Testimony from neighbor - attempted break-in

[AmandaBrown23]

I would call the cops too. You never know if they are planning to come back again. Where children are involved you should never overlook things like that.

 

[CyberLaw]

So let me get this straight. Two men appear at a distant neighbors house at 1:30 a.m. and not only appear at the front door, but at the window of her daughters bedroom with a knife or screwdriver in hand and this women is alone an she does nothing.

Talk about smoke and mirrors.......

 

[cami]

So let me get this straight. Two men appear at a distant neighbors house at 1:30 a.m. and not only appear at the front door, but at the window of her daughters bedroom with a knife or screwdriver in hand and this women is alone an she does nothing.

Talk about smoke and mirrors.......

Yeah, I don't think this sighting has anything to do with the Routiers anyway, these guys could have been looking for a glass of water!

Why would two baby killers who just left a house where they left not one spec of evidence then go reveal themselves in this crazy way? Common sense.

 

[whitywendy]

Yeah, I don't think this sighting has anything to do with the Routiers anyway, these guys could have been looking for a glass of water!

Why would two baby killers who just left a house where they left not one spec of evidence then go reveal themselves in this crazy way? Common sense.

Camp Darlie will try anything they can to confuse everyone.

 

[nicola]

Ok I had to go dig out my books. According to the Don Davis one:
"Only a few minutes later, she heard a "tapping" sound at her daughter's bedroom window and peeked out to find the same men there again, this time with either a KNIFE or a SCREWDRIVER!"
Ok Nicola, seeing that isn't going to make you call the police?
And then she DID end up calling the police two days later. Why wasn't it important enough to call that night?

The mention of knife somewhat changes situation. If they had knife/screwdriver of course id phone police - straight away!!!

 

[CyberLaw]

If two men appeared at the front door, porch, window or property of our house, when I was alone, with kids in the house, it would take me 1 second to call 911. It does not matter if I saw a knife, screwdriver, baseball bat, or flowers, I would immediately call 911 and report the incident.

 

[Malapoo]

If two men came to my door at night regardless of not having children in the house, I'm calling the police. Sure they ran off when she turned the light on, but who's to say they don't wait in the woods or down the street for you to go to bed and then return. Actually we had problems with a window tapper when I was just out of high school and you better damn well believe the cops were called several times. They were NEVER upset that we called (4 late teen to 20's girls sharing a home) and always looked around. Found footprints and a pulled off screen. Though we finally got rid of the perp by turning my none too friendly dog loose on them and shooting a gun in the air. The ultimate outcome was it was friends of a girl we had kicked out of the house just scaring us to get even, but we had the last laugh.

Do NOT ever hesitate to call for help - better embarrassed then dead!!!

 

[SLY]

Ok, I found the comments that I recently read. Here is the link:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/HerProof/#2

There is your answer ^. There is a whole lot of misinformation on her site that has been proved over the years.

Reminds me of all the BS that geragos put out in the SP trial hoping something would stick. Just like darlies case... nothing has, just a bunch of lies.

No :boohoo: from me for the who killed her two little boys.

Sly

 

[Anais]

I have read actual transcripts that the necklace was not-NOT imbedded in her neck. Much of that is all garbage.

 

[GIRattlesnakeJane]

I have read actual transcripts that the necklace was not-NOT imbedded in her neck. Much of that is all garbage.

Please quote your sources, A lot of the confusion and misinformation can be put to rest if you will point me in the right direction and use proper information.
I don't entirely trust what anyone just says anymore.

So much of the information used in forums like this and on the web have been found to be false or only partial truths.

I really really need reliable information and I trust that the trial transcripts are reliable. I may not trust entirely everything that someone says outside of sworn statements.

 

[whitywendy]

Please quote your sources, A lot of the confusion and misinformation can be put to rest if you will point me in the right direction and use proper information.
I don't entirely trust what anyone just says anymore.

So much of the information used in forums like this and on the web have been found to be false or only partial truths.

I really really need reliable information and I trust that the trial transcripts are reliable. I may not trust entirely everything that someone says outside of sworn statements.

Anais is correct...

http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-31.php

8 Q. Okay. Did you remove a necklace from
9 her neck?
10 A. Right. When the technicians pulled
11 the dressing off the wound on her neck, a chain was freed
12 around her neck. I took that off, set it aside, and
13 later, I believe, one of the other nurses handed that
14 over to the Rowlett Police Department.
15 Q. Okay. Was that under the gauze?
16 A. It was underneath the dressing the
17 paramedics had applied.
18
19 (Whereupon, the following
20 mentioned item was
21 marked for
22 identification only
23 after which time the
24 proceedings were
25 resumed on the record
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
902
1 in open court, as
2 follows
3
4
5 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
6 Q. Okay. Let me show you what's been
7 marked as State's Exhibit 26. Does this appear to be the
8 necklace?
9 A. This looks similar to the necklace. I
10 couldn't tell you if it was exactly the same one or not.
11 Q. Okay. And it was unattached?
12 A. It was unattached.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I didn't have to undo it.
15 Q. Okay.
16
17 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: Judge, I would
18 like to enter this for record purposes, at this time.
19 THE COURT: State's Exhibit what?
20 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: 26.
21 THE COURT: For record only?
22 MR. TOBY L. SHOOK: Yes, sir.
23 THE COURT: Any objection?
24 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Not for record
25 purposes.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
903



This is the second time you have called someone out, when in fact they were telling the truth. As when you told me I got my info from some other poster . When I replied and quoted the transcripts, proving you wrong, no words came out of your mouth... "oops my bad sorry I was wrong, didn't mean to call you a liar". So please read the transcripts like most of us have. This would stop your confusion.

 

[GIRattlesnakeJane]

Anais is correct...

This is the second time you have called someone out, when in fact they were telling the truth. As when you told me I got my info from some other poster . When I replied and quoted the transcripts, proving you wrong, no words came out of your mouth... "oops my bad sorry I was wrong, didn't mean to call you a liar". So please read the transcripts like most of us have. This would stop your confusion.

This is inconclusive testimony IMO she only states she freed a necklace from the neck. She unclasped it and handed it over. She neither states that she found the necklace in the wound or not in the wound. No one questioned her about it that intensely.

That is the kind of testimony I'm looking for actual statements that leave no other conclusion.

This is what I conclude about her testimony.
She saw and removed a necklace.
She removed the necklace by unclasping it
The necklace was under the gauze applied by the paramedics.
She turned over the necklace to the police.

To sumise anything else from her testimony shows clearly a word I used before conjecture.
http:// www.meriam.webster.com/dictionary/conjecture

I mean definition 2 b.


www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes//vol-43.php

You seem to be just as touchy as the pro-Darlie side does if someone asks you to quote sources. I tried to apologize for your hurt feelings but your own ego won't allow you to be in error as you see making an error as being a liar not just reading something more into it than than is actually said. When the prosecution and the defense was able to prove a fact they both hammered away at that witness till they got an exact statement.

Both sides knew human nature very well and left things up to the juries ability to use conjecture.

Darin testifies :
1 Corrine Wells about your wife's necklace?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. About how that necklace is
4 actually the thing that saved her life?
5 A. I know that the necklace was embedded
6 into her neck.
7 Q. How do you know it was embedded into
8 her neck?
9 A. Because I saw it.
10 Q. Where did you see it?
11 A. When she came to the front door and
12 paramedics were bringing her out.

Again he states

7 Q. Okay. Now, again, your wife was still
8 wearing the necklace when you saw her, correct?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. It was still around her neck, right?
11 A. Yes, sir. It was embedded into her
12 neck.


I think I got the cut and paste figured out now.I don't know how to paste the url yet I'll figure that out too but is in volume 43 and it is Darin's testimony.

 

[Mary456]

Please quote your sources, A lot of the confusion and misinformation can be put to rest if you will point me in the right direction and use proper information.

You mean like this?

Jane: "The silly string party did her in. The jurors stated so after the trial."

Ha-ha-ha. That's all I can say. Your statement deserves no more than a belly laugh and a a big eye-roll.

Proper information, my a$$.

 

[GIRattlesnakeJane]

You mean like this?

Jane: "The silly string party did her in. The jurors stated so after the trial."

Ha-ha-ha. That's all I can say. Your statement deserves no more than a belly laugh and a a big eye-roll.

Proper information, my a$$.

Ok here is where I got my info. Remember to swear out an affidavit and then found to be lying his called perjury.


Affidavit of Charles L. Samford

In the Criminal District Court No.3
Dallas County, Texas​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DARLIE LYNN ROUTIER
No. F96-39973-MJ[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT
NO. 3 OF
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS[/FONT]

AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES L. SAMFORD​

Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day, personally appeared Charles L. Samford, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to him, upon his oath, he said:​

1. My name is Charles L. Samford. I am over twenty-one years old and I reside in Ingram, Texas. I have never been convicted of a crime, and I am capable and fully competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Affidavit, and those facts are all true and correct.​

2. From January 6, 1997 through February 4, 1997, I served as a member of the jury in the case of Texas v. Routier in Kerr County, in which Darlie Routier was alleged to have committed the murder of her son, Damon Routier.​

3. During the trial of Mrs. Routier, the prosecution introduced a videotape take by a news reporter showing a birthday party at the grave of Mrs. Routier's children sometime after her children had been killed. The tape showed Mrs. Routier smiling, chewing gum, and shooting Silly String. During our deliberations, I recall that we watched the videotape about eight or nine times, although I wasn't keeping count. The videotape was one of the main reasons I voted to convict Mrs. Routier of murder because I didn't know what to make of her behavior.​

4. After trial, I was shown another videotape that I was told was taken by police at the grave site that same day. This second videotape showed a prayer service that happened before the birthday party. Had we been shown this other tape so that we had been able to see the whole picture of what happened that day, I believe I would not have voted to convict Mrs. Routier.​

[signed]
______________________
Charles L. Samford​

STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS​

SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED before me by Charles L. Samford on July 10, 2002​

[signed]
____________________
Notary Public, State of Texas​

_qacct="p-91ihDzPi6MPQ-";quantserve(); http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-91ihDzPi6MPQ-.gif[/IMG[/URL]


If found to be perjury it would be his A$$ NOT YOURS OR MINE.

 

[Mary456]

Ok here is where I got my info. Remember to swear out an affidavit and then found to be lying his called perjury.

I'm aware of Charlie's affidavit, Jane, but it's truly worthless from a legal standpoint. He says it "was one of the major reasons he voted to convict". He does not say it was the only reason. The prayer service? Mulder could have shown it to the jury. He chose not to, for reasons we can only guess at. Perhaps it didn't show a grieving Darlie.

The bottom line is, Charlie's affidavit is a far cry from your statement that "the silly string party did her in. The jurors stated so after the trial." Where are all these jurors' affidavits? They don't exist. Just Charlie's, and he's the same guy who claims he didn't see photos of Darlie's injuries.

The defense got to Charlie, plain and simple.

 

[GIRattlesnakeJane]

The defense got to Charlie, plain and simple.

How did they get to him, gun to head, chased down by Bugle Boy Jean wearing Crackhead midgets?

Ignoring his affadavit statement doesn't make it less valid.

You are correct on the point that he is the only juror to speak out as far as I know he is the only one with the courage to speak about the case after the conviction in a written sworn statement.

He said he didn't see photos of Darlies bruises but Mulder says they were submitted into evidence.
I don't know why he didn't see them only that he states he didn't see them.
Maybe they were too busy rewatching the video that he didn't pay that close of attention or the jury accepted the prosecutions side that her injurieds were self inflicted.

For me to explain it would require conjecture on my part.

 

[CyberLaw]

If this Charlie guy put a fair bit of weight on the video, I do hope that he was paying attention to all of the other facts presented at trial.

I guess the "grieving" party Mom dancing on the graves of her recently deceased children, played a part in his decision to convict.

People are judged and viewed by their conduct. not the words, but what they do, how they act, how they behave. The boys were in the ground, what less then a week and "Mommy dearest Darlie" is litterally "holding" a party at their grave. Smacking gum in cut off shorts. Darlie invited the press, again, it is all about Darlie and only Darlie.

Remember Scott Peterson did not "act" like a grieving husband a father. His "affect" was unusual to say the least. Scott, like Darlie are where they belong.

 

[Mary456]

How did they get to him, gun to head, chased down by Bugle Boy Jean wearing Crackhead midgets?

There's a clip from one of the programs which shows Charlie pointing at different photos and saying, "I didn't see this one, or this one." And actually, he's telling the truth. There were over 100 photos taken of Darlie's injuries, but not every single one was admitted into evidence. The prosecution and defense had an equal say as to which ones were shown to the jury.

AFTER the trial, Darlie's defense showed those unseen photos to Charlie (who is not the brightest bulb in the package), and implied that evidence was hidden from the jurors. There are straight-out lies, and then there are lies by omission. This is an example of the latter.

Barbara Davis tried to pull the same stunt with the photographs.

Ignoring his affadavit statement doesn't make it less valid.

I haven't ignored his affidavit, Jane. I considered it and concluded that it holds no water, as did the judges.

You are correct on the point that he is the only juror to speak out as far as I know he is the only one with the courage to speak about the case after the conviction in a written sworn statement.

Nice backpedal, lol!

 

[GIRattlesnakeJane]

There's a clip from one of the programs which shows Charlie pointing at different photos and saying, "I didn't see this one, or this one." And actually, he's telling the truth. There were over 100 photos taken of Darlie's injuries, but not every single one was admitted into evidence. The prosecution and defense had an equal say as to which ones were shown to the jury.


Except the fact that all the photos taken were not shown to the defense as they (the prosecution) had no plans to use them. They wouldn't want to provide photos that might help the defense. Regardless of a person(s) thoughts on Darlie's guilt or innocence that is how the justice system works.

AFTER the trial, Darlie's defense showed those unseen photos to Charlie (who is not the brightest bulb in the package), and implied that evidence was hidden from the jurors. There are straight-out lies, and then there are lies by omission. This is an example of the latter.

He was bright enough to serve on a jury, why is his opinion now, not just as valuable as his vote was then.


Barbara Davis tried to pull the same stunt with the photographs.


Clue me in here.
Haven't heard about that one what did Barbara do?



I haven't ignored his affidavit, Jane. I considered it and concluded that it holds no water, as did the judges.

Be careful with that letter S. Was it Judge Francis or the appeals board.

BTW this old dog of a computer has no pdf reader so a lot of stuff available to y'all can't be read by me. I can get access to some stuff but not all. I have tried to get adobe loaded on this this dog but it doesn't seem to work. Firefox is what I'm using and it doesn't come with a pdf file reader.
What is the saying you can't teach an old dog new tricks - when it comes to this laptop I believe it to be true. I'm going to see what I CAN do to read it.


Nice backpedal, lol!

I was wrong, and when I am I have no shame in admitting it.

 

[GIRattlesnakeJane]

I'm so excited and proud of myself.
I didn't even have to call one of my kids to find a reader and install it.
O.K. now I'm not limited to transcripts and such only.:clap: