Poll: Did Darlie Routier murder her children?

[Dani_T]

Did James Cron testify that the fiber on the knife was from the screen? I thought he said something to the effect of the fiber was a material that could be consistent with material used to make the screen.

It wasn't actually Cron who testified about that fibre. I think it was Linch. The fibre was never actually to be proven to be from the screen itself but it was shown that in every single way it was absolutely identical to the fibres from the screen. And it actually consisted of two parts... in fact it was two bits of trace evidence right next to each other on the knife rather than one bit.

- Fibreglass rod which was the exact same width as the rods which make up the screen
- Pigmented rubber debris which was exactly the same as what you get when you use that knife to cut the screen

There really is no reasonable doubt about the fibre on the knife at all. It came from the screen

Did they ever say when they thought the screen was cut with the knife? If it was before the murders, does anyone think it's incredible that the fiber stayed on that knife through all the slashing and stabbing? If it was after the murders, does anyone think it's incredible that no blood was found on the screen?

That wasn't the knife used in the stabbings. The fibre from the screen was on the bread knife which had been put back into the butcher's block and wasn't used in the murders. The butchers knife was what was used to kill the boys.

 

[accordn2me]

[/i]

That wasn't the knife used in the stabbings. The fibre from the screen was on the bread knife which had been put back into the butcher's block and wasn't used in the murders. The butchers knife was what was used to kill the boys.

DUH! I remember that now. It came back to me when I read it on one of the older threads here. :blushing:

There is so much about this case that I don't remember. It's one of the most troublesome, though. I can't think of anything worse that could happen to a person than to be on death row for the murder of two of your kids if you are innocent.

 

[cami]

DUH! I remember that now. It came back to me when I read it on one of the older threads here. :blushing:

There is so much about this case that I don't remember. It's one of the most troublesome, though. I can't think of anything worse that could happen to a person than to be on death row for the murder of two of your kids if you are innocent.

Yes that would be horrible IF she were innocent. I believe she is guilty but I do not believe the DP was warranted in this case.

 

[accordn2me]

Hello my Canadian neighbor,

IF she is guilty, I have no problem with the death penalty. If this crime doesn't warrant it, what does?

 

[Becba]

When I saw her bruising I thought she had been attacked. And I heard the memorial video did not show the beginning where she was grieving.

The more I read the more I think she did this. Someone mentioned her bruising could have been from her stabbing her kids and them fighting back. That seems reasonable to me.
Her throat injury looks almost too close for comfort to self inflict though. I know it was testified that the wound was not deep but didn't it require stitches?

 

[cami]

Hello my Canadian neighbor,

IF she is guilty, I have no problem with the death penalty. If this crime doesn't warrant it, what does?

I think there's mitigating factors. I'm fine with LWOP. I don't think she planned the murders, I believe it was an explosion of rage.

 

[Goody]

Her throat injury looks almost too close for comfort to self inflict though. I know it was testified that the wound was not deep but didn't it require stitches?

That is misleading though. For one thing, people who self inflict neck wounds tend to cut with a downward slant, exactly like hers. Also, nothing was hit that could cause permanent damage. Sure, she almost hit that carotid artery, but at the same time, she didn't cut her windpipe, her vocal cords,etc, which are typically cut when someone else cuts your throat. And it would be so easy to do with a sharp knife. One wouldn't have to even move the blade that much. it would be over in a second or two.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think there's mitigating factors. I'm fine with LWOP. I don't think she planned the murders, I believe it was an explosion of rage.

Even if it was just by minutes (or an hour), she premediated them IMO.

 

[Goody]

Hello my Canadian neighbor,

IF she is guilty, I have no problem with the death penalty. If this crime doesn't warrant it, what does?

The Texas statute, I think, has qualifiers for the death penalty beyond the actual crime of murder. The jury must decide if the defendant is a threat to society, is likely to reoffend if let back out into society, etc. I can't remember the exact terms, but maybe Jeana can post it here somewhere. The point is that it is not the nature of the crime that "warrants it" as you say but how big of a risk a paroled defendant might be someday. At least that is my understanding of it.

I agree the bloody murder of your children is a crime that should warrant it, but lawmakers in Texas apparently felt otherwise. That doesn't mean that I think all parents who kill their children should get the DP. I don't. Nor do I think Darlie should have gotten it, esp considering the statute on it. But I don't mind at all that the Avila guy in California got it for what he did to Samatha Runnion. Personally, I don't like thinking about the punishment as much as I do about the evidence that leads to conviction.

 

[Goody]

I think there's mitigating factors. I'm fine with LWOP. I don't think she planned the murders, I believe it was an explosion of rage.

I wish I could make up my mind on this, Cami. I still struggle with it. I just don't see rage/ On the other hand, I really do think Devon was killed much sooner than Damon and that some time passed between the first attack and the second. That sounds or feels "sudden" to me. It is the rage or the anger that escapes me. If only we knew what triggered it.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

The Texas statute, I think, has qualifiers for the death penalty beyond the actual crime of murder. The jury must decide if the defendant is a threat to society, is likely to reoffend if let back out into society, etc. I can't remember the exact terms, but maybe Jeana can post it here somewhere.

Here ya go darlin:


Art. 37.071. Procedure in capital case
Sec. 1. If a defendant is found guilty in a capital felony case in which the state does not seek the death penalty, the judge shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.
Sec. 2. (a) If a defendant is tried for a capital offense in which the state seeks the death penalty, on a finding that the defendant is guilty of a capital offense , the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The proceeding shall be conducted in the trial court and, except as provided by Article 44.29(c) of this code, before the trial jury as soon as practicable. In the proceeding, evidence may be presented by the state and the defendant or the defendant's counsel as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence, including evidence of the defendant's background or character or the circumstances of the offense that mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty. This subsection shall not be construed to authorize the introduction of any evidence secured in violation of the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Texas. The state and the defendant or the defendant's counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death. The court, the attorney representing the state, the defendant, or the defendant's counsel may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the effect of a failure of a jury to agree on issues submitted under Subsection (c) or (e) of this article.
(b) On conclusion of the presentation of the evidence, the court shall submit the following issues to the jury:
(1) whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a
continuing threat to society; and (2) in cases in which the jury charge at the guilt or innocence stage permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty as a
party under Sections 7.01 and 7.02, Penal Code, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased
or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a
human life would be taken.
(c) The state must prove each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article beyond a reasonable doubt, and the
jury shall return a special verdict of "yes" or "no" on each issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this Article.
(d) The court shall charge the jury that:
(1) in deliberating on the issues submitted under Subsection (b) of this article, it shall consider all evidence admitted
at the guilt or innocence stage and the punishment stage, including evidence of the defendant's background or
character or the circumstances of the offense that militates for or mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty;
(2) it may not answer any issue submitted under Subsection (b) of this article "yes" unless it agrees unanimously and it
may not answer any issue "no" unless 10 or more jurors agree; and
(3) members of the jury need not agree on what particular evidence supports a negative answer to any issue submitted
under Subsection (b) of this article.
(e)(1) The court shall instruct the jury that if the jury returns an affirmative finding to each issue submitted under
Subsection (b) of this article, it shall answer the following issue:
Whether, taking into consideration all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense , the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence be imposed.

 

[cami]

That is misleading though. For one thing, people who self inflict neck wounds tend to cut with a downward slant, exactly like hers. Also, nothing was hit that could cause permanent damage. Sure, she almost hit that carotid artery, but at the same time, she didn't cut her windpipe, her vocal cords,etc, which are typically cut when someone else cuts your throat. And it would be so easy to do with a sharp knife. One wouldn't have to even move the blade that much. it would be over in a second or two.

Goody remember when we used to experiment. You discovered that you really could roll that knife and not move the blade that much and make that cut. Camilla and I discovered ( I think it was us, LOL) that you don't have to move the knife that much when kneeling over a child to fling the blood from it onto the back of your night shirt and then continue on the front shoulder. And maybe what the sock was used for.

I suggest we try it again. Lay on a sofa and pretend someone is attacking you with a knife. What is your first instinct? You try and grab the knife or push it away or you throw your arms up and try to protect your head and face?

Darlie should have defense cuts to the palms of her hands and her fingers. If she had thrown her arms up to protect her face and head, she'd have slash marks to the underside of her arms and not to the forearms. Those two stab wounds look to me as if she held out her arms for the assailant to cut her.

MOO

 

[Goody]

Here ya go darlin:


Art. 37.071. Procedure in capital case
Sec. 1. If a defendant is found guilty in a capital felony case in which the state does not seek the death penalty, the judge shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.........

Jeana, could you send me a copy of this so I can keep it handy. Thanks.

 

[Goody]

Darlie should have defense cuts to the palms of her hands and her fingers. If she had thrown her arms up to protect her face and head, she'd have slash marks to the underside of her arms and not to the forearms. Those two stab wounds look to me as if she held out her arms for the assailant to cut her.

MOO

Could not agree more. Darlie should have had multiple stabs, slices, pricks, etc on her forearms and hands, a couple thru her hands even, if she had been trying to fend off a knife wielding assailant. That doesn't even take into account the probability of how many times the assailant would have missed his target and hit other parts of her body as she twisted and struggled. She doesn't even have a bruise to her face or any small cuts.

 

[Amster]

Newbie jumping in here. I live very close to where this happened. This case gave me nightmares for months!

I joined here to follow the MJ case and found this board tonight. Very interesting and so informative! I've been reading about stuff that I never knew....and I have followed it closely.

I love this place! :clap:

 

[cami]

Newbie jumping in here. I live very close to where this happened. This case gave me nightmares for months!

I joined here to follow the MJ case and found this board tonight. Very interesting and so informative! I've been reading about stuff that I never knew....and I have followed it closely.

I love this place! :clap:

HI Amster. Yes jump right in and welcome aboard.

Do you recall what the media was writing or reporting about this case in the days right after the murders? On another thread Goody was asking the question what the media was saying about her. Were they hinting she was involved do you know or remember?

 

[Amster]

HI Amster. Yes jump right in and welcome aboard.

Do you recall what the media was writing or reporting about this case in the days right after the murders? On another thread Goody was asking the question what the media was saying about her. Were they hinting she was involved do you know or remember?

Thanks cami!

Right after, first few days, the media was focused on "how could this happen? A nice neighborhood in an upscale Dallas suburb." But it seems it was fairly soon that the questions started. Why kill the kids? Why this family? Where was the husband? How did the killer get in? Interviews with neighbors. Darlie was a great mom. Very involved with her kids. This was before Greta etc. and nightly updates.

The first I heard of some rumblings of doubt was on talk radio. Those first pics of the boys bothered some people. Then the funeral. The pressure must have been building because Darlies' family started making the rounds. The first time I heard them on the radio, I knew something was hinky. And if I recall correctly, one of them or all walked out of an interview. That was during the time Darin was talking about the boob job and his beautiful wife and somebody could have been stalking her from a grocery store.

So, my long winded answer is, the doubt about Darlies story was there. Not the local TV news or newspaper. They were just repeating whatever the LE released. People calling in on talk radio were not buying it. That escalated after the family bombed out in the interviews.

 

[Goody]

Jeana, could you send me a copy of this so I can keep it handy. Thanks.

I got it. Thanks anyway. I didn't think it would copy but it did.

 

[Goody]

Newbie jumping in here. I live very close to where this happened. This case gave me nightmares for months!

I joined here to follow the MJ case and found this board tonight. Very interesting and so informative! I've been reading about stuff that I never knew....and I have followed it closely.

I love this place! :clap:

\
Hi, Amster. Glad to see you here! Do you know anyone who knows Darlie? We've been wanting to hear from some of her friends to get their take on what she was really like, normally and in the months leading up to the murders. Thanks for the update on the media at the time.

 

[Amster]

\
Hi, Amster. Glad to see you here! Do you know anyone who knows Darlie? We've been wanting to hear from some of her friends to get their take on what she was really like, normally and in the months leading up to the murders. Thanks for the update on the media at the time.

Hi Goody

No, I don't know anyone who knows her. There were neighbors at the beginning that talked to the press, of course. But I don't recall anybody claiming to be a friend of hers. Just the opposite, actually.