some questions...

AlwaysHope · Oct 7, 2005

I followed the Peterson case, but i didn't really know about this one until i came to the board... I have read alot about this in here, but do have some thoughts and questions.

I guess i don't know why everyone thinks she is guilty. i have read some pretty good articles, and it could be just the way they are written, but she sounds innocent.

A few people say she is gulity because of how she grieved... But, i guess there isn't a wrong or right way to grieve. I just can't believe a mother could do that to her child... I don't know...

I am having a real hard time with this..

If anyone could help me understand this case more... i'd appreciate it!

Thanks!
Always

AutumnBorn · Oct 7, 2005

I don't necessarily think she's guilty. I'm not sure, but am always opposed to the death penalty.

The sock is one issue that has me concerned. And the bruising on her arms is extreme. (I've had two major surgeries and have NEVER experienced bruising like that.)

On the side of her guilt, her statement to a friend that she knew the killer (paraphrasing) was not a good sign. Her testamony in general was bad.

j2mirish · Oct 7, 2005

AutumnBorn said:
I don't necessarily think she's guilty. I'm not sure, but am always opposed to the death penalty.

The sock is one issue that has me concerned. And the bruising on her arms is extreme. (I've had two major surgeries and have NEVER experienced bruising like that.)

On the side of her guilt, her statement to a friend that she knew the killer (paraphrasing) was not a good sign. Her testamony in general was bad.

worse than bad.............:banghead:

Dani_T · Oct 8, 2005

AlwaysHope said:
I followed the Peterson case, but i didn't really know about this one until i came to the board... I have read alot about this in here, but do have some thoughts and questions.

I guess i don't know why everyone thinks she is guilty. i have read some pretty good articles, and it could be just the way they are written, but she sounds innocent.

A few people say she is gulity because of how she grieved... But, i guess there isn't a wrong or right way to grieve. I just can't believe a mother could do that to her child... I don't know...

I am having a real hard time with this..

If anyone could help me understand this case more... i'd appreciate it!

Thanks!
Always

Hi Always,

It's hard to accept that a mother could do this and so I understand why you are having a hard time- I was the same when I started reading up on the case. I also have personally but little to no store in the whole 'she didn't grieve properly' line because I agree that that is very subjective.

However, the reality is that there are mothers who HAVE done it and who will continue to do it. Like any jury we have to go with the facts and the evidence of the case.

A lot of the articles I am sure you have been reading have either not spoken much about the evidence and instead just played the 'loving mother languishing on death row for a crime she didn't commit' card. Or otherwise they will have selectively picked the evidence they want you to know about or put a lot of emphasis on 'new evidence' (of which there is none that we know of).

Whilst there is STACKS of bits of evidence which I hope you will get to know in the next little while the things that clinch it for me are:

On the bread knife in the block in the kitchen were two forensic trace evidence pieces which were BOTH mircoscopically identical in every way (and the identifying factors were VERY specific) to what was produced if you used that knife to cut through the window screen which was identified as point of entry.

Secondly, Darlie has persistently claimed that she saw the intruder throw the knife down in the utility room which is a lino flooring. There would HAVE to be some spatter if the knife had hit the floor (tests done by experts confirmed this). Even if it had been laid on the floor (rather than tossed down) it should have left some sort of blood transfer. It didn't.

Thirdly, there is a 'outline' of a knife on the carpet in the living room which is very heavy with blood at the tip. Expert testimony has confirmed that the only way that amount of blood could have gathered on the tip of the knife was if someone was holding it whilst bleeding fairly profusely down their arm allowing the blood to collect at the tip of the knife. The intruder left NO blood anywhere along his exit path. None of his blood was found in the house either. I really wish they would tell us whose blood was predominantly at the tip of that outline because I think it would clinch it. Maybe that is something they are holding back just in case they need to retry her or try her for Devon's murder (not likely!).

And there is of course LOTS of other convincing pieces of evidence- not the last of which is the credibility of her own testimony. Others on here will no doubt find certain other bits of evidence compelling also.

All I can advise you is to look BEYOND the 'image' and instead look to the evidence and facts of the case. If you read something in an article then verify it with the transcripts or feel free to ask one of us if we know anything about it.

j2mirish · Oct 8, 2005

Dani_T said:
Hi Always,

It's hard to accept that a mother could do this and so I understand why you are having a hard time- I was the same when I started reading up on the case. I also have personally but little to no store in the whole 'she didn't grieve properly' line because I agree that that is very subjective.

However, the reality is that there are mothers who HAVE done it and who will continue to do it. Like any jury we have to go with the facts and the evidence of the case.

A lot of the articles I am sure you have been reading have either not spoken much about the evidence and instead just played the 'loving mother languishing on death row for a crime she didn't commit' card. Or otherwise they will have selectively picked the evidence they want you to know about or put a lot of emphasis on 'new evidence' (of which there is none that we know of).

Whilst there is STACKS of bits of evidence which I hope you will get to know in the next little while the things that clinch it for me are:

On the bread knife in the block in the kitchen were two forensic trace evidence pieces which were BOTH mircoscopically identical in every way (and the identifying factors were VERY specific) to what was produced if you used that knife to cut through the window screen which was identified as point of entry.

Secondly, Darlie has persistently claimed that she saw the intruder throw the knife down in the utility room which is a lino flooring. There would HAVE to be some spatter if the knife had hit the floor (tests done by experts confirmed this). Even if it had been laid on the floor (rather than tossed down) it should have left some sort of blood transfer. It didn't.

Thirdly, there is a 'outline' of a knife on the carpet in the living room which is very heavy with blood at the tip. Expert testimony has confirmed that the only way that amount of blood could have gathered on the tip of the knife was if someone was holding it whilst bleeding fairly profusely down their arm allowing the blood to collect at the tip of the knife. The intruder left NO blood anywhere along his exit path. None of his blood was found in the house either. I really wish they would tell us whose blood was predominantly at the tip of that outline because I think it would clinch it. Maybe that is something they are holding back just in case they need to retry her or try her for Devon's murder (not likely!).

And there is of course LOTS of other convincing pieces of evidence- not the last of which is the credibility of her own testimony. Others on here will no doubt find certain other bits of evidence compelling also.

All I can advise you is to look BEYOND the 'image' and instead look to the evidence and facts of the case. If you read something in an article then verify it with the transcripts or feel free to ask one of us if we know anything about it.

very well writtten.....

CyberLaw · Oct 8, 2005

When you view all of the evidence, both circumstantial and forensic it adds up to a whole. You view all of the evidence, not just selective pieces.......

The brusing was "determined" to have had happened after the crime........not during.......Darlie and Darin "created" brusing to "enhance" their story.........

Goody · Oct 9, 2005

AlwaysHope said:
A few people say she is gulity because of how she grieved... But, i guess there isn't a wrong or right way to grieve.

Did you think there was something wrong with the way Scott Peterson grieved for his wife and baby, esp at the memorial service when he was fantasizng about being in Paris with a mistress on the phone just a few feet away from the services? Liken that to Darlie dancing and spraying silly string all over her boys' graves just days after their horrific deaths, hamming it up for the cameras she knew were there.

AlwaysHope said:
I just can't believe a mother could do that to her child... I don't know...

Most of us can't, but we all know that some mothers do...like Susan Smith, Diane Downs, Debra Milke, and some say Julie Rea Harper just to name a few.

AlwaysHope said:
I am having a real hard time with this..

If anyone could help me understand this case more... i'd appreciate it!

Thanks!
Always

There are many, many things that tell me that she is guilty. The things that Dani listed are pretty solid evidence. That and the droplets on the shoulders of her nightshirt, which was cast off from the knife as she raised it to stab them again. There is no other explanation for how those droplets of blood from the boys got there, in the size and shape they were.

And the obvious lies she told as she testifed. An innocent mother would have no reason to lie the way she did. It was obvious that she was so afraid she'd trip herself up that she thought her safest bet was to plead "I don't remember." I believe she did remember and does to this day. She is just alluding herself with the hope that she will beat this thing before it is over, but that is not going to happen.

Once you are open to the idea that she is guilty, you will amazed at all the little things that pop out at you to support that conclusion. Besides, you cannot follow her story without deadending, no matter what approach you take. If she were telling the truth, at least one path should lead directly to the possibility that she didn't do it. I couldn't find one.

Goody · Oct 9, 2005

CyberLaw said:
The brusing was "determined" to have had happened after the crime........not during.......Darlie and Darin "created" brusing to "enhance" their story.........

Can you imagine being attacked by a big strong mugger/rapist who has a fetish for right arms? He doesn't hit you anywhere but in the arm and can't cut your throat deep enough to cause any real damage, but he beats that one arm ot a pulp! LOL O, I know....maybe the midget second mugger she dug up at the hynosis session two years later held that arm out there for the guy to bang on to cause all those bruises and that is why he never missed and hit her in the face or chest or stomach or leg. If Darlie did create those bruises to make it look like she was attacked, she was very, very foolish to bang up her arms and only her arms.

AlwaysHope · Oct 10, 2005

Goody said:
Did you think there was something wrong with the way Scott Peterson grieved for his wife and baby, esp at the memorial service when he was fantasizng about being in Paris with a mistress on the phone just a few feet away from the services? Liken that to Darlie dancing and spraying silly string all over her boys' graves just days after their horrific deaths, hamming it up for the cameras she knew were there.

Ok... here is where i needed help... i followed the Peterson case and knew he was guilty from the beginning... i did not follow this case, that is why i was asking for help. In an article i read, it stated that they also had a memorial service that was emotional prior to the silly string. (why didn't they show that service when they showed the silly string?) I don't think i would be able to jumo around and spray silly string, but the idea of "celebrating" his life isn't too far fetched for me to believe.

Always

CyberLaw · Oct 10, 2005

The Police had a pretty good idea that she was guilty. One of the techniques used is to place a tape recorder/and or camcorder at a grave site and "record" the deepest "thoughts" of a person who is a parent and may be responsible.

But they did this without a warrant and the "other" film that MAY have shown her to be a "grieving" mother could not be entered into court as it was obtained without a lawful warrant.

But to do what she did at the grave site, even "upset" people that were there while the "first" emotional ceremony was over..........and some of those people were family members.

She was a happy mother, chewing gum, cut off shorts, inviting the news camera's having a good ole time. Even this is at odds with an "emotional" ceremony. Two of her boys are dead and here she is VERY happy and relieved.........

Please........I would need a bed in a psych ward.......

The first ceremony was how she "thought" she was expected to act as a grieving mother, the second was how she actually felt..........

Jeana (DP) · Oct 10, 2005

There was a civil suit filed by the Routiers involving the police department for that. I don't believe it had anything to do with the defense not showing that part of the "ceremony" during the trial though. I'll have to go back because I can't remember off the top of my head why they did not show it. The silly string video was shot by news crews, not the police.

However, believe me when I tell you that there are very many video tapes that show Darlie after crying . . . for herself in prison. They show what I've said from day one:

IF Darlie Routier had been bawling her eyeballs out during any sort of "ceremony" before the "silly string videos" her face would have been red, would have been swollen and would have looked blotchy as it looks in subsequent videos after you see her cry.

Why was that? I can only guess its because, as she said in response to the silly string party "I didn't want to scare any of the children who were invited." So, I guess she was holding it in. Couldn't you tell?

CyberLaw · Oct 10, 2005

Neither side can admit evidence that was illegally obtained, if it helps them or not, it can not be entered as evidence.

The lawsuit that the Routier's probably made against LE most likely had to do with privacy issues and search and seizures and self-imcrimination.

Just a guess........

You ae right about how a person would look after they had an "emotional" ceremony and I am sorry but someone who is actually a grieving mother for real, would find it very hard to just snap out of it and then become really, really happy.......she was not even dressed in repect for her dead son's

Jeana (DP) · Oct 10, 2005

CyberLaw said:
Neither side can admit evidence that was illegally obtained, if it helps them or not, it can not be entered as evidence.

The lawsuit that the Routier's probably made against LE most likely had to do with privacy issues and search and seizures and self-imcrimination.

Just a guess........

You ae right about how a person would look after they had an "emotional" ceremony and I am sorry but someone who is actually a grieving mother for real, would find it very hard to just snap out of it and then become really, really happy.......she was not even dressed in repect for her dead son's

Well see, that's just it. The videotape was not legally obtained. The family was paid so that the media could shoot the birthday party. I'm thinking that entire videotape was taken by that news crew is what we're talking about here.

The family made a big to do about the police "bugging" the graves. I'm thinking there was only audio from that mess. The family sued them civally and then got all up in arms about the cops taking the Fifth on the witness stand. Well DUH! What did they expect? Anyway, that lawsuit was thrown out.

The fact that the video of the memorial service before the cans of silly string were whipped out was brought up, but as I said, I don't remember why that wasn't admitted. Maybe one of the other girls with a better memory (which is all of them) for that stuff can help us out here.

CyberLaw · Oct 10, 2005

If I recall correctly, the media will not pay "for a story" to appear on a newscast, it is news and the person is either newsworthy(like a criminal) or says: I don't want my face shown on TV(they are not consenting) or says: Hey, no problem, or the news media is there by invitation(consent)

It is not like a news cast needs to pay people to increase their ratings......news is in the public domain........

But then again, I don't know about Texas..........

If I further recall correctly, Darlie invited the media to the "party" segment and then gave an interview......she had and still has no idea how the general public saw this, but we do............

I think that Darlie would have wanted the party segment taped and broadcast, as it was what she intended as a "proud" grieving mother who was having a "party" for her two dead kids........this was Darlie, narcassist, self-absorbed, center of attention at her "best"

The media does not record whole events, they only record what is necessary for broadcast, maybe a bit more, but not like 30 minutes, especially if that is not the purpose of them being at the cemetary.......their purpose at the cemetary was by invitation to be a "witness" to this party....

It might be as simple as: The Judge ruling that this portion of the tape was consented to by Darlie because she gave an interview, invited the media, and participated in the "media" event, so now she cannot say: You can't show this, as it has already been in the public eye........

If the Defence could have included the "other" emotional ceremony legally, don't you think they may have done that, just to play the "grieving" mother angle, especially when the Crown (Prosecution) were playing the "happy" mother of two dead boys angle..........

Me thinks they would, especially in a DP case.........but then again I don't know the judicial ruling in this case, nor the rules of evidence in Texas, nor whom had what, or why the Defense choose not to show the "grieving"
mother tape if it was available and could have been legally entered by say a third party who was at the ceremony.

The purpose was a "party",was not an emotional ceremony, certainly not in cut off jeans, chomping on gum, smiling and happy.......for an emotional ceremony I would expect that one would dress for the occassion, in dark colours or a dark dress.

Just like a mother who is accussed of killing her 4 year old child. She went out, drinking, dancing and singing the evening of his funeral.........people have testified to this "odd behaviour" and she is on trial accussed of his death.....being happy after your child dies or the day of his funeral, or a week after their death is just not a normal reaction for a parents who is NOT responsible for the death of their child or children.....

deanws · Oct 10, 2005

http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/samford.html

:banghead: :doh: :bang: What is wrong with this man!?!? :slap:

Goody · Oct 10, 2005

AlwaysHope said:
Goody said:

Did you think there was something wrong with the way Scott Peterson grieved for his wife and baby, esp at the memorial service when he was fantasizng about being in Paris with a mistress on the phone just a few feet away from the services? Liken that to Darlie dancing and spraying silly string all over her boys' graves just days after their horrific deaths, hamming it up for the cameras she knew were there.

Ok... here is where i needed help... i followed the Peterson case and knew he was guilty from the beginning... i did not follow this case, that is why i was asking for help. In an article i read, it stated that they also had a memorial service that was emotional prior to the silly string. (why didn't they show that service when they showed the silly string?) I don't think i would be able to jumo around and spray silly string, but the idea of "celebrating" his life isn't too far fetched for me to believe.

Always

Click to expand...

Darlie's defense wanted to show the memorial service video that police made at the graveside that day, but the judge ruled they could only show the video, and could not play the audio. Mulder (Darlie's atty) underestimated the impact the silly string video would have and opted not to show the video of the memorial service without the audio. (Think he wanted to use it on appeal)

The reason the court ruled no audio is because the defense wanted the cops brought up on charges for illegally bugging the graves. That issue caused the police to plead the fifth until it was resolved, which meant they could no longer testify, and that put the audio in question. If the court had allowed it in and the charges against the police had stuck, the defense could use it on appeal to get a new trial. As it was, the courts ruled that the family had no expectation of privacy at the graveside and the police did not need a warrant because they had gotten permission from the cemetery owner. I am pretty sure I have all those details correct.

In the end, the defense hurt itself by going after the cops because, as I have heard, the police were heard muttering in the background on that tape about Darlie's fine physique. It might very well have been a bit embarrassing to play before the whole country. They probably could have hurt the cops more by saying nothing about the wiretapping and playing it for the jury, creating a sort of low key Mark Furhman moment. But they didn't so they ended up cutting off their nose to spite their face.

But note: The clips I have seen of that service does not have any audio of police comments, so who knows?

As for Darlie celebrating the childrens' lives, I do believe that is what she thought she was doing with the silly string fiasco, but Darlie's problem was that she didn't have real feelings to guide her. She was just mimicking what she thought others might do but wasn't connected enough emotionally to do it right. That's why we see someone who looks more like she is auditioning for a film career than a grieving mother just trying to find some part of her dead children to hold onto.

So while others might spray silly string and hold a birthday party even after the child has passed, their entire approach would have been different, the haunted, painfilled eyes would have been peering back at us because in spite of all the effort to lift up the mood, nothing could erase the sheer horror of two bloodied children who were butchered right before your eyes in the middle of the night in your own home. Darlie's eyes sparkled as if she had not a care in the world. Indeed, a part of her at that point in time, I believe, didn't. I think she thought everyone was buying what she projected and that soon everything would fall in place. The boys would be forgotten. She and Darin would be on their way to the life they deserved and worked so hard for. The case would soon become cold and remain unsolved.

If she didn't feel any guilt, it might be that she really didn't think she had anything to feel guilty for. After all, the boys had sent her a sign that they were happy in heaven, in that rainbow she'd seen over the house after she'd gotten out of the hospital. Amazing what people can justify when they are motivated. Remember Diane Downs and the unicorn? The same thing.

In fact, the little girl way Diane had of presenting herself and her relationship with her kids is very much like Darlie's soft, mellow tones that ooze sweetness and naivete. They both thought if they could make people love them, they could manipulate their way out of it. Both were wrong.

Goody · Oct 10, 2005

Jeana (DP) said:
There was a civil suit filed by the Routiers involving the police department for that. I don't believe it had anything to do with the defense not showing that part of the "ceremony" during the trial though. I'll have to go back because I can't remember off the top of my head why they did not show it. The silly string video was shot by news crews, not the police.

The civil suit had to do with privacy issues and the police's violation of it with the wiretapping, but it was ruled that the family had no expectation of privacy in the cemetery. Don't you remember how Jeff went nuts insisting all those judges were wrong????? LOL!

I think the civil suit came about once the criminal charges were not pursued ...or ruled out by the state, whichever it was.

Goody · Oct 10, 2005

Jeana (DP) said:
Well see, that's just it. The videotape was not legally obtained. The family was paid so that the media could shoot the birthday party. I'm thinking that entire videotape was taken by that news crew is what we're talking about here.

No, Jeana. The Silly String party and the TV interviews afterwards were filmed by the TV crew. The memorial service was filmed by the police from across the road with a video camea probably hidden from sight. Microphones had been hidden around the grave. You can see the difference in the quality of the video and you can tell the TV crew did not film the memorial service. The memorial service video is all grainy and the audio is staticky and hard to distinguish.

Goody · Oct 10, 2005

CyberLaw said:
If I recall correctly, the media will not pay "for a story" to appear on a newscast, it is news and the person is either newsworthy(like a criminal) or says: I don't want my face shown on TV(they are not consenting) or says: Hey, no problem, or the news media is there by invitation(consent)

The "Media" is all news sources and various programs with commentators on them who talk about news, including the Jay Lenos of this world who use news stories as the basis for their jokes, and all kinds of different printed publications. There are many, many who will pay and that is why we have the papparazi problems. And the sell outs who cash in on famous cases rather than preserve their information for justice.

Video laws are different than printed word or audio laws. A television camera can film from the street and do it legally, even if they catch someone playing in their yard or standing at a window. They can pick up sound from the street without much worry. They can film a crowd without having to get releases from everyone in the crowd, but anyone in the forefront or who appears to be singled out, or gets caught in a close up must sign a release in order for the news agency to show it on TV. That is why we see some people's faces blocked out. Either they didn't want to fool with getting a release or the person wouldn't give it. Most of the time, I think they just don't fool with tracking people down. It is easier to block them out if they are not important to the story. There are some gray areas in how far states will let cameras go when using zoom in lenses to private residences just to photograph someone inside. I think California has recently made some new laws. For the most part though, the courts are having to decide how to handle a lot of it because legislature has not focused on it with enough detail yet.

And a criminal getting arrested has no right of privacy when he is captured on video by a news team.

CyberLaw said:
It is not like a news cast needs to pay people to increase their ratings......news is in the public domain........

I am not sure what you mean by this. The news business is VERY competitive. Most of the mainstream news agencies don't pay for stories, but I will bet behind the scenes they fork a little out during their investigative work. Many printed publications pay and some pay big bucks for a hot interview.

CyberLaw said:
I think that Darlie would have wanted the party segment taped and broadcast, as it was what she intended as a "proud" grieving mother who was having a "party" for her two dead kids........this was Darlie, narcassist, self-absorbed, center of attention at her "best"

I think you are right on target here. I think Darlie was flabberghasted when public opinion went against her on this. She really thought that she would be applauded for her performance.

CyberLaw said:
The media does not record whole events, they only record what is necessary for broadcast, maybe a bit more, but not like 30 minutes, especially if that is not the purpose of them being at the cemetary.......their purpose at the cemetary was by invitation to be a "witness" to this party....

It depends on the story, of course, but if it is a hot topic, you better believe those cameras are going to roll whenever they can. Tape is not that expensive! A newsroom has a whole row of editing bays where editors copy the significant footage, according to the producer's instructions. This smaller tape is sent to the director's booth and popped in at a predetermined time. Ever watch the news and have them show the wrong news piece? Or put on a video that is all screwed up? That is the control room director screwing up, not paying attention, etc. Or he might have been given a mislabeled tape from the editor. People make mistakes. But don't kid yourself. They take plenty of footage when it is a hot story. You never know when someone might come around the corner with guns blazing and that is just the kind of live action they want to catch on tape. Can't do it if you aren't prepared.

All those not so important stories, they just reuse the tape. They keep most stuff in archive but not every single thing.

Goody · Oct 10, 2005

deandaniellws said:
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/Evidence/WritAffidavits/samford.html

:banghead: :doh: :bang: What is wrong with this man!?!? :slap:

He obviously is feeling bad about the DP. I think he is just an easily influenced individual. I agree that the jury should have seen both tapes, but I don't think it would have changed anyone's mind. The evidence was not in either video tape. It was in the blood and fiber evidence, crime scene detail, and Darlie's story.

some questions...

Justice for Laci & Connor

Hates Liver

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

Justice for Laci & Connor

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics