What do you believe will happen to Darlie Routier?

[cami]

I agree with you on some of these aspects, yes drug tox was done on Darlie and it came back negative, along with the negative results on her sons autopsy reports, I don't know about Darin. I didn't know he went hooley gooley running all over to the neighbors, who would even consider leaving the boys or washing their hands, I'd have blood all over me if it was my pets, dog, cats, even my tortoise trying to help them should they be injured let alone a child, of my own, OMG. Darin didn't pay the money, I am 99% certain Darlie Kee her Mother did, maybe I am wrong but there was a quote that the amount was in the upwards of 95,000.00 to the Lawyer. Tom Bevel is terrible what a weirdo, just watching him in action on those old video's exploiting the craft of Blood Splatter and his twisted mannerisms is sick. I 100% agree with you, I hope he got hi License revoked and a lean on his home, and a lawsuit, unbelievable. I think for our peace of mind, she does deserve a new trial, since Forensic Science has vastly improved, and get a reliable Blood Splatter Analyst in there to testify. I hope she gets a trial so we all know the real facts and are 100% certain that someone on Death Row deserves to be there.

Her drug tox was not negative. It showed amphetamines. The diet pills she had been taking were amphetamine based.

When a knife is stuck in bone, it takes a lot of force to remove it. Bevel is just fine, no lawsuit, no license revoked.

Darin went running to the neighbour because she was a nurse and he thought she could help but I agree he should not have been allowed to leave the crime scene.

 

[Regmeister]

Even if one is totally in agreement with the guilty verdict, there are enough questionable points to mitigate against the death penalty. I personally don't think she's guilty. Here's as concise a summary as I can make to enumerate my reasoning:
1. some of the so-called "expert" testimony was pretty shoddy -- certainly by present state of knowledge of blood spatter.
2. much of what the jurors said reflects a highly emotional state of mind showing an animus against Routier's personality -- e.g., breast implants, silly-string video, semi-trashy fashion sense, etc.
3. total lack of a convincing explanation of the 75 yards-away blood-imprinted sock, other than the obvious one: that it was dropped by the offender.
4. lack of any real motivation.
5. neither the husband nor D.R. show any sort of traits consistent with child-killing. Granted, I might not choose either of them to while away time on a desert island with, but I just don't see them as guilty of this.
I don't know what her fate will be … but there are enough questions about this case to at least hope for a commutation to life without parole.

 

[BOSCOE]

Personally I do not Believe

 

[BOSCOE]

Good grief my post is goofy.
I believe Darlie will die of natural causes in prison because Texas will not set up the drip. She is guilty as sin but I truly believe Darin is involved. He is quite the cool liar in my opinion and the 911 call back & forth among other things launched my hinky meter.

 

[ilovewings]

i think the death penalty should be given only when there is absolutely no doubt about
a person's guilt- there are just too many doubts in this case for execution

 

[cami]

Even if one is totally in agreement with the guilty verdict, there are enough questionable points to mitigate against the death penalty. I personally don't think she's guilty. Here's as concise a summary as I can make to enumerate my reasoning:
1. some of the so-called "expert" testimony was pretty shoddy -- certainly by present state of knowledge of blood spatter.
2. much of what the jurors said reflects a highly emotional state of mind showing an animus against Routier's personality -- e.g., breast implants, silly-string video, semi-trashy fashion sense, etc.
3. total lack of a convincing explanation of the 75 yards-away blood-imprinted sock, other than the obvious one: that it was dropped by the offender.
4. lack of any real motivation.
5. neither the husband nor D.R. show any sort of traits consistent with child-killing. Granted, I might not choose either of them to while away time on a desert island with, but I just don't see them as guilty of this.
I don't know what her fate will be … but there are enough questions about this case to at least hope for a commutation to life without parole.

1.Says who? Only those who have been found guilty are claiming blood evidence is junk science. Pooled blood is not the same as dripped blood. It's not the same as high velocity blow back from a gun. Blood dropping from someone running will not be a neat round circle, it will have a tail on it. Cast-off blood/impact spatter will have force behind it so the blood seeps into the weave of the article, in this case, DArlie's nightshirt, It doesn't just sit on top of the material, that's a transfer stain. Blood flinging off a knife as you lift your arm to stab someone is cast off blood as it had force behind it.

2, Several jurors were interviewed and according to them it was the evidence that proved Darlie murdered her children. They couldn't get past her testimony where she lied her head off.

3. There was no intruder so how could have dropped the sock in the alley. None of Darlie's blood was found on the sock, just the two boys. But her DNA from shed skin cells was found in the toe of the sock. None of Darin's DNA was found on the sock

4. No prosecutor is ever charged with proving a motive. He goes with what he has and to all intents and purposes, given her journal entries, Darin's employee statements Darlie was suffering from post partum depression. He can't tell the jury this woman is a narcissistic sociopath without some medical intervention.

5. Anybody is capable of anything. The physical and forensic evidence and the 911 call prove to me Darlie and no one else murdered those boys.