Innocent!

[NancyT]

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.

You weren't attacked. You asked, we answered. If you didn't want answers, perhaps you shouldn't have asked?

As a matter of fact, you tried to demean others when you made this comment:

You know it amazes me how people when posting their theories on Darlie's innocense and responded to with demands of proof. I see so many times people explaining her guilt and why but only touching on a few things and never answering things in question? 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?

So, we answered. Again, if you don't want answers, don't ask.

 

[NancyT]

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.

I try to disrespect no one, but I'm sure you'll take my post here as an attack.

The legal definition of "Evidence" is:
something presented in a legal proceeding, as a statement of a witness, an object, etc., which bears on or establishes a point in question
http://www.yourdictionary.com/evidence

I too am willing to look at ALL evidence. I do not however believe sentences should be overturned based on speculation. So far, what I've read that keeps some from thinking Darlie is guilty is certainly not evidence. IF some new information were to arise that may indeed show innocence or someone else's guilt, I most definitely would advocate for a new trial or a release if it can be shown someone else committed the act.

To date, you can't show me a single case since the latter part of the 20th century where we have executed an innocent individual. While the possibility is there, you can't prove that it's happened.

 

[Darshana]

You weren't attacked. You asked, we answered. If you didn't want answers, perhaps you shouldn't have asked?

As a matter of fact, you tried to demean others when you made this comment:



So, we answered. Again, if you don't want answers, don't ask.

It was not my intention to try and demean anyone in this post. I apologize if it came across that way. I guess for ME, I feel like I state my opinions, am asked to back them up with my theory and when I do feel like it is not good enough.

 

[NancyT]

It was not my intention to try and demean anyone in this post. I apologize if it came across that way. I guess for ME, I feel like I state my opinions, am asked to back them up with my theory and when I do feel like it is not good enough.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion without being attacked for having questions and/or doubt. My response was never intended to be an attack and I do apologize if it reads as such.

I just didn't want to dodge the questions you specifically asked, because you had stated that's all everyone ever does. While you don't have to like my response or believe any of it to be true, I did want to put out there why it means little to me, personally.

 

[nicola]

Darshana & Pattycake - its been like this since ive been coming here (for about 2 yrs). That is the reason I rarly post here - Im not the only one either, a few good friends of mine have also been put off coming here because of the response by posters with differing opinions. This thread is turning into a Darlie is Guilty message board as all the posters who think otherwise have been put off coming here by the rudness and hostility shown towards them by posters with differing opinions. I have never seen such disrespect in any other part of WS as ive seen in the Darlie thread. If you have a different opinion to some they treat it like your attacking them personally. It shouldnt be like this. This thread is supposed to be for disscussion on the case, where all sides come together to share/disscuss and debate information/theories and opinions - not put each other down/belittling and making people think thier opinions are worthless cause they are not the same. Untill peoples attitudes change I for one will not be posting here.

 

[Darshana]

You weren't attacked. You asked, we answered. If you didn't want answers, perhaps you shouldn't have asked?

As a matter of fact, you tried to demean others when you made this comment:



So, we answered. Again, if you don't want answers, don't ask.

The thing is I was NOT asking any questions. I was replying to another poster about my theories/opinions, which this poster asked me to do and I did.

 

[NancyT]

The thing is I was NOT asking any questions. I was replying to another poster about my theories/opinions, which this poster asked me to do and I did.

You said what bothered you about the case, then went on to say how posters cherry pick about what they want to respond to (my terminology, not yours). So, I responded exactly to the issues you took exception with since it appeared these issues are always ignored from your viewpoint.

EDIT: You also said that everyone knows there are issues that don't add up. I can assure you, everyone does not know it. I for one see nothing that would lead me to believe that Darlie is factually innocent.

 

[Darshana]

You said what bothered you about the case, then went on to say how posters cherry pick about what they want to respond to (my terminology, not yours). So, I responded exactly to the issues you took exception with since it appeared these issues are always ignored from your viewpoint.

EDIT: You also said that everyone knows there are issues that don't add up. I can assure you, everyone does not know it. I for one see nothing that would lead me to believe that Darlie is factually innocent.

You know there were 2 other posters on today or in the last 24 hours that feel the way I do with responses in this forum. I was not initially directing my response @ you but in general how I have felt posting here. I am not sure why you are directing all this on me. I am done here with further posting as I am tired of trying to explain myself. Good luck to everyone....

 

[NancyT]

You know there were 2 other posters on today or in the last 24 hours that feel the way I do with responses in this forum. I was not initially directing my response @ you but in general how I have felt posting here. I am not sure why you are directing all this on me. I am done here with further posting as I am tired of trying to explain myself. Good luck to everyone....

I directed my posts to you because you're the poster who said, the evidence that causes doubt (at least your doubt) is ignored all the time. You gave specific examples of what caused that doubt.

If the other 2 posters want to discuss where their doubts lie, I'll be happy to discuss it with them as well.

I do realize your post was not directed at me, but this is a public forum and anything you post here is subject to being responded to. I don't get why you feel the need to run, either. I have done nothing to attack your point of view. As a matter of fact, all it seems that I've done in the past couple of posts is try to explain why I responded to you. So IMO, you may feel you're having to explain yourself, but I'm in the same position. I really don't feel like I should have to explain why I'm quoting you, though. It should be assumed that other posters would try to counter whatever you might post. That is the point of this message board, is it not? Do you truly only want to preach to the choir?

If this little exchange of ours is your idea and 2 other poster's idea of an attack, I guess I can see why you feel you can't state your opinion here. IMO (and I don't mean this to be a smart *advertiser censored*), you can't understand the difference between debate and attack. Challenging your opinion is not attacking you.

 

[kline]

I didnt really feel any of the responses were an attack.
I felt they were merely addressing the issues you presented point by point.
Im sure they didnt intend for their posts to be taken that way.
I still dont feel that most of the points really indicated Darlie's innocence in any fundamental way.
At any crime scene there will always be pieces that dont fit ,fingerprints that dont belong to anyone connected to the case is the rule rather then the exception.
Except in fiction 'A blood trail' is usually only the result of a traumatic injury such as a gunshot wound or a severed artery or a very signifcant center of body mass stab wound.(Abigail Folger severity)
Someone packing or throwing a bloody sock into an alley probably isnt going to leave one.
The Jury only has the burden of proving guilt or innocence beyond a Reasonable Doubt and in this case I think they more then did their duty.
But thats just my opinion I dont think less of anyone who doesnt share it.

 

[cami]

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.

No Darshana, the boys had seepage wounds, not spurting wounds, their blood pooled out around their bodies. You wouldn't expect to see much blood on the front of her nightie..it's on the back..cast-off from the knife.

 

[cami]

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.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[cami]

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.

Darshana, all of these things have been explained over and over again. They are defense ploys to try and instill reasonable doubt. Now I'm not trying to be rude or confrontational but to many of us, these things are moot now as they are not facts of the case, nor evidence. The answers can be found in the trial transcripts.

1. Damon did not die right away as Devon did. In fact, Damon either dragged himself or crawled away from the area where he was first stabbed. He was then stabbed again. Darlie could have put the sock in the alley in between the time Damon was first stabbed and the second time. Since the boys had seepage wounds and not spurting wounds, you wouldn't expect to see much blood on Darlie and there is the possibility that Darin put the sock there. Darin's reboks were found, still tied, at the front door. Very easy for Darlie to have slipped out the front door and down the alley.

2. I would suggest you read the trial transcripts on this..it has never been proven there was a second knife.

3. Well the medical staff testified that she did not have those bruises in the hospital. As well she was allegedly fighting a knife-weilding intruder so how did she get blunt force trauma of the arm? She herself testified that she was not fighting with anyone. If she was fighting hard enough to get those bruises, why no broken bones? Why no head injuries or facial injuries? No cuts on the underside of her arms indicating she held her arms in front of her face or head. NO cuts on her palms or fingers.

4. The prints are unidentifiable. The one on the sofa table is smudged in blood, it can only be used to exclude and Darlie has not been excluded. Her ring finger has a whorl pattern, the print has a whorl pattern. The print is small either from a juvenile or a female. It certainly does not match the over 6 ft intruder she described. As you yourself stated, there should be a blood trail to the sock. You're correct if any intruder did it. But look at the blood, blood doesn't lie and it has no stake in this trial. Darlie's blood is running down the utility room door and is dripped in the utility room on the washer and dryer. She said she never went in that room. the utility room leads right to the garage and there is no blood in the garage and none outside, so if the intruder had enough blood on him to leave on a door and all over that utility room how did he turn it off before he got into the garage and outside? He's being chased by Darlie, he's not going to stop and wipe his hands off.

5. The pillow..means nothing, she could have laid her arm on that pillow and let it bleed. What is missing from the sofa she laid on is her blood where her head would have been had she been sleeping, no nicks or cuts from the knife had she struggled. The boys' blood should be there if they were killed first..it isn't. I don't mean there was none of the boys' blood on the sofa because there was Damon's handprint and butt print but you would expect to see blood on the back or the area where Darlie' s head allegedly was.

6. The black car is also a red herring. The physical evidence is inside the house not outside. No one ever reported a black car prior to the murders, no license plate no, no make, no model nos...nothing. If this black car was casing out the Routiers, why didn't the neighbour warn them or call the cops? Would the police be expected to stop every black car they see and inspect it? For what? Nothing was outside the house but the sock. A black car was stopped that night and searched. The occupants were searched, nothing was found.

I hope this helps a little bit. Have you read the transcripts? I would suggest you read Cron's, Dickie's, Lynch's, Darlie's, Darin's and the medical staff testimony if you can't read the whole transcripts. And read the bond hearing transcripts.

There is no evidence of anyone but Darlie committing this crime..with Darin possibly helping in covering it up..he could have put the sock in the alley.

I believe as do many that Darlie covered the handle of the knife with the sock and when she discovered the boys' blood on it, she ditched it to get rid of it.

 

[cami]

Darshana & Pattycake - its been like this since ive been coming here (for about 2 yrs). That is the reason I rarly post here - Im not the only one either, a few good friends of mine have also been put off coming here because of the response by posters with differing opinions. This thread is turning into a Darlie is Guilty message board as all the posters who think otherwise have been put off coming here by the rudness and hostility shown towards them by posters with differing opinions. I have never seen such disrespect in any other part of WS as ive seen in the Darlie thread. If you have a different opinion to some they treat it like your attacking them personally. It shouldnt be like this. This thread is supposed to be for disscussion on the case, where all sides come together to share/disscuss and debate information/theories and opinions - not put each other down/belittling and making people think thier opinions are worthless cause they are not the same. Untill peoples attitudes change I for one will not be posting here.

Because we are posting and not speaking, the tone does come across as sarcastic. I for one have been called on this time and time again when there has been no sarcasm intended. I'm not saying your opinions are worthless, but most of us here find that our study of this case does not afford Darlie the innocence you want so unless you can show proof from the evidence that Darlie is innocent why the debate? Nic we've asked again and again what leads you to believe Darlie is innocent and to give some evidence to back it up but you never do that, or you post things from the .org site that is run by Ms. Kee who is hardly objective.

Show us something that proves Darlie is innocent and we'll discuss it. I for one will change my opinion if the intruder is found. Your opinion on the smudged fingerprint on the sofa table to me was "whorl patterns are common." I must say I was a bit shocked at your reply. I just fail to understand why you ignore all the expert testimony on the print and stick with Darlie's family that's it not hers when she hasn't been excluded.

"no sarcasm intended"

 

[erinleigh]

i have changed my mind on darin's role. i think he went into coverup mode only in testimony, not direct actions during the crime. we do not see his footprints all over the downstairs in darlie's blood. if he was standing next to her (cutting her, grabbing her, bruising her or helping her clean) he would have been standing in her dripping blood and his footprints would be scattered around like hers. i tend to think he ran to the boys as he said in shock.
i think the wet towels and sound of glass breaking statements developed to match the evidence after he came to realize his wife was in deep trouble. i think it hit him pretty early on that darlie had something to do with this. i think it disturbed his grief as his focus became saving darlie. this man knew darlie since she was 15. im sure he immediately sensed she was lying about something when he heard the 911 call. i think thats when darins coverup began. i no longer think he staged the crime scene - but think he was happy to mislead the investigation.

keep in mind i will surely contradict my own post in other threads. my opinion of darins role changes on a daily basis.

 

[txsvicki]

While it's not hard evidence, the 911 call would be enough to convince me. Darlie sounded so harsh and angry at Darin when she said "someone came in here and did this DARIN". It was as if he'd already said something to her about what had happened. Darlie also knew that the boys were dying. If she couldn't even get her story straight she wouldn't know for sure that both were going to die. She was more worried about her prints being on the knife and didn't even mention the size of the knife or hysteria if it had been used on her children. It wouldn't suprise me if she hadn't already told Darin that she'd seen a man stabbing the boys with that knife. Anyway, if her sentence is ever carried out there is news from Texas today that I just heard on the news: Death row prisoners no longer get their choice of a last meal. They'll get whatever is served to them.

 

[~n/t~]

I'll start off by saying I didn't follow this case but was intrigued by the thread title so I did a quick research and came across TruTv's write up about the case. After reading the 20 pages, it did leave me with some serious questions.

1) Darlie apparently suffered from PPD and there is no indication that she was treated or being treated for the depression. Do we know if she was? I'm shocked her attornies didn't use her mental state as as a defense. She was clearly going downhill after Drake's birth and even contemplated suicide.

2) The contradictions in her wounds are also quite concerning. Her throat slash, had come within two millimeters of the carotid artery and bruises were diagnosed on her arms as mass trauma coming from a blunt instrument and not self-given.

However, there are some compelling evidence against her. For one, the dog not attacking and also the lack of bloodied fingerprints and footprints belonging to anyone else but Darlie. Except for one, I believe, which was not explained nor tested.

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/routier/19.html

 

[Crow_Ascending]

If Darlie's attorney had used her mental state as a defense, that would have been an admission of her guilt. I'm guessing Darlie did not know she had a carotid artery, much less know where it was. Damon and Devon's blood on the back of her nightshirt, blood down the sink, clean-up of blood at the sink, blood in the utility room when Darlie claims neither she nor the intruder went in there and a bloody knifeprint on the carpet are all evidence against an intruder committing this crime.

 

[wonders]

While it's not hard evidence, the 911 call would be enough to convince me. Darlie sounded so harsh and angry at Darin when she said "someone came in here and did this DARIN". It was as if he'd already said something to her about what had happened. Darlie also knew that the boys were dying. If she couldn't even get her story straight she wouldn't know for sure that both were going to die. She was more worried about her prints being on the knife and didn't even mention the size of the knife or hysteria if it had been used on her children. It wouldn't suprise me if she hadn't already told Darin that she'd seen a man stabbing the boys with that knife. Anyway, if her sentence is ever carried out there is news from Texas today that I just heard on the news: Death row prisoners no longer get their choice of a last meal. They'll get whatever is served to them.

I read this in my local paper today and the first person I thought of was good ole Darlie. I hope she was planning her last meal all these years and now it's just all for naught.
I agree it's rediculious to have a last meal of anything you want. Would you be able to eat knowing your going to die in a few hours? IDK, maybe people like her wouldn't have a problem eating before taking the long walk.
Now if we could just get on with her excution.

 

[Silkprint]

Thank you for the link ~n/t~
I am going to read ..I have always been curious about this case . I have only seen a couple of tv shows and each slanted one way or the other .