Should Darlie have a new trial?

eleven said:

I voted yes. I definitely think she should get a new trial.

Click to expand...

I am with you, so what about spending tax dollars on another trial, the state wastes so much money on usless crap, what if it were an intruder, isnt that a possibility (yes) anyone remember the mother in Ohio who did 10 years for almost an identical crime of stabbing her son, turned out it was Tommy Lynn Sells (you know guy that cut the screen, took a knife out of the kitchen, and killed the son in the middle of the night ( where was HE at the time, I wonder......)

I thought the same thing until I researched and discovered that he was in jail for another crime at the time of this murder.


---
I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.912983,-96.772752"]Google Maps[/ame]

sloane7777 said:

I am with you, so what about spending tax dollars on another trial, the state wastes so much money on usless crap, what if it were an intruder, isnt that a possibility (yes) anyone remember the mother in Ohio who did 10 years for almost an identical crime of stabbing her son, turned out it was Tommy Lynn Sells (you know guy that cut the screen, took a knife out of the kitchen, and killed the son in the middle of the night ( where was HE at the time, I wonder......)

Click to expand...

I don't believe TLS killed that boy. Just my opinion though. The mother's story doesn't add up to me. Nor is it supported by forensic evidence. i.e. nothing of TLS was found in the Harper case.

I know she got she a new trial and statements changed but the core evidence didn't, plus certain people committed perjury on the stand..a la Cindy Anthony.

I believe Harper got away with the murder of her son Joel.

sloane7777 said:

I am with you, so what about spending tax dollars on another trial, the state wastes so much money on usless crap, what if it were an intruder, isnt that a possibility (yes) anyone remember the mother in Ohio who did 10 years for almost an identical crime of stabbing her son, turned out it was Tommy Lynn Sells (you know guy that cut the screen, took a knife out of the kitchen, and killed the son in the middle of the night ( where was HE at the time, I wonder......)

Click to expand...

The mother got off because the cop that testified to most of the evidence that contradicted her story died before the retrial.
Let me be completely clear here: Tommy Lynn Sells has not and will never be convicted in that case so there is no finding of innocence in the mother's case...just "not guilty".

Sinsaint said:

There is a reason why lie detector tests are inadmissible. It's because they are unreliable. And not to be rude but I checked your FB page. Noone's on there.

Click to expand...

If Darlie had passed a polygraph, her attorneys would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

sloane7777 said:

I am with you, so what about spending tax dollars on another trial, the state wastes so much money on usless crap, what if it were an intruder, isnt that a possibility (yes) anyone remember the mother in Ohio who did 10 years for almost an identical crime of stabbing her son, turned out it was Tommy Lynn Sells (you know guy that cut the screen, took a knife out of the kitchen, and killed the son in the middle of the night ( where was HE at the time, I wonder......)

Click to expand...

No it didn't. TLS claims responsibility but he was fed the crime scene data by Diane Fanning who was writing a book about him. He has not been charged with this crime and nor do the authorities believe he committed it.

runsdeep said:

should darlie have a new trial. should she or shouldnt she, and opinions why. see?

Click to expand...

No why should she? Nothing wrong with her first trial.

Trooper514 said:

Cami,
Is Darlie out of appeals?


---
I am here: Google Maps

Click to expand...

No she's in federal appeals now. The federal appeals court gave her permission to dna test 12 items I think it is. She still has the appeal for clemency if the tests go against her (which they will imo). The state had until May 21st, I think, to submit all the evidence being tested. That has been done so that evidence is either now being tested or still with the court.

they are desperately trying to raise the money for the tests the state doesn't pay for.

No new trial needed. The first told the story and got it right. Who can sleep through anything like that? Her husband finally divorced for a reason.

She certainly should be given the right to DNA test whatever might turn-out to disprove the verdict. The US Courts recently ruled in her favor in that regard.

jimben said:

She certainly should be given the right to DNA test whatever might turn-out to disprove the verdict. The US Courts recently ruled in her favor in that regard.

Click to expand...

Nothing will turn out to disprove the verdict. And she was not given permission to test everything. She wasn't given the nightshirt. She was only given the prints, the sock and the knife & hairs. She had all these items dna tested prior to her first trial. These are retests with the newer dna capabilities and she barely got that. For instance the pubic hair was tested in 1996 but gave no results.

Only my opinion though nothing more.

cami said:

No she's in federal appeals now. The federal appeals court gave her permission to dna test 12 items I think it is. She still has the appeal for clemency if the tests go against her (which they will imo). The state had until May 21st, I think, to submit all the evidence being tested. That has been done so that evidence is either now being tested or still with the court.

they are desperately trying to raise the money for the tests the state doesn't pay for.

Click to expand...

if she loses on the dna tests, her defence will petition the court on the transcript issue, the federal court will most likely throw it back to the state court and they will have an evidenciary hearing which she will lose because the transcripts have been certified. Once these appeals are lost, if they are lost, there will be a plea for clemency. If she loses the plea, an execution date will be set. She has years to go yet.

I voted yes, ONLY because the jury didn't see all of the evidence AND she is on death row. If not for the death row, maybe I would have said no. I am not sure she will be executed, but the truth of the matter is that the jury didn't see everything. They didn't see the somber prayer service before the silly string at the graveside, they didn't see the defense wounds and bruises. I don't know if she did it or not, but let the jury decide with ALL of the evidence.

I will rely on the judges decision as to whether she deserves a new trial. Our courts are flawed but as close to fair as we have been able to get. Though I think she is guilty and rightly deserves death the technical side of things are best left to the judge.
It is upsetting that we have Michael Peterson getting a new trial and free in the mean time and Jeffrey Macdonald may get another trial. Yet the WM3 have to take an Alford plea to get out. Justice is not always just. And it isn't always fair to the victims either.

cami said:

if she loses on the dna tests, her defence will petition the court on the transcript issue, the federal court will most likely throw it back to the state court and they will have an evidenciary hearing which she will lose because the transcripts have been certified. Once these appeals are lost, if they are lost, there will be a plea for clemency. If she loses the plea, an execution date will be set. She has years to go yet.

Click to expand...

Just random thinking tonight. Darlie's trial transcript is incomplete, based on what I read about missing tapes that were never transcribed by Sandra Halsey. I know nothing of the legal system except that the transcript alone should be complete. There was a conflict of interest with her lawyer, also being Darin's lawyer, who wasn't on trial for his life. I think the only reason we haven't seen a new trial was because the courts decided that the errors wouldn't change the outcome. But why have rules then for court proceedings? Another point I am pondering. How much evidence was not presented in court? We know with the OJ and the Casey Anthony case some evidence wasn't allowed in, but either came out afterward, or like OJ during the civil suit. Darlie was only charged with one of two murders. Why and what didn't fit? I think for this reason alone, I would want answers and granted a new trial. If there was reasonable doubt about the entire crime scene, evidence that Darlie cannot prove killed her other son, a fair trial should be granted. (Just FYI, I do feel that she is guilty, as the intruder theory never was remotely proven, but law is law) As our society is ever changing, and more and more hearsay is allowed, we have to have a balance between what can and cannot be proven.

StephanieH said:

I voted yes, ONLY because the jury didn't see all of the evidence AND she is on death row. If not for the death row, maybe I would have said no. I am not sure she will be executed, but the truth of the matter is that the jury didn't see everything. They didn't see the somber prayer service before the silly string at the graveside, they didn't see the defense wounds and bruises. I don't know if she did it or not, but let the jury decide with ALL of the evidence.

Click to expand...

12 Q. Okay. Now, let me go to these other
13 photographs for a moment. State's Exhibits 52-E, D, C,
14 B, A, and I. Do these appear to be photographs of Darlie
15 Routier?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. And is there a date present
18 here in the bottom right-hand corner of these
19 photographs?
20 A. It says 6-10-96.
21 Q. Okay. So, we can assume, at least if
22 that's correct, they were taken on the 10th day of June,
23 1996?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at 52-A. Do
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
765

1 you see a wound here to the right arm, or evidence of an
2 injury to the right arm?
3 A. There's a large amount of bruising to
4 the right arm, but I don't see any -- actually by
5 laceration, there's none. But there is evidence of
6 bruising to the arm.
7 Q. Okay. And that's a pretty large
8 bruise, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where does it extend from?
11 A. It appears to go from her wrist to
12 right below where her hand is, past her elbow, up toward,
13 almost into her armpit.
14 Q. Okay. And then 52-E, that's an even
15 more close-up photograph of that bruise?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. If you could take these two
18 photographs and go along the jury rail so all the jurors
19 can see.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. Now, Dr. Santos, tell the jurors what
22 caused this type of bruising.
23 A. Some type of trauma. Some kind of
24 blunt trauma, being hit, a car wreck, anything like that.
25 Some kind of a force to the arm.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
766

1 Q. What is blunt trauma?
2 A. Blunt trauma, as opposed to none
3 penetrating. Penetrating is usually stab wound or
4 gunshot wound. Blunt trauma is -- again, in a car wreck,
5 falling and hitting your arm, being hit with a baseball
6 bat or something like that.
7 Q. Being struck by an object very hard?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Doesn't break the skin?
10 A. Does not penetrate.
11 Q. But causes these deep bruises?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Is this pretty severe blunt
14 trauma that we're looking at?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Now, by looking at these photographs,
17 can you tell anything about the age of this bruise?
18 A. Just by looking at this photograph, I
19 would say that that injury is about 24 to 48 hours old.
20 Q. 24 to 48 hours old?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And what do you see there in the
23 photograph that let's you have that opinion?
24 A. On this photograph there is some deep
25 bruising to this part of the arm over here. But up
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
767

1 towards -- the upper part of her arm, the arm proper
2 close to the armpit, there's more of a redness over here.
3 That tells you that this is not a very old wound. Wounds
4 like this tend to get very dark, and after about three or
5 four days starts turning green when that blood starts to
6 get absorbed. But this redness up here tells me that it
7 was probably a 24 to 48 hour old wound.
8 Q. When it's photographed here?
9 A. Yes, at that time.
10 Q. And the date is 6-10-96?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, you had Ms. Routier from about
13 3:30 in the morning on June 6th, 1996 to you say around
14 noon or so on June 8th; is that right?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Okay. Now, y'all checked pretty
17 carefully about other injuries; is that right?
18 A. Yes, we did.
19 Q. And in ICU, are there enough nurses in
20 attendance at all times?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. It's not like being in a room
23 when you're in the hospital and the nurse just checks on
24 you once in a while; is that right?
25 A. Correct.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
768

1 Q. They're right there all the time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. And you examined Mrs. Routier
4 several times on her stay there?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Examined the wounds that you sewed up?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And before she was released, do
9 you examine those wounds?
10 A. Yes. Routinely we'll look at the
11 wounds just to make sure they're healing okay.
12 Q. Did you see at any time while she was
13 in the hospital any injury that would cause this type of
14 bruising?
15 A. No, I did not see any evidence of
16 that.
17 Q. Okay. Is this something that you
18 would have been if it had occurred on June 6th, let's say
19 at 2:30 in the morning, 1996?
20 A. Yes. I believe we would have seen
21 some evidence of that before she left the hospital.
22 Q. Okay. A person, when they get blunt
23 trauma, they don't bruise -- a huge bruise doesn't just

http://www.routiertranscripts.com/transcripts/volumes/vol-30.php#3

20 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
21 Q. Okay. Again, can you -- 52-M, is that
22 a photograph of bruising there to the left arm?
23 A. Yes. It shows some bruising to the
24 left arm around the wrist area extending down toward her
25 elbow.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
775

1 Q. Again, Doctor, if you could start
2 maybe down at this end. You can come on down.
3 A. Okay.
4
5 (Whereupon, the witness
6 stepped down from the
7 witness stand, and
8 approached the jury rail
9 and the proceedings were
10 resumed as follows
11
12
13 (Whereupon, the following
14 mentioned item was
15 marked for
16 identification only
17 as State's Exhibit 52-N,
18 after which time the
19 proceedings were
20 resumed on the record
21 in open court, as
22 follows

It appears to me that the jury did see the photos of the bruising according to this testimony.



9 MR. GREG DAVIS: Yes, sir. At this
10 time, the State would indicate that we believe this
11 testimony is not relevant, it's improper impeachment.
12 And, again, I'm talking about the subject of the mike on
13 the grave site. And we would ask that the Court instruct
14 Mr. Mulder not to go into these matters any further in
15 front of this jury, because again, we feel the
16 prejudicial effect here, of having to inform the jury
17 that these officers have taken the Fifth Amendment.
18 Again, we believe that the matters are
19 irrelevant and that they are improper impeachment.
20 THE COURT: The State is not going to
21 use anything that came out of that?
22 MR. GREG DAVIS: That is correct. We
23 are not going to go into that matter. We're not going to
24 offer any of those recordings, video or otherwise, so we
25 did not intend to talk about that matter in front of this
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4407

1 jury.
2 THE COURT: Was there any exculpatory
3 material in that?
4 MR. GREG DAVIS: No, sir, but in all,
5 in caution, I did turn over those matters to the defense.
6 THE COURT: So the defense has those
7 tapes? You gentlemen have those tapes?
8 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Judge, they are
9 the ones that first went into this matter. We didn't go
10 into anything at the grave site. They did.
11 THE COURT: All I want to know right
12 now, Mr. Mulder, is: Do you have those tapes?
13 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Well, I have some
14 tapes. I don't know whether I have those.
15 THE COURT: Did you listen to them?
16 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Yes, sir.
17 THE COURT: When were they given to
18 the defense?
19 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Well, we didn't
20 get into the case until --
21 MR. GREG DAVIS: Probably sometime in
22 November, I believe.

http://www.routiertranscripts.com/transcripts/volumes/vol-43.php#1


Mulder had the opportunity to show the surveillance tape of the prayer service to the jury but he chose not to. I wonder why? It can only mean they had nothing to impeach the SS tape with......no greiving, sobbing, prostrate on the ground Darlie. Do you think Darlie's lawyers or family would not have had that prayer tape shown all over the news, etc, if it existed?

The graveside party tape was filmed by Channel 5 News crew, they were asked not to film the prayer service out of respect for the family. Big mistake on Darlie's part.

sloane7777 said:

I am with you, so what about spending tax dollars on another trial, the state wastes so much money on usless crap, what if it were an intruder, isnt that a possibility (yes) anyone remember the mother in Ohio who did 10 years for almost an identical crime of stabbing her son, turned out it was Tommy Lynn Sells (you know guy that cut the screen, took a knife out of the kitchen, and killed the son in the middle of the night ( where was HE at the time, I wonder......)

Click to expand...

He was in prison. And he has recanted his confession in the Joel Kirkpatrick case, he didn't commit that murder.

Cassata11 said:

Just random thinking tonight. Darlie's trial transcript is incomplete, based on what I read about missing tapes that were never transcribed by Sandra Halsey. I know nothing of the legal system except that the transcript alone should be complete. There was a conflict of interest with her lawyer, also being Darin's lawyer, who wasn't on trial for his life. I think the only reason we haven't seen a new trial was because the courts decided that the errors wouldn't change the outcome. But why have rules then for court proceedings? Another point I am pondering. How much evidence was not presented in court? We know with the OJ and the Casey Anthony case some evidence wasn't allowed in, but either came out afterward, or like OJ during the civil suit. Darlie was only charged with one of two murders. Why and what didn't fit? I think for this reason alone, I would want answers and granted a new trial. If there was reasonable doubt about the entire crime scene, evidence that Darlie cannot prove killed her other son, a fair trial should be granted. (Just FYI, I do feel that she is guilty, as the intruder theory never was remotely proven, but law is law) As our society is ever changing, and more and more hearsay is allowed, we have to have a balance between what can and cannot be proven.

Click to expand...

You should check out the justicefordarlie.net website and read the court decisions on the transcripts. The transcript was certified by Susan Simmons and accepted by the court. There is nothing missing, they found all the audio tapes and used the steno pads.

I believe she is guilty based on the physical evidence..blood evidence and her many many many lies.

In the Jeff MacDonald case, the prosecution entered over 1000 pieces of evidence and that was only about 60% of the total. They never enter ever single piece of evidence...enough to get the conviction.

Darlie can still be tried on Devon's murder so maybe she will get a new trial, just not what she expects, she might get tried for murder again.

IMO, more and more evidence is coming forth that Darlie did not get a fair trial. A North Texas area newspaper, the Hood County News, has been doing a series on things which were wrong in the trial. I have read 2 of the articles. I don't know how many they have done, but the reporter who is undertaking this assignment should be able to provide anyone who wants the other articles copies. There will probably be a small charge.

The first article I read was direct eyewitness testimony from one of Darrin's aunts. She kept a notebook and one of the things which stunned her was the number of times the judge slept.He napped every single day of the trial!!! And now Darlie Routier is on Death Row. ( This, while the court reporter made a mistake severe enough that had she not been given some sort of procedural immunity, Darlie could have gotten a new trial).

The latest article is this one:
http://hcnews.com/pages/news/forens...ith-states-version-of-events-in-routier-case/

It has testimony from 2 DEFENSE blood spatter experts who say they were not allowed to testify by Mulder, her lead attorney. They say that if they HAD been allowed, they would have testified that there was not cast off blood spatter on Darlie's nightgown. They would have testified about the co-mingled blood, indicating that Darlie was injured before the boys were killed.
Next, the blood spatter evidence at trial is called into question. It is said that the blood spatter on Darlie's gown is not conclusive of blood cast off from stabbing the boys, that her blood is mixed in with the boys' and that a third person's blood is mixed with hers and the boys. The blood spatter expert for the prosecution, Tom Bevel's, report is called into question. He is also under fire for a homicide analysis in Tarrant County.
( I used to think he was great. Now I think he is as slimy as the DNA labs who perform DNA tests with contaminated equipment for their own profit).

Also, it is reported that Darlie Kee and her son-in-law allegedly cut a deal with Mulder may have ultimately helped seal Darlie Routier’s fate.
Quote-" As part of the alleged bargain, Mulder agreed to deviate from Parks’ and Huff’s defense strategy in one key area: he would not raise reasonable doubt for Routier by casting suspicion on the only other adult known to have been in the house when the attacks occurred: Darin.
The alleged agreement to protect Darin is detailed in the writ of habeas corpus filed as part of Routier’s appeals process. The writ refers to affidavits by Kee and Darin Routier claiming that there had been such an agreement. “As a result of this promise, Darin and Kee asked Mulder to represent Ms. Routier at trial,” the writ states."

Why would Darlie's mother do this? I am very sure I do not know.


I don't know why the Hood County News is doing this series so late " in the game" so to speak, but they seem determined to show that Darlie Routier may be innocent. I think their series is very well thought out and presented.
I would love to talk to the reporter because I have always thought that Darrin was the killer. I believe Darlie is innocent.
This is my opinion, based upon the hospital photographs of her wounds, the fact that Darrin had a financial stake in choosing Darlie's attorney, that Darlie's high-priced attorneys were less than diligent and competent, that the agreement was signed to not implicate Darrin in any wrong- doing, and the fact that he tried to have his own home burned for insurance money. Oh, and that it is said that Darlie's own mother went to extraordinary measures to protect Darrin from any charges.

I may be mistaken... NONE of us were in that house in Rowlett that night!!
I know a lot of Texans and those who know of the crime outside Texas feel strongly and have very deep emotions about Darlie's guilt. I have just as strong emotions about her innocence. Just as I believe totally that Casey Anthony is solely responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony and that justice was not carried out, I believe that Darlie Routier is not a murderer, did not harm her sons in any way and is probably going to die for a crime she didn't commit, barring a miracle.

There has never been any evidence that Darin tried to have his house burned for insurance. Six years after Darlie's conviction, Darin 'remembered' at the prodding of Darlie's stepfather, that he had once mentioned trying to have his house robbed and then collect insurance on the furniture. Once the insurance had been collected, Darin would then have the furniture brought back into the house. Darin says he thinks he mentioned this to someone at a bar, but can't remember the bar or the person.