Werner Herzog documentary on Darlie - On Death Row

[Paysee]

The comments Waddell made about Darin being outside when he arrived is false.
The comments that Darlie did nothing to help her children is false.
The comments about the knife going through the body and nicking the concrete is also false. This officer cannot tell the truth because he doesn't know it. He has been coached so much on the case he can't even recall what he actually did do at the crime scene. This makes me wonder if maybe he got so sick of the police force and DA'S that he left the Rowlett force to join another one in a different city.

The comments made by Davis about the vacuum are untrue.
Davis made some comments about the silly string party that show he made up his mind that she was guilty based on that behavior.
It was Darlie's sister Dana that brought the silly string. The tape of the memorial show Darlie grieving and near collapse. She was told to get it together as her behavior was going to frighten the small children soon to arrive for the party. Darlie was told to act joyful and celebrate the birth of her oldest son.

The legal system is fickle. Mulder her attorney objected to the tape and because he objected it he could not show the parts of the tape to the jurors that show a very distraught mother. The DA ONLY SHOWED THE PORTION THAT PAINTED HER IN A BAD LIGHT. The memorial service was considered private while the party was public. The grave site was bugged and taped yet that tape was not allowed to be seen by the jurors because Mulder objected to the silly string portion. HOW IS THAT FAIR?

THE OATH TAKEN BY WITNESSES IS TO TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH. The DA DOESN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULE WHEN PRESENTING EVIDENCE. Despite the fact that he viewed the memorial tape and saw with his own 2 eyes a grieving mother. TO ME THAT IS PROOF HE LIED. He knew the truth that Darlie did grieve at the memorial service, he heard others telling her to "buck up" and act happy. HE CHOSE TO USE ONLY THE PORTION OF THE TAPE THAT SUPPORTED HIS CASE. When you tell a jury that this tape shows a callous self absorbed woman but you have seen a tape that disproves what you just said that is a lie, or at the very least a huge lack of integrity.

Mulder did the right thing to object but the judge should have allowed the memorial service portion to be shown as it disproved what the DA was presenting as evidence that she was not unhappy with the death of her sons.

IMO SHE DESERVES A NEW TRIAL where all the evidence can be seen.

DA Davis also commented that every few years something "new" is presented by the family yet none of it is true. That is false as well.

It is very difficult to get an appeal of a conviction. There are only a few ways a lawyer can do so. The lawyers working on Darlie's case have tried the many ways allowed. Almost all have been denied. What gets me is the Judge who is ruling on these motions was the same Judge who presided over her trial. How can the State of Texas consider that to be fair blows my mind. Of course a presiding judge is never going to want a conviction overturned on a trial they sat on. It is a slap in the face of good reason why any presiding judge would be allowed to make those decisions. While emotions run high here there is a better chance of all the evidence being seen on Web sleuths than there is an an actual trial. While I don't agree with the acquittal of Casey Anthony the judge in that trial made sure the defense and the prosecution were allowed to present a full case. He sought after truth and did everything possible to allow the light of truth to be shown in his courtroom. I don't think Judge Francis did the same.

Davis also engaged in inappropriate behavior when he called the family trailer trash.

Those asking the questions about why the DNA tests have not been released is answered in the show, further tests to back up the results of the first ones done and further testing of other evidence has to be done before the results will be released. When DNA results are in Darlie's favor they have to notify the courts and then the courts will have DNA tests done again to see if they come up with the same results. Based on some of the results the courts will allow further testing to be done on additional evidence. Based on some of the results the courts may allow the fingerprints to be submitted to AFIS if some proof of a unknown person comes back from the dual testing done.

I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE... Lets say the carpet pieces held for evidence show blood that does not belong to any known bleeding person at the scene. The appeals lawyers submit that result to the courts and the courts say OK we will retest it too as we don't just take your word for it. The court tests show yes there is unknown donor of blood at the scene and this could mean that a 4th person was bleeding at scene. Did any police personnel or emergency responders have a bleeding wound? Well no.. not that we know of , but we have their DNA profiles on file just in case. It is compared to them and it doesn't match anyone known to be at the crime scene. The court will feel compelled in the face of this new evidence that further testing of items need to be done. They can submit the fingerprints to AFIS and Bingo it comes up with some possible matches of several suspects. They have DNA on file for those people and it matches the DNA FOUND ON THAT CARPET! I don't remember the exact number of points required to make a positive fingerprint match but the print does not have enough to meet that criteria, that is why they may come up with several suspects instead of just 1. The DNA match up along with the few points matching does back up the claim of an intruder. That evidence alone does not mean they could convict the matching person but it may be enough to grant a new trial as proof a 3rd party was in home at time of crime.

Especially because Darlie Kee has been accused of jumping the gun and releasing info that cannot be supported she is following the lawyers advice to hold her tongue and let the process complete before she says anything about it. Darlie does not want to spend the rest of her life in prison so she wants to prove she is innocent and not have her sentence commuted to life in prison.

The stress of doing all she can to save her daughter, take care of a now very ill Drake and all the normal everyday stresses are taking a toll on her and it shows. Instead of an angry, combative mom. We see a very worn out from all the legal wrangling mother who would absolutely lay down and die should the State execute her daughter. She has lost 2 grandsons brutally murdered and to watch her daughter die too would cause such a heart break that she feels she would never recover from it. THIS KIND OF DEVOTION COMES FROM LOVE. Since we all learn how to be parents from our own parents we have to surmise that Darlie was shown love as a child and would show the same kind of love and devotion to her own children. I know of no other case where the convicted woman has held on to the claim of innocence as long as Darlie has - over 15 years. If you want to judge someone on their behavior look at all that has been done by the family to free their daughter, sister, mother, daughter-in-law etc. How could so many people close to her believe her guilty with the evidence that was used to convict her. They don't and haven't waivered because the person they knew was not the person the prosecution made her out to be.

Wow, quite a few assumptions in your post.

Its been a while since I read the trail transcripts and I no longer even have it on my Kindle. I'll see if I can go through them again and give you full details. But from what I recall:

First, the fact that Darin was outside the house when the first police officer arrived is also supported by a neighbour of the Routiers.

Second, all the photos you posted above shows the same towel from different angles. It is not disputed that Darlie held a towel to her own neck.

Comments made by Davis about the vacuum cleaner are untrue? Which comments? And what makes you say they are untrue?

I think you maybe confused a bit here. The silly string tape shown to the jury, and in the media was shot by a journalist invited by the Routiers. The "mourning memorial service" is supposedly seen in the police tape which was not a part of the prosecution or the defense evidence.

Davis offered atleast 3 times during the trial to let the jury view the entire police surveillance tape, which Mulder refused. I remember reading Davis say that copies of the tape have been given to the defendant and that there is nothing exculpatory in it.

The legal system is fickle. Mulder her attorney objected to the tape and because he objected it he could not show the parts of the tape to the jurors that show a very distraught mother. The DA ONLY SHOWED THE PORTION THAT PAINTED HER IN A BAD LIGHT. The memorial service was considered private while the party was public. The grave site was bugged and taped yet that tape was not allowed to be seen by the jurors because Mulder objected to the silly string portion. HOW IS THAT FAIR?

Like I said, 2 different tapes. Maybe a lawyer here could comment on the bolded part, but I doubt you are correct.

She was told to get it together as her behavior was going to frighten the small children soon to arrive for the party. Darlie was told to act joyful and celebrate the birth of her oldest son.

Despite the fact that he viewed the memorial tape and saw with his own 2 eyes a grieving mother. TO ME THAT IS PROOF HE LIED. He knew the truth that Darlie did grieve at the memorial service, he heard others telling her to "buck up" and act happy. HE CHOSE TO USE ONLY THE PORTION OF THE TAPE THAT SUPPORTED HIS CASE. When you tell a jury that this tape shows a callous self absorbed woman but you have seen a tape that disproves what you just said that is a lie, or at the very least a huge lack of integrity.

Where are you getting this stuff from??

I could not make any sense of the rest of your post, so I have no comments to make on that part.

 

[Paysee]

From Detective Jimmy Patterson's testimony at the trial
http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/60_detective-jimmy-patterson-2.pdf

Here is where Davis says there is nothing exculpatory in the police graveside tape.

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.

And again:

2 THE COURT: There was a videotape done
3 by Channel 5. I think everyone in the country has seen
4 out there.
5 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Well, you know
6 what they didn't see, was the funeral service. The State
7 has illegally intercepted the funeral service where they
8 stand around and pray. The State offers the Silly String
9 part of the day, and they have the prayer there, where
10 the first part of it is the prayer where they illegally
11 intercept a prayer at a grave side. And we can't offer
12 that?
13 THE COURT: Well, I think that has
14 already been offered.
15 MR. GREG DAVIS: You know, your
16 Honor --
17 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: We have a video
18 of it.
19 MR. GREG DAVIS: I don't think there
20 is any problem with Mr. Mosty or Mr. Mulder offering that
21 videotape. I mean, whatever was visually recorded out
22 there, we certainly don't have a problem with them doing
23 that. It's just the circumstances under which that was
24 gathered. You know, if they can show what happened out
25 there, if they want to show that videotape.
Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
4415
1 MR. DOUGLAS MULDER: But we can't ask
2 the --
3 MR.GREG DAVIS: So they have that
4 option. And they still get to show what they feel is
5 important for them to show to this jury.
6 THE COURT: Well, anyway, that is
7 fine. If you want to do that, that will be fine, but
8 that is the Court's ruling, and the Court will note your
9 objection.

And here is Mosty's (an attorney for Darlie Routier) description of the police tape:

1 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: Well, let me
2 describe that, your Honor. There is a video tape, that
3 is obviously taken from a vehicle near the grave site,
4 that you can see it panning on various people. And, then
5 you hear the audio.
6 Sometimes the audio -- it depends on
7 how close they were to the mike, on whether or not you
8 could hear it. But that video is -- it starts off with
9 some gentleman out there watering the grave sites,
10 apparently an employee, and is, I am guessing, it covers,
11 maybe, as much as 14 hours that day.
12 THE COURT: Well, then the video
13 does --
14 MR. RICHARD C. MOSTY: So it's hard to
15 say, and our copy -- I don't know what the State's copy
16 is like -- our copy is not all so great on the video
17 part.

The defense was not prohibited from showing the police tape to the jury. They did not do it. They did not want to do it. Why? Common sense says its because there was nothing on the tape that was helpful to Darlie.

The defense wanted to use the circumstances of recording this tape to show that the police had already made up their minds as to the guilt of Darlie. But this the judge did not allow.

As far I remember, later the detectives who had bugged the graveside, were shown to not have violated any laws in doing the bugging.

I do understand how you feel, CathyR and Sinsaint. It kills something inside us to believe that a mother would kill her own children and in such a brutal manner. I did not want to believe it myself. But after reading the transcripts.... Darlie is guilty, much as it hurts to believe that

 

[Cherry]

I'd like a re do for Darlie. I think a re do of this case would bring out the real truth, and the killer.
I see many here take Darin's word as gospel. I am not of that ilk, and feel that he was the real killer in this case.

I hope she gets another trial. I'm on the fence, and I'd like to be kicked OFF that fence by a real trial instead of fake retired Dr's *DM* who will do and or say anything on the stand. He was biased. JMO not an attack. I want a re do.

 

[Sinsaint]

Paysee...

The pictures above show two (2) towels in the hallway, one (1) towel at the entryway to the living room and two (2) towels by Devon. That's a total of five (5) towels.

 

[Paysee]

Sinsaint, I think Mary456's website may answer the towel issue better than I can. Here are the links:

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__3.html

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__4.html

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__5.html

All these 3 pages are about the towels in the Darlie Routier case.

And to quote from her site:

Other than the paramedic’s towel by Devon, there were only four with blood on them. Two had Darlle’s blood. The other two, found in the hallway far from the boys, were inconclusive.

No towels were found that had the boys' blood on it.

 

[Sinsaint]

Sinsaint, I think Mary456's website may answer the towel issue better than I can. Here are the links:

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__3.html

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__4.html

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__5.html

All these 3 pages are about the towels in the Darlie Routier case.

And to quote from her site:



No towels were found that had the boys' blood on it.

I only use transcripts, photos and affidavits as a source for my information. So thank you, but I'll have to pass on using that site as a reliable source for my information.

 

[Steel86]

The comments about the knife going through the body and nicking the concrete is also false. This officer cannot tell the truth because he doesn't know it. He has been coached so much on the case he can't even recall what he actually did do at the crime scene. This makes me wonder if maybe he got so sick of the police force and DA'S that he left the Rowlett force to join another one in a different city.

Interestingly enough, on the Leeza Gibbons show in 1998, Leeza Gibbons reads this same bit of misinformation to Darin, Darlie Kee, Sarilda, and Dana - Darin says "I know" in response. Not ONE person from the family corrects Leeza - are they lying as well?

It is very difficult to get an appeal of a conviction. There are only a few ways a lawyer can do so. The lawyers working on Darlie's case have tried the many ways allowed. Almost all have been denied. What gets me is the Judge who is ruling on these motions was the same Judge who presided over her trial. How can the State of Texas consider that to be fair blows my mind. Of course a presiding judge is never going to want a conviction overturned on a trial they sat on. It is a slap in the face of good reason why any presiding judge would be allowed to make those decisions. While emotions run high here there is a better chance of all the evidence being seen on Web sleuths than there is an an actual trial. While I don't agree with the acquittal of Casey Anthony the judge in that trial made sure the defense and the prosecution were allowed to present a full case. He sought after truth and did everything possible to allow the light of truth to be shown in his courtroom. I don't think Judge Francis did the same.

Judge Mark Tolle is listed as the presiding judge at Darlies trial in all of the transcripts I have seen.........

Davis also engaged in inappropriate behavior when he called the family trailer trash.

This was NOT Greg Davis. It was Norman Kinne, who after being repeatedly interrupted by Darlie's family during an interview he was giving with a reporter, turned and made that statement. I found the name of this man from Darlie's own family run site fordarlieroutier.org. This incident was captured in one of the programs done on Darlie, however, I don't recall which one.

 

[Sinsaint]

Sinsaint, I think Mary456's website may answer the towel issue better than I can. Here are the links:

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__3.html

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__4.html

http://darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/Myth__5.html

All these 3 pages are about the towels in the Darlie Routier case.

And to quote from her site:



No towels were found that had the boys' blood on it.

And just so we are clear on why the above website shouldn't be used as a factual source of information...

State’s Exhibit 87 (and Defense Exhibit 31) was a bloody white towel near Devon’s body. The logical conclusion is that this towel was left by Koschak. After Darlie went to the hospital, Koschak reported to his captain, Dennis Vrana, who gave him two assignments: 1) check on the infant, Drake and 2) check on Devon again to see if there was anything further he could do.

If you read Koschak's testimony you will find that the above conclusion is false.

13 Q. How long did it take you to go back
14 inside the house and assess Devon, Devon's condition, as
15 the captain had instructed you?
16 A. How long had it been?
17 Q. No, sir. How long did it take you
18 once you went back in there after attending to the
19 infant, how long did it take you to go back in there to
20 assess Devon?
21 A. Seconds.

....

22 Q. You don't remember whether there were
23 towels or washcloths around?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. Okay. You're not -- you told us that

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1528

1 there wasn't a washcloth on the youngster that you
2 attended to; is that right?
3 A. I didn't say one way or the other.
4 Q. You didn't say one way or the other?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. And you're still not saying one way or
7 the other?
8 A. No, sir. I don't believe there was
9 anything on there. I don't recall that.
10 Q. Do you recall if there was one to the
11 side, on either side of him?
12 A. I don't recall.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/28_brian-koschak.pdf

Had that been his towel that he left behind he would have said "that was my towel that I brought in with me and I left it laying there." I'm not going to use a website to cite as a source when the testimony actually contradicts the conclusions the person came up with.

Anyway, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the site you are using. I've read every page. The majority is fiction.

 

[Steel86]

Now, unless my eyes are lying there are towels all over. I guess the towel fairy dropped those off.

I tried to go back over all of Darlie's testimony a few days ago. (I didn't review Darin's testimony.) I read Darlie referring to green and white checkered towels, and what the boys were sleeping on (pillowcases). She testified Devon was sleeping on the Power Ranger pillowcase, and Damon sleeping on a pillow with a blue pillowcase.

 

[Sinsaint]

Interestingly enough, on the Leeza Gibbons show in 1998, Leeza Gibbons reads this same bit of misinformation to Darin, Darlie Kee, Sarilda, and Dana - Darin says "I know" in response. Not ONE person from the family corrects Leeza - are they lying as well?

Neither boy had wounds that went through the body. At what point do you think the knife entered to body, failed to go the whole way through and then hit the concrete underneath without leaving an exit wound?

 

[Paysee]

I only use transcripts, photos and affidavits as a source for my information. So thank you, but I'll have to pass on using that site as a reliable source for my information.

On the other hand, I have no problem reading anything and then deciding on its worth for myself. The trail transcripts are on a pro-Darlie site. Where would I be, if I refused to go there?

There were 5 towels introduced as evidence.

State’s Exhibit 63 (SWIFS item #29) was a green and white plaid washcloth found on the floor in the area where Darlie stood that night. The blood on that washcloth was consistent with Darlie. Damon and Devon were excluded as contributors.

Waddell testified that Darlie was holding a greenish colored rag on her neck when he arrived. Koschak testified that he later removed a green and white plaid rag before taking Darlie to the front porch. It’s safe to say that Exhibit 63 was the wash cloth near the kitchen bar and portable phone that Darlie used to call 911. The blood on it was Darlie’s.

State’s Exhibits 64 and 65 (SWIFS item #28) were two green and white plaid towels found outside the bathroom door in the hallway. Van Winkle was unable to get a result on these items, because there was no amplification or banding pattern obtained from the stains.

Because these two towels yielded no DNA results, it’s unclear how they were used. However, they were found quite a distance from both boys’ bodies, and Darlie testified that she put more than one towel on her neck, so it's more than likely that the blood was hers. There was no testimony to support diluted blood on this or any other item at the crime scene.

State’s Exhibit 66 (SWIFS item #30) was a white dish towel found on the front porch. The DNA types were consistent with Darlie.

This is the white dish towel that paramedic Koschak removed and left on the front porch. The blood on it was Darlie’s.

State’s Exhibit 87 (and Defense Exhibit 31) was a bloody white towel near Devon’s body. The logical conclusion is that this towel was left by Koschak.

Please cite your sources for the locations of the towels you have mentioned.

The pictures above show two (2) towels in the hallway, one (1) towel at the entryway to the living room and two (2) towels by Devon. That's a total of five (5) towels.

 

[Paysee]

And just so we are clear on why the above website shouldn't be used as a factual source of information...



If you read Koschak's testimony you will find that the above conclusion is false.

13 Q. How long did it take you to go back
14 inside the house and assess Devon, Devon's condition, as
15 the captain had instructed you?
16 A. How long had it been?
17 Q. No, sir. How long did it take you
18 once you went back in there after attending to the
19 infant, how long did it take you to go back in there to
20 assess Devon?
21 A. Seconds.

....

22 Q. You don't remember whether there were
23 towels or washcloths around?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. Okay. You're not -- you told us that

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1528

1 there wasn't a washcloth on the youngster that you
2 attended to; is that right?
3 A. I didn't say one way or the other.
4 Q. You didn't say one way or the other?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. And you're still not saying one way or
7 the other?
8 A. No, sir. I don't believe there was
9 anything on there. I don't recall that.
10 Q. Do you recall if there was one to the
11 side, on either side of him?
12 A. I don't recall.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/28_brian-koschak.pdf

Had that been his towel that he left behind he would have said "that was my towel that I brought in with me and I left it laying there." I'm not going to use a website to cite as a source when the testimony actually contradicts the conclusions the person came up with.

Anyway, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the site you are using. I've read every page. The majority is fiction.

My response above was before reading this post.

The towels about in by a trained paramedic in the course of doing his job would I think be different from those present in a household.

I will read a bit more about this particular towel and get back to you.

Now, my kids are hungry and dinner isn't ready lease:

 

[Sinsaint]

Sorry Paysee. I did write another post. I think it's on page two now. I have visited that site and read every page. I've found numerous factual errors in most of the conclusions that were drawn. For that reason I won't use it as a source to site from.

And the source for locations of the towels are my eyes. I can visually see them. I posted the pictures so everyone else can visually see them as well.

 

[Steel86]

Neither boy had wounds that went through the body. At what point do you think the knife entered to body, failed to go the whole way through and then hit the concrete underneath without leaving an exit wound?

I KNOW that from their autopsy reports and those awful graphic photographs I have seen. Did you not understand my use of the word "misinformation" in my quote?

I believe that my point was, that you and and this other poster are throwing around this notion that Waddell is lying. I mean, if he's a liar by saying or allowing this information to get around then, the family is as well. They AGREED with this in 1998, wouldn't they have known that was wrong?

 

[Sinsaint]

I KNOW that from their autopsy reports and those awful graphic photographs I have seen. Did you not understand my use of the word "misinformation" in my quote?

I believe that my point was, that you and and this other poster are throwing around this notion that Waddell is lying. I mean, if he's a liar by saying or allowing this information to get around then, the family is as well. They AGREED with this in 1998, wouldn't they have known that was wrong?

They were probably in shock that any idiot would believe it, let alone a police office passing it off as factual.

 

[Steel86]

They were probably in shock that any idiot would believe it, let alone a police office passing it off as factual.

No, this was not done in the context of Waddell saying it. Leeza Gibbons was reading from a book that contained that INCORRECT information. No Waddell about it, and they still didn't correct that information, and Darin even said "I know".

 

[Sinsaint]

No, this was not done in the context of Waddell saying it. Leeza Gibbons was reading from a book that contained that INCORRECT information. No Waddell about it, and they still didn't correct that information, and Darin even said "I know".

Yes, I'm well aware of the context in which the Leeza show brought it up. It was in an author's book. Springer I believe. Darin may have said "I know" while his facial expressions and gestures indicate an unspoken "Absolutely ridiculous misinformation that people seem to think is true... This whole situation is unreal... If my boys didn't have wounds that went the entire way through their bodies how can any reasonable person believe this crap?"

My comments about Waddell were focused on the Herzog interview where the information was again passed of as factual when it isn't. Anybody unfamiliar with the case will just take his word for it. Anyone who actually reads the autopsy report won't. 99.999% of the population at large probably haven't read the autopsies.

 

[Steel86]

Yes, I'm well aware of the context in which the Leeza show brought it up. It was in an author's book. Springer I believe. Darin may have said "I know" while his facial expressions and gestures indicate an unspoken "Absolutely ridiculous misinformation that people seem to think is true... This whole situation is unreal... If my boys didn't have wounds that went the entire way through their bodies how can any reasonable person believe this crap?"

Well, you garnered a whole heck of a lot out of Darin's facial expression than I did :floorlaugh:

My comments about Waddell were focused on the Herzog interview where the information was again passed of as factual when it isn't. Anybody unfamiliar with the case will just take his word for it. Anyone who actually reads the autopsy report won't. 99.999% of the population at large probably haven't read the autopsies.

I agree, nobody feels comfortable reading such disturbing information.

 

[CathyR]

I do believe it was in Barbara Davis book Precious Babies that stated that piece of misinformation.

After the boys were dead the family did not examine the bodies so they believed whatever they were told about them.


One thing that really bothered me was that the police released the couch back to the family and it had a bloody hand print on it.

Why would they release the couch and decide that it had no evidence of value?

Because it backed up Darlie's story that Damon shoved her in the shoulder and that is what woke her.

If it didn't fit into the story they created then they got rid of anything that might. There is a picture of the couch with the bloody hand-print but the print was not tested nor is it known which child left the print.

Since Darlie was attacked on the couch if her attacker also cut himself and then bled on the couch there would be a sample to test and I'm sure the DA did not want to find anything that might disprove his theory.

Releasing the couch to the family and saying there was nothing of value on it basically cinched it for me.

They could have proven that no blood from Darlie was on the couch therefore bolstering the theory she did it and disproving that she was attacked there.

However the picture of the bloody hand-print on the couch shows it did have value, blood on the cushions as reported by the family show that possible deposits of Darlie and possibly someone else were available to be tested.

Even if after getting the couch back the family just cleaned it up and sold it as they did most of their possessions to raise funds for Darlie's defense.

They had no idea why the police thought Darlie did it and had no idea what evidence they intended to use, they just assumed that nothing on the couch would help or hurt her. They still still trusted.

I know Darlie Kee lives with the knowledge of hindsight now - if only we had taken it directly to her lawyer to keep a clean chain of evidence that could be admitted into court.

To me the couch was very very important. The family are not legal experts and until all this happened they trusted the police, the lawyers and all involved to do the best job possible to find out exactly what happened.

 

[Sinsaint]

State’s Exhibit 63 (SWIFS item #29) was a green and white plaid washcloth found on the floor in the area where Darlie stood that night. The blood on that washcloth was consistent with Darlie. Damon and Devon were excluded as contributors.

Waddell testified that Darlie was holding a greenish colored rag on her neck when he arrived. Koschak testified that he later removed a green and white plaid rag before taking Darlie to the front porch. It’s safe to say that Exhibit 63 was the wash cloth near the kitchen bar and portable phone that Darlie used to call 911. The blood on it was Darlie’s.

That's actually not what Koschak testified to at all...

18 Q. Was she holding anything over either
19 of the two wounds when you saw her?
20 A. She was holding a rag to her neck.
21 Q. How about as far as her demeanor?
22 What was she doing? What was she saying? How did she
23 appear to be doing at that point?
24 A. She was -- she asked who could have
25 done this to her babies. She wasn't -- she was upset.

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1480

1 She was upset.
2 Q. Okay. Crying? Screaming?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Now, did you stay inside the residence
5 with her or did you take her somewhere to treat her?
6 A. I asked her to come with me to the
7 front porch. I wanted to get out of the house and deemed
8 it being necessary for both of us -- be a good thing to
9 get out of the house....

10 Q. Were you seeing any of those items in
11 Mrs. Routier while you were out on the front porch with
12 her?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. Are you beginning to give her
15 treatment for her injuries at that time?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. Okay. What are you doing for her?
18 A. Begin bandaging up her neck and her
19 arm....

2 Q. You then said that Mrs. Routier was
3 crouched or kneeling over in the corner; is that right?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. And you took her out of there and took
6 her to the front porch?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. All right. And it was there that you
9 examined this, I believe you said a large gash to her
10 neck?
11 A. Laceration, yes, sir....

21 Q. Okay. You take my word that you say
22 four to five inches in your report?
23 A. It was around four inches, yes, sir.
24 Q. It was a substantial laceration, was
25 it not?

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1511

1 A. In length, yes, sir.
2 Q. Okay. And don't you say that it was
3 right over the jugular vein?
4 A. In that area, yes, sir.
5 Q. Okay. Now, you bandaged her neck; is
6 that correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And you did that there in the -- on
9 the porch?
10 A. That's correct....

15 Q. Okay. When you assisted Mrs. Routier
16 to the front porch, was the towel still on her neck?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. You are sure about that?
19 A. Yes, sir. I removed it on the front
20 porch.
21 Q. What did you do with it?
22 A. I believe I laid it on the front
23 porch.
24 Q. Just left it there on the front porch?
25 A. Yes, sir.

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1518...

19 Q. I take it it was bloody?
20 A. I would assume. I don't recall.
21 Q. You don't remember whether it was
22 white or whether it was a color?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Nothing at all?
25 A. No.

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1520

1 Q. You would not have tossed it back into
2 the residence, would you?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. And you wouldn't have sent it with
5 her?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. Okay. So your best recollection, the
8 towel that she had on her neck was left there on the
9 front porch?
10 A. Yes, sir...

9 A. At that time.
10 Q. This cloth or towel that was around
11 her neck, can you describe that for us?
12 A. I don't recall.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. I know it was a rag of some sort. I
15 really don't recall.
16 Q. Do you have any idea what color it

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/28_brian-koschak.pdf

First, Koschak testified he had no idea what color the rag was she was holding on her neck. Why the cited website is claiming that as factual information is beyond me. As for the rest...

Unless someone else showed up, picked up the towel she had on her neck, carried it back into the house and placed it on the floor by where Damon was laying, the towel where he was laying is not the towel Darlie was using to cover up her own wound. Per Koschak's testimony, the towel she was using was removed and left on the front porch.

By any account, the towel she used was left on the front porch. I don't think anyone can claim that she snuck out of the ambulance, placed another towel on the porch she had hidden on her then naked body, picked up the towel on the porch and put it back by where Damon was laying.

State’s Exhibits 64 and 65 (SWIFS item #28) were two green and white plaid towels found outside the bathroom door in the hallway. Van Winkle was unable to get a result on these items, because there was no amplification or banding pattern obtained from the stains.

Because these two towels yielded no DNA results, it’s unclear how they were used. However, they were found quite a distance from both boys’ bodies, and Darlie testified that she put more than one towel on her neck, so it's more than likely that the blood was hers. There was no testimony to support diluted blood on this or any other item at the crime scene.

"Quite a distance" is a mere few feet. The towels were found in the hallway leading to the entry of the living room where Damon was laying. The location of Damon and the towels was not "quite a distance." It could be measured in inches. Photos to prove...



To the right is where Damon lay as is abundantly clear by all the blood. To the upper left of the photo includes the two towels that were "quite a distance away"... My goodness, those are so far away... It's like a whole body length. That's practically like being found on the other side of the Routier estate.

Then you factor in that the hallway was used by no less than six people (possibly more), who weren't paying attention to what they were stepping on or inadvertently moving around. Rightfully so, saving lives took a back seat to preserving the scene... But in the end, you end up with evidence that was trampled over or moved around.

State’s Exhibit 66 (SWIFS item #30) was a white dish towel found on the front porch. The DNA types were consistent with Darlie.

This is the white dish towel that paramedic Koschak removed and left on the front porch. The blood on it was Darlie’s.

As stated above when I refuted State's exhibit 63...

Koschak stated... He never removed nor deposited any rag from her neck in the house. What he did remove and deposit occurred outside the house on the front porch and he never put said rag back inside the house, per his own testimony.

State’s Exhibit 87 (and Defense Exhibit 31) was a bloody white towel near Devon’s body. The logical conclusion is that this towel was left by Koschak.

As stated above but for the sake of continuity.....

If you read Koschak's testimony you will find that the above conclusion is false.

13 Q. How long did it take you to go back
14 inside the house and assess Devon, Devon's condition, as
15 the captain had instructed you?
16 A. How long had it been?
17 Q. No, sir. How long did it take you
18 once you went back in there after attending to the
19 infant, how long did it take you to go back in there to
20 assess Devon?
21 A. Seconds.

....

22 Q. You don't remember whether there were
23 towels or washcloths around?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. Okay. You're not -- you told us that

Sandra M. Halsey, CSR, Official Court Reporter
1528

1 there wasn't a washcloth on the youngster that you
2 attended to; is that right?
3 A. I didn't say one way or the other.
4 Q. You didn't say one way or the other?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. And you're still not saying one way or
7 the other?
8 A. No, sir. I don't believe there was
9 anything on there. I don't recall that.
10 Q. Do you recall if there was one to the
11 side, on either side of him?
12 A. I don't recall.

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/28_brian-koschak.pdf

Had that been his towel that he left behind he would have said "that was my towel that I brought in with me and I left it laying there." I'm not going to use a website to cite as a source when the testimony actually contradicts the conclusions the person came up with.

As I stated before.... I'm all for debate. But please, double check your source for the cited information and conclusions if you intend to use it as cite material. Darliefictionandfiction.com... Oh, sorry, darliefactandfiction.com is far too easy to easy to refute. If anything it's an "opinion" website that carries about much factual weight as my neighbor's opinion does.

I could refute every "conclusion" on that site with factual testimony... transcripts alone... And not with just the snips he/she chose to use on the website... The entire ones. Not just the ones I chose to snip and paste to support my position.

Prime example of complete misinformation for the purpose of misleading the reader...

The very first thing brought up in this post (and I want to make clear... I have absolutely no disrespect for the poster... Only disgust for the person who created the cited website and then passed of the conclusions as factually based when that couldn't be further from the truth).

If Marywhatevernumbershechose wanted to create a site that pointed to Darlie as the killer, that's up to her. When he or she completely misinforms the reader, or cherry picks the testimony to suit her conclusions without giving all the information?

Well, I have a problem with that. It's a bit disingenuous to say the least.