I had relatives who lived in the same neighborhood as the Routier's when this happened. They didn't know the family, but had seen them.
My relatives have always believed that the trial was 'rigged' in favor of the prosecution, that evidence which would exonerate Darlie was deliberately hidden from the jury and even the defense team. I don't have a clue if they're right or wrong, but I do know that when a judge denies dna testing on bloody fingerprints found at a crime scene, ESPECIALLY when the convicted is on DEATH ROW, something aint right.
Every possibility to prove guilt should be explored and determined before ANY convicted person is put to death. Hasn't that judge seen the increasingly long list of people who have been released, sometimes after decades in jail, after wrongfully being convicted?
I have been jumped on with both feet here for having serious doubts that Darlie killed her sons. But, I do have, I always have had, even living close to Rowlett and hearing all the sentiment against her. For me, the doubt is due to several things but the main ones are: Her own injuries, and Darin's other attempts at felony insurance fraud.
Plus, I think she had inadequate counsel at trial, lawyers who were looking out for Darin's interests over Darlie's. The silly string video is stated as the one thing which swayed the jurors. WHY didn't the defense show the entire tape, where she was very upset and crying on the same video at the boys' graveside?
Yes, it was slanted evidence at the least. Darin's testimony also didn't help Darlie at all. A good defense attorney would have cast doubt upon him as a witness because of their marital problems and the fact that Darlie was leaving him ( or so it is said, we can't know for certain of course).
I believe LE was so focused on Darlie that they didn't look closer for a suspect. I also think there's a good chance that DARIN was the perp, and not Darlie, if anyone inside the household committed the crimes.
I would like to see the results of his polygraph.. I have this strong sense that he either set this up for insurance money and to get rid of his money- draining dependents like so many other men do with a third person . I am not sure if he had help, if he did it all himself or if the crime was perpetrated by a stranger.
All are possible, but to me, Darlie doing this is way out there. She didn't know that she wouldn't sever her carotid or jugular veins and arteries if she did cut her own throat, which I doubt she did. She had bruises all over her arms and this was dismissed. I think it's very significant.
Just because she couldn't remember what happened and gave conflicting accounts, she was judged to be guilty. IMO, this is not significant, and an expert psychiatrist could have explained PTSD related to the crime to a jury. She was pressured HEAVILY to give LE an explanation so she told what she thought happened. It changed not because she committed the crime but because her memories were incomplete due to her own trauma, and possibly due to PTSD related to the attacks.
" I don't remember" and " I can't remember" was just not good enough for LE or the prosecution. I don't think she could remember but was encouraged to tell them SOMETHING, anything, and did so out of naiveté'.
JMHO,
Maria