|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 12, 2016 1:50:53 GMT -5
The priest who conducted the boys funeral said that darlie behaved appropriately just as any grieving mother(this he testified to again read the transcripts). if your talking about the tape where she is wearing shorts and has silly string that was her sons birthday not the funeral so what you guys are saying is irrelevant and the fact you find it inappropriate is your opinion you cant speak for everyone in the US and you havnt lost two young children so you cant say how you would behave. I think wearing all black to a 7year olds birthday memorial would have been inappropriate but again that's my opinion I cant speak for everyone. she had like a shorts and t-shirt on she wasn't wearing hotpants with a crop top her hair and make up done she looks disheveled she was grieving and on meds. So why did they plead the fifth? Read the transcripts! They plead the fifth not to incriminate themselves The birthday party was held right after the memorial service. Are you saying that she went home and changed? What little of the tape of the memorial service that I have seen shows a woman who looks a lot like Darlie in the same shorts and shirt. Shorts of any length aren't appropriate for a memorial service or birthday party in a cemetery and those shorts Darlie was wearing were no more than 2" below her crotch. I have been to children's funerals and the parents and family members dress the same as they would at an adult's funeral. Why do you keep defending her actions? Most of the people posting here don't think that she killed her children, they're just saying that she and her family acted inappropriately, which turned off a lot of people, including the jury.
No I'm saying the memorial and birthday party was what was filmed not the boys funeral service!
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 12, 2016 1:58:10 GMT -5
The birthday party was held right after the memorial service. Are you saying that she went home and changed? What little of the tape of the memorial service that I have seen shows a woman who looks a lot like Darlie in the same shorts and shirt. Shorts of any length aren't appropriate for a memorial service or birthday party in a cemetery and those shorts Darlie was wearing were no more than 2" below her crotch. I have been to children's funerals and the parents and family members dress the same as they would at an adult's funeral. Why do you keep defending her actions? Most of the people posting here don't think that she killed her children, they're just saying that she and her family acted inappropriately, which turned off a lot of people, including the jury.
No I'm saying the memorial and birthday party was what was filmed not the boys funeral service! I am defending everyone's right to be individual its what that family chose to do who are you all to say otherwise. The reason why the tape should not have been allowed in court in the first place is because people make judgements about people that are irrelevant to the actual case. For me its about looking at the real evidence and being objective and you cant be objective when you are forming judgements about people from a video unless she says in the video I done it yay I killed them then it really has no bearing on the real evidence!
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 12, 2016 3:37:35 GMT -5
According to the trial transcripts, Darlie's defense team made no attempt to admit the police video and voice recordings from the memorial service into evidence. It was Officer Frosch's attorney who advised his client to plead the Fifth if anything was brought up concerning the recordings, because he [the lawyer] believed the actions of the police might be illegal, and other officers involved followed suit. Even when the police officers' being allowed to plead the Fifth on specific issues was brought up before the judge, the defense's objections were in regard to impeachment of the officers, not the probative value of the recordings. Those looking for someone to blame need look no farther than her defense team, chosen by her egotistical, overbearing mother; her superficial husband, who had seriously misplaced values; the fact KXAS was allowed to film the insane birthday party; and Darlie's own misplaced values. Had Darlie spent all that money she wasted on clothes, jewelry, plastic surgery and a fancy house and furnishings on getting an education, she wouldn't be on death row.
Oh I agree her defense was useless and I feel darlie and her family were robbed by Mulder she should have stuck with Parks 100%. In regards to the silly string tape media coverage should not be allowed in a case like this full stop it prejudices the jury it's inflammatory evidence with no real substance to it. As for Darlie Kee she is a mother and mothers get overbearing and defensive about their kids at the best of times in her situation she probably has to be strong and stand up for her child nothing unusual there.
Think about it why would your lawyer advise you to take the fifth if you wasn't doing anything wrong you wouldn't need to. The determination of the state to win at all costs is clear from testimony and manipulation of evidence and like you Greg Davis had made classist assumptions about Darlies character, appearance and values from his middleclass christian pedestal. No matter what character judgements are made about Darlie she is still innocent and why does she deserve to be on death row or executed because some self righteous yuppies dont like her taste or how she talks,looks behaves or the fact her upbringing didn't initially afford her a good education or because she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth? The only point is she is innocent the investigators and the state manipulated evidence to put her on death row and the juries verdict was based on false evidence representation, inadmissible evidence and the same prejudgements you talk about. I have the crime scene photos,DNA reports transcripts etc that's what I base my conclusions on not what she wears or how she talks I admit I dont like how she talks but that doesn't make her guilty or deserve to die!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 12, 2016 3:59:23 GMT -5
I am defending everyone's right to be individual its what that family chose to do who are you all to say otherwise. The reason why the tape should not have been allowed in court in the first place is because people make judgements about people that are irrelevant to the actual case. For me its about looking at the real evidence and being objective and you cant be objective when you are forming judgements about people from a video unless she says in the video I done it yay I killed them then it really has no bearing on the real evidence! I haven't commented on this case before, because I haven't read a lot about it other than what's on this site. But the purpose of this discussion isn't to defend individual rights, it's whether the woman was innocent or guilty. From what I've read, everyone of these people criticizing the way she dressed and acted also think that she's not guilty, so why are you telling them that they can't be objective because they formed judgments?
|
|
|
Post by Graveyardbride on Sept 12, 2016 8:52:32 GMT -5
Oh I agree her defense was useless and I feel darlie and her family were robbed by Mulder she should have stuck with Parks 100%. In regards to the silly string tape media coverage should not be allowed in a case like this full stop it prejudices the jury it's inflammatory evidence with no real substance to it. As for Darlie Kee she is a mother and mothers get overbearing and defensive about their kids at the best of times in her situation she probably has to be strong and stand up for her child nothing unusual there. Think about it why would your lawyer advise you to take the fifth if you wasn't doing anything wrong you wouldn't need to. The determination of the state to win at all costs is clear from testimony and manipulation of evidence and like you Greg Davis had made classist assumptions about Darlies character,appearance and values from his middleclass christian pedestal. No matter what character judgements are made about Darlie she is still innocent and why does she deserve to be on death row or executed because some self righteous yuppies dont like her taste or how she talks,looks behaves or the fact her upbringing didn't initially afford her a good education or because she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth? The only point is she is innocent the investigators and the state manipulated evidence to put her on death row and the juries verdict was based on false evidence representation, inadmissible evidence and the same prejudgements you talk about. I have the crime scene photos,DNA reports transcripts etc that's what I base my conclusions on not what she wears or how she talks I admit I dont like how she talks but that doesn't make her guilty or deserve to die! But for her mother's pomposity and insistence on running the show, as it were, Darlie would have been represented by the public defender, who would have done a much better job. Her mother knew Mulder had a conflict of interest, but still insisted on hiring him. She also knew a person in his office compromised the case by passing along sensitive information. This should have been brought to the attention of the judge and the mother should have demanded Mulder do so, but she was so stupid when it came to legal matters, she did nothing.
I explained above why the lawyer representing Officer Frosch advised his client to take the Fifth, i.e., the lawyer erroneously believed there might be something illegal about setting up the recording devices at the grave site. Lawyers are often wrong, as evidenced by the fact that when lawyers confront each other in a trial, unless there is a mistrial, one of them loses.
Has anyone posting here said Darlie Routier deserves to be on death row because she dressed like a slut and acted like a fool in the cemetery? or because she's white trash? or because she has little education and when she had the money to go to college and better herself, she wasted it on a boob job and material possessions she didnt need? Just because some of us see Darlie for what she was/is doesn't mean we can't be objective when it comes to whether or not she killed her children.
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 19, 2016 15:54:51 GMT -5
I am defending everyone's right to be individual its what that family chose to do who are you all to say otherwise. The reason why the tape should not have been allowed in court in the first place is because people make judgements about people that are irrelevant to the actual case. For me its about looking at the real evidence and being objective and you cant be objective when you are forming judgements about people from a video unless she says in the video I done it yay I killed them then it really has no bearing on the real evidence! I haven't commented on this case before, because I haven't read a lot about it other than what's on this site. But the purpose of this discussion isn't to defend individual rights, it's whether the woman was innocent or guilty. From what I've read, everyone of these people criticizing the way she dressed and acted also think that she's not guilty, so why are you telling them that they can't be objective because they formed judgments?
I thought the subject was guilty or railroaded? Well i believe she was railroaded and one of the ways the state achieved this was by playing on these prejudices'. Im saying not everyone chooses to do these things the same. I agree to some extent that this family made some mistakes particularly when changing the defense team.I am just saying that it is subjective to judge someone on what they wore to their Childs funeral there may have been many reasons behind it and as I said it is irrelevant to the case that she wore shorts and t-shirt in the summer completely irrelevant. Its these types of judgements that landed this innocent woman on death row in the first place. I have looked at so much evidence that proves she's innocent which is probably why I get a bit agitated when discussing the silly string tape in this case because it has no bearing on the evidence and shouldn't have been allowed in the court room in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 19, 2016 16:06:06 GMT -5
Oh I agree her defense was useless and I feel darlie and her family were robbed by Mulder she should have stuck with Parks 100%. In regards to the silly string tape media coverage should not be allowed in a case like this full stop it prejudices the jury it's inflammatory evidence with no real substance to it. As for Darlie Kee she is a mother and mothers get overbearing and defensive about their kids at the best of times in her situation she probably has to be strong and stand up for her child nothing unusual there. Think about it why would your lawyer advise you to take the fifth if you wasn't doing anything wrong you wouldn't need to. The determination of the state to win at all costs is clear from testimony and manipulation of evidence and like you Greg Davis had made classist assumptions about Darlies character,appearance and values from his middleclass christian pedestal. No matter what character judgements are made about Darlie she is still innocent and why does she deserve to be on death row or executed because some self righteous yuppies dont like her taste or how she talks,looks behaves or the fact her upbringing didn't initially afford her a good education or because she wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth? The only point is she is innocent the investigators and the state manipulated evidence to put her on death row and the juries verdict was based on false evidence representation, inadmissible evidence and the same prejudgements you talk about. I have the crime scene photos,DNA reports transcripts etc that's what I base my conclusions on not what she wears or how she talks I admit I dont like how she talks but that doesn't make her guilty or deserve to die! But for her mother's pomposity and demands to run the show, as it were, Darlie would have been represented by the public defender, who would have done a much better job. Her mother knew Mulder had a conflict of interest, but still insisted on hiring him. She also knew a person in his office compromised the case by passing along sensitive information. This should have been brought to the attention of the judge and the mother should have demanded Mulder do so, but she was so stupid when it came to legal matters, she did nothing.
I explained above why the lawyer representing Officer Frosch advised his client to take the Fifth, i.e., the lawyer erroneously believed there might be something illegal about setting up the recording devices at the grave site. Lawyers are often wrong, as evidenced by the fact that when lawyers confront each other in a trial, unless there is a mistrial, one of them loses.
Has anyone posting here said Darlie Routier deserves to be on death row because she dressed like a slut and acted like a fool in the cemetery? or because she's white trash? or because she has little education and when she had the money to go to college and better herself, she wasted it on a boob job and material possessions she didnt need? Just because some of us see Darlie for what she was/is doesn't mean we can't be objective when it comes to whether or not she killed her children.
Sorry I get a bit crazy when discussing the silly string tape because i think it is completely irrelevant I just dont think it should have been allowed.I focus more on the physical evidence and crime scene etc and find that of alot of other people focus their attention on Darlies mother's behaviour and gossip etc. Looking at how Darlies mother acted in a situation she's never been in before is not going to one prove Darlies innocence or two help get justice for those two boys. So for me its not important but you are entitled to your opinion just as each family is entitled to conduct a birthday party how they wish.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 19, 2016 16:49:50 GMT -5
I haven't commented on this case before, because I haven't read a lot about it other than what's on this site. But the purpose of this discussion isn't to defend individual rights, it's whether the woman was innocent or guilty. From what I've read, everyone of these people criticizing the way she dressed and acted also think that she's not guilty, so why are you telling them that they can't be objective because they formed judgments?
I thought the subject was guilty or railroaded? Well i believe she was railroaded and one of the ways the state achieved this was by playing on these prejudices'. Im saying not everyone chooses to do these things the same. I agree to some extent that this family made some mistakes particularly when changing the defense team.I am just saying that it is subjective to judge someone on what they wore to their Childs funeral there may have been many reasons behind it and as I said it is irrelevant to the case that she wore shorts and t-shirt in the summer completely irrelevant. Its these types of judgements that landed this innocent woman on death row in the first place. I have looked at so much evidence that proves she's innocent which is probably why I get a bit agitated when discussing the silly string tape in this case because it has no bearing on the evidence and shouldn't have been allowed in the court room in the first place. In the context of this article, railroaded and innocent mean about the same thing. If the people posting here were able to set aside the video and everything else about Darlie, why weren't the people on the jury? As I've already said, all that I know about this case is what I've read here, but that silly string tape isn't what made the jury convict her if all the other evidence showed that she was innocent. I'm a New Yorker, so I see things in a different way than they do down South, where cemetery etiquette seems to be very important, but I think that the people on the jury in Texas weren't all that much different than the Southerners in this group. The ones here are horrified that Darlie and her family were disrespectful in the cemetery, but they still say that she was innocent and the Southerners on her jury would have felt the same way. There's a lot more to this case than a video tape. Somebody said that her lawyers had a conflict of interest and didn't do a good job and while I don't have the legal knowledge that some others here have, it seems to me that they're right in what they say about her lawyer and her mother.
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 28, 2016 3:42:18 GMT -5
I thought the subject was guilty or railroaded? Well i believe she was railroaded and one of the ways the state achieved this was by playing on these prejudices'. Im saying not everyone chooses to do these things the same. I agree to some extent that this family made some mistakes particularly when changing the defense team.I am just saying that it is subjective to judge someone on what they wore to their Childs funeral there may have been many reasons behind it and as I said it is irrelevant to the case that she wore shorts and t-shirt in the summer completely irrelevant. Its these types of judgements that landed this innocent woman on death row in the first place. I have looked at so much evidence that proves she's innocent which is probably why I get a bit agitated when discussing the silly string tape in this case because it has no bearing on the evidence and shouldn't have been allowed in the court room in the first place. In the context of this article, railroaded and innocent mean the same thing. If the people posting here were able to set aside the video and everything else about Darlie, why weren't the people on the jury? As I've already said, all that I know about this case is what I've read here, but that silly string tape isn't what made the jury convict her if all the other evidence showed that she was innocent. I'm a New Yorker, so I see things in a different way than they do down South, where cemetery etiquette seems to be very important, but I think that the people on the jury in Texas weren't all that much different than the Southerners in this group. The ones here are horrified that Darlie and her family were disrespectful in the cemetery, but they still say that she was innocent and the Southerners on her jury would have felt the same way. There's a lot more to this case than a video tape. Somebody said that her lawyers had a conflict of interest and didn't do a good job and while I don't have the legal knowledge that some others here have, it seems to me that they're right in what they say about her lawyer and her mother.
Hey Steve I know everything there is to know about this case I have been studying it for over 15 years. I have Autopsy photos, crime scene photos transcripts statements affidavits etc. Although the mother hired Mulder the expensive attorney as she was advised by family members to do so. In my opinion Mulder did not do his job in more ways then one. The most fateful mistake he made was not introducing Darin as a suspect. Now I'm not saying he did it but he was the next viable suspect and in a murder trial your defense should always offer a viable alternative suspect If anything it introduces reasonable doubt in the juries minds. Another big mistake he made was not calling any experts to counteract the prosecutions claims. When you look at particular pieces of crime scene evidence and compare it to expert testimony it does not make scientific sense it defies gravity and at some points common sense and logic. The jury got one side of the story and that was the prosecutions then they watched the silly string tape 9 times during deliberations. So yes I feel the jury couldn't see past the prosecutions manipulation and instead based their conclusions on what she looked like what she spend money on and a short video tape. One of the states employees even referred to Darlies mum as trailer trash in front of the media. So I believe there was a class element to this story. A young lower class girl gets married ends up with money but is still behaves in ways that reflect her lower class status, I.e spending money on unnecessary things, has an over the top boob job etc. Greg Davis honed in on this at trial creating a prejudice towards her character.
There is so much wrong with this case its unreal from the police to the investigators right through to the district attorneys office. So yes there is alot to this case and I'm not saying the only reason is the silly string tape there were a whole load of factors that contributed to her conviction but I feel that the jury watching that part of the tape over and over again speaks for itself. The problem is a lot of people think they are psychic and can predict guilt by watching a film and that to me is insane. The physical evidence at the crime scene is what tells you she didn't do this. For me its like watching an episode of Maury when your like oh the baby and that guy look exactly alike that's his kid your saying to yourself and then Maury reads the results and bam its been proven scientifically through DNA he's not the father because you cant look at someone and tell anything really!
|
|
|
Post by Joanna on Sept 28, 2016 10:50:18 GMT -5
Blood Evidence Convicted Darlie RoutierI recommend viewing the You Tube video, Forensic Files – Season 4, Episode 1 “Invisible Intruder.” This video describes one of the nation’s most gruesome crimes, which occurred June 6, 1996, when a 5-year-old boy and his 6-year-old brother were stabbed to death while sleeping during the middle of the night after falling asleep watching television with their mother. Both boys were repeatedly stabbed with great force. Their young mother, Darlie Routier, was cut in the throat with the same butcher knife (taken from the kitchen) that killed the boys. The mother claimed the knife that killed her sons was dropped on the floor by the attacker following the attacks and she picked up the knife in disbelief, which was the reason she had the blood of both of her sons on her, especially a large amount of their blood on her hands and arms. As described in the news across the nation, this young mother claimed a stranger had come into the house after cutting a window screen and then this stranger killed her two boys, as well as trying to kill her.
However, it was the blood evidence at this crime scene that convicted the mother of murdering her two sons, evidence that included her bloody footprints and the significant blood pooling where it appeared she stood at the kitchen counter while she cut her own throat, trying to make it look like she had been attacked by the intruder inside her house. She was claiming she was attacked after the intruder had killed her two sons who slept beside her.
This is the mother who asked the local television station (and this was also shown nationally on TV) to show on the local news her family and her celebrating with joy and laughter the oldest son’s birthday at his fresh grave in the cemetery, only eight days after both boys had been killed with a knife as they slept next to their mother.
Another very good YouTube video about this horrible crime is entitled Darlie Routier’s First Prison Interview. This video indicates that a lead crime investigator immediately saw bloody footprints with glass on top of the footprints, but the glass was not bloody, and the window that the alleged killer came through into the house had undisturbed dust on the window sills. The video also indicates that an adult sock, with the blood from both dead boys on it, was found some distance down a back alley behind the house. Police claimed the mother planted this sock down the alley, even though she was covered with blood, including all over her bare feet, and there were no bloody foot prints leading to or from this sock that had both boy’s blood on it. This has caused some forensic experts to question if she left this bloody sock in the alley.
Blood spatter patterns demonstrate critical facts about what happened earlier at the crime scene. The size, location and placement of blood drops, including any pools of blood and any blood stains, tell a story. For example, circular blood drops that are the same size on the floor indicates that whoever caused these blood drops was standing still or walking very, very slowly. This is the type blood evidence that was found where it is believed Darlie Routier cut her own throat while standing at the kitchen counter.
Another thing investigators look for is if blood has been transferred from one bloody surface – perhaps from the body of the victim – to other objects that originally did not have blood on them. This is referred to as “transfer stains.” This could be blood covering the soles of the shoes of the victim or the attacker, or blood covering the bare feet of the victim or attacker, leaving bloody footprints at the crime scene, as well as away from the location of the attack. Bloody footprints can tell a lot about what happened at the crime scene. This was also the type blood evidence that convicted Darlie Routier.
Another example is a bloody item, such as a knife used as a weapon that is covered with blood, and this weapon is dropped or placed on the floor or kitchen counter top. This can leave a bloody outline of the murder weapon, such as the outline of a large butcher knife that was used as the murder weapon. This evidence was also found at the Darlie Routier crime scene. These are “void stains,” in which something that had been in the middle of a pool of blood has been removed, leaving a dry gap in the pool of blood. For example, it is believed that Darlie Routier had been standing barefoot in a pool of her own blood as she cut her own throat and then stepped away from this pool of blood, which left a dry gap – very similar to the length and width of her feet – in the pool of her own blood.
This young mother, Darlie Routier, despite claiming to be innocent, and claiming to be a victim of the same attacker who killed her two boys, was found guilty and sentenced to death based upon the blood evidence at the crime scene. This high-profile national criminal case demonstrated how blood evidence at a crime scene is critical forensic evidence that needs to be protected, extracted properly, analyzed properly, and the results recorded without any procedural mistakes or cross-contamination with other evidence.Source: Lonnie Robinson, The Daily Reporter, June 21, 2016.
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Sept 29, 2016 3:28:30 GMT -5
Blood Evidence Convicted Darlie RoutierI recommend viewing the You Tube video, Forensic Files – Season 4, Episode 1"Invisible Intruder" (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff_ln9LR_wI ). This video describes one of the nation’s most gruesome crimes, which occurred June 6, 1996, when a 5-year-old boy and his 6-year-old brother were stabbed to death while sleeping during the middle of the night after falling asleep watching television with their mother. Both boys were repeatedly stabbed with great force. Their young mother, Darlie Routier, was cut in the throat with the same butcher knife (taken from the kitchen) that killed the boys. The mother claimed the knife that killed her sons was dropped on the floor by the attacker following the attacks and she picked up the knife in disbelief, which was the reason she had the blood of both of her sons on her, especially a large amount of their blood on her hands and arms. As described in the news across the nation, this young mother claimed a stranger had come into the house after cutting a window screen and then this stranger killed her two boys, as well as trying to kill her. The blood evidence as presented at trial and on 'invisible intruder' is incorrect based on the theory of gravity.its pretty convincing when you get one version of events the invisible intruder is a clear example of bias reporting. You need to look at the evidence for yourself. Particularly the blood evidence how it was collected and preserved chain of custody etc there are many questions about chain of custody in this case. The blood map from the crime scene shows the areas were they tested blood the red crosses indicate blood untested. Why did they concentrate on taking blood samples at the sink and not in the primary crime scene area the living room?
Devons wounds were different to Darlie and Damons wounds possibly made with a double edge blade such as a hunting knife. They wasn't and havnt been able to find Devons blood on the knife used to stab Darlie and Damon. Her nightshirt shows pooling on the back collar this shows that she was lying down and not at the kitchen sink when her throat was slit. Recent DNA shows no evidence of this cast off Tom Bevel talks about. He didn't do any scientific tests the tests he did were not recorded or timed or sequenced he used no scientific methodology. He threw the knife around at different heights which he did not measure and was not aware of the position the intruder would have dropped the knife in anyway so how can you compare it to anything?
There where several other shoe/boot impressions around the house. If James Cron didn't say oh that was there earlier or palm the jury off that the boot impression found in the kitchen was koshacks and waddells. He offered no overlays or comparisons or how he came to those conclusions so you have to take this mans word for it. A man that can barely see he's so old a fingerprint expert who could not identify one print out of 13 fingerprints lifted from the house.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 30, 2016 0:12:38 GMT -5
Hey Steve I know everything there is to know about this case I have been studying it for over 15 years. I have Autopsy photos, crime scene photos transcripts statements affidavits etc. Although the mother hired Mulder the expensive attorney as she was advised by family members to do so. In my opinion Mulder did not do his job in more ways then one. The most fateful mistake he made was not introducing Darin as a suspect. Now I'm not saying he did it but he was the next viable suspect and in a murder trial your defense should always offer a viable alternative suspect If anything it introduces reasonable doubt in the juries minds. Another big mistake he made was not calling any experts to counteract the prosecutions claims. When you look at particular pieces of crime scene evidence and compare it to expert testimony it does not make scientific sense it defies gravity and at some points common sense and logic. The jury got one side of the story and that was the prosecutions then they watched the silly string tape 9 times during deliberations. So yes I feel the jury couldn't see past the prosecutions manipulation and instead based their conclusions on what she looked like what she spend money on and a short video tape. One of the states employees even referred to Darlies mum as trailer trash in front of the media. So I believe there was a class element to this story. A young lower class girl gets married ends up with money but is still behaves in ways that reflect her lower class status, I.e spending money on unnecessary things, has an over the top boob job etc. Greg Davis honed in on this at trial creating a prejudice towards her character. There is so much wrong with this case its unreal from the police to the investigators right through to the district attorneys office. So yes there is alot to this case and I'm not saying the only reason is the silly string tape there were a whole load of factors that contributed to her conviction but I feel that the jury watching that part of the tape over and over again speaks for itself. The problem is a lot of people think they are psychic and can predict guilt by watching a film and that to me is insane. The physical evidence at the crime scene is what tells you she didn't do this. For me its like watching an episode of Maury when your like oh the baby and that guy look exactly alike that's his kid your saying to yourself and then Maury reads the results and bam its been proven scientifically through DNA he's not the father because you cant look at someone and tell anything really! It doesn't matter how many times they watched that video. In the end, that wasn't what convicted her. Like it says in the article that Joanna posted, it was the blood evidence. If her lawyer had put on experts to prove that the other experts could be wrong, then the jury would have had doubt. That was the lawyer's fault, and as some of the others posting here have said, it was the mother's fault for insisting on hiring the lawyer because she thought that the public defender wasn't good enough. Another thing was that it was Darlie that invited the TV station to film that crazy graveyard party. Why did she do that?
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Oct 13, 2016 5:35:24 GMT -5
Hey Steve I know everything there is to know about this case I have been studying it for over 15 years. I have Autopsy photos, crime scene photos transcripts statements affidavits etc. Although the mother hired Mulder the expensive attorney as she was advised by family members to do so. In my opinion Mulder did not do his job in more ways then one. The most fateful mistake he made was not introducing Darin as a suspect. Now I'm not saying he did it but he was the next viable suspect and in a murder trial your defense should always offer a viable alternative suspect If anything it introduces reasonable doubt in the juries minds. Another big mistake he made was not calling any experts to counteract the prosecutions claims. When you look at particular pieces of crime scene evidence and compare it to expert testimony it does not make scientific sense it defies gravity and at some points common sense and logic. The jury got one side of the story and that was the prosecutions then they watched the silly string tape 9 times during deliberations. So yes I feel the jury couldn't see past the prosecutions manipulation and instead based their conclusions on what she looked like what she spend money on and a short video tape. One of the states employees even referred to Darlies mum as trailer trash in front of the media. So I believe there was a class element to this story. A young lower class girl gets married ends up with money but is still behaves in ways that reflect her lower class status, I.e spending money on unnecessary things, has an over the top boob job etc. Greg Davis honed in on this at trial creating a prejudice towards her character. There is so much wrong with this case its unreal from the police to the investigators right through to the district attorneys office. So yes there is alot to this case and I'm not saying the only reason is the silly string tape there were a whole load of factors that contributed to her conviction but I feel that the jury watching that part of the tape over and over again speaks for itself. The problem is a lot of people think they are psychic and can predict guilt by watching a film and that to me is insane. The physical evidence at the crime scene is what tells you she didn't do this. For me its like watching an episode of Maury when your like oh the baby and that guy look exactly alike that's his kid your saying to yourself and then Maury reads the results and bam its been proven scientifically through DNA he's not the father because you cant look at someone and tell anything really! It doesn't matter how many times they watched that video. In the end, that wasn't what convicted her. Like it says in the article that Joanna posted, it was the blood evidence. If her lawyer had put on experts to prove that the other experts could be wrong, then the jury would have had doubt. That was the lawyer's fault, and as some of the others posting here have said, it was the mother's fault for insisting on hiring the lawyer because she thought that the public defender wasn't good enough. Another thing was that it was Darlie that invited the TV station to film that crazy graveyard party. Why did she do that?
I have said myself that was a grave mistake excuse the pun hiring Mulder and from the pretrial hearings its clear parks would have defended her better. It makes me wonder though why Mulder let her down so badly he was suppose to be a hot shot lawyer but he didn't follow basic murder defense rules I.e bringing up an alternative suspect, I mean I seen serial killers with a better defense strategy. I think Darlies mother was probably scared and was just reacting to the situation. The problem i have with the blood evidence is that alot of it was subjective but so Mulder was trying to penny pinch. Had he got another real expert to look at it and testify the jury may have discredited Tom Bevels testimony as nonsense that it is. I cant tell you why they allowed the media to film the party think it was suppose to be some sort of appeal for information.
|
|
|
Post by catherine on Oct 14, 2016 11:47:05 GMT -5
I have said myself that was a grave mistake excuse the pun hiring Mulder and from the pretrial hearings its clear parks would have defended her better. It makes me wonder though why Mulder let her down so badly he was suppose to be a hot shot lawyer but he didn't follow basic murder defense rules I.e bringing up an alternative suspect, I mean I seen serial killers with a better defense strategy. I think Darlies mother was probably scared and was just reacting to the situation. The problem i have with the blood evidence is that alot of it was subjective but so Mulder was trying to penny pinch. Had he got another real expert to look at it and testify the jury may have discredited Tom Bevels testimony as nonsense that it is. I cant tell you why they allowed the media to film the party think it was suppose to be some sort of appeal for information. The original plainly states: "Mulder had an apparent conflict of interest because he had an arrangement with Darin Routier and other family members not to pursue any defense that could implicate Darin." That's why Mulder let her down so badly.
|
|
|
Post by tee2000 on Oct 22, 2016 6:18:05 GMT -5
I have said myself that was a grave mistake excuse the pun hiring Mulder and from the pretrial hearings its clear parks would have defended her better. It makes me wonder though why Mulder let her down so badly he was suppose to be a hot shot lawyer but he didn't follow basic murder defense rules I.e bringing up an alternative suspect, I mean I seen serial killers with a better defense strategy. I think Darlies mother was probably scared and was just reacting to the situation. The problem i have with the blood evidence is that alot of it was subjective but so Mulder was trying to penny pinch. Had he got another real expert to look at it and testify the jury may have discredited Tom Bevels testimony as nonsense that it is. I cant tell you why they allowed the media to film the party think it was suppose to be some sort of appeal for information. The original plainly states: "Mulder had an apparent conflict of interest because he had an arrangement with Darin Routier and other family members not to pursue any defense that could implicate Darin." That's why Mulder let her down so badly.
Hi Catherine I am aware of the conflict of interest situation because it was apparently linked to the gag order put on Kee and Darin. However I'm thinking a little deeper than that as that wasn't his only mistake what about him calling no experts to contest the states? In my opinion I get the feeling that maybe deep down he too thought she was guilty at the time, just my opinion though!
|
|