Darlie's "Hypnosis"

No. 1:

These are as follows: Darlie reports that she had fallen asleep on the couch in the living room with two boys sleeping on the floor. The lights were off except for the light from the big screen TV in the living room. Darlie reports she awoke and had trouble breathing, as if something was blocking her airflow. She also felt pressure and pain in her legs with the pressure holding her down. She reports that she saw two men, but not anyone she knew. On man who was on and over her was described as big and very black, very dark. The other man she could not see clearly because of the lack of light, but felt that he was probably not white because he seemed darker than a white man. The other man she reports seeing bending over Devon, and holding him down when Devon was trying to come to her. Darlie reports that she was trying to get away. In her struggle, she fell off the couch on to Damon who was asleep on the floor next to the couch. She reports Damon awoke when she fell on him. The man was trying to pull her up. He began stabbing at Damon and Darlie tried to stop him but could not. Darlie was pulled back onto the couch and felt pain in her groin, feeling it might be his knee; and pressure on her chest, feeling it might be his head. She remembers the man making noises, but does not know what, other than that he said “shut up .” She reports the man smell of smoke and had lots of small braids. He had a cap on his head with the brim forward. The only other sound Darlie reported during this session that she heard glass breaking she could not be sure where, but felt that it might be in the living room.

Thank you for posting that Jeana!

One of our members was kind enough to retype this and Casshew was kind enough to host it. The entire thing can be viewed at:

http://www.casshew.com/darliehistory.htm

So, where does it go from here?

mrs4point0 said:

So, where does it go from here?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry - where does what go from here? The case?

Jeana (DP) said:

I'm sorry - where does what go from here? The case?

Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry. I haven't really kept up with this case. I realize she's in prison, but what's the point of hypnosis and all?

mrs4point0 said:

Yeah, sorry. I haven't really kept up with this case. I realize she's in prison, but what's the point of hypnosis and all?

Click to expand...

Presumably the hypnosis was to get a better description of the person she claimed did this to her sons and herself. That way her lawyers could investigate and prove she didn't do it and therefore be let out of prison.

Darlie starts off in the 911 tape with a "they," a "them," "somebody, "some man" and back to "they."

Darlie's versions go from:
1) Damon pressing on her right shoulder and heard him cry,
2) Damon runs into my right shoulder and says "mommy."
3) Damon hitting my right shoulder, and he said "Mommie", or he said "Mommie, Mommie,"
4) she heard Damon going "Mommie, Mommie". He leaned on her saying,"Mommie, Mommie"
5) she felt Damon touch her on the shoulder and woke her up. He was saying mommie, mommie, mommie
6) Damon woke her up by crying.

IN THE HYPNOSIS: Darlie fell off the couch on to Damon who was asleep on the floor next to the couch. Damon awoke when she fell on him."


Darlie's other versions go from 1) she woke up with the intruder over the to of her 2) she felt pressure on her legs and she woke up, the man sitting on top of her.

Darlie hypnosis: 1) she woke up with trouble breathing and with pressure and pain in her legs.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the discrepancy in the variations that much. People can't always use the same exact wording every time in a statement, especially after a traumatic event like that one. For instance, from Damon touching her on the shoulder, or running into her shoulder, how would she know the exact way, if she was just waking up. And then, from the man lying on top of her, to feeling the pressure on her legs, how is that different? She admits that she was not fully awake, isn't sure about the exact timing of each step, so what can law enforcement expect?

I don't know whether Darlie is guilty or not. All I am saying is that I read through all 16 versions on the other thread, and they don't vary all that much. The point is that due to the stress, the trauma of losing her sons, and having to repeat about 100 times, she could not be expected to get it exact every time!

Jeana (DP) said:

One of our members was kind enough to retype this and Casshew was kind enough to host it. The entire thing can be viewed at:

http://www.casshew.com/darliehistory.htm

Click to expand...

Thank you to all involved -- it is MUCH appreciated!

TexasLadyBlue said:

I'm sorry, but I don't see the discrepancy in the variations that much. People can't always use the same exact wording every time in a statement, especially after a traumatic event like that one. For instance, from Damon touching her on the shoulder, or running into her shoulder, how would she know the exact way, if she was just waking up. And then, from the man lying on top of her, to feeling the pressure on her legs, how is that different? She admits that she was not fully awake, isn't sure about the exact timing of each step, so what can law enforcement expect?

I don't know whether Darlie is guilty or not. All I am saying is that I read through all 16 versions on the other thread, and they don't vary all that much. The point is that due to the stress, the trauma of losing her sons, and having to repeat about 100 times, she could not be expected to get it exact every time!

Click to expand...

I don't know whether she's guilty or not, either. We can't guage that based on these 'discrepancies.' Remember the discrepancies in John Mason's statements to the media? I sure do. His actions and words did seem as though he had something to hide (to me, anyway). There were variations in his stories, and he was innocent of any wrong-doing.

mrs4point0 said:

I don't know whether she's guilty or not, either. We can't guage that based on these 'discrepancies.' Remember the discrepancies in John Mason's statements to the media? I sure do. His actions and words did seem as though he had something to hide (to me, anyway). There were variations in his stories, and he was innocent of any wrong-doing.

Click to expand...

I agree mrs4point0. If we were to play judge and jury based upon statement discrepancies...we'd all be in trouble. I realize Darlie has already been tried, but I feel that she wasn't given a fair shake. I just don't believe the entire story and ALL of the pictures were presented properly to the jury. At the very least, she deserves another trial. What is the state of Texas so afraid of? If she's truly guilty and they have enough evidence, why not grant her the new trial? There is something fishy there. Way too often, our 'justice' system is off.

The discrepancies are just a part of the whole picture.

However, Darlie's versions of ONE person committing this crime morphs to TWO persons committing this crime, a vague description to yet another description and then another, then claiming it was a neighbor, those are big discrepancies. To go from those descriptions of those perps to now claiming it was Darrin is yet another discrepancy. So which was it Darlie? Was it one, two unknown perps, was it the neighbor as she claimed to some, was it Darrin. She can't make up her mind. From her point of view it's got to be someone other than HER.

Darlie's version of just how she woke up, with Damon pushing her arm or calling to her is a big difference from falling on HIM and waking HIM up versus him waking HER up. She can't have it both ways. It was one way or the other.

Darlie's versions from 1) waking up and seeing the man walking away to 2) waking up fighting 3) waking up with pressure on her are another big discrepancy. Even in retelling the story over and over again, a person is going to remember the majority of the time the main events as they remember them. Smaller details, those can get changed, but overall the main event of what you remember, although maybe with some variation is going to pretty much stay the same.

mollymalone said:

The discrepancies are just a part of the whole picture.

However, Darlie's versions of ONE person committing this crime morphs to TWO persons committing this crime, a vague description to yet another description and then another, then claiming it was a neighbor, those are big discrepancies. To go from those descriptions of those perps to now claiming it was Darrin is yet another discrepancy. So which was it Darlie? Was it one, two unknown perps, was it the neighbor as she claimed to some, was it Darrin. She can't make up her mind. From her point of view it's got to be someone other than HER.

Darlie's version of just how she woke up, with Damon pushing her arm or calling to her is a big difference from falling on HIM and waking HIM up versus him waking HER up. She can't have it both ways. It was one way or the other.

Darlie's versions from 1) waking up and seeing the man walking away to 2) waking up fighting 3) waking up with pressure on her are another big discrepancy. Even in retelling the story over and over again, a person is going to remember the majority of the time the main events as they remember them. Smaller details, those can get changed, but overall the main event of what you remember, although maybe with some variation is going to pretty much stay the same.

Click to expand...

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. She claims she was misquoted on the 911 tape as well. Yes, there are discrepancies in her versions, BUT how many people go through traumatic events and remember everything without discrepancies? Look at soldiers during war...one can tell one version....yet another will tell a completely different point of view...the human mind acts differently under extreme stress. Imagine waking up to blood ALL OVER your living room, your two boys have been stabbed, and you have been slashed to within a millimeter of your life....WOULD YOU remember everything perfectly? There are times when our minds shut out these traumatic details to keep us from going insane. Heck, look at JFK's assassination, you have tons of eyewitnesses...yet there are different versions to that story. Are we to believe those people are all nuts? It DOES happen.
What is the state of Texas so afraid of?? If they had a perfect case...why be afraid to present the full story to a jury in this day? Many legal analysts have said that had Darlie and Darin retained a lawyer asap...instead of offering to come in and speak with police repeatedly...she would NOT be sitting on death row right now. A past juror has said that had he been shown those pictures of Darlie's injuries, he WOULD NOT have voted guilty. Had the jury NOT been from such a conservative area...she WOULD HAVE had a fairer trial. Ok, so why not give her that now? She's been sitting on death row for years now. If she's guilty, they have nothing to lose. If she isn't...ALL HELL would break loose. For me, there are too many questionable issues at hand. Give the woman another trial.

Pocono Sleuther said:

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. She claims she was misquoted on the 911 tape as well.

Click to expand...

It wasn't frightened... if it was fright'anything' it was frightening. You can clearly hear the 'ing' at the end of that word. In other words she claims she said 'I woke up... I was frightening'.

Yes, there are discrepancies in her versions, BUT how many people go through traumatic events and remember everything without discrepancies?

Click to expand...

Slight discrepancies- understandable. But Darlie story shifts and changes with the wind. For example, when do we first hear about the fact that she spent so much of the time whilst on 911 running around wetting towels in the sink? Does she tell the police during her interviews? Does she write it in her voluntary report? Nope. First time she mentions it is when she sees they have taken everything including the kitchen sink for forensic testing. I don't think anyone is claiming that Darlie must have a perfect memory of the events... but it is only fair to expect that if she was telling the truth she would not contradict herself as much as she does, or progressively elaborate on her story as new evidence comes up which needs to be answered.

What is the state of Texas so afraid of?? If they had a perfect case...why be afraid to present the full story to a jury in this day?

Click to expand...

The State presented the case against Darlie Routier for the murder of Damon. The jury convicted her. I can't see that the State is afraid of anything... except perhaps setting a precedent whereby a convicted murderer can get a new trial just because they feel they don't like the outcome of the first. What exactly do you think the jury missed out on hearing? What more was there to the story that the jury did not hear?

A past juror has said that had he been shown those pictures of Darlie's injuries, he WOULD NOT have voted guilty.

Click to expand...

Both the prosecution and the defense team have absolutely confirmed (on the record) that all of those photos were entered into evidence. None were hidden from the jury.

With respect to that as well smething that I've thought of in the past (but not sure if it follows the procedure of entering things into evidence in court) is that we have access to the photos in MTJD. CWB who published the photos in MTJD copied them from the evidence files of the court. If they weren't entered into evidence at the trial then how did he get his hands on them to suddenly reveal this 'big secret'? As I said maybe I don't understand the system??

Had the jury NOT been from such a conservative area...she WOULD HAVE had a fairer trial.

Click to expand...

Why?? Because conservative folk can't weigh and measure the evidence like their less conservative peers??

She's been sitting on death row for years now. If she's guilty, they have nothing to lose. If she isn't...ALL HELL would break loose. For me, there are too many questionable issues at hand. Give the woman another trial.

Click to expand...

On what premise??? The fact that it wasn't proven beyond all doubt? In that case you folks over there in the States are going to be busy for the forseeable future giving everyone who has ever been convicted despite some small doubt a new trial.

It simply doesn't work that way. The evidence was presented to the jury. They convicted her. The burden of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt... so what evidence is there that you think provides reasonable doubt? I don't mean to sound blunt- but the reality is that most people who want Darlie to have a new trial stop there and refuse to go so far as to explain what they think provides reasonable doubt in this case.

Like I said before, I'm rusty on this case. I chose my screen name so I don't have to begin or end everything I type with IMO, or whatever people use to remind others not to get offended with what is purely opinion. I should probaby start and end all my posts with: "from what I can remember..." because I have the memory of an advanced Alzheimer's patient. Having said all that, reasonable doubt for me is:

1. an unidentified, bloody, partial, fingerprint on the sofa table in the living room

see story: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...w_to_the_credibility_of_fingerprint_evidence/

sorry, I couldn't find the recent story that was in the news...yesterday,maybe?

2. unidentified blood and/or prints on the door from the house to the garage

3. police photographs of a clearly altered crime scene (e.g. see sink with and without cleaning supplies)

4. a police detective that chooses to TAKE THE FIFTH on the stand so that he doesn't incriminate himself

5. police stating that mulch was disturbed under the window with no mulch

6. an unexplained bloody sock 75 yards from crime scene

7. a decision not to search the people and dark car stopped minutes after the crime

Add to this reasonable doubt:

1. a prosecutor that says when he saw the silly string video, he knew Darlie was guilty

2. a juror that admits the jury did not thoroughly examine ALL the evidence, but chose to focus on a small clip of video taken from a long day at the cemetery

3. mock trials - rehearsals of witnesses prior to the trial testimony

4. a defense attorney who clearly botched the defense of this client

I know I'm leaving a lot out. But add it all up and look at the whole picture: Darlie Routier deserves a new trial.

I've been redecorating our bedroom most of the day, so didn't get a chance to respond to your post. Now I see accordn2me did it for me...:clap: . I ditto all she said and will continue to state that I believe Darlie deserves a new trial. I also believe, but this is a whole other can of worms, that this country's justice system needs to make amends for women that do suffer from postpartum depression. I'm not saying this is applicable in this case, just that it is needed. I believe there are alot of updates needed to the justice system. You are speaking your side and I am speaking mine. I've been researching this case alot lately and I can say, imho, she deserves to be heard. Yes, that's right, she has a right to be heard. I'd love to see some fresh media eyes on this case. I'd love to see newer interviews done as well. I just do not believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State made it's case. And my statement about conservative jurors...you mean to tell me that playing of Gangsta's Paradise wasn't aimed AT them being conservative???! Trials are a game for the most part...one side makes their move...then the other side makes their move...the State counted on the conservative Texas folk disliking this mother regardless of her crime...they KNEW good ole fashioned southern sense would not play well with this showy, breast implanted, bleached blonde, bikini thong wearing, mother of three. I'm not positive she's innocent. Just as you aren't truly 100% positive she's guilty. I do feel that she's innocent though. I really do.

Hi,

Only have a couple of minutes so in brief (maybe someone else can pick up on what I skim over here)

accordn2me said:

1. an unidentified, bloody, partial, fingerprint on the sofa table in the living room

Click to expand...

Experts have compared that print to everyone who was at the scene that night and the only person they cannot rule out is Darlie.

Furthermore the defense's own expert has shown that the print most likely belonged to Darlie. Professor Jantz did an anthropological study on the print (you can read the results in his affidavits) and the end result is that the print was twice as likely to belong to a woman than a male.

4. a police detective that chooses to TAKE THE FIFTH on the stand so that he doesn't incriminate himself

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the evidence that implicates Darlie?

5. police stating that mulch was disturbed under the window with no mulch

Click to expand...

A correction which was brought up at trial in the hearing of the jury

6. an unexplained bloody sock 75 yards from crime scene

Click to expand...

Which is as suggestive of Darlie as the killer as it is of a mysterious and unknown intruder. The sock in now way provides reasonable doubt for Darlie.

7. a decision not to search the people and dark car stopped minutes after the crime

Click to expand...

Not true.

11 Q. All right. You got everyone out?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. How was the lighting out there at that
14 location where you had these people out?
15 A. It was pretty good. There was a
16 street light nearby.
17 Q. All right. What did you do -- once
18 you got them out, what did you have them do?
19 A. I had them place their hands on the
20 front of the car, so that I could check them for weapons.
21 I checked them for weapons and I checked the interior of
22 the vehicle for anything relating to this crime. I
23 identified them.
24 Q. Okay. Let me ask you: Did any of
25 these people in this automobile -- let's talk about the
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
514
1 three males. That's what you were looking for, a male,
2 correct?
3 A. Yes, sir, white male.
4 Q. Any of the two white males then match
5 the description that you had been given?
6 A. No, sir, both were wearing
7 light-colored shirts.
8 Q. Okay. Wearing light-colored shirts?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Either of them wearing ball caps?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. Did you look at the occupants to see
13 whether you could see any blood on any of these
14 occupants?
15 A. Yes, sir, I looked individually at
16 each one, made them show me their hands, front and back.
17 I looked up and down their clothes, checked their shoes
18 by looking at them.
19 Q. What did you see?
20 A. I didn't find anything.
21 Q. How about the outside of the vehicle?
22 A. I examined it and I didn't find
23 anything.
24 Q. All right. Did you look inside the
25 vehicle?
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
515

1 A. Yes, sir, I did.
2 Q. Did you see any blood inside the car?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Okay. How about any clothing? Did
5 you find any dark T-shirts, any ball caps, any other
6 clothing inside the car?
7 A. No, sir, I didn't.

1. a prosecutor that says when he saw the silly string video, he knew Darlie was guilty

Click to expand...

Yes, a prosecutor who right up until that point had been privy to all the evidence piled up against her (not forgetting that significant evidence was held back in the event that they needed to retry her). Her behaviour at the grave side was a clincher in addition to everything he already knew. He didn't look at it in a vaccum.

2. a juror that admits the jury did not thoroughly examine ALL the evidence, but chose to focus on a small clip of video taken from a long day at the cemetery

Click to expand...

So says the juror who has been contradicted by the defense themselves. I don't recall him saying they decided to just watch the video over and over and forget all the other evidence. All he said was that he didn't see the photos of her injuries- a fact which has been opposed by everyone else who was in that courtroom (with perhaps the exception of Barbara Davis). Yes, they watched the video a good number of times. But they were in that jury room for far longer than it took to watch it 8 times over.

3. mock trials - rehearsals of witnesses prior to the trial testimony

Click to expand...

A practice instituted by Darlies very own defense counsel. Do you really think he didn't do likewise??? People who are about to testify are constantly called in to go over their testimony.[/quote]

4. a defense attorney who clearly botched the defense of this client

Click to expand...

He did? He was the best criminal defense attorney in Texas at the time and incredibly highly regarded. Why would a top attorney put a halt to the testing of certain bits of evidence? Not because he thought that the results were going to clear his client obviously. Mulder was not some fresh faced recent law graduate. It never ceases to amaze me that people are so willing to say that such a highly regarded and qualified attorney screwed up majorily in the most basic of fashions instead of stopping to think "Hmmm. Hang on. Wonder why he didn't introduce that as evidence... or why he stopped the testing on that...".

But add it all up and look at the whole picture: Darlie Routier deserves a new trial.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I still don't see on what basis she deserves a new trial (although in some ways I would like her to have a new one because then maybe some of the questions which have plagued some of us for years would be answered). The evidence was presented to the jury. The jury looked at the evidence and came back with a guilty verdict.

You are speaking your side and I am speaking mine. I've been researching this case alot lately and I can say, imho, she deserves to be heard.

Click to expand...

She's been heard. Over and over and over again. And suprise suprise, everytime we hear her her story changes.

you mean to tell me that playing of Gangsta's Paradise wasn't aimed AT them being conservative???!

Click to expand...

So?? Darlie played it at the graveside! Are you saying it is normal kind of song to play at the graves of your murdered 5 and 6 year old boys?? Conservative or radical it was still a bizzare choice. And in any case I seriously doubt that the song had any direct impact on the verdict. The evidence did that.

I do feel that she's innocent though. I really do.

Click to expand...

I can understand that and I respect it. But instead of just looking at the same old things which the supporters trot out again and again despite continued answers from those who believe she is guilty where do you think things like a complete lack of any evidence of an intruder, the screen fibre on the knife, the bloody imprint on the carpet etc fit in?

Hey Dani,

WOW! for only having a couple of minutes, you sure got a lot in there. You must be very familiar with this case. Well, it's been a very long and very stressful day at work. I'm no match for you, presently. :truce: Probably not ever! I just don't have the time. So for real, just a couple of things:

It's a pitiful shame if Mulder was the best defense attorney in Texas at the time. Maybe he was on another case, another time, but not this one. You know who's fault it is that juror, and Barbara Davis, didn't see the photographs of Darlies bruises? Mulder's fault. If Mulder were worth the paper his law degree is printed on, those jurors would still be seeing Darlie's bruises in their dreams. They would have seen every photograph in evidence of the bruises - magnified on a huge screen - several times. They would have been taken through a compare and contrast of the nurses testimony which contradicted their written notes. They would have seen photographs of the scene one way - like it was found, then the way it was after police moved things around. But which was which? Look at the record - numbered photographs? NO! Mulder should have hammered every police screw up until the jury had it memorized. Mulder should have pointed out the unidentified prints. They were, after all, right there in evidence. The boys hands were bagged, yet they were not fingerprinted? Did Mulder mention that? Mulder missed a lot.

And you're telling me it was MULDER who started the practice of using mock trials! So, he couldn't scream to high heaven that witnesses are not allowed to hear each other's testimony during the trial, it stands to reason a mock trial would not be allowed either. But since he was crooked and used it, it came back to haunt DARLIE. One thing I'm certain of, Darlie did not have the benefit of a mock trial.

If Mulder were not riding high on the respect the fine citizens of Texas have for him - what the hell did he do to impress y'all that much - Darlie could get a new trial based on incompetent defense. He didn't do a damn thing to properly represent that girl.

Pocono Sleuther said:

Darlie has said she was misquoted in this version. She says she said she 'woke up frightened'....not fighting. She claims she was misquoted on the 911 tape as well.

Click to expand...

Hmm that must be a new claim. She has always claimed she said "I woke up I was frightening" You can clearly here an "in" sound and not an "ed" sound.

She says on the 911 tape she "woke up, I was fighting him" but with her Texas accent she cuts off the g in fighting and the h in him so it sounds like "fightin im" Just as she says "yes m" to the operator several times.