View Poll Results: Should Darlie Routier be given a new trial?

Voters
396. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    132 33.33%
  • No.

    223 56.31%
  • Not Sure.

    41 10.35%
Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 451 to 475 of 515

Thread: Should Darlie have a new trial?

  1. #451
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,309

    ???

    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    i think if the topic is about darlie getting a new trial, the discussion would be specific issues with her first trial.
    She's only had one trial.

  2. #452
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    442
    Quote Originally Posted by 2 percent View Post
    She's only had one trial.
    should darlie have a new trial. should she or shouldnt she, and opinions why. see?

  3. #453
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    63
    I think it's futile for Darlie to have a new trial. She would be tried for Devon's murder and I can assure you that Greg Davis will be all over it. It really won't change anything. Darin, her mother have been caught in lies. I have a couple of friends on FB that confronted Darlie Kee about a lie in the Robert Riggs video on YouTube. Darlie Kee states on the video that Darlie Lynn never took a polygraph. Documents from Lew Sterret state that she did. The results were never published. You know they couldn't have been beneficial because she would have released them if she had passed or even inconclusive.

    When we asked Darlie Kee about the polygraph, she became very ugly and insulting.

    I've even read one of Darlie's supporters call Darlie Kee a crazy-a$$ b**ch.




    ---
    I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.872629,-96.655470"]Google Maps[/ame]

  4. #454
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper514 View Post
    I think it's futile for Darlie to have a new trial. She would be tried for Devon's murder and I can assure you that Greg Davis will be all over it. It really won't change anything. Darin, her mother have been caught in lies. I have a couple of friends on FB that confronted Darlie Kee about a lie in the Robert Riggs video on YouTube. Darlie Kee states on the video that Darlie Lynn never took a polygraph. Documents from Lew Sterret state that she did. The results were never published. You know they couldn't have been beneficial because she would have released them if she had passed or even inconclusive.

    When we asked Darlie Kee about the polygraph, she became very ugly and insulting.

    I've even read one of Darlie's supporters call Darlie Kee a crazy-a$$ b**ch.
    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.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Sinsaint For This Useful Post:


  6. #455
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    63
    You're right. My own page was made when supporters tried to shut the other 2 pages down. FB didn't shut them down. My page really isn't needed. So, please check out The Darlie Routier Case and The Darlie Routier is Guilty. Plenty of action there. Polygraphs have been known to be admitted and this polygraph was granted by the judge without the prosecutions knowledge. If it had helped her, it would've been used. She failed it.


    ---
    I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.872555,-96.655542"]Google Maps[/ame]

  7. #456
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    LSU LSU LSU !!!
    Posts
    191
    It was reported that after Darlie took the polygraph, she and her mother were seen sobbing in each others arms in the hallway. I wonder if any of Darlie's supporters would urge her to take another polygraph now that Darin has bailed.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Crow_Ascending For This Useful Post:


  9. #457
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    155
    But like I said polygraphs are unreliable. I don't care that she failed. Melvin Foster was thought to be the Green River Killer. He failed a polygraph. Gary Ridgeway passed his polygraph. Two tests in one case and both were wrong. Bill Wegerle failed his polygraph when he was accused of murdering his wife. Some years later BTK sent the local paper her driver's license and pictures he took at the crime scene. Obviously Bill didn't kill his wife.

    I know some states require both parties in the case to agree about whether polygraph results can be used prior to taking the test. I'll admit I have no idea what the rules are in Texas about polygraphs. I would think that had she passed and tried to introduce it the DA would have had sound legal arguments about the validity of the test.

    But for the reasons mentioned above polygraphs mean nothing to me. Innocent people fail them all the time.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sinsaint For This Useful Post:


  11. #458
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    LSU LSU LSU !!!
    Posts
    191
    And so do the guilty! (Actually, a polygraph machine does not detect truth or lies; it only measures galvanic responses. A polygraph is only as reliable as the examiner who knows what questions to ask and when.)

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Crow_Ascending For This Useful Post:


  13. #459
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
    But like I said polygraphs are unreliable. I don't care that she failed. Melvin Foster was thought to be the Green River Killer. He failed a polygraph. Gary Ridgeway passed his polygraph. Two tests in one case and both were wrong. Bill Wegerle failed his polygraph when he was accused of murdering his wife. Some years later BTK sent the local paper her driver's license and pictures he took at the crime scene. Obviously Bill didn't kill his wife.

    I know some states require both parties in the case to agree about whether polygraph results can be used prior to taking the test. I'll admit I have no idea what the rules are in Texas about polygraphs. I would think that had she passed and tried to introduce it the DA would have had sound legal arguments about the validity of the test.

    But for the reasons mentioned above polygraphs mean nothing to me. Innocent people fail them all the time.
    Innocent people flunk polys all the time. I believe the point here is both Darlie and her mother lying. Neither Darin nor Darlie took an FBI or LE administered polygraph.

    Darlie actually admits on national tv she took a polygraph and it was "inconclusive" She failed in other words, but the poly was administered by her defence, not the state.

  14. #460
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    63
    Thanks Cami. That's is the point. Both women have been lying.


    ---
    I am here: [ame="http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=32.872757,-96.655537"]Google Maps[/ame]

  15. #461
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in TX from ARKANSAS
    Posts
    941
    Quote Originally Posted by eleven View Post
    I voted yes. I definitely think she should get a new trial.
    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......)

  16. #462
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    63
    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]

  17. #463
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by sloane7777 View Post
    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 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.

  18. #464
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,309

    Problem of retrials years later

    Quote Originally Posted by sloane7777 View Post
    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......)
    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".

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to 2 percent For This Useful Post:


  20. #465
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinsaint View Post
    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.
    If Darlie had passed a polygraph, her attorneys would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to cami For This Useful Post:


  22. #466
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by sloane7777 View Post
    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......)
    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.

  23. #467
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by runsdeep View Post
    should darlie have a new trial. should she or shouldnt she, and opinions why. see?
    No why should she? Nothing wrong with her first trial.

  24. #468
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooper514 View Post
    Cami,
    Is Darlie out of appeals?


    ---
    I am here: Google Maps
    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.

  25. #469
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199
    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.
    Little Caylee Marie, must not be an "Anthony", since "the Anthony's always win". So sorry, Caylee.

  26. #470
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6
    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.

  27. #471
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by jimben View Post
    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.
    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.

  28. #472
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    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.
    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.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to cami For This Useful Post:


  30. #473
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Posts
    134
    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.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to StephanieH For This Useful Post:


  32. #474
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    818
    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.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SoBeCzar For This Useful Post:


  34. #475
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Crystal Lake, Il
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    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.
    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.
    http://kimmysharinglight.com/

    Many people can talk the talk, some people really know how to walk the walk, but it is a rare few who get to dance the dance!


    ઇઉ Kimmy aka Cassata

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Cassata11 For This Useful Post:


Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •