Hi, I'm pretty new to the site. Have read the transcripts of the court case and watched the Leeza show. I have been left with some questions.
Did emotion lead the jury to find Darlie guilty? Did the media and the public opinion in Texas sway the jury to find this woman guilty to close the case? To get a resolution?
I honestly entered into the transcripts with an open mind. I live in the UK. I hadn't heard of the case before I found this site. I had no feelings one way or the other. But I don't feel that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie Routier killed the children.
Their motives were all supposition. From money worries to depression to being a self-centred mercenary, all these were alleged, none were ever conclusively proved.
I don't get the murder/suicide thing. If she wanted to kill herself why cut her own throat? Why not hang herself once the children were dead. Darin says he woke when the glass was smashed. So she could have left the house and jumped off a bridge or something if she wanted to die. And if she wasn't intending to die then she was very lucky she didn't cut that extra millimetre or so into her carotid artery.
The prosecution haven't answered how the sock got in the alleyway. If Damon could live about 8 minutes with the injuries he sustained then how did Darlie get that sock out there, get back, phone 911 and have the paramedic there when he saw the light go out in Damon's eyes? It's a very tight timescale.
Did the LE focus on Darlie and Darren from the word go? Did they just plough on, looking for any evidence they could to try and show Darlie did it?
I can't feel comfortable with Darlie sitting on Death Row when there is, for me, reasonable doubt. The only expert witness who spoke with any certainty about the injuries to Darlie Routier being self-inflicted or not was a defence witness saying they weren't.
I'd love to know more about this case and am going to read more. But my initial feelings are that IF Darlie Routier is guilty of the murders then the prosecution hasn't proved it beyond reasonable doubt for me.
Their motives were all supposition. From money worries to depression to being a self-centred mercenary, all these were alleged, none were ever conclusively proved.
The state has no burden to prove a motive. They don't know why Darlie killed her kids any more than we do. They follow where the evidence leads.
The prosecution haven't answered how the sock got in the alleyway. If Damon could live about 8 minutes with the injuries he sustained then how did Darlie get that sock out there, get back, phone 911 and have the paramedic there when he saw the light go out in Damon's eyes? It's a very tight timescale.
Absolutely not, it's only the defence that is stuck with a time line. Damon was stabbed two separate times and stabbed in two separate areas of the room and it is the second group of stabbings he received over by the wall where the paramedic treated him that starts the 9:00 minute time line. The sock was already in the alley by that time.
I can't feel comfortable with Darlie sitting on Death Row when there is, for me, reasonable doubt. The only expert witness who spoke with any certainty about the injuries to Darlie Routier being self-inflicted or not was a defence witness saying they weren't.
Have you read the expert's cross by the State? And he was not the only expert witness. He was a paid defence witness, paid for his testimony. He is a coroner, he's not even a blood expert. You need to read the trial transcripts and not rely on Darlie's website. As the state noted, the doctors who treated Darlie are in a better position to assess the injuries and whether they appear self-inflicted or not. Certainly her wounds were no where near fatal like the boys were. Oh I know everyone goes on about the knife almost hitting her carotid artery, but it didn't so instead of focusing on what the knife didn't hit we should focus on what it did and it missed all the vital organs, just cutting the bleeder veins and into the fat under the skin.
Q. Doctor, that is not the question I
3 asked you. They were there, weren't they?
4 A. Right, yes, sir, they were.
5 Q. Okay. They performed the surgery on
6 her neck, didn't they, Dr. DiMaio?
7 A. Yes, sir. And I'm basing my opinion
8 on their description of it.
9 Q. They saw the wound opened and operated
10 on it?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. So wouldn't they be the better judge
13 of just how serious that injury was?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Okay. Now, as far as your opinion
16 about the defendant self-inflicting these wounds, are you
17 saying that it is impossible, that it couldn't have
18 happened?
19 A. No. What I'm saying is, that based
20 upon their location and their path, and the nature of the
21 wounds, it is more probable, the term I used, that it's
22 inflicted by someone else. Anything is possible, but I
23 am saying in this case, it's not probable.
24 Q. Okay. And as far as the neck wound,
25 you were talking about -- well, how would you describe
1 the neck wound? Is it -- it's a pretty long wound, I
2 guess, wouldn't you say?
3 A. It looks to be about three inches or
4 so, the primary wound.
5 Q. Okay. Have you actually gotten to
6 examine her scar?
Dr Vincent DiMaio
2 Q. Now, defensive wounds, you said that
3 you usually see those on the palms of the hand, don't
4 you?
5 A. No, I said the original description of
6 them is on the palms of the hand, but you will get them
7 on the palms of the hands, and on the back of the
8 forearms, even on the back of the other arms. We have
9 had people lying on the ground who have put their legs up
10 and have gotten them actually in their legs.
11 All that a defense wound means, is
12 that it is a wound incurred, in an extremity, in an
13 attempt to ward off an attacker.
14 Q. And it's just natural to put your
15 hands up and that kind of thing, to block off blows,
16 knife or blunt trauma?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And you will often see, for instance,
19 in a knife attack, wounds to the palms of the hand?
20 A. Well, the fingers and palms, yes, sir.
21 Q. And they can be quite deep?
22 A. They can be deep, yes, sir.
23 Q. Cut to the bone often, don't they?
24 A. They can be, yes, sir.
25 Q. Now, this particular wound to Mrs.
1 Routier's hand, that is not a very deep wound, is it?
2 A. No, it's a very superficial -- there's
3 actually three of them, but I think it's probably one
4 swipe, but they're very superficial.
5 Q. Extremely superficial?
6 A. Yes, sir.
http://​www.routiertranscripts.com/​transcripts/volumes/​vol-43.php#4
Did emotion lead the jury to find Darlie guilty? Did the media and the public opinion in Texas sway the jury to find this woman guilty to close the case? To get a resolution?
Isn't that what people like to believe when they think someone is not guilty? If you're read the transcripts, the you must have read the voir dire and the death penalty qualifiers. Why do you just assume the jury was swayed by public opinion? The state did a good job putting this case together for the jury. The jury sat through all the evidence, heard all the witnesses including Ms. Routier. Darlie was a terrible witness in her own defence.She got caught in her web of lies in the witness box. So did her husand Darin. The jury heard all that and they don't like to be lied to. Would you if you were a juror?
I don't believe Darlie should have received the DP either, life in prison would be just fine. But then again, I don't live in the US either and it's not my call to make.
It doesn't matter if any of us believe there is reasonable doubt. The jury didn't and the appellate courts have upheld the conviction. I don't see any in this case at all but it's because I know the blood evidence and it all points at Darlie. Intruders don't usually clean up before they leave and there was a clean up. Anyway we are way beyond the trial now. Because she claims innocence, Darlie must prove with clear and convincing evidence there was an intruder in her home that night.
Why isn't any of her blood on the sock? Why is only her dna in the toe section of the sock from skin cells? It was Darin's sock, he claimed it as his. Where is the intruder's dna on the sock?
Why is the boys' blood on the front and back shoulders of her nightgown? If she was tending her boys, wouldn't we expect blood on the lower quadrants of the nightshirt?
She has now been granted the rights to further testing on some of the evidence. That's what we are waiting for..the new dna tests. If they don't give her relief, she will be executed. I hope that doesn't happen and that her sentence is commuted but she will have to admit what she did for that to happen.
:seeya:
