Silly String Birthday Party

[accordn2me]

I don't have a criminal mind so I don't know what a rapist, burglar, or murderer would or wouldn't do. Even when one states their motives behind such crimes, it pretty much always seems senseless to me.

As for different stories, I came into this case way after the conviction. As stated previously, first thing I saw/heard of this crime was the silly string tape and I agreed with the posters, and prosecutor, who are appalled at this behavior. As I started reading the transcripts, I was even more appalled at Mulder's lack of effort on this case. I truely don't understand it any more than I will ever understand the criminal mind.

Mulder is an attorney with a stellar reputation. Rumor has it he got a guilty man acquitted and sent an innocent one to death row. I don't know that case but I watched Johnny Cockeran, et al. get a guilty as sin OJ Simpson off! There is so much more Mulder could have done and should have done so that Darlie would have had a fair trial. As it was, the case was presented by prosecutors with no competition from defense. To fire the experts and not hire someone else to examine the crime scene, and look at the evidence from another perspective is malpractice on Mulder's part, IMO, and it is worthy of being disbarred.

 

[CyberLaw]

What people do not see to understand, is that there was significant scientific and forensic evidence that was presented in court, that the defense could not overcome under any circumstances.

How could the defense explain why the motion sensor in the backyard was not "tripped" by the intruder as he was leaving.

Or the gate.....

Or the cast off blood on Darlie's shirt. There is only so much a defense attorney can do when faced with various stories, a client that wants to testify, crime scene that was cleaned up, a murder weapon from the house, the murder of the two boys as compared to Darlie's injury, the lack of "evidence" of any fight, the lack of any blood trail or even a drop of blood outside, the implausible story of a "mortally'" wounded child walking and talking with two deep stab wounds to the back, the silly string tape, the dog that did not bark, the affect of Darlie at the hospital.

How can the defense "put forth" a defense that Darlie did not murder the boys if there was only Darlie's story to support that.

Mulder had a hopeless case, the job of the defense attorney is to defend your client, not find them innocemt of a crime they committed.

There is no way that the defense can overcome the stories told to many different people. Or the letters from Prison to relatives that "Darlie" just knew who did it.

Mulder did a great job considering what he had to work with and what he did not have to work with. What he did not have to work with, was no evidence that supported the 'many" stories of Darlie told to many people.

Come on, how does a defense attorney "overcome" the pattern of blood and the mix of blood on Darlie's nightshirt that indicate that the blood was deposited during a "swinging" motion. Or the vaccum cleaner, or no cuts to her feet.

Please, what would one expect an attorney to do under these circumstances. The best job he could considering the evidence against his client. That is the reason why the family pooled their money to hire the "best attorney" they could hire. But an attorney cannot change evidence, fact and forensics. He can only attempt to "deflect" the damage of that evidence as best as he can.

Lawyers do not walk on water and cannot pull a miracle out of a hat.
​

 

[accordn2me]

<snip>Do you think she is guilty?

From what I read in the transcripts, and the lack of defense in the courtroom, including no experts to refute the state's theories, I have a lot of reasonable doubt that she is guilty. Just to name a few reasons:

1. The sock

2. Unidentified bloody fingerprints

3. Crime scene photos not numbered and in sequence

4. Fibers on bread knife were from LE's fingerprint dusting, IMO

 

[JaneInOz]

Jane - I don't think anyone here who believes Darlie is guilty is purposely being ugly to anyone who does not.

You post that all you want for Darlie is another day in court. I believe I read that you are on the "fence" , however, when someone tries to lead you to factual info or try to explain to you that the info that you are stating as fact has been manipulated, we are the ones being ugly.

What is your opinion of the testimony of the tiny hand print that had been wiped away prior to the arrival of the PO? What about the drops of Darlie's blood found all over that LR and Utility room - she stated herself she did not go in there. And these are drops like she was standing there thinking. What about her blood drops along the length of the sofa as if someone was moving quickly down that sofa to get to something "Damon"... was found moving along this path also. What about the bloody knife imprint in the floor? The sock found outside had a couple of blood drops on it, that it. Why was there blood found on an open photo album. What killer is going to be looking at a photo album while in the process of murder?

I thought we were all here in search of the truth. I know that is why I read all of the older posts because I was in search of the truth.

I never said I was on the fence. ?

 

[JaneInOz]

Motive will make you pull your hair out! :banghead: It's a good thing that prosecutors are not required to address it.

3 of your 5 numbered paragraphs begin with, "If the motive is murder," the other 2 are about a burglar. Neither one of these make sense to me. And sorry, I don't have a theory that does make sense! Here's a what if: what if it was an interrupted rape?

The reason I posted the affidavits by Linch and Laber is because I thought you were asking about evidence. Why do you think they are biased because they are posted on a site run by Darlie's family? Do you think her family forged, or made up these documents?

Bold is mine (accord this post is not directed to you just the bolded part )

all the transcripts are on there as well...have they been doctored


This is not to accord but in general...

Do you know how I feel when I post anything here ?

Bullied.

Just because the words are not rude or nasty the whole way that it is approached except for the odd FEW that are polite and reasonable in their questions, is that of being bullied
Now just because someone doesnt feel like they are not bullying others doesnt mean that the person on the receiving end doesnt feel it

I post something and immediately the same people come in a hundred miles and hour and pummel me with Well Well What do you think of that and come on answer that , huh huh come on then ....

That IS What it feels like to me. and I am sick of it.

I have a right to feel that Darlie is innocent and deserves a new trial. Of course I could be wrong I understand that. But this is a woman who could very well be put to death and as I keep saying should n't we be absolutely sure ? And if there is any doubt at all to remove it..

Im just not going to address those that make me feel this way any longer. Im entitled to feel the way I do, and I'm entitled to cite any websource.

Please stop trying to make me feel like an idiot because I feel differently about this case than you do.

 

[accordn2me]

I'm glad you are hanging in and posting your opinions about Darlie and her case. I come & go from from time to time, and it's nice to have at least one other person who shares the belief that Darlie deserves a new trial. :blowkiss:

Were you asking me if I believe the transcripts on the website were altered? I don't. And I'd bet the farm that the affidavits were not either.

 

[JaneInOz]

I'm glad you are hanging in and posting your opinions about Darlie and her case. I come & go from from time to time, and it's nice to have at least one other person who shares the belief that Darlie deserves a new trial. :blowkiss:

Were you asking me if I believe the transcripts on the website were altered? I don't. And I'd bet the farm that the affidavits were not either.

Hi, no sorry i was adding to your post LOL

Sigh im feeling very raw atm though....

 

[Britlaws]

Hey Jane,

I know how you feel. I have never indicated on here as to whether I think Darlie is guilty or not guilty. That is largely irrelevant to me as my interest as a lawyer, is in seeing that the CJS process works and there is confidence in the result. Yet, I too have felt bullied, patronised and ridiculed, with Darlie haters ganging up like schoolchildren against anyone who may have a contrary opinion (in fact I got two apologies from moderators, so I wasnt imagining it). The same posters are evident on other forums/boards doing the same thing. I, like you, wonder why these people post at all when they find it all so irritating.

Yes, mothers do kill children intentionally but sometimes, what can appear to be overwhelming evidence for a conviction is later found to be founded on expert evidence that is discredited and unfair inclusion of irrelevant evidence. Our case of Sally Clark is a good example of that. Few people championed her cause when she was originally convicted and sent to prison for killing her two babies, but everyone now recognises the complete injustice of this case. Her four years in prison is a tragedy, but at least we don't have the death penalty.

Hey ho, I think this will be my last post. Good luck!

 

[accordn2me]

:blowkiss::blowkiss::blowkiss::blowkiss:

Hang in here! Not that my opinion is much, but I really enjoy discussing this case with others, especially when it is civil, more so when it is cordial, and even when others have differing opinions.

The rudeness I can do without but it seems to be prevalent in all aspects of our lives these days. The wonderful thing about cyberspace, I can completely blow it off, instantanously. You know why? The posters whose opinions impress me most on this incredible, informative, inspirational website, have enough intelligence and couth to see other posters' words and know what they are, without me saying a word, notifying a moderator, or giving it a second thought.

If I thought trying to point out the errors of their ways, or even a scolding or timeout from a moderator would do these offenders any good....well then, I might give them the time of day. But at this stage of the game, if they haven't "gotten it" yet, they're probably not going to. Too bad for them. But, they'll never get to rain on my parade! :woohoo:

Stick around! The DNA test results should be back any time now!!!:eye:

 

[cami]

Bold is mine

Ive got that far and want to say something

If its tiresome then why don't you just walk away?
Why should us her are *newer* posters be scurried off because its *tiresome*

Im sorry if its boring you

But there are many who would only just perhaps even step into this and want to ask and debate.

If its old *tiring* news to you then why read it ?

As for the other comment I didn't get that from Darlies website

Im going to bed now and will read the rest of your post tommorow

For me the constant arguing is getting tiresome. People who think differently should be able to post without fear of being *reprimanded* or told its tiresome for their *different* view on the Darlie Routier Case

No one is trying to scurry you off Jane. You asked for someone to answers those questions and I decided I would until I got tired of it. Why don't you try to find the answers yourself then and stop asking us who believe in Darlie's guilt to answer them. The answers are all in the court transcripts or a matter of common sense but obviously you're not interested in reading them.

No one is reprimanding you...gosh you sound awful paranoid. It's your right to have a different view, but if you are going to post that crap from Darlie's website, then I'm going to shoot it down every time...not you.

Now, I'll ask you some questions. I've asked many many people who believe in Darlie's innocence to prove it by using the evidence that convicted her...blood evidence, fibre evidence. Prove how she got those bruises from an intruder. What weapon did he use? Why is only one arm bruised up to the armpit? Why no broken bones if it's blunt force trauma, no facial injuries, no head injuries, why no cuts on her fingers, palms, and the underside of her arms if she's fighting a knife weilding stranger? Why were bloody footprints cleaned up from the kitchen floor? Why was there blood cleaned from the sink and the surrounding counters? Why was Damon's bloody handprint cleaned off the couch? Why is there no blood where Darlie alleges the intruder threw the bloody knife to the floor? Why is there no blood outside the home? Why is there no indication that anyone either went over the fence or through the gate? Why didn't the sensor lights come on? How does a 6ft intruder get in a window that was only 10 inches from the ground without leaving some sign he was there...like the dust that was inches thick on the sill. Why did he use the bread knife from the Routiers kitchen to cut the screen and then put it back? How did he get in to get the bread knife? Why did he take another knife from the Routier kitchen to kill the boys? How did he get through that crowded, dark, unfamiliar garage without bumping into to something and making some noise? Why did he immediately stab two sleeping boys with violent thrusts of the knife into their torsos and leave DArlie with a few surface cuts?

Why does she go from hysteria (?) to anger in nanoseconds when on the phone with 911? Why is she so concerned about her prints on that knife that she mentions it to everyone even the 911 operator?

Why for heavens sake if she's innocent did she lie and lie and lie on the witness stand during her trial?

(?) means I don't think she was hysterical on the 911 call but some people do.

 

[cami]

Its not about stating facts/proof its the "oh this is getting tiresome" comments and "oh we've been through all this before"

And the continual thumping of the facts/proof as you call it into my face (I cant speak for the others)

There is another poster here who believes Darlie is guilty but look at her posts..she doesnt intimate that I am an idiot for believing Darlie just might be innocent.

This is the end of this discussion for me. If you want to continue please PM Me

I still believe Darlie needs a new trial. I believe that things were messed up and she at least deserves the right to a fair trial.

Darlie had a fair trial though Jane. You don't seem interested in learning anything but what you have read on Darlie's website and Trutv. If you post something that is not true, I think we have the right to impeach it with the trial testimony don't you?


No one has called you an idiot or even insinuated you are..that's your word. You have every right to believe in Darlie's innocence, however, it appears to me you are basing that belief on what you are reading at Trutv and the .org site. You don't seem interested in learning both sides of the issue...that's all I'm saying.

 

[crystalmama]

Hi Cami,
Wow Nova Scotia! That's on my list of places I want to see.
I can understand the feeling you have for your home.I have been in other countries and smelt gum leaves and wanted immediately to go home.
In Australia too people love the ocean.Well most of us live near the ocean.
I live in Queensland on the Redcliffe Peninsula.This is where the first settlement was in Queensland in the pioneering days.
That is, until an exporer discovered the Brisbane River and they up and moved.The river here being inadequate.
The told the Aborigines they could have the houses and huildings they had built but the Aborigines would not go into them.They called them Humpy Bong, meaning dead place.
I actually live at Humpy Bong which is a small part of the peninsula.
It is very hot here, I think because of the islands parallel with the coast, trapping the moist air.
I have seen pics of Nova Scota and it is just beautiful.Its name implies that it is new Scotland.Is that correct?
Do you have a lot of Scottish background? I read somewhere you have a French name.
My granddaughter in Calgary tells me about Robert Burns Day ( I looooove him) and the Scottish connections.When I have been in Canada I have visited cemeteries (as I do, looking for old names to assess the early population)and there are a lot of Scots.
I am delighted to meet you Cami......you are my very first Nova Scotian friend.

Yes I agree there is a little paranoia on this board.Actually a bit like 6th grade.I don't understand how people can be hurt to their marrow because others cite facts that prove they are wrong.
It appears that when the 'guilty' believers throw up facts that some cannot refute they get upset.
Please don't get upset.
Please just refute those facts.
And if you can't, accept that life is like that.Sometimes you are right and sometimes you are wrong.
I was sooo wrong about so many things in my early years that now I look back at the 'me' of then and wonder where I was coming from.

I have been reading the old posts again.Gosh I have lost count of the times now, but I forget stuff.
Some posters kept throwing up the words 'reasonable doubt'.
This is why I would never want to be on a jury.I don't know if my definition of reasonable doubt is the same as others', but every bit of reasonable doubt the Darlie camp throws up does not constitute 'REASONABLE' doubt as opposed to the very solid case against Darlie.
That is not just my opinion.

As I get deeper into this whole murky world of the Routiers, I get the feeling that there is far more than we know.
I get surer and surer that Darlie did not act alone.Neither was Darin sleeping at all that night.If two small children were murdered that night in that house,and we know they did not kill themselves, then both parents knew about it.

I saw the pics in the MTJD book yesterday, and stared in disbelief at the two little marble-cold forms of the boys.They look like little fledglings that have not yet grown flight feathers.
How Darlie could accept what was done to her sons without any show of grief scares me.
Somewhere I read that Mulder did not provide an adequate defense of Darlie.
I read that even during the trial he called her 'very cold'.
I would say that describes her exactly.
Maybe his conscience would not allow him to work to set this woman free.

Regards,CM

 

[Brwnigirl]

Have always been interested in this case but am the first to admit I really don't know the facts and would like to learn more.
Can someone just bring me up to speed on what is the theory of "why" she killed the kids for those who believe her to be guilty? Thanks!

 

[JaneInOz]

Have always been interested in this case but am the first to admit I really don't know the facts and would like to learn more.
Can someone just bring me up to speed on what is the theory of "why" she killed the kids for those who believe her to be guilty? Thanks!

Hi there are a couple of other threads going re this
As TG just reopened this thread Id really like it to stay open



Try this one http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49976

 

[whitywendy]

Have always been interested in this case but am the first to admit I really don't know the facts and would like to learn more.
Can someone just bring me up to speed on what is the theory of "why" she killed the kids for those who believe her to be guilty? Thanks!

Hey Brwnigirl - A great place to begin would be the Justice for Darlie website were the transcripts are located. Just google Darlie's name and you will find all kinds of articles in regards to this crime.

IMO, there isn't a conclusive "why" as to "why" Darlie killed her boys. I have gone back and forth from post-partum depression to her being a selfish person who couldn't "see" her life without money as to a possible why. I remember when this happened. I thought at first Darin had to be involved because when the first news reports came out, all that was stated was the husband and baby upstairs survived the attacks. So of course hmmmmm, husband had to be involved. Then the silly string incident really switched sides for me. However, I have not based my decision on this tape. I have based my decision of her guilt on the transcripts, pictures, video's and the valuable resources here in the older archives. It was really sad day for me when I came to conclusion that woman murdered her boys. Very sad for the kids. They trusted that woman with all their might and then wake to find her attacking them.

Anyhow, the transcripts are an excellent read. Time consuming but VERY WORTH THE READ.

 

[TopGunner]

Glad to see new people, and others helping them, but let's keep this on topic as already mentioned. The Silly String Episode

If you want to open a thread for new people coming in, so they can ask questions and have links provided that's fine.

 

[cassiusleuth]

I'm new to this case, I've looked everywhere to see of copy of this video to no avail...anyone know where I can find it. TIA

 

[cami]

I'm new to this case, I've looked everywhere to see of copy of this video to no avail...anyone know where I can find it. TIA

You'd probably have to contact the television station that filmed it. There has never been a copy of the video on the net to my knowledge. We've only seen parts of it that have been shown on television programs about this case.

you might try www.justicefordarlie.net
and then choose "media" and then choose some of the tv programs there.

 

[stacia99]

This case used to trouble me as well, I MOSTLY felt she was guilty..but..but..it just didn't make sense, dang it! What would make a loving, (by some accounts) mother for no appararent motive just snap and kill her 2 precious children?

The silly string episode was repulsive to me too, but trying to be objective I told myself that no 2 people grieve exactly alike...then, the Casey Anthony case hit...and I came here and read this thread...and it all came together.

I wish I could cite the author of the post but it esapes me at the moment, but she basically said that while people didn't grieve alike, they DID grieve--and Darile showed no grief..and it all came together for me. DARLIE DIDN'T SHOW ANY GRIEF.

Putting this case next to the CA one...what we stumble across is thirs: Some of us are trying to assign a logical motive to people who defy logic. They lack true emotion, and have no conscience. Were they to confess to all, and explain their motive, we would understand no better than we do today. Their motives only make sense to them. What we perceive as their love towards people, is really just wanting an object, because they objectify people. In these women's lives they no longer had any use for formerally wanted objects--in these cases, their precious children.

The silly string tape was very pivotal, and should have been shown because it showed the true , non-grieving Darlie. But it alone didn't convict her. The totality of everything did. Yes, she did it. Her reason why is beyond comprehension to those of us who can love. Once you quit looking for the sense of it, and just follow the facts--and the lies she told--it's very plain--she did it.

As always, JMO

 

[impatientredhead]

I'm new to this case, I've looked everywhere to see of copy of this video to no avail...anyone know where I can find it. TIA

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzTQpVmFyCE[/ame]

there is a portion of it here