Should Darlie have a new trial?

[sloane7777]

Beyond a reasonable doubt!!!!! I dont know about ya'll but I have ALOT of doubt! there were too many trial errors, jury did not hear all ....just too much doubt

 

[cami]

Beyond a reasonable doubt!!!!! I dont know about ya'll but I have ALOT of doubt! there were too many trial errors, jury did not hear all ....just too much doubt

Don't watch tv programs or read books about this case. Read the trials transcripts, they are the only true source of this case. You have the false impression from some tv show or book that the jury did not see all the evidence, photos of bruises, etc., but if you read the transcripts you will see that they were entered into evidence and the jury did see them.

 

[JMO8778]

just a q...if they were nearly broke,then how on earth could Darlie have afforded the top attorneys,forensic specialists,and P.I.??

 

[sloane7777]

Don't watch tv programs or read books about this case. Read the trials transcripts, they are the only true source of this case. You have the false impression from some tv show or book that the jury did not see all the evidence, photos of bruises, etc., but if you read the transcripts you will see that they were entered into evidence and the jury did see them.

The transcripts had hundreds of errors , Its been all over the news here in Dallas, the court reporter lost her license.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Darlie was convicted on the evidence, not the transcripts, as the transcripts were not produced until after the trial. Here's a link to Susan Simmons affidavit about Halsey's work: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/simmons.html

This is an interesting read for both sides.

 

[Stella]

I think Darren needs to be brought before a grand jury or reinvestigated or something! That guy has to know more than he's told. And he failed that polygraph test; sure they're not admissable but I feel he's got some guilt in this.

 

[shalelynn]

Should Darlie Routier be given a new trial?

yeah, i pretty sure she is innocent.....some sicko did this....some people dont need a reason to kill....look at tommy lynn sells he murdered many children and one mum went to jail for stabbing and murdering her little boy and she finally was released when tommy lynn sells confessed

 

[sloane7777]

yeah, i pretty sure she is innocent.....some sicko did this....some people dont need a reason to kill....look at tommy lynn sells he murdered many children and one mum went to jail for stabbing and murdering her little boy and she finally was released when tommy lynn sells confessed

I so agree, and I lived real close at the time, scary huh!!

 

[MomofBoys]

yeah, i pretty sure she is innocent.....some sicko did this....some people dont need a reason to kill....look at tommy lynn sells he murdered many children and one mum went to jail for stabbing and murdering her little boy and she finally was released when tommy lynn sells confessed

To me, the difference was that Tommy Lynn Sells was a sexual predator and most of his murders started in that vein. There was no evidence of the boys (or Darlie, really) being sexually assaulted. If someone got in the way, TLS killed that person. It was Krystal's luck that she was able to run for help and survive.

Darlie was left alive while her boys were being butchered. No rape, no robbery, no motive that would make me understand why a killer would go at young boys so unmercifully. I know there are crimes out there that go against known profiles, but it makes no logical sense.

All the other evidence and the 911 call aside.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

yeah, i pretty sure she is innocent.....some sicko did this....some people don't need a reason to kill....look at tommy lynn sells he murdered many children and one mum went to jail for stabbing and murdering her little boy and she finally was released when tommy lynn sells confessed

I have never been comfortable with the conviction of Darlie. I really did not see a motive to do what she did. Maybe someone left her alive so that they could pin the murders on her with her being the usual suspect. I wonder if the jury convicted her because of character assassination like they did in the Cindy Sommers case. I think what swayed the jury was her silly string birthday party when I think she was only trying to recognize her child's birthday. Yes it was immature but I do not find anything sinister about it.

I just cant get over all the massive bruises or wounds she had. I do not think a person could inflict that much damage on themselves.

I don't know if Darlie is guilty or innocent. Frankly her husband gave me many more shivers than she did. There was just something not right about him imo.

I do think she deserves a new trial.

imoo

 

[sloane7777]

Boy ,do I agree with the above , it just boils down to this: Guilty BEOYND a reasonable doubt, there are just too many questions to end this woman's life , for god's sake George Bush commuted Henry Lee Lucas to life instead of Death Row! and we all know he killed several people in cold blood!!!! how is this even right? if there are so many questions do what can be done to answer them/ you know what they say about assuming things.

 

[sloane7777]

Darlie was convicted on the evidence, not the transcripts, as the transcripts were not produced until after the trial. Here's a link to Susan Simmons affidavit about Halsey's work: http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/simmons.html

This is an interesting read for both sides.

:blowkissarlie was convicted on the evidence that was presented to the jury, several jurors have stated, they would not convicted her had they known everything they know now!I'm just saying.....

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Charlie Samford is the only juror to say that he would not have voted for conviction if he had 'seen all them pictures.' However, even Doug Mulder admits that all the photographs were entered into evidence. If Charlie can't remember seeing some of the pictures, I can't fault him, but they were entered in court. I can provide you a link to the jurors names (if that's not against board rules--moderators??????) if you want to do more research. The names are now public record.

 

[Mary456]

Charlie Samford is the only juror to say that he would not have voted for conviction if he had 'seen all them pictures.' However, even Doug Mulder admits that all the photographs were entered into evidence.

That's true. Charlie saw the photos. They were entered into evidence and shown to all the jurors.

Darlie's appellate lawyers were playing mind games with Charlie. I'm betting that Barbara Davis and Christopher Brown were in on that deception as well.

 

[whitywendy]

Hey Mary, missed ya, welcome back!!

 

[cami]

yeah, i pretty sure she is innocent.....some sicko did this....some people dont need a reason to kill....look at tommy lynn sells he murdered many children and one mum went to jail for stabbing and murdering her little boy and she finally was released when tommy lynn sells confessed

No she wasn't. She was retried on a technicality and the jury found her not guilty in her second trial. NO one takes TLS very seriously as Joel killer, except maybe TLS.

 

[Mary456]

Hey Mary, missed ya, welcome back!!

Thanks, Wendy!

 

[cami]

:blowkissarlie was convicted on the evidence that was presented to the jury, several jurors have stated, they would not convicted her had they known everything they know now!I'm just saying.....

Several jurors? which ones? do you have a link with proof that several jurors have stated they would not have convicted her.

That's a complete fallacy started by supporters of Darlie's. One juror has stated he did not see the bruises. Trial evidence proves the photos were shown and discussed at trial.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Several jurors? which ones? do you have a link with proof that several jurors have stated they would not have convicted her.

That's a complete fallacy started by supporters of Darlie's. One juror has stated he did not see the bruises. Trial evidence proves the photos were shown and discussed at trial.

It is very unusual for all photos taken to be entered into a trial. In fact I have never heard of a trial that did. Usually only a selected few are shown and the Judge decides which ones comes into the trial. Judges can make errors.

I think the jury needed to see all of them and I doubt they did.

imo

 

[DotsEyes]

Oh sure, an intruder sneaks into the house and savagely stabs 2 little boys to death who are sleeping in the same rom with their mother and she has only superficial wounds. Not happeing. Mom would have been attacked and taken out first - she is the one who caused the most threat of alerting neighbors by screaming, fighting the intruder and being able to ID him.

Darlie killed her kids. The knife imprint on the carpet shows that the killer was bleeding down the knife blade. The blood is Darlie's, dripping from her self-inflicted wound which she caused in the kitchen at the sink and tried to wipe away. There is no blood from an "intruder". Just hers and the boys.

Silly string on their graves? Please. She killed them and she is where she needs to be. Case closed.