Darlie's injuries

[WindChime]

Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Moderator

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by deputylinda
how do you anaylze the call? and do you have link to autopsy photos? was it abdominal/thoracic wounds, or for the jugular/clinically accurate?


Yes, I've seen the photos, but they're not on the internet. Darlie had a slice to her neck, one minor stab wound to one of her forearms and one on her chest (of course avoiding the breast implants).

The boys were seriously STABBED. The wounds were deep penatrating wounds. Some of them were almost three inches deep into their chests or backs. One author wrote that they went all the way through to the carpeting, but they actually didn't make it that far - close though. __________________


THESE COLORS DON'T RUN.

[WindChime]

Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Moderator

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,617
Well, she wants people to believe that she was seriously injured; however, the doctor at the emergency room said he would have released her the same day except he was concerned that the media would be a nuisance and they thought she needed some rest due to the emotional stress of having two children dead. The fact that the boys were "over"killed and she suffered only minor injuries was a major factor in the police being suspicious from the beginning. She claims that she was the target and that SHE was attacked first. Seeing the photographs of the boys at autopsy, it was pretty clear to me that whomever murdered these two boys knew exactly how to do so and that if the same person who killed them wanted Darlie dead, then she'd be six feet under!
__________________


THESE COLORS DON'T RUN.

[RKnowley]

Was the wound to Darlie's chest a stab wound or was it a slice (the same as on her neck)? I think that the 2 wounds (the one on neck and chest) happened during the same cut. I think she dragged the knife from the upper right neck to the left and the knife skipped a spot on her chest and then made the cut that was on her chest?? Am I making sense because sometimes I confuse myself?? LOL

PS.. I know I am responding to an old post and I haven't made my way all the way through the posts so please forgive me if I have repeated something that's been discussed before.

Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Moderator

Darlie had a slice to her neck, one minor stab wound to one of her forearms and one on her chest (of course avoiding the breast implants).

__________________


THESE COLORS DON'T RUN.

[2sisters]

I think Darlie inflicted the knife woulds herselfs. I can't find the article, but something I read described them as "hesitation" wounds. She did it herself to look like she was attacked and as far as the bruised go, I think Darren did that when he saw what she had done.

[Nova]

Weekend before last, I watched a repeat of a program on the Routier murders.

Of course, they showed the Silly String tape. (Personally, I figure people grieve different ways; though tacky, the Silly String episode isn't evidence of guilt, IMHO.)

But what was striking about the video was how well Darlie's injuries had healed, less than 2 weeks after the murders.

[CyberLaw]

Remember Justin Barber, his wife was killed and he was shot but in non life threatening areas. Well he is in prison also.

In my opinion Darlie wounded herself in an attempt to deflect blame and "frame" the unknown shaggy stranger. But again as in Barber, look at the difference in the wounds very telling. Also as in Barber, an unknown person would want to subdue the person who would be the most trouble, like an adult women as opposed to two small children and a "man" as opposed to a slim women.

Darlie is where she belongs and I have still have seen any evidence, new old or otherwise that has changed my mind.

Also in a program, what advantage would it be to a "stranger" to clean up blood at a sink. How does that benefit the stranger to do a bit of housecleaning and cleaning up. It does not.

[mollymalone]

Weekend before last, I watched a repeat of a program on the Routier murders.

Of course, they showed the Silly String tape. (Personally, I figure people grieve different ways; though tacky, the Silly String episode isn't evidence of guilt, IMHO.)

But what was striking about the video was how well Darlie's injuries had healed, less than 2 weeks after the murders.Until you said that, (having seen the silly string episode several times) it had never dawned on me how long it had been and how well her injuries were healing.

[Jeana (DP)]

It was only days afterward and she didn't look very "injured" to me. The doctors would have released her the same day, had they not been concerned about her being a "grieving" mother with dead children. Her "wounds" would not have been enough to keep her hospitalized even through that next night.

[CyberLaw]

The type of wounds, the lack of severity and the hesitation of the wounds just about sums it up for me.

The one thing that Darlie and her camp just don't seem to realize if that "the people" who look at evidence before lies did just that and have determined that Darlie is where she belongs on earth, after that well we all know where she is going.

[RGSG99]

This is my first post here. I have been following the Routier case for years.

In my opinion, what sums it up for me is the fact that the defenseless children were viciously attacked and the adult in the room had just superficial wounds. It's the same as the Diane Downs case. Why leave the adult to live and kill the children? It makes no sense.

[Jeana (DP)]

This is my first post here. I have been following the Routier case for years.

In my opinion, what sums it up for me is the fact that the defenseless children were viciously attacked and the adult in the room had just superficial wounds. It's the same as the Diane Downs case. Why leave the adult to live and kill the children? It makes no sense.

Exactly! Take out the biggest threat first. That makes perfect sense even to me and I've never done anything like that before.:rolleyes: There would be absolutely NO reason whatsoever to kill two sleeping little boys and leave a yelling mother chasing them out of the house. In that area in the neighborhood, you would have to know how to get in and how to get out or you'd probably end up driving around for a while and that would get you caught if mom was still alive.

[Laurajean]

The children being brutally attacked and murdered is also very much like the Jeffrey Macdonald case. Why would an intruder kill the wife (who was a petite person), and two small girls, while MacDonald, the Green Beret, hardly was wounded - same thing, same reason -

[Nova]

Thanks, Laura, and welcome to WS. I was about to mention MacDonald as well.

In addition to the inequality of wounds, the thing that convinced me of Darlie's guilt was reading the transcript of the trial (which was posted here at some point). The way she kept crafting her answers to fit the questions (and what she imagined the DA was thinking) was very telling.

[accordn2me]

Thanks, Laura, and welcome to WS. I was about to mention MacDonald as well.

In addition to the inequality of wounds, the thing that convinced me of Darlie's guilt was reading the transcript of the trial (which was posted here at some point). The way she kept crafting her answers to fit the questions (and what she imagined the DA was thinking) was very telling.
Hey Nova!

I think Darlie's "brilliant" :doh: defense attorney coached her to do that.

[Mary456]

Hey Nova!

I think Darlie's "brilliant" :doh: defense attorney coached her to do that.

Grasping for straws again, are we? When it wasn't enough to blame the police, the investigators, the prosecutor, the witnesses, the doctors, nurses, paramedics, medical examiners, the Routier's neighbors, the 911 operator, and the judge, you moved on to...Darlie's own attorney!!

This is an old and useless argument, accordn2me. You really should move on.

Darlie wasn't the type to be coached. If she was, she would have listened to Mulder when he told her not to take the stand.

[Jeana (DP)]

Hey Nova!

I think Darlie's "brilliant" :doh: defense attorney coached her to do that.

Unfortunately for Darlie, she DID have brillant defense attorneys, so that avenue will be closed to her.

[White Rain]

Grasping for straws again, are we? When it wasn't enough to blame the police, the investigators, the prosecutor, the witnesses, the doctors, nurses, paramedics, medical examiners, the Routier's neighbors, the 911 operator, and the judge, you moved on to...Darlie's own attorney!!

This is an old and useless argument, accordn2me. You really should move on.

Darlie wasn't the type to be coached. If she was, she would have listened to Mulder when he told her not to take the stand.

I don't think there are ANY straws these people won't grasp at. there's not many people left to blame...I'm just waiting to hear that the boys commited suicide or murder/suicide themselves.
There is SO much evidence that points to HER, and NONE that points to anyone else, imo.

[Mary456]

Unfortunately for Darlie, she DID have brillant defense attorneys, so that avenue will be closed to her.

Darlie had FIVE attorneys:

Mulder
Glover
Mosty
Douglass
Hagler

and a private investigator named Harrell.

So when her supporters say, "Mulder should have done this or Mulder should have done that, or Mulder dropped the ball, or Mulder didn't have enough time to prepare and that's why Darlie was convicted", I have just one question:

Where were the other five members of the team? Playing Bingo?

[Levi]

I think Darlie inflicted the knife woulds herselfs. I can't find the article, but something I read described them as "hesitation" wounds. She did it herself to look like she was attacked and as far as the bruised go, I think Darren did that when he saw what she had done.
Do you think it is possible that her husband Darin helped her? I do.

[Levi]

Jeana (DP) Jeana (DP) is offline
Moderator

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by deputylinda
how do you anaylze the call? and do you have link to autopsy photos? was it abdominal/thoracic wounds, or for the jugular/clinically accurate?


Yes, I've seen the photos, but they're not on the internet. Darlie had a slice to her neck, one minor stab wound to one of her forearms and one on her chest (of course avoiding the breast implants).

The boys were seriously STABBED. The wounds were deep penatrating wounds. Some of them were almost three inches deep into their chests or backs. One author wrote that they went all the way through to the carpeting, but they actually didn't make it that far - close though. __________________


THESE COLORS DON'T RUN.
WindChime, It reminds me of the Justin Barber case from FL. The man who killed his wife & shot himself in the shoulders & other places on his body that wouldn't kill him. The doctors treated the wounds with ointment & said they were not serious. He also did a google search on the internet about faking suicide, running to Brazil Mexico. Where to shoot yourself & not die.

It's the same thing with Darlie, the kids were murdered & she just got a couple of scratches. :rolleyes:

[nicola]

It's the same thing with Darlie, the kids were murdered & she just got a couple of scratches. :rolleyes:[/quote]
Drs in hospital said that the wounds that were inflicted on Darlie were serious, one came within 2mm of a caroid artery, sorry bout spelling.

[whitywendy]

It's the same thing with Darlie, the kids were murdered & she just got a couple of scratches. :rolleyes:
Drs in hospital said that the wounds that were inflicted on Darlie were serious, one came within 2mm of a caroid artery, sorry bout spelling.[/quote]

Yes you are right about it coming within 2mm...... however, the others were not. IMHO, she thought she had seriously wounded herself and that is why she called 911. Darlie - "I think I am dying".:boohoo:

What is your reasoning as to why you think Darlie didn't commit these crimes? :behindbar

[nicola]

There are many reasons why I think shes innocent. If you look at the sink the blood seems to be only at the front of sink. If she did 'clean up' after herself there would have been blood all round the sink - not just at front. If you look at sink there is paper towels, half a roll - not just replaced and not empty, there is also a sponge, none of these items were used. If she was cleaning up after herself howcome they aint found whatever she used to clean up? Also the cleaning products had no traces of blood on them - if she was cleaning blood up water wouldnt be enough she would have had to use cleaning products - no cleaning products mixed with blood was found anywhere.
I also do not think she had enouygh time to commit murders, plant sock, stage crime scene THEN call 911.
There is no way she could have inflicted injuries of that extent to herself - the neck wound which I mentioned earlier is just one eg, there is a stab/cut to her elbow that went nealy to bone. Since injuries were on two arms she would have to have been holding knife with an injured arm whist inflicting injuries on second arm, looking at the pictures I dont think that she would be able to inflict wounds of that extent on herself. These are main points why I think shes innocent, hope that answers your question for now.

[whitywendy]

There are many reasons why I think shes innocent. If you look at the sink the blood seems to be only at the front of sink. If she did 'clean up' after herself there would have been blood all round the sink - not just at front. If you look at sink there is paper towels, half a roll - not just replaced and not empty, there is also a sponge, none of these items were used. If she was cleaning up after herself howcome they aint found whatever she used to clean up? Also the cleaning products had no traces of blood on them - if she was cleaning blood up water wouldnt be enough she would have had to use cleaning products - no cleaning products mixed with blood was found anywhere.
I also do not think she had enouygh time to commit murders, plant sock, stage crime scene THEN call 911.
There is no way she could have inflicted injuries of that extent to herself - the neck wound which I mentioned earlier is just one eg, there is a stab/cut to her elbow that went nealy to bone. Since injuries were on two arms she would have to have been holding knife with an injured arm whist inflicting injuries on second arm, looking at the pictures I dont think that she would be able to inflict wounds of that extent on herself. These are main points why I think shes innocent, hope that answers your question for now.

The stab/slice on her right forearm (not elbow) seem serious because it went to the bone but IF YOU READ THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, you will find that this part of your arm skin is very thin and it would not take much to puncture to the bone. I don't understand why people seem to think that it would be impossible for her to cut herself. People cut themselves all the time - "CUTTERS" and in places you would of never thought of. http://websleuths.com/forums/images/icons/icon3.gif

The kitchen sink - it sounds like you read "The Kitchen Sink Clean-up" Section on JFD and didn't follow-up with the transcripts. I know what you are trying to say because I felt the same way this time last year. But I took time to read the transcripts, even going back to dispute/clear up anytime I became confused (which happens allot with the JFD site).

Hey I would be the first to apologize to her if it turned out that the whole Rowlett PD and Dallas/Kerr Justice system did in fact frame her. Shoot then she would be RICH and finally get what she was trying to obtain from her actions that night.:waitasec:
MONEY MONEY MONEY.

[White Rain]

It's the same thing with Darlie, the kids were murdered & she just got a couple of scratches. :rolleyes:
Drs in hospital said that the wounds that were inflicted on Darlie were serious, one came within 2mm of a caroid artery, sorry bout spelling.[/quote]


I have never understood the big debate on whether her injuries were serious or not...
let's just say for arguments sake that they WERE serious...Does that mean Darlie could not have inflicted them herself?
Darlie didn't have any medical training...do you honestly think she would know where her carotid artery was and how close she could come to it without killing herself?
I think the quotes above are a bit messed up, so my post is written towards Nicola or anyone else who likes to think Darlie came SO close to dying...please...anyway, her injuries could NOT, I repeat, NOT have been that serious...her own doctor said that if she had come in under normal circumstances she would have been sent home THAT NIGHT!!!! Anyone who is seriously hurt would be kept in the hospital at LEAST overnight, probably longer.

[whitywendy]

Drs in hospital said that the wounds that were inflicted on Darlie were serious, one came within 2mm of a caroid artery, sorry bout spelling.


I have never understood the big debate on whether her injuries were serious or not...
let's just say for arguments sake that they WERE serious...Does that mean Darlie could not have inflicted them herself?
Darlie didn't have any medical training...do you honestly think she would know where her carotid artery was and how close she could come to it without killing herself?
I think the quotes above are a bit messed up, so my post is written towards Nicola or anyone else who likes to think Darlie came SO close to dying...please...anyway, her injuries could NOT, I repeat, NOT have been that serious...her own doctor said that if she had come in under normal circumstances she would have been sent home THAT NIGHT!!!! Anyone who is seriously hurt would be kept in the hospital at LEAST overnight, probably longer.[/quote]


So when I broke my tibia completely in half/no longer connected to my foot, and they kept me overnight, performed surgery to reconnect and sent me home 4 days later to learn how to walk all over again ....was much more serious than Darlie's wounds!!!!!! Ya know I actually thought she had hurt herself more than she bargined for, but if she really wants to feel pain, try the above. The more I learn about D...... the more disgusted I feel.

[nicola]

Drs in hospital said that the wounds that were inflicted on Darlie were serious, one came within 2mm of a caroid artery, sorry bout spelling.


Darlie didn't have any medical training...do you honestly think she would know where her carotid artery was and how close she could come to it without killing herself?.[/quote]
Anyone with or without medical training would know that slicing your own throat can result in serious injury/death.

whity wendy - you stated that you used to think darlie was innocent, what changed your mind & what are the reasons why you think shes guilty.

White rain - why do you believe shes guilty?

Do any of you think there could be a possibilty that she is innocent?

[Rino]

Anyone with or without medical training would know that slicing your own throat can result in serious injury/death.



Do any of you think there could be a possibilty that she is innocent?
True, but anyone also knows that when you're about to call for help those self inflicted injuries will be tended to.

I think she is guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt.

[whitywendy]

whity wendy - you stated that you used to think darlie was innocent, what changed your mind & what are the reasons why you think shes guilty.


Nicola - I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring your questions, just need some time to get my thoughts in order. Plus I need to finish up some invoicing first, so I shall be back shortly with my explanations. Thanks for the interesting debates.

[Dena]

I don't think I'll ever understand how anyone can believe Darlie is innocent. This case is pretty cut and dry, IMO.
Someone wanted those children dead, the target was not Darlie. That is a pretty obvious and non-arguable thing. If someone really wanted Darlie, she would be dead today, not those innocent boys. It takes a lot of anger against someone to create the wounds "someone" gave to Devon and Damon. Their wounds were almost overkill, in the deep and penetrating and forceful way they were stabbed. Read anything on profiling and the conclusion will be that it is not the kind of stabbing that a stranger would do. It would be done by someone who knew them, possibly loved them, and was filled with rage and wanted them dead.
A robber or intruder would have blood spatter on them. An intruder would come to the house armed and not use Darlie's knife. Darlie's prints would not be the only ones on the knife.
As for cleaning up, whether or not she cleaned up is a useless point. If she did clean up, she wouldn't need to use a sponge or cleaning supplies. Paper towel and water could easily clean up fresh blood that has not yet set in. Have you ever thrown paper towel down a garbage disposal? I have, and it goes bye bye.
All of the supposed "proof" towards Darlie's innocence are really baseless, they are grasping at straws. When they try something and it doesn't work, they stop talking about it and try to come up with another reason why is innocent.
One word for Mama Darlie - DENIAL.

No one (including myself) wants to truly believe that a mother could brutally stab her children. But she did, and IMO, there is ZERO proof otherwise.

Think about this one...
If I am a crazed murderer or robber who completely got away with this, don't you think I would do it again?
A similar crime down the street or the next town over couldn't be committed again because the perpetrator, the sick and uncaring Darlie, is in prison - where she belongs.

[White Rain]

Nicola, I believe Darlie is guilty because of the massive amt. of evidence that points to her and no one else.
First of all nobody is going to break into a house, go in the kitchen, get a knife from THAT persons kitchen, go to the garage, cut the screen, put the knife they used to cut the screen away, get another knife and then go attack two kids.
And no adult is going to sleep thru an attack just feet away from them.
Then once she woke up she wants us to believe she went after the attacker, who had a knife in his hand, and he ran from her. Now any woman waking up seeing someone standing over her, or even walking away from her is going to scream for her husband. Darlie didn't. Also if someone is attacking you with a knife, yes, you will put up a fight, but if he is walking away from you no woman is going to chase a man with a knife in his hand when she has no weapon.
Then she wants us to believe the attacker DROPPED the knife. Blood spatter evidence did not support this. It showed that the knife has been laid down. So lets see...our attacker is running from a little woman when he has a weapon and she doesn't, and he is going to stop and take the time to LAY down the knife? Ummm no, don't think so.
Blood spatter evidence on the back of darlie's shirt also showed that it was Devon and Damon's blood, and it was consistent with her having drawed her hand back to stab them. If she had not stabbed them herself, then how did their blood come to be SPATTERED on the back of her shirt?
Darlie also said that she heard glass breaking while the attacker was fleeing...but yet there was only one wine bottle broken, and it had been broken ON TOP of Darlie's bloody footprints, and she also had NO cuts on her feet, nothing else was found broken, so that was a lie.
Not to mention her 16 different stories. 1,2, maybe even 3 or 4 small changes in a story after such a traumatic thing, okay, but 16? No, no way. As more and more evidence came out her story would change to fit the scenario.
Also a big factor for me was her polygraph....I know they are not admissible in court, but had she passed that polygraph her family wouldv'e made that known 100 million times over. And her attorneys probably would have let it "slip" in court.
Another thing...the way her voice changed on the 911 call. There were NO tears or hysteria in her voice when she said "Darin, someone intenionally came in here and did this."
Also...the silly-string birthday incident...everyone claims that no one mentions the serious ceremony beforehand..okay, even mentioning that, I've heard how solemn and upset and how much she was crying at the serious ceremony...when Joe Munoz did his interview with her after the birthday party she did NOT look like a woman who had shed a single tear. Her eyes weren't red and puffy, no sign of tears. And even though her family said they were celebrating life, not death..well, as a mother myself, even if I were celebrating life I can't see dancing over my child's grave and laughing and popping gum and spraying silly string...at least not without a million tears...no, scratch that I couldn't do it. Neither could Darin, apparently, because when he was told to spray some silly string he shook his head no and looked very sad...guess he didn't feel like "celebrating life" either.
Also, just from reading the books about her and the transcripts, and watching her interviews on tv...she just doesn't come across as sincere to me. Her sweet little voice sounds sickeningly sweet, like an act.
Those are just some of the reasons for my belief in her guilt.
Now, Nicola, I ask you about not why you believe her, but your speculations on how Damon and Devon's blood SPATTER was on the back of her shirt, and about why if her injuries were so serious her doctor said he would have released her that very night under normal circumstances? I am not asking you this sarcastically, I really do want to know your thoughts on this.

[whitywendy]

[quote=whitywendy;1520860]whity wendy - you stated that you used to think darlie was innocent, what changed your mind & what are the reasons why you think shes guilty.


Nicola - I use to believe she was innocent because I just couldn't believe a mother could do that to her kids. At first I thought that Darren had hired someone to to kill her and with the boys being downstairs they were in the "way". Then I saw the "silly string" grave party and couldn't believe a mother that had just had her "BABIES" murdered , and "was left for dead" herself could be so freakin HAPPY.

When the trial was going on I was in California so I didn't get the daily updates as when I lived in Texas but the LA Times covered the story on the front page after she was found guilty but before they sent her to DP. After reading what the LA Times wrote I starting wondering if they were infact sending the wrong person to jail. I mean murdering your kids for $10,000 just didn't fit. If they were interfering with her lifestyle all she had to do was leave Darren with the kids and go find her a new RICH man. After all, according to the reports she was a VERY ATTRACTIVE WOMEN. Years later I came across the write up in Crime Storys. At the end of the article, the writer lead you to believe that she might not be guilty after all. So of course that sparked my Darlie Routier interest again. I started with the site her family has and began reading everything I could find. The unidentifed fingerprint on the utility door, and sofa table, the missing knife, the mysterious black car, Darren looking for someone to break into the home... and of course as the website states "the BLOODY SOCK". At the Justice for Darlie website I found the pictures and the trial transcripts along with other articles. At this point I really believed she was innocent and that the State of Texas had the wrong person. (LAPD IS CORRUPT SO WHY NOT TEXAS TOO)?

Anyhow, after months of reading the transcripts from beginning to end, I BECAME CONVINCED THAT THIS MOTHER MURDERED HER BOYS. WHY?

1. 911 call - Screaming/yelling that her babies ARE DEAD, when in fact one was staring right at her trying to breathe. SO concerned that her fingerprints were on the knife. NOT rendering AID to her sons. Doesn't even mention the fact that there is a 8 month old upstairs -how did she know that Drake was unharmed? Someone came in and intentionally did this DARREN. Why the word "intentionally"? Anytime someone commits any type of crime its intentional not accidental.

2. NEVER ONCE asking about her babies on the way to the hospital or at the hospital. Her lack of emotion when seeing Damon bloody, naked and dead.

3. Blood evidence, lack of evidence of an intruder, her changing stories. Yes I know that when we experience something so devasting that we aren't going to remember each and every detail but her statements changed to match the evidence as it was discovered.

4. Her injuries. Now think about it. If someone came into that house with every intention of killing HER, why then were her injuries so slight in comparison to her sons. IF SHE WAS THE INTENDED TARGET, SHE WOULD BE DEAD NOT HER BABIES. No injury to her face, chest.

I got to go right now, my son wants me OFF the computer so I will have to finish up later but this should give you a good idea.

[whitywendy]

Continuing from below:

The first time she cried hysterically, (she cried when they arrested her), was during the bond hearing when they played the 911 call. She never once cried for her boys like that. I don't care what drugs her DR's had her on, she should of weeped/cried/frowned anything but smiled. No drugs in the world can take away the pain that would show on your face.

The only blood in that house was Darlie's and her sons. So many things other things, Darlie onthe witness stand, where was her sister Dana and why didn't she testify for Darlie? Like I said so many things.

May I ask, have you read the transcripts? Because before I did, I felt the same as you.

[StellaTravers]

whitywendy, I am enjoying your posts. When I saw the Paris Hilton crying photos of her in the police car, I was reminded of Darlie's hysterical sobs upon being arrested. I too was willing to believe in her innocence until I read the transcripts. I am not great at being able to recite the transcript like Bible verses, but thought this was an interesting bit about how serious one of the doctors felt about her injuries. It was in volume 4
or the surgery reports?

23 Q. Do you know, for instance, how close
24 the neck wound came to the carotid artery?
25 A. Based on the information given to me by
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter 36
1 that resident, combined with my knowledge of anatomy, I
2 can tell you that it didn't come all that close.
3 Q. What would be your best estimate of --
4 what does all that close mean?
5 A. Well --
6 Q. A half an inch?
7 A. In terms of a carotid artery, a half an
8 inch is as good as a mile. Yes. And it was certainly
9 further away than that.


True, it could have gotten closer and killed her, but it didn't. yet someone made certain the wounds on the boys hit the critical marks. Most people intent on murder don't have double standards that let the adult victim possibly survive but make certain to kill the kids

[sharkeyes]

Do any of you think there could be a possibilty that she is innocent?

Nicola - anything is possible - but the probability of Darlie being not guilty is less than zero. Listen to that 911 call, there is no evidence of an intruder (no real evidence), she killed her children, we'll most likely never know why.

[nicola]

Continuing from below:
May I ask, have you read the transcripts? Because before I did, I felt the same as you.
To be completly honest I have read parts but havent found the time to get through it all - it is alot. Although what you are saying could make sense. There are things I still dont get:waitasec: ....3 unidentified (bloody) fingerprints & the fact thaqt it is still not established where the debris on the kitchen knife came from, screen door/police investigation? Have you got any ideas on this? Thanks for posts by the way they're real interesting.:clap:

[whitywendy]

In regards to the fibers found on the knife, I do not believe it could be anything other than the glass rods from the window screen. I know in the transcripts they defense team tried to dispute it but couldn't. This knife does not have much meaning to me. I do not believe anyone came in or out of that window. Just as much as "the missing knife". The defense could not prove that Devon's injuries were actually caused by another knife.

[whitywendy]

CLAP CLAP White Rain - Kudo's to you. My thoughts exactly. It's just so hard to remember everything, so thanks.

[whitywendy]

In regards to the fingerprints, even Darlie's own fingerprint expert couldn't rule out it was her. They were able to rule out Darren and the kids but not Darlie. The JFD website likes to twist the facts/evidence around to give you the impression that her trial was "corrupt" from the get-go. When I get a little time I will go and find the areas in the transcripts, etc. that helped me decide and let ya know.

[whitywendy]

Hey Stella, good post. Why is it so hard for some to believe that the intended targets were in fact Devon and Damon not Darlie. As said so many times before, if she was the intended target we would not be here today discussing this.:eek:


whitywendy, I am enjoying your posts. When I saw the Paris Hilton crying photos of her in the police car, I was reminded of Darlie's hysterical sobs upon being arrested. I too was willing to believe in her innocence until I read the transcripts. I am not great at being able to recite the transcript like Bible verses, but thought this was an interesting bit about how serious one of the doctors felt about her injuries. It was in volume 4
or the surgery reports?

23 Q. Do you know, for instance, how close
24 the neck wound came to the carotid artery?
25 A. Based on the information given to me by
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter 36
1 that resident, combined with my knowledge of anatomy, I
2 can tell you that it didn't come all that close.
3 Q. What would be your best estimate of --
4 what does all that close mean?
5 A. Well --
6 Q. A half an inch?
7 A. In terms of a carotid artery, a half an
8 inch is as good as a mile. Yes. And it was certainly
9 further away than that.


True, it could have gotten closer and killed her, but it didn't. yet someone made certain the wounds on the boys hit the critical marks. Most people intent on murder don't have double standards that let the adult victim possibly survive but make certain to kill the kids

[nicola]

Hey Stella, good post. Why is it so hard for some to believe that the intended targets were in fact Devon and Damon not Darlie. As said so many times before, if she was the intended target we would not be here today discussing this.:eek:
Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.

[Dena]

Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.

Then why would "he" take Darlie's kitchen knife if not to kill?
The children were the intended target, there is no question about that with the brutal way they were murdered.

[Rino]

Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.
Highly unlikely. Burglers usually will do anything to avoid hurting someone, it's the difference between a light sentence or slap on the wrist to life.

[nicola]

Then why would "he" take Darlie's kitchen knife if not to kill?
The children were the intended target, there is no question about that with the brutal way they were murdered.
I said INITIALLY came not to kill, obviously for some reason it changed, Im not saying that this is fact just that it is a possibility.

[nicola]

Highly unlikely. Burglers usually will do anything to avoid hurting someone, it's the difference between a light sentence or slap on the wrist to life.
Some burgelers, if you look at the texas death row website alot of men on the row are there because of murders that took place during robbery, also since America has more relaxed gun laws, than where I live, burgelers are risking thier lives, maybe intruder came to house believing it was empty or that everyone would be upstairs sleeping and when they found out they wernt grabbed knife for thier own protection etc.

[whitywendy]

Maybe none of them were intended targets, it is quite possible that initially intruder didnt come to the house to kill. Im not saying that this is fact just that it could be possible.

If an "intruder" came to the home just to steal items, then why the Routier home? Their house wasn't the "nicest" in the neighbor, nor the most accessable (high fence in back yard). Darlie's rings/watches/purse were sitting right there beside the knifes. So if murdering these boys wasn't the main goal of this "intruder", why not just take the stuff and run. Shoot, even the DOG didn't hear the break in, so it would of been a clean get away.

[Dena]

I said INITIALLY came not to kill, obviously for some reason it changed, Im not saying that this is fact just that it is a possibility.

I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the evidence and what happened that night...

An intruder would have brought his own knife to the house to cut the screen. Then, he would have been walking around looking for stuff to steal. He walks in the family room to see the boys and Darlie sleeping, so he walks back into the kitchen and grabs one of her knives. Devon wakes up, so the "intruder" brutally murders him. Damon wakes up too, so he is brutally stabbed, all the while Darlie is sleeping. The intruder gets on top of her (or doesn't, whichever story you believe) and slices her neck. Darlie gets up and follows the intruder out, he drops Darlie's knife, taking his own with him. (although the screen fibers were found on another knife in Darlie's home)

I am just trying to see how the intruder theory might work, I don't think it does...

[whitywendy]

In regards to the fibers found on the knife, I do not believe it could be anything other than the glass rods from the window screen. I know in the transcripts they defense team tried to dispute it but couldn't. This knife does not have much meaning to me. I do not believe anyone came in or out of that window. Just as much as "the missing knife". The defense could not prove that Devon's injuries were actually caused by another knife.

Nicola - I am quoting myself because I just read something in regards to the fibers on the knife that you questioned. It is part of Judge Francis's final findings: LINK: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

315. Applicant states that “[i]t was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen.” (Application at 48, citing Writ Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Palenik at 4). Palenik actually states in his Affidavit that contamination was a possibility, not that it was more plausible than the State’s theory at trial. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit at 10). Furthermore, the Court finds that the kitchen knives were not dusted with the fingerprint brush used to dust the window screen. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Affidavit of David Nabors; State’s Writ Exhibit 23, Report of Roger Smith).

One down, working on the others. :)

[Dena]

Nicola - I am quoting myself because I just read something in regards to the fibers on the knife that you questioned. It is part of Judge Francis's final findings:

315. Applicant states that “[i]t was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen.” (Application at 48, citing Writ Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Palenik at 4). Palenik actually states in his Affidavit that contamination was a possibility, not that it was more plausible than the State’s theory at trial. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit at 10). Furthermore, the Court finds that the kitchen knives were not dusted with the fingerprint brush used to dust the window screen. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Affidavit of David Nabors; State’s Writ Exhibit 23, Report of Roger Smith).

One down, working on the others. :)

:woohoo:

[Rino]

Some burgelers, if you look at the texas death row website alot of men on the row are there because of murders that took place during robbery, also since America has more relaxed gun laws, than where I live, burgelers are risking thier lives, maybe intruder came to house believing it was empty or that everyone would be upstairs sleeping and when they found out they wernt grabbed knife for thier own protection etc.


Okay, that would fly if this intruder didn't attack 2 sleeping children and their supposedly sleeping mother.

[whitywendy]

Nicola - in regards to the juror who "changed his opinion", here is what I found, same final findings as I previous stated: LINK: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

484. The Court notes that Rule 606(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence provides that “a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the jury’s deliberations, or to the effect of anything on any juror’s mind or emotions or mental processes, as influencing any juror’s assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment. Nor may any juror’s affidavit or any statement by a juror concerning any matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be admitted into evidence for any of these purposes.” Tex. R. Evid. 606(b).
485. The Court finds that a juror’s affidavit that the juror would have voted a different way based upon evidence not heard by the jury is necessarily testimony as to the “effect” of that evidence on the juror’s “assent to” the verdict. See Tex. R. Evid. 606(b).
486. The Court notes that the purpose of current Rule 606(b) is to prevent harassment of jurors and to protect the secrecy of jury deliberations. See, e.g, Cochran, Texas Rules of Evidence Handbook 560; see also Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107,118-21 (1987).
487. The Court finds and concludes that Samford’s Affidavit is not admissible, not competent habeas evidence, and cannot be considered by the Court in considering Applicant’s claim.
488. In the alternative, the Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit does not account for the probability that the State would have explained the surveillance video with other testimony or argument.
489. The Court finds that Samford’s Affidavit, executed over five years after the trial, indicates that he considered the surveillance tape alone, and not in conjunction with all the other testimony, photographic evidence, audio tapes, video evidence, and forensic testimony that the jury considered during deliberations.


2 down.....:woohoo:

[whitywendy]

:woohoo:

Thank you Dena :blowkiss:

My eyes are staring to blur from reading his findings but they are so informative.

[whitywendy]

Hey Nicola - it is me again :p. In regards to the "Fair Trial" : Link: http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/rfrancis-final.php

504. The Court finds that Applicant’s five-lawyer team presented a compelling opening statement, thoroughly cross-examined the State’s witnesses, adduced favorable testimony from the State’s witnesses, sought to exclude evidence, and objected to questions and testimony. Applicant’s team sought mistrials at various times, and they preserved many claims for appellate review. They presented favorable character evidence, favorable expert testimony, evidence of the “mysterious black car” in the neighborhood near the time of the murders, and evidence of other suspicious events in Rowlett on the night of the murders. The defense team presented compelling arguments attacking the State’s case and reinforcing the defense case. In the punishment phase, Applicant’s trial team called nine different witnesses to make a case that Applicant did not deserve a death sentence and to rebut the State’s punishment case. They also presented punishment arguments identifying weaknesses in the State’s punishment case, re-urging attacks on the State’s guilt case, and requesting that the jury give Applicant the benefit of any lingering doubt by returning a life sentence.

3 down :crazy: now I got to go and look for the rest of your post because I can't remember everything you mentioned.

[cami]

Some burgelers, if you look at the texas death row website alot of men on the row are there because of murders that took place during robbery, also since America has more relaxed gun laws, than where I live, burgelers are risking thier lives, maybe intruder came to house believing it was empty or that everyone would be upstairs sleeping and when they found out they wernt grabbed knife for thier own protection etc.

Why kill two sleeping boys who posed no threat?

[cami]

Nicola - I am quoting myself because I just read something in regards to the fibers on the knife that you questioned. It is part of Judge Francis's final findings:

315. Applicant states that “[i]t was more plausible that the source of the fiber was fingerprint powder used to dust the window screen and then knives found in the kitchen.” (Application at 48, citing Writ Exhibit 10, Affidavit of Palenik at 4). Palenik actually states in his Affidavit that contamination was a possibility, not that it was more plausible than the State’s theory at trial. (Applicant’s Writ Exhibit at 10). Furthermore, the Court finds that the kitchen knives were not dusted with the fingerprint brush used to dust the window screen. (State’s Writ Exhibit 3, Affidavit of David Nabors; State’s Writ Exhibit 23, Report of Roger Smith).

One down, working on the others. :)


The fingerprint brush fibre was microscopically bigger than the screen fibre. There's rubber dust from the screen as well on the knife so try explaining that by dusting for prints.

[nicola]

Can any one clear up these questions for me?
1. The bloood splatter found on the back of Darlies shirt contained blood from both Darlie & the boys mixed together, if Darlie stabbed boys then injured herself how is her blood on back of shirt mixed with boys blood?
2. Robert Lohnnes -latent print consultant- signed affidavit stating that in his opinion the fingerprint - exibit 85J - was not made by Darlie. What proff is there to say that print is Darlies?
If anyone could answer these I would be very greatful. Thanks.

[Rino]

Can any one clear up these questions for me?
1. The bloood splatter found on the back of Darlies shirt contained blood from both Darlie & the boys mixed together, if Darlie stabbed boys then injured herself how is her blood on back of shirt mixed with boys blood?
2. Robert Lohnnes -latent print consultant- signed affidavit stating that in his opinion the fingerprint - exibit 85J - was not made by Darlie. What proff is there to say that print is Darlies?
If anyone could answer these I would be very greatful. Thanks.
I can only try.

1. Cast off blood would be on her back from the motion of stabbing her sons. As far as her own blood it could be cast off from the neck wound, the motion of slashing your own neck could leave the knive at an angle over your shoulder.Or even cast off from the towels she used on her own wound and the wet towels she claims to have used to aid Devon.

2. I don't know that there is proof the prints are Darlies, I'll look again. But that print has had a lot of play because they cannot ID the print, unidentified does not include or exclue her.

There are more unitdentified prints in the house as well as other prints made by rescue workers and police.

One fullsize footprint found in the kitchen, partial print belonged to Dect. Walling. Where are the prints of the stranger as he left the house?
Shoeprints were found behind the couch and they belonged to the paramedic. A partial handprint was found on the door between the garage and washroom door, unidentifiable.
On the sliding glass door from family room to patio had a partial print, unidentifiable

[whitywendy]

Rino - Were these prints bloody? Is there any way to distinguish whether they were from the crime, or just prints you would find in any household?

[Rino]

Rino - Were these prints bloody? Is there any way to distinguish whether they were from the crime, or just prints you would find in any household?
The only bloody footprints in the kitchen were Darlie's. If the killer killed the boys and stabbed Darle he too would have had to have left bloody foot prints. According to her telling on 20/20 she woke when Devon touched her on the shoulder, she saw the man a made chase unaware of her own injuries. Then returns to the living room to see her boys. If she had blood on her feet it would stand to reason the killer would have to have blood on his feet as well. In fact even if you only use what she says on 20/20 holes can be poked through her story countless times, imo.

The other prints, ID'd and not, came from the crime scene. Being they were from police and paramedics they would not be found in just any household. But the mystery pubic hair in my opinion could have come from anywhere at anytime.


More about the spatter or Darlies shirt, if I remember correctly (I'll look for it) the evidence shows that some of Devons blood was on top of her blood. Meaning he was stabbed after her injuries.

[whitywendy]

Thanks for your help. Question: How do they know whether prints are part of a crime scene or not (besides the obvious)? Like the print on the sliding glass door, how is it linked to the crime? I did read that Darren's print was found on the UR Door but was not in blood and of course he being a member of the household, wasn't associated with the crime but for some reason "her" team was leave this print "alone"

[nicola]

More about the spatter or Darlies shirt, if I remember correctly (I'll look for it) the evidence shows that some of Devons blood was on top of her blood. Meaning he was stabbed after her injuries.
I interpretated what I read about blood splatter on back of shirt as the blood was a mixture of both thier blood. If what your saying is right (that darlies blood was under devons blood) then what the prosecution said about her killing kids and then 'attacking' herself must be wrong.

[nicola]

HOw is it possible for Darlie blood to be mixed in with boys blood in exactly the same places on the back of her shirt given that she was supposed to have stabbed kids then herself? Any ideas anyone?

[whitywendy]

HOw is it possible for Darlie blood to be mixed in with boys blood in exactly the same places on the back of her shirt given that she was supposed to have stabbed kids then herself? Any ideas anyone?

Nicola - I believe the way I understand it, Darlie's arm was cut/slashed during the "struggle" (Devon does have signs that he fought) with Devon. It is believed she cut her throat afterwards to stage the scene.

[Rino]

I interpretated what I read about blood splatter on back of shirt as the blood was a mixture of both thier blood. If what your saying is right (that darlies blood was under devons blood) then what the prosecution said about her killing kids and then 'attacking' herself must be wrong.Not to be nit-picky but the state only tried Darlie for the murder of 5-year-old Damon, who was attacked and left for dead.

There are indications that Devon fought of the attack and fought to survive. That does not necessariy go against the theory they were attacked prior to her self inflicted injuried.

[whitywendy]

I interpretated what I read about blood splatter on back of shirt as the blood was a mixture of both thier blood. If what your saying is right (that darlies blood was under devons blood) then what the prosecution said about her killing kids and then 'attacking' herself must be wrong.

Rino - I thought it was Damon's blood on top of Darlie's, which brought about the theory of the 2nd attack on Damon after she cut her throat.

[CyberLaw]

Darlie was tried only for Damon's death because it qualifies for the death penalty because of his age and if for some reason she was not convicted in the death of Damon, she could then be tried for the death of Devon. Double jeopardy is attached to Damon but with Devon, it would be a new trial.

[cami]

Can any one clear up these questions for me?
1. The bloood splatter found on the back of Darlies shirt contained blood from both Darlie & the boys mixed together, if Darlie stabbed boys then injured herself how is her blood on back of shirt mixed with boys blood?
2. Robert Lohnnes -latent print consultant- signed affidavit stating that in his opinion the fingerprint - exibit 85J - was not made by Darlie. What proff is there to say that print is Darlies?
If anyone could answer these I would be very greatful. Thanks.

Actually it contained Damon and Darlie's blood mixed together. Damon was stabbed at two separate times and in two different areas of the room. Darlie was bleeding from her own injuries when she stabbed Damon the second time...read Bevel's testimony.

The fingerprint will likely remain unidentified as it is just not good enough to get a reading from AFIS..read Cron's testimony.

It's smudged on glass in blood. The print most likely belongs to Darlie, it has a whorl pattern and Darlie has a whorl pattern on her ring finger. So does Devon but there is no indication that Devon was anywhere near that table..none of his blood in the area...

Lohnes is a defense expert..of course he is going to say it's not Darlie's.

You have to take the bloody smudged fingerprint with all the other evidence Nicola..if it's an intruder, why one small bloody fingerprint. He was allegedly fighting with Darlie enough to cut her neck and bruise her arms...where's the rest of his bloody fingerprints, footprints? Not one speck of blood found from the garage on out..nothing outside.

[cami]

Rino - Were these prints bloody? Is there any way to distinguish whether they were from the crime, or just prints you would find in any household?


There's only two patent (bloody) prints...the rest are latent. On bloody print is on the sofa table..the other is on the utility room door.

Once you learn the blood, you will be left in no doubt as I am that the bloody print on the sofa table is Darlie's. There are a line of blood drops along the sofa cushions, there's also blood transfers on the arm of the sofa as if someone squeezed through there..you know to try and get to a moving body she thought was dead...

[cami]

Thanks for your help. Question: How do they know whether prints are part of a crime scene or not (besides the obvious)? Like the print on the sliding glass door, how is it linked to the crime? I did read that Darren's print was found on the UR Door but was not in blood and of course he being a member of the household, wasn't associated with the crime but for some reason "her" team was leave this print "alone"


I'm sure all of us have unidentified prints in our homes...we have friends over, we have tradesmen in maybe...I am sure Darlie didn't wash her windows every day. Just as we all have unsourced hair and fibre in our homes. We all transfer hair daily, we drop hair daily. I don't pay much attention to unsourced hair unless it's found clutched in the hand of the victim...had Darlie been fighting with an intruder surely she would have snagged a hair or a piece of skin tissue. After all her dna is found in the toe of the bloody sock found outside, shed skin cells.

These prints mean nothing.

[whitywendy]

There's only two patent (bloody) prints...the rest are latent. On bloody print is on the sofa table..the other is on the utility room door.

Once you learn the blood, you will be left in no doubt as I am that the bloody print on the sofa table is Darlie's. There are a line of blood drops along the sofa cushions, there's also blood transfers on the arm of the sofa as if someone squeezed through there..you know to try and get to a moving body she thought was dead...

Thank you Cami. I knew it was Damon's blood in regards to the shirt.

What I was asking about, someone has stated that there was an unidentifiable print found on the sliding glass door. And what I wanted to know was, how can they tell (besides the obvious/blood) that this print had anything to do with the crime. Anyone who had been in the home visiting prior to the murders could of left that print. So is there any way to distinguish besides testing everyone the family states would have prints there?

[cami]

I interpretated what I read about blood splatter on back of shirt as the blood was a mixture of both thier blood. If what your saying is right (that darlies blood was under devons blood) then what the prosecution said about her killing kids and then 'attacking' herself must be wrong.

NO, it's not wrong. Damon was attacked at two separate times and in two separate areas of the room. Darlie attacks Damon, then Devon..she thinks their dead. She's at the kitchen sink inflicting that neck slash when she hears something. Damon is alive and moving. She attacks him again, thereby getting his blood over hers as she has already inflicted the neck cut and has bled on her nightshirt.

Nicola, the blood evidence proves Damon was attacked twice and in two separate areas of the room...

Yes I forgot she's also cut on the arm by this time so her blood is flinging back from that arm wound as well as from the knife.

[whitywendy]

I'm sure all of us have unidentified prints in our homes...we have friends over, we have tradesmen in maybe...I am sure Darlie didn't wash her windows every day. Just as we all have unsourced hair and fibre in our homes. We all transfer hair daily, we drop hair daily. I don't pay much attention to unsourced hair unless it's found clutched in the hand of the victim...had Darlie been fighting with an intruder surely she would have snagged a hair or a piece of skin tissue. After all her dna is found in the toe of the bloody sock found outside, shed skin cells.

These prints mean nothing.

Thanks again, you answered me before I finished my reply. That's exactly what I was trying to point out. Just because it was unidentifiable doesn't at all point to the fact that an "intruder" left it. Thanks again...:blowkiss:

[cami]

Thank you Cami. I knew it was Damon's blood in regards to the shirt.

What I was asking about, someone has stated that there was an unidentifiable print found on the sliding glass door. And what I wanted to know was, how can they tell (besides the obvious/blood) that this print had anything to do with the crime. Anyone who had been in the home visiting prior to the murders could of left that print. So is there any way to distinguish besides testing everyone the family states would have prints there?

I guess I'm not following you. I don't know anything about fingerprints on the sliding glass door. The only two bloody prints were on the Utility Room door and the glass sofa table. If there is an unidentified print on the sliding glass door, I don't think it means much. It obviously does not belong to a known criminal..like a burglar.

[Rino]

Rino - I thought it was Damon's blood on top of Darlie's, which brought about the theory of the 2nd attack on Damon after she cut her throat.
I initially said it was Devons but I chalk that up to a faulty memory (getting old :o ) Damon was attacted twice in different areas of the room, right I stand corrected on that.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
The State's blood spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified that he found four cast-off or spatter bloodstains on the nightshirt the appellant had been wearing on the night of the murder. All of the stains contained some of the appellant's blood and some of the blood of either Damon or Devon.
Bevel testified that the stains could be either (1) two separate stains with the appellant's blood overlaying the child's blood or (2) a mixture of both the appellant's blood and the child's blood. Bevel said that if the stains were a mixture, it would show that the appellant had been cut before the stain was deposited, which is inconsistent the State's theory that the appellant stabbed the children first before inflicting her own wounds. If the stains were overlaid, it would be consistent with the State's theory of the case. Bevel testified that at least one of the stains appeared to be mixed, not overlaid. He testified that the other three could have been overlaid stains

[whitywendy]

I initially said it was Devons but I chalk that up to a faulty memory (getting old :o ) Damon was attacted twice in different areas of the room, right I stand corrected on that.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
The State's blood spatter expert, Tom Bevel, testified that he found four cast-off or spatter bloodstains on the nightshirt the appellant had been wearing on the night of the murder. All of the stains contained some of the appellant's blood and some of the blood of either Damon or Devon.
Bevel testified that the stains could be either (1) two separate stains with the appellant's blood overlaying the child's blood or (2) a mixture of both the appellant's blood and the child's blood. Bevel said that if the stains were a mixture, it would show that the appellant had been cut before the stain was deposited, which is inconsistent the State's theory that the appellant stabbed the children first before inflicting her own wounds. If the stains were overlaid, it would be consistent with the State's theory of the case. Bevel testified that at least one of the stains appeared to be mixed, not overlaid. He testified that the other three could have been overlaid stains

I'm getting CRS allot lately...:bang: Thanks!

[nicola]

Bevels testimony was, at worst, neutral. He said that, in his opinion, one of the stains was mixed. This tended to support the appellant's theory of the case. He said that he could not be certain about the other three stains. This testimony was not highly probative of the question of the appellant's guilt.http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
Therefore the blood splatter evidence on back of her shirt does not prove that she stabbed her kids.

[cami]

Bevels testimony was, at worst, neutral. He said that, in his opinion, one of the stains was mixed. This tended to support the appellant's theory of the case. He said that he could not be certain about the other three stains. This testimony was not highly probative of the question of the appellant's guilt.http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us (http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nY-_rYljfCwJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dtx%26vol%3Dapp/72795%26invol%3D1+Mr.+Bevel+routier+testimony&hl=e n&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)
Therefore the blood splatter evidence on back of her shirt does not prove that she stabbed her kids.

It does with all the evidence taken together.

The demonstration done by the blood expert was pretty convincing. The blood landing exactly as it is shown on the nightshirt.

Once again, you need to read the trial testimony and not this google case law. Bevel's opinion is backed up by other leading blood experts.

[Rino]

Additionally, what was linked was an appeal that was denied. Therefore the arguement that Bevels testimony was, at worst, neutral etc... must be taken at face value, thrown out too.

[cami]

Additionally, what was linked was an appeal that was denied. Therefore the arguement that Bevels testimony was, at worst, neutral etc... must be taken at face value, thrown out too.

Yeah that was the appeal document which is filed by the defence so we only have their opinion and it's biased.

It's the shape of the cast-off blood that convinces me. There is one clear stain in Damon's blood. The tail is pointing upward toward the source of the blood..the dripping knife. There is also a cast-off on the right front shoulder from the knife as she brought her arm back down.

When I saw that demonstration by Bevel, the stains landed exactly as they appear on Darlie's nightshirt.

[nicola]

When I saw that demonstration by Bevel, the stains landed exactly as they appear on Darlie's nightshirt.
Where did you see demo by bevel? Can you get it on net?

[whitywendy]

Where did you see demo by bevel? Can you get it on net?

Yes, I would like to see it too Cami. Can we do a search for it?

[cami]

Where did you see demo by bevel? Can you get it on net?


You won't find it on the net. It's the one tv program they will not put on the .net site because it contains the forensics for one thing and clearly shows Darlie's guilt.

It's a half hour program featured on Forensics Files on Court TV. It's entitled "Invisible Intruder."

I saw it in Canada years ago on a program entitled "Medical Detectives" and it turned me from innocent to guilty.

It also contains the bloody knife imprint in the carpet and the explanation as to how it was made...this to me is the one irrefutable piece of evidence of Darlie's guilt.

It's also featured on a new Discovery channel program but it was made by either Britain/Quebec or Austrailia/Quebec so it's possible that Nicola may see it in Wales.. It's been broadcast in Ireland and Mexico I think and of course I saw here in Canada on Discovery. I think the title was Perfect Family or something like that...if you do a search you'll find it.

Wendy...I'll pm you on this...

[Missi]

There are many reasons why I think shes innocent. If you look at the sink the blood seems to be only at the front of sink. If she did 'clean up' after herself there would have been blood all round the sink - not just at front. If you look at sink there is paper towels, half a roll - not just replaced and not empty, there is also a sponge, none of these items were used. If she was cleaning up after herself howcome they aint found whatever she used to clean up? Also the cleaning products had no traces of blood on them - if she was cleaning blood up water wouldnt be enough she would have had to use cleaning products - no cleaning products mixed with blood was found anywhere.
I also do not think she had enouygh time to commit murders, plant sock, stage crime scene THEN call 911.
There is no way she could have inflicted injuries of that extent to herself - the neck wound which I mentioned earlier is just one eg, there is a stab/cut to her elbow that went nealy to bone. Since injuries were on two arms she would have to have been holding knife with an injured arm whist inflicting injuries on second arm, looking at the pictures I dont think that she would be able to inflict wounds of that extent on herself. These are main points why I think shes innocent, hope that answers your question for now.

I agree there is a lot of evidence that does say that she is innocent. As for the wounds I have seen the pictures and it doesn't look to me like there was anything inflicted. She had extensive wounds. Over $10,000 of emergency surgery. As far as the neck wound from what I have researched the only reason it didn't hit the main vein is because as the DR stated he had to remove a necklace that was embedded in her throat and that was what stopped the throat wound from being fatal. As for why the children seemed to be more bruatlly attacked and she didn't die, well adults are stronger physically and she was knocked out so maybe the killer thought she was already dead. I do believe there was someone in that house that night and until they do the DNA testing with the fingerprints that didn't match anyone in the house or the tests on the pubic hair and other limb hairs that were found to prove otherwise I believe she is innocent. There is something that doesn't make much sense either, the nurse that was at the hospital that had seen and taken care of Darlie while she was there, when she was called to testify why would she lie about the bruising? I clearly saw bruising on her arms and she said that there wasn't.....why lie? I agree with the clean up thing to....you have to figure there were wet towels being brought back and forth for the boys while she was on the phone with 911, so if it seemed that the sink was clean well there was running water on for the towels and it would be consistant with the blood that was dripped on the front of the sink with something dripping from the towels. There are also so many ways that people deal with things after a trauma and unless you have ever experienced a major trauma you don't know how you will react to anything. When you are innocent you don't think that people are going to pick apart everything you say and do and twist it, all you are thinking of is the grief you are feeling.

[CyberLaw]

So what about the hesitation wounds. Darlie's wounds where not so severe that only because the death of her boys, the Doctors would have released her and sent her home. The Nurses did not lie about the bruises. It it is because they were not there. You see when you have the facts, you present the facts. When you have the law, you present the law. When you have nothing, you say everyone lied.

So who cleaned up the blood from the couch.

Why did Darlie not even to bother asking any medical people how the boys were doing.

Why did she apply pressure to her own neck, but ignored instruction to apply pressure to one of the boys wounds.

The Doctor who tended to Darlie testified that her wounds were "superficial".

There was no blood trail away from the scene, no footprints, no fingerprints.

Flowers arranged on the floor, stems not broken. A lamp askew. You seem to think that a "violent" life and death struggle occurred and bruising and that was all that was broken. A fight over the remote would have caused more damage.

The "stranger" leaves a women alive that can ID him, and send him to the gas chamber and then claims at trail traumatic amnesia and can't remember what he looks like. What a lucky, stranger/intruder. How fortunate for her, oops him.

Her bruises are not the correct color or pattern to struggle with her intruder. Who is she superwomen. All the guy had to do is subdue her easily and for her to scream.

But No neither happened. Again, I have no doubt she is guilty.

[whitywendy]

I agree there is a lot of evidence that does say that she is innocent. As for the wounds I have seen the pictures and it doesn't look to me like there was anything inflicted. She had extensive wounds. Over $10,000 of emergency surgery. As far as the neck wound from what I have researched the only reason it didn't hit the main vein is because as the DR stated he had to remove a necklace that was embedded in her throat and that was what stopped the throat wound from being fatal. As for why the children seemed to be more bruatlly attacked and she didn't die, well adults are stronger physically and she was knocked out so maybe the killer thought she was already dead. I do believe there was someone in that house that night and until they do the DNA testing with the fingerprints that didn't match anyone in the house or the tests on the pubic hair and other limb hairs that were found to prove otherwise I believe she is innocent. There is something that doesn't make much sense either, the nurse that was at the hospital that had seen and taken care of Darlie while she was there, when she was called to testify why would she lie about the bruising? I clearly saw bruising on her arms and she said that there wasn't.....why lie? I agree with the clean up thing to....you have to figure there were wet towels being brought back and forth for the boys while she was on the phone with 911, so if it seemed that the sink was clean well there was running water on for the towels and it would be consistant with the blood that was dripped on the front of the sink with something dripping from the towels. There are also so many ways that people deal with things after a trauma and unless you have ever experienced a major trauma you don't know how you will react to anything. When you are innocent you don't think that people are going to pick apart everything you say and do and twist it, all you are thinking of is the grief you are feeling.

Missy - you keep mentioning that her surgery cost over $10,000. SO WHAT. That amount of money for a surgery is minor. I had MAJOR TRAUMA to my right leg that required surgery and a 5 day stay. All said and done it cost me over $75,000.00. NOW WAS I NEAR DEATH. NO..... I MIGHT OF FELT LIKE I WAS BUT I WAS NO NEAR DYING. SO that $10,000 worth of surgery just certifies to me that her wounds were superficial.

Oh and you know what Missy, during this traumatic event in my life, guess what... the only human being I was worried about was my 2 year old daughter, I refused to let them call an ambulance because I didn't want to freak my little 2 year old out at the time. SO I SUFFERED AND HAD SOMEONE DRIVE ME. I could feel pain but I was more worried about my child. SO TELL ME, MISSY, HOW COME DARLIE NEVER TRIED TO HOLD HER BABIES WHEN THEY WERE DYING?

[CyberLaw]

Not only hold her babies, but hold a towel to the wound of the child, and not herself.

She never asked how they were doing, saying OMG, please take me but let my boy(s) live and take me, please take me, just let them be O.K.

When she was brought in to the hospital, she never once asked again if they were O.K. or showed any concern for them.

When again she was on a bed, the little boy stabbed, bloodly body was right on the next bed. Lifeless and dead. The nurse thought that she would break down emotionally and become distraught. But all she did was look over, said nothing and was only concerned about herself.

Again, I came up with the thought, why did the "stranger" leave, without stabbing her the same way as the boys. Darlie is a women, the "stranger" is armed and obviously much stronger, what caused him to flee in the "life and death "struggle" with Darlie.

All it would take is one stab wound to the torso and she is down. But she "struggles" with him and only receives "superficial" wounds to the throat.

How many women have "struggled" with an armed intruder, who just killed her kids in a vicious manner and live to tell about it. Well "superwomen" Darlie Routier. I really don't think others live to tell about it.

What caused the "stranger" to give up the "fight" and leave again past the obvious valuables and then drop the knife with the "strangers" fingerprints on it.

It is not a "first" time criminal who "enters" a house and then kills two kids and does not "profit" from it at all. Was "little" ole "Darlie so "tough" that she scared him "off" after he killed the kids and was armed with a knife and then she "claims" she chased him, again unarmed when the "stranger" could easily overpower her and had a knife.

What would she have done, if "he was not so scared of her, turned around and stabbed her in the torso, was she going to tackle him and hold him for the Police. Sure.

Boy the stranger "must" have been really scared of a little ole unarmed women.

So scared that she received bruises and was superficially cut on the throat while she was fighting with him. Did he have three hands.

Who is the grace of God can sleep through the murders of their two children viciously killed mere feet from them.

No one.

You wonder why the cops thought about her....gee I wonder.

If you tell a story, you break it down, critical analysis, go over every detail, if something is "fabricated" it will not follow a logical thought pattern and common sense, because it is not based in reality, you have to make up the story to "attempt" to fit the circumstances. Cops know this, Darlie does not.

Just like our oldest tried to "convince" us that the reason he did not do well in school this years is because "the work" was too easy. Not that he did not do assignments at the last minute, hung out with friends instead of studying, and "did not do homework" all the time. Of course, not, the work was just too easy............that is why..........sure makes sense to me. Can anyone say: Summer School. Grounded. Loss of Privileges.

[Missi]

Missy - you keep mentioning that her surgery cost over $10,000. SO WHAT. That amount of money for a surgery is minor. I had MAJOR TRAUMA to my right leg that required surgery and a 5 day stay. All said and done it cost me over $75,000.00. NOW WAS I NEAR DEATH. NO..... I MIGHT OF FELT LIKE I WAS BUT I WAS NO NEAR DYING. SO that $10,000 worth of surgery just certifies to me that her wounds were superficial.

Oh and you know what Missy, during this traumatic event in my life, guess what... the only human being I was worried about was my 2 year old daughter, I refused to let them call an ambulance because I didn't want to freak my little 2 year old out at the time. SO I SUFFERED AND HAD SOMEONE DRIVE ME. I could feel pain but I was more worried about my child. SO TELL ME, MISSY, HOW COME DARLIE NEVER TRIED TO HOLD HER BABIES WHEN THEY WERE DYING?

were you at her house that night? did you see her not hold them or is that in the transcripts too? I have kids and they are VERY important to me so lets not act like your trauma was worse then anyone elses. plus from a medical perspective how would you know what the hell to do when your children are stabbed on the floor like that? If you have ever been attacked or if your children have ever been attacked and I hope you or your children have not, then you would know why darlie wasn't in the best frame of mind....and yes lets add in all the drugs given to her....that messes your mind up too. It just seems like you are not willing to really look at anything else and it means more to see an innocent woman rot and deal with the grief of losing her children too. I have not seen the JFD site or whatever, so my research comes from other sources. Reliable ones and sorry we dont see the same....and for the record I have read the transcipts and I see a lot more then you are apparently.

[CyberLaw]

Oh come on, the cops told her to get towels for the boys and she ignored him. That is called evidence. She held a towel to her throat, but declined and ignored the cops when they said to get towels to hold over the boys wound. Why, because if one boy lived, he would not support her story. He would say "Mommy stabbed me and my brother, she in no way shape or form could do anything that "may" save the life of a witness and victim.

If you want to know about a person, look at what they do, not what they say as much, but their behavior. Personality denotes behavior. People can tell stories, lie, fabricate, but their behavior does not lie.

Like the man who "claimed" he killed his wife in "self defense", but low and behold she was stabbed twelve times and he lied, lied and lied. Evidence does not "lie". He thought that "he could con" the court, tell a "story" and he would just walk away. Just like Darlie. It took the jury two hours to convict him and he is in jail for life. Darlie is where she belongs also. But low and behold "she can still "con" some people, but not most.

Just like Scott Peterson, he was "judged" on his actions, conduct and behavior. In his mind, like Darlie's, eliminate the person and you feel you eliminate the problem. He thought he could get "away" with it by his "story" just like Darlie thought the same thing. Both are on death row where they should be.

[Mary456]

did you see her not hold them or is that in the transcripts too?

Yes, it is in the transcript, Missy. All the police and paramedics on the scene testified that Darlie didn't go near Devon or Damon. They were there, they saw what she did and did not do. Darlie stood by the kitchen counter, holding a towel to her neck. She didn't even ask about her boys on the way to the hospital.

and yes lets add in all the drugs given to her?

What drugs? Darlie wasn't on any drugs (except diet pills) on June 6, 1996.

[whitywendy]

were you at her house that night? did you see her not hold them or is that in the transcripts too? I have kids and they are VERY important to me so lets not act like your trauma was worse then anyone elses. plus from a medical perspective how would you know what the hell to do when your children are stabbed on the floor like that? If you have ever been attacked or if your children have ever been attacked and I hope you or your children have not, then you would know why darlie wasn't in the best frame of mind....and yes lets add in all the drugs given to her....that messes your mind up too. It just seems like you are not willing to really look at anything else and it means more to see an innocent woman rot and deal with the grief of losing her children too. I have not seen the JFD site or whatever, so my research comes from other sources. Reliable ones and sorry we dont see the same....and for the record I have read the transcipts and I see a lot more then you are apparently.

1st of all I never said my trauma was worse than anyone else. I WAS POINTING OUT THAT $10,000 IS A NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT I PAID OUT FOR A FREAKING BROKEN LEG.. YES A BROKEN LEG. OH AND DARLIE WAS LEFT FOR DEAD. LIFE-SAVING SURGERY FOR $10,000????? SIGN ME UP FOR THAT INSURANCE PLAN I SAY.

And yes I did read in the transcripts that DARLIE REFUSED TO RENDER AID TO HER DYING KIDS. SHE STOOD THERE WITH A RAG TO HER NECK. I believe you need to reread the transcripts. Unless you just like to read between the lines and make things up to suit your agenda.

Where you in that home that night. NO you weren't either. But you believe Darlie was comforting her dying babies don't you. AS I believe what LE and EMT's stated. SHE DID NOT TOUCH HER BABIES ONCE OR EVEN ASK THEM IF THEY WERE DEAD. SHE KNEW THEY WERE DEAD!! It wasn't until the evidence starting coming in and Darlie found out that her sons blood was found on her nightshirt that she started saying that she was grabbing towels and placing them on her kids. Not applying pressure, just layed them there. IF she was holding Devon and Damon, the blood evidence on her shirt would of reflected so.

Oh and for the record... IF my babies were stabbed and dying on my floor, I WOULD BE HOLDING THEM BOTH BEGGING GOD TO TAKE ME AND NOT THEM. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PHYSICALLY RESTRAIN ME FROM MY KIDS.

[whitywendy]

Oh come on, the cops told her to get towels for the boys and she ignored him. That is called evidence. She held a towel to her throat, but declined and ignored the cops when they said to get towels to hold over the boys wound. Why, because if one boy lived, he would not support her story. He would say "Mommy stabbed me and my brother, she in no way shape or form could do anything that "may" save the life of a witness and victim.

If you want to know about a person, look at what they do, not what they say as much, but their behavior. Personality denotes behavior. People can tell stories, lie, fabricate, but their behavior does not lie.

Like the man who "claimed" he killed his wife in "self defense", but low and behold she was stabbed twelve times and he lied, lied and lied. Evidence does not "lie". He thought that "he could con" the court, tell a "story" and he would just walk away. Just like Darlie. It took the jury two hours to convict him and he is in jail for life. Darlie is where she belongs also. But low and behold "she can still "con" some people, but not most.

Just like Scott Peterson, he was "judged" on his actions, conduct and behavior. In his mind, like Darlie's, eliminate the person and you feel you eliminate the problem. He thought he could get "away" with it by his "story" just like Darlie thought the same thing. Both are on death row where they should be.

AMEN TO THAT!

[Rino]

were you at her house that night? did you see her not hold them or is that in the transcripts too?

Everyone who was in the house that night saw her not hold them or ask about them, and yep, it is in the transcripts too.
If you have ever been attacked or if your children have ever been attacked and I hope you or your children have not, then you would know why darlie wasn't in the best frame of mind....and yes lets add in all the drugs given to her....that messes your mind up too. Then she would have been better served acting like she forgot everything, not going to your injured children is sickening I don't know how you can defend it. What drugs, diet pills??

[whitywendy]

Yes, it is in the transcript, Missy. All the police and paramedics on the scene testified that Darlie didn't go near Devon or Damon. They were there, they saw what she did and did not do. Darlie stood by the kitchen counter, holding a towel to her neck. She didn't even ask about her boys on the way to the hospital.



What drugs? Darlie wasn't on any drugs (except diet pills) on June 6, 1996.

Yea Mary I wonder what transcripts she is reading from. Are they two sets now? LOL One for the truth and one for the Darlie's?

[whitywendy]

Everyone who was in the house that night saw her not hold them or ask about them, and yep, it is in the transcripts too.
Then she would have been better served acting like she forgot everything, not going to your injured children is sickening I don't know how you can defend it. What drugs, diet pills??

Rino - I believe Missy is confused in regards to the actual events of that night. Or she is reading an entirely different transcript of the trial then the rest of us.

Missy - As I have stated before, Darlie did not receive any drugs prior to the murders. The only drug found in her system upon arrival at the hospital was her diet pills. The pain pills came after surgery. AND IF YOU HAVE HAD ANY TYPE OF SURGERY THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE PUT TO SLEEP, THE DRUGS ADMINISTERED WILL NOT EFFECT YOUR MEMORIES PRIOR TO THE SURGERY. Therefore the drugs given to her during her stay did not effect her memories from the night before..

I agree Reno, anyone who can stand there and not render aid to their dying kids is SICK and EVIL. DARLIE IS WHERE SHE BELONGS.

[Missi]

Rino - I believe Missy is confused in regards to the actual events of that night. Or she is reading an entirely different transcript of the trial then the rest of us.

Missy - As I have stated before, Darlie did not receive any drugs prior to the murders. The only drug found in her system upon arrival at the hospital was her diet pills. The pain pills came after surgery. AND IF YOU HAVE HAD ANY TYPE OF SURGERY THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE PUT TO SLEEP, THE DRUGS ADMINISTERED WILL NOT EFFECT YOUR MEMORIES PRIOR TO THE SURGERY. Therefore the drugs given to her during her stay did not effect her memories from the night before..

I agree Reno, anyone who can stand there and not render aid to their dying kids is SICK and EVIL. DARLIE IS WHERE SHE BELONGS.


First of all I was responding to another post with the whole diet pill theory and it was insinuated that it messes with your mind and could cause you to go into a rage and I said that I don't think that everyone on diet pills is going to go out and kill someone. As far as the drugs I am referring to and maybe I wasnt clear enough, but I was talking about how people were reacting to how she was in the hospital and the gravesite after she had been prescribed drugs. As far as how you think you will react to a child dying, my husband and I have had a child that died from a terrible disease and he didnt react the way that he thought he would. You don't know how you will unless it happens to you. Maybe some people may see it as cold hearted. I am not a cold hearted person and I do have children that I would defend with my life, but I also know that when you go through a trauma and any psychiatrist will say this, you will only remember what your mind wants you to and it is a way of protection. It is a fact that people can remember some things and not the whole thing after a severe trauma. You may never remember, but it is not uncommon for people to have bits and pieces. As far as the transcripts, in another post I explain why I don't give it much credit and hopefully you all will see where I am coming from after you read what I laid out about why I think she is innocent. I don't just put my ass on the line for someone that I really think is guilty. Even if it is for the sake of an arguement or debate. So after you read why I think opposite of you, maybe you can relate to my reasons and I did not just give my opinion in that post those were FACTS I have researched. Like there aren't others that give their opinions, but I guess it doesn't seem to count unless I agree with all of you. As far as other cases that have been mentioned, like Scott Peterson, I do believe he is where he should be and he is guilty, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, the same I believe that they are GUILTY.

[whitywendy]

Missy - I have dealt with enough trauma, death, and circumstances beyond the norm to tell you that I WOULD NOT JUST STAND THERE DUMBFOUNDED AND STARING AT MY BABIES IF THEY WERE BRUTALLY ATTACKED AND DYING. I know people react differently to death. But I do not believe that a mother who did not cause harm to her babies is just going to stand there and not render aid.

[whitywendy]

Missy - Okay so lets just throw out all of the evidence along with the transcripts since you have no faith in the transcripts. Just because the Darlie's are still trying to cause a stink with the transcripts does not mean that all of us should believe that these doc's are wrong. Really Missy, I do not believe your are seriously searching for the truth in regards to Darlie's guilt because if you were then you would not quote her website when it comes to your "FACTS".

SO the whole entire state of Texas was out to get Darlie, huh That is the only reasonable explanation if you want to believe that the trial/transcripts/appeals are just garbage.

[CyberLaw]

Missy - I have dealt with enough trauma, death, and circumstances beyond the norm to tell you that I WOULD NOT JUST STAND THERE DUMBFOUNDED AND STARING AT MY BABIES IF THEY WERE BRUTALLY ATTACKED AND DYING. I know people react differently to death. But I do not believe that a mother who did not cause harm to her babies is just going to stand there and not render aid.

Cyberlaw totally 100% agrees with Wendy........

Darlie thought she had killed both boys and when one was hanging on by a thread, could not do anything that would ensure that he would live, or else the stranger story would not have held water and there would be no Darlie supporters.

I would die without hesitation for my kids, I would take any bullet, knife, anything at all to ensure my kids are safe. I would go to the ends of the earth for them and then some. If my child was near death, dying, on the floor, I would do whatever within my human means to attempt to save them. If I could not, I would forever live with the guilt that I could have done more to save them.

I would not ignore the police, hold a towel to my own wound and do nothing to help my dying child.

The cop did more to attempt to save the life of the child, Darin did more again in an attempt to help the child. But Darlie did nothing. That is not a loving mother. That is a mother who does not want her child to live to testify against her.

[Rino]

but I also know that when you go through a trauma and any psychiatrist will say this, you will only remember what your mind wants you to and it is a way of protection. It is a fact that people can remember some things and not the whole thing after a severe trauma. You may never remember, but it is not uncommon for people to have bits and pieces .
So her mind wants her to remember being tapped on the shoulder by her son and seeing a man fleeing?

Her mind protects her from the tremendous burden of guilt as their children are brutally murdered in front of you, but there was no struggle that awakens her husband or disturbs the dog.

Her mind allows her to remember messing the fingerprints on the knife, but not the attack?

[whitywendy]

Cyberlaw totally 100% agrees with Wendy........

Darlie thought she had killed both boys and when one was hanging on by a thread, could not do anything that would ensure that he would live, or else the stranger story would not have held water and there would be no Darlie supporters.

I would die without hesitation for my kids, I would take any bullet, knife, anything at all to ensure my kids are safe. I would go to the ends of the earth for them and then some. If my child was near death, dying, on the floor, I would do whatever within my human means to attempt to save them. If I could not, I would forever live with the guilt that I could have done more to save them.

I would not ignore the police, hold a towel to my own wound and do nothing to help my dying child.

The cop did more to attempt to save the life of the child, Darin did more again in an attempt to help the child. But Darlie did nothing. That is not a loving mother. That is a mother who does not want her child to live to testify against her.


Very well said Cyberlaw. I also agree with you 100%!

[Missi]

Missy - Okay so lets just throw out all of the evidence along with the transcripts since you have no faith in the transcripts. Just because the Darlie's are still trying to cause a stink with the transcripts does not mean that all of us should believe that these doc's are wrong. Really Missy, I do not believe your are seriously searching for the truth in regards to Darlie's guilt because if you were then you would not quote her website when it comes to your "FACTS".

SO the whole entire state of Texas was out to get Darlie, huh That is the only reasonable explanation if you want to believe that the trial/transcripts/appeals are just garbage.


Just like you have the facts that you have been presented with as do I. Why is that so hard to understand? As far as the transcripts, when I see proof that they have been tainted how can you really have that much faith in them? Maybe you think I don't have enough faith in them, but I think you have too much faith in them. I am not saying that I agree with how she may have reacted during this situation, but based on that alone you seem to have convicted her just on that. Just because people don't act the way you think they should during a trauma or maybe the way you did during what happened to you doesn't mean that they are guilty. I have been told I am not looking for the truth or seeing the evidence, but all I am hearing from everyone is that there is so much trust in the transcripts that were screwed with and what proof is there that says that there aren't other parts that weren't messed with as well. The 1st transcriber tried to cover her mistakes why not someone else? That really isnt so far fetched. I hear you basing your guilty verdict on her behavior alone. If she did it then why is the state of Texas keep denying her the DNA tests that are newer? If she is so guilty then lets get on with it and see who's fingerprints and hairs it really is and if it is hers like it's being said then let her hang herself, but I am sorry there is still that reasonable doubt for me. I am not saying that all the transcripts are wrong, but because of the screw up that was made, it's not so credable, just like the little pickings everyone has for everything Darlie has reacted too or she didn't do this the way I would have or they would have I feel the same about the transcripts that were messed with.believe in what you have read and so do I, but it just seems funny how evidence in her favor just can't possibly be true, but the transcripts that HAVE been proven to have been messed with you believe every word.

[whitywendy]

Just like you have the facts that you have been presented with as do I. Why is that so hard to understand? As far as the transcripts, when I see proof that they have been tainted how can you really have that much faith in them? Maybe you think I don't have enough faith in them, but I think you have too much faith in them. I am not saying that I agree with how she may have reacted during this situation, but based on that alone you seem to have convicted her just on that. Just because people don't act the way you think they should during a trauma or maybe the way you did during what happened to you doesn't mean that they are guilty. I have been told I am not looking for the truth or seeing the evidence, but all I am hearing from everyone is that there is so much trust in the transcripts that were screwed with and what proof is there that says that there aren't other parts that weren't messed with as well. The 1st transcriber tried to cover her mistakes why not someone else? That really isnt so far fetched. I hear you basing your guilty verdict on her behavior alone. If she did it then why is the state of Texas keep denying her the DNA tests that are newer? If she is so guilty then lets get on with it and see who's fingerprints and hairs it really is and if it is hers like it's being said then let her hang herself, but I am sorry there is still that reasonable doubt for me. I am not saying that all the transcripts are wrong, but because of the screw up that was made, it's not so credable, just like the little pickings everyone has for everything Darlie has reacted too or she didn't do this the way I would have or they would have I feel the same about the transcripts that were messed with.believe in what you have read and so do I, but it just seems funny how evidence in her favor just can't possibly be true, but the transcripts that HAVE been proven to have been messed with you believe every word.

First of all do you understand the liability that the State of Texas would be under if they just decided to fill in the blanks or revise the transcripts to their liking. Oh and why just Darlie's? Hey lets just throw our entire legal system out the window and let all of our "innocent" prisoners go home.

If you had read all of my posts which I know you haven't, you would know that her reactions had nothing to do with me believing in her guilt. I HAVE READ EVERY LEGAL DOC that I could get my hands on to base my decision. The blood evidence and lack of evidence of an intruder is what sealed it for me.

[Missi]

First of all do you understand the liability that the State of Texas would be under if they just decided to fill in the blanks or revise the transcripts to their liking. Oh and why just Darlie's? Hey lets just throw our entire legal system out the window and let all of our "innocent" prisoners go home.

If you had read all of my posts which I know you haven't, you would know that her reactions had nothing to do with me believing in her guilt. I HAVE READ EVERY LEGAL DOC that I could get my hands on to base my decision. The blood evidence and lack of evidence of an intruder is what sealed it for me.

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

[whitywendy]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

Hey I am all for testing the evidence with the new DNA techniques. Yes by all means test and retest just to make sure we are not putting to death the wrong person. I never said that they shouldn't retest these items. BUT IMHO, it will all still point to Darlie. I never wanted to believe that Darlie was capable of murdering her two little boys, but the EVIDENCE, esp. the blood points right at her.

What blood evidence do you believe points in a different direction?

[Dena]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

The evidence is really quite overwhelming. It's been well documented, even aside from the transcripts about how many times Darlie has changed her story.
The issue with the transcripts was handled. There were typos, things of that nature. Conversations were not added from out of nowhere. The testimonies are still there, Darlie's stories are still there. The Darlies like to make a big deal out of the original errors because it works in their favor to get people to believe their story.
You say you don't see how Darlie is guilty, I don't see how she isn't. I see no reasonable doubt. The blood evidence points to her and no one else.

[Mountaineer]

The transcripts are out there - made public for anybody and everybody to read.

You claim that we can't rely on the transcripts to give us the FACTS that prove she is guilty, because the transcripts are wrong. If there are errors in the transcripts that are that BIG...don't you think someone...anyone...that was in the courtroom during the trial would have spoken up by now? You can bet the atttorneys on both sides, probably most if not all jurors, the judge, several other court reports, and various others who witnessed the trial - have all read through them. Don't you think they would have said something? Don't you think Darlie's family would have said something?

I believe the "meat" part of the transcripts are an accurate record of what was testified to in that courtroom. There may still be typos - but that does not change the FACTS that were presented into evidence. Those FACTS prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that she is guilty.

[wasapi]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

I'm curious, do you also believe that O.J. Simpson was innocent? I am wondering because in my opinion it seems that Camp-Darlie uses simalar tactics. It is very much like a strawman tactic in debate. They attack the nature of people on the opposing side. It is often useful in obfuscating evidence. So, by focusing on Furman lying and not being a nice person, blood evidence be damned.

And of course there are some "innocent people in jail". And? The evidence, if you choose to closely scrutinize it, proves that Darlie isn't one of them.

Julia

[Kitty5001]

all Im trying to say is if the transcripts were messed with already then there is that "possibility" that there are other mistakes. I dont believe that every prisoner should go home, but I do not see the lack of evidence that there wasn't an intruder. As far as the blood evidence I don't see a solid 100% she did it according to the blood evidence either. Our system is based on "reasonable doubt" and that is what I see. I have looked at everythingyou have and to be honest when I read the transcripts I thought differently too until I found out they had been messed with. When I saw the silly string video I thought she was guilty then too until I saw all of it in its entirety...so you see I havent always thought she was innocent. I havent just been on just one site I have seen more then I can count since it started. There is alot of other factors too which I have explained. I have children too so do I want to see a killer go free, hell no, but until there is proof I dont think someone should be in prison if they didnt do the crime either. You have to admit there are innocent people that have sat in jail and then HAVE been found innocent when the "evidence" has been overwhelming in those cases too. Now a days yes the DNA is everything so do I think the state of Texas should do the tests she is asking for YES DNA has exonnerated others presumed guilty before.

Missi-
How do you explain the blood in and on the sink when sprayed with luminol? That is a fact (the intruder did not wash his hands before he left)

How do you explain that the blood droplets were found under the broken glass (FACT) when she stated that she chased the intruder out and knocked the glass over during that point then turns and walks back to the light switch all that walking with cut arm and neck and bloody knife the intruder is holding while running out of the kitchen yet not ONE single drop of blood on top of that broken glass

How do you explain not one single drop of blood ( the crime scene photos show massive amounts of blood all over the carpet) outside the house -not even one drop outside the house. Did the intruder shower before he left and wear plastic booties over his shoes that he removed in the utility room?

[CyberLaw]

Also why is the vacuum over the glass if Darlie and the "intruder" knocked it over while she was chasing him She broke the glass and then turned over the vacuum.

People try to stage crime scenes, but cannot follow a "logical" progression that is fabricated and not based in fact. A cop knows when a crime scene has been "staged". There was more damage in the kitchen with Darlie chasing the "intruder" then in the living room during the "life and death" struggle and two murders. In the living room, a lamp shade was askew and a vase with delicate flowers(no stems or flowers broken) on the floor, as if place on the floor so not to damage the flowers. An affinity to "personal" possessions that does not fit the "crime" scene is a first clue to staging.

Criminals do not care what belongs to you, but the person whom it belongs to does. Even days later, when Darlie went to the house, death still hung in the air and all she was concerned with was how much it would cost to clean up the mess. Not that the mess was the result of her two boys being viciously stabbed to death, she did not even show any emotion as she saw the blood of her children.

[Missi]

[quote=whitywendy;1520860]whity wendy - you stated that you used to think darlie was innocent, what changed your mind & what are the reasons why you think shes guilty.


Nicola - I use to believe she was innocent because I just couldn't believe a mother could do that to her kids. At first I thought that Darren had hired someone to to kill her and with the boys being downstairs they were in the "way". Then I saw the "silly string" grave party and couldn't believe a mother that had just had her "BABIES" murdered , and "was left for dead" herself could be so freakin HAPPY.

When the trial was going on I was in California so I didn't get the daily updates as when I lived in Texas but the LA Times covered the story on the front page after she was found guilty but before they sent her to DP. After reading what the LA Times wrote I starting wondering if they were infact sending the wrong person to jail. I mean murdering your kids for $10,000 just didn't fit. If they were interfering with her lifestyle all she had to do was leave Darren with the kids and go find her a new RICH man. After all, according to the reports she was a VERY ATTRACTIVE WOMEN. Years later I came across the write up in Crime Storys. At the end of the article, the writer lead you to believe that she might not be guilty after all. So of course that sparked my Darlie Routier interest again. I started with the site her family has and began reading everything I could find. The unidentifed fingerprint on the utility door, and sofa table, the missing knife, the mysterious black car, Darren looking for someone to break into the home... and of course as the website states "the BLOODY SOCK". At the Justice for Darlie website I found the pictures and the trial transcripts along with other articles. At this point I really believed she was innocent and that the State of Texas had the wrong person. (LAPD IS CORRUPT SO WHY NOT TEXAS TOO)?

Anyhow, after months of reading the transcripts from beginning to end, I BECAME CONVINCED THAT THIS MOTHER MURDERED HER BOYS. WHY?

1. 911 call - Screaming/yelling that her babies ARE DEAD, when in fact one was staring right at her trying to breathe. SO concerned that her fingerprints were on the knife. NOT rendering AID to her sons. Doesn't even mention the fact that there is a 8 month old upstairs -how did she know that Drake was unharmed? Someone came in and intentionally did this DARREN. Why the word "intentionally"? Anytime someone commits any type of crime its intentional not accidental.

2. NEVER ONCE asking about her babies on the way to the hospital or at the hospital. Her lack of emotion when seeing Damon bloody, naked and dead.

3. Blood evidence, lack of evidence of an intruder, her changing stories. Yes I know that when we experience something so devasting that we aren't going to remember each and every detail but her statements changed to match the evidence as it was discovered.

4. Her injuries. Now think about it. If someone came into that house with every intention of killing HER, why then were her injuries so slight in comparison to her sons. IF SHE WAS THE INTENDED TARGET, SHE WOULD BE DEAD NOT HER BABIES. No injury to her face, chest.

I got to go right now, my son wants me OFF the computer so I will have to finish up later but this should give you a good idea.


We must have heard a completely different 911 call because what I heard is the opposite of what you are saying and I just listened to the call and I have the transcripts of the call right in front of me. Darlie was hysterical on the phone, the operator told her several times that she needed to calm down. She didn't say that her son was dead at first, she said her babies are dying, she told Damon to "hold on honey". Eventually she did say "Oh my God my baby is dead" but right after she was still, like I said, telling Damon to hold on. She didn't even bring the fact up about touching the knife until the operator told her not to touch the knife, then she said she had already touched it and picked it up. She's begging the operator to have the ambulance hurry because her babies are dying. She was crying during the whole conversation. The operator says, and I quote, "hysterical female on the phone". She told her to calm down 4 times in less then 6 minutes. I think you need to go listen to the 911 call again and get your facts staight.

[Missi]

I hear a lot of people basing a lot of things on Darlie's "behavior" and my question is .....Has anyone ever been in shock or even know what can happen when your in shock? I guess that doesn't count though.
DEFINITION OF SHOCK: 1 : a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties
Maybe that could explain all that "cold heartedness" you all claim she had...it really is a real condition and thats a FACT

[sherri79]

I hear a lot of people basing a lot of things on Darlie's "behavior" and my question is .....Has anyone ever been in shock or even know what can happen when your in shock? I guess that doesn't count though.
DEFINITION OF SHOCK: 1 : a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties
Maybe that could explain all that "cold heartedness" you all claim she had...it really is a real condition and thats a FACTjust how long was she in shock? ok maybe i buy shock caused her to act off on the phone. i doubt shock made her stage the scene. maybe shock is why she didnt mind her dead son lying next to her in the hospital. shock dose not explain how her kids are cut to ribbons and she is so lightly injured she can party at their grave. shock might explain why she cant remember everything that night. it wont explain why she regains memorys that fit evidence as it is found.

eta. since this thread is about her wounds... shock will not explain how her hands and arms are not cut to shreds. they call them defensive wounds for a reason.

[whitywendy]

[quote=whitywendy;1523130]


We must have heard a completely different 911 call because what I heard is the opposite of what you are saying and I just listened to the call and I have the transcripts of the call right in front of me. Darlie was hysterical on the phone, the operator told her several times that she needed to calm down. She didn't say that her son was dead at first, she said her babies are dying, she told Damon to "hold on honey". Eventually she did say "Oh my God my baby is dead" but right after she was still, like I said, telling Damon to hold on. She didn't even bring the fact up about touching the knife until the operator told her not to touch the knife, then she said she had already touched it and picked it up. She's begging the operator to have the ambulance hurry because her babies are dying. She was crying during the whole conversation. The operator says, and I quote, "hysterical female on the phone". She told her to calm down 4 times in less then 6 minutes. I think you need to go listen to the 911 call again and get your facts staight.

Hey Missy how do you know if tears were streaming down her face. Where you there in that house when she was on the phone? I think not. Just because someone is yelling and screaming into the phone doesn't mean she is crying. You have no proof she cried actual tears during that call. AND SHE DID SAY THAT HER BABIES ARE DEAD. . She says more than once. She also said "I think I'm dying". AND in regards to the knife, when someone is in the midst of a traumatic situation and their only concern is the well being of the babies, then why make the comment in your NORMAL TONE of voice, that "we might of been able to get prints" why throw that out there? WHY with everything going on bring it up at that point? She was just the 911 operator, not the police. WHY BECAUSE SHE WAS ALREADY IN COVER UP MODE. Yes she told her to calm down, I said in my original post to Nicola that she was yelling and screaming. YELLING AND SCREAMING DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN YOUR ACTUALLY CRYING. It sounds like you are taking my words and twisting them to your liking. AND if you are going to dispute my posts, then make sure your eyes are actually reading what I typed!

I told you before Missy - When you want to dispute something that I am stating is a fact with your facts, you must PROVE IT. Just because you say so doesn't mean it is true. PROVE IT. Attach a link to your resources so I can fairly debate your so called facts. If you can't do that, then stop wasting my time.

[whitywendy]

I hear a lot of people basing a lot of things on Darlie's "behavior" and my question is .....Has anyone ever been in shock or even know what can happen when your in shock? I guess that doesn't count though.
DEFINITION OF SHOCK: 1 : a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties
Maybe that could explain all that "cold heartedness" you all claim she had...it really is a real condition and thats a FACT

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE TRANSCRIPTS MISSY THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THE EMTS STATED THAT SHE WAS NOT IN SHOCK. Her blood pressure was NOT LOW - system of shock. Her coloring was normal and so was her thinking according to the EMT'S.

You know what happens when your are in shock, your blood pressure drops which causes some people to pass out/faint. Even your hearing is some what strange, as if you are in a tunnel. AND everything is in very SLOW MOTION until your blood pressure returns to normal. Read the transcripts if you want to debate correctly.

[CyberLaw]

Darlie can put on a good "front" especially at trial and in the 911 call, but of course she could not "fake" shock and low blood pressure.

[whitywendy]

Darlie can put on a good "front" especially at trial and in the 911 call, but of course she could not "fake" shock and low blood pressure.


EXACTLY!!!!!! Thanks CyberLaw.

[whitywendy]

Missy - when someone cries hysterically as you are saying Darlie was doing during that 911 call, then she would of had the sniffles. Do you know what sniffles are? Why don't we hear her sniffles on that 911 call? Because she was SCREAMING AND YELLING. NOT CRYING TEARS FOR BABIES. The first time that Darlie actually CRIED was when they ARRESTED HER. The first time she cried hysterically was at the bond hearing. AND THAT IS A FACT! READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.

You have the right to believe that Darlie is innocent. As I have the right to believe she is guilty. But you don't have the right to go around shouting facts when they are your opinions. Read the Rules here and you will see that you can not state something as a FACT unless it is an actual FACT and you provide your sources. YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS!

[CyberLaw]

Beliefs are not facts, opinions are not facts, facts are based in reality and can be proven or dis proven. The law is based in fact so is evidence. I agree with Wendy, keep discussion and debate to factual content and do not muddy the water, create smoke and mirrors by stating opinions and beliefs as facts because they are not :cool:

Facts and evidence lead to her conviction that is not disputed. Evidence does not lie.

If I recall correctly, was Darlie not moving from room to room as she was making the 911 call. I thought I recalled something to this effect and this was proven at trial. She was on a cordless phone. Why was she moving from room to room when her boys were lying bleeding in the living room. I would be right beside the injured person and would only move to the kitchen to get towels or other items to administer first aid. A person can say: I was no where near the crime, no where near the house, I was at home, but guess what cell phone records(as in evidence) are introduced to prove the person was not where they said they were.

The boys were killed on June 6, 1996 which was a Thursday, and released from the Hospital on Saturday and went by the Police station and she was laughing and joking. The Police decided to "be a little" more graphic and Darlie again did not shed a tear. She just said: I know that this must be "hard" on you all(insert Texas slang here). She changed her story to fit the evidence as in many, many stories and then when the boys birthday party at the grave came, she was "smacking" gun, dressed in cut off shorts, laughing, and was happy as could be. Now is that the conduct of a "grieving" mother who saw two dead boys who are her sons, viciously brutally stabbed to death. That would be no, what mother is happy that her two kids are dead. Only the mothers that kill their kids.

Like the husband who was eventually charged and convicted of his wife's murder. He "skipped" out of the funeral home of the services to the car. Skipping.......and with a smile on his face. The relatives who saw this knew he had killed her. Which he did. He just thought that he got away with it just like Darlie was happy that she thought she got away with the murders.

Remember when you choose the behavior you choose the consequences of that behavior. Personality denotes behavior.

[Missi]

Missy - when someone cries hysterically as you are saying Darlie was doing during that 911 call, then she would of had the sniffles. Do you know what sniffles are? Why don't we hear her sniffles on that 911 call? Because she was SCREAMING AND YELLING. NOT CRYING TEARS FOR BABIES. The first time that Darlie actually CRIED was when they ARRESTED HER. The first time she cried hysterically was at the bond hearing. AND THAT IS A FACT! READ THE TRANSCRIPTS.

You have the right to believe that Darlie is innocent. As I have the right to believe she is guilty. But you don't have the right to go around shouting facts when they are your opinions. Read the Rules here and you will see that you can not state something as a FACT unless it is an actual FACT and you provide your sources. YOUR OPINIONS ARE NOT FACTS!


You all say that "opinions are not facts", but you all have opinions about this, there are a lot of statements that are opinions and not facts. Niether one of us REALLY knows everything that happened, and if you feel like I am wasting your time, then I feel the same. I have written 11 FACTS down and it seems you don't want to see that. What makes you an expert on FACTS when you won't look at all of it, just what suits what you believe. At least I am willing and HAVE looked at all facts good or bad and still am. I have read the rules and I know what I have seen as FACTS, it's just not what you want to hear. So therefore to you it isnt a fact, you might want to review the rules again too because I hear a lot of opinions from you as well and not facts. You get your facts from the transcripts, which you already know how I feel about that, and I get my facts from other sources of which I know how you feel about that. Fact: the transcripts were messed with. Fact: not everyone cries the same way. My sister can produce NO tears, does that mean she doesn't really cry? What I don't think you realize is since we've been debating, I have been researching what you and others have been saying and I just don't see what you are seeing. When I read what you said about the 911 call, I went and listened to it again and got my printed transcripts of the 911 call out to see if I missed something and I just don't see what you are saying. I did give you FACTS from the call, not my opinions and FACTS from other sources, not my opinions.

[whitywendy]

You all say that "opinions are not facts", but you all have opinions about this, there are a lot of statements that are opinions and not facts. Niether one of us REALLY knows everything that happened, and if you feel like I am wasting your time, then I feel the same. I have written 11 FACTS down and it seems you don't want to see that. What makes you an expert on FACTS when you won't look at all of it, just what suits what you believe. At least I am willing and HAVE looked at all facts good or bad and still am. I have read the rules and I know what I have seen as FACTS, it's just not what you want to hear. So therefore to you it isnt a fact, you might want to review the rules again too because I hear a lot of opinions from you as well and not facts. You get your facts from the transcripts, which you already know how I feel about that, and I get my facts from other sources of which I know how you feel about that. Fact: the transcripts were messed with. Fact: not everyone cries the same way. My sister can produce NO tears, does that mean she doesn't really cry? What I don't think you realize is since we've been debating, I have been researching what you and others have been saying and I just don't see what you are seeing. When I read what you said about the 911 call, I went and listened to it again and got my printed transcripts of the 911 call out to see if I missed something and I just don't see what you are saying. I did give you FACTS from the call, not my opinions and FACTS from other sources, not my opinions.

Missy, anytime I post something that is of my opinion, I state that IMO....... and when I state as a fact, I tell you were this fact is found. SO huh? Where in my posts do you find that I am stating my opinions as facts?
You on the other hand stated for a fact that Darlie was crying hysterically through out the 911 cry. I said she was yelling and screaming, which is exactly what she was doing.

The transcripts are IN FACT A LEGAL RECORD OF THE ACTUAL TRIAL. There were only 2 volumes that Simmons would not certify due to the fact that she did not have the actual audio tapes to go by. And those two volumes were obviously not crucial to the trial because the transcripts were certified to be a True and Accurate account of the trial. Darlie and her lawyers agreed that the trial transcripts were accurate and that is why she is sitting on death row without a new freaking trial. Remember I suggested to you to read Judge Francis's Final ruling. Well obviously you haven't.

You can use the so-called error (corrected) transcripts as your excuse to dismiss anything I say but until you can PROVE to me that the actual events that we are all privy to through the reading of the transcripts is null and void (inaccurate and determined by a COURT OF LAW) quit telling me that my facts are wrong. IF YOU ARE REALLY IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH STOP YOUR SARCASTIC REMARKS. I bet you don't post at other sites with the attitude you brought here. oh yea and that is IMHO.

[Mountaineer]

Missi - can you please provide for us a link to where you are getting your "FACTS" from please. Wendy and others have told you where they are getting their facts - you should provide the same.

[whitywendy]

I have written 11 FACTS down and it seems you don't want to see that. What makes you an expert on FACTS when you won't look at all of it, just what suits what you believe. At least I am willing and HAVE looked at all facts good or bad and still am. I have read the rules and I know what I have seen as FACTS, it's just not what you want to hear. So therefore to you it isnt a fact, you might want to review the rules again too because I hear a lot of opinions from you as well and not facts. You get your facts from the transcripts, which you already know how I feel about that, and I get my facts from other sources of which I know how you feel about that.

See Missy, you haven't read my previous posts in regards to your 11 FACTS because I did respond with facts from the transcripts that you just ignored. AND WHAT MAKES YOU EXPERT ON FACTS WHEN YOU WON'T GO AND READ THE SUGGESTED INFO? Why must you continue to call me out on things that YOU ARE IN FACT DOING. Anyone who has read my posts know that I will read ANTHING in regards to Darlie. Oh how I am suppose to go and read your sources when you STILL REFUSE TO NAME YOUR SOURCES? HMMMMMM...................think about that one............... ...... now who is in the wrong? I tell you where I find my info. YOU say sources but still no link or reference what so ever to your so called FACTS. Listed below is my FACT that I stated in regards to the 911 call you can find this at www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-05.php

"Ma'am, I can't understand you. You
2 are going to have to slow down and calm down and talk to
3 me."
4 (Inaudible.)
5 "What is going on."
6 "My babies were sleeping downstairs and
7 they are dead. Oh, my God. Hold on, baby, hold on. Oh,
8 my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God."
9 (Inaudible.)

Anyone can type up what THEY THINK THEY HEARD on that 911 call. BUT THE ACTUAL LEGAL RECORD IS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS WHICH IS THE TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE TRIAL.

List your sources. I'm not afraid to list mine.................

[Dena]

Missi,
I am not going to really get involved in this debate here, but I would like to add that you are going farther than even Darlie herself has by saying that the transcripts are useless. Darlie and her lawyers know what is there, they got to read everything, and said what is there is what happened and what was said in court.
You really can not dispute that.

[White Rain]

You all say that "opinions are not facts", but you all have opinions about this, there are a lot of statements that are opinions and not facts. Niether one of us REALLY knows everything that happened, and if you feel like I am wasting your time, then I feel the same. I have written 11 FACTS down and it seems you don't want to see that. What makes you an expert on FACTS when you won't look at all of it, just what suits what you believe. At least I am willing and HAVE looked at all facts good or bad and still am. I have read the rules and I know what I have seen as FACTS, it's just not what you want to hear. So therefore to you it isnt a fact, you might want to review the rules again too because I hear a lot of opinions from you as well and not facts. You get your facts from the transcripts, which you already know how I feel about that, and I get my facts from other sources of which I know how you feel about that. Fact: the transcripts were messed with. Fact: not everyone cries the same way. My sister can produce NO tears, does that mean she doesn't really cry? What I don't think you realize is since we've been debating, I have been researching what you and others have been saying and I just don't see what you are seeing. When I read what you said about the 911 call, I went and listened to it again and got my printed transcripts of the 911 call out to see if I missed something and I just don't see what you are saying. I did give you FACTS from the call, not my opinions and FACTS from other sources, not my opinions.


Missi, how do you explain the distinct change of tone in Darlie's voice when she says "Darrin someone came in here and intenionally did this" or something to that effect. (sorry don't feel like looking up the exact quote right now)
There are NO tears at all in her voice. And the next second she's "crying" again.
What a complete fake.

[Missi]

Missy, anytime I post something that is of my opinion, I state that IMO....... and when I state as a fact, I tell you were this fact is found. SO huh? Where in my posts do you find that I am stating my opinions as facts?
You on the other hand stated for a fact that Darlie was crying hysterically through out the 911 cry. I said she was yelling and screaming, which is exactly what she was doing.

The transcripts are IN FACT A LEGAL RECORD OF THE ACTUAL TRIAL. There were only 2 volumes that Simmons would not certify due to the fact that she did not have the actual audio tapes to go by. And those two volumes were obviously not crucial to the trial because the transcripts were certified to be a True and Accurate account of the trial. Darlie and her lawyers agreed that the trial transcripts were accurate and that is why she is sitting on death row without a new freaking trial. Remember I suggested to you to read Judge Francis's Final ruling. Well obviously you haven't.

You can use the so-called error (corrected) transcripts as your excuse to dismiss anything I say but until you can PROVE to me that the actual events that we are all privy to through the reading of the transcripts is null and void (inaccurate and determined by a COURT OF LAW) quit telling me that my facts are wrong. IF YOU ARE REALLY IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH STOP YOUR SARCASTIC REMARKS. I bet you don't post at other sites with the attitude you brought here. oh yea and that is IMHO.

So even if only 2 volumes of the transcripts were "missing" as long as you don't need them to suit your "opinions" or "facts" then thats ok then? Guess we didn't need those volumes. By the way the audio tapes that are so accurate according to you the 1st transcriber held on to them for a period of time and had to be made to give them back, so how do you know that nothing else was adjusted. I just watched a lengthy video with Darin and he really WAS there unlike you or me and the facts you are trying to state can be disputed by him. So I guess he wouldn't know what he was talking about either, right? How about the author Barbara Davis that was VERY adement about Darlie's guilt and then when she saw other evidence that disputed even what she was saying went back on national television to admit that she was wrong and that she felt darlie was innocent? I am sarcastic here at times because you are to me too and started that way from the beginning, IMHO. No I am not like that with others on other sites unless people are that way to me. I am actually a very nice person, but when I am supposed to JUST go on your word and that is it and everything I have tried to debate or tried to have you acknowledge as facts you totally tear it down and then critisize me for saying something to you about what I think is wrong from your facts or opinions or whatever word you would like to use this time. I have tried not to be sarcastic and that was never my intention, but did you ever think that maybe the info that you say are facts "could" be wrong too? I think that what darin has said holds a lot more weight then a lot of other evidence because like I said HE WAS THERE before the cops,during and after. Now I just waiting to see what you will tell me about why I shouldnt listen to that either. So sorry if you feel like I am coming across rudely, but I came here to inform others and to learn new things if there was anything else to learn, but the rudeness started with your responses first. I will respect your "opinions" or "facts" as long as you respect mine.

[Mountaineer]

Darin was not present during the attacks - he was upstairs. He only knows what happened by what Darlie says happened. Yup - that's reliable information. :rolleyes:

And...do you really not see how he would have motivation to...I don't know....LIE??


And you have yet to give us any proof that what you say is FACT. Give us your source...so we can read it for ourselves. Until you can do that - it's simply your opinion.

[Missi]

just how long was she in shock? ok maybe i buy shock caused her to act off on the phone. i doubt shock made her stage the scene. maybe shock is why she didnt mind her dead son lying next to her in the hospital. shock dose not explain how her kids are cut to ribbons and she is so lightly injured she can party at their grave. shock might explain why she cant remember everything that night. it wont explain why she regains memorys that fit evidence as it is found.

eta. since this thread is about her wounds... shock will not explain how her hands and arms are not cut to shreds. they call them defensive wounds for a reason.


Unless you have experienced shock you wouldn't know how it effects your behavior or thinking, plus the one person that WAS there and witnessed how she was was her husband and I believe him when he says that she was. He has desputed what people have thought about darlie's behavior and has no reason to lie. He lost children too and I believe that if he thought for a second that she did do this he wouldnt have supported her at all. Not to mention over 200 other family members. I am glad to see that someone else has referred to darlie's wounds as
"defensive wounds" because I agree that they were too. I have seen all the pictures of the injuries and find it hard to believe IMHO that she did that to herself or staged anything. As far as her memory it is not uncommon to remember bits and pieces of a severe trauma, I mean for God sakes she was brutally attacked and 2 of her boys were severely stabbed and ended up dying. If that isnt trauma then I dont know what is. If you can have a straight head after that and act normal then more power to you.

[Missi]

See Missy, you haven't read my previous posts in regards to your 11 FACTS because I did respond with facts from the transcripts that you just ignored. AND WHAT MAKES YOU EXPERT ON FACTS WHEN YOU WON'T GO AND READ THE SUGGESTED INFO? Why must you continue to call me out on things that YOU ARE IN FACT DOING. Anyone who has read my posts know that I will read ANTHING in regards to Darlie. Oh how I am suppose to go and read your sources when you STILL REFUSE TO NAME YOUR SOURCES? HMMMMMM...................think about that one............... ...... now who is in the wrong? I tell you where I find my info. YOU say sources but still no link or reference what so ever to your so called FACTS. Listed below is my FACT that I stated in regards to the 911 call you can find this at www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-05.php (http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-05.php)

"Ma'am, I can't understand you. You
2 are going to have to slow down and calm down and talk to
3 me."
4 (Inaudible.)
5 "What is going on."
6 "My babies were sleeping downstairs and
7 they are dead. Oh, my God. Hold on, baby, hold on. Oh,
8 my God. Oh, my God. Oh, my God."
9 (Inaudible.)

Anyone can type up what THEY THINK THEY HEARD on that 911 call. BUT THE ACTUAL LEGAL RECORD IS IN THE TRANSCRIPTS WHICH IS THE TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE TRIAL.

List your sources. I'm not afraid to list mine.................


your transcript is different from what mine says about the 911 call and mine came www.fordarlieroutier.org/911call/transcript.html (http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/911call/transcript.html) and it matches exactly what the recording says during the call word for word. I have also been on the site that you are talking about as well, crime library,a site called prisontalk, and a few others and if you want them too i would be glad to give them to you.

[sherri79]

Unless you have experienced shock you wouldn't know how it effects your behavior or thinking, plus the one person that WAS there and witnessed how she was was her husband and I believe him when he says that she was. He has desputed what people have thought about darlie's behavior and has no reason to lie. He lost children too and I believe that if he thought for a second that she did do this he wouldnt have supported her at all. Not to mention over 200 other family members. I am glad to see that someone else has referred to darlie's wounds as
"defensive wounds" because I agree that they were too. I have seen all the pictures of the injuries and find it hard to believe IMHO that she did that to herself or staged anything. As far as her memory it is not uncommon to remember bits and pieces of a severe trauma, I mean for God sakes she was brutally attacked and 2 of her boys were severely stabbed and ended up dying. If that isnt trauma then I dont know what is. If you can have a straight head after that and act normal then more power to you.when i was told my son had died i felt "shock" probably half the people on this site have felt it. i was first drawn here because of a story of a abused child. when my grandfather raped me i felt "shock" and that event draws me to sites where i can talk about other victims and their abuse. i would guess that many people on this site have been a victim of crime and are drawn here for the reason. i dont want pity and the i'm so sorry for what happened to you stuff. that is not the point of this post. shock used as a random term can describe some1 who was a victim of crime or won the lottery. it will not explain her behavior. shock as a medical term has symptoms. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5477
i would trust the emt over her husband as to if she had medical shock. as long as you choose to use the word in its non medical form u might as well say surprised.

[Missi]

Missi,
I am not going to really get involved in this debate here, but I would like to add that you are going farther than even Darlie herself has by saying that the transcripts are useless. Darlie and her lawyers know what is there, they got to read everything, and said what is there is what happened and what was said in court.
You really can not dispute that.

I didn't say that they were useless, I said that they were tampered with and as far as the audiotapes that were supposed to be reconstructed the 1st transcriber held onto those tapes for awhile and there were numerous mistakes and Im not saying just typos, you dont know what could have been altered while those tapes were in someone elses hands that was trying to cover up what she did. I said that the credibility wasnt so great for them.

[White Rain]

Unless you have experienced shock you wouldn't know how it effects your behavior or thinking, plus the one person that WAS there and witnessed how she was was her husband and I believe him when he says that she was. He has desputed what people have thought about darlie's behavior and has no reason to lie. He lost children too and I believe that if he thought for a second that she did do this he wouldnt have supported her at all. Not to mention over 200 other family members. I am glad to see that someone else has referred to darlie's wounds as
"defensive wounds" because I agree that they were too. I have seen all the pictures of the injuries and find it hard to believe IMHO that she did that to herself or staged anything. As far as her memory it is not uncommon to remember bits and pieces of a severe trauma, I mean for God sakes she was brutally attacked and 2 of her boys were severely stabbed and ended up dying. If that isnt trauma then I dont know what is. If you can have a straight head after that and act normal then more power to you.

Darrin has MANY reasons to lie...Darlie was his "trophy" wife, he didn't want her in jail. And he obviously couldn't raise a baby by himself because as far as I know he made no effort to get custody of Drake back.
Perhaps Darlie could implicate him if wasn't lying and backing her up. Isn't she trying to do that now anyway?
That's just a few of many reasons.

[Missi]

Missi, how do you explain the distinct change of tone in Darlie's voice when she says "Darrin someone came in here and intenionally did this" or something to that effect. (sorry don't feel like looking up the exact quote right now)
There are NO tears at all in her voice. And the next second she's "crying" again.
What a complete fake.


IMHO is that so wrong to have a major amount of mixed emotions between sadness, being hysterical,being angry,shock and any other emotion that she must have felt if that kind of a tragedy happened. Don't you think she had the right to be angry at whomever did this or be hysterical or very distraught. That seems normal to me for the type of situation this was, it was horrific. When she said the sentence about it being intentional IMHO it sounded to me like she was very angry and wouldnt you be?

[sherri79]

I didn't say that they were useless, I said that they were tampered with and as far as the audiotapes that were supposed to be reconstructed the 1st transcriber held onto those tapes for awhile and there were numerous mistakes and Im not saying just typos, you dont know what could have been altered while those tapes were in someone elses hands that was trying to cover up what she did. I said that the credibility wasnt so great for them.here is my problem with your therory. every1 has to be a liar but darlie and those that suport her. the first cop on the scene lied about how she acted and what he saw. the crime scene techs contamintated the scene and hid it. the nurse lied about what she saw with the brusies. the nurse lied about how she acted. the emt lied about if darlie was in shock. the court reporter lied in the transcripts. why??? why would every1 get together to frame a young mother and let a murder go free? people talk about how little a PD is paid but a DA is not given millions. do you really think that the DA wanted to let the "real" killer get away with murder so he could get a young mom? it just dont pass the smell test.

[Missi]

when i was told my son had died i felt "shock" probably half the people on this site have felt it. i was first drawn here because of a story of a abused child. when my grandfather raped me i felt "shock" and that event draws me to sites where i can talk about other victims and their abuse. i would guess that many people on this site have been a victim of crime and are drawn here for the reason. i dont want pity and the i'm so sorry for what happened to you stuff. that is not the point of this post. shock used as a random term can describe some1 who was a victim of crime or won the lottery. it will not explain her behavior. shock as a medical term has symptoms. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5477
i would trust the emt over her husband as to if she had medical shock. as long as you choose to use the word in its non medical form u might as well say surprised.


when I was referring to "shock" the definition I used was this: a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties.....wouldnt that classify what was happening after a trauma like that with being brutally attacked and seeing her boys stabbed to death and see them dying, that definition would be a true definition dont you think?

[sherri79]

Darrin has MANY reasons to lie...Darlie was his "trophy" wife, he didn't want her in jail. And he obviously couldn't raise a baby by himself because as far as I know he made no effort to get custody of Damnon back.
Perhaps Darlie could implicate him if wasn't lying and backing her up. Isn't she trying to do that now anyway?
That's just a few of many reasons.if darlie killed their kids and he admitted it to his self it would be alot to live with. he left those kids with a mom that could so cruelly kill them. i am not sure i could live with the idea i left my kids alone with a murder. people lie to themselves all the time. moms look the other way when her husband slips into her little girls bedroom in the night because she does not want to know. to me this is a perfect reason for him to lie.

[sherri79]

when I was referring to "shock" the definition I used was this: a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties.....wouldnt that classify what was happening after a trauma like that with being brutally attacked and seeing her boys stabbed to death and see them dying, that definition would be a true definition dont you think?suprise would mean the same thing but not imply a medical condition that can be proven she did not have.

[Missi]

Darrin has MANY reasons to lie...Darlie was his "trophy" wife, he didn't want her in jail. And he obviously couldn't raise a baby by himself because as far as I know he made no effort to get custody of Damnon back.
Perhaps Darlie could implicate him if wasn't lying and backing her up. Isn't she trying to do that now anyway?
That's just a few of many reasons.


as far as darin he was the only one there that saw her even before the cops even got there and would know dont you think. and even if Darlie was his "trophey wife" that doesnt make her a killer. The state took Drake away because he was supporting his wife and believed in her innocence, which is not wrong. Plus he wasnt stable either after, I mean he did lose 2 of his children too and his wife to jail, is he not allowed to look out for the best interest of his child and let him be with his grandparents while he got back on his feet? what is so wrong with that, he went through a trauma too.I think that is pretty selfless.

[whitywendy]

IMHO is that so wrong to have a major amount of mixed emotions between sadness, being hysterical,being angry,shock and any other emotion that she must have felt if that kind of a tragedy happened. Don't you think she had the right to be angry at whomever did this or be hysterical or very distraught. That seems normal to me for the type of situation this was, it was horrific. When she said the sentence about it being intentional IMHO it sounded to me like she was very angry and wouldnt you be?


:clap: Thank you for using the IMHO. That was all I was asking of you before. State it if it is an opinion.

Anyhow, yes I agree she sounded extremely pissed off and defensive when she said that . And yes, any person in the type of situation would most likely fly threw a range of emotions. However, when you listen to the entire call, IMO, her tone pretty much stays the same until that one sentence. She sounds defense to me, like as if Darin was questioning her account of the events and she had to defend herself. Makes you wonder what they talked about before they went to bed.

[whitywendy]

your transcript is different from what mine says about the 911 call and mine came www.fordarlieroutier.org/911call/transcript.html (http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/911call/transcript.html) and it matches exactly what the recording says during the call word for word. I have also been on the site that you are talking about as well, crime library,a site called prisontalk, and a few others and if you want them too i would be glad to give them to you.

Have you noticed that the trial transcripts are NOT posted on that website. Honey, there are only one set of transcripts and they are located at the other PRO-DARLIE site called Justice for Darlie, you know the one I linked earlier.

[whitywendy]

here is my problem with your therory. every1 has to be a liar but darlie and those that suport her. the first cop on the scene lied about how she acted and what he saw. the crime scene techs contamintated the scene and hid it. the nurse lied about what she saw with the brusies. the nurse lied about how she acted. the emt lied about if darlie was in shock. the court reporter lied in the transcripts. why??? why would every1 get together to frame a young mother and let a murder go free? people talk about how little a PD is paid but a DA is not given millions. do you really think that the DA wanted to let the "real" killer get away with murder so he could get a young mom? it just dont pass the smell test.

Yes! And my favorite saying... Exactly!

[whitywendy]

when I was referring to "shock" the definition I used was this: a sudden or violent disturbance in the mental or emotional faculties.....wouldnt that classify what was happening after a trauma like that with being brutally attacked and seeing her boys stabbed to death and see them dying, that definition would be a true definition dont you think?

Darlie states she slept through the murders of her boys.

[whitywendy]

as far as darin he was the only one there that saw her even before the cops even got there and would know dont you think. and even if Darlie was his "trophey wife" that doesnt make her a killer. The state took Drake away because he was supporting his wife and believed in her innocence, which is not wrong. Plus he wasnt stable either after, I mean he did lose 2 of his children too and his wife to jail, is he not allowed to look out for the best interest of his child and let him be with his grandparents while he got back on his feet? what is so wrong with that, he went through a trauma too.I think that is pretty selfless.

IMHO - I believe Darin is guilt ridden over the murders because there were obvious signs that something was wrong with Darlie and he couldn't/didn't do anything about it. Like seeking mental help. I'm sure he beats himself up about that one. I sure would.

[whitywendy]

So even if only 2 volumes of the transcripts were "missing" as long as you don't need them to suit your "opinions" or "facts" then thats ok then? Guess we didn't need those volumes. By the way the audio tapes that are so accurate according to you the 1st transcriber held on to them for a period of time and had to be made to give them back, so how do you know that nothing else was adjusted. I just watched a lengthy video with Darin and he really WAS there unlike you or me and the facts you are trying to state can be disputed by him. So I guess he wouldn't know what he was talking about either, right? How about the author Barbara Davis that was VERY adement about Darlie's guilt and then when she saw other evidence that disputed even what she was saying went back on national television to admit that she was wrong and that she felt darlie was innocent? I am sarcastic here at times because you are to me too and started that way from the beginning, IMHO. No I am not like that with others on other sites unless people are that way to me. I am actually a very nice person, but when I am supposed to JUST go on your word and that is it and everything I have tried to debate or tried to have you acknowledge as facts you totally tear it down and then critisize me for saying something to you about what I think is wrong from your facts or opinions or whatever word you would like to use this time. I have tried not to be sarcastic and that was never my intention, but did you ever think that maybe the info that you say are facts "could" be wrong too? I think that what darin has said holds a lot more weight then a lot of other evidence because like I said HE WAS THERE before the cops,during and after. Now I just waiting to see what you will tell me about why I shouldnt listen to that either. So sorry if you feel like I am coming across rudely, but I came here to inform others and to learn new things if there was anything else to learn, but the rudeness started with your responses first. I will respect your "opinions" or "facts" as long as you respect mine.

I don't have time to get all into this post right now. But I did want to say that you sounded that way from the very beginning. If you go back and read my posts, you will see that I too am not that type of person. But when someone talks to you in tone like that, well you tend to return the tone.

[White Rain]

as far as darin he was the only one there that saw her even before the cops even got there and would know dont you think. and even if Darlie was his "trophey wife" that doesnt make her a killer. The state took Drake away because he was supporting his wife and believed in her innocence, which is not wrong. Plus he wasnt stable either after, I mean he did lose 2 of his children too and his wife to jail, is he not allowed to look out for the best interest of his child and let him be with his grandparents while he got back on his feet? what is so wrong with that, he went through a trauma too.I think that is pretty selfless.

Sure he may have been trying to look out for Drakes best interests at the time, but it's now 11 years after the murder, and as far as I know he Sarilda still has custody of Drake.
The fact that he did lose two of his kids should make him WANT to have Drake.

[Mary456]

she was knocked out so maybe the killer thought she was already dead..

Darlie herself said she was not knocked out, never lost consciousness. Doctors and nurses checked her pupils, reflexes, questioned her extensively, and she was adamant that she had not been knocked out. This is just another campfire story started by her supporters.


There is something that doesn't make much sense either, the nurse that was at the hospital that had seen and taken care of Darlie while she was there, when she was called to testify why would she lie about the bruising?

She didn't lie about the bruising, nor did the other five nurses and two doctors - all of whom testified that there were no bruises on Darlie's right arm. The pictures you're referring to were taken on June 10, two days after Darlie was released from the hospital. She inflicted them herself, probably on June 8th.

You have to be very careful with Darlie's website, Missi. They distort the facts.

[Mary456]

Darlie herself said she was not knocked out, never lost consciousness. Doctors and nurses checked her pupils, reflexes, questioned her extensively, and she was adamant that she had not been knocked out. This is just another campfire story started by her supporters..

Missi, I'm just wondering what you think about this testimony. Was Darlie lying when she said she wasn't knocked out? I'm asking because you said she was knocked out, and Darlie said she wasn't.

I'd like your opinion on the bruising, too. Do you think that 6 nurses and two doctors were lying when they said there was no bruising on her right arm in the hospital?

A yes or no would do it for me.

[WindChime]

NOW IT'S MY TURN GET BACK ON TOPIC AND ONE MORE RUDE POST AND THERE WILL BE SOME LONG VACATIONS GIVEN FROM WS. I'M TIRED OF THIS CHILDISH CRAP. TAKE THIS AS A FINAL WARNING BECAUSE ONCE YOU ARE LOCKED OUT I WILL NOT BE SENDING ANY EMAILS OUT.

[Mary456]

NOW IT'S MY TURN GET BACK ON TOPIC AND ONE MORE RUDE POST AND THERE WILL BE SOME LONG VACATIONS GIVEN FROM WS. I'M TIRED OF THIS CHILDISH CRAP. TAKE THIS AS A FINAL WARNING BECAUSE ONCE YOU ARE LOCKED OUT I WILL NOT BE SENDING ANY EMAILS OUT.

Well, you certainly convinced me, WindChime. I won't be posting here again.

Too much childish crap ;)

[Rino]

This from the rotton.crime blog sums it up best for me:

If Ms. Routier didn't commit this crime, what a fortunate assailant there must be running around this desolate Texas neighborhood. He goes in and brutally murders two children. He slashes their mother's throat as they're struggling face to face. He drops the knife and she wipes off his prints. He runs away, but leaves Darlie alive - the one woman who could identify him, and send him to the gas chamber. Then, d'oh, she gets amnesia and can't remember what he looks like. This must be the luckiest ---darn child killer in the universe.

[Missi]

here is my problem with your therory. every1 has to be a liar but darlie and those that suport her. the first cop on the scene lied about how she acted and what he saw. the crime scene techs contamintated the scene and hid it. the nurse lied about what she saw with the brusies. the nurse lied about how she acted. the emt lied about if darlie was in shock. the court reporter lied in the transcripts. why??? why would every1 get together to frame a young mother and let a murder go free? people talk about how little a PD is paid but a DA is not given millions. do you really think that the DA wanted to let the "real" killer get away with murder so he could get a young mom? it just dont pass the smell test.

As far as the nurse I have no idea WHY they would lie, but I know that they did for sure on Darlie's "emotional state" while she was in the hospital. There were notes made by the nurses that I have seen that has contradicted what was said on the stand. As far as the court reporter, it was proven that there were over 33,000 mistakes, 54 pages missing, and audio tapes missing for when the reconstruction was supposed to take place, and she was repermanded for her actions and stripped of her certification. That was all proven. WHY she would do that I don't have an answer to that. Good question though....WHY? It was also stated to a Fox news reporter (heard this from his own mouth) that off the record the court reporter admitted to her believeing Darlie was guilty and therefore knowing that that would make her biased. So there would be a reason to me for the transcripts to be tampered with. Even the ones reconstructed still include missing pieces, for example the missing audiotapes. I am just trying to answer some of these questions so please no one get offended.

[Missi]

Darlie herself said she was not knocked out, never lost consciousness. Doctors and nurses checked her pupils, reflexes, questioned her extensively, and she was adamant that she had not been knocked out. This is just another campfire story started by her supporters.



She didn't lie about the bruising, nor did the other five nurses and two doctors - all of whom testified that there were no bruises on Darlie's right arm. The pictures you're referring to were taken on June 10, two days after Darlie was released from the hospital. She inflicted them herself, probably on June 8th.

You have to be very careful with Darlie's website, Missi. They distort the facts.

Within those pictures of the bruising there are many little "cuts" on her arms and fingertips, that seems a awful lot to "stage" when they would be consistant with "defensive" type cuts. I understand about the dates, but it still doesn't explain that someone would have to be very meticulous about where to put those small cuts and to know that a doctor would say yes or no to those being consistant with "defensive" type injuries.

[Missi]

Missi, I'm just wondering what you think about this testimony. Was Darlie lying when she said she wasn't knocked out? I'm asking because you said she was knocked out, and Darlie said she wasn't.

I'd like your opinion on the bruising, too. Do you think that 6 nurses and two doctors were lying when they said there was no bruising on her right arm in the hospital?

A yes or no would do it for me.

As far as being knocked out I do apologize for maybe not putting IMO, I was tryng to answer a post about her waking up and so forth and I meant to say maybe she was knocked out and the killer thought she was dead, it would still be consistant with a struggle and not remembering. Another topic is that there was also regretion therapy done on Darlie and through the regretion therapy it was found that her story was true with the intruder story. Did anyone know about that here? Just wondering.

[Missi]

This from the rotton.crime blog sums it up best for me:

If Ms. Routier didn't commit this crime, what a fortunate assailant there must be running around this desolate Texas neighborhood. He goes in and brutally murders two children. He slashes their mother's throat as they're struggling face to face. He drops the knife and she wipes off his prints. He runs away, but leaves Darlie alive - the one woman who could identify him, and send him to the gas chamber. Then, d'oh, she gets amnesia and can't remember what he looks like. This must be the luckiest ---darn child killer in the universe.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but realistically not every child killer or any killer has always been caught, there are many killers in our history and I'm sure even now there is someone that has done these types of horrific crimes that have never been caught.

[CyberLaw]

Missi I see your point.

But what I feel you are talking about is child killers who snatch a child on the street or on the way to school.

When a crime happens in a home, your children are both viciously murdered a mere few feet from you then all of the other evidence only points to you, well the two are not the same. Again what did the killer gain by killing two innocent boys. Leaving valuable in plain sight upon entry and exit. Going right for the boys to kill, two small little boys. What a person would do is use the children as leverage against the adult, not murder the two innocent children who would serve a valuable purpose if left alive.

But they leave a women who could identify them alive, and why did the "stranger" run away with Darlie in following him. Why did he suddenly run away. Not a chance in heck that anyone other then Darlie killed her son, the facts and evidence support that, the lack of evidence about an intruder does not support nor has it ever support her story.

[whitywendy]

I understand what you are trying to say here, but realistically not every child killer or any killer has always been caught, there are many killers in our history and I'm sure even now there is someone that has done these types of horrific crimes that have never been caught.

I also understand what you are saying Missy, but "usually" child killers, ie Tommy Lynn Sells, are sexual deviants. They "usually" don't break in to homes just with the sole intention of killing kids. There are many evil people in this world, but I have yet to hear of a person roaming the country with the sole person of entering a home just to kill (no sexual motivation) a total stranger's child while leaving the parents alive (knowing you left them alive as you were exiting the home).

[cami]

As far as being knocked out I do apologize for maybe not putting IMO, I was tryng to answer a post about her waking up and so forth and I meant to say maybe she was knocked out and the killer thought she was dead, it would still be consistant with a struggle and not remembering. Another topic is that there was also regretion therapy done on Darlie and through the regretion therapy it was found that her story was true with the intruder story. Did anyone know about that here? Just wondering.

Yes I do and Darlie. That story was no more true than her voluntary statement. She came up with two killers in her regression therapy (she had to have one smaller than the first one she described). Nor did she ever have a second regression session.

The killer knew she wasn't dead, she followed him to the utility room..according to her story.

Darlie is guilty as sin. She was not knocked out, she had no head injuries, she was not in shock, she was given a shock test at the scene. She was oriented as to time and place and her vitals were stable at Baylor.

[cami]

Within those pictures of the bruising there are many little "cuts" on her arms and fingertips, that seems a awful lot to "stage" when they would be consistant with "defensive" type cuts. I understand about the dates, but it still doesn't explain that someone would have to be very meticulous about where to put those small cuts and to know that a doctor would say yes or no to those being consistant with "defensive" type injuries.


they are not cuts on her arm...it's dried blood. She has one hesitation wound and then the slice to her arm. A surface slice. Her fingertips had what appeared to be paper cuts. Defense wounds should be all over her fingers, palms, the underside of her arms, etc...not a vertical slice to the forearm...what she do hold her arm out for the perp to slice her?

[Missi]

Missi I see your point.

But what I feel you are talking about is child killers who snatch a child on the street or on the way to school.

When a crime happens in a home, your children are both viciously murdered a mere few feet from you then all of the other evidence only points to you, well the two are not the same. Again what did the killer gain by killing two innocent boys. Leaving valuable in plain sight upon entry and exit. Going right for the boys to kill, two small little boys. What a person would do is use the children as leverage against the adult, not murder the two innocent children who would serve a valuable purpose if left alive.

But they leave a women who could identify them alive, and why did the "stranger" run away with Darlie in following him. Why did he suddenly run away. Not a chance in heck that anyone other then Darlie killed her son, the facts and evidence support that, the lack of evidence about an intruder does not support nor has it ever support her story.


the point is that you cant honestly say that you dont believe an intruder has NEVER done something like that before...what about Jonbenet, that was in her house and she was found in her house and her parents were left alive, did they do that too?

[Missi]

they are not cuts on her arm...it's dried blood. She has one hesitation wound and then the slice to her arm. A surface slice. Her fingertips had what appeared to be paper cuts. Defense wounds should be all over her fingers, palms, the underside of her arms, etc...not a vertical slice to the forearm...what she do hold her arm out for the perp to slice her?

wow how long does dried blood stay on someone? thats not what i saw in the pictures.

[Missi]

Yes I do and Darlie. That story was no more true than her voluntary statement. She came up with two killers in her regression therapy (she had to have one smaller than the first one she described). Nor did she ever have a second regression session.

The killer knew she wasn't dead, she followed him to the utility room..according to her story.

Darlie is guilty as sin. She was not knocked out, she had no head injuries, she was not in shock, she was given a shock test at the scene. She was oriented as to time and place and her vitals were stable at Baylor.

by the way there was regression therapy done. and it did show that there were intruders in the house.

[Dena]

the point is that you cant honestly say that you dont believe an intruder has NEVER done something like that before...what about Jonbenet, that was in her house and she was found in her house and her parents were left alive, did they do that too?

Well, since you bring up Jon Benet, yes, I think they did do that too. Can't speak for everyone else though, but I believe it was a family crime - always have & always will.

[cami]

by the way there was regression therapy done. and it did show that there were intruders in the house.

We only have Darlie's word for it......and we know what a liar she is....why hasn't the regression subject been made public? Her lawyers would have been all over it..releasing it to the public so to speak...shouting it from the rooftops.

[cami]

wow how long does dried blood stay on someone? thats not what i saw in the pictures.


Read the doctor's testimony..the ones who treated her at Baylor.

[cami]

Well, since you bring up Jon Benet, yes, I think they did do that too. Can't speak for everyone else though, but I believe it was a family crime - always have & always will.

So do I. There's zero evidence of an intruder in that house too. Pedophiles don't leave the body in the basement, they remove the child and they always sexually assault, JonBenet was not raped nor sodomized. They don't wipe the child down and redress her or wrap her tenderly in a blanket.

[cami]

the point is that you cant honestly say that you dont believe an intruder has NEVER done something like that before...what about Jonbenet, that was in her house and she was found in her house and her parents were left alive, did they do that too?

Yes I agree we can't honestly say an intruder has never done this before..., but we can in this case because all the evidence points back inside the house...to Darlie. She did it, no doubt in my mind.

Maybe you could cite some cases where the children were brutally murdered by an intruder while the parents were left alive. Polly Klass was stalked in the days leading up to her murder so it's not the same either. The Ramseys are still suspects...in fact the only suspects in JonBenet's murder.

I know of one...Stephanie Crowe.

And where is that specific dna test that exonerates MacDonald? Still waiting for it....

[Missi]

I also understand what you are saying Missy, but "usually" child killers, ie Tommy Lynn Sells, are sexual deviants. They "usually" don't break in to homes just with the sole intention of killing kids. There are many evil people in this world, but I have yet to hear of a person roaming the country with the sole person of entering a home just to kill (no sexual motivation) a total stranger's child while leaving the parents alive (knowing you left them alive as you were exiting the home).
you maybe right on a statisical point, but you dont know what all killers are thinking there are so many crazed people out there that sometimes there just isnt a motive, of course in our minds we look at this type of crime and say OMFG how could someone do this! But reality is even someone on some messed up drug could have done this and not have thought twice and if you question pure evil, dont it exists

[Missi]

Yes I agree we can't honestly say an intruder has never done this before..., but we can in this case because all the evidence points back inside the house...to Darlie. She did it, no doubt in my mind.

Maybe you could cite some cases where the children were brutally murdered by an intruder while the parents were left alive. Polly Klass was stalked in the days leading up to her murder so it's not the same either. The Ramseys are still suspects...in fact the only suspects in JonBenet's murder.

I know of one...Stephanie Crowe.

And where is that specific dna test that exonerates MacDonald? Still waiting for it....


I guess you dont watch to much news there was just a show that says that macdonald may get a new trial, as for that you wait and see, i have enough to do keeping up on darlie here, we can dispute JM in another site. well even though jonbenet's parents were suspect you dont see them on death row, guess they learned how to stage a crime scene well. there are a lot of cases like these, what the point is is that it happens. parents are sleeping and children have been murdered, but unless your andrea yates you dont get a new trial and then you get a nice cushiony psyc ward bed, she should be on DR IMO

[whitywendy]

you maybe right on a statisical point, but you dont know what all killers are thinking there are so many crazed people out there that sometimes there just isnt a motive, of course in our minds we look at this type of crime and say OMFG how could someone do this! But reality is even someone on some messed up drug could have done this and not have thought twice and if you question pure evil, dont it exists

Yes, your right, we don't know what type of crimes these types of people are capable of. And we don't know about every single type of crime that has been committed. However, there are people in LE that do. They have spent years and years investigating scenes that would leave most of us sick and mentally drained. Murders have been happening for thousands and thousands of years and as with anything in life, you learn through experience.

[Missi]

We only have Darlie's word for it......and we know what a liar she is....why hasn't the regression subject been made public? Her lawyers would have been all over it..releasing it to the public so to speak...shouting it from the rooftops.


it was made public I that is where I have heard it was when it was made public on TV its on the same show nicola said for you to watch

[Missi]

Yes, your right, we don't know what type of crimes these types of people are capable of. And we don't know about every single type of crime that has been committed. However, there are people in LE that do. They have spent years and years investigating scenes that would leave most of us sick and mentally drained. Murders have been happening for thousands and thousands of years and as with anything in life, you learn through experience.


and they may be good at what they do, but because we are human there is always room for mistakes and i truly believe there were a lot of them in this case.

[whitywendy]

I guess you dont watch to much news there was just a show that says that macdonald may get a new trial, as for that you wait and see, i have enough to do keeping up on darlie here, we can dispute JM in another site. well even though jonbenet's parents were suspect you dont see them on death row, guess they learned how to stage a crime scene well. there are a lot of cases like these, what the point is is that it happens. parents are sleeping and children have been murdered, but unless your andrea yates you dont get a new trial and then you get a nice cushiony psyc ward bed, she should be on DR IMO

Do you not believe in mental insanity? I am not being ugly I am seriously wondering. Because, IMO, Andrea Yates is/was very very sick. She spent years seeking medical attention for her mental disturbances which of course in the end failed her. I am not completely blaming Mental Services for her breakdown or the murders but I believe they could of stepped up and helped her before it got so bad.

[whitywendy]

and they may be good at what they do, but because we are human there is always room for mistakes and i truly believe there were a lot of them in this case.

True, no one is perfect. And no one disputes that there weren't any mistakes during the Darlie trial. However in order for Darlie to be innocent, that would mean that every single person (besides her family) were out to frame her. I know it is hard to believe and I have been on your side of the fence but after spending many, many days reading the entire transcripts and anything else in regards to Darlie, it was too hard for me throw away all the evidence pointing at her. I was actually sad when I came to the conclusion that she was guilty.

[CyberLaw]

Oh but don't you know that according to the "Cult and Clan" of Darlie, everyone else is to blame.

Her lawyers were no good, the Jury did not pay attention and did not like her because she is Darlie, you know the big breasted bleach blond. The press vilified her, the stranger would not come forward, the Police were tunnel vision, you know it is the fault of everyone else, but not Darlie, no of course not.

Darlie is sitting on death row because she is innocent, everyone else is wrong. Just like all of the other people who are convicted of a crime, don't you know that they are all innocent too.
:behindbar is exactly where Darlie is and should be.

[whitywendy]

Oh but don't you know that according to the "Cult and Clan" of Darlie, everyone else is to blame.

Her lawyers were no good, the Jury did not pay attention and did not like her because she is Darlie, you know the big breasted bleach blond. The press vilified her, the stranger would not come forward, the Police were tunnel vision, you know it is the fault of everyone else, but not Darlie, no of course not.

Darlie is sitting on death row because she is innocent, everyone else is wrong. Just like all of the other people who are convicted of a crime, don't you know that they are all innocent too.
:behindbar is exactly where Darlie is and should be.

AMEN TO THAT CYBERLAW. Don't forget all of the experts.

[Kitty5001]

you maybe right on a statisical point, but you dont know what all killers are thinking there are so many crazed people out there that sometimes there just isnt a motive, of course in our minds we look at this type of crime and say OMFG how could someone do this! But reality is even someone on some messed up drug could have done this and not have thought twice and if you question pure evil, dont it exists

Misi-
I have been reading your posts and looks like you are reaching for things to explain why darlie couldn't have done this (many different things that don't even relate to each other) I was on the same side of the fence as you at one time as well until I read everything I got my hands on -those transcripts,blood evidence and common sense were the deal breaker for me and ironically I found part of my determining opinion on the pro-darlie site! What I found to help keep the emotion out of it and only present the facts was to make a list of factual reasons (not opinions or emotional-strickly proven fact) why she couldn't have done it and another list of facts and evidence that prooved she did. You will be surprised how all of your 'whe could not have' reasons are dispelled by the evidence and then you are left with nothing on that side of the page when you are all done. It makes your stomache just sink.

[cami]

I guess you dont watch to much news there was just a show that says that macdonald may get a new trial, as for that you wait and see, i have enough to do keeping up on darlie here, we can dispute JM in another site. well even though jonbenet's parents were suspect you dont see them on death row, guess they learned how to stage a crime scene well. there are a lot of cases like these, what the point is is that it happens. parents are sleeping and children have been murdered, but unless your andrea yates you dont get a new trial and then you get a nice cushiony psyc ward bed, she should be on DR IMO

Oh yeah the 48 Hours program. Not much evidence used at trial was used by 48 Hours. We gave it a C for effort. Yeah sorry to swerve off topic but you did indicate that Mac has been exonerated by dna so I want to know what test exonerates him.

He'll never get a new trial on that Jimmy Britt motion and that's all he has in the fire right now. Of course once the 4th circuit denies this appeal, he'll find something new to bring to the table. He'll never ever admit his culpability.

Yes I get your point. However it's not a valid point to the Darlie discussion, IMO. There was no intruder in her case, the jury convicted her based on the evidence they saw and heard at trial...incriminating damning evidence.

No the Ramseys are not on DR because they've never been arrested and charged with JB's murder. They do however remain the only suspects in the crime. That's another discussion as well.

[cami]

it was made public I that is where I have heard it was when it was made public on TV its on the same show nicola said for you to watch

Yeah okay but I'd rather rely on the trial transcripts than a television program. If they regression was actually true and Darlie indentified two suspects...where are they? How do you get two people fighing with Darlie in that room and not leave any evidence of their struggle? Where did one of the suspects go while Darlie was following the tall one out to the garage?