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

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

    133 33.00%
  • No.

    229 56.82%
  • Not Sure.

    41 10.17%
Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 522

Thread: Should Darlie have a new trial?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    Yeah maybe he did. Would that lead you to believe that Darin is the killer if he did?

    Darlie though had loads of time to put it there too before she was injured so we'll never know unless they tell us.

    You have to read Linch's testimony. I think..I know it's Linch though ...to find the answer to your question.
    I have a hard time believing Darlie was the only one that "generated" the evidence. If she is guilty.....I think Darin is as well. Like in a bank robbery, the driver of the get away car is just as guilty as the robber/killers.....I think if Darlie killed and Darin participated in any way including the cover up, he should be on DR the same as she is.

    Personally, there are too many things about the evidence presented, and the evidence that was not presented, that are so questionable, I don't feel comfortable with Darlie's death sentence (not that it matters how I feel one whit).

    The points made by the debaters in this case are all good ones....from both "sides." I put that word in quotes because I don't consider myself to be on the Routier's side per se. It's just that with so many unanswered questions and things that were never addressed by her defense, I'm alarmed by her conviction. Equally alarming is that if she is guilty, and he is too, he's not on DR!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    Laber didn't find any spatter on the jeans and that's what they would have relied on as evidence on the jeans as it would indicate Darin was present during the stabbings. He would have had a lot of transferred blood on the jeans from working on Devon and checking Damon and being with Darlie. Laber found nothing to indicate from the jeans that Darin was present during the stabbings. So given as he's Darlie's expert, I think it is safe to say the jeans didn't help either side.

    I don't think Mulder did that at all. I believe he relied on Laber's opinion of the jeans.

    Do you have some proof he kept the jury from hearing evidence?
    The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

    ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    The jeans have been tested. Just out of curiousity, what would you expect to find on Darin's jean? There is very little of the boys' blood on Darlie's shirt but it's the back of her shirt and it's the way it's cast-off that leads to the knife being in her hand. If Darin stabbed the boys wouldn't it make sense that the cast-off blood would be on his back and not his jeans?

    It's like the black car, what would you expect to find in a black car when the murder weapon was left at the scene, there is not a speck of blood outside that house and not a thing stolen despite the money, gold and wallet lying there. Oh besides the sock that is, and why would the intruder run down that alley if there was a get away car outside?
    I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

    ....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

    Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

    As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary456 View Post
    You're welcome, accordn2me.



    That’s because all the items tested pointed to Darlie as the killer. If Laber and Epstein (or any other expert) could have refuted the blood & fiber evidence, Mulder would have had them on the stand in a New York minute. As we’ve said before, Dougie-boy had precious little to work with.




    I assume you’re getting that information from the Darlie camp. First of all, there WAS no evidence to tie Darin to the actual murders, and there still isn't to this day. Secondly, Darlie was adamant, from day one, that she saw the intruder and it was not Darin. Absolutely, positively was not her husband.

    What was Mulder supposed to do? Call his client a liar
    Mulder wouldn't have had experts that refuted evidence that also implicated Darin. We don't know what Laber and Epstein were going to say since Mulder dismissed them early on (one of the first things he did). Will we ever know if he sought other experts? I haven't even heard a claim that he did.

    Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    heaven bound
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

    ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

    you have said yourself: Darlie's lawyer was hired on the premise that he not pursue or bring up any evidence against Darin....(at least I think, I am out of date on all the lastest news of the case) but anyway...if so then WHY would you expect anyone to introduce any evidence pertaining to him, IF there was any?
    This was Darlie's choice in the beginning, she didn't HAVE to agree to these terms, or ask her lawyer to agree to them. hey if I were innocent I'd say "do whatever you can" even IF at the time I thought my hubby were 100% innocent....if evidence COULD be brought up against anyone, FIND IT, I wouldn't care WHO or what family member/friend, etc. it could be.
    Darlie ok'd this never thinking she'd be found guilty, but now that she has, throw anyone under the bus in order to gain a possible delay in the death sentence.
    Darin did NOT have ANYTHING to do with the murders, IMO, although I do think he MAY have helped cover them up. Darlie and her crew are just grasping at ANY straw they can think of.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house [COLOR=Red]that was discovered.[COLOR=Black] IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.
    If there was a rainstorm, it didn't occur until the night of 6/7. By that time, police and detectives had two full days (June 6th and June 7th), from sunup to sundown, to search for blood outside. If it was there, they would have found it.

    The thunderstorm was a red herring thrown out by Richard Mosty. From the trial transcript:

    Mosty: "There was a large thunderstorm on the night of the 7th, wasn't there?"

    Linch: "I don't know."

    Mosty: "Do you recollect that there was a rainstorm on the 7th?

    Linch: "No."

    My point is that it doesn't matter if there was a rainstorm on the evening of June 7th. The yard, the gate, and the alley had been searched for blood long before the pitter patter of possible raindrops.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    4,519
    Quote Originally Posted by White Rain View Post
    you have said yourself: Darlie's lawyer was hired on the premise that he not pursue or bring up any evidence against Darin....(at least I think, I am out of date on all the lastest news of the case) but anyway...if so then WHY would you expect anyone to introduce any evidence pertaining to him, IF there was any?
    This was Darlie's choice in the beginning, she didn't HAVE to agree to these terms, or ask her lawyer to agree to them. hey if I were innocent I'd say "do whatever you can" even IF at the time I thought my hubby were 100% innocent....if evidence COULD be brought up against anyone, FIND IT, I wouldn't care WHO or what family member/friend, etc. it could be.
    Darlie ok'd this never thinking she'd be found guilty, but now that she has, throw anyone under the bus in order to gain a possible delay in the death sentence.
    Darin did NOT have ANYTHING to do with the murders, IMO, although I do think he MAY have helped cover them up. Darlie and her crew are just grasping at ANY straw they can think of.
    I don't think Darin had anything to do with the murders either. It was all Darllie and I don't he did any coverup. I believe he knows Darlie killed the boys.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC - home of BBQ
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

    ....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

    Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

    As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....
    What rain storm? It didn't rain that night/early morning.

    As for Darrin - I don't agree that he should be on DR with Darlie. Why should he be punished for her act of violence toward their kids? I honestly believe that Darin was stunned to say the least when he came downstairs that early morning. Yea, he said some of the most stupids things toward the cops that are questionable but imo not in the sense of him being involved with the actually murders.

    I do believe however that he did cover up for her. But that does not qualify for the death penalty. You nor I know how we would react to that type of situation. Some people will do anything to protect the ones they love. Lie/Deny. We all know from everything that has been said and read that Darrin loved Darlie.

    In regards to the knife. They also can't prove that there was another knife involved.
    Last edited by whitywendy; 10-25-2007 at 09:11 AM. Reason: missing word
    WhityWendy - Carolina Girl

    Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few - George Bishop Berkeley

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary456 View Post
    If there was a rainstorm, it didn't occur until the night of 6/7. By that time, police and detectives had two full days (June 6th and June 7th), from sunup to sundown, to search for blood outside. If it was there, they would have found it.

    The thunderstorm was a red herring thrown out by Richard Mosty. From the trial transcript:

    Mosty: "There was a large thunderstorm on the night of the 7th, wasn't there?"

    Linch: "I don't know."

    Mosty: "Do you recollect that there was a rainstorm on the 7th?

    Linch: "No."

    My point is that it doesn't matter if there was a rainstorm on the evening of June 7th. The yard, the gate, and the alley had been searched for blood long before the pitter patter of possible raindrops.
    I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." Given the fact that a veteran detective.....possibly the most respected detective on the scene....declared virtually immediately that "this was an inside job" I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.

    I don't remember....how was the sock discovered?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by White Rain View Post
    you have said yourself: Darlie's lawyer was hired on the premise that he not pursue or bring up any evidence against Darin....(at least I think, I am out of date on all the lastest news of the case) but anyway...if so then WHY would you expect anyone to introduce any evidence pertaining to him, IF there was any?
    This was Darlie's choice in the beginning, she didn't HAVE to agree to these terms, or ask her lawyer to agree to them. hey if I were innocent I'd say "do whatever you can" even IF at the time I thought my hubby were 100% innocent....if evidence COULD be brought up against anyone, FIND IT, I wouldn't care WHO or what family member/friend, etc. it could be.
    Darlie ok'd this never thinking she'd be found guilty, but now that she has, throw anyone under the bus in order to gain a possible delay in the death sentence.
    Darin did NOT have ANYTHING to do with the murders, IMO, although I do think he MAY have helped cover them up. Darlie and her crew are just grasping at ANY straw they can think of.
    I wouldn't expect Mulder to introduce any evidence pertaining to Darin. That would violate his "contract." If I were innocent, I too would say "do whatever you can" but not at the expense of my husband if I truly believed him to be innocent, or any other family members. That's just me. Likewise, I think if Darin....or any family member participated in a cover up....they too deserve the DP. Again, purely me. I don't expect others to feel the same.

    I would expect any attorney, including one with whom I had a "contract" about not implicating my husband, to vigorously defend the contested evidence in my case. Mulder did not do that.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    27,155
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

    ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.
    They can't hear what isn't there.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." ... I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.
    Well, I guess you can "think" whatever you want. I "think" somebody needs to read the trial transcript

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....
    I don't think so. After LE determined there was no intruder, they were looking at both of them, trying to determine whether both or one of them were responsible.

    I don't believe he did the murders but by Darlie's actions and her protestations that he began to know or even believe she'd done it, but for the sake of Drake, he's standing by her. If there'd been any evidence other than being stupid to stick to Darrin, he'd have been charged and sitting on DR too.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC - home of BBQ
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by Mary456 View Post
    Well, I guess you can "think" whatever you want. I "think" somebody needs to read the trial transcript
    Yes, I think that you in order to make a fair and correct conclusion, you must "weigh" everything accordingly which would imply that ONE must READ THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT. NOT bits and pieces here and there. Try reading a novel/book that way.., now how in the world are you going to know the plot if you don't read it from beginning to end?
    WhityWendy - Carolina Girl

    Truth is the cry of all, but the game of few - George Bishop Berkeley

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,596
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

    ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.

    That's because they're isn't any.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,596
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    I don't know what to expect! Good point about "the back." Was the back of Darin's clothes tested?

    ....."there is not a speck of blood outside that house....." I would say there is not a speck of blood outside that house that was discovered. IMO discovering blood outside the house, especially after the rain storm, would have been nearly impossible.

    Maybe the intruder would have ran down the alley if the get away car was back there?

    As for the murder weapon.....they found one.....maybe it wasn't the only one....
    Darin was bare chested....no the alleged getaway car was seen in front of the routiers house...only one knife presented to the jury, all testimony included that knife. Now you're suggesting there were two intruders, two murder weapons? There's no evidence of one let alone two. And no evidence two knives were used.

    There was no blood found outside that house...if there's no blood found immediately around the crime scene, i.e.the point of exit....window ledge, the fence, how can there be "undiscovered blood" somewhere else in the neighbourhood? If you want to continue to accuse the prosecution and the Mulder that's your perrogative....it doesn't make Darlie innocent. There is more than enough evidence, properly gathered, non contaminated that proves she committed this crime. Is Darin complicite too? Find some evidence he is and the state will be happy to prosecute him.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,596
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    The jury heard evidence all right! They didn't hear any defense of the evidence.

    ETA: They didn't hear any evidence that implicated Darin.
    tsk tsk...Laber is Darlie's expert and he would not have allowed that trial to continue had he found any evidence that implicated Darin...it's right there in his affidavit that there is no blood on the jeans that suggests Darin was present during the stabbings so now you're refuting Darlie's own expert?

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,596
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    I think there was enough INSIDE the house to keep everyone busy for a lot longer than "two full days." Given the fact that a veteran detective.....possibly the most respected detective on the scene....declared virtually immediately that "this was an inside job" I don't think much evidence was searched for on the outside.

    I don't remember....how was the sock discovered?
    You need to get your facts straight According....no one declared immediately it was an inside job...stop listening to the Darlie camp and research on your own.

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


  20. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,596
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    Mulder wouldn't have had experts that refuted evidence that also implicated Darin. We don't know what Laber and Epstein were going to say since Mulder dismissed them early on (one of the first things he did). Will we ever know if he sought other experts? I haven't even heard a claim that he did.

    Because Darlie WAS adamant, from day one, that the intruder was not Darin, maybe that's why the police and later the prosecution didn't pursue that notion. I don't know....
    Actually Darin was the first suspect. Homicide detectives don't work that way According, everyone in that house was a suspect. Darlie is not that powerful that she could stop the cops or the prosecution from pursuing Darin.

    Why don't you read the transcripts from beginning to end. Read the bond hearing, etc., the appeals. I learned a lot from the appeals that I hadn't known before. Read Judge Francis's final findings.

    If Darin was the killer, then Darlie had to know and if she knows why hasn't she opened her mouth? Why is she sitting on DR serving his time?

  21. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    Darin was bare chested....no the alleged getaway car was seen in front of the routiers house...only one knife presented to the jury, all testimony included that knife. Now you're suggesting there were two intruders, two murder weapons? There's no evidence of one let alone two. And no evidence two knives were used.

    There was no blood found outside that house...if there's no blood found immediately around the crime scene, i.e.the point of exit....window ledge, the fence, how can there be "undiscovered blood" somewhere else in the neighbourhood? If you want to continue to accuse the prosecution and the Mulder that's your perrogative....it doesn't make Darlie innocent. There is more than enough evidence, properly gathered, non contaminated that proves she committed this crime. Is Darin complicite too? Find some evidence he is and the state will be happy to prosecute him.
    IIRC, Darin claims to have come downstairs (the first time) wearing only his eyeglasses. Didn't that claim change on the stand? If Darin did stab one or both of the boys...or inflicted Darlie's wounds....smart of him to not be wearing a shirt! No evidence found = no evidence, right?

    That brings me to my next juvenile statement: just because someone didn't see a get away car in the alley, doesn't mean there wasn't one there.

    Only one knife presented to the jury because that's the one that killed Damon, the only murder being prosecuted. Let me say again, I am impressed with the prosecution. They were practically flawless. I don't believe they tried to frame Darlie. I do think they overstepped professional ethical lines (apparently it was legal) when they did the mock trials (or whatever you want to call them) with all the witnesses present to hear what everyone else was going to testify to on the stand.

    If only Mulder had been half as prepared or clever, Darlie may have had a fair defense.

  22. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    tsk tsk...Laber is Darlie's expert and he would not have allowed that trial to continue had he found any evidence that implicated Darin...it's right there in his affidavit that there is no blood on the jeans that suggests Darin was present during the stabbings so now you're refuting Darlie's own expert?
    Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.

    I need to read his affidavit. I was under the impression Laber believes that Darlie did not kill her sons.

  23. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    You need to get your facts straight According....no one declared immediately it was an inside job...stop listening to the Darlie camp and research on your own.
    I saw this detective on TV. HE said he knew it was an inside job within in minutes....OK, maybe within an hour, 60 minutes, of arriving at the house.

  24. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    LSU
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    ............................
    Why don't you read the transcripts from beginning to end. .......................
    time.....

    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    If Darin was the killer, then Darlie had to know and if she knows why hasn't she opened her mouth? Why is she sitting on DR serving his time?
    IMO, if she knows, she's guilty too.....because she tried to cover it up. Same goes for him.

  25. #74
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wales UK
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by cami View Post
    And no evidence two knives were used.
    There is evidence that there may have been two knives. If both boys were stabbed by the same knife then blood from both boys wouldve been on the knife. Only one boys blood was found on the knife and it belonged to Damon - Devons blood was not found on the knife. If the same knife was used to kill both boys then why is'nt there at least traces of Devons blood on knife?
    Last edited by nicola; 10-27-2007 at 12:27 PM. Reason: spelling/grammer

  26. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Southcentral Pennsylvania
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by accordn2me View Post
    Laber was Darlie's expert until Mulder promptly fired him.
    Uhhh, excuse me, but Mulder couldn't fire Laber, because he didn't hire him. See how that works?

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... 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
  •