|
Post by Graveyardbride on Jul 24, 2016 8:37:40 GMT -5
Untrue. No one has "reinvestigated" the case to the extent of re-examining any evidence in the case. Two homicide detectives from New York re-examined the case for a TV show and their conclusion was on the fence regarding her guilt but felt the initial investigation was poorly done. The stab wounds going the whole way to the floor below, this is a myth stated as fact by people who are so zealous in their hatred for Darlie that they can't be bothered to read anything. The autopsy reports for both boys clearly states neither had any wounds that went entirely through their bodies. Unless it was a magic knife there is no way it hit the floor underneath if it didn't even go the whole way through the bodies. As for that screen fiber... Hamilton testified he started dusting for fingerprints at the window and then worked his way from there. His memory suddenly became very hazy about what, if anything, he may have dusted in the kitchen. It was his testimony he never dusted the knives at the scene. Linch, who analyzed the knives and found the fiber, has signed an affidavit stating the knives were delivered to him at the lab with dusting powder already on them meaning contamination at the scene is most likely how the fiber got on the knife and the state actively tried to hide that fact from the defense and jury. Thank you for sharing this information. I'm not convinced Darlie Routier killed her sons, so anything you're able to add to the discussion will be very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 24, 2016 9:43:02 GMT -5
It seems to me she was railroaded, and perhaps the investigator's son is involved, considering Patterson didn't pursue the leads regarding his son. This would make sense, as to why the rape kit disappeared magically, the pubic hair was not examined, and the fact the son had made such a connection to the assistant for the defense counsel so as to be able to thwart their defense efforts. He does match the description of the assailant after all, and has a criminal history, to boot. He was not one of the two people that Darlie claimed (in her letters from jail) that she saw that night. Then when they asked her about those letters pointing to two different people on the stand, she asked the judge if it was legal for them to read her jailhouse mail. The courtroom erupted in laughter. Darlie will never admit her guilt, but guilty she is. I just watched an episode on Forensic Files not long ago. A man and two women were attacked by a man who broke into their house and attacked them with a knife. The man was killed. Both women were face-to-face with the guy when he attacked them as well. Both women survived. When questioned by police neither woman could describe what he looked like, his race or the clothing he was wearing. Their neighbor became a suspect. When asked if the neighbor was the man who attacked them both women said "no." He confessed to the crime after his footprint was found at the scene. The lesson we can learn from this case? Victims of a crime might not be able to identify their attacker.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 24, 2016 11:30:12 GMT -5
The story about Darin planning a break in only came out a year later - to deflect from Darlies evil deeds. Latest DNA released June 17, 2015 show zero evidence of an intruder, only Darlie. Her supporters are peeved about this so they have asked the court to seal past and future DNA results. All evidence points only to Darlie. No one else. She claimed it was guys, then a man but that it wasn't Darin. They had a massive fight that night. On the 911 call you can hear him coming down the stairs and say what did you do. She told him "I didn't do anything, Darin, someone came in here. She also didn't help the boys one single time. She stayed on the phone setting up her alibi, "I picked up the knife, we probably could have gotten prints". Darlie did it. Darlie will die for it. Thank you for sharing this information with us. I did not realize the DNA testing had been completed. Nevertheless, I still say there are some unanswered questions in this case, one of which is the bloody sock discovered 75 yards from the house that allegedly contained the blood of both boys. It's my understanding no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the sock got there. If you have any other information about this case, please share it with us.
You will never get a plausible answer about the sock which is one of the reasons the prosecution hid the fact that they had it for so long. At trial the prosecution put on two witnesses who had two different theories about why the sock was in the alley. Brantley testified the sock was taken down there to hide/discard it as it would have incriminated her. Bevel testified it was placed down there by Darlie to further "stage" the scene by making it look like an intruder left it there. There is a problem with both theories though. In order for Brantley's theory to be correct there would need to be something incriminating about the sock, Darlie would have needed to be aware of what that incriminating evidence was and she would have made an actual effort to make sure it wasn't found. There was nothing incriminating about the sock. Darlie's DNA on the toe of the sock only means that she touched it at some point in time. It doesn't pinpoint when she touched it. In order for Darlie to know the DNA on the sock would incriminate her she would have needed to have some knowledge about DNA and what types of DNA can be left behind (blood, skin cells, saliva...). There is zero evidence that Darlie had ever studied up on DNA testing or had a general interest in anything relating to crimes. Lastly, if her intent was to get rid of the sock she would have placed it in one of the garbage cans it was found near or in the storm drain that was a few feet away. The sock was laying out in the open for anyone to see. Bevel's theory that the sock was used to "stage" the scene actually isn't possible. In order to realize this you need only read his own testimony. There was a cast-off stain on Darlie's shirt that Bevel testified was a pure mixture (not overlap) of Devon and Darlie's blood. He stated that in order for this to happen Darlie would have already been bleeding when Devon was attacked. So the sock has Devon and Damon's blood on it yet Darlie, who was bleeding heavily managed to carry it 75 yards away without getting a drop of her own blood on it nor leaving any blood trail in what would have been a 150 yards round trip. Another aspect of staging is that the perpetrator will stage a scene and then weave the staged items into their story. She wouldn't have simply forgot to add it to her story after she went to all that effort and risk of taking it down there. Then you factor in the limited amount of time she had in which she had to stage everything. She wouldn't have had the time.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 24, 2016 11:31:26 GMT -5
Untrue. No one has "reinvestigated" the case to the extent of re-examining any evidence in the case. Two homicide detectives from New York re-examined the case for a TV show and their conclusion was on the fence regarding her guilt but felt the initial investigation was poorly done. The stab wounds going the whole way to the floor below, this is a myth stated as fact by people who are so zealous in their hatred for Darlie that they can't be bothered to read anything. The autopsy reports for both boys clearly states neither had any wounds that went entirely through their bodies. Unless it was a magic knife there is no way it hit the floor underneath if it didn't even go the whole way through the bodies. As for that screen fiber... Hamilton testified he started dusting for fingerprints at the window and then worked his way from there. His memory suddenly became very hazy about what, if anything, he may have dusted in the kitchen. It was his testimony he never dusted the knives at the scene. Linch, who analyzed the knives and found the fiber, has signed an affidavit stating the knives were delivered to him at the lab with dusting powder already on them meaning contamination at the scene is most likely how the fiber got on the knife and the state actively tried to hide that fact from the defense and jury. Thank you for sharing this information. I'm not convinced Darlie Routier killed her sons, so anything you're able to add to the discussion will be very much appreciated.
If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to ask.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 24, 2016 14:34:06 GMT -5
... Even the brutality of the crime showed that it was done by someone who was close to the victims. This assertion has no basis in reality. Ask yourself this: If a stranger has decided he intends to stab you do you think he's putting much thought into how deeply he's stabbing you or if he's going to go easier on you just because he doesn't know you? Of course he isn't. There is only one factor that determines the depth a knife wound will go and that is resistance. There are three variables that provide resistance to knife wounds... Defending yourself/fighting back, skin, and bone. Skin only provides minimal resistance. Once the knife has penetrated the skin the fat layer, muscle and organs provide no resistance. Devon had at least two wounds that were relatively shallow while the others were deeper, meaning he most likely put up some resistance with the first two stabs and no resistance after that. Damon was attacked from behind meaning he put up no resistance thus it is to be expected his wounds would be deep. To further explain the fallacy of depth of stab wounds being an indicator of who perpetrated a crime I will use two other cases Bevel (the blood spatter expert who testified against Darlie) testified in where he said the complete opposite. Dr. Schwartz hired a hitman to murder his ex-partner, Dr. Stidham. Dr. Stidham was stabbed no less than fifteen times. All the wounds were deep, penetrating stab wounds yet the hitman had never even met Dr. Stidham prior to murdering him. Bevel also testified that it is typical in murder cases where a knife is used that the perpetrator gets no blood on them as the blood will travel down the knife blade and fly outward due to the knife swinging motion. But the laws of physics apparently don't apply in Darlie's house because the blood flew back at her when she swung the knife. The second case was that of murder victim Nona Dirksmeyer. She had shallow knife slash wounds to her neck and an empty condom wrapper was laying on the kitchen counter along with her pants (underwear included) laying inside out near her body. Her boyfriend was arrested for the crime. According to Bevel the shallow slashing wounds indicated someone who had a close relationship with her caused the wounds. The condom wrapper and clothing were "staged" items left in such a way that only a person who knew her and was trying to mislead the police into thinking it was a rape/homicide by a stranger would have left them like that. Her boyfriend was acquitted. The police later tested the condom wrapper and found DNA belonging to a neighbor she didn't know who had a previous rape conviction which clearly means Bevel was completely wrong. Be that as it may, now he is claiming shallow wounds indicate the perpetrator had a relationship with the victim. As for how he determines if an item is staged, it appears to be guess work that he's been known to get wrong. As an aside... Terry Labors and Barton Epstein came to a different conclusion about the evidence in Darlie's case. For anyone familiar with the Camm case that trial came down to dueling experts. Putting aside Camm's guilt or innocence for this equation, you had two experts who felt the blood spatter evidence pointed to his guilt and two experts who felt it pointed to his innocence. That's a failure rate of 50% proving that experts can be 100% wrong about their conclusions. No one should be on death row based on a forensic science that has such a huge error rate.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 24, 2016 15:01:25 GMT -5
This case was reinvestigated by 2 highly experienced homicide detectives that knew nothing about the crime. They even came to the same conclusion that Darie was guilty they even found particles of the screen on a bread knife that was in the knife block. Even the brutality of the crime showed that it was done by someone who was close to the victims. One of the older boys wounds went right through him and into the floor. She s guilty and lethal injection is to kind for her and I don't believe the husband is totally innocent either A lot of innocent people have been tried and convicted of crimes they didn't commit. My biggest problem with this case is lack of motive. The insurance polices on the boys totaled $20,000, which means that after paying for the funerals, the parents netted $6,000. A mother doesn't brutally attack and kill her children over such a trifling sum.
The insurance information is incorrect. It was two $5,000 policies totaling $10,000. The funerals came to $14,000. They netted nothing.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jul 24, 2016 19:28:49 GMT -5
The insurance information is incorrect. It was two $5,000 policies totaling $10,000. The funerals came to $14,000. They netted nothing. This is a minor discrepancy and some polices are of the double-indemnity variety and pay more in the case of accidental death. Whether the polices totaled $20,000 or $10,000 is irrelevant; the point is the parents gained nothing from their children's deaths.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jul 24, 2016 19:35:41 GMT -5
If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to ask. What happened with the DNA testing that Darlie's mother said would free her?
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Jul 24, 2016 23:35:29 GMT -5
If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to ask. I have a question. Why did Darlie have that crazy birthday party in the cemetery? I'm from the South, so I understand why people might want to celebrate the birthday of a dead relative at their grave, but the laughter and silly string were too much and came across as trashy. Normal people don't laugh and act like fools when they've just buried a loved one.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 25, 2016 8:15:54 GMT -5
If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to ask. What happened with the DNA testing that Darlie's mother said would free her?
I don't keep up with Darlie Kee. She's been making those claims for 10+ years now and has always been wrong. I think she puts far too much hope in DNA testing finding foreign DNA and it's always a let down. Looking for foreign DNA in this case would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Personally, I think they should focus more on trial errors, perjury issues, questionable forensic science being used, ineffective assistance of counsel, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 25, 2016 8:28:10 GMT -5
If you have any questions about anything, please feel free to ask. I have a question. Why did Darlie have that crazy birthday party in the cemetery? I'm from the South, so I understand why people might want to celebrate the birthday of a dead relative at their grave, but the laughter and silly string were too much and came across as trashy. Normal people don't laugh and act like fools when they've just buried a loved one.
There had already been a birthday party planned for Devon. Darlie's family felt they should still have the party. All the party favors (balloons and silly string) were brought by Dana. Dana thought the children would enjoy it. There was a private ceremony held just prior to the birthday celebration. Darlie was upset at that ceremony. Apparently Darlie Kee and other family members told her she needed to be cheerful and happy at the party otherwise the children that were coming might get upset. I personally don't think I could have had a party if that had happened to me. That said, I get why they did it. She felt her boys could see this in Heaven and be happy as well as honoring their lives instead of focusing just on their deaths.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Jul 25, 2016 11:40:46 GMT -5
Darlie was her own worst enemy. Both she and her husband were very shallow people and what few values they had were misplaced, which is typical of the nouveau riche. Of course, they weren't rich, but they thought they were and instead of spending their money on something that mattered, they wasted it on flashy cars, clothes and jewelry. Darlie was a lot like Priscilla Davis, the wife of Cullen Davis, who strutted around wearing a diamond necklace that spelled out "Rich Bitch." The only difference between them was that Cullen Davis was a rich man, not just some delusional white trash like the Routiers. Though I don't believe that Darlie was guilty of killing her sons, juries are turned off by people like her and often convict them for their life choices.
|
|
|
Post by sinsaint on Jul 30, 2016 12:20:52 GMT -5
Darlie was her own worst enemy. Both she and her husband were very shallow people and what few values they had were misplaced, which is typical of the nouveau riche. Of course, they weren't rich, but they thought they were and instead of spending their money on something that mattered, they wasted it on flashy cars, clothes and jewelry. Darlie was a lot like Priscilla Davis, the wife of Cullen Davis, who strutted around wearing a diamond necklace that spelled out "Rich Bitch." The only difference between them was that Cullen Davis was a rich man, not just some delusional white trash like the Routiers. Though I don't believe that Darlie was guilty of killing her sons, juries are turned off by people like her and often convict them for there life choices. Agree. But as you stated, that's nothing but her character assuming it's true. We are looking at her with an outside lens. While she might have wanted the finer things in life that doesn't mean she was materialistic or had few morals or values. She could have been all those things AND been a loving and doting mother. Her "white trash" status should have never been brought up at trial.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Jul 30, 2016 13:31:14 GMT -5
Agree. But as you stated, that's nothing but her character assuming it's true. We are looking at her with an outside lens. While she might have wanted the finer things in life that doesn't mean she was materialistic or had few morals or values. She could have been all those things AND been a loving and doting mother. Her "white trash" status should have never been brought up at trial. A lot of white trash women are loving mothers, but they're still the kind of people who drive around in new, flashy cars while living in mobile homes because they have misplaced values. Darlie's "white trash" status didn't have to be brought up, it was apparent. That cemetery birthday party was over the top. Decent people don't clutter the graves of their loved ones, not even children, with toys, balloons and plastic flowers and they certainly don't have cemetery parties with silly string, other junk and loud music. There's nothing wrong with going to the graves of loved ones on their birthdays, but people should be respectful and respectable when visiting places of the dead.
|
|
|
Post by pat on Jul 31, 2016 0:43:47 GMT -5
One of the things that bothered me was those Daisy Mae shorts she wore to the cemetery party. Women wear short shorts because they think that showing a lot of leg makes them look sexy. If my son had died, the last thing I would be concerned about was looking sexy. I don't know if she killed those 2 boys or not, but she wasn't acting like a normal mother who had just buried 2 of her children.
|
|