The 911 Call

[sharpar]

Alot of people feel Darlie should have stuck with court appointed defense since the state would have picked up the costs of any evidence testing or obtaining expert testimony. As it was Darlie's defense was being paid for by her husband whose other interest besides keeping his wife from being convicted was to keep any focus off of him. Since he was footing the bill his wishes held great weight and might have tied the defenses hands .

 

[Britlaw]

Sharpar, I am not trying to convince you of Darlie's innocence, far from it. However, the defence dont have to put spin on multiple bloodied items being placed in open brown paper bags if it is a fact. All I am saying, is less haste more speed, despite media pressure. Continuity of evidence is critical, it should be a given that each exhibit item is logged at scene, goes in a seperate bag which is security tagged and numbered and must be able to be accounted for at every stage of the CJS process. Then the accused/convicted have no basis to challenge.

Yes they can come to a conclusion quickly, as they obviously did in this case. However, if the evidence was able to demonstrate that despite this conclusion, the investigating team kept an open mind during the investigation again, there would be no basis for the defence to argue otherwise. A chief investigating officer needs to ask him/herself "what the likely challenges to my investigation?" and cover those things. The fingerprints in the utility and on the table - I would have thought it was obvious that these would linger if unidentified, what more could they have done to avoid this? It was obvious that at some point, she would accuse her husband. No, you cant prove a negative but I dont think there was enough evidence put forward (as I can see and I stand to be corrected on this of course) to explain why he was eliminated as a suspect.

Desperate defendants will resort to anything sometimes (I am an ex Police Officer turned lawyer, so I am not exactly naive in this respect). However, some things are a given. Covering all the bases re the scope of the investigation and continuity of evidence are bankers. From what I can see, if there weren't these issues then this case wouldnt have attracted so much difficulty. People will and do accept that other people, even mothers, can be evil/depraved/calculating etc. but it is more difficult to convince them if others are able to sew seeds of doubt in their minds.

I think we are on the same side, but I am probably a little more demanding in terms of proof - merely because of my desire that the public are confident in the criminal justice system rather than me seeing guilty people as innocent. In the UK, we had a very dark spell in the 60's & 70's where convictions were secured on hasty investigations after intense public outcry and desire for convictions - the Guilford and Birmingham pub bombings being notable examples. Police procedures & evidencial law in the UK drastically changed as a result and no-one thought we'd ever secure a conviction again but we learned from it and as a result we are more demanding in criminal cases and police procedures are literally on a different planet than they were before.

I also look at it from a cost basis. The cases I referred to in my earlier posts have cost this country's taxpayers many millions and Essex Boys has not finished yet. I dont doubt that the 2 in question ought to be in jail for something for a long time (they were self confessed gang criminals), I am just not sure that it was proved that it was for murder X3. If the investigators hadnt jumped at the chance of a break with a supergrass, they may have found the evidence that would make the case irrefutable.

 

[Britlaw]

Ah Sharpar, thats why I was asking about the US public legal aid system, for the very point you make. I have too much experience of women protecting men in my career to discount his involvement. Is your system such that she would have got an equal defence representation irrespective of whether she paid for it?

 

[Britlaw]

Okay, shout me down here - I expect you to, this is healthy debate (I hope!) I am a new poster who has only fairly recently surveyed the evidence. I have tried to read a lot of the posts/potential scenarios but inevitably havent read all of them....

Darin puts Drake to bed and comes back downstairs and they discuss finances/divorce/whatever.... say its Darin that gets the knife and goes crazy with it, and its Darlie trying to pull Darin off the boys whilst he's stabbing them...she would get the same droplets on the back of her shirt and he had no shirt on to give long lasting evidence of what he had on his back. He apparently went up and downstairs but not whilst LE was in the house.

What actual evidence is there that he was upstairs until the 'glass broke' and the "Devon, Devon, Devon" scream? During the 911 call, Darlie's "someone came in here and just did this, Darin" comment could be in reaction to an admission by Darin just before/as the police were arriving - i.e. her remindng him do defend himself to deflect him from being the suspect.

I do think her wounds were self inflicted, but what if say she said to Darin, "if you dont stop I will kill myself" in an effort to try and stop him and then attempted to slit her own throat? What's the evidence as to what blood he had all over him?

I know this doesnt deal with the knife cut in the screen but this has already been challenged/discredited and also the sock in the alley if Darin has blood on him, but this is the same for Darlie.

I just know from bitter experience that far too many women will cover up & take the rap for their husbands/partners in the face of horrific circumstances and lets face it, Darlie didnt have independence from her man, so there was not equality in their relationship. My experience of some 'southern women' (and make no mistake, we have our equivalent here in the UK) is that they would literally go to the ends of the earth for their husbands/family. I have had wealthy (but unequal) women, with them and their children beaten to a pulp, who will withdraw charges against the partner (with the money) the next morning.

In order for the state to find Darlie guilty, they ought to have gone some way to have found Darin was innocent. How can she be proven conclusively as guilty unless he was found reasonably conclusively as innocent? or at least reasonably conclusively as complicit?

Please dont shoot me down, I am just provoking some healthy discussion.

 

[Mary456]

However, the defence dont have to put spin on multiple bloodied items being placed in open brown paper bags if it is a fact.

The only items I'm aware of that were bagged together were two bloody towels that were touching each other, as well as Damon's clothing. It's common practice in many jurisdictions to bag together items in these two situations. This investigation was anything but sloppy; in fact, it was pretty darn good considering all the blood involved. The crime scene was secured within twenty minutes. The officer guarding the front door wouldn't even let the Chief of Police into the house!

Yes they can come to a conclusion quickly, as they obviously did in this case.

I'd call it more of a very strong hunch. Actually, LE at first suspected Darin, but all the evidence pointed to Darlie, and her changing stories didn't help convince them otherwise. If there was a "rush to judgment", they wouldn't have waited two weeks to arrest her.

It was obvious that at some point, she would accuse her husband.

Although other people have, I don't believe Darlie has ever accused her husband of this crime. On the contrary, she's insisted from day one that it was an unknown intruder and absolutely, positively was not her husband. She even said, "I know what my husband looks like, and it was not him." Besides, if you believe Darlie's story, Darin couldn't have been walking out through the garage and coming down the front staircase at the same time.

One more thought, if I may. Darlie isn't the type to sit on death row for 9 years if she thought she could pin it on her husband.

 

[Mary456]

What actual evidence is there that he was upstairs until the 'glass broke' and the "Devon, Devon, Devon" scream?

Darlie's testimony and Darin's testimony. Drake was too young to speak, and Darlie made sure Devon & Damon wouldn't be testifying.

I do think her wounds were self inflicted, but what if say she said to Darin, "if you dont stop I will kill myself" in an effort to try and stop him and then attempted to slit her own throat?

I don't know how the law works in the U.K., but the "what if" scenario doesn't work in our courtrooms without some supporting evidence. You could just as easily say aliens could have killed the kids, but it's not going to fly unless maybe a spaceship was found at 5801 Eagle Drive.

I know this doesnt deal with the knife cut in the screen but this has already been challenged/discredited

Oh my. The screen evidence hasn't come close to being discredited. It is, in fact, one of the strongest pieces of evidence against Darlie. Fibers matching the screen were found in the grooves of the bread knife, which was in the butcher block. Cyberlaw already explained what that means, so I won't go into it again.

I have had wealthy (but unequal) women, with them and their children beaten to a pulp, who will withdraw charges against the partner (with the money) the next morning.

Sure, that happens all the time with abused women, but they're not sitting on death row, facing their own execution in the next two to three years, are they. Big difference.

In order for the state to find Darlie guilty, they ought to have gone some way to have found Darin was innocent..

They did. Both Greg Davis and Toby Shook said publicly that there was no evidence linking Darin to the actual murders. As a lawyer, I'm sure you know that the State isn't going to invest all that time and money unless there's credible evidence to support their case. They're not going to manufacture evidence out of thin air and expect a jury to believe it.

 

[Goody]

Thank you all for participating in the discussion. I guess I'll start with two things about the case that bother me in terms of credibility of evidence. First is the sloppy police investigation. I am an ex police officer and know how hard it is at a crime scene to worry about preservation of evidence when there is carnage about you but you have to and I have had relatives regard me as insensitive at a crime scene but they have a different attitude when a conviction is secured. After the chaos, I find it hard to reason why they were not more methodical about the investigation & collection of evidence. For e.g. putting multiple items of bloodied clothing/textiles might not interfere with blood patterns but its difficult to prove conclusively that it didnt and therefore causes lingering doubt.

There was only ONE bag that had more than one thing in it and that was Damon's clothing collected at the hospital. It was not bagged by police but by paramedics and later turned over to police. Supporters like to imply that there were all kinds of problems with the evidence bags but that just isn't true.

I think a conclusion was arrived at very early, which is okay so long as you keep the investigation open to all possibilities.

I think it was. They followed the leads they had, interviewed a lot of people. The trouble was that most of the evidence pointed to Darlie. People who claimed to see the mysterious black car...not a single one of them thought to take down a license number. The kids who were stopped in front of the house that night were obviously looky loos who lived in the neighborhood. If we had access to the police files, we would probably see just how well they did investigate with open minds. Cron himself said there would be more than one investigation going; one regarding Darlie and others regarding various reports and witness statements. Like Darlie's claim that her neighbor Gary Mize was a likely suspect. They interviewed him and his family, and then she admitted in court that he was not the man she saw in her house that night. She described a large framed musclar man, and Mize was short and not muscular.

Question here: I read somewhere that a knife and a screwdriver were seen near the sock but not collected - is this fiction?

News to me. The sock was found in the alley near a trash can on a grassy section. The alley was paved. Across the alley behind a fence some household knives were sticking in the ground. A boy was using them to garden with. There may have been a screwdriver there, too. But those items were proven not to be involved in the murders.

The other thing is the so called 'mock trials' held for witnesses. I am now a lawyer and find this practice difficult. This article in the UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1840192,00.html details the issues but its about drawing a line between preparing a witness for the trial 'ordeal' and coaching them on what to actually say. Again, the risk is that perfectly credible evidence is able to be discredited and thus create the doubt.

This has been argued from both sides many times, but guess what I found the other day. In rereading the bond hearing testimony, I found where the state asked permission of the judge to conduct those group sessions to prepare their witnesses for trial.

Another interesting bit of trivia is that Darlie's atty, Doug Mulder, is the one who started the practice of group interviews in trial preparation when he worked for the district atty's office in Dallas. It had been a tradition for 20 years before Darlie's case!

During the trial Mulder acted like it was unheard of and it was nothing but a courtroom dance, just a defense atty postering for the media. When something like that is common practice, you can't very well call it underhanded or unethical. If defense attys in Dallas truly wanted the practice stopped, they could run to the legislative branch about it.

The more defendents/convicted are able to cry foul the more people will do it and thus the greater the risk to the CJS. To clear up an earlier point, I am not talking about public support here, I am talking about the ability to question the credibility or validity of evidence.

I don't understand your point here so can't comment on it.

Another question - Who is behind the Justicefordarlie website?

I don't know but I think it is the former webmaster of Darlie's website. I understood that her family took over hers and since then it does not have near as much stuff on it that it used to have. The justicefordarlie website though has documents from the state and the defense and is by far much more informative, but they both support Darlie and in doing so support claims I believe to be false or misrepresented, esp the family run site. My biggest gripe with them is their statements of fact (distorted in my opinion|) and the pictures of the Darlie's injuries have been so overly enlarged that the images are no longer representative of the actual injuries.

Last question - I am interested in what the public criminal legal aid system is in the US. We have a good national scheme in the UK which is very good but costs the country a fortune.

Jeana is the probably the best one to answer this, but we have court appointed attys in most jurisdictions for people who cannot afford an atty, esp in murder cases. Darlie had court appointed attys before she fired them and hired Mulder. Mulder's normal price was $200,000 for a murder trial but all they could pay was $100,000. He hired 2 more attys to assist him and an investigator (originally hired by the court appointed attys, I think.) At any rate, her budget for tests, etc was seriously limited with Mulder because of the cash shortage, but had she stayed with her court appointed attys the state would have given them a budget for testing. In my opinion, it was very, very foolish of her to give up her court appointed attys.

For those that have been interested in criminal trials generally, you might find this one interesting. We refer to it here as the Essex Boys killings, where 3 hardened criminal were assassinated down a country lane in the UK. 2 similarly hardened criminals were found guilty but still profess their innocence 10 years later. Their conviction was based soley on the evidence of an accomplice who turned supergrass and testified against them. Before testifying, he signed a film and book contract but the jury were unaware of this. Obviously there could only actually have been a book/film if the 2 were found guilty, so there was a motive for his testimony. He also, although admitting he drove the car, insisted he had no knowledge of what the other 2 were going to do, so he was also trying to mitigate his position (drug dealing was also an element). He got a minor conviction, a short sentence and now lives a new life under the witness protection programme. This website contains a lot of material (its the site of another criminal of this gang), including graphic crime scene photos, you are warned! http://www.bernardomahoney.com/rrmurders/main.shtml The convicted had their case referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission who spent a couple of years investigating the case - including having another police force investigate parts of the original investigation. The CCRC refered the matter to the Court of Appeal (which means they think they have a point) but the appeal was dismissed a few weeks ago.

Sorry if I have rambled off the topic!!

I will save this one to my case list. Only so many hours in a day to read. hahahahahah.

 

[Goody]

excerpt: The new guidelines say that barristers can advise witnesses on basic requirements for giving evidence, such as the need to listen to the questions and answer them, to speak clearly and slowly, and to avoid irrelevant comments. Great care must be taken to ensure that there is no suggestion as to what the witness should say in the witness box as, according to the guidelines, “ that would be coaching”.

Mark Solon, a solicitor and director of Bond Solon, a witness training company, welcomed the new guidance. “It is not the same as coaching. The Bar Council is making clear that here we are allowed to put people on the stage to experience what it feels like, but in the States they can teach them the words.”

In the US, he said, training of witnesses went much further. “They will run a trial in front of a mock jury and get the jury to mark papers . . . We are not going down that road. The old rule of no coaching still applies.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1840192,00.html


The above is an excerpt from Brit's post. Interesting take they have on our practices. I don't know how many states have a similar practice as they have in Texas. I have heard of mock trials but did not know they go as far as the above implies. In Texas, the practice is to save the state time, and it was only used for groups of witnesses. They only put the professional people testifying into groups, EMTs, police, doctors, nurses, etc. They did not do the same for Darlie's friends, sales people, neighbors, etc.

 

[Goody]

(I am an ex Police Officer turned lawyer, so I am not exactly naive in this respect). .

Are you a defense lawyer by any chance?

 

[Goody]

Okay, shout me down here - I expect you to, this is healthy debate (I hope!) I am a new poster who has only fairly recently surveyed the evidence. I have tried to read a lot of the posts/potential scenarios but inevitably havent read all of them....

Darin puts Drake to bed and comes back downstairs and they discuss finances/divorce/whatever.... say its Darin that gets the knife and goes crazy with it, and its Darlie trying to pull Darin off the boys whilst he's stabbing them...she would get the same droplets on the back of her shirt and he had no shirt on to give long lasting evidence of what he had on his back.

The drops would not land the same way in size, shape, and location. If it would, we would have seen the defense putting on a demonstration of their own to dispute the state's findings.

If Darin had been the one stabbing, and Darlie covering for him, we would have to believe that Darlie would sit on death row for 9 years without saying a word about it. We would have Darlie the martyr instead of Darlie the murderer. Do you honestly think she would do that?


He apparently went up and downstairs but not whilst LE was in the house.[/QUOTE]

And not while he had blood on him.

What actual evidence is there that he was upstairs until the 'glass broke' and the "Devon, Devon, Devon" scream? During the 911 call, Darlie's "someone came in here and just did this, Darin" comment could be in reaction to an admission by Darin just before/as the police were arriving - i.e. her remindng him do defend himself to deflect him from being the suspect.

The first police officer was in the house by then. There is no proof that Darin was upstairs during the murders except that Darlie places him there. Darin's story was always consistent except the parts he changed to help her out and the blood evidence did not dispute him.

I do think her wounds were self inflicted, but what if say she said to Darin, "if you dont stop I will kill myself" in an effort to try and stop him and then attempted to slit her own throat? What's the evidence as to what blood he had all over him?

Probably none, but even your scenario has her cutting her own throat.

I know this doesnt deal with the knife cut in the screen but this has already been challenged/discredited and also the sock in the alley if Darin has blood on him, but this is the same for Darlie.

I just know from bitter experience that far too many women will cover up & take the rap for their husbands/partners in the face of horrific circumstances and lets face it, Darlie didnt have independence from her man, so there was not equality in their relationship. My experience of some 'southern women' (and make no mistake, we have our equivalent here in the UK) is that they would literally go to the ends of the earth for their husbands/family. I have had wealthy (but unequal) women, with them and their children beaten to a pulp, who will withdraw charges against the partner (with the money) the next morning.

Darlie was a prima donna, not a martyr. If she would chase Darin around the shop throwing things at him, she was pretty darned equal in that marriage. LOL! I think you want to see her as a victim and she just isn't victim material. Yes, she does try to portray herself that way with her sweet little meek soft spoken voice, but everyone who knew them said she wore the pants in the family. I am all for sticking up for Darlie. It has been known to get me into trouble around here, so believe me, I won't hesitate to do it again if there was any chance your impressions of her could be true. I just don't see it at all.

In order for the state to find Darlie guilty, they ought to have gone some way to have found Darin was innocent. How can she be proven conclusively as guilty unless he was found reasonably conclusively as innocent? or at least reasonably conclusively as complicit?

Please dont shoot me down, I am just provoking some healthy discussion.

They don't have enough physical evidence to charge Darin for anything, but between you and me and the bedpost, they still suspect him today. But without proof, he will never be charged. It will take Darlie getting a new trial to put his head back on the chopping block.

 

[britgirl]

Hi Britlaw and welcome. Nice to have a fellow Brit on board!

I take your point about Darlie's tone of voice when she says "someone came in here and just did this, Darin"- and I agree, it sounds as though she is trying to emphasise to Darin that it WASN'T her, it really WAS an intruder, quick, back me up here! And I think that's what happened as I believe Darlie killed those boys. However, from another point of view, someone convinced of her innocence could argue that she sounds angry because she's furious with Darin for not defending the family. You know, "someone came in here and just did this, Darin, you ****, where the *** were you when this was happening!!!"

There is a lot of evidence in this case that I feel points to Darlie's guilt. The fibres on the knife in the butcher block, the blood spatter patterns/location of the blood, etc...I don't pay any attention to all the stuff about her apparently grieving inappropriately/the silly string etc...because one can make all of that point to guilt or innocence, depending on one's point of view.

 

[CyberLaw]

When a "lawyer" coaches a witness what to say on the witness stand, that is called "subjourning" perjury.

You can tell them to just answer the questions, speak clearly, don't add any extra information(for obvious) reasons, you can tell them what to wear, how to appear, but you CANNOT tell them what to say. That alone will get a person disbarred, because who is the witness in the case the lawyer or the actual witness. Perjury is a form of "thwarting justice".

Answer Yes I saw the car, or no I did not see the car. A lawyer cannot say: Tell them you were not in the area, it was too dark to see the car, you were not sure who was driving. Because if you saw the car, you were in the area and you saw who was driving and were not "truthful and forthright" then you are lying.

Also you cannot tell them: Don't say this or don't say that, because again who is the witness. Don't answer, unless asked. What where you doing along that street at 2:30 a.m., what was your purpose for being out that late in that particular area of the city. Your truthful answer: I was out looking for drugs. A lawyer cannot say: Oh that is going to harm my cases, so say you were out for ice cream, or that you could not sleep and decided to go for a walk.

I know the legal system in Canada is based on Common Law as in the UK.

But having a "mock" hearing, preparing a witness, even engaging a mock jury to rate the "legal" technique used is a valid "prep" for court.

Even smart, if a "mock" jury is confused by the opening and relates that information, then the lawyer will be well advised to revise his opening.

If certain words have impact on a "mock" jury, then they usually will for the real jury. If the name of the victim has more impact then saying the "victim of this horrible crime is more persuasive with the jury then you will know this before trial.

If a jury sees a witness as "not credible" then a lawyer would like to know that before. If the witness seems not to dress in a way that is supportive to a jury, or has mannerism that are offensive, then again the lawyer wants to "solve" these problems before the real trial.

A lawyer was disbarred recently. At a bail hearing he told the defendent to say that he was at his parents house and no where near the crime scene. His parents wanted him to make bail, which was a remote possibility. He was caught, and disbarred.

A lawyer is a officer of the court. They are the "cogs" in the administration of justice. It works well against justice to "coach" your client or witness.

That is why I never, ask a defendant if they are guilty. Never, because it has no basis for my defense. I defend them to the same degree and capacity if they are guilty or not.

Evidence does not lie.

There are several instances in Canada where a person was innocent and sent to prison. We even have the Association for the Wrongly Convicted.

But the cases they take are "obvious" miscarriages of justice.

If Darin did harm the kids and Darlie, then a blood trail would be left in the house indicating what direction he went. Also they would have found bloodly shoes, and shirt, and a blood trail from whatever he touched in the house.

Still nothing to this day........

You see when someone tries to "stage" a story, they again have no basis in reality for the "staging", they stage the scene according to what "they think" should be there. They don't take into consideration that what is not there, is just as important.

For example: If you have a "real" fight for your life with an armed intruder, a flower arrangement is not going to be the only thing "knocked over" on its side. Not damaged. The flowers are intact. But if you "think" that this will show a "fight" and have "strong" material instincts, you are not going to damage anything you feel has value.

That was one of the huge red flags for the cops. As they have been to actual crime scene where there has been a "life and death" struggle and a lot of things have been broken. A person is more concerned with their life, then with material possessions.

Another tip of early. No blood trail from the house.

Another tip off. The children "horrible" wounds compared to the mother.

Another tip off: Blood cleaned up at the sink.


So the police arrive, see no blood trail. Big tip off. Gets mind thinking.

Go to the hospital: Look at Darlie's feet. Again, a big tip off.

The dog was silent. Another tip off.

So there was "no rush" to judgement, the police were "loathe" to charge Darlie after "losing" two boys and tried to "believe" her, but as the evidence was mouting, her story did not add up as to the evidence at the scene.

If a person says one thing and the evidence says another: Then someone is lying and it sure as heck is not the evidence.

Darlie is just where she belongs..........

 

[cami]

I have been quite interested in this case and have recently been going through the evidence. I normally confine myself to potential miscarriages of justice here in the UK but this case caught my attention recently after reading an article.

I am not going to make a judgement on guilt or innocence as my interest is purely on the fairness/reliability of the trial/evidence, i.e. the safety of the verdict. I have some serious concerns with a lot of the evidence and also have issues with the behaviour of the police and the prosecution. I also have a problem with the importance attached to the absense of grieving/silly string video etc. We all react to things differently and if she'd balled her eyes out for a year after it doesnt mean she was less capable of the killings. Conversely, not reacting in the way some people would expect doesnt make her more likely to be the killer.

However, the one thing that personally sticks in my mind is the 911 tape where shes generally being quite convincing balling and shrieking and hysterical.....all of a sudden at 05:19 she says "...somebody who did it intentionally walked in here and did it Darin..." with such anger in her voice and seemingly towards Darin. Her statement is clearly a response to something Darin (or possibly the police officer, or both) did - either he said something or his body language expressed something. The tone of her voice makes it sound like shes defending an accusation - possibly like "What have you done?", "why the hell did you do this?" or similar and her voice gets progressively more angry and lower in tone, especially the last couple of words and especially the 'Darin'. Doesnt sound like a woman witnessing her two boys dying after being slain by an intruder. Even if she'd snapped and did it herself with totally out of character behaviour, I wouldnt expect a comment like that...seems too calculated to me. For reasons I gave above, this isnt something that I think a court should decide innocence or guilt over, it just bothers me (being a mother).

Thank you, it is the one thing about that 911 call that bothers me as well. Her voice chaning in a nano second to anger. I can't shake that anger in her voice. I hear guilt all over that call.

I don't think the court decided guilt or innocence on the strength of that one piece of well evidence if it is.. There is blood evidence that just cannot be explained from a point of innocence. We only have Darlie's families word that the jury said they convicted on the strength of the silly string tape. I'm afraid her word is not good enough for me.

 

[cami]

I am not saying Darlie Routier is innocent (not reaching a judgement, not my place). However, if she is guilty, I would prefer her conviction to be based on a more credible evidence base than it appears to me. Where there are questions over the evidence, and no matter what you say there are (- otherwise there wouldnt be forums like these and TV shows all over the place) the risk is that a guilty person will get off on appeal, which cant be right. What I am saying is, if prosecutors did a better job in these cases, this unpalatable result is less likely. Police etc are put under enormous pressure with high profile cases to get a quick result.

What is it about the blood and fibre evidence that you find not credible?

I agree in one way about the police pressure to arrest. Darlie wasn't going anywhere, I believe they should have waited to arrest her until they had the case a bit more air tight, but that blood evidence convinces me of her guilt.

There is always going to be questions over the evidence.....in every case. That's why there is an automatic appeal with the DP.

 

[cami]

Thank you all for participating in the discussion. I guess I'll start with two things about the case that bother me in terms of credibility of evidence. First is the sloppy police investigation. I am an ex police officer and know how hard it is at a crime scene to worry about preservation of evidence when there is carnage about you but you have to and I have had relatives regard me as insensitive at a crime scene but they have a different attitude when a conviction is secured. After the chaos, I find it hard to reason why they were not more methodical about the investigation & collection of evidence. For e.g. putting multiple items of bloodied clothing/textiles might not interfere with blood patterns but its difficult to prove conclusively that it didnt and therefore causes lingering doubt. I think a conclusion was arrived at very early, which is okay so long as you keep the investigation open to all possibilities.

Question here: I read somewhere that a knife and a screwdriver were seen near the sock but not collected - is this fiction?


The other thing is the so called 'mock trials' held for witnesses. I am now a lawyer and find this practice difficult. This article in the UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1840192,00.html details the issues but its about drawing a line between preparing a witness for the trial 'ordeal' and coaching them on what to actually say. Again, the risk is that perfectly credible evidence is able to be discredited and thus create the doubt.

The more defendents/convicted are able to cry foul the more people will do it and thus the greater the risk to the CJS. To clear up an earlier point, I am not talking about public support here, I am talking about the ability to question the credibility or validity of evidence

I think you are falling into the defence/Darlie's family's spin here. Two bloody towels were collected in the same bag because they were touching each other at the scene, it's standard operating procedure to collect them together. Darlie's nightshirt and Damon's clothes were put in the same bag at the hospital for transport to the police investigative unit. It's been proven that the cast-off blood on the back of Darlie's nightshirt could not have occurred by placing Damon's clothes and her's together. There's only one way that cast-off blood got there. No one gets a perfect investigation. Police officers are human and subject to mistake. Their were two victims alive there, the first order of business for the cops was to secure the house and then assist with rendering aid until the medical team, paramedics, arrived.

Yes, they were in a backyard close to the Routier house. Perhaps you should read the trial testimony on these two items. Read Gustavo Guzman Jr. and then read the tool expert, Robert A. Poole's testimony....Volume 32 and 38 respectively. They were used by the home owner and her son in the garden for edging. They were also sticking out of the ground in the back yard near where the gardening work was being done. If you're a Bobby then you know the likelihood of these two items being used in the Routier crime is remote.

A practice started by Darlie's defence attorney, Mulder when he was a prosecutor. Now he's crying foul. There's no proof any of the witnesses were coached on what to say.

?Another question - Who is behind the Justicefordarlie website

Don't know but have a pretty good idea and they support Darlie's innocence.

Last question - I am interested in what the public criminal legal aid system is in the US. We have a good national scheme in the UK which is very good but costs the country a fortune.

For those that have been interested in criminal trials generally, you might find this one interesting. We refer to it here as the Essex Boys killings, where 3 hardened criminal were assassinated down a country lane in the UK. 2 similarly hardened criminals were found guilty but still profess their innocence 10 years later. Their conviction was based soley on the evidence of an accomplice who turned supergrass and testified against them. Before testifying, he signed a film and book contract but the jury were unaware of this. Obviously there could only actually have been a book/film if the 2 were found guilty, so there was a motive for his testimony. He also, although admitting he drove the car, insisted he had no knowledge of what the other 2 were going to do, so he was also trying to mitigate his position (drug dealing was also an element). He got a minor conviction, a short sentence and now lives a new life under the witness protection programme. This website contains a lot of material (its the site of another criminal of this gang), including graphic crime scene photos, you are warned! http://www.bernardomahoney.com/rrmurders/main.shtml The convicted had their case referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission who spent a couple of years investigating the case - including having another police force investigate parts of the original investigation. The CCRC refered the matter to the Court of Appeal (which means they think they have a point) but the appeal was dismissed a few weeks ago.

Sorry if I have rambled off the topic!!

Interesting but what does that have to do with Darlie's case. No one grassed her up.....maybe when you learn the blood evidence in her case you might feel differently about the conviction. Darlie's case has been appealed. She lost her direct appeal and her State's appeals and now is in her Federal level of appeals. With all those checks and balances, if there is a reason for her conviction to be overturned and a new trial granted, they will find it.

Last question - I am interested in what the public criminal legal aid system is in the US. We have a good national scheme in the UK which is very good but costs the country a fortune.

I live in Canada so can't help there...we do as well. Maybe Jeana will chime in. It cost us a fortune too.

 

[cami]

Okay, shout me down here - I expect you to, this is healthy debate (I hope!) I am a new poster who has only fairly recently surveyed the evidence. I have tried to read a lot of the posts/potential scenarios but inevitably havent read all of them....

Darin puts Drake to bed and comes back downstairs and they discuss finances/divorce/whatever.... say its Darin that gets the knife and goes crazy with it, and its Darlie trying to pull Darin off the boys whilst he's stabbing them...she would get the same droplets on the back of her shirt and he had no shirt on to give long lasting evidence of what he had on his back. He apparently went up and downstairs but not whilst LE was in the house.

Ah no she wouldn't. That blood is on her back because it was her hand that was plunging that knife in and out of her two sons's bodies. It's been proven to the satisfaction of the jury. The blood expert Tom Bevel demonstrated it in court. Darlie would have had to have been piggy back on Darin, if he was using that knife, and then the chances are the blood would land on her face and head and not her back. Darin most likely went up and down stairs twice, once in response to Darlie's screams and most likely to put his jeans on the second time to cover his nakedness before the cops and paramedics arrived.

What actual evidence is there that he was upstairs until the 'glass broke' and the "Devon, Devon, Devon" scream? During the 911 call, Darlie's "someone came in here and just did this, Darin" comment could be in reaction to an admission by Darin just before/as the police were arriving - i.e. her remindng him do defend himself to deflect him from being the suspect.

both Darlie and Darin's voluntary statements and their trial testimony.

I do think her wounds were self inflicted, but what if say she said to Darin, "if you dont stop I will kill myself" in an effort to try and stop him and then attempted to slit her own throat? What's the evidence as to what blood he had all over him?

Up until now, Darlie has adamantly maintained that Darin was not the intruder. Nor would she sit on DR saying nothing if Darin had murdered the boys.

I know this doesnt deal with the knife cut in the screen but this has already been challenged/discredited and also the sock in the alley if Darin has blood on him, but this is the same for Darlie.

No it hasn't. and there are two separate pieces of evidence on that bread knife, not just the screen fibre but rubber dust from the sceen as well. Not possible that the "dusting brush" transferred two separate pieces of evidence to the knife at the same time. That sock could have been placed in the alley before Darlie started to bleed. None of her blood is on it.

I just know from bitter experience that far too many women will cover up & take the rap for their husbands/partners in the face of horrific circumstances and lets face it, Darlie didnt have independence from her man, so there was not equality in their relationship. My experience of some 'southern women' (and make no mistake, we have our equivalent here in the UK) is that they would literally go to the ends of the earth for their husbands/family. I have had wealthy (but unequal) women, with them and their children beaten to a pulp, who will withdraw charges against the partner (with the money) the next morning.

Not Darlie. She wouldn't sit on DR if Darin is the one responsible for this crime. Darin could not be the intruder without Darlie's knowledge so in the least she's his accomplice.

In order for the state to find Darlie guilty, they ought to have gone some way to have found Darin was innocent. How can she be proven conclusively as guilty unless he was found reasonably conclusively as innocent? or at least reasonably conclusively as complicit?

There's no evidence that Darin was involved in the murders and he was the first suspect...but all evidence points to Darlie and only Darlie as the killer.

 

[Goody]

..... Darin most likely went up and down stairs twice, once in response to Darlie's screams and most likely to put his jeans on the second time to cover his nakedness before the cops and paramedics arrived.
........

How could that be? Didn't he get any blood on him before he went back upstaris,and if he did, why is no trace of it found anywhere on the stairs, upstairs hall, or master bedroom? Not even a tiny transfer or smear?

 

[Britlaw]

Please guys, I have never said I think Darlie is innocent! I only just 10 days ago read an article and wanted to read more. I am asking the same questions and hypothesizing as you probably have all done so on here long before I had ever heard of Darlie Routier.

I read about the screwdriver and knife, I think on one of the Darlie sites and asked about them. I wasnt suggesting that I thought they were used in the crime, just wondered if they actually had existed in the first place. If they had been bagged and tested/eliminated she wouldnt have a reason to mention them.

I did apologise for wandering off the topic mentioning the Essex Boys, just thought some of you might be interested in it. I will give you a case decided recently in the UK with blood evidence as a key issue - Sion Jenkins, convicted for murdering his foster daughter by brutally and repeatedly stabbing her in the head with a long metal tent spike in 1997. The original verdict was unanimous and the judge told him: "Sion Jenkins, the jury have convicted you of murder in what my judgement was compelling evidence". An expert had given evidence that the distribution of blood was consistent with the wearer of the clothes delivering several blows to the head. Jenkins brought alternative evidence regarding the blood and was given leave to appeal. He was recently retried twice without verdict and walked free when the prosecution felt it pointless to hold a third trial. I am not saying this case and its circumstances/evidence is the same but is interesting how something compelling one day is not so another.

My actual opinion regarding Darlie counts for zero as this is not a court. However, once she has exhausted all her options, she will I believe detail Darin's involvement. Yes she would sit on death row for 9 years covering up for him if they did it together (not going into al the possible scenarios for that today!). Grassing someone up is only sensible if you have an plausible alibi yourself or no, little, or very dubious evidence linking you to the actual crime (as in the Essex boys so it is kinda relevant!), neither of which she has. She has hinted at his involvement - she wants his jeans tested and I saw a couple of interview clips of her being very evasive (with a stupid smirk) when asked about him. However, this just discredits her further, the public finds it unplatable enough that a woman can murder her children but the same woman covering up for her husband and leaving him to care for the surviving child knowing what she does?

Do other people wrestle with what the surviving children must go through? Even when they are found not guilty (e.g. OJ) what must they go through. Sion Jenkins' ex wife and his 4 biological daughters moved to Tazmania (just about as far from the UK as you can get).

P.S. No I am not a defence lawyer, commercial. Not that this makes a difference to my opinions.

 

[Goody]

Please guys, I have never said I think Darlie is innocent! I only just 10 days ago read an article and wanted to read more. I am asking the same questions and hypothesizing as you probably have all done so on here long before I had ever heard of Darlie Routier.{/QUOTE]

We were just responding to your suggestion that the investigation might be shoddy, etc. Don't worry. We always discuss like this.

I read about the screwdriver and knife, I think on one of the Darlie sites and asked about them. I wasnt suggesting that I thought they were used in the crime, just wondered if they actually had existed in the first place. If they had been bagged and tested/eliminated she wouldnt have a reason to mention them.

They did not collect them right away because they did not appear to be involved with the crime. Just before trial, I believe, is when they went back and collected them and tested them. My guess is when the state became aware of their exisitence. If I recall correctly, they tested under the handles as well. There was zero chance they had anything to do with the crime.

I did apologise for wandering off the topic mentioning the Essex Boys, just thought some of you might be interested in it. I will give you a case decided recently in the UK with blood evidence as a key issue - Sion Jenkins, convicted for murdering his foster daughter by brutally and repeatedly stabbing her in the head with a long metal tent spike in 1997. The original verdict was unanimous and the judge told him: "Sion Jenkins, the jury have convicted you of murder in what my judgement was compelling evidence". An expert had given evidence that the distribution of blood was consistent with the wearer of the clothes delivering several blows to the head. Jenkins brought alternative evidence regarding the blood and was given leave to appeal. He was recently retried twice without verdict and walked free when the prosecution felt it pointless to hold a third trial.

What was the specific problem with the blood evidence?

My actual opinion regarding Darlie counts for zero as this is not a court. However, once she has exhausted all her options, she will I believe detail Darin's involvement. Yes she would sit on death row for 9 years covering up for him if they did it together (not going into al the possible scenarios for that today!). Grassing someone up is only sensible if you have an plausible alibi yourself or no, little, or very dubious evidence linking you to the actual crime (as in the Essex boys so it is kinda relevant!), neither of which she has. She has hinted at his involvement - she wants his jeans tested and I saw a couple of interview clips of her being very evasive (with a stupid smirk) when asked about him. However, this just discredits her further, the public finds it unplatable enough that a woman can murder her children but the same woman covering up for her husband and leaving him to care for the surviving child knowing what she does?

The most that Darin can be is as guilty as she is. There is no way that he is guilty and she is not.

Do other people wrestle with what the surviving children must go through? Even when they are found not guilty (e.g. OJ) what must they go through. Sion Jenkins' ex wife and his 4 biological daughters moved to Tazmania (just about as far from the UK as you can get).

Drake is being raised in Lubbock, Texas. Darin's parents have a bed and breakfast there now and I have heard that Darin works there sometimes, too. So they all one big happy family, it seems. I have also heard that Darin is dating again, but have never read anything about who it might be so it might be just rumor. Although I find it very difficult to believe that he wouldn't date after all this time. His strange loyalty to Darlie makes him look even guiltier in my book.

 

[Britlaw]

I did edit my last post to qualify it re Sion Jenkins, so you dont think I am suggesting that Jenkins = Darlie but it was an interesting case. This sums up the blood bit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4661302.stm note the input from a Canadian Mountie! There are some similarities to Darlie though, a seemingly impossible timeline, an alleged intruder, a parent allegedly killing a child brutally (abeit not biological she had lived with the family for like 5 yrs and they were planning to adopt her), uncaring appearance - when he 'discovered' body he was with 2 other daughters, he called 911 and left them in house crying whilst he went and sat in his car and put the roof up on it because rain was iminent. He also cheated on job application forms faking qualifications (he was a head teacher) and this was al used to create a cold calculating character. The case cost the taxpayer millions and a killer still walks free - whoever he/she is.

I also added to my post that I am not a defence lawyer, a commercial one!

I agree with you re Darin/Darlie, they both have a motive for their stance.