Darlie Routier

[AmazonGrace]

I don't get why an intruder would just randomly drop a sock somewhere. 

Is there a theory how and why it happened? 

[Blahblah]

3 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

If I were on a re-trial jury I'd need the prosecutors to the explain the "how" and "when" this could have occurred.   

But it wouldn’t worry you about the complete lack of evidence of an intruder in the actual house? Or or all the other evidence that completely discredits Darli’s version of events?  You’d be willing to overlook everything else because of one sock for which there is a reasonable explanation?

All you need to find is two minutes for either Darli or Darin to run outside. Forget Darli’s own timeline of events. That just isn’t credible.

In the horrific moments after the boys were stabbed, maybe Darin came down, realised what she’d done and on the spur of the moment tried to help cover for her by grabbing something and running. If it was a planned event they would have done a better job by planting something like the knife.

Maybe he was drugged out and slept through it and Darli ran outside herself before slashing her own throat at the sink.

There is zero evidence of an intruder in that house. There is a rational explanation for how the sock could have got where it did. Of course nobody can prove how the sock got there. They don’t have to. They’ve already shown that there was no intruder in the house, therefore it was not dropped by one.

I’m not sure why you are so willing to dismiss every other piece of evidence.

 

[Palimpsest]

25 minutes ago, Blahblah said:

But it wouldn’t worry you about the complete lack of evidence of an intruder in the actual house? Or or all the other evidence that completely discredits Darli’s version of events?  You’d be willing to overlook everything else because of one sock for which there is a reasonable explanation?

Remind me, what is the "reasonable explanation" for your theory.  And was that sock properly tested for DNA evidence or not?  It could well be grounds for a second trial.

I am not @JenniferJuniper, but if I were on a jury for any criminal case, let alone a death penalty case, I would consider it my civic and ethical duty to consider all the evidence, and  all the possibly exculpatory evidence. 

Especially in death penalty cases.  Because my duty is to decide guilt based on "beyond a reasonable doubt" not on "the preponderance of the evidence."  A person's life is at stake and I would prefer to err on the side of caution.   Even when that person has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

And if I decided the sock gave me reasonable doubt then I would stand and fight for that conclusion to a hung jury and mistrail.  I hope.

As I understand it, the presence of sock was not given enough attention in the first trial and is probably grounds for a second trial.  DNA evidence from the sock may be very relevant and point to an intruder.  

I'm hearing conflicting reports about the Innocence Project being involved in this case, but they have managed to get many wrongly convicted people out of prison.  Sometimes after years.  It is too late to prove innocence after the innocent person has been executed. 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/about/

I think Darlie is probably guilty but she deserved a fair trial.  And she deserves a retrial considering the problems with the first trial.  

And, for the record, I think the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in both the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials.  But I wasn't on either of those juries.  

[JenniferJuniper]

55 minutes ago, Blahblah said:

 

I’m not sure why you are so willing to dismiss every other piece of evidence.

 

I'm not.  I've always said she's probably guilty.

But you can't simply dismiss a critical piece of evidence because it doesn't fit with what you believe.  And right now, any timeline that involves Darin doesn't work because as far as I know there is zero evidence against him.  So randomly throwing him into the mix that night doesn't help.  (I also find it hard to believe that there could be two completely psycho parents wanting two of their kids murdered in a blood bath.  Leaving a third one alive and unharmed.)

So to convince a jury that Darlie planted that sock, this is what I'd want the prosecution to prove (assuming she is ever retried).  

When did she plant the sock?  Before she cut her own throat or after?  After doesn't make any sense as her blood was not found outside and she would have been bleeding quite a bit.  So that means she would have had to do it before she cut her throat.  

Was it so premeditated a crime that she had a bloody sock ready to go even before she stabbed the boys?  Or did she stab the boys, dab the sock, and then do her 150 yard sprint all while the boys are dying, but before Darin is alerted to their distress.  Keeping in mind that she needed return in time to stage the scene, injure herself and call 911.  Very risky.

It's also important to remember that the younger boy was still alive when paramedics arrived and there was medical testimony that with his injuries he could not have lived any longer than 8 or 9 minutes after he was attacked.  Darlie was on the phone with 911 for nearly 6 minutes.   The police secured the crime scene for 2 minutes before the paramedics got into the house.  That's 8 minutes right there.  

(Why'd she leave him alive anyway?  She couldn't have been sure he couldn't have been saved and pin it on her.)

Considering how tight her time frame was, why risk running that far?  Why not fling it in the street near a neighbor's driveway? It would have served the same purpose for her.

Again, I've always found her story bizarre.  But it's a circumstantial case and simply adding up the things like a balance sheet and then discounting a major piece of evidence because it doesn't fit is not the way this should be deliberated.

If I were the defense attorney on this case, I'd have made a considerable amount of hay with that sock.  But her defense sucked and she flat out didn't get a fair trial.    

[AmazonGrace]

Spoiler

there was medical testimony that with his injuries he could not have lived any longer than 8 or 9 minutes after he was attacked.

Was this a paid expert for the defense?  To say someone could have lived nine minutes, but not ten... seems pretty speculative and I don't remember any other trials in which they pinned it down so exactly. What a coincidence that the defendant's timeline is exactly that.

Spoiler

Why'd she leave him alive anyway? 

She might have thought he was dead?

Quote

Considering how tight her time frame was, why risk running that far?

I don't think people who do violent crimes are always completely rational but the time frame was tighter in retrospect I think, than while it was happening. She didn't know how soon the police would come and might have thought there was more time.  But if she ran a couple of minutes before she injured herself and called the police it was already a done deal  before the phone call time line started, and if she took longer she would have simply called later. The main problem is, the longer  it took, the bigger risk of alerting her husband prematurely, if he wasn't in on it, but if she had done with the staging before calling 911 the response time is not an issue in that respect. 

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, AmazonGrace said:

  Reveal hidden contents

there was medical testimony that with his injuries he could not have lived any longer than 8 or 9 minutes after he was attacked.

Was this a paid expert for the defense?  To say someone could have lived nine minutes, but not ten... seems pretty speculative and I don't remember any other trials in which they pinned it down so exactly. What a coincidence that the defendant's timeline is exactly that.

  Reveal hidden contents

Why'd she leave him alive anyway? 

She might have thought he was dead?

I don't think people who do violent crimes are always completely rational but the time frame was tighter in retrospect I think, than while it was happening. She didn't know how soon the police would come and might have thought there was more time.  But if she ran a couple of minutes before she injured herself and called the police it was already a done deal  before the phone call time line started, and if she took longer she would have simply called later. The main problem is, the longer  it took, the bigger risk of alerting her husband prematurely, if he wasn't in on it, but if she had done with the staging before calling 911 the response time is not an issue in that respect. 

The Medical Examiner testified that Damon could have lived at most eight or nine minutes.  This was after she'd repeatedly testified that he only could have lived a few minutes and the prosecutor pinned her down on the maximum time he reasonably could have lived.  So not random.

During the 911 call Darlie can be heard twice saying "Hang on, honey, hang on" to Damon  She knew he was alive, no question.

Paramedics also said he was gasping and gurgling and desperately trying to breathe when they found him.

The time line with respect to the sock favors Darlie heavily and no one has successfully tackled it, at least to my personal satisfaction.   Also, her neck wound definitely looked minor compared to the boys injuries, however, the slash came within 2 millimeters of her carotid artery.   A tiny slip in one direction and she could have very easily bled out before help arrived. Some have speculated murder/suicide, but again, the effin' sock...why bother if the plan is to go out with them?  

She's the best suspect for sure.  Means, opportunity, possibly a motive?   But she did not get a fair trial and deserves a new one.  If new prosecutors can successfully deal with the sock, I'd probably be sold.  But I'd be very curious to see how they do that. 

[Blahblah]

@JenniferJuniper @Palimpsest

The sock was DNA tested during the investigation. It had blood from both the boys and it had Darlie’s skin cells inside it near the toe end. No other DNA.

As for the severity of the cut in her neck, this was luck (good or bad depending on perspective). It appeared to be superficial but came near the carotid. Pretty sure if it was self-inflicted, unless it was an actual suicide attempt, then superficiality was probably the goal. Only a skilled surgeon would know for sure where the carotid is. Whether the cut was close to it or not was not a calculated outcome.

I believe she is guilty on the basis of the overwhelming evidence pointing at her, and at no one else. Not one scrap of evidence in that house points at an  intruder. No footprints, nothing. None of the circumstances point to an intruder - the exterior security lights, the use of a knife from inside the house. 

Yes, the sock is puzzling. Even if it was an intruder, it is puzzling - by the time they were running away, the intruder should have been covered in blood (refer to the blood evidence eg the palm prints and smears that Darlie’s team would have us believe were left by the intruder as they fled). Why did the sock have tiny amounts of the boys’ blood but none of Darlie’s? Why would an intruder take it anyway? It doesn’t make sense whether it was Darlie or an intruder. 

But it makes more sense that it was Darlie or Darin, than that it was an intruder who otherwise left no trace of themselves anywhere.

 

 

 

[AmazonGrace]

You can find the pulse of the carotid artery if you touch your neck.  

[Palimpsest]

@Blahblah, you can knock yourself out on detailing all the evidence against Darlie but that isn't the point I made.  I don't know whether you are ignoring it deliberately or just missing it completely.

The point is whether or not Darlie is legally (and morally and ethically) entitled to all the DNA evidence being re-examined and perhaps granted a new trial. 

Quote

In a 58-page petition, Routier’s lawyers have raised multiple issues challenging the prosecution’s theory of the case, the handling of the evidence by police and the alleged lack of assistance of counsel.

Her attorney, it is charged in the petition, did not effectively challenge the prosecution’s theory that Routier killed her sons for financial reasons and tried to make it look like an intruder committed the crime.

The federal petition for review has been on hold since 2008 so that up-to-date DNA tests can be performed.

Some tests have been done, and the defense feels they have so far provided support for Routier’s side of the story.

But other tests supposedly remain: on a bloody fingerprint found in the house that night; a bloody sock found a distance away from the house and Routier’s nightgown.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/news/local-news/2014/01/judge-allows-new-trial-request-for-routier-case/

DNA testing has improved immeasurably since 1996.  People have been wrongfully convicted before because of flawed or inadequate DNA testing.  And police jumping to conclusions if not actual misconduct.  And inefficient defense attorneys.  All of these are alleged to have been present in Darlie's case.  I think she is probably guilty but needs a fair shot at proving her innocence.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/

The new DNA tests may indicate the presence of an intruder.  Or they may not.  The Federal judge has read a 58 page petition, reviewed the facts, and decided to grant permission for more DNA testing.  Have you read that 58 page petition?  Are you a lawyer?  Are you pro-death penalty to the extent that it doesn't matter if innocent people are wrongly executed ?

6 hours ago, Blahblah said:

I believe she is guilty on the basis of the overwhelming evidence pointing at her, and at no one else.

You are back to the preponderance of evidence.  Irrelevant.

The burden of proof standard in criminal cases and death penalty cases is extremely high.  It has to be innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. 

And if the new DNA testing of the sock, bloody fingerprint, and Darlie's night gown indicates an intruder, then IMO there is reasonable doubt that she is guilty.  She should be granted a new trial and the prosecution forced to explain that DNA evidence.

You are entitled to your opinion as you sentence someone to death in the court of public opinion.  But I'm done with discussing it.  I hate it when people bay rabidly for guilt and  the death penalty without examining or considering all the evidence, or admitting that a conviction could be wrong.  

[nausicaa]

A couple more facts in regards to the sock:

1. The sock belonged to Darin. 

2. I've never heard allegations that the DNA testing on the sock was incorrectly performed, even by Darlie's supporters. So I think we can take the blood DNA of the two boys on the outside and Darlie's skin DNA inside as correct. (Personal opinion: it also seems more than fair to re-test it since DNA testing has improved so much since the first trial and may pick up other things).

3. The gate that led to the alleyway where the sock was found was closed. Which means if an intruder left that way, he closed it behind him. 

4. That gate was very difficult to get open (I think the hinges were jacked up). So much so that law enforcement on the scene had to ask for help to open it. 

And some speculation:

1. Damon could have been victim to two stabbing incidents. One before she ran the sock out, and a deadlier second attack after she returned and realized he was still moving. Which could get around the eight to nine minute time frame of his injuries. 

2. The sock could have been planted by law enforcement. Which is super fucked up, but also doesn't mean Darlie isn't guilty. 

 

I get why people focus on the sock. And the prosecution definitely needs to deal with it if she (deservedly) gets a second trial. However, it's only one piece that doesn't really fit in with the narrative of Darlie doing it (although there's still decently plausible explanations for it), versus TONS of pieces that don't fit at all if an intruder did it (the blood on Darlie's shirt, no blood on the sofa, her not waking up, her son with two punctured lungs speaking to her, the knife belonging to them, the piece of screen on the knife placed back in the knife block, the broken wine glasses, no attempts to aid her sons when first responders arrived).

18 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

And if the new DNA testing of the sock, bloody fingerprint, and Darlie's night gown indicates an intruder, then IMO there is reasonable doubt that she is guilty.  She should be granted a new trial and the prosecution forced to explain that DNA evidence.

I thought the DNA of the blood in the bloody fingerprint had been tested already. I thought the issue with the fingerprint is that it's so blurred they can't determine who it belongs to (it could belong to Darlie or Darrin).

But as I type this, I realize maybe you mean we've developed better ways to identify blurred fingerprints. 

Like I said, I think she's guilty as sin but she deserves a new trial. I also despise the death penalty. Primarily for ethical reasons, but also because it can actually help criminals walk since the burden of proof is so high. 

[Palimpsest]

5 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

But as I type this, I realize maybe you mean we've developed better ways to identify blurred fingerprints. 

Not only the fingerprint.  I thought I had made it clear that DNA testing has improved incredibly.  It is far more accurate and sophisticated.  Especially when there is blood overlay. Also if you look at the original trial some blood spots were not tested.  Neither was the whole sock tested for DNA, just parts of it.  

The defense is arguing that the re-testing of the DNA evidence on these items (sock, fingerprint, and nightgown) so far indicates possibly exonerating evidence.  We don't know but it sounds as though it may support the intruder claim.  The judge has approved further DNA testing.  We will see whether she gets a new trial.

 

[AmazonGrace]

I am against the death penalty in all the cases, both for the innocent and the guilty.

[JenniferJuniper]

36 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

I am against the death penalty in all the cases, both for the innocent and the guilty.

Me too. 

Interesting thing, though.  Very much like Damien Echols of the West Memphis Three, had Darlie been merely sentenced to life in prison, she'd probably be long forgotten now and likely have no shot at new testing or even general interest in re-examining of her case. 

[Blahblah]

What @nausicaa said above.

And I already said in an earlier post that I think she had a flawed trial but I do think she is guilty.

Logic, Occam's Razor, facts, reasoned arguments, intelligent discourse. I'm not "baying rabidly". 

And I am not pro-death penalty. It's barbaric. 

[JenniferJuniper]

22 hours ago, Blahblah said:

And I already said in an earlier post that I think she had a flawed trial but I do think she is guilty.

Logic, Occam's Razor, facts, reasoned arguments, intelligent discourse. I'm not "baying rabidly". 

I was once sure she was guilty.  Then I started looking at the case more closely and now have quite a bit of reasonable doubt.

She had more than a flawed trial.  It was a sideshow.   When it was over, the lead juror said Darlie hadn't "proved her innocence"  and that no innocent mother would have used the silly string or had a birthday celebration.  The jury asked to see the silly string video eight times but was never shown the tearful graveyard service that preceded it.

Of course, none of this proves her guilt or innocence and jurors are often fucking idiots in both directions. (Casey Anthony!)   But as I looked more closely at the prosecution case, saw how the judge behaved and realized how unprepared her counsel was, I've concluded a good, well-prepared and decently funded attorney most likely would have gotten her off.   So I encourage anyone interested in the case to look beyond what the prosecution presented.  There was quite a bit of unchallenged bullshit presented.  

I just hope they don't kill her. They do love to kill people down there.

 

[Howl]

On 8/1/2019 at 3:00 PM, JenniferJuniper said:

I just hope they don't kill her. They do love to kill people down there.

I have no idea why there is resistance to testing or re-testing evidence for DNA. 

DNA testing of a bloody bandana immediately exonerated Michael Morton after he spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife.  That DNA testing also led to the arrest of the real murderer, Mark Norwood,  who had also killed another woman in a nearby city using the same MO.  Michael Morton spent six extra years in prison while the district attorney fought hard to block DNA testing for the blood soaked bandana. 

Another case  is ongoing here in Central Texas -- Rodney Reed, whose execution date is set for Nov. 20.  Reed was convicted for the rape and murder of Stacy Stites.  Reed claims they had a secret affair while she was engaged to very bad policeman Jimmy Fennell.  Reed claims that Fennell killed Stites when he discovered their affair. 

Bad policeman Fennell later pled guilty to the kidnapping and rape of a woman in his custody and was sentenced to ten years in prison; he was released from prison last year after serving 9 years and six months of his original sentence.  His requests for parole were repeatedly denied, meaning the parole board wanted him serving most of his sentence.  

Reed's legal team has been requesting DNA testing  of the murder weapon for FIVE YEARS, and also requested a new trial, and those requests have been denied.  The Innocence Project has taken on his case.  In what universe is a murder weapon not checked for DNA? Anyone? 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Howl

[JermajestyDuggar]

Darlie’s Case is a perfect example of why I think jury trials in general are totally flawed. 

[nausicaa]

On 9/12/2019 at 2:42 PM, Howl said:

I have no idea why there is resistance to testing or re-testing evidence for DNA. 

There has been ongoing re-testing of the DNA in the Routier case for years. The defense team first asked to do it in 2007. The first judge to see the case did deny them because of misreading an earlier law, but the defense team was granted the right to do so only one year later in 2008. The defense team however still needed to raise the funds and this understandably took a while. 

There have been over 100 DNA tests done on the evidence overall. Routier has asked for the results of several tests to be sealed. 

The unknown fingerprint blood was DNA tested in 2015 in the hopes of finding male DNA. No male DNA was found and Darlie has still not been excluded.

The state agreed in 2018 to retest all of the items in their own crime labs at the state's expense, and there will be a hearing once the results are back. As of this summer, the testing was still ongoing. 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/New-DNA-Testing-Underway-in-Darlie-Routier-Capital-Murder-Case-500427111.html

 

[Glasgowghirl]

On 7/27/2019 at 7:44 PM, Palimpsest said:

I know, but I was trying to spare everyone my 99th rant on Rusty Yates criminal irresponsibility for 1) insisting on even more babies when he had been told Andrea had postpartum psychosis with previous pregnancies, 2) insisting that she discontinued meds on several occasions even though she had suicidal ideation, and 3) leaving Andrea unsupervised with the children against the advice of her doctor and to her own mother's horror.

Rusty is also culpable.  IMO.

In some ways I hold him more responsible for what happened, he decided he knew more than the professionals telling them not to ever leave Andrea alone with the children, that isn't something they say, unless they really think there is a significant danger of her harming or killing the children.

With Darlie, I really don't know what to think, I went from thinking she was innocent to thinking she may be guilty, I do think that the evidence was not strong enough to send her to death row, I don't agree with the death penalty in general though.

[Aine]

Can someone please point me to the DNA testing on the sock? Besides the boys' blood- I want the trace DNA from inside the sock that would indicate if it was an unknown person who had been wearing it. Also, a source about the sock being Darin's? A reputable source and not a website dedicated to Darlie being guilty.

The thing for me is that I do not think there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie did it. I think that is possibly due to shoddy police work and the police having tunnel vision and not examining all angles. But more so, the polling of the jurors did indicate that the 'silly string video' and the testimony of the blood-spatter "expert" (blood spatter is pseudoscience and quackery fyi) were what swayed them into a unanimous opinion in the end.

It wasn't presented at trial, but Darlie also had defensive wounds. Considerable defensive wounds: https://darliefacts.com/darlies-injuries/ (these are the photos and not commentary- it was just the best site I could find with all the photos at once).

Also, if it was pre-meditated, surely you'd plant some better evidence than a sock that far away! I honestly cannot grapple with the reasoning behind THAT being the thing Darlie or Darin may have planted as exculpatory evidence whether it was done in the heat of the moment (no plan beforehand) or it was pre-meditated. 

I have never been convinced of a motive for Darlie either. Darin had more motive than Darlie. The funerals of Devon and Damon cost more than their life insurance (a combined total of $10,000- their joint funeral/coffin/gravestone etc cost over $14,000). If she felt overwhelmed by responsibility, it would have made more sense to kill Drake. If she wanted to kill her children, she was a stay-at-home mother with ample opportunities to plot a murder and blame intruders without relying on an impromptu living room sleepover and her husband being home as a potential witness. 

Although not presented at the trial, due to Darlie's attorney having represented Darin right after the murder in a hearing over a gag order, Darin was technically his client to and it has been suggested the defense attorney didn't offer alternative theories involving Darin due to that fact. Most notably, Darin engaged in insurance fraud in the past. He had his car, a Jaguar, stolen and collected insurance on it and although he doesn't admit setting it up, he has admitted he said to the thief, "I wouldn't miss it if it got stolen" or something to that effect. Seeing as he could be charged with insurance fraud if he admitted to saying more than that, that he even admitted that much suggests to me that he likely said much more. He also talked to others about looking for someone to break into his house to collect insurance money.

I do not think it's out of the realm of possibility that someone who either heard about Darin potentially wanting to break into his house or had Darin give them a pointed nudge (like in the case of the car), broke into the house that night, was not expecting Devon and Damon to be camped out in the living room and Darlie to be on the couch, and they freaked out and attacked them. Having grown up in a family with a lot of illicit drug use and all the behavior that comes with financially supporting those habits and/or certain drugs themselves cause, I doubt Darin would have suggested the insurance fraud thing to some level-headed and cautious individual who planned any possible robbery carefully, so it doesn't seem crazy to me that someone like that might freak out when tripping over some kids on the floor and seeing their mom on the couch.

There is no piece of evidence that convinces me of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think she'd have been found guilty if the case had been tried by a more ethical prosecutor (e.g. how about showing the videos of her crying and grieving at the gravesite when she didn't know she was filmed as well or maybe even the footage directly before the silly string, that was bought by her sister, when she was praying and crying?!), a defense attorney who was independent of Darin completely, and if the scientifically problematic "expert" testimony was excluded.

 

 

[Blahblah]

@Aine regarding Darlie’s defence wounds, there are a couple of points on here that are interesting, particularly regarding the bruising. 
http://www.darlieroutierfactandfiction.com/statement-3/

Personally, I cant figure out how this bruising, particularly the solid block of bruising on her forearm, was supposed to have been inflicted given her description of what happened. 

[nelliebelle1197]

On 10/28/2019 at 9:10 PM, Aine said:

Can someone please point me to the DNA testing on the sock? Besides the boys' blood- I want the trace DNA from inside the sock that would indicate if it was an unknown person who had been wearing it. Also, a source about the sock being Darin's? A reputable source and not a website dedicated to Darlie being guilty.

The thing for me is that I do not think there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Darlie did it. I think that is possibly due to shoddy police work and the police having tunnel vision and not examining all angles. But more so, the polling of the jurors did indicate that the 'silly string video' and the testimony of the blood-spatter "expert" (blood spatter is pseudoscience and quackery fyi) were what swayed them into a unanimous opinion in the end.

It wasn't presented at trial, but Darlie also had defensive wounds. Considerable defensive wounds: https://darliefacts.com/darlies-injuries/ (these are the photos and not commentary- it was just the best site I could find with all the photos at once).

Also, if it was pre-meditated, surely you'd plant some better evidence than a sock that far away! I honestly cannot grapple with the reasoning behind THAT being the thing Darlie or Darin may have planted as exculpatory evidence whether it was done in the heat of the moment (no plan beforehand) or it was pre-meditated. 

I have never been convinced of a motive for Darlie either. Darin had more motive than Darlie. The funerals of Devon and Damon cost more than their life insurance (a combined total of $10,000- their joint funeral/coffin/gravestone etc cost over $14,000). If she felt overwhelmed by responsibility, it would have made more sense to kill Drake. If she wanted to kill her children, she was a stay-at-home mother with ample opportunities to plot a murder and blame intruders without relying on an impromptu living room sleepover and her husband being home as a potential witness. 

Although not presented at the trial, due to Darlie's attorney having represented Darin right after the murder in a hearing over a gag order, Darin was technically his client to and it has been suggested the defense attorney didn't offer alternative theories involving Darin due to that fact. Most notably, Darin engaged in insurance fraud in the past. He had his car, a Jaguar, stolen and collected insurance on it and although he doesn't admit setting it up, he has admitted he said to the thief, "I wouldn't miss it if it got stolen" or something to that effect. Seeing as he could be charged with insurance fraud if he admitted to saying more than that, that he even admitted that much suggests to me that he likely said much more. He also talked to others about looking for someone to break into his house to collect insurance money.

I do not think it's out of the realm of possibility that someone who either heard about Darin potentially wanting to break into his house or had Darin give them a pointed nudge (like in the case of the car), broke into the house that night, was not expecting Devon and Damon to be camped out in the living room and Darlie to be on the couch, and they freaked out and attacked them. Having grown up in a family with a lot of illicit drug use and all the behavior that comes with financially supporting those habits and/or certain drugs themselves cause, I doubt Darin would have suggested the insurance fraud thing to some level-headed and cautious individual who planned any possible robbery carefully, so it doesn't seem crazy to me that someone like that might freak out when tripping over some kids on the floor and seeing their mom on the couch.

There is no piece of evidence that convinces me of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think she'd have been found guilty if the case had been tried by a more ethical prosecutor (e.g. how about showing the videos of her crying and grieving at the gravesite when she didn't know she was filmed as well or maybe even the footage directly before the silly string, that was bought by her sister, when she was praying and crying?!), a defense attorney who was independent of Darin completely, and if the scientifically problematic "expert" testimony was excluded.

 

 

I would not propound the conflicted lawyer theory. A client can release a lawyer from conflict and no attorney who wants to stay barred is going to represent someone with an open conflict and allow a conflict to shape representation. If this was a real thing, it would have been the basis for an active - and successful - appeal at this point.  There is zero evidence that the prosecutor was unethical.  Why would a prosecutor show video of her crying when he trying to demonstrate her callous attitude? That is not unethical.  These sorts of "theories" are bogus and not how the legal system works.

[Blahblah]

The defence had access to the whole video as part of the discovery process. They didn’t choose to show the praying and crying section either.

[Aine]

On 12/2/2019 at 7:23 AM, nelliebelle1197 said:

I would not propound the conflicted lawyer theory. A client can release a lawyer from conflict and no attorney who wants to stay barred is going to represent someone with an open conflict and allow a conflict to shape representation. If this was a real thing, it would have been the basis for an active - and successful - appeal at this point.  There is zero evidence that the prosecutor was unethical.  Why would a prosecutor show video of her crying when he trying to demonstrate her callous attitude? That is not unethical.  These sorts of "theories" are bogus and not how the legal system works.

Like I said above, my biggest issue is her original defense attorney representing Darin before representing Darlie and therefore alternate theories of the case that would have included Darin were not offered.

There is no doubt, whether she is guilty or not, that the prosecutor made the most of certain bits of evidence (e.g. showing the silly string video out of context) and attributes of Darlie (such as breast implants) to paint a certain stereotype of her. Maybe it is true. I don't think she had effective counsel and when a lot of a capital case is circumstantial, I do think the prosecutor shouldn't only show a snippet of all video filmed out of context to imply guilt. 

I don't care if that's how the legal system works or not. My issues with elected prosecutors and judges and the culture of pushing for plea deals and mass incarceration in the country are numerous. But I do believe in justice. Justice means it shouldn't be a running tally of 'wins' and 'losses' for prosecutors or defense attorneys. The state should present the evidence in a fair way because any one of us could be railroaded otherwise. Likewise, the role of a defense attorney is also not to "get their client off" but to represent them properly and hold the state accountable when there are gaps or uncertainty in a case.

I think this is extra important in a capital case. I am not a proponent of capital punishment at all but if the state, and by default every day citizens who will kill someone on behalf of the state, are going to take a life, it should be solid. It should be beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor thought that entire video and the context of what was happening before and after the silly string was insignificant to Darlie's guilt or innocence, it would have been shown in its entirety. 

She had inadequate defense counsel. That is not something I question and had she had competent counsel who had no allegiance to her husband, I think the trial would have looked very different. However, the defense counsel failing at their job and not showing the entire video and giving context to it does not mean that context and extra footage is nonexistent. It does not mean the prosecution is ethical in showing only the parts benefiting the state's case. Their job is not to cherry-pick evidence to get a conviction (although it does end up like that when they're elected to office...). It does not mean she got a fair trial. 

I'm not convinced of her innocence at all. But I do think the whole "beyond reasonable doubt" burden was not met and I don't think any government body should kill someone when there is a chance they're innocent, there is physical evidence that could be tested/retested with more advanced technology, there is another scenario that seems to be more motive for murder than anything ever proposed for Darlie (i.e. Darin's insurance fraud schemes), and the case is entirely circumstantial.

Damon and Devon's lives mattered and there should be justice for them, but if you're going to give out something as permanent as the death penalty, it blows my mind that the state doesn't care enough to test the physical evidence and take another look at the case. However, I know many innocent people have been put to death and will be put to death in the future due to the flawed justice system and the likelihood of that is higher in Texas.

[nelliebelle1197]

6 hours ago, Aine said:

Like I said above, my biggest issue is her original defense attorney representing Darin before representing Darlie and therefore alternate theories of the case that would have included Darin were not offered.

There is no doubt, whether she is guilty or not, that the prosecutor made the most of certain bits of evidence (e.g. showing the silly string video out of context) and attributes of Darlie (such as breast implants) to paint a certain stereotype of her. Maybe it is true. I don't think she had effective counsel and when a lot of a capital case is circumstantial, I do think the prosecutor shouldn't only show a snippet of all video filmed out of context to imply guilt. 

I don't care if that's how the legal system works or not. My issues with elected prosecutors and judges and the culture of pushing for plea deals and mass incarceration in the country are numerous. But I do believe in justice. Justice means it shouldn't be a running tally of 'wins' and 'losses' for prosecutors or defense attorneys. The state should present the evidence in a fair way because any one of us could be railroaded otherwise. Likewise, the role of a defense attorney is also not to "get their client off" but to represent them properly and hold the state accountable when there are gaps or uncertainty in a case.

I think this is extra important in a capital case. I am not a proponent of capital punishment at all but if the state, and by default every day citizens who will kill someone on behalf of the state, are going to take a life, it should be solid. It should be beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor thought that entire video and the context of what was happening before and after the silly string was insignificant to Darlie's guilt or innocence, it would have been shown in its entirety. 

She had inadequate defense counsel. That is not something I question and had she had competent counsel who had no allegiance to her husband, I think the trial would have looked very different. However, the defense counsel failing at their job and not showing the entire video and giving context to it does not mean that context and extra footage is nonexistent. It does not mean the prosecution is ethical in showing only the parts benefiting the state's case. Their job is not to cherry-pick evidence to get a conviction (although it does end up like that when they're elected to office...). It does not mean she got a fair trial. 

I'm not convinced of her innocence at all. But I do think the whole "beyond reasonable doubt" burden was not met and I don't think any government body should kill someone when there is a chance they're innocent, there is physical evidence that could be tested/retested with more advanced technology, there is another scenario that seems to be more motive for murder than anything ever proposed for Darlie (i.e. Darin's insurance fraud schemes), and the case is entirely circumstantial.

Damon and Devon's lives mattered and there should be justice for them, but if you're going to give out something as permanent as the death penalty, it blows my mind that the state doesn't care enough to test the physical evidence and take another look at the case. However, I know many innocent people have been put to death and will be put to death in the future due to the flawed justice system and the likelihood of that is higher in Texas.

What is the proof of inadequate counsel? Again, his briefly representing Darin really does not mean anything if there was conflict waiver. I don’t understand why you keep bringing this up. It is just not a thing.