Innocent!

[kline]

What evidence are you basing your conviction that she is innocent?
Ive seen absolutely nothing in this case that would support such an opinion from the evidence used to convict her to her equally damning behavior.
If you know of anything that would mitigate this how about you share it with us.
Or better yet her attorneys.

 

[MarleeCat]

...

Is there something you are saying about the Darlie Routier case here? Because this seems like this post is all emotions on your part. Darlie Routier isn't guilty because she's female.

She's guilty because she murdered her two children.

 

[NancyT]

I'm all for the belief that everyone deserves a fair trial, but after studying this case, extensively, I cannot understand how anyone could think she was innocent. I certainly am not trying to demean anyone who disagrees, I'm just trying to understand what it is that makes one believe that?

I mean, Luminol sprayed on the sofa showed a hand print of one of the boys. What reason would an intruder have to clean that up before law enforcement arrived? I can definitely think of many reasons why Darlie might clean that up.

I've looked at the most atrocious of crime scene phones in my life and not much disturbs me where crime is concerned. This passage however, taken from the Crime Library, is one of the most chilling things I've ever read in my life.

Darlie Routier had not yet returned to her home on Eagle Drive since that horrible morning; she, Darin and baby Drake had been staying with Mama Darlie in Plano. Needing some articles of clothing, she telephoned her friend Mercedes Adams a few days after the funeral to ask if she would mind driving her there. Mercedes complied, but expected Darlie to buckle under upon walking into the place that took the lives of her two sons. The girlfriend was in for an awakening.
Death lingered in the foyer, but Darlie, Mercedes noted, charged onto the scene seemingly unaware and like a bull elephant, arms akimbo, shouted, "Look at this mess! It'll cost us a fortune to fix this ****!"
"Right there where her boys were killed, and that's the first thing she said to me. I put my hands on Darlie's shoulders and said, 'Darlie, look me in the eye and tell me you didn't kill the boys.' She looked me in the eye and said, 'I'm gonna get new carpet, new drapes, and fix this room all up.' I couldn't believe it."



http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/routier/14.html

Please keep in mind, I didn't use only the above to come to the conclusion that I believe Darlie is guilty. It was the totality of it all. I truly think she's exactly where she belongs.

 

[kline]

The luminol test showing the sofa had been cleaned was it for me.
there is only one possible scenario to account for that...minus everything else that is absolutey damning.
I agree that anyone should feel free to post their opinion but you should at least be willing to explain what led you to that opinion.
Im curious how one could be so passionate in their belief of Darlies innocence surely ther must be some factors that would mitigate the overwhelming evidence of her guilt for someone to feel so strongly about it.
But if all it is is that the State of Texas decided to mount a massive frame up of an innocent Mother for no other reason then to somehow 'get women'...and why in the world would Mccain and Palin use the executive branch of the Government to interfere with the State of Texas judiciary?
Things like that might lead some people to suspect its possibly past 13 on the Cuckoo Clock.

 

[nicola]

I have stated my opinions and reasons I beleive in her innocence many times before and frankly its getting a bit tedious going over the same arguments all the time - thats the reason I rarely post this thread anymore. However, as I have previously stated, I am waiting for the DNA test results to come back as the results will either cement my view or make me change my mind completely. My view is that if there was an intruder forensics will find at least a small trace of him - forensics today are far superior to forensics then. If there is no trace whatsoever found then i will change my otherwise solid opinion of her innocence. If there is a trace, even a small trace, of an intruder then that introduces doubt and I would not be happy to condemn someone to death over something that is not watertight. Sadly the tests may come back inconclusive.

 

[PattyCake]

It will take me some time to dig up old info however I was in the 'INNOCENT' camp for the longest time. I may hover on the fence at times. What stands are all the mistakes that were made in this case, the unexplained bloody fingerprint, not having the actual physical time to leave the bloody sock herself without spilling blood along the way. I could go on but like I started out saying, I am behind on my list of 'facts' regarding this case for her innocence.

One thing for certain, she needs a new trial due to many mistakes. This woman may belong in prison for life but not on death row at all. No matter the crime, no matter the case - no one should be on death row if there's a potential slightest doubt of innocence. We could very well excute an innocent woman.

Kindly don't slam me for not having all evidence in order (I'm a busy woman).

When I hear some jurors state that they found her guilty on silly string but if they got the opportunity to view the entire video clip, it would have given them a different opinion about her... makes me pause.

 

[CyberLaw]

Oh but alas.

No slamming, just my opinion.

If the only piece of evidence presented to the jury was the video and they convicted on same, then I would say the "logic" of it would stand up to another "look".

But as I recall, there was a lot of evidence presented at trial. Blood experts, CSI, and everything else in the "transcripts".

Darlie for one, kept changing her story. Time and time again. The truth only needs one story.... When you change your story and attempt to "adapt" your story to the "reality" of the the event(s), then you know a person is "being" self serving and lying.

But the trial was a long trial. The "silly" string video was a public video with the press invited by Darlie to the "party" on the grave of her two sons. That would give a "normal" person pause for concern.

Again, the "other" portions of the video were not included because they were not public and illegally obtained. That is a minor "blip".

Because if you look at the "overwhelming" evidence presented to the jury(no evidence of an intruder and "staging" of the crime scene")then you can only come to one conclusion as to "whom staged" the crime scene.

That is a "fact" that I cannot ignore and really did it for me. If I was attacked in my home, I am not going to clean up evidence of "another person" if I was not that "other person" who was responsible for the crime.

I am injured, my throat is bleeding and I am "housecleaning" the sink and couch. I don't think so. The only reason that I would want to get rid of evidence of a crime and "obscure" the "reality" of that crime was to clean up after that crime and stage same.

 

[PattyCake]

Much of your arguments above lead me to believe that Darin is the guilty party that did a lot of the clean up. Darlie was supposed to die. It wasn't some hesitation self inflicted wound on her neck that just nicked her skin.

Nevertheless, I have to polish up my prior knowledge leaning towards her innocence and then come back for a good debate.

 

[NancyT]

While everyone is brushing up, I'd like someone to explain to me why or how and intruder would have obtained a kitchen knife to cut the screen, before ever entering the residence?

I've never been sold on the idea that Darin is 100% innocent in all this, either. I just haven't been presented enough proof to say that he was. It's absolutely possible that he either helped, helped with the cover up, or had some involvement. Proving it however, is a different story. I don't for a minute believe that he intended that Darlie would die. He could have walked away a million times, yet, he sticks beside her, 100% of the way.

 

[cami]

Much of your arguments above lead me to believe that Darin is the guilty party that did a lot of the clean up. Darlie was supposed to die. It wasn't some hesitation self inflicted wound on her neck that just nicked her skin.

Nevertheless, I have to polish up my prior knowledge leaning towards her innocence and then come back for a good debate.

If Darlie was supposed to die, she'd be dead. You have two little boys murdered with violent, deep thrusts of the knife. Darlie has surface wounds, serious, but non-life threatening.

 

[CyberLaw]

Along the "Darin did it theory".

Well if Darin did stab the two kids, please tell me where the blood trail is.

Where are the "clothes" with the kids blood on it.

Do you not think that after sitting on death row for a number of years, "unjustly" convicted and facing death, that maybe, just maybe Darlie would say: Hey it was not an intruder, it was Darin.

But then again, what evidence, I mean factual evidence leads one to believe it was Darin who slashed Darlie's throat. It makes sense to kill Darlie first by "stab" would to a critical area and a large area also, which is the torso.

Then he dispatches with her, as of course he would think that she may want to stop him, then he kills the two boys the same way that he would have killed Darlie.

But the wounds showed hesitation, a person would hesitate if they felt pain. If Darin "cut" Darlie's throat, then there would be no hesitation wounds, as it would not be Darin who would feel the pain of a cut on your throat.

So no shoe prints in blood, no trail, no clothes with blood, no shoes with blood. When a person stabs two kids to death, stabbing them multiple times, they would get blood on their person and clothing.

The time frame and evidence does not lead one to conclude that there "was a second adult" in the area at the time of the murders.

 

[Darshana]

I agree that the intruder theory doesn't fit but I guess what has always made me ??? her guilt was the sock found in the alley. If she had placed it there herself after stabbing her children and even before cutting her own throat, wouldn't she have blood all over her from the boys? She obviously had to do it after the stabbing as both their blood was found on the sock. I mean there is no way with the injuries that those poor children had that blood would not be on the person who did it. There would have to have been some trail with Darlie or an intruder.

 

[Anais]

While everyone is brushing up, I'd like someone to explain to me why or how and intruder would have obtained a kitchen knife to cut the screen, before ever entering the residence?

I've never been sold on the idea that Darin is 100% innocent in all this, either. I just haven't been presented enough proof to say that he was. It's absolutely possible that he either helped, helped with the cover up, or had some involvement. Proving it however, is a different story. I don't for a minute believe that he intended that Darlie would die. He could have walked away a million times, yet, he sticks beside her, 100% of the way.

This is just one of the very many logical reasons that tells me along with LE that there never was any inturder. We know for a fact that robbery wasn't a motive or he'd have grabbed up all of the jewelry and money that lay out. Also and this is a fact intruders, robbers, and murderers do not come into your residence unprepared and grab kitchen knives and untensils to kill their victims!

(My uncle is a homicide detective for 23+ years Chicago,Il. and I can ask him what the exact percentages are on this, but it is fact!)

If Darlie was supposed to die, she'd be dead. You have two little boys murdered with violent, deep thrusts of the knife. Darlie has surface wounds, serious, but non-life threatening.

Also Darlie's wounds weren't life threatening per se. It actually had missed anything major. It was a wound that showed hesitation. IMO Darlie did this. I don't think Darin was in on it, however IMO I have a feeling that when he found what she'd done he participated in possible cover up attempt.

There is no doubt in my mind that DR is guilty as convicted and I will be certainly relieved once her sentence is carried out. As sad as it may be. Life is actions and consequences. I trult believe that she honestly thought that she would get away with the murders of her children!

 

[Darshana]

Sure the whole picture appears Darlie did it but there are many unanswered questions about several things that cannot be explained. Some things DO NOT add up in this case and everyone knows it. Wouldn't it be best to test the things in question than to possibly put an innocent woman to death?

 

[kline]

As any law enforcement ivestigator will tell you there are always going to be a few loose ends in any investigation.
I just dont see any 'unanswered questions' of any substance that would indicate a serious doubt as to her guilt.
Feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Darshana]

As any law enforcement ivestigator will tell you there are always going to be a few loose ends in any investigation.
I just dont see any 'unanswered questions' of any substance that would indicate a serious doubt as to her guilt.
Feel free to enlighten me.

The things I find myself questioning are:
1. the sock found in the alley and what I stated in my previous post about if Darlie or an intruder put it there, there would have been some trail of blood.
2. this 2nd knife that was used on one of the boys that was never recovered.
3. all the bruising on Darlie, which to me look like defense wounds.
4. the unidentified prints on coffee table and door to the garage. Think they said there were 3 total that were unidentified (i may be incorrect but there was at least one)
5. the pillow where Darlie was laying on the couch was covered in blood.
6. the black car seen driving by several times before the murders.

These things to me just don't add up. While I do think the overall picture points to her, these things have always bothered me about this case and why I beleive they should test anything in question before executing her. I understand there are some items and fingerprint that they denied testing. I feel if someone is going to be executed there should be no doubt.

 

[CyberLaw]

Please lets deal with facts and evidence.

Darlie was convicted with PROOF, she was convicted on fact, she was convicted on evidence. She was found guilty.

That is why all of the people whom believe Darlie to be guilty would like the "innocent" side to state the same facts and evidence to support your belief.

A black car that may or may not have been seen, is not "fact" or evidence, it is smoke and mirrors. It does not hold up to deductive reasoning or logic.

There has not been to date any "evidence" of a second knife. That is called fact.

The "expert" testimony in court indicated that the pattern and "history" of the bruises post date the time of the attack. I can still not to date, reconcile in my mind how if the bruises were "legitimate" and not just another manipulative ploy of Darlies, how she would have receive the bruises in a "real" life honest and true account of the night of the murders.

You have one print that can not be identified to any one. But Darlie cannot be "ruled" out as the contributor of that print. It was not in good shape. Please don't expect me to "entertain" the idea that an "unknown" person enters a house, kills two kids, fights life and death with the Mom, slashes her throat and leaves one fingerprint. Because if that is the case, then he was either wearing gloves or not. If wearing gloves, not prints. If not wearing gloves, a lot more prints then just one that cannot be identified. It is Darlies' print, but in such poor conditions cannot be 100% identified as such, that is why "supporters" grasp on this one little ole print.

I have no information about any pillow case. But if this was relevant to the "story" of Darlie it would have been presented in court, as this implies that she was lying down when cut. But that is not relevant as she could have easily just lied down to cut her own throat. So really, that is not "probative" of her innocence.

That is why courts entertain evidence and fact, because people are convicted or not convicted on same.

 

[NancyT]

The things I find myself questioning are:
1. the sock found in the alley and what I stated in my previous post about if Darlie or an intruder put it there, there would have been some trail of blood.
2. this 2nd knife that was used on one of the boys that was never recovered.
3. all the bruising on Darlie, which to me look like defense wounds.
4. the unidentified prints on coffee table and door to the garage. Think they said there were 3 total that were unidentified (i may be incorrect but there was at least one)
5. the pillow where Darlie was laying on the couch was covered in blood.
6. the black car seen driving by several times before the murders.

These things to me just don't add up. While I do think the overall picture points to her, these things have always bothered me about this case and why I beleive they should test anything in question before executing her. I understand there are some items and fingerprint that they denied testing. I feel if someone is going to be executed there should be no doubt.

Well, we weren't there, so we can't give you the entire play by play. I wish it worked that way, but it just doesn't.

1. How do we know what cut the blood came from to get Darlie's blood on the sock? Is it possible she'd cut herself struggling with the boys, and some blood got on it that way? Afterward, could she have purposely cut herself for the cover-up?

Is it possible that Darin placed the sock in the alley? Perhaps he wasn't involved in the boy's death, but only the cover-up of it?

2. Maybe I missed it, but maybe you can show where this was proven? As a matter of fact, I think the pathologist stated he could not rule out that 1 knife had been used (aside from the knife that obviously cut the screen).

3. By Darlie's own testimony, she hadn't fought the intruder. As a matter of fact, during the 911 call she said she had, but under oath, she said she NEVER said she was fighting, but that she was frightened. I'm not sure how you get defensive wounds if you're not fighting the assailant?

4. This was tested and to my knowledge, Darlie couldn't be ruled out. The boys could, but not Darlie. It was too smeared to say anything conclusively though.

5. I have no opinion on this and not sure what you think this means?

6. Why wasn't the woman who stated this not called by the defense? As a matter of fact, wasn't it YEARS before such a witness ever came forward to make this claim? IMO, it's right up there with Darin's claim that he was trying to find someone to rob the family for an insurance scam, YEARS after the fact of course.

 

[PattyCake]

Darshana:

You can see EXACTLY WHY I'm not wasting my time to bother coming back to this thread. They just want to hit you over the head and try and make your reasoning seem 'stupid' which is laughable as my IQ is over 135. Think I have a brain of my own to consider all the FACTS!

I'm for listening to ALL evidence which is why I'm 'on the fence' at times which is what some others don't want to do here IMO of course. My biggest thing is there is enough 'questionable evidence' that she shouldn't be on death row. Maybe she needs to be in prison for life but not death row.

Anyway, my 2 cents and won't be coming back not even to read a reply to this. This is ridiculous to make others feel this way for having a difference of opinion. Personally, they should just close this entire section as it seems to be for people in the guilty camp only. What a waste of my energy.

 

[Darshana]

Darshana:

You can see EXACTLY WHY I'm not wasting my time to bother coming back to this thread. They just want to hit you over the head and try and make your reasoning seem 'stupid' which is laughable as my IQ is over 135. Think I have a brain of my own to consider all the FACTS!

I'm for listening to ALL evidence which is why I'm 'on the fence' at times which is what some others don't want to do here IMO of course. My biggest thing is there is enough 'questionable evidence' that she shouldn't be on death row. Maybe she needs to be in prison for life but not death row.

Anyway, my 2 cents and won't be coming back not even to read a reply to this. This is ridiculous to make others feel this way for having a difference of opinion. Personally, they should just close this entire section as it seems to be for people in the guilty camp only. What a waste of my energy.

Thank you, I agree and continue to feel this way when ever I post something. I am done too posting here as I am tired of feeling attacked for my opinions.