Routier case is the first for David Camm

[Madeleine74]

First I wouldn't murder anyone and I wouldn't stage anything, so "how would I do it" is irrelevant. Again, it's important to take oneself out of the equation. You didn't do this crime and I didn't do this crime and Sally down the street from me didn't do this crime, so opinions on 'how' it could have or possibly 'should have' been done is irrelevant.

There's only direct or circumstantial evidence. Both are given equal weight. Direct evidence is: a confession, an eyewitness to the murder, or a video of the person committing the murder. Everything else is "circumstantial." That includes blood, footprints, fingerprints, fibers, hairs, every single other thing you can think of is considered "circumstantial" evidence.

There are 3 eyewitnesses to the murder and 2 are dead (Devon & Damon) and 1 has repeatedly lied and not confessed, so there is no direct evidence in this case.

A jury voted unanimously that the state proved DR's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no burden higher than that in U.S. criminal courts. Guilt is never proved 100% nor is any jury faced with that because unless a person was at the scene as a witness, they can't know with 100% certainty. And the legal burden doesn't require that level of proof.

In 15 years no evidence has pointed to anyone else. The facts of the case simply aren't going to change.

 

[Val830]

But it's not one of those cases that is concrete in proof and beyond reasonable doubt.
There are far too many elements that ignite the intrigue of those viewing the case - such as Darin's participation (if any).

If you were to stage an intruder murder, would you do it in that way? That's what I ask myself.

There is absolutely no reasonable doubt in Darlie's case. There is no reasonable explanation for all the evidence against her and the lack of any evidence against anyone else except that she did it.

People on the Internet may feel differently but that doesn't tend to sway the Texas courts. Ask supporters of Troy Davis.

 

[RANCH]

Verdicts have little to do with it.
Do you also feel Casey "did not do" the crime? Or OJ?

Also, a verdict of NG simply means a case was not proved to the jury. Does NOT mean the person "didn't do it".

I hope your not saying that a not guilty verdict by a jury always means that the person being prosecuted got away with the crime.

I believe that sometimes an innocent person is prosecuted and the jury figures it out and votes for an acquittal. That's what our system of justice is all about.

If David Camm does a cursory look at the evidence in this case and comes to the conclusion that Darlie is innocent, then I think that he probably made up his mind in advance. I'm willing to wait and see what he has to say before I come to any conclusions of my own about any bias he may have.

 

[TellTheTruth]

But it's not one of those cases that is concrete in proof and beyond reasonable doubt.

I think the fact that evidence doesn't seem concrete is the reason for the intrigue in this case.

Those are some major bruises Darlie sustained on her arms - self inflicted? I don't buy that.

I've heard the argument that they were sustained from when she attacked the boys. Really? I'm guessing if that's the case then the two poor little boys would have probably also been able to scream and shout?

And Darin slept through it did he?

I don't buy it.

 

[sindydee]

I'm wondering what this guy is expecting to find after all these years that no one else has?

 

[Sinsaint]

I'm wondering what this guy is expecting to find after all these years that no one else has?

They call it "fresh eyes" for a reason. And with touch DNA now available maybe the ankle part of the sock will be tested as opposed to just the toe area that the prosecution tested.

 

[Madeleine74]

Camm is a case coordinator in his new role. He has no expertise in crime scene analysis, forensics, can't test DNA, isn't a scientist, so he personally won't have much light to shed in a case where the forensics and scene take center stage. Being in prison for 13 years does not an expert make and his role in the Illinois State Police did not have him working as a CSI. Basically as a coordinator he'll be performing admin related functions.

I will be interested to see if he/his organization puts $$$$ behind this case and pays for additional DNA testing. With limited funds I will be very surprised if the Routier case is where they spend it. Maybe their "investigation" into this case is more about getting publicity, since it's a very high profile case. Note that the infamous Innocence Project (i.e. the Barry Scheck/Peter Neufeld-founded organization) hasn't touched the Routier case.

 

[Sinsaint]

I think the fact that evidence doesn't seem concrete is the reason for the intrigue in this case.

Those are some major bruises Darlie sustained on her arms - self inflicted? I don't buy that.

I've heard the argument that they were sustained from when she attacked the boys. Really? I'm guessing if that's the case then the two poor little boys would have probably also been able to scream and shout?

And Darin slept through it did he?

I don't buy it.

Damon didn't kick Darlie because his wounds were from behind. Devon had only two stab wounds. It's doubtful he had enough time in those two stab wounds to inflict the bruising seen on Darlie's arms and hands considering the prosecution's theory is he was fast asleep when attacked. The first stab he wouldn't have even reacted to. The second stab he might have but it was over by then. Neither boy could have inflicted all the bruises on Darlie's arms and hands.

 

[chlban]

I think you guys are missing the point here.
I don't live in America, so excuse me of my ignorance, but are people still perceived to be guilty even after they've been found to be innocent?

That sound rather odd.

[/QUOTE]

Yes.

Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, just to name a few of the more famous ones. As previously stated, in order to be convicted it must be determined to be beyond any "reasonable" doubt. That's a high bar to reach.

Many times jurors have stated, after finding someone "Not Guilty" that they really thought they did, but it wasn't proven beyond a reasonbable doubt.
The most recent one that comes to mind was the George Zimmerman trial, where one of the jurors made that statement, yet had voted not guilty.

I have followed David Camm's case since the beginning. I believe his is guilty as sin. Two other juries believed it to.

 

[chlban]

[

QUOTE=TellTheTruth;10122659]I think the fact that evidence doesn't seem concrete is the reason for the intrigue in this case.

Those are some major bruises Darlie sustained on her arms - self inflicted? I don't buy that

.

I am not sure I do either. I think there is a better than average chance they were inflicted by Darrin when he grabbed her in anger after he realized she had just butchered their sons. However, being the low life he himself is, I think he subsequently decided he still wanted to keep his wife and life so he backed her.

I have always believed that Darrin knew from day one, moment one that Darlie killed their boys. I also suspect he's the one that planted the sock.

 

[Sinsaint]

I am not sure I do either. I think there is a better than average chance they were inflicted by Darrin when he grabbed her in anger after he realized she had just butchered their sons. However, being the low life he himself is, I think he subsequently decided he still wanted to keep his wife and life so he backed her.

I have always believed that Darrin knew from day one, moment one that Darlie killed their boys. I also suspect he's the one that planted the sock.

When exactly do you think he grabbed her?

 

[Val830]

When exactly do you think he grabbed her?

Maybe while she was on the phone and breathlessly squealing "I didn't do anything Darin"?

Just a guess.

 

[TellTheTruth]

I think there is a fair few of us that think Darin hasn't been as honest as he could have been from the off. Talk of hiring the burglar, saying Darlie was screaming 'Devon, Devon, Devon' that became 'Darin, Darin, Darin' after a few years in between interviews, and numerous other anomalies.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but if I knew my wife was innocent and she was sitting on death row, there wouldn't be a minute go by that I wasn't doing all I could to get her out. Getting a divorce, getting remarried and starting another Coms business wouldn't be an option for me, even after 16 odd years.

And his new website is crap as well!

 

[SapphireSteel]

All you need to make your fortune in the US is fame.

Fame itself is a gold mine.

The guy needs a new job right?

 

[Sinsaint]

Maybe while she was on the phone and breathlessly squealing "I didn't do anything Darin"?

Just a guess.

Lmao... Okay.

 

[chlban]

=

Sinsaint;10125549]When exactly do you think he grabbed her

After he came downstairs and saw she had butchered his sons. Along about the time she was trying to convince him there really was an intruder that could be heard on the 911 tape.

 

[TellTheTruth]

=

After he came downstairs and saw she had butchered his sons. Along about the time she was trying to convince him there really was an intruder that could be heard on the 911 tape.

And then he decided to keep quiet and not tell the police he suspected he wife of killing his two sons?

 

[chlban]

TellTheTruth;10131429]And then he decided to keep quiet and not tell the police he suspected he wife of killing his two sons

Exactly right. I have never doubted that Darrin knows the truth. It's not exactly the first time one spouse has covered for the other and probably won't be the last.

 

[Val830]

And then he decided to keep quiet and not tell the police he suspected he wife of killing his two sons?

If his trophy wife with the 36 Triple D breasts that he told EVERYONE about was more valuable to him than his children - sure.

He's a total creep.

And he's hardly the first creep to choose a spouse over the children. Usually it's an abused/co-dependent wife who does this, but there's nothing to say co-dependent husbands can't do it as well.

How many times do we see wives standing by and defending their CLEARLY
guilty husbands? Why is it such a stretch when the gender is reversed?

 

[TellTheTruth]

If his trophy wife with the 36 Triple D breasts that he told EVERYONE about was more valuable to him than his children - sure.

He's a total creep.

And he's hardly the first creep to choose a spouse over the children. Usually it's an abused/co-dependent wife who does this, but there's nothing to say co-dependent husbands can't do it as well.

How many times do we see wives standing by and defending their CLEARLY
guilty husbands? Why is it such a stretch when the gender is reversed?

So you are saying he battered his wife's arms to get his frustration out for her killing their two sons and then realised that he felt a lot better so stood by her side for 16 years.

And now they're divorced - he's still standing by her knowing she's guilty?

I think that is a little far fetched don't you?