New Darlie Interview - WFAA

[SoSueMe]

As to Darlie's bruises, has anyone ever been stuck with a needle that didn't go so well? Your arm can bruise a good 6" in length from just a tiny prick. IMO, Darlie stabbed herself several times in the arm (hesitation wounds) and hit a couple of veins that made her bruise. Those bruises sure as heck weren't very visible at the gravesight some 9 days later. Her inuries also didn't prevent her from jumping all around the graves like she had just won the lottery.

 

[Mary456]

The transcripts had hundreds of errors, this was admitted pubilicly over and over!

There were audio tapes to back up the written transcript, sloane, which made it clear that the errors were simply typos.

Darlie's defense tried to make it sound sinister, but it wasn't. The transcript issue was settled years ago, in Darlie's direct appeal. The judges ruled that the typos and misspellings did not jeopardize her case.

 

[Mary456]

As to Darlie's bruises, has anyone ever been stuck with a needle that didn't go so well? Your arm can bruise a good 6" in length from just a tiny prick. IMO, Darlie stabbed herself several times in the arm (hesitation wounds) and hit a couple of veins that made her bruise.

Here's the thing, though. All the doctors, including one for the defense, testified that the incised wound(s) on the outside of her right arm wouldn't cause the massive bruises on the inside. They all agreed on that point, which is unusual, lol!

 

[mrshuie]

Reminds me of the case of Roger Coleman. He was convicted and put to death. But prior to his execution he "had a whole" cult including some very influential people who swore that they were killing and innocent man and that Roger Coleman was "framed" and is being "murdered" by the US.

Well low and behold, after he was executed, more "up to date" tests were done on DNA at the scene of the crime. Guess what. Roger Coleman was a guilty man and was justly sentenced to death, despite what all of his "supporters"claimed"

So again, just because Darlie has "conned" and "manipulated" many, many people into "fighting" for an "innocent" women unjustly convicted of the murder of the two boys who sits on DR "innocent of the crime"
does not mean that Darlie is innocent.

Please......those people are just being "used" by Darlie for her own means and her own ends. After all she is "fighting" for her life and she "never" thought" she could be "caught", let alone convicted and sentenced to death.

In the world where Darlie lives, she "believes" her own hype, PR and her own self serving stories.

Well said!!! :clap:

 

[whitywendy]

I saw an interview on A&E with one of the jurors he said "he had no idea her injuries were that bad, if he would have known that he would not have voted for a "Guilty" Also if you have ever lived in the surburbs of dallas you would know "good ole boy " the small police departments are ( I have a few cop friends there) They think the same thing Troys shooting WAS in some ways a retalition , He could have been arrested for pot without incendent! hmmm:waitasec:

However, from what I read about the incident, he came downstairs with a gun in his hand and fired first. I do not believe the death of her son has anything to do with the Darlie and the book.

Why do people constantly accuse the cops of wrongdoing when something happens that they don't like. I know cops too, they human just like us. Takes a VERY SPECIAL TYPE of person to put their lives on the line EVERYDAY let alone dealing with murders. I am do not believe the Rowlette PD framed Darlie. Darlie just wasn't as smart as she thought she was that is all there is too it. of course IMO

 

[cami]

The transcripts had hundreds of errors, this was admitted pubilicly over and over!

Typos and spacing errors. The transcripts did nothing to convict Darlie. Whether you want to or not...the transcripts PROVE the photos of the bruises were entered into evidence and given to the jury. Even Darlie's defence attorney agrees.

 

[SATA]

She has Gotten FAT!

Now, THAT was catty. :crazy: LOL

I just want to jump in to say hi. At the moment I am reading as much as I can about the Routier case. I am on the fence on this one - perhaps leaning against Darlie being guilty as charged.
But I have this feeling: something is not right, something is missing. There aren´t that many components in the case, but what is known simply doesn´t fit. (Sock down the alley for instance.)

I honestly think the police made some very important blunders in the initial investigation.
1) They should have seized Darin´t jeans for examination. They didn´t. Did they take photographs of him and take blood samples from his body, does anyone know? (Sorry, I have to read the transcripts - I will.)
2) Darin shouldn´t have been left on his own in the street after Darlie was taken to hospital. I don´t know if this is accurate, but I´ve read that he sat on the curb outside the house for half an hour. Then he went to a neighbours´ house and washed up.
Could Darin have disposed of the sock in that - pretty long - interval?
3) The poor little boys should have been fingerprinted.

And probably more - as I said, I have some reading to do.

 

[Mary456]

1) They should have seized Darin´t jeans for examination. They didn´t. Did they take photographs of him and take blood samples from his body, does anyone know?

Hi, SATA. Yes, they did seize Darin's jeans. He handed over his clothing at the hospital, was photographed, blood taken, etc.

Charles Linch's affidavit dated 7/11/2002:

Bart Epstein, Terry Laber and I met for approximately three hours on August 23, 1996 to discuss the evidence in the Routier case. During that meeting, Bart Epstein and Terry Laber reviewed the evidence in my possession, including but not limited to:

- All microscopic slides
- Darlie Routier's nightshirt
- The Hoover vacuum cleaner
- The large maroon pillow
- Pieces of carpet and flooring containing blood stains/spatters and
- Darin Routier's blood-stained blue jeans.

Darin shouldn´t have been left on his own in the street after Darlie was taken to hospital. I don´t know if this is accurate, but I´ve read that he sat on the curb outside the house for half an hour. Then he went to a neighbours´ house and washed up.

He really wasn't left on his own; there were police and paramedics all around. He couldn't go with Darlie in the ambulance, so he waited until a police officer could take him to the hospital. He claims he washed his face and hands at the Neal's home, but it's hard to tell. Darin lies a lot.

Blood on his face or hands wouldn't have evidentiary value anyway, because he was in contact with Darlie's blood and the boys' blood.

Could Darin have disposed of the sock in that - pretty long - interval?

Highly unlikely. He would have been missed.

The poor little boys should have been fingerprinted.

This bothers a lot of people, but child victims weren’t routinely fingerprinted in 1996. Here’s why: fingerprints are usually taken for identification purposes...in other words, to compare the prints to prior prints of the individual so that the victim’s identity can be confirmed.

Newborn infants have the Palmar Reflex, which makes it almost impossible to fingerprint them, so footprints are taken instead. The medical examiner did take Damon and Devon’s footprints for identification purposes, but she was not required to take fingerprints, because it was unlikely that such young children would have had their fingerprints taken prior to their deaths.

I’m not explaining this very well, lol. Here’s Dr. Townsend-Parchman’s testimony:

“Damon (and Devon’s) footprints were taken, but not fingerprints. Routinely on small children,we take footprints for identification purposes. Children this age have had footprints taken when born, but seldom have had their fingerprints taken.”

Whether or not that policy has changed since 1996, I don’t know. In this case, though, I don’t see how it would have made any difference in the outcome, because the bloody print in question was only a partial print. It can’t be positively matched to anyone.

 

[SATA]

Thanks, Mary, for the reply - you explained just fine.
About Darin´s jeans: I´ve read since I made my post that Darin´s jeans had in fact been tested, so my bad. I´m glad I said I have a lot of reading to do. :crazy: There seem to be a lot of inaccurate informations floating around.

Mary: Blood on his face or hands wouldn't have evidentiary value anyway, because he was in contact with Darlie's blood and the boys' blood.

I think it could - just like it is the case with Darlie´s night shirt. It could have been useful to know whose blood was where on Darin´s torso.

 

[cami]

Patsy Ramsey was ruled out due to DNA, same with the dad. I don't have a hard time believing a mom/parent can do this I just am questioning whether or not she did.

Yeah by Mary Lacy and not an independant, qualified, dna person. Mary Lacy and Lin Wood are pulling the wool over eyes. This is not a dna case at all. Why wasn't the ransom note, the pad, the pen subjected to dna analysis? Seems to me they would be a more viable article to get dna from. I still believe and will always believe that John and Patsy Ramsey are culpable in JB's death.

Anyway, back on topic. You have to follow the physical evidence...it proves Darlie killed her two kids, whether people believe a mother could do it or not.

Reason before emotion.

 

[cami]

Does anyone know if there are any videos out there of Darlie giving interviews prior to her arrest? I know KXAS-TV interviewed her on June 14, 1996, the same day as the silly string incident, but I can't find footage of her talking to the camera. Does anyone know? Or did she give any video interviews prior to the trial?

Thanks in advance for any information you can give me.

Sue

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080618_mo_routier.18625d69.html

Try this, it contains an interview with Darlie...lying her head off as usual

 

[SoSueMe]

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080618_mo_routier.18625d69.html

Try this, it contains an interview with Darlie...lying her head off as usual

Thank you for this link. I am looking more for video of Darlie prior to her arrest. I know she invited the press to attend the graveside birthday party and I'm looking for a clip of her talking to the press at that time or some time shortly after the murders. Thanks again.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yeah by Mary Lacy and not an independant, qualified, dna person. Mary Lacy and Lin Wood are pulling the wool over eyes. This is not a dna case at all. Why wasn't the ransom note, the pad, the pen subjected to dna analysis? Seems to me they would be a more viable article to get dna from. I still believe and will always believe that John and Patsy Ramsey are culpable in JB's death.

Anyway, back on topic. You have to follow the physical evidence...it proves Darlie killed her two kids, whether people believe a mother could do it or not.

Reason before emotion.

Well I cant speak for anyone else but I certainly have no problems believing women in general are capable of heinous murders or mothers are murderers of their own children. It doesn't take emotion to realize that. All one has to do here is read for years about the ones who have.

I don't look at this case with emotions and certainly not just because this woman happened to be a mother. However I have always had doubts about Darlie's guilt. I have always felt what convicted Darlie was the Cindy Sommer syndrome and she was judged harshly because of the silly string graveside birthday party.

I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty but I would like to see her receive a new trial.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I too thought she was guilty until I saw the pictures that were not shown to the jury. Especially ones of the forearms. Also, her husband had plenty of motive to have his family killed. I don't know this is a tough one. I think atleast it deserves to be reexamined with all the dna testing and that we now have as compared to then.

I totally agree. It is far better to give this woman a new trial than to put this woman to death and then find out years later she wasn't guilty of anything. And we know innocent people have been wrongly accused before and yes, a jury convicted them too and were convinced they were guilty.

imo

 

[cami]

Thank you for this link. I am looking more for video of Darlie prior to her arrest. I know she invited the press to attend the graveside birthday party and I'm looking for a clip of her talking to the press at that time or some time shortly after the murders. Thanks again.

Yes, I've seen it. you might find something under the media on the .net site. All the television programs, except Invisible Intruder, are there. Try the 48 Hours program.

you're welcome very much

 

[cami]

I totally agree. It is far better to give this woman a new trial than to put this woman to death and then find out years later she wasn't guilty of anything. And we know innocent people have been wrongly accused before and yes, a jury convicted them too and were convinced they were guilty.

imo

the problem here though is the photos of Darlie's bruises were shown to the jury so to make a decision based on that is making a decision based on false information.

No one has yet to come up with any motive for why Darin would want his children killed.

He may have had a motive but it's pretty obscure whatever it is. IMO

 

[Texana]

I watched a documentary style show on Darlie last night (5/23) and made myself stay awake to watch it.

Blood spatter evidence on the back of Darlie's night shirt was one of the key points. The drops were elliptical (they showed photos) and the only way they got there was dripping from the knife, as her arm swung back to stab again.

The luminol evidence where blood had been cleaned up from the kitchen was also very telling.

Forget the birthday/grave side video. We can say that's subject to personal interpretation.

But the blood spatter and blood evidence--that's not up for interpretation.

I have to say I was horrified at the obvious image of Darlie's arm raised high to stab her children repeatedly.

Darin? I think he's either guilty of some knowledge or involvement, or he's the stupidest man on earth.I'm not sure which.

But Darlie is where she needs to be, and another trial would be a waste of taxpayer money.

 

[SoSueMe]

I watched a documentary style show on Darlie last night (5/23) and made myself stay awake to watch it.

Blood spatter evidence on the back of Darlie's night shirt was one of the key points. The drops were elliptical (they showed photos) and the only way they got there was dripping from the knife, as her arm swung back to stab again.

The luminol evidence where blood had been cleaned up from the kitchen was also very telling.

Forget the birthday/grave side video. We can say that's subject to personal interpretation.

But the blood spatter and blood evidence--that's not up for interpretation.

I have to say I was horrified at the obvious image of Darlie's arm raised high to stab her children repeatedly.

Darin? I think he's either guilty of some knowledge or involvement, or he's the stupidest man on earth.I'm not sure which.

But Darlie is where she needs to be, and another trial would be a waste of taxpayer money.

I think you are so right!

 

[Cassata11]

I totally agree. It is far better to give this woman a new trial than to put this woman to death and then find out years later she wasn't guilty of anything. And we know innocent people have been wrongly accused before and yes, a jury convicted them too and were convinced they were guilty.

imo

When I first read about this case, I focused on getting a trial as well. Based on some of the errors at trial, I strongly agreed with a new trial. The law clearly states that if even the transcript is unavailable in it's entire format, a new trial may be granted.

But we the websleuthers have more time to read testimony over and over again. I have listened to the 911 recording more times than even I want to admit. And as stated above, the blood spatter, and drops on the back of the shirt is SO TELLING. Even if Darlie was giving mouth to mouth, or picking up her child as to cradle him, it doesn't explain the knife/blood spatter on her BACK!

So what does Darlie's lawyer hope to accomplish? Are they hoping for a new trial, with new evidence aquitting her? NO! They are looking for old evidence to be thrown out, or not mentioned so they can win based on reasonable doubt.

That's why the judge has not issued a new trial. If Darlie had *ANY evidence that could prove her innocence, they would grant a trial. But Texas will not grant a new trial because of trial mistakes.

(However I do believe her case will have to go to a new trial if they ever want to carry out her death penalty.)

 

[SoSueMe]

When I first read about this case, I focused on getting a trial as well. Based on some of the errors at trial, I strongly agreed with a new trial. The law clearly states that if even the transcript is unavailable in it's entire format, a new trial may be granted.

But we the websleuthers have more time to read testimony over and over again. I have listened to the 911 recording more times than even I want to admit. And as stated above, the blood spatter, and drops on the back of the shirt is SO TELLING. Even if Darlie was giving mouth to mouth, or picking up her child as to cradle him, it doesn't explain the knife/blood spatter on her BACK!

So what does Darlie's lawyer hope to accomplish? Are they hoping for a new trial, with new evidence aquitting her? NO! They are looking for old evidence to be thrown out, or not mentioned so they can win based on reasonable doubt.

That's why the judge has not issued a new trial. If Darlie had *ANY evidence that could prove her innocence, they would grant a trial. But Texas will not grant a new trial because of trial mistakes.

(However I do believe her case will have to go to a new trial if they ever want to carry out her death penalty.)

Why do you say they will have to have a new trial if they want to carry out her death penalty? Her time should be running out. Hasn't it been over 10 years since her conviction?

I do believe she is guilty and I think a new trial would have the same outcome, so it makes no difference to me whether they try her again. It will be tax money wasted though. IMO