Darlie Routier on Death Row

[Jeana (DP)]

cyberlaw, and all the other belittlers.... I have studied this case for a LOT of years... I am not "forgetting" about anything... I am not "new", and I am not uneducated. I am not easily persuaded to join one "camp" or another. I know that parents kill their kids, I understand that it happens.

I understand that a lot that was taken into evidence makes it appear that it was Darlie. I understand that a lot WASN'T.

Hey, I am not God, and I was nowhere near the house that night. I could be wrong in believing fullheartedly, after years of hard studying, that she is innocent.

That being said, she was not given a fair trial. The court transcripts do not allow for a fair appeal. Before we go and put the lady down like a rabid dog, perhaps we should make damn sure that we are being more than fair. Especially when atleast one juror has stated that they wished they had voted not guilty.

We have an appeals process in this wonderful country for a reason. When flat out and blatant errors are made on the transcripts that completely change "yes to no" type statements, it hardly will make for a fair appeals process.

Darlin, I'm not sure who you think you're referring to when you say "belittlers," but I would suggest that you refrain from that type of talk in the future.

As for the rest of your post, you're entitled to your opinion regardless of the fact that its incorrect.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?

Mulder did the best he could with a liar for a client, whose husband lied and whose family did everything they could to make sure she got to the death chamber.

 

[sandraladeda]

This case was profiled again on American Justice the other night. It
showed an additional birthday party scene that was much more subdued and somber before the silly string. It also showed pictures of Darlie with
extensive bruising that I hadn't heard about before. From the pics it
didn't really look self inflicted and it stated that the slash to her neck
came within a milimeter of killing her.
Any thoughts on this?
I thought the other evidence to be pretty damning but that kind of threw me.

I think the "within milimeters of killing her" is a big red herring that, imo, does not add weight to the possibility DR is NG. "Within mms" does not negate all the other eidence against DR (such as the blood evidence, such as her wounds differed from those to her boys, such a no robbery motive, such as attacking the children first, etc.)

If I decide to inflict a wound on myself, and I plan to stop short of mortally wounding myself, I have no experience in cutting myself this way, and there is a good chance I will injure myself more than intended. If I wound myself after having just murdered my children, I am not in a very calm, relaxed state of mind, I am probably pretty keyed up. I may not be able to cut myself with great precision.

moo

 

[White Rain]

PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?

I really would like to know what you would do that Mulder didn't?

 

[Crow_Ascending]

What was unfair about Darlie's trial?

 

[CyberLaw]

I guess for the pro Darlie camp, the fact that a women who slaughtered her own two son's, in a brutal manner and she was found guilty of a crime that he committed, well for the pro Darlie camp, that is the start of "unfair".

Just to add an additional fact: The mother who "claims" that an unknown stranger "murdered" her child in the back seat of her car, during " a carjacking" is not to be believed by even a relative. Have not found that "unknown" stranger either.

By the way: There is no old or new evidence that would indicates or indicated a "stranger" entered the home of the Routiers.

 

[accordn2me]

I really would like to know what you would do that Mulder didn't?

I would probably get all my witnesses together in one room

 

[mollymalone]

"All the witnesses into one room" ... pardon me, but I thought that's what the trial was for? The witnesses were in "one" room, the courtroom, in which each testified.

 

[accordn2me]

"All the witnesses into one room" ... pardon me, but I thought that's what the trial was for? The witnesses were in "one" room, the courtroom, in which each testified.

LOL! Sorry I had to run off like that! :bang:

Mulder, IMO, didn't spend enough time preparing his witnesses, or preparing for them. For instance, the prosecution held a mock trial where all of their witnesses got to watch a......dress rehearsal, if you will.....of everyone else's testimony. This was very helpful for LE, medical personnel, etc. to all be on the same page because they were coached before hand.

Mulder ran around the whole trail putting out fires in the courtroom. He should have provided a proactive defense. For instance, he should have retained Terry Laber, the forensic scientist hired by the public defender. Instead, he dismissed him.

Mulder allowed an extreme amount of damaging hearsay testimony to be heard by the jury.

I could go on.....but you get the picture. This was without a doubt one of the worst legal defenses of all time.

 

[CyberLaw]

What could he do, present evidence that the unknown stranger had entered the house. There was no evidence. A case is only as good as the evidence. So the DA did their homework, had a mock trial, well that is called "being prepared". They wanted to win, they wanted justice for the two slaughtered boys. They did not want to let them down, by being not prepared. Darlie deciding to testify was a mistake. But I put money that it was "her decision". No defense attorney wants or encourages their client to take the stand, especially when there is a lot of evidence pointing to their guilt.

 

[CyberLaw]

What could he do, present evidence that the unknown stranger had entered the house. There was no evidence. A case is only as good as the evidence. So the DA did their homework, had a mock trial, well that is called "being prepared". They wanted to win, they wanted justice for the two slaughtered boys. They did not want to let them down, by being not prepared. Darlie deciding to testify was a mistake. But I put money that it was "her decision". No defense attorney wants or encourages their client to take the stand, especially when there is a lot of evidence pointing to their guilt.

So lets put the blame where blame lies. Darlie Routier. Not her lawyer, not the judge, not the state, but the person who slaughtered her two boys.

 

[whitywendy]

PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?[/quote]

You have every right to feel the way you do about her trial attorney's, IMOP they did the best they could with what evidence that was available to them. Since you are saying the other attorney's did such a piss poor job, how come her appeals attorney haven't gotten anywhere either?

I say test away, test everything again. I just don't believe it will provide the answers that you and the other supporters hope for.

It was within 30 minutes, that the "veteran detective (over 4000 crime scenes) made his decision. If all you Darlie supporters are going to nick-pick the details to death, it wasn't within minutes (which would indicate 3 to 6 min's) it was half a hour.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think the "within milimeters of killing her" is a big red herring that, imo, does not add weight to the possibility DR is NG. "Within mms" does not negate all the other eidence against DR (such as the blood evidence, such as her wounds differed from those to her boys, such a no robbery motive, such as attacking the children first, etc.)

If I decide to inflict a wound on myself, and I plan to stop short of mortally wounding myself, I have no experience in cutting myself this way, and there is a good chance I will injure myself more than intended. If I wound myself after having just murdered my children, I am not in a very calm, relaxed state of mind, I am probably pretty keyed up. I may not be able to cut myself with great precision.

moo

There's also a good chance you would injure yourself less than you intended.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

LOL! Sorry I had to run off like that! :bang:

Mulder, IMO, didn't spend enough time preparing his witnesses, or preparing for them. For instance, the prosecution held a mock trial where all of their witnesses got to watch a......dress rehearsal, if you will.....of everyone else's testimony. This was very helpful for LE, medical personnel, etc. to all be on the same page because they were coached before hand.

Mulder ran around the whole trail putting out fires in the courtroom. He should have provided a proactive defense. For instance, he should have retained Terry Laber, the forensic scientist hired by the public defender. Instead, he dismissed him.

Mulder allowed an extreme amount of damaging hearsay testimony to be heard by the jury.

I could go on.....but you get the picture. This was without a doubt one of the worst legal defenses of all time.

Frankly, Mulder had an idiot for a client, who has idiots for family members. You can be one of the best defense attorney . . . oh wait, he IS one of the best. Silly me. Anyway, you can put on the best defense ever seen in defense HISTORY, but if your client gets on the stand and starts telling lies to the jurors, your client is screwed.

 

[whitywendy]

Frankly, Mulder had an idiot for a client, who has idiots for family members. You can be one of the best defense attorney . . . oh wait, he IS one of the best. Silly me. Anyway, you can put on the best defense ever seen in defense HISTORY, but if your client gets on the stand and starts telling lies to the jurors, your client is screwed.

Perfectly stated Jeana!!! AND why didn't OJ get convicted. Because he and his family kept their mouths shut, of course this is MOO.

 

[CyberLaw]

When the client takes the stand, and then tells the "story" and then is crossed on the story, which is in conflict with the physical evidence, then the client will be found guilty. Just like Darlie was and is.

Unless there is "clear" and convincing evidence presented before a judge that "proves" Darlies's innocence or "new" evidence is discovered that would not nor could not be discovered at trial, then really in myu opinion Darlie does not have a chance.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

When the client takes the stand, and then tells the "story" and then is crossed on the story, which is in conflict with the physical evidence, then the client will be found guilty. Just like Darlie was and is.

Unless there is "clear" and convincing evidence presented before a judge that "proves" Darlies's innocence or "new" evidence is discovered that would not nor could not be discovered at trial, then really in myu opinion Darlie does not have a chance.

Even though I liked Toby Shook a hell of a lot before this trial, I never realized what an excellent trial attorney he was until his cross of Darlie. Hall of fame material!

 

[HarleyGuy]

I would like to challenge the ones who believe Darlie is innocent to consider this: a crime is committed in the REAL world. Nothing is ever KNOWN 100% in the REAL world..... There will always be aspects of this case that will make people uncomfortable. They didn't test this, they didn't investigate that...... It can and will go on forever.

I challenge the ones who think she is innocent to put aside for a minute what you are worried about. Whatever you are "unsure" of and look at what is known. All the details about the crime that are not really in dispute. Take this all in and then go to your gut and your common sense and ask yourself who did this..... It will come up that Darlie did it. You won't like it but that is the conclusion I think you will draw if you are honest with yourself. If you want to get hung up on details then I think you can probably find some doubt in almost any criminal case but if you really put this one to the "smell" test Darlie comes up real stinky. This is a Sherlock Holmes case, eliminate every possiblity that you can and what remains, no matter how hard to believe, is the truth.......

Was her trial fair???? Wow what a loaded question. I don't know how you would decide that. I do know she did not have much chance but perhaps that is one of the cases where the good guys win one..... if her original court appointed lawyers had not changed the venue to Kerrville she might have had some chance. If her legal defense had taken the approach to capitalize on the little redneck town and somehow made her look very pretty but innocent and perhaps hinted that there might have been some involvement by an intruder of another race...... this might have improved her odds. Also someone suggested she might be "too pretty" to have committed this crime. I know it sounds stupid but I think that would have been a very important aspect of how this should have been handled by the defense. If they could have controlled Darlie then they could have made her looks work in her favor.

I don't know what they paid Mulder but I would have expected more based on his rep. But no I am not a lawyer so I don't know what he should have done other than what I wrote above which would be sort of dirty and underhanded but we are talking criminal defense here......

Afer the Kerrville jury heard about her sex toys and the pot in the house and then she got on the stand and told the jury about how they would not understand how things are in such a big city as Dallas when they live out in the sticks.... I don't care if she was guilty or not, she would be found guilty.

I do think if she had lawyered up the very first day and not spoken to the cops and had a good lawyer direct their every move from the first day I think it would have been easy to get Darlie off. But I am glad they did not since I believe that she is guilty as sin.

 

[White Rain]

I would like to challenge the ones who believe Darlie is innocent to consider this: a crime is committed in the REAL world. Nothing is ever KNOWN 100% in the REAL world..... There will always be aspects of this case that will make people uncomfortable. They didn't test this, they didn't investigate that...... It can and will go on forever.

I challenge the ones who think she is innocent to put aside for a minute what you are worried about. Whatever you are "unsure" of and look at what is known. All the details about the crime that are not really in dispute. Take this all in and then go to your gut and your common sense and ask yourself who did this..... It will come up that Darlie did it. You won't like it but that is the conclusion I think you will draw if you are honest with yourself. If you want to get hung up on details then I think you can probably find some doubt in almost any criminal case but if you really put this one to the "smell" test Darlie comes up real stinky. This is a Sherlock Holmes case, eliminate every possiblity that you can and what remains, no matter how hard to believe, is the truth.......

Was her trial fair???? Wow what a loaded question. I don't know how you would decide that. I do know she did not have much chance but perhaps that is one of the cases where the good guys win one..... if her original court appointed lawyers had not changed the venue to Kerrville she might have had some chance. If her legal defense had taken the approach to capitalize on the little redneck town and somehow made her look very pretty but innocent and perhaps hinted that there might have been some involvement by an intruder of another race...... this might have improved her odds. Also someone suggested she might be "too pretty" to have committed this crime. I know it sounds stupid but I think that would have been a very important aspect of how this should have been handled by the defense. If they could have controlled Darlie then they could have made her looks work in her favor.

I don't know what they paid Mulder but I would have expected more based on his rep. But no I am not a lawyer so I don't know what he should have done other than what I wrote above which would be sort of dirty and underhanded but we are talking criminal defense here......

Afer the Kerrville jury heard about her sex toys and the pot in the house and then she got on the stand and told the jury about how they would not understand how things are in such a big city as Dallas when they live out in the sticks.... I don't care if she was guilty or not, she would be found guilty.

I do think if she had lawyered up the very first day and not spoken to the cops and had a good lawyer direct their every move from the first day I think it would have been easy to get Darlie off. But I am glad they did not since I believe that she is guilty as sin.

I have news for you...there are people in little "redneck" towns all over who smoke pot and use sex toys. I REALLY don't think either one of these were a big factor in determining her guilt.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I have news for you...there are people in little "redneck" towns all over who smoke pot and use sex toys. I REALLY don't think either one of these were a big factor in determining her guilt.

I agree.