Darlie Routier

I would never have been selected for her jury. I'm opposed to the death penalty. The prosecutor would have sent me packing. If life without parole was an option, I'd go with that. I think the jury was wrong in voting for the death penalty, but this was Texas.
 
KatieG said:
I would never have been selected for her jury. I'm opposed to the death penalty. The prosecutor would have sent me packing. If life without parole was an option, I'd go with that. I think the jury was wrong in voting for the death penalty, but this was Texas.
Click to expand...

One woman with sanity saved Jodi Arias's life because they could not give her the death penalty.
 
Open And Shut

Darlie's mythical home invader story is not quite as ridiculous as Jeffrey MacDonald's hippie intruder story, but it is in the same zip code. The evidence is circumstantial, but clearly points to one perp and one perp only. The key piece of evidence is the blood spatter found on her night shirt. The source of the blood was her butchered son and was cast-off from the knife to her clothing. Defense expert Terry Laber was never able to explain this inculpatory evidentiary item. When analyzing this case, it's important to KISS.
 
JTF said:
Darlie's mythical home invader story is not quite as ridiculous as Jeffrey MacDonald's hippie intruder story, but it is in the same zip code. The evidence is circumstantial, but clearly points to one perp and one perp only. The key piece of evidence is the blood spatter found on her night shirt. The source of the blood was her butchered son and was cast-off from the knife to her clothing. Defense expert Terry Laber was never able to explain this inculpatory evidentiary item. When analyzing this case, it's important to KISS.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the testimony of Tom Bevel? I don't trust his testimony. I think valid concerns have been raised about "blood splatter analysis" and I believe such analysis should not be admitted into evidence, or at least considered very carefully before being admitted.

see http://darliefacts.com/blood-evidence/

David
 
David Sugar said:
Are you talking about the testimony of Tom Bevel? I don't trust his testimony. I think valid concerns have been raised about "blood splatter analysis" and I believe such analysis should not be admitted into evidence, or at least considered very carefully before being admitted.

see http://darliefacts.com/blood-evidence/

David
Click to expand...

It was Bevel who testified in the David Camm case which does raise caution flags with regards to that part of the case. I verified that they were the same individual.
 
I I might ask, what are thoughts about the bloody sock?
Seems to be strange but I am not sure just how bloody the sock really was and was the blood wet when found.
Heard some that argue that it is evidence at least that her husband was involved in concealing the crime.
 
Desert Fox said:
I I might ask, what are thoughts about the bloody sock?
Seems to be strange but I am not sure just how bloody the sock really was and was the blood wet when found.
Heard some that argue that it is evidence at least that her husband was involved in concealing the crime.
Click to expand...

The sock is strong evidence that Darlie could not have done the murder alone. It had both boys blood on it, none of Darlie's, and so must have been put there after both boys were stabbed. Due to the timing, it is not possible that Darlie placed it there. Either someone helped Darlie, or more likely there really was an intruder.
 
Desert Fox said:
I I might ask, what are thoughts about the bloody sock?
Seems to be strange but I am not sure just how bloody the sock really was and was the blood wet when found.
Heard some that argue that it is evidence at least that her husband was involved in concealing the crime.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that the bloody sock strikes me as the biggest anomaly in the whole case. It doesn't seem to fit perfectly neatly into any scenario. It's possible Routier planted it to throw police of the scent, but it seems like an odd thing to do under the circumstances (which, admittedly, are way out of the ordinary already so who knows what passes for logic in such situations). On the other hand, if it were placed by an outside intruder, what sequence of events would result in its placement? Did the intruder take it as a souvenir and then drop it during his escape? Did it inadvertently stick to him and fall off at some point? As far as I can see, Routier planting the sock makes as much sense as any other scenario. And considering what I believe is the overwhelming weight of the other evidence against her, I don't see the sock as a particularly significant impediment to the conclusion she did it. (This would, of course, change if it were somehow proved that it was impossible for her to place the sock -- which thus far does not seem to be the case.)
 
Last edited:
David Sugar said:
The sock is strong evidence that Darlie could not have done the murder alone. It had both boys blood on it, none of Darlie's, and so must have been put there after both boys were stabbed. Due to the timing, it is not possible that Darlie placed it there. Either someone helped Darlie, or more likely there really was an intruder.
Click to expand...

That is really stretching it. If anything, it seems most likely a plant.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
I agree it seems like a plant.

The other thing is there is often a piece of evidence which does not seemingly belong in the puzzle. I believe many investigators will say it is not unusual to have something which doesn't necessarily fit the rest of the picture.
Click to expand...

I have read that they had a very yappy dog who did not alert. That seems pretty strange that the dog did not alert.
 
Cast-Off Blood

Terry Laber is a highly respected blood spatter expert and his work on the Jeffrey MacDonald case was top notch.

http://www.macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/pjs_sub_pocket.html

The fact that he could not present a tangible rebuttal to Bevel's testimony speaks to the credibility of Bevel's blood spatter analysis.
 
Last edited:
Ah, No

DF: Ya lost me when you advocate for THE DEVILS KNOT as reliable source material for that case. To be frank, that book is a mess. It is filled with assumptions, distortions, half-truths, and falsehoods. In regards to the Routier case, her camp can run, but they can't hide from the blood spatter evidence. It's important to note that the DNA tests in the Routier case were the most extensive in Texas state history. The results of this extensive testing? Not a single DNA exemplar was found to be exculpatory. Not one.
 
JTF said:
DF: Ya lost me when you advocate for THE DEVILS KNOT as reliable source material for that case. To be frank, that book is a mess. It is filled with assumptions, distortions, half-truths, and falsehoods. In regards to the Routier case, her camp can run, but they can't hide from the blood spatter evidence. It's important to note that the DNA tests in the Routier case were the most extensive in Texas state history. The results of this extensive testing? Not a single DNA exemplar was found to be exculpatory. Not one.
Click to expand...

I have looked up several items in the Callahan archives and found what I looked up to be accurate.

Let me argue that I am not convinced with regards to blood spatter evidence. If I was in a jury and that was what was being used to convict, you are pretty much screwed if you are the prosecution. I would prefer a purely circumstantial case to that.
 
Desert Fox said:
...Let me argue that I am not convinced with regards to blood spatter evidence. If I was in a jury and that was what was being used to convict, you are pretty much screwed if you are the prosecution. I would prefer a purely circumstantial case to that.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand this view. The spatter seems to indicate strongly (I'd even say convincingly) that Mrs. Routier lied about a key component of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of her children, namely the location of where she was stabbed. By moving that location to the kitchen sink area -- which is more congruent with self-inflicted wounds and in apparent conflict with the scenario that she was stabbed while sleeping on the couch -- in my view pretty much blows her story out of the water.

And in any case, the spatter isn't the evidence, just an important piece of a very consistent and compelling chain.
 
Stellafane said:
I'm afraid I don't understand this view. The spatter seems to indicate strongly (I'd even say convincingly) that Mrs. Routier lied about a key component of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of her children, namely the location of where she was stabbed. By moving that location to the kitchen sink area -- which is more congruent with self-inflicted wounds and in apparent conflict with the scenario that she was stabbed while sleeping on the couch -- in my view pretty much blows her story out of the water.

And in any case, the spatter isn't the evidence, just an important piece of a very consistent and compelling chain.
Click to expand...

My issue with blood spatter is more the argument that it can show if it is high velocity or not. I do not have an issue with "Hey, there is blood here" type argument. The blood in the sink seem to be pretty compelling although I think some kind of murder and then suicide is actually pretty likely.

I think if I had been on the jury, I probably would have convicted her although the sock would really have bothered me. I believe I was not anti-death penalty at the time although on the fence (I have been always "on the fence" with regards to it) and would have opposed the death penalty in her case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom