There is more. I think this investigation was pushed quickly, and I can't believe any capital murder trial happens only 7 months after a murder is discovered. It usually takes 2 years, lots of investigations going on for both prosecution and defense, lots of testing, lots of experts and even private investigators. Blows my mind this was pushed through, especially in '96-'97 legal climate for murder trials and DNA testing.
I didn't vote as I want to know if there is any place that ALL of the evidence collected, chain of custody/proper handling, tested, and said results are available. To include why other evidence was not collected, tested, and evaluated. ETA: (And I don't mean the eventually corrected trial transcripts, we all know evidence is not always available to the jurors -admitted or not- we all know prosecution and defense simply tell a story to prove the respective sides. I mean the actual evidence. Is that, in it's totality, available to anyone? If not, it should be to new investigators, and should include the things LE took the 5th on, nothing should be missing, misplaced, mishandled, manipulated. A new team from outside of the state should get it all.)[/QUOTE]
Only been looking into this case the last few days. If we believe there was no intruder(s), then we must look at Darin. Where are the results from Darin's clothes? From any swabs taken from his skin?
Darin was photographed naked at the hospital just after the murders. His jeans he was wearing were entered into evidence.
There were 2 children. If you are killing one, the other will awaken before you get to him. There are 2 parents.
Really? My son wouldn't wake if a bomb went off in his bedroom. Do you have some proof that one child would awaken when the other is being stabbed. And what if he had awakened? Did he understand what was happening. Which child was stabbed first? Devon was killed almost immediately, he had time to only kick out his legs. How much noise do you make stabbing a sleeping child?
Darin explains away blood on his back from trying to save the known deceased child, yet Darlie has the same spatter on her nightgown, on the back.
Do you have a link to Darin claiming this as I've never heard this and I've been posting on this case for years and years. Many thanks.
Darin, in the silly string video, says - paraphrased- "We have to live with what we saw in their eyes." We know one was dead.
I don't understand how that implicates Darin in anyway. You don't mention Darlie claiming that "even though our hearts are breaking" with a huge smile on her face.
Darin also at some point says he did not turn one child over due to previous training. Didn't that previous training tell him to try to save the child with the highest chance of living first, then attend to the one that Darin also says he knew was already gone?
And Darlie was screaming Devon, Devon, Devon, directing Darin to the dead child. And Darlie was there according to both of them attending to the other child Damon, she claims to have placed a towel on his back to staunch the wounds but no towels were ever found on or near Damon. Maybe Darin thought he could bring Devon back before he helped Damon, he knew Damon was alive and Darlie was allegedly tending him.
In one of the television produced shows that he told LE when they arrived that his children were dead. We know one was not, and we know Darin distances himself from the living child.
WEll Darin has a lot of strange things I don't see how this is incriminating.
I didn't vote as I want to know if there is any place that ALL of the evidence collected, chain of custody/proper handling, tested, and said results are available. To include why other evidence was not collected, tested, and evaluated. ETA: (And I don't mean the eventually corrected trial transcripts, we all know evidence is not always available to the jurors -admitted or not- we all know prosecution and defense simply tell a story to prove the respective sides. I mean the actual evidence. Is that, in it's totality, available to anyone? If not, it should be to new investigators, and should include the things LE took the 5th on, nothing should be missing, misplaced, mishandled, manipulated. A new team from outside of the state should get it all.)
[/QUOTE]
Yes here if you follow this link, it contains all the evidence collected and what was dna tested. There are several reports included. If you scroll down past page 8 is where the evidence collection begins with the what was collected from Darin's office and then at the home. It also contains Darin's, Darlie's Damon and Devon's dna results and then who's dna is on what evidence.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Motions/05012802.pdf
There is more. I think this investigation was pushed quickly, and I can't believe any capital murder trial happens only 7 months after a murder is discovered. It usually takes 2 years, lots of investigations going on for both prosecution and defense, lots of testing, lots of experts and even private investigators. Blows my mind this was pushed through, especially in '96-'97 legal climate for murder trials and DNA testing.
In this case you had two dead children and a staged crime scene. It didn't take investigators long to realize the killer lived in the home. Why? Absolutely no evidence of an intruder. You have a window screen slashed but a layer of dust on the window sill, no blood, hair or fibres anywhere near the alleged exit window through a garage crowded with items that didn't get touched or knocked over. You have a bloody fingerprint and a blood run down the backdoor but once again, not a lick of blood outside the home. You have a knife in a knife block that contains two pieces of evidence that match the cut window screen. you have blood washed down the kitchen sink and no evidence of towels being wet, no dilution of the blood on the towels or Darlie, Darlie's bloody footprints leading away from the sink where blood was cleaned from the sink, the counter, the tap and the spout. You have the boys mixed blood on the back splash but none of Darlie's. The boys blood found on the sock in the alley and Darlie's dna from shed skin cells in the toe of the sock but none of her blood on it., etc. etc. etc. A broken glass on the kitchen floor in the path of the intruder she allegedly followed but no cuts on her feet. Yep it doesn't take long for experienced, veteran crime scene analysts and homicide detectives to believe the killers lived in the home and you have two adults alive and well.
From darlieroutierfactandfiction.com with permission from Mary Moody.
Myth #13: Not shown at Darlie's trial was a police surveillance video showing a solemn prayer service. Police had bugged the gravesite without a court order, so the material was not allowed at trial. Police officers "took the Fifth" and refused to answer any questions about the case.
On June 14th, eight days after the murders, there was a graveside prayer service for Devon and Damon. Officers placed a microphone nearby to monitor what was said. This is an investigative tool that has been used for decades by law enforcement, because a guilt-ridden perpetrator may confess at their victim's grave. Police also routinely attend victims' funerals to watch for suspicious activity. In this case, the tapes yielded no exculpatory evidence. Nevertheless, Greg Davis turned them over to the defense before the trial began.
(Vol. 43, Sec. 4408)
Toward the end of the defense's case, Doug Mulder called Jimmy Patterson to the stand. Detectives Patterson and Frosch had authorized the placement of the microphone in the cemetery. Mulder accused Patterson of "committing a federal felony, a conspiracy, a plot" and told the detective he "was going to jail." It was a last-ditch effort to save his case, because Mulder knew he was losing, and losing badly.
Patterson: If you're saying that I violated some state or federal law, then I'm not going to answer until I have legal counsel.
Mulder: Well, I suspect you better get legal counsel then, because I'm suggesting to you that that is exactly what you did.
(Vol. 42, Jimmy Patterson, Secs. 4172-4173, 4425, 4431)
So Patterson and Frosch followed Mulder's suggestion. They retained attorneys who advised them to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Mulder's strategy, of course, was to prejudice the jury by forcing the officers to repeatedly take the Fifth. The Court, however, recognized that this was a legal issue beyond the scope of the trial, and ruled that the detectives could not be questioned about the tapes.
Judge Tolle: The court holds this is improper impeachment evidence. The officer's action do not reflect upon his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness regarding his testimony in this case. Any recordings made were not admitted as evidence, nor was there an attempt to admit them as evidence. For these reasons, I find that the potential prejudice outweighs the probative value of this evidence, and the defense is ordered not to go into it.
(Vol. 43, Sec. 4414)
Remarkably, Greg Davis told the Court that, although the defense had not entered the tapes into evidence when they should have, he had no objection if they wanted to show them to the jury.
Davis: I don't think there's any problem with Mr. Mosty or Mr. Mulder offering that videotape. I mean, whatever was recorded out there, we certainly don't have a problem with them doing that.
(Vol. 43, Sec. 4415)
Additionally, Judge Tolle's ruling did not prevent the defense from questioning the officers about any other aspects of the case, as long as they avoided reference to the legality/illegality of the gravesite monitoring.
Mr. Pickell (Frosch's attorney): Your Honor, Detective Frosch would assert his Fifth Amendment right.
Judge Tolle: Concerning the testimony as regards to the recording devices or the microphones at the cemetery, and only regards that, concerning only that portion; is that correct?
Mr. Pickell: That is correct, your Honor.
(Vol. 43, Sec. 4406-4407)
The defense chose to not show the tapes to the jury. Why they did not is open to speculation, but it's certainly not because they were prevented from doing so. Both sides acknowledged that the tapes were of poor quality, so perhaps nothing was to be gained by admitting them into evidence in the first place. I believe that they weren't shown because Mulder's sole objective all along was to force the officers to repeatedly plead the Fifth in front of the jury, thereby implying that they had something to hide, that they were out to get Darlie from the get-go. When this strategy backfired, there was no point in pursuing the tapes. It's also entirely possible that the tapes did not show a grieving Darlie, as supporters have contended. Whatever Mulder's motivation was, he did not show them, nor did he question the officers any further, even though he could have.
Darlie Kee and Darin Routier subsequently sued the city of Rowlett, Patterson and Frosch, and the assistant district attorney for invasion of privacy and search and seizure violations. On May 28, 2001 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them, stating that there is no expectation of privacy in a publicly accessible cemetery.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/wiretaps-burial-not-considered-invasion-privacy
CONCLUSION
Darlie's supporters have continually distorted and misrepresented the facts surrounding this incident. Patterson and Frosch, the victims of Mulder's outrageously transparent attempt to discredit, were being falsely accused of breaking state and federal laws. It was their constitutional right to plead the Fifth until the issue could be resolved post-trial. The defense was not prevented in any way, shape, or form from questioning these officers regarding other aspects of the case. And finally, the defense had free reign to show the video and audio tapes, despite the fact that they had never entered them into evidence.
Please note: For obvious reasons, Darlie's supporters have omitted the pre-trial custody hearing from the trial transcript posted online. The obvious reason is this: Darlie herself pleaded the Fifth on July 3rd, 1996. From the Dallas Morning News, July 4, 1996, by Michael Saul:
"Ms. Routier, who sat in the witness stand Wednesday for the first time since her June 18th arrest, invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself...before taking the stand, Ms. Routier's attorneys instructed her not to answer any questions."
Edited to add link
