Darlie Routier on Death Row

[whitywendy]

Thanks for the compliment, but most people just think I'm a smart *advertiser censored*!!! LOL

Thanks for all you do in giving good legal explanations for the posters here. I type so horribly slow that trying to explain things that take that many words just makes me frustrated!!! LOL

Hey Jeana - you know that saying... I would rather be a smart *advertiser censored* than a dumb *advertiser censored*....LOL .. I agree with Cyber - I would love to have your quick wit. I am such a ...wait a second..oh I get it type girl. My hubby loves to pick on me about it.

I also agree with Jeana to Cyber - your info on the legal system is so helpful. If I was ever in any type of trouble of sure would want you and Jeana on my side.

 

[Jeana (DP)]

Hey Jeana - you know that saying... I would rather be a smart *advertiser censored* than a dumb *advertiser censored*....LOL .. I agree with Cyber - I would love to have your quick wit. I am such a ...wait a second..oh I get it type girl. My hubby loves to pick on me about it.

I also agree with Jeana to Cyber - your info on the legal system is so helpful. If I was ever in any type of trouble of sure would want you and Jeana on my side.

HaHaHa!!!!!!:crazy:

 

[Jeana (DP)]

One housekeeping matter: since it probably gets confusing when Jeana posts my material under her name because
I can not post directly, I probably should by-line my material. I signed on to the site under "Junior Detective," so that

is what I will use from here on out. If this case weren't so tragic, all the talk of "maybe Darlie is innocent" would be

amusing. I think any one who thinks that should read the second paragraph of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion

dated May 21, 2003. There, it states in pertinent part, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of

the evidence to support her conviction…" In other words, her attorneys conceded that sufficient evidence supported her
conviction, a conviction which was entered on the jury's guilty finding that only could have happened if the jury rejected

her intruder defense. I don't disagree with the approach the defense took because the evidence that she is the assailant

wasn't merely sufficient, it was positively suffocating, and, so, the defense would have lost on a "sufficiency" claim. Rather, I

think the defense did about the only thing it could do, which was attack the procedure by which the guilty verdict was
obtained and hope for a new trial. We know that the defense lost on that point, but the defense did challenge the most
vulnerable part of the case and I don't think the defense can be faulted for doing that. I think most people are missing the

point about why her attorneys are trying to get her a new trial. If a new trial was ordered, you can bet her attorneys would

be working overtime to try and keep her off of the stand, which was the reason for the conviction in the first trial. That is why

I am dead set against a new trial--it would allow the defense to "go for the win," even after the defense has conceded that

the evidence supports her conviction. I don’t know if she would be convicted or acquitted if she did not take the stand in

a second trial, but we already know what happened in the first one, so her attorneys would be open to trying something
different in a second trial.

 

[mollymalone]

One housekeeping matter: since it probably gets confusing when Jeana posts my material under her name because
I can not post directly, I probably should by-line my material. I signed on to the site under "Junior Detective," so that is what I will use from here on out. If this case weren't so tragic, all the talk of "maybe Darlie is innocent" would be amusing.

I think any one who thinks that should read the second paragraph of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion dated May 21, 2003. There, it states in pertinent part, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction…" In other words, her attorneys conceded that sufficient evidence supported her
conviction, a conviction which was entered on the jury's guilty finding that only could have happened if the jury rejected her intruder defense.

I don't disagree with the approach the defense took because the evidence that she is the assailant wasn't merely sufficient, it was positively suffocating, and, so, the defense would have lost on a "sufficiency" claim. Rather, I think the defense did about the only thing it could do, which was attack the procedure by which the guilty verdict was obtained and hope for a new trial. We know that the defense lost on that point, but the defense did challenge the most vulnerable part of the case and I don't think the defense can be faulted for doing that.

I think most people are missing the point about why her attorneys are trying to get her a new trial. If a new trial was ordered, you can bet her attorneys would be working overtime to try and keep her off of the stand, which was the reason for the conviction in the first trial. That is why I am dead set against a new trial--it would allow the defense to "go for the win," even after the defense has conceded that the evidence supports her conviction. I don’t know if she would be convicted or acquitted if she did not take the stand in
a second trial, but we already know what happened in the first one, so her attorneys would be open to trying something different in a second trial.

Doesn't anything she testified to on the stand in the first trial come in, even if she doesn't take the stand in the trial?

I believe she'd be convicted again, based on the evidence. Not on silly string, as some would like to think, but on the overall evidence presented. Even if she doesn't testify again.

Thanks for directing us to this section of the decision:

"second paragraph of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion
dated May 21, 2003. There, it states in pertinent part, "The appellant does not challenge the legal or factual sufficiency of the evidence to support her conviction…" In other words, her attorneys conceded that sufficient evidence supported her conviction, a conviction which was entered on the jury's guilty finding that only could have happened if the jury rejected her intruder defense.

 

[JuJuBee]

Have any of you seen WE's "Women on Death Row" series? There are two of them that show on WE (Women's Entertainment). I just saw them for the first time the other day.

The shows are obviously a couple of years old, but what struck me was that they presented Darlie in a very sympathetic light. She was allowed to spend a lot of time looking sadly at the camera and talking about how the jury never saw the bruise pictures or the beginning of the Silly String video. It was vintage Darlie -- the furtive sincerity, the lack of tears when talking about Devon and Damon but lots of weeping when talking about everything she'd missed by being in prison, that little purse-lipped smile that always makes me want to slap her, :sick: etc.

Her mother and sister were interviewed at length and wept while talking about how they knew God was going to get Darlie out of jail. Interestingly for me, this was the first time I'd seen her mother and sister interviewed since I started reading this forum and discovered Darin was suspected of hitting on the sister.

What struck me was, the producers were trying really hard to present Darlie as a women who had been totally wronged by the justice system. I found it very hard to swallow.:snooty: And from what I saw, they presented very little of the other side of the case, although the other women profiled on the show did not get the same consideration.

Also, apropos of absolutely nothing -- her hair looks like crap. That might be her natural color and curl but it looked like she had a big black wedding cake on her head. :laugh:

 

[whitywendy]

Have any of you seen WE's "Women on Death Row" series? There are two of them that show on WE (Women's Entertainment). I just saw them for the first time the other day.

The shows are obviously a couple of years old, but what struck me was that they presented Darlie in a very sympathetic light. She was allowed to spend a lot of time looking sadly at the camera and talking about how the jury never saw the bruise pictures or the beginning of the Silly String video. It was vintage Darlie -- the furtive sincerity, the lack of tears when talking about Devon and Damon but lots of weeping when talking about everything she'd missed by being in prison, that little purse-lipped smile that always makes me want to slap her, :sick: etc.

Her mother and sister were interviewed at length and wept while talking about how they knew God was going to get Darlie out of jail. Interestingly for me, this was the first time I'd seen her mother and sister interviewed since I started reading this forum and discovered Darin was suspected of hitting on the sister.

What struck me was, the producers were trying really hard to present Darlie as a women who had been totally wronged by the justice system. I found it very hard to swallow.:snooty: And from what I saw, they presented very little of the other side of the case, although the other women profiled on the show did not get the same consideration.

Also, apropos of absolutely nothing -- her hair looks like crap. That might be her natural color and curl but it looked like she had a big black wedding cake on her head. :laugh:

Yes she isn't that Blonde Bombshell :banghead::hand: that her supporters claim to be a reason why SHE was ATTACKED

 

[rocking]

I thought she was a brunette with lots of silver colour put through her hair. Looked 'trash' to me, not a blonde bombshell.

 

[whitywendy]

I thought she was a brunette with lots of silver colour put through her hair. Looked 'trash' to me, not a blonde bombshell.

I was speaking of when she was arrested and the so-called image her and her family presented her as - it's all in the transcripts.

 

[miss_vegemite]

I thought she was a brunette with lots of silver colour put through her hair. Looked 'trash' to me, not a blonde bombshell.

read the transcripts.

 

[rocking]

read the transcripts.

I've already said on another thread that I have started reading the transcripts. Give it time, one poster said it took her about a year to get through them.

 

[miss_vegemite]

I've already said on another thread that I have started reading the transcripts. Give it time, one poster said it took her about a year to get through them.

Well, Rocking, maybe you should reserve some of your judgements until you have finished reading ALL the transcripts..that way, we don't have to keep repeating ourselves to you...

 

[rocking]

Well, Rocking, maybe you should reserve some of your judgements until you have finished reading ALL the transcripts..that way, we don't have to keep repeating ourselves to you...

I've made statements, and admitted interpretative errors, but I haven't judged anything or anyone.

 

[miss_vegemite]

Looked 'trash' to me, not a blonde bombshell.

We can all hide behind the word statement, rather than acknowledging when we are judgemental.

 

[cami]

Also, apropos of absolutely nothing -- her hair looks like crap. That might be her natural color and curl but it looked like she had a big black wedding cake on her head. :laugh:

OMG, Thanks for the good laugh..aaahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[cami]

I thought she was a brunette with lots of silver colour put through her hair. Looked 'trash' to me, not a blonde bombshell.

She does look what she is now...a con with a hardened face that she covers with tons of makeup or slap as you call it. But at one time Rocking she was a very attractive woman with dyed platinum hair and a gorgeous figure.

 

[enigma]

Here is a link to the most recent pic of Darlie, obviously it is the one on the right.
http://www.fordarlieroutier.org/

 

[Squishified]

Women on Death Row will be on Tuesday, Dec 11 at 8:00pm ET.

It will be repeated Tuesday Dec. 18 at 5pmET and Women on Death Row 2 is on Tuesday Dec. 18 at 7pmET.

 

[whitywendy]

Women on Death Row will be on Tuesday, Dec 11 at 8:00pm ET.

It will be repeated Tuesday Dec. 18 at 5pmET and Women on Death Row 2 is on Tuesday Dec. 18 at 7pmET.

Do you know what cable channel? Is it Court TV or A&E ?

 

[Squishified]

It is on the WE (Women's Entertainment) network. I'm not sure if everybody gets this channel.

 

[cami]

It is on the WE (Women's Entertainment) network. I'm not sure if everybody gets this channel.

I don't boohoo. We have "W" (Women's network) here...but all they ever play are American sitcoms, LOL.

Maybe someone will tape it for me, hint hint. Or maybe I'll get it on Discovery Canada. Saw one on there last night about Australia's "backpacker killer."