Should Darlie have a new trial?

[cami]

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

All 1000 of them? The trial would never end. You skirted the question about several jurors. I'd like you to back it up with proof please. Thanks.

 

[weasel]

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

Just my opinion, but if you look at Darlie's past history of dramatic actions to get attention, everything that was going on between Darlie and Darren leading up to the murders, it fits with Darlie's MO. Seriously, look at some of things she did in the past when things didn't go her way. False accusations of attempted rape for one. I couldn't imagine why someone would even give a cr*p about pinning murder or anything else on her. As for Darren, I think he was involved in helping her try to cover it up, maybe not knowingly. I think once they suspected the cops were suspecting Darlie, she asked him to help her and he is the one who inflicted the wounds on her arms. Could be why he flunked his lie detector. He's not going to admit helping her cover.

 

[weasel]

I really don't think you can compare Cindy Sommers case with Darlie's. Apples and oranges. There is actually quite a bit of evidence proving Darlie commited the murders. For one, the staged crime scene. Take a good close look at the evidence. As for that pesky little silly string incident at the cemetary, honestly, I don't care if it was the child's birthday, no loving parent could do that after just burying their own child. I don't care what Darlie's excuses were for that, but there is absolutely no way. If you've ever seen a true grieving parent, you would know without a doubt that is not possible.

 

[CyberLaw]

LE listens to a story. Now if the person gives more then one version, then of course "huge" red flags go off in the head of LE. To them, that means looking a "lot" closer to the story and the circumstances surrounding the story. That gives them a "heads" up on the person and what story they are telling this time.

Then of course they compare the story given to the "physical" evidence at the scene. The evidence is the only thing that will tell the whole truth, unbiased, objective, the evidence does not care about the story told, the job of the evidence is "to explain" in no uncertain terms what happens.

When a "persons" self serving story does not fit in with the "known" facts and evidence, when they tell different stories, different version to different people, then the "safe" and "logical" conclusion is that person has a greater involvement in the crime then they "want LE" to know.

Therefore, since LE acts for the victims of a crime, it is their "duty" to ensure that the person responsible is punished. After all these two boys will never grow up. Their whole lives were a whole 5 and 6 years.

Darlie had more then a fair trial. The evidence was presented that contradicted her "story". Since the evidence does not lie, then I believe the evidence over the "story"

Even if a trial was held today, again the evidence would not lie. But you bet, if I was first chair, I would pull up every story told to every person and see what story Darlie comes up with.

Liar's cannot keep their stories straight. That is why they often say "they don't know" and claim "they cannot remember" whan challenged about the many lies and stories told.

BTW, it was been 13 years since the boys were murdered by their mother, as they slept, in cold blood. I could not even imagine their "stark" terror at their mother stabbing them and knowing that they were going to be murdered by her.

So they boys would have been 19, 20 years old if their life was not cut short. Can you imagine what their teenage years would be like. Their friends, interests, sports, school, girls, parties, dating....and then college, a career, a wife, a family, grandkids.

Darlie took away their entire life and future. Then this so called women has the nerve to say in an interview that "the boys" lived a full life.

A full life, no I don't think so, they had not even begun to live their life. They will never live their life because of "the murderess Darlie Routier".

Again, I have looked at all of the evidence through "clear" water and did not see anything that would lead one to believe that this women in any way, shape or form is innocent.

I believe the evidence, the clear evidence, not the "smoke" and mirror" "junk" that the "cult" of Darlie puts forth.

There is so much more compelling evidence of her gulilt that there would be " no reasonable" doubt in a right thinking person . That is why she was found guilty........

 

[jackweb]

Here we are on the 13th aniversary (June1996) of what is in reality a UNSOLVED crime, IMO one of the biggest travesties of justice, and cases of injustice I've ever come upon. Why?....
1.) Because...LE focused only on the mother within hours without any investigation or valid reason, determined to 'pin' the crime on her, arrested her in the 1st 2 weeks, had her convicted and sentenced to death within 6 months, record time for even a 'Texas railroad'.
2.) Because there was literally no proof or evidence against her at all.
3.) Because her so called trial, is the worst mockery of the court system I've ever read, as she was allowed no defense lawyers and no defense. I say 'no' defense lawyers because that's what in effect was there...none. There were warm bodies present with the 'title' of defense lawyers, but they were hired by the real suspect in the case, her estranged husband Darin, at the last minute, with no time to prepare, no knowledge of the case, for extra skimpy funds. If you really want to laugh yourself silly (or cry) read Darlie's trial, which is on line, every second of it...The writers of the comedy lawyer movie 'Cousin Vinney' couldn't do better for comedy incompetence than Darlie's real life lawyers. At least in the movie, the incompetent lawyer only gets yelled at once by the judge during his opening statement, in Darlie's real life fake trial...he got yelled at twice...and it just gets worse!
People often ask, when I stick up for Darlie (as I always must since she was illegally convicted in violation of state, and federal law, and the Constitution, since there was no proof or evidence against her and therefore nothing close to proof beyond doubt as is required), if I think, that despite there being no proof, she could've done it? My answer is...maybe as she was there, but I don't think so...because...the case is a great one for sleuths, there is a lot of real evidence and it all points to...husband Darin...a little... to strangers on or near scene at the time, and none towards her.
For those who think she can be PROVED guilty as the law requires...WHY are you against a new trial???? What are you AFRAID of, could it be the TRUTH?

 

[Crow_Ascending]

None of the evidence points to Darin. None of the evidence points to an intruder, either. The most damning evidence against Darlie is the blood stains of both boys on the back of her nightshirt. The knife imprint on the carpet, followed by the clean-up in the kitchen, are the 2nd and 3rd most important pieces of evidence.

 

[CyberLaw]

All of the evidence points to her. It always has and still to this day does.

There is no physical evidence supporting "the stories", none at all.

Just like the guy who claimed he was car jacked and the car jack criminal murdered his wife. First the Police believed him, then after interviewing witness, asking very pointed questions, looking at the physical evidence. Low and behold, guess what he was charged with her murder. Funny when stories conflict with the "known" evidence. they question the person and the story, not the evidence.

See how criminals "always" want to get away with murder and always blame someone else. It is their "belief" that they will be the criminal who "beats" LE and gets away with murder.

Darlie is no exception. There is a lot of evidence pointing to her and none at all to anyone else.

She told 16 stories and counting......plus all of the physical evidence.

LE knows a staged scene when they see it. There was no blood trail out of the house and no indication that "anyone" went out the back gate.

Therefore if there was no evidence at all of anyone else, then the person who is doing all of the lying and cleaned up the blood is the person who killed the boys.

The case iss closed. The case is solved. The person responsible was brought to justice and is in prison.

Darlie will never get out, nor will she ever get another trial. The Mother and murderer is behind bars where she belongs.

Darlie can do all of the manipulation, lies, BS, and stories she wants. She "is never going to be released from prison."

Why do people not want her to have a new trial. It is not like a trial is a "mulligan" and then we have trials upon trials because someone "thinks" that it is not fair. Please, appeal judges have determined that the trial was "legal" and just.

Ask the taxpayers of Texas if they want to pay for another full trial, I put money on "she was convicted" already. Why go through the time and expense of a new trial if the "original" trial was just fine according to several courts of law.

I am not afraid of the truth. Because the TRUTH is that a women killed her two sons, she was tried and convicted and sentenced to death.

She is still alive 13 years after she killed her two sons. That in my opinion is VERY unfair that she is still breathing and had a life and got to grow up, something her kids will never see.

Darlie had more of a life then her two sons..........there is so many cases where the "stories" told are in colflict with the evidence and ther person is convicted on said evidence. You see people lie, the evidence does not. That is why people tend to believe the evidence instead of the criminal.

 

[MomofBoys]

Several in this thread have asked "What are you so afraid of? If she's so guilty, why not give her a new trial?"

Two words: OJ Simpson.

But really, to me, Darlie is 100%, undeniably, obviously guilty. You give her a new trial, and you introduce 12 new jurors who might have seen the softball "woe" pieces on Oxygen or saw Barbara Davis spinning her ridiculous about face on various shows. An about face that is ridiculous because of its focus on one piece of evidence while it ignores everything else. You have wiki entries like you saw on the Unsolved Mysteries site and an "official site" that carefully omits anything not favorable to Darlie.

Darlie, for reasons unfathomable to me, has accrued a following that believes in her. She has become a bit of a cause celebre in the crime world and I've tried and tried to grasp why. I can't. So that same bafflement puts me in a state where I have to recognize that some people can dismiss a ton of evidence and focus on things that fit into their view of how things did or didn't happen.

So, yes, I fear a trial in that sense. I don't fear one because I doubt the evidence. I fear it because I'm not sure that Darlie's supporters haven't made her bigger than she is. A poster-woman instead of a woman who was faced with very hard evidence at her trial and convicted on the basis of that evidence.

 

[CyberLaw]

Roger Coleman.....Darlie Routier, both have played the media, both have played the victim, both have the same murderous intent.

Manipulation, control, and the "woe"is me is what Darlie counts on. She "at this stage" in time, I feel fully "believes" that she is innocent and "justice" will prevail. After all these years, I do fully believe that this women had deluded herself that "she is innoent", that is why she can play the "victim" so well. She sees herself as a victim, and only a victim.

The above mention murderers play the media, play people, play the sympathy card.

After all they felt that they were both "hard done by" and the justice system "railroaded" them both.

Heck Roger Coleman "claimed" that an innocent man was going to be sent to death.He was framed, the trial was unfair, etc. He had "many" high" profile Hollywood types, priests, the Pope, media, Time magazine, etc "telling" his story. You know these "types" of people have lawyers who "know" how to make sure that their clients "plight" is known to the public.

But in the end, after Roger Coleman was executed tests were done by the Priest(who 100% believed in Rogers innocence) and those tests determined that Rogers Coleman lied. OMG, he lied and kept on lying for years. I am shocked, truly I am. NOT.

He did the crime that he was convicted of and sentenced to death. You see how these types of peole manipulate and can lie as they breathe.

Darlie is no different, as like Roger, she thought that she would never be caught, let alone convicted, then setenced to death.

Same story, different players, it is all about manipulation.......and and paying the ultimate price for your crimes. But Rogers Coleman did not get a new trial also, and his sentenced was carried out.

My understanding is that very few women are executed in the States, so I am not going to hold my breath as to when Darlie will "receive"the ultimate punishment.

Is is more interesting to the media that "maybe" an innoent person is going to be put to death. If Darlie did not get the Death Penalty, I very much doubt that she would have "the sult" of Darlie at her "PR" disposal.

Darlie is where criminals belong, behind bars........

 

[weasel]

<<Darlie, for reasons unfathomable to me, has accrued a following that believes in her. She has become a bit of a cause celebre in the crime world and I've tried and tried to grasp why. I can't.>>

I once saw an interview Darlie had done with some television reporter. During the interview she was watching a small television that was showing tapes of her sons. She cried, of course, and she was so soft-spoken you could barely hear her. Then a question was asked regarding evidence against her. When she answered "sure, that fits their theory", talking about LE, you can hear the edge in her voice and you get a fleeting glimpse of her true persona. Quite the actress. Obviously, you are smart enough to see through her. Some folks can't.

 

[Texana]

Darlie is very capable of coming across as the bereaved, loving mother, and a good defense attorney could spin the physical evidence so fast some juries might not get it.

The physical evidence matched Darlie. She couldn't be ruled out from the very beginning--especially when the luminol tests showed a different truth from the one she told.

All the physical evidence aside (and it was overwhelming--the blood spatters on Darlie's nightshirt were horrifyingly incontrovertible) if she said her boys had a "full life" at their young ages, then that in itself should be enough to make anyone go, "Huh?"

No mother whose child dies before them will ever say that. None. If I reach 100 and my child reaches 70, I'm going to think they missed out.

As for Darlie's chances of being executed--[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker[/ame] if she could, might warn Darlie about taking the odds for granted.

 

[Queenofwands]

Here we are on the 13th aniversary (June1996) of what is in reality a UNSOLVED crime, IMO one of the biggest travesties of justice, and cases of injustice I've ever come upon. Why?....
1.) Because...LE focused only on the mother within hours without any investigation or valid reason, determined to 'pin' the crime on her, arrested her in the 1st 2 weeks, had her convicted and sentenced to death within 6 months, record time for even a 'Texas railroad'.
2.) Because there was literally no proof or evidence against her at all.
3.) Because her so called trial, is the worst mockery of the court system I've ever read, as she was allowed no defense lawyers and no defense. I say 'no' defense lawyers because that's what in effect was there...none. There were warm bodies present with the 'title' of defense lawyers, but they were hired by the real suspect in the case, her estranged husband Darin, at the last minute, with no time to prepare, no knowledge of the case, for extra skimpy funds. If you really want to laugh yourself silly (or cry) read Darlie's trial, which is on line, every second of it...The writers of the comedy lawyer movie 'Cousin Vinney' couldn't do better for comedy incompetence than Darlie's real life lawyers. At least in the movie, the incompetent lawyer only gets yelled at once by the judge during his opening statement, in Darlie's real life fake trial...he got yelled at twice...and it just gets worse!
People often ask, when I stick up for Darlie (as I always must since she was illegally convicted in violation of state, and federal law, and the Constitution, since there was no proof or evidence against her and therefore nothing close to proof beyond doubt as is required), if I think, that despite there being no proof, she could've done it? My answer is...maybe as she was there, but I don't think so...because...the case is a great one for sleuths, there is a lot of real evidence and it all points to...husband Darin...a little... to strangers on or near scene at the time, and none towards her.
For those who think she can be PROVED guilty as the law requires...WHY are you against a new trial???? What are you AFRAID of, could it be the TRUTH?

I'm totally with you on this jackweb! I am normally FOR the death penalty but in this case, there was too much incompetence from Rowlett PD, the DA's office as well as Darlie's first court-appointed attorney's. The fact that the DA kept pictures away from the jury showing how bad Darlie was injured was wrong. When one of the jurors saw that photo, he said he would never have voted to convict,IIRC. I think the least she deserves is a new trial! Texas dropped the ball on her.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Now, really! The DA did not keep any photos out of evidence. Darlie's attorney admits that all the photos were admitted into evidence. Can anyone believe that Doug Mulder would not make certain that photos of the injuries would not be shown. Mulder and his assistants had only two prongs of attack against the prosecution. The first was that Darlie could not have inflicted the injuries on herself. The second was that Darlie was such a nice person she couldn't have killed her boys. Neither worked.

 

[Mary456]

The fact that the DA kept pictures away from the jury showing how bad Darlie was injured was wrong.

This rumor was started by Darlie's supporters, and it has stuck like glue. There's absolutely no truth to it. The photos of all her injuries were shown to the jurors. It's there plain as day in the trial transcript.

When one of the jurors saw that photo, he said he would never have voted to convict,IIRC.

Charlie Sanford saw those photos. Even Doug Mulder, Darlie's trial attorney, said he was mystified why Sanford would say such a thing, because "those photographs were shown to the jurors."

It's pretty clear to me why Charlie Sanford made this claim, but it's a long, convoluted story for another time

 

[Mary456]

Can anyone believe that Doug Mulder would not make certain that photos of the injuries would not be shown.

Never underestimate supporters, Crow. What's that saying...if you repeat a lie often enough, it starts to sound like the truth? :crazy:

 

[Curious Me]

Really, I see those photos of her injuries to be self-inflicted. How tall was the supposed killer?

 

[iluvmua]

Darlie is 100% percent guilty, I am a part of the TCPAAA ( Texas Citizens Police Academy Alumni Association) and during our annual state meetings ( they hold one every year in different parts of Texas) they have various classes that you can attend and one of the classes was talking about this case.

They had two people who worked this case at the class and they told us the background story and let us listen to the 911 call that Darlie made and one of the things they told us during the call that as she is talking to a 911 operator she is throwing glass goblets on the floor etc.

They put up photos of the crime scene on a projector, It was a very interesting class.

Also, they told us that only one person could have committed this crime and that person is Darlie.

 

[iluvmua]

48 hours did a story on this? is there anyway I can see this? I must have missed it.

 

[Crow_Ascending]

Another poster has given a website "Eyes for Lies" that has most of the video on it. The link is in the story.

 

[cami]

48 hours did a story on this? is there anyway I can see this? I must have missed it.

Yes, you can see it on the justicefordarlie site.

Here's the link: www.justicefordarlie.net

Choose "media" from the left hand menu, it's up near the top of the screen.

Has anyone ever wondered why the Medical Detectives/Forensics Files program is not included in the media menu at the site?