So when will the sentence be carried out?

[HarleyGuy]

Anyone know where the case is in the system and what a reasonable estimate would be for her time to be up???? Last I remember she got some DNA testing to be ordered but I cannot remember if that has happened or whats next......

[Jeana (DP)]

No time soon. She's got plenty of things coming up.

[CyberLaw]

I heard that Texas was loathe to "execute" a women and it is rather rare occurance.

Karla Faye Tucker was the first women executed in 135 years and the first women in 22 years since the D.P. was reinstated. That was back in 1998. But I do hope that they make Darlie the second women to be executed.

[whitywendy]

I heard that Texas was loathe to "execute" a women and it is rather rare occurance.

Karla Faye Tucker was the first women executed in 135 years and the first women in 22 years since the D.P. was reinstated. That was back in 1998. But I do hope that they make Darlie the second women to be executed.

Actually Texas has executed two other women since Karla Faye Tucker. Frances Newton (I think that was her name) for killing her husband and children and another woman (can't remember her name at all) for the murder of her husband and burying him in her backyard. I think she had also murdered other men.

So at least we know that Texas will eventually execute her (if nothing changes legally) but I bet you it won't be in this decade.

[Jeana (DP)]

I heard that Texas was loathe to "execute" a women and it is rather rare occurance.

Karla Faye Tucker was the first women executed in 135 years and the first women in 22 years since the D.P. was reinstated. That was back in 1998. But I do hope that they make Darlie the second women to be executed.

Texas has absolutely no problem executing a woman; however, even in Texas, they want to be sure that all appeals have been exhausted and Darlie's still has a way to go.

[HarleyGuy]

Actually Texas has executed two other women since Karla Faye Tucker. Frances Newton (I think that was her name) for killing her husband and children and another woman (can't remember her name at all) for the murder of her husband and burying him in her backyard. I think she had also murdered other men.

So at least we know that Texas will eventually execute her (if nothing changes legally) but I bet you it won't be in this decade.


I believe you are thinking about Betty Lou Beets. I think she buried several husbands in the yard.... LOL

So the process is so complex there is no way to predict?? For the men I have noticed that 10 years is a good rule of thumb. But she is past that already. I suspect all the court reporter stuff will delay it some as well. But is there any way to predict it? Is she a certain percentage of the way thru the process? Last I heard I thought I remember someone saying that the DNA tests that she asked for and was granted will sort of slam the door in her face when they don't come out like she wants so that might put her on a faster track???

[Jeana (DP)]

I believe you are thinking about Betty Lou Beets. I think she buried several husbands in the yard.... LOL

So the process is so complex there is no way to predict?? For the men I have noticed that 10 years is a good rule of thumb. But she is past that already. I suspect all the court reporter stuff will delay it some as well. But is there any way to predict it? Is she a certain percentage of the way thru the process? Last I heard I thought I remember someone saying that the DNA tests that she asked for and was granted will sort of slam the door in her face when they don't come out like she wants so that might put her on a faster track???

Well the DNA not coming out the way she wants will certainly help the higher courts pick up the pen a bit faster than they might have, that's for sure. However, there is some hope on her part because of the trial court transcript errors. Its going to depend on how well the higher courts feel the redo was.

[whitywendy]

Well the DNA not coming out the way she wants will certainly help the higher courts pick up the pen a bit faster than they might have, that's for sure. However, there is some hope on her part because of the trial court transcript errors. Its going to depend on how well the higher courts feel the redo was.

Jeana - Are you saying that the trial transcript errors could actually halt her execution. I understand the legality of the transcripts but I don't see how those errors change the fact that she killed her kids and rec'd the DP. Are you saying that she could get a new trial - you know if the higher courts deem the transcripts null and void.

[HarleyGuy]

Wow I thought she had already got all the mileage out of the transcript that she was going to get? I knew it had already delayed lots of things thus far but I thought all the motions with regard to that have been addressed and denied and the rewrite will stand?

Does anyone know what the remaining steps are in her process?

[whitywendy]

[quote=HarleyGuy;1700862]I believe you are thinking about Betty Lou Beets. I think she buried several husbands in the yard.... LOL

Yep that is her. Didn't she plant a flower garden over them? I think she was the last woman executed in Texas.

[whitywendy]

Wow I thought she had already got all the mileage out of the transcript that she was going to get? I knew it had already delayed lots of things thus far but I thought all the motions with regard to that have been addressed and denied and the rewrite will stand?

Does anyone know what the remaining steps are in her process?

Yea I know HarleyGuy, I was thinking the same thing until Jeana posted her comment. I guess after state appeals had been exhausted, it moved to a federal level where possibly they have to rule on the same items just at a higher level. I am correct Jeana?

Sorry HarleyGuy that I could not answer your question.

[Jeana (DP)]

Jeana - Are you saying that the trial transcript errors could actually halt her execution. I understand the legality of the transcripts but I don't see how those errors change the fact that she killed her kids and rec'd the DP. Are you saying that she could get a new trial - you know if the higher courts deem the transcripts null and void.

Yup. That's what I'm saying.

[Lurker]

This case was profiled again on American Justice the other night. It
showed an additional birthday party scene that was much more subdued and somber before the silly string. It also showed pictures of Darlie with
extensive bruising that I hadn't heard about before. From the pics it
didn't really look self inflicted and it stated that the slash to her neck
came within a milimeter of killing her.
Any thoughts on this?
I thought the other evidence to be pretty damning but that kind of threw me.

[HarleyGuy]

[quote=HarleyGuy;1700862]I believe you are thinking about Betty Lou Beets. I think she buried several husbands in the yard.... LOL

Yep that is her. Didn't she plant a flower garden over them? I think she was the last woman executed in Texas.

No I think Francis Newton was the last one/most recent.

I think Betty Beets also had a well/cistern in her yard that she threw one of them down. From what I read she was a battered woman several times over. I guess she was just sorting them out till she got a good one.... LOL

[Jeana (DP)]

This case was profiled again on American Justice the other night. It
showed an additional birthday party scene that was much more subdued and somber before the silly string. It also showed pictures of Darlie with
extensive bruising that I hadn't heard about before. From the pics it
didn't really look self inflicted and it stated that the slash to her neck
came within a milimeter of killing her.
Any thoughts on this?
I thought the other evidence to be pretty damning but that kind of threw me.

There are tons of thoughts on both topics. Just read a bit!!!!

My opinions are (1) the earlier birthday party was more somber, however, if you've ever seen Darlie cry, you'd know that she hadn't been crying in the minutes before the silly string party. Her eyes were not red, swollen nor her skin blotchy. Regarding the bruises, I'm not sure how to respond to your question because I don't know what you've seen. They were always around and the jury saw them, so how you missed them is a question I cannot answer. I hope that you'll stick around and read some of the previous posts and hopefully get some of the answers you're looking for!! Take care.

[Lurker]

There are tons of thoughts on both topics. Just read a bit!!!!

My opinions are (1) the earlier birthday party was more somber, however, if you've ever seen Darlie cry, you'd know that she hadn't been crying in the minutes before the silly string party. Her eyes were not red, swollen nor her skin blotchy. Regarding the bruises, I'm not sure how to respond to your question because I don't know what you've seen. They were always around and the jury saw them, so how you missed them is a question I cannot answer. I hope that you'll stick around and read some of the previous posts and hopefully get some of the answers you're looking for!! Take care.

Thanks Jeana, the pictures were of her in her hospital gown with brusies going up and down both arms, her neck and her cheek. Darren was interviewed and he said that they were never shown to the jury. He also commented on how the nurses always said how bad the bruises on her were but then said they never saw them on the stand.
I think she's exactly where she belongs. I was just pondering that maybe he gave her the bruises.

[Jeana (DP)]

Thanks Jeana, the pictures were of her in her hospital gown with brusies going up and down both arms, her neck and her cheek. Darren was interviewed and he said that they were never shown to the jury. He also commented on how the nurses always said how bad the bruises on her were but then said they never saw them on the stand.
I think she's exactly where she belongs. I was just pondering that maybe he gave her the bruises.

I believe that he did give her the bruises. We had a poster here who claims she heard a man's voice on the 911 tape saying "give me the knife" several times. We think this could be Darin taking the knife from Darlie by force. He may have caused the bruises then. However, her own attorney says that these photos WERE introduced into open court and the jury DID see them. They may have been "rebruised" once she was out of the hospital to make them look worse and that's why the nurses were talking about the bruises in the hospital that they saw versus other photos taken after her release from the hospital, when in all actuality, Darlie and Darin had plenty of time to make them look worse.

[whitywendy]

I think Betty Beets also had a well/cistern in her yard that she threw one of them down. From what I read she was a battered woman several times over. I guess she was just sorting them out till she got a good one.... LOL[/quote]

I know this is not in ref to Darlie but a quick question if I may.... If she was a battered woman several times over, then why did they give her the DP?

[CyberLaw]

Betty Beets killed her forth husband and fifth husband and "claimed" that she did not know of the 100K insurance policy. Sure, right.

I have a funny feeling that the most rent appeal re: DNA will be denied as it is a "rehash" of the same issues raised in her trial. There is no "new" evidence to test. Also her claim of the story that one of the boys spoke as per her appeal is fiction. Also there is only "speculation" of what may be found in DNA testing, which could have been tested at trial. Also she had 5 lawyers, all high priced, but it is the fault of the state that the testing was not done.

Also the facial and pubic hair can not be proven to be from the "intruder" all it will prove is at "sometime in the past, facial and pubic hair were in the area. They could have been from any man(facial and pubic) or women(pubic).

Darlie attempts to control others through her lies and manipulation. Again I have no doubt that Darlie is guilty and hopefully in my lifetime, I will read that she was finally put down.

Most if not all of D.P. inmates grasp at straws. Unless a person comes forward and confesses to the crime and gives "new" inculpatory evidence that was not released to the public and can only be known by the "intruder", I think Darlie and the Darlie cult is grasping at straws.

Apparently according to her brief, the intruder "may" have cut himself. But I would question if that was the case, why was there no "other" unknown blood at the scene. Oh yeah, I forgot, the instruder cut himself but healed instantly, on the spot, so that explains no other "unknown" blood at the scene.

Not a chance.............

[accordn2me]

Betty Beets killed her forth husband and fifth husband and "claimed" that she did not know of the 100K insurance policy. Sure, right.

I have a funny feeling that the most rent appeal re: DNA will be denied as it is a "rehash" of the same issues raised in her trial. There is no "new" evidence to test. Also her claim of the story that one of the boys spoke as per her appeal is fiction. Also there is only "speculation" of what may be found in DNA testing, which could have been tested at trial. Also she had 5 lawyers, all high priced, but it is the fault of the state that the testing was not done.

Also the facial and pubic hair can not be proven to be from the "intruder" all it will prove is at "sometime in the past, facial and pubic hair were in the area. They could have been from any man(facial and pubic) or women(pubic).

Darlie attempts to control others through her lies and manipulation. Again I have no doubt that Darlie is guilty and hopefully in my lifetime, I will read that she was finally put down.

Most if not all of D.P. inmates grasp at straws. Unless a person comes forward and confesses to the crime and gives "new" inculpatory evidence that was not released to the public and can only be known by the "intruder", I think Darlie and the Darlie cult is grasping at straws.

Apparently according to her brief, the intruder "may" have cut himself. But I would question if that was the case, why was there no "other" unknown blood at the scene. Oh yeah, I forgot, the instruder cut himself but healed instantly, on the spot, so that explains no other "unknown" blood at the scene.

Not a chance.............Not every drop of blood was tested. What a stupid thing to say, let me try again.......There was a whole LOT of blood that wasn't tested!

[Jeana (DP)]

Not every drop of blood was tested. What a stupid thing to say, let me try again.......There was a whole LOT of blood that wasn't tested!

Name a crime sceen where every single drop of blood was tested.

[HarleyGuy]

I think Betty Beets also had a well/cistern in her yard that she threw one of them down. From what I read she was a battered woman several times over. I guess she was just sorting them out till she got a good one.... LOL

I know this is not in ref to Darlie but a quick question if I may.... If she was a battered woman several times over, then why did they give her the DP?[/quote]

Because despite how appealing it may sound, battered women are supposed to leave abusive husbands and not just get big life insurnace policies and kill them and then try again.... Although I do have to admit that her approach was very practical.... LOL

[HarleyGuy]

most rent appeal re: DNA will be denied as it is a "rehash" of the same issues raised in her trial. There is no "new" evidence to test. Also her claim of the story that one of the boys spoke as per her appeal is fiction. Also there is only "speculation" of what may be found in DNA testing, which could have been tested at trial. Also she had 5 lawyers, all high priced, but it is the fault of the state that the testing was not done.

.............


See I thought she had already won this one and the tests have already been ordered???? In fact I thought that the results of those tests is what will cause the process to move forward once complete. Does anyone know the actual status of this case???

[armywife210]

Name a crime sceen where every single drop of blood was tested.

I don't think accordn2me was saying that there was some sort of corruption and that is why it wasn't all tested... but rather that you cannot say there was no other blood in the house except for Darlie's and the boy's if it wasn't all tested. And there was a lot that wasn't. There is a really good possibility that the blood of an intruder was there.

[accordn2me]

I don't think accordn2me was saying that there was some sort of corruption and that is why it wasn't all tested... but rather that you cannot say there was no other blood in the house except for Darlie's and the boy's if it wasn't all tested. And there was a lot that wasn't. There is a really good possibility that the blood of an intruder was there.Thank you armywife210! :blowkiss:

....blood....and maybe a fingerprint! I don't think they were all tested either.

[armywife210]

Thank you armywife210! :blowkiss:

....blood....and maybe a fingerprint! I don't think they were all tested either.

:D you are very welcome!!! And you're right. While a lot of evidence was tested, there was a lot that wasn't even taken into evidence. I am sure there was more that wasn't even seen... but not even all that was found was taken as evidence.

[nicola]

:D you are very welcome!!! And you're right. While a lot of evidence was tested, there was a lot that wasn't even taken into evidence. I am sure there was more that wasn't even seen... but not even all that was found was taken as evidence.

If this is the case then there may be evidence that was not tested that could back up Darlies story 100%!

[Jeana (DP)]

:D you are very welcome!!! And you're right. While a lot of evidence was tested, there was a lot that wasn't even taken into evidence. I am sure there was more that wasn't even seen... but not even all that was found was taken as evidence.

I'm no CSI, however, I have seen the photographs of the crime scene. It seems to me when there is THAT MUCH blood in a room, there has to be a reason to test a specific area, apart from the random sample testing.

[CyberLaw]

But you seem to "forget" all of the evidence that points to her guilt.

There was no blood trial from when the intuder "cut" himself. There are no "bloodly" footprints anywhere at all through the garage or kitchen.

Justin Barber was "shot" if I remember 4 times, claimed it was the "unknown" person and his wife was shot dead. He was convicted.

Another recent case, a women was shot with her husband. He died, she lived. She is in prison for life. Her two accomplices are also in prison.

The Vaughan family. Wife and kids killed. Dad injured. Dad on trial.

So again, criminals will "harm themselves" to deflect the crime that they did away from themselves and portray themselves as a "victim".

Again in her appeal she "claims" that one of the boys "spoke" to her after he had been stabbed. This was "proven" in court that this could not happen.

I am very glad that her lawyers requested an oral presentation, because the DA can refute most facts on point.

Science, sound science and foresics trumps "hail marys" and fictional stories.

[whitywendy]

If this is the case then there may be evidence that was not tested that could back up Darlies story 100%!

Seriously people, do you think that Darlie's high-powered #1 Defense Lawyer in the State of Texas (at the time) would just sit there and let them frame Darlie for the crime. Do you honestly think that the crime scene was so disturbed that it was entirely impossible to "gather all the evidence" and test it? Considering the seriousness of this crime, I (IMHO) can not understand how people can still shout that Darlie was "framed" and is innocent. Are you not worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US?

At least once a month recently, I have woken up to news of a mother/father/boyfriend/girlfriend killing their kids. Apparently this has become the "norm". Can't handle the kids, mad at your spouse/significant other so go and kill the kids and spare their misery. Uhmmm. So what makes Ms. Darlie different than any of these other individuals. The fact that it happened long before it became a staple in our daily news? So therefore it can't be true? The fact that she was "too pretty" (give me a freaking break) to of committed this crime.

Face it, all of the evidence points at Darlie.

[SadieMae]

If this is the case then there may be evidence that was not tested that could back up Darlies story 100%!
I doubt anyone else's blood will be found if they tested EVERY drop. Come on...Darlie claims she was attacked...well in that case there would be other evidence pointing to an intruder. Someone attacks you and you don't even get a strand of hair from struggling with them? You don't get any DNA from scratching him? For her to get her bruises from and intruder, surely she "fought back", and would have other evidence besides blood.

As far as I'm concerened they can't schedule her appointment with the needle soon enough.

[armywife210]

cyberlaw, and all the other belittlers.... I have studied this case for a LOT of years... I am not "forgetting" about anything... I am not "new", and I am not uneducated. I am not easily persuaded to join one "camp" or another. I know that parents kill their kids, I understand that it happens.

I understand that a lot that was taken into evidence makes it appear that it was Darlie. I understand that a lot WASN'T.

Hey, I am not God, and I was nowhere near the house that night. I could be wrong in believing fullheartedly, after years of hard studying, that she is innocent.

That being said, she was not given a fair trial. The court transcripts do not allow for a fair appeal. Before we go and put the lady down like a rabid dog, perhaps we should make damn sure that we are being more than fair. Especially when atleast one juror has stated that they wished they had voted not guilty.

We have an appeals process in this wonderful country for a reason. When flat out and blatant errors are made on the transcripts that completely change "yes to no" type statements, it hardly will make for a fair appeals process.

[accordn2me]

Seriously people, do you think that Darlie's high-powered #1 Defense Lawyer in the State of Texas (at the time) would just sit there and let them frame Darlie for the crime. Do you honestly think that the crime scene was so disturbed that it was entirely impossible to "gather all the evidence" and test it? Considering the seriousness of this crime, I (IMHO) can not understand how people can still shout that Darlie was "framed" and is innocent. Are you not worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US?

At least once a month recently, I have woken up to news of a mother/father/boyfriend/girlfriend killing their kids. Apparently this has become the "norm". Can't handle the kids, mad at your spouse/significant other so go and kill the kids and spare their misery. Uhmmm. So what makes Ms. Darlie different than any of these other individuals. The fact that it happened long before it became a staple in our daily news? So therefore it can't be true? The fact that she was "too pretty" (give me a freaking break) to of committed this crime.

Face it, all of the evidence points at Darlie.PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?

[nicola]

cyberlaw, and all the other belittlers.... I have studied this case for a LOT of years... I am not "forgetting" about anything... I am not "new", and I am not uneducated. I am not easily persuaded to join one "camp" or another. I know that parents kill their kids, I understand that it happens.

I understand that a lot that was taken into evidence makes it appear that it was Darlie. I understand that a lot WASN'T.

Hey, I am not God, and I was nowhere near the house that night. I could be wrong in believing fullheartedly, after years of hard studying, that she is innocent.

That being said, she was not given a fair trial. The court transcripts do not allow for a fair appeal. Before we go and put the lady down like a rabid dog, perhaps we should make damn sure that we are being more than fair. Especially when atleast one juror has stated that they wished they had voted not guilty.

We have an appeals process in this wonderful country for a reason. When flat out and blatant errors are made on the transcripts that completely change "yes to no" type statements, it hardly will make for a fair appeals process.
A very sensible post. I also believe in her innocence, and as you stated maybe we are wrong but what if we are not? A womans life is hanging in the balance here. If what she says is proven beyond resonable doubt to be true then the justice system will have alot of explaining to do. Please remember that it is not the first time that someone has been convicted of a crime they didnt commit.

[Jeana (DP)]

cyberlaw, and all the other belittlers.... I have studied this case for a LOT of years... I am not "forgetting" about anything... I am not "new", and I am not uneducated. I am not easily persuaded to join one "camp" or another. I know that parents kill their kids, I understand that it happens.

I understand that a lot that was taken into evidence makes it appear that it was Darlie. I understand that a lot WASN'T.

Hey, I am not God, and I was nowhere near the house that night. I could be wrong in believing fullheartedly, after years of hard studying, that she is innocent.

That being said, she was not given a fair trial. The court transcripts do not allow for a fair appeal. Before we go and put the lady down like a rabid dog, perhaps we should make damn sure that we are being more than fair. Especially when atleast one juror has stated that they wished they had voted not guilty.

We have an appeals process in this wonderful country for a reason. When flat out and blatant errors are made on the transcripts that completely change "yes to no" type statements, it hardly will make for a fair appeals process.


Darlin, I'm not sure who you think you're referring to when you say "belittlers," but I would suggest that you refrain from that type of talk in the future.

As for the rest of your post, you're entitled to your opinion regardless of the fact that its incorrect.

[Jeana (DP)]

PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?

Mulder did the best he could with a liar for a client, whose husband lied and whose family did everything they could to make sure she got to the death chamber.

[sandraladeda]

This case was profiled again on American Justice the other night. It
showed an additional birthday party scene that was much more subdued and somber before the silly string. It also showed pictures of Darlie with
extensive bruising that I hadn't heard about before. From the pics it
didn't really look self inflicted and it stated that the slash to her neck
came within a milimeter of killing her.
Any thoughts on this?
I thought the other evidence to be pretty damning but that kind of threw me.
I think the "within milimeters of killing her" is a big red herring that, imo, does not add weight to the possibility DR is NG. "Within mms" does not negate all the other eidence against DR (such as the blood evidence, such as her wounds differed from those to her boys, such a no robbery motive, such as attacking the children first, etc.)

If I decide to inflict a wound on myself, and I plan to stop short of mortally wounding myself, I have no experience in cutting myself this way, and there is a good chance I will injure myself more than intended. If I wound myself after having just murdered my children, I am not in a very calm, relaxed state of mind, I am probably pretty keyed up. I may not be able to cut myself with great precision.

moo

[White Rain]

PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?

I really would like to know what you would do that Mulder didn't?

[Crow_Ascending]

What was unfair about Darlie's trial?

[CyberLaw]

I guess for the pro Darlie camp, the fact that a women who slaughtered her own two son's, in a brutal manner and she was found guilty of a crime that he committed, well for the pro Darlie camp, that is the start of "unfair".

Just to add an additional fact: The mother who "claims" that an unknown stranger "murdered" her child in the back seat of her car, during " a carjacking" is not to be believed by even a relative. Have not found that "unknown" stranger either.

By the way: There is no old or new evidence that would indicates or indicated a "stranger" entered the home of the Routiers.

[accordn2me]

I really would like to know what you would do that Mulder didn't?I would probably get all my witnesses together in one room

[mollymalone]

"All the witnesses into one room" ... pardon me, but I thought that's what the trial was for? The witnesses were in "one" room, the courtroom, in which each testified.

[accordn2me]

"All the witnesses into one room" ... pardon me, but I thought that's what the trial was for? The witnesses were in "one" room, the courtroom, in which each testified.LOL! Sorry I had to run off like that! :bang:

Mulder, IMO, didn't spend enough time preparing his witnesses, or preparing for them. For instance, the prosecution held a mock trial where all of their witnesses got to watch a......dress rehearsal, if you will.....of everyone else's testimony. This was very helpful for LE, medical personnel, etc. to all be on the same page because they were coached before hand.

Mulder ran around the whole trail putting out fires in the courtroom. He should have provided a proactive defense. For instance, he should have retained Terry Laber, the forensic scientist hired by the public defender. Instead, he dismissed him.

Mulder allowed an extreme amount of damaging hearsay testimony to be heard by the jury.

I could go on.....but you get the picture. This was without a doubt one of the worst legal defenses of all time.

[CyberLaw]

What could he do, present evidence that the unknown stranger had entered the house. There was no evidence. A case is only as good as the evidence. So the DA did their homework, had a mock trial, well that is called "being prepared". They wanted to win, they wanted justice for the two slaughtered boys. They did not want to let them down, by being not prepared. Darlie deciding to testify was a mistake. But I put money that it was "her decision". No defense attorney wants or encourages their client to take the stand, especially when there is a lot of evidence pointing to their guilt.

[CyberLaw]

What could he do, present evidence that the unknown stranger had entered the house. There was no evidence. A case is only as good as the evidence. So the DA did their homework, had a mock trial, well that is called "being prepared". They wanted to win, they wanted justice for the two slaughtered boys. They did not want to let them down, by being not prepared. Darlie deciding to testify was a mistake. But I put money that it was "her decision". No defense attorney wants or encourages their client to take the stand, especially when there is a lot of evidence pointing to their guilt.

So lets put the blame where blame lies. Darlie Routier. Not her lawyer, not the judge, not the state, but the person who slaughtered her two boys.

[whitywendy]

PULEEEEEEEZE! I don't care WHO Mulder was, or is, or how vigorously he had defended, or prosecuted cases in the past - HE DID VIRTUALLY ZERO TO HELP DARLIE ROUTIER. That said, I don't know what his problem was in this case as an attorney. Did he believe she was actually guilty? Then don't take their money. Did he owe the DA a favor? I don't know, but given what little I know about Darlie, her case, the law, and Mulder's performance as her hired attorney, I am completely appalled. I, or most any armchair murder case buff, could have done a better job than what Mulder did for Darlie, whether we believed her innocent or not! THAT's how bad HE was in this particular case.

Don't even get me started on his pathetic performance on this case! :furious:

And yes, I am "worried that a baby killer is running loose in the US." Likewise, I'm worried that an innocent person - Darlie Routier - is on death row in Texas. IMO, there is enough reasonable doubt in this case that whatever evidence was not tested should be tested. Furthermore, since a veteran investigator decided within minutes of being on the scene that there was no intruder, whatever evidence that WAS tested should be RE-tested. If she's guilty, there's nothing to lose, right?

You have every right to feel the way you do about her trial attorney's, IMOP they did the best they could with what evidence that was available to them. Since you are saying the other attorney's did such a piss poor job, how come her appeals attorney haven't gotten anywhere either?

I say test away, test everything again. I just don't believe it will provide the answers that you and the other supporters hope for.

It was within 30 minutes, that the "veteran detective (over 4000 crime scenes) made his decision. If all you Darlie supporters are going to nick-pick the details to death, it wasn't within minutes (which would indicate 3 to 6 min's) it was half a hour.

[Jeana (DP)]

I think the "within milimeters of killing her" is a big red herring that, imo, does not add weight to the possibility DR is NG. "Within mms" does not negate all the other eidence against DR (such as the blood evidence, such as her wounds differed from those to her boys, such a no robbery motive, such as attacking the children first, etc.)

If I decide to inflict a wound on myself, and I plan to stop short of mortally wounding myself, I have no experience in cutting myself this way, and there is a good chance I will injure myself more than intended. If I wound myself after having just murdered my children, I am not in a very calm, relaxed state of mind, I am probably pretty keyed up. I may not be able to cut myself with great precision.

moo


There's also a good chance you would injure yourself less than you intended.

[Jeana (DP)]

LOL! Sorry I had to run off like that! :bang:

Mulder, IMO, didn't spend enough time preparing his witnesses, or preparing for them. For instance, the prosecution held a mock trial where all of their witnesses got to watch a......dress rehearsal, if you will.....of everyone else's testimony. This was very helpful for LE, medical personnel, etc. to all be on the same page because they were coached before hand.

Mulder ran around the whole trail putting out fires in the courtroom. He should have provided a proactive defense. For instance, he should have retained Terry Laber, the forensic scientist hired by the public defender. Instead, he dismissed him.

Mulder allowed an extreme amount of damaging hearsay testimony to be heard by the jury.

I could go on.....but you get the picture. This was without a doubt one of the worst legal defenses of all time.


Frankly, Mulder had an idiot for a client, who has idiots for family members. You can be one of the best defense attorney . . . oh wait, he IS one of the best. Silly me. Anyway, you can put on the best defense ever seen in defense HISTORY, but if your client gets on the stand and starts telling lies to the jurors, your client is screwed.

[whitywendy]

Frankly, Mulder had an idiot for a client, who has idiots for family members. You can be one of the best defense attorney . . . oh wait, he IS one of the best. Silly me. Anyway, you can put on the best defense ever seen in defense HISTORY, but if your client gets on the stand and starts telling lies to the jurors, your client is screwed.

Perfectly stated Jeana!!! AND why didn't OJ get convicted. Because he and his family kept their mouths shut, of course this is MOO.

[CyberLaw]

When the client takes the stand, and then tells the "story" and then is crossed on the story, which is in conflict with the physical evidence, then the client will be found guilty. Just like Darlie was and is.

Unless there is "clear" and convincing evidence presented before a judge that "proves" Darlies's innocence or "new" evidence is discovered that would not nor could not be discovered at trial, then really in myu opinion Darlie does not have a chance.

[Jeana (DP)]

When the client takes the stand, and then tells the "story" and then is crossed on the story, which is in conflict with the physical evidence, then the client will be found guilty. Just like Darlie was and is.

Unless there is "clear" and convincing evidence presented before a judge that "proves" Darlies's innocence or "new" evidence is discovered that would not nor could not be discovered at trial, then really in myu opinion Darlie does not have a chance.

Even though I liked Toby Shook a hell of a lot before this trial, I never realized what an excellent trial attorney he was until his cross of Darlie. Hall of fame material!

[HarleyGuy]

I would like to challenge the ones who believe Darlie is innocent to consider this: a crime is committed in the REAL world. Nothing is ever KNOWN 100% in the REAL world..... There will always be aspects of this case that will make people uncomfortable. They didn't test this, they didn't investigate that...... It can and will go on forever.

I challenge the ones who think she is innocent to put aside for a minute what you are worried about. Whatever you are "unsure" of and look at what is known. All the details about the crime that are not really in dispute. Take this all in and then go to your gut and your common sense and ask yourself who did this..... It will come up that Darlie did it. You won't like it but that is the conclusion I think you will draw if you are honest with yourself. If you want to get hung up on details then I think you can probably find some doubt in almost any criminal case but if you really put this one to the "smell" test Darlie comes up real stinky. This is a Sherlock Holmes case, eliminate every possiblity that you can and what remains, no matter how hard to believe, is the truth.......

Was her trial fair???? Wow what a loaded question. I don't know how you would decide that. I do know she did not have much chance but perhaps that is one of the cases where the good guys win one..... if her original court appointed lawyers had not changed the venue to Kerrville she might have had some chance. If her legal defense had taken the approach to capitalize on the little redneck town and somehow made her look very pretty but innocent and perhaps hinted that there might have been some involvement by an intruder of another race...... this might have improved her odds. Also someone suggested she might be "too pretty" to have committed this crime. I know it sounds stupid but I think that would have been a very important aspect of how this should have been handled by the defense. If they could have controlled Darlie then they could have made her looks work in her favor.

I don't know what they paid Mulder but I would have expected more based on his rep. But no I am not a lawyer so I don't know what he should have done other than what I wrote above which would be sort of dirty and underhanded but we are talking criminal defense here......

Afer the Kerrville jury heard about her sex toys and the pot in the house and then she got on the stand and told the jury about how they would not understand how things are in such a big city as Dallas when they live out in the sticks.... I don't care if she was guilty or not, she would be found guilty.

I do think if she had lawyered up the very first day and not spoken to the cops and had a good lawyer direct their every move from the first day I think it would have been easy to get Darlie off. But I am glad they did not since I believe that she is guilty as sin.

[White Rain]

I would like to challenge the ones who believe Darlie is innocent to consider this: a crime is committed in the REAL world. Nothing is ever KNOWN 100% in the REAL world..... There will always be aspects of this case that will make people uncomfortable. They didn't test this, they didn't investigate that...... It can and will go on forever.

I challenge the ones who think she is innocent to put aside for a minute what you are worried about. Whatever you are "unsure" of and look at what is known. All the details about the crime that are not really in dispute. Take this all in and then go to your gut and your common sense and ask yourself who did this..... It will come up that Darlie did it. You won't like it but that is the conclusion I think you will draw if you are honest with yourself. If you want to get hung up on details then I think you can probably find some doubt in almost any criminal case but if you really put this one to the "smell" test Darlie comes up real stinky. This is a Sherlock Holmes case, eliminate every possiblity that you can and what remains, no matter how hard to believe, is the truth.......

Was her trial fair???? Wow what a loaded question. I don't know how you would decide that. I do know she did not have much chance but perhaps that is one of the cases where the good guys win one..... if her original court appointed lawyers had not changed the venue to Kerrville she might have had some chance. If her legal defense had taken the approach to capitalize on the little redneck town and somehow made her look very pretty but innocent and perhaps hinted that there might have been some involvement by an intruder of another race...... this might have improved her odds. Also someone suggested she might be "too pretty" to have committed this crime. I know it sounds stupid but I think that would have been a very important aspect of how this should have been handled by the defense. If they could have controlled Darlie then they could have made her looks work in her favor.

I don't know what they paid Mulder but I would have expected more based on his rep. But no I am not a lawyer so I don't know what he should have done other than what I wrote above which would be sort of dirty and underhanded but we are talking criminal defense here......

Afer the Kerrville jury heard about her sex toys and the pot in the house and then she got on the stand and told the jury about how they would not understand how things are in such a big city as Dallas when they live out in the sticks.... I don't care if she was guilty or not, she would be found guilty.

I do think if she had lawyered up the very first day and not spoken to the cops and had a good lawyer direct their every move from the first day I think it would have been easy to get Darlie off. But I am glad they did not since I believe that she is guilty as sin.


I have news for you...there are people in little "redneck" towns all over who smoke pot and use sex toys. I REALLY don't think either one of these were a big factor in determining her guilt.

[Jeana (DP)]

I have news for you...there are people in little "redneck" towns all over who smoke pot and use sex toys. I REALLY don't think either one of these were a big factor in determining her guilt.

I agree.

[accordn2me]

Frankly, Mulder had an idiot for a client, who has idiots for family members. You can be one of the best defense attorney . . . oh wait, he IS one of the best. Silly me. Anyway, you can put on the best defense ever seen in defense HISTORY, but if your client gets on the stand and starts telling lies to the jurors, your client is screwed.The sad thing is....Mulder didn't coach his other witnesses. He coached Darlie. I'll always believe it was Mulder's coaching that led Darlie to her fatal mistake on the stand of changing the word "fighting" to "frightening." :doh: It was an idiotic thing to do. However, Darlie's all-time most idiotic mistake after her arrest was hiring Mulder in the first place. He may have been one of the best for some. For Darlie, it couldn't have been worse if she'd been assigned a law school dropout. She would have been better off with no attorney whatsoever than one who couldn't even get along with the judge in the courtroom.

[accordn2me]

What could he do, present evidence that the unknown stranger had entered the house. There was no evidence. A case is only as good as the evidence. So the DA did their homework, had a mock trial, well that is called "being prepared". They wanted to win, they wanted justice for the two slaughtered boys. They did not want to let them down, by being not prepared. Darlie deciding to testify was a mistake. But I put money that it was "her decision". No defense attorney wants or encourages their client to take the stand, especially when there is a lot of evidence pointing to their guilt.We agree on the prosecution being well-prepared and wanting justice for the boys and society. I think they truly believe Darlie killed them.

I, on the other hand, have doubts that Darlie did it. Why? Because her lawyer presented NO DEFENSE. He could have at least done that.

[Jeana (DP)]

The sad thing is....Mulder didn't coach his other witnesses. He coached Darlie. I'll always believe it was Mulder's coaching that led Darlie to her fatal mistake on the stand of changing the word "fighting" to "frightening." :doh: It was an idiotic thing to do. However, Darlie's all-time most idiotic mistake after her arrest was hiring Mulder in the first place. He may have been one of the best for some. For Darlie, it couldn't have been worse if she'd been assigned a law school dropout. She would have been better off with no attorney whatsoever than one who couldn't even get along with the judge in the courtroom.

An attorney like Mulder isn't going to coach his client to LIE on the witness stand. Give me a break. He's going to put his entire career and reputation on the line in order to teach Darlie how to lie better on the witness stand? You can have an opinion about Mulder all you'd like, but he didn't make those words come out of Darlie's mouth. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Jeana (DP)]

We agree on the prosecution being well-prepared and wanting justice for the boys and society. I think they truly believe Darlie killed them.

I, on the other hand, have doubts that Darlie did it. Why? Because her lawyer presented NO DEFENSE. He could have at least done that.

Counsellor, what defense would you have used?

[CyberLaw]

Jeana is right on, lawyers don't teach or coach their clients to lie, that is called being a party to perjury, and you lose your license that way.

But, in preparing a client, you can tell them, no you are giving too much detail, answer the question yes or no.

When a person "tells" a story, and that story is not based in fact, but fiction, well they have to "fill" in the blanks, on a second's notice, they have no basis in "reality" for the story, so it comes apart, especially under cross.

Just like our oldest, did not do too well last year in school. Oh, but his "story" was the work was "too easy" that is why he got terrible marks.

Well the "facts" are: He "skipped" assignments, he skipped school, he did not do his homework on a regular basis. Those are called facts, not fiction.

Just like Darlie had to change her "story" many times in an attempt to "fill in the blanks" to fit the evidence.

The defense was: The stranger did it. That was Darlie whole defense, but how can a person introduce evidence into court, when there is no evidence of a stranger at the scene and all of the "known" evidence points to Darlie being guilty.

[HarleyGuy]

I have news for you...there are people in little "redneck" towns all over who smoke pot and use sex toys. I REALLY don't think either one of these were a big factor in determining her guilt.

I agree with you totally that there are such people but that is the same reasoning that makes Darlie's guilt so difficult to see. What is the most LIKELY composition of a Kerrville jury? Did Darlie kill her kids for 100% certain? We'll never know. But based on what we are reasonably sure of what is the most LIKELY answer to that question, she is guilty.

Of course these weren't the deciding factors in her conviction. I really cannot site even one single factor in most cases that results in a guilty verdict but they are one of the many. Change of venue to Kerrville was not helpful but you should play to your audience and Mulder did not even try. I wont pick on Mulder except to say that if you come in with Superman's reputation then you better be faster than a speeding bullet....

[CyberLaw]

Play to your audience, what does that mean in the context of the residence of Kerrville. The reason why it is called "reasonable" doubt is because of the threshold. Is it more likely that an "unknown" stranger entered the house, and left no evidence. Or is it more likely given the evidence that Darlie killed the two boys. You do not take one piece of evidence into account, but the total of all of the evidence.

Make no mistake, Darlie wanted to ensure that on the 911 tape that she can account for her fingerprints on the weapon. Of course knowing that this call would be recorded. So when in the future(lets just say she did not say anything about her fingerprints on the knife in the 911 call) the "State" could not claim that her fingerprints were on the knife because she killed the kids.

That was the start of Darlie attempting to "cover up", deflect blame, manipulate and control everyone. Why pick up the knife otherwise and then mention it in a recorded phone call.

I thought Darlie had more then one lawyer for trial and Mulder was the lead. Mark G. lost also, and I am sure he had a better rep then Mulder, and Scott P is stilll on death row. Having a talented lawyer is beneficial, but again, if there is enough evidence to point to guilt, then he/she will lose.

Darlie, I am sure against the advice of her lawyer took the stand. I can't not believe anyone of Mulder rep. would encourage their client to take the stand.

But again, knowing the personality of Darlie, she probably thought she could con and manipulate the jury of this small town.

[accordn2me]

An attorney like Mulder isn't going to coach his client to LIE on the witness stand. Give me a break. He's going to put his entire career and reputation on the line in order to teach Darlie how to lie better on the witness stand? You can have an opinion about Mulder all you'd like, but he didn't make those words come out of Darlie's mouth. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:I didn't say that he made her lie. I can't stand it when others try to place responsibility for their actions on someone else. If it came across like I was doing that, I apologize. That's not what I meant at all.

However, I believe Mulder coached Darlie to a point where she came to believe the word "fighting" made her look like she remembered the intruder and the fight, yet there was so much she couldn't remember. Except for this, I don't remember the other lies Darlie told on the stand. This one really stood out for me though.

[Jeana (DP)]

I didn't say that he made her lie. I can't stand it when others try to place responsibility for their actions on someone else. If it came across like I was doing that, I apologize. That's not what I meant at all.

However, I believe Mulder coached Darlie to a point where she came to believe the word "fighting" made her look like she remembered the intruder and the fight, yet there was so much she couldn't remember. Except for this, I don't remember the other lies Darlie told on the stand. This one really stood out for me though.

What about the part where she said she wasn't having problems in her marriage?

What about the part where she said they weren't having problems financially?

What about the 50 other lies that Shook caught her in and drilled her on? She finally broke down because she couldn't think up her lies as fast as he could question her on. THESE are the things that a jury will see and decide that if she's lying about all of these things, she's a liar. Then nothing else she says will be accepted. The "fighting vs. frightening" comment was stupid, but believe me when I tell you that IF Darlie was telling the truth, there's no way she could have been confused into saying something that wasn't true nor could she be caught off guard by Toby Shook. When a person tells the truth, there is only one version, so there's no need to have a good memory. There's no need to be coached into learning how to say it. Darlie lied. Fact. Darin lied. Fact. Darlie is on death row. Fact. Its also a fact that if she's lucky enough to get a second trial, there's no way in hell she's going to get on that stand again. If Mulder did anything wrong, it was not holding her down with force in order to get her to give up the idea of testifying. However, what's also a fact is that if she's lucky enough to get a second trial, Darin will be testifying and there's no way he can get out of his testimony from the first trial. He's going to have to stick to it or get called out on it and believe me when I tell you that his testimony is enough to get her right back on the row.

[accordn2me]

Counsellor, what defense would you have used? :razz:

One of my techniques would have been to OBJECT when a witness was clearly testifying to hearsay.


I would like to say this......I remember how shocked I was when I found out that Darlie's public defenders where planning to go with the "Darin did it" defense. I hadn't realized that their defense strategy was the reason the Routiers hired Mulder in the first place. At least the public defenders had a strategy. Mulder only had presence in the courtroom. And it seemed to antagonize the judge most of the time.

Listen Jeana, I know you live in the area and have followed the case from the beginning. I respect the amount of knowledge you have on this subject. But as an outsider who has no ties to the area, the Routiers, LE, lawyers...ANY of the players in this thing....when I read those transcripts a few years ago, Mulder's performance as Darlie's lawyer, both in and out of the courtroom, really struck me as being.....horrible. Allowing all the hearsay is just the only thing I can remember off the top of my head. Rest assured there were other things.........oh yeah....dismissing Terry Laber. Not have any of the evidence tested independently. That's another. But there was a whole lot more he could have done but just didn't.

Maybe the only other alternative was to finger Darin. If so, Mulder couldn't do that per his being hired. Now, here's where I would abandon my doubts about Darlie's innocence, if I found out Darin did it. See, I personally believe that if either one of them did it, the other one knows. For me, covering for someone who committed this crime is just as bad as doing the deed. If it's ever proven there was no intruder, and this was an inside job, my vote would be to leave Darlie right where she is and prosecute Darin for the same.

That said, there is too much that is unanswered because Mulder didn't have it tested or provide a smidgen of a defense to a brilliant, well-prepared prosecution case. I would just like to see Darlie's pro-bono lawyers' motions for all the testing granted. I'm not interested in seeing her get off on a legal technicality like the transcript fiasco. If there is some evidence to support her innocence, I hope it is found before she is executed.

[whitywendy]

I didn't say that he made her lie. I can't stand it when others try to place responsibility for their actions on someone else. If it came across like I was doing that, I apologize. That's not what I meant at all.

However, I believe Mulder coached Darlie to a point where she came to believe the word "fighting" made her look like she remembered the intruder and the fight, yet there was so much she couldn't remember. Except for this, I don't remember the other lies Darlie told on the stand. This one really stood out for me though.

She lied about having money problems.
She lied about the "discussion" her and Darin had that night.
She lied about whether she was at the kitchen sink and getting towels wet.
These are just a few off the top of my head. I am sure there are much more, just can't remember right now.

[whitywendy]

:razz:

One of my techniques would have been to OBJECT when a witness was clearly testifying to hearsay.


I would like to say this......I remember how shocked I was when I found out that Darlie's public defenders where planning to go with the "Darin did it" defense. I hadn't realized that their defense strategy was the reason the Routiers hired Mulder in the first place. At least the public defenders had a strategy. Mulder only had presence in the courtroom. And it seemed to antagonize the judge most of the time.

Listen Jeana, I know you live in the area and have followed the case from the beginning. I respect the amount of knowledge you have on this subject. But as an outsider who has no ties to the area, the Routiers, LE, lawyers...ANY of the players in this thing....when I read those transcripts a few years ago, Mulder's performance as Darlie's lawyer, both in and out of the courtroom, really struck me as being.....horrible. Allowing all the hearsay is just the only thing I can remember off the top of my head. Rest assured there were other things.........oh yeah....dismissing Terry Laber. Not have any of the evidence tested independently. That's another. But there was a whole lot more he could have done but just didn't.

Maybe the only other alternative was to finger Darin. If so, Mulder couldn't do that per his being hired. Now, here's where I would abandon my doubts about Darlie's innocence, if I found out Darin did it. See, I personally believe that if either one of them did it, the other one knows. For me, covering for someone who committed this crime is just as bad as doing the deed. If it's ever proven there was no intruder, and this was an inside job, my vote would be to leave Darlie right where she is and prosecute Darin for the same.

That said, there is too much that is unanswered because Mulder didn't have it tested or provide a smidgen of a defense to a brilliant, well-prepared prosecution case. I would just like to see Darlie's pro-bono lawyers' motions for all the testing granted. I'm not interested in seeing her get off on a legal technicality like the transcript fiasco. If there is some evidence to support her innocence, I hope it is found before she is executed.

Well thought out reply. Now why can't all pro/anti's debate like this.

[Jeana (DP)]

;) Well thought out reply. Now why can't all pro/anti's debate like this.

It was well thought out!!!! Got to hand it to her!!! ;)

[Jeana (DP)]

:razz:

One of my techniques would have been to OBJECT when a witness was clearly testifying to hearsay.

Listen Jeana, I know you live in the area and have followed the case from the beginning. I respect the amount of knowledge you have on this subject. But as an outsider who has no ties to the area, the Routiers, LE, lawyers...ANY of the players in this thing....when I read those transcripts a few years ago, Mulder's performance as Darlie's lawyer, both in and out of the courtroom, really struck me as being.....horrible. Allowing all the hearsay is just the only thing I can remember off the top of my head. Rest assured there were other things.........oh yeah....dismissing Terry Laber. Not have any of the evidence tested independently. That's another. But there was a whole lot more he could have done but just didn't.




I don't remember the testimony well enough to remember if exceptions to hearsay would have trumped the objections. I seem to recall there were times that he could have successfully objected and times when he couldn't. I also don't remember how much money they paid for her defense or if part was paid by them and part by the state. If you remember, that would be great. If she took on the sole responsibility for payment for the defense of her case, she needed to pay for those tests. Maybe they didn't feel it was necessary because she and her family never really thought she'd be convicted.

Anyway, it was a good response to my question!! Thanks.

[whitywendy]

;)

It was well thought out!!!! Got to hand it to her!!! ;)

Puts me in the mind of Ms. Goody's (I really enjoyed reading her posts) "attitude". Respect...

[Jeana (DP)]

Puts me in the mind of Ms. Goody's (I really enjoyed reading her posts) "attitude". Respect...

Ahhhhh!! Me too!!! I miss her.:blowkiss:

[CyberLaw]

Can anyone give me an idea of what "hearsay" evidence was allowed, there are MANY exceptions to hearsay, I just looked up the state of Texas, which is not much different then others.

Also If I recall correctly, did the DA not prove that neither boy could speak after the attack. I am pretty sure this is one of the "wholes" in her story.

Thanks....plus Jeana I wish I had your quick wit and sense of humor.

[Jeana (DP)]

Can anyone give me an idea of what "hearsay" evidence was allowed, there are MANY exceptions to hearsay, I just looked up the state of Texas, which is not much different then others.

Also If I recall correctly, did the DA not prove that neither boy could speak after the attack. I am pretty sure this is one of the "wholes" in her story.

Thanks....plus Jeana I wish I had your quick wit and sense of humor.

I wish I could remember what they're considering hearsay. I've posted about this topic back when the transcrips were sitting on my desk and thought I explained pretty well why some of the issues were allowable, considering they were things that Darlie or Darin would have brought in during their own testimony, etc., but its been too long for me to remember any specifics now.

The medical examiner did a really good job of explaining how it would have been impossible for the boys to have been standing, talking, etc. after the attacks, but in at least a couple of Darlie's 16 different versions, I believe she tries to put one of them on his feet. I think it was one of the things that pissed me off so horribly about her. She couldn't leave them, she had to make them walk and talk. Simply inexcusable. I mean trying to say he saved her life when she knew she took his is just evil.

Thanks for the compliment, but most people just think I'm a smart ass!!! LOL

Thanks for all you do in giving good legal explanations for the posters here. I type so horribly slow that trying to explain things that take that many words just makes me frustrated!!! LOL

[accordn2me]

I don't remember the testimony well enough to remember if exceptions to hearsay would have trumped the objections. I seem to recall there were times that he could have successfully objected and times when he couldn't. I also don't remember how much money they paid for her defense or if part was paid by them and part by the state. If you remember, that would be great. If she took on the sole responsibility for payment for the defense of her case, she needed to pay for those tests. Maybe they didn't feel it was necessary because she and her family never really thought she'd be convicted.

Anyway, it was a good response to my question!! Thanks.One of the reasons I empathize with Darlie's faulty memory, mine has got to be worse! I can't imagine life if memory continues to deteriorate with age. Hopefully, I got all mine.....lack of, rather, at one time! :doh:

No, I don't remember the specific hearsay. As for Mulder's fee, who knows. All I've heard has been strictly on message boards. I seem to recall.....no, I don't. I was about to type a million but surely not! $100,000 sounds more reasonable doesn't it? :confused: It was a lot of money for the Routiers at the time. Especially given that the trial was super short relative to some. Experts cost money nonetheless, I know Laber was retained by the public defenders and had a significant amount of evidence tested. He was dismissed before he gave Mulder the results.

[CyberLaw]

Faulty memory, she was what not even 30.

You can bet your bottom dolllar, that if a stranger came into my home and murdered my kids and injured me, I would never forget that in a million years.

It would be "imprinted" upon my memory.

But if it was based in fiction, not fact, then of course I could not remember a lot of details as I would have to "fabricate" the details or say: I don't remember, as to not increase the size of the whole that I am in already.

A lawyer can't cross on "I don't remember". Oh. Please. Darlie can't remember because her "story" is fiction.

[whitywendy]

Thanks for the compliment, but most people just think I'm a smart ass!!! LOL

Thanks for all you do in giving good legal explanations for the posters here. I type so horribly slow that trying to explain things that take that many words just makes me frustrated!!! LOL

Hey Jeana - you know that saying... I would rather be a smart ass than a dumb ass....LOL .. I agree with Cyber - I would love to have your quick wit. I am such a ...wait a second..oh I get it type girl. My hubby loves to pick on me about it.

I also agree with Jeana to Cyber - your info on the legal system is so helpful. If I was ever in any type of trouble of sure would want you and Jeana on my side.

[Jeana (DP)]

Hey Jeana - you know that saying... I would rather be a smart ass than a dumb ass....LOL .. I agree with Cyber - I would love to have your quick wit. I am such a ...wait a second..oh I get it type girl. My hubby loves to pick on me about it.

I also agree with Jeana to Cyber - your info on the legal system is so helpful. If I was ever in any type of trouble of sure would want you and Jeana on my side.

HaHaHa!!!!!!:crazy:

[Jeana (DP)]

One housekeeping matter: since it probably gets confusing when Jeana posts my material under her name because
I can not post directly, I probably should by-line my material. I signed on to the site under "Junior Detective," so that

is what I will use from here on out. If this case weren't so tragic, all the talk of "maybe Darlie is innocent" would be

amusing. I think any one who thinks that should read the second paragraph of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion

dated May 21, 2003. There, it states in pertinent part, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of

the evidence to support her conviction…" In other words, her attorneys conceded that sufficient evidence supported her
conviction, a conviction which was entered on the jury's guilty finding that only could have happened if the jury rejected

her intruder defense. I don't disagree with the approach the defense took because the evidence that she is the assailant

wasn't merely sufficient, it was positively suffocating, and, so, the defense would have lost on a "sufficiency" claim. Rather, I

think the defense did about the only thing it could do, which was attack the procedure by which the guilty verdict was
obtained and hope for a new trial. We know that the defense lost on that point, but the defense did challenge the most
vulnerable part of the case and I don't think the defense can be faulted for doing that. I think most people are missing the

point about why her attorneys are trying to get her a new trial. If a new trial was ordered, you can bet her attorneys would

be working overtime to try and keep her off of the stand, which was the reason for the conviction in the first trial. That is why

I am dead set against a new trial--it would allow the defense to "go for the win," even after the defense has conceded that

the evidence supports her conviction. I don’t know if she would be convicted or acquitted if she did not take the stand in

a second trial, but we already know what happened in the first one, so her attorneys would be open to trying something
different in a second trial.

[mollymalone]

One housekeeping matter: since it probably gets confusing when Jeana posts my material under her name because
I can not post directly, I probably should by-line my material. I signed on to the site under "Junior Detective," so that is what I will use from here on out. If this case weren't so tragic, all the talk of "maybe Darlie is innocent" would be amusing.

I think any one who thinks that should read the second paragraph of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion dated May 21, 2003. There, it states in pertinent part, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction…" In other words, her attorneys conceded that sufficient evidence supported her
conviction, a conviction which was entered on the jury's guilty finding that only could have happened if the jury rejected her intruder defense.

I don't disagree with the approach the defense took because the evidence that she is the assailant wasn't merely sufficient, it was positively suffocating, and, so, the defense would have lost on a "sufficiency" claim. Rather, I think the defense did about the only thing it could do, which was attack the procedure by which the guilty verdict was obtained and hope for a new trial. We know that the defense lost on that point, but the defense did challenge the most vulnerable part of the case and I don't think the defense can be faulted for doing that.

I think most people are missing the point about why her attorneys are trying to get her a new trial. If a new trial was ordered, you can bet her attorneys would be working overtime to try and keep her off of the stand, which was the reason for the conviction in the first trial. That is why I am dead set against a new trial--it would allow the defense to "go for the win," even after the defense has conceded that the evidence supports her conviction. I don’t know if she would be convicted or acquitted if she did not take the stand in
a second trial, but we already know what happened in the first one, so her attorneys would be open to trying something different in a second trial.Doesn't anything she testified to on the stand in the first trial come in, even if she doesn't take the stand in the trial?

I believe she'd be convicted again, based on the evidence. Not on silly string, as some would like to think, but on the overall evidence presented. Even if she doesn't testify again.

Thanks for directing us to this section of the decision:

"second paragraph of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion
dated May 21, 2003. There, it states in pertinent part, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction…" In other words, her attorneys conceded that sufficient evidence supported her conviction, a conviction which was entered on the jury's guilty finding that only could have happened if the jury rejected her intruder defense.