Darlie Kee

[JimPence]

I would certainly say it totally backfired on them. I had to look at those photos,as startling as they are, to try and understand why a perfect stranger would do that to two little boys, two sleeping boys, and then only scratch up the mother, the adult, who was right there with the children and could have identified him/her.

I agree, Cami. This is precisely why I cannot join the "Darlie is innocent and got a raw deal" camp.

For a burglar/sexual predator/intruder of any kind to have brutalized the boys in this way while leaving Darlie with superficial wounds makes no sense at all. The person clearly knew how to kill. So why wasn't she taken out, too? The only way it would make sense would be if the person had been hired to kill the boys only. But that begs the question of who would have done the hiring, and you come full circle to the parents again.

Jim

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Her next appeal is actually January 25th. She is trying despretly to get the bloody fingerprint that was found at the scene tested. WHich it should have been done anyway. How is she on death row when there was a bloody fingerprint found that was determined not to b elong to anyone that lived there, visited there, police or emergency techs.
That is definetly resonable doubt. If they do not DNA test that blood something is stinking in TX.

There are not enough points for the fingerprint to be put into the database - from everything that I've seen, read and heard. All they know is that its too small to belong to a grown man. I'm not sure why you think they need to DNA test the fingerprint. There were three people bleeding in the house that night that could have made that print (in theory only of course). If there was any "intruder" who was bleeding why would he/she/they only leave that amount of blood on a fingerprint and none outside?

 

[Kelly Sons]

I think that the bloody fingerprint should be tested because I dont think a person should be put to death without first checking and rechecking every possible alternative. There have been so many cases of people being proven innocent after execution.
They are also testing other evidence besides the fingerprint. Which I think needs to be done and should have been done before she was given death.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

I think that the bloody fingerprint should be tested because I dont think a person should be put to death without first checking and rechecking every possible alternative. There have been so many cases of people being proven innocent after execution.
They are also testing other evidence besides the fingerprint. Which I think needs to be done and should have been done before she was given death.

Something tells me you haven't read the response of the prosecutor's office to their latest claim. Your opinion makes sense if you're only hearing Darlie's side to the story. However, as you know, there are two sides to every story. Here's an excerpt from the Dallas Morning News:

Routier lawyers assail judge, ruling

They demand access to trial evidence for new analysis in slaying case


1Tuesday, August 17, 2004

Two weeks after a state district judge rejected convicted child killer Darlie Routier's second appeal, the former Rowlett homemaker's attorneys gathered at the courthouse steps to criticize the ruling and demand access to trial evidence.

Attorney Richard Burr said Judge Robert Francis and prosecutors have an obligation to turn over evidence for new analysis that could get Ms. Routier off death row.

* * *

Assistant District Attorney John Rolater, an appellate specialist, said defense attorneys have not taken advantage of numerous opportunities to examine evidence they now seek. In September 2002, the district attorney's office offered to have evidence tested by an agreed-upon expert, but the defense did not accept, he said.

And in October 2002, the court granted an order giving the defense access to evidence, but Mr. Rolater said the defense never followed up.

* * *


Mr. Rolater said dozens of DNA tests have been performed since Ms. Routier's 1996 arrest and 1997 conviction, and each analysis pointed to Ms. Routier or the children as the source of the DNA material.

"Everything points at her," he said. "She's the only one with the opportunity and the motive and the animus toward the children."

* * *

Two fingerprint experts for the state concluded that the prints could exclude everyone in the household except Ms. Routier.

* * *

In his ruling on the appeal, Judge Francis sided with the prosecution and said the defense expert used procedures that were "not sound." Attorney Michael Flanagan said the judge should allow for more analysis.

* * *

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/081804dnmetroutier.8861abe9.html

 

[angarella]

The only reason to even open the cover of MTJD is for the photos. Don't be tempted to believe the captions under them though - they are absolutely riddled with errors... some of them so big that either CWB has a gross misunderstanding of certain parts of the case or else he decided to just say what he wanted to and facts be damned.

Has your book got a autograph from Darlie Kee in the front of it like mine? Open your eyes to the injustice in texas- Darlie Kee

Can anyone explain why this book is SO expensive?

TIA

 

[JimPence]

Can anyone explain why this book is SO expensive?

TIA

It's a self-published book with an apparently small print run. The limited number of available copies has pushed the price through the roof. Over 100 dollars/copy on half.com!

You can get it on ebay from Mama Darlie. The reserve is set at $25.00. Don't bid above that. I bid 26, and someone outbid me. I decided that I wasn't going to go any higher than that and let it go.

The next day I got a "second chance" email that let me buy it at my original bid.

When the copy arrived, it was in poor condition. The front cover was dirty. A complete section of the book had been bound upside down. The binding and trimming were cheaply done. Made me feel that I had paid way too much.

It did have an autograph from Mama Darlie, though. Sigh.

Jim

 

[nanandjim]

Yes, its impossible. Some think that he helped stage afterward. Some think that he knows what happened, but for reasons of his own (illegal activities), he's keeping quiet in order to keep Darlie quiet. After all, if he tells what he knows, so does she!!

Could it be that Darlie threatened to expose Darin's illegal activities to police if he didn't help her cover up the crime? I'm not sure what he did that was illegal, but would it be enough to scare him or bribe him to help her with a cover up?

I know that I would take my chances and would never help anyone cover up a murder. My goodness, if Darlie is capable of viciously murdering her two boys while they slept, what would stop her from murdering Darin in his sleep? If I were Darin (before Darlie's arrest and conviction), I definitely would have been sleeping with one eye open...

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Could it be that Darlie threatened to expose Darin's illegal activities to police if he didn't help her cover up the crime? I'm not sure what he did that was illegal, but would it be enough to scare him or bribe him to help her with a cover up?

I know that I would take my chances and would never help anyone cover up a murder. My goodness, if Darlie is capable of viciously murdering her two boys while they slept, what would stop her from murdering Darin in his sleep? If I were Darin (before Darlie's arrest and conviction), I definitely would have been sleeping with one eye open...

Sure. Anything is possible with these two. If either of them would ever agree to a tell-all (truthfully) interview, I'd be in the front row!!

 

[Dani_T]

It did have an autograph from Mama Darlie, though. Sigh.

Let me guess - "Open your eyes to the injustice in Texas?

News just came through on the official Darlie website (www.fordarlieroutier.org) that MTJD is now officially sold out. I suspect that means that any copies at ebay etc will only be more expensive now. Darlie Kee has one on ebay at the moment starting at $20 (with a reserve). In the item description she writes

Again, due to the horrible mistake at the publishers warehouse, all books have now been destroyed with the exception of these final few copies.

 

[Kelly Sons]

Something tells me you haven't read the response of the prosecutor's office to their latest claim. Your opinion makes sense if you're only hearing Darlie's side to the story. However, as you know, there are two sides to every story.

Yep, Ive read those things and some more recent documents as well.
I dont really understand what difference it makes whose side you take.
The fact remains that a person will be executed and there are still questions. That cannot be allowed. Either give her LWOP or prove without doubt that she did it.
When I wrote TX Gov. Rick Perry about allowing the testing I asked him about the motive she was attributed to. I was told that the state of Texas doesnt have to prove motive.
I havent really formed an opinion either way on t his case. There are just too many holes.

 

[Kelly Sons]

Can anyone tell me if any of these questions have been answered by anyone?

• Who left the bloody fingerprint on the living room table?
• Who left two fingerprints - including a bloody print - on the door to the garage?
• Whose blood is on the blue jeans of Darlie Routier's husband?
• Who left limb hairs on a bloody tube sock found outside the Routiers’ home?
• Who left a pubic hair in the Routiers' living room?
• Whose blood was on Darlie Routier’s night shirt, and how did it get there?

 

[Dani_T]

ep, Ive read those things and some more recent documents as well.
I dont really understand what difference it makes whose side you take.
The fact remains that a person will be executed and there are still questions. That cannot be allowed. Either give her LWOP or prove without doubt that she did it.

The legal system, including capital cases, is not founded on 'proof without a doubt' - it is founded on proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is highly unlikely that in any case there would be no doubt. You'd need to have an iron-clad confession (and we all know confessions doesn't necessarily mean guilt) as well as iron-clad eye witnesses and all the forensic evidence supporting it.

Even if you had an iron-clad confession and iron-clad eye witnesses I bet you could find some forensic evidence which could be used to muddy the waters.

It was proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that Darlie murdered Damon.

When I wrote TX Gov. Rick Perry about allowing the testing I asked him about the motive she was attributed to. I was told that the state of Texas doesnt have to prove motive.

No they don't need to. The evidence spoke for itself.

Can anyone tell me if any of these questions have been answered by anyone?

• Who left the bloody fingerprint on the living room table?

• 
  The state has ruled out everyone except Darlie. One defense expert (who completely contradicts the other defense expert on the door print) said it wasn't Darlie's and the other defense expert concluded it was twice as likely that the print belonged to an adult female rather than an adult male.
  
  Bottom line - the print is a smudged, partial bloody print and despite what everyone says - Darlie has not been ruled out as the donor
  
  

  [*]Who left two fingerprints - including a bloody print - on the door to the garage?

  The non-bloody print could belong to any number of people who had been in the routier house. There is nothing to tie it directly to the crime scene
  
  Only the defense have released conclusions from their experts on the bloody print and, suprise, suprise, they say it isn't Darlies. However, we haven't heard anything from a state or independent expert and as I have mentioned bedore the two defense experts who examined this print also completely disagree with each other on the non-bloody print (I think it is that one) as one as said it is Darins and the other has said it definitely is not Darin's. Doesn't inspire a great degree of confidence really.
  
  

  [*]Whose blood is on the blue jeans of Darlie Routier's husband?

  
  Have a look at the states response to the motion (www.fordarlieroutier.org) for more info on that.
  
  In any case if all three of their blood was found on Darin's jeans that is perfectly expected since he was in contact with Devon, Damon and Darlie that night according to his, and Darlie's statements.
  
  

  [*]Who left limb hairs on a bloody tube sock found outside the Routiers’ home?

  
  Again, check the states response on this- even if the limb hair is completely foreign there is no way it can be tied to the murders. There was a deer hair on the sock too- how did that get there?
  
  

  Who left a pubic hair in the Routiers' living room?

  See above
  
  

  [*]Whose blood was on Darlie Routier’s night shirt, and how did it get there?

  
  Lots of hers and also cast-off from both of the boys (<-- which presents a major problem for the defense)

 

[Mary456]

"When I wrote TX Gov. Rick Perry about allowing the testing I asked him about the motive she was attributed to. I was told that the state of Texas doesnt have to prove motive."

It's not just Texas, Kelly. There isn't a state in our country that has to prove motive, and for a good reason: we can't get inside someone's head to determine why they did what they did.

 

[Kelly Sons]

It's not just Texas, Kelly. There isn't a state in our country that has to prove motive, and for a good reason: we can't get inside someone's head to determine why they did what they did.

Are you serious? Thats total B.B. (edited by DP because of profanity). If thats the case people could just go around accusing everyone and anyone of murder.

Also, I think that with DNA evidence and forensics, cases can be proven without ANY doubt. I could not be the one to give her a fatal injection at this point. I just dont feel comfortable saying she is guilty. Or not guilty for that matter.
Why is she only accused of killing one son. Who killed the other? If they dont believe there was a intruder why isnt she charged with both murders?

Is it possible that she did this and her husband not know it?
Its all so confusing.

 

[chicoliving]

Not so confusing for some.....Darlie was charged with one murder....she can always be charged with the other, anytime. It's not unusual for DA's to hold back one charge of murder when there is more than one victim.

You may think its BS but motive does not have to be proven......what possible motive would justify intentional murder? None. Motive does not have to be proven in a court of law but as humans we like to know "why"....the court doesn't need to know why, only who.

Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.....charges are brought if there is evidence to support the accusation then the prosecution goes forward if there is enough evidence to prove a case during a trial.

Of course its possible she did this and her husband wasn't aware....he was upstairs and she was downstairs with the boys....doesn't sound like the boys were able to put up a fight so what is there to hear?

 

[Dani_T]

Are you serious? Thats total .If thats the case people could just go around accusing everyone and anyone of murder.

A motive does not prove who committed a crime. In any given crime there could be 10 people with a motive or there could be none. The evidence proves who committed the crime. Sure it helps to have a motive but that's not always going to be the case and the minute we start hanging up our hat saying we need motive to convict someone of a crime is the minute we better start opening a lot of prison doors.

Also, I think that with DNA evidence and forensics, cases can be proven without ANY doubt.

Sorry but that is a naieve statement. Despite what might happen on this weeks episode of CSI forensic evidence does not always, or even normally, work in that way. For example, in the Routier case we have expert testimony & evidence which shows that the bread knife from the kitchen was used to cut the window screen- that is that someone inside the house cut the screen. And yet what do the defense come back with? Things like a limb hair found on a sock outside of the house might belong to someone other than any of the Routier's and might belong to an intruder and might have been deposited on the sock during the commission of the crime.

There is very strong forensic evidence which supports Darlie's conviction - but there is always going to be evidence (like a partial, smeared, bloody fingerprint which no experts can agree on) which can be used to muddy the water. Again, if you want to hang your hat on the forensic evidence and say that there must be no doubt from any of it then better be ready to open a whole lot more prison doors.

Why is she only accused of killing one son. Who killed the other? If they dont believe there was a intruder why isnt she charged with both murders?

Because killing a child under 6 is a capital case in itself. If they tried her for Damon's murder and she was acquitted then they could try her again for Devon's murder and use evidence they kept back from the first trial. It doesn't mean they don't think she is guilty of both murders.

Is it possible that she did this and her husband not know it?

Possible but I can't help thinking it is unlikely. I think it is more likely that either Darin knows outright she did it and is covering for her for some reason or Darin subconciously knows she did it. I don't think he knew she was doing it during the commission of the crime or prior to it.

 

[stlouischili]

IIRC, the limb hair on the sock belonged to Darin. I think I read that in one of the latest motions on the Darlie website, but I'm not sure.

Also, I vaguely remember the people who cracked the DNA code somewhere saying that they were horrified that it was being used in law enforcement. IIRC, they said that DNA travels very easily and is so microscopic that it shouldn't be used like that. In my opinion, other evidence should be used and I could never convict someone solely on DNA evidence. That said, I believe that there is ample evidence other than DNA that points to Darlie's guilt.

 

[Kelly Sons]

This is all very interesting but I must say that Im catching a tone of condescention here. I am not an expert and I may be niave but I came here to learn other opinions on this case. Forgive me if my asking questions appears dumb to you.
That being said, it just seems logical to me that someone would have to have a motive to kill their children but I suppose that she could just be insane or something. The author (Barbra Davis, is it?) That changed her opion on Darlie,
Does anyone know what convinved her so strongly?
I read somewhere recently that Darin had spoke with Darlies step father about trying to hire someone to come in and rob him while the house was empty. Then when questioned about it, he lied for years and then finally admitted it.
Do you think that has something to do with it?

And finally, there was Darlie's and the boys blood on Darin's jeans but also another sample that has went untested. Whose is that?

 

[Dani_T]

This is all very interesting but I must say that Im catching a tone of condescention here. I am not an expert and I may be niave but I came here to learn other opinions on this case. Forgive me if my asking questions appears dumb to you.

My apologies if my post/s came across that way. They were not intended to at all. I clearly remember being a newbie to this case and am nowhere near an expert on it so it was not my intention to be at all condescending.

That being said, it just seems logical to me that someone would have to have a motive to kill their children but I suppose that she could just be insane or something.

Oh Darlie definitely had a motive (whether it be a sane one or one brought on due to depression and particular medication/drugs). What I was trying to say is that it can't be necessary for us to actually get into her head and understand what she was thinking before she can be convicted on the crime based on the evidence. For what it is worth I don't think Darlie did it for one particular reason... I suspect that there were a whole lot of factors which pushed her over the edge (possibly enhanced by the meds she was taking).

The author (Barbra Davis, is it?) That changed her opion on Darlie,
Does anyone know what convinved her so strongly?

The main thing she refers to on the interviews I have seen are photos of the bruising (you can see some of the interviews/segments about Darlie at www.justicefordarlie.net). She claims if she had seen the photos at trial of the bruising then she would never have thought Darlie guilty. What suprises me about this are
1) In her book she spends a fair amount of time towards the end explaining how she think Darlie got that terrible dark bruise right up and down her arm. So if she didn't see the pictures why does she indicate she has in this part of the book?
2) She spends the rest of the book building an intensive and rather vitriolic case against Darlie and then all of a sudden photos of bruises can make her forget all of that and say she is innocent?
3) Both the prosecution and Darlie's own defense at the time say all of those photos were admitted into evidence.

I read somewhere recently that Darin had spoke with Darlies step father about trying to hire someone to come in and rob him while the house was empty. Then when questioned about it, he lied for years and then finally admitted it.
Do you think that has something to do with it?

Highly doubt it. Whether it is true or not remains to be seen (it could be just a play to muddy the waters) but the attack that night was nothing like a robbery. Nothing was taken, two defenseless boys were killed and the one person who could really ID them left alive, it was the middle of the night which mean that the occupants would have been at home etc etc. It doesn't add up to me

And finally, there was Darlie's and the boys blood on Darin's jeans but also another sample that has went untested. Whose is that?

Where did you read this?

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Yep, Ive read those things and some more recent documents as well.
I dont really understand what difference it makes whose side you take.
The fact remains that a person will be executed and there are still questions. That cannot be allowed. Either give her LWOP or prove without doubt that she did it.
When I wrote TX Gov. Rick Perry about allowing the testing I asked him about the motive she was attributed to. I was told that the state of Texas doesnt have to prove motive.
I havent really formed an opinion either way on t his case. There are just too many holes.

What motive would be good enough to murder your two little boys? Maybe the state shouldn't have to prove it because its a ridiculous question. No "reason" could be good enough for murder, yet it happens every day. The State of Texas has no question about Darlie's guilt.