Darlie's injuries

[whitywendy]

Just like you have the facts that you have been presented with as do I. Why is that so hard to understand? As far as the transcripts, when I see proof that they have been tainted how can you really have that much faith in them? Maybe you think I don't have enough faith in them, but I think you have too much faith in them. I am not saying that I agree with how she may have reacted during this situation, but based on that alone you seem to have convicted her just on that. Just because people don't act the way you think they should during a trauma or maybe the way you did during what happened to you doesn't mean that they are guilty. I have been told I am not looking for the truth or seeing the evidence, but all I am hearing from everyone is that there is so much trust in the transcripts that were screwed with and what proof is there that says that there aren't other parts that weren't messed with as well. The 1st transcriber tried to cover her mistakes why not someone else? That really isnt so far fetched. I hear you basing your guilty verdict on her behavior alone. If she did it then why is the state of Texas keep denying her the DNA tests that are newer? If she is so guilty then lets get on with it and see who's fingerprints and hairs it really is and if it is hers like it's being said then let her hang herself, but I am sorry there is still that reasonable doubt for me. I am not saying that all the transcripts are wrong, but because of the screw up that was made, it's not so credable, just like the little pickings everyone has for everything Darlie has reacted too or she didn't do this the way I would have or they would have I feel the same about the transcripts that were messed with.believe in what you have read and so do I, but it just seems funny how evidence in her favor just can't possibly be true, but the transcripts that HAVE been proven to have been messed with you believe every word.

First of all do you understand the liability that the State of Texas would be under if they just decided to fill in the blanks or revise the transcripts to their liking. Oh and why just Darlie's? Hey lets just throw our entire legal system out the window and let all of our "innocent" prisoners go home.

If you had read all of my posts which I know you haven't, you would know that her reactions had nothing to do with me believing in her guilt. I HAVE READ EVERY LEGAL DOC that I could get my hands on to base my decision. The blood evidence and lack of evidence of an intruder is what sealed it for me.

 

[Missi]

First of all do you understand the liability that the State of Texas would be under if they just decided to fill in the blanks or revise the transcripts to their liking. Oh and why just Darlie's? Hey lets just throw our entire legal system out the window and let all of our "innocent" prisoners go home.

If you had read all of my posts which I know you haven't, you would know that her reactions had nothing to do with me believing in her guilt. I HAVE READ EVERY LEGAL DOC that I could get my hands on to base my decision. The blood evidence and lack of evidence of an intruder is what sealed it for me.

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

 

[whitywendy]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

Hey I am all for testing the evidence with the new DNA techniques. Yes by all means test and retest just to make sure we are not putting to death the wrong person. I never said that they shouldn't retest these items. BUT IMHO, it will all still point to Darlie. I never wanted to believe that Darlie was capable of murdering her two little boys, but the EVIDENCE, esp. the blood points right at her.

What blood evidence do you believe points in a different direction?

 

[Dena]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

The evidence is really quite overwhelming. It's been well documented, even aside from the transcripts about how many times Darlie has changed her story.
The issue with the transcripts was handled. There were typos, things of that nature. Conversations were not added from out of nowhere. The testimonies are still there, Darlie's stories are still there. The Darlies like to make a big deal out of the original errors because it works in their favor to get people to believe their story.
You say you don't see how Darlie is guilty, I don't see how she isn't. I see no reasonable doubt. The blood evidence points to her and no one else.

 

[Mountaineer]

The transcripts are out there - made public for anybody and everybody to read.

You claim that we can't rely on the transcripts to give us the FACTS that prove she is guilty, because the transcripts are wrong. If there are errors in the transcripts that are that BIG...don't you think someone...anyone...that was in the courtroom during the trial would have spoken up by now? You can bet the atttorneys on both sides, probably most if not all jurors, the judge, several other court reports, and various others who witnessed the trial - have all read through them. Don't you think they would have said something? Don't you think Darlie's family would have said something?

I believe the "meat" part of the transcripts are an accurate record of what was testified to in that courtroom. There may still be typos - but that does not change the FACTS that were presented into evidence. Those FACTS prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she is guilty.

 

[wasapi]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

I'm curious, do you also believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent? I am wondering because in my opinion it seems that Camp-Darlie uses simalar tactics. It is very much like a strawman tactic in debate. They attack the nature of people on the opposing side. It is often useful in obfuscating evidence. So, by focusing on Furman lying and not being a nice person, blood evidence be damned.

And of course there are some "innocent people in jail". And? The evidence, if you choose to closely scrutinize it, proves that Darlie isn't one of them.

Julia

 

[Kitty5001]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

Missi-
How do you explain the blood in and on the sink when sprayed with luminol? That is a fact (the intruder did not wash his hands before he left)

How do you explain that the blood droplets were found under the broken glass (FACT) when she stated that she chased the intruder out and knocked the glass over during that point then turns and walks back to the light switch all that walking with cut arm and neck and bloody knife the intruder is holding while running out of the kitchen yet not ONE single drop of blood on top of that broken glass

How do you explain not one single drop of blood ( the crime scene photos show massive amounts of blood all over the carpet) outside the house -not even one drop outside the house. Did the intruder shower before he left and wear plastic booties over his shoes that he removed in the utility room?

 

[CyberLaw]

Also why is the vacuum over the glass if Darlie and the "intruder" knocked it over while she was chasing him She broke the glass and then turned over the vacuum.

People try to stage crime scenes, but cannot follow a "logical" progression that is fabricated and not based in fact. A cop knows when a crime scene has been "staged". There was more damage in the kitchen with Darlie chasing the "intruder" then in the living room during the "life and death" struggle and two murders. In the living room, a lamp shade was askew and a vase with delicate flowers(no stems or flowers broken) on the floor, as if place on the floor so not to damage the flowers. An affinity to "personal" possessions that does not fit the "crime" scene is a first clue to staging.

Criminals do not care what belongs to you, but the person whom it belongs to does. Even days later, when Darlie went to the house, death still hung in the air and all she was concerned with was how much it would cost to clean up the mess. Not that the mess was the result of her two boys being viciously stabbed to death, she did not even show any emotion as she saw the blood of her children.

 

[Missi]

whity wendy - you stated that you used to think darlie was innocent, what changed your mind & what are the reasons why you think shes guilty.


Nicola - I use to believe she was innocent because I just couldn't believe a mother could do that to her kids. At first I thought that Darren had hired someone to to kill her and with the boys being downstairs they were in the "way". Then I saw the "silly string" grave party and couldn't believe a mother that had just had her "BABIES" murdered , and "was left for dead" herself could be so freakin HAPPY.

When the trial was going on I was in California so I didn't get the daily updates as when I lived in Texas but the LA Times covered the story on the front page after she was found guilty but before they sent her to DP. After reading what the LA Times wrote I starting wondering if they were infact sending the wrong person to jail. I mean murdering your kids for $10,000 just didn't fit. If they were interfering with her lifestyle all she had to do was leave Darren with the kids and go find her a new RICH man. After all, according to the reports she was a VERY ATTRACTIVE WOMEN. Years later I came across the write up in Crime Storys. At the end of the article, the writer lead you to believe that she might not be guilty after all. So of course that sparked my Darlie Routier interest again. I started with the site her family has and began reading everything I could find. The unidentifed fingerprint on the utility door, and sofa table, the missing knife, the mysterious black car, Darren looking for someone to break into the home... and of course as the website states "the BLOODY SOCK". At the Justice for Darlie website I found the pictures and the trial transcripts along with other articles. At this point I really believed she was innocent and that the State of Texas had the wrong person. (LAPD IS CORRUPT SO WHY NOT TEXAS TOO)?

Anyhow, after months of reading the transcripts from beginning to end, I BECAME CONVINCED THAT THIS MOTHER MURDERED HER BOYS. WHY?

1. 911 call - Screaming/yelling that her babies ARE DEAD, when in fact one was staring right at her trying to breathe. SO concerned that her fingerprints were on the knife. NOT rendering AID to her sons. Doesn't even mention the fact that there is a 8 month old upstairs -how did she know that Drake was unharmed? Someone came in and intentionally did this DARREN. Why the word "intentionally"? Anytime someone commits any type of crime its intentional not accidental.

2. NEVER ONCE asking about her babies on the way to the hospital or at the hospital. Her lack of emotion when seeing Damon bloody, naked and dead.

3. Blood evidence, lack of evidence of an intruder, her changing stories. Yes I know that when we experience something so devasting that we aren't going to remember each and every detail but her statements changed to match the evidence as it was discovered.

4. Her injuries. Now think about it. If someone came into that house with every intention of killing HER, why then were her injuries so slight in comparison to her sons. IF SHE WAS THE INTENDED TARGET, SHE WOULD BE DEAD NOT HER BABIES. No injury to her face, chest.

I got to go right now, my son wants me OFF the computer so I will have to finish up later but this should give you a good idea.

We must have heard a completely different 911 call because what I heard is the opposite of what you are saying and I just listened to the call and I have the transcripts of the call right in front of me. Darlie was hysterical on the phone, the operator told her several times that she needed to calm down. She didn't say that her son was dead at first, she said her babies are dying, she told Damon to "hold on honey". Eventually she did say "Oh my God my baby is dead" but right after she was still, like I said, telling Damon to hold on. She didn't even bring the fact up about touching the knife until the operator told her not to touch the knife, then she said she had already touched it and picked it up. She's begging the operator to have the ambulance hurry because her babies are dying. She was crying during the whole conversation. The operator says, and I quote, "hysterical female on the phone". She told her to calm down 4 times in less then 6 minutes. I think you need to go listen to the 911 call again and get your facts staight.

 

[Missi]

I hear a lot of people basing a lot of things on Darlie's "behavior" and my question is .....Has anyone ever been in shock or even know what can happen when your in shock? I guess that doesn't count though.
DEFINITION OF SHOCK: 1 : a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties
Maybe that could explain all that "cold heartedness" you all claim she had...it really is a real condition and thats a FACT

 

[sherri79]

I hear a lot of people basing a lot of things on Darlie's "behavior" and my question is .....Has anyone ever been in shock or even know what can happen when your in shock? I guess that doesn't count though.
DEFINITION OF SHOCK: 1 : a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties
Maybe that could explain all that "cold heartedness" you all claim she had...it really is a real condition and thats a FACT

just how long was she in shock? ok maybe i buy shock caused her to act off on the phone. i doubt shock made her stage the scene. maybe shock is why she didnt mind her dead son lying next to her in the hospital. shock dose not explain how her kids are cut to ribbons and she is so lightly injured she can party at their grave. shock might explain why she cant remember everything that night. it wont explain why she regains memorys that fit evidence as it is found.

eta. since this thread is about her wounds... shock will not explain how her hands and arms are not cut to shreds. they call them defensive wounds for a reason.

 

[whitywendy]

We must have heard a completely different 911 call because what I heard is the opposite of what you are saying and I just listened to the call and I have the transcripts of the call right in front of me. Darlie was hysterical on the phone, the operator told her several times that she needed to calm down. She didn't say that her son was dead at first, she said her babies are dying, she told Damon to "hold on honey". Eventually she did say "Oh my God my baby is dead" but right after she was still, like I said, telling Damon to hold on. She didn't even bring the fact up about touching the knife until the operator told her not to touch the knife, then she said she had already touched it and picked it up. She's begging the operator to have the ambulance hurry because her babies are dying. She was crying during the whole conversation. The operator says, and I quote, "hysterical female on the phone". She told her to calm down 4 times in less then 6 minutes. I think you need to go listen to the 911 call again and get your facts staight.

Hey Missy how do you know if tears were streaming down her face. Where you there in that house when she was on the phone? I think not. Just because someone is yelling and screaming into the phone doesn't mean she is crying. You have no proof she cried actual tears during that call. AND SHE DID SAY THAT HER BABIES ARE DEAD. . She says more than once. She also said "I think I'm dying". AND in regards to the knife, when someone is in the midst of a traumatic situation and their only concern is the well being of the babies, then why make the comment in your NORMAL TONE of voice, that "we might of been able to get prints" why throw that out there? WHY with everything going on bring it up at that point? She was just the 911 operator, not the police. WHY BECAUSE SHE WAS ALREADY IN COVER UP MODE. Yes she told her to calm down, I said in my original post to Nicola that she was yelling and screaming. YELLING AND SCREAMING DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN YOUR ACTUALLY CRYING. It sounds like you are taking my words and twisting them to your liking. AND if you are going to dispute my posts, then make sure your eyes are actually reading what I typed!

I told you before Missy - When you want to dispute something that I am stating is a fact with your facts, you must PROVE IT. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true. PROVE IT. Attach a link to your resources so I can fairly debate your so called facts. If you can't do that, then stop wasting my time.

 

[whitywendy]

I hear a lot of people basing a lot of things on Darlie's "behavior" and my question is .....Has anyone ever been in shock or even know what can happen when your in shock? I guess that doesn't count though.
DEFINITION OF SHOCK: 1 : a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties
Maybe that could explain all that "cold heartedness" you all claim she had...it really is a real condition and thats a FACT

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE TRANSCRIPTS MISSY THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THE EMTS STATED THAT SHE WAS NOT IN SHOCK. Her blood pressure was NOT LOW - system of shock. Her coloring was normal and so was her thinking according to the EMT'S.

You know what happens when your are in shock, your blood pressure drops which causes some people to pass out/faint. Even your hearing is some what strange, as if you are in a tunnel. AND everything is in very SLOW MOTION until your blood pressure returns to normal. Read the transcripts if you want to debate correctly.

 

[CyberLaw]

Darlie can put on a good "front" especially at trial and in the 911 call, but of course she could not "fake" shock and low blood pressure.

 

[whitywendy]

Darlie can put on a good "front" especially at trial and in the 911 call, but of course she could not "fake" shock and low blood pressure.

EXACTLY!!!!!! Thanks CyberLaw.

 

[whitywendy]

Missy - when someone cries hysterically as you are saying Darlie was doing during that 911 call, then she would of had the sniffles. Do you know what sniffles are? Why don't we hear her sniffles on that 911 call? Because she was SCREAMING AND YELLING. NOT CRYING TEARS FOR BABIES. The first time that Darlie actually CRIED was when they ARRESTED HER. The first time she cried hysterically was at the bond hearing. AND THAT IS A FACT! READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.

You have the right to believe that Darlie is innocent. As I have the right to believe she is guilty. But you don't have the right to go around shouting facts when they are your opinions. Read the Rules here and you will see that you can not state something as a FACT unless it is an actual FACT and you provide your sources. YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS!

 

[CyberLaw]

Beliefs are not facts, opinions are not facts, facts are based in reality and can be proven or dis proven. The law is based in fact so is evidence. I agree with Wendy, keep discussion and debate to factual content and do not muddy the water, create smoke and mirrors by stating opinions and beliefs as facts because they are not

Facts and evidence lead to her conviction that is not disputed. Evidence does not lie.

If I recall correctly, was Darlie not moving from room to room as she was making the 911 call. I thought I recalled something to this effect and this was proven at trial. She was on a cordless phone. Why was she moving from room to room when her boys were lying bleeding in the living room. I would be right beside the injured person and would only move to the kitchen to get towels or other items to administer first aid. A person can say: I was no where near the crime, no where near the house, I was at home, but guess what cell phone records(as in evidence) are introduced to prove the person was not where they said they were.

The boys were killed on June 6, 1996 which was a Thursday, and released from the Hospital on Saturday and went by the Police station and she was laughing and joking. The Police decided to "be a little" more graphic and Darlie again did not shed a tear. She just said: I know that this must be "hard" on you all(insert Texas slang here). She changed her story to fit the evidence as in many, many stories and then when the boys birthday party at the grave came, she was "smacking" gun, dressed in cut off shorts, laughing, and was happy as could be. Now is that the conduct of a "grieving" mother who saw two dead boys who are her sons, viciously brutally stabbed to death. That would be no, what mother is happy that her two kids are dead. Only the mothers that kill their kids.

Like the husband who was eventually charged and convicted of his wife's murder. He "skipped" out of the funeral home of the services to the car. Skipping.......and with a smile on his face. The relatives who saw this knew he had killed her. Which he did. He just thought that he got away with it just like Darlie was happy that she thought she got away with the murders.

Remember when you choose the behavior you choose the consequences of that behavior. Personality denotes behavior.

 

[Missi]

Missy - when someone cries hysterically as you are saying Darlie was doing during that 911 call, then she would of had the sniffles. Do you know what sniffles are? Why don't we hear her sniffles on that 911 call? Because she was SCREAMING AND YELLING. NOT CRYING TEARS FOR BABIES. The first time that Darlie actually CRIED was when they ARRESTED HER. The first time she cried hysterically was at the bond hearing. AND THAT IS A FACT! READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.

You have the right to believe that Darlie is innocent. As I have the right to believe she is guilty. But you don't have the right to go around shouting facts when they are your opinions. Read the Rules here and you will see that you can not state something as a FACT unless it is an actual FACT and you provide your sources. YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS!

You all say that "opinions are not facts", but you all have opinions about this, there are a lot of statements that are opinions and not facts. Niether one of us REALLY knows everything that happened, and if you feel like I am wasting your time, then I feel the same. I have written 11 FACTS down and it seems you don't want to see that. What makes you an expert on FACTS when you won't look at all of it, just what suits what you believe. At least I am willing and HAVE looked at all facts good or bad and still am. I have read the rules and I know what I have seen as FACTS, it's just not what you want to hear. So therefore to you it isnt a fact, you might want to review the rules again too because I hear a lot of opinions from you as well and not facts. You get your facts from the transcripts, which you already know how I feel about that, and I get my facts from other sources of which I know how you feel about that. Fact: the transcripts were messed with. Fact: not everyone cries the same way. My sister can produce NO tears, does that mean she doesn't really cry? What I don't think you realize is since we've been debating, I have been researching what you and others have been saying and I just don't see what you are seeing. When I read what you said about the 911 call, I went and listened to it again and got my printed transcripts of the 911 call out to see if I missed something and I just don't see what you are saying. I did give you FACTS from the call, not my opinions and FACTS from other sources, not my opinions.

 

[whitywendy]

You all say that "opinions are not facts", but you all have opinions about this, there are a lot of statements that are opinions and not facts. Niether one of us REALLY knows everything that happened, and if you feel like I am wasting your time, then I feel the same. I have written 11 FACTS down and it seems you don't want to see that. What makes you an expert on FACTS when you won't look at all of it, just what suits what you believe. At least I am willing and HAVE looked at all facts good or bad and still am. I have read the rules and I know what I have seen as FACTS, it's just not what you want to hear. So therefore to you it isnt a fact, you might want to review the rules again too because I hear a lot of opinions from you as well and not facts. You get your facts from the transcripts, which you already know how I feel about that, and I get my facts from other sources of which I know how you feel about that. Fact: the transcripts were messed with. Fact: not everyone cries the same way. My sister can produce NO tears, does that mean she doesn't really cry? What I don't think you realize is since we've been debating, I have been researching what you and others have been saying and I just don't see what you are seeing. When I read what you said about the 911 call, I went and listened to it again and got my printed transcripts of the 911 call out to see if I missed something and I just don't see what you are saying. I did give you FACTS from the call, not my opinions and FACTS from other sources, not my opinions.

Missy, anytime I post something that is of my opinion, I state that IMO....... and when I state as a fact, I tell you were this fact is found. SO huh? Where in my posts do you find that I am stating my opinions as facts?
You on the other hand stated for a fact that Darlie was crying hysterically through out the 911 cry. I said she was yelling and screaming, which is exactly what she was doing.

The transcripts are IN FACT A LEGAL RECORD OF THE ACTUAL TRIAL. There were only 2 volumes that Simmons would not certify due to the fact that she did not have the actual audio tapes to go by. And those two volumes were obviously not crucial to the trial because the transcripts were certified to be a True and Accurate account of the trial. Darlie and her lawyers agreed that the trial transcripts were accurate and that is why she is sitting on death row without a new freaking trial. Remember I suggested to you to read Judge Francis's Final ruling. Well obviously you haven't.

You can use the so-called error (corrected) transcripts as your excuse to dismiss anything I say but until you can PROVE to me that the actual events that we are all privy to through the reading of the transcripts is null and void (inaccurate and determined by a COURT OF LAW) quit telling me that my facts are wrong. IF YOU ARE REALLY IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH STOP YOUR SARCASTIC REMARKS. I bet you don't post at other sites with the attitude you brought here. oh yea and that is IMHO.

 

[Mountaineer]

Missi - can you please provide for us a link to where you are getting your "FACTS" from please. Wendy and others have told you where they are getting their facts - you should provide the same.