Darlie Innocent? Then how do you explain... ?

[cami]

Rlabu44, Okay so here I go... This is difficult so let's see how this turns out. I just finished answering Cami on many questions. Screen Fibers and Knife Evidence... Not really sure how I feel since I believe there was no disturbance ouside the window and dust was accumulated on the window sill? Been along time since I have looked this one up? Knife, actually this one I have always given to you guys because I truly don't believe the cops planted this evidence, however, I never did like Cron very much and didn't trust his rush to judgement! I have always believed if there was an intruder it was for money for an insurance payoff, however, the problem was always all the jewelry sitting on the counter that didn't add up??? That is unless the intruder freaked and left??? still haven't quite bought that one... LOL I have never bought into Darlie's story about sleeping downstairs because the baby kept her awake, why sleep downstairs with 2 young kids watching TV then?? No sense if the baby wakes you up crying why wouldn't 2 scream young babies?? What about the black car seen in the neighborhood and the attempted break-in in the neighborhood????? How about the cop's son that owned the black car???? The sock has always been stuck in my gut because that doesn't add up to me??? It is just one of those cases I have stuck with all these years and I can't get it to add up in my own mind since I follow all these case and see innocence when people are convicted!!! I know you understand where I am coming from in a sense. Take Care and thanks for the Chat!!! God Bless and Peace!!!:waitasec::angel::twocents:

the black car myth

What do we expect would be found in a black car? If the cops stopped every black car from Rowlette to Dallas, what would they be looking for that would tie it to the Routier home?

What attempted break in are you talking about? Not that woman who reported a few years after the crime that two men rattled her windows or tried her door that night? Two men who looked like nothing like the intruder Darlie described.

 

[CyberLaw]

On another forum a person provided a link to the FBI 911 analysis.

The link is: http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2008/june2008/june2008leb.htm#page22, look under Features for the last link which is the article.

So lets look at just bit of the 911 call.

00:00:00 911 Operator #1 ...Rowlett 911...what is your emergency..
00:01:19 Darlie Routier ...somebody came here...they broke in...
00:03:27 911 Operator #1 ...ma'am...
00:05:11 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my children...
00:07:16 911 Operator #1 ...what...
00:08:05 Darlie Routier ...they just stabbed me and my kids...my little boys...
00:09:24 911 Operator #1 ...who...who did...
00:11:12 Darlie Routier ...my little boy is dying...
00:11:25 RADIO ...(unintelligible) clear...
00:13:07 911 Operator #1 ...hang on ...hang on... hang on
00:15:03 Darlie Routier ...hurry... (unintelligible)...

Now a non guilty person would say something to the affect when asked by the 911 operator what is your emergency.

Help send an ambulance, my boys are bleeding, this is a medical emergency, send an ambulance as soon as possible.

You ask for help for your kids, not describe that someone broke in as your first answer to the question of what is your emergency. Her answer to the question was to deflect that it was her who stabbed her kids.

Forty-four percent of the 911 homicide callers included extraneous information in their call. Of those, 96 percent were guilty of the offense, and only 4 percent were innocent. Extraneous information was the strongest indicator of guilt in the study.

Their main focus is getting emergency help for your injured children.

04:05:02 Darlie Routier ...ya'll look out in the garage ...look out in the garage ...they left a knife laying on...
04:08:21 RADIO ...(unintelligible)...
04:09:19 911 Operator #1 ...there's a knife ...don't touch anything...
04:11:18 Darlie Routier ...I already touched it and picked it up...

Now according to the FBI, Darlie would have scored as guilty:

No request for help for victims, extraneous information which is irrelevant to the immediate emergency, conflicting facts. acceptance of victims death, resists co-operation, self interruption.

Actually, they have a portion of the 911 call on the FBI page as an example of a guilty person.
www.FBI

Similarly, a guilty parent called to report a stabbing incident. The individual subsequently resisted answering the dispatcher’s questions.

Guilty caller: They just stabbed me and my kids, my little boys!
Dispatcher: Who did?
Guilty caller: My little boy is dying!
Dispatcher: Who did this?
Guilty caller: They killed our babies....

Such resistance to cooperation existed in 26 percent of the calls. All were made by guilty callers.

That is why I found the article very interesting in respect to the 911 call.

 

[annkitty0630]

I think you're a tad bit confused. The rubber dust from the screen was on the the knife as well as no dust disturbed on the window sill.

the bread knife found in the Routier's butcher block contained two pieces of evidence, a polyglass fibre and rubber dust.

Obviously, a that bread knife from the butcher block was used to cut the window screen.

Cami, I don't understand your response because everything you just stated, I have already given into you AND AGREED WITH??? I am not a tad bit confused? I said Dust on the Windowsill??? and I have always given you guys the knife??? What is there to misunderstand??? Gee, Just when I thought we were starting to get along and get to an Understanding??? How is that copy going, can't wait to see it??? Take Care Hon, Talk to you soon! Ann :waitasec::waitasec::banghead:

 

[annkitty0630]

Annkitty, there is no blood trail out of the garage, just one going in...Darlie's blood and it stops in the Utility Room, doesn't go into the garage. There is an area outside the window that was not disturbed

I have the CS photos from the book MTJD and the clearest path for the intruder was through the mulch and up and over the fence. The mulch is underneath the window beside the exit window.

How do you think blood was contaminated in the kitchen?

I will again reiterate? Have we not gone through all of this in the PM's??? I have read MTJD and still trying to come to the same conclusion as you, however, I am not fully there????!!! I no longer have the MTJD book (which btw I found very helpful in my innocent side of the spectrum). The kitchen I believe was over trampled by LE and many things such as the vaccuum, broken wine glass, etc. were not in the original place after law enforcement entered??? Again, JMO!! Smile, I am only still searching to hit the right place?? Take Care Cami!! :twocents::twocents::banghead::waitasec:

 

[annkitty0630]

It's not an offense to bug a grave. It's done in many many jurisdictions. That was just Mulder trying to throw something into the trial. If he could get the lead detective, then the jury might find reasonable doubt.

Then Routier and Kee, desperate for money, tried to sue the cops and the City of Rowlette.

As well, through discovery, the defense was handed the surveillance tape of the prayer service...it's right in the transcripts.

Mulder had the tape, could have shown it to the jury to impeach the Silly String tape. Obviously, it does not show a grieving Darlie.

Why isn't it on her website if it does? Why hasn't it ever been played in the media?

Does crying at a prayer service work in her favour? How so? Does it wipe out all the physical evidence that incriminates her?

WOW, Cami you are on a roll!!! Wonder why people don't feel comfy on this sight??? Your quote "Why hasn't it ever been played in the media?"

How do you think I saw it and knew it existed if it was not played for the Media??? Please????? I was just starting to gain some respect, however, now??? Take Care, have and fun!! Ann:furious::waitasec::twocents:

 

[annkitty0630]

No one knows why that juror changed his mind..juror remorse maybe. We've already blown the myth that the jury did not see all the photos of her injuries and bruises. It's right in the transcripts and testified to by the medical staff and jurors other than Charlie have seen the bruises and discussed them on television programs....Leeza being one of them.

So that myth is blown.

The state had every reason to show that silly string tape. The judge allowed it into evidence. It's circumstantial evidence.

Did you even think the jury played it so many times, they were looking for signs that she had been crying...i.e. red, swollen, watery eyes, flushed face, etc.

It's the physical evidence that tells me Darlie committed this crime, not her jumping around at the grave site. That's Darlie playing for the cameras, she had her chance to "star."

What I condemn is the interview where she smiles and chews gum and said her heart is breaking and boys wouldn't want them to be sad. Well she sure doesn't look like her heart is broken to me.

Okey Dokey Cami, all the juror questions are a blown myth??? You actually make certain points I CAN NOT disagree with such as "the interview where she smiles and chews gum and said her heart is breaking and boys wouldn't want them to be sad. Well she sure doesn't look like her heart is broken to me". However, IMOO, it is still not enough to sentence someone to death. If you can truly prove to me (as I have stated many times before) I say stab her to death like she did to those sweet innocent BEAUTIFUL little boys. I am just fine with her sitting in prison till the day she dies until someone can PROVE 100% she did it:twocents::twocents::twocents::sick:!!!

 

[CyberLaw]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a person only has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted.

I would love Darlie to die as her boys did, but in a civilized society we take more "pity" on the rights and "suffering" of the criminal then how the victims were murdered.

Shame really, but Darlie will dies by "humane" method, unlike what she did to her son.

Can you imagine what the court system and society would be like if each lawyer and DA would have to prove 100% that the person committed the crime.

The DEfence could not overcome the physical evidence of the crime.

 

[annkitty0630]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a person only has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted.

I would love Darlie to die as her boys did, but in a civilized society we take more "pity" on the rights and "suffering" of the criminal then how the victims were murdered.

Shame really, but Darlie will dies by "humane" method, unlike what she did to her son.

Can you imagine what the court system and society would be like if each lawyer and DA would have to prove 100% that the person committed the crime.

The DEfence could not overcome the physical evidence of the crime.

Please Cyberlaw, you acutally make me laugh at your supposed rhetoric!! Don't ever try to hand or deal me the "Reasonable Doubt" BS... The point of the fact law minded soul is to search for truth and justice "by any reasonable doubt" does not in any way factualize the truth or undecided facts. Ann:twocents::innocent::banghead:

 

[annkitty0630]

Sorry to disappoint you, but a person only has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted.

I would love Darlie to die as her boys did, but in a civilized society we take more "pity" on the rights and "suffering" of the criminal then how the victims were murdered.

Shame really, but Darlie will dies by "humane" method, unlike what she did to her son.

Can you imagine what the court system and society would be like if each lawyer and DA would have to prove 100% that the person committed the crime.

The DEfence could not overcome the physical evidence of the crime.

BTW, I am so not disappointed by your response, it is exactly what I would expect from someone of your nature!!?? Love the spelling... Ann, Take Care:waitasec::twocents::twocents::banghead:

 

[Crow_Ascending]

AnnKitty - You misspelled actually in #188. Guess we all type too fast occasionaly...ocassionaly...occassionaly....occasionnaly......

 

[Tuffy]

Please Cyberlaw, you acutally make me laugh at your supposed rhetoric!! Don't ever try to hand or deal me the "Reasonable Doubt" BS... The point of the fact law minded soul is to search for truth and justice "by any reasonable doubt" does not in any way factualize the truth or undecided facts. Ann:twocents::innocent::banghead:

Ann,

Reasonable doubt isn't BS, its the standard for conviction in a criminal trial; evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person beyond doubt of the guilt of the defendant.

 

[annkitty0630]

AnnKitty - You misspelled actually in #188. Guess we all type too fast occasionaly...ocassionaly...occassionaly....occasionnaly......

Crow_Ascending, I am so SORRY, didn't mean to offend anyone, just trying to make my point if anything. Guess it didn't work?? LOL... Anyhow, When we all type quick and furious on the keyboard we are all bound to make mistakes?? DUH!! Take Care and Keep Smiling. Ann:innocent::twocents:

 

[annkitty0630]

:twocents::croc:

Ann,

Reasonable doubt isn't BS, its the standard for conviction in a criminal trial; evidence sufficient to convince a reasonable person beyond doubt of the guilt of the defendant.

Oh Dear God Tuffy, you got me now... I would never have thought that was what REASONABLE DOUBT meant to let someone get convicted of murdering her two boys and sentenced to DEATH meant. Please call me STUPID and IGNORANT??? I as a very intelligent person could have never come to that conclusion on my own? Thanks for your help, I will cherish that forever. That is why they call it "REASONABLE DOUBT" and every single person has there own opinion on what that means??? How about you??? You may differ in your opinions, however, mine is still mine!! What do you think??? I don't dog you, so don't dog me!! Works for me!!! God Speed, have a Wonderful weekend and keep your family and babies safe!! Ann:sick:

 

[IrishMist]

Please Cyberlaw, you acutally make me laugh at your supposed rhetoric!! Don't ever try to hand or deal me the "Reasonable Doubt" BS... The point of the fact law minded soul is to search for truth and justice "by any reasonable doubt" does not in any way factualize the truth or undecided facts. Ann:twocents::innocent::banghead:

:twocents::croc:

Oh Dear God Tuffy, you got me now... I would never have thought that was what REASONABLE DOUBT meant to let someone get convicted of murdering her two boys and sentenced to DEATH meant. Please call me STUPID and IGNORANT??? I as a very intelligent person could have never come to that conclusion on my own? Thanks for your help, I will cherish that forever. That is why they call it "REASONABLE DOUBT" and every single person has there own opinion on what that means??? How about you??? You may differ in your opinions, however, mine is still mine!! What do you think??? I don't dog you, so don't dog me!! Works for me!!! God Speed, have a Wonderful weekend and keep your family and babies safe!! Ann:sick:

Ann, honey-snookums. TeeHee. :innocent::innocent::dance:
YOU were the one that called reasonable doubt "BS" and "Rhetoric." People were just trying to point out that that's what the rules of law are. :blowkiss: Don't feel bad that you were ignorant of that!!!! {{Ann}} Everyone knows that Darlie was convicted in a court of law based on the rules of the court. :angel::dance::crazy:

BTW, I am so not disappointed by your response, it is exactly what I would expect from someone of your nature!!?? Love the spelling... Ann, Take Care:waitasec::twocents::twocents::banghead:

Bolding mine.
I've been posting with CyberLaw for a helluva long time. I'd be real curious to find out what you meant by this statement.

 

[CyberLaw]

The law defines reasonable doubt. It has been around for a long, long time and that is the "set" standard in criminal trials.

Can you imagine if someone "hurt" you and all the truth and fact point to that person as guilty. But that person "gets" off because "there is not 100% proof that they committed the crime.

The facts and evidence support the charges, the evidence is weighed, the truth is sought, the evidence is evaluated and a verdict is rendered.

www.duhaime.com

"A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It must not be based upon sympathy or prejudice. Rather, it is based on reason and common sense. It is logically derived from the evidence or absence of evidence.

"Even if you believe the accused is probably guilty or likely guilty, that is not sufficient. In those circumstances you must give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquit because the Crown has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand you must remember that it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty and the Crown is not required to do so. Such a standard of proof is impossibly high.

"In short if, based upon the evidence before the court, you are sure that the accused committed the offence you should convict since this demonstrates that you are satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So therefore there was much more evidence pointing to Darlie's guilt then away from it. Her story did not even come close to matching the physical evidence at the scene. Evidence does not lie, self serving murderess do.

So the jury is correct. Can you imagine if The DA/Crown had to prove a case 100%, instead of reasonable doubt. Scott Peterson would be walking the streets....instead of death row.

Along with very many other dangerous criminals.

 

[annkitty0630]

Ann, honey-snookums. TeeHee. :innocent::innocent::dance:
YOU were the one that called reasonable doubt "BS" and "Rhetoric." People were just trying to point out that that's what the rules of law are. :blowkiss: Don't feel bad that you were ignorant of that!!!! {{Ann}} Everyone knows that Darlie was convicted in a court of law based on the rules of the court. :angel::dance::crazy:



Bolding mine.
I've been posting with CyberLaw for a helluva long time. I'd be real curious to find out what you meant by this statement.

By all means IrishMist, please excuse me if I did the wrong "RHETORIC" or "BS". My point was surely not to convey it the way you would like. My apologies to all, Again, I was trying to state that REASONABLE DOUBT is what the law is about and I believe Darlie herself deserves a NEW TRIAL... I am quite sure I will hear the backlash as always on this one. I do know she was convicted by her peers in a court of law (thanks for that info), however, it was based on supposition, heresay and character assasination!! Thanks for letting me air my ways!! Take Care and keep on chatting. I love it!! Ann:waitasec::twocents::banghead:

 

[Rlaub44]

By all means IrishMist, please excuse me if I did the wrong "RHETORIC" or "BS". My point was surely not to convey it the way you would like. My apologies to all, Again, I was trying to state that REASONABLE DOUBT is what the law is about and I believe Darlie herself deserves a NEW TRIAL... I am quite sure I will hear the backlash as always on this one. I do know she was convicted by her peers in a court of law (thanks for that info), however, it was based on supposition, heresay and character assasination!! Thanks for letting me air my ways!! Take Care and keep on chatting. I love it!! Ann:waitasec::twocents::banghead:

annkitty,
Sorry I haven't posted in a while. You and I were having a very good discussion about the state of the evidence, but when I peeked back in tonight, it appears that things are more heated than when I left.

In all fairness, I don't perceive any negativity directed toward you, but I know that this is a sensitive subject for you, and I worry that you might be reading too much into the motives or intentions of other posters.

We are all here armed only with our case knowledge and opinions. Everyone's opinion is valid, but when your belief about the case is at odds with the delivered verdict, you probably face a more difficult time trying to convince others that we are missing something. Speaking for myself, I am very confident that my view of the evidence is right, and I have the backing of the jury verdict for confirmation.

I truly believe everyone here is happy to allow you to hold your own opinion, but we may want to question your conclusions or the process you used to arrive at them. But some of your responses yesterday and today seem unduly angry, and I am worried that your valid questions end up getting lost in the furor.

Ann, be well and try not to take things here too personally. You have a good heart and an inquisitive mind; keep seeking the answers you need.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Nice post, Rlaub.

 

[cami]

Cami, I don't understand your response because everything you just stated, I have already given into you AND AGREED WITH??? I am not a tad bit confused? I said Dust on the Windowsill??? and I have always given you guys the knife??? What is there to misunderstand??? Gee, Just when I thought we were starting to get along and get to an Understanding??? How is that copy going, can't wait to see it??? Take Care Hon, Talk to you soon! Ann :waitasec::waitasec::banghead:

Okay sorry, your post confused me.

 

[cami]

I will again reiterate? Have we not gone through all of this in the PM's??? I have read MTJD and still trying to come to the same conclusion as you, however, I am not fully there????!!! I no longer have the MTJD book (which btw I found very helpful in my innocent side of the spectrum). The kitchen I believe was over trampled by LE and many things such as the vaccuum, broken wine glass, etc. were not in the original place after law enforcement entered??? Again, JMO!! Smile, I am only still searching to hit the right place?? Take Care Cami!! :twocents::twocents::banghead::waitasec:

Oh okay, I don't recall you're telling me in a pm it's your opinion the kitchen was contaminated.

How could you read MTJD? LOL, I found it incredibly bad, terrible grammar, spelling and all it was was media articles that the author decided to edit. The CS photos are valuable..that's the only value to that book, IMO.

Yes, there is no evidence that the CS was trampled at all, just Ms. Kee's assertion that it was.