Darlie Routier

[David Sugar]

Based on the information provided in this link, I'd say the verdict was a correct one. I suppose one could contrive an implausible series of events that could collectively comprise a case for doubt, but I think that would be confusing reasonable doubt with conceivable doubt.

To honestly evaluate a case, you need to look at all the information available. Most pro-guilt and pro-innocence sites will be biased. I suspect if you looked only at a pro-innocence site, you'ld conclude there is not enough evidence to convict.

My conclusion is that most people who look at all the evidence objectively should conclude that there is at least reasonable doubt.

David

 

[David Sugar]

The problem is that "innocence" web site latch onto any very small irrelevant details to try to show as if the investigator are a bunch of moron, the jury blind, and the evidence always interpreted in favor of the innocent.

Fact is, up to now none of this occurred despite the defense being aware of the SAME evidence than the internet expert.

We have different opinions on what is "very small irrelevant details". I read that information and I see a bunch of nurses and doctors who recorded that Darlie was very upset, scared and tearful. Then these same people say something very different in court. I conclude that the prosecution may have talked to them and convinced them to change their testimony.

You see "small irrelevant details"; I see the hallmark of possible prosecutorial misconduct.

David

 

[Desert Fox]

To honestly evaluate a case, you need to look at all the information available. Most pro-guilt and pro-innocence sites will be biased. I suspect if you looked only at a pro-innocence site, you'ld conclude there is not enough evidence to convict.

My conclusion is that most people who look at all the evidence objectively should conclude that there is at least reasonable doubt.

David

This is definitely not a nice neat case like some we deal with where it is almost certain that the defendant is innocent. As such, we need to accept that we don't know the honesty of either side.

I have some pretty bad garbage published by some guilt websites with certain groups however.

 

[Aepervius]

We have different opinions on what is "very small irrelevant details". I read that information and I see a bunch of nurses and doctors who recorded that Darlie was very upset, scared and tearful. Then these same people say something very different in court. I conclude that the prosecution may have talked to them and convinced them to change their testimony.

You see "small irrelevant details"; I see the hallmark of possible prosecutorial misconduct.

David

But it can also mean she is a very good actor, or it can mean she simply regretted the murder. And it can also mean the nurse noted something but saw something was off later and did not note it.

You cannot infer reasonable doubt based on it.

Bottom line is that the nurse testimony AND the nurse report were available to the defense yet they ignored it, intentionally or not.

You see the hallmark of wrong testimony, I see the hallmark of people realizing they must tell the truth before a jury, a truth they might have balked at nothing on a medical chart.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Truth be told, neither would I. The Ng case is a particularly severe challenge to my opposition of capital punishment. (Fortunately Lake self-administered his own sentence.)

How about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Or the recent ones just down the road from Biden's house in DC. They tortured the ten year old before setting the fire while he was still alive.

I believe in the death penalty. I support it.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This is definitely not a nice neat case like some we deal with where it is almost certain that the defendant is innocent. As such, we need to accept that we don't know the honesty of either side.

I have some pretty bad garbage published by some guilt websites with certain groups however.

I agree. For me, this is kind of like the Sam Sheppard case. Leaving aside the theatrics that cast the fairness of the trial in doubt, I'm pretty sure Sheppard did it. But I'm not 100 percent sure.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I agree. For me, this is kind of like the Sam Sheppard case. Leaving aside the theatrics that cast the fairness of the trial in doubt, I'm pretty sure Sheppard did it. But I'm not 100 percent sure.

But that's just it; it's not often anyone is 100% sure. That's why the threshold is reasonable doubt and not all doubt. I think that's where some people have a difficult time. They want absolute certainty and that's not the way it works.

 

[David Sugar]

But that's just it; it's not often anyone is 100% sure. That's why the threshold is reasonable doubt and not all doubt. I think that's where some people have a difficult time. They want absolute certainty and that's not the way it works.

I always find it curious when someone makes this argument. I agree that the threshold is reasonable doubt and not all doubt. But look at it this way: What do you have left if you have less than reasonable doubt? You have unreasonable doubt.

What is the threshold of reasonable doubt? For me, I put the threshold at 95%. I need to be more than 95% sure the defendent is guilty before I would vote for guilt. And this is a very high bar to pass. I refuse to put the bar lower, because that would mean more than 1 in 20 prisoners are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of, and to me that is unreasonable.

As for the death penalty, I would accept nothing less than 100% certainty. Because it is impossible to be 100% certain, I am against the death penalty.

David

 

[Samson]

I always find it curious when someone makes this argument. I agree that the threshold is reasonable doubt and not all doubt. But look at it this way: What do you have left if you have less than reasonable doubt? You have unreasonable doubt.

What is the threshold of reasonable doubt? For me, I put the threshold at 95%. I need to be more than 95% sure the defendent is guilty before I would vote for guilt. And this is a very high bar to pass. I refuse to put the bar lower, because that would mean more than 1 in 20 prisoners are innocent of the crimes they were convicted of, and to me that is unreasonable.

As for the death penalty, I would accept nothing less than 100% certainty. Because it is impossible to be 100% certain, I am against the death penalty.

David

What is seldom considered in these cases is the likelihood of further offending. If this is 95% unlikely to happen, and there is a 95% likelihood of the accused being guilty, do you imprison?

 

[spooky24]

As always websleuths has an enormous amount of material on this case. The autopsy photo of one of the boys showed someone had held him on his stomach and drove a knife six times(I think it's hard to see) all the way through him. John Douglass would call this overkill and I agree.

Whatever happened it was an 'emotionally powered act of violence as JD would say) . How that fits in I have no clue.

 

[12AX7]

The bloody finger print, which cannot be matched to anyone in the house, for example, makes it very difficult for me to find Darlie guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

David

That the fingerpring "cannot be matched" does not mean it belongs to someone else. It can very well mean it's defining/matching characteristics cannot be seen well enough to match to a known print (smeared, degraded, etc) or there aren't enough.

ETA: Some states have a set number of friction ridge characteristic matches that must be present before a match can be determined. I spent two years woring on an AAS in crime scene processing many years ago, including two semesters of staring at fingerprints (Friction Ridge Analysis 1 and 2).

 

[David Sugar]

That the fingerpring "cannot be matched" does not mean it belongs to someone else. It can very well mean it's defining/matching characteristics cannot be seen well enough to match to a known print (smeared, degraded, etc) or there aren't enough.

ETA: Some states have a set number of friction ridge characteristic matches that must be present before a match can be determined. I spent two years woring on an AAS in crime scene processing many years ago, including two semesters of staring at fingerprints (Friction Ridge Analysis 1 and 2).

Forgive me, I am not a fingerprint expert. I thought that experts testified that the bloody finger print does not match anyone in the household, not simply that it could not be matched.

If the fingerprint does not match anyone in the household, that by itself provides reasonable doubt.

David

 

[phiwum]

Yes, that is the case, your formula calculates innocence, and the sum of the two should be 1.

Yes, obviously the sum will be 1. I was being silly.

 

[12AX7]

Forgive me, I am not a fingerprint expert. I thought that experts testified that the bloody finger print does not match anyone in the household, not simply that it could not be matched.

If the fingerprint does not match anyone in the household, that by itself provides reasonable doubt.

David

To be clear: I am not a fingerprint expert either. And I don't recall (I really haven't followed this case much at all) why it couldn't be matched. It might have well had enough individual characteristics to be excluded from anyone else in the house, but usually that verbage is used. If, for instance, the bloody print were clear enough in ridge detail to be identified as to not belonging to anyone in the house, that would be huge for the defense.

"Couldn't be matched" and "identfied to the exclusion of" are worlds apart.

But like I said, I could be way off here. Maybe someone who remembers the particulars of this print can weigh in. I'll go check some Google on this and see if I can find the print info as well. Now I'm curious.

 

[Desert Fox]

To be clear: I am not a fingerprint expert either. And I don't recall (I really haven't followed this case much at all) why it couldn't be matched. It might have well had enough individual characteristics to be excluded from anyone else in the house, but usually that verbage is used. If, for instance, the bloody print were clear enough in ridge detail to be identified as to not belonging to anyone in the house, that would be huge for the defense.

"Couldn't be matched" and "identfied to the exclusion of" are worlds apart.

But like I said, I could be way off here. Maybe someone who remembers the particulars of this print can weigh in. I'll go check some Google on this and see if I can find the print info as well. Now I'm curious.

One other issue is that you need to eliminate all rescue personnel and police at the crime scene as far as the bloody fingerprint.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

THE FINGERPRINT CONFUSION
...

Fingerprints at the crime scene included a single bloody fingerprint, sometimes referred to as a fingerprint or a partial palm print, (and used by supporters to cause confusion) was left on the glass table in the Routier’s family room the morning of the murders.

At trial, James Cron testified there was not enough detail to make an identification. He suggested the print was left by one of the two young boys.

In an attempt to put an end to speculation that the bloody print taken from the glass table belonged to one of the boys, the children were exhumed, after getting permission from the family, for fingerprints to be taken. This had not been done at autopsy because at that time it was a general rule to take footprints of children, and not fingerprints.

...

Richard Jantz had also conducted an analysis of the print taken from the glass table, and although Jantz’s report supports the defense’s contention that the print did not belong to either of the Routier children, it also DID NOT exclude Darlie Routier as the source of the print.

Pat Wertheim then concluded that all of Darlie’s fingerprints were excluded except the ring finger of her right hand, which is probably, and the most likely explanation for the print.

...

Other fingerprints included two fingerprints taken from the utility room door, leading to the garage of the Routier home. One print was made in blood and the other was a patent print. The patent fingerprint below the bloody print was identified as matching the middle finger of Darin Routiers left hand.

So that left just one fingerprint unaccounted for.

The bloody fingerprint on the utility room door, could not be identified as Routiers, but that is not to say it is not hers.

In the new testing being undertaken, it is highly likely that results will show the print does indeed belong to Routier, especially since blood trails to and from that print are Darlie Routiers blood.

If an intruder had left the print with that much blood on him, it is highly likely that he would have left blood at the exit or outside the house, and yet none was found. This included no blood on the garage door, where Routier testifies she saw the intruder exit to and ‘the garage door close’.

Source: https://justice4newcomers.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/hello-world/

This site gives you the option to "share" so I assume it is not copyrighted and I am not reposting too much copyrighted text which breaks the rules. I edited some out and replaced it with ...

 

[phiwum]

What is seldom considered in these cases is the likelihood of further offending. If this is 95% unlikely to happen, and there is a 95% likelihood of the accused being guilty, do you imprison?

Surely, probability of "doing it again" is irrelevant, isn't it?

This question really requires that we have a clear, consistent view of the function of prisons, but unless we think that the sole function of incarceration is to change the character of the guilty person so that they won't re-offend, the probability of re-offense is irrelevant. So long as the state has a legitimate interest in punishment or in deterrence or both, the odds of re-offense are not so relevant.

 

[Desert Fox]

Source: https://justice4newcomers.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/hello-world/

This site gives you the option to "share" so I assume it is not copyrighted and I am not reposting too much copyrighted text which breaks the rules. I edited some out and replaced it with ...

One thing I have to argue straight off the bat is that her injuries did seem to be life threatening although that does not mean that they were not self inflicted. I personally think in her mind, she was first going through a murder / suicide but something gummed up the works.

Edit: I would also argue that while "reasonable doubt" alludes me and she seems most likely guilty, there is conceivable doubt.

 

[12AX7]

THE FINGERPRINT CONFUSION
...

Fingerprints at the crime scene included a single bloody fingerprint, sometimes referred to as a fingerprint or a partial palm print, (and used by supporters to cause confusion) was left on the glass table in the Routier’s family room the morning of the murders.

At trial, James Cron testified there was not enough detail to make an identification. He suggested the print was left by one of the two young boys.

In an attempt to put an end to speculation that the bloody print taken from the glass table belonged to one of the boys, the children were exhumed, after getting permission from the family, for fingerprints to be taken. This had not been done at autopsy because at that time it was a general rule to take footprints of children, and not fingerprints.

...

Richard Jantz had also conducted an analysis of the print taken from the glass table, and although Jantz’s report supports the defense’s contention that the print did not belong to either of the Routier children, it also DID NOT exclude Darlie Routier as the source of the print.

Pat Wertheim then concluded that all of Darlie’s fingerprints were excluded except the ring finger of her right hand, which is probably, and the most likely explanation for the print.

...

Other fingerprints included two fingerprints taken from the utility room door, leading to the garage of the Routier home. One print was made in blood and the other was a patent print. The patent fingerprint below the bloody print was identified as matching the middle finger of Darin Routiers left hand.

So that left just one fingerprint unaccounted for.

The bloody fingerprint on the utility room door, could not be identified as Routiers, but that is not to say it is not hers.

In the new testing being undertaken, it is highly likely that results will show the print does indeed belong to Routier, especially since blood trails to and from that print are Darlie Routiers blood.

If an intruder had left the print with that much blood on him, it is highly likely that he would have left blood at the exit or outside the house, and yet none was found. This included no blood on the garage door, where Routier testifies she saw the intruder exit to and ‘the garage door close’.

Source: https://justice4newcomers.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/hello-world/

This site gives you the option to "share" so I assume it is not copyrighted and I am not reposting too much copyrighted text which breaks the rules. I edited some out and replaced it with ...

Excellent!

Thanks for the info AoV!

 

[Stellafane]

How about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Or the recent ones just down the road from Biden's house in DC. They tortured the ten year old before setting the fire while he was still alive.

I believe in the death penalty. I support it.

Again, I'm not overburdened with sympathy for the guilty. My opposition to the death penalty is based upon the burden it places on society. For example, back in the day when Mike Dukakis was running for president against Bush père, he was asked whether he'd be in favor of the death penalty if someone murdered his wife. He gave some bland textbook answer which made him look like an unfeeling automaton. What he should have answered was something along the lines of the following:

"Would I want the person who murdered my wife put to death? What an idiotic question. Of course I would. In fact I'd want to strangle the bastard myself with my bare hands. And it would be an understandable and justifiable act of human passion, anger, and revenge.

But that's not how societies are supposed to work. Instead, they're supposed to be dispassionate, calm, and motivated by reason rather than revenge. Above all, they're supposed to be peaceful, only resorting to violence in extreme cases of self-preservation.

That is why I oppose the death penalty. The taking of another's life is the ultimate act of violence, and I feel it's unbecoming of a society motivated by the best in human nature and intellect. Other civilized countries have done away with it. I believe ours should too."