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

[annkitty0630]

Cami
Thank you for the link. As for the stupid thing you are the one who makes me feel stupid. I feel you could be kinder to people who have their own opinions and ideas. Hoax or not I will make up my own mind.

"LOL, you rated Kitty`s post usefulÉ " Yes I did and your making fun of me. I believe many people have been railroaded throughtout history and I will reserve my right to make up my own mind after I have read everything that I need to in order to make up my own mind

Wonders, Thanks for you again stating the fact of why I am pissed at her attitude towards people that don't necessarily agree with her at the moment!!! Take Care, And good hunting!!!!:waitasec:

 

[Cassata11]

SNIP

And remember juror Rina Way stated that none of the jurors wanted to believe she was guilty and tried to find a way but there just wasn`t anything...no way to give her an out.

This to me, is how our justice system really is supposed to work.

These jurors were given the evidence, and had a chance to discuss, review, argue, debate on her guilt. She was innocent in the eyes of the law, until proven guilty. This jury had all the evidence. They tried to find something, anything to free her. They saw the boys torn up. They wanted to believe it wasn't their mommy who did this to them. After it was said and done, no one could fight the verdict.

I love the stock the family puts in a small partial fingerprint. It could have been numerous friends or children. I just had the pre prom party here a few months ago. I bet a team could still find hair, makeup, dna, fingerprints of the 12 kids that we here, taking pictures, girls getting ready. A foreign fingerprint does not explain the evidence.

As for the people that have met Darlie in person, and changed their mind on her guilt, I would want to believe Darlie too. In a small way, I think Darlie herself, has convinced herself to believe it was an intruder in a hat, hired by her hubby. What else does she have to hold on to???

Karla Faye Tucker impressed me when she admitted her part in her crime, and was willing to pay the price for her actions. I am not making excuses, rather just pointing out, that lying serves no purpose, or knowledge for others to follow her lead.

Darlie was on Death Row with Karla, too bad Karla couldn't convince her to own up.

 

[cami]

Cami
Thank you for the link. As for the stupid thing you are the one who makes me feel stupid. I feel you could be kinder to people who have their own opinions and ideas. Hoax or not I will make up my own mind.

"LOL, you rated Kitty`s post usefulÉ " Yes I did and your making fun of me. I believe many people have been railroaded throughtout history and I will reserve my right to make up my own mind after I have read everything that I need to in order to make up my own mind

Well I apologize if I made you feel stupid. I don't know how you read that in my post but there you go you did.

You know I am not stupid either. All of a sudden I am being innundated with pm's accusing me of all kinds of things. All of sudden there are new posters here complaining about my posts. I've posted here for years and years and now all of a sudden....hmmmmm.

Who told you not to make up your own mind? You posted the jury did not see all the photos. I referred you to the trial transcripts where you can read for yourself that the photos were shown to the jury.

Bring it on, do you and Annekitty and all you who are pming me have any more friends you want to come here and insult me? Go for it, I have the thickest skin here.

 

[cami]

:woohoo::woohoo:Love it Wonders, that was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post to CAMI... This forum is supposed to be about people asking questions and trying to gather information and FORMULATIVEY form their own opinions!!! NOT the bullying by individuals trying to sway and mislead you into only believing that what that say is fact and truth!!! Reading the transcripts is awesome info, however, it is not fact!!! You have to read them openly minded also with the thought of the prosectution always feeding in the character assasination that happens!!! It is up to you only to form your own opinion and live with your own beliefs. I have sat on the fence of this case for many, many years and I personally am still undecided as to whether her guilt or innocence. JMHO!!!! :furious::waitasec:

The transcripts are not fact! I can't believe you said that. The trial transcripts are the only accurate, true source of this case or any case. Anything else is just rumour and innuendo.

The scientists who collected and examined the evidence testified to character assassination? Can you provide a link to that please? The doctors and the coroner, the blood expert....did they all fall for the prosecution's character assassination?

Well when you open your private life up to the public, then you are opening yourself up to be judged. "character assassination" as you call it is the prosecutions right to bring Darlie's behaviour into the trial..it's circumstantial evidence. Is it prejudicial? Maybe, but the judge felt it's probative value outweighed the prejudicial value.

Have you read the transcripts of the Julia Rhea case?

 

[cami]

:woohoo::woohoo:Love it Wonders, that was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post to CAMI... This forum is supposed to be about people asking questions and trying to gather information and FORMULATIVEY form their own opinions!!! NOT the bullying by individuals trying to sway and mislead you into only believing that what that say is fact and truth!!! Reading the transcripts is awesome info, however, it is not fact!!! You have to read them openly minded also with the thought of the prosectution always feeding in the character assasination that happens!!! It is up to you only to form your own opinion and live with your own beliefs. I have sat on the fence of this case for many, many years and I personally am still undecided as to whether her guilt or innocence. JMHO!!!! :furious::waitasec:

Okay please show me where I tried to "sway and mislead" Wonders. Thanks

 

[cami]

BBM
Absolutely YES test it AGAIN with inhanced DNA testing. Like I've said before if she did this horrible deed than by all means put her to death. I will hopefully be able to make up my mind after I have read all that I can on this case. I just fear that I will not be able to come to a decision after I do read everything.

Okay then, so would you agree to granting Charles Manson the right to dna test evidence?

That would be akin to trial after trial after trial until either side gets what they want. Darlie had a fair trial, she had the evidence tested. Boohoo if it didn't point to anyone but her.

I do agree that she should have the tests...test everything. We don't to go executing anyone who is innocent. Not that I think there is any possibility she could be innocent.

Frankly, I don't think Darlie will ever see the needle. I think they will stop executions in the US don't you? I'm not in favour of the DP anyway.

 

[wonders]

O Boy. I do not know anyone in this thread. This is just a case that I have been unable to make up my mind about and I may never be able to make up my mind about it after I read everything PERIOD.

Cami the Manson and Routier cases are uncomparable.
If people are PMing you it has nothing to do with me. Maybe you should consider what they are saying. I am not trying to be mean to anyone I just want to make up my own mind.

annakitty I so appreciate your open mind in my quest to learn all I can.

Off to read now. Wish me luck in my quest.

Thank you all .

 

[cami]

O Boy. I do not know anyone in this thread. This is just a case that I have been unable to make up my mind about and I may never be able to make up my mind about it after I read everything PERIOD.

Cami the Manson and Routier cases are uncomparable.
If people are PMing you it has nothing to do with me. Maybe you should consider what they are saying. I am not trying to be mean to anyone I just want to make up my own mind.

annakitty I so appreciate your open mind in my quest to learn all I can.

Off to read now. Wish me luck in my quest.

Thank you all .

Happy reading then.....good luck.

 

[cami]

O Boy. I do not know anyone in this thread. This is just a case that I have been unable to make up my mind about and I may never be able to make up my mind about it after I read everything PERIOD.

Cami the Manson and Routier cases are uncomparable.
If people are PMing you it has nothing to do with me. Maybe you should consider what they are saying. I am not trying to be mean to anyone I just want to make up my own mind.

annakitty I so appreciate your open mind in my quest to learn all I can.

Off to read now. Wish me luck in my quest.

Thank you all .

Yeah well whatever, drop the personal attacks. I did not attack you or anniekitty or anyone.


Happy reading then.....good luck.

Yes, Manson and Darlie's case are uncomparable, but not when it comes to granting the rights to dna test. If you've got the money, you can have anything dna tested. I can see we are on two different wavelengths so I'll shut up.

 

[wonders]

Well shucks I can't get in the site to read right now. O well I'll try again later.

 

[annkitty0630]

The transcripts are not fact! I can't believe you said that. The trial transcripts are the only accurate, true source of this case or any case. Anything else is just rumour and innuendo.

The scientists who collected and examined the evidence testified to character assassination? Can you provide a link to that please? The doctors and the coroner, the blood expert....did they all fall for the prosecution's character assassination?

Well when you open your private life up to the public, then you are opening yourself up to be judged. "character assassination" as you call it is the prosecutions right to bring Darlie's behaviour into the trial..it's circumstantial evidence. Is it prejudicial? Maybe, but the judge felt it's probative value outweighed the prejudicial value.

Have you read the transcripts of the Julia Rhea case?

Please you who states every step of the way "Read the transcripts and you will see" is complete BS... I never said they were fact in the sense you seem to believe, they are fact of what is taken down by a court reporter in a court of law, NOT FACT of the circumstances of which the crime took place. GEEZ, I took you to be a little bit smarter than that CAMI!!! You truly need to back off the whole PM'g thing also. If someone is doing it good for them, however, you make it sound like you don't know who it would be!!!??? Every single person on this sight is registered and the admin's know who they are and when you supposedly receive these PM's, it has a name attached!!! Please, get over yourself and get on with your life for once!!! :banghead::banghead::waitasec:

 

[annkitty0630]

Okay then, so would you agree to granting Charles Manson the right to dna test evidence?

That would be akin to trial after trial after trial until either side gets what they want. Darlie had a fair trial, she had the evidence tested. Boohoo if it didn't point to anyone but her.

I do agree that she should have the tests...test everything. We don't to go executing anyone who is innocent. Not that I think there is any possibility she could be innocent.

Frankly, I don't think Darlie will ever see the needle. I think they will stop executions in the US don't you? I'm not in favour of the DP anyway.

:waitasec::croc:BooHoo to you also. To each's own how we live and breath and believe. Fair trial IMHO is complete BS... And love the way you speak about the Death Penalty in the US??? If I am correct after reading many sites on this subject for years and years, you live in Greece is that correct? I do not believe in the DP unless there is 100% factual evidence and with that an actual personal ID that is no way suspect, tainted or challenged. I have dealt with many cases that have been either DNA linked to prove innocence or witness tainting!!! So how about you Cami, searching for the truth or just what you believe??? Give her a new trial so we can all put it to rest?? That would be a great way to settle this debate finally don't you think???

:furious:

 

[MomofBoys]

Give her a new trial so we can all put it to rest?? That would be a great way to settle this debate finally don't you think???

I guess this is where the DDIs differ, and why people here are forever telling those in favor of a new trial to read the transcripts. I know it's become a bit of a cliche, but a thorough reading of the transcripts would show "NOT FACT of the circumstances of which the crime took place" because NO court proceedings will show that. But it will absolutely show that she received a fair trial with careful attention to the evidence collected.

It just seems like some people won't believe she received a fair trial unless a tape of the night's events surfaces. Others cling to the "photos not shown to the jury" when that's trial myth.

Trials cost a ton of money. Trials open the door for misconduct and technicalities that might allow a guilty woman to go free. I don't want her to have another trial, and it's not because I'm afraid of it coming out that she's innocent. It's because the system isn't foolproof and I'm incredibly confident in the verdict already delivered. The blithe "What are people afraid of? Give her a new trial!" is like the "Let them eat cake!" of the criminal justice world, IMHO. It's one thing when there is potentially freeing exculpatory evidence in the wings. In this case, there is NOTHING. It's been years, and her appeals attornies either have nothing, or they should sue themselves for malpractice.

New trials shouldn't be given to people who don't like the outcome of the first one. They should be given to those who can at least point to something that shows they've been abused by the system.

 

[Rlaub44]

Give her a new trial so we can all put it to rest?? That would be a great way to settle this debate finally don't you think???

:furious:

Respectfully snipped.

I often wonder if it would be that simple. Even if she were, for some reason, given a new trial and the results were that she were again convicted, can anyone truly believe that Mama Darlie would be satisfied? And with her unsatisfied, the "Free Darlie" websites would continue to represent her view of things, focusing on any tiny discrepancy, hoping to continue to create public doubt. We would still be in this position.

It is certainly understandable, even admirable, to want to be thoroughly convinced of the guilt of someone who has been convicted of such an evil crime. But the facts remain that the jurors were convinced, and the State of Texas has the sole responsibility of ensuring that a fair trial was conducted. It doesn't matter whether you or I don't like the outcome; we have no standing, no legal horse in the race.

I agree with the legal standard in these matters: unless compelling new evidence exists, the defendant simply cannot keep having trial after trial until they obtain the outcome they like. That would be a nightmare, from a logistical standpoint, a financial one, and an emotional one. Again, this is JMO.

 

[wonders]

I'm wondering if in this case Darlie's sentence could be commuted to LWOP. From what I have been reading so far Darrin had made plans to stage a robbery for insurance. One of the boys had a life insurance policy on them? So what if this was something that Darrin had set up and maybe that is why he has stood by Darlie's side all these many years. But on the other hand why would Darlie take the fall for Darrin. You don't have to answer my silly questions I am just thinking in writing. I still have sooooo much to read yet. Thank you.

 

[wonders]

Link: http: //law.jrank.org/pages/3712/Darlie-Routier-Trial-1997-Deadly-or-Doting-Mother.html

Copied from link:
In the years since Darlie's conviction, renewed media attention—including an investigation by the television news program 20/20—has raised questions about her guilt. Among the media findings: Jurors received a trial transcript with 33,000 errors and omissions; jurors never saw photographs of Routier's arm bruises; and an unidentified bloody fingerprint was found on the Routiers' kitchen counter after the murder.

I still cannot get into the transcript site GRRRR. But the above is why I have grave concerns about this case.

I do agree that Darlie had very outrages behavior and my heart says yes fry her but my mind says does that make her a murderer so then I say no.

 

[MomofBoys]

Again, the photos thing is a myth. They got all the photos, as far as I'm aware. And if I'm not mistaken, the "bloody fingerprint" couldn't be matched. It doesn't mean that it was from an unknown. It was merely distorted to the point where a clear match couldn't be made.

As far as the errors in the juror transcript go, I don't know if they mean typos or bad page breaks or spelling errors or if the integrity of the evidence within was damaged. I'd like to know more about that.

 

[wonders]

Again, the photos thing is a myth. They got all the photos, as far as I'm aware. And if I'm not mistaken, the "bloody fingerprint" couldn't be matched. It doesn't mean that it was from an unknown. It was merely distorted to the point where a clear match couldn't be made.

As far as the errors in the juror transcript go, I don't know if they mean typos or bad page breaks or spelling errors or if the integrity of the evidence within was damaged. I'd like to know more about that.

BBM: ITA

Thank you MomofBoys. I have been reading in so many places that I cannot remember where I read that the bruising photos of Darlie weren't shown to the jury. The cuts to Darlie were shown.

If I am being a pest here please let me know.

 

[annkitty0630]

Hey hon, what's going on?? I see you are online....

 

[annkitty0630]

I guess this is where the DDIs differ, and why people here are forever telling those in favor of a new trial to read the transcripts. I know it's become a bit of a cliche, but a thorough reading of the transcripts would show "NOT FACT of the circumstances of which the crime took place" because NO court proceedings will show that. But it will absolutely show that she received a fair trial with careful attention to the evidence collected.

It just seems like some people won't believe she received a fair trial unless a tape of the night's events surfaces. Others cling to the "photos not shown to the jury" when that's trial myth.

Trials cost a ton of money. Trials open the door for misconduct and technicalities that might allow a guilty woman to go free. I don't want her to have another trial, and it's not because I'm afraid of it coming out that she's innocent. It's because the system isn't foolproof and I'm incredibly confident in the verdict already delivered. The blithe "What are people afraid of? Give her a new trial!" is like the "Let them eat cake!" of the criminal justice world, IMHO. It's one thing when there is potentially freeing exculpatory evidence in the wings. In this case, there is NOTHING. It's been years, and her appeals attornies either have nothing, or they should sue themselves for malpractice.

New trials shouldn't be given to people who don't like the outcome of the first one. They should be given to those who can at least point to something that shows they've been abused by the system.

:twocents::twocents:Believe it or not from my previous postings, I actually agree with what you say, however, I have not quite reached the point of her absolute guilt.... When i feel comfortable with that outcome, I say "Put her to death"!!! To many unanswered questions to this point for me to say that absolute outcome is the deserving fate... Again, JMHO!!! Take Care