You lost me at “cut the screen from the inside” BS. You are aware the prosecution’s own fiber analyst testified the screen was cut from the outside, right? Well, if you didn’t know now you do. The windowsill was a whole ten inches off the ground. Both Frosch and Darin (Darin for a TV show) stepped through the window without disturbing the “dusty” windowsill. BTW, the only person who noticed this “dusty” windowsill was Linch around 12:30 p.m. shortly after he arrived at the house. The funny thing about that “dusty” windowsill observation by Linch is that Hamilton had dusted that windowsill for fingerprints around 9:30 a.m. earlier that day.
Darlie Routier
- Thread starter Desert Fox
- Start date
You lost me at “cut the screen from the inside” BS. You are aware the prosecution’s own fiber analyst testified the screen was cut from the outside, right? Well, if you didn’t know now you do. The windowsill was a whole ten inches off the ground. Both Frosch and Darin (Darin for a TV show) stepped through the window without disturbing the “dusty” windowsill. BTW, the only person who noticed this “dusty” windowsill was Linch around 12:30 p.m. shortly after he arrived at the house. The funny thing about that “dusty” windowsill observation by Linch is that Hamilton had dusted that windowsill for fingerprints around 9:30 a.m. earlier that day.
https://abc.go.com/shows/the-last-defense
An ABC special focusing on the conviction of Darlie. Three of the four episodes have already aired. The last episode on her case will be Next Tuesday. So far it gives a great understanding how this wrongful conviction happened.
An ABC special focusing on the conviction of Darlie. Three of the four episodes have already aired. The last episode on her case will be Next Tuesday. So far it gives a great understanding how this wrongful conviction happened.
I think you have a few misunderstandings about the case. First and foremost, the blood evidence shows that Darlie was attacked first. She was most likely unconscious when the boys were attacked. Given that when she was woken up by Damon she was most likely groggy and disoriented. She might have saw the person walking away from her but didn’t quite grasp what was going on around her.
As for your assessment about Darlie doing this that and the other and everything under the sun other than alerting anyone that’s entirely inaccurate. She said when she woke she saw the man walking away and she went after him. She heard the glass break. She saw him leave through the utility room. She turned around to turn on a light and went to the utility room seeing the knife on the floor. She picked it up and went back to Damon. That’s when she saw the blood everywhere, realized both kids were stabbed and started screaming. According to Darin he heard the glass break and shortly after he heard her screaming. That says to most people she wasn’t casually meandering around before finally trying to get help. All these actions occurred in a very short timeframe.
As for the 911 call, I’m not certain what you listened to but Darlie didn’t know her children were dead. Quite the opposite. She was pleading for help telling the dispatcher if the ambulance didn’t get there soon her boys would die. And the EMTs never told her her children were dead. For pretty obvious reasons everyone should know that simply isn’t true.
Sinsaint, I congratulate you on your factual account of all that happened. I will be happy to alter my view with proper refutation of your account.
It is up to the others, but I am convinced Darlie is innocent.
They must answer your specific points.
Will they?
Let us see, because the girls want her hanged.
It seems pretty clear from what's been aired so far that she was convicted in large part because she didn't behave as prosecutors and jurors thought a grieving mother should behave. Another factor is that her lawyers seemed to think their case was so strong that they didn't challenge the prosecution's experts with their own. But based on what we've seen so far, there's no way she was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
There. Is. No. Evidence. Of. An. Intruder.
Get as snarky as you like, but Darlie is guilty. She's shown consciousness of guilt by changing her story (she awoke and was fighting - from the 911 call; she was awakened by a child and saw a man walking away; letters from prison identifying Glen as the killer, but admitting it's a lie in court; and all the changes in between.)
Nobody wants to believe a young mother could to do this to her children. But this one did. There is NO evidence of an intruder (Darlie has not been excluded from the bloody fingerprint her supporters hawk as proof.)
I still maintain she should have pled not guilty by reason of insanity (postpartum depression) - she had a diary that showed she planned a suicide but thought better of it. I'm not sure it would have worked, but I believe she'd be serving time in gen pop, not death row if she had.
Get as snarky as you like, but Darlie is guilty. She's shown consciousness of guilt by changing her story (she awoke and was fighting - from the 911 call; she was awakened by a child and saw a man walking away; letters from prison identifying Glen as the killer, but admitting it's a lie in court; and all the changes in between.)
Nobody wants to believe a young mother could to do this to her children. But this one did. There is NO evidence of an intruder (Darlie has not been excluded from the bloody fingerprint her supporters hawk as proof.)
I still maintain she should have pled not guilty by reason of insanity (postpartum depression) - she had a diary that showed she planned a suicide but thought better of it. I'm not sure it would have worked, but I believe she'd be serving time in gen pop, not death row if she had.
I don't know enough about the case to debate details, but I note that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. The defense doesn't have to prove that there was an intruder. The prosecution has to prove that there wasn't. Any number of people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit solely on the prosecution theory that "they was there, wasn't they?" It seems clear that the police and prosecution decided from the beginning that she must be guilty and stopped looking for other evidence. They minimized her injuries and misrepresented her medical records at the trial.
She might have done it. But proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial? Maybe not.
It’s debatable what the word was that she used on the 911 tape. I listened to it numerous times and it sounds like she says “I was frightened.” I know Barry Dickey transcribed the audio having it read “I was fighting” and, well, he must be right since his primary job is producing local radio commercials for Burger King.
The letters from prison were sent after the investigator working on her case told her they were looking into a suspect. I can easily understand her saying “I know what happened. I know someone did this to me.” Why? Because she knew she didn’t do it to herself. And being this terrible, cold hearted person she’s supposed to be why didn’t she say Glen stabbed her when he came into court? She had already stabbed two of her children so when did she suddenly grow a conscience and decide accusing Glen would be a line she just wasn’t willing to cross?
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
I went back and listened to the 911 tape again. (Nope, didn't READ it, LISTENED to it, so whatever Barry wrote means nada to me) She said "I woke up, I was fighting." No 'r' sound, did not hear an -ed ending. So, you may not be able to understand what she said at that point on the tape, but I do.
You can easily understand her saying Glen did it because someone told her "we're looking into a guy"? I understand Darlie's not the sharpest pencil in the box, but she goes from we're looking into (another) guy to "He did it"? So, she's even dumber than I believe. Depression I can truly understand. Never had a baby, so have to go with what friends have said about postpartum depression (and it's scary - one was hospitalized). That's why I say she should have pled temporary insanity citing her postpartum depression and diary.
And there's still no evidence of an intruder other than Darlie's "I saw a man." See, that's the real problem with accusing imaginary intruders: they don't leave evidence behind. (And she's still not been excluded from the bloody fingerprint.)
You can easily understand her saying Glen did it because someone told her "we're looking into a guy"? I understand Darlie's not the sharpest pencil in the box, but she goes from we're looking into (another) guy to "He did it"? So, she's even dumber than I believe. Depression I can truly understand. Never had a baby, so have to go with what friends have said about postpartum depression (and it's scary - one was hospitalized). That's why I say she should have pled temporary insanity citing her postpartum depression and diary.
And there's still no evidence of an intruder other than Darlie's "I saw a man." See, that's the real problem with accusing imaginary intruders: they don't leave evidence behind. (And she's still not been excluded from the bloody fingerprint.)
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater
Illuminator
Which version of her account was this, her first, second, third or fourth?
Last edited:
I hear tomato. You hear tamoto. Until an expert who actually graduated from college with a degree and more experience than producing some jungles for a radio station confirms she said fighting as opposed to frightened then I’ll just rely on my own hearing. But I will admit I got a pretty good giggle out of him contradicting Bevel on Forensic Files. Barry Dickey goes on and on about how she’s traveling from a more dampened room to a less dampened room to a more dampened room very rapidly. Very next segment Bevel chimes in and says the blood drops prove she was either standing still or moving very slowly. Well, which one is? Was she racing from room to room like a speed demon staging things or was she hardly moving, practically twiddling her thumbs along the way? I guess it must be both depending on the narrative the prosecution was trying to sell at that particular moment.
And I see you have no answer for why this heartless, cold blooded, evil, absolutely selfish woman who had already murdered two of her kids couldn’t bring herself to accuse an innocent man of murder. I know. It’s pretty hard sticking to the narrative that Darlie being the twisted, diabolical, calculating woman she is wouldn’t accuse an innocent man of murder to save her own skin.
And the problem with this case came to light when juror Rina Way said “Darlie didn’t prove she was innocent.” That sentiment has only been further highlighted by juror Kerri Parris saying that Darlie spending money on breast implants and nice clothing raised their suspicions.
Her only version.
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
If you take the time to read my entire post, you'll note that I've been saying that Darlie isn't that bright, she was suffering from postpartum depression and should have pled not guilty on that basis. (And I've written it more than once.)
Why didn't she lie some more and say it was Glen? She was pretty rattled by being caught in so many earlier lies on the stand that she slipped up and told the truth. It happens, liars sometimes tell the truth.
And she still hasn't been excluded from the bloody fingerprint. And there is still no evidence of an intruder. Nothing in the evidence supports her version of what happened that night. And I find it hard to believe that a woman who was sleeping downstairs that night because her baby MOVING in his crib woke her slept through the slaughter of her sons. No medical evidence of head wound which would support your theory she was attacked first.
Like I said, she should have used the suicide entry and her postpartum depression as a defense.
So you believe she got flustered and simply forgot to say Glen attacked her and murdered her two children? Ummm, okay.
There’s plenty of evidence of an intruder. The sock Darlie had no time to stage would be one. The screen being cut from the outside is another. And a person doesn’t need a head wound to lose consciousness. Blood loss and/or a rapid decrease in blood pressure could cause a person to pass out. Per Bevel’s testimony there was a complete mixture of Darlie and Devon’s blood on her shirt. Bevel admitted that meant Darlie had already been attacked when Devon was stabbed. Then you factor in that her shirt shows evidence of blood pooling to the left side of her neck and down her back which could only be possible if she were laying down on her left side for some time after she had been bleeding.
While me thinking Darlie was attacked first is only a theory, it’s a theory that is supported by evidence.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
What you've written is fundamentally incorrect. In this particular case, it's not the job of the prosecution to prove that there wasn't an intruder. Rather, it's the job of the prosecution, with respect to the intruder (or "intruder") issue, to prove that the relevant evidence is a) not exclusively compatible with there having been an intruder, and b) compatible with having been created by someone within the house.
And in a wider context, it's the job of the prosecution to prove that a) all of the (reliable, credible) evidence is entirely compatible with Darlie Routier committing the murders (and that therefore not one single item of such evidence is incompatible with her committing the murders), and b) the only reasonable inference to draw from the combined evidence (and lack of evidence) is that Darlie Routier was responsible for the murders.
To take another case in order to illustrate this matter further: in the Laci Peterson murder case, it was not the job of the prosecution to prove that nobody else murdered Laci Peterson and her unborn child. Rather, it was their job to prove that a) all the evidence is wholly compatible with Scott Peterson as murderer, with no contradictory evidence, and b) the only reasonable inference to draw from the entirety of evidence is that Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child.
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It's one thing for her to accuse a nebulous, unknown "intruder" for the murders. It's quite another thing for her to accuse a named individual*. In my opinion , her decision to do the former rather than the latter is still entirely compatible with her guilt/culpability.
* For many reasons, some of which are psychological (accusing a named individual is, by its very nature, a deeply personalised act with personalised ramifications... whereas accusing a nameless intruder carries no such ramifications), and some of which are practical (for example, she would have no idea at that point whether exculpatory evidence might emerge showing Glen could not have been involved; and if so, this would automatically tend to damage her own credibility, and would necessarily tend to further imply her own guilt).
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2016
- Messages
- 483
LondonJohn answered your first question. And much better than I, thank you, sir.
Evidence of an intruder? In "Precious Angels", Barbara Davis documents her doing the sock plant and was a decade or more older than Darlie was at the time of the crime. Screen cut? Wasn't Darin planning a little insurance scam of his own? Who's to say it wasn't done prior to the murders for that? Blood? We don't when Darlie injured herself, only that she did.
Blood loss is a non-starter. She did not lose enough blood to justify it as a reason for loss of consciousness. In fact, her hospital stay was because of the murders, not her injury (shades of Jeffrey Macdonald). Sudden drop in blood pressure? It happens when you've been sitting or lying down and jump up. Darlie did jump up, but she did it to chase her fantasy fella - the one she's been accusing of her misdeeds for decades - she didn't faint or get dizzy then, she never faltered, just followed her imaginary intruder through the kitchen. Another non-starter.
And we're back to: no evidence of intruder, Darlie not excluded from the bloody fingerprint and my thinking temporary insanity (postpartum depression, suicide contemplation in the diary) would have done her better than the baseball-capped stranger (at least he didn't have bushy hair!) did it.
The prosecution has to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that the evidence supports its theory of the case and does not support the defense theory. That's pretty much the same as proving that there was no intruder. But if there's any ambiguity in the evidence, the jury is expected to interpret it in the light most favorable to the defendant. That's what "reasonable doubt" is about. If the defense theory could reasonably be true, that should be enough to acquit. The prosecution doesn't get to say "She could have done it, so she must have done it."
Based on the ABC series, it's pretty clear that there are legitimate questions about how evidence was gathered, interpreted and presented to the jury. In one of those police tapes, for example, she was talking to both the dispatcher and a police officer on the scene. The jury was allowed to believe that she was only talking to the dispatcher. The medical records seem to indicate that she was injured more severely than the prosecution claims. A thread running through it all is a pervasive belief that "a grieving mother wouldn't behave this way or that way." Jurors pretty clearly started with a prejudice against her that her lawyers didn't overcome.
I say again, she might be guilty. Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not so much. And sentenced to death on that evidence? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Last edited:
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 17,585
This is not your first less-than-subtle reference that the females here who are convinced of her guilt, and we have some type of blood-lust to have her executed.
I do not take the death penalty lightly. I have profound reservations about its use. I would not protest if it was made illegal. There have been a small group of cases that I followed thoroughly over years, where I believe the law made the right conclusion. I believed 100% in their guilt of a tortuous, heinous, bloody, unthinkable crime.
No, I am not eager to hang her myself. There would be no joy in seeing or participating in her execution. By law, she was sentenced to death, and if and when that happens, I will only know that those two little boys will have some justice. I believe 100% that the last thing they saw before an agonizing death was the face of their mother.
Isn't it a bit like attacking the arguer instead of the topic . . .
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Wellllllll....... I still go back to the point that it's not up to the prosecution, in this example, to prove that there was no intruder.
As an illustration, imagine a woman gets shot dead in a crowded bar. A man is charged and tried. The man claims that a totally different man walked in and shot the woman. It's not the job of the prosecution to prove that no such second man walked in and shot the woman. Rather, it's their job to prove that every single piece of evidence is compatible with the defendant being the murderer. And on top of that, to prove that the totality of the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion: that the defendant was the murderer.
So to go back to the Routier case, it's the job of the prosecution to prove that a) every single piece of evidence (and lack of evidence) is compatible with Darlie Routier being the murderer, and b) the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the totality of evidence (and lack of evidence) is that Darlie Routier was the murderer. If any single piece of evidence is incompatible with Darlie's guilt, then it's a near-terminal problem for the prosecution. And if the whole evidence set can be explained by an alternative reasonable scenario in which Darlie is not the killer, then this indeed is a terminal problem for the prosecution.
In this case, it appears to me that the prosecution has met its burden of proof on both counts. I believe that, for example, the "intruder" evidence - and lack of evidence - is in fact wholly compatible with a no-intruder scenario; and I believe that the totality of the evidence (and lack of evidence) has only one reasonable conclusion: that Darlie was the murderer of her two sons - for many reasons, perhaps chief among which is the motivational reason of quite why any mythical intruder of any kind would break into the house, then kill the two children with a knife taken from within the house (all without waking the mother who was sleeping right next to these murders......), then only slightly injure the mother, then escape. If the motive for intrusion was robbery, then why stab the two children to death? If it was some sexual motive, then likewise. (And there are many more points at which I believe the evidence can only be reasonably explained by Darlie as murderer)