Darlie's "Hypnosis"

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Pocono wrote: This very case is used in law schools to show the mistakes made on both sides.

That sounds suspiciously like an old saying from the Darlie supporters...with a new twist. I've heard it a million times:

"This very case is used in police training academies to show cops how NOT to investigate a crime scene."

A new and improved line of attack, ha ha!
 
Pocono Sleuther said:
The change of venue to Kerrville screwed Darlie over big time.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the jurors weren't capable of rendering a just verdict, simply because they happened to live in a conservative area? Ouch!

Pocono Sleuther said:
She should have been off of ALL medications by the time the trial began so as to avoid the flat/non emotional appearance antidepressants etc can give.

Selective meds...sort of like selective memory. Darlie didn't cry when describing her sons' deaths but, boy, she turned on the faucet when caught in her endless lies.

Pocono Sleuther said:
In another state, she would have had one by now.
Click to expand...

Maybe in an altered state of consciousness, but not in these here United States.
Click to expand...
 
I KNOW they had the opportunity to introduce the entire tape. That was exactly my point! They DIDN"T!

A lawyer is instructed by his client. You can try time and time again to "convince" the client that yes, you are the lawyer, yes, you went to law school, yes, you passed the bar, yes, you are qualified. But in the end, the choice is up to the client. One of the reason that I can think of why the tape was not entered was a)the huge difference between a mother mourning the death of her two boys, in cut off shorts and chomping gum, looking sad to the extreme opposite of "having a party on the grave" of two murdered children. All in a very short time frame. You don't go from "sad" to a party mood in a very short time. It defies logic.

Remember Darlie invited the media to the party, she enjoyed the attention, she loved it, she craved it, as Darlie is all about Darlie. When a person has a personality disorder, they have none if any "self reflection of their actions. Was there even a tape of the alleged mourning. Remember this was well before Darlie "thought" she was a suspect and her "story was not believed by the Police".

Yes I would have played on the depression factor. She was SICK! Her husband did nothing to help her mental health. And I wholly disagree with your statement of someone who is depressed is less likely to commit a crime. I could provide you with a very long and scary list of crimes commited by depressed persons I have treated. They are desperate and see no way out of their problems. It's a very dark place to find yourself in. Depending on the level of depression, time left untreated, and type of depression, some commit crimes as a way of acting out and crying for help.

You cannot have it both ways. I am innocent, but depressed. An intruder killed my kids, but I am depressed so I am more likely to have killed my kids. You cannot "blame" the crime on someone else and stick with that story, then try to minimize you responsibility by saying, I am depressed. You see if you "claim" depression you will be required to undergo a psych exam. This is something that I am sure the defense wanted to keep out. Also, what evidence leads to the conclusion that Darlie was depressed. Nothing. But she sure felt sorry for herself when she was arrested. Mental state is mitigation in a crime.

Darlie does not and will not receive a "new" trial. Just because the defense choose the way to present their trial and evidence does not lead one to believe that opps, lets try it again. The trial was fair, the verdict was just. There was a lot more to the trial then Darlie's alleged mental state and medication or lack thereof.

No "new" evidence has been presented. Can you imagine a justice system that because of how a trial was presented or the method at trial requires a new trial. Darlie was convicted on evidence. Darlie was convicted because of her self serving lies. Darlie was convicted because she killed her two boys. Darlie will not receive a new trial and Darlie will go to her death professing her innocence. Just because you do not like a verdict, does not mean you get to have another bite at the apple to get the verdict you want. That is akin to a new trial.





 
cami said:
Yes I'd like to know the answer to that as well. And why she/he thinks this trial was unfair. Why would a law professor bring this case to his class...all you have to do is follow the blood evidence and you know who's guilty. Perhaps the state should have waited to arrest until they had more of an air tight case....she wasn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...

I was a she last time I checked. :rolleyes: :crazy:
And now that we have that cleared up: I never said the trial was unfair. I said I believe Darlie deserved a new trial. I also agree with you on the forensics. I have two main issues with this case. The first being her level of mental illness and second being Darin. NOW don't get these confused with reasons I think she deserves a new trial. These are just my two main points of contention.
There are many reasons I believe she deserves a new trial. A few were outlined in my long, red post above. I see someone twisted what I said regarding Kerrville being conservative to mean they couldn't provide a decent jury or something of that nature. That is not at all what I said. I disagreed with the change of venue and try as you may, you will not dissuade my beliefs on that point.
I have to pick my girls up from school right now, but I'll be back to post more later on...after supper and soccer and homework. LOL

Guys, I really do not believe an intruder did it. I am researching this particular case for my thesis. I see mistakes. OK. I want to debate and get both sides. I am playing devils advocate on this one. None of us really know what happened at 5801 Eagle Drive that night. Or, for that matter, what factors led up to that night.
 
Pocono Sleuther said:
I was a she last time I checked. :rolleyes: :crazy:
And now that we have that cleared up: I never said the trial was unfair. I said I believe Darlie deserved a new trial. I also agree with you on the forensics. I have two main issues with this case. The first being her level of mental illness and second being Darin. NOW don't get these confused with reasons I think she deserves a new trial. These are just my two main points of contention.
There are many reasons I believe she deserves a new trial. A few were outlined in my long, red post above. I see someone twisted what I said regarding Kerrville being conservative to mean they couldn't provide a decent jury or something of that nature. That is not at all what I said. I disagreed with the change of venue and try as you may, you will not dissuade my beliefs on that point.
I have to pick my girls up from school right now, but I'll be back to post more later on...after supper and soccer and homework. LOL

Guys, I really do not believe an intruder did it. I am researching this particular case for my thesis. I see mistakes. OK. I want to debate and get both sides. I am playing devils advocate on this one. None of us really know what happened at 5801 Eagle Drive that night. Or, for that matter, what factors led up to that night.
Click to expand...



Which is why so many people are interested. Not knowing why keeps me interested.

Glad to know you are a SHE...:) Your name didn't give any hints.

Anyhow, I am up in the air on a new trial. This is why I was asking why this case was being discussed in classes.
 
Blondieskatz said:
I'm confused Cami by reading your response to my post and to Pocono I can't decide if you think she's innocent or guilty. Which one is it? Not being confrontational just curious. :)

If you do think she is innocent; who do you think did it?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion. Oh no, I believe she's guilty as sin that one.
 
Pocono Sleuther said:
I was a she last time I checked. :rolleyes: :crazy:
And now that we have that cleared up: I never said the trial was unfair. I said I believe Darlie deserved a new trial. I also agree with you on the forensics. I have two main issues with this case. The first being her level of mental illness and second being Darin. NOW don't get these confused with reasons I think she deserves a new trial. These are just my two main points of contention.
There are many reasons I believe she deserves a new trial. A few were outlined in my long, red post above. I see someone twisted what I said regarding Kerrville being conservative to mean they couldn't provide a decent jury or something of that nature. That is not at all what I said. I disagreed with the change of venue and try as you may, you will not dissuade my beliefs on that point.
I have to pick my girls up from school right now, but I'll be back to post more later on...after supper and soccer and homework. LOL

Guys, I really do not believe an intruder did it. I am researching this particular case for my thesis. I see mistakes. OK. I want to debate and get both sides. I am playing devils advocate on this one. None of us really know what happened at 5801 Eagle Drive that night. Or, for that matter, what factors led up to that night.
Click to expand...

Okay not trying to change your beliefs in anything. The defence asked for the change of venue so it's on their shoulders. I think mistakes are always made...we are human after all as are the prosecutors and judges. However, I don't see mistakes that should grant Darlie a new trial.

Let's get debating then. what mistakes do you see. As for change of venue, I believe Darlie would have been convicted and given the DP had she been tried in Dallas. I don't think the defence had any case for reasonable doubt, they had nothing to work with, Darlie is so obviously guilty of this crime.
 
From juniordetective: Pocono Sleuther, I hope you will excuse me for the way my comments are posted, but I have to post through Jeana since I am not allowed to post directly. You have said that, "None of us really know what happened at 5801 Eagle Drive that night. Or, for that matter, what factors led up to that night." I believe that it is more accurate to say that most of us don't know what happened because we have not put the evidence in the proper context. However, there are people who do so for a living and all you have to do is analyze the evidence the way they do. The mistake everyone is making is trying to figure out the crime logically. It is not obvious what happened, so the logic is easily manipulated. When you switch to a memory-based approach, which is the way a crime scene analyst would look at it, you start to understand that the killing is a rage killing (six knife wounds in the one kid's back qualifies), yet not a homicidal rage because the attack is not sustained enough (only 10 knife wounds total between the two kids), but also not a quick kill, such as we would have if this killing were for money (which typically involves a shot to the head). The only category left is a jealous rage, where the anger wears off fairly quickly. What I always hear is, "Why would Darlie be jealous of Damon and Devon?" Simple, because she came from an impoverished background, escaped it with the help of her only ability, the gift of manipulation, spent like there was no tomorrow when Darin came into money, fixed up things for the kids so they would not have the childhood she had, then found out when the money started running out that she was headed back to her worst fear, that impoverished childhood, while the two kids were getting to stay at what came to be known as "Nintendo House." During the fight on June 5th/June 6th, she tried her great manipulative trick on Darin, "we need to separate" (translation: "hand over the money") only to have it blow up in her face when Darin told her, "Good. Leave. And Don't Ever Come Back" (translation: I don't have it right now and I need some breathing room). This killing is entirely consistent with a control freak like Darlie losing control over things and going ballistic, and the rage wore off quickly because the anger primarily involved Darin, and not the boys. Really, most of this is simply Crime Scene Analysis 101. Like many people, Darlie had a fear of poverty, but her fear was even more intense because she had already been there. That's also why she was contemplating suicide one month before the boys were killed (remember, she wrote in her suicidal thoughts note, "My life has been a hard fight for such a long time….). It wasn't the lack of money per se that was weighing on her, but the ugly consequence of running out of money, returning to poverty, that explains the suicidal thoughts episode and the killing of the boys one month later.

You also said, "Darlie deserves a new trial." I respect your opinion, but my question is "to try what?" A jury trial is held to try some factual issue, but there is no factual issue remaining in this case. Please take a look at paragraph two of the opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dated May 21, 2003 where it says, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction,…" There is no other way to read that than that the defense has conceded she is the assailant in this case. That is why, absent some extremely unforeseen development, she will not be granted a new trial. The defense in that appeal also raised 14 points of error about why she did not get a fair trial and was shot down on all of them. The question of whether she got a fair trial is a legal question to be handled by the courts and not by a jury, and I believe that is the only point that is going to be raised in the remaining proceedings. From what I can see, there is absolutely no reason to grant a new trial in this case.
 
"paragraph two of the opinion of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dated May 21, 2003 where it says, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction,…" There is no other way to read that than that the defense has conceded she is the assailant in this case. That is why, absent some extremely unforeseen development, she will not be granted a new trial. The defense in that appeal also raised 14 points of error about why she did not get a fair trial and was shot down on all of them. The question of whether she got a fair trial is a legal question to be handled by the courts and not by a jury, and I believe that is the only point that is going to be raised in the remaining proceedings. From what I can see, there is absolutely no reason to grant a new trial in this case."

I agree. To do so only to placate a certain segment of the public's opinion would be a waste of resources. I firmly believe that if her trial had not been moved she would have been convicted, and if another trial were to be granted imo she'd be convicted with the dp again. I also believe she received a fair trial, and that she and her attorney's had every opportunity to raise issues in the first trial and ample opportunity to prove she didn't do it.

They didn't and she sits where she belongs.
 
Jr. Detective: First, I must admit I am nosy and out-spoken, that being said, why must you post under Jeana's name? Did you not use to post here with that name? Or was that someone else ? Anyhow, I thought your post was intriguing.
 
Whitywendy--I have to post through Jeana because I have a company computer and the company has a policy of not allowing employees to post on web blogs, although they let their employees e-mail as much as they want. I asked if I could work on this case as a volunteer project and the company declined. I then asked if the policy could be waived and they again declined. I understand that the reason is so employees aren't posting to web blogs all day long. I then obtained permission to e-mail my thoughts to Jeana and that was approved. I know it seems a little bit mysterious, but it is the company's equipment, so I have to abide by their rules. I started posting around April of 2006 and, at first, my writings only appeared under Jeana's name. Since I concluded that I was probably confusing everyone, I decided to byline my material. I wrote the sections titled sections one, two, three, and four, as well as the entry titled "motive." I know that my theory is different than everyone else's theory or theories, but I have been looking at the problem of the "Phantom/Intruder" ever since I got whipped by Charles Stuart in 1989 (I fell hook, line, and sinker for his claim that a robber shot his wife in the head, as did everyone else) and couldn't make a decision in the Susan Smith case in 1994 (I thought there was possibly a carjacker, but remembered getting fooled in the previous case). After two more phantom cases, I started seeing the pattern about how the phony phantom or phony intruder shows up when he needs to show up, to bail out the chief suspect, and only shows up under certain circumstances. I then went back historically to the Sam Sheppard case in 1954--I didn't want to go too far back--and analyzed many cases from that point forward. At some point, I took everything I learned and applied it to the Darlie Routier case, and that is when I sent Jeana my conclusions. Just to show you that I can't make this stuff up, since I finished my main writing regarding this case the phantom has shown up again in the Carlos Perez-Olivio case and the Amanda Reagan Smith case. Do you ever wonder why the phantom or intruder struggles with people like Sam Sheppard, Darlie Routier, Carlos Perez-Olivio, Amanda Reagan Smith, Susan Smith, Jeffrey MacDonald, Julie Harper, and so on, and always manages to get away? I don't suspect that anyone can catch what doesn't exist!
 
Mary456 said:
Pocono wrote: This very case is used in law schools to show the mistakes made on both sides.

That sounds suspiciously like an old saying from the Darlie supporters...with a new twist. I've heard it a million times:

"This very case is used in police training academies to show cops how NOT to investigate a crime scene."

A new and improved line of attack, ha ha!
Click to expand...

LOL, exactly Mary.
 
I never read anything about the regression therapy. Guess the outcome was bad just like the lie detector test she failed.
 
JenniferTx said:
I never read anything about the regression therapy. Guess the outcome was bad just like the lie detector test she failed.
Click to expand...

I don't see how regression therapy would be relevant anyway. I had a psychologist try to hypnotize me one time, it doesn't work, at least not with me. Maybe if they used that truth drug, can't think of the name. But I seriously doubt that Darlie would ever do that anyway. JMO
 
In an August 1998, report Anne Zimmerman of the Dallas Observer said that Darlie had undergone regression therapy. This supposedly helped Darlie remember that there had been 2 intruders, although she saw only one leave.
 
Crow_Ascending said:
In an August 1998, report Anne Zimmerman of the Dallas Observer said that Darlie had undergone regression therapy. This supposedly helped Darlie remember that there had been 2 intruders, although she saw only one leave.
Click to expand...

So that was all that she remembered is that were two intruders instead of one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 319 (members: 84, guests: 235)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
235
Total visitors
319
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,561
Messages
18,241,320
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top