Darlie Routier Public Discussion

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:03 am

Nice pics Sinsaint, thanks. The shoes look quite neat and tidy so she was cool enough to manage that but not the sock dump. I had not thought before the idea was to hide the sock. I thought it was supposed to be found. If she meant to hide it she must have believed she had given the whole game away by leaving it conspicuously on the ground.

We can let her change her mind can't we? She used the sock to keep her prints off the knife but then maybe decided on a change of plan when she got home. By cutting herself she would make the whole thing look more realistic but there was no way to do that without getting her prints on the knife. I don't know what plan B was supposed to be with the sock, but I don't immediately see what's wrong with this idea. I don't buy it for one minute though. I see the sock as proving an intruder.

Isn't there a timeline somewhere? Nine minutes or something for one of the boys to die? Seems suspiciously precise to me. Anyway, is there room in it for this two minute excursion?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:07 am

Another thing to put in the timeline is cutting the screen. She can't have done that before the stabbings as then she would only have used the one knife. She couldn't use the murder weapon once it was covered in blood since that would be transferred to the screen showing the intruder cut his way out.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:27 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Another thing to put in the timeline is cutting the screen. She can't have done that before the stabbings as then she would only have used the one knife. She couldn't use the murder weapon once it was covered in blood since that would be transferred to the screen showing the intruder cut his way out.


Some people believe she cut the screen just prior to stabbing the boys.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:37 am

Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Another thing to put in the timeline is cutting the screen. She can't have done that before the stabbings as then she would only have used the one knife. She couldn't use the murder weapon once it was covered in blood since that would be transferred to the screen showing the intruder cut his way out.


Some people believe she cut the screen just prior to stabbing the boys.

Right, but like I say that would have involved two knives. That strikes me as unlikely. Not impossible of course. She stabs the boys with the knife, then runs out with sock, returns and uses different knife to cut the screen, returns it to the block and then gathers up her courage and cuts her own throat with knife one, wandering around to get her blood everywhere. And of course she also does the other hundred things you have listed here. And people believe all that basically because of silly string and Tom Bevel.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby dpskee » Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:37 pm

Although Darlie has a website, several actually, that are good resources, I believe that Injustice Anywhere should build one as well. you are welcome to use any of the materials out there on the approved sites. Also, Tracy Bullen, Detective from Australia has a new site that will have all transcripts, varies reports already submitted to defense and videos. her new site is http://www.darlielynnroutier.com and from what I am told is best used through google chrome.
dpskee
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:51 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:43 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
Sinsaint wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Another thing to put in the timeline is cutting the screen. She can't have done that before the stabbings as then she would only have used the one knife. She couldn't use the murder weapon once it was covered in blood since that would be transferred to the screen showing the intruder cut his way out.


Some people believe she cut the screen just prior to stabbing the boys.

Right, but like I say that would have involved two knives. That strikes me as unlikely. Not impossible of course. She stabs the boys with the knife, then runs out with sock, returns and uses different knife to cut the screen, returns it to the block and then gathers up her courage and cuts her own throat with knife one, wandering around to get her blood everywhere. And of course she also does the other hundred things you have listed here. And people believe all that basically because of silly string and Tom Bevel.


Indeed. But I'm learning that people will pretty much believe anything. I've been reading up on the David Thorne case and people will believe anything when they want to. Sad but true. The impossibility of the stage scene in this case should be obvious to anyone who is paying attention. If Silly String is all it takes for people to believe that someone is capable of murder then we should all be very afraid. :)
"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 brysanutt » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:00 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:Another thing to put in the timeline is cutting the screen. She can't have done that before the stabbings as then she would only have used the one knife. She couldn't use the murder weapon once it was covered in blood since that would be transferred to the screen showing the intruder cut his way out.

So that would mean the intruder found his way in the house, got the serrated knife went back out cut the screen and came back in??
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:07 am

spoookee wrote:
brysanutt wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
brysanutt wrote:Ms Kee If anyone from IA would like to cover my travel expense Ill be glad to come on down there an submit my fingerprints..only if you agree to a written apology to me when they show nothing regarding the Darlie case? Does that sound good to you?Or should I just hold on to the email I have from dpskee@aol.com that demands those prints and accuses me of the crime until any new trial comes up?We all know the fruit dosnt fall far from the tree.I wonder how that petition is going? Im sure you have enough signatures to turn it in.. Please do..I would hate to think i wasted all that time with Dreama Crupp saving all those posts from supporters who signed it on the SECRET Page LOL Lisa Lamb Do ya think you can stop posting pics of my family? Dawn Berger and Mr Rennick trick no good.. Dayton police and detectives are well aware of supporters of Darlie Routier and they already pulled the Lets call CPS on them trick Patrick did that a couple of years ago and we all had a great laugh when I showed them the facebook pages of Darlie supporters... but feel free to call back we all enjoy a good laugh. I wish you all the best..now Im off to kick a puppy and slap a NUN


If you don't believe Darlie is innocent, you certainly have a right to that position. We welcome points of view from all sides of the case. But we also encourage you to provide factual information for your position. However, if you are only here to harass others or take personal jabs then you won't last very long. Enjoy your day.

I see spokee has lasted quite sometime with her personal jabs, but thats fine....
One may wonder why you didnt comment the same under her post??


Bryan where are all of these supposed "personal jabs" I've been making against you? I'll elaborate so that there is no confusion...
"PRIOR TO" your appearance on this forum, show me posts where I have "personally jabbed" you please.

I mentioned you in ONE post - one. Simply to advise that there are MANY other Darlie supporters out there (which there are), who aren't posting here because they do not want to deal with you (because they don't).

That's hardly a "personal jab." And as for WHY the supporters wouldn't want to deal with you, well Bryan, I think your rantings and ravings on here have made that all too obvious to the others here, now.

You'll notice paragraph after paragraph with Bryan complaining. But what FACTS does he deliver about Darlie or her case? His posts are 90% "I hate Darlie supporters" and MAYBE 10% "Darlie " - and THAT is generous.

Why are you going on and on about Travis Alexander - and asking the moderator of this forum to "keep us supporters from" doing this or that to your whatever page. Seriously? IF someone is posting on your Travis page, that's their right and privy. What do you want the moderators here to do to him, spank him and take his birthday away?

So much for being done with me and NO doing this with me..and its also apparent that your reading comprehension
skills are lacking
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:15 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
brysanutt wrote:Actually I showed up to civilly debate and find Mrs Hopkins ( who turns to other supporters to pay her monthly bills) degrading the actions of non supporters whilst she thought none would show here, I have read Sinsaints analogy and can say as I have many times she is the most informed and well spoken supporter there is however she is not fool proof each time.

Darin and Darlie both agreed on a separation and the fact that an argument took place that night STUDY and read all her statements you will find that she agreed with her counsel that she was represented adequately and agreed to the courts findings.One way to learn about a case is to research it yourself and not depend on others to do the work for you.

Agree. I need to do my own reading.

As Far as intruders using gloves (Do you think this is a random spur of the moment act)? Why would a murderer set on spree killing people not come prepared IE no weapon, No Gloves, no escape route.

We have an offence here called 'going equipped to steal'. There is a risk associated with being out in the small hours with a weapon. But, he must have had a knife because he cut his way in. So I figure it was a small knife which could be used to threaten with a view to rape, but then he found the boys asleep and grabbed a killing knife. Sinsaint has an impressive collection of crimes that resemble this one in many respects I believe.

The dents in the window area...?? Wouldn't that make a loud noise? I think Domain must have been doggy drunk that night

Domain?

Point to ponder: Just as you say why would she use one knife to cut the screen and another do do the killing.... Why would an intruder change his method of attack from deep stabs directly to vital organs on Devon and Damon to slice wounds on Darlie ( who was the bigger threat)

The boys were prone and he just wanted to kill them. She put up some kind of fight and got slashed I guess.

I will refer you to the autopsy of Devon Routier and let you discover for yourself his DEFENSE wounds, and what matters is that JURORS felt he defended himself against his attacker to receive those wounds, why would Darlie Kee and Darin Routier agree on TV that the knife went through Devons body into the floor below when the autopsy contradicts this?

Why would they falsifiably lie?

Darlie was NOT the First suspect do you agree or disagree?

Disagree.

snip

Sinsaint is not always correct, she comes with a lot of what ifs.....

Good. You can point out when she's wrong.


Clive I welcome you to join my group lets see how long your sarcasm lasts there

Be sure to tell everyone to stay away from my pages...the truth tends to piss people off and ruin their day

Darlie Routier is guilty of this crime and will likely die for that

When a non supporter shows up in open forums like these supporters always become insulting thats all they have

Anyone is welcome to join Facebook Darlie Routier Facts or Fables ( leave your insults here) We have the most factual members on this case anywhere

One forum is enough. I didn't think I had been sarcastic, actually.
Have a great day Clive I hope you find the law here is much different then the law where you are George Barwood... ( Physical evidence is just fluff...you cant prove anything with that) :facepalm: ::cry:: <Cheers> :worthy: :worthy: :worthy:

The law here is similar enough. I don't yet see anything in the discussion that hinges on points of law though. George has nothing to do with this case and your bringing him up is just silly. What is your point?
George Barwood does support Darlies Innocence and actually created a Free darlie Page Know your freinds Darlie was NOT the first suspect Darin was and he says so in his own words on the Leeza Gibbons show Domain is the Pomerainian Dog they have..who did not bark at intruders but barked and snipped at police..Darlie and darins statements " why would they falsify or lie" In order to cover the fact that they had a marital dispute that night that ended in an ask for separation then an hour later their kids are dead...
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby brysanutt » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:17 am

Does anyone think that Darlies sexuall abuse as a child by her step father Dennis Stahl left a profound impact on her metality OR affected her well being in any way?
brysanutt
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:24 am

brysanutt wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:Another thing to put in the timeline is cutting the screen. She can't have done that before the stabbings as then she would only have used the one knife. She couldn't use the murder weapon once it was covered in blood since that would be transferred to the screen showing the intruder cut his way out.

So that would mean the intruder found his way in the house, got the serrated knife went back out cut the screen and came back in??

No, as I said upthread, it would mean he already had a small knife that he used to cut the screen and which would have served well enough for threatening a rape victim into submission but then he found he needed/wanted to kill the boys and chose a killing knife for that.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:45 am

He (one of them) already had a knife when he/they came in. He used the double edged one to slice the screen to gain entry. This is the same knife that was never located and is WIDER IN THE CENTER than a regular butcher knife, thus leaving gaping holes in Devon's chest as opposed to slices in Damon and Darlie.

No bread knife was used to cut the kitchen screen. At trial they had to admit that it was indeed cut from the outside. The fiber on the bread knife was from the brush they used to test for fingerprints.

Sex crime gone wrong, hence her panties missing, they didn't expect to find two little boys asleep on the floor and everything went wrong.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:49 am

Guys (everyone BUT Bryan that is),

Is it necessary now that you have taken the case for me to continue to carry on in conversation in this thread? If not, I'd prefer to move on. As stated previously I don't like dealing with BSJ, for obvious reasons.

Why is the comment - something about me relying on money from supporters in order to survive - still even UP there? Isn't that a tad personal and off base? Not to mention an out and out lie. But then again, when Bryan opens his mouth, lies come flying out...

What can I say - at least I'm not posting photos of myself all over the internet with my ugly mug in front of JARS FULL OF MARIJUANA for sale. Blue cheese I believe was the strain? And with the price that was on it, wow, you should really be raking in the bucks huh Bryan?
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:57 am

Dear Bryan and spoookee

Not. Interested. Please take this crap elsewhere.

Regards

Clive
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:12 am

brysanutt wrote:
spoookee wrote:
brysanutt wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
brysanutt wrote:Ms Kee If anyone from IA would like to cover my travel expense Ill be glad to come on down there an submit my fingerprints..only if you agree to a written apology to me when they show nothing regarding the Darlie case? Does that sound good to you?Or should I just hold on to the email I have from dpskee@aol.com that demands those prints and accuses me of the crime until any new trial comes up?We all know the fruit dosnt fall far from the tree.I wonder how that petition is going? Im sure you have enough signatures to turn it in.. Please do..I would hate to think i wasted all that time with Dreama Crupp saving all those posts from supporters who signed it on the SECRET Page LOL Lisa Lamb Do ya think you can stop posting pics of my family? Dawn Berger and Mr Rennick trick no good.. Dayton police and detectives are well aware of supporters of Darlie Routier and they already pulled the Lets call CPS on them trick Patrick did that a couple of years ago and we all had a great laugh when I showed them the facebook pages of Darlie supporters... but feel free to call back we all enjoy a good laugh. I wish you all the best..now Im off to kick a puppy and slap a NUN


If you don't believe Darlie is innocent, you certainly have a right to that position. We welcome points of view from all sides of the case. But we also encourage you to provide factual information for your position. However, if you are only here to harass others or take personal jabs then you won't last very long. Enjoy your day.

I see spokee has lasted quite sometime with her personal jabs, but thats fine....
One may wonder why you didnt comment the same under her post??


Bryan where are all of these supposed "personal jabs" I've been making against you? I'll elaborate so that there is no confusion...
"PRIOR TO" your appearance on this forum, show me posts where I have "personally jabbed" you please.

I mentioned you in ONE post - one. Simply to advise that there are MANY other Darlie supporters out there (which there are), who aren't posting here because they do not want to deal with you (because they don't).

That's hardly a "personal jab." And as for WHY the supporters wouldn't want to deal with you, well Bryan, I think your rantings and ravings on here have made that all too obvious to the others here, now.

You'll notice paragraph after paragraph with Bryan complaining. But what FACTS does he deliver about Darlie or her case? His posts are 90% "I hate Darlie supporters" and MAYBE 10% "Darlie " - and THAT is generous.

Why are you going on and on about Travis Alexander - and asking the moderator of this forum to "keep us supporters from" doing this or that to your whatever page. Seriously? IF someone is posting on your Travis page, that's their right and privy. What do you want the moderators here to do to him, spank him and take his birthday away?

So much for being done with me and NO doing this with me..and its also apparent that your reading comprehension
skills are lacking


At least I understand elementary level spelling, grammar and punctuation, which is more than I can say for you. :wow: What year did you drop out of school?
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:15 am

You know what, I am not doing this.

Neither will any one else. Including Darlie Kee.

Bruce - if you guys want our help, you know how to contact us.

I've avoided Bryan St John at all costs and none of us are going to start going around and around about him again, now.

Clive - his comments about me should have been removed WELL PRIOR to me even SEEING them.

D-O-N-E
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:17 am

I re-post my QUESTION:

"Guys (everyone BUT Bryan that is),

Is it necessary now that you have taken the case for me to continue to carry on in conversation in this thread? If not, I'd prefer to move on. As stated previously I don't like dealing with BSJ, for obvious reasons.

Why is the comment - something about me relying on money from supporters in order to survive - still even UP there? Isn't that a tad personal and off base? Not to mention an out and out lie. But then again, when Bryan opens his mouth, lies come flying out...."
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:24 am

spoookee wrote:You know what, I am not doing this.

Neither will any one else. Including Darlie Kee.

Bruce - if you guys want our help, you know how to contact us.

I've avoided Bryan St John at all costs and none of us are going to start going around and around about him again, now.

Clive - his comments about me should have been removed WELL PRIOR to me even SEEING them.

D-O-N-E

Not my business. I am not an administrator or moderator here. While I sympathise and would be very pissed if irrelevant personal stuff about me were posted here I ask: did you report the post that concerns you? Presumably you don't expect every post here to be filtered before it goes on the board. I am not speaking from personal knowledge but my guess is that those whose business that kind of stuff is don't have the time to baby sit everybody but rather expect us all to focus on the subject matter of the topics here. All I am interested in on this thread is the case. I don't care whether Bryan grows or sells cannabis, nor am I interested in anything he has to say about you which, even if I read it, I can assure you I have completely forgotten.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:06 am

Clive,

All that I can say is - again - what I said initially when this conversation blew up last week:

90% (at least) of Darlie's supporters will NOT debate with Bryan. End of story. If you knew even half of what he's put people through, you'd "get it."

I don't know how your forum is moderated. But yes, on the Darlie Facebook pages, we take *great effort* to remove irrelevant posts immediately. Bryan is not capable of focusing simply on the "subject matter." Clive, why don't you go on Facebook and join HIS Facebook group, "Darlie Routier, Facts or Fables." You'll get a real good dose of his antics in a big hurry over there. Then maybe you will understand.

If Bryan (and his minions) were blocked from this forum, you would have MUCH more supporter activity here. It's a fact. People that have spent years trying to avoid him like the plague do NOT want to come here to get harassed.

I've sent a private message to Bruce and it will be handled there I assume.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby daniowen » Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:46 am

We are not here to debate if Darlie is innocent or not There are facebook pages for that. This is not the place to do this. There are many things lacking in her case that need to be resolved so that she can A) Get a new trial, or B) Be exonerated completely. A lot of errors in her case that need to be be fixed.
daniowen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:39 am

daniowen wrote:We are not here to debate if Darlie is innocent or not There are facebook pages for that. This is not the place to do this. There are many things lacking in her case that need to be resolved so that she can A) Get a new trial, or B) Be exonerated completely. A lot of errors in her case that need to be be fixed.

You may not be but I am.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:45 am

spoookee wrote:Clive,

All that I can say is - again - what I said initially when this conversation blew up last week:

90% (at least) of Darlie's supporters will NOT debate with Bryan. End of story. If you knew even half of what he's put people through, you'd "get it."

I don't know how your forum is moderated. But yes, on the Darlie Facebook pages, we take *great effort* to remove irrelevant posts immediately. Bryan is not capable of focusing simply on the "subject matter." Clive, why don't you go on Facebook and join HIS Facebook group, "Darlie Routier, Facts or Fables." You'll get a real good dose of his antics in a big hurry over there. Then maybe you will understand.

If Bryan (and his minions) were blocked from this forum, you would have MUCH more supporter activity here. It's a fact. People that have spent years trying to avoid him like the plague do NOT want to come here to get harassed.

I've sent a private message to Bruce and it will be handled there I assume.

The trouble is, spoookee, that far too much of the discussion in these cases tends to degenerate into abuse. IA is not supposed to be like that. Anyway, I'll leave you and Bruce to sort this out. From my POV in a discussion thread, I want to encounter opposing views. And believe me, I fully understand what you're talking about.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Bruce Fischer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:50 am

We will be adding a featured case section tonight. The debate here led us to decide to feature the case. Open discussion can be very helpful. With that said, now that we have voted to feature the case, a new section will be created and advertised on our home page for supporters. Give us a chance to make the transition.
"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 Sinsaint » Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:55 pm

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

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby daniowen » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:15 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
daniowen wrote:We are not here to debate if Darlie is innocent or not There are facebook pages for that. This is not the place to do this. There are many things lacking in her case that need to be resolved so that she can A) Get a new trial, or B) Be exonerated completely. A lot of errors in her case that need to be be fixed.

You may not be but I am.

Debate is the wrong word. I should of further explained. Debate yes I understand, but when everyone starts name calling and getting verbal it has gone past the debate part. I should of made it more clear..
daniowen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:16 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:We will be adding a featured case section tonight. The debate here led us to decide to feature the case. Open discussion can be very helpful. With that said, now that we have voted to feature the case, a new section will be created and advertised on our home page for supporters. Give us a chance to make the transition.


Excellent! Thanks Bruce.
"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 Apr 01, 2014 1:21 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:
spoookee wrote:Clive,

All that I can say is - again - what I said initially when this conversation blew up last week:

90% (at least) of Darlie's supporters will NOT debate with Bryan. End of story. If you knew even half of what he's put people through, you'd "get it."

I don't know how your forum is moderated. But yes, on the Darlie Facebook pages, we take *great effort* to remove irrelevant posts immediately. Bryan is not capable of focusing simply on the "subject matter." Clive, why don't you go on Facebook and join HIS Facebook group, "Darlie Routier, Facts or Fables." You'll get a real good dose of his antics in a big hurry over there. Then maybe you will understand.

If Bryan (and his minions) were blocked from this forum, you would have MUCH more supporter activity here. It's a fact. People that have spent years trying to avoid him like the plague do NOT want to come here to get harassed.

I've sent a private message to Bruce and it will be handled there I assume.


The trouble is, spoookee, that far too much of the discussion in these cases tends to degenerate into abuse. IA is not supposed to be like that. Anyway, I'll leave you and Bruce to sort this out. From my POV in a discussion thread, I want to encounter opposing views. And believe me, I fully understand what you're talking about.


I'm with Clive on this one. It is important that we welcome opposing views that can hopefully be addressed rationally from both sides. It allows us to explore all aspects of Darlie's case. I don't agree in personal attacks, but I agree with healthy debate.
"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 Bruce Fischer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:49 pm

ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
spoookee wrote:Clive,

All that I can say is - again - what I said initially when this conversation blew up last week:

90% (at least) of Darlie's supporters will NOT debate with Bryan. End of story. If you knew even half of what he's put people through, you'd "get it."

I don't know how your forum is moderated. But yes, on the Darlie Facebook pages, we take *great effort* to remove irrelevant posts immediately. Bryan is not capable of focusing simply on the "subject matter." Clive, why don't you go on Facebook and join HIS Facebook group, "Darlie Routier, Facts or Fables." You'll get a real good dose of his antics in a big hurry over there. Then maybe you will understand.

If Bryan (and his minions) were blocked from this forum, you would have MUCH more supporter activity here. It's a fact. People that have spent years trying to avoid him like the plague do NOT want to come here to get harassed.

I've sent a private message to Bruce and it will be handled there I assume.


The trouble is, spoookee, that far too much of the discussion in these cases tends to degenerate into abuse. IA is not supposed to be like that. Anyway, I'll leave you and Bruce to sort this out. From my POV in a discussion thread, I want to encounter opposing views. And believe me, I fully understand what you're talking about.


I'm with Clive on this one. It is important that we welcome opposing views that can hopefully be addressed rationally from both sides. It allows us to explore all aspects of Darlie's case. I don't agree in personal attacks, but I agree with healthy debate.


This thread will remain but it will be renamed and a support forum will be added. We are going to provide more options.
"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 spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:09 pm

ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
spoookee wrote:Clive,

All that I can say is - again - what I said initially when this conversation blew up last week:

90% (at least) of Darlie's supporters will NOT debate with Bryan. End of story. If you knew even half of what he's put people through, you'd "get it."

I don't know how your forum is moderated. But yes, on the Darlie Facebook pages, we take *great effort* to remove irrelevant posts immediately. Bryan is not capable of focusing simply on the "subject matter." Clive, why don't you go on Facebook and join HIS Facebook group, "Darlie Routier, Facts or Fables." You'll get a real good dose of his antics in a big hurry over there. Then maybe you will understand.

If Bryan (and his minions) were blocked from this forum, you would have MUCH more supporter activity here. It's a fact. People that have spent years trying to avoid him like the plague do NOT want to come here to get harassed.

I've sent a private message to Bruce and it will be handled there I assume.


The trouble is, spoookee, that far too much of the discussion in these cases tends to degenerate into abuse. IA is not supposed to be like that. Anyway, I'll leave you and Bruce to sort this out. From my POV in a discussion thread, I want to encounter opposing views. And believe me, I fully understand what you're talking about.


I'm with Clive on this one. It is important that we welcome opposing views that can hopefully be addressed rationally from both sides. It allows us to explore all aspects of Darlie's case. I don't agree in personal attacks, but I agree with healthy debate.


That's certainly fine, as this is ya'll's webpage, not mine. However, I *personally* feel that debate is a complete and utter waste of time. You have all seen my posts on the law few pages. I know I spent the better part of a week trying to plead my case for Darlie's innocence as best I could. You will also notice that it was all on point and nothing "inappropriate." "Inappropriate" happens when you invite the "antis" to come to the party.

To me, what I was doing last week was not "debate." It was answering questions and educating people on a wrongful conviction. I am always available for that.

However, once someone has made up their mind that Darlie is guilty and that is that, no matter what anybody says, done deal, period, go get the needle ready - I am DONE with the conversation. "Debate" is not fun to me. I don't enjoy it. I don't have this big thing about "being right." Nor do I crave drama.

Darlie is my friend. I want her story told. I want the injustice to be told. I want people to learn, know and become aware about this case. I want her freed and home with her family. That is my *ONLY* concern.

My sanity, and Darlie's freedom, is more important to me than "debating" with people who's minds are already made up.


SinSaint - if a real question comes up and the BSJ/Anti nonsense stops, you know where to find me.

~Steph
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby ljrobins » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:38 pm

spoookee wrote:
ljrobins wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
spoookee wrote:Clive,

All that I can say is - again - what I said initially when this conversation blew up last week:

90% (at least) of Darlie's supporters will NOT debate with Bryan. End of story. If you knew even half of what he's put people through, you'd "get it."

I don't know how your forum is moderated. But yes, on the Darlie Facebook pages, we take *great effort* to remove irrelevant posts immediately. Bryan is not capable of focusing simply on the "subject matter." Clive, why don't you go on Facebook and join HIS Facebook group, "Darlie Routier, Facts or Fables." You'll get a real good dose of his antics in a big hurry over there. Then maybe you will understand.

If Bryan (and his minions) were blocked from this forum, you would have MUCH more supporter activity here. It's a fact. People that have spent years trying to avoid him like the plague do NOT want to come here to get harassed.

I've sent a private message to Bruce and it will be handled there I assume.


The trouble is, spoookee, that far too much of the discussion in these cases tends to degenerate into abuse. IA is not supposed to be like that. Anyway, I'll leave you and Bruce to sort this out. From my POV in a discussion thread, I want to encounter opposing views. And believe me, I fully understand what you're talking about.


I'm with Clive on this one. It is important that we welcome opposing views that can hopefully be addressed rationally from both sides. It allows us to explore all aspects of Darlie's case. I don't agree in personal attacks, but I agree with healthy debate.


That's certainly fine, as this is ya'll's webpage, not mine. However, I *personally* feel that debate is a complete and utter waste of time. You have all seen my posts on the law few pages. I know I spent the better part of a week trying to plead my case for Darlie's innocence as best I could. You will also notice that it was all on point and nothing "inappropriate." "Inappropriate" happens when you invite the "antis" to come to the party.

To me, what I was doing last week was not "debate." It was answering questions and educating people on a wrongful conviction. I am always available for that.

However, once someone has made up their mind that Darlie is guilty and that is that, no matter what anybody says, done deal, period, go get the needle ready - I am DONE with the conversation. "Debate" is not fun to me. I don't enjoy it. I don't have this big thing about "being right." Nor do I crave drama.

Darlie is my friend. I want her story told. I want the injustice to be told. I want people to learn, know and become aware about this case. I want her freed and home with her family. That is my *ONLY* concern.

My sanity, and Darlie's freedom, is more important to me than "debating" with people who's minds are already made up.


SinSaint - if a real question comes up and the BSJ/Anti nonsense stops, you know where to find me.

~Steph


Spoookie, no one is criticizing you for not wanting to debate Darlie's innocence. That's perfectly cool. Your knowledge on the case is certainly much needed and desired here. Darlie's case is becoming a featured case, which means that IA recognizes her conviction as a potentially wrongful one. All of us who agree with that conclusion must rally around the case here and do whatever we can to support it. But this is also a public forum, which means that in the discussion area, those who believe she is guilty also have a right to post their thoughts from that position. Personal attacks are not supported typically but debate is. This allows the space for those who are just learning about the case or for those who have questions about the evidence or doubts about her innocence can feel free to ask questions or raise their concerns. It is often through such meaningful exchanges (hopefully) that we can raise the profile of Darlie's case and help to establish her innocence to the broader public.
"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 spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:44 pm

And how do you feel about this Darlie Kee? We've spent I don't know how long avoiding this man and "them" at all costs. Now I'm being told that even tho they think Darlie is innocent, we have to participate in an open forum with the enemy in order to do so.

So what do we do? Lie down with the devil? Or run away and just pray?

This is very disheartening...
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:13 pm

Spookee, Dani, Darlie Kee. Et al... Bruce, Sarah and the rest of the board opted to take on Darlie's case. For that we should all be grateful. There were many cases they considered but chose hers above the others. There is no need to expect certain treatment depending on if you are a supporter or non-supporter. This thread is a discussion/debate thread.

That said, I do feel for you. I've heard Drake's supporter page was trashed by the non-supporters. Others have been accused of profiting off her tragedy. I myself, along with another supporter had an unauthorized background check done and this information was handed over to a non-supporter, so I now live in fear of this man showing up at my house. My own husband, who has nothing to do with this case, was accused of being a child molester. Brian knew the information he gave was false. His explanation to me... Well, he never came right out and accused my husband of anything. He just edited the name in the article to match my husband and let his "followers" decide on their own if my husband was a child molester.

Point is, these are the tactics from him and his group. If we all cower to his tactics, refuse to debate him, move on to a safer location, then what? Who fights for Darlie? Who exposes her story? Who tells the truth for her? No one. And in the meantime, all the non-supports get uncontested air time to distort the facts of her case as they see fit. I made up my mind a long time ago... I will not abandon her cause or cower in a corner just because her non-supporters choose trash talk over truth.

I can only view it this way... Darlie is sitting on death row and her only voice is that of her supporters. If we all cry about playground antics and refuse to discuss her case because of their idiotic (and believe me, anyone unfamiliar with the case will see the strategy he's taking as a diversionary tactic because his agruments don't hold water) then they win by default. In the end you have one of two choices... Are you more concerned with personal attacks that mean nothing or are you more concerned with getting the facts about Darlie's case out there? I choose fighting for her at all costs. Your choice is yours to make.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sarah » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:27 pm

spoookee wrote:And how do you feel about this Darlie Kee? We've spent I don't know how long avoiding this man and "them" at all costs. Now I'm being told that even tho they think Darlie is innocent, we have to participate in an open forum with the enemy in order to do so.

So what do we do? Lie down with the devil? Or run away and just pray?

This is very disheartening...


Bruce is currently creating separate Advocate vs Open discussion areas for all the featured cases. That is what we currently have for the Amanda Knox case. There are discussion areas where open questioning is allowed, but there is an area where only supporters are allowed. I hope that will work out.

We had a similar situation happen with the Scott Peterson case. A group showed to discuss the case as well as others with a history of conflict with them. WE don't know any of them though, so how to immediately understand the relationships?
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sarah » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:34 pm

daniowen wrote:We are not here to debate if Darlie is innocent or not There are facebook pages for that. This is not the place to do this. There are many things lacking in her case that need to be resolved so that she can A) Get a new trial, or B) Be exonerated completely. A lot of errors in her case that need to be be fixed.


This forum is absolutely for debate as well, but in the hope that the truth is found and then actions taken. One of the differences of this forum is that actual action and results are the goal, not discussion itself as the goal.

For those who only want to work on a case where innocence has already been decided there should be a place to work on the case without debate. We are going to create that option.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:35 pm

Sarah wrote:
spoookee wrote:And how do you feel about this Darlie Kee? We've spent I don't know how long avoiding this man and "them" at all costs. Now I'm being told that even tho they think Darlie is innocent, we have to participate in an open forum with the enemy in order to do so.

So what do we do? Lie down with the devil? Or run away and just pray?

This is very disheartening...


Bruce is currently creating separate Advocate vs Open discussion areas for all the featured cases. That is what we currently have for the Amanda Knox case. There are discussion areas where open questioning is allowed but there is an area where only supporters are allowed. I hope that will work out.

We had a similar situation happen with the Scott Peterson case. A group showed to discuss the case as well as others with a history of conflict with them. WE don't know any of them though, so how to immediately understand the relationships?


There is also the "foe" option in the user panel. I've heard that makes it so you don't see the comments made by people you don't agree with. It's not a perfect solution but one that works if the foe posts are meant only to e flame a particular poster.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sinsaint » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:37 pm

Sarah wrote:
daniowen wrote:We are not here to debate if Darlie is innocent or not There are facebook pages for that. This is not the place to do this. There are many things lacking in her case that need to be resolved so that she can A) Get a new trial, or B) Be exonerated completely. A lot of errors in her case that need to be be fixed.


This forum is absolutely for debate as well, but in the hope that the truth is found and then actions taken. One of the differences of this forum is that actual action and results are the goal, not discussion itself as the goal.

For those who only want to work on a case where innocence has already been decided there should be a place to work on the case without debate. We are going to create that option.


Thank you Sarah. Once it's created I plan to get to work on anything Bruce requests.
Sinsaint
 
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:28 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby daniowen » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:38 pm

daniowen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby daniowen » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:43 pm

Sinsaint wrote:
Sarah wrote:
daniowen wrote:We are not here to debate if Darlie is innocent or not There are facebook pages for that. This is not the place to do this. There are many things lacking in her case that need to be resolved so that she can A) Get a new trial, or B) Be exonerated completely. A lot of errors in her case that need to be be fixed.


This forum is absolutely for debate as well, but in the hope that the truth is found and then actions taken. One of the differences of this forum is that actual action and results are the goal, not discussion itself as the goal.

For those who only want to work on a case where innocence has already been decided there should be a place to work on the case without debate. We are going to create that option.


Thank you Sarah. Once it's created I plan to get to work on anything Bruce requests.
daniowen wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HtL8ZSvK7QY
Sarah, Debate really was the wrong word to e. I am talking about the senseless bickering between two groups and that we all ready do that on facebook so is it necessary for us to do it here? If people want to discuss and debate her case in a tactful manner that is different
daniowen
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:34 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:00 pm

I am grateful. Very. Everyone else is grateful.

However, I guess the best way is kind of how you explained it. We've ALL had issues w them. Our own stories. Some that have gone on for years. It gets old fast.

We decided to not pay them any mind. We have our own Facebook groups where we don't have to deal with them or see the insulting photos they do of us, etc.

This is different. As you all have stated, this is a public forum. I think we were basically all excited for the help, not realizing we were going to have to open old wounds with this man....again.

Some just *can't* do it anymore. He's all over Darlie's sister Danelle right now. She's the one taking care of Drake and he's harassing the hell out of her. So is she gonna wanna come read his nonsense and post here for example?

No-one wants to interact with him.

We will deal with it as it comes I suppose.

Private groups sound like a great idea.

I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. But there is only so much one can take. I can continue to spread the word about Darlie without having to deal with him on a 7 day a week basis for sire. I've managed to have that for months now. Very rare temper tantrums from him.

I just don't think anyone realized they were going to have to deal a with him after the vote. That's why not too many posted in the initial thread. They didn't wanna open themselves up to him. I said so in an early post.

I'm just pointing out the obvious. Some people won't participate here if they have to deal with him. And logic would dictate it'd be her closer people.

Hopefully the separate group thing should work.

Thanks again everyone.

Take care.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sarah » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:02 pm

daniowen wrote:Sarah, Debate really was the wrong word to e. I am talking about the senseless bickering between two groups and that we all ready do that on facebook so is it necessary for us to do it here? If people want to discuss and debate her case in a tactful manner that is different


Bickering vs debate is not always immediately apparent. Please report posts and explain what is going on. It will at least put the situation on our radar as something to be aware of and monitor.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Sarah » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:08 pm

spoookee wrote:I am grateful. Very. Everyone else is grateful.

However, I guess the best way is kind of how you explained it. We've ALL had issues w them. Our own stories. Some that have gone on for years. It gets old fast.

We decided to not pay them any mind. We have our own Facebook groups where we don't have to deal with them or see the insulting photos they do of us, etc.

This is different. As you all have stated, this is a public forum. I think we were basically all excited for the help, not realizing we were going to have to open old wounds with this man....again.

Some just *can't* do it anymore. He's all over Darlie's sister Danelle right now. She's the one taking care of Drake and he's harassing the hell out of her. So is she gonna wanna come read his nonsense and post here for example?

No-one wants to interact with him.

We will deal with it as it comes I suppose.

Private groups sound like a great idea.

I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. But there is only so much one can take. I can continue to spread the word about Darlie without having to deal with him on a 7 day a week basis for sire. I've managed to have that for months now. Very rare temper tantrums from him.

I just don't think anyone realized they were going to have to deal a with him after the vote. That's why not too many posted in the initial thread. They didn't wanna open themselves up to him. I said so in an early post.

I'm just pointing out the obvious. Some people won't participate here if they have to deal with him. And logic would dictate it'd be her closer people.

Hopefully the separate group thing should work.

Thanks again everyone.

Take care.

We DO understand, from our dealings with other cases. We don't know who is who and the history of this case yet. We are going to make 2 separate areas for advocates only vs public discussion, but in the public discussion please report and explain the situation or send the admins a PM. We really don't like to stop open discussion, it is important to us, but there are posters and situations that have to end if they are only out to disrupt and upset people. We need to be told what is going on. Bruce is largely on his own lately with me dealing with family issues. We need your help to figure this all out.
User avatar
Sarah
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby spoookee » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:45 pm

Sounds good. Thanks again... :::thumbs up:::
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:49 pm

spoookee wrote:Sounds good. Thanks again... :::thumbs up:::

Spoookee - please stick around.

Regards

Clive
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bruce Fischer » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:05 am

The Darlie Routier Featured Case Advocate Forum is now open.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=2983

This thread will remain the public discussion thread. Please see board rules at the top of each forum.
"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 » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:22 am

spoookee wrote:Sounds good. Thanks again... :::thumbs up:::


We currently have 3 people that moderate the forum, Sarah, Dougm, and I. The issues in this thread should no longer be a problem with the addition of the new Advocacy Forum for Darlie's case.

We will be adding an update for the case on our main website tonight and we will announce the case as a Featured Case in our Spring Newsletter coming out in about 10 days.

Advocates need to get the discussion going in the new Advocate Forum! Supporters will look to that thread for information on the case. We understand that some of you have already posted support information in the public discussion forum. Now that Darlie Routier has become a featured case, we will need to do a little extra work. :)
"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 Public Discussion Forum

Postby spoookee » Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:49 am

Sounds great Bruce. Thanks again!!!!!
I'll try to get the advocate forum up to speed ASAP.
spoookee
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:26 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bruce Fischer » Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:29 pm

Supporters need to begin using the new Darlie Routier Advocate Forum. I moved a few posts over to get the conversation started. This thread will remain here as the public discussion (debate) thread.

The new Advocate forum is here: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=2983
"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 Public Discussion Forum

Postby ljrobins » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:42 pm

Bruce Fischer wrote:Supporters need to begin using the new Darlie Routier Advocate Forum. I moved a few posts over to get the conversation started. This thread will remain here as the public discussion (debate) thread.

The new Advocate forum is here: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=2983


Thanks, Bruce. I just responded to a post over there and see that Clive has too.
"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 Public Discussion Forum

Postby GIRattlesnakeJane » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:05 am

The screen was cut from the outside. This is in the testimony of the expert. Only 1 fiberglass rod found on the knife, was similar to the fiberglass material from screen. This one piece is so small it cannot be tested.

The nurses testimony does not match their notes. They all used different words in notes to describe her emotional state but when they take the stand they all use the same word...Flat...

The Dr. Who testified used the term medically superficial and refused when asked if they were superficial to classify her wounds as any other phrase than medically superficial. It was the DA who then started calling them and representing them to be superficial. There is a world of difference between the two.
GIRattlesnakeJane
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:46 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby GIRattlesnakeJane » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:20 am

The fact that her lawyer did not hire any experts to refute any experts from the prosecution is clearly one of the reasons she was convicted. How any judge could not deem that as ineffective counsel makes me wonder what would the judge deem ineffective......hiring a janitor to be your lawyer?
GIRattlesnakeJane
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:46 am

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby TruthMatters » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:15 pm

Is anyone else having problems clicking on links within this site? Like the one above to vote on the DR case, the "join the discussion" link on the IA home page, and several others I have tried to click on today have sent me to "this domain has expired" ???
TruthMatters
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Travel frequently for work

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby Clive Wismayer » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:31 pm

Osvaldo Rivera, 33, was accused of murdering Dominick Andujar, 6, when he tried to help his 12-year-old sister Amber as Rivera attacked her after breaking into their family’s home, reports The Daily Mail.

It was Amber’s screams that woke Dominick; when he saw what was happening, began to fight with Rivera.

Amber suffered from a slashed throat caused by Rivera, but was freed during the altercation and ran to a neighbor’s home for help.

- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/ ... xypLu.dpuf


Some comparative value maybe.
Clive Wismayer
 


Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby TruthMatters » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:26 pm

I do not understand how anyone can believe Darlie's wounds are self-inflicted. Unless I somehow missed it in the reports as well as on Darlie's boards and this one, there were zero hesitation marks on any of Darlie's wounds. Even people who are committing suicide by cutting their own wrists leave hesitation marks. So if Darlie did this horrific physical damage to herself, where are the hesitation marks?!
TruthMatters
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Travel frequently for work

Re: Darlie Routier

Postby TruthMatters » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:36 pm

brysanutt wrote:Does anyone think that Darlies sexuall abuse as a child by her step father Dennis Stahl left a profound impact on her metality OR affected her well being in any way?



Everything traumatic that happens to every human being has a profound impact on their mentality and effects their well being in some way. I do not personally know Darlie, so I could not say, but most women who sexual abuse victims as children end up being very protective of their children. They do not tend to violently murder their babies.
TruthMatters
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: Travel frequently for work


Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby don » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:32 am

Another case where Bevel is the blood spatter expert? Does anyone take heed of him anymore?
don
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Scarlett » Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:04 pm

Hi...new to the forum. I have been reading obsessively regarding this case and must admit I have flipped back and forth on my opinions. The one thing I am sure of, is that this trial was a joke! There is so much corruption and incompetence that it is sickening. I cannot understand for the life of me, based on all the information that has surfaced since the conviction, that this case has not been reopened and re-examined. Regardless of one's opinion of Darlie's involvement, surely we can all agree that this case should be retried with ALL of the evidence and more competant and reliable people involved.

I did have something I wanted to sort of mull around. In regards to the "bloody sock", I read somewhere that it has since been tested and that epithelial cells were discovered that DNA were confirmed were Darlie's. Has anyone else come across this story? Is it correct? I imagine that anyone who is convinced that she is guilty would use this as further proof that she committed the crimes, and the sock was on her hand to prevent the transfer of her finger prints onto the knife.

Perhaps....but I have another theory that I am not sure if anyone has considered. IF there was DNA in the form of skin cells inside the sock, and IF it was confirmed to be Darlie's, is there another way that it could have gotten there? I surmise that there was another way to have transfer from skin cells on the inside of a sock, other than wearing it on your foot (if it was Darin's).

I, being the sole person responsible for doing the laundry in my household, cannot state how many times I have had to turn a sock in side right from the laundry. Most boys and men (sorry guys) have a bad habit of peeling their socks off in such a way that they end up in the dirty laundry inside out.

If we assume that Darlie was also the one that was the one responsible for the laundry in the household, and she would also at times, if not all the time, be forced to complete the ritual of placing her hand inside the sock in order to turn it back inside right as part of her normal laundry duties?

Not necessarily mind blowing stuff...but it does give credence to opposite theories than what the prosecution chose to provide. They would provide the theory that she had to be wearing the sock on her hand, presumably to hide her prints while she stabbed at her children. I have given an alternate explanation of how the epithelial transfer could have occurred, which then can lead towards resonable doubt.

It seems to me that there are many examples like this that the defense may have had an opportunity to refute by providing examples of alternate theories and explanations, but did not seem to do so.

It would be nice to see that they got the chance to do so in the future. :beg:
Scarlett
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:43 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby KayLaw » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:11 am

Unless I'm mistaken, Scarlet, the sock is being tested as we speak. My personal guess is that the sock was used to gag Darlie during the attack.
KayLaw
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:01 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri Sep 05, 2014 4:01 am

Hi Scarlett

Good to see new faces discussing this case. An unfair trial is no trial at all so we can agree she should have a new one, guilty or not (I say not). The sock is the key to the whole stupid case IMO. It simply beggars belief that she ran out and dumped it and that it was not tested before the trial. Anyway, I agree that if her DNA is found on it then it is not probative that she committed the crime since, as you say, there is jo reason her DNA should not be on items that come from her home and, as KayLaw says, it could have been used as a gag. What we want to see is some third party's DNA and even better would be if it were the DNA of someone who is already in the database. Of course, that does not stop the state evolving a new crazy theory in which Darlie and this other guy acted in concert - we have seen that kind of tunnel vision with Amanda Knox, David Camm and other cases - but if they do that then the number of people waking up to this miscarriage of justice will only increase.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby FantasticallyFlawed » Tue Sep 09, 2014 12:37 pm

The sock tipped the scale for me in the beginning, and since I've read through all Sinsaints hard work, and horrible pics from the trial, it appears that she was at the very least railroaded. There was no smoking gun evidence of an intruder, so they made up their mind and provided "evidence" accordingly. Here is an interesting article about Greg Davis and the mistakes in the trial that I found an interesting read.... Huge question of ethics. http://hcnews.com/pages/justice_for_all ... sychopath/
FantasticallyFlawed
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:57 am

Belief Buggering

Postby lane99 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 6:09 pm

Clive Wismayer wrote:...The sock is the key to the whole stupid case IMO. It simply beggars belief that...it was not tested before the trial...


It's not a stupid case. Darlie Routier is almost certainly guilty. It is a stupid defense, though. Stupid because what actually beggars belief is for her supporters to try and spread untruths about the case while presumably expecting nobody to notice.

Point of order: the sock in question WAS tested before trial. And the results were very unfavourable to Darlie.

And, yes, it IS probative that Darlie's DNA was found on the sock but no unknown person's was. Of course her DNA could be transferred from casual household handling. But that doesn't help her. Because we'd also then expect any unknown intruder's DNA would likely be transferred to it, too. IF there was an unknown intruder who handled it, that is.

As it stands now the DNA and blood evidence on the sock is damning to Darlie. It's not impossible that assessment could change when and if the sock is tested further. It's unlikely, though, since it's unlikely there ever was an unknown intruder manhandling it.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Belief Buggering

Postby FantasticallyFlawed » Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:40 pm

lane99 wrote:And, yes, it IS probative that Darlie's DNA was found on the sock but no unknown person's was. Of course her DNA could be transferred from casual household handling. But that doesn't help her. Because we'd also then expect any unknown intruder's DNA would likely be transferred to it, too.


I agree about household hold transferring. And it may not help her. However I believe that gloves were used and the sock may have been an afterthought, or used as a gag. It would certainly explain lack of prints. I would certainly love to see results of that one fingerprint through AFIS.
FantasticallyFlawed
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:57 am

Re: Belief Buggering

Postby Clive Wismayer » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:20 am

lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...The sock is the key to the whole stupid case IMO. It simply beggars belief that...it was not tested before the trial...


It's not a stupid case. Darlie Routier is almost certainly guilty. It is a stupid defense, though. Stupid because what actually beggars belief is for her supporters to try and spread untruths about the case while presumably expecting nobody to notice.

Point of order: the sock in question WAS tested before trial. And the results were very unfavourable to Darlie.

And, yes, it IS probative that Darlie's DNA was found on the sock but no unknown person's was. Of course her DNA could be transferred from casual household handling. But that doesn't help her. Because we'd also then expect any unknown intruder's DNA would likely be transferred to it, too. IF there was an unknown intruder who handled it, that is.

As it stands now the DNA and blood evidence on the sock is damning to Darlie. It's not impossible that assessment could change when and if the sock is tested further. It's unlikely, though, since it's unlikely there ever was an unknown intruder manhandling it.

So you really thnk she ran out and dumped that sock. Wow. What were these very unfavourable results you mentioned and why is the sock being tested again?
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Belief Buggering

Postby lane99 » Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:41 pm

FantasticallyFlawed wrote:...I believe that gloves were used and the sock may have been an afterthought, or used as a gag. It would certainly explain lack of prints. I would certainly love to see results of that one fingerprint through AFIS.


You can believe whatever you like, regardless of however arbitrary or without foundation your belief might be. However, if the explanation for the lack of any unknown intruder DNA on the sock is they were wearing gloves, then it follows that any unidentified fingerprint at the crime scene almost certainly doesn't belong to an unknown intruder. Which is an even bigger problem for Darlie than the lack of any exculpatory DNA on the sock.

Ultimately, based on the available evidence, all of the arguments which have been presented to support the proposition that Darlie is innocent suffer from similar self-contradictions. Which is why objective people will conclude there is currently no good reason to doubt her guilt.
lane99
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:25 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:56 pm

Lane: However, if the explanation for the lack of any unknown intruder DNA on the sock is they were wearing gloves, then it follows that any unidentified fingerprint at the crime scene almost certainly doesn't belong to an unknown intruder.

That's always been a problem for supporters. No one has ever even
attempted to explain this contradiction.
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:31 am

The problem of the sock is how it relates to the timeline.

It is practically impossible for her to have attacked her kids, cleaned some of the crime scene, slashed herself (within mm's of taking her own life), ran out and deposited the sock.

All within mere minutes of the arrival of the first responder.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:45 am

Bruce Fischer wrote:Supporters need to begin using the new Darlie Routier Advocate Forum. I moved a few posts over to get the conversation started. This thread will remain here as the public discussion (debate) thread.

The new Advocate forum is here: http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=198&t=2983


A reminder to use the new forum for discussion on Darlie Routier's case.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Sat Sep 20, 2014 8:59 pm

Just wondering...how many days will it be before my post is approved?
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Lindab » Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:37 am

]Regarding a timeline in the Routier case:

I keep seeing that Darlie could not have staged things in the 2 to 3 minutes before Waddell arrived. That assumes she only did the staging AFTER she killed the boys and called 911.

The "timeline" started when Darin left the room. The staging of the floral arrangement and table "tipped over gently", the removal of the connector and lampshade placed down at the bottom of the lamp pole,the cutting of the wimdow screen in the garage,the jewelry and purse and notebook all left out on the counter...all of that was done prior to stabbing the boys. Entirely possible..she had over an hour to do all of that.
Lindab
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:10 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby erasmus44 » Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:25 pm

Lindab wrote:]Regarding a timeline in the Routier case:

I keep seeing that Darlie could not have staged things in the 2 to 3 minutes before Waddell arrived. That assumes she only did the staging AFTER she killed the boys and called 911.

The "timeline" started when Darin left the room. The staging of the floral arrangement and table "tipped over gently", the removal of the connector and lampshade placed down at the bottom of the lamp pole,the cutting of the wimdow screen in the garage,the jewelry and purse and notebook all left out on the counter...all of that was done prior to stabbing the boys. Entirely possible..she had over an hour to do all of that.


As I understand it, the argument is that one of the boys was still alive when the responders showed up and that he could not have lived very long after the wounds - this means that certain things (placing the sock) had to be done in that short time frame. I guess it is possible that other things could have been done earlier but anything that implicated the victims or Darlie's blood would have to have been done in a very short window. Remember also that once you place the 911 call, it is possible that the responders will show up very fast depending on who is dispatched to the scene and from where.
erasmus44
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 12:10 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Scarlett » Fri Sep 26, 2014 12:31 pm

erasmus44 wrote:
Lindab wrote:]Regarding a timeline in the Routier case:

I keep seeing that Darlie could not have staged things in the 2 to 3 minutes before Waddell arrived. That assumes she only did the staging AFTER she killed the boys and called 911.

The "timeline" started when Darin left the room. The staging of the floral arrangement and table "tipped over gently", the removal of the connector and lampshade placed down at the bottom of the lamp pole,the cutting of the wimdow screen in the garage,the jewelry and purse and notebook all left out on the counter...all of that was done prior to stabbing the boys. Entirely possible..she had over an hour to do all of that.


As I understand it, the argument is that one of the boys was still alive when the responders showed up and that he could not have lived very long after the wounds - this means that certain things (placing the sock) had to be done in that short time frame. I guess it is possible that other things could have been done earlier but anything that implicated the victims or Darlie's blood would have to have been done in a very short window. Remember also that once you place the 911 call, it is possible that the responders will show up very fast depending on who is dispatched to the scene and from where.




Agreed....there is no possible way to know how quickly the 1st responders will arrive. They could have coincidentally been right around the corner and arrived almost immediately. No sane person trying to stage a crime scene would leave a detail like that to chance. Only logical response is that she did not stage the sock.
Scarlett
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 12:43 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:33 pm

"As I understand it, the argument is that one of the boys was still alive when the responders showed up and that he could not have lived very long after the wounds - this means that certain things (placing the sock) had to be done in that short time frame.

So an intruder dropped the sock in the alley - the sock without any of Darlie's blood on it?
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby sallydirk2014 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 12:07 am

This is a very interesting discussion page because those who believe in Darlie's innocence actually use facts to back up their points. You have brought up some good points to think about. No crime scene is 100% explained, be it innocence or guilt. I believe Darlie is guilty. The blood cleanup at the sink, her ever changing stories, the lack of evidence of an intruder, the information Darin shared with Jamie Johnson about Darlie's mental state at the time of the murders, the fact she asked Darin for a separation the night of the murders, and her utter lack of any grief after those boys died such a horrible death convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt. Throw out the vacuum cleaner and the blood on the night shirt and I still think she's guilty.
sallydirk2014
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby sallydirk2014 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 12:10 am

I wondered for quite awhile why Darlie would call 911 while Damon was still alive. It doesn't make sense if she's guilty. Now I believe that Darlie did not know Damon was alive when she placed the 911 call. You can hear on the 911 call, she says "....thought he was dead". The only person she can be referring to is Damon.
sallydirk2014
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:41 pm

MaryM wrote:"As I understand it, the argument is that one of the boys was still alive when the responders showed up and that he could not have lived very long after the wounds - this means that certain things (placing the sock) had to be done in that short time frame.

So an intruder dropped the sock in the alley - the sock without any of Darlie's blood on it?

Darlie's son's blood. Which makes the timeframe for her to "wound" herself even smaller. The sock was found a considerable distance from the house.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Wed Nov 05, 2014 1:46 pm

sallydirk2014 wrote:This is a very interesting discussion page because those who believe in Darlie's innocence actually use facts to back up their points. You have brought up some good points to think about. No crime scene is 100% explained, be it innocence or guilt. I believe Darlie is guilty. The blood cleanup at the sink, her ever changing stories, the lack of evidence of an intruder, the information Darin shared with Jamie Johnson about Darlie's mental state at the time of the murders, the fact she asked Darin for a separation the night of the murders, and her utter lack of any grief after those boys died such a horrible death convinces me beyond any reasonable doubt. Throw out the vacuum cleaner and the blood on the night shirt and I still think she's guilty.


The suggestion that she had no grief after the murders is unfounded. A person's behavior while on a heavy sedative, as Darlie was, cannot be evaluated for "normal" behavior. It would be rediculous to attempt, which apparently doesn't cause any hesitation for police and prosecutors. They seem to enjoy appearing rediculous.
Paolo Micheli stated with regard to Amanda and Raffaele: "We do not need evidence, common sense and logic tell us that they dated each other to commit this crime."
User avatar
Grayhawker
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:13 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby sallydirk2014 » Wed Nov 05, 2014 6:31 pm

Well that's a matter of opinion. I think she was on anti-depressants, not sedatives. But neither could mask the unbearable pain of having watched your children die. There is no pill for that. But let's forget grief because honestly my bigger problem is how unabashedly happy she looks at the grave site 8 days later. As a mother myself, her smiling face in the wake of such tragedy I cannot dismiss. Myself and most mothers I know would be on our knees in grief. Different people (you and I) view behaviors differently, I get that. But if I were a juror I would need a much better explanation than pills. I've been on pill after pill for a close family member's death and nothing made me feel joy like darlie displayed. No, that emotion was happiness and it did not come from a pill. In fact I've never seen any video of Darlie truly sobbing. Whimpering, whining, a single tear, yes. But true despair and heart break, no.
sallydirk2014
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:18 am

sallydirk2014 wrote:Well that's a matter of opinion. I think she was on anti-depressants, not sedatives. But neither could mask the unbearable pain of having watched your children die. There is no pill for that. But let's forget grief because honestly my bigger problem is how unabashedly happy she looks at the grave site 8 days later. As a mother myself, her smiling face in the wake of such tragedy I cannot dismiss. Myself and most mothers I know would be on our knees in grief. Different people (you and I) view behaviors differently, I get that. But if I were a juror I would need a much better explanation than pills. I've been on pill after pill for a close family member's death and nothing made me feel joy like darlie displayed. No, that emotion was happiness and it did not come from a pill. In fact I've never seen any video of Darlie truly sobbing. Whimpering, whining, a single tear, yes. But true despair and heart break, no.

I am glad that you said "most" and not all.

In my time I have been involved in perhaps 500 funerals. The one thing I learned is not to judge someone on *anything* related to behaviour at them. There is no normal.

With that said, in this case I am only slightly in favour of Routier's innocence, and if I were on a jury I'd need to acquit, not because I was terribly convinced she is innocent, but from the brief reading into it, I'm not sure the prosecution made its case.

What would be needed to shift me to vote for guilt would be more than behaviour that *most* people (or mothers) would engage in.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:51 pm

Bill Williams: but from the brief reading into it, I'm not sure the prosecution made its case.What would be needed to shift me to vote for guilt would be more than behaviour that *most* people (or mothers) would engage in.

As you admitted yourself, Bill, your reading has been brief. You're assuming that the jurors convicted Darlie solely because of her behavior, which is absolutely not true. They convicted her because of the forensic evidence, which directly contradicts her story - a story which changed every time she became aware of the blood evidence discovered by investigators. A careful reading of the trial transcript makes this abundantly clear. If you don't have time to read the entire transcript, a good summary can be found at http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:24 am

MaryM wrote:Bill Williams: but from the brief reading into it, I'm not sure the prosecution made its case.What would be needed to shift me to vote for guilt would be more than behaviour that *most* people (or mothers) would engage in.

As you admitted yourself, Bill, your reading has been brief. You're assuming that the jurors convicted Darlie solely because of her behavior, which is absolutely not true. They convicted her because of the forensic evidence, which directly contradicts her story - a story which changed every time she became aware of the blood evidence discovered by investigators. A careful reading of the trial transcript makes this abundantly clear. If you don't have time to read the entire transcript, a good summary can be found at http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/

I am assuming no such thing. I was responding to sallydirk2014 who implied for her that this behaviour was determinative.

I've also read on that website, albeit not deeply. With all the discussion, my view is still as stated.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 09, 2014 12:29 am

MaryM - what is your connection to the case? I read what you wrote on the "contact" page.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:17 pm

"What is your connection to the case? "

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

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

Could you be more specific? For instance, how did Darlie manage to go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room and not get a single scratch on her feet?
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:32 pm

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

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

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

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

Thanks for this, MaryM. I realized once I'd left IIP after posting my request that often people make demands of others for their "background interest" in something as a way to pick away at the person, and not the issues. I hope you did not think I was doing that with you. If so, please accept my apologies - you provided the basic background that allows me to put responses into perspective. Thanks for that.

Me, I have far, far, far less background. To be honest, I have only had access (until now) to Darlie's supporters, as well as other "newbies" to this case who find themselves also leaning towards Darlie's innocence - meaning that for me leaning that way obviously means, "Not guilty due to reasonable doubt."

You perhaps know simply more than I know. So it is I can only respond to your question by saying....

The issue for me, then, is that the question you pose needs to be included with other issues, like finding evidence of the crime at some distance from it. If Darlie had done this horrible thing, how'd THAT get there?

To be honest, I find nothing that I've read about her assumed-guilt that is particularly compelling to justify guilt-beyond-reasonable doubt, really. Contrast this with the State of Arizonia's case against Jodi Arias. There is an overwhelming indication of her guilt in killing Travis Alexander, and all attempt she (her defence team) have made to counteract that have been totally unconvincing.

So it's not a matter of, "how did Darlie manage to go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room and not get a single scratch on her feet?" To prove her guilt there needs to be a far more convincing package of incrimination - and I don't see it.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:44 pm

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

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

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

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

Thanks for this, MaryM. I realized once I'd left IIP after posting my request that often people make demands of others for their "background interest" in something as a way to pick away at the person, and not the issues. I hope you did not think I was doing that with you. If so, please accept my apologies - you provided the basic background that allows me to put responses into perspective. Thanks for that.

Me, I have far, far, far less background. To be honest, I have only had access (until now) to Darlie's supporters, as well as other "newbies" to this case who find themselves also leaning towards Darlie's innocence - meaning that for me leaning that way obviously means, "Not guilty due to reasonable doubt."

You perhaps know simply more than I know. So it is I can only respond to your question by saying....

The issue for me, then, is that the question you pose needs to be included with other issues, like finding evidence of the crime at some distance from it. If Darlie had done this horrible thing, how'd THAT get there?

To be honest, I find nothing that I've read about her assumed-guilt that is particularly compelling to justify guilt-beyond-reasonable doubt, really. Contrast this with the State of Arizonia's case against Jodi Arias. There is an overwhelming indication of her guilt in killing Travis Alexander, and all attempt she (her defence team) have made to counteract that have been totally unconvincing.

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


Bill, apparently Mary M is more concerned about Darlie's feet than she is about the life threatening injuries inflicted on Darlie by the perpetrator who murdered her children.

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

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:28 pm

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

I agree wholeheartedly, Bill. It's not any one thing (i.e., lack of cuts on Darlie's feet) that proved her guilt. It's the totality of the evidence that proved her guilt. You said you didn't think the prosecution "made its case," but you haven't specified the evidence they presented to the jury. For example, Darlie said the intruder threw the knife down in the entrance to the utility room, but there was no cast-off blood in that area.
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Nov 09, 2014 10:24 pm

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

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


There is required testing (in my mind it is required) for a fingerprint of an unknown subject, where new technology allows for the separation of DNA from fingerprint oil. There's also the sock found at some distance from the murder scene. All of this needs to be settled in my mind to satisfy reasonable doubt, such satisfaction is not there IMO.

See: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/DirectAppeal/20140718.pdf

But I do not know the details of this case to any deep degree. It would, though, put a giant monkey wrench into the plans for Darlie's execution if that fingerprint turned out to have unknown DNA in it.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:57 pm

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

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

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

Which scenario if more logical to you, Bill?
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:07 pm

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

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

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

Which scenario if more logical to you, Bill?

I'm not sure it can be known WHY the sock is there, but it is known that the sock WAS there.

In what little I know about the specifics of this case, the prosecution would need to account for how a guilty-Darlie could have put that sock there. I appreciate that the examples above, in the main, serve to suggest there was no intruder. However, the intruder is not on trial here. Someone needs to demonstrate a convincing scenario which includes Darlie putting it there.

In the absence of laws that prevent an accused offering a defence of, "Some other guy did it," like in Missouri, the sock is highly suggestive that there was, in fact, an intruder. For every inconsistency related to an intruder (for some reason) carrying the sock that far, there exists the baffling prospect that Darlie (for some reason) herself fled the house with that sock - either unknowingly attached to her, or that she purposely put it at-distance from the house to deflect attention away from her.

Truly, MaryM, I'm not sure how many "forths" I have left, in these back and forths.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Mon Nov 10, 2014 8:30 pm

From this site, a case for innocence, including grounds for a new trial because of trial irregularities at her first one:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/routier/20.html

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

It seems, though, that all of this was undone by Darlie's decision to testify, opening herself to relentless cross-examination.

A case could be made that she simply wasn't a good witness for herself. People found it easy to hate her. As did the jury.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:05 pm

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

Darlie's story was that she followed the intruder through the east side of the kitchen, past the wine rack. She was specifically asked if she'd gone on the other side of the kitchen, where the sinks were, at anytime that night after the attack, and her answer was "no."
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:37 pm

I hope that some of the people who really understand the facts of the case, i.e. Sinsaint and LJRobins, will get involved in the discussion again. Starting with page one on this thread there are several links to support websites and answers to many of the questions that are being revisited.

This is a post by Sinsaint:

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

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:59 pm

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

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

That may have been the original point of a sub-conversation, but (apologies) I tend to wander.

I think at this point I would defer to Jane, who gives a very tight timeline above. There's a cop on the scene within 4 minutes and another within 6 minutes. That sounds like a fantastic response time, all triggered by a 911 call.

My bias is this: someone who deliberately kills their kids does not call 911 instantaneously. But that's just me. And then there is that sock 75 yards away.

Ok, maybe I have wandered back to the prosecution presenting a convincing package, with the defeat of reasonable doubt in mind. I don't see it.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby MaryM » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:07 pm

Your concern, Bill, is that the prosecution didn't prove its case. I have presented several pieces of the State's evidence and testimony that supports their case, but there has been no rebuttal from your side. Before we go on to the timeline, could we address some of the previous points?

The first one I noted was how Darlie could go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room without cutting her feet. According to her own words, "glass was everywhere." Testimony and photos support the fact that the broken wine glass was in the the direct path from the sink to the family room. What is your opinion about this issue?
MaryM
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:46 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:34 pm

MaryM wrote:Your concern, Bill, is that the prosecution didn't prove its case. I have presented several pieces of the State's evidence and testimony that supports their case, but there has been no rebuttal from your side. Before we go on to the timeline, could we address some of the previous points?

The first one I noted was how Darlie could go back and forth, multiple times, from the sink to the family room without cutting her feet. According to her own words, "glass was everywhere." Testimony and photos support the fact that the broken wine glass was in the the direct path from the sink to the family room. What is your opinion about this issue?

Ok, my opinion on that issue.....

It is unclear to me why this issue is indicative of guilt, either by itself or particularly when seen in partnership with more compelling issues. How does this interact with other incriminating things?

What I probably should admit to is a confirmation bias around this issue - the only compelling issues I've run into which make sense are the ones which corroborate Darlie's story. Are there inconsistencies, yes.

Do you have access to the closing prosecution argument? I've never seen it - and AFAIK that closing argument should show how each individual item joins together to indicate guilt.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Leischa » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:17 am

Hi people,

I'm new here and I'm glad to see that there are still people investigating and debating this case. I've been reading everything I could for the last three weeks and I'm pretty sure that Darlie is innocent. From the very beginning, I've found some strange statements made by Darin and I think he may be the one who did it (or hired someone to do it).

The main thing that makes me think Darin could have been the one who did it is this :

In the report he filed for the police, he claims that he went straight to Devon when he got downstairs. The thing is, if you look at the floor plan of the house, and at the DNA blood map that shows where Damon was laying, you see that Damon was in the hallway right at the entrance of the Roman room. How come he didn't stop to take care of Damon? Didn't he see him? Did he just walk right by his son without finding it disturbing that he was laying in the hallway? He said that Darlie was screaming "Devon" but still... He should've stopped there first.

What do you think?
Leischa
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:43 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby jane » Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:55 am

Here's a link to the transcripts. Page down to find the prosecution closing arguments by Shook and Davis:

http://darliefacts.com/jury-trial-transcripts/
jane
 
Posts: 2714
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:32 am

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:57 am

jane wrote:Here's a link to the transcripts. Page down to find the prosecution closing arguments by Shook and Davis:

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

OK - here's a summary of Shook's summation:

    - motive is difficult to determine,but not necessary.
    - there are eyewitnesses, then everything else is circumstantial - the measure of c.e. is common sense
    - Darlie Routier is one of those "certain people", unlike normal mothers, who ARE capable of murdering their own children
    - the only issue in question - was it Darlie or was it an unknown intruder?
    - the 911 call is all about "managing the evidence" rather than in shock about her children
    - at the arrival of the first officer, she's still managing the interpretation of evidence, not caring for children
    - when Darlie is in ambulance being transported, there's no questions about her children
    - superficial wounds only to Darlie, she even "increased the wounds" when thinking people were doubting her

That's as far as I got. There is lots of mentions of experts who were with Darlie who said she was not reacting as a mother should in losing two children in those circumstances.

I'm doubtful I will continue. Shook makes great mention of how the jury should use common sense in analysing what each side says. My thing is this: I simply do not buy this business of Darlie reacting wrongly, as being a sign of murder.

If I do return to it,it will be with a view to seeing what Shook says about why there wasn't an intruder.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Belief Buggering

Postby Bill Williams » Fri Nov 14, 2014 11:03 am

Clive Wismayer wrote:
lane99 wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:...The sock is the key to the whole stupid case IMO. It simply beggars belief that...it was not tested before the trial...


It's not a stupid case. Darlie Routier is almost certainly guilty. It is a stupid defense, though. Stupid because what actually beggars belief is for her supporters to try and spread untruths about the case while presumably expecting nobody to notice.

Point of order: the sock in question WAS tested before trial. And the results were very unfavourable to Darlie.

And, yes, it IS probative that Darlie's DNA was found on the sock but no unknown person's was. Of course her DNA could be transferred from casual household handling. But that doesn't help her. Because we'd also then expect any unknown intruder's DNA would likely be transferred to it, too. IF there was an unknown intruder who handled it, that is.

As it stands now the DNA and blood evidence on the sock is damning to Darlie. It's not impossible that assessment could change when and if the sock is tested further. It's unlikely, though, since it's unlikely there ever was an unknown intruder manhandling it.

So you really thnk she ran out and dumped that sock. Wow. What were these very unfavourable results you mentioned and why is the sock being tested again?

This series of posts needs to be brought forward.

Can anyone from the prosecution side say WHY the sock is being retested?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8080
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Darlie Routier Public Discussion Forum

Postby Grayhawker » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:30 pm

4. Darlie's DNA was found in the toe of the sock, and testimony established that she was very concerned about fingerprints that night as well as the next few days. She knew the sock came from her house. She knew that her sons' blood was on that sock. IMO, she had to get that sock out of the house.

Was her DNA from blood or exfoliation of skin cells?

If it was not her blood, and she certainly had plenty to deposit on the sock, why would it be unusual for the DNA of a mother that handles all the laundry to have her DNA on the sock? Especially on the inside. Most of my socks, as a boy, were given to my mother for washing inside out. Most made it through the washer that way and had to be turned right side out AFTER washing. Where do you grab a sock to do this? At the toe.

Meaningless point unless the DNA was deposited through her blood.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Darlie Routier Case

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest