Darlie's injuries

[DebC]

No, I didn't follow the trial. But let me guess, it was a masked/unidentifieable stranger rapist who was never found...

Ding. Ding. Ding. You are a winner!!

 

[whitywendy]

Medea - there is only one juror who is saying he didn't see all the pictures, non of the other jurors have stated this. Also Darlie's attorney stated that all the pic's were shown. And in regards to the somber video, IMO there isn't one. Think about it. If there was actually video footage of Darlie weeping over her sons graves don't you think the defense would of shown this video to show the grieving mother. The Silly String video does have significance, it shows a completely bruise less Darlie, smiling and looking happy. Do you think you would feel and behave as she did just 2 weeks after the murder of your kids. And no medication in the world can mask feeling that intense. I don't care what people say, NO WAY!!!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree that the silly string video is significant and does have a place in the trial. What the jury chooses to focus on isn't up to the prosecution. They didn't show it eight times, the jury watched it eight times. ANY jury would find that video to be relevant because of what is missing from it. And that is a mother who is mourning her dead children. That is conspiciously absent from that video. How can that NOT be relevant to a murder trial?

 

[Medea]

Medea - there is only one juror who is saying he didn't see all the pictures, non of the other jurors have stated this. Also Darlie's attorney stated that all the pic's were shown. And in regards to the somber video, IMO there isn't one. Think about it. If there was actually video footage of Darlie weeping over her sons graves don't you think the defense would of shown this video to show the grieving mother. The Silly String video does have significance, it shows a completely bruise less Darlie, smiling and looking happy. Do you think you would feel and behave as she did just 2 weeks after the murder of your kids. And no medication in the world can mask feeling that intense. I don't care what people say, NO WAY!!!

I think it has been documented that people grieve differently. Some people go into shock and become flat, some people laugh at funerals [it doesn't make them murderers], some people get hysterical, some people FAKE hysterics.

The silly string video does nothing for me and I would not use it to convict anyone and I think its ridiculous that the jury viewed the video 8 times since they were not viewing it in regard to the lack of bruises [which is a good and valid point, I still haven't figured out the bruises] but for her demeanor as a grieving mother. That's BS in my opinion. If it was part of an overall lack of remorse, like Scott Peterson's actions after his wife's death, then it would show a pattern. But, its an isolated event.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think it has been documented that people grieve differently. Some people go into shock and become flat, some people laugh at funerals [it doesn't make them murderers], some people get hysterical, some people FAKE hysterics.

The silly string video does nothing for me and I would not use it to convict anyone and I think its ridiculous that the jury viewed the video 8 times since they were not viewing it in regard to the lack of bruises [which is a good and valid point, I still haven't figured out the bruises] but for her demeanor as a grieving mother. That's BS in my opinion. If it was part of an overall lack of remorse, like Scott Peterson's actions after his wife's death, then it would show a pattern. But, its an isolated event.

I agree with anyone who says that everyone grieves differently. The point that we're trying to make with the video is this. Darlie and her supporters claim that mere MINUTES before the silly string party, Darlie was "hysterically crying her eyes out" during a somber private ceremony. Look at the video. Look at other videos of Darlie taken subsequent to her arrest and trial. What do you notice? In the videos we see of Darlie where there are actual tears present and she's crying even a little bit, her eyes are red, swollen, puffy, her skin is blotchy and her nose is running. Where in the silly string video do you see any redness, swollen eyes, puffy eyes, running nose or blotchy skin? Its physically IMPOSSIBLE for someone to erase any evidence of having been hysterically crying from one minute to the next. So, what we're left with is one more lie from Darlie Routier.

Juries are not stupid. Darlie and Darin both got on the stand and lied so many times that in the end of her testimony, she couldn't even finish an answer she was giving to Toby Shook because she was caught in so many lies that she finally just stopped talking. When someone is on trial for the murder of their two children and the jury KNOWS that the defendant is telling lie after lie, a jury is going to get angry. If any of you have kids and they stand in front of you telling a lie you know how irritated you get that you know they're lying and they know you know they're lying and you can't get them to admit it. That's how this jury felt with Darlie and Darin on this stand being confronted by evidence of their lies. Disputing one another's testimony. Yet they continued to keep it up.

 

[Medea]

I don't dispute her guilt, I just think the silly string video was overly prejudicial and should not have been admitted.

Darlie's supporters claims about the silly string video I don't believe either. I don't know whether the somber ceremony took place or not, depends on when this ceremony came to light and how many people and who say they witnessed it. The silly string video shows me she is a narcisist, she is SUCH a narcissist that it never occured to her she should be 'acting' the part of the grieving mother, she got carried away in the moment.

I just don't consider it valid evidence at a murder trial, it should never have been admitted, it is too prejudicial and the whys of how she acted are pure speculation.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't dispute her guilt, I just think the silly string video was overly prejudicial and should not have been admitted.

Darlie's supporters claims about the silly string video I don't believe either. I don't know whether the somber ceremony took place or not, depends on when this ceremony came to light and how many people and who say they witnessed it. The silly string video shows me she is a narcisist, she is SUCH a narcissist that it never occured to her she should be 'acting' the part of the grieving mother, she got carried away in the moment.

I just don't consider it valid evidence at a murder trial, it should never have been admitted, it is too prejudicial and the whys of how she acted are pure speculation.

I disagree that its pure speculation because she was paid for it and she was talking to the media. You can't get better than that. If Drew Peterson is someday arrested for killing his wife Stacy, should all of his media appearances be banned from his trial?

 

[Medea]

Drew Peterson was making specific and relevant statements about the case...opining that his wife ran away, giving his various theories and explanations, touting "sightings" of her, etc. All of that is relevant to the case because it is what he has said about what happened around the time of her disappearance, the state of their marriage which could go to motive...

It was Darlie's actions and demeanor that were on the tape, not anything she was saying about the case or what happened the night of the murders. She is lambasted for not "acting" sad on the silly string video as evidence of her guilt, I don't agree with that. It could be evidence of stupidity, immaturity, grieving in a non traditional way, narcissistic personality disorder or lack of actual remorse.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Drew Peterson was making specific and relevant statements about the case...opining that his wife ran away, giving his various theories and explanations, touting "sightings" of her, etc. All of that is relevant to the case because it is what he has said about what happened around the time of her disappearance, the state of their marriage which could go to motive...

It was Darlie's actions and demeanor that were on the tape, not anything she was saying about the case or what happened the night of the murders. She is lambasted for not "acting" sad on the silly string video as evidence of her guilt, I don't agree with that. It could be evidence of stupidity, immaturity, grieving in a non traditional way, narcissistic personality disorder or lack of actual remorse.

Okay, what about Scott Peterson? He was lambasted for talking to his girlfriend when he was supposed to be looking for Laci. He was lambasted for not "acting" sad on the videos too. Shouldn't be used against him? I think not. Darlie got MONEY for being on that video. She invited the press into her emotional state of mind. Therefore, its open season on her silly string party.

 

[Medea]

Okay, what about Scott Peterson? He was lambasted for talking to his girlfriend when he was supposed to be looking for Laci. He was lambasted for not "acting" sad on the videos too. Shouldn't be used against him? I think not. Darlie got MONEY for being on that video. She invited the press into her emotional state of mind. Therefore, its open season on her silly string party.

The difference I see w/Scott Peterson is that this lack of remorse was repeated over and over and over again in his action and his words. So, to me, this is a pattern of behavior over weeks and months that was consistent. He showed repeatedly that he didn't care about Laci's death.

If she was paid for the silly string appearance, then there is probably no way it could have been kept out of her trial.

Its just my opinion that the silly string video was given WAY to much prominance. I can convict her on the rest of the evidence without the silly string video...I'm just not sure that is how the jury saw it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The difference I see w/Scott Peterson is that this lack of remorse was repeated over and over and over again in his action and his words. So, to me, this is a pattern of behavior over weeks and months that was consistent. He showed repeatedly that he didn't care about Laci's death.

If she was paid for the silly string appearance, then there is probably no way it could have been kept out of her trial.

Its just my opinion that the silly string video was given WAY to much prominance. I can convict her on the rest of the evidence without the silly string video...I'm just not sure that is how the jury saw it.

Darlie was shown over and over on the news here. When they were moving out of their house, they actually starting throwing the boys' stuffed animals at one another on their lawn. They also apparently left pictures of the boys there when they moved. Didn't bother to take them. So, while the video may seem prejudicial to some, there was much more that could have been brought out, but wasn't. I think the prosecution made a good choice what to bring in and what to leave out. Let's say for the sake of argument that they didn't introduce this tape and she was acquitted. Would you feel better knowing the jury wasn't prejudiced by this tape?

I'm not trying to beat you down with this, but its sorta in my DNA to debate until the death.

 

[Medea]

Darlie was shown over and over on the news here. When they were moving out of their house, they actually starting throwing the boys' stuffed animals at one another on their lawn. They also apparently left pictures of the boys there when they moved. Didn't bother to take them. So, while the video may seem prejudicial to some, there was much more that could have been brought out, but wasn't. I think the prosecution made a good choice what to bring in and what to leave out. Let's say for the sake of argument that they didn't introduce this tape and she was acquitted. Would you feel better knowing the jury wasn't prejudiced by this tape?

I'm not trying to beat you down with this, but its sorta in my DNA to debate until the death.

I'm pretty prosecution friendly overall, I guess we all have our own threshold of when something crosses the line to be unfair. Mine is pretty high, but to me, the silly string video added nothing to the case, it was wholly prejudicial and not probative of any relevant issue. But, if what you say is correct, that she invited the media and she was paid for the silly string "ceremony" then she dug her own grave, and while I personally did not like to hear how heavily the jury weighted this video in deliberations, legally, if she invited the media and the media paid her, there is no way to keep it out. It was her decision, her fault and up to her to explain it away, which she obviously did not do to the satisfaction of the jury.

If the jury would have acquitted her in light of all the physical evidence that there was no intruder, then they would have been dumb as dirt.

Her story does not add up, it does not make sense logically and it does not fit the facts. I never believe defenses that rely on everything happening in an upside down manner, every single piece of evidence is the "exception to the rule" the police are wrong about everything and they are persecuting the poor hapless defendant. This is why she should have been convicted.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I'm pretty prosecution friendly overall, I guess we all have our own threshold of when something crosses the line to be unfair. Mine is pretty high, but to me, the silly string video added nothing to the case, it was wholly prejudicial and not probative of any relevant issue. But, if what you say is correct, that she invited the media and she was paid for the silly string "ceremony" then she dug her own grave, and while I personally did not like to hear how heavily the jury weighted this video in deliberations, legally, if she invited the media and the media paid her, there is no way to keep it out. It was her decision, her fault and up to her to explain it away, which she obviously did not do to the satisfaction of the jury.

If the jury would have acquitted her in light of all the physical evidence that there was no intruder, then they would have been dumb as dirt.

Her story does not add up, it does not make sense logically and it does not fit the facts. I never believe defenses that rely on everything happening in an upside down manner, every single piece of evidence is the "exception to the rule" the police are wrong about everything and they are persecuting the poor hapless defendant. This is why she should have been convicted.

I agree with everything!!! LOL

 

[Medea]

What's your opinion on how and when she got the bruises?

This was my biggest sticking point in holding out the idea that it might have been possible there was an intruder...someone else on here posted that the bruises didn't look like they fit with a hand to hand struggle...which I hadn't thought of, but that makes sense. I was reacting to how deep and black they were, pretty compelling. I also didn't agree with the jury saying her son gave them to her. No way could a child his age inflict that kind of damage on an adult. The other poster floated a theory that they could have been from slamming a door on her arm, that makes some sense to me.

She could have gone home and inflicted the bruises on herself to bulk up the struggle angle...

 

[Jeana (DP)]

What's your opinion on how and when she got the bruises?

This was my biggest sticking point in holding out the idea that it might have been possible there was an intruder...someone else on here posted that the bruises didn't look like they fit with a hand to hand struggle...which I hadn't thought of, but that makes sense. I was reacting to how deep and black they were, pretty compelling. I also didn't agree with the jury saying her son gave them to her. No way could a child his age inflict that kind of damage on an adult. The other poster floated a theory that they could have been from slamming a door on her arm, that makes some sense to me.

She could have gone home and inflicted the bruises on herself to bulk up the struggle angle...

In defense exhibits 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89, they are not the same as the ones that the supporters think are impossible to have been caused by her. These are on the backs of her hands and where IVs would have been placed in the hospital. The defense claims they are three days old and they are not black/blue, but red/yellow. In defense exhibit 95, her right arm wound is shown, but there are NO bruises on the back of her right hand while she's in the hospital.

Defense exhibits no. 52A, 52B and 52C show only her right arm and they claim they are four day old bruises.

How did these bruises appear on day four, but are absent in the hospital and on the photos from day three?

Something happened to create more bruises on her right arm AFTER she left the hospital.

And where are the pictures of her left arm? Are there any?

 

[whitywendy]

What's your opinion on how and when she got the bruises?

This was my biggest sticking point in holding out the idea that it might have been possible there was an intruder...someone else on here posted that the bruises didn't look like they fit with a hand to hand struggle...which I hadn't thought of, but that makes sense. I was reacting to how deep and black they were, pretty compelling. I also didn't agree with the jury saying her son gave them to her. No way could a child his age inflict that kind of damage on an adult. The other poster floated a theory that they could have been from slamming a door on her arm, that makes some sense to me.

She could have gone home and inflicted the bruises on herself to bulk up the struggle angle...

That is what I believe. I think that she got some bruising from IV line. I bruise very easily and the last time I was in the hospital my whole left arm/hand turned black n blue.

 

[whitywendy]

The silly string tape did not convince me. In fact I wasn't convinced until I started reading the transcripts. I was actually quite taken back when I got to the blood evidence. The knife imprint in the carpet, Damon's handprint etc. This is what sealed her fate.

 

[Medea]

I don't think the prosecution did a very good job of explaining the bruises and I'm still of the opinion that the jury wasn't too smart.

But, after reading here, I believe that the long black bruise [I discounted the small her ones around her hands, they could have come from the IV or just be puffyness related to the knife cuts...] that runs the length of her arm is not consistent with the struggle she describes.

If she was struggling with an intruder she would have several hand size/smaller bruises all over her arms, not one consistent long bruise. This is the kind of bruise you would gete if a car ran over you or someone beat you with a two by four.

The short struggle she describes where she stays on the couch cannot account for the long black bruise since its impossible that the perp was beating her on the arm while she was unconscious.

So, interestingly, one of the two things that made me wonder if she might have been wrongly convicted by police who jumped the gun, the black bruises and the silly string video....the bruising has turned out to be more evidence of her guilt. Its another piece of physical evidence that does not fit her statements and does not make sense.

 

[browneyedgirl]

I remember the first time I ever saw the silly string video, it made my stomache turn any my first thought was "How can a mother act like that at their childs grave? Let alone children that were buried such a short time ago?

I was always one that was on the fence with this case, until Jeana pointed me in the direction of the transcripts and after reading line by line there is no doubt whatsoever of Darlie's guilt, in my mind at least.

FWIW

 

[cami]

I don't think the prosecution did a very good job of explaining the bruises and I'm still of the opinion that the jury wasn't too smart.

But, after reading here, I believe that the long black bruise [I discounted the small her ones around her hands, they could have come from the IV or just be puffyness related to the knife cuts...] that runs the length of her arm is not consistent with the struggle she describes.

If she was struggling with an intruder she would have several hand size/smaller bruises all over her arms, not one consistent long bruise. This is the kind of bruise you would gete if a car ran over you or someone beat you with a two by four.

The short struggle she describes where she stays on the couch cannot account for the long black bruise since its impossible that the perp was beating her on the arm while she was unconscious.

So, interestingly, one of the two things that made me wonder if she might have been wrongly convicted by police who jumped the gun, the black bruises and the silly string video....the bruising has turned out to be more evidence of her guilt. Its another piece of physical evidence that does not fit her statements and does not make sense.

Exactly. With a bruise like that, it's hard to believe she has no broken bones. No weapon other than a knife is mentioned so what was she beaten with? If the perp drops the knife surely he's not taking whatever he used to beat her arm with. Not logical.

I hate to speculate on the playing of the silly string video. But it was so far from what we associate with the normal greiving process, especially of a mother who's lost her children, that perhaps that's why the jury played it so often. Perhaps they were tying to find something redeeming in that video..like when Darin backs off and looks totally uncomfortable at what Darlie is doing.