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

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

    135 32.30%
  • No.

    241 57.66%
  • Not Sure.

    42 10.05%
Page 32 of 36 FirstFirst ... 22 30 31 32 33 34 ... LastLast
Results 466 to 480 of 538
  1. #466
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    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.


  2. #467
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    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.


  3. #468
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    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.


  4. #469
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    209
    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.


  5. #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.


  6. #471
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    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.


  7. #472
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    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.


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


  9. #473
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Cloud, Minnesota
    Posts
    186
    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.


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


  11. #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.


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


  13. #475
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Crystal Lake, Il
    Posts
    162
    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


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


  15. #476
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    Quote Originally Posted by StephanieH View Post
    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.
    12 Q. Okay. Now, let me go to these other
    13 photographs for a moment. State's Exhibits 52-E, D, C,
    14 B, A, and I. Do these appear to be photographs of Darlie
    15 Routier?
    16 A. Yes.
    17 Q. Okay. And is there a date present
    18 here in the bottom right-hand corner of these
    19 photographs?
    20 A. It says 6-10-96.
    21 Q. Okay. So, we can assume, at least if
    22 that's correct, they were taken on the 10th day of June,
    23 1996?
    24 A. Correct.
    25 Q. Okay. Now, let's look at 52-A. Do
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    765

    1 you see a wound here to the right arm, or evidence of an
    2 injury to the right arm?
    3 A. There's a large amount of bruising to
    4 the right arm, but I don't see any -- actually by
    5 laceration, there's none. But there is evidence of
    6 bruising to the arm.
    7 Q. Okay. And that's a pretty large
    8 bruise, isn't it?
    9 A. Yes.
    10 Q. Where does it extend from?
    11 A. It appears to go from her wrist to
    12 right below where her hand is, past her elbow, up toward,
    13 almost into her armpit.
    14 Q. Okay. And then 52-E, that's an even
    15 more close-up photograph of that bruise?
    16 A. Yes, correct.
    17 Q. If you could take these two
    18 photographs and go along the jury rail so all the jurors
    19 can see.
    20 A. Okay.
    21 Q. Now, Dr. Santos, tell the jurors what
    22 caused this type of bruising.
    23 A. Some type of trauma. Some kind of
    24 blunt trauma, being hit, a car wreck, anything like that.
    25 Some kind of a force to the arm.
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    766

    1 Q. What is blunt trauma?
    2 A. Blunt trauma, as opposed to none
    3 penetrating. Penetrating is usually stab wound or
    4 gunshot wound. Blunt trauma is -- again, in a car wreck,
    5 falling and hitting your arm, being hit with a baseball
    6 bat or something like that.
    7 Q. Being struck by an object very hard?
    8 A. Correct.
    9 Q. Doesn't break the skin?
    10 A. Does not penetrate.
    11 Q. But causes these deep bruises?
    12 A. Yes.
    13 Q. Okay. Is this pretty severe blunt
    14 trauma that we're looking at?
    15 A. Yes, it is.
    16 Q. Now, by looking at these photographs,
    17 can you tell anything about the age of this bruise?
    18 A. Just by looking at this photograph, I
    19 would say that that injury is about 24 to 48 hours old.
    20 Q. 24 to 48 hours old?
    21 A. Correct.
    22 Q. And what do you see there in the
    23 photograph that let's you have that opinion?
    24 A. On this photograph there is some deep
    25 bruising to this part of the arm over here. But up
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    767

    1 towards -- the upper part of her arm, the arm proper
    2 close to the armpit, there's more of a redness over here.
    3 That tells you that this is not a very old wound. Wounds
    4 like this tend to get very dark, and after about three or
    5 four days starts turning green when that blood starts to
    6 get absorbed. But this redness up here tells me that it
    7 was probably a 24 to 48 hour old wound.
    8 Q. When it's photographed here?
    9 A. Yes, at that time.
    10 Q. And the date is 6-10-96?
    11 A. Correct.
    12 Q. Now, you had Ms. Routier from about
    13 3:30 in the morning on June 6th, 1996 to you say around
    14 noon or so on June 8th; is that right?
    15 A. Correct.
    16 Q. Okay. Now, y'all checked pretty
    17 carefully about other injuries; is that right?
    18 A. Yes, we did.
    19 Q. And in ICU, are there enough nurses in
    20 attendance at all times?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. Okay. It's not like being in a room
    23 when you're in the hospital and the nurse just checks on
    24 you once in a while; is that right?
    25 A. Correct.
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    768

    1 Q. They're right there all the time?
    2 A. Yes.
    3 Q. Okay. And you examined Mrs. Routier
    4 several times on her stay there?
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. Examined the wounds that you sewed up?
    7 A. Yes.
    8 Q. Okay. And before she was released, do
    9 you examine those wounds?
    10 A. Yes. Routinely we'll look at the
    11 wounds just to make sure they're healing okay.
    12 Q. Did you see at any time while she was
    13 in the hospital any injury that would cause this type of
    14 bruising?
    15 A. No, I did not see any evidence of
    16 that.
    17 Q. Okay. Is this something that you
    18 would have been if it had occurred on June 6th, let's say
    19 at 2:30 in the morning, 1996?
    20 A. Yes. I believe we would have seen
    21 some evidence of that before she left the hospital.
    22 Q. Okay. A person, when they get blunt
    23 trauma, they don't bruise -- a huge bruise doesn't just

    http://www.routiertranscripts.com/tr...s/vol-30.php#3

    20 BY MR. TOBY L. SHOOK:
    21 Q. Okay. Again, can you -- 52-M, is that
    22 a photograph of bruising there to the left arm?
    23 A. Yes. It shows some bruising to the
    24 left arm around the wrist area extending down toward her
    25 elbow.
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    775

    1 Q. Again, Doctor, if you could start
    2 maybe down at this end. You can come on down.
    3 A. Okay.
    4
    5 (Whereupon, the witness
    6 stepped down from the
    7 witness stand, and
    8 approached the jury rail
    9 and the proceedings were
    10 resumed as follows

    11
    12
    13 (Whereupon, the following
    14 mentioned item was
    15 marked for
    16 identification only
    17 as State's Exhibit 52-N,
    18 after which time the
    19 proceedings were
    20 resumed on the record
    21 in open court, as
    22 follows

    It appears to me that the jury did see the photos of the bruising according to this testimony.



    9 MR. GREG DAVIS: Yes, sir. At this
    10 time, the State would indicate that we believe this
    11 testimony is not relevant, it's improper impeachment.
    12 And, again, I'm talking about the subject of the mike on
    13 the grave site. And we would ask that the Court instruct
    14 Mr. Mulder not to go into these matters any further in
    15 front of this jury, because again, we feel the
    16 prejudicial effect here, of having to inform the jury
    17 that these officers have taken the Fifth Amendment.
    18 Again, we believe that the matters are
    19 irrelevant and that they are improper impeachment.
    20 THE COURT: The State is not going to
    21 use anything that came out of that?
    22 MR. GREG DAVIS: That is correct. We
    23 are not going to go into that matter. We're not going to
    24 offer any of those recordings, video or otherwise, so we
    25 did not intend to talk about that matter in front of this
    Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
    4407

    1 jury.
    2 THE COURT: Was there any exculpatory
    3 material in that?
    4 MR. GREG DAVIS: No, sir, but in all,
    5 in caution, I did turn over those matters to the defense.
    6 THE COURT: So the defense has those
    7 tapes? You gentlemen have those tapes?
    8 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Judge, they are
    9 the ones that first went into this matter. We didn't go
    10 into anything at the grave site. They did.
    11 THE COURT: All I want to know right
    12 now, Mr. Mulder, is: Do you have those tapes?
    13 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Well, I have some
    14 tapes. I don't know whether I have those.
    15 THE COURT: Did you listen to them?
    16 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Yes, sir.
    17 THE COURT: When were they given to
    18 the defense?
    19 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: Well, we didn't
    20 get into the case until --
    21 MR. GREG DAVIS: Probably sometime in
    22 November, I believe.

    http://www.routiertranscripts.com/tr...s/vol-43.php#1


    Mulder had the opportunity to show the surveillance tape of the prayer service to the jury but he chose not to. I wonder why? It can only mean they had nothing to impeach the SS tape with......no greiving, sobbing, prostrate on the ground Darlie. Do you think Darlie's lawyers or family would not have had that prayer tape shown all over the news, etc, if it existed?

    The graveside party tape was filmed by Channel 5 News crew, they were asked not to film the prayer service out of respect for the family. Big mistake on Darlie's part.


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cami For This Useful Post:


  17. #477
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    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......)

    He was in prison. And he has recanted his confession in the Joel Kirkpatrick case, he didn't commit that murder.


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


  19. #478
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    In the Atlantic
    Posts
    2,632
    Quote Originally Posted by Cassata11 View Post
    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.
    You should check out the justicefordarlie.net website and read the court decisions on the transcripts. The transcript was certified by Susan Simmons and accepted by the court. There is nothing missing, they found all the audio tapes and used the steno pads.

    I believe she is guilty based on the physical evidence..blood evidence and her many many many lies.

    In the Jeff MacDonald case, the prosecution entered over 1000 pieces of evidence and that was only about 60% of the total. They never enter ever single piece of evidence...enough to get the conviction.

    Darlie can still be tried on Devon's murder so maybe she will get a new trial, just not what she expects, she might get tried for murder again.


  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to cami For This Useful Post:


  21. #479
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,943

    I remain convinced of her innocence, and so do others

    IMO, more and more evidence is coming forth that Darlie did not get a fair trial. A North Texas area newspaper, the Hood County News, has been doing a series on things which were wrong in the trial. I have read 2 of the articles. I don't know how many they have done, but the reporter who is undertaking this assignment should be able to provide anyone who wants the other articles copies. There will probably be a small charge.

    The first article I read was direct eyewitness testimony from one of Darrin's aunts. She kept a notebook and one of the things which stunned her was the number of times the judge slept.He napped every single day of the trial!!! And now Darlie Routier is on Death Row. ( This, while the court reporter made a mistake severe enough that had she not been given some sort of procedural immunity, Darlie could have gotten a new trial).

    The latest article is this one:
    http://hcnews.com/pages/news/forensi...-routier-case/

    It has testimony from 2 DEFENSE blood spatter experts who say they were not allowed to testify by Mulder, her lead attorney. They say that if they HAD been allowed, they would have testified that there was not cast off blood spatter on Darlie's nightgown. They would have testified about the co-mingled blood, indicating that Darlie was injured before the boys were killed.
    Next, the blood spatter evidence at trial is called into question. It is said that the blood spatter on Darlie's gown is not conclusive of blood cast off from stabbing the boys, that her blood is mixed in with the boys' and that a third person's blood is mixed with hers and the boys. The blood spatter expert for the prosecution, Tom Bevel's, report is called into question. He is also under fire for a homicide analysis in Tarrant County.
    ( I used to think he was great. Now I think he is as slimy as the DNA labs who perform DNA tests with contaminated equipment for their own profit).

    Also, it is reported that Darlie Kee and her son-in-law allegedly cut a deal with Mulder may have ultimately helped seal Darlie Routier’s fate.
    Quote-" As part of the alleged bargain, Mulder agreed to deviate from Parks’ and Huff’s defense strategy in one key area: he would not raise reasonable doubt for Routier by casting suspicion on the only other adult known to have been in the house when the attacks occurred: Darin.
    The alleged agreement to protect Darin is detailed in the writ of habeas corpus filed as part of Routier’s appeals process. The writ refers to affidavits by Kee and Darin Routier claiming that there had been such an agreement. “As a result of this promise, Darin and Kee asked Mulder to represent Ms. Routier at trial,” the writ states."

    Why would Darlie's mother do this? I am very sure I do not know.


    I don't know why the Hood County News is doing this series so late " in the game" so to speak, but they seem determined to show that Darlie Routier may be innocent. I think their series is very well thought out and presented.
    I would love to talk to the reporter because I have always thought that Darrin was the killer. I believe Darlie is innocent.
    This is my opinion, based upon the hospital photographs of her wounds, the fact that Darrin had a financial stake in choosing Darlie's attorney, that Darlie's high-priced attorneys were less than diligent and competent, that the agreement was signed to not implicate Darrin in any wrong- doing, and the fact that he tried to have his own home burned for insurance money. Oh, and that it is said that Darlie's own mother went to extraordinary measures to protect Darrin from any charges.

    I may be mistaken... NONE of us were in that house in Rowlett that night!!
    I know a lot of Texans and those who know of the crime outside Texas feel strongly and have very deep emotions about Darlie's guilt. I have just as strong emotions about her innocence. Just as I believe totally that Casey Anthony is solely responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony and that justice was not carried out, I believe that Darlie Routier is not a murderer, did not harm her sons in any way and is probably going to die for a crime she didn't commit, barring a miracle.


  22. #480
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    LSU LSU LSU !!!
    Posts
    195
    There has never been any evidence that Darin tried to have his house burned for insurance. Six years after Darlie's conviction, Darin 'remembered' at the prodding of Darlie's stepfather, that he had once mentioned trying to have his house robbed and then collect insurance on the furniture. Once the insurance had been collected, Darin would then have the furniture brought back into the house. Darin says he thinks he mentioned this to someone at a bar, but can't remember the bar or the person.


Page 32 of 36 FirstFirst ... 22 30 31 32 33 34 ... 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
  •