Should Darlie have a new trial?
- Thread starter nicola
- Start date
Wow Im speechless.
Mind you Im sure I would do the same thing
But seriously just because you have all sat around and discussed it doesnt make it factual that someone didnt stuff up. I know she has been found guilty but that is by a jury of her peers that did not get the full picture, but a slanted picture.
One especially of her laughing at her boys grave with the silly string - I totally GET THAT - but they didnt get to see the WHOLE TAPE
You know prosecutors can chop out bits of things and turn things to suit their purpose.
And just imagine if there is this doubt and there is more testing that could be done, but it isnt and she is put to death and then years later she is found to be innocent..
then what ? then everyone says Oh Well
Her sentence should be put down to life until there is a new trial, and the other evidence is processed
Thanks for saying good on me for standing my ground :blowkiss:
Noexcuse
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 51
Sure, I understand what its like to feel passionately about something.Its especially difficult when your viewpoint is in the minority.
The case is very complicated. I have no problem with any evidence new or old being retested.However it will cost the County and State.But a woman's life is priceless especially if there is a chance that evidence was missed and she was wrongly convicted.I do know the crime scene was horrific and many of the medics and officers on call that day required extensive debriefing and counseling to deal with what they had seen at the Routier house.
The case is very complicated. I have no problem with any evidence new or old being retested.However it will cost the County and State.But a woman's life is priceless especially if there is a chance that evidence was missed and she was wrongly convicted.I do know the crime scene was horrific and many of the medics and officers on call that day required extensive debriefing and counseling to deal with what they had seen at the Routier house.
Yes I have seen the crime photos , the ones without the sheets over the boys.
I can only imagine what the actual scene looked like to the people that attended.
The first person there wasnt even able to help.
There is so much Wrong about this case, so very much, and I think being that it was so horrific, that it is easier to put the blame on the mother and have *their man* so to speak because IT WAS SO Horrific.
Imagine Not being able to charge anyone ?
I think there was some things that didnt add up, but lets face it the crime scene was a bloody mess and Darlie was in complete shock
I'd like to ask anyone if that had happened to their child/children and to you whether you would be talking any kind of sense ?
I just want her to have a new trial, and to be allowed to have all the evidence re tested with fresh eyes.
I mean look at that killer (in another thread) that killed his ex PREGNANT Ex and injured (terribly) her boyfriend..he's getting a new trial for a DP case because one of the potential jurors was hispanic and let go inappropriately they feel and that the prosectuion used emotional ploys on the jury
There is NO doubt he did it - there was a eye witness
But he gets a new trial
There is a cloud over Darlies case , trial, evidence but yet she I don't see her getting a new trial ?
It will be too late when she is dead.
Alta
Proudly Canadian
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,332
- Reaction score
- 24
ITA with madeleine,sure give her a new trial let her rat out her husband finally.I could care less if she even got the DP,let her spend the rest of her life in a little prison cell thinking about the murders she commited.I feel no sympathy for her whatsoever.
Only my opinion.
Only my opinion.
It makes me want to find out who did this and strangle/beat the crap out of them:furious: I cant even read your statement all the way throught that is how awful this case is....just infuriating to no limit!!!! I hope this person is found and caught and my good lord above if its Darlie may she rot in you knew where!!!
I am so glad these DR forums are back!
I absolutely believe Darlie should have a new trial. The more I read the more I know that a miscarriage of justice was done - as in the crime scene , as in the Ability of the Defence Lawyer to adequately defend Darlie and present the facts properly, as in the evidence having a slanted view.
NO in my mind, people made their mind up that Darlie did it. Lets face it it was going to be a LONG haul to try and find the person that did do it, and here we have a woman , hysterical woman, not getting all her facts out STRAIGHT, and a few things seemingly to be a bit off, not in the right place, a blood spot here not how it should be , a vacumn cleaner with her blood on, things just not the way it should be and Voila we have ourselves a little murderer - Lets fry her.
Two little boys carved up, And A jury sees a mother throwing a party at a grave site of them..Yup I can understand, and without having looked into things a bit deeper I certainly would be saying GUILTY. Because I am a mother and WHO does that at a grave - one week after their child is dead ?
Plenty of people do similar things when they lose loved ones. Grief does unbelievable things.
I remember Laughing at my Mothers funeral, ridiculously laughing - it was the total giggles and I was beside myself because I couldn't understand how I could possibly giggle but - then I dissolved into tears not too long after
Grief does inexplicable things.
I do not believe Darlie Routier killed her two baby boys. WHAT FOR ? there is NO REASON on this earth for her to do it. And I do not believe that " they were in her way , her life " was a reason to kill them.
Sadly I think the world is made up of mob mentality and its only the very few brave that are willing to look at the other possibilities and not follow the flock
This is JUST MY OPINION
We cannot convict her upon how she looks and reacts. We have to look at the evidence at hand, which is circumstantial at best if you ask me. The blood evidence dripping down the back of her shirt could have as easily come from Darins hand dripping behind if he grabbed her from behind her neck, you never know.
I have said this before, I believe Darlie either was or now is on some type of psychotropic med, she just doesnt 'look' right. But we cannot convict her on that either..so no matter how guilty she appears does not mean she is the killer.
I find the sock thing to be a key factor in this case. I mean that there was possibly someone else there that night, I find it hard to believe that Darlie did all that then ran out the door down a ways from the home and dropped a sock on the ground, then came all the back to the house to make the 911 call, that makes no sense. Also another thing I was thinking about, if we think for one minute...that Darlie really did it, then why would she leave Damon it was I believe who was still alive BEFORE she called the police? why not wait till hes def dead? why wouldnt she have finished him off before he had a chance to blab her out? she was there longer with him than anyone else...If the theory is that Darin came downstairs and that is why she stopped trying to kill him than what took Darin so long??? why wouldnt he have woken up sooner and seen what was going on??? and why for the love of God would he protect her if he was totally innocent knowing he could risk himself going to jail? he does not seem like the type of person (man) which would throw himself under a bus for a woman so I totally do not think he is innocent in this....which makes me think that Darin was stabbing her while an intruder was killing the boys....that would have explained the sock and explained why her blood was underneath the boys...Darin may have thought he would get the insurance money if he knocked them all off except maybe she fought him off her, then he threatened her if she rated him out he would do in the baby that was left! I dont know just thinking ...MOO
Speaking of which, the only thing to me that makes me think that she is totally guilty was the officer's statement that he told her to go to her son and stop the bleeding and she did not! That makes no sense what soever, unless she was dopped up on some kind of pills and was out of her mind at the time...still makes her guilty in that sense anyway....
And then of course there is the statements that she was possibly sexually interfered with (no panties) but where was the rape kit ?
Oh woops they FORGOT TO DO ONE !
The office could have been confused with all the chaos going on. It happens
That crime scene was NOT like a normal crime scent - people were all over it making a big ole mess through it all.
How is that fair ?
In regards to here
This particular case is SO very emotive that it is very easy to understand WHY everyone pointed the finger at her and convicted her
If you were a Juror you would have convicted her too right ?
Trouble is I do not believe all the facts and evidence was properly presented
Why is everyone afraid of a new trial ?
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm
In MOO hahahaha, (joke from my last post youll get it if you see it),
They do not want to give her a new trial (I mean all that dont want her to have one) because they are so angered by all of this and strongly feel that she is guilty, so I understand completely how they feel, they do not want to waste time for something they feel she will be convicted with all over again, I say test the DNA and if it comes out that the fingerprint was someone else's aside from the boys, give her a new trial, its only fair, if the dna comes back that its the boys and they find no outsider dna Im not sure what to think. I am totally on the fence on the question of whether or not she should get a new trial, heres my fear WHAT IF SHE IS DEF GUILTY OF DOING THAT TO THOSE POOR LITTLE GUYS..AND SHE GETS SET FREE??? uggggghhhh I dont know what to think , I need to go find those transcripts....:read:
1- no I dontSo I take it you don't think there is a possibility that she is innocent ?
And that anyone who disagrees with your opinion should do a lot more research ?
Its my opinion as I stated. Why don't you state your opinion instead of telling me to do more research ?
2- no, you dont have to agree with my opinion, just like I dont have to agree with yours- MY OPINION is the research and facts dont line up with YOUR OPINION
3- my opinion was very obvious= she is guilty
In MOO (ha yes I read it LOL) what if she doesnt get a new trial and is sent to her death and years later its discovered that she was 100% innocent all along ?
Then what !
If everyone is so sure she is guilty then going through all the evidence again with fresh eyes, tested dna, tested forensics, replaying the WHOLE grave video shouldn't make a difference and she will get convicted and be sent to her death..
But if it does make a difference because it was stuffed the first time then justice will be done
I am posting again after a long absence I hope this is a more respectful forum now. I used to post as Britlaw without the s but its so long ago I changed my email address and forgot my password.
For me, the legal process is not about guilt or innocence. I am a lawyer so perhaps look at things differently (i.e. dispassionately) to others here. Plenty of guilty people go unpunished, many of them because they are never caught in the first place. Of course this isnt justice but unfortunately is fact. If one takes away all the emotion of a case, the trial part of the process exists to establish whether the prosecution can establish evidence that convinces a jury that the accused committed the crime. Yes, this is what happened in Darlies case but also critical to both the effectiveness (victim/family of victim and public confidence in the decision) and fairness (to the defendant) of the process is:
a) that all opportunities to rebut any evidence are afforded to any defendant and
b) that all relevant matter is taken into account.
If as a result of all this a guilty person goes free (and lets face fact, they do) this is an unfortunate but necessary evil to safeguard the interests of everyone.
I am English and therefore could cite cases from over here that you may not be familiar with, but our history is littered with cases where people were convicted with the public applauding the success or our justice system, for those same defendants to be released years later with the public demanding to know why this could happen. These include emotional cases where women killed their own children, including Sally Clark. I know she didnt bludgeon two of her children to death but her conviction was secured by expert testimony which was later discredited, so the principles are the same. Everyone cites the blood drop evidence as compelling in Darlies case. They did here in the case of Sion Jenkins who was convicted of battering his teenage daughter to death. He was later released after the blood spatter evidence was rebutted by a later and more compelling theory and in two subsequent retrials the jury failed to find him guilty.
All this gives me some difficulty with the death penalty, although I respect democracy and the right of other countries to have it. The so called Birmingham Pub Bombers were released 16 years after their conviction and would have almost certainly been executed had we not abolished the death penalty here in 1967. Did they carry out the bombing and kill all those people? Who knows, but that isnt the point, they werent proven to have done it so the legal process worked (eventually) and the right decision was made.
I dont want to be attacked as a Darlie supporter. I like to discuss cases and law intelligently, so please dont give me the read the transcripts line as I read legal documents day in day out for a living. I really am in no position to judge public opinion on Darlies case in the US. However, it seems from the internet activity on this case that there are many people who are either unconvinced of her guilt or have a problem with the legal system and how it was applied in this case. Appeals and retrials are a test to ensure the system works (or doesnt) and we shouldnt be afraid to use them.
Regards to all.
For me, the legal process is not about guilt or innocence. I am a lawyer so perhaps look at things differently (i.e. dispassionately) to others here. Plenty of guilty people go unpunished, many of them because they are never caught in the first place. Of course this isnt justice but unfortunately is fact. If one takes away all the emotion of a case, the trial part of the process exists to establish whether the prosecution can establish evidence that convinces a jury that the accused committed the crime. Yes, this is what happened in Darlies case but also critical to both the effectiveness (victim/family of victim and public confidence in the decision) and fairness (to the defendant) of the process is:
a) that all opportunities to rebut any evidence are afforded to any defendant and
b) that all relevant matter is taken into account.
If as a result of all this a guilty person goes free (and lets face fact, they do) this is an unfortunate but necessary evil to safeguard the interests of everyone.
I am English and therefore could cite cases from over here that you may not be familiar with, but our history is littered with cases where people were convicted with the public applauding the success or our justice system, for those same defendants to be released years later with the public demanding to know why this could happen. These include emotional cases where women killed their own children, including Sally Clark. I know she didnt bludgeon two of her children to death but her conviction was secured by expert testimony which was later discredited, so the principles are the same. Everyone cites the blood drop evidence as compelling in Darlies case. They did here in the case of Sion Jenkins who was convicted of battering his teenage daughter to death. He was later released after the blood spatter evidence was rebutted by a later and more compelling theory and in two subsequent retrials the jury failed to find him guilty.
All this gives me some difficulty with the death penalty, although I respect democracy and the right of other countries to have it. The so called Birmingham Pub Bombers were released 16 years after their conviction and would have almost certainly been executed had we not abolished the death penalty here in 1967. Did they carry out the bombing and kill all those people? Who knows, but that isnt the point, they werent proven to have done it so the legal process worked (eventually) and the right decision was made.
I dont want to be attacked as a Darlie supporter. I like to discuss cases and law intelligently, so please dont give me the read the transcripts line as I read legal documents day in day out for a living. I really am in no position to judge public opinion on Darlies case in the US. However, it seems from the internet activity on this case that there are many people who are either unconvinced of her guilt or have a problem with the legal system and how it was applied in this case. Appeals and retrials are a test to ensure the system works (or doesnt) and we shouldnt be afraid to use them.
Regards to all.
Have you all read this ?
http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/darlieroutier_3.htm
(Snipped from page 3 of the 3 pages)
When the facts are spread like that how can anyone deny giving Darlie a new trial
Just imagine Just for ONE moment in time, whatever side of the Darlie Fence you sit, and just imagine it was YOU accused and convicted to death of this crime of your child/children and YOU knew that YOU didn't commit this horrific crime but NO ONE was listening to you........and not only were YOU grieving the loss of your baby/babies but you were going to be put to death for something that you didn't do........
Just imagine it for one moment.....
http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/darlieroutier_3.htm
(Snipped from page 3 of the 3 pages)
When the facts are spread like that how can anyone deny giving Darlie a new trial
Just imagine Just for ONE moment in time, whatever side of the Darlie Fence you sit, and just imagine it was YOU accused and convicted to death of this crime of your child/children and YOU knew that YOU didn't commit this horrific crime but NO ONE was listening to you........and not only were YOU grieving the loss of your baby/babies but you were going to be put to death for something that you didn't do........
Just imagine it for one moment.....
crystalmama
crystalmama
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 5
Hello I just posted a long piece here about what I believe Darlie's motive was and the whole thing got lost.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 39
Britlaw,thanks for posting that info.I didn't know all of that,and I would like to see more testing of evidence;for one,if Darlie were to be put to death,then at least no one can say it all wasn't tested.
From the first time I saw Darin on Unsolved Mysteries,I felt he was involved in some way.His comments didn't fit the evidence (such as him being insistent they had no financial problems),and it was obvious he had something to hide.If his wife killed their boys,why would he defend her,there had to be good reason for that,and he appeared to be desperate to have her appear innocent.
From the first time I saw Darin on Unsolved Mysteries,I felt he was involved in some way.His comments didn't fit the evidence (such as him being insistent they had no financial problems),and it was obvious he had something to hide.If his wife killed their boys,why would he defend her,there had to be good reason for that,and he appeared to be desperate to have her appear innocent.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 39
I meant britlaw's post.I would like to see more done on this case.Just the fact alone that Darin had a pre-arrangement w/ Darlie's attorney should be enough to warrant a new trial,IMO.I suspect there is evidence against him not found or revealed yet.
DNASolves
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
Online statistics
- Members online
- 197
- Guests online
- 342
- Total visitors
- 539