The Innocence Project and Darlie Routier

New Posts

RANCH said:
Do you think that's there's evidence of an intruder who killed the boys as Darlie claims?
Click to expand...
No. I think that her and Darin fought and she did it for his attention feel sorry for her. I think she had attended to kill herself then couldn't go through with it
 
Ccgray said:
the silly string was only b/c the boys loved silly string. Darlie isn’t even who brought it. Her sister did & regrets it w everything. The entire video of that incident wasn’t played. Prior to that the family was praying & Darlie wasn’t holding up well. It’s sad that not all of the info about the incident was told.
Click to expand...
The silly string is not an issue with me it is all the other evidence and lack of evidence for an intruder.
 
Ccgray said:
The entire video of that incident wasn’t played. Prior to that the family was praying & Darlie wasn’t holding up well. It’s sad that not all of the info about the incident was told.
Click to expand...

Darlie invited the press to the gravesite birthday party so she knew full well everything was being recorded. She could see the cameramen. The praying, etc. was all for them.

The video tapes were available to both the prosecution and the defense. If there was anything to make her look good, the defense would have shown it. The entire video is online.
 
Last edited:
Berrybell said:
The silly string is not an issue with me it is all the other evidence and lack of evidence for an intruder.
Click to expand...
Me either. I didn’t even see the video until after I read the transcripts. It was the blood evidence that pushed me off the fence.

That said, the absolute glee with which she’s spraying that Silly String is revolting! She’s having a grand old time despite “the intruder” supposedly slaughtering her boys and nearly killing her. Not a care in the world. Darin is standing there, head down and hands in his pockets, looking like he wants to crawl in a hole and die from the inappropriateness.

I lost a 4 year old niece and I know people grieve differently but there’s no grief to be seen with this one. If there was any video of Darlie crying her eyes out or collapsing at the grave, her supporters would be showing it every chance they got. It doesn’t exist because it didn’t happen.

She’s right where she belongs and lucky to still be breathing.
 
And by the way, why would you invite the press to your recently-murdered child's gravesite birthday party unless you wanted to be the center of attention? Think about it. There were serious, and sad, mental issues going on there.
 
Zzzz said:
And by the way, why would you invite the press to your recently-murdered child's gravesite birthday party unless you wanted to be the center of attention? Think about it. There were serious, and sad, mental issues going on there.
Click to expand...
That is a great point, why would you invite the press!!! It reminds me of Diane Downs who jumped at every chance to give an interview and be on the news even when her attorneys were begging her to stop. She could not resist being the center of attention, Darlie is the same.
 
I don't know for certain that she's innocent but I would have hung that jury. For me, guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The investigation was tainted by serious tunnel vision by LE. If there is anything that can show she might be innocent, I want it investigated.
 
krkrjx said:
I don't know for certain that she's innocent but I would have hung that jury. For me, guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The investigation was tainted by serious tunnel vision by LE. If there is anything that can show she might be innocent, I want it investigated.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples of this serious tunnel vision? Because it is clear cut to me that she is guilty.
 
krkrjx said:
I don't know for certain that she's innocent but I would have hung that jury. For me, guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The investigation was tainted by serious tunnel vision by LE. If there is anything that can show she might be innocent, I want it investigated.
Click to expand...
What evidence gives you cause for reasonable doubt to have voted not guilty?
 
I don't like videos being played in court unless they are played in their entirety. The silly string video was shown in clips that put Darlie in a negative light. Had the video been shown in full, a juror or two might not have been so quick to condemn.

The sock has always bothered me. With nothing to show it had been planted LE decided almost immediately that it was, and that was the end of it. Anyone with an open mind would certainly question why a conclusion was made without adequate investigation. I abhor assumptions by LE, mainly because too many people believe every word LE says.

Darlie's wounds were not superficial and were not typical of self-inflicted wounds, imo. It has been said her wounds were more extensive than most because she intended to kill herself. And it has been said that she wounded herself to back up her story of an intruder so she could collect insurance payouts.

So which is it? When asked about motive LE gave conflicting stories. LE would respond in ways that strengthened their staged scene scenario and no one seemed interested in pressing LE to state what they based their conclusions on. Or, they would claim she was trying to kill herself but failed. It varied with who was asking, and it seems the news media just accepted LE's word without question.

I am not sure what happened in that home that horrific evening. I wasn't there. But for me to gain some insight into what went on, I need questions answered. If new eyes can look at all the evidence (or lack of, as the case me be) maybe some glaring loose ends can be tied up and the truth can finally be known.

Not liking the way a person acts is no reason to convict them of a crime. So what if she had breast implants, didn't attend church regularly, and would go out and party with friends! None of that means she is a killer or that she cannot be the victim of an intruder.

I'm the last person who would ever defend a child abuser, let alone child killer. But I will defend to the end a person's right to a proper investigation and a fair trial with an impartial judge and jury. I don't think Darlie had that.

MOO
 
krkrjx said:
I don't like videos being played in court unless they are played in their entirety. The silly string video was shown in clips that put Darlie in a negative light. Had the video been shown in full, a juror or two might not have been so quick to condemn.

The sock has always bothered me. With nothing to show it had been planted LE decided almost immediately that it was, and that was the end of it. Anyone with an open mind would certainly question why a conclusion was made without adequate investigation. I abhor assumptions by LE, mainly because too many people believe every word LE says.

Darlie's wounds were not superficial and were not typical of self-inflicted wounds, imo. It has been said her wounds were more extensive than most because she intended to kill herself. And it has been said that she wounded herself to back up her story of an intruder so she could collect insurance payouts.

So which is it? When asked about motive LE gave conflicting stories. LE would respond in ways that strengthened their staged scene scenario and no one seemed interested in pressing LE to state what they based their conclusions on. Or, they would claim she was trying to kill herself but failed. It varied with who was asking, and it seems the news media just accepted LE's word without question.

I am not sure what happened in that home that horrific evening. I wasn't there. But for me to gain some insight into what went on, I need questions answered. If new eyes can look at all the evidence (or lack of, as the case me be) maybe some glaring loose ends can be tied up and the truth can finally be known.

Not liking the way a person acts is no reason to convict them of a crime. So what if she had breast implants, didn't attend church regularly, and would go out and party with friends! None of that means she is a killer or that she cannot be the victim of an intruder.

I'm the last person who would ever defend a child abuser, let alone child killer. But I will defend to the end a person's right to a proper investigation and a fair trial with an impartial judge and jury. I don't think Darlie had that.

MOO
Click to expand...
Have you read the trial transcript? I don't believe she was convicted based on her implants or church attendance.

Imo
 
krkrjx said:
I don't like videos being played in court unless they are played in their entirety. The silly string video was shown in clips that put Darlie in a negative light. Had the video been shown in full, a juror or two might not have been so quick to condemn.


MOO
Click to expand...
Snipped by me
The defense had the opportunity to show the entire video. They didn’t.
The video has nothing to do with why I think she’s guilty. For me, it’s the blood under things that it shouldn’t be, the screen fibers on the knife, and the fact that the killer attacked two little boys over the adult in the room. That will never make sense to me.
 
The jurors placed a great deal of emphasis on the video. They viewed it numerous times. If I were on a jury that was that obsessed with video evidence I would want to know if there was more to it and I would have given it no consideration upon finding out it was not the whole story.

That's what I meant by hanging that jury. Someone asked me why, and I answered.

All that I have stated is my opinion. I don't expect anyone to adopt it as their own because it is important that each person is willing and able to think independently.

I am only saying it is a good thing whenever new eyes look at a case. If there is nothing new to be learned, so be it.
 
Because I'm curious, have any of those who would have found Darlie not guilty or who would have hung the jury, despite the evidence presented, ever served on a jury? During a murder trial?
 
Twice on a jury. No murder trials.

For what it's worth, I also would have hung the Casey Anthony jury. In my opinion, there was more than sufficient evidence to convict.

Herd mentality is not easy to take a stand against. I would lay odds than in many trials there are jurors who after the fact regret not taking a stand.
 
krkrjx said:
I don't like videos being played in court unless they are played in their entirety. The silly string video was shown in clips that put Darlie in a negative light. Had the video been shown in full, a juror or two might not have been so quick to condemn.

The sock has always bothered me. With nothing to show it had been planted LE decided almost immediately that it was, and that was the end of it. Anyone with an open mind would certainly question why a conclusion was made without adequate investigation. I abhor assumptions by LE, mainly because too many people believe every word LE says.

Darlie's wounds were not superficial and were not typical of self-inflicted wounds, imo. It has been said her wounds were more extensive than most because she intended to kill herself. And it has been said that she wounded herself to back up her story of an intruder so she could collect insurance payouts.

So which is it? When asked about motive LE gave conflicting stories. LE would respond in ways that strengthened their staged scene scenario and no one seemed interested in pressing LE to state what they based their conclusions on. Or, they would claim she was trying to kill herself but failed. It varied with who was asking, and it seems the news media just accepted LE's word without question.

I am not sure what happened in that home that horrific evening. I wasn't there. But for me to gain some insight into what went on, I need questions answered. If new eyes can look at all the evidence (or lack of, as the case me be) maybe some glaring loose ends can be tied up and the truth can finally be known.

Not liking the way a person acts is no reason to convict them of a crime. So what if she had breast implants, didn't attend church regularly, and would go out and party with friends! None of that means she is a killer or that she cannot be the victim of an intruder.

I'm the last person who would ever defend a child abuser, let alone child killer. But I will defend to the end a person's right to a proper investigation and a fair trial with an impartial judge and jury. I don't think Darlie had that.

MOO
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply. I can honestly say when I first heard of Darlie and the murder of the two little boys, I thought she was innocent based on the silly string party at the graves (because unless you have lost a child you don't know how you would grieve) and the second reason I thought she was innocent was the massive bruising on her arms. After reading and studying her case more I was then on the fence and thought maybe and maybe no. I read the transcript of the trial, looked at the evidence and the evidence not there and I had to admit to myself I think she's guilty. I think she murder her little boys.
 
Zzzz said:
And by the way, why would you invite the press to your recently-murdered child's gravesite birthday party unless you wanted to be the center of attention? Think about it. There were serious, and sad, mental issues going on there.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, she is clearly playing to the cameras. It was her TV debut, she always wanted to be an actress/singer
 
krkrjx said:
Darlie's wounds were not superficial and were not typical of self-inflicted wounds, imo. It has been said her wounds were more extensive than most because she intended to kill herself. And it has been said that she wounded herself to back up her story of an intruder so she could collect insurance payouts.

Now you're straying into areas where you need to provide proof of what you are alleging here. The doctors who treated Darlie will disagree with you after all they treated her you didn't. Her neck would was called superficial because it was longer than it was deep and cut no major organs, just the little bleeder veins under the skin. If she iniended to kill herself, it's still a self-inflicted wound. And there is not a scrap of evidence Darlie was trying to kill herself. And as you are aware, the state does not have to prove or even provide a motive. They don't know why people kill anymore than we do. It is the evidence that proves Darlie is the killer. She's had more post conviction DNA testing than any other DR prisoner and she still cannot put an unknown male or any male committing murder in her home that night. The YSTR DNA tests conducted on the evidence in 2015 excludes an unknown male and makes the case against Darlie stronger than at trial.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 2,653 (members: 168, guests: 2,485)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
2,485
Total visitors
2,653
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,602
Members
228,786
Latest member
not_just_a_phase
Back
Top