Darlie Routier Public Discussion


Re: Darlie Routier

Postby patricking » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:13 pm

patricking
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby patricking » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:21 pm

This is a site set up for women on death row. This particular page is devoted to Darlie Routier. It is not about the set of circumstances that put Mrs. Routier on death row. It is about her relationships with people whom she has seen daily or weekly over the past 15 years of her incarceration. There is also donation information here. There is still DNA and fingerprint analysis from this 1996 murder that has not been performed because Mrs. Routier was convicted not on evidence but on the manner of her grief. Donations are greatly needed to resolve the injustice done to this woman. Anything you can contribute is greatly appreciated.

http://www.focus-on-women.com/darlielynnroutier.htm
patricking
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby patricking » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:54 pm

If you've viewed the above material and doubt the evidence used to convict Darlie Routier, please join the cause that demands the DNA testing of Devon and Damon Routier's crime scene be completed and analysis of the fingerprints found at the scene that match no one in the family, be performed.

http://www.causes.com/causes/436054-sav ... er/actions
patricking
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby sflicker » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:30 pm

Thanks for sharing, I watched the YouTube in the link where a police officer interviewed said she was calm during a 911 call where she says she had already picked up the murder weapon. But then the actual 911 call is played and clearly the officer is either misinformed or lying, she is not at all calm.
sflicker
 
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:48 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby patricking » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:27 am

sflicker wrote:Thanks for sharing, I watched the YouTube in the link where a police officer interviewed said she was calm during a 911 call where she says she had already picked up the murder weapon. But then the actual 911 call is played and clearly the officer is either misinformed or lying, she is not at all calm.


There are a lot of lies by omission in this case. I have to wonder if Mrs. Routier is being scapegoated to prevent the public from knowing what really happened. The whole idea that she cut her own throat, stabbed herself 3 times and beat herself black and blue is one of the greatest leaps of faith one has to take to accept the state's case. I wish the prosecutor, Greg Davis, would personally demonstrate how this is possible. I certainly couldn't do it, but maybe he can.

In the meantime, the beat goes on and time is growing short to raise the necessary funds to complete the DNA testing the State of Texas refuses to perform. Please read the latest information: https://www.facebook.com/notes/darlie-l ... 5235844230
patricking
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby halesha » Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:51 am

I am really glad that you posted this Patrick. I hope that people join the discussion. I totally believe in Darile's innocence and an anxious to see her released and the prosecution that convicted her investigated!! Shame on Texas for this injustice!!!!!
User avatar
halesha
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 8:30 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby lane99 » Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:54 pm

Not completely convinced of her innocence. But I am convinced that law enforcement never properly or competently investigated the case. And it's quite frightening to see how many of the arguments used to get this woman sent to death row are utterly bogus.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby patricking » Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:58 pm

lane99 wrote:Not completely convinced of her innocence. But I am convinced that law enforcement never properly or competently investigated the case. And it's quite frightening to see how many of the arguments used to get this woman sent to death row are utterly bogus.


what are the elements in the case that make you pause to think she might be guilty, lane99? Darlie Routier has no personal history that you see in child murderers. The case is entirely circumstantial and you have to even twist the circumstances in order for her to physically be able to do that. Plus did you see the cuts and bruises on her body? Can you really imagine that someone did that to themselves. I'd love to see someone else do it to themselves just to prove it's possible.
patricking
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby lane99 » Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:18 pm

We know she was in the room when the children were murdered. And they were murdered with a knife that she owned, that she was holding in her hand that night. These things hardly EXCLUDE her from suspicion.

And there's not a lot of evidence of an intruder or a break-in. And there is possible evidence of staging. For example, although there is a cut window screen (which might indicate an outside intruder), there is some evidence to suggest the possiblity that that screen was cut with a knife taken from INSIDE the house! This would tend to implicate Darlie (or Darin).

And I'm very skeptical of her claims to have been suffering from "traumatic amnesia" as an explanation for why she couldn't come up with more details about the attack.

As for her personal history, on the contrary, it *is* compatible with that we might see in filicide cases. She had been depressed, even suicidal. And on the night of the murders, she had been arguing with her husband, and had threatened to separate from him.

Regarding her injuries, I agree they are not superficial. But I believe it is certainly possible she could have inflicted them on herself. Or, alternatively, some could be self inflicted (the knife wounds) and the bruising could have been inflicted during a physical altercation (which has never heretofore come to light) with her husband.

In spite of all of the above, by no means do I think it's impossible the murders were committed by someone other than Darlie Routier.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby halesha » Fri Feb 24, 2012 2:52 pm

While I understand your skepticism, I believe it is a result of the facts that were hidden from the public and the jury during the trail. I am by no means an expert on this case but a few things to me point to a railroad job by the prosecution. The fact that there were fingerprints and hair that was unidentified at the crime scene that did not belong to any family member and was not allowed at the trial. The knife that killed the one boy had no blood from the other on it so it could not have been the murder weapon for both boys (why on earth, if Darlie killed her boys, would she use two murder weapons) There were so many lies and misinformation that was presented by the police i.e.saying that there was no footprint in the mulch under the window where the attacker was supposed to have stepped but in reality there was no mulch under the window at all but concrete! Why lie about such a thing!

They showed the footage of the "silly string" incident but did not show when she breaks down crying. They ignored reports of other break ins in the neighborhood. They claimed she showed no emotion but if you listed to the 911 call she is hysterical! The nurses gave totally different testimonies about her "lack of emotion" at the hospital when compared to their notes from the night she came in. They never showed pictures of her bruises at trial.

I disagree with her personal history being "compatible". Many people can be depressed and/or consider suicide briefly. As I remember it she only wrote something in a journal or letter to a friend once or twice with a brief comment about it. Here are some study results on filicide. From what I have read I don't think that Darlie fits any of these profiles:

Classification of Filicide by
Apparent Motive
“Altruistic”
Associated with suicide 38%
To relieve suffering 11%
Acutely psychotic 21%
Unwanted child 14%
Fatal maltreatment 12%
Spouse revenge 4%
Total (N=131) 100%

http://www.nasmhpd.org/general_files/me ... tation.pdf

As for the "traumatic amnesia," I don't think that anyone can claim to know what you would remember if you woke up to your children being attacked and your throat being cut. That was the hardest point for me to over by but in the end I don't have any doubts. I believe she is innocent.
User avatar
halesha
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 8:30 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby patricking » Thu Apr 05, 2012 9:40 am

@lane99, The weapon they found at the crime scene had the blood of Damon Routier and Darlie Routier on it. Although 7-year-old Devon Routier was also murdered, his blood was not found on the weapon acquired inside the house. You cannot remove blood from anything with soap and water. It requires bleach to remove blood and when you use bleach investigators find bleach and not blood. That knife had not been cleaned. Another weapon never recovered, murdered Devon Routier. This fact was avoided by the prosecution by not trying Mrs. Routier for the murder of Devon but simply trying her for the murder of her younger son. In this way they avoided introducing that reasonable doubt that defines this case.

In every case of filicide that I've been able to discover the perpetrator was sexually and/or physically abused themselves during childhood. In every case their psychological behavior escalates. I can find no other case in which a normal subject with only common household concerns snaps suddenly, murders two children with a knives, stages a crime scene, stabs herself twice, cuts her own throat within millimeters of her carotid sheath, and when confronted with her crime insists on her innocence... for 16 years. Mrs. Routier was offered commutation of her sentence to life in prison if she'd admit the murders. She said she'll go to death before she'll say she harmed her children.

When one compares the Routier murders to the murder of Katy Harris and the attack on Crystal Surles in Del Rio Texas three years later in 1999, the similarities are surprising. Tommy Lynn Sells entered the Harris home by slicing through a window screen. He found Katy Harris sleeping on the floor and stabbed her repeatedly. Her house guest, Crystal Surles, was asleep on the bed and he slashed her throat missing the carotid sheath. Ms. Surles survived her attack and put Mr. Sells on death row.

I am at this point confident that Tommy Lynn Sells was NOT the perpetrator of the Routier homicides, but when prosecutors say that the crime as described by Mrs. Routier is "unique," that it "never happens," and is "implausible," is simply not true. There are many similar homicides throughout the US and Canada but they are never perpetrated by anyone like Darlie Routier.
patricking
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:10 pm

patricking wrote:@lane99, The weapon they found at the crime scene had the blood of Damon Routier and Darlie Routier on it. Although 7-year-old Devon Routier was also murdered, his blood was not found on the weapon acquired inside the house. You cannot remove blood from anything with soap and water. It requires bleach to remove blood and when you use bleach investigators find bleach and not blood. That knife had not been cleaned. Another weapon never recovered, murdered Devon Routier. This fact was avoided by the prosecution by not trying Mrs. Routier for the murder of Devon but simply trying her for the murder of her younger son. In this way they avoided introducing that reasonable doubt that defines this case.


I have looked at this case before, and I am troubled by the details. I didn't know, however, that this was the reason they decided not to try her for Devon as well. That seems like such a manipulation of the facts to serve a purpose that I do not like one single bit. It's manipulating the evidence. I do have one question though and maybe someone can help me. I am trying to understand the legal logistics of how this evidence could be left out of the trial (because that detail is still part of the crime scene isn't it?) just because she wasn't being charged for killing Devon?
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:39 pm

There's a real question about the forensic evidence in this case.
**********

When Bevel took the stand in Routier’s capital murder trial in January 1997, he provided painstaking detail about his deductions regarding bloodstains and a staged crime scene.

He told the TCCJ that he continues to stand by his testimony in that trial.

Under questioning by prosecutor Greg Davis, Bevel had stated that blood stains on Routier’s Victoria Secret nightshirt were “consistent with” cast-off blood spatter that likely occurred as she plunged a knife, again and again, into the bodies of her little boys.

Bevel told the TCCJ that “cast-off” stains on the front and back of Routier’s nightshirt indicated that she could not have been lying on the couch when her sons were attacked, as she had claimed. He was travelling to give scheduled testimony in a trial, but responded via email to the TCCJ’s inquiries.

“In experiments … I have only been able to create consistent stains in a stabbing motion with a bloody knife held in the right hand,” Bevel wrote. “This is consistent with what I found on the front and back of Darlie’s gown.”

Laber disagrees.

“First off, there’s not enough to say it was cast-off, and it doesn’t make sense that (the boys’ blood) would be mixed with her blood if it was cast-off. The pattern wasn’t sufficient to say it was cast-off,” Laber said. “Second of all, it was a mixture of all three people’s blood mixed together.”

Laber said that some of the blood stains “could have gotten there from paramedics, or when they (Darin and Darlie) were trying to treat their children.”

“Just the implication that it was cast-off shouldn’t even have been made,” Laber continued. “I didn’t think there was anything on Darlie’s (nightshirt) that indicated that she was involved.”

As for Routier’s claims that she had been lying on the sofa asleep when the attacks occurred, Laber said: “There was an implication that there wasn’t enough blood on the couch to substantiate that that’s where (the attack) happened. There was blood on the couch. The wounds are in front, so her shirt is going to absorb all of that. There was all sorts of dripping blood and handprints – all sorts of blood in that living room.”

Evidence photos of the front of Routier’s nightshirt indicate that it was almost completely blood soaked.

“If she’s stabbed, she gets up. There’s blood all over there, but it’s just not right where she was laying,” Laber said. “That doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that somebody would say she wasn’t there.”

The slash across Routier’s throat missed her carotid artery by two millimeters and the necklace she was wearing had to be surgically removed from the wound, according to trial testimony.

As part of Routier’s alleged staging of the crime scene, Bevel gave detailed testimony regarding bloodstains on and under a vacuum cleaner.

In his email to the TCCJ, Bevel stated that there was blood evidence that should not have been there if the vacuum cleaner, as Routier claimed, had been knocked over by an intruder. The writ of habeas corpus says that a bleeding and dizzy Routier had used the vacuum to steady herself.

“Bevel implied that that was staging of the crime scene – wheeling that thing around – which I didn’t understand at all,” Laber said.

Debris consisting of microscopic rubber dust particles and a microscopic fiberglass rod fragment that were found on a knife from the Routier kitchen were consistent with material from a garage window screen that was found cut after the attacks, according to prosecution witness Charlie Linch, who at that time worked for the Southwest Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWIFS) in Dallas. Prosecutors said it was evidence that Routier had cut the screen in her staging of the crime scene.

Laber and Epstein said that the microscopic material could have easily been contamination carried by the fingerprint brushes since the screen was fingerprinted before the knife rack was, and before the microscopic material was found. In addition, the experts said, there was nothing unique about the fiberglass rods that were found, and fingerprint brushes frequently contain fiberglass rods.

In an affidavit signed by Linch in July 2002 — the same day Darin Routier signed his — Linch stated that the butcher block and knives from the Routier house had been dusted for fingerprints before they were presented to him for testing two days after the boys’ murders.

“That evidence was pretty flaky, but it was powerful evidence in this case,” Laber said, referring to the impact on the jury.

Laber also disagrees with the state’s claim that Routier deliberately broke a wine glass to bolster her claim of a struggle.

“The wine glass was not thrown on the floor,” said Laber, adding that he and Epstein broke “a number of those” when conducting tests. “It had to have been broken by being knocked out of the rack and hitting something in the air before it hit the floor. There were glass shards that landed in an ice bucket on top of the table. (The shards) couldn’t have gotten that high from the glass hitting the floor.”

Laber said that he and Epstein have testified in a number of trials opposite Bevel, and that a dominant theme for Bevel is that a crime scene was “staged.”

“He’s always got this staging of the crime scene. And there have been all these cases where he’s been proven wrong,” Laber said. “All these implications add up that should never have been made, and I don’t know why people would make them unless they want to win the case. They want to get a conviction.”

Bevel said that he has been involved in cases with Laber and Epstein 14 times and only four of those cases involved issues of staging. He told the TCCJ that staging was raised as an issue in only “.01%” of the more than 3,000 cases he has worked.

That blood spatter experts can often have polar opposite views may highlight the fact that blood spatter analysis is far from an exact science, and testimony from only one such expert could unfairly imperil the accused.

Even Linch, who had testified for the state against Routier, indicated as much in his affidavit.

“It is my professional opinion that if Bart Epstein and Terry Laber were released from their retention as expert witnesses for Darlie Routier’s defense,” Linch’s affidavit reads, “such release constituted a grave error on the part of Darlie Routier’s defense counsel.”

The die is cast

If Routier is innocent, as she claims, then she could end up paying the ultimate price for things not within her control. What happened to her could conceivably happen to anyone. The following issues have surfaced since her conviction:

The credibility of Bevel, the state’s lone blood spatter expert, has been called into question;

Routier’s then-husband admitted planning a burglary of their home, yet neither prosecutors nor Routier’s defense attorney put him under the microscope;

The defense put no witnesses on the stand to challenge Bevel, nor was an adequate level of DNA testing requested, according to Routier’s appeals attorneys;

A juror later expressed regret, stating that there were photos of Routier’s injuries that he never saw during the trial, and that he had felt coerced by other jurors to find her guilty;

And the court reporter later acknowledged that she had lied to cover what she feared was a reversible error that would have gotten Routier a new trial.

The court reporter ultimately lost her license but was granted immunity from prosecution by the DA’s office, which would have had to retry Routier if she got a new trial.

None of these things have resulted in a new trial for Routier or even, according to Kee, captured the attention of the current administration at the Dallas County District Attorney’s office, which now boasts a conviction integrity unit.

“The system is completely rigged against somebody who has been convicted,” said Jeff Blackburn, founder of the Innocence Project of Texas. “The view of the system is to never question the conviction, and to stand behind it at all cost.”

Kathryn Kase, executive director of Texas Defender Service, said that despite the fact that issues with Bevel did not surface until years after Routier’s conviction, his testimony in her trial may be of little interest to the Texas courts. Kase said this is due largely to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, signed by President Bill Clinton the same year Routier was charged with capital murder. The Act “tightened up the process for review of capital cases,” she said.

“If they (Routier’s appeals lawyers) didn’t get this stuff in the record early on, then they’re out of luck,” said Kase. “The number of people who are concerned about innocence is much smaller than the number of people who are concerned about the amount of time it’s taking to execute people on death row.”

Add to that bad news Mulder’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel that, according to Houston-area defense attorney Richard Burr, is “broad and deep,” and there may be reason to question the level of justice within the Texas justice system.

Families that, like Routier’s, empty out retirement, savings and college fund accounts and hold estate sales in order to afford an expensive lawyer have no guarantee that the lawyer will do everything possible on behalf of his or her client.

Since Routier’s 1997 trial, Epstein and Laber have gone on to testify in many other cases. Epstein said that their testimony would have been “favorable” to Routier, if only they had been summoned to testify.

“Any time someone is wrongfully convicted,” he said, “it’s a travesty.”
>>>>>>>>>>
http://hcnews.com/pages/justice_for_all ... tier-case/
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:26 pm

Jane, thank you so much for posting this.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:14 pm

jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby erasmus44 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:29 pm

jane wrote:Links to the testimony of Tom Bevel in the Darlie Routier case:

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... evel-1.pdf

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... evel-2.pdf



Is he the same Tom Bevel who testified in the Camm case?
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:32 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Links to the testimony of Tom Bevel in the Darlie Routier case:

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... evel-1.pdf

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... evel-2.pdf



Is he the same Tom Bevel who testified in the Camm case?


Yep.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:05 am

MichaelB wrote:
erasmus44 wrote:
jane wrote:Links to the testimony of Tom Bevel in the Darlie Routier case:

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... evel-1.pdf

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... evel-2.pdf



Is he the same Tom Bevel who testified in the Camm case?


Yep.


Since Routier’s 1997 trial, Epstein and Laber have gone on to testify in many other cases. Epstein said that their testimony would have been “favorable” to Routier, if only they had been summoned to testify.

From Bill Cluter's article about the Camm case: Blood stain experts Bart Epstein, Terry Laber, Stuart James, and Paul Kish, some of the most respected bloodstain experts in the country testified for the defense. They expressed their professional opinions that the small spots of blood on David’s t-shirt were transfer stains caused by the t-shirt coming into contact with blood saturated strands of his daughter’s hair.
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:18 pm

Yet another case of Bevel's less than scientific opinion.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby geebee2 » Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:03 pm

I know very little of this case but

"As part of Routier’s alleged staging of the crime scene..."

That does it. My wrongful conviction meter just went off the scale.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby jane » Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:44 pm

geebee2 wrote:I know very little of this case but

"As part of Routier’s alleged staging of the crime scene..."

That does it. My wrongful conviction meter just went off the scale.


Mine too.

From an article posted previously on this thread:

Under questioning by prosecutor Greg Davis, Bevel had stated that blood stains on Routier’s Victoria Secret nightshirt were “consistent with” cast-off blood spatter that likely occurred as she plunged a knife, again and again, into the bodies of her little boys.

Another opinion:

Laber disagrees. (Terry Laber testified for David Camm in one of the trials.)

“First off, there’s not enough to say it was cast-off, and it doesn’t make sense that (the boys’ blood) would be mixed with her blood if it was cast-off. The pattern wasn’t sufficient to say it was cast-off,” Laber said. “Second of all, it was a mixture of all three people’s blood mixed together.”

Laber said that some of the blood stains “could have gotten there from paramedics, or when they (Darin and Darlie) were trying to treat their children.”

“Just the implication that it was cast-off shouldn’t even have been made,” Laber continued. “I didn’t think there was anything on Darlie’s (nightshirt) that indicated that she was involved.”

*********
And have you seen the extent of her injuries:

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/

Did anyone ever seriously investigate the possible involvement of Tommy Lynn Sells in these murders. It sound like his Method of Operation. (See Julie Rea Harper case.)
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Norm51 » Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:47 pm

Those are defensive wounds. Who doesn't get that part?
Norm51
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:18 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:49 am

jane wrote:
geebee2 wrote:I know very little of this case but

"As part of Routier’s alleged staging of the crime scene..."

That does it. My wrongful conviction meter just went off the scale.


Mine too.

From an article posted previously on this thread:

Under questioning by prosecutor Greg Davis, Bevel had stated that blood stains on Routier’s Victoria Secret nightshirt were “consistent with” cast-off blood spatter that likely occurred as she plunged a knife, again and again, into the bodies of her little boys.

Another opinion:

Laber disagrees. (Terry Laber testified for David Camm in one of the trials.)

“First off, there’s not enough to say it was cast-off, and it doesn’t make sense that (the boys’ blood) would be mixed with her blood if it was cast-off. The pattern wasn’t sufficient to say it was cast-off,” Laber said. “Second of all, it was a mixture of all three people’s blood mixed together.”

Laber said that some of the blood stains “could have gotten there from paramedics, or when they (Darin and Darlie) were trying to treat their children.”

“Just the implication that it was cast-off shouldn’t even have been made,” Laber continued. “I didn’t think there was anything on Darlie’s (nightshirt) that indicated that she was involved.”

*********
And have you seen the extent of her injuries:

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/

Did anyone ever seriously investigate the possible involvement of Tommy Lynn Sells in these murders. It sound like his Method of Operation. (See Julie Rea Harper case.)


Oh, it gets better. The officer on the scene and a paramedic both said Darlie was using the vacuum to support herself with in the living room. Later the vacuum is in the kitchen tipped over but with blood dripped on the top. Bevel stated that was evidence of staging. So according to Bevel Darlie was busy staging the scene right in front of the cops and paramedics.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:59 am

And Tommy Sells couldn't have done it. That said, the prosecution stated criminals don't break into homes and use weapons that are in the house instead of bringing their own. A few weeks before Darlie was attacked there was a similar crime two miles away where the person broke in and attempted to use one of their kitchen knives on them. The guy left when the husband confronted him.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby geebee2 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:54 am

David Camm acquitted : Tom Bevel discredited... has to be good news for Darlie.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:40 am

ljrobins wrote:
patricking wrote:@lane99, The weapon they found at the crime scene had the blood of Damon Routier and Darlie Routier on it. Although 7-year-old Devon Routier was also murdered, his blood was not found on the weapon acquired inside the house. You cannot remove blood from anything with soap and water. It requires bleach to remove blood and when you use bleach investigators find bleach and not blood. That knife had not been cleaned. Another weapon never recovered, murdered Devon Routier. This fact was avoided by the prosecution by not trying Mrs. Routier for the murder of Devon but simply trying her for the murder of her younger son. In this way they avoided introducing that reasonable doubt that defines this case.


I have looked at this case before, and I am troubled by the details. I didn't know, however, that this was the reason they decided not to try her for Devon as well. That seems like such a manipulation of the facts to serve a purpose that I do not like one single bit. It's manipulating the evidence. I do have one question though and maybe someone can help me. I am trying to understand the legal logistics of how this evidence could be left out of the trial (because that detail is still part of the crime scene isn't it?) just because she wasn't being charged for killing Devon?

I agree lj. I don't see why not charging her for one of the murders would have the result of excluding exculpatory evidence. It would be interesting to know more about this prosecutorial decision though because if she is guilty of one she must be guilty of both, even if the forensic evidence (say) is stronger for one than the other.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:55 am

Only just started reading this thread. Amazes me how often blood spatter evidence turns up in these miscarriage of justice cases. I classify two kinds of experts' evidence:

1 evidence which is the product of repeatable tests
2 evidence which isn't.

I put blood spatter in the latter category. The problem is you can't line up 100 subjects and start stabbing away at them to see what happens to all the blood. So all you have (and it may sometimes be very useful) is the accumulated experience of other cases the expert has worked on or studied but in none of which things are ever exactly the same.

Take the example of Sion Jenkins. He was convicted of murdering his teenage adopted daughter, Billie-Joe, in England. He had taken his other children shopping and come home to find Billie-Joe battered to death at the back of the house. He turned out to have a fine spray of blood on his sweater which the prosecution expert testified could only have resulted from him hitting her on the head and then hitting her again in the same spot after blood had welted up. He was convicted, appealed, appealed again, was re-tried resulting in a hung jury and re-tried again resulting in another hung-jury and after that he was left to get on with his life. But the thing is, another expert eventually succeeded in reproducing the blood spatter. The defence case had been that the fine spray could have resulted from a bubble of blood in her nose bursting as she exhaled while Jenkins leaned over her when she was still alive. How to prove that? Well, it took a scientist who was willing to inject his own nose with blood and then blow it out to make the same pattern but that is what happened. IOW the first expert's evidence had been firmly in my category 2 above until somebody came along with category 1 evidence that trumped it.

Blood spatter, GSR and like disciplines should be treated with caution. Same with guesswork about how long it would take someone to die from this or that injury.

I have to say, looking at this case just at first blush, she did an amazing job of faking defensive wounds if she is guilty. And does anyone not see that her behaviour at the grave can just as easily be advanced as proof of innocence as the reverse? Would a guilty person laugh and joke after committing such a crime or would they do their best to impersonate what everyone thinks an innocent person would do? Stuff like that is almost meaningless as far as I am concerned. What does the crime scene say? That's about 90% of the whole thing usually.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:48 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
patricking wrote:@lane99, The weapon they found at the crime scene had the blood of Damon Routier and Darlie Routier on it. Although 7-year-old Devon Routier was also murdered, his blood was not found on the weapon acquired inside the house. You cannot remove blood from anything with soap and water. It requires bleach to remove blood and when you use bleach investigators find bleach and not blood. That knife had not been cleaned. Another weapon never recovered, murdered Devon Routier. This fact was avoided by the prosecution by not trying Mrs. Routier for the murder of Devon but simply trying her for the murder of her younger son. In this way they avoided introducing that reasonable doubt that defines this case.


I have looked at this case before, and I am troubled by the details. I didn't know, however, that this was the reason they decided not to try her for Devon as well. That seems like such a manipulation of the facts to serve a purpose that I do not like one single bit. It's manipulating the evidence. I do have one question though and maybe someone can help me. I am trying to understand the legal logistics of how this evidence could be left out of the trial (because that detail is still part of the crime scene isn't it?) just because she wasn't being charged for killing Devon?

I agree lj. I don't see why not charging her for one of the murders would have the result of excluding exculpatory evidence. It would be interesting to know more about this prosecutorial decision though because if she is guilty of one she must be guilty of both, even if the forensic evidence (say) is stronger for one than the other.


Flummoxed.

I'm with you on your observations after this first post Clive. It seems that "expert" evidence can be highly speculative, if not, a very suspect and easily abused practice. I liken the reading of blood splatter to reading an artist's intention in a painting based on brush strokes or trying to decipher how something was painted (Read James Elkins', What is Painting? to get an idea of what I mean). Hannah Overton and David Camm are both cases of twisting the evidence to get a guilty verdict. And although I know we don't agree on Arias, I am still miffed at gun shot last. Not because I don't think she is guilty, but that manipulating evidence to get a higher conviction is just as questionable of a practice -- at least to me (did you see the article I just posted on the Arias thread?). What I find equally disturbing about all of these cases (this also includes Nyki Kish) is how much it influences the guilter mentality and a seething kind of hate in the public masses. And it makes it almost impossible for those who are innocent to climb their way out of that cage. I mean, gosh, Camm had to go through 3 trials, and by all counts so far, Overton and Routier have little hope of successful appeals (though I hope I am wrong).
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:00 am

ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
patricking wrote:@lane99, The weapon they found at the crime scene had the blood of Damon Routier and Darlie Routier on it. Although 7-year-old Devon Routier was also murdered, his blood was not found on the weapon acquired inside the house. You cannot remove blood from anything with soap and water. It requires bleach to remove blood and when you use bleach investigators find bleach and not blood. That knife had not been cleaned. Another weapon never recovered, murdered Devon Routier. This fact was avoided by the prosecution by not trying Mrs. Routier for the murder of Devon but simply trying her for the murder of her younger son. In this way they avoided introducing that reasonable doubt that defines this case.


I have looked at this case before, and I am troubled by the details. I didn't know, however, that this was the reason they decided not to try her for Devon as well. That seems like such a manipulation of the facts to serve a purpose that I do not like one single bit. It's manipulating the evidence. I do have one question though and maybe someone can help me. I am trying to understand the legal logistics of how this evidence could be left out of the trial (because that detail is still part of the crime scene isn't it?) just because she wasn't being charged for killing Devon?

I agree lj. I don't see why not charging her for one of the murders would have the result of excluding exculpatory evidence. It would be interesting to know more about this prosecutorial decision though because if she is guilty of one she must be guilty of both, even if the forensic evidence (say) is stronger for one than the other.


Flummoxed.

I'm with you on your observations after this first post Clive. It seems that "expert" evidence can be highly speculative, if not, a very suspect and easily abused practice. I liken the reading of blood splatter to reading an artist's intention in a painting based on brush strokes or trying to decipher how something was painted (Read James Elkins', What is Painting? to get an idea of what I mean). Hannah Overton and David Camm are both cases of twisting the evidence to get a guilty verdict. And although I know we don't agree on Arias, I am still miffed at gun shot last. Not because I don't think she is guilty, but that manipulating evidence to get a higher conviction is just as questionable of a practice -- at least to me (did you see the article I just posted on the Arias thread?). What I find equally disturbing about all of these cases (this also includes Nyki Kish) is how much it influences the guilter mentality and a seething kind of hate in the public masses. And it makes it almost impossible for those who are innocent to climb their way out of that cage. I mean, gosh, Camm had to go through 3 trials, and by all counts so far, Overton and Routier have little hope of successful appeals (though I hope I am wrong).



For some reason I cannot access the article on the Arias thread (what don't we agree about on that case btw? :confused: ) but it provides a good example of the limits of blood spatter evidence as well as the highly questionable expert evidence of Dr Horn as to what happened first (if I recall all of us on that thread were gun shot first, based, in the main, on blood spatter evidence!).

In the case of Kish, we have a judge who just made up an 'irresistible inference' about mixed blood/DNA on the knife that was not founded in any expert's evidence at all! What's with that?

Big topic. I agree.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:22 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:For some reason I cannot access the article on the Arias thread (what don't we agree about on that case btw? :confused: ) but it provides a good example of the limits of blood spatter evidence as well as the highly questionable expert evidence of Dr Horn as to what happened first (if I recall all of us on that thread were gun shot first, based, in the main, on blood spatter evidence!).

In the case of Kish, we have a judge who just made up an 'irresistible inference' about mixed blood/DNA on the knife that was not founded in any expert's evidence at all! What's with that?

Big topic. I agree.


Odd. Check your PM inbox, Clive.

I guess we actually did agree on the Arias case for the most part. I forgot!

Question: How is the "irresistible inference" of the Kish judge any different than the inferences made by an expert on many of the cases I listed above. Is his just more specious than the others?
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:35 am

ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:For some reason I cannot access the article on the Arias thread (what don't we agree about on that case btw? :confused: ) but it provides a good example of the limits of blood spatter evidence as well as the highly questionable expert evidence of Dr Horn as to what happened first (if I recall all of us on that thread were gun shot first, based, in the main, on blood spatter evidence!).

In the case of Kish, we have a judge who just made up an 'irresistible inference' about mixed blood/DNA on the knife that was not founded in any expert's evidence at all! What's with that?

Big topic. I agree.


Odd. Check your PM inbox, Clive.

I guess we actually did agree on the Arias case for the most part. I forgot!

Question: How is the "irresistible inference" of the Kish judge any different than the inferences made by an expert on many of the cases I listed above. Is his just more specious than the others?

Er, yes LJ, for two reasons:

1 the judge is not himself an expert and is thus not qualified to form an opinion about matters which are properly ones for experts and
2 much more importantly, the judge is not entitled, as a judge, to supply evidence of his own at all!

Judges (in our common law systems) decide cases on the evidence presented before them. They are absolutely not allowed to embark on their own enquiries and dig up their own evidence. That is not to say that inferences do not arise from evidence. They do. That is what circumstantial evidence is all about. But drawing an inference from mixed blood/DNA that the knife was used to stab both is just wrong and outside the judge's remit since it is a matter of expertise the judge lacks. I don't want to digress too far (or at all) into Kish on this thread, but the judge would say that he was entitled to draw his inference from his finding that there was only one knife in play. However, that is not actually what he said in his judgment and that in turn would also, in my opinion, be a finding not justified by the evidence, albeit a less egregious error than the primary one.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:13 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:For some reason I cannot access the article on the Arias thread (what don't we agree about on that case btw? :confused: ) but it provides a good example of the limits of blood spatter evidence as well as the highly questionable expert evidence of Dr Horn as to what happened first (if I recall all of us on that thread were gun shot first, based, in the main, on blood spatter evidence!).

In the case of Kish, we have a judge who just made up an 'irresistible inference' about mixed blood/DNA on the knife that was not founded in any expert's evidence at all! What's with that?

Big topic. I agree.


Odd. Check your PM inbox, Clive.

I guess we actually did agree on the Arias case for the most part. I forgot!

Question: How is the "irresistible inference" of the Kish judge any different than the inferences made by an expert on many of the cases I listed above. Is his just more specious than the others?

Er, yes LJ, for two reasons:

1 the judge is not himself an expert and is thus not qualified to form an opinion about matters which are properly ones for experts and
2 much more importantly, the judge is not entitled, as a judge, to supply evidence of his own at all!

Judges (in our common law systems) decide cases on the evidence presented before them. They are absolutely not allowed to embark on their own enquiries and dig up their own evidence. That is not to say that inferences do not arise from evidence. They do. That is what circumstantial evidence is all about. But drawing an inference from mixed blood/DNA that the knife was used to stab both is just wrong and outside the judge's remit since it is a matter of expertise the judge lacks. I don't want to digress too far (or at all) into Kish on this thread, but the judge would say that he was entitled to draw his inference from his finding that there was only one knife in play. However, that is not actually what he said in his judgment and that in turn would also, in my opinion, be a finding not justified by the evidence, albeit a less egregious error than the primary one.


Thanks Clive. I understand the difference better now in Kish's case that the judge drew his own inferences, but it is that very grey area where inferences arise from evidence that starts to make it a bit confusing I think. I didn't mean to turn this thread in that direction, but it is a very interesting area of discussion that pertains to many of the cases that we talk about here including Darlie Routier's.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:01 pm

ljrobins wrote:Thanks Clive. I understand the difference better now in Kish's case that the judge drew his own inferences, but it is that very grey area where inferences arise from evidence that starts to make it a bit confusing I think. I didn't mean to turn this thread in that direction, but it is a very interesting area of discussion that pertains to many of the cases that we talk about here including Darlie Routier's.

It can be confusing. Let's try it from another angle. Evidence of facts can be given by anybody. Evidence of opinion can only be given by experts in the relevant field, whether it be blood spatter, fingerprints, GSR, DNA. You (unless you are qualified) cannot examine a body and offer an opinion on the time of death. Neither can I. If you witnessed the killing, however, you could prove the time of death as a matter fact: 'the accused pushed X off the 18th storey balcony at 5:17 p.m.'

Facts can be proved directly or inferentially. If I saw X get pushed off the building by the accused I can prove that fact directly. If I only saw him hit the ground then maybe (depending on other evidence) it can be proved inferentially using this fact that X was pushed off by the accused.

A judge of fact, as Nordheimer was, can draw inferences in the same way we all can. But not inferences that require expertise. I cannot examine a body and tell the time of death because I lack the necessary knowledge and skill and my opinion is accordingly worthless. Likewise, the judge of fact requires relevant opinion evidence (in the absence of evidence not depending on expertise) in order to be able to reach a finding.

So, to decide whether the judge was entitled to infer that the mixed DNA plus someone's blood on the hinge of the knife in Nyki's case proves that knife stabbed them both we must first decide whether that is an inference that depends on expert knowledge or not. I suggest it is clearly the former. In fact, the judge made another finding that neither he nor anyone else realised was of exactly the same nature. He decided it could be concluded from the pasta vid that Hammond did not already have the knife in one of his hands. That, too, is a matter of expert opinion although less obviously.

I hope that clears it up! :)
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:29 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
I hope that clears it up! :)


Entirely! Thank you for taking the time to outline it so concisely. :teach:
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby geebee2 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:36 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:I have to say, looking at this case just at first blush, she did an amazing job of faking defensive wounds if she is guilty. And does anyone not see that her behaviour at the grave can just as easily be advanced as proof of innocence as the reverse? Would a guilty person laugh and joke after committing such a crime or would they do their best to impersonate what everyone thinks an innocent person would do? Stuff like that is almost meaningless as far as I am concerned. What does the crime scene say? That's about 90% of the whole thing usually.


Clive!

Glad to see you taking an interest in this case. I know almost nothing about it, but am nevertheless certain that Darlie is innocent :)

I have recently posted at a Facebook discussion group, which has a suspiciously balanced number of opinions on guilt/innocence 22 vs 23.

So good to discuss the case a bit here. Interesting comment about the defensive wounds. Facts are allegedly here : http://darliefacts.com/

Anyway, I find innocent on this basis:

- a very unlikely motive
- the fact that discredited Tom Bevel testified
- the lack of any decisive evidence
- many people who concur

Umm... I will give it a rating of 4.

( err.. are you saying the prosecution case is that she inflicted knife wounds on herself? Is that easier or harder than shooting yourself in the arm? )

edited
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby geebee2 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:53 pm

Having just read http://darliefacts.com/blood-evidence/ I am even more convinced. The page is eminently credible, without trying to understand it in detail.

Rating down to 3.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:09 pm

I know almost nothing about it, but am nevertheless certain that Darlie is innocent


::doh::
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby geebee2 » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:16 pm

I guess a long time ago I probably read this (wikipedia):

Darlie Routier testified that an intruder killed her children but police found inconsistencies between her report and the crime scene evidence.

During the 911 call, Routier can be heard saying that she'd found a knife on the floor. The 911 operator, thinking that Routier was speaking to her, told her not to touch anything, to which Routier responded that she had already touched it and picked it up and later said, "We could have gotten the prints, maybe."[1]

Dr. Alejandro Santos and Dr. Patrick Dillawn referred to Routier's wounds as superficial, although her neck wound came within two millimeters of her carotid artery. Blood spatter expert Tom Bevel testified that cast-off blood found on the back of Routier's nightshirt indicated that she had raised the knife over her head as she withdrew it from each boy to stab again.[2]

Routier's bloody footprints were found underneath a vacuum cleaner and broken glass, indicating those items had been placed there after she went through the kitchen instead of before, as she'd claimed. In spite of broken glass being in the path of her bloody footprints, Routier had no corresponding injuries to her feet.[3]

Newscasts appeared of Darlie Routier and other family members holding a birthday party at the children's grave to celebrate posthumously Devon's 7th birthday, just eight days after the murders. Routier, smiling and laughing, appeared jovial as she sprayed Silly String on the graves in celebration of Devon's birthday.[4]

Four days later, Routier was charged with capital murder.


If that is a remotely accurate account of the prosecution case, Darlie is certainly innocent.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:23 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
patricking wrote:@lane99, The weapon they found at the crime scene had the blood of Damon Routier and Darlie Routier on it. Although 7-year-old Devon Routier was also murdered, his blood was not found on the weapon acquired inside the house. You cannot remove blood from anything with soap and water. It requires bleach to remove blood and when you use bleach investigators find bleach and not blood. That knife had not been cleaned. Another weapon never recovered, murdered Devon Routier. This fact was avoided by the prosecution by not trying Mrs. Routier for the murder of Devon but simply trying her for the murder of her younger son. In this way they avoided introducing that reasonable doubt that defines this case.


I have looked at this case before, and I am troubled by the details. I didn't know, however, that this was the reason they decided not to try her for Devon as well. That seems like such a manipulation of the facts to serve a purpose that I do not like one single bit. It's manipulating the evidence. I do have one question though and maybe someone can help me. I am trying to understand the legal logistics of how this evidence could be left out of the trial (because that detail is still part of the crime scene isn't it?) just because she wasn't being charged for killing Devon?


I agree lj. I don't see why not charging her for one of the murders would have the result of excluding exculpatory evidence. It would be interesting to know more about this prosecutorial decision though because if she is guilty of one she must be guilty of both, even if the forensic evidence (say) is stronger for one than the other.


Getting back to this. Clive, I find the law confounding when evidence can be picked through this way. Logically, if showing that particular evidence raised reasonable doubt, well, crap, isn't that what the whole process is supposed to do? Sigh. Not showing it means that the jury was never allowed to consider that conundrum of evidence for themselves. I would be so angry as a juror if I found out about this later on. I really would. :mad:
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:41 pm

We should start dissecting the case. I'll go first...

The 911 call.

The entire call lasts 5 minutes 44 seconds. Many who think she is guilty start out with saying she didn't immediately ask for help. Screaming into a phone to someone who is trained to decipher what your emergency is stating her and her children were stabbed is, in essence, asking for her to send medical help. Many point out that she keeps saying her babies are dead. Not quite sure why the people who think she is guilty find this significant. But she also says my babies are dying and at one point you can hear her telling Damon to hold on.

Another argument is that she is very concerned with explaining the knife and prints and brings it up twice to the dispatcher. First off, the first time she mentioned the knife she was responding to the dispatcher's question with what sounds like frantic nonsense and she never mentioned that she picked it up. The first officer to arrive on the scene can be first heard on the recording a 3 minutes 45 seconds. At this point she is talking to two different people and attempting to answer both. At 4 minutes 5 seconds she is trying to tell the officer that the guy dropped the knife and left. The dispatcher then tells her not to touch it. At that point she responds to the dispatcher saying she already did. At 5 minutes 4 seconds she is now answering the officer who is asking about the knife. She is responding to his questions now. All this SOUNDS like she is repeatedly trying to explain to explain away her prints when in actuality she is responding to comments and questions of two different people.

The prosecution had an audio expert analyze the 911 call. He concluded, based on the differences in background noise, that she was running from room to room. The prosecution then claimed she was busy staging the scene while she was on the phone so they could fit everything into their tight timeline to include her. The only problem with that theory is that she would need to be doing all this staging in front of Darin and the officer.

Lastly, officer Waddell testified at trial that Darlie appeared to be fine when he arrived. He also stated he asked her numerous times to help render aid to the boys and she just stood there and refused to help. On the 911 call you can hear him tell Darlie.... " ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)"
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:35 pm

Sinsaint wrote:We should start dissecting the case. I'll go first...

The 911 call.

The entire call lasts 5 minutes 44 seconds. Many who think she is guilty start out with saying she didn't immediately ask for help. Screaming into a phone to someone who is trained to decipher what your emergency is stating her and her children were stabbed is, in essence, asking for her to send medical help. Many point out that she keeps saying her babies are dead. Not quite sure why the people who think she is guilty find this significant. But she also says my babies are dying and at one point you can hear her telling Damon to hold on.

Another argument is that she is very concerned with explaining the knife and prints and brings it up twice to the dispatcher. First off, the first time she mentioned the knife she was responding to the dispatcher's question with what sounds like frantic nonsense and she never mentioned that she picked it up. The first officer to arrive on the scene can be first heard on the recording a 3 minutes 45 seconds. At this point she is talking to two different people and attempting to answer both. At 4 minutes 5 seconds she is trying to tell the officer that the guy dropped the knife and left. The dispatcher then tells her not to touch it. At that point she responds to the dispatcher saying she already did. At 5 minutes 4 seconds she is now answering the officer who is asking about the knife. She is responding to his questions now. All this SOUNDS like she is repeatedly trying to explain to explain away her prints when in actuality she is responding to comments and questions of two different people.

The prosecution had an audio expert analyze the 911 call. He concluded, based on the differences in background noise, that she was running from room to room. The prosecution then claimed she was busy staging the scene while she was on the phone so they could fit everything into their tight timeline to include her. The only problem with that theory is that she would need to be doing all this staging in front of Darin and the officer.

Lastly, officer Waddell testified at trial that Darlie appeared to be fine when he arrived. He also stated he asked her numerous times to help render aid to the boys and she just stood there and refused to help. On the 911 call you can hear him tell Darlie.... " ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)"

Have you a link to the call?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:23 pm

Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:42 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
The prosecution had an audio expert analyze the 911 call. He concluded, based on the differences in background noise, that she was running from room to room. The prosecution then claimed she was busy staging the scene while she was on the phone so they could fit everything into their tight timeline to include her. The only problem with that theory is that she would need to be doing all this staging in front of Darin and the officer.


But THAT is completely speculative. Sigh. That's it. I am going to law school. I can't deal with this crap. Unbelievable. And yes, as per Clive, do you happen to have a link or can you post the 911 call? I have never heard it.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:43 pm

ljrobins wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
The prosecution had an audio expert analyze the 911 call. He concluded, based on the differences in background noise, that she was running from room to room. The prosecution then claimed she was busy staging the scene while she was on the phone so they could fit everything into their tight timeline to include her. The only problem with that theory is that she would need to be doing all this staging in front of Darin and the officer.


But THAT is completely speculative. Sigh. That's it. I am going to law school. I can't deal with this crap. Unbelievable. And yes, as per Clive, do you happen to have a link or can you post the 911 call? I have never heard it.


Ooops, impatience, on my part. I will listen, thank you!
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:53 pm

The transcript reads as if she is in shock (which seems logically obviously) ... I have been with someone when they were in shock. This fits with my own experiences -- though it is a personal experience not the marker I suppose.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:25 pm

Now, the time line....

The coroner that examined Damon initially claimed he could have lived roughly five minutes. That was then changed to an outermost of nine minutes with his injuries. That sets the timeline for everything. Darin was on the scene instantly. Officer Waddell was on the scene at 3 minutes 45 seconds into the call. Officer Walling arrives at 5 minutes 38 seconds. The first paramedic on site is Jack Kolbye who says he arrived when walling did. He claimed he waited a minute or two before being told he could enter the house. When he got to Damon he was still alive. Kolbye testified he watched the light leave his eyes. He estimated he worked on the child for two minutes prior to him dying.

5.38 call + 1.00 Walling securing scene + 2.00 Kolbye working on Damon = 8.38 minutes (and that's assuming Walling secured the scene that fast. That leaves Darlie 22 seconds to stage.

First, she has to plant the sock 75 yards away down the alley. She has to do this after she stabs the boys because their blood is on it but before she stabs herself because there was none of her blood on the sock, nor in the alley. She has to come back, grab a bread knife, rip the screen, put the knife back, move the vacuum all over the place, knock over a table, break a glass, slice her neck, stab her upper left chest, stab her forearm, create some defensive wounds on her hands, scrape to the chin area, and bruise both her arms from the armpits down. According to the prosecution she also washed the sink so we can't miss that.

I'm sleepy just thinking about it. The prosecution claims she stabbed herself at the sink and was cleaning it up while she was on the phone with 911 and obviously in front of Darin since he came down at almost the same time she called 911. Presumably Darin just never noticed her stabbing herself or wondering why she was busy cleaning the sink when the kids needed help. And officer Waddell didn't find it strange at all that she was pushing the vacuum around the house instead of helping.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:47 pm

It's ridiculous. Thank you for sharing this in detail. Although I have read quite a bit about the evidence, I have not seen the timeline laid out quite this specifically in reference to the 911 call and such. One thing of note is that her necklace was embedded in her skin ... isn't that what kept the knife from hitting the main artery? Who could do this to him or herself? It's astounding. Yet, from my own searching, it seems that the majority of people think she is absolutely a cold hearted bitch who did this crime? If you look at her background, by all counts, killing her sons in this way would be extraordinarily out of character.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:50 pm

ljrobins wrote:The transcript reads as if she is in shock (which seems logically obviously) ... I have been with someone when they were in shock. This fits with my own experiences -- though it is a personal experience not the marker I suppose.


I think it's pretty safe to assume she was in shock. If you listen to the call she sounds frantic and confused. What I pick up on most is how often she mentions her kids. At one point the dispatcher tells her officers are on the way. But Darlie wants to know when the ambulance will be there. To me, she sounds like a mother who's desperate to get her children help.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:58 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
ljrobins wrote:The transcript reads as if she is in shock (which seems logically obviously) ... I have been with someone when they were in shock. This fits with my own experiences -- though it is a personal experience not the marker I suppose.


I think it's pretty safe to assume she was in shock. If you listen to the call she sounds frantic and confused. What I pick up on most is how often she mentions her kids. At one point the dispatcher tells her officers are on the way. But Darlie wants to know when the ambulance will be there. To me, she sounds like a mother who's desperate to get her children help.


Yes, I think so as well. The "oh my gods" are an indicator, but also there is a certain level of "distance" like she is watching from afar that is a huge indicator that she is in shock. It is that out of body observing sort of reaction that some read as detachment (aka guilt) when it could just be shock. I am not an expert, but just basing that on my own experience.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby geebee2 » Wed Oct 30, 2013 12:29 am

The thing to remember is this is Texas. It's mainly a matter of politics, everyone with half a brain knows Darlie is innocent.

But the politicians will do anything they can to stop that coming out... it's a matter of raising a fuss. That is the hard bit.
User avatar
geebee2
 
Posts: 5159
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:39 pm
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:28 am

geebee2 wrote:The thing to remember is this is Texas. It's mainly a matter of politics, everyone with half a brain knows Darlie is innocent.

But the politicians will do anything they can to stop that coming out... it's a matter of raising a fuss. That is the hard bit.


That is true. Teximerica is like it's own separate country.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:13 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:We should start dissecting the case. I'll go first...

The 911 call.

The entire call lasts 5 minutes 44 seconds. Many who think she is guilty start out with saying she didn't immediately ask for help. Screaming into a phone to someone who is trained to decipher what your emergency is stating her and her children were stabbed is, in essence, asking for her to send medical help. Many point out that she keeps saying her babies are dead. Not quite sure why the people who think she is guilty find this significant. But she also says my babies are dying and at one point you can hear her telling Damon to hold on.

Another argument is that she is very concerned with explaining the knife and prints and brings it up twice to the dispatcher. First off, the first time she mentioned the knife she was responding to the dispatcher's question with what sounds like frantic nonsense and she never mentioned that she picked it up. The first officer to arrive on the scene can be first heard on the recording a 3 minutes 45 seconds. At this point she is talking to two different people and attempting to answer both. At 4 minutes 5 seconds she is trying to tell the officer that the guy dropped the knife and left. The dispatcher then tells her not to touch it. At that point she responds to the dispatcher saying she already did. At 5 minutes 4 seconds she is now answering the officer who is asking about the knife. She is responding to his questions now. All this SOUNDS like she is repeatedly trying to explain to explain away her prints when in actuality she is responding to comments and questions of two different people.

The prosecution had an audio expert analyze the 911 call. He concluded, based on the differences in background noise, that she was running from room to room. The prosecution then claimed she was busy staging the scene while she was on the phone so they could fit everything into their tight timeline to include her. The only problem with that theory is that she would need to be doing all this staging in front of Darin and the officer.

Lastly, officer Waddell testified at trial that Darlie appeared to be fine when he arrived. He also stated he asked her numerous times to help render aid to the boys and she just stood there and refused to help. On the 911 call you can hear him tell Darlie.... " ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)"

Have you a link to the call?

I have listened now. I must say nothing struck me as suspicious at all. I was curious though about what Darin was doing throughout the duration of the call. I am also interested in the layout of the house, particularly the downstairs area. Is there a floor plan showing the living area and the garage? Do we know the spot where she claims picked up the knife?

I assume the marriage was in some kind of difficulty if she was sleeping downstairs and him up.

Apart from the following, is there anything else against her:

1 her 'suspicious' behaviour during the call including picking up the knife and getting her prints on it
2 staging the crime scene (in the presence of her husband and, after three minutes or so, the police officer) - what precisely is she supposed to have staged?
3 her unfeeling behaviour at the funeral
4 blood spatter purporting to show she must have held the knife above her head to get spots on her back

It's good to lay out the whole case against her first before tackling it bit by bit. Is there a document which handily sets this out somewhere? I would be interested to read it. Say an appeal document or a judgment rejecting an appeal.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:37 am

http://darliefacts.com/jury-trial-transcripts/

Trial transcripts.

http://darliefacts.com/legal-files/

Post conviction filings.

http://darliefacts.com/case-files/

Map of crime scene is listed on that page.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:43 am

Sinsaint wrote:http://darliefacts.com/jury-trial-transcripts/

Trial transcripts.

http://darliefacts.com/legal-files/

Post conviction filings.

http://darliefacts.com/case-files/

Map of crime scene is listed on that page.

Thanks Sinsaint. Btw. have you been to the thread 'explain your online name' yet? :)
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:21 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:http://darliefacts.com/jury-trial-transcripts/

Trial transcripts.

http://darliefacts.com/legal-files/

Post conviction filings.

http://darliefacts.com/case-files/

Map of crime scene is listed on that page.

Thanks Sinsaint. Btw. have you been to the thread 'explain your online name' yet? :)


Had no idea there was one.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:26 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:http://darliefacts.com/jury-trial-transcripts/

Trial transcripts.

http://darliefacts.com/legal-files/

Post conviction filings.

http://darliefacts.com/case-files/

Map of crime scene is listed on that page.

Thanks Sinsaint. Btw. have you been to the thread 'explain your online name' yet? :)


Had no idea there was one.

Oh but there is. Don't ask me how to find it but it's here somewhere! :)

Looks like a good web-site btw (the Routier one). Did you have anything to do with it?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:10 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:http://darliefacts.com/jury-trial-transcripts/

Trial transcripts.

http://darliefacts.com/legal-files/

Post conviction filings.

http://darliefacts.com/case-files/

Map of crime scene is listed on that page.

Thanks Sinsaint. Btw. have you been to the thread 'explain your online name' yet? :)


Had no idea there was one.

Oh but there is. Don't ask me how to find it but it's here somewhere! :)

Looks like a good web-site btw (the Routier one). Did you have anything to do with it?


Nope.

http://darliefacts.com/galleries/

That is a very comprehensive gallery of pictures.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:14 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Nope.

http://darliefacts.com/galleries/

That is a very comprehensive gallery of pictures.

Thanks Sinsaint.

Can you bring us up to speed with where this case is at? I see she was tried in 1996. I guess she remains on death row somewhere. Where has she got to appeals-wise?

I am reading a defence brief you linked to [this one: http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... appeal.pdf] and the case seems very interesting and, albeit at first glance, potentially a case of interest here at IA (that being a matter for Bruce and Sarah). It certainly fails the bull-shit test so far as I am concerned (by which I mean the first-blush impression the state's case makes before one dives into the detail). A mother who murders her two young sons, cuts herself in order to make her look like a victim too, carefully replicating defensive wounds of a kind she could hardly know about and also nearly committing suicide, and then calls the cops giving a very good impression of someone in great distress and who somehow manages to transfer a bloody sock to an alley 75 yards away (if this is a nailed down fact - how does the state explain it?) while all the time being on the phone to or in the presence of the cops. Wow. And front and centre is blood spatter evidence. It had better be good.

I notice a neighbour suspected they both did it (husband and wife) and that there was a pretty good circumstantial case against the husband.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:28 am

I spent about 30 hours reading about Darlie's case last year. I read some of the discussion at Websleuths and a few of the documents, the Darlie website and watched the youtube videos. For me, there's certainly reasonable doubt because of her injuries but not innocence because she admits holding the murder weapon. If she did it, then she's absolutely diabolical with the sock staging, wire cutting, self inflicted injuries and a great actress. I don't see that though from what I read.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:30 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:We should start dissecting the case. I'll go first...

The 911 call.

The entire call lasts 5 minutes 44 seconds. Many who think she is guilty start out with saying she didn't immediately ask for help. Screaming into a phone to someone who is trained to decipher what your emergency is stating her and her children were stabbed is, in essence, asking for her to send medical help. Many point out that she keeps saying her babies are dead. Not quite sure why the people who think she is guilty find this significant. But she also says my babies are dying and at one point you can hear her telling Damon to hold on.

Another argument is that she is very concerned with explaining the knife and prints and brings it up twice to the dispatcher. First off, the first time she mentioned the knife she was responding to the dispatcher's question with what sounds like frantic nonsense and she never mentioned that she picked it up. The first officer to arrive on the scene can be first heard on the recording a 3 minutes 45 seconds. At this point she is talking to two different people and attempting to answer both. At 4 minutes 5 seconds she is trying to tell the officer that the guy dropped the knife and left. The dispatcher then tells her not to touch it. At that point she responds to the dispatcher saying she already did. At 5 minutes 4 seconds she is now answering the officer who is asking about the knife. She is responding to his questions now. All this SOUNDS like she is repeatedly trying to explain to explain away her prints when in actuality she is responding to comments and questions of two different people.

The prosecution had an audio expert analyze the 911 call. He concluded, based on the differences in background noise, that she was running from room to room. The prosecution then claimed she was busy staging the scene while she was on the phone so they could fit everything into their tight timeline to include her. The only problem with that theory is that she would need to be doing all this staging in front of Darin and the officer.

Lastly, officer Waddell testified at trial that Darlie appeared to be fine when he arrived. He also stated he asked her numerous times to help render aid to the boys and she just stood there and refused to help. On the 911 call you can hear him tell Darlie.... " ...lay down ...ok ...just sit down ...(unintelligible)"

Have you a link to the call?

I have listened now. I must say nothing struck me as suspicious at all. I was curious though about what Darin was doing throughout the duration of the call. I am also interested in the layout of the house, particularly the downstairs area. Is there a floor plan showing the living area and the garage? Do we know the spot where she claims picked up the knife?

I assume the marriage was in some kind of difficulty if she was sleeping downstairs and him up.

Apart from the following, is there anything else against her:

1 her 'suspicious' behaviour during the call including picking up the knife and getting her prints on it
2 staging the crime scene (in the presence of her husband and, after three minutes or so, the police officer) - what precisely is she supposed to have staged?
3 her unfeeling behaviour at the funeral
4 blood spatter purporting to show she must have held the knife above her head to get spots on her back

It's good to lay out the whole case against her first before tackling it bit by bit. Is there a document which handily sets this out somewhere? I would be interested to read it. Say an appeal document or a judgment rejecting an appeal.


Darin was performing CPR on on the boys. Darlie was running around the kitchen and utility/laundry room grabbing towels to give to Darin. She was wetting down towels in the kitchen sink as she went. Her blood ended up in front of the sink and the sink itself was wet. The state claimed she cut herself at the sink and then cleaned the sink out.

James Cron decided within twenty minutes of being at the scene it was staged. After his initial assessment he informed everyone there that there was no intruder. From that point on they were looking for evidence of staging, not investigating.

The state claims she planted the sock, cut the screen, cut herself at the sink then cleaned up the evidence, I guess laid the bloody knife on the floor and then put it on the counter, broke a glass and then tried to vacuum up the blood. :facepalm:

The behavior at the graves wasn't at the funeral. It was Devon's birthday. And a news crew shot the footage. It was played for the jury to show this cold hearted woman dancing on her children's graves with no remorse. There was a private ceremony held just before the party. This was also taped and showed Darlie acting appropriate. They jury never saw that tape because the police didn't get a warrant to put the cameras there.

And the blood spatter... That deserves its own special post. But in short there were only four stains. Hardly enough to be cast off. Furthermore, the stains had a mixture of Darlie's blood along with both children. That couldn't be possible since the state claims Darlie inflicted her wounds last. Bevel explained this by saying there were two separate events and the cast off blood drops fell on precisely the other ones that were already on her shirt. So she only gets four drops of blood on her while attacking the boys. Then in a separate incident four drops of her blood fall right on top of the other four. Yep, I buy that too.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:38 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Darin was performing CPR on on the boys. Darlie was running around the kitchen and utility/laundry room grabbing towels to give to Darin. She was wetting down towels in the kitchen sink as she went. Her blood ended up in front of the sink and the sink itself was wet. The state claimed she cut herself at the sink and then cleaned the sink out.

James Cron decided within twenty minutes of being at the scene it was staged. After his initial assessment he informed everyone there that there was no intruder. From that point on they were looking for evidence of staging, not investigating.

The state claims she planted the sock, cut the screen, cut herself at the sink then cleaned up the evidence, I guess laid the bloody knife on the floor and then put it on the counter, broke a glass and then tried to vacuum up the blood. :facepalm:

The behavior at the graves wasn't at the funeral. It was Devon's birthday. And a news crew shot the footage. It was played for the jury to show this cold hearted woman dancing on her children's graves with no remorse. There was a private ceremony held just before the party. This was also taped and showed Darlie acting appropriate. They jury never saw that tape because the police didn't get a warrant to put the cameras there.

And the blood spatter... That deserves its own special post. But in short there were only four stains. Hardly enough to be cast off. Furthermore, the stains had a mixture of Darlie's blood along with both children. That couldn't be possible since the state claims Darlie inflicted her wounds last. Bevel explained this by saying there were two separate events and the cast off blood drops fell on precisely the other ones that were already on her shirt. So she only gets four drops of blood on her while attacking the boys. Then in a separate incident four drops of her blood fall right on top of the other four. Yep, I buy that too.

What's your take on Darin as killer? He sure seems quiet there in the background while she's freaking out.

And how the heck did she get the sock to be 75 yards away? She first stabbed them, then ran out the house, dumped the sock, then ran back in the house and stabbed herself and then called 911? Is that the idea. Is that for real - the 4 spots right on top of the other four spots? Gotta be kidding, right? What are the odds?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:39 am

MichaelB wrote:I probably spent about 30 hours reading about Darlie last year which isn't a lot considering how much material there is. I read some of the discussion at Websleuths, read a few of the documents, the Darlie website and watched the youtube videos. For me, there's certainly reasonable doubt because of her injuries but not innocence because she admits holding the murder weapon. If she did it, then she's absolutely diabolical with the sock staging, wire cutting, self inflicted injuries and a great actress. I don't see that though from what I read.

Could you please post some documentary vids Mike? Might speed things up to run through one or two of those.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:45 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Darin was performing CPR on on the boys. Darlie was running around the kitchen and utility/laundry room grabbing towels to give to Darin. She was wetting down towels in the kitchen sink as she went. Her blood ended up in front of the sink and the sink itself was wet. The state claimed she cut herself at the sink and then cleaned the sink out.

James Cron decided within twenty minutes of being at the scene it was staged. After his initial assessment he informed everyone there that there was no intruder. From that point on they were looking for evidence of staging, not investigating.

The state claims she planted the sock, cut the screen, cut herself at the sink then cleaned up the evidence, I guess laid the bloody knife on the floor and then put it on the counter, broke a glass and then tried to vacuum up the blood. :facepalm:

The behavior at the graves wasn't at the funeral. It was Devon's birthday. And a news crew shot the footage. It was played for the jury to show this cold hearted woman dancing on her children's graves with no remorse. There was a private ceremony held just before the party. This was also taped and showed Darlie acting appropriate. They jury never saw that tape because the police didn't get a warrant to put the cameras there.

And the blood spatter... That deserves its own special post. But in short there were only four stains. Hardly enough to be cast off. Furthermore, the stains had a mixture of Darlie's blood along with both children. That couldn't be possible since the state claims Darlie inflicted her wounds last. Bevel explained this by saying there were two separate events and the cast off blood drops fell on precisely the other ones that were already on her shirt. So she only gets four drops of blood on her while attacking the boys. Then in a separate incident four drops of her blood fall right on top of the other four. Yep, I buy that too.

What's your take on Darin as killer? He sure seems quiet there in the background while she's freaking out.

And how the heck did she get the sock to be 75 yards away? She first stabbed them, then ran out the house, dumped the sock, then ran back in the house and stabbed herself and then called 911? Is that the idea. Is that for real - the 4 spots right on top of the other four spots? Gotta be kidding, right? What are the odds?


No joke... They were attracted to each like magical magnets.

I don't think Darin was involved, at least not in the sense he wanted anyone murdered. I do think his stupidity might have a hand in it though.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:49 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Could you please post some documentary vids Mike? Might speed things up to run through one or two of those.


Sure.

Watch on youtube.com


Watch on youtube.com


Watch on youtube.com


Watch on youtube.com


Watch on youtube.com


Watch on youtube.com


Watch on youtube.com
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:51 am

48 hours - Evidence of Innocence

Watch on youtube.com
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:27 am

The poor investigation was one thing. The trial was yet another. The prosecutor told news crews Darlie was a psychopath...

http://hcnews.com/pages/justice_for_all ... sychopath/

The judge didn't really know what was going on because he was busy napping...

http://digital.community-journalism.net ... ezebel.rtf

And who knows if the transcripts are even right...

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/111498 ... 0004.shtml

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/060799 ... 9013.shtml
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:40 am

"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:40 am

Thanks Sinsaint and Michael. A lot of stuff there!
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:46 am



You'd think he could have stayed awake so he could hear more about her breast implants.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:22 pm

Information on Tom Bevel and his testimony starting on page 30...

Before testimony began in the trial, the State requested that the trial court invoke Rule of Evidence 614 to keep witnesses out of the courtroom while not testifying. The appellant's investigator was present in the courtroom throughout the appellant's trial, and he was not excused from the rule. The State's blood spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified that he found four cast-off or spatter bloodstains on the nightshirt the appellant had been wearing on the night of the murder. All of the stains contained some of the appellant's blood and some of the blood of either Damon or Devon.

Bevel testified that the stains could be either (1) two separate stains with the appellant's blood overlaying the child's blood or (2) a mixture of both the appellant's blood and the child's blood. Bevel said that if the stains were a mixture, it would show that the appellant had been cut before the stain was deposited, which is inconsistent the State's theory that the appellant stabbed the children first before inflicting her own wounds. If the stains were overlaid, it would be consistent with the State's theory of the case. Bevel testified that at least one of the stains appeared to be mixed, not overlaid. He testified that the other three could have been overlaid stains.
Defense counsel cross-examined Bevel about statements made to three of the appellant's attorneys and the appellant's investigator, Lloyd Harrell. Specifically, defense counsel asked Bevel whether he had said that the four stains were mixed rather than overlaid. Bevel responded:

Bevel: I told you there was some mixed blood. I don't know if we specifically addressed that stain. I don't recall.

Defense: Well, you told us that in your judgment, that that was mixed blood in one stain?

Bevel: I don't recall specifically stating that it was one stain. Now, which one are we referring to here?

Defense: I'm talking about these, I'm talking to all four of them on the front of the shirt, all four of them mixed?

Bevel: The only one that I can say is really consistent without any hesitation, is the one that is up in this area here, which is going to be LS-1.

Defense: You are talking about the highest one on the left shoulder? Bevel: That is correct.

Defense: Okay. But you didn't tell us when we were up there that you thought all of those others were a stain that was mixed before it hit the shirt?

Bevel: I don't believe so.

The trial court prohibited Harrell's testifying before the jury also. The trial court said, "All
right. Same ruling. (32) So let's get on with making your Bill, whatever you want to do." (33)
Outside the presence of the jury, Harrell testified that he and three of the appellant's attorneys traveled to Oklahoma City to interview Bevel. In Harrell's opinion, the statements that Bevel made in Oklahoma City were "materially different" from his testimony at trial. Harrell testified that, during the interview, Bevel had said that all four of the stains were mixtures. Harrell said he was certain of this because he asked Bevel at least twice, "does this mean that each of those blood stains, the knife had to contain the blood of Darlie and the blood of one of her children?" Bevel had responded, "yes," according to Harrell.
On cross-examination, the State asked Harrell if he had recorded the approximately four-hour meeting with Bevel. Harrell said that he had not and that he had not asked Bevel if he would allow the defense team to record the conversation.


http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... pinion.pdf
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:29 pm

Sinsaint wrote:Information on Tom Bevel and his testimony starting on page 30...

Before testimony began in the trial, the State requested that the trial court invoke Rule of Evidence 614 to keep witnesses out of the courtroom while not testifying. The appellant's investigator was present in the courtroom throughout the appellant's trial, and he was not excused from the rule. The State's blood spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified that he found four cast-off or spatter bloodstains on the nightshirt the appellant had been wearing on the night of the murder. All of the stains contained some of the appellant's blood and some of the blood of either Damon or Devon.

Bevel testified that the stains could be either (1) two separate stains with the appellant's blood overlaying the child's blood or (2) a mixture of both the appellant's blood and the child's blood. Bevel said that if the stains were a mixture, it would show that the appellant had been cut before the stain was deposited, which is inconsistent the State's theory that the appellant stabbed the children first before inflicting her own wounds. If the stains were overlaid, it would be consistent with the State's theory of the case. Bevel testified that at least one of the stains appeared to be mixed, not overlaid. He testified that the other three could have been overlaid stains.
Defense counsel cross-examined Bevel about statements made to three of the appellant's attorneys and the appellant's investigator, Lloyd Harrell. Specifically, defense counsel asked Bevel whether he had said that the four stains were mixed rather than overlaid. Bevel responded:

Bevel: I told you there was some mixed blood. I don't know if we specifically addressed that stain. I don't recall.

Defense: Well, you told us that in your judgment, that that was mixed blood in one stain?

Bevel: I don't recall specifically stating that it was one stain. Now, which one are we referring to here?

Defense: I'm talking about these, I'm talking to all four of them on the front of the shirt, all four of them mixed?

Bevel: The only one that I can say is really consistent without any hesitation, is the one that is up in this area here, which is going to be LS-1.

Defense: You are talking about the highest one on the left shoulder? Bevel: That is correct.

Defense: Okay. But you didn't tell us when we were up there that you thought all of those others were a stain that was mixed before it hit the shirt?

Bevel: I don't believe so.

The trial court prohibited Harrell's testifying before the jury also. The trial court said, "All
right. Same ruling. (32) So let's get on with making your Bill, whatever you want to do." (33)
Outside the presence of the jury, Harrell testified that he and three of the appellant's attorneys traveled to Oklahoma City to interview Bevel. In Harrell's opinion, the statements that Bevel made in Oklahoma City were "materially different" from his testimony at trial. Harrell testified that, during the interview, Bevel had said that all four of the stains were mixtures. Harrell said he was certain of this because he asked Bevel at least twice, "does this mean that each of those blood stains, the knife had to contain the blood of Darlie and the blood of one of her children?" Bevel had responded, "yes," according to Harrell.
On cross-examination, the State asked Harrell if he had recorded the approximately four-hour meeting with Bevel. Harrell said that he had not and that he had not asked Bevel if he would allow the defense team to record the conversation.


http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... pinion.pdf


Sinsaint (or others), hasn't Tom Bevel's credibility been questioned in other trials? I am thinking of Jason Payne (I don't know anything about that case -- I haven't looked into it yet), but are there others? This all comes back around again to what Clive has been talking re: the validity of expert blood spatter/stain analysis. Interesting.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:45 pm

http://www.guiltybydefault.com/transcri ... 5B1%5D.pdf

Starting on page 15 the prosecution suddenly decides evidence of another man other than her husband only proves she had an accomplice. Hey, worked in the Camm case. Anyway, the judge said the theory underlying the prosecution's case against Darlie is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as any death penalty case to come before his court.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Wed Oct 30, 2013 1:54 pm

Sinsaint wrote:http://www.guiltybydefault.com/transcripts/writPDF/OrderGrantingDiscovery11-5-08%5B1%5D.pdf

Starting on page 15 the prosecution suddenly decides evidence of another man other than her husband only proves she had an accomplice. Hey, worked in the Camm case. Anyway, the judge said the theory underlying the prosecution's case against Darlie is as convoluted and counter-intuitive as any death penalty case to come before his court.


Thanks to you and Michael for providing all of the links and information. I've always been suspicious about this case. I am glad to see Clive delving into all the details. I'm at the moment in transition. Preparing to make a move from my province to another one. I'll keep reading this thread, but not sure how much time I can give to all the details until I am settled into my new city. Glad this case is capturing people's interest though.
"I am not the only one. There are many other wrongfully convicted people and they need your support. They need a voice." - Ryan Ferguson
ljrobins
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:47 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:51 pm

ljrobins wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:Information on Tom Bevel and his testimony starting on page 30...

Before testimony began in the trial, the State requested that the trial court invoke Rule of Evidence 614 to keep witnesses out of the courtroom while not testifying. The appellant's investigator was present in the courtroom throughout the appellant's trial, and he was not excused from the rule. The State's blood spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified that he found four cast-off or spatter bloodstains on the nightshirt the appellant had been wearing on the night of the murder. All of the stains contained some of the appellant's blood and some of the blood of either Damon or Devon.

Bevel testified that the stains could be either (1) two separate stains with the appellant's blood overlaying the child's blood or (2) a mixture of both the appellant's blood and the child's blood. Bevel said that if the stains were a mixture, it would show that the appellant had been cut before the stain was deposited, which is inconsistent the State's theory that the appellant stabbed the children first before inflicting her own wounds. If the stains were overlaid, it would be consistent with the State's theory of the case. Bevel testified that at least one of the stains appeared to be mixed, not overlaid. He testified that the other three could have been overlaid stains.
Defense counsel cross-examined Bevel about statements made to three of the appellant's attorneys and the appellant's investigator, Lloyd Harrell. Specifically, defense counsel asked Bevel whether he had said that the four stains were mixed rather than overlaid. Bevel responded:

Bevel: I told you there was some mixed blood. I don't know if we specifically addressed that stain. I don't recall.

Defense: Well, you told us that in your judgment, that that was mixed blood in one stain?

Bevel: I don't recall specifically stating that it was one stain. Now, which one are we referring to here?

Defense: I'm talking about these, I'm talking to all four of them on the front of the shirt, all four of them mixed?

Bevel: The only one that I can say is really consistent without any hesitation, is the one that is up in this area here, which is going to be LS-1.

Defense: You are talking about the highest one on the left shoulder? Bevel: That is correct.

Defense: Okay. But you didn't tell us when we were up there that you thought all of those others were a stain that was mixed before it hit the shirt?

Bevel: I don't believe so.

The trial court prohibited Harrell's testifying before the jury also. The trial court said, "All
right. Same ruling. (32) So let's get on with making your Bill, whatever you want to do." (33)
Outside the presence of the jury, Harrell testified that he and three of the appellant's attorneys traveled to Oklahoma City to interview Bevel. In Harrell's opinion, the statements that Bevel made in Oklahoma City were "materially different" from his testimony at trial. Harrell testified that, during the interview, Bevel had said that all four of the stains were mixtures. Harrell said he was certain of this because he asked Bevel at least twice, "does this mean that each of those blood stains, the knife had to contain the blood of Darlie and the blood of one of her children?" Bevel had responded, "yes," according to Harrell.
On cross-examination, the State asked Harrell if he had recorded the approximately four-hour meeting with Bevel. Harrell said that he had not and that he had not asked Bevel if he would allow the defense team to record the conversation.


http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... pinion.pdf


Sinsaint (or others), hasn't Tom Bevel's credibility been questioned in other trials? I am thinking of Jason Payne (I don't know anything about that case -- I haven't looked into it yet), but are there others? This all comes back around again to what Clive has been talking re: the validity of expert blood spatter/stain analysis. Interesting.


One and only. The Camm case is another one of his. We all know how that went.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:01 pm

ljrobins wrote:Sinsaint (or others), hasn't Tom Bevel's credibility been questioned in other trials? I am thinking of Jason Payne (I don't know anything about that case -- I haven't looked into it yet), but are there others? This all comes back around again to what Clive has been talking re: the validity of expert blood spatter/stain analysis. Interesting.

If I understand the evidence segment Sinsaint posted, the point about these four spots of mixed blood is that they suggest the knife already had the blood of at least one child on it when it was used to stab Darlie, resulting in a mixture spattering her night garment in four places. At first, I thought Eureka! not guilty! But then I thought - why? Can't she have stabbed the boys then thrust the knife at her own throat causing the required mixture to form and then splash?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 3:05 pm

Get outta here! Bevel did David Camm too? WTF! I am beginning to wonder why this isn't a featured case. I am sure Sarah and Bruce have their reasons but if one of them stopped by to say what the snags are it would be helpful. So far, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:41 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Sinsaint (or others), hasn't Tom Bevel's credibility been questioned in other trials? I am thinking of Jason Payne (I don't know anything about that case -- I haven't looked into it yet), but are there others? This all comes back around again to what Clive has been talking re: the validity of expert blood spatter/stain analysis. Interesting.

If I understand the evidence segment Sinsaint posted, the point about these four spots of mixed blood is that they suggest the knife already had the blood of at least one child on it when it was used to stab Darlie, resulting in a mixture spattering her night garment in four places. At first, I thought Eureka! not guilty! But then I thought - why? Can't she have stabbed the boys then thrust the knife at her own throat causing the required mixture to form and then splash?


Okay...

The prosecution's theory is the boys were stabbed first, she planted the sock that only had the blood of the two boys and then cut herself when she got back. We also have to remember, according to the prosecution Darlie's wounds were minor, superficial and carefully made. Bevel also testified that the stains were no doubt made as Darlie stabbed the boys, pulled the knife out and the blood cast off onto her shirt. Now, look at the pictures of the crime scene. Namely the kitchen and utility/laundry areas. 99% of all that blood is Darlie's. Once she was stabbed she bled profusely. Had she been bleeding before the sock was planted her blood would have been on it along with her blood trail down the alley.

Now we can conclude the boys were stabbed when the sock was planted and Darlie was not. And remember, Darlie's wounds were minor, superficial... Not made with the type of force to produce cast-off so the cast-off could not have been made when she inflicted her own wounds nor would that theory fit with expert Bevel's testimony.

Darlie's defense investigators speak to Bevel prior to trial so they have an idea what his findings are. He tells them the four (4) spots of cast-off are a mixture of one or both boys (depending on stain) and all are mixed with Darlie's. The defense figures it can combat the prosecutions theory because their own witness is stating the blood is mixed, ergo Darlie was bleeding when the boys were stabbed so someone other than her had to put the sock there. Then, at trial, Bevel testifies that the stains are not a mixture. The four cast-off stains were a deposit of the boys as she stabbed them. Then four more drops of nothing but Darlie's blood landed directly on top of the previous four drops in some other second event.

Does that sound logical to you?
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:14 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Sinsaint (or others), hasn't Tom Bevel's credibility been questioned in other trials? I am thinking of Jason Payne (I don't know anything about that case -- I haven't looked into it yet), but are there others? This all comes back around again to what Clive has been talking re: the validity of expert blood spatter/stain analysis. Interesting.

If I understand the evidence segment Sinsaint posted, the point about these four spots of mixed blood is that they suggest the knife already had the blood of at least one child on it when it was used to stab Darlie, resulting in a mixture spattering her night garment in four places. At first, I thought Eureka! not guilty! But then I thought - why? Can't she have stabbed the boys then thrust the knife at her own throat causing the required mixture to form and then splash?


Okay...

The prosecution's theory is the boys were stabbed first, she planted the sock that only had the blood of the two boys and then cut herself when she got back. We also have to remember, according to the prosecution Darlie's wounds were minor, superficial and carefully made. Bevel also testified that the stains were no doubt made as Darlie stabbed the boys, pulled the knife out and the blood cast off onto her shirt. Now, look at the pictures of the crime scene. Namely the kitchen and utility/laundry areas. 99% of all that blood is Darlie's. Once she was stabbed she bled profusely. Had she been bleeding before the sock was planted her blood would have been on it along with her blood trail down the alley.

Now we can conclude the boys were stabbed when the sock was planted and Darlie was not. And remember, Darlie's wounds were minor, superficial... Not made with the type of force to produce cast-off so the cast-off could not have been made when she inflicted her own wounds nor would that theory fit with expert Bevel's testimony.

Darlie's defense investigators speak to Bevel prior to trial so they have an idea what his findings are. He tells them the four (4) spots of cast-off are a mixture of one or both boys (depending on stain) and all are mixed with Darlie's. The defense figures it can combat the prosecutions theory because their own witness is stating the blood is mixed, ergo Darlie was bleeding when the boys were stabbed so someone other than her had to put the sock there. Then, at trial, Bevel testifies that the stains are not a mixture. The four cast-off stains were a deposit of the boys as she stabbed them. Then four more drops of nothing but Darlie's blood landed directly on top of the previous four drops in some other second event.

Does that sound logical to you?

No. It sounds impossible. But I am far down the learning curve and not grasping everything yet. The sock theory is crazy. This woman is a genius, just like Amanda Knox - except when she's not, like at the grave ::doh:: Fancy having the forethought and coolness to plant a sock - what was it? - 75 yards away and then come back and start hacking away at herself. How lucky Darin was not awoken as she frenziedly stabbed away at her two sons and that she did not find him waiting for her when she got back. How could she count on that? :noway:
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:31 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
ljrobins wrote:Sinsaint (or others), hasn't Tom Bevel's credibility been questioned in other trials? I am thinking of Jason Payne (I don't know anything about that case -- I haven't looked into it yet), but are there others? This all comes back around again to what Clive has been talking re: the validity of expert blood spatter/stain analysis. Interesting.

If I understand the evidence segment Sinsaint posted, the point about these four spots of mixed blood is that they suggest the knife already had the blood of at least one child on it when it was used to stab Darlie, resulting in a mixture spattering her night garment in four places. At first, I thought Eureka! not guilty! But then I thought - why? Can't she have stabbed the boys then thrust the knife at her own throat causing the required mixture to form and then splash?


Okay...

The prosecution's theory is the boys were stabbed first, she planted the sock that only had the blood of the two boys and then cut herself when she got back. We also have to remember, according to the prosecution Darlie's wounds were minor, superficial and carefully made. Bevel also testified that the stains were no doubt made as Darlie stabbed the boys, pulled the knife out and the blood cast off onto her shirt. Now, look at the pictures of the crime scene. Namely the kitchen and utility/laundry areas. 99% of all that blood is Darlie's. Once she was stabbed she bled profusely. Had she been bleeding before the sock was planted her blood would have been on it along with her blood trail down the alley.

Now we can conclude the boys were stabbed when the sock was planted and Darlie was not. And remember, Darlie's wounds were minor, superficial... Not made with the type of force to produce cast-off so the cast-off could not have been made when she inflicted her own wounds nor would that theory fit with expert Bevel's testimony.

Darlie's defense investigators speak to Bevel prior to trial so they have an idea what his findings are. He tells them the four (4) spots of cast-off are a mixture of one or both boys (depending on stain) and all are mixed with Darlie's. The defense figures it can combat the prosecutions theory because their own witness is stating the blood is mixed, ergo Darlie was bleeding when the boys were stabbed so someone other than her had to put the sock there. Then, at trial, Bevel testifies that the stains are not a mixture. The four cast-off stains were a deposit of the boys as she stabbed them. Then four more drops of nothing but Darlie's blood landed directly on top of the previous four drops in some other second event.

Does that sound logical to you?

No. It sounds impossible. But I am far down the learning curve and not grasping everything yet. The sock theory is crazy. This woman is a genius, just like Amanda Knox - except when she's not, like at the grave ::doh:: Fancy having the forethought and coolness to plant a sock - what was it? - 75 yards away and then come back and start hacking away at herself. How lucky Darin was not awoken as she frenziedly stabbed away at her two sons and that she did not find him waiting for her when she got back. How could she count on that? :noway:


She couldn't. By all accounts Damon was still alive when medical responders arrived. He would have certainly been alive when she ran out to plant the sock. She would have had no idea if Damon could have somehow alerted Darin while she was gone... Even if it was something as simple as making a noise by falling onto a table or hitting the wine rack and knocking a glass off.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 5:46 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:Get outta here! Bevel did David Camm too? WTF! I am beginning to wonder why this isn't a featured case. I am sure Sarah and Bruce have their reasons but if one of them stopped by to say what the snags are it would be helpful. So far, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.


Yep. He was the one who said the eight drops of HVS got on Camm as he, for whatever reason, leaned into the truck and the rest of the spatter that should have hit him and didn't? Void areas. Boney's print being where a right handed shooter might brace himself as he shot? Couldn't be because Bevel said so. Trust him.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:01 pm

Open this link...

http://books.google.com/books?id=CmzVeR ... fe&f=false

This is a book written by Bevel. Look at the picture. Then scroll down to the Case Example - Sessation Cast-0ff... He is talking about Darlie's case. Scroll back up and tell me what is wrong with the picture. Then scroll down to page 237. Note how the description section of figure 10.11 Bevel states the drops on the shirt are that of the two victims so it couldn't match her claims. He never admits that Darlie's blood is also present in that stain, thus not matching the prosection's theory either.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:38 pm

From another site I used to frequent...


Originally Posted by Jenni979
No, you are wrong...

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=xgn...page&q&f=false

My response...

A hammer and a knife are two entirely different weapons. But you got me thinking so I did a little experiment (hence the delay in responding). I already had a claw hammer on my deck so I grabbed a knife, a bucket of water and went outside to see if swinging these two weapons, if you will, resulted in the same patterns.

First I took a few practice swings with both dry and noted the difference of how I handled each weapon pretending I were trying to hurt someone. Holding the hammer the first thing I noticed was that my weapon's point of impact was roughly 18 inches above my thumb. As I swung the hammer I noted that the area of the hammer that would collect blood (and thus cast it off) went so freely behind my back that I accidently hit my back with the claw. I did this experiment only while standing up. I would have done more experiments with the hammer but that wasn't the weapon used in this case. I only used it to see if there would be a difference between the two weapons and their resulting cast off.

Next I did the same thing with a kitchen knife that has an 8 inch blade using just my right hand. The first thing I noticed with the knife was that my point of impact (and where the blood would be cast off from) was roughly 9 inches below my pinky. Standing up swinging I noticed that no matter how hard I tried I could never get the tip of the blade to go freely any further back than my elbow which always remained in front of me. The only time I got the point of the knife to go behind my shoulder was by tilting my wrist back once I was at the furthest that my arm could naturally go and even then it was hard to do and very awkward. Nothing I could imagine doing naturally in a fit of rage. The second thing I noticed was that with every upward swing the pinky side of my hand would curve out to the right. Then I stabbed with both hands. I could not get the tip of the blade behind my head unless I again tilted my wrists back.

I then did the same thing on my knees with one hand and then with both hands with the same results as standing up. Last, I did this on my hands and knees. I could only use one hand as the other was busy holding me up. With this experiment the results differed quite a bit. No matter how hard I tried the blade tip always faced down. I again went to the furthest my hand would naturally go back and tilted my wrist to see where the blade went. It still faced downward and away from my body.

Then I got my bucket of water. I experimented with the knife first simply because that was the weapon used. First I stood with my back facing about six feet from a wall. I took ten normal stabs and two with a two second breather with the knife as far back as possible. There was water behind me but it was off to my right about four feet away from me. There was no water on my back. I then took ten swings holding the knife with both hands facing the wall and ten swings away from the wall (again dipping into the water with each downward stroke as if it were my victim to reload my cast off). I also took a few 'breathers' at my furthest point back. I still had no water on my back. I estimated that I took no less than thirthy five stabs and had no cast off on my back to show for it.

I then did the same experiment with the hammer dipped in water holding and swinging as naturally as I could. I only did this with one hand as it was not the weapon used in the crime and was only used to see if cast off from the hammer differed from the knife. I dipped (only the nail end to collect water) and swung. This time I got cast off on my back on my first swing. I took ten more swings with one hand but that was enough to prove to me that a knife and hammer have different cast off patterns.

So.... after I did my unscientific experiment I thought maybe I should provide a link specifically siting cast off patterns of a knife. I found this:

http://www.enotes.com/forensic-science/cast-off-blood

Which says "The blood is usually flung away from the arc of movement, which means that it tends to land on nearby surfaces, rather than on the attacker." But while doing that search I found something that rather shocked me....

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cmz...0knife&f=false

And please do open the link as I showed you the same respect by looking at your research. First and foremost note the author of the book. That is the same Tom Bevel who testified against Darlie. Hopefully the link opens to the page at issue but if not it's page 236. The very first thing you should see is a student holding a hammer. This picture is labled figure 10.9. Down further on the page is a "case example" which clearly describes the Routier case. The picture (Figure 10.10) on the next page shows the results of the experiment from figure 10.9 with cast off of the experiment on numerous places on both sides of the student's back. The picture beside it (figure 10.11) shows the back of Darlie's shirt as a comparison to figure 10.10 as proof that cast off blood from her swinging the knife ended up on her back. And please don't just count that one drop. Read Bevel's own words where he clearly states only one drop of one victim's blood was on her back. There wasn't sprays of blood. There wasn't even multiple drops from both victims. There was a single, solitary drop of blood..... blood from the son she says woke her up.

There's only two problems. One, the weapon in the Routier case was definately a knife, not a hammer. There was no need to do the experiment with the hammer unless a knife couldn't produce results that even remotely duplicated the cast off on Darlie's shirt. Had I been Bevel I would have felt compelled to prove that a knife (not a person) could produce that cast off pattern found on the back of the assailants shirt. Two, a knife and a hammer have two different cast off patterns (at least from my experiments and Bevel's as well as it seems since he opted for a hammer as opposed to the actual murder weapon). Bevel's own experiment showed that a hammer produced nothing remotely similar to the cast off on the back of Darlie's shirt yet he claims his experiment with the hammer replicates the spatter on Darlie's back. I'm certainly no scientist but I counted eleven spatters on the student's back and one on Darlie's back (as per Bevel's figure 10.11 which reads "this single spatter..."). I'm sorry but how exactly does eleven cast off spatters in all directions from a hammer compare to one one drop from a knife? And why isn't he doing experiments with a knife to prove spatter would produce the same (or similar) drop on her back?

I did the experiments myself and I know exactly why he opted to use a hammer over using the actual murder weapon in his experiments. The knife (which is definately the murder weapon) wouldn't produce the spatter found on her shirt. I've looked at this a number of ways. What I come down to is this.... the prosecution layed out a scenario of the above that isn't forensically possible along with a time line that noone could manage to do. I consider myself fit and I was exhausted just thinking about all that needed to be done in the two minutes she had to do it in.

Darlie claims she doesn't remember the attack (which to me seems plausible based on my experience). It's possible and very likely Darlie was attacked first (she was either the target all along or as the adult in the room she was the one that needed to be immobilized first due to her comparable strength). She made noise in the struggle, woke one or both boys but at some point passed out. Now that one or both of the boys are up the attacker either fears being identified by them or fears they will alert other adults with their screams. The attacker then goes after the boys while Darlie is unconscious or he presumes dead since he stabbed her shoulder (which in the dark he could have thought was closer to heart), slashed her thoat, and did whatever else to her as evidence in the photos.

At some point Damon crawls to the couch where Darlie is and tries to wake her. Who knows at what point this is but it's plausible that Darlie is laying on the couch passed out facing away from the attack. Damon tries to get to her but is attacked from behind. As he is standing in front of his mom who is laying with her back to him he is stabbed in the back. The stabs cast off Damon's blood onto Darlie's back. Based on her memory she wakes up because Damon hits her shoulder. By then the attacker assumes they are all dead and is turned around heading out (either because his plan to to do a simple robbery went wrong, his plan for a simple rape went wrong due to the kids in the room or his plan for a simple hit went went wrong). Either way Darlie appears dead (and based on what he thinks he did to her he thinks she is) and he is certain all the witnesses are dead (or at least near enough to death that they will not be physically able to immediately alert another adult for help before he can safely get away).

I know it's long but so are trial transcripts.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showth ... 735&page=5
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:06 pm

MichaelB wrote:I spent about 30 hours reading about Darlie's case last year. I read some of the discussion at Websleuths and a few of the documents, the Darlie website and watched the youtube videos. For me, there's certainly reasonable doubt because of her injuries but not innocence because she admits holding the murder weapon. If she did it, then she's absolutely diabolical with the sock staging, wire cutting, self inflicted injuries and a great actress. I don't see that though from what I read.


"Darlie Routier had not yet returned to her home on Eagle Drive since that horrible morning; she, Darin and baby Drake had been staying with Mama Darlie in Plano. Needing some articles of clothing, she telephoned her friend Mercedes Adams a few days after the funeral to ask if she would mind driving her there. Mercedes complied, but expected Darlie to buckle under upon walking into the place that took the lives of her two sons. The girlfriend was in for an awakening.

Death lingered in the foyer, but Darlie, Mercedes noted, charged onto the scene seemingly unaware and like a bull elephant, arms akimbo, shouted, "Look at this mess! It'll cost us a fortune to fix this shit!"

"Right there where her boys were killed, and that's the first thing she said to me. I put my hands on Darlie's shoulders and said, 'Darlie, look me in the eye and tell me you didn't kill the boys.' She looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm gonna get new carpet, new drapes, and fix this room all up.' I couldn't believe it."
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:19 pm

desmonddog wrote:
MichaelB wrote:I spent about 30 hours reading about Darlie's case last year. I read some of the discussion at Websleuths and a few of the documents, the Darlie website and watched the youtube videos. For me, there's certainly reasonable doubt because of her injuries but not innocence because she admits holding the murder weapon. If she did it, then she's absolutely diabolical with the sock staging, wire cutting, self inflicted injuries and a great actress. I don't see that though from what I read.


"Darlie Routier had not yet returned to her home on Eagle Drive since that horrible morning; she, Darin and baby Drake had been staying with Mama Darlie in Plano. Needing some articles of clothing, she telephoned her friend Mercedes Adams a few days after the funeral to ask if she would mind driving her there. Mercedes complied, but expected Darlie to buckle under upon walking into the place that took the lives of her two sons. The girlfriend was in for an awakening.

Death lingered in the foyer, but Darlie, Mercedes noted, charged onto the scene seemingly unaware and like a bull elephant, arms akimbo, shouted, "Look at this mess! It'll cost us a fortune to fix this shit!"

"Right there where her boys were killed, and that's the first thing she said to me. I put my hands on Darlie's shoulders and said, 'Darlie, look me in the eye and tell me you didn't kill the boys.' She looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm gonna get new carpet, new drapes, and fix this room all up.' I couldn't believe it."



Neighbors' reaction mixed for Routier

ROWLETT (AP) - Darlie Routier wasn't a perfect mother, but that was no reason to sentence her to death, says a neighbor who called the condemned child killer her best friend.

''In my heart, I don't believe Darlie did it,'' Mercedes Adams said Thursday as she stood across the street from the two-story suburban home where Mrs. Routier was accused of fatally stabbing two of her sons.

''I've known Darlie for a long time and there is something missing we don't know about,'' said Mrs. Adams, visibly shaken and fighting back tears at one point. ''I know what is missing - the real killer.''

Mrs. Adams and other residents ventured outside their homes as television cameras were trained on the Victorian-style house with green and white wood trim abandoned by the Routiers.

Some, like Mrs. Adams and neighbor Terry Neal, defended Darin Routier's wife as a caring, compassionate mother who was friendly and generous with her own and other children

But others said justice was served, only questioning whether Mrs. Routier, 27, posed enough of a continuing danger to society to face lethal injection.

''The Routiers were hoping for the best,'' said Terry Neal, who with his wife Karen went repeatedly to Kerrville for portions of trial testimony. ''But they and we had already figured that, since the jury never listened carefully to a word the defense had to say, they would come out on the losing end.

Neal's daughter, 12-year-old Rebecca, and her friend Elizabeth Carroll recalled Mrs. Routier's kindnessbcd.

''Sometimes Darlie would make up songs and start singing when she didn't think anybody was listening,'' said Rebecca Routier ''She treated everybody like they were her own kid.''

http://lubbockonline.com/news/020597/neighbor.htm
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:20 am

What is the evidence that supports the intruder/serial killer did it theory? I know I've read about this before but was there similar attacks in the area? There's the bloody sock and wire cutting. What was found inside the house that helps clear Darlie?

ETA: Was there witnesses who said they saw anything or anyone suspicious that night?
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:34 am

Good post on the back spatter Sinsaint.

Desmondog, we really should focus on the crime scene itself. That holds almost all the relevant evidence. People react differently to trauma and, for my part, I derive very little benefit from accounts of supposedly weird behaviour.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:50 am

Is it true that fragments from that garage window screen which had been cut were found on a 2nd knife in the Router kitchen? If so, what does this mean?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:51 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Good post on the back spatter Sinsaint.

Desmondog, we really should focus on the crime scene itself. That holds almost all the relevant evidence. People react differently to trauma and, for my part, I derive very little benefit from accounts of supposedly weird behaviour.


Au contraire, Clive.

Demeanor and behavior are always part of the body of evidence.

Darlie did not cry or appear upset at all at the funeral service at the church.

And there's a myth out there that before the Silly String video, there was one of the solemn service at the gravesite before that, which was never shown in court and which has Darlie crying and sobbing.

There is only an audio of that gravesite service, and no sobbing Darlie. Just the minister giving the service, and some sniffles in the background that could have been from anyone at the service.
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:00 am

MichaelB wrote:What is the evidence that supports the intruder/serial killer did it theory? I know I've read about this before but was there similar attacks in the area? There's the bloody sock and wire cutting. What was found inside the house that helps clear Darlie?

ETA: Was there witnesses who said they saw anything or anyone suspicious that night?


There's no evidence of an intruder at all. The screen was cut from the inside, and the knife then put back in the knife holder in the kitchen.

Luminol testing showed that there had been a lot of blood in the sink. That's when Darlie made up a new story - that she had been wetting towels there to press onto the boy's wounds, as she had been asked to do.

Never happened. No one asked Darlie to wet any towels and she didn't hand anyone towels to press on the wounds.

That was just the best story she could come up with, after the fact, about that blood in the sink.

But the blood evidence tells it all. Darlie says she was attacked while sleeping on the sofa, and there was much blood on the back of her shirt, but little on the sofa.

If you read the testimony that's presented in the books on this case, they laid out exactly how it happened and where each stabbing even happened. Darin was not involved, although it appears to me that he obviously knows it was Darlie who committed the crime and he decided to stand by her.

I do have some compassion for Darlie, as I feel that she had long been suffering from depression and other emotional illnesses, but she is guilty of this crime. She didn't deserve the death penalty, IMO.
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:16 am

desmonddog wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Good post on the back spatter Sinsaint.

Desmondog, we really should focus on the crime scene itself. That holds almost all the relevant evidence. People react differently to trauma and, for my part, I derive very little benefit from accounts of supposedly weird behaviour.


Au contraire, Clive.

Demeanor and behavior are always part of the body of evidence.

Darlie did not cry or appear upset at all at the funeral service at the church.

And there's a myth out there that before the Silly String video, there was one of the solemn service at the gravesite before that, which was never shown in court and which has Darlie crying and sobbing.

There is only an audio of that gravesite service, and no sobbing Darlie. Just the minister giving the service, and some sniffles in the background that could have been from anyone at the service.


I prefer to stick with the crime scene evidence. We have a friend that lost her mother and 2 brothers in a fire. Not a tear was shed at their funeral. No emotion was shown at all. Our friend was simply in shock. Was she devastated? Of course. Those emotions would come out later.
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:17 am

I remember being hung up on the screen particles found on the knife in the kitchen. It was a clear sign of staging. Is there proof to support those claims?
"This could happen to any one of you. If you don't believe it could happen, you are either misinformed or in a state of deep denial" -- Debra Milke
User avatar
Bruce Fischer
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4470
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 4:26 pm
Location: USA

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:28 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:
I prefer to stick with the crime scene evidence. We have a friend that lost her mother and 2 brothers in a fire. Not a tear was shed at their funeral. No emotion was shown at all. Our friend was simply in shock. Was she devastated? Of course. Those emotions would come out later.


You can't compare Darlie to your friend, because Darlie WAS showing emotions. She was smiling, exuberant, cracking her gum, upset at the mess all that blood made in her beautiful home.

If you don't want to discuss this case, why are you here? The physical evidence in irrefutable. The screen was cut from the inside with a knife that was neatly put back in the knife holder.

There's no way to explain that away, nor is there any way to explain away the blood evidence (of which, in spite of what some may claim, a shoddy investigation was not done).
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:29 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:I remember being hung up on the screen particles found on the knife in the kitchen. It was a clear sign of staging. Is there proof to support those claims?


Absolutely there is! There are several excellent books out that lay out all the evidence - plus, most of it is available for free online.
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby MichaelB » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:33 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:I remember being hung up on the screen particles found on the knife in the kitchen. It was a clear sign of staging. Is there proof to support those claims?


How can we trust that though? Is that really evidence? Who are the experts who say it is? What are there qualifications? How many trials have they testified at before? It's a bit like the brass particles on David Camm isn' it?

For me, this is sort of BS evidence like blood stain analysis or ear witnesses.
The stupid things Ergon says - THE BEST OF NASEER AHMAD: "Curatolo's testimony is one of the bedrock foundations of my beliefs in this case."
User avatar
MichaelB
 
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:07 pm
Location: Perryville Prison

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:48 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:I remember being hung up on the screen particles found on the knife in the kitchen. It was a clear sign of staging. Is there proof to support those claims?


Yes. Charles Linch, who worked at SWIFS and tested material for the state, signed an affidavit stating then when he received the knives they had already been dusted for prints. The same brush had been used to dust the window sill for prints. The fiber easily could have been transferred to the knife after the sill was dusted.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... inch-2.pdf
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:50 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:I remember being hung up on the screen particles found on the knife in the kitchen. It was a clear sign of staging. Is there proof to support those claims?


Yes. Charles Linch, who worked at SWIFS and tested material for the state, signed an affidavit stating then when he received the knives they had already been dusted for prints. The same brush had been used to dust the window sill for prints. The fiber easily could have been transferred to the knife after the sill was dusted.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... inch-2.pdf


Oh, and there was only one (1) screen fiber on the knife. Had it been used to cut the screen there should have been more.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:56 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Bruce Fischer wrote:I remember being hung up on the screen particles found on the knife in the kitchen. It was a clear sign of staging. Is there proof to support those claims?


Yes. Charles Linch, who worked at SWIFS and tested material for the state, signed an affidavit stating then when he received the knives they had already been dusted for prints. The same brush had been used to dust the window sill for prints. The fiber easily could have been transferred to the knife after the sill was dusted.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/ ... inch-2.pdf


Oh, and there was only one (1) screen fiber on the knife. Had it been used to cut the screen there should have been more.


I don't mean this disrespectfully, but - how would you know how many pieces of screen fiber should have been there, and just who was it who stated equivocably that there was only one piece, or that there should have been more?

Not to even mention that.......why would there be any screen fibers on a kitchen knife at all, and how can that be separated from the fact that the screen had been cut from the inside?
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby desmonddog » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:01 am

Sinsaint wrote:
desmonddog wrote:

Neighbors' reaction mixed for Routier

ROWLETT (AP) - Darlie Routier wasn't a perfect mother, but that was no reason to sentence her to death, says a neighbor who called the condemned child killer her best friend.

''In my heart, I don't believe Darlie did it,'' Mercedes Adams said Thursday as she stood across the street from the two-story suburban home where Mrs. Routier was accused of fatally stabbing two of her sons.

''I've known Darlie for a long time and there is something missing we don't know about,'' said Mrs. Adams, visibly shaken and fighting back tears at one point. ''I know what is missing - the real killer.''

Mrs. Adams and other residents ventured outside their homes as television cameras were trained on the Victorian-style house with green and white wood trim abandoned by the Routiers.

Some, like Mrs. Adams and neighbor Terry Neal, defended Darin Routier's wife as a caring, compassionate mother who was friendly and generous with her own and other children

But others said justice was served, only questioning whether Mrs. Routier, 27, posed enough of a continuing danger to society to face lethal injection.

''The Routiers were hoping for the best,'' said Terry Neal, who with his wife Karen went repeatedly to Kerrville for portions of trial testimony. ''But they and we had already figured that, since the jury never listened carefully to a word the defense had to say, they would come out on the losing end.

Neal's daughter, 12-year-old Rebecca, and her friend Elizabeth Carroll recalled Mrs. Routier's kindnessbcd.

''Sometimes Darlie would make up songs and start singing when she didn't think anybody was listening,'' said Rebecca Routier ''She treated everybody like they were her own kid.''

http://lubbockonline.com/news/020597/neighbor.htm


Those were neighbors, not close friends - and none of them had talked to Darlie after the crime. Mercedes was a friend of Darlie's, had no reason to speak against her, and was a direct eye and earwitness to the scene I described when they went back to the house.
desmonddog
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:54 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Grayhawker » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:01 am

To see one so filled with hate to the point of being so blind.

It is staggering to see the depths that people are willing, and maybe driven, to descend to.
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

Next

Return to Darlie Routier Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest