Cutting the screen

[Madeleine74]

1. The prosecution didn't "emphasize" the silly string video any more than they emphasized the other evidence they presented. They showed the video to the jury, one time, through a witness, which was their legal right to do so during their case in chief. Darlie setup that whole video thing in the first place, inviting the news crew to film their Bday party at Devon's grave and then putting on a nice show. If you're going to blame someone, blame Darlie for creating that evidence in the first place.

2. Are you saying Parker should not have testified? Well he did. He couldn't very well refuse to do so. His "friendship" with anyone was not a problem for the defense. Are you accusing him of perjury on the witness stand? What does "mulch in the alley" have to do with Parker? Parker was brought in to question Darlie. And who testified there was "mulch in the alley?"

3. What witnesses presented Routier financial evidence on the stand? Was his/her/their testimony incorrect? Was he/she/they impeached during cross-examination? Evidence is always elicited through witness testimony, never through statements by the prosecution or defense lawyers.

4. "Lack of blood on the knife -- by all parties bleeding" is somehow the responsibility of the prosecution? Remember you are answering the question posed, "How could the prosecution have done a better job?" The prosecution can only present evidence that is found; the evidence is what it is. Are you angry that Darlie....errrr.... the "killer" didn't make the case stronger by making sure everyone's blood would be found on that one knife?

5. "One of the victims being left alive who would then have the opportunity to tell who the perpetrator was." Again, that's the fault of the prosecution, how? What could the prosecution have done about the fact that one of the victims was left alive?


You keep saying the prosecution should have done a better job. It sounds like the issues you have are partially with the actions the killer took that night -- the killer left someone alive, the killer cleaned the butcher knife of some blood.

The prosecution had one job to do when this case went to trial: present their case within the rules of the court and within the laws of the jurisdiction, to obtain an outcome. Their goal was, of course, the conviction of the person they believed committed this crime. They succeeded. The jury convicted Darlie and then sentenced her to the death penalty. Thus, the prosecution did their job and they succeeded. That's considered a very good job for a prosecution.

If you are upset that the case isn't so cut 'n dried, B&W that you personally would never have a doubt, well, that's just the way it goes when a murder happens and there is no eyewitness or confession. It's a circumstantial case, as 99% of murder cases are.

 

[PamelaC123]

I just wish the prosecution would have done a better job!

:facepalm:

 

[cami]

I've drawn a quick diagram to show the route from where the sock was found in relation to the Routier house (I've presumed this from the crime scene photos - please let me know if anyone has a better idea where the sock was 'placed').

One thing that has always struck me is the fact that those who think Darlie is guilty will say that there is no dust disturbance on shelf of the garage window, no blood trail to and from the sock etc and so an intruder is ruled out.

As a fence sitter, I have to ask the question - so how did Darlie get it there?
Did she choose another route another than that of what the intruder would have done?
If there is no blood spatter or window shelf disturbance, then how did she get the sock there? And why would she risk such a dangerous move (as she may of been caught) to plant a sock four doors down and return to her home?

Too many unanswered questions as to how the sock got there if people thinks Darlie planted it.

I believe she went out the front door and then to the alley to leave the sock. The neighbour across the street testified he heard a sound that woke him but he went right back to sleep having only just gone to bed. If it was Darlie, she wouldn't have bothered with that back gate which was heavy and dragged on the ground. A pair of Darin's sneakers, Reeboks, were at the front door still laced up so it could be Darin. Anyway the boys blood was on the sock, Darlie, at that point would only have a few of their blood drops on her nightshirt, nothing that would leave a trail of blood.

 

[cami]

I agree, a fleeing intruder would have left it wide open, or shut it with a slam to make a noise if he/she felt they were being followed by Darlie (which they had no reason not to assume).

Yet another in a long line of anomalies in his case.

Just in regard to the mulch though, there was no mulch under the window. That was an error the prosecution made whether it be wild assumption or simply a mistake in reporting.

the mulch is under the window directly beside the alleged entry/exit window. Running through this mulch was the quickest way to get to the fence/gate and off the property. this is no error on the part of the prosecution. It was fully testified to at trial. It's a mistake in reporting.

The concrete walkway that runs from under the exit window was 12 ' out of the way for a child killer running from a woman he just armed with a knife. The concrete goes right by the spa that would have triggered the security lights and the lights stayed on for 18 minutes.

 

[cami]

According to Darlie and Darin, the gate was fixed. They mention nothing about the brackets - I acknowledge that these were still in order for some repair (as I've already mentioned in this thread).

LOL, Darlie and Darin lie, have lied and will continue to lie.

 

[cami]

Who says the security light was not triggered?

I have one and it doesn't stay on forever if triggered it goes back off after a short amount of time. It is a motion detector type.

No one noticed the light on. At that time of night it would have taken someone awake and looking in that direction to notice it. So saying it was not triggered is a false claim.

It wasn't on when the police arrived is all that can be proven. It triggered when they searched the area.

My neighbor has one in their backyard and the feral cats in our neighborhood trigger it all the time. When they first installed the light, it used to wake me as it shines right into my bedroom. I'm used to it and now I don't wake up anymore when it goes on or off. If I'm awake watching TV or reading I'll see it but I barely pay attention to it anymore. My neighbors had a party last night and I didn't even notice the light on at first but I heard the laughter and talking and then saw the light was on.

There is not a recording device on the light that shows when it was triggered, how many times it has been triggered, what time it was triggered, so the claims that the light never went on or off is not an indisputable fact.

No one can say they they saw it is all.


No one noticed the light being on or off.

A neighbor used to the light would not notice it just like I don't notice it anymore. It is familiar to me and my brain filters it out as unimportant as all my previous brain training has conditioned me to ignore it.

Walling tripped the lights as soon as he went near the spa. I thought you were familiar with the trial transcripts Cathy? The lights stayed on and were timed at 18 minutes. Walling and Waddell were the first officers to arrive at the scene.They entered the garage and shined their flashlights. Surely they would have seen lights on outside from the garage and would not have had to use flashlights?

You can see the window and mulch bed here.

http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/statement--1.html

 

[Paxcpz]

Just my opinion, but, I always thought Darin found her w/kids already cut up. Some people can think through the panic. Maybe he goes into "protect my wife" mode. They take the time to stage the scene;cut Darlie, she doctors the socks while he goes out to cuts the screen. Then she tosses him the sock and he runs to the neighbors and pitches it over the fence. He returns and 911 is called. They are both upset, he's probably out of breath and trying to make sense of things and she's trying to cover on the 911 call. The conversation seems a little disjointed on the 911 call. Something is off, that's why I think it was all staged BEFORE the 911 call. I doubt we will ever know, but, really, who brings Silly String to the child's grave and holds a birthday party there!

 

[2 percent]

It's times like this I wish those spouting 'evidence' against Darlie would come up with something a little more convincing.

If nothing else, just so I don't have to go on caring about someone on death row who may be innocent.

The circumstantial evidence in this case is almost overwhelmingly against Darlie. I don't think any of us convinced of her guilt can come up with anything that will convince you, mostly because you come from a position of being not on the fence, as you claim, but unconvinced, period.

It's also apparent there is no intent to discuss, just judge the value of the established evidence. I, personally, am no longer interested in one-way streets when debating this case. So, I await a theory from you and hopefully discussion will follow.

 

[2 percent]

5) One of the victims being left alive who would then have the opportunity to tell who the perpetrator was.

Damon was stabbed in the back...what, exactly, do you think he saw?

Looking at the court transcripts with an open mind, again and again and again, it just doesn't sit right with me.

What doesn't sit right with you?

 

[Paysee]

Originally Posted by TellTheTruth

5) One of the victims being left alive who would then have the opportunity to tell who the perpetrator was.

Damon was stabbed in the back...what, exactly, do you think he saw?

The victim TellTheTruth is talking about is Darlie :facepalm:

 

[2 percent]

The victim TellTheTruth is talking about is Darlie :facepalm:

Damon was alive when he was in the house and clearly considered a victim in the subsequent investigation.
Darlie was alive when she left the house and clearly not considered a victim in the subsequent investigation.

:drama: I just love a histrionics-slash-emoticon parade

 

[cami]

5) One of the victims being left alive who would then have the opportunity to tell who the perpetrator was.



A traumatized five year old gasping for breath. Yeah sure he's going to jump up and tell the cops Mummy did it, it was Mummy, she stabbed me. STop pretending you are on the fence Sheldon.