Should Darlie have a new trial?

[rollinginit]

What do you think caused Darlie to snap that night and kill her kids? She sure sounded hysterical on the 9-1-1 call. The evidence though has never matched up with her story. Although I am still mystified by the sock in the alley. I always believed, while Darin may not have been involved as well, I have always resented how he "stuck up for her." In the interviews that I have seen, he's so cold and apathetic, like the death of his children was "no big deal." Have we EVER seen emotion or sensitivity from Darin? I just don't see from Darlie, "OK tonight at about 2AM, I am going to kill my kids and stage the crime scene."

She doesn't even sound like the "sharpest tool in the shed." I guess what I am wondering, and neither prosecution or defense has a theory for how the fight started and escalated. Even the Jeffrey Macdonald case, where I wrote papers from both prosecution and defense viewpoints. (Going from not sure, to innocent, to guilty over a period of twenty-five years!) But a powerful and passionate murder case, generally tells how the fight started. Nobody knows how the Darlie Routier Murders started. The main thing that killed her believability right away was that she "slept through" the attack of her kids who were watching TV and fell asleep with her on the couch!

Satch

I always thought Darlie killed her kids to get back at Darin. Revenge killing? I think she planned it. I think Darlie thought- "her life sucked". Her husband paid more attention to the kids than her. She was a selfish woman who was extremely mad. Maybe mad because of all the kids, mad because she was a size 8 (ugh, please.) mad because she was a typical house mom, mad because they had debt, mad because she wasn't the center of attention, etc..

I think she thought about two things that night. Killing her kids and sit back to enjoy the attention she would get afterwards. I don't think she ever thought anybody would "suspect" her. JMO.

 

[cami]

Even though I believe she is guilty. Way too many conflicts in her stories. She can't even keep the evidence in her own stories straight, and none of the blood at the crime scene, nor prints point to any intruder. The one nagging question is, how was she able to slash her own throat so severely and survive? To my knowledge she had no medical training of any kind to know how to do that, without severe injury to herself. Can someone review the specifics of Darlie's throat injury(s.), any surgeries performed, and how long it took her to recover from them? That gash wound was nasty.

Satch

Hi Satch:

Darlie had surgery the night of the murders. The doctors who examined her neck found the cut to be superficial to the platysma muscle, that's why they call it a superficial wound. They found the carotid sheath covering the carotid and jugular was nicked, however the only injuries were to the bleeder veins under the skin, which they cauterized and stitched, no major organs were affected, then they applied steri strips to the cut neck to reduce scarring. Darlie's doctors testified in any other case they would have sent the patient home that night, but they were worried about Darlie's emotional state having just lost two children and to protect her from the media they put her in ICU, she was released from the hospital on June 8th. 2 days after the murders.

Here is a link to the doctor's testimony

http://darliefacts.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/12_dr-alejandro-santos.pdf

 

[nicola]

i have a question for those who believe she is guilty. Although i think that the silly string tape is neither here nor there in deciding guilt i am however intrigued as to why some people would believe it supports guilt. If darlie did infact do this why would she act this way? Wouldnt she play the part of grieving mother at the grave side taking into account others were present. For a person who is supposidly trying to deceive others it doesnt make sense for her to act that way. Any theories as to why she acted the way she did if she was infact trying to portray an innocent person.

 

[colette]

i have a question for those who believe she is guilty. Although i think that the silly string tape is neither here nor there in deciding guilt i am however intrigued as to why some people would believe it supports guilt. If darlie did infact do this why would she act this way? Wouldnt she play the part of grieving mother at the grave side taking into account others were present. For a person who is supposidly trying to deceive others it doesnt make sense for her to act that way. Any theories as to why she acted the way she did if she was infact trying to portray an innocent person.

The silly sting thing happened after hours of remembering and prayer from what I understand.

 

[Tawny]

i have a question for those who believe she is guilty. Although i think that the silly string tape is neither here nor there in deciding guilt i am however intrigued as to why some people would believe it supports guilt. If darlie did infact do this why would she act this way? Wouldnt she play the part of grieving mother at the grave side taking into account others were present. For a person who is supposidly trying to deceive others it doesnt make sense for her to act that way. Any theories as to why she acted the way she did if she was infact trying to portray an innocent person.

JMHO, but I would venture a guess it's because as a guilty person (if guilty, I mean), she has no idea what someone who is truly innocent of the murder of their own children would do or how they would act. She's never been the grieving mother of murdered children before.

 

[Zzzz]

i have a question for those who believe she is guilty. Although i think that the silly string tape is neither here nor there in deciding guilt i am however intrigued as to why some people would believe it supports guilt. If darlie did infact do this why would she act this way? Wouldnt she play the part of grieving mother at the grave side taking into account others were present. For a person who is supposidly trying to deceive others it doesnt make sense for her to act that way. Any theories as to why she acted the way she did if she was infact trying to portray an innocent person.

This is a thoughtful question. But sociopaths don't act like the rest of us and we can't put sense into their actions. Darlie thought she was getting away with murder, and at last she was going to have a happy life without little brat burdens. It never dawned on her that she needed to "look innocent" because she thought she was home free. She was merely experiencing the happiness and giddiness of all that freedom. I know it's hard for moms to believe that she did this to her children, but she's a serious sociopath. Sociopaths have no consciences and no impulse control. It's really that simple.

 

[anastacia]

I'd also like to add that sociopath's lack the emotions that 'normal' people have. They have to fake them. Since Darlie felt no real grief at her son's deaths she came up with a scenario that she thought would work, while also serving to put her in the center of attention.

Since she has never experienced grief, she had nothing to draw on to help her fake it. She had probably seen balloons and things put up at cemetaries before to mark a deceased child's birthday and thought to herself that it would be something to do to keep herself the center of attention. "Oh, look! That poor mother is having a b'day party for her dead babies, how tragic! And how brave she must be to be able to do it"
Does that make sense?

 

[Fireweed]

This is a thoughtful question. But sociopaths don't act like the rest of us and we can't put sense into their actions. Darlie thought she was getting away with murder, and at last she was going to have a happy life without little brat burdens. It never dawned on her that she needed to "look innocent" because she thought she was home free. She was merely experiencing the happiness and giddiness of all that freedom. I know it's hard for moms to believe that she did this to her children, but she's a serious sociopath. Sociopaths have no consciences and no impulse control. It's really that simple.

That is what I think too. She was dressed like a teenager and acting like one too (snapping her gum). She had succeeded in getting what she wanted. The "grieving" part of the service was over and she finally was going to get some release after going through putting on a show of being sad for the past couple of hours. She had successfully "pulled off" looking sad. Look, when sociopaths lie and the person believes them, you can very often see a little smirk show up. People like Darlie are thrilled when they think they are being believed. IMO, the silly string event was that "little smirk" in action. She was overjoyed that her lies were being believed.

As to the original question to this thread, I have not seen a single compelling legal argument as to why Darlie should get a new trial. She got a fair trial.

 

[lillybell]

I voted no. I believe darlie got a fair trial too. In my opinion she is right where she belongs.

 

[TartLemon]

I voted "YES" Darlie should get a new trial. I'm not convinced she is guilty. Not convinced she is innocent, either. For me, the evidence at her previous trial is not convincing.

I do not condone a judicially mandated DP under any circumstance. But, if she IS guilty of this heinous crime, Darlie should NEVER see the light of day outside prison walls.

 

[Fireweed]

I voted "YES" Darlie should get a new trial. I'm not convinced she is guilty. Not convinced she is innocent, either. For me, the evidence at her previous trial is not convincing.

I do not condone a judicially mandated DP under any circumstance. But, if she IS guilty of this heinous crime, Darlie should NEVER see the light of day outside prison walls.

Yes but by what legal reason should Darlie get a new trial? You were not convinced by the evidence but the twelve people who sat there day in and day out most definitely were. I have not yet seen a good legal argument as to why Darlie deserves a new trial. Look, I get that maybe her lawyer's idea to move the trial was, in retrospect, not a good decision, but that most definitely is not grounds for a new trial. Lawyers make strategic decisions all the time in a trial, and sometimes they misfire.

I am almost a bit confused by the poll here. Is there really some compelling reason why Darlie has a legal right to a new trial? Was the judge bribed? Did the prosecutor hide exculpatory evidence from the defense? Just believing that the evidence did not seem good enough to you is absolutely, positively not a legal ground for a new trial.

 

[nicola]

It mustve 'dawned on her that she needed to "look innocent"' as just a few hours before she was 'acting' innocent enough during graveside service. Someone else mentioned on this thread a while ago that they eleived the reasons behind the way she acted at gravesite was because there were other children present and it was her sister who brought string to service anyhow. I just cannot see why she wouldnt have kept up 'grieving mother persona' knowing that others were watching. Its just too hard to believe (for me anyhow). with respect x

 

[colette]

At the gravesite she had been praying and remembering her children for hours, it was only at the end when they had the silly string birthday party.

Because a judge ordered it suppressed, the jury never saw a police surveillance video of the grave site taken earlier that same day, where Darlie Routier was seen weeping and praying.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125984

 

[blefuscu]

At the gravesite she had been praying and remembering her children for hours, it was only at the end when they had the silly string birthday party.

Because a judge ordered it suppressed, the jury never saw a police surveillance video of the grave site taken earlier that same day, where Darlie Routier was seen weeping and praying.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125984

There is much more compelling evidence than the video. Blood splatter, knives being in the house, jewellery left, blood under the broken glass, vacuum, Darlie's wounds being massively different to the boys etc

 

[Zzzz]

At the gravesite she had been praying and remembering her children for hours, it was only at the end when they had the silly string birthday party.

Because a judge ordered it suppressed, the jury never saw a police surveillance video of the grave site taken earlier that same day, where Darlie Routier was seen weeping and praying.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125984

Could you point us to a site where we can see the weeping video?

 

[colette]

I thought Darlie was guilty at first but over time I changed my mind.


There are bits and pieces of the graveside service on ABC news. Here is a short clip:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1402745746690994&theater

Also the silly string was Darlie's sister's idea, she was the one who bought it.

[video=youtube;x1TJMuOq6Ls]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1TJMuOq6Ls&list=PL302CBCA2DF8FAD73[/video]

 

[cami]

At the gravesite she had been praying and remembering her children for hours, it was only at the end when they had the silly string birthday party.

Because a judge ordered it suppressed, the jury never saw a police surveillance video of the grave site taken earlier that same day, where Darlie Routier was seen weeping and praying.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125984

That is false information, the judge did not order the police surveillance tape suppressed, it was never entered into evidence by the defence. The defence was given every opportunity at trial to show the jury the tape and they chose not to.

Regardless of who bought the silly string to the grave, it doesn't appear as if Darlie was forced to use it.

 

[Zzzz]

That is false information, the judge did not order the police surveillance tape suppressed, it was never entered into evidence by the defence. The defence was given every opportunity at trial to show the jury the tape and they chose not to.

Regardless of who bought the silly string to the grave, it doesn't appear as if Darlie was forced to use it.

There is more than enough real evidence to convict Darlie, regardless of any gravesite video. But, I agree with Cami - the defense literally "chose not to" show the video simply because it shows nothing. The video that has been released to the public shows a few seconds of Darlie and her family with their heads bowed. I don't see anything in that video that shows heavy remorse. Remember, Darlie invited the press to the gravesite that day. She knew they were filming everything, including the silly string. If there is a video out there that contradicts the silly string video, then bring it on. Let's see it.

 

[Sarky]

Why? Please state what you believe was wrong with her original trial. As far as I can see it was almost a perfect trial. And I don't understand why people think she deserves another. Do you want to pay for it?

 

[FelicityLemon]

I've been dying to find someone who does handwriting analysis. I can make my own uneducated guesses (aka judgments) on this because it's so over-the-top and I've not seen anything like this since grade school and even then, it wasn't as contrived or forced as this. It's difficult to read and actually looks like she's wishing people a pitiful new year.