vhead, have you seen the footage of the silly string on the graves?
Hi new to this forum.....my thoughts on the Routier case
- Thread starter misspriss26
- Start date
vhead, have you seen the footage of the silly string on the graves?
Vhead
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2011
- Messages
- 132
- Reaction score
- 657
I have not seen it in its entirety. It is always shown whenever a news magazine runs a piece on this case. She seems like she's quite happy that the spotlight is on her.. Almost as if she got a rush or high from committing the unthinkable to her lil innocent boys.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
the silly string was about one week after the very violent murders that she slept through and that also sent her to the hospital for a cut on her neck.
i posted on another thread:
one of my babies died in pregnancy, didnt know until checkup and sonogram. all very quiet, but for months i was not much more than a walking zombie, could not crack a smile. when i saw her on the news chomping on gum, laughing, spraying silly string--then a close up with her open collar showing a faint scar; i sat there for a while with my chin on the floor.
I'm a little bored hearing about how this tape somehow proved she was happy her kids were dead. Two weeks after my fiance died in a car accident (who I had been with for seven years) I went to a party where most of the people there were drinking, laughing, playing games, telling stories about him, etc. We all loved him, missed him and were devastated by what happened. Our partying wasn't a reflection about how we felt about him or what had happened to him in the slightest. And a few times after he died I even went to his grave and drank.
I'm sure if I had been accused of killing him my actions could have been construed as an uncaring party girl or toasting his death at his grave site. Neither of which would have been true but I have no doubt people could have viewed it that way. Lucky for me I was allowed to grieve however I needed to without anyone telling me I wasn't adhering to some publicly acceptable unwritten handbook. My fiance's birthday was a month after his death. His parents took balloons, flowers and cards to his grave. They certainly weren't happy about his death but they did want to celebrate his life. Thankfully noone had the nerve to say that their celebration of his life meant that they were really just happy he was dead.
Come to think of it Cynthia Sommer is a prime example of how society imposes a certain behavioral standard of grief on a person. Her behavior after her husband's death lead to her arrest and conviction. Years later it was proven (abnormal grief behavior aside) that she didn't kill her husband. Look at Michael Jackson..... his family had a concert!!! Nobody is accusing LaToya or Jermaine of being happy about his death. Certainly there are also everyday people who don't grieve in a way that society would deem normal. I know I have been to a number of receptions (or gatherings) after funerals and I haven't been to one yet where people weren't laughing or joking around, alcohol was served or odd music was played. My MIL passed away last summer and around twenty of us went to a restaurant/bar after the viewing to eat. We were loud, we laughed and we had a good time. Society just doesn't know what normal grieving behavior might be because, for the most part, everyday death isn't observed nation wide. Most people grieve privately and we don't see how odd behavior may, in fact, be normal.
As for Darlie and the "silly string" tape..... first, there was a prayer service just prior to the birthday party and noone knows how emotional she was at that. For all we know she cried the whole way through it. Secondly, Darlie's sister brought the silly string so I gather she too was celebrating their death? Third, there were other people there during this party. Were they all celebrating that the boys were dead as well? Sorry, but I'm not going to believe (or be swayed) that she killed her kids just because she seemed happy at an event that clearly was meant to celebrate the life of her children.
bolded--that sounds like someone depressed. i notice you didnt mention silly string.
Yes. I would imagine I was severely depressed. But that is what I did in private when noone was looking. As far as I know only one person ever found out about my trips to his grave. And only the people close to me knew how bad I was taking it. When I was out in public I put my best face forward. I went back to work the day after the funeral, I went to parties and played stupid beer games and listened to funny stories and to an outsider I probably looked like I was having a good time. What I knew was that I wanted to buried right beside him. What people who didn't really know me thought was that I seemed to be dealing with it pretty well.
Point being, you have no clue how a person deals with their grief. Or their ability to hide it.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 100
True, poor taste does not mean she's guilty of murder. However, it did not help her case. Most people would expect lots of grieving or even fear after children were murdered. That tape was there to show that those feelings were not being displayed. Her attorney, Mulder, should have submitted the tape of the prayer service. It might've helped.
---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.799420,-104.700705"]Google Maps[/ame]
---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.799420,-104.700705"]Google Maps[/ame]
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 288,374
While I think she is guilty, that tape never should have been shown. Only in TX, IMO...
it was on the evening news. until that moment us news watchers/listeners thought she was very injured, this was only 8 days after it happened.
With all due respect, Darlie was not convicted on the SS Tape. It is however circumstantial evidence of her guilt and the state had every right to show the tape to impeach the defence contention that Darlie was a greiving mother. I don't think she was celebrating her sons' death and anyone who does is misinterpreting the film.
Darlie's sister did not force Darlie to use the silly string. Please you have to hold Darlie responsible for her own behaviour. She invited that news crew to film the grave party, but not the prayer service beforehand so we only have someone's word that she was greiving during the prayer service. Her defence offered no proof that she was grieving at any time.
There is overwhelming physical evidence that Darlie committed the murders, blood evidence, fibre evidence.
Don't put yourself in the public eye if you don't want to be judged. Darin and Darlie invited that news crew to the graveside party and gave them an interview, effectively opening themselves up for judgement.
Well I did the same thing after my long time bf died of heart failure very suddenly. It's called a wake, where you can talk about the deceased, how much you loved them, my bf's sense of humour was unsurpassed so we all laughed,especially at the stories he would tell.
So did I, once again all part of the grieving process. Anyone seeing you or I would think nothing less. Unfortunately for Darlie, the SS tape will stick like glue for the rest of her life because her children were murdered and she and Darin were suspects. Anyone who thinks it proves her guilty, doesn't know tihe evidence in this case. It's one tiny piece of it.
[/QUOTE]
That's true, we don't. However,if that did happen, why didn't her defence impeach the SS tape during the trial with some evidence of it?
Darlie's behaviour was atrocious but it doesn't mean she killed her children. NO one suggested you should be swayed by it. It's the blood and fibre evidence that clearly point to Darlie as the killer.
Saying that her attorney offered no proof that she was grieving is a little disingenuous. Her attorney attemped several times to have the grave side memorial tape offered as evidence but it was ruled inadmissible by the judge because it was obtained illegally.
And what exactly is this overwhelming blood and fiber evidence? The only fiber evidence is screen material on a knife. Lynch has already submitted an affidavit that a) the knife in question had already been dusted (which means the screen material could have been transfered to the knife via the dusting brush) and b) that he cannot say for certain that the material in question even is screen material. He said a certain type of test would have to be done on the material to confirm what it is and that he (nor anyone else) ever did that test. And who is going to pick a bread knife to cut a screen anyway? I don't know about your bread knife but mine has a rounded tip. Not exactly the knife I would use to cut a screen.
And as for the blood spatter (I assume that is the blood evidence you are referring to) I mentioned in another thread I tried that exact same experiment myself and could not get any spatter on my back nor on my front. Bevel also authored a book. In that book he does an experiment with a student to prove how spatter would be on the back of her shirt. He then shows a picture of the back of the student's shirt along side a picture of Darlie's shirt. The only problem is he used a hammer instead of a knife. Bevel testified that in his experiments before trial he used a knife (and submitted two t-shirts into evidence). He testified that after two swings he had blood spatter on his back. Multiple blood spatters in fact.
Maybe to you that proves she did it. To me that says just the opposite. If his test is accurate then she should have had multiple spatters all over her back but she didn't. The blood spatter on her back could easily be cast off that landed on her back as she was laying on the couch facing away from the attack.
Saying that her attorney offered no proof that she was grieving is a little disingenuous. Her attorney attemped several times to have the grave side memorial tape offered as evidence but it was ruled inadmissible by the judge because it was obtained illegally.
Actually, Mulder is the reason the supposedly somber ceremony wasn't seen. I say supposedly because I've never seen it and I know of no one that has actually see it. I've only heard it described by her supporters as somber.
To continue, the judge never ruled the tape inadmissable, that's a lie. Mulder could have introduced this tape into evidence if he wanted but he was more interested in challenging the legality of the tape. Once he asked the officers, who were under oath, if they had committed a crime they had the right to invoke their 5th Amendment rights which means no tape could be authenticated, which means no tape. Mulder's no dummy, he knew what he was doing...which makes me think that tape is not nearly as innocent looking as it's been rumored to be.
By the way, that tape was challenged by Darlie Kee afterward and it was legally determined the tape was not a violation of anyone's privacy.
And what exactly is this overwhelming blood and fiber evidence? The only fiber evidence is screen material on a knife. Lynch has already submitted an affidavit that a) the knife in question had already been dusted (which means the screen material could have been transfered to the knife via the dusting brush) and b) that he cannot say for certain that the material in question even is screen material. He said a certain type of test would have to be done on the material to confirm what it is and that he (nor anyone else) ever did that test. And who is going to pick a bread knife to cut a screen anyway? I don't know about your bread knife but mine has a rounded tip. Not exactly the knife I would use to cut a screen.
I have two bread knives, one with a round tip and one with a sharp tip.
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.
And as for the blood spatter (I assume that is the blood evidence you are referring to) I mentioned in another thread I tried that exact same experiment myself and could not get any spatter on my back nor on my front. Bevel also authored a book. In that book he does an experiment with a student to prove how spatter would be on the back of her shirt. He then shows a picture of the back of the student's shirt along side a picture of Darlie's shirt. The only problem is he used a hammer instead of a knife. Bevel testified that in his experiments before trial he used a knife (and submitted two t-shirts into evidence). He testified that after two swings he had blood spatter on his back. Multiple blood spatters in fact.
There is much more to the blood evidence than just the shirt, all of it telling a story. But let's back up to a more telling blood pattern....the single direction of it on her shirt. She was not laying down when her neck started bleeding, the directional flow proves that.
As for the testing Bevel did, I think you should reread the testimony. You can access it at Darlie's website.
Maybe to you that proves she did it. To me that says just the opposite. If his test is accurate then she should have had multiple spatters all over her back but she didn't. The blood spatter on her back could easily be cast off that landed on her back as she was laying on the couch facing away from the attack.
And there's the problem with most of the people that believe her innocent...they make up scenarios not supported by evidence and are often contradicted by the facts.
Let me set the scene: You have Damon on the floor next to Darlie and Devon in front of the TV. For her blood and their blood to get on her back she would have had to be attacked first (while the intruder stepped all over Damon to get to her without waking him up). Then she would have to turn her back on them while bleeding from the neck (which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever...is actually contradicted by the evidence as a matter of fact) and the blood had to fly from both boys, laying suspiciously still through all of this, over to their mother on the couch. The most telling part of your theory being that while an intruder's attack can make the blood fly, Darlie's attack doesn't :floorlaugh:
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.
Actually, Mulder is the reason the supposedly somber ceremony wasn't seen. I say supposedly because I've never seen it and I know of no one that has actually see it. I've only heard it described by her supporters as somber.
To continue, the judge never ruled the tape inadmissable, that's a lie. Mulder could have introduced this tape into evidence if he wanted but he was more interested in challenging the legality of the tape. Once he asked the officers, who were under oath, if they had committed a crime they had the right to invoke their 5th Amendment rights which means no tape could be authenticated, which means no tape. Mulder's no dummy, he knew what he was doing...which makes me think that tape is not nearly as innocent looking as it's been rumored to be.
By the way, that tape was challenged by Darlie Kee afterward and it was legally determined the tape was not a violation of anyone's privacy.
And what exactly is this overwhelming blood and fiber evidence? The only fiber evidence is screen material on a knife. Lynch has already submitted an affidavit that a) the knife in question had already been dusted (which means the screen material could have been transfered to the knife via the dusting brush) and b) that he cannot say for certain that the material in question even is screen material. He said a certain type of test would have to be done on the material to confirm what it is and that he (nor anyone else) ever did that test. And who is going to pick a bread knife to cut a screen anyway? I don't know about your bread knife but mine has a rounded tip. Not exactly the knife I would use to cut a screen.
I have two bread knives, one with a round tip and one with a sharp tip.
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.
And as for the blood spatter (I assume that is the blood evidence you are referring to) I mentioned in another thread I tried that exact same experiment myself and could not get any spatter on my back nor on my front. Bevel also authored a book. In that book he does an experiment with a student to prove how spatter would be on the back of her shirt. He then shows a picture of the back of the student's shirt along side a picture of Darlie's shirt. The only problem is he used a hammer instead of a knife. Bevel testified that in his experiments before trial he used a knife (and submitted two t-shirts into evidence). He testified that after two swings he had blood spatter on his back. Multiple blood spatters in fact.
There is much more to the blood evidence than just the shirt, all of it telling a story. But let's back up to a more telling blood pattern....the single direction of it on her shirt. She was not laying down when her neck started bleeding, the directional flow proves that.
As for the testing Bevel did, I think you should reread the testimony. You can access it at Darlie's website.
Maybe to you that proves she did it. To me that says just the opposite. If his test is accurate then she should have had multiple spatters all over her back but she didn't. The blood spatter on her back could easily be cast off that landed on her back as she was laying on the couch facing away from the attack.
And there's the problem with most of the people that believe her innocent...they make up scenarios not supported by evidence and are often contradicted by the facts.
Let me set the scene: You have Damon on the floor next to Darlie and Devon in front of the TV. For her blood and their blood to get on her back she would have had to be attacked first (while the intruder stepped all over Damon to get to her without waking him up). Then she would have to turn her back on them while bleeding from the neck (which is not supported by any evidence whatsoever...is actually contradicted by the evidence as a matter of fact) and the blood had to fly from both boys, laying suspiciously still through all of this, over to their mother on the couch. The most telling part of your theory being that while an intruder's attack can make the blood fly, Darlie's attack doesn't :floorlaugh:
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 100
Well done 2percent. Well said.
---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.911472,-96.772376"]Google Maps[/ame]
---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.911472,-96.772376"]Google Maps[/ame]
Chewy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 2,566
- Reaction score
- 14,218
the thing that is most telling to me about Darlie, is that the reason she said she was sleeping on the couch is that the baby tossing and turning in the crib kept waking her up all night. So apparently she's a very light sleeper but doesn't hear someone being murdered right next to her.
So your theory is that a technician at the crime scene dusted the window in the garage for prints, walked away from that window, went all the way into the kitchen and dusted that single knife in the knife block and no other without getting fibers or dust from the window in the garage on anything else?(including the other 7 knives)
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.
Plus the technician dusted the window and screen and then the utility room. The chances that the brush then dropped two pieces of evidence(the fibre and the rubber dust)into two serrations of the blade is well nigh impossible) Lynchès affidavit addresses the chemical make up of the fibre, the fibre and the test fibres from the screen are microscopically identical. Nothing in the Routier home matched this fibre,identically, but the window screen. It doesnèt matter what kind of bread knife YOU have. Obviously the Routier blade was different from yours. Jeez what a reason to believe somone is innocent.
Thereès also the lack of blood on that screen,sill and anywhere outside. This is all part of the blood evidence.
And as for the blood spatter (I assume that is the blood evidence you are referring to) I mentioned in another thread I tried that exact same experiment myself and could not get any spatter on my back nor on my front. Bevel also authored a book. In that book he does an experiment with a student to prove how spatter would be on the back of her shirt. He then shows a picture of the back of the student's shirt along side a picture of Darlie's shirt. The only problem is he used a hammer instead of a knife. Bevel testified that in his experiments before trial he used a knife (and submitted two t-shirts into evidence). He testified that after two swings he had blood spatter on his back. Multiple blood spatters in fact.
Yes,two swings of the knife into Devonès chest produced multiple cast-off stains.........on the front shoulder of the shirt and on the back. Multiple swings (6)of the knife into Damonès back produced multiple cast-off stains.
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Mulder is the reason the supposedly somber ceremony wasn't seen. I say supposedly because I've never seen it and I know of no one that has actually see it. I've only heard it described by her supporters as somber.
As well, Judge Talle gave the defence every opportunity to play the surveillance tape to the jury. Itès in the transcript.
Maybe to you that proves she did it. To me that says just the opposite. If his test is accurate then she should have had multiple spatters all over her back but she didn't. The blood spatter on her back could easily be cast off that landed on her back as she was laying on the couch facing away from the attack.
LOL, almost impossible conisdering there was none of the boyès blood on the back of the couch or the floor behind the couch. I know this is Texas but to think or expect the boys blood could have flown onto Darlieès shirt whilst she lay on the couch is ridiculous. They werenèt geysers of blood after all.
You need to read Bevelès testimony. When I saw his blood experiment on this case, the blood flew and landed exactly like the cast-off on the back of Darlieès shirt. Plus thereès a lot of cast-off on the front shoulders of her shirt.
Itès only one piece of the blood evidence. There is blood where there shouldnètbe blood and a lack of blood where there should be blood.
Bear with me my keyboard is acting up.
Unlikely.
And don't forget, this contamination had to happen at the crime scene because Linch said he received the block and knives with dusting powder already on them.
Plus the technician dusted the window and screen and then the utility room. The chances that the brush then dropped two pieces of evidence(the fibre and the rubber dust)into two serrations of the blade is well nigh impossible) Lynchès affidavit addresses the chemical make up of the fibre, the fibre and the test fibres from the screen are microscopically identical. Nothing in the Routier home matched this fibre,identically, but the window screen. It doesnèt matter what kind of bread knife YOU have. Obviously the Routier blade was different from yours. Jeez what a reason to believe somone is innocent.
Thereès also the lack of blood on that screen,sill and anywhere outside. This is all part of the blood evidence.
And as for the blood spatter (I assume that is the blood evidence you are referring to) I mentioned in another thread I tried that exact same experiment myself and could not get any spatter on my back nor on my front. Bevel also authored a book. In that book he does an experiment with a student to prove how spatter would be on the back of her shirt. He then shows a picture of the back of the student's shirt along side a picture of Darlie's shirt. The only problem is he used a hammer instead of a knife. Bevel testified that in his experiments before trial he used a knife (and submitted two t-shirts into evidence). He testified that after two swings he had blood spatter on his back. Multiple blood spatters in fact.
Yes,two swings of the knife into Devonès chest produced multiple cast-off stains.........on the front shoulder of the shirt and on the back. Multiple swings (6)of the knife into Damonès back produced multiple cast-off stains.
Anyway, it completely contradicts Darlie's story...all of them, in fact.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Mulder is the reason the supposedly somber ceremony wasn't seen. I say supposedly because I've never seen it and I know of no one that has actually see it. I've only heard it described by her supporters as somber.
As well, Judge Talle gave the defence every opportunity to play the surveillance tape to the jury. Itès in the transcript.
Maybe to you that proves she did it. To me that says just the opposite. If his test is accurate then she should have had multiple spatters all over her back but she didn't. The blood spatter on her back could easily be cast off that landed on her back as she was laying on the couch facing away from the attack.
LOL, almost impossible conisdering there was none of the boyès blood on the back of the couch or the floor behind the couch. I know this is Texas but to think or expect the boys blood could have flown onto Darlieès shirt whilst she lay on the couch is ridiculous. They werenèt geysers of blood after all.
You need to read Bevelès testimony. When I saw his blood experiment on this case, the blood flew and landed exactly like the cast-off on the back of Darlieès shirt. Plus thereès a lot of cast-off on the front shoulders of her shirt.
Itès only one piece of the blood evidence. There is blood where there shouldnètbe blood and a lack of blood where there should be blood.
Bear with me my keyboard is acting up.
LOL, yeah and when she realized no one was falling for that stupid story, she then got traumatic amnesia.
Well what proves to me she did it is complete knowledge of her case, the evidence entered into the trial. The blood evidence alone is enough to convict her. Added to that is her lies. Her consciousness of guilt.
weève both discussed the wake we attended when our men died. This is a common and spontaneous response. I stood beside Mikeès coffin constantly putting a curl in his hair behind his ear. Darlieès graveside party looks more planned to me, sheès looking into and smiling into the tv cameras
Actually, Mulder is the reason the supposedly somber ceremony wasn't seen. I say supposedly because I've never seen it and I know of no one that has actually see it. I've only heard it described by her supporters as somber.
As well, Judge Talle gave the defence every opportunity to play the surveillance tape to the jury. Itès in the transcript.
Maybe to you that proves she did it. To me that says just the opposite. If his test is accurate then she should have had multiple spatters all over her back but she didn't. The blood spatter on her back could easily be cast off that landed on her back as she was laying on the couch facing away from the attack.
LOL, almost impossible conisdering there was none of the boyès blood on the back of the couch or the floor behind the couch. I know this is Texas but to think or expect the boys blood could have flown onto Darlieès shirt whilst she lay on the couch is ridiculous. They werenèt geysers of blood after all. The boys had seepage wounds, not spurting wounds.
You need to read Bevelès testimony. When I saw his blood experiment on this case, the blood flew and landed exactly like the cast-off on the back of Darlieès shirt. Plus thereès a lot of cast-off on the front shoulders of her shirt.
Itès only one piece of the blood evidence. There is blood where there shouldnètbe blood and a lack of blood where there should be blood.
Bear with me my keyboard is acting up.[/QUOTE]
Similar threads
Guardians Monthly Goal
Our goal for the month is 50 new Guardians members to sign up. Have you been thinking about becoming a member?
Click here to find out how!
Staff online
-
FraizeAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 163
- Guests online
- 1,392
- Total visitors
- 1,555