Many People Believe Darlie Needs a New Trial, Discuss it Here.

[Jules]

I don't know if I actually believe that he helped to cover it up. I just think he figured out she did it after the fact and still stuck by her. Again if Darlie had knowledge of Darin killing those boys she would have said it from day one. IF and it's a big IF Darlie didn't kill the boys she hired someone else to do it. I 100% think she is as guilty as sin. From what I read she seems like a very greedy selfish person and she may not have gotten money from the kids death's but she didn't have to take care of them anymore either.

Agreed. I fully believe Darlie did it too, but love the discussion on this board. I've been known to be wrong before. :blushing: However, just not sure where Darin fits in. I know if I were in his place there is NO WAY I could have stuck by the person who murdered my kids. So why does he still support her? Does he think she will get out at some point? Or does he believe her to be innocent?

 

[Jules]

Geez!!! LOL Some people. I think she was a campfire girl who has worn out her welcome. Won't be hearing from her any more. :angel: :angel:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :angel: :angel:

 

[cami]

I don't know if I actually believe that he helped to cover it up. I just think he figured out she did it after the fact and still stuck by her. Again if Darlie had knowledge of Darin killing those boys she would have said it from day one. IF and it's a big IF Darlie didn't kill the boys she hired someone else to do it. I 100% think she is as guilty as sin. From what I read she seems like a very greedy selfish person and she may not have gotten money from the kids death's but she didn't have to take care of them anymore either.

I agree with both of you as well. I too think she was overwhelmed with the kids, the house, depression, her high lifestyle ending, etc. There's no doubt in my mind that Darlie is the killer and that she somehow convinced Darin to collude with her. I still can't shake the thought somehow that he came downstairs and caught her at it. Darin was not a big help to her with the boys. His fatherhood appears more ego driven to me.

I don't think that this was done for financial gain. On that I disagree with the prosecution.

 

[Jules]

I don't think it was done for financial gain either - I think it was done to rid Darlie of the responsibility. I've often wondered if Drake had been down there too, would she have murdered him as well? I get the impression she saw her kids as things that stood in the way of HER happiness. Meaning money was going to support them that could have gone to further her high lifestyle.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I don't see a clear motive. I see blind rage. I think it was the entirety of all of their problems piling up, Darin's seemingly inability (or refusal) to cater to her temper tantrums any longer and a slow growing anger/rage that just went out of control. Maybe fueled by the diet pills. Maybe fueled by depression of some sort.

 

[lucchesicourt]

First Jules, I did not say she was not guilty. I only said she deserves a new trial. Why? First, there is much evidence of errors on the part of the prosecutors and the police that were NOT addressed. First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony). Sure, Darlie had several stories, but that alone does NOT make someone guilty of murder-it makes them a liar, and also a better SUSPECT, but does not make someone a murderer. She may be, but shouldn't the EVIDENCE be accurate and directly prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that no one else was involved before sending someone to DEATH. Could it be Darrin did it? Could there have been an intruder-evidence here points that someone else may have been in the house-but who knows? I do not, because the evidence and DNA analysis of it has been denied by the judge. Let's suppose the DNA of this evidence was that of a felon who was in the area on that particular night and owns a dark sedan-Would this mean that she may be innocent or would you say she is still guilty? If you say she is still guilty than you obviously have no doubt about her guilt. But, if after seeing the results of this evidence they name a felon who had matching DNA and drove a dark colored vehicle (as neighbors saw this vehicle too) would you have doubts? If so, then you would have to say she deserves another trial. But, to refuse testing of this evidence by the state shows NO intent to find the truth, only to punish a person convicted without searching for the truth. THIS IS WRONG!!
I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.

 

[lucchesicourt]

Rachael, firsy I definitely believe in the DP. But, my best friend's mother (in a nice neighborhoood) was killed by someone who just walked into her house by breaking glass and shot and killed her at 10AM. It happened in 1979 in Vallejo, CA. Her name was Evelyn Fischer. You could probably do a search for her if you like. But, it does happen, and that is a FACT. To say you don't think it would happen there is an assumption that could cost an innocent person her/his life. That is not an assumption I would choose to make. I am a scientist and do not find assumptions useful in finding the truth, unless you test the hypothesis with the attempt of proving it wrong. Once it is proven wrong you cannot use the assumption. Hence, I have proved that is does happen, thus your assumption it would not is WRONG!!

 

[Jeana (DP)]

First Jules, I did not say she was not guilty. I only said she deserves a new trial. Why? First, there is much evidence of errors on the part of the prosecutors and the police that were NOT addressed. First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony). Sure, Darlie had several stories,

I think its the only case in the history of Rowlett and certainly in this detective's career where two children were butchered in the living room of their home. Somehow I don't think any of the police involved are going to forget.

Secondly, it was 16 (SIXTEEN) "stories" and THEN she lied on the witness stand.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.

They couldn't be sure how many "minutes" Damon could have lived with the injuries. It was, I believe, stated 3-5 minutes. Some Websleuthers have actually did the run down the alley. It was plenty of time.

 

[lucchesicourt]

I did not say forget the crime, I said remember ALL the evidence and statements. He was asked what Darlie said at the hospital, and he replied with an answer about what she said, but he had taken NO notes of any sort. Do you think he remembered her words word for word? Wouldn't a prudent officer taken notes? Maybe you think it was unnecessary to take notes, after all you may be able can recall things better than I. I do not posees such a memory.
As for the time factor- sure you can run down the street place a sock, cut the screen, set up a fight scene, clean up the blood on the counter and in the sink, wet towels, etc. in that time span too, right?
Something is NOT right here, even if you say five minutes- I'll give you 10 minutes and I betone person could not set the whole scene up.

 

[lucchesicourt]

I also know for a FACT-police officers do lie to get a conviction whether its a traffic ticket or something more severe.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I did not say forget the crime, I said remember ALL the evidence and statements. He was asked what Darlie said at the hospital, and he replied with an answer about what she said, but he had taken NO notes of any sort. Do you think he remembered her words word for word? Wouldn't a prudent officer taken notes? Maybe you think it was unnecessary to take notes, after all you may be able can recall things better than I. I do not posees such a memory.
As for the time factor- sure you can run down the street place a sock, cut the screen, set up a fight scene, clean up the blood on the counter and in the sink, wet towels, etc. in that time span too, right?
Something is NOT right here, even if you say five minutes- I'll give you 10 minutes and I betone person could not set the whole scene up.

Do you suppose a trained police detective would have a better memory than you do?????????

The timeline fits Darlie murdering the boys and staging the crime. There was no "fight scene" to set up - nothing but a wine glass was broken and a glass table was overturned. How many seconds you think that took? Screen could have been cut anytime during that day, while Darin was taking Dana home, after Darin went to bed.

BUT, while we're on the subject of all of the blood that was "cleaned up on the counter and in the sink," WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE AN INTRUDER WOULD DO THAT???????????

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I also know for a FACT-police officers do lie to get a conviction whether its a traffic ticket or something more severe.

No one said that it never happens darlin. Just NOT in this case.

 

[lucchesicourt]

First at no time have I said I am sure she is innocent, but there is enough. What I have said is that there are some problems with the case against her. For instance, a pubic hair that does not belong to anyone who lives in the house. Isn't that strange?Or is this normal Why doesn't the judge want to do DNA analysis on some of the items found at the scene? What I am saying is there are enough discreptancies to warrant a new trial. I think DNA analysis is required to get to the truth.
Also, 3-5 minutes before Damon dies=let's do the numbers on the phone with 911 for 2 minutes, that leaves at the most 3 minutes to cut herself, kill the two boys, run the sock outside,clean the counter and sink, and make the mess you describe. Now, I am NOT saying she was alone, I am saying that someone ELSE would have had to be involved to accomplish all these things. I never mentioned the screen cutting as I already though like you.
Did the dog bark at the police officer when he arrived? I don't know as I never heard the question asked. I only heard people say is the dog barked at strangers. Was the dog drugged in advance? Did Darrin set the whole thing up with another person? Therre are many questions that need answering.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

First at no time have I said I am sure she is innocent, but there is enough. What I have said is that there are some problems with the case against her. For instance, a pubic hair that does not belong to anyone who lives in the house. Isn't that strange?Or is this normal Why doesn't the judge want to do DNA analysis on some of the items found at the scene? What I am saying is there are enough discreptancies to warrant a new trial. I think DNA analysis is required to get to the truth.
Also, 3-5 minutes before Damon dies=let's do the numbers on the phone with 911 for 2 minutes, that leaves at the most 3 minutes to cut herself, kill the two boys, run the sock outside,clean the counter and sink, and make the mess you describe. Now, I am NOT saying she was alone, I am saying that someone ELSE would have had to be involved to accomplish all these things. I never mentioned the screen cutting as I already though like you.
Did the dog bark at the police officer when he arrived? I don't know as I never heard the question asked. I only heard people say is the dog barked at strangers. Was the dog drugged in advance? Did Darrin set the whole thing up with another person? Therre are many questions that need answering.

Transferrence. I think hair could easily have been brought in on someone's shoe. As for the DNA thing, you're mistaken. Read the Judge's ruling on their motion at Darlie's website. There was many opportunitites for the defense to have any and all evidence tested.

The dog went mental when the police were in the house and had to be removed to a neighbors house.

You're still not answering the question about why an intruder would clean up the sink and the counter.

Moreover, why would an intruder (according to the Routiers) break into a house in order to kill Darlie and then not kill her. They said she was the intended victim and she was attacked first, yet, the intruder(s) left the house with her following close behind???? Why would he/they do that? For that matter, why kill the boys at all?

There may be questions that you have that you don't have the answers to, but its apparent to me that you haven't even read the material available. Why not do that and then we'll talk.

 

[Rachael]

I don't see a clear motive. I see blind rage. I think it was the entirety of all of their problems piling up, Darin's seemingly inability (or refusal) to cater to her temper tantrums any longer and a slow growing anger/rage that just went out of control. Maybe fueled by the diet pills. Maybe fueled by depression of some sort.

I agree. Regardless of what anyone else says I fully believe that Darlie murdered her sons. It would take a proven confession (not just some crazy guy already in jail who claims he did it) of someone else to prove to me otherwise. I put Darlie in the same catagory as Jeffrey MacDonald, Scott Peterson, Susan Smith and Diane Downes ...a selfish sociopath. I believe all of their motives were for an easier lifestyle not for money. I don't know how anyone under any condition can stab their children to death.

 

[CyberLaw]

Evidence speaks when the victim cannot.

I have no doubt, that Darlie killed the boys.

The evidence and facts speak for themselves.

Darlie's so called testimony did not help either.

Darlie and Darin conspired to "plant" the bruises on her arm some days after the murders.

They were too fresh to have dated from the murder.

People who have a personality disorder try to "recruit" people to their side. The term is called "evil doer by proxy".

When someone has a Cluster B personality disorder, they usually have additional pathology. That means that they have more than one personality disorder.

"On the fly" I would say that Darlie has NDP and Histronic Personality Disorder. NDP is the pathology for a sociopath.

So if someone believes the "story" Darlie told, great you
are entitled to your own opinion.

But I won't be used and manipulated by stories.

Darlie has lied from day one - second nature to someone with a personality disorder. Breathing and lying are one in the same for people like this.

Can someone please tell my why this "evil" women is still breathing??????

I thought Texas has no qualms about the death penalty, there is zero prospects for a new trial, there is no new evidence.

Maybe Scott and Darlie should become pen pals, they seems to think of the people who love and trust them the same way - Disposable.

Both of them are where they belong.......

Again I have no doubt, that Darlie is 100% guilty and I have yet to see the so called 95% of people on this web site who disagree.

In a previous survey - over 56% of the people on this site voted for guility. This is a fact.

Where did the figure of 95% innocent come from and how was that figure calculated?

Or is it just another story..........without facts and evidence to back it up.

 

[cami]

I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.

Actually it was 9 minutes and if he was stabbed at two different times which his wounds and his location in the room appear to indicate, the final stabbings were the fatal ones, plenty of time for Darlie to have run the sock down the alley. NO, Darlie's blood and saliva was not found on the sock. The boys blood was found on the sock and Darlie's dna. Nothing to indicate it was saliva, it could have been her skin cells.

 

[cami]

Evidence speaks when the victim cannot.

I have no doubt, that Darlie killed the boys.

The evidence and facts speak for themselves.

Darlie's so called testimony did not help either.

Darlie and Darin conspired to "plant" the bruises on her arm some days after the murders.

They were too fresh to have dated from the murder.

People who have a personality disorder try to "recruit" people to their side. The term is called "evil doer by proxy".

When someone has a Cluster B personality disorder, they usually have additional pathology. That means that they have more than one personality disorder.

"On the fly" I would say that Darlie has NDP and Histronic Personality Disorder. NDP is the pathology for a sociopath.

So if someone believes the "story" Darlie told, great you
are entitled to your own opinion.

But I won't be used and manipulated by stories.

Darlie has lied from day one - second nature to someone with a personality disorder. Breathing and lying are one in the same for people like this.

Can someone please tell my why this "evil" women is still breathing??????

I thought Texas has no qualms about the death penalty, there is zero prospects for a new trial, there is no new evidence.

Maybe Scott and Darlie should become pen pals, they seems to think of the people who love and trust them the same way - Disposable.

Both of them are where they belong.......

Again I have no doubt, that Darlie is 100% guilty and I have yet to see the so called 95% of people on this web site who disagree.

In a previous survey - over 56% of the people on this site voted for guility. This is a fact.

Where did the figure of 95% innocent come from and how was that figure calculated?

Or is it just another story..........without facts and evidence to back it up.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Dani_T]

First question, I have is after 1 year how can a detective remember all the evidence on the scene and all the stories about what was actually said by each witness (he had no written notes per his testimony).

It was actually only just over 6 months after the crimes that the trial took place (June - January). Are you referring to Officer Waddell or Walling here?

Sure, Darlie had several stories, but that alone does NOT make someone guilty of murder-it makes them a liar, and also a better SUSPECT, but does not make someone a murderer. She may be, but shouldn't the EVIDENCE be accurate and directly prove beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT that no one else was involved before sending someone to DEATH.

Her conflicting stories did not convict her (Darin's were far more conflicting than hers in certain parts). It was not so much the internal inconsistencies in her stories as the external inconsistencies with the evidence (eg. knife, screen fibres on bread knife, absence of any intruder evidence etc). What evidence is it that you think was inaccurate?

Also, I might be wrong since I don't know the US legal system all that well but surely if someone is guilty of murder then the conviction is right and proper regardless of where they acted alone or not? Not talking about the DP here but about her guilt.

Could it be Darrin did it? Could there have been an intruder-evidence here points that someone else may have been in the house-but who knows?

The people who worked that crime scene know. They are the ones who despite extensive work were unable to turn up any evidence of an intruder.

I do not, because the evidence and DNA analysis of it has been denied by the judge.

Which evidence and analysis are you referring to?

I also have one big question that really bothers me, and that is a sock with Darlie's saliva and blood was found 70 yards from the scene. Now, Darlie was on the phone with 911 for the 2 minutes it took the police officer to get there, and the doctors said with the injuries Damon had, he would have survived about 3 minutes (lack of Oxygen as lungs were punctured and not working). Now, that leaves Darlie a maximum of 1 minute to do all the things to set up the scene. Hmmm? If she is guilty there is another involved-time factor alone shows that.

Actually the doctors said that Damon could have survived anywhere up to 8 or 9 minutes. The timeline is completely different to what you mentioned above (particularly if Damon was stabbed twice). Oh- just saw Cami already mentioned that