Darlie Routier asks for DNA testing

[Goody]

Originally Posted by cami
Me too. But I think it would be hard to admit you raised a child killer.

Goody-Of course,it would. I can't imagine having to say something like that out loud. Can you?

j2m
depends-- is the parent saying their child killed, or is the parent saying it is becuase of the way i raised my child, he or she killed? i wouldnt want to admitt either- but the first sure would be easier to have to spit out- are we going back to the reasons why people kill??? the way they were raised, so the excuses can kick in? i had to get an argument in there goody- i agrreed with you on the other thread!!! )

That is cool, but just remember REASONS are NOT excuses!

 

[Goody]

Easy out Goody. Does that mean you don't know any more about the boys than I do? Does anybody know beyond the basics?

What's to know? Devon was an energetic, freckle faced little boy who looked after his quieter, shy little brother Damon. Devon was a Daddy's boy; Damon was a still close to Mama (as Darlie put it; always wondered why she didn't just say a Mama's boy). I imagine they were like my boys, like a couple of cute little puppies always tumbling around each other.

 

[beesy]

What's to know? Devon was an energetic, freckle faced little boy who looked after his quieter, shy little brother Damon. Devon was a Daddy's boy; Damon was a still close to Mama (as Darlie put it; always wondered why she didn't just say a Mama's boy). I imagine they were like my boys, like a couple of cute little puppies always tumbling around each other.

Were they in school yet? I'm figuring Devon was but what about Damon? Have you seen that yogurt commercial where the sister tells her brother not to touch her yogurt. Of course he does as soon as she leaves the room. Then all these security lights and sounds go off... Anyway, I think the boy looks alot like Devon.

 

[Goody]

Were they in school yet? I'm figuring Devon was but what about Damon? Have you seen that yogurt commercial where the sister tells her brother not to touch her yogurt. Of course he does as soon as she leaves the room. Then all these security lights and sounds go off... Anyway, I think the boy looks alot like Devon.

Sorry, Bees, but we don't get that commercial here yet. Devon was in school and had just gotten out for the summer. Damon had not started school yet.

 

[j2mirish]

That is cool, but just remember REASONS are NOT excuses!

that depends-- many times they are one in the same- just depends on how someone wants to use or interpert (sp) them

 

[Goody]

that depends-- many times they are one in the same- just depends on how someone wants to use or interpert (sp) them

I think some people just FEAR that reasons will be used to excuse people, but that doesn't change the fact that WHY something happens has NOTHING to do with IF it is justified. Why a woman shoots her abusive husband is very different from why a mother drowns her children or why a thief shoots the witnesses to his crime.

 

[j2mirish]

I think some people just FEAR that reasons will be used to excuse people, but that doesn't change the fact that WHY something happens has NOTHING to do with IF it is justified. Why a woman shoots her abusive husband is very different from why a mother drowns her children or why a thief shoots the witnesses to his crime.

i dont disagree why a woman might kill an abusive husband- however i dont agree that darlie having "childhood" probelms as you have agreed, wondered, or suggested, is nothing more than an excuse aka reason to some--- as to why she killed her boys- so tell me how you might justify her killing her children because of her "absent" father?

 

[Goody]

i dont disagree why a woman might kill an abusive husband- however i dont agree that darlie having "childhood" probelms as you have agreed, wondered, or suggested, is nothing more than an excuse aka reason to some--- as to why she killed her boys- so tell me how you might justify her killing her children because of her "absent" father?

:banghead: Once again........I DON'T JUSTIFY Darlie killing her children. There is NO justification for such an act.....but there are certainly reasons why she did it.

Take the woman who just threw her kids in to the bay. The reason she did is because she is mentally ill and was not taking her medication. Therefore,she heard voices that told her to drown the children. That explains WHY she did it. Does it justify or excuse the act of doing it? NO! Even if she is proven to be mentally ill to the point that a jury can find her NG by reason of insanity, the explanation (or reason) still does not excuse or justify. It only explains.

Knowing why Darlie did what she did is the same thing. The reason she did it does not excuse or justify anything. It merely explains her actions.

BTW, the "absent father" in and of itself does not explain her actions either. However, it might explain some of Darlie's insecurities and her need for male attention.

 

[j2mirish]

:banghead: Once again........I DON'T JUSTIFY Darlie killing her children. There is NO justification for such an act.....but there are certainly reasons why she did it.

Take the woman who just threw her kids in to the bay. The reason she did is because she is mentally ill and was not taking her medication. Therefore,she heard voices that told her to drown the children. That explains WHY she did it. Does it justify or excuse the act of doing it? NO! Even if she is proven to be mentally ill to the point that a jury can find her NG by reason of insanity, the explanation (or reason) still does not excuse or justify. It only explains.

Knowing why Darlie did what she did is the same thing. The reason she did it does not excuse or justify anything. It merely explains her actions.

BTW, the "absent father" in and of itself does not explain her actions either. However, it might explain some of Darlie's insecurities and her need for male attention.

ok- it might explain he need for attention- but where does it give the WHY not excuse, or justification for the kids being killed :banghead: ( back attcha) !!

 

[Goody]

ok- it might explain he need for attention- but where does it give the WHY not excuse, or justification for the kids being killed :banghead: ( back attcha) !!

You can't justify murder. Esp not murder of your own children. So I don't get your question. Just because someone is flawed, even through no fault of their own, there are no excuses. For example, Andrea Yates was insane (imo) and that explains why she killed her children, but it doesn't make the act justified. It doesn't excuse her or her responsibility for it. The only question in her case is where she should be locked up...in prison or in an asylum.

 

[less0305]

I still think he killed one child and she killed the other, thinking they'd both get off with the intruder story. And she can't squeal on him without implicating herself, he can't squeal on her without implicating himself.....but after all these years in prison and no hope of getting out of this - she has finally realized she can try to blame it all on him and she knows he can't come out with the truth of her involvement without the true knowledge of his involvement coming out also. She's not only throwing him under the bus, she's got him over a barrel......IF she gets anyone to listen to her.

 

[justice2]

I still think he killed one child and she killed the other, thinking they'd both get off with the intruder story. And she can't squeal on him without implicating herself, he can't squeal on her without implicating himself.....but after all these years in prison and no hope of getting out of this - she has finally realized she can try to blame it all on him and she knows he can't come out with the truth of her involvement without the true knowledge of his involvement coming out also. She's not only throwing him under the bus, she's got him over a barrel......IF she gets anyone to listen to her.

I'm leaning the same way, he killed one and she killed one. I think that is way I'm seeing who favored which child differently, Darin - Damon, Darlie - Devon. But I could still go the other way. Since opposites attrack the reverse would seem plausible too. Devon seemed more like Darlie so Darlie should have liked Damon better. In most of the pictures Devon is by Darlie and Damon is by Darin.

 

[Goody]

I'm leaning the same way, he killed one and she killed one. I think that is way I'm seeing who favored which child differently, Darin - Damon, Darlie - Devon. But I could still go the other way. Since opposites attrack the reverse would seem plausible too. Devon seemed more like Darlie so Darlie should have liked Damon better. In most of the pictures Devon is by Darlie and Damon is by Darin.

Darlie described Devon as being the Daddy's boy, and you can look at him and see how active he was. Damon, she said, was the quiet one, still liked to be close to Mama. So I think it is the opposite of what you are thinking. Funny, though, a lot of people think Devon is the one who should have been closer to her.

 

[Goody]

If anyone has not read the exparte writ filed with the trial court regarding the testing of new evidence (which is basically not new at all but collected at the time fo the crime, most being included in the trial), check this out. http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Legal/Motions/040123.html

I also have an article in Texas Monthly (but you have to subscribe to read it) about the status of prisoners getting DNA testing done after conviction. Apparently there are problems statewide, which might explain the hold up in Darlie's case. From what little I scanned, it appears it might have something to do with the lab scandals in recent years and the closing of one important lab used by the state. That doesn't sound promising for Darlie. I wonder if the federal CCA can intervene if the state trial court is ineffective in making a ruling on it.

 

[ravenmad]

Goody - - -
This is O/T from your thread and I apologize for that, however, I have a question if I may.
Was Darlie denied access to the "items" mentioned in the above writ during trial?? Or did her defense team elect to not test at the time of trial?

If they elected not to test, why? If these items are such good evidence and will "help exclude her and prove the intruder theory" why did they not test?

If they were denied access to these items would that not be grounds for a new trial?

I am confused.
Thank you,
raven

 

[Goody]

Goody - - -
This is O/T from your thread and I apologize for that, however, I have a question if I may.
Was Darlie denied access to the "items" mentioned in the above writ during trial?? Or did her defense team elect to not test at the time of trial?

If they elected not to test, why? If these items are such good evidence and will "help exclude her and prove the intruder theory" why did they not test?

If they were denied access to these items would that not be grounds for a new trial?

I am confused.
Thank you,
raven

The defense did not test anything during the trial. I don't know why. LE's who post on it say their trial strategy was reasonable doubt, meaning they thought the best defense was holding the state's case up and saying they didn't meet their burden. Mulder said in one interview that he underestimated the silly string video. I think he underestimated the physical evidence, but I don't know why because the theories presented by the state were not new. They have been used to prove murder in other cases many times over.

There was also an issue of money, I think, and time. The defense was not given the continuance they wanted and had to go to trial right away. I think that was a surprise to them. Mulder was not hired until late October and went on a month long vacation in November. The trial started early in January. So there were some time restrictions there.

Another problem was Darlie herself. We don't know what went on between atty and client but she may have decided she didn't want testing done for fear it might incriminate her or Darin. I think when Mulder met with Laber and his associate he did not hear what he wanted to hear. My guess is that he would have presented the whole pic to Darlie and she would have decided which direction she wanted to pursue. At least that is what I would expect from my atty.

I guess until someone tells us, we won't know why the defense opted not to do any testing at trial. The fact that they didn't hurts her now because the time has passed when the court would be receptive to such requests. It is harder to get an approval for testing after the conviction unless you can show that the testing might prove innocence. I don't know if she can do that.

 

[ravenmad]

The defense did not test anything during the trial. I don't know why. LE's who post on it say their trial strategy was reasonable doubt, meaning they thought the best defense was holding the state's case up and saying they didn't meet their burden. Mulder said in one interview that he underestimated the silly string video. I think he underestimated the physical evidence, but I don't know why because the theories presented by the state were not new. They have been used to prove murder in other cases many times over.

There was also an issue of money, I think, and time. The defense was not given the continuance they wanted and had to go to trial right away. I think that was a surprise to them. Mulder was not hired until late October and went on a month long vacation in November. The trial started early in January. So there were some time restrictions there.

Another problem was Darlie herself. We don't know what went on between atty and client but she may have decided she didn't want testing done for fear it might incriminate her or Darin. I think when Mulder met with Laber and his associate he did not hear what he wanted to hear. My guess is that he would have presented the whole pic to Darlie and she would have decided which direction she wanted to pursue. At least that is what I would expect from my atty.

I guess until someone tells us, we won't know why the defense opted not to do any testing at trial. The fact that they didn't hurts her now because the time has passed when the court would be receptive to such requests. It is harder to get an approval for testing after the conviction unless you can show that the testing might prove innocence. I don't know if she can do that.

Goody,
Thank you so much for the excellent explanation. This clears up many questions that I had rolling around in my mind.

I just can not see an innocent person not testing the items, but IF a person knew that the evidence gathered from the testing would prove certain aspects of the pros case I can see the testing not being done, with of course a variety of excuses used. I am guessing that the new attorney feels there is nothing to be lost by testing now. His client is convicted and if the testing proves guilt, they wouldn't have to release the information, correct?

The silly string video was in poor form, however, it wasn't the silly string, IMO, that assisted in her conviction but her attitude and actions on the video. [My daughter died 7 days before my sons 4th birthday. We had a birthday party, I know that, I don't remember any part of it. I don't know who attended, shucks I don't even know if my son got any gifts from me. I know that a girlfriend baked a cake for him because I could not function. That is the only thing I remember. That all being said, I have no idea how I acted at that party, was I "normal", did I smile, I really don't know.]

Thank you again for the explanations!!! I really appreciate them.

raven

 

[Goody]

Goody,
Thank you so much for the excellent explanation. This clears up many questions that I had rolling around in my mind.

I just can not see an innocent person not testing the items, but IF a person knew that the evidence gathered from the testing would prove certain aspects of the pros case I can see the testing not being done, with of course a variety of excuses used. I am guessing that the new attorney feels there is nothing to be lost by testing now. His client is convicted and if the testing proves guilt, they wouldn't have to release the information, correct?

I think that is true at trial level but now she is in the appellate stages and at that level, I think the test results are released to the judges which would mean to both sides. Jeana can correct me if I am wrong.

The silly string video was in poor form, however, it wasn't the silly string, IMO, that assisted in her conviction but her attitude and actions on the video. [My daughter died 7 days before my sons 4th birthday. We had a birthday party, I know that, I don't remember any part of it. I don't know who attended, shucks I don't even know if my son got any gifts from me. I know that a girlfriend baked a cake for him because I could not function. That is the only thing I remember. That all being said, I have no idea how I acted at that party, was I "normal", did I smile, I really don't know.]

Thank you again for the explanations!!! I really appreciate them.

raven

No problem, Raven. I too lost a son. He was six when he was hit by a car. It was a year and a half before I came out of my stupor. What I don't understand about Darlie and other mothers who kill their young is the lack of trauma they show. I can't even imagine someone, who is not that emotionally invested in their child, being able to kill and still walk around without looking back. I have known some pretty hard hearted people in my life and I don't think any of them could pull it off. But some do so I've learned not to try to second guess them on it, though I will occassionally ponder the questions, even if they are unanswerable.

 

[ravenmad]

Thank you again Goody. I am so sorry for your loss. I didn't mean to bring up painful memories, I am sorry.

 

[Goody]

Thank you again Goody. I am so sorry for your loss. I didn't mean to bring up painful memories, I am sorry.

Well, it has been a long, long time since it happened and while it never goes away completely, most of the emotional trauma from it has long since subsided. Thank you for your concern though.