Darlie Routier

[Chris_Halkides]

notes taken at the time versus the later testimony

In comment #468 I had written, "Two, if her demeanor forms part of the reason for her conviction, then the reasons for her demeanor and whether or not these impressions were recorded immediately take on significance."

2. That's a big if. Proof forthcoming?

Hank

"Could improper coaching by prosecutors explain the discrepancy between the notes taken by nurses during Darlie’s two-day stay at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas and their damning testimony at her trial? If she was crying and distraught, as the notes reflected, why did the nurses testify that she had a flat affect and showed little emotion." link
(highlighting mine)

IIRC there was a similar phenomenon in the Cameron Todd Willingham case in Corsicana, Texas.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a ruling

Link 1 is a story from ABC News. It has no judge's name and I have no way of knowing what or whom their source was. And after a long time searching, all I get to routed back to this story. No Judge's name, no date of the ruling, nada.

Link7, which is a transcript of a discussion before the judge is the closest thing I could find. However, it is not perfect, in that I am not certain what is meant by "this evidence." Under 4414:

17 For these reasons, I find that the
18 potential prejudice outweighs the probative value of this
19 evidence, and the defense is ordered not to go into it,
20 should these officers be recalled to the stand.

 

[desmirelle]

In the jury trial transcripts, the closest thing I find (part of and beyond what you quoted, I believe) is that the judge refused to allow the defense attorneys to continue to question the police officers about a tape (solemn graveside service) that had not been introduced into evidence. The PROSECUTOR then offers the tape to the defense for the defense to enter as evidence and …….. no mention of the first service tape cannot be submitted, just that the defense cannot use a tape NOT in evidence to question the officers. Looks like ABC news, like the Chicago Tribune in 1948 ("Dewey Defeats Truman"), isn't infallible. The judge did suppress the questioning about the tape (since it was not an exhibit for either side), but not the tape itself. Simple confusion about what was suppressed is what it seems to me. (Otherwise, I have to presume that ABC and the National Enquirer are on the same level.)

 

[Chris_Halkides]

video versus audio

Above 4415:
"19 MR. GREG DAVIS: I don't think there
20 is any problem with Mr. Mosty or Mr. Mulder offering that
21 videotape. I mean, whatever was visually recorded out
22 there, we certainly don't have a problem with them doing
23 that. It's just the circumstances under which that was
24 gathered. You know, if they can show what happened out
25 there, if they want to show that videotape."

Davis may be referring to the video, as opposed to the audio, recording. On the other hand, your interpretation may be correct. I am just not certain.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I still think that sock business is a mystery. The Darlie Routier case was not thoroughly investigated. Leads and suspects were disregarded.

 

[Samson]

I still think that sock business is a mystery. The Darlie Routier case was not thoroughly investigated. Leads and suspects were disregarded.

Everything could go wrong with the "plan". Something always does, and when it is impossible to find one incontrovertible piece of evidence tying her to the crime it looks like a crock.
Remind me someone of that one or more thing that Darlie overlooked. Sinsaint has done a pretty good job of knocking it all on the head, whack a mole if you like.

 

[desmirelle]

There is no proof an intruder, which is who Darlie blames her crimes on. She's not been excluded as contributor to the bloody fingerprint her supporters are pinning a lot of hopes on. Without an intruder, we're left with Darlie and Darin (and Drake and the dog), the latter two lacking either the strength and hand-eye coordination necessary (Drake) and the other opposable thumbs for holding the knife (the dog); and Darlie says it wasn't Darin. That leaves Darlie holding the, um, knife.

There was no "plan", Samson. She snapped. She was sleeping downstairs because she couldn't sleep if the baby rolled over in his crib and two rowdy youngsters joined her downstairs. (More sleep deprivation for her.) She had postpartum depression, had written in her journal was could have been a suicide note, had an argument with her husband and that's just the things we know about.

 

[Samson]

There is no proof an intruder, which is who Darlie blames her crimes on. She's not been excluded as contributor to the bloody fingerprint her supporters are pinning a lot of hopes on. Without an intruder, we're left with Darlie and Darin (and Drake and the dog), the latter two lacking either the strength and hand-eye coordination necessary (Drake) and the other opposable thumbs for holding the knife (the dog); and Darlie says it wasn't Darin. That leaves Darlie holding the, um, knife.

There was no "plan", Samson. She snapped. She was sleeping downstairs because she couldn't sleep if the baby rolled over in his crib and two rowdy youngsters joined her downstairs. (More sleep deprivation for her.) She had postpartum depression, had written in her journal was could have been a suicide note, had an argument with her husband and that's just the things we know about.

I am being lazy but did she crack under the strain of keeping up appearances , kill the kids, run the sock up the road, stage being nearly killed herself, then call emergency?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I don't follow

Should one believe Darlin that it was not Darin but disbelieve her about everything else?

 

[Samson]

There is no proof an intruder, which is who Darlie blames her crimes on. She's not been excluded as contributor to the bloody fingerprint her supporters are pinning a lot of hopes on. Without an intruder, we're left with Darlie and Darin (and Drake and the dog), the latter two lacking either the strength and hand-eye coordination necessary (Drake) and the other opposable thumbs for holding the knife (the dog); and Darlie says it wasn't Darin. That leaves Darlie holding the, um, knife.

There was no "plan", Samson. She snapped. She was sleeping downstairs because she couldn't sleep if the baby rolled over in his crib and two rowdy youngsters joined her downstairs. (More sleep deprivation for her.) She had postpartum depression, had written in her journal was could have been a suicide note, had an argument with her husband and that's just the things we know about.

I agree this seems incriminating, could we see this journal entry?
I realise a lot of this stuff is up thread, so I apologise for requesting rinse and repeat.

Coincidence is a fascinating statistical study, so I am open minded.

 

[desmirelle]

I don't do other people's homework for them. When Chris brought up the suppression issue, I looked up it myself. If you're that interested, do the same.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but you don't seem to take anyone's writing but Sinsaint's as true - so, go research about the journal entries yourself.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I don't do other people's homework for them. When Chris brought up the suppression issue, I looked up it myself. If you're that interested, do the same.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but you don't seem to take anyone's writing but Sinsaint's as true - so, go research about the journal entries yourself.

I have also asked Samson to do this. It appears he doesn't like to actually delve into the cases. He just likes the drive-by approach of commenting. (And no, I am not being snarky - I am serious that you really don't research much. I remember you stating I was snarky to you at some point, so I feel it is important for me to explain that I am truly not being that way. I just wish you would research the cases you like to comment on.)

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Should one believe Darlin that it was not Darin but disbelieve her about everything else?

I think it is safe to say that if Darlie knew Darin did it, she would yell it from the tops of the trees. She is not the type to fall on the sword for anyone. Of all the adjectives used for her, selfless has never been one of them.

 

[Henri McPhee]

There was a calm presentation of the facts in the Darlie Routier case by a public defender until Darlie was persuaded to change lawyers to her husband's lawyer. It was a conflict of interest to a possible shady lawyer. Darlie doesn't know with absolute certainty if her former husband was involved in some way, or he had hired an intruder. She has publicly commented on the matter from prison. The matter is discussed at this website:

https://darliefacts.com/the-defense/

A Last Minute Change of Attorneys

On June 28th of 1996, Douglas H. Parks was appointed to represent Darlie Lynn Routier. Parks worked as Darlie’s public defender until he was replaced by Doug Mulder and Richard Mosty on October 21. This presented a conflict of interest because Mulder was previously representing Darlie’s husband, Darin Routier. In a later affidavit provided for Darlie’s federal writ of habeas corpus, Parks stated: “I had learned that Douglas Mulder was considering whether to accept employment as counsel for Darlie Routier several weeks before October 21, 1996. Upon learning of this possible employment by Darlie Routier’s and Mr. Mulder’s representation of Darin Routier, I became concerned that Mr. Mulder would be unable to represent both Darlie and Darin Routier without breaching his duty of loyalty to one or both clients.”

 

[kali1137]

I have also asked Samson to do this. It appears he doesn't like to actually delve into the cases. He just likes the drive-by approach of commenting. (And no, I am not being snarky - I am serious that you really don't research much. I remember you stating I was snarky to you at some point, so I feel it is important for me to explain that I am truly not being that way. I just wish you would research the cases you like to comment on.)

I wish you and desmirelle luck on getting him to do that. I have yet to see a case where actual work was done and not a parrot of whoever's version gives the warm fuzzies.

The only two things that give me pause as to whether she is guilty or not, is the sock and the bruising she had. I don't see how she did it herself(the bruising) but I also don't see how that would have happened during a struggle either.
With the sock, I just don't see where placing that outside would have ever popped into anyone's mind. Who's was it and where did it come from? I lean towards guilt so I am curious as to what you two make of those issues.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

sock it to me, baby

I wish you and desmirelle luck on getting him to do that. I have yet to see a case where actual work was done and not a parrot of whoever's version gives the warm fuzzies.

If your comment is a general one, then I suggest the early Knox/Sollecito threads and the Lundy thread for examples in which primary and secondary forensic literature is cited.

With respect to the sock, I have heard that other crimes were committed in the area that involved a sock, but the details escape me.

 

[kali1137]

If your comment is a general one, then I suggest the early Knox/Sollecito threads and the Lundy thread for examples in which primary and secondary forensic literature is cited.

With respect to the sock, I have heard that other crimes were committed in the area that involved a sock, but the details escape me.

I have never been drunk enough to try reading in the Knox/Sollecito thread and I refuse to read anything on Lundy because he brings that up in every thread ad nauseam. Can't hold a conversation without him.

As for the sock, on the innocence side, there was another criminal who used socks on his hands in place of gloves. I was curious as to how that is explained or fits in on the guilty side.

 

[Samson]

This case is of the genre locked room murder mystery, others are the Jeremy Bamber case where he did not enter, kill his family and leave a house secured from the inside, Henry van Breeda where no intruder entered as Henry claimed.
Darlie apparently did what van Breeda did if we believe the prosecution, kill her family but neglect to create a viable break in staging.

 

[wasapi]

This case is of the genre locked room murder mystery, others are the Jeremy Bamber case where he did not enter, kill his family and leave a house secured from the inside, Henry van Breeda where no intruder entered as Henry claimed.
Darlie apparently did what van Breeda did if we believe the prosecution, kill her family but neglect to create a viable break in staging.

Yes. No evidence of any intruder.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

The only two things that give me pause as to whether she is guilty or not, is the sock and the bruising she had. I don't see how she did it herself(the bruising) but I also don't see how that would have happened during a struggle either.
With the sock, I just don't see where placing that outside would have ever popped into anyone's mind. Who's was it and where did it come from? I lean towards guilt so I am curious as to what you two make of those issues.

I think there is often some piece of evidence that doesn't quite make sense, a piece of the puzzle that doesn't quite fit well with any particular theory of a crime. It is possible she tried to get rid of some evidence and the sock was accidentally dropped and the rest of it (the other sock, perhaps) was successfully trashed somewhere. Heck, it is even possible some dog came along and carried the sock from their back yard up the street. Who knows. I don't think it matters in light of all the other evidence. It is not, in and of itself, enough to shadow the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The bruising, to me, is consistent with self infliction. The most logical place for self-bruising would be the surfaces of your skin you can slam onto surfaces.