Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:19 pm

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/D ... 140718.pdf

Link to the 7/18/14 document that orders more testing on 11 items including the sock.
jane
 
Posts: 2690
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Fri Nov 14, 2014 7:57 pm

Oh my goodness, Bill, I didn’t realize that you haven’t read the transcript. That explains your responses/non-responses.

Mary: How did Darie manage to go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room and not get a single scratch on her feet?


You replied that there needs to be far more evidence than that. I agreed and offered additional evidence:



Mary: Darlie said the intruder threw the knife down in the entrance to the utility room, but there was no cast-off blood in that area. Your opinion?



No reply.



Mary: 1. Darin testified that it was his sock. It had Devon and Damon's blood on it, but none of Darlie's. If an intruder used the sock, for instance, to prevent fingerprints on the knife handle, why wasn't Darlie's blood also on the sock?
2. If the sock wasn't used to cover the knife handle, then why would he leave the knife (possibly with his fingerprints) and take a sock?
3. Darlie testified that she was on her feet, following the intruder through the kitchen, so he knew she was alive and mobile, and also armed with the knife he threw down. She could have screamed for help at that point. Why would he go into the alley, taking him deeper into the neighborhood, with no means of escape?
4. Darlie's DNA was found in the toe of the sock, and testimony established that she was very concerned about fingerprints that night as well as the next few days. She knew the sock came from her house. She knew that her sons' blood was on that sock. IMO, she had to get that sock out of the house.

Which scenario if more logical to you?



Bill: The prosecutor would need to account for how a guilty-Darlie could have put that sock there.



Mary: What is your opinion about the huge quantity of Darlie's blood around the sink, on the cabinet underneath, and the the throw-rug under the sink? Darlie said she'd been attacked on the couch, but there was no blood on the couch where her head would have been lying. There was no cast-off blood on the couch at all.

Darlie's story was that she followed the intruder through the east side of the kitchen, past the wine rack. She was specifically asked if she'd gone on the other side of the kitchen, where the sinks were, at anytime that night after the attack, and her answer was "no."

Bill: Someone who deliberately kills their kids does not call 911 instantaneously. (Sorry, Bill, but this one really left me shaking my head :)




You asked for a link to the closing arguments but, honestly, you need to read the entire transcript to come to an informed opinion as to Darlie’s guilt or innocence, imo.
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:12 pm

MaryM wrote:

You asked for a link to the closing arguments but, honestly, you need to read the entire transcript to come to an informed opinion as to Darlie’s guilt or innocence, imo.

Your opinion is more than likely right. I have not done nearly the reading of most people on this thread.

I may not. Even with my limited views up to this point, I think I actually underestimated the role played by people regarding Darlie negatively, when judged apart from the forensics. When I started the prosecution closing argument, I simply gave up after a while, because the the guy led with and harped on about Darlie's deficiencies as a mother and human being.

So be it. The woman is probably not very likeable. For instance, she married a guy who admitted to inquiring about getting someone else to fake a break-in to the home.

There's a couple of ways we can proceed here. This thread could devolve into my own deficiencies of not being up to speed in this case. Quite frankly, why don't we just admit to that upfront. Truly, I am not going to delve into this to the depth it deserves - either way.

The questions you pose in the post just above are mainly how I would account for those posers - things you see as suspicious - check that - more than suspicious, they are well on the way to considering someone guilty of murder.

I will never be able to account for individual items of suspicion. More than likely anyway.

And despite my own shortcomings, there still remain the following questions. I readily admit that these are not questions compiled by me. Regardless of whether or not I can make adequate answer to the questions you pose, the following still remain questions that plague this case, and cause many people more knowledgeable than I (I have no way of assessing if they are more knowledgeable than you):

    - Proof that the unknown, untested fingerprint comes from an adult, New York City police fingerprint experts say it's not a match for Darlie nor Darin
    - irregularity of her her lawyer also representing her uncharged husband, who perhaps also could have been charged, "the judge didn't properly handle her lead defense counsel's conflict of interest in representing the only other suspect in the crime -- her husband."
    - the jury may not have been shown photographs of defensive bruises on Darlie's arms
    - the transcript that the jury used in deliberation had 33,000 errors and omissions. As well, the audio tapes they heard were incomplete.
    - Darin Routier has admitted that he had looked for someone to burglarize the family home to benefit from an insurance scam, but that he planned to have the burglary occur when the family was not at home.
    - Reverend David Rogers, who officiated at the funeral, thought Darlie was "grieving appropriately," and there was no substance to the smear job done later about the funeral
    - Bexar County's medical examiner Dr. Vincent DiMaio said her throat slash had come within two millimeters of the carotid artery, therefore could not be said to be "wounds of hesitation". As well, he diagnosed bruises on her arms as mass trauma coming from a blunt instrument and not self-given.
    - Dr. Lisa Clayton, a forensic psychologist and acknowledged expert on "the homicidal mind", had interviewed Darlie and believed her to be innocent, stating that she showed the typical blackout and distorted-memory symptoms of people who lived through a trauma and were forced to give a clear description of their encounter.

Then there's the biggest poser of all for a prosecution who has the burden to successfully defeat the presumption of innocence: how'd that sock get there if Darlie did it? The issue is not why or why not would some unknown intruder leave it there.... the issue is, how could Darlie have got it there?

I am not trying to pick a fight here, truly I am not. I simply do not know (which is my own deficiency, not yours) how the points you raise defeat the issues in point form above?

That's where I'm stuck. Sock 75 yards away. A case relying heavily on convincing people Darlie is an inappropriate mother. And the mixed forensic messages: why do some say the wounds are superficial, but others ay she was a millimetre away from bleeding to death?

So far, I have no idea really if she is factually innocent. I'm just not sure how or why anyone would consider her guilty - apart from the fact that she seemed preoccupied with telling people she'd touched the knife, and she was inappropriate at the graveside.

There, those are my deficiencies regarding this case.

Do me a favour - assume you are dealing with a simpleton. That's not far from the truth. But list in point form the five or six or seven elements which show why Darlie is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think better that way, rather than having one item taken out and being asked to explain that one thing. That's not a problem with you, or the way you've set it up. But it will help decipher why some are convinced she's guilty when I in all seriousness do not see it.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:31 am

This may be one of those cases in which no one (prosecutor or defense or any of us) has really come up with a scenario which plausibly explains ALL the forensic evidence. This happens sometimes - the world is mysterious. I had a very large tort case in which defendants and insurance companies invested a lot of time and money in trying to figure out exactly how the accident happened with no success. It still stumps me. When that happens in the criminal process, the answer should be "reasonable doubt" - which is where I come out here. On top of that we have the transcript problem and some other issues which suggest that, at a minimum, the defendant is entitled to a new trial (how can we tell whether the trial was fair without a transcript?).
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby LarryK » Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:18 am

erasmus44 wrote:This may be one of those cases in which no one (prosecutor or defense or any of us) has really come up with a scenario which plausibly explains ALL the forensic evidence. This happens sometimes - the world is mysterious. I had a very large tort case in which defendants and insurance companies invested a lot of time and money in trying to figure out exactly how the accident happened with no success. It still stumps me. When that happens in the criminal process, the answer should be "reasonable doubt" - which is where I come out here. On top of that we have the transcript problem and some other issues which suggest that, at a minimum, the defendant is entitled to a new trial (how can we tell whether the trial was fair without a transcript?).

I second this.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:12 am

LarryK wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:This may be one of those cases in which no one (prosecutor or defense or any of us) has really come up with a scenario which plausibly explains ALL the forensic evidence. This happens sometimes - the world is mysterious. I had a very large tort case in which defendants and insurance companies invested a lot of time and money in trying to figure out exactly how the accident happened with no success. It still stumps me. When that happens in the criminal process, the answer should be "reasonable doubt" - which is where I come out here. On top of that we have the transcript problem and some other issues which suggest that, at a minimum, the defendant is entitled to a new trial (how can we tell whether the trial was fair without a transcript?).

I second this.

I third it. MaryM, in good faith, asked for an explanation of individual items of things which, presumably, point to guilt if not explainable. I can't provide it. Does that mean I should change my mind about "not guilty", while still wanting to reserve judgement on, "completely innocent"?

I'm trying to get my head around how any of the evidence can be assembled to support a "beyond reasonable doubt" decision.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:35 am

MaryM wrote:Bill: Someone who deliberately kills their kids does not call 911 instantaneously. (Sorry, Bill, but this one really left me shaking my head :)

Why?

Someone who deliberately kills anyone can be forgiven for a couple of things. They take a minute to assess what they've done. They then try to do all those things you claim Darlie is doing - you imply she self-inflicted her wounds around the sink which explains why there's no blood of hers back at the couch. They try to hide evidence. Sometimes they simply flee.

In this case, though, it is completely different. The cops are on the scene, summoned by Darlie, within minutes. My bias is that guilty people don't summon the cops without first trying to manage the evidence.

Here, proponents of guilt say that Darlie is trying to manage it after the crime scene is secured. This makes no sense.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:41 am

Facts about the blood evidence:

http://darliefacts.com/blood-evidence/

This gives an overview, and then there are additional links for more detail.

For instance:

The prosecution contended that Darlie cut her own throat while she stood at the kitchen sink. However, blood from Darlie’s pillow (and the pillow cover) supports that her throat was cut while she was sleeping on the couch. Pictures of this evidence were entered as exhibits at trial, but the myth that there was no blood on Darlie’s pillow erroneously persists to this day.

The blood was mentioned at trial when defense attorney Richard Mosty questioned Charles Linch.

Mosty: Now, did you ever see this maroon pillow?
Linch: Yes, I did.
Mosty: Did you take that?
Linch: No, I didn’t.
Mosty: Who collected that?
Linch: That was collected by the Rowlett Police Department.
Mosty: And, it had blood, it had — this maroon pillow had blood on both sides of it, didn’t it?
Linch: Right.


*By the way, Tom Bevel was the blood expert who testified against Darlie.
jane
 
Posts: 2690
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:42 pm

It's clear to me now that you have no intention of reading the trial transcript, Bill. It requires a lot of time and effort; over the last 17 years, I encountered many people who just don't want to be bothered with the details.

You posted that "the jury may not have been shown photographs of defensive bruises on Darlie's arms." There were many, many photos of Darlie's right arm bruise presented at trial, and extensive testimony (including her own defense witness) regarding those bruises. It's right there, in black and white, in the transcript that you have chosen not to read.

We have nothing further to discuss, Bill, as you have based your opinion on pro-Darlie websites, instead of the unbiased record of her trial testimony and evidence. Please keep in mind that I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty. Always have and always will be.
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:05 am

MaryM wrote:It's clear to me now that you have no intention of reading the trial transcript, Bill. It requires a lot of time and effort; over the last 17 years, I encountered many people who just don't want to be bothered with the details.

You posted that "the jury may not have been shown photographs of defensive bruises on Darlie's arms." There were many, many photos of Darlie's right arm bruise presented at trial, and extensive testimony (including her own defense witness) regarding those bruises. It's right there, in black and white, in the transcript that you have chosen not to read.

We have nothing further to discuss, Bill, as you have based your opinion on pro-Darlie websites, instead of the unbiased record of her trial testimony and evidence. Please keep in mind that I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty. Always have and always will be.

Probably not. Thanks for your time.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:03 am

MaryM wrote:We have nothing further to discuss, Bill, as you have based your opinion on pro-Darlie websites, instead of the unbiased record of her trial testimony and evidence. Please keep in mind that I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty. Always have and always will be.

Ok - one last thing to discuss. There's a difference between "pro-Darlie websites", and websites which have come to the opinion that the woman is innocent. Although not a website, the woman who started to write a book about the murder did it initially thinking she was writing why Darlie was guilty. She changed her mind half-way through.

Does this mean that the woman is no longer a reliable source?

My preference would have been for you to outline your case, rather than ask "gotcha" questions.... if you wish to talk about my own shortcoming about this, have at at. For me, I tired of the closing argument which led heavily with a smear campaign against Darlie. I mean, all those personality/parenting smears could have been absolutely true.... I still have not seen anyone outline a list of points indicative of guilt which fit a very, very short timeline as to when the first responders arrive.

And then there's that distant sock.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby TruthMatters » Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:10 am

MaryM wrote:"There's also the sock found at some distance from the murder scene. All of this needs to be settled in my mind to satisfy reasonable doubt, such satisfaction is not there IMO."

Hi, Bill. Well, obviously there was no videotape of who put the sock in the alley, but we know it was connected to the crime because it had both boys' blood on it. The question is: who placed the sock in the alley, Darlie or an intruder?

1. Darin testified that it was his sock. It had Devon and Damon's blood on it, but none of Darlie's. If an intruder used the sock, for instance, to prevent fingerprints on the knife handle, why wasn't Darlie's blood also on the sock?
2. If the sock wasn't used to cover the knife handle, then why would he leave the knife (possibly with his fingerprints) and take a sock?
3. Darlie testified that she was on her feet, following the intruder through the kitchen, so he knew she was alive and mobile, and also armed with the knife he threw down. She could have screamed for help at that point. Why would he go into the alley, taking him deeper into the neighborhood, with no means of escape?
4. Darlie's DNA was found in the toe of the sock, and testimony established that she was very concerned about fingerprints that night as well as the next few days. She knew the sock came from her house. She knew that her sons' blood was on that sock. IMO, she had to get that sock out of the house.

Which scenario if more logical to you, Bill?


MaryM,

Why are you so certain that Darlie's feet would have cuts on them and that the lack of these cuts point to her guilt?
Why do you believe Darlie would have worried about her own DNA or even blood being found on a sock that was from her own home? Why would she have had to remove it so desperately as to risk being caught down the road when LEO/medics arrived? Where there bare footprints in the alley? Was there dirt on the bottom on her bare feet to show that she ran down, threw out the sock then ran back?

Please respond politely, as I am posing my questions politely. Thanks in advance.
TruthMatters
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Travel frequently for work

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:43 am

MaryM wrote:It's clear to me now that you have no intention of reading the trial transcript, Bill. It requires a lot of time and effort; over the last 17 years, I encountered many people who just don't want to be bothered with the details.


A transcript that was so fraught with errors? That transcript?

The transcripts that nearly put the court reporter in jail? Those transcripts?
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:40 pm

http://hcnews.com/pages/justice_for_all/questions-raised-by-extensive-notes-kept-at-routier-trial/

Yeah, the judge and police were perfect examples of the justice system at work. Sleeping on the bench. Stuffing bloody clothing together in the back of a police car.

This sounds worse than what Amanda faced!!!
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby SallyDirk20141 » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:06 pm

What is more compelling than even the transcripts are the rulings of the appellate judges. All of the supporter evidence has been appealed by Darlie's lawyers and appellate judges have answered it. For example -

(1) The bloody unidentified print. The print is unidentifiable because it only contains 8 points of comparison, not 12. So it is not unidentified, it is unidentifiable by modern fingerprinting science. - Darin, Devon and Damon have been excluded as having made the print. Darlie's right ring finger CANNOT be excluded as having made the print, nor can the print be confirmed as hers, since it is unidentifiable. I am anxiously awaiting DNA testing on the blood from the print itself.

(2) Darin's insurance scam. Darin first mentioned this SIX years after Darlie was convicted and right before her appeal. The only person who can corroborate his story is his father-in-law. So if you believe this creates reasonable doubt, then you believe Darin's word on its own is reliable. I respect that, but I don't believe him.

No crime scene is ever 100% buttoned up - not even Scott Peterson. There are always issues the defense and/or the prosecution cannot fully address. I think the sock falls into this category. I personally believe Darlie meant to throw it down the storm drain less than a foot away from where the sock was found, but I fully understand why supporters think this points to an intruder.

Here are the points of evidence that convince me of her guilt:

(1) Blood clean up - top thing that convinces me. Three hours after the crime CSI Tech Kathryn Long found with Luminol that blood had been cleaned off the faucet handles, the sink basin, the cabinet doors, smears INSIDE the cabinet and footprints wiped up on the floor.

(2) Darin told CPS worker Jamie Johnson that Darlie was under a lot of stress with the kids in the weeks leading up to the murder. That she had become a clean-a-holic and the kids were always making messes which drove her nuts. The diet pills exacerbated her moods. Darlie's increasing neglect of her children was also testified to by several neighbors and friends. And yes, several people also testified Darlie was a good mother.

(3) Darlie's story is that Damon walked behind her following the intruder. Evidence shows Damon was stabbed first by the couch, then crawled 15 feet to the entryway and was stabbed again there. The intruder didn't wait for Damon to crawl 15 feet then stab him again. And no way IMO (or the medical examiner's) a 5 year old stabbed 6 times and dying walked behind and talked to Darlie. This is just one of about six different stories she told.

(4) Darlie only has bruises on her right arm - the stabbing arm that was kicked by Devon as she stabbed him. If the intruder caused the bruises, Darlie would have them on both arms.

(5) Darlie slept through this. Devon was 5 feet away and had bruises all over his heels, indicating he fought hard and kicked something. There was no evidence of drugs in Darlie's system and no way Darlie slept through these attacks.

(6) No intruder DNA on sock or knife. Only Darlies skin cells in toe of sock.

(7) Darlie's pre-occupation with fingerprints on the knife. Not only on the 911 call, but one of the nurses asked her to please stop talking about the knife, she mentioned those prints so many times in the hospital.

(8) Lack of any grief for the boys in interviews or at the gravesite but sobbing in her arrest picture. Lack of any tears telling and re-telling of the murders during trial, but sobbing uncontrollably when Toby Shook caught her in lie after lie.

(9) The savage wounds the boys suffered compared to the wounds Darlie suffered. The boys were stabbed, Darlie was slashed. The intruder suddenly changed his style to a lighter use of the knife on the adult?

(10) The backyard gate was broken and had to be lifted to be opened or shut. Yet it was found shut. The intruder bothered to lift and close the gate behind him?

There are probably other things that are not coming to mind. I am a supporter of the death penalty but believe every avenue of evidence should be tested thoroughly first. I am very excited to see all of the items granted DNA testing in August 2014 and will anxiously await the results. It no intruder DNA is found, I will be at ease with her being executed.
SallyDirk20141
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby TruthMatters » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:32 pm

Question to the Darlie guilters:

"Charles Linch, a trace-evidence expert, said it was impossible for an intruder to leave that scene without a trail of blood. There was no blood found outside the Routier home."

How did Darlie allegedly run down the road, plant Darin's sock, then run back into the home without leaving any blood outside the home?
TruthMatters
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Travel frequently for work

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:57 pm

TruthMatters wrote:Question to the Darlie guilters:

"Charles Linch, a trace-evidence expert, said it was impossible for an intruder to leave that scene without a trail of blood. There was no blood found outside the Routier home."

How did Darlie allegedly run down the road, plant Darin's sock, then run back into the home without leaving any blood outside the home?

I'd like to know the answer to this.......
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby SallyDirk20141 » Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:41 pm

Darlie cut her neck and stabbed herself after she stabbed the boys and after she planted the sock. Most of the blood at the scene was Darlie's since she had spurting wounds and the boys had seeping wounds. But truthfully I wonder how EITHER Darlie OR the intruder left no blood outside the home.

Like I said earlier, no criminal case ive ever studied had answered every single question. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all doubt,."
SallyDirk20141
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby SallyDirk20141 » Thu Dec 04, 2014 6:13 pm

There is one other theory I have about the sock and Darlie's injuries. While I do not believe Darin helped murder his boys or knew about it in advance, I believe Darin may have caught Darlie in the act and helped her cover the crime. He expressed guilt to the social worker after the murder about "not being there enough for Darlie." If Darin helped, it explains:

(1) No blood outside the house. Darin could have run the sock to the alley without getting blood anywhere before he helped his dying boys.

(2) Supporters widely say they don't believe Darlie could have self inflicted the wounds. Maybe she didn't - maybe Darin did it. That would also explain why the cut is right to left since both of them are right handed.

(3) Darin chose to use CPR on Devon instead of Damon, even though he testified he knew Devon was already dead and Damon was still alive. Darin said he had 7 years CPR training. Even though he was an emotional father, he said he knew Devon was dead, so why CPR Devon and not still alive but dying Damon?

(4) It has always bothered me that Darlie called 911 while Damon was still alive. If she killed them, this doesn't make sense. I think that Darin tried to save his boys and made her call 911.

(5) Darlie has never allowed her attorneys to even hint at the possibility of Darin's involvement, even though she knew this meant her death. Devoted wife? Unlikely, since she asked for a marital separation the night of the murders (Darin testified to this). More likely, Darlie cannot even hint at Darin being the murderer or he will tell them what he knows.

At the end of my self study into this case, I asked myself "do I have reasonable doubt or wishful doubt?" My doubt and interest in this case is wishful - I wish and hope this beautiful young mother didn't commit this crime and I wish there was some evidence that convinced me she didn't. But for me, although not every single question is answered, the preponderance of the evidence convinces me that she did do this.
SallyDirk20141
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:51 am

(1) Blood clean up - top thing that convinces me. Three hours after the crime CSI Tech Kathryn Long found with Luminol that blood had been cleaned off the faucet handles, the sink basin, the cabinet doors, smears INSIDE the cabinet and footprints wiped up on the floor.


Luminol does not "find" blood. It indicates the possibility of blood. Any "hits" in a bathroom, from luminol, is very questionable that they are in fact blood. Unless they ran confirmatory tests, there is NO proof of any blood at all in any of those areas. Especially in a bathroom where a variety of cleaners and body fluids are routinely encountered.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:56 am

Darlie cut her neck and stabbed herself after she stabbed the boys and after she planted the sock. Most of the blood at the scene was Darlie's since she had spurting wounds and the boys had seeping wounds. But truthfully I wonder how EITHER Darlie OR the intruder left no blood outside the home.


That is an outlandish statement. The severity of her wounds, the locations and the near fatal characteristics show how ludicrious it is to even consider that they were self inflicted and absolutely no indication that her husband attacked her. If he had, there is no motivation for her to protect him. There amount of bruising on her arms alone point to the fantascial lengths the prosecution and guilters will go to cling to their blindness.

When an explanation has to go to extreme limits for plausibility, it's likelihood declines. The simplest answer is most often the correct one.

For wound as extensive as Darlie's were (and potentially fatal), the simpliest answer is that she was attacked.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby SallyDirk20141 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:26 am

You are right about the luminol. Once luminol shows positive for the possibility of blood, a further test must be done to confirm it is blood. I don't remember if that test was done but I will look it up. My theory is not that Darin attacked darlie. My theory is that Darin helped injure darlie in order to cover up the crime. This is just a theory and there was no evidence to support it and I stated that in my comments.

Outlandish, ha? well are you a medical professional? were you there the night of the murders to examine Darlie and her wounds? have you somehow had private access to her personal medical records? because the two doctors on duty the night darlie was brought in, the eight nurses and the one medical examiner who DID examine Darlie, did not find it outlandish that darlie could have done this to herself. in fact her own medical expert was forced to agree on the stand that he has seen people injure themselves worse than what he saw with Darlie. in addition, the 12 jurors who convicted her did not find it outlandish. While I respect your right to an opinion, and to believe whatever you want, it certainly is not outlandish. What is outlandish to me is the blind faith that you and other supporters have in darlie given the absolute lack of any evidence of an intruder, and all of the evidence that does point to Darlie.

oh, and one more thing. In your reply you kept referencing a bathroom. The blood that I was referring to, in the sink, the faucet, the cabinet, was all in the kitchen. I am not sure why you keep referencing the bathroom. This blood was in the kitchen. I am sure I will find proof that they ran a test for blood after the luminol and when I do I will be very interested in your explanation for Devin's and Damon's blood down the kitchen sink.
SallyDirk20141
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:54 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Poppy1016 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:41 pm

Why is it that no one is posting on the Darlie Routier advocate page?
Poppy1016
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:53 am

Poppy1016 wrote:Why is it that no one is posting on the Darlie Routier advocate page?


Good question, Poppy. Why is no one posting at all on the Darlie Routier section? This is a Featured Case.

Earlier this week I saw a 20/20 rerun on the OWN network about Darlie's case. It had graphic pictures of Darlie's injuries, and a juror who said he now believes the verdict was a mistake. He said those pictures were never shown to the jury. The program also pointed out the number of times the "silly string" episode was shown to the jurors and how the judge would not allow the earlier pictures at the gravesite that showed how upset Darlie was. There was discussion about the unidentified fingerprint on the coffee table and the sock that was found in the alley far away from the house--and the impossibility for Darlie to be the one who put it there.

What is the status of the new testing that was ordered?
jane
 
Posts: 2690
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby roteoctober » Fri Apr 03, 2015 9:51 am

Poppy1016 wrote:Why is it that no one is posting on the Darlie Routier advocate page?


I think in a few weeks many usual contributor will shift from the Kercher (Knox) case to other various featured cases.
But before you can post effectively you have to document yourself, so this shift will not be immediate.

I have opted for the Nyki Kish case first, because it presents rulings with something resembling a motivation report and I'm more accustomed to deal with that type of rulings, rather than with popular jury ruling in which the reasons for the decision are unknown.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:41 am



http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/D ... 140718.pdf

Link to the 7/18/14 document that orders more testing on 11 items including the sock.


Repeating this post.
jane
 
Posts: 2690
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:08 am

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/D ... 140718.pdf

Link to the 7/18/14 document that orders more testing on 11 items including the sock.


Her lawyers seem to be pretty quiet right now. Is there no concern about the time taking to get the tests ran? Is Darlie required to fund the retests?
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:41 am

SallyDirk20141 wrote:Darlie cut her neck and stabbed herself after she stabbed the boys and after she planted the sock. Most of the blood at the scene was Darlie A since she had spurting wounds and the boys had seeping wounds. But truthfully I wonder how EITHER Darlie OR the intruder left no blood outside the home.

Like I said earlier, no criminal case ive ever studied had answered every single question. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all doubt,."


That's actually incorrect. There was blood spatter on Darlie's shirt that was a mixture of her blood as well as the boys indicating that Darlie's blood was either already on the knife as it was being swung or, at the very least, she was actively bleeding when the boys were being stabbed. As you have already noted, the majority of the blood in the house is Dalie's. If Darlie planted the sock her blood would have been found in the alley.

I've noticed you have mentioned to Bill on numerous occasions that he should read the transcripts. I suggest you read the ruling handed down by Judge Royal Ferguson. In his ruling noted that the prosecution's theory of the case against Darlie is "as convoluted and counter intuitive as any he has ever seen in a murder case." In layman's terms he's saying the state's theory of how the crime was committed by Darlie is absurd.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:06 am

Poppy1016 wrote:Why is it that no one is posting on the Darlie Routier advocate page?

The way to ensure that nothing becomes a priority, is to try to make everything a priority. Unfortunately, as deserving of attention as this case is,there are others as well.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Apr 22, 2015 10:51 am

Sinsaint wrote:
SallyDirk20141 wrote:Darlie cut her neck and stabbed herself after she stabbed the boys and after she planted the sock. Most of the blood at the scene was Darlie A since she had spurting wounds and the boys had seeping wounds. But truthfully I wonder how EITHER Darlie OR the intruder left no blood outside the home.

Like I said earlier, no criminal case ive ever studied had answered every single question. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all doubt,."


That's actually incorrect. There was blood spatter on Darlie's shirt that was a mixture of her blood as well as the boys indicating that Darlie's blood was either already on the knife as it was being swung or, at the very least, she was actively bleeding when the boys were being stabbed. As you have already noted, the majority of the blood in the house is Dalie's. If Darlie planted the sock her blood would have been found in the alley.

I've noticed you have mentioned to Bill on numerous occasions that he should read the transcripts. I suggest you read the ruling handed down by Judge Royal Ferguson. In his ruling noted that the prosecution's theory of the case against Darlie is "as convoluted and counter intuitive as any he has ever seen in a murder case." In layman's terms he's saying the state's theory of how the crime was committed by Darlie is absurd.

Ah, Sinsaint! Welcome back. Good to see you :)
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:14 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
SallyDirk20141 wrote:Darlie cut her neck and stabbed herself after she stabbed the boys and after she planted the sock. Most of the blood at the scene was Darlie A since she had spurting wounds and the boys had seeping wounds. But truthfully I wonder how EITHER Darlie OR the intruder left no blood outside the home.

Like I said earlier, no criminal case ive ever studied had answered every single question. That is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond all doubt,."


That's actually incorrect. There was blood spatter on Darlie's shirt that was a mixture of her blood as well as the boys indicating that Darlie's blood was either already on the knife as it was being swung or, at the very least, she was actively bleeding when the boys were being stabbed. As you have already noted, the majority of the blood in the house is Dalie's. If Darlie planted the sock her blood would have been found in the alley.

I've noticed you have mentioned to Bill on numerous occasions that he should read the transcripts. I suggest you read the ruling handed down by Judge Royal Ferguson. In his ruling noted that the prosecution's theory of the case against Darlie is "as convoluted and counter intuitive as any he has ever seen in a murder case." In layman's terms he's saying the state's theory of how the crime was committed by Darlie is absurd.

Ah, Sinsaint! Welcome back. Good to see you :)


Thanks. Good to be back.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:34 pm

Am I getting right that this case is a strange puzzle . . . . .Is there any suggestion any alternative suspect at all?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:05 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Am I getting right that this case is a strange puzzle . . . . .Is there any suggestion any alternative suspect at all?



Several theories have been floated: 1. her husband, 2. an intruder in conspiracy with her husband, and 3. a lurker who was in the house when they went to bed. It is also possible that it was a B and E on the part of a serial killer or other sicko. The police focused on her early and confirmation bias kicked in so that they disregarded any evidence pointing in any other direction.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sarah » Wed Apr 22, 2015 11:15 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Am I getting right that this case is a strange puzzle . . . . .Is there any suggestion any alternative suspect at all?



Several theories have been floated: 1. her husband, 2. an intruder in conspiracy with her husband, and 3. a lurker who was in the house when they went to bed. It is also possible that it was a B and E on the part of a serial killer or other sicko. The police focused on her early and confirmation bias kicked in so that they disregarded any evidence pointing in any other direction.


Why is the husband suspected by some?
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:07 am

Sarah wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Am I getting right that this case is a strange puzzle . . . . .Is there any suggestion any alternative suspect at all?



Several theories have been floated: 1. her husband, 2. an intruder in conspiracy with her husband, and 3. a lurker who was in the house when they went to bed. It is also possible that it was a B and E on the part of a serial killer or other sicko. The police focused on her early and confirmation bias kicked in so that they disregarded any evidence pointing in any other direction.


Why is the husband suspected by some?



If you believe it was not a break in and you believe Darlie couldn't have done it because of her wounds or because of the time line connected with her 911 call, then - by process of elimination - you begin to suspect the husband (this is why I think there is a possibility of a lurker).
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Thu Apr 23, 2015 2:40 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Am I getting right that this case is a strange puzzle . . . . .Is there any suggestion any alternative suspect at all?


I don't see any major puzzle. This type of crime is quite common, a home invasion, the probable motive being sexual.

Tommy Lynn Sells committed many crimes like this ( but he has been ruled out ).

There is unidentified DNA and also a print, from memory.

It's not easy to catch people like this, since you have very little to go on. That's how serial killers exist and prosper.

So police often focus instead on someone at the scene.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Apr 23, 2015 7:43 pm

Looking at him, it is very possible he could have committed the crime if there was any way that he could have been involved. . . . I give you that.
These type of home invasions thought are not that common though. They happen but they are still an extreme abnormally.
In addition, a person who commits these crimes tends to do this before and I am wondering if there are any killers that people are suggesting as potential suspects.
If one does not have the name of a killer, maybe a group of MO tied to a single unnamed individual.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:54 pm

There is a list of serial killers here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... of_victims

Currently, I am reading up on serial killer Edward Wayne Edwards, responsible for multiple wrongful convictions, but it wouldn't be him, not his style.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom


Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby LarryK » Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:44 am

So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Apr 25, 2015 11:16 am

LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Sat Apr 25, 2015 2:35 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.



Probably the best two arguments for innocence are 1. the wounds she suffered are inconsistent with self-inflicted wounds in a number of ways, and 2. the timeline - one of the boys could have lived only a short time after the wounds. It is hard to reconstruct how she inflicted the wounds, placed the 911 call, and did a whole bunch of other things (including plant the bloody sock and inflict the wounds on herself) in any plausible time line.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Sat Apr 25, 2015 3:13 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.



Probably the best two arguments for innocence are 1. the wounds she suffered are inconsistent with self-inflicted wounds in a number of ways, and 2. the timeline - one of the boys could have lived only a short time after the wounds. It is hard to reconstruct how she inflicted the wounds, placed the 911 call, and did a whole bunch of other things (including plant the bloody sock and inflict the wounds on herself) in any plausible time line.


It gets close for me I agree. . . . .

I think one problem is that the jury was not left with any credible alternative stories. I am curious if a defense attorney could somehow introduce somewhat similar crimes where it was not a case of the parents being responsible.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:02 am

I had a thought about the neck wound. The one that had her necklace buried in it. If you stand up with a necklace on, gravity will pull the necklace down low whereas if you lie on your side, the necklace may end up higher up the neck. I don't have the pictures at my finger tips but if memory serves the neck wound was higher up than the natural resting place for a vertical person.

Someone on facebook recently did a nice demo showing how the neck wound may continue on in a single straight line with another wound on the left breast. As though the intruder snuck up on her while she was lying on her left side and slashed downwards across her throat and onwards to her chest. The importance of this is that such interrupted wounds are well known in the forensic world but highly unlikely to be known to Darlie Routier.

Another thing, do we know whether she is right or left handed? It would be good if she were right handed because, if made by her, the neck wound was surely made with her left.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:13 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.



This is a case of - 1. there are a lot of reasons to think that she didn't do it, but 2. if she didn't, it's really hard to figure out how it happened.
I keep coming back to an experience I had in private practice. I represented a large corporation which was being sued for 7 figures in a complex wrongful death action. Another corporation was also a target and we both had insurance so that the insurance companies were active. We all spent a ton of money trying to figure out how the accident (a bizarre and horrible electrocution) occurred and all we could conclude was that the accident was impossible. There was no shortage of funding to investigate the matter but we came up empty and to this day I can't figure it out. We settled for mid 7 figures and went our separate ways.
The legal issue in Darlie's case is whether we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. She does not have the onus of proving exactly what happened. If we can't figure it out, then the answer is that she should be acquitted.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:19 am

erasmus44 wrote:This is a case of - 1. there are a lot of reasons to think that she didn't do it, but 2. if she didn't, it's really hard to figure out how it happened.
I keep coming back to an experience I had in private practice. I represented a large corporation which was being sued for 7 figures in a complex wrongful death action. Another corporation was also a target and we both had insurance so that the insurance companies were active. We all spent a ton of money trying to figure out how the accident (a bizarre and horrible electrocution) occurred and all we could conclude was that the accident was impossible. There was no shortage of funding to investigate the matter but we came up empty and to this day I can't figure it out. We settled for mid 7 figures and went our separate ways.
The legal issue in Darlie's case is whether we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it. She does not have the onus of proving exactly what happened. If we can't figure it out, then the answer is that she should be acquitted.


The argument seems to be that because she cannot really explain what happened, Ms Routier must be guilty. In a manner of speaking, the burden of proof is reversed.

I remember the prosecutor of Charles Manson speaking about O.J. Simpson and how if he had prosecuted O.J., he would have chosen the Death penalty because he gets a much more conservative jury. I have a feeling that most Texas conservative juries will almost convict based on the argument that the prosecutor says that the person is a little guilty although they are likely squeamish about her being a girl.

Now coming at trying to keep them from executing her, our problem is that we have to prove her innocent. You don't have to like it but this is the situation was are in now.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:49 am

Desert Fox wrote:
LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.


Sammie Luckus Cook, Jr.

The first witness was Virginia Smith. That was not her true name, but she testified that it was the name which she wanted to go by for this trial. At the time of the offense, Virginia Smith lived in an apartment complex in Dallas. Virginia Smith testified that April 13, 2000, was a day that she will never forget. She got to her apartment about 5:30 p.m., changed clothes, and went to check the mail. When she got back to the apartment, she opened the patio door and started cleaning the kitchen. While she was putting up the dishes, she heard a noise from the patio. Then she saw a man standing in her living room. She made a positive identification of appellant as the man who came into her apartment and assaulted her.

Virginia Smith said that she asked appellant what he wanted and that he kept telling her to “shut up.” Virginia Smith testified that appellant grabbed her by her arm and pulled her into her bedroom. Then he took her into the bathroom. Appellant closed the bathroom door, and Virginia Smith could hear him in the kitchen going through the drawers. When he came back to the bathroom, appellant had Virginia Smith's purse and a knife. He told her to give him all the money that she had. Virginia Smith said that appellant had the only sharp knife which she had in the apartment. After he took all the money from her purse, appellant told Virginia Smith to get undressed. Virginia Smith started crying, and appellant poked her with the knife until she complied with his demand. Virginia Smith identified the pictures which showed the way she looked when the police came to her apartment later that night....

Proof at Punishment Phase

Six other victims of aggravated sexual assaults testified at the punishment phase of trial. There was DNA evidence from each of those assaults which matched the DNA evidence from appellant.   These witnesses will be identified by the pseudonyms which they used during trial or by initials.

“Amy Harrison” testified about events on February 15, 1995, when she was subjected to two acts of aggravated sexual assault by an unknown man. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.

"Mary Smith” testified about events on December 18, 1995, when she was subjected to an aggravated sexual assault by an unknown man. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.  

M.C.R. testified through an interpreter about the events on March 28, 1996, when she was subjected to an aggravated sexual assault by an unknown intruder (in the presence of her five-year-old daughter). The police took her to the hospital for an examination.  

“Joanna Smith” testified about events on May 7, 1996, when she was subjected to a series of aggravated sexual assaults by an unknown intruder. The police took her to Parkland Hospital for the rape kit examination.

 “Beth Smith” testified about the events on May 19, 1996, when she was subjected to a series of aggravated sexual assaults by an unknown intruder. The police took her to the hospital for a rape kit examination.

“Mary Becker” testified about the events on May 6, 2000.   These events occurred 23 days after the offense for which appellant was convicted.   After he committed several acts of aggravated sexual assault, appellant fell asleep in Mary Becker's apartment. Appellant was arrested after she was able to escape and call the police. The police took her to the hospital for the rape kit examination. The police detective put appellant's photograph into the photographic lineup which he showed to Virginia Smith.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-...s/1450468.html

During the mid-to-late '90s, police were convinced that not one, but several, serial rapists were terrorizing northeast Dallas. Ultimately, a 34-year-old man named Ollie Ray Diles, who had been labeled "The Box-Cutter Rapist" after victims described the weapon used to subdue them, was caught in 1997, convicted for three sexual attacks and given three life sentences. Next to be apprehended was Sammie Luckus Cook Jr., 31, who was linked by DNA evidence to as many as 15 rapes dating to 1995.

The litany of details provided by Cook's victims was numbing: Their assailant, each reported, had worn a bandanna over his face and either gloves or socks on his hands to prevent leaving any fingerprints. Purse straps, belts or electrical cords were used to bind their hands and feet, and they were threatened with a knife or scissors. In one case, a woman told of coming out of her bathroom to find a man holding a kitchen fork to the throat of her 6-year-old daughter. The mother managed to grab the youngster but was eventually raped as the terrified child looked on. Another had been eight months pregnant at the time of her attack.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2002-1...-suspect/full/

Gary Faison...

Police, however, were convinced Diles and Cook were not the only rapists terrorizing northeast Dallas.

There had, for instance, been the young woman who, after returning from a week's vacation, was awakened at 2 a.m. by an intruder who entered her apartment bedroom and placed a towel and a gloved hand over her face before raping her. During the attack he had threatened to cut out her eyes if she screamed or resisted. When he asked for money, the victim provided him with her ATM code number. Then, before leaving, he had forced her to shower in an effort to do away with any physical evidence of the attack. She would later tell police that she never saw the assailant's face.

There would, however, be a photograph of a man using the automatic teller machine near the woman's apartment after the assault. Additionally, a palm print was lifted from a window screen that had apparently been removed from the victim's apartment and found nearby.

Two weeks before Christmas in 1995, a 26-year-old SMU graduate student was attacked in the early morning hours by a man who had entered her apartment through a sliding glass door. The assailant covered her head with a pillowcase, bound her hands with a pair of pantyhose and raped her. Throughout the attack, he warned that if she screamed, he would cut her. Following the rape, he had also demanded that she shower before he disappeared into the night.

The victim, who never saw her attacker's face, could only describe him as being 5-foot-10 and weighing approximately 190 pounds. The only clues left behind were partial prints left by the intruder on the front-door deadbolt and a strip of tape used to disable a locking bar.

Unfortunately, as with the previous case, the police had no suspect with whom to compare the prints.

The following July, a young married woman whose husband was out of town on business was dressing for work when a man burst into her apartment bedroom and threw a blanket over her head before sexually assaulting her and taking $20 and a Discover card from her purse. Through the traumatic event, she later told investigators, she had talked of being the mother of a young son and begged that her life be spared. She also asked that her attacker use a condom during the rape. All she could remember the man saying in response was for her to "settle down and shut up."

Though she was unable to provide police with a description of the man who attacked her, a neighbor later told authorities of seeing a black man looking into the woman's apartment window. Another resident said she'd been walking her dog two days earlier and saw an unfamiliar African-American male near the rape victim's apartment.

While relatively certain the same person had committed all three rapes--and perhaps as many as a half dozen others--frustrated investigators had no real suspect on which to focus. The man they had been desperately searching for was little more than a faceless ghost. Until Gary Faison was arrested.

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2002-1...-suspect/full/
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:16 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I had a thought about the neck wound. The one that had her necklace buried in it. If you stand up with a necklace on, gravity will pull the necklace down low whereas if you lie on your side, the necklace may end up higher up the neck. I don't have the pictures at my finger tips but if memory serves the neck wound was higher up than the natural resting place for a vertical person.

Someone on facebook recently did a nice demo showing how the neck wound may continue on in a single straight line with another wound on the left breast. As though the intruder snuck up on her while she was lying on her left side and slashed downwards across her throat and onwards to her chest. The importance of this is that such interrupted wounds are well known in the forensic world but highly unlikely to be known to Darlie Routier.

Another thing, do we know whether she is right or left handed? It would be good if she were right handed because, if made by her, the neck wound was surely made with her left.


She's right handed. Aside from the necklace, which is an excellent point, there is evidence that while she was actively bleeding she had to have been laying on her left side for some amount of time. Her shirt had blood pooled on her left side as well as down the back on the left side. Had she cut herself at the sink all the blood would have went straight down the front of her shirt.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:19 am

Desert Fox wrote:
LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.


"There was a lack of evidence connecting a suspect to this. All we had was a scene and victims and therefore one of the victims became the suspect. We didn't start looking at the mother until, uh, twenty thirty minutes in when I told them, I said 'something's wrong with this scene.'"

-James Cron

The Investigators - A mother on death row
TruTv original air date - April 29th, 2004
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:20 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
LarryK wrote:So far no story seems to fit perfectly, but the story that Darlie is the killer is a larger stretch than the alternatives. She should be released on that basis. I cannot see her being a threat to society.


The problem seems to be that the only evidence seems to be that they have no other suspects. . . . . .
She should not have been convicted based on that but I have been looking for something that argues for definitive innocence.



Probably the best two arguments for innocence are 1. the wounds she suffered are inconsistent with self-inflicted wounds in a number of ways, and 2. the timeline - one of the boys could have lived only a short time after the wounds. It is hard to reconstruct how she inflicted the wounds, placed the 911 call, and did a whole bunch of other things (including plant the bloody sock and inflict the wounds on herself) in any plausible time line.


It gets close for me I agree. . . . .

I think one problem is that the jury was not left with any credible alternative stories. I am curious if a defense attorney could somehow introduce somewhat similar crimes where it was not a case of the parents being responsible.



At the time that Brantley was testifying, however, police had records of other crimes that resembled the Routier murders.

On December 8, 1995, an intruder entered a nearby residence, obtained a small kitchen knife, and held that knife against the throat of a victim in preparation for a sexual assault. Exh. B.

On March 28, 1996, an unknown assailant threatened a child with a kitchen fork. Exh. A.

In a series of other crimes, an unknown assailant used a single tube sock – similar to the sock found in the alley behind the Routier residence – to gag his victims and to conceal fingerprints. Exh. B (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (December 8, 1995);

Exh. C (same) (February 1, 1996);

Exh. D (assailant used a tube sock to cover his hands) (April 7, 1996);

Exh. E (using a sock from the victims drawer as a gag) (May 7, 1996).

Had defense counsel been given this information, they would have been able to impeach Brantley with evidence that his investigation into similar crimes was inadequate, and that his conclusions were not based on inaccurate assumptions.

http://www.guiltybydefault.com/transcripts/writ.php

Aside from the above mentioned rapes, there was also a December 18, 1995 rape and a May 19, 1996 rape.

If you read through this, not only were crimes being committed in the Dallas area at the same time, the perpetrator was using weapons found in the victims' homes as well as socks from the victims' homes. Now look at the dates. December, February, March, April, May... Nothing from then on until he resurfaced out of the blue in 2000 to start raping again? I call bullshit. He had a consistent pattern of attacks that just stopped with his last attack in May 1996? Did he suddenly grow a conscience? Or did he go a little too far after his May assault and decide he needed to lay low for a while? Based on his known pattern, his next assault would have been the beginning of June 1996. He was arrested in November 1996 for an unrelated crime. He went to jail in November 1997 and was released two years later. He then went on to rape two women in April and May 2000.

Doesn't exactly sound like the type of guy who was ready to take a breather from the whole B & E/rape scene unless he had a good reason to... Like, say, being afraid of getting caught for similar crimes and then implicated in the murder of two boys and the attempted murder of their mother. Pretty good incentive to put your crime spree on hold for a bit. Being in jail didn't hurt any either. But based on his behavior, old habits die hard. He was back to his old self within months of his release and no reason to worry about being accused of murder. Darlie had been convicted by then.

... Virginia Smith said that appellant had the only sharp knife which she had in the apartment.   After he took all the money from her purse, appellant told Virginia Smith to get undressed.   Virginia Smith started crying, and appellant poked her with the knife until she complied with his demand.   Virginia Smith identified the pictures which showed the way she looked when the police came to her apartment later that night.

The first sexual assault was in the bathroom when appellant forced Virginia Smith to put his penis in her mouth.   Appellant told her not to bite him, and he said that he would kill her if she bit him.   He put the knife to her throat.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of- ... 50468.html
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:05 pm

Maybe the DNA will show somebody else. . . . .I hope so
Sammie Cook does look at least like a fairly likely suspect.
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Thu May 07, 2015 6:33 am

I guess the killer could have been a rapist cop like Jimmy Fennell : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5VfnfqtoE ?

I just saw this video for 1st time today.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Desert Fox » Thu May 07, 2015 7:14 pm

geebee2 wrote:I guess the killer could have been a rapist cop like Jimmy Fennell : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5VfnfqtoE ?

I just saw this video for 1st time today.


Should Rodney Reed be argued as a probable innocent defendant?
User avatar
Desert Fox
 
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2014 7:50 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Fri May 08, 2015 5:19 am

Desert Fox wrote:
geebee2 wrote:I guess the killer could have been a rapist cop like Jimmy Fennell : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5VfnfqtoE ?

I just saw this video for 1st time today.


Should Rodney Reed be argued as a probable innocent defendant?


Certainly. The case has enormous support, I'm not sure if IA are supporting it.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Mon May 11, 2015 5:06 pm

geebee2 wrote:I guess the killer could have been a rapist cop like Jimmy Fennell : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5VfnfqtoE ?

I just saw this video for 1st time today.


Fennell wouldn't be a good suspect in the Routier murders. Fennell (assuming he did the crime, which I believe he did) murdered his girlfriend and raped other women in the course of his job. Darlie was not his love interest nor was he making a traffic stop at her house. The distance from Bastrop to Dallas is over 200 miles.

On a side note... I think Rodney Reed is innocent and Jimmy Fennell is the guilty party. I'm shocked that after eleven people said they knew Reed and Stites had a relationship that the courts simply ignore it. One or two witnesses you might be able to ignore but eleven?!! Something is wrong in Texas. I hope they secede soon.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby geebee2 » Thu May 21, 2015 6:36 am

Sinsaint wrote:
geebee2 wrote:I guess the killer could have been a rapist cop like Jimmy Fennell : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o5VfnfqtoE ?

I just saw this video for 1st time today.


Fennell wouldn't be a good suspect in the Routier murders. Fennell (assuming he did the crime, which I believe he did) murdered his girlfriend and raped other women in the course of his job. Darlie was not his love interest nor was he making a traffic stop at her house. The distance from Bastrop to Dallas is over 200 miles.

On a side note... I think Rodney Reed is innocent and Jimmy Fennell is the guilty party. I'm shocked that after eleven people said they knew Reed and Stites had a relationship that the courts simply ignore it. One or two witnesses you might be able to ignore but eleven?!! Something is wrong in Texas. I hope they secede soon.


I was not suggesting Fennell in particular as an actual suspect, just cops in general are likely suspects. They know how to work the system.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5158
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:52 pm

CNN's Death Row Stories. Darlie Routier on Jul 11 and 17. If you believe CNN and former guilter author Barbara Davis, Routier has no business being on death row.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:10 pm

Bill Williams wrote:CNN's Death Row Stories. Darlie Routier on Jul 11 and 17. If you believe CNN and former guilter author Barbara Davis, Routier has no business being on death row.

Good to see this one moving centre stage.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:47 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:CNN's Death Row Stories. Darlie Routier on Jul 11 and 17. If you believe CNN and former guilter author Barbara Davis, Routier has no business being on death row.

Good to see this one moving centre stage.

There certainly is SOME momentum Darlie's way to rate this kind of coverage.... it's CNN for Pete's sake!

The chilling line was when True Crime author and chief Darlie accuser Barbara Davis said on screen, that she'd received an anonymous call a couple of years after her book.

It was an anonymous informant inside the prosecutor's office, who took her up to see evidence, excuplatory evidence, which the prosecution had withheld. Chief among that evidence was the secret police video of the hour at the cemetery showing an obviously distraught Darlie and family, barely able to keep it together. An hour of obvious mourning.

Then and only then, at the end was the incident with the silly string and singing happy birthday to the dead boy. That short segment had been seen by the original convicting jury nine times, without the context of the total ceremony at the graveside. That was withheld.

So were photos which showed that evidence had been moved, as determined by forensic photos. It was impossible to tell where stuff had been moved to, and where it came from because photos were out of order.

Also, the original court reporter took the fifth, rather than explain why the trial transcript had 10,000 )or thereabouts) flaws in it.

If the CNN audience had been the jury, Darlie would be out.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:28 pm

Finally, CNN covered one large issue with the prosecution timeline. I probably have the exact times wrong, but.....

.... it took eight minutes for the cops to respond to the 9-1-1 call, and Darlie was on the phone with them for five minutes. That left three minutes for Darlie to stage the scene acc. to the prosecution theory, as well as traipse down a few houses and plant the sock with both boys' blood on it. It did not leave a lot of time for the staging, as well as it implied that Darle's husband was in on it.

They also critiqued the fibers found on the knife, which the prosecution said came from the cut window screen. One of the private investigators claimed that not only did they not match those fibers to the screen to the exclusion of all else, but that the fibers were also a match for the fingerprint brush-fibers used by investigators to dust for prints.

CNN did a very good job in raising reasonable doubt, including finding the one juror who agreed to talk. He said that if he'd seen he new evidence (that Barbara Davis saw) he would not have convicted.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Jul 18, 2015 2:57 am

Bill Williams wrote:Finally, CNN covered one large issue with the prosecution timeline. I probably have the exact times wrong, but.....

.... it took eight minutes for the cops to respond to the 9-1-1 call, and Darlie was on the phone with them for five minutes. That left three minutes for Darlie to stage the scene acc. to the prosecution theory, as well as traipse down a few houses and plant the sock with both boys' blood on it. It did not leave a lot of time for the staging, as well as it implied that Darle's husband was in on it.

They also critiqued the fibers found on the knife, which the prosecution said came from the cut window screen. One of the private investigators claimed that not only did they not match those fibers to the screen to the exclusion of all else, but that the fibers were also a match for the fingerprint brush-fibers used by investigators to dust for prints.

CNN did a very good job in raising reasonable doubt, including finding the one juror who agreed to talk. He said that if he'd seen he new evidence (that Barbara Davis saw) he would not have convicted.

I have not seen the show. What did Barbara Davis see?

Sinsaint right here has explained about the fingerprint brushes.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:41 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:I have not seen the show. What did Barbara Davis see?

Sinsaint right here has explained about the fingerprint brushes.

Hopefully it is onlne or will be soon.

The shortcoming of television is that it is an emotional medium - twenty seconds of someone in tears says more than 20 minutes of sober analysis. Certainly between Darlie herself as well as Darlie's mom holding vigil on the streets of (hang 'em high) Dallas, pulls at the heartstrings.

That was the way they played Barbara Davis, a true crime author who once led the charge to make sure Darlie had a date with the needle.

Then, CNN put Davis on the screen, with cut-ins of the close-up of her tell all book, and then shows her in tears recanting.

I know I'll misrepresent the hard and grizzled facts she put forward - but it was the middle of the night phone call to her from an anonymous prosecution official, somewhere in the prosecution food-chain. "I need to show you the evidence no one else saw."

First was the secret, hour-long police-tape of the grave-side with ALL the appropriate behaviour of a grieving mom, devastated by the murder of her two boys. Davis said that if she'd ever seen that, she'd have never used the silly-string episode at the end of the grave-side service which side-by-side with what went on before now seemed taken completely out of context; and Davis said that little snippet, out of context and hammered away on at trial, is why Darlie is now one court date away from having an execution date set.

Then there was the forensic, crime scene pictures. Apparently this anonymous source had done their best to put photos in sequence, and it showed how the first forensic investigators had basically trashed the crime scene. What had been presented in court as Darlie's suspicious movements before the arrive of police - based on blood stains, position of the knife, etc - when put in the sequence Davis saw completely changed her view.

Back to the emotive power of television. Davis almost burst into tears as she made what looked to me like a confession of her own sin to the priest of the interviewer. Her face was begging forgiveness.

Maybe others saw something different. Still, if a new jury pool was created out of CNN watchers, there'd be no conviction.

Also, CNN was filled with little quips about how this all went wrong. One was the change of venue from Dallas to Kerr, Texas. One quip was a P.I. saying that if he'd ever been murdered and he wanted to make sure that whoever it was they arrested was convicted and fried, then he'd also want a change of venue to Kerr!

This CNN piece was the PR job you cannot pay for. The only question is - is it the right side of things? I think it is.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:24 am

Me too. This one smells all wrong.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Bill Williams » Sat Jul 18, 2015 10:38 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Me too. This one smells all wrong.

Like the Sollecito/Knox case, acquitted at the last minute; this one will lead Darlie-haters to speculate as to why so many former courts could be wrong, only to have her freed at the last minute by a federal appeals' court.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Sep 08, 2015 12:55 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:Finally, CNN covered one large issue with the prosecution timeline. I probably have the exact times wrong, but.....

.... it took eight minutes for the cops to respond to the 9-1-1 call, and Darlie was on the phone with them for five minutes. That left three minutes for Darlie to stage the scene acc. to the prosecution theory, as well as traipse down a few houses and plant the sock with both boys' blood on it. It did not leave a lot of time for the staging, as well as it implied that Darle's husband was in on it.

They also critiqued the fibers found on the knife, which the prosecution said came from the cut window screen. One of the private investigators claimed that not only did they not match those fibers to the screen to the exclusion of all else, but that the fibers were also a match for the fingerprint brush-fibers used by investigators to dust for prints.

CNN did a very good job in raising reasonable doubt, including finding the one juror who agreed to talk. He said that if he'd seen he new evidence (that Barbara Davis saw) he would not have convicted.

I have not seen the show. What did Barbara Davis see?

Sinsaint right here has explained about the fingerprint brushes.


Ah yes... The brushes... Where to begin...

The kitchen is a good start. More importantly, the knife block. Hamilton testified he.. Err... No clue what he did... Who knows. He testified that he started at where the point of entry was presumed to be (window) and worked his way to the kitchen. He used the same brush and same dusting bowl to dust everything (... Can we all saw cross-contamination issue?). Linch showed up hours later, saw a fine layer of dust on the sill and concluded no one crawled through the window, even though the screen frame was bent inward, later testing proved the screen material was cut from the outside and his "fine layer of dust" BS was viewed after Hamilton had dusted the sill for prints.

It's like a comedy of errors. Hamilton could have dipped his dusting brush in whatever and painted the town red as he went along, leaving little trails along the way. Lucky for him, he just couldn't remember what he dusted after the window sill. He was fairly certain he never dusted the knives (quick fix for any cross-contamination defense... Duh... I can't remember) but Linch testified the knives and block had fingerprint dust on them when he first viewed them. WTF put that crap there? Hamilton's testimony can be summed up with... "I had a brain fart after the window" and Linch picks up with... "I analyzed the knives" and found what could be transferred particles but he never mentioned that during the trial. Linch never admitted the knives and block had been dusted (and possibly cross-contaminated) until his affidavit years after her conviction.

And make no mistake, Linch's admission puts the whole "screen fiber on the bread knife ergo Darlie done it, homicide solved" hypothesis into question. I have kids. I cringe at the idea someone might dust for fingerprints in my house. If you start in my daughter's room... Expect to find Cheet-Oh dust on everything after that if you use the same brush. I doubt anyone would accuse me of murdering my daughter with a Cheet-Oh but if that Cheet-Oh dust ends up on a knife via transfer? Screwed.

Darlie's case is no different... "Hey, let's dust this fiber laced window sill first with our only brush into our only dusting bowl. After our brush and dust bowl is completely contaminated with particles we picked up from the window sill (including cut screen fibers) let's dust a few knives and then claim amnesia from any point after the window sill." My children can grasp the cross-contamination issue. No clue why most refuse to even contemplate the issue.

As a side note... I've mentioned and posted pictures of the bent screen frame... The one Linch clearly lied about. The video showing the damaged screen is now gone.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:26 am

Image

According to Linch... Depending on when you ask... This screen wasn't bent.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:36 am

Bill Williams wrote:Finally, CNN covered one large issue with the prosecution timeline. I probably have the exact times wrong, but.....

.... it took eight minutes for the cops to respond to the 9-1-1 call, and Darlie was on the phone with them for five minutes. That left three minutes for Darlie to stage the scene acc. to the prosecution theory, as well as traipse down a few houses and plant the sock with both boys' blood on it. It did not leave a lot of time for the staging, as well as it implied that Darle's husband was in on it.

They also critiqued the fibers found on the knife, which the prosecution said came from the cut window screen. One of the private investigators claimed that not only did they not match those fibers to the screen to the exclusion of all else, but that the fibers were also a match for the fingerprint brush-fibers used by investigators to dust for prints.

CNN did a very good job in raising reasonable doubt, including finding the one juror who agreed to talk. He said that if he'd seen he new evidence (that Barbara Davis saw) he would not have convicted.


The timeline is thinner than that. Somewhere in this thread is the exact timeline narrowed by seconds and actions. She had zero ability to carry out the crime in that time.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Kauffer » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:55 am

I do not know this case well, but am aware of the discussion particularly in relation to bloodstain pattern analysis. Those interested in the case may wish to peruse this from the UK forensic science regulator:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_2015.pdf

from this page:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... f-practice
Kauffer
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:34 pm

MaryM wrote:"What is your connection to the case? "

I became interested in this case in 1999, Bill. When the transcript was finally posted online, I was astounded at the half-truths and misinformation that had been circulated by Darlie's supporters. I've never been to Texas, nor have I met anyone connected to this case. My only interest is that the truth be known.

"I'm not sure the prosecution made its case."

Could you be more specific? For instance, how did Darlie manage to go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room and not get a single scratch on her feet?


Well, let's see what we know. There was glass on the floor and we know Darlie made multiple trips back and forth to the sink by virtue of the fact that there were multiple wet rags in the living room and foyer hall, Darin testified Darlie was bringing the rags during the time he was trying to help the boys and the audio expert testified Darlie traveled at least one time from a soft surfaced area to a hard surfaced area. The only logical conclusion is that Darlie simply never stepped on any glass. Otherwise you'd need to believe that Darin came downstairs, Darlie got all the rags and then right in front of Darin and while on the phone with 911 Darlie broke the glass.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:39 pm

MaryM wrote:"So it's not a matter of, "how did Darlie manage to go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room and not get a single scratch on her feet?" To prove her guilt there needs to be a far more convincing package of incrimination - and I don't see it."

I agree wholeheartedly, Bill. It's not any one thing (i.e., lack of cuts on Darlie's feet) that proved her guilt. It's the totality of the evidence that proved her guilt. You said you didn't think the prosecution "made its case," but you haven't specified the evidence they presented to the jury. For example, Darlie said the intruder threw the knife down in the entrance to the utility room, but there was no cast-off blood in that area.


There was also photos submitted into evidence which showed a rug was at the entrance to the utility room which should have minimized the amount of cast off from the drop. There were also photos showing cast off blood drops an the bottom of the door.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Jul 17, 2016 4:42 pm

MaryM wrote:"There's also the sock found at some distance from the murder scene. All of this needs to be settled in my mind to satisfy reasonable doubt, such satisfaction is not there IMO."

Hi, Bill. Well, obviously there was no videotape of who put the sock in the alley, but we know it was connected to the crime because it had both boys' blood on it. The question is: who placed the sock in the alley, Darlie or an intruder?

1. Darin testified that it was his sock. It had Devon and Damon's blood on it, but none of Darlie's. If an intruder used the sock, for instance, to prevent fingerprints on the knife handle, why wasn't Darlie's blood also on the sock?
2. If the sock wasn't used to cover the knife handle, then why would he leave the knife (possibly with his fingerprints) and take a sock?
3. Darlie testified that she was on her feet, following the intruder through the kitchen, so he knew she was alive and mobile, and also armed with the knife he threw down. She could have screamed for help at that point. Why would he go into the alley, taking him deeper into the neighborhood, with no means of escape?
4. Darlie's DNA was found in the toe of the sock, and testimony established that she was very concerned about fingerprints that night as well as the next few days. She knew the sock came from her house. She knew that her sons' blood was on that sock. IMO, she had to get that sock out of the house.

Which scenario if more logical to you, Bill?


1. We don't know what that sock was used for. For all we know that sock was on the intruder's non-knife wielding hand and it was used to cover Darlie's mouth as he was attacking her.

2. Maybe he had socks on both hands so he wasn't worried that the knife would have his prints on it.

3. That isn't what Darlie testified to. She testified that when she woke up the intruder was already walking away from her. She then got up and followed him. She never said she was directly behind him, only that she followed after him. For all you know she could have started to follow him as he was exiting the kitchen through the laundry room door and he never even saw her stand up. Also the alley wouldn't have taken him deeper into the neighborhood. At the end of the alley turn left, go straight a block and a half and he would have been on a main road leading away from the development. It's the same road Waddell and Walling came in from so unless those two came from "deeper in the neighborhood" it would be a reasonable road for the intruder to flee to.

4. So what if the sock had her DNA on it. It came from her house. And so what if it did have the boys' blood on it. Again, it was a sock from her house. There is nothing about that sock that made it necessary for Darlie to need to dispose of it.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Jul 17, 2016 5:23 pm

MaryM wrote:We seem to be getting off the original point here, which was that you didn't think the prosecution presented a convincing package of incrimination. What is your opinion about the huge quantity of Darlie's blood around the sink, on the cabinet underneath, and the the throw-rug under the sink? Darlie said she'd been attacked on the couch, but there was no blood on the couch where her head would have been lying. There was no cast-off blood on the couch at all.

Darlie's story was that she followed the intruder through the east side of the kitchen, past the wine rack. She was specifically asked if she'd gone on the other side of the kitchen, where the sinks were, at anytime that night after the attack, and her answer was "no."


Now you're just making things up. Darlie's blood was found on the couch and pillow she was using. AND you are well aware of this fact. Obviously there is going to be large amounts of her blood at the sink area because she had went to the sink numerous times to get wet rags for the boys. But let's go with your theory that Darlie cut herself at the sink. How do you explain the fact that her shirt showed evidence of her blood pooling to her left side and down her back? It's almost as if she must have been laying down on her left side while she was bleeding. Unless you're going to tell me she was doing a back bend while she was stabbing herself at the sink.

As for Darlie saying she was never over by the sink that night? Prove it. Did this statement come from the same cop who said Darlie confessed or was it from the same cop who lied about telling Darlie to help her boys? Clearly Darlie was at the sink because she was the one who got all the wet rags that were found in the living room and hallway and she had zero reason to lie about it.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Sun Jul 17, 2016 7:12 pm

Leischa wrote:I realize this part of the forum seemsr to have been pretty much inactive for the last couple of months but I'd like to get an opinion on something I've been thinking about for the last two days or so. I stumbled upon this case about three weeks ago and cannot stop reading about it. From the very beginning, I've had the feeling that Darin has been involved in this and that Darlie didn't realize it at the time. I'm not saying that there was no intruder in the house because I think it could've been the case, but there is somethiyng very strange about how Darin managed the situation when he got downstairs after he heard Darlie scream.

Darin was upstairs. He heard her scream Devon's name and, in the report he filed at the police station, Darin said he went straight to Devon. If you look at the house plan of the house, and also at the DNA blood map, you can see that Darin had to walk over (or right by) Damon in order to get to Devon, who was in the far corner of the room. Damon was right at the entrance of the Roman room (in the hallway I think) and, unless Darin just ran and jumped over the couch to get to Devon, he must have seen Damon first, right? Yet, he didn't mention it. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird?

I mean, you are awaken by your spouse yelling one of your son's name (or yours), you get downstairs and see one of your sons laying in the hallway, but since your spouse didn't yell the name of this child, you go straight to the other one and ignore this one? How does that make any sense?


I brought this post over here as it seems a more fitting thread to answer it in.

Darin testified he woke up when he heard glass break and soon after he heard Darlie screaming one of the boys names (I think Devon). He said he got downstairs and thought the boys had accidentally knocked the table over and got cut. Damon was still moving and breathing but Devon wasn't. He thought Devon was the more seriously injured of the two so he went to help him while Darlie tended to Damon. I don't find his reasoning or actions odd in the slightest. The same argument could be made if he had helped Damon instead of Devon. Why would he help the one who was clearly still moving and breathing instead of helping the one who was laying there motionless and not breathing? I think he was just a guy who woke up to a terrible situation and reacted to it the best way he could.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:26 pm

Hiya Sinsaint. Long time no see.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:30 pm

The sock is inexplicable, the wounds she received are incredibly (literally) artful if self-inflicted. On the other hand, the cops blundering about in the crime scene and then pronouncing the absence of an intruder is not compelling at all. WTF is wrong with these juries?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 4:13 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:The sock is inexplicable, the wounds she received are incredibly (literally) artful if self-inflicted. On the other hand, the cops blundering about in the crime scene and then pronouncing the absence of an intruder is not compelling at all. WTF is wrong with these juries?



The cops made a seemingly convincing case that it was unlikely there was an intruder. On the other hand, Darlie's injuries, the sock and the timeline make it virtually impossible for her to have been the perp. This leaves - the husband or a lurker (someone who had gotten into the house earlier and was hiding in a closet, for example) as possibilities. But the forensic exam was screwed up so the the "no intruder" theory is probably bogus.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jul 21, 2016 4:20 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Hiya Sinsaint. Long time no see.


Hey Clive! I've been super busy. I'm expecting a baby in October.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:12 am

No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:59 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.


Yes, Darlie dumping the sock makes no sense. There are only two reasons why she would have risked it. Either to get rid of it because it was incriminating or to set it up to make it look like an intruder dropped it as he was leaving. If it was to get rid of it Darlie would have had no reason to think the sock would have incriminated her. She could have just left it lay on the floor and came up with any number of excuses for why it was there... The dog was playing with it in the living room and she never picked it up, it must have gotten stuck to a blanket they were using when she did laundry or it must have been mixed in with the rags she was grabbing or she could have just said she saw it on the intruder's hand and he must have left it behind like he did with the knife.

If she took it down there to stage the scene it would have been mentioned by her immediately. Planting the sock down there would have been extremely risky. She wouldn't have taken the risk and then forgot all about weaving it into her story. The prosecution didn't even want to admit they found it at first because they knew that sock didn't fit in with their theory. They finally admitted they had it in October when they were forced to through discovery and even then they tried to initially claim it had nothing to do with the crime.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Jul 21, 2016 3:23 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.


Yes, Darlie dumping the sock makes no sense. There are only two reasons why she would have risked it. Either to get rid of it because it was incriminating or to set it up to make it look like an intruder dropped it as he was leaving. If it was to get rid of it Darlie would have had no reason to think the sock would have incriminated her. She could have just left it lay on the floor and came up with any number of excuses for why it was there... The dog was playing with it in the living room and she never picked it up, it must have gotten stuck to a blanket they were using when she did laundry or it must have been mixed in with the rags she was grabbing or she could have just said she saw it on the intruder's hand and he must have left it behind like he did with the knife.

If she took it down there to stage the scene it would have been mentioned by her immediately. Planting the sock down there would have been extremely risky. She wouldn't have taken the risk and then forgot all about weaving it into her story. The prosecution didn't even want to admit they found it at first because they knew that sock didn't fit in with their theory. They finally admitted they had it in October when they were forced to through discovery and even then they tried to initially claim it had nothing to do with the crime.

Can one fact, like this, trump everything? I guess it all depends, but it does here, especially as 'everything' consists of silly string and bull shit blood spatter evidence.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:54 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.


Yes, Darlie dumping the sock makes no sense. There are only two reasons why she would have risked it. Either to get rid of it because it was incriminating or to set it up to make it look like an intruder dropped it as he was leaving. If it was to get rid of it Darlie would have had no reason to think the sock would have incriminated her. She could have just left it lay on the floor and came up with any number of excuses for why it was there... The dog was playing with it in the living room and she never picked it up, it must have gotten stuck to a blanket they were using when she did laundry or it must have been mixed in with the rags she was grabbing or she could have just said she saw it on the intruder's hand and he must have left it behind like he did with the knife.

If she took it down there to stage the scene it would have been mentioned by her immediately. Planting the sock down there would have been extremely risky. She wouldn't have taken the risk and then forgot all about weaving it into her story. The prosecution didn't even want to admit they found it at first because they knew that sock didn't fit in with their theory. They finally admitted they had it in October when they were forced to through discovery and even then they tried to initially claim it had nothing to do with the crime.

Can one fact, like this, trump everything? I guess it all depends, but it does here, especially as 'everything' consists of silly string and bull shit blood spatter evidence.


I think it has to. If she didn't put it in the alley she couldn't have murdered the boys. As for looking at the totality of the evidence and saying it all points to her? Not when you look at each piece of evidence individually. As you said, the blood spatter evidence is bull shit from a less than reliable "expert" (Camm, Masters, Dirksmeyer case to name a few). A bread knife with a possible screen fiber that was most likely transferred to if by a fingerprint brush. A "cleaned" sink that clearly wasn't cleaned at all. At most there was water in the sink which is exactly what Darlie said. Glass on top of blood after multiple people walked through the kitchen as well as broken glass on the tabletop of the wine rack and inside an ice bucket with no explanation why the glass would be in those locations. A vacuum cleaner on top of blood when the first two responders on the scene never even saw it laying where it was later found. Darlie's blood spatter on a table in the living room, a large amount on her pillow and on the couch when she supposedly cut herself at the kitchen sink. Her blood pooled to the left side of her shirt and down her back even though she was never laying down according to every witness. There couldn't have been an intruder because he would have left some forensic evidence behind. There were upwards of seven people walking through the house and there was no forensic evidence found that any of them were there either but they clearly were.

The silly string tape wasn't evidence. It was a smear campaign. Nurses did the same by stating Darlie wasn't sad even though their notes stated otherwise. A cleaning lady who testified Darlie tried to smother her infant but never told Darin nor call CPS. Doctors testified that her neck wound was "superficial" knowing the implication was that the wound was minor without explaining that the wound was superficial to the carotid sheath and another two millimeters and she would have died. It should be noted that in the autopsy of both Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman both had countless superficial wounds and they were very clearly attacked. An officer who testified Darlie wouldn't help here boys when he asked her to even though he never asked her to help, only to sit down. Her 911 call and "fixation" on the knife while ignoring the fact she was speaking to three different people who were all mentioning the knife at various times throughout the call. She couldn't have slept through the attack on her boys because most likely she was unconscious. She had to have seen her attacker if she was fighting with him. I was just watching an episode of Forensic Files where a guy and two girls were attacked in their house by a guy with a knife. The guy died. Both women were face to face with the attacker as he stabbed them. Neither one could identify him, his race or his clothing. When asked specifically if their neighbor attacked them they both said no. It turned out he was the man who attacked them. Brantley testified home intruders don't attack people with weapons found in the house which ignored the fact there were a string of home intruder rapes where the perpetrator used knives found in the victims' kitchens (and suddenly stopped after Darlie was attacked).

The case against her falls apart when you look at each individual piece of evidence and ignore the smear campaign.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:49 am

I find your arguments compelling.

Darlie, if guilty, not only cut her own throat, embedding her necklace in the wound, but also made at least one realistic slash across the face that seems to have continued onto her shoulder. This form of interrupted cut occurs because the human body is not formed from flat surfaces. There are hollows and gaps so that a single slashing type of cut may result in two wounds separated by nothing. Aside from the difficulty of doing this to yourself, there is the further quesyion: how did she know how to do this at all? She also displayed characteristic bruises to her arms days after the incident that are similarly counter-intuitive and suggestive of some improbably careful prior study on her part.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby LarryK » Fri Jul 22, 2016 1:34 am

The fallacy here is that if you pile up enough garbage you can get something useful. In fact just adding more garbage it's still only a pile of garbage.
The brain is not configured in a way that makes obedience through logical, language-based propositions possible during distress and suffering. -- James Wilder, "Neurotheology and the Life Model"
LarryK
 
Posts: 853
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:57 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby erasmus44 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:04 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.


Yes, Darlie dumping the sock makes no sense. There are only two reasons why she would have risked it. Either to get rid of it because it was incriminating or to set it up to make it look like an intruder dropped it as he was leaving. If it was to get rid of it Darlie would have had no reason to think the sock would have incriminated her. She could have just left it lay on the floor and came up with any number of excuses for why it was there... The dog was playing with it in the living room and she never picked it up, it must have gotten stuck to a blanket they were using when she did laundry or it must have been mixed in with the rags she was grabbing or she could have just said she saw it on the intruder's hand and he must have left it behind like he did with the knife.

If she took it down there to stage the scene it would have been mentioned by her immediately. Planting the sock down there would have been extremely risky. She wouldn't have taken the risk and then forgot all about weaving it into her story. The prosecution didn't even want to admit they found it at first because they knew that sock didn't fit in with their theory. They finally admitted they had it in October when they were forced to through discovery and even then they tried to initially claim it had nothing to do with the crime.

Can one fact, like this, trump everything? I guess it all depends, but it does here, especially as 'everything' consists of silly string and bull shit blood spatter evidence.



But it is not just one fact. There is also - 1. her wounds which could not have been self-inflicted, and 2. the timeline which did not give her enough time to do everything consistent with the crime scene. Balanced against that we have only a pile of garbage. This is another case illustrating the powerful impact of confirmation bias. The cops got over there and in a few minutes said "staged break in" to themselves and then everything looked like evidence of guilt. Does this sound familiar?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3066
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:28 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.


Yes, Darlie dumping the sock makes no sense. There are only two reasons why she would have risked it. Either to get rid of it because it was incriminating or to set it up to make it look like an intruder dropped it as he was leaving. If it was to get rid of it Darlie would have had no reason to think the sock would have incriminated her. She could have just left it lay on the floor and came up with any number of excuses for why it was there... The dog was playing with it in the living room and she never picked it up, it must have gotten stuck to a blanket they were using when she did laundry or it must have been mixed in with the rags she was grabbing or she could have just said she saw it on the intruder's hand and he must have left it behind like he did with the knife.

If she took it down there to stage the scene it would have been mentioned by her immediately. Planting the sock down there would have been extremely risky. She wouldn't have taken the risk and then forgot all about weaving it into her story. The prosecution didn't even want to admit they found it at first because they knew that sock didn't fit in with their theory. They finally admitted they had it in October when they were forced to through discovery and even then they tried to initially claim it had nothing to do with the crime.

Can one fact, like this, trump everything? I guess it all depends, but it does here, especially as 'everything' consists of silly string and bull shit blood spatter evidence.



But it is not just one fact. There is also - 1. her wounds which could not have been self-inflicted, and 2. the timeline which did not give her enough time to do everything consistent with the crime scene. Balanced against that we have only a pile of garbage. This is another case illustrating the powerful impact of confirmation bias. The cops got over there and in a few minutes said "staged break in" to themselves and then everything looked like evidence of guilt. Does this sound familiar?


Not quite. Cron said it right out loud.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:47 am

erasmus44 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:No one would think of the sock dump. If they did think of it they wouldnt risk it. If they thought of it and risked it they would have woven a sock into their story somehow. The cops had already decided she did it before they found the sock. The case is a pile of crap.


Yes, Darlie dumping the sock makes no sense. There are only two reasons why she would have risked it. Either to get rid of it because it was incriminating or to set it up to make it look like an intruder dropped it as he was leaving. If it was to get rid of it Darlie would have had no reason to think the sock would have incriminated her. She could have just left it lay on the floor and came up with any number of excuses for why it was there... The dog was playing with it in the living room and she never picked it up, it must have gotten stuck to a blanket they were using when she did laundry or it must have been mixed in with the rags she was grabbing or she could have just said she saw it on the intruder's hand and he must have left it behind like he did with the knife.

If she took it down there to stage the scene it would have been mentioned by her immediately. Planting the sock down there would have been extremely risky. She wouldn't have taken the risk and then forgot all about weaving it into her story. The prosecution didn't even want to admit they found it at first because they knew that sock didn't fit in with their theory. They finally admitted they had it in October when they were forced to through discovery and even then they tried to initially claim it had nothing to do with the crime.

Can one fact, like this, trump everything? I guess it all depends, but it does here, especially as 'everything' consists of silly string and bull shit blood spatter evidence.



But it is not just one fact. There is also - 1. her wounds which could not have been self-inflicted, and 2. the timeline which did not give her enough time to do everything consistent with the crime scene. Balanced against that we have only a pile of garbage. This is another case illustrating the powerful impact of confirmation bias. The cops got over there and in a few minutes said "staged break in" to themselves and then everything looked like evidence of guilt. Does this sound familiar?

I agree but it is nonetheless possible for one decisive fact to trump an entire case. Like in Scott Peterson, in which there are several potential killer facts any of which, if made out, would suffice. E.g. if Connor lived beyond 24 Dec it's game over. Or if Laci really was seen walking the dog later in the morning. The sock does not quite have this totally destructive quality but it's darn close and I, as a juror, would need to see a very strong and unambiguous case before I set it aside.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:21 am

Clive wrote: agree but it is nonetheless possible for one decisive fact to trump an entire case. Like in Scott Peterson, in which there are several potential killer facts any of which, if made out, would suffice. E.g. if Connor lived beyond 24 Dec it's game over. Or if Laci really was seen walking the dog later in the morning. The sock does not quite have this totally destructive quality but it's darn close and I, as a juror, would need to see a very strong and unambiguous case before I set it aside.


Actually, the sock does make it game over. According to Bevel's testimony the one cast-off spot on Darlie's shirt was a complete mixture (not overlap) of Darlie and Devon's blood. He said Darlie would have had to have been actively bleeding when Devon was attacked in order for this to happen. The sock only had Devon and Damon's blood on it. There is no way she could have been bleeding the way she was and not got a single drop of her blood on the sock or left her own blood trail leading up to where the sock was found.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:36 pm

Michelle (MRC)

Hi Tracey Mo Ney and Kristina! Care to explain Joan or Wilfred?
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Previous

Return to Darlie Routier Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest