Should Darlie have a new trial?

[Peiper72]

You don't have to pay for it. It's on www.darliefacts.com

This is going to get my blood boiling, but I am going to read it anyway. Thanks.

 

[Peiper72]

Considering the information in your link, I doubt you read it before posting it...and you're right, exoneration is the wrong term.

Arizona -not based on innocence, based on payback for a sacrifice.

California -no basis for exoneration except a confession that supposedly cancels out the murderer's confession...whatever

Colorado - rape conviction, not murder

Florida - Jim Morrison exonerated for misdemeanors...not murder

Georgia - man was exonerated because he was lynched before his appeals were resolved. No actual innocence as a basis.
Georgia - woman was exonerated because an all white, all male jury convincted her. No actual innocence as a basis.

Illinois - No actual evidence of innocence, just suspicions the trial was unfair. The legal system needs to work through, not be preempted.

Maryland - not murder, embezzlement
Maryland - no actual basis for innocence except retractions by two witnesses. Anyone that knows court cases know recantations mean very little most of the time.

Massachusetts - Sacco and Vanzetti....which was ridiculous! There is no evidence of innocence, as a matter of fact there is good evidence they were part of the conspiracy which resulted in the death which means all participants are equally guilty.

Montana - not murder

Nebraska - Only true exoneration in this bunch!

New York - not murder

Oklahoma - not murder

Pennsylvania - no proof of innocence, another case of trying to make up for past prejudices, etc.

South Carolina - no proof of innocence, speculation

Texas - rape, not murder

United States - not murder

Great, great post. Kudos to you for clearing up the facts about the "wrongly" convicted. Btw, the Sacco & Vanzetti case made my blood boil.

 

[Peiper72]

Darin failed the poly because he knows who killed his children. He knows Darlie did it. This program has many, many errors in it so you can't go by a television program although it added insight. YOu have to read the trial transcripts to get any sense of this crime.

Reading the trial transcripts was not an easy task for me, but I managed to read most of them. And I agree, one will have to read them in order to fully understand this case.

 

[nicola]

I have been away from this site for a long time. One of the last posts i wrote in regards to this case, (i think it wasnt long after the judge granted new testing on evidence), i hoped that the test results would one way or another prove or disprove her guilt or innocence. I know that these things take time but surely they dont take years to complete - infact I KNOW tests dont take that long. I stated on this forum that if the tests proved she did it i would change my mind regarding her guilt. For years i have had beleived that darlie didnt do this. I have also at times doubted my own judgement (thanks to really persuasive arguments for her guilt from people such as Cami - thanks cami :seeya. Even now though taking into account the passage of time and the lack of results on the testing i am still leaning towards her not doing this to her little boys.

I beleive 100% that when someones life is at stake (re death penalty) we should be certain without a shadow of doubt of the guilt of the person. There have been innocent people executed and i dont think its right that a government should be executing people where there is doubt. I don't understand how prosecution teams/police can be allowed to do such things as coerce people into giving false confessions/statements (by use of violence against them or by rewarding someone to falsely testify against them eg jailhouse snitches), planting/hiding/falsifying evidence, railroading people to the cost of their investigation (these are to name but a few things that have gone on in the past) especially in a capital case. When things like this go on in the justice system it (rightly so) makes people doubt or loose faith in law and justice. When the defendants life is at stake i would like to think that every single avenue has been investigated and that the police have left no stone unturned. But has history has shown us this is not always the case.

Bearing this in mind i believe that she deserves a new trial - if shes found guity again....fair enough execute heer but if shes innocent??? I have too many doubts about her guilt. Wouldn't it be better to find that out before the state executes her?:twocents:

 

[chlban]

The evidence in this case in overwhelming. She was tried and convicted and she has been playing her games far too long now. Considering the speed with which the State of Texas generally proceeds with DP cases, she is being given favorable treatment because she is still alive.

Because of her families effective campaign on nonsense and lies, they are able to continue to recruit new Darlie-ites who buy into the lies they tell. Just like Jefffrey MacDonald, there are always new recruits.

I want the State to do their job. The sooner the better.

What she did to those poor babies is truly unforgivable.

 

[cami]

I have been away from this site for a long time. One of the last posts i wrote in regards to this case, (i think it wasnt long after the judge granted new testing on evidence), i hoped that the test results would one way or another prove or disprove her guilt or innocence. I know that these things take time but surely they dont take years to complete - infact I KNOW tests dont take that long. I stated on this forum that if the tests proved she did it i would change my mind regarding her guilt. For years i have had beleived that darlie didnt do this. I have also at times doubted my own judgement (thanks to really persuasive arguments for her guilt from people such as Cami - thanks cami :seeya. Even now though taking into account the passage of time and the lack of results on the testing i am still leaning towards her not doing this to her little boys.

I beleive 100% that when someones life is at stake (re death penalty) we should be certain without a shadow of doubt of the guilt of the person. There have been innocent people executed and i dont think its right that a government should be executing people where there is doubt. I don't understand how prosecution teams/police can be allowed to do such things as coerce people into giving false confessions/statements (by use of violence against them or by rewarding someone to falsely testify against them eg jailhouse snitches), planting/hiding/falsifying evidence, railroading people to the cost of their investigation (these are to name but a few things that have gone on in the past) especially in a capital case. When things like this go on in the justice system it (rightly so) makes people doubt or loose faith in law and justice. When the defendants life is at stake i would like to think that every single avenue has been investigated and that the police have left no stone unturned. But has history has shown us this is not always the case.

Bearing this in mind i believe that she deserves a new trial - if shes found guity again....fair enough execute heer but if shes innocent??? I have too many doubts about her guilt. Wouldn't it be better to find that out before the state executes her?:twocents:

As of this date, there is no legal reason to grant Darlie a new trial. The DNA results are in and the state is recommending she receive no more testing under Chapter 64 because there is nothing to back up her story of an intruder. If the judge grants that, she moves on to her federal appeals.

 

[BatWoman]

Thanks everyone for your posts. I admit I was on the fence with Darlie, mainly because I could understand the silly string fiasco & thought this caused a bit of prejudice. Your posts have answered quite a few questions for me and I'm starting to climb down from my perch now. :fence:

 

[cami]

Thanks everyone for your posts. I admit I was on the fence with Darlie, mainly because I could understand the silly string fiasco & thought this caused a bit of prejudice. Your posts have answered quite a few questions for me and I'm starting to climb down from my perch now. :fence:

Speaking only for myself, the ss party has never had an effect on my believing in Darlie's guilt. It's the physical evidence and her lies that tell me she's guilty. Although I do believe the SS party shows she has an Histrionic Personality Disorder.

 

[Satch]

....speculating on what we know about her I would never speculate she would slash her throat with her left hand (she's right handed) and risk leaving an ugly scar,darlie is all about appearances,if she wasn't going to kill herself,what was she trying to do?
....speculating on what we know about Darlie I would never speculate that she would mess up her white carpet with blood....she would have smothered her babies,if she wanted them dead...

Even though I believe she is guilty. Way too many conflicts in her stories. She can't even keep the evidence in her own stories straight, and none of the blood at the crime scene, nor prints point to any intruder. The one nagging question is, how was she able to slash her own throat so severely and survive? To my knowledge she had no medical training of any kind to know how to do that, without severe injury to herself. Can someone review the specifics of Darlie's throat injury(s.), any surgeries performed, and how long it took her to recover from them? That gash wound was nasty.

Satch

 

[Satch]

It has been shown in it's entirety. There are no solemn parts. You are confusing two tapes.

One filmed by a news crew invited to film the graveside party and an interview from D&D but were asked by the family NOT to film the prayer service. There is a police surveillance tape of the prayer service, given to the defense under the rules of discovery long before the trial. Not only did Mulder not enter this surveillance tape into evidence, he was given the opportunity to show it to the jury during the trial. That he didn't speaks volumes to me anyway.

Darlie screwed up, she should have had the news crew tape the prayer service and not her jumping around chewing gum and laughing and spraying silly string.

I never knew that Mr. Mulder was given the opportunity to show the whole "funeral service and Silly String" tape to the jury. Why did he refuse that?

Satch

 

[Zzzz]

In response to Satch's Q about the throat wound....

There's so much evidence proving Darlie's guilt. As has been discussed in this forum, she's probably a sociopath and sociopaths are well capable of doing the unexpected. After the boys were so violently killed, she HAD to do something to herself to make it look like she was attacked too. The boys were stabbed but she was slashed. IMO she was just lucky she barely missed her carotid - it certainly wasn't planned. She stood over the sink (her blood is on the edge) and just took a wild slash. It couldn't have been that bad as she was able to put a towel up to it, wipe out the sink, call 911, talk to the operator for several minutes, talk angrily to Darin, pace around (as evidenced by her blood drips) and so on. As far as I know she only had sterile strips on it, not stitches (needs corroboration). I don't know what the surgery was for. Perhaps someone else can say.

 

[Zzzz]

And, according to her own testimony, she didn't even know she'd been cut until after following the intruder through the kitchen and after Damon followed her and called to her. Only then did she realize. So how serious could it have been?

 

[chlban]

In response to Satch's Q about the throat wound....

There's so much evidence proving Darlie's guilt. As has been discussed in this forum, she's probably a sociopath and sociopaths are well capable of doing the unexpected. After the boys were so violently killed, she HAD to do something to herself to make it look like she was attacked too. The boys were stabbed but she was slashed. IMO she was just lucky she barely missed her carotid - it certainly wasn't planned. She stood over the sink (her blood is on the edge) and just took a wild slash. It couldn't have been that bad as she was able to put a towel up to it, wipe out the sink, call 911, talk to the operator for several minutes, talk angrily to Darin, pace around (as evidenced by her blood drips) and so on. As far as I know she only had sterile strips on it, not stitches (needs corroboration). I don't know what the surgery was for. Perhaps someone else can say.

I don't know how many of you remember the Charles Stuart case out of Boston. He killed shot his pregnant wife and also shot himself in order to make it appear to have been a carjacking/robbery attempt. At any rate, early on in his treatment due to the location of his wound, there was some concern that he might never be able to perform sexually again.

That case brought home to me the risks people in this situation are willing to take. You have to know that there is no way on earth he anticipated that result of the shooting.

I think it is highly likely that Darlie just, as you said, had to do something. She probably had no idea it could have been serious and, in fact, it obviously wasn't.

As for Stuart, there is no doubt he was guilty (just in case someone wants to argue that to somehow defend Darlie). The diamond ring that was supposedly "stolen" from his wife was turned into police by Stuart's own brother. He had given it to him to hold and Charles Stuart thoughtfully
committed suicide days later.

 

[Satch]

What do you think caused Darlie to snap that night and kill her kids? She sure sounded hysterical on the 9-1-1 call. The evidence though has never matched up with her story. Although I am still mystified by the sock in the alley. I always believed, while Darin may not have been involved as well, I have always resented how he "stuck up for her." In the interviews that I have seen, he's so cold and apathetic, like the death of his children was "no big deal." Have we EVER seen emotion or sensitivity from Darin? I just don't see from Darlie, "OK tonight at about 2AM, I am going to kill my kids and stage the crime scene."

She doesn't even sound like the "sharpest tool in the shed." I guess what I am wondering, and neither prosecution or defense has a theory for how the fight started and escalated. Even the Jeffrey Macdonald case, where I wrote papers from both prosecution and defense viewpoints. (Going from not sure, to innocent, to guilty over a period of twenty-five years!) But a powerful and passionate murder case, generally tells how the fight started. Nobody knows how the Darlie Routier Murders started. The main thing that killed her believability right away was that she "slept through" the attack of her kids who were watching TV and fell asleep with her on the couch!

Satch

 

[chlban]

I am not certian why she snapped, and some believe it was planned. I would suppose this was more along the lines of the Ramsey case, probably something seemingly minor that set her off. Once she stabbed one child, she pretty much had to stab the other since they were both old enough to talk.

Interesting you mention good old Jeff because this case has always reminded me so much of the Macdonald case includiing the faked injury to Darlie. Of course Jeff as a Doctor did a much better job with his injury, although it will never cease to amaze me that there are plenty of people that still believe hippies broke in and butchered two babies and a woman, while barely wounding the young, strong Green Beret.

I agree with you that Darrin is scum. I don't think he ws involved in the murders, but I have a hard time beleiving he didn't catch on pretty early on and yet staunchly defended her for years.

This is something I will just never, ever understand. I love my husband but if he harmed one hair on my child's head he would be history. Period.
No one comes before your chld. I will never get how people stay with a spouse that they know, or at least should know, killed their child.

 

[2 percent]

This is something I will just never, ever understand. I love my husband but if he harmed one hair on my child's head he would be history. Period.
No one comes before your chld. I will never get how people stay with a spouse that they know, or at least should know, killed their child.

I agree. Well said.
I never would have believed a parent could side against their child either until a male family member molested his two daughters and his wife took his side, saying her girls were lying. People, sometimes, are just crap.

 

[Zzzz]

The whole thing with Darin supporting her is bizarre. I've struggled to understand it, especially after talking to him a few months after her incarceration. Even if he thought their argument that night set her off and he felt guilty about that, how could he condone what she did? I finally concluded that 1) he's a nutcase himself, 2) he was so entrenched with Darlie's family (living with her mom for a long time afterward, depending on her family for financial support, appearing on talk shows with them) that he just couldn't get out of the web, and 3) his own mom was so publicly pro-Darlie that he couldn't go against her either.

He and Darlie became estranged around 3 to 4 years after the murders. Perhaps even sooner (it could probably be traced if somebody was so inclined). He stopped visiting her and she spoke ill of him in interviews, implying his involvement. This seemed to coincide with when he moved back to Lubbock. Maybe his friends there talked some sense into him. By 2007 Darlie said they were apart. When he divorced her in 2011, he said he still believed she was innocent, but that easily could have been part of a deal to get Darlie to agree to the divorce, or to protect poor Drake, or to keep peace with Darlie's family (who have provided homes and financial support for Drake for years).

I have no doubt that Darin was NOT involved in the murders or cover-up. It's clear in the 911 recording. He's innocent but still a . He failed the lie detector because he knew the truth. I'd be intetested in seeing some thoughts and discussion on this.

 

[chlban]

The whole thing with Darin supporting her is bizarre. I've struggled to understand it, especially after talking to him a few months after her incarceration. Even if he thought their argument that night set her off and he felt guilty about that, how could he condone what she did? I finally concluded that 1) he's a nutcase himself, 2) he was so entrenched with Darlie's family (living with her mom for a long time afterward, depending on her family for financial support, appearing on talk shows with them) that he just couldn't get out of the web, and 3) his own mom was so publicly pro-Darlie that he couldn't go against her either.

He and Darlie became estranged around 3 to 4 years after the murders. Perhaps even sooner (it could probably be traced if somebody was so inclined). He stopped visiting her and she spoke ill of him in interviews, implying his involvement. This seemed to coincide with when he moved back to Lubbock. Maybe his friends there talked some sense into him. By 2007 Darlie said they were apart. When he divorced her in 2011, he said he still believed she was innocent, but that easily could have been part of a deal to get Darlie to agree to the divorce, or to protect poor Drake, or to keep peace with Darlie's family (who have provided homes and financial support for Drake for years).

I have no doubt that Darin was NOT involved in the murders or cover-up. It's clear in the 911 recording. He's innocent but still a . He failed the lie detector because he knew the truth. I'd be intetested in seeing some thoughts and discussion on this.

I agree with all of your opinions here. He is a , and I think the reasoning for publicly supporting her are sound. That family is rabid and going against them, even after all this time, would not be pleasant. Plus, I suppose that he is, he might have some genuine concern for his one remaining child and not wish to publicly support the idea that the child's mother murdered his brothers.

I don't think he as involved at all, I agree that the 911 call proves that. However I suspect there was a good reason why Darlie was trying so hard to convince him there really was an intruder. She knew he didn't really believe it.

I think it's likely that, at first, he tried really hard to believe the intruder story. I think that would be human nature. But I don't think it really took him all that long to figure out the truth.

I don't know what, exactly, the dynamic is that allows a spouse to cover for the other spouse in the death of a chld or children. It is my personal belief that John Ramsey did the same thing with his wife. Made a deliberate decision to support his wife even once it dawned on him what had really happened. Since I believe Ramsey to be far more intelligent that Darin, I think he came the realization earlier than Darin probably did. Darin not being the sharpest tool and all. It's the "why" I don't quite get. Maybe Darin honestly thought that Darlie would get away with it and life would go one pretty much as before? It worked for the Ramsey's.

That dynamic is not something I will ever really understand, as I have said, but I am convinced it exists.

 

[Satch]

I have been away from this site for a long time. One of the last posts i wrote in regards to this case, (i think it wasnt long after the judge granted new testing on evidence), i hoped that the test results would one way or another prove or disprove her guilt or innocence. I know that these things take time but surely they dont take years to complete - infact I KNOW tests dont take that long. I stated on this forum that if the tests proved she did it i would change my mind regarding her guilt. For years i have had beleived that darlie didnt do this. I have also at times doubted my own judgement (thanks to really persuasive arguments for her guilt from people such as Cami - thanks cami :seeya. Even now though taking into account the passage of time and the lack of results on the testing i am still leaning towards her not doing this to her little boys.

I beleive 100% that when someones life is at stake (re death penalty) we should be certain without a shadow of doubt of the guilt of the person. There have been innocent people executed and i dont think its right that a government should be executing people where there is doubt. I don't understand how prosecution teams/police can be allowed to do such things as coerce people into giving false confessions/statements (by use of violence against them or by rewarding someone to falsely testify against them eg jailhouse snitches), planting/hiding/falsifying evidence, railroading people to the cost of their investigation (these are to name but a few things that have gone on in the past) especially in a capital case. When things like this go on in the justice system it (rightly so) makes people doubt or loose faith in law and justice. When the defendants life is at stake i would like to think that every single avenue has been investigated and that the police have left no stone unturned. But has history has shown us this is not always the case.

Bearing this in mind i believe that she deserves a new trial - if shes found guity again....fair enough execute heer but if shes innocent??? I have too many doubts about her guilt. Wouldn't it be better to find that out before the state executes her?:twocents:

Greetings,

So for you the sock in the alley and the "black car" would be enough to acquit Darlie on reasonable doubt? That sock was the one thing that puzzled me about the case as well. But for me, it's not enough to have reasonable doubt in her guilt. Far too much evidence on the other side goes against her.

Satch

 

[Zzzz]

I agree with all of your opinions here. He is a , and I think the reasoning for publicly supporting her are sound. That family is rabid and going against them, even after all this time, would not be pleasant. Plus, I suppose that he is, he might have some genuine concern for his one remaining child and not wish to publicly support the idea that the child's mother murdered his brothers.

I don't think he as involved at all, I agree that the 911 call proves that. However I suspect there was a good reason why Darlie was trying so hard to convince him there really was an intruder. She knew he didn't really believe it.

I think it's likely that, at first, he tried really hard to believe the intruder story. I think that would be human nature. But I don't think it really took him all that long to figure out the truth.

I don't know what, exactly, the dynamic is that allows a spouse to cover for the other spouse in the death of a chld or children. It is my personal belief that John Ramsey did the same thing with his wife. Made a deliberate decision to support his wife even once it dawned on him what had really happened. Since I believe Ramsey to be far more intelligent that Darin, I think he came the realization earlier than Darin probably did. Darin not being the sharpest tool and all. It's the "why" I don't quite get. Maybe Darin honestly thought that Darlie would get away with it and life would go one pretty much as before? It worked for the Ramsey's.

That dynamic is not something I will ever really understand, as I have said, but I am convinced it exists.

I totally agree that John Ramsey fits the same dynamic. He's more intelligent than Darin for sure, yet he also covered for his wife. Could it be that the murders were so horrific they just couldn't admit to themselves that someone they chose to love and marry could do such a thing?