being wrongly accused of their murders. :confused:

When Darlies sister is asked what Darlies state of mind was that night, the sister hesitates and then just starts crying. You see momma Darlie carefully watching and waiting for her response and then when she feels she doesn't answer soon enough, she jumps in as if conducting damage control. :rolleyes:

Very sad case. Lots of questions and opinions. I am open to all of it. I just don't see any other reasonable scenario, as hard as it is to believe a mother could do this. Very, very sad.

Well, gonna run for now, mommy2sets. Thanks again for your sympathy and input. Have a good day and I look forward to speaking with you again.

Take care,
Pam

Okay guys,
Let's look at a little BIOLOGY before we go to far. First, if what the doctor said " within 2mm of the carotid sheath" is correct, let's look at the biology of the common carotid artert and nearby structures and vessels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carotid_sheath.PNG

The common carotid is below the external jugular vein and internal jugular vein, which are major vessels that carry blood back to the heart. So, the cut HAD to be deeper than either of these vessels. So, the vessel that you see near the surface of the neck IS NOT the common carotid artery. Now, depending on where and the angle of the cut, it was either very near the vagus nerve or the common carotid artery. The cut WAS much deeper than you guys are implying. It was NOT a superficial cut, unless the doctor is WRONG and the lawyers are right. I don't know who I'd believe here, 8-12 of science for the doctor and maybe 1 non major year of study by a lawyer, ummmm.... And even if the injury was closer to the vagus nerve than the common carotid it would still have been a very serious injury should the vagus had been cut. This deep a wound in the neck is not a superficial injury as some of you non biologists are implying.

There are two jugular veins, one is near the surface (external jugular)and another much deeper inside (the internal jugular which is in the carotid sheath, but is NOT near the surface and is not visible externally). I seriously doubt the IV was iserted in the interior jugular because of the danger of hitting either the vagus nerve or the common carotid artery.

Again, I am not trying to say she is innocent or guilty just that there is enough evidence that there is some doubt as to what really happened. So, being that there is some doubt whether reasonable or unreasonable at this time, isn't the death sentence a little too much. To be found that the judgement was wrong after the sentence is carried out is just too much for me to handle. Maybe some of you can handle errors like this easier than I.

OH brother. Lucchesiscout (I feel like sayiing 'you poor deluded soul'....)

This is from wikopedia.

"At approximately the level of the fourth cervical vertebra, the common carotid artery bifurcates into an internal carotid artery (ICA) and an external carotid artery (ECA). While both branches travel upward, the internal carotid takes a deeper (more internal) path, eventually travelling up into the skull to supply the brain via the foramen lacerum. The external carotid artery travels more closely to the surface, and sends off numerous branches that supply the neck and face."

I can almost guarantee it was the EXTERNAL cartoid artery the Doctor was referring to that the cut was superficial to, not internal. The cartoid SHEATH is what the Doc said the cut was 2 mms from and is right below the surface it seems on certain parts of the neck. Stretch your neck muscles... feel those things on the side. Feel how close to the skin they are? My baby's IV went IN PAST THE CARTOID SHEATH, (because the jugular is located within the cartoid sheath), and into the extemal jugular and it was pretty shallow I tell you. It was put in just by visually locating it by seeing it and guiding the needle right to it. THe jugular and carotid artery both are contained in the cartoid sheath. Certain locations of the neck simply have these vessels and veins running close to the surface....so any cut in particular areas would come close or even hit the sheath atleast. It's almost like getting any cut below the skin on your inner middle arm (where they draw blood) and then saying you came close to dying.. which in reality may be true but only because of how close important veins and arteries are to the surface... NOT because the cut was very deep. A cut that bleeds a lot doesn't necessarily mean it's serious. I'll stick with what the good Doctor said that treated the injuy and testified in court.. which was that the cut was 2 mm from the cartoid sheath and SUPERFICIAL to the cartoid artery.

Unless you think the good Doctor is yet another person who is just lying and in on the plot to get poor innocent Dalie? :crazy: Please.

The cut wasn't very deep or serious. You can see in her silly string video for yourself (8 days later). Walla- superficial cut all healed!

Sorry, but there are TWO jugular veins, one is near the surface the other is NOT. The external jugular is VERY close to the surface, the internal jugular is NOT. The doctor did NOT say the wound was superficial, he said the cut was superficial to the carotid sheath. A very BIG difference. There are two carotids as you say, one internal which is almost impossible to get at since it travels through the bony structures of the skull, like the jawbone. The external carotid is still not close to the surface. The external carotid is the pulse you feel when you push on tyour neck. Both the external and internal jugulars are closer to the surface.

An NHL hockey player, 14 days after having his jugular veins sliced open by skates, walked out of a hospital, lucky to be alive 14 days later according to his doctors. So, I guess he wasn't hurt too bad either.

"I'll stick with what the good Doctor said that treated the injuy and testified in court.. which was that the cut was 2 mm from the cartoid sheath and SUPERFICIAL to the cartoid artery"

SUPERFICIAL when used like this means NEAR, not minor.

"I'll stick with what the good Doctor said that treated the injuy and testified in court.. which was that the cut was 2 mm from the cartoid sheath and SUPERFICIAL to the cartoid artery"

SUPERFICIAL when used like this means NEAR, not minor.

Says who? You? OK, but not me. And apparently not the jurors and many other level-headed people that can think for themselves.

Bet that NFL player wasn't going to be released by his Doctors the first night he went in. And bet that NFL player was restricted in movement in his neck for atleast a while after that.... Big big difference from Darlie's little cut that was so minor they were going to release her the first day! And she had no problems moving her neck all over the place almost right away.

Oh, and Lucchesiscout...actually, I read that the external jugular and carotid artery actually ENTERTWINE they are so near to each other at some point on the neck. So you are just wrong there.

By the way, I neve said my baby had the needle placed in the internal jugular.. it was the external.

"The external carotid artery begins at the level of the upper border of thyroid cartilage (near the area of the adam's apple), and, taking a slightly curved course, passes upward and forward, and then inclines BACKWARD to the space behind the neck of the mandible, where it divides into the superficial temporal and maxillary arteries after passing through the parotid gland."

Before this it is known as the common carotid.

I guess my 5 years of advanced science all went for naught as it is obvious you know more than I.

The contents of the carotid sheath are:
1) the internal carotid artery
2)vagus nerve
3)common carotid artery
4)Internal jugular

Hi everybody. wow.

I haven't checked in since this morning and oh my gosh...

I don't know anything about the carotid artery OR sheaths OR jugular veins OR any of the rest of it. I am not a doctor OR a scientist OR anyone who has had any dealing with this situation. I don't think that Darlie is either. I don't think that Darlie was thinking about veins OR sheaths OR arteries - carotid or otherwise. I think that Darlie was thinking about saving her a** from a Texas death chamber, as well she should have been. But a better time for her to have thought about that would have been before she rammed a knife through her children. The one thing that I have said from the begining and will continue to say until I am proven wrong is that there was no blood on that screen or outside that house or on that 6' privacy fence or gate. I do not understand that. Wait... yes I do. There is no blood out there because there was no killer out there. There was no killer out there because the killer never left the house. And the killer never left the house because the killer was Darlie Routier. I see on everyones profile that they can add 3 and 3 and come up with 6... how about adding 2 and 2 together and see what you get.

Here... I'll do the math:
2 + 2 = Darlie Routier

Have a good day everybody,
Pam :wave:

Now I am sure not a Doctor or scientist, and my brief reading about the cartoid sheath does not make me an expert and I could be off. But I know what I saw with my baby. And I know there are major vessels that run along certain parts of the neck, and I know what Darlie's cut looked like from photos and the video a week later, and what Darlie's Doctor testified to in Court That leads me to believe that the true seriousness of her injury is not what the Darlie camp wants us to believe. I also know Darlie's family is not credible in terms of being caught lying in the past, twisting things, changing stories, etc....so I just do not believe them that
her injury was as serious as they claim. I'm going to leave that whole topic though because I am not certain of the anatomy enough to debate it...and don't think it's all that important anyway. Diane Downs shot herself after shooting her kids. People can injure themselves if they're trying to cover for something awful, their adrenalin is pumping and they know they better do something. Darlie's injury, to me, seems wayyyyy more likely to be self-inflicted than to believe that a raging murderer did only that cut to her neck after what he did to those boys. That's way more of a stretch for me to believe especially in light of all the rest of the evidence at the house.

Hi Pam, That part of the interview where Darlie's sister is asked how they wre getting along that night and she started tearing up and couldn't speak really sticks out in my mind too, and really struck me when I watched it. Darlie's mom sure kicked in quick w/ damage control. Yep! And of course what she said wasn't even true we later found out by Darin's own afidavit. Atleast the sister seems to have a conscience and a harder time lying, to her credit. That's how it seemed to me. In fact, wasn't it right after that she left the set?

I also find that telling about her reaction to the boys' bodies pictures shown in court. One lady in the audience tried to explain it away (I think this was the Leeza show, may have been a different one) by saying that Darlie was on all sorts of medicine and she knew first-hand that the medicine can dull you to any emotion at all, even though you feel it inside. OK. That may be the case. But in this case, how come later in the court proceedings did Darlie break down and cry like a baby when she was cross-examined by the prosecution about her own lying? Her emotions were blocked one day and not the next? Darlie's mug shot also she is crying. For someone who was having such a hard time expressing grief and emotion about her boys, she sure seems to have plenty of it when it comes to herself.

I also have never believed in the death penalty. I always admire those that have actually had loved ones killed and still do not want the death penalty for the murderer. I am against it for many reasons, but ranking very high among them is that it's so hypocritical to say 'killing is so wrong that we're going to kill you'. I also don't think unless you could pull the switch yourself you should support it because that would be hypocritical too (atleast to me). And many many other reasons too. Having said that I must say......cases like this where a Mother kills an innocent child, her very own at that, that has done nothing wrong. That would kill a child so vulnerable and dependent on their Mother for protection, well this is about the only type of case I can honestly say yes I would probably pull the switch. Could I really do it? I don't know. But it makes me that furious. I can have atleast some compassion for damaged souls that kill out of some (even twisted) revenge or reason in their own mind (real or perceived) that as a result causes them to do something evil. But in cases like this, that such evil is done for nothing but vain self-serving reasons to such innocence.. well it makes my blood boil. I can honestly say I have zero compassion for Darlie Routier. None. I can't say she's changed my mind about the death penalty but I
sure am glad she's in prison, and I really wish she were called to task by all of society for what she did. I too, really really wish she was innocent. I wish this type of evil didn't exist. But that's a delusion. It does.

Now I am sure not a Doctor or scientist, and my brief reading about the cartoid sheath does not make me an expert and I could be off. But I know what I saw with my baby. And I know there are major vessels that run along certain parts of the neck, and I know what Darlie's cut looked like from photos and the video a week later, and what Darlie's Doctor testified to in Court That leads me to believe that the true seriousness of her injury is not what the Darlie camp wants us to believe. I also know Darlie's family is not credible in terms of being caught lying in the past, twisting things, changing stories, etc....so I just do not believe them that
her injury was as serious as they claim. I'm going to leave that whole topic though because I am not certain of the anatomy enough to debate it...and don't think it's all that important anyway. Diane Downs shot herself after shooting her kids. People can injure themselves if they're trying to cover for something awful, their adrenalin is pumping and they know they better do something. Darlie's injury, to me, seems wayyyyy more likely to be self-inflicted than to believe that a raging murderer did only that cut to her neck after what he did to those boys. That's way more of a stretch for me to believe especially in light of all the rest of the evidence at the house.

Hi Pam, That part of the interview where Darlie's sister is asked how they wre getting along that night and she started tearing up and couldn't speak really sticks out in my mind too, and really struck me when I watched it. Darlie's mom sure kicked in quick w/ damage control. Yep! And of course what she said wasn't even true we later found out by Darin's own afidavit. Atleast the sister seems to have a conscience and a harder time lying, to her credit. That's how it seemed to me. In fact, wasn't it right after that she left the set?

I also find that telling about her reaction to the boys pictures. One lady in the audience tried to explain it away (I think this was the Leeza show, may have been a different one) by saying that Darlie was on all sorts of medicine and she knew first-hand that the medicine can dull you to any emotion at all, even though you feel it inside. OK. That may be the case. But in this case, how come later in the court proceedings did Darlie break down and cry like a baby when she was cross-examined by the prosecution about her own lying? Her emotions were blocked one day and not the next? Darlie's mug shot also she is crying. For someone who was having such a hard time expressing grief and emotion about her boys, she sure seems to have plenty of it when it comes to herself.

I also have never believed in the death penalty. I always admire those that have actually had loved ones killed and still do not want the death penalty for the murderer. I am against it for many reasons, but ranking very high among them is that it's so hypocritical to say 'killing is so wrong that we're going to kill you'. I also don't think unless you could pull the switch yourself you shouldn't support it because that would be hypocritical too (atleast to me). And many many other reasons too. Having said that I must say......cases like this where a Mother kills an innocent child, her very own at that, that has done nothing wrong. That would kill a child so vulnerable and dependent on their Mother for protection, well this is about the only type of case I can honestly say yes I would pull the switch. It makes me that furious. I can have atleast some compassion for damaged souls that kill out of some (even twisted) revenge or reason in their own mind (real or perceived) that as a result causes them to do something evil. But in cases like this, that such evil is done for nothing but vain self-serving reasons.. well it makes my blood boil. I can honestly say I have zero compassion for Darlie Routier. None. I can't say she's changed my mind about the death penalty but I
sure am glad she's in prison, and I really wish she were called to task by all of society for what she did. I too, really really wish she was innocent. I wish this type of evil didn't exist. But that's a delusion. It does.



Right again mommy2sets on everything you said. Bravo. And you knew way more about the super sonic artery crap than I did. But I am like you, I'm not going to sit and argue about what I don't think matters anyway. Compare Darlies injuries to those of the children... sounds like Diane Downs, like you said.

And yes, now that you mention it, baby sister DID leave the set after momma darlie had to swoop in.

Oh!!! Something else that you said was something I meant to address.
Darlie had soooo much trouble crying where those children were concerned but she doesn't have a problem in this world sobbing when it's her a** on the line. I have noticed that over and over again. Oh how I wish that trial had been televised. I would have been glued to it every day.

I am very glad Darlie is in prison as well and unfortunately for her, she decided to slaughter her children in a state that has zero tolerance and I'm glad.

I commend you on your *battle* today. I came in to check in and the post had moved to number one and was hot. You did a great job. I just have no knowledge, so no battle plan. I'll keep checking in tonight for more posts. Again, great job!

Talk to you soon,
Pam :wave:

Here's my probem with the case and it has absolutely nothing to do with innocense or guilt, it has to do with,"Did she get a fair trial?" as our constitution says everyone is entiltled to one. I do not believe she did get a fair trial, for several reasons:
1) the scene was not secure and things were moved
2) bloody items were put in the same bags where evidence could have easily transferred blood from one item to another.
3) the prosecution did a rehearsal trial ,so the testimony of the evidence favored the prosecution
4)detective's notes were kept in his memory and not on a hard copy that could be referred to for the trial
5) investigators violated federal law at the gravesite, and then take the 5th to avoid prosecution themselves
6)DNA evidence and other evidence was refused to be reviewed by the Texas court system until the federal government became involved, why?
7) was there a rape test done or not, if so, what and where are the results?
8)why when over 1000 photos were taken was the defense only given 400?
9) why was Darlie only tried for ONE murder? Do they have evidence that maybe she did not kill one of the victims.
She may be guilty as most of you believe, but if she is given a new and fair trial, and is found guilty again, I have no problem. The question is why are so many in such a hurry to put someone to death? In a new trial are you afraid she may be found innocent? If she is, then it's obvious that the prosecution was unable to prove their case a second time, which would mean that there is DOUBT. If the prosecution ends up with the same conviction, then you can say the justice system did its best to come to a fair verdict. As of now, I do not believe they have.

The fact is, in court, we have one side trying to prove someone guilty regardless of whether or not they are guilty (and this is the same side that decides what to use in evidence and what not to use, and it has been proven the the preosecution did NOT make all the evidence available to the defense). The prosecution tries to MAKE a case against someone, and if all the evidence is not avauilable to the defense and errors are covered up, they CAN actually MAKE a case.
Also, her attorney had a BIG conflict of interest in the case as he represented both Darin and Darlie. This would have only been fair if both were being tried for the same crime. It really doesn't matter how good your attorney is if he does not do his best to exonerate the accused. So, he may have been a so called hot shot, but IMO, and Darlie's current lawyers,he did not give her a fair representation in court.
I will also agree that the defense attorney is also trying to get his client off regardless of innocense or guilt, but he needs access to ALL of the so called evidence, not just what the prosecution side gives him. If he had all the evidence and he did his best to defend her without the conflict of interest, and she was found guilty, I would not have a problem with the current sentence. I do NOT believe she had a far trial, and that is my problem.

I believe Darin is the one responsible for the entire scheme. Why? Who would benefit the most in the death of the 3 victims? 1) Darin, would collect on three insurance policies 2) Darin has attempted, and admitted, to hiring someone to commit insurance fraud 3) Why would someone enter the house without a weapon-simple answer here, Darin told him where to get the knife since
1) he knew where they were, and
2) it's also possible the one who committed the crime had been in the house before, and this would explain why the dog didn't bark.
Another question I have asked myself is what motive did Darlie have that would benefit her- I see none. But, if she did this
in an act of insanity, does it deserve the death sentence? And, why didn't the defense use this if it was so obvious she was guilty of the crime?
If she had planned the crime, why would she admit handling the knife when it would have been easy to just wipe it clean?
Her trial just left me with too many unanswered questions to justify putting someone to death.

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.

Lucchesiscourt, It's pretty well known that Darlie and Darin were struggling financially at that time. Darin had been turned down for loans right before this, etc...so we'd have to assume he'd only be paying this guy you think did it, to kill Darlie and the kids with the insurance money. So if this theory were true, why would he leave Darlie alive when she was the only one with a substantial insurance policy? She says in the 911 call they were fighting, then she said later she sort of ran after him as he went out through the garage, even seeing what he looked like to the point of being able to descibe his general height, weight, clothes, baseball cap, etc. If this person was familiar enough with the family that the dog knew him why didn't Darlie recognize him? And what happened to this guy after? Darin never got the money to pay him from Darlie's insurance. Darin ended up having to sell the house, never recouped financially so how did he ever pay him? Seems like this guy would be pretty pissed by now or looming around or something? Actually this theory was attempted to be put out there early on by Darlie and her family. (they've since changed it since the story fell apart). Darlie actually wrote people from prison in the beginning 'she knew who it was' implying it was someone from Darin's work and implying your whole theory were true. THe problem with this whole thing came to light during the trial... where at first Darlie tried to suggest it was this guy from work, but when questioned Darlie said although she knew the guy worked for Darin and had seen him, she couldn't really remember what he looked like. When pressed it turned out his build was nothing like the build of the man she originally described to the police, and this man (if I remember right) was blonde, yet Darlie said the man who attacked her may have been black because of his hair (later changing that to dark hair that was longer under his baseball cap). They actually brought this guy in the courtroom and had him stand next to another man that Darlie said earlier was built like the 'intruder'. This smokescreen of a theory was actually blown pretty much out of the water by the prosecution during the trial. You'll have to read the transcripts to see exactly how it happened, and I don't remember all the details.. except that it shows again Darlie was lying. Darlie's attorney was not representing Darin... he had just agreed not to pursue Darin as a suspect during the trial. For all we know they planned this as a back up for a new trial in case they lost. I would not be surprised at all.

You sound like a logical person lucchesiscourt, wanting to know facts and w/ a science background... so it baffles me how you can believe it is an intruder since there was absolutely no evidence point to an intruder being in the house. How do you explain the gate shut, the security light being off, the lack of any evidence anyone went through the screen, and much more that says no one else was in that house that night but this family? That's not logical. It actually takes faith to believe that over reason and sense and evidence. Everything points to a scenerio you , for whatever reason, just do not want to accept. As far as the pictures, I have heard from atleast one juror that the very worst of those photos of Darlie's 'injuries' were in fact viewed by them before reaching a verdict (there's some confusion on this as another said he didn't see all of them). You know, 400 pictures is a lot. 1000 is a ton. If they took a zillion pictures of a crime scene why do all of them have to be viewed at court? I'm quite sure this isn't the only case where every single picture taken isn't shown to the jury. The important pictures are the ones usually seen, I would think or these cases could drag out for years just explaining thousands of pictures to the jury. You talked about motive...what was Susan Smith's motive? Diane Downs? Mothers that kill their childen often have the most selfish stupid vain reasons you can think of. No good motive. That doesn't make her legally insane because she didn't have a clear motive. Darlie's someone used to geting her way.... from faking an attempted rape to get her way at a party years earlier, to murdering her children to get back at Darin and get attention. It could be as simply as that. She's gotten her way so much that she truly thought she could get away with this, and is probably still shocked that she did not. And she's continuing to manipulate so many people (including you) into believing she's just an innocent victim.

"And she's continuing to manipulate so many people (including you) into believing she's just an innocent victim."
Again, she may be guilty as I said before, but she did NOT receive a fair and JUST trial which is everyone's right. If you believe she did, then why are there so many questions about procedural errors by the police, is there a rape kit result, why did counsel make any agreement at all with darin (violates Darlie's rights), did police break the law by taping at the gravesite, where are the detectives notes that he says are all in his head, etc.etc. If you answer yes to any of these then her rights were violated and she deserves a retrial.
A just trial is what EVERYONE deserves, innocent or guilty. I just do not believe she got one.

As far as the guy coming to Darin for payoff, what would he do if Darin didn't pay him? Go to the police. I think not. It would sound something like this. Officer, I went to collect the money from Darin Routier in payment for me killing his wife and kids and he refuses to pay me pay.
Or he could tell Darin he was going to kill him for not paying. Darin would say something like this "I put a full confession in a safe deposit box, so if I die it will be opened and you will be charged for the actual killlings". So, NO, I do not think he would bother Darin for not being paid. He would just be happy he is not in jail on death row.

If a million pictures were taken, then defense counsel would have the RIGHT to all of the million picures. The prosecution doesn't have the right to decide for defense counsel which are important and which are not. That is up to the defense counsel to decide. If the prosecution is to decide what evidence is presented in a trial, then why would you need a defense counsel at all? I am not saying all million photos would be used, I am saying defense counsel had the RIGHT to view each and EVERY photo, not just the 400 that the prosecution thought were the only ones necessary.
If I was a prosecutor and I decided which evidence I would allow to be given to the defense, I'd probably NEVER lose a case.

This is a case that I have wondered about for quite a while. I remember the Unsolved Mysteries segment kind of fed into her innocence a little, but it was hard not to because of the gash on her neck and the bloody sock.

But then I saw this case on another hour-long true crime show on A&E sometime last year that went way in depth into the actual evidence and not just conjecture (I forget the name of the particular show). The blood evidence all led to Darlie along with the staging of the scene in her kitchen, knocking over things, her cutting her throat at the sink. Then to know she did it and think that this scum went to her child's grave and celebrated it later on. It's despicable. I can't wait until she is executed for this.

Here's my probem with the case and it has absolutely nothing to do with innocense or guilt, it has to do with,"Did she get a fair trial?" as our constitution says everyone is entiltled to one. I do not believe she did get a fair trial, for several reasons:
1) the scene was not secure and things were moved
2) bloody items were put in the same bags where evidence could have easily transferred blood from one item to another.
3) the prosecution did a rehearsal trial, so the testimony of the evidence favored the prosecution
4)detective's notes were kept in his memory and not on a hard copy that could be referred to for the trial
5) investigators violated federal law at the gravesite, and then take the 5th to avoid prosecution themselves
6)DNA evidence and other evidence was refused to be reviewed by the Texas court system until the federal government became involved, why?
7) was there a rape test done or not, if so, what and where are the results?
8)why when over 1000 photos were taken was the defense only given 400?
9) why was Darlie only tried for ONE murder? Do they have evidence that maybe she did not kill one of the victims.
She may be guilty as most of you believe, but if she is given a new and fair trial, and is found guilty again, I have no problem. The question is why are so many in such a hurry to put someone to death? In a new trial are you afraid she may be found innocent? If she is, then it's obvious that the prosecution was unable to prove their case a second time, which would mean that there is DOUBT. If the prosecution ends up with the same conviction, then you can say the justice system did its best to come to a fair verdict. As of now, I do not believe they have.

The fact is, in court, we have one side trying to prove someone guilty regardless of whether or not they are guilty (and this is the same side that decides what to use in evidence and what not to use, and it has been proven the the preosecution did NOT make all the evidence available to the defense). The prosecution tries to MAKE a case against someone, and if all the evidence is not avauilable to the defense and errors are covered up, they CAN actually MAKE a case.
Also, her attorney had a BIG conflict of interest in the case as he represented both Darin and Darlie. This would have only been fair if both were being tried for the same crime. It really doesn't matter how good your attorney is if he does not do his best to exonerate the accused. So, he may have been a so called hot shot, but IMO, and Darlie's current lawyers,he did not give her a fair representation in court.
I will also agree that the defense attorney is also trying to get his client off regardless of innocense or guilt, but he needs access to ALL of the so called evidence, not just what the prosecution side gives him. If he had all the evidence and he did his best to defend her without the conflict of interest, and she was found guilty, I would not have a problem with the current sentence. I do NOT believe she had a far trial, and that is my problem.

I believe Darin is the one responsible for the entire scheme. Why? Who would benefit the most in the death of the 3 victims? 1) Darin, would collect on three insurance policies 2) Darin has attempted, and admitted, to hiring someone to commit insurance fraud 3) Why would someone enter the house without a weapon-simple answer here, Darin told him where to get the knife since
1) he knew where they were, and
2) it's also possible the one who committed the crime had been in the house before, and this would explain why the dog didn't bark.
Another question I have asked myself is what motive did Darlie have that would benefit her- I see none. But, if she did this
in an act of insanity, does it deserve the death sentence? And, why didn't the defense use this if it was so obvious she was guilty of the crime?
If she had planned the crime, why would she admit handling the knife when it would have been easy to just wipe it clean?
Her trial just left me with too many unanswered questions to justify putting someone to death.

Hi lucchesicourt, :wave:

I'm going to go over your post and give you my opinin on each of your points line by line. Please don't take anything that I am saying as sarcasm, as I'm just answering you with my opinions. If I leave an open ended question, again, don't take it as sarcasm. I'm doing that because I honestly want your opinion. Understand also that while I believe that Darlie is guilty, it doesn't mean that I don't also have questions that I'd like answers to as well.

Part one of your questions:

1) Why do you think the scene was not secure?

2) I'm not sure about how evidence was collected but it seems to me that this almost always seems to come up during these high profile cases. I don't know anything about evidence collection and what is accepted as common practice and what is not.

3) It is my understanding that it is common place for attorneys to conduct practice trials, especially in high profile cases. I found the following from a business whos purpose is to educate attorneys on how to conduct such a process:

Trials depend heavily on the strength of witness testimony; the witness’s confidence, credibility, and clarity while on the stand are essential to positive results. We train witnesses in listening and communication skills so they can give their best testimony under the pressure of a courtroom appearance. Through practice examination and videotaped rehearsal, both the attorney and the consultant have the opportunity to provide feedback on strengths and needed skills.

To prepare a witness, we:

• Help the witness understand what to expect at trial: court procedures, the role of the judge, the expectations of jurors, the expected tactics of opposing counsel, what our lawyers will do during their time on the stand, and so forth
• Analyze word content of the witness’s proposed answers to clarify complex issues and discuss possible juror interpretations
• Determine what demonstrative evidence is needed to support the testimony; teach witnesses the most effective use of exhibits
• Assist witness with proper demeanor and dress, and avoiding distracting behaviors
• Develop witness comfort and resourcefulness on cross-examination. Help witnesses deliver the desired message under fire and create the desired impact on the jury panel

4) :confused: The detectives notes are one of the things that I was in question about myself. So I am with you there.

5) :confused: The gravesite being recorded is another question I have. Legal permission can be obtained for this, so I don't know why it wasn't done.

6) :confused: DNA and other evidence being refused to be reviewed by the Texas court system until the federal government became involved is something I am unaware of. But since you have brought it up, I am curious myself and I'm going to see what I can find out about it.

7) :confused: Don't know what ever happened to a rape kit or if a test was ever given.

8) :confused: I don't understand why the photos weren't all made available or if they weren't. In Florida there is such a thing as discovery. The defense is intitled to any evidence that the prosecution has and vice versa. No one is allowed any suprises. Is it not the same in Texas?

9) It is my understanding and my belief that they only prosecuted on one death in the event that Darlie was aquitted. Should that happen, they would then turn around and charge her with the second murder. Again, common practice.

10) I personally am in no hurry to put Darlie to death, as I do not believe in the death penalty. I think that people just believe in her guilt and don't want to her to get away with it.

Understand that the state will not pick up a case unless they feel they have enough evidence to convict. If they had anything that could tie Darrin to this murder, you can bet that he would be in prison awaiting the same fate as Darlie. But the evidence points to Darlie.

Part two of your questions:

1) You say Darrin knew where they were. Darlie knew where they were, too

2) Darlie has been in the house before too so if you think the dog wouldn't have
barked because he knew Darrin, wouldn't the same hold true for Darlie?

I don't understand Darlies motive either, but IMO anyone who commits murder is out of their mind. If it were up to me there would be no death penalty. I have never understood attorneys having to fight for an insanity plea in the event of murder because IMO you cannot be in your right mind
and kill someone, most especially in cases like this one. To me that its a moot point. It has always bothered me to hear of someone being executed no matter what their crime. Asside from all of that, the defense did not try for an insanity plea because Darlie did not confess to the murders.

lucchesicourt: "Also, her attorney had a BIG conflict of interest in the case as he represented both Darin and Darlie."
I'm going to go back and read about this. I remember coming across this somewhere. But to be honest, for all the information I was going through, it was just too meaningless to get into. Things like this are what I call a legal straws. They are the things that attorneys try to grasp at when they have nothing left to go on.

lucchesicourt: "I believe Darin is the one responsible for the entire scheme. Why? Who would benefit the most in the death of the 3 victims?"
Motive is important, but it doesn't always apply realistically, meaning they have their own motives that we don't understand. Look at Susan Smith. Why? Why and how could she do what she did to her boys? Crushing depression, bad marrige, break up of an affair... those were some of the reasons she gave for leaving those two little boys strapped into their car seats and sent them rolling into the water to die a horrible death. No, these things follow patterns. These women and others commit these crime for stupid, selfish reasons. Diane Downs, Susan Smith, etc. Children are USUALLY killed by a parent or someone close to the family. Not always, but usually. Killers USUALLY carry their own weapon to a crime scene, that sort of thing. That's how we learn to figure these cases out. Patterns. Darrin didn't do this. If Darrin had hired someone to do this, why would a killer leave Darlie alive? He doesn't have to worry about Darrin waking up and catching him, he's supposed to be there, right? This is where people will say "he was afraid that Darlie would trip the alarm," etc. This is why the order of attack is so important. It only makes sense to take the biggest threat out first. And be sure they are taken OUT. Her policy was worth the most, much more than the boys combined, and she was the biggest threat. That is the person you kill FIRST. A killer would have no reason to run from Darlie. And every reason to slaughter her the way those boys were slaughtered.

And if you think that Darrin did it himself, please tell me how. You mean to say that Darrin came downstairs, killed the boys, attacked Darlie and she didn't recognize him, ran back upstairs and then came back downstairs? That does not make sense in the least. Ithought Darlie woke up and saw someone and they ran out through the garage. See what I'm saying? It makes no sense.

"Why would someone enter the house without a weapon?" My question to you exactly. USUALLY a killer would not do that. And you think that Darrin hired a killer and then had to tell him where to get a knife? Please. I mean, really. Does that make sense?

OK. Gotta head out of here. This has taken me the better part of the day off and on and axious to get it posted before I lose it somehow. :mad:

Take care. Remember, none of this is personal. I just enjoy a good debate.

Have a good night, :wave:
Pam

As far as the guy coming to Darin for payoff, what would he do if Darin didn't pay him? Go to the police. I think not. It would sound something like this. Officer, I went to collect the money from Darin Routier in payment for me killing his wife and kids and he refuses to pay me pay.
Or he could tell Darin he was going to kill him for not paying. Darin would say something like this "I put a full confession in a safe deposit box, so if I die it will be opened and you will be charged for the actual killlings". So, NO, I do not think he would bother Darin for not being paid. He would just be happy he is not in jail on death row.

MAYBE HE WOULD SLAUGHTER HIM. Ohhhhh myyyy goshhhh! :crazy:
He supposedly slaughtered two little boys and attacked Darlie... he's above killing Darrin??? Darrin would know who the murderer was... you think the killer would let Darrin live with that knowledge, unpaid? You mean to tell me that you honestly think that a hired killer would just say "aw, to heck with it" if someone hired them to killl someone and they do it, and then the person who hires them doesn't pay them and they'll just let it go? Not the way it works. A killer would have no other way to avenge that except to kill Darrin.

Oh my.

I am starting to believe this is Darlie Kee.

If a million pictures were taken, then defense counsel would have the RIGHT to all of the million picures. The prosecution doesn't have the right to decide for defense counsel which are important and which are not. That is up to the defense counsel to decide. If the prosecution is to decide what evidence is presented in a trial, then why would you need a defense counsel at all? I am not saying all million photos would be used, I am saying defense counsel had the RIGHT to view each and EVERY photo, not just the 400 that the prosecution thought were the only ones necessary.
If I was a prosecutor and I decided which evidence I would allow to be given to the defense, I'd probably NEVER lose a case.

To all:

Do you mean to tell me that the prosecutors in Texas decide what evidence is shared with the defense? Do they not have discovery in Texas? Does anybody know?

If Darrin had hired someone to do this, why would an intruder leave Darlie alive? He doesn't have to worry about Darrin waking up and catching him, he's supposed to be there, right? This is where people will say "he was afraid that Darlie would trip the alarm," etc. This is why the order of attack is so important. It only makes sense to take the biggest threat out first. And be sure they are taken OUT. Her policy was worth the most, much more than the boys combined, and she was the biggest threat. That is the person you kill FIRST. A killer would have no reason to run from Darlie. And every reason to slaughter her the way those boys were slaughtered.

And if you think that Darrin did it himself, please tell me how. You mean to say that Darrin came downstairs, killed the boys, attacked Darlie and she didn't recognize him, ran back upstairs and then came back downstairs? That does not make sense in the least. Ithought Darlie woke up and saw someone and they ran out through the garage. See what I'm saying? It makes no sense.

Why would someone enter the house without a weapon? My question to you eaxactly. USUALLY a killer would not do that. And you think that Darrin hired a killer and then had to tell him where to get a knife? Please. I mean, really. Does that make sense?

Excellent points.

I am starting to believe this is Darlie Kee.

hehehehe :lol:

Excellent points.


Thank you ;)

Right on, Pam!

hehehehe :lol:



;)

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.

I'd say the silly string doesn't prove anything, but it is icing on the cake after you look at the evidence and how the scene was staged. It all points to her and that silly string video shows her for the sociopath that she truly is.

I'd say the silly string doesn't prove anything, but it is icing on the cake after you look at the evidence and how the scene was staged. It all points to her and that silly string video shows her for the sociopath that she truly is.

well said mommy2sets and synthisislab. I mentioned the fact that ding-bat Darlie was the one who called for the media coverage, thereby tainting any possible jury herself. Nobody seemed to want to jump on that one. She was probably smug enough to think she'd get away with it. The whole coutry saw that video before she was even charged. If it was on national TV, you KNOW all of Texas was watching.

Bye guys,
Pam

If this appears twice, ignore it. I sent a post earlier in response to this but I don't see it.

Yeah, that tape was on A Current Affair and Inside Edition along with all of the other Tonya Harding-like garbage. And it was too telling on Darlie's true character like she was thumbing her nose at people because she thought she was going to get away with it too.

Sorry Pam, I must have missed whee you covered it, but saw it in luccesiscourt's recent list of reasons he thinks she didn't get a fair trial (eye roll).

Not only do I think she thought she had gotten away with it, but wanted media coverage (in part) because the next step was going to be 'now we need help with our bills because of this horrible thing that happened to us' and was really thinking they were going to get a LOT of help through sympathy. I mean, (for example) who would foreclose on a house that the poor parents just had a double murder of their children? Imagine all the help from people she thought she could have got from this. Donations would have poured in (I bet she thought).

OK now that the kids are all in bed, and I have a little time I want to address something Pamela has brought up more than once.

Pam, you mentioned seeing Darlie pause when asked about Darin's involvement. Yes, I noticed that too. For whatever it's worth, here's what I think about that. Darlie has had many different stories over the years, in fact one of the latest ones is that she has been hyptnotized and now remembers there were two men. :crazy: THe reason she's saying this now is because it makes a little more sense this could have happened w/ intruders if there were two...one holding her down and the other stabbing the boys so she couldn't protect them, also would explain the knife situation (one boys blood on the knife), if two knives were used. (even though the more obvious reason why only one boys blood was found on the knife is because the luminol showed Darlie had cleaned up blood at the sink, so probably washed off the knife after stabbing Devon.) Anyway, Darlie's stories have always changed to try to match the evidence. (that's why it went from first to 'fighting' with the intruder, to not remembering anything as she came to , etc). So back to the reason why she hesitates when asked if it's Darin.... I believe it's because Darlie needs all of her supporters and to keep all options open for anything that could help release her from prison. Darlie knows one of the theories that holds atleast some water to a lot of people is the theory that Lucchessiscourt stated that he believed, that Darin either himself did this or hired someone to do it. When all of her stories haven fallen by the evidence, this one is still a possibility to some, and just a lot easier for people to believe than that an unknown intruder did this. When Darlie is asked in the video, I think she pauses on purpose, to keep this theory and support alive. That's the only reason I think she pauses. She can't say 'no' or she'd lose supporters who believe it's Darin, and she can't say 'yes' or she'd lose Darin and many other people's support. I don't believe Darin had anything to do w/ it of course. But these are some of my thoughts on that interview... I don't think it means anything substantial, basically. I think she's just being manipulative.

Pam, I didn't realize til I didn't see your smling :wave: next to your name this last post of yours how nice it was to usually see it. :) I just want to tell you how much I admire you coming here, sharing your story, and being willing to post so candidly and openly here about your feelings and what you think. You've contributed a lot to this discussion. And your unique perspective as someone who has had a family member murdered helps all of us with insight we wouldn't have otherwise had. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that and say 'thanks' for gracing this forum and discussion with your input. I always enjoy reading what you have to say. :wave:

OK now that the kids are all in bed, and I have a little time I want to address something Pamela has brought up more than once.

Pam, you mentioned seeing Darlie pause when asked about Darin's involvement. Yes, I noticed that too. For whatever it's worth, here's what I think about that. Darlie has had many different stories over the years, in fact one of the latest ones is that she has been hyptnotized and now remembers there were two men. :crazy: THe reason she's saying this now is because it makes a little more logical sense this could have happened w/ intruders if there were two...one holding her down and the other stabbing the boys so she couldn't protect them, also would explain the knife situation (one boys blood on the knife), if two knives were used. (even though the obvious reason why only one boys blood was found on the knife is because the luminol showed Darlie had cleaned up blood at the sink, so probably washed off the knife after stabbing Devon.) Anyway, Darlie's stories have always changed to try to match the evidence. (that's why it went from first to 'fighting' with the intruder, to not remembering anything as she came to , etc). So back to the reason why she hesitates when asked if it's Darin.... I believe it's because Darlie needs all of her supporters and to keep all options open for anything that could help release her from prison. Darlie knows one of the theories that holds atleast some water to a lot of people is the theory that Lucchessiscourt stated that he believed, that Darin either himself did this or hired someone to do it. When all of her stories haven fallen by the evidence, this one is still a possibility to some, and just a lot easier for people to believe than that an unknown intruder did this. When Darlie is asked in the video, I think she pauses on purpose, to keep this theory and support alive. That's the only reason I think she pauses. She can't say 'no' or she'd lose supporters who believe it's Darin, and she can't say 'yes' or she'd lose Darin and many other people's support. I don't believe Darin had anything to do w/ it of course. But these are some of my thoughts on that interview... I don't think it means anything substantial, basically.

Pam, I didn't realize til I didn't see your smling :wave: next to your name this last post of yours how nice it was to usually see it. :) I just want to tell you how much I admire you coming here, sharing your story, and being willing to post so candidly and openly here about your feelings and what you think. You've contributed a lot to this discussion. And your unique perspective as someone who has had a family member murdered helps all of us with insight we wouldn't have otherwise had. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that and say 'thanks' for gracing this forum and discussion with your input. I always enjoy reading what you have to say. :wave:

Why thank you, mommy2sets. That was quite a compliment indeed. Especially coming from you since you have alot of information on this case as well. I usually hate posting on these things, but this has been (and I'm sure will continue to be) a very interesting thread to participate in. So thanks so much, I appreciate it. :wave:

I got the same impression from Darlies hesitation when asked about Darrin. She wants to make sure to leave as many options open as possible, even though he has stood by her strongly. Mentioning that, does he still? Have you heard anything about him lately?

Pam :wave:

The last I heard was a couple of years ago, and he still said he supported Darlie and apparently had gotten custody of Drake (who was 9 then and looked just like Damon). He said they go to see Darlie about once a week and Drake sees his Mom only through the plexiglass. Poor Drake. Anyway, that's the last I heard.

Have a good night. :wave:

The last I heard was a couple of years ago, and he still said he supported Darlie and apparently had gotten custody of Drake (who was 9 then and looked just like Damon). He said they go to see Darlie about once a week and Drake sees his Mom only through the plexiglass. Poor Drake. Anyway, that's the last I heard.

Have a good night. :wave:

Yeah... thats a pretty sad story all by itself. What are they going to tell that child, or rather what DO they tell him??? You know he is pleny old enough now to start answering some pretty probing questions and that will only get worse as he gets older. I can only imagine ... :rolleyes:

Pam :wave:

Yes, very sad. He's another innocent victim, really. I don't know what they'll tell him, it would be bad enough to deal with the truth but if it's not the truth it's only going to be worse. Especially if she's executed. Kids are keener than a lot of people give them credit for, deep inside he may not buy into this whole tale they're sure to tell him...or one day may not as he learns more on his own. I don't know but I sure wish him well. It's not going to be an easy for him.

So, killers don't make mistakes? The cut to Darlie's throat was very close to killing her, and with all the blood I am sure the killer COULD have thought what he did was enough to do so, especially if he was not a professional hit man. That is the reason the cut on her throat being so severe is important, in my mind. To inflict an injury this severe, with what the prosecution is calling hesitation cuts is very questionable due to the pain factor. It would take a while to do this with hesitation cuts. Also, another thing that COULD cause hesitation cuts is struggling with someone trying to cut you. If you are holding his/her arm while someone is trying to cut you. you would also see the results of this as appearing to be hesitation cuts.
My point is, the case looks a lot like from the very outset the police ONLY looked at Darlie and did NOT do an unbiased investigation. An investigation requires an OPEN mind. IMO what the police did was single Darlie from the outset, and then took the facts available to make a case against her and only her.
Also, a big problem with one word in the trial, that was not pointed out by the prosecution or defense counsel. was the word superficial, and the context in which it was used. Everyone seems to think the doctor meant NOT a serious wound by this word, when in fact that is NOT how the term was used. Whenever you say something is superficial to an organ means it is close to but not touching. A stab wound to the chest that is superficial to the pericardium is NOT a minor wound by ANY stretch of the case if it was only 2mm away. It would mean that you were pretty much .008 inches from being stabbed in the heart. Would you consider this a minor injury? That is how the case was presented to the jurrors.
This case reeks of a witch hunt,by using selected evidence, shabby police work, lack of police notes, poor court recording, loss of evidence maybe? (not sure if rape case was ever done. conflicting stories between hospital and police), defense counsel with a conflict of interest, Texas denying evidence to defense after trial that could lead to exeneration, etc. Alot of big questions unanswered, WHY?
If she is guilty a fair trial will most likely result in the same result, guilty. But, is she entitled to a fair trial? If not. then agree with the death sentence and be on with it. But, if you think her trial, based on the questionable accumulation of evidence may not have been just, would you agree that a new trial would only be right.
Guilty or not, the trial, IMO, and appears grossly unfair and negligent. The appeals that have been denied by the state of Texas, have all been unfair, as the US Supreme Court has ruled against Texas in the matter.
Texas is doing their best to keep Darlie from talking to the media, why? Do you think Texas wants to admit they made errors? Like one expert said, the hardest thing to admit is you made a mistake. Texas is doing exactly that, trying to avoid it.
All in all, I think the whole trial stunk on both sides of the court. It has even lead to the judges of Texas, by denying Darlie's right to review new evidence in her case. Thank God the Supreme Court is there to protect the citizens of Texas' right to a fair trial.

If a hired killer, killed Darin, he would end up on death row, if Darin was smart enough to let it be knownto him that he had the evidence locked in a safe deposit box. No hired killer would dare touch him.
Another thing about hiring a hit man is that such a person is usually NOT paid after the hit, but before.

My question to all of you who are so sure of her guilt is, why are you so against a new trial? If the evidence is so obvious as to prove her guilt once, I am sure it will again. But, if it can be PROVEN that much of the evidence was withheld by the police, or manipulated at the crime scene, etc. as to cast doubt, that she could be found innocent in a new trial, is that what scares you? Or is it, that Texas doesn't want to admit making an error?
If you cannot find any flaws in the first trial, I guess you could be looking at the case the same way the police were during the investigation, and that is there is only one verdict and it was decided 2 minutes after the first police officer arrived, not after an investigation.

I'd like to respond to your post in more detail, but I have to leave soon and will be offline for a week or better after this, so will just check in when I get back.

Darlie's neck wounds were called 'hesitation' wounds by a Doctor.. it wasn't just thrown out by the prosecution. I can't remember the Doctor's name, but if I remember right it was a very french name. Not only was it a hesitation wound, but the wound was also in the direction consistent with a self-inflicted wound, going down toward the arm. Why on earth would a new trial 'scare' me? I believe in and want justice. As I've stated before I am not against a new trial (I know she'll be convicted again)....but all it will do is buy her more time... then the appeals process will have to start all over and it will cost the tax-payers probably millions of dollars to keep having to rehash this in court and delay the carrying out of her sentencing by many years so it should not happen unless it's truly warranted. So far the courts haven't felt anything warrants a new trial. And I can't believe we're back to debating about the hit man 'ghost' that all evidence says does not exist! There was no intruder! Look at the evidence! Evidence does not lie or have any conspiracy.

For whatever it's worth, Luccesiscourt, I no longer believe you're any sort of scientist because your thinking is just too illogical. I'm starting to wonder if this is really Darlie Kee too. :rolleyes:

So, you think I am illogical because the evidence is questionable, and her rights were violated IMO. That is the biggest problem with the case. Of course if you only see the evidence that the prosecution is presenting you will bel;ive the prosecution. My question is why didn't the prosecution make ALL the evidence available to the defense that they had possession of? Fialure to do so is a violation of the individuals rights at any level. If someone is found guilty in a court of law, they shouls at least have a fair trial. Everyone does, even Darlie, so says OUR constitution. But, if you don't think she deserves a fair trial where all the evidence is presented, not just the evidence the prosecuttion wants to present, then that's your opinion.

mommy2sets
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.

Also, I never questioned the doctor about the hesitation wounds. I said trying to defend youself from someone cutting you, could also cause the same type of hesitation wounds. I didn't question the doctor's statement at all. As a matter of fact, I accpept his statement about the wound.

What is questionable about the evidence? That the scene in the kitchen was staged and that she cut her own neck above the kitchen sink?

Alsos for mommy2sets, here is a site where a professional, who was at the trial had to say about the trial and the evidence:

http://www.authorbarbaradavis.com/statement.php

I know she is an author, but she also said that Darlie was guilty, and stood by it until she saw ALL the evidence, not just the evidence presented in the courtroom. If you do not agree with a professional's opinion, how can you agree with the professionals who built the case against Darlie?
The FACT is that the prosecution withheld evidence, and the courts did not allow, until the federal government stepped in, for Darlie's defense to have access to this evidence.
The screen was cut from the outside, even though testimony said it was cut from the inside. Also, the prosection said there were no other fingerprints that could not be accounted for in the house. This was also proven to another lie. When the prosecution is telling lies in court about the case, how can you believe anything else they present. A new trial without lies from the prosecution is what is needed before a jury can make a REASONABLE verdict.
I guarantee you, if the prosecution is allowed to lie in court and their words are taken as true, then there would be NO innocent defendants.

All I want is the truth from both sides, and it is obvious the prosection did NOT present the truth otherwise statements like this would not have been made.

Barbara Davis is not a "professional". She's an author. Barbara Davis has had her own run-ins with the law and in fact after she wrote the book about Darlie there was a police altercation at her house where her son was shot during a drug raid. She was in the house too and later plead guilty to drug charges. Now I don't want to trash her too much , and I actually feel sorry for her about the loss of her son, but since you brought her up I think it's only fair to mention since I don't believe her opinion should be held up as a standard or anything to emulate. I don't know how she fell under the 'spell' of camp darlie, but there are lots of reasons it could have happened, including poor moral judgement, her own agenda with the police department, publicity, the pressure she may have felt of having exposed Darlie to the world in her book and living w/ that day to day under the glare of Darlie's neighboring family claiming Darlie is innocent, and more. If she is so sure she's innocent, why doesn't she write a new book giving us all the reasons why? I've seen her in interviews and she says nothing new in terms of evidence that we already didn't know about.

IT still comes down to the fact, that the prosecution kept information that should have been given to defense counsel away from them, and that Darlie's lawyer had a conflict of interest. Is this fair? A simple yes or no will do. No explanation needed one way or the other. if you think it was okay for prosecution to only use the information that its side wanted to use, then you are ready to go ahead with an execution. If you think keeping information like this from the defense counsel was wrong, why wouldn't you want a new trial for her?
As far as I think, not allowing defense counsel to all the data, and lying and breaking of laws by police, is enough to question the entire trial.
These are the only questions I have.

Well my plans changed and I'm able to post after all.

Luccesiscourt- have you ever heard the saying "you can't see the forest through the trees?" Something about this reminds me of the OJ trial, where innuendo about supposed shoddy police work and conspiracy theories all but detracted eveyone from the obvious. People were able to overlook what was right in from of their face because they were caught up thinking about relatively much less significant things. I mean even IF that were true that the screen was cut from the outside and not inside, who really cares if no one went through it? Fibers from that screen were found on a knife IN THE BUTCHER BLOCK in Darlie's kitchen! If Darlie planted the sock (with her cells found inside it) couldn't she also have cut the screen from the outside? Does it really change anything? If the police illegally videotaped her at the gravesite, does that really change anything? Even if her attorney agreed not to point the finger at Darin, does that make Darlie less guilty? And I don't know what specific information you're referring to that was witheld from the defense.

I found a story about Darlie online the other day. A lot of it was in very poor taste, so I won't link to it. But it did contain the following paragraph that, even besides all the evidence, you want us to believe....

"If Miss Routier didn't commit these murders, what a fortunate assailant there must be running around this desolate Texas neighborhood. He goes in and brutally murders two children. He slashes their mother's throat as they're struggling face to face. He drops the knife and she wipes off his prints. He runs away, but leaves Darlie alive - the one woman who could identify him, and send him to the gas chamber. Then, d'oh, she gets amnesia and can't remember what he looks like. This must be the luckiest g*d*** child killer in the universe."

Hi lucchesicourt, :wave:

I'm not going to argue the carotid artery thing. For one thing, I admittedly do not have enough knowledge to argue this point. For another, I want to say that there is no doubt in my mind that the injury COULD have been dangerous or even deadly. I heard Doug Mulder say that he did not think Darlie was "sophisticated enough" to think to plant a sock three doors down from her house in order to stage the crime scene. But she's sophisticated enough to know about her carotid artery? I just don't believe that. I really don't think that she even thought about her carotid artery. She just knew she had to make her injuries as bad as she could stand. And as far as the pain factor making it impossible for Darlies wounds to be self-inflicted, I think that you are very much underestimating the power of self-preservation.

Doug Mulder also says (This was DARLIES attorney) that those pictures of Darlies arms were absolutely admitted into evidence and that he doesn't understand how Samford could say he didn't see them. I have heard at least two other jurors state that they DID see them. Also, Darlie hurt herself terribly when she testified, against her attorneys advice. And she crumbled on DIRECT... She hurt herself all the way around. SHE is the one who called the media out for the silly string coverage and she is the one who killed herself on the stand, being caught in lies and then falling apart. She hurt herself badly.

As far as Darlie being looked at first as a suspect, this is common practice everywhere. As sickening as it is, the facts are that when children are murdered like this, it is usually at the hands of a family member or someone very close to the family... humans follow patterns. You couple that with the blood evidence and all the other pieces and there is no other way to turn. The family is investigated first. Common practice. If the family can be cleared then the investigation moves on. If the evidence points to a parent or other family member, what other avenue SHOULD they take?

James Cron is a seasoned investigator. He has been on hundreds and hundreds of crime scenes. He is highly educated in his field.

James G. Cron
FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION CONSULTANT

James Cron, a Forensic Identification Consultant, has 50 years experience in physical evidence, crime scene search, fingerprints, crime scene analysis and law enforcement instruction. He retired as a Lieutenant in the Dallas County, Texas Sheriff’s Department. He served 29 years (1964-1993). Cron worked 6 years (1958-1964) as a civilian for the Dallas, Texas Police Department in the crime scene section, records and jail office.

Jim is a Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst and a Certified Latent Print Examiner by the International Association for Identification. He has been involved in almost 10,000 criminal and civil cases, over 4000 death investigations, observed around 1000 autopsies and has testified in federal, state and county courts.

Jim has received specialized training in his expertise from numerous federal and state agencies, universities, law enforcement agencies and organizations in Texas, the USA and Toronto, Canada. He is a State of Texas Law Enforcement Instructor. Cron lectures and teaches nationally and locally at law enforcement academies, universities, private organizations, public schools and civic groups.

Jim has over 150 commendations, awards and various forms of recognition. He has appeared numerous times in magazines, newspapers, radio talk shows, true crime books and local, national and European TV programs. He is a technical adviser to authors, TV productions and movies. His material has been printed in technical journals and in training textbooks. He is a Life Member of the International Association of Identification and it’s Texas Division. On retiring he received the State of Texas Professional Achievement in Law Enforcement Award.

Barbara Davis is an expert? No... James Cron is an expert. In what capacity is she an expert? Barbara Davis is an author with an opinion. She is no crime scene investigator or expert or anything near.

There are red flags that cause an investigator to believe that a crime scene has been staged. Are you telling me that you believe that this man went on that crime scene with his mind made up that it was Darlie who comitted the murders??? He wasn't biased. He went to a crime scene and used his education and experience to read the evidence and the evidence pointed to Darlie. Speaking of that, again, please tell me why there is no blood on that screen, outside that house, or on that gate or fence? No blood outside except for the sock, which Darlie could have easily placed herself. (Don't forget that Darlies skin cells were found inside the sock.) I mean, who's to say that she couldn't have cut herself or that screen AFTER the sock was placed? It would make more sense to get as much done as possible BEFORE she actually cut herself ... self-preservation Also, investigators were on the scene in well within 20 minutes and the motion detector light in the backyard was not on. They discovered the light while walking through the backyard and then timed it. They discovered that the light, once tripped, stayed on for 20 minute intervals. Yet the light was not on when they got there. So it had to have been at least 20 minutes since anyone had been through that backyard.

Also, as for payments to hired killers... (as we would only know from movies and/or television. I'm going to ASSUME that none of us here have actually hired a killer) They get some money up front and the rest of the money after the job is done. Since, when it comes down to it, both the payER and the payEE are criminals, there is no trust there. Part of the money up front, so the killer will start the job. The rest after, so he will finish it.

Truthfully, Darlie has told so many lies and changed her story so many times that I don't know how YOU can believe HER. Constant inconsistancies. If ever you think two people are lying but they both claim to be telling the truth, look at the person who has the most to lose. That would be Darlie. I maintain that the states story has never waivered and Darlies story has. No less than 16 times.


And for the record, again, I have NO PROBLEM with Darlie getting a new trial. We are talking about someone on death row here. I believe that anyone in her place or anyone just incarcerated should have every single opportunity to prove their innocence. If there is NEW evidence, she should absolutely get a new trial. If there is DNA testing that is available today that was not available in 1996 that would benefit her case, the tests should absolutely be done along with a new trial. AND... I AM NOT a death penalty advocate. If it were up to me, she would serve life in prison. I personally would love to know that Darlie DIDN'T do this. I believed her in the beginning and have vehemetly defended her in the past. I don't have a problem admitting I am wrong or changing my opinion... IF I see something that makes me feel differently.... IF there is new evidence. But I haven't seen one thing YET that is any different from anything we've all seen before.

Barbara Davis changing her mind doesn't impress me in the least. She's had considerable trouble with the law herself. And just because she saw something that changed HER mind, which I guess was the pictures with the bruised arms, doesn't mean mine will change. I have argued in Darlies defense many, many times. (how could a mother do this?) I was following my heart. After reading the transcripts and looking at the blood and other evidence objectivly, I believe that she is guilty.

And I am not trying to change your opinion, just stating mine.

Have a good night :wave:
Pam

Is this fair? A simple yes or no will do. No explanation needed one way or the other.


Yes

Well said Pam. It's almost as if some people will not be happy unless she's released on a technicality. :confused:

I am not arguing about Jim Chron being an expert or not. I am saying everyone is entitled to a fair trial, except those that think it is okay for the prosecution to use the evidence that substantiates their case, like someone on this site thinks is okay.
The prosecution took over 1,000 photos, but only gave the defense council400. They should have given them all of them, not just the 400 selected by the prosecution. Even in the 400 taken by the prosecution have items moved at the crime scene, but I guess this is okay. Thre was also another print from someone unknown at the crime scene, the prosecution says there were no other prints-this is either a blatant lie by either the defense or prosecution. I don't knopw who. Prosecution says no rape test was done. Hospital says one was done. Either a lie or error by the hospital or prosecution (I don't know who).Detectives notes are in his head. A very questionable place to keep them. Errors by the court reporter. Pubic hair found in the living room, whose is it?, who was the man in the black shirt in the front yard that the cop said was Darin. Why were items at the scene bagged together allowing for cross contamination-a very blatant blunder by police. Texas court denyong Darlie's defense council access to evidence.
These are all questions I have about whether or not she got a fair trial.
You people are only focusing on the fact about whether Darlie ia innocent or guilty. I am focussing on the fact, that she did not get a fair trial the first time.The reason, IMO, that Texas does not want a retrial is, that the police and Texas will coming out looking like vultures. If she is found guilty in a fair trial, I will have no problem with the sentence. But, one question about procedures that are illegal are enough for a retrial.
Also, in case you don't think police officers and their experts don't make mistakes or lie under oath to get a conviction you are way wrong. By winning is how they advance their careers. I was on a jury and what the police officers testified to happened, was totally IMPOSSIBLE to have occurred.Their testimony went against a basic law of physics "a body in motion stays in motion until acted on by some other force great enough to stop the motion.", as presented by a Cal physicist. Who was the expert here, the police or the physicist?

Luccesiscourt, You have to consider the source of where you're getting your information from. Camp Darlie, known liars and the biggest twisters of truth you've ever seen. Listen up - Darlie's own attorney said all the photos were presented to the jury. Her own attorney. Now I have seen countless interviews w/ Darlie and Darlie's family....Darlie loves to keep repeating with indignation how could she have cut her throat w/in 2 mm of her carotid artery and how she almost died. The family loves saying that over and over too. Now the FACT is, it wasn't 2mm from her carotid artery, it was 2mm from the cartoid sheath and SUPERFICIAL to the carotid artery. Big big difference, but they take that little oversight most people wouldn't catch (and believe me, they KNOW what they are saying is wrong), yet they keep repeating it just trying to manipulate people. Just like lots of this so-called other evidence and information that is just simply not true. Pam said she's heard 2 jurors sway they saw all the pictures. I've heard one. And Darlie's attorney said they saw them all. Now who do we believe? I guess your common sense, or lack of it, tell you we should believe the liars. And the fingerprint has been tested and retested now, and guess what? Darlie's ring finger can not be ruled out as the person who left that fingerprint. Yes, that's true. But you won't hear this from Darlie's camp because they want to keep putting out all the wrong information hoping that something will get her out on a technicality. It's called throwing out 'red herrings', and you're buying into every one of them.


There's no conspiracy to get poor little innocent Darlie Routier. The police department, DA's office, detectives, news media, Doctors, nurses, were not all evil people trying to pin a horrific crime on an innocent person. She did it Luccesiscourt. All the evidence is there. Doesn't that matter to you? It doesn't sound like it from the things you keep saying. I'm much more concerned about a child killer getting off on a technicality and being back out on our streets, than concerned about a murderer's rights being violated. What about the rights of those little boys, who were the true innocent victims here? They deserve justice. Think about that more, and these stupid points you keep making that don't make a hill of beans difference as to her guilt or innocence. I don't think you're a bleeding-heart because you defend Darlie, I don't see it as compassionate at all. I think it's twisted and cruel that you're not concerned about justice for those little innocent boys who were slaughtered in their sleep. There needs to be some accountability, for them.

Number 1, 2mm within the carotid sheath could easily be less than a 1/4 inch away from the carotid, so that is NOT a big big difference as you call it. I am just saying the prosecution was intent on misleading the jurors from the very start. Afterall, other words that common people would be more familiar with would be to say the cut was within .01 inches of the carotid sheath.
Number 2, Sirhan Sirhan was caught on film shooting Robert F. Kennedy, I guess we should have just skipped his trial and executed him, afterall we ALL knew he was guilty. But, he still got a fair trial.
I am sorry but people make errors all the time, whether intentional or accidental. Let me ask you, where were you 1 month ago today? I bet you don't remember. Yet, the detective remembers everything about what Darlie said to the word. If he did not repeat it word for word, then I am sure there are errors, because you cannot say that that is what she said. What he said she said, would be inaccurate.
Fact, defense counsel received 400 photographs, and over 1000 were taken. Where are the other 600+. Either they did not take over 1000 photos and they only took 400, then we have another problem.
If the trial was so fair, why did the US Supreme Court overule Texas' appelate court ruling? Very simple, there are things that were NOT fairly investigated according to the US Supreme Court. I know they are just a bunch of old men who don't know the law, and they should not have overruled the Texas appelate court, who obviously know more fair than the Supreme Court.
As for a new trial, you keep saying how expensive it is. Do you know an execution costs more than a trial and incarceration? Probably not.
Bottom line is the way the investigation and trial was run there are too many questions remaining to put someone to death.
How would you feel if she was executed and information came to light that you were wrong. Oh, either that would be impossible that you were wrong or it wouldn't bother you. Me, I would much rather err on the side of being cautious and have a retrial, than be on the side of being wrong and having executed someone. But it must be more obvious to you guys she is guilty regardless of the detectives and prosecution interests. It seems you do not realize that the police think everyone is guilty, and never innocent. This is how they are trained. Example, a police officer stops you, and before he approaches he puts his hand on his revolver, ready to act. He assumes from the start you are a deadly criminal. That is how they are trained. I am not saying they should be trained any other way for their own protection, but you need to remember that their opinion was, and said by the first officer on the scene 2 minutes after arriving, that she was the murder. The investigation then took that exact mold. They never kept the man in the dark shirt who he said was Darin at the scene for questioning. Why?
I have a few questions about the case and it is obvious the US Supreme court does too.
Also, the police investigators do have interests in getting convictions, whether innocent or not. That is how they get their promotions. The better their conviction rate, the better chance for promotions. The policelie all the time about things. Ever hear the police say they do not have a ticket quota, a lie, they do. That is how they fund salaries, supplies, court trials, etc. It all goes into the county coffers.

Also, as far as Barbara Davis goes, she was involved in working in the legal system with the prosecutors office way before she was an author. She is much more familiar with how the prosecution works than either you or I. That is another FACT, not my opinion. Read her biography, and you will see she is much more than an author.

Another point about police officers. Are you familiar with the NYPD officers who shot a man leaving a bachelor party, unarmed and then being shot over 50 times? The police officers were found not guilty by a judge? I am sure, if they had a jury trial, the officers would have been found guilty. Oh wait, the judge never would take the side of a police officer over an honest citizen, would he? You're right. He would believe the police officer EVERY time. Come on anytime you shoot someone that many times, and they are unarmed, proves intent to kill, not self defense. But, I guess you would argue that point too. Because police never do anything illegal or lie. Police are just regular people who see the worse society has to offer, and they react to that theory that there are no good people unless they are police officers.

I was on a jury and what the police officers testified to happened, was totally IMPOSSIBLE to have occurred.?

I'm suprised you didn't believe the story then...

OK... there it is. My first dig. I really didn't want to do it. :rolleyes: I'd rather argue about the point at hand, but there it is. I apologize, lucchesicourt. I just had to say it. ;)

Pam :wave:

Number 1, 2mm within the carotid sheath could easily be less than a 1/4 inch away from the carotid, so that is NOT a big big difference as you call it. I am just saying the prosecution was intent on misleading the jurors from the very start. Afterall, other words that common people would be more familiar with would be to say the cut was within .01 inches of the carotid sheath.
Number 2, Sirhan Sirhan was caught on film shooting Robert F. Kennedy, I guess we should have just skipped his trial and executed him, afterall we ALL knew he was guilty. But, he still got a fair trial.
I am sorry but people make errors all the time, whether intentional or accidental. Let me ask you, where were you 1 month ago today? I bet you don't remember. Yet, the detective remembers everything about what Darlie said to the word. If he did not repeat it word for word, then I am sure there are errors, because you cannot say that that is what she said. What he said she said, would be inaccurate.
Fact, defense counsel received 400 photographs, and over 1000 were taken. Where are the other 600+. Either they did not take over 1000 photos and they only took 400, then we have another problem.
If the trial was so fair, why did the US Supreme Court overule Texas' appelate court ruling? Very simple, there are things that were NOT fairly investigated according to the US Supreme Court. I know they are just a bunch of old men who don't know the law, and they should not have overruled the Texas appelate court, who obviously know more fair than the Supreme Court.
As for a new trial, you keep saying how expensive it is. Do you know an execution costs more than a trial and incarceration? Probably not.
Bottom line is the way the investigation and trial was run there are too many questions remaining to put someone to death.
How would you feel if she was executed and information came to light that you were wrong. Oh, either that would be impossible that you were wrong or it wouldn't bother you. Me, I would much rather err on the side of being cautious and have a retrial, than be on the side of being wrong and having executed someone. But it must be more obvious to you guys she is guilty regardless of the detectives and prosecution interests. It seems you do not realize that the police think everyone is guilty, and never innocent. This is how they are trained. Example, a police officer stops you, and before he approaches he puts his hand on his revolver, ready to act. He assumes from the start you are a deadly criminal. That is how they are trained. I am not saying they should be trained any other way for their own protection, but you need to remember that their opinion was, and said by the first officer on the scene 2 minutes after arriving, that she was the murder. The investigation then took that exact mold. They never kept the man in the dark shirt who he said was Darin at the scene for questioning. Why?
I have a few questions about the case and it is obvious the US Supreme court does too.
Also, the police investigators do have interests in getting convictions, whether innocent or not. That is how they get their promotions. The better their conviction rate, the better chance for promotions. The policelie all the time about things. Ever hear the police say they do not have a ticket quota, a lie, they do. That is how they fund salaries, supplies, court trials, etc. It all goes into the county coffers.


I am not up todate on this case. Could you share some info on the US Supreme Court over ruling the Texas Appellate Court? Does this ruling allow the defense to review and/or test old and new evidence.

Is there a site that has the latest updates and Court decisions?

Yes Lucchesiscourt, Do provide the links or info. where the Supreme court over-ruled apellate court decision. The only thing I know about is the stay.

Logical- for updates you can go check www.justicefordarlie.net or www.fordarlieroutier.org

Also, as far as Barbara Davis goes, she was involved in working in the legal system with the prosecutors office way before she was an author. She is much more familiar with how the prosecution works than either you or I. That is another FACT, not my opinion. Read her biography, and you will see she is much more than an author.

Another point about police officers. Are you familiar with the NYPD officers who shot a man leaving a bachelor party, unarmed and then being shot over 50 times? The police officers were found not guilty by a judge? I am sure, if they had a jury trial, the officers would have been found guilty. Oh wait, the judge never would take the side of a police officer over an honest citizen, would he? You're right. He would believe the police officer EVERY time. Come on anytime you shoot someone that many times, and they are unarmed, proves intent to kill, not self defense. But, I guess you would argue that point too. Because police never do anything illegal or lie. Police are just regular people who see the worse society has to offer, and they react to that theory that there are no good people unless they are police officers.

I know full well that terrible things happen in law inforcement just as they to with regular people. That is why you have to learn to discern what people tell you, no matter who they are. I NEVER believed Susan Smith from the outset because she did not seem to be believable. I told my husband, "she killed those kids..." And I now feel the same way about Darlie. When I believed in Darlie, it was because of the 911 call. That was really all the first hand information I had in the very beginning and she sounded believable. But as time went on and I started seeing more and more interviews and hearing more and more of the evidence, I started having some serious doubts. Then I was prompted by a friend also following the case to read the transcripts and really look into the blood evidence as much as I could. That leads me back to who is most believable when they tell their story in this case. Darlie comes off as very unbelievable and very phony to me. We weren't there. We don't know exactly what happened. So it is on testimony and evidence that we have to depend. Do you believe that Greg Davis really thinks that Darlie is innocent but just wants to kill somebody for those murders and she'll do? NO. He BELIEVES that Darlie is guilty. The evidence points right to her. No offense but this is why I made the little crack I made earlier that I apologized for. Your line of thinking doesn't seem very logical. Not because you believe Darlie, but your reasonings in the things that happened just seem off. I'm just saying, with 5 years of advanced science under your belt, I would think that your explanations would be a little more logical.

OK. Sorry, no hard feelings. Just saying what I think.

Have a great night, :wave:
Pam

So, you think that the DA has the right to only submit evidence to the defense counsel they choose to? That police officers do not make errors from their memory? That improper collection of evidence is okay to overlook? To testify to things as fact, that are later to be possibly proved false?To say there are no prints found in the Routier house that are not accounted for, but is later to be proved false?, and have two sides each say things different about the prints. Who is right? I am not sure, are you? Therein lies the problem. It does not matter whether we think she killed them or not, it has to do with procedural errors by the prosecution.As a scientist, one is suppose to collect all the experimental evidence, do controls to make sure conclusions can be reasonably reached, use aseptic techniques to prevent contaminationof specimens, etc Things I see was not done by the investigators.

Let's assume the prosecution gave the defense counsel all the evidence, the police had tapes or written notes from Darlie's interviews, that there was no question as to the proper collection of evidence, then I would say she received a fair trial. But, none of these occurred. That is a fact and not opinion. It is easy to take things out of context and put a twist on things.So, in darlie's interview there may have been things that were said that the detective didn't think was important at the time, and maybe later was, but he had forgotten some of what was said. It is just too common a practice to tape interviews, and they didn't do it . Doesn't that bother you?

The basic fact is police are not immune from making mistakes when procedures ar not followed. That is why they have written procedures. In this case procedures were not followed.
As for that silly string tape, it should not have been used as evidence against Darlie, IMO. Because, #1) Darlie didn't make the atrrangements for this silliy string idea #2) the tape was taken out of context- in that- the time previous to this tape was never presented in court, that showed her crying at the gravesite. From what I understand there were other children present at the gravesite when the silly string tape was shot, and Darlie's explanation was she didn't want the children to experience a somber mood, so she acted cheerful. Now, this could be a lie, I am not saying it's true by any stretch of the imagination. But, if Darlie was crying at the gravesite before the silly string tape, and that was not shown in court, then that was taking something "Out of context".

The prosecutions whole argument lies in the fact that there is no forensic evidence that anyone else was in the house that night, but the family. Now, if they test the bloody print and find DNA of someone unknown (who cannot be accounted for by the police), would that cast more doubt to the story about who was there that night? Is there DNA in the sock that may match that in the bloody print? Would that further help her story? These are questions I have, that originally the appellate court denied that further testing was necessary.
They were overruled and are now required to test for the presence of DNA in both. Now, if this DNA doesn't aid her case then maybe there is not much more to do, but this needs to be answered before you can perform an execution, IMO. Being my major was genetics and am very familiar with genetic markers, if DNA is present, and it is from an unknown individual, it would mean that someone else was there,and they just happened to leave no other forensic evidence?
Until this testing is complete, I cannot defend her execution. Failing to provide the results of such a test, that could conclusively prove another was present, would be a criminal offense leading to a state murder. Why would the appellate court deny this testing? I really have no idea. But, they are now forced to proceed with this testing. And if the results don't substantiate her story then i will concede several points to you. But, until this question is answered unequivically, I cannot support a death sentence. Especially considering, that much evidence wasn't released to defense counsel, her lawyer being inadequate, detectives failure to take notes, errors in the court transcripts, etc.Just too many mistakes throughout the whole procedure.

From what I understand there were other children present at the gravesite when the silly string tape was shot, and Darlie's explanation was she didn't want the children to experience a somber mood, so she acted cheerful. Now, this could be a lie, I am not saying it's true by any stretch of the imagination. But, if Darlie was crying at the gravesite before the silly string tape, and that was not shown in court, then that was taking something "Out of context".

Good morning lucchesicourt :wave:

Have you watched the silly string tape? I didn't see any other children there except for Drake. And her explanation for dancing on her childrens graves is a load of garbage. Go to www.justicefordarlie.net and click on MEDIA on the left of the page. Then click on the shows listed on the right of the next page(20/20 downtown, 48 hours,etc) HER OWN ATTORNEY, not a public defender, HER ATTORNEY says that those pictures that you find so redeeming for Darlie were absolutely admitted into evidence. Other jurors say they saw the pictures.

Also, if you watch, you will see that that same attorney, Doug Mulder, NEVER ASKED FOR THE TAPE FROM POLICE TO BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. He chose to argue the legality of the tape instead.

The evidence was damning, her attitude was damning, her testimony was damning. I can tell you right now that if I was wrongfully charged with killing my child/children that they could not break me down on the stand. And on that stand she was her own worst enemy. Nothing about her trial bothers me and I believe she is guilty. Absolutely no doubt in my mind, guilty. The ONLY thing that would change my opinion would be new evidence that is REALLY new. I am very sorry that the death penalty applies, but she should have thought of that before she killed her children.

And out of curiosity... I know that you feel Darlie received an unfair trial. Do you believe her to be innocent? Or do you not have an opinion one way or the other? As I said, just curious.

Have a good day, :wave:
Pam

I am actually in the middle of the road as far as innocent or guilty. I would like to see the DNA evidence investigated more thoroughly ( not in just Darlie's case, but others across the nation), as science has made tremendous strides since the 1990's If there is a trace of DNA in the bloody print in question and any in the sock, then we will know one way or the other if another person was involved. Even if it does show another person involved, would not prove innocense or guilt, but it would increase the level of doubt. It is the level of doubt that bothers me about the death penalty. Once the penalty is exercised there is no way to remedy a possible mistake. Until those tests are done it is all circumstantial, though I agree with everyone here that the evidence points to guilty. Sure. if all the evidence is right, why did the prosecution try to make light of Darlie's serious injury? if an injury, self inflicted or not, is serious, it IS serious, and not superficial. I think if the prosecution had said something like, the serious wound to Darlie's neck was self inflicted, would have been easier for me to accept, than saying it was a superficial wound which shows intent to confuse the jury. That is what is wrong. The jury should be able to understand exactly what is being said and meant by the spoken words in court. I guess that's why we all need laweyers to interpret what contracts actually say and mean. Lawyers and speak legalese, and science can be just as guilty by making things seem more complicated than they really are.

A stay of execution is given for just about any reason at all. All it allowed was for more testing to be done, and I think if I remember right it even stated it didn't agree w/ other parts of her petition. It only allows for additional testing. I personally look forward to getting the DNA testing and say get it over with already. I'm curious to see what Luccesiscourt will say then in her defense when all the DNA points straight to Darlie.

Lucchesiscourt, are you really not aware that Darlie's ring finger could not be ruled out from the whorl pattern on the 'unidentified' bloody print? Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Guess you're not hearing a few things here, or choose to believe erroneous information, but Darlie's own attorney stated evidence wasn't withheld. That's just stuff put out by camp darlie.

I'd be curious to know how far the cartoid sheath is from the surface of the skin on the neck. I'm tellin ya... from the diagram I saw the surface of the skin looked like it wasn't probably much more than 1/4 inch from this thing even without a cut. Certain parts it looked like it actually ran almost right beneath the skin. If anyone knows this info. (besides lucchesiscourt who too often has added his own take on facts), I'd really appreciate if you would post it!

Here's another case that I am all too familiar with, my best friend's mom was murdered at home in a robbery. Several years after the murder, the police caught a break in the case, when they found a former felon in possession of the gun that was used to kill her. Now, I am not a legal genius or nothing, but as I understand the law, a felon in possession of a firearm like this, is supposed to be arrested and read his Miranda rights. Well, what did the plice do. They asked where he got the weapon, he told them and they arrested the two responsible. Because the police failed to read him his Miranda rights, what he said about where he got the gun was inadmissible in court. Because of the failure of the police to follow procedure there was a danger they would get off. They then read him his Miranda rights, and then asked the ex-felon to repeat where he got the gun. He refused. The net result is two murderers got away with murder. So, I really do not care whether someone is a cop or not, the fact is everyone makes mistakes, myself included.
In case you are wondering the ladies name was Evelyn Fischer, killed in Vallejo, CA in 1979. The address was 1746 Mini Drive. Just because some people doubt whether I am telling the truth about things, like mommy2sets.

Info that might help you guys understand alittle of what I have been through in mylife with killings. I first got interested in crime during 1969 when my sister's friend was murdered buy the Zodiac, on July 4th, on Lake Herman Road on the outskirts of Vallejo, along with a girlfriend. Since then, I have followed this case closely. They do have some of his DNA (the Zodiac), but no matches yet. Then when my friend's mom was murdered, I really wanted to find the killers. I was home that morning, and only lived about 5-6 houses away, but heard nothing. Somehow, I felt responsible because I was usually out and around in the AM. But, this AM I was getting ready for a job interview, which I missed.
After seeing police errors, police not communicating with other departments because every department wants the credit for solving the crime rather than share in the glory, I became somewhat upset with how the police really work.
They are not as infallible or thorough as most people seem to think. Police are human and have the same faults as all others.
I did find out, that if you follow laws and procedures it is much easier to get convictions, but often times it is police errors that allow murderers to get away. In particular, this is true in the case of the Zodiac killer. The SF police officer questioned the Zodiac the night he killed the cabby. And because the officers were looking for a black man ( a big mistake, by 2 officers), their ovesight allowed the Zodiac to get away. Now, should the person that the police officer questioned have had blood all over him? According to the experts, yes. But, if he did, why didn't the cop stop him? Maybe, he didn't because of the expert planning, but wasn't it enough to question anyone in the area much further than they did?

I am actually in the middle of the road as far as innocent or guilty. I would like to see the DNA evidence investigated more thoroughly ( not in just Darlie's case, but others across the nation), as science has made tremendous strides since the 1990's If there is a trace of DNA in the bloody print in question and any in the sock, then we will know one way or the other if another person was involved.

Absolutely. If there is new DNA testing that was not available at the time of the trial, it should be done.

The death penalty bothers me as well and for the same reasons as you. I've said it many times. If it were up to me, she would serve life in prison and let God give out any further punishment, because only He and darlie know EXACTLY what happened that night.

As far as the superficiality of her wound... I am no expert. All I can tell you is that my VERY FIRST THOUGHT of that wound is what struck the very first cord of doubt in me. As I said, I BELIEVED darlie at first. But that was my first shread of doubt. Straight up - it looked like she did it herself. That was my first thought. You take your finger or a pen or a knife... start on your neck where she started on hers and watch what natural path it takes. If you are right handed, use your left hand. Left handed, use your right. Actually, you can even use your correct hand AND WATCH, FEEL the natural path your hand will take. IMO, it's exact. And of course, the fact that she was "attacked" so differently than the children and the blood evidence, or the lack thereof. I can't get around it.

Like I said on another board, I hate that the death penalty is involved. But she killed her kids in Texas and now she has to play by their rules. Admittedly a tough row to hoe... but she should have thought about that before she killed those kids.

Have a great day, :wave:
Pam

snipped for space

Lucchesiscourt, are you really not aware that Darlie's ring finger could not be ruled out from the whorl pattern on the 'unidentified' bloody print? Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Guess you're not hearing a few things here, or choose to believe erroneous information, but Darlie's own attorney stated evidence wasn't withheld. That's just stuff put out by camp darlie.

I'd be curious to know how far the cartoid sheath is from the surface of the skin on the neck. I'm tellin ya... from the diagram I saw the surface of the skin looked like it wasn't probably much more than 1/4 inch from this thing even without a cut. Certain parts it looked like it actually ran almost right beneath the skin. If anyone knows this info. (besides lucchesiscourt who too often has added his own take on facts), I'd really appreciate if you would post it![/QUOTE]


I just read that forensic experts had detemined the fingerprint found in blood on the table was not that of Darlie, Darin or any emergency or LE that had been in the room. Also I read the print was of an adult and not a child.

I believe the point of discussion here is not just an acceptance of what was presented or inferred in the trial. It appears to me there many pieces of evidence presented were misleading to the jury and many pieces of evidence was withheld from the defense and jury.

Full disclosure of any and all evidence and testing of any and all evidence that is in question should be the right the accused. Anything less is is an afront to the Constitution and is amoral personally, legally or any way you look at it.

This woman sits on death row with a conviction based on conjecture, speculation, and a whipped up hateful emotional response to the prosecutions
character descriptions. Much of the personal info should never have been allowed in the trial. What does a boob job or hair dye or wearing a lot of jewelry have to do guilt or innocence. It certainly was prejudicial and I believe played a big part in conviction.

I don't know anyone, male or female, toughie or wusses that could take a knife, cut their own throat, slash themselves multi-times and beat themselves into a bruised mess. Do any of you there think you could cut your own throat and stab yourself a few times.

A look pics at the condition of Darlie cuts, stashs and bruises was convincing to me that someone tried to kill her.

I really don't care whether a fingerprint expert can rule out whether or not the print is Darlie's. The more correct way to decide this is, if there is no DNA from another person present in the bloody print then it is most likley Darlie's print,and no one else's. DNA is more accurate than a so called experts opinion. An expet's opinion is also called an educated GUESS. You see one uses a guess based on what he has learned and seen in the past, the other (DNA) answers the question pretty much with far less doubt.

Now, take a look at the cross section of the diagram, I put a link to this a while ago, and you will see that in the carotid sheath is the common carotid artery- the external carotid artery is not in the sheath, it is as you say very close to the surface of the neck. Yes, maybe even a quarter of an inch or less. But, the common carotid is much farther under the skin and closer to the esophagus than the external part of the body. All you have to do is look at the cross section and see that the common carotid is
pretty closer to the center of the neck. I guess you want to call it a superficial injury, as you are entitled to your own opinion. But, I am just statng scientific FACTS, no spin, just the facts lady.
If you do not understand a cross section, I'll explain. If you were to take a knife and slice through your neck from front to back and them you looked down into the neck from above, you would see the carotid sheath is located just in front of the esophagus and not even close to 1/4" of the surface.
Here is the site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carotid_sheath.PNG
As you can see the external Jugular is just below the surface, that is not the case with the carotid, you need to go MUCH deeper to reach it.
Oh, and I did not make the sketch. Maybe the picture the prosecution is painting is better to your liking as his picture claims it is just below the surface by calling it superficial.
Also, there is an external carotid artery, BUT it is NOT located in the carotid sheath. Oh, maybe the doctor made a mistake that the cut wasn't within 2mm of the carotid sheath, but within 2mm of the external carotid artery. I know people make mistakes. That's probably what the doctor meant, he just made a mistake, he meant the external carotid and not the carotid sheath, right? That again would help the prosecution's case.

The reason I never discussed the bruises is the prosecution could argue that they were done (staged) shortly before any real activity occurred. There would be no way to prove they weren't. I really doubt someone could inflict these bruises themselves, but again that is not fact, only my opinion. I am trying to rely on factual evidence rather than circumstantial, and believing she is guiltybecause I want her to be. I'll stick to facts alone, and base my judgement on that.
As you say the prosecution tore into Darlie for things other than the crime, which should have been impermissable. Now, in all this did the prosecution ever try to prove she was a compulsive liar, or just a lady who liked money and fake boobs. I think proving her a liar would have helped the prosecutions case much more than proving she had boobs and liked money.
It is amazing how many times I have heard something couldn't be done, but was. That in lies the whole problem with the prosecutions case. Could someone have gone out the wwindow screen without leaving a blood trace. Yes, but not likely- so it requires no fact only opinion. The prosecutions whole case is on opinion and not fact. Now, a bunch of circumstanial evidence could be used to get a guilty verdict, but intentionally misleading a jury to get such a verdict is WRONG!!! Just like some people who believe the carotid sheath is near the surface of the skin, because that is what they want to believe!!! Why? Because it helps get a conviction. Myself, I'f like to find the REAL killer even if it is Darlie. But, there are absolutely no facts presented by the prosecution, only opinions, memories, and theories.

what Doctor stated it was the common cartoroid and not the external cartoroid? None, that I'm aware of.

Logical- they've since retested that print and experts say Darlie could not be ruled out as the person who left the print due to the whorl pattern, which apparently is a distinguishing characteristic -though I don't know much more about it than that. Sounds like you should read the transcripts Logical. They're all at the justicefordarlie site that I linked to before.

Now, in all this did the prosecution ever try to prove she was a compulsive liar, or just a lady who liked money and fake boobs. I think proving her a liar would have helped the prosecutions case much more than proving she had boobs and liked money.



All of the above.

And she did more than enough all on her own to prove what a liar she was. She didn't need an attorney from EITHER side to prove that.

Pam :wave:

Myself, I'f like to find the REAL killer even if it is Darlie.

Already found her.

:wave:

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?

Lucchesiscourt, every single thing you say is so hypocritical and just plain backasswards to me I really can hardly respond to it. You state on one post you hated it how someone got off on a tecnicality, yet you 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?


heheheahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahaha! :lol:

:wave:

Oh and here's another thing that bothers me. Look at the evidence photo number 1 on Darlie's home site ,where she is lying in bed after surgery. It appears that the knife wound from the neck continues at the same angle into her left shoulder. Now, if that angle cut to the shoulder is the same as the angular cut to the neck it would most likely (circumstantial) mean that it was part of the same slice. First cutting through the neck and then into the shoulder. If that is the case, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do that without cutting your neck first, stopping ,switch hands, and continue the cut into the shoulder and keep the same angle. Again conjecture, but IMO improbable.

Oh and here's another thing that bothers me. Look at the evidence photo number 1 on Darlie's home site ,where she is lying in bed after surgery. It appears that the knife wound from the neck continues at the same angle into her left shoulder. Now, if that angle cut to the shoulder is the same as the angular cut to the neck it would most likely (circumstantial) mean that it was part of the same slice. First cutting through the neck and then into the shoulder. If that is the case, it is IMPOSSIBLE to do that without cutting your neck first, stopping ,switch hands, and continue the cut into the shoulder and keep the same angle. Again conjecture, but IMO improbable.


...except the"cut" to the shoulder is described as a STAB wound.

:wave:

I am not taking Darlie's side. I am saying EVERYONE deserves a fair trial. Guilty ot NOT. IMO Darlie did not get a fair trial. If you changed the trial, I would do the same for another. What I was trying to point out in the other murder cases I discussed was that police make ERRORS too. It happens. I am not being hypocritical. I am saying the guys who killed my friend's mom got off on a technicality, because of police errors. I do think that they did get a fair trial, but there was not enough evidence to convict them based on the evidence allowed in court. I agree, as I was there, and there just wasn't anyway to place the gun in their hands. So, they did get a fair trial and got off. I accept that.

heheheahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahaha! :lol:

:wave:

hehehehe

notice he didn't answer! :lol:

Hi Pam! :wave:

The external carotid is NOT, I repeat NOT, in the carotid sheath. Only the COMMON or INTERNAL Carotid is in the sheath.

hehehehe

notice he didn't answer! :lol:

Hi Pam! :wave:

I noticed... :lol:

HI mommy2sets!!!

The fact thay it was described as a stab wound, could still be the result of slicing through a neck, and if someone is defending themselves the shoulder would be turned up, (and not laying flat allowing someone to cut you without resistance) that could result in a wound that MAY appear as a stab wound. Like I said, IMO (circumstantial) not fact.
I am not going to reply to things that are only meant to antagonize. I am only taking the devils advocate, and none of you have given ANY hard evidence to refute the circumstantial evidence I am discussing.
The fact as I see you guys is,you have decided she is guilty , have a closed mind, will not change how you feel even if the DNA evidence comes back proving someone other than Darlie was in the house and in the alley .She really doesn't deserve the opportunity to find this out, right?

The external carotid is NOT, I repeat NOT, in the carotid sheath. Only the COMMON or INTERNAL Carotid is in the sheath.

Here we go with the carotid artery again... I am not denying that her injury COULD have been fatal. I just DO NOT believe that that was what Darlie had running through her mind.

Again, Doug Mulder claimed the poor girl wasn't even sophisticsted enough to think to plant the sock, but the carotid artery she knows???
Nope, don't buy it.

Pam :wave:

The fact thay it was described as a stab wound, could still be the result of slicing through a neck, and if someone is defending themselves the shoulder would be turned up, (and not laying flat allowing someone to cut you without resistance) that could result in a wound that MAY appear as a stab wound. Like I said, IMO (circumstantial) not fact.
I am not going to reply to things that are only meant to antagonize. I am only taking the devils advocate, and none of you have given ANY hard evidence to refute the circumstantial evidence I am discussing.
The fact as I see you guys is,you have decided she is guilty , have a closed mind, will not change how you feel even if the DNA evidence comes back proving someone other than Darlie was in the house and in the alley .She really doesn't deserve the opportunity to find this out, right?

A stab wound is a STAB wound. A cut is a cut, a slice, a slice. Thats why they have different names, so that we know what is what.

:wave:

The fact as I see you guys is,you have decided she is guilty , have a closed mind, will not change how you feel even if the DNA evidence comes back proving someone other than Darlie was in the house and in the alley .She really doesn't deserve the opportunity to find this out, right?

And you have decided she's innocent. Thats your opinion and you are intitled to it, just as I am mine. Closed-minded, I am not. I'm wondering if you are reading all of the post that you respond to. I have said a thousand times that I started out believing Darlie. I fought on her side just as strongly as you. But I know what I see. Yes, I think she's guilty and I do not believe that she will get a new trial. I think I can speak for mommy2sets as well as myself when I say that at least we are not afraid to say what we really believe.

And by the way NOBODY here would want to see an innocent person executed!!!!!!! IF THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE, BRING IT! She's had YEARS to bring this OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. WHERE IS IT? And if DNA came back and exhonorated her, do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that ANY of the people you have spoken to on this board would still want her executed if she were PROVEN innocent???? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Your are implying that we are all a bunch of closed-minded, ignorant people because we don't believe the same thing you do. Not true.



Pam :wave:

WRONG!!!! She hasn't had years to bring this evidence to light. First. The Appelate court denied her access to have new DNA tests done on the pubic hair, the bloody print in question, and the sock found in the alley. Why?
Now, with a little prodding from the US government these tests will be done.
Pending results of these tests, I will tell you what I believe to be the truth. But, Texas refusing to allow access to evidence in their possession is a big question on the whole case for me. Therein is a portion of the problem about whether or not she is getting a fair shake in court.
If she had access to this evidence then there would not be as much a problem on whether the Texas court system was treating her fairly.
As far as the stab wound to the shoulder and a slice to the neck this is the result I would expect to see in a confrontation with someone who is trying to defend themselves. If I saw a slice in both locations, it would mean that she made no attempt to defend herself. Thus, more likely a stage event.
Think about it. If you were right handed and wanted to attack someone how would you hold the knife, the point being closest to the thumb or closest to the pinky? Probably, the most logical way would be closest to the pinky, because it gives you the MOST power. Now, if this is how you are holding the knife and slice a neck of someone while on the ground, the slice would contimue in a circular motion, not straight line. Secondly if the person is defending himself the shoulder would be curved inward, thus the shoulder should show more of a stab wound rather than a slice.
Regadless, if the angle of the slice matches with that of the neck do you really think Darlie was intelligent enough to figure that out, along with how far she could cut into her neck and not be lmortality wounded? And, then do something stupid like picking up the knife, when all she had to do was wipe it clean?

And, then do something stupid like picking up the knife, when all she had to do was wipe it clean?

Yep, I believe a thousand percent she was stupid enough to do what she did about the prints on the knife because the biggest thing in her mind was explaining why her prints were the only ones there. She "can't remember" her attack, but she has a very clear memory when it comes to explaining those finger prints, both on the knife and on the vacuum cleaner.

And yep, whatever the process, she's had years to bring this earth shattering evidence to light, which is still nothing.

Pinkies, thumbs, slices, cuts... blah blah blah. Same crap, nothing new.


Guity

:wave:

.
Regadless, if the angle of the slice matches with that of the neck do you really think Darlie was intelligent enough to figure that out?

So what are you saying? She's intelligent enough to have known about her carotid artery, so she couldn't have inflicted her own wounds... But too stupid
to figure out cuts and angles? Can't have it both ways... is she stupid or is she smart? STUPID. She was stupid enough to commit the double homicide of her children in the state of Texas and stupid enough to think she could outsmart EVERYONE and get away with it.

I don't care about the idiotic straws she is grasping at and her using them to try and get away with murder... how FAIR was the trial those sleeping children had? Was there anyone there fighting for their rights? Or does THAT not bother YOU?

Pam :wave:

Actually, the evidence suggests she in fact probably did try to clean the knife in the sink before cutting herself and having to go back and stab Damon again (because he was still alive and dragging himself toward the door). At some point I think she started freaking out herself and wasn't thinking clearly. Luchhesiscourt, your opinion of her wounds is different than the medical Doctor. It seems to me it would be possible to get the couple of the jabs (aside from the cut to her neck) from struggling with the boys while trying to stab them with a knife in her hand.

Of course Pam is right, neither Pam or I, nor probably anyone here, wants to see an innocent person executed... which I think is very odd to suggest.....wait, unless we were all in on the BIG CONSPIRARY!!! MWaahaahaa :crazy:

Right Pam, about the boys. Who is fighting for their rights? UGH. You know that you and I both would be the first to say we were wrong if new testing proved Darlie didn't commit these murders, and would want her out of prison. But my question is, would Luccesiscourt drop all of this crap about the technicalities of her trial if the new testing proved that Darlie did do it? Is her more worried about that, than a child killer being free?

Luccesiscourt, I wasn't kidding when I asked if you were Chris Brown.

That improper collection of evidence is okay to overlook? To testify to things as fact, that are later to be possibly proved false?To say there are no prints found in the Routier house that are not accounted for, but is later to be proved false?, and have two sides each say things different about the prints.


Umm...I don't actually believe that story about the prints has ACTUALLY been proven false. And two different stories about the prints? One from each side? You really think that is enough to declare a mistrial?? I'm pretty sure THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF A TRIAL - to decide who is and isn't telling the truth...

Spark! Hi there. Can you tell me how far the cartoid sheath is from the surface of the skin on the neck? It seems to travel so may be shallower or deeper at any given point, but I'm really trying to find out the depth where it is at the closer part to the surface, and also where that part is on the neck. If you can't find out this info. easy on your own, could you ask your professor? Thanks!

Ask a law professor about biology? Instead, try asking the medical school of a well known university online rather than a law or professor? Just seems much more logical to me. Maybe you don't want to hear what a medical school will say.
Now, if all the prosecutors were honest and not out to make a case against someone,then no innocent person would ever have been convicted of a crime? You see, if the evidence is deemed to be 100% in support of the prosecutor's idea of what happened, then the defendent would be guilty NO matter what other evidence is around. An innocent person who is convicted of a crime and goes to jail, was sent there because the police and DA's office made up a scenario to get a conviction. That is the only way an innocent person would go to jail.Why? Because if the person was innocent in the first place, then there would only be artificial and circumstantial evidence to get a conviction. NO HARD evidence. If they had hard evidence, then the person would have actually been guilty. Very simply, they make cases to get conviction. Guilty or not. That is the DA's job and task. A lawyer never wants to lose a case, even when they are wrong. And they surely do not want to admit they were wrong!

"Right Pam, about the boys. Who is fighting for their rights? UGH. You know that you and I both would be the first to say we were wrong if new testing proved Darlie didn't commit these murders, and would want her out of prison."


New testing and an opportunity for the defense, to have ALL the so called evidence against her, is all I am asking. But you are ready to execute her and have a confirmed opinion of guilt. Your reply is contradictory!!!
If you are ready to execute her you cannot be willing to have any more evidence presented in the case. If you were willing, you would be saying let's see what the DNA results are before we press for an execution.

Hey, I feel for the victims especially children who never had a chance to enjoy life, but if Darlie is not guilty and we execute her, we have just compounded the guilt.

Chris, I mean Lucchesiscourt, maybe you should try reading posts before spewing. Pam and I have both said more than once we don't even believe in the death penalty. You seem to have some real "issues" I really hope you can work through, cuz defending a child-killer on absurd conspiracy theories and technicalities seems pure useless to me. I think you'd be happy if she got the whole thing overturned because the stenographer made errors, regardless if she's guilty or not.

And luccesiscourt,.. I sure hope you buckle up when driving. It makes it harder for the aliens to suck you out of the car! :crazy:

Ask a law professor about biology? Instead, try asking the medical school of a well known university online rather than a law or professor? Just seems much more logical to me. Maybe you don't want to hear what a medical school will say.



He isn't a law professor, he teaches crime scene investigation, criminal justice, criminalistics and the like. He is also a former Dallas police office and is very close to the investigators who worked on Darlie's case. Lucchesicourt, I haven't really responded to anything you've said, but have been following this thread. Your logic is certainly questionable, and we all understand you are arguing that Darlie didn't get a fair trial. Here is my very simple answer: yes, she got a fair trial. Until you read the transcripts of the trial, you are not allowed to argue otherwise. Especially considering that the photos you believe were not seene by the jury, were in fact seen by the jury. And that video of Darlie silly stringing their graves? I say when she calls the television stations herself to come video tape, anything there is fair game.

Mommy2sets, unfortunately I have no clue. I'm a business major and biology wasn't ever really my strong point. Unfortunately, classes are over, and though my professor is a very nice and knowledgeable man, he's not so good with the e-mail. I might try and go talk to him on Monday, since he should be in his office. I did speak to him this past Monday, but that was to discuss my grade and I didn't have any time to ask him about the Darlie case. He had mentioned there being a suicide note while we were in class, but I've been trying to clear up the details on that, and no such luck thus far.

According to the Constitution of the United States, everyone is entitled to a FAIR trial. Nowhere does it state you are entitled to a PERFECT trial. Darlie had her fair trial. No trial is perfect, ever. Unless you committed a crime and get away with it a la O.J. Simpson.

Ask a law professor about biology? Instead, try asking the medical school of a well known university online rather than a law or professor? Just seems much more logical to me. Maybe you don't want to hear what a medical school will say.
Now, if all the prosecutors were honest and not out to make a case against someone,then no innocent person would ever have been convicted of a crime? You see, if the evidence is deemed to be 100% in support of the prosecutor's idea of what happened, then the defendent would be guilty NO matter what other evidence is around. An innocent person who is convicted of a crime and goes to jail, was sent there because the police and DA's office made up a scenario to get a conviction. That is the only way an innocent person would go to jail.Why? Because if the person was innocent in the first place, then there would only be artificial and circumstantial evidence to get a conviction. NO HARD evidence. If they had hard evidence, then the person would have actually been guilty. Very simply, they make cases to get conviction. Guilty or not. That is the DA's job and task. A lawyer never wants to lose a case, even when they are wrong. And they surely do not want to admit they were wrong!

:happyface GUILTY :happyface Guilty :happyface

According to the Constitution of the United States, everyone is entitled to a FAIR trial. Nowhere does it state you are entitled to a PERFECT trial. Darlie had her fair trial. No trial is perfect, ever. Unless you committed a crime and get away with it a la O.J. Simpson.

Hi Ireneparalegal,

Welcome. That was so well said. And I couldn't agree more. Good job.

Pam :wave:

Hi Ireneparalegal,

Welcome. That was so well said. And I couldn't agree more. Good job.

Pam :wave:
Thanx Pam. :wave:

I had my doubts abt her guilt at first. I did believe Darlie. But over time that changed. I felt the same way abt the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey. I thought for the longest time her parents had murdered her, but again, over time I changed my mind on that.

"Right Pam, about the boys. Who is fighting for their rights? UGH. You know that you and I both would be the first to say we were wrong if new testing proved Darlie didn't commit these murders, and would want her out of prison."


New testing and an opportunity for the defense, to have ALL the so called evidence against her, is all I am asking. But you are ready to execute her and have a confirmed opinion of guilt. Your reply is contradictory!!!
If you are ready to execute her you cannot be willing to have any more evidence presented in the case. If you were willing, you would be saying let's see what the DNA results are before we press for an execution.

Hey, I feel for the victims especially children who never had a chance to enjoy life, but if Darlie is not guilty and we execute her, we have just compounded the guilt.


Oh, she's guilty. :wave:

She brought all of this on herself. From the slaughter of her children to the silly string tape to melting when she testified. Is there anything NEW in DNA that would benefit HER case? That big unidentified print was found to be from DARLIES ring finger. I swear, you are arguing on blind faith. I haven't seen you argue anyone elses point. You seem to skip over any valid points that are made and go right to Darlies legal straws.

Oh and welcome back spark19! :wave:


:happyface Guilty :happyface

Have a good day all, :wave:
Pam

Thanx Pam. :wave:

I had my doubts abt her guilt at first. I did believe Darlie. But over time that changed. I felt the same way abt the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey. I thought for the longest time her parents had murdered her, but again, over time I changed my mind on that.

You're welcome Ireneparalegal, :wave:

I know how you feel. I started out believing Darlie myself. But once you break everything down and really look at things, the truth comes out. That's why I truely resent it when lucchisicourt acuses me of being closed minded. That is untrue.

Pam :wave:

You're welcome Ireneparalegal, :wave:

I know how you feel. I started out believing Darlie myself. But once you break everything down and really look at things, the truth comes out. That's why I truely resent it when lucchisicourt acuses me of being closed minded. That is untrue.

Pam :wave:
You are not close-minded. If anything, the opposite. Criminal cases are not always black and white. This case certainly proves that. This is one of those cases where you really have to sort through the evidence, the testimony, the CREDIBILITY of the people, etc.

Also, not all evidence is ever presented in court. The judge decides what evidence will be presented and which evidence won't be presented. What evidence might be prejudicial, etc. So it is not always the fault of the prosecution or the defense if certain things come to light AFTER THE FACT that certain things were not allowed to be shown to the jury, etc. The judge is the one who decides what the jury will or won't be shown.

I never said that all 1,000 photos should have been shown in court, I said all 1,000 photos should have been given to the defense counsel. The problem is SOME evidence was presented in court and some was NOT. What happened to the rape test that the hospital said was done, but police investigators say it wasn't. Is someone wrong here? New DNA technology exists today that did not exist in the 1990's. All I am saying that is that there COULD BE, NOT IS, that could help solidify her alibi and for the courts to disallow her defense counsel to pertinent information is wrong. The DNA evidence could make a concrete case against her, and it could also exonerate her. Wouldn't you like to know which is true.

Chris, I mean Lucchesiscourt:

:lol:

Pam, :lol:

hi Spark, OK. If you could ask him that would be great, if not I understand...thanks anyway.

Ireneparalegal, Great point about the judge. But I think Lucchesiscourt may believe he's also in on the big conspiracy! ;)


Wouldn't you like to know which is true.

We already know.

And she was found guilty by a court of law. That makes her guilty, unless proven innocent. Mark my words, there will be no new testing that will exonerate her.

Very interesting...

I just heard the lead detective for the Jane Dorotik case say something very interesting....

"If you see clean-up at a crime scene, someone in the family was involved."

Killers don't close doors or gates or windows behind themselves AND they DONT clean up after themselves.

Pam :wave:

MAYBE Darlie was cleaning up after the murderer because she's such a sweet innocent gal, and she just wanted to be polite. I mean, is it a crime to be a good housekeeper? (just trying to think like Lucchesiscourt here).

When Darlie is ever released from death row (yeah right) she can start her own company...CRIME SCENE CLEAN-UP:

http://www.crimeclean-up.com/

MAYBE Darlie was cleaning up after the murderer because she's such a sweet innocent gal, and she just wanted to be polite. I mean, is it a crime to be a good housekeeper? (just trying to think like Lucchesiscourt here).


:lol:

Good morning mommy2sets!

I know... that was very nice of her. She didn't want the killer to look bad so she cleaned up behind him. And in return, he closed the gate for her. That was very nice. :rolleyes:

Pam :wave:

"Oh, she's guilty. "


And this is an open mind? Don't even want the DNA to be examined to see if maybe someone else was involved. That is the definition of a closed mind.
The matter is already decided in your mind no matter what future evidence comes forward.
And why do you think, I believe she is not guilty? I am just unsure, and cannot in good faith put someone to death when there is evidence that can be examined, but has not been to this point.

The judge ONLY rules on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense counsel in court, NOT the entire evidence collected in the case as you may think. He DOES NOT decide what evidence is to be shown in court from ALL the evidence. The judge DOES decide what evidence he will allow to be shown in court by the DA and defense counsel. That DA and defense counsel both present evidence, but the DA has access to much more evidence than the defense counsel Afterall, it is the DA's office and the police who work together to build a case. The defense counsel is not included in the investigation. You see, if the defense counsel doesn't have the evidence that the DA is suppose to give them, they do not know it exists, so they cannot bring it to court. There is absolutely no way the defense counsel can say they have ALL the evidence. They have ALL the evidence the prosecution gave to them, and wharever else they could come up with on their own. The defense counsel also has to turn their evidence over to the DA's office.

When Darlie is ever released from death row (yeah right) she can start her own company...CRIME SCENE CLEAN-UP:

http://www.crimeclean-up.com/


:lol:

And THAT was very nice of YOU, Ireneparalegal! She will probably need work and she does have experience in that field...

Pam :wave:

[QUOTE=lucchesicourt]"Oh, she's guilty. "


And this is an open mind? Don't even want the DNA to be examined to see if maybe someone else was involved. That is the definition of a closed mind.
The matter is already decided in your mind no matter what future evidence comes forward.
And why do you think, I believe she is not guilty?
QUOTE]


Yes, I do have an open mind. How could I possibly go from believing her to not believing her if I didn't have an open mind? I fought for her too. Then used my brain and looked further in. You are the one whos mind is not open. You refuse to look at any evidence that IS there and you refuse to discuss valid points that other posters make. All you do is blab about a fair trial.

And I hope this is the last time I will have to say this, although with you lucchisKEE, I doubt it. So I am prepared to repeat it as long as it takes until you hear me... I have said over and over again that if there is any NEW evidence, she should absolutely have a new trial. I would NOT, under ANY circumstances, want Darlie or anyone else to be put to death. Period. Guilty or not. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE DEATH PENALTY. But I do believe that Darlie is guilty and should be in prison. It is not my fault that she lived in Texas when she slaughtered her children and was unable to fool the police. As I said, she played in Texas and now she has to play by Texas rules.

You DO believe that she is innocent and thats ok. You are as intitled to your opinion as I am to mine. There wouldn't be much of a discussion if there weren't people posting on her side. Thats the point. And if you want the definition of a closed mind, look in the mirror.

Have a great day :wave:
Pam

And don't forget that gate wasn't working property so the intruder had to lift it up to open, then lift it up to shut behind him. Extra extra nice of him!




And if you want the definition of a closed mind, look in the mirror.



Touche' Pam.

And don't forget that gate wasn't working property so the intruder had to lift it up to open, then lift it up to shut behind him. Extra extra nice of him!




Touche' Pam.


;)

There is new evidence and exactly would you show me WHERE I said she's innocent. I sure don't remebr saying that. I must have Alzheimer's, because I sure don't remeber saying that. Please show me where I said that. I said there is new evidence that can be examined, there is missing evidence, and Texas has refused to allow her defense counsel access to that evidence. Now, is that wriong of me or Texas. If the new evidence shows that no one else was involved I WOULD be saying she is guilty. But, until it is analyzed, I say her trial was unfair. Prosecution says screen was cut from inside (false), dust on knife MAY, not is, be fingerprint dust and not screen material, no other prints were found (That may or MAY NOT be wrong), lack of police notes (why?), police violating federal law (That I have a real problem with, I thought they new the laws because they are beyond making mistakes, right?), defense counsel lost the chance to cross examine them, prosecution tried to imply the injury to her neck was superficial regardless of whether or not it wasintentional, it WAS a serious wound. Too many trial questions that need to be answered, that should have been addressed in court. This IMO, is the fault of defense counsel, for NOT challenging the evidence.

Many many trials regardless of the outcome will always leave many unanswered questions. That doesn't mean the trial was unfair or in error.

And if the defense counsel is at fault (as you say) for not challenging the evidence, sounds like Darlie got herself some bad attorneys. Same thing happened in the OJ Simpson trial. The prosecution did not use or present a lot of evidence that "might" have helped their case, such as the wig, the passport and the $$$$$ OJ had with him while evading police but they never bothered to use that evidence. They kicked themselves hard for not presenting that evidence but that DOES NOT MAKE IT ENOUGH TO CALL A MISTRIAL OR AN UNFAIR TRIAL. Again, the Constitution of the United States states everyone is entitled to a FAIR TRIAL not a PERFECT TRIAL. Sorry.

I believe Darin is the one responsible for the entire scheme. Why? Who would benefit the most in the death of the 3 victims? 1) Darin, would collect on three insurance policies 2) Darin has attempted, and admitted, to hiring someone to commit insurance fraud 3) Why would someone enter the house without a weapon-simple answer here, Darin told him where to get the knife since
1) he knew where they were, and
2) it's also possible the one who committed the crime had been in the house before, and this would explain why the dog didn't bark.


There is one place where you said you believe Darlie is innocent.

Again, the Constitution of the United States states everyone is entitled to a FAIR TRIAL not a PERFECT TRIAL. Sorry.

Well said Ireneparalegal.

There is new evidence and exactly would you show me WHERE I said she's innocent. I sure don't remebr saying that. I must have Alzheimer's, because I sure don't remeber saying that. Please show me where I said that.

Looks like you don't remember saying that... :crazy:

And just out of curiosity, what is the NEW evidence? You keep saying that, too. NEW evidence, NEW evidence... is this evidence something that only you are privy to? Or are you going to let us in on it? :rolleyes:

So what is your opinion on guilt or innocence? You can just say it once, you don't have to repeat the same thing three times, as you did above. I mean how many times do you have to say that you don't think she had a fair trial? You've made that point painfully obvious. We KNOW how unfair you think her trial was. Believe me, WE KNOW. Something you COULD fill us in on is this earth-shattering evidence that you keep talking about. Maybe if you shared it instead of acting like it's some big secret that only you know and dancing around it, you could convince someone else of her innocence.

Pam :wave:

There is one place where you said you believe Darlie is innocent.


Good job, mommy2sets! :wave:

I've continued to be curious about the depth of the carotid sheath, so just looked it up a different way online. I found a couple interesting things. One is about how soft the area is and how easy it is to poke into with any number of objects, and was from research from an airline , apparently in efforts to make it safer to fly. The other is from this site http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u12/u1213_03.htm where it states that the internal jugular is usually within 2=3 cms of the surface, and has instructions on how to get to it for a catheter, which is simply to turn the patients neck and look and feel for the artery basically. Now the internal jugular I know for a fact is located deeper within the carotid sheath, so if the distance to the internal jugular is no more than 2-3 cm I think it would be safe to say that the distance to the carotid sheath would be probably more like 1 cm, maybe 1.5 cm at the most. It may very possibly be even less than 1 cm. 1 cm is equivalent to 10 mms or 4/10 of an inch. Iif Darlie's cut came w/in 2 mm of her carotid sheath, that could mean it was only about 1/4 inch deep at the deepest point.

^^^^Interesting. Thank you for researching that info.

I forgot to mention, the epidermis itself is up to 1.5 mms in depth, which could make her cut a whopping depth
0.2something under the skin, (or approximately 2/10 of an inch, give or take). And that would be at the very deepest part that went 2mm of the carotid sheath. Look at that distance on a ruler.

And someone has a problem with anyone calling this cut superficial? Pfft. What a joke.

Internal juglar is in front of the internal or common carotid, but we are talking a distance of about 3mm is all, not much. 2-3 cm is either just under or just over 1 inch, this would depend on the size of the individual. So, if we are talking ABOUT an inch, that is 4 times deeper than the 1/4 inch being mentioned. The neck front to back holds many places that could be deemed critical points, and if you penetrate 1 inch you are very deep into the neck.

Let's do some simple math if we can. If your neck circinference is 16.5 (mine)inches, usually larger than a ladies neck, let's find the radius of the neck. Basic math formula, the circumference formula is: circumference= 2 times pi times the radius. So, if the circumference is 16.5 inches that would mean that 2 times pi (I'll just use 3 here for pi, to benefit your distance) times the radius= 16.5 inches or 3 times radius = 8.25 inches, now dividing 8.25 by 3 means that halfway through the neck is less than 3 inches, which is about 33% or more into the depths of the neck. I guess you could call the a superficial wound if you choose, I wouldn't. It's up to you.
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.

Internal juglar is in front of the internal or common carotid, but we are talking a distance of about 3mm is all, not much. 2-3 cm is either just under or just over 1 inch, this would depend on the size of the individual. So, if we are talking ABOUT an inch, that is 4 times deeper than the 1/4 inch being mentioned. too.

Nice twist lucchesiscourt, gosh you sound so much like Darlie's camp, BUT in the article I linked to in my post it stated that 2-3 cm was the distance to hit the actual internal jugular vein, not the SHEATH, which I am trying to gauge a distance on. 2 cm (which is the more likely distance since Darlie is female) is 8/10 of an inch and that would be distance from skin right to the internal jugular. Since the internal jugular is buried within the sheath and not right at the surface of it, I am guesstimating the distance from the skin to the sheath itself as about 1 - 1.5 cm (it may be even less). Then you take off 2 mm from that, (since her cut only came 2 mm from the sheath), then deduct the depth of the epidermis and you have a shallow wound indeed. About 1/5 (2/10) of an inch under the skin. And of course that would be the deepest part of the cut, according to the Doctor's testimony, that came closest to the sheath. This fits right in line w/ the pictures and her healing time that we could all see in the silly string video. Superficial. All your twisting just don't change a thing. :)